1. Designing Digital Learning Tasks that Motivate Students Open University / KPC Groep, The Netherlands Anne-Marieke van Loon

2. Overview Background Method Results Conclusion Discussion

3. Present study There is a large increase of ICT into the schools. The expectation is that teachers themselves will design more digital learning tasks. Digital learning tasks could be important for motivating students. Teachers have no clues how to design motivating digital tasks. What are characteristics of digital learning tasks that motivate students?

4. Background Digital problem based learning (PBL) tasks Students have opportunities to: Apply content knowledge and skills while working on contextualized problems Act as active seekers of information Revise and update new knowledge rather than providing the single correct answer (Dunlap, 2005; Liu & Bera, 2005; Niederhauser & Stoddart, 2001)

5. Background Often the quality of the created digital learning tasks is of a low level. (Azevedo & Witherspoon, 2009; Hoffman & Richie, 1997; Liu & Bera, 2005; Narciss & Körndle, 1998; Toprac, 2011 ). -Unclear learning goals and insufficient guidelines -Increased degree of freedom, multiple options to solve the problem -The consequence is that learners do not make effective choices and experience information overload

6. Background Based on previous research a digital PBL tasks must contain (Van Loon, Ros, & Martens, 2012): Autonomy support Intrinsic motivation Learning outcomes Structure support

7. Background The two principles are derived from the Self-Determination Theory (SDT) (Deci & Ryan, 2000; 2008). Autonomy supportStructure support Refers to the initiative and freedom that a person experiences in an activity without outside pressure with respect to his or her personal goals. (Flink, Boggiano, & Barrett, 1990; Ryan & Grolnick, 1986; Reeve, Nix, & Hamm, 2003) Makes the learning environment less chaotic and more consistent and predictable for students. So students experience more efficacy while completing a (learning) task (Guay, Ratelle, & Chanal, 2008).

8. Background Autonomy support -choices are offered -provision of the rationale for a task -non-directive language (Deci & Ryan, 2000; 2008). Structure support -goals and expectations are clear -consequences of achieving the task are explicit -guidance to carry out an activity successfully is given -clear procedures (Connell, 1990; Skinner & Belmont, 1993; Reeve, Deci, & Ryan, 2004).

9. Training teachers It is difficult to change teacher behaviour through training (Hanushek, 2005). Certain principles should be taken into account. 1.Teachers require time to develop, absorb, discuss, and practice new knowledge (Garet, Porter, Desimone, Birman, & Yoon, 2001). 2.Teachers’ learning should be situated and focused on authentic activities in the classroom (Garet et al., 2001). 3.Teachers from the same school or year level participate collectively (Desimone, Porter, Garet, Yoon, & Birman, 2002).

10. Research questions “Can teachers be trained to apply the principles of autonomy support and structure support in designing their digital PBL tasks?” “Do students experience greater autonomy, competence, and motivation while working on these tasks?”

11. Hypotheses After the completion of training, -Teachers will indicate that they are more skilled in creating digital PBL tasks (1). -Teachers indicate that their digital PBL tasks are more autonomy-supportive and structure-supportive than those prior to training (2). -Students will experience greater autonomy, competence and intrinsic motivation in digital PBL tasks (3).

12. Intervention: training teachers Goal: Teach teachers to apply autonomy support and structure support in their PBL tasks Training The training lasted two months and consisted of three team meetings. First meetingInformation and examples of autonomy support and structure support in digital tasks were provided Second and third meetingTeachers designed their own digital PBL tasks and implemented both autonomy support and structure support After the last meetingThe digital PBL tasks were offered to the students in their class.

13. An example

14. Method Design One-group pre-test–post-test design Participants Teachers of five schools (n = 20) Fifth-, sixth- (primary school), seven- and eight- grade (secondary school) students (n = 184) Instruments Perceived autonomy, perceived competence, and intrinsic motivation -Intrinsic Motivation Inventory (IMI), Ryan (1982) Assessment of tasks: autonomy support and structure support -Teacher as Social Context Questionnaire (TASC) (Belmont, Skinner, Wellborn & Connell, 1988) Teacher report: skill in creating digital PBL tasks -Questionnaire measured skills in creating digital PBL tasks

15. Results Hypotheses 1 + 2 Teachers indicated that they were more skilled in creating digital PBL tasks after completing the training than before the training. Teachers indicated that they are more able to apply autonomy support and structure support in their tasks after the training than before the training.

16. Results Hypothesis 3 In digital PBL tasks when teachers had followed the training, students perceived : -more autonomy -more competence -more intrinsic motivation

17. Conclusion Training teachers to apply autonomy support and structure support in their digital PBL tasks can be effective. - According to teachers - According to students

18. Limitations The number of teachers in this study was relatively small No control group Relatively a short task Teachers and students perceptions

19. Discussion Practical implications This study provides important guidelines for teachers who are designing digital PBL tasks. Questions How do you apply autonomy support and structure support in your daily practice? Do you use digital learning tasks for students?

20. Thanks for your attention Anne-Marieke van Loon a.vanloon@kpcgroep.nl Open University / KPC Groep The Netherlands