Introduction
The purpose of training interventions is to enhance learners’ skills and knowledge. Yet, as Thomas Gilbert reminds HPI practitioners, improvements to one cell of his behavior engineering model can and will likely lead to improvements in other areas. The model presented here actively leverages this “diffusion of effect” by focusing on motivational factors as part of sound instructional design.
Article
Hadré, P. L. (2009). The motivating opportunities model for performance SUCCESS: Design, development, and instructional implications. Performance Improvement Quarterly, 22(1), 5-26.  doi: http://dx.doi.org/10.1002/piq.20043
Background
Learner motivation is an important consideration when designing and developing instructional interventions. This is especially true when the learners are adults. Adult learners have a higher degree of autonomy and ownership of learning processes, particularly in instances where instruction is delivered via technology and is self-paced. For adult learners, success is contingent upon sustained participation in and self-regulation of learning activities. Thus, instructional designers should attend to motivational elements and not just cognitive or behavioral elements when creating learning modules.
Designing instruction with motivation in mind is not a novel concept. Keller’s ARCS model (1987) is one of the most widely used frameworks for addressing motivational aspects of learning. The ARCS model focuses on general individual learner characteristics (attention, relevance, confidence, and satisfaction) as key influencers in instructional design. The Motivating Opportunities Model (MOM) focuses on those attributes as well, but in specific contexts. The MOM helps designers address those factors while taking into account components of the task, context, social setting, and performance standards.
Description of the Model
The MOM assists instructional designers in leveraging various motivating opportunities as they design training instructional modules. It uses key questions derived from multiple theories of motivation (e.g. needs theory, cognitive theory, affective theory) to help designers identify how features of the instructional materials and learning environment link to authentic performance environments and expectations. Â The questions pertain to seven components, identified by the mnemonic SUCCESS:
1. Situational (contextual and access issues)
Sample questions: Can learners access materials? Is access flexible or controlled?
2. Utilization (and transfer issues)
Sample questions: Is there high utility in the instruction? Are there links of relevance of knowledge and skills to expected use?
3. Competence (considerations that focus on the development of expertise)
Sample questions: How authentic are the instructional approach and practice opportunities? In an instructor-led training, is the instructor a credible expert?
4. Content (knowledge and information components)
Sample questions: Is the information at the appropriate level of challenge? Does it provide bridges to their perceived future needs and expectations?
5. Emotional (affective and personal issues)
Sample questions: What is the risk of failure (e.g., sanctions, costs, threats)? Is help, clarification or remediation or coaching accessible and nonthreatening?
6. Social (group, interpersonal interactions, and relationship issues)
Sample questions: Is there social access that allows participant to interact with, exchange ideas with, and assist each other as appropriate? Is there easy access to the instructor-facilitator for help if it is needed?
7. Systemic (organizational and systems considerations that facilitate performance improvement)
Sample questions: Is the instruction or performance support well matched with the system features that are stable in the work context? Do supervisors recognize the importance of the skills or practice being used, and will they support it?
The seven elements of the MOM identify instructional features that can have either positive or negative effects on learners. The purpose of the questions for each element is to ensure that motivational roadblocks are not inadvertently included in the design. If these elements are not carefully considered while designing instruction, they could unintentionally undermine the very purpose of the instruction by decreasing learner motivation. For individuals, instruction that positively enhances motivation leads to improved engagement, attention, perceived ability, and self-efficacy. For the organization, it results in higher retention of learned skills and better transfer to authentic workplace situations.
Application
The pervasiveness of motivation’s impact on performance suggests that it is best to integrate motivation throughout the instructional design rather than treat it as a discrete performance factor. The process framework for MOM provides guidance for considering motivation during the three phases of the design process:
- Pre-intervention: Analyze context of performance to include organizational enablers of and constraints on motivation, existing rewards and recognition systems, and work valued in the organization.
- During intervention: Tie instructional events to relevant organizational values and rewards as appropriate. Connect application of skills to relevant organizational systems (e.g., reporting, work flow, evaluation).
- Post intervention: Evaluate post-intervention effects on the organization as well as individuals and immediate work performance context. Look at both intended and unintended organizational effects.
Questions for OPWL-N Members
Do you see motivation as functioning differently for different types of tasks? Are there jobs in your workplace for which motivation plays a greater role in determining positive performance outcomes? How might that effect your approach to instructional design for those tasks?
Workplace Oriented Research Central (WORC)
Prepared by OPWL Graduate Assistant, Susan Virgilio
Directed by OPWL Professor, Yonnie Chyung
Posted on April 21, 2014