As technology becomes more infused into education, new educational software programs are introduced to schools as ways to engage learning. Educational software has become a large part of education and has been integrated into many classrooms; Educational software refers to any computer program or application that is designed for educational purposes (Habgood & Ainsworth, 2011). Many programs help supplement learning and give students further options on ways to acquire new knowledge. The researchers presented in this literature review point to the importance of an effective educational software design and the effects the software can have on a student’s motivation. In the articles, four themes shared were a) intrinsic and extrinsic motivation, b) self-regulated learning, c) student choice, and d) collaboration. The focus of this review addresses the research question: does educational software affect student motivation?

When researching the effects software has on motivation, Chen et al. (2019) found it important to note the difference between intrinsic and extrinsic motivation and how each affected a student's drive in the classroom. Intrinsic motivation is when an individual performs an activity without any external reward and external motivation refers to an individual’s performance being driven by an incentive (Habgood & Ainsworth, 2011). Chen et al. (2019) showed that when software increased intrinsic motivation students experienced positive changes to their learning experience which resulted in higher levels of engagement. In addition to this, when students were actively engaged in their learning there were higher levels of academic success ( Chen et al., 2019). This theme discusses how educational software affects intrinsic and extrinsic motivation. The articles presented will look further into the effect this has on academic success and engagement.

Engagement

Engagement is a vital aspect of learning and there are many factors that can affect a student's level of engagement. Engagement can be broken into three dimensions: behavioral, cognitive, and emotional engagement (Chen et al., 2019). Behavioral engagement is when a learner is displaying behaviors such as participation and effort. Cognitive engagement is when an individual is willing to take on the learning task given to them and emotional engagement involves the positive and negative reactions a student may experience while learning ( Chen et al., 2019). Chen et al. (2019) showed that when students were given educational software to work on their math skills there was a positive relationship between their level of engagement, being intrinsically motivated, and a positive outcome of the learning expectations. Calderon et al. (2020) showed that when students were given a variety of digital platforms to create content on they were intrinsically motivated to interact with peers and students claimed that they were engaged in their learning while using this software. The results of these studies indicate that when educational software intrinsically motivates students there are higher levels of engagement.

Academic Achievement

Many educators introduce an educational software program to promote academic achievement. According to Calderon et al. (2020) there is a connection between a student's motivation when engaging in educational software and academic success. Calderon et al. (2020) indicated that some students possessed intrinsic motivational indicators while using their educational software programs such as self-confidence, enjoyment, and meaningful learning. Habgood and Ainsworth (2011) compared an intrinsic version of a software program to an extrinsic version. Students who played the intrinsic style of the program better met the expected learning goals than the students who used the extrinsic version. This literature suggests that when students are given an educational software program that intrinsically motivates them they are more likely to meet learning goals and succeed academically.

When introducing the Zones of Regulation to students, playing helpful videos or singing songs about the colors can be beneficial for their understanding. An example song and instructional video are posted below:

Value

One component that affects motivation is value. Pintrich and De Groot (1990) interpret value as a student's reflective process around the culminating question “Why am I completing this task?” In this process, students contemplate how the task measures up with their beliefs, goals and interests. Teachers can help facilitate this motivational component. Hariri et al. (2021) highlight the need for a teacher to consider individual characteristics of students when creating tasks to help students feel a sense of value. It is this sense of value that will help students realize what they are learning is valuable and subsequently motivate students to learn (Ginsberg & Wlodkowski, 2019). Self-regulation affects student engagement and motivation (Sun & Rueda, 2012; Whipp & Chiarelli, 2004).

Educators can involve students in their education by allowing students to have a choice in their learning. According to Garn and Jolly (2014), students feel motivated when school content relates directly to out-of-school interests, expressing that “learning experiences that aligned with personal goals also made learning more enjoyable and meaningful” (Garn & Jolly, 2014, p. 15). In addition, student choice creates a more enjoyable learning environment, resulting in higher engagement and motivation (Garn & Jolly, 2014). In educational software programs, student choice can be seen as the amount of interactivity, or learner control, given to the user. Student choice can be implemented in the classroom in a variety of ways, but the literature presented will take a deeper look into the areas of student voice or expression of interests, and the learner control of educational software programs.

Learner Control

Within an educational software program, there are various levels of control given to the user. When students feel that they have no control over their learning environment, they may become unengaged in their education (Daniels & Arapostathis, 2005). However, when students have levels of control within a program, they tend to show higher satisfaction, which results in higher levels of motivation (Vandewaetere & Clarebout, 2011). Vos et al. (2011) looked at an online game for learning Dutch proverbs. Students in this study were split into two groups; one group constructed a game, while the other group played an already existing game with the same content. The purpose of the study was to evaluate the levels of both motivation and deep learning within the educational software program. The results showed that the students involved in constructing the software had higher levels of motivation and critical thinking skills than the group who simply played with the software (Vos et al., 2011). Kao et al. (2016) evaluated two groups of students using a program with electronic storybooks. One group of students had high interactivity electronic storybooks with narrations, guidance, prompts, and feedback, while the other group worked with low interactivity electronic storybooks with minimal interactivity. Levels of motivation were measured and determined that the students with more learner control within the software had higher levels of satisfaction and confidence. The high interactivity attributed to the students' ability to relate the content to their own lives, while also improving reading comprehension (Kao et al., 2016).

This review examined research literature to find any effects educational software might have on motivating students. The literature established that motivation is a multidimensional process that encompasses prolonged interest, intrinsic motivation, control, and feedback (Huang et al. 2017). Research demonstrated how students benefit from teacher and peer support (Calderon et al., 2020). Software should allow for collaboration and the ability for teachers to monitor student progress and provide feedback. Moreover, teachers should take into consideration students' voice and choice when integrating software, as students’ interest levels are prolonged. Software needs to be tailored to students' interest to increase motivation and to help them find value in their learning goals.

The findings in these articles show that students learn best when motivation is taken into account during the software selection process. Teachers must carefully select software that will intrinsically motivate students, as it has been found more effective than extrinsic motivation (Chen et al., 2019). An example of this software is game-based learning as it has been found to highly motivated students. Students have the ability to interact with other players and learn difficult materials like mathematics and science that oftentimes is a source of anxiety, however, the inclusion of game-based learning applications can lower frustration and increase motivation (Chen et al., 2019; García & Jurado, 2019).

In the design of educational software, teachers must consider the inclusion of peer interaction, feedback, interactivity, and meaningful learning. Software needs to include student’s interests and educational needs, such as the option to change the program to adapt to the students' native language to best support all learners. Furthermore, software should motivate both genders by allowing for the selection of topics and applications that are gender-neutral. Teachers have the difficult task of selecting and implementing software in the classroom environment. The selection process should be carefully analyzed for motivational factors.

About Universal Design for Learning. CAST. (2021, April 20). https://www.cast.org/impact/universal-design-for-learning-udl.

Anderson, C. L., Anderson, K. M., & Cherup, S. (2009). Investment vs. return: Outcomes of special education technology research in literacy for students with mild disabilities. Contemporary issues in technology and teacher education, 9(3), 337–355.

Ash, K. (2010). Schools test e-readers with dyslexic students. Education Week, 4(1), 22–24.

ATT (2010). The classroom of tomorrow is here today. Retrieved May 17, 2013, from http://www.corp.att.com/edu/docs/netbook.pdf.

Carter, B. (2010). E-readers: supporting students with reading difficulties. Retrieved June 3, 2013, from http://blogs.ubc.ca/etec540sept10/2010/11/29/e-readerssupporting-students-with-reading-difficulties/

Chau, M. (2008). The effects of electronic books designed for children in education. Design of Electronic Text. Retrieved May 24, 2013 from http://fdt.library.utoronto.ca/index.php/fdt/article/view/4904/1762

Cheung, A., & Slavin, R. E. (2012). Effects of educational technology applications on reading outcomes for struggling readers: A best evidence synthesis. Baltimore, MD: Johns Hopkins University, Center for Research and Reform in Education.

Cheung, W. & Hew, K. (2009). A review of research methodologies used in studies on mobile handheld devices in K–12 and higher education settings. Australian Journal of Educational Technology, 25(2), 153–183.

Criss, E. (2011). Dance all night: Motivation in education. Music Educators Journal, 97(3), 61–66. https://doi.org/10.1177/0027432110393022

Calderón, A., Meroño, L., & MacPhail, A. (2020). A student-centered digital technology approach: The relationship between intrinsic motivation, learning climate and academic achievement of physical education pre-service teachers. European Physical Education Review, 26(1), 241–262. https://doi.org/10.1177/1356336X19850852

Chen, C.-H, Law, V., & Huang, K. (2019). The roles of e-engagement and competition on learner's performance and motivation in game-based science learning. Educational Technology Research and Development, 67(4), 1003–1024. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11423-019-09670-7

Daniels, E., & Arapostathis, M. (2005). What do they really want? Urban Education (Beverly Hills, Calif.), 40(1), 34–59. https://doi.org/10.1177/004208590427042

García, C. M., & Jurado, B. G. (2019). Motivational effects of technological resources in bilingual education settings. Multidisciplinary Journal of Educational Research, 9(1), 88–116. https://doi.org/10.17583/remie.2019.3800

Garn, A., & Jolly, J. (2014). High ability students’ voice on learning motivation. Journal of Advanced Academics, 25(1), 7–24. https://doi.org/10.1177/1932202X13513262

Ginsberg, M. B., & Wlodkowski, R. J. (2019). Intrinsic motivation as the foundation for culturally responsive social-emotional and academic learning in teacher education. Teacher Education Quarterly, 46(4), 53-66.

Habgood, M. P. J., & Ainsworth, S. E. (2011). Motivating children to learn Effectively: exploring the value of intrinsic integration in educational games. The Journal of the Learning Sciences, 20(2), 169–206. https://www.jstor.org/stable/41305911

Hariri, H., Hermanto, D., Yayah, E., Rini, Riswanti, & Suparman, U. (2021). Motivation and learning strategies: student motivation affects student learning strategies. European Journal of Educational Research, 10(1), 39–49. https://doi.org/10.12973/eu-jer.10.1.39

Housand, B. C., & Housand, A. M. (2012). The role of technology in gifted students' motivation. Psychology in the Schools, 49(7), 706–715.

Kao, G., Yi-Ming, T., Chin‐Chung, L., Chia-Yu, & Yang, C.H. (2016). The effects of high/low interactive electronic storybooks on elementary school students’ reading motivation, story comprehension and chromatics concepts. Computers and Education, 100, 56–70. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.compedu.2016.04.013

Marchetti, E., Marchetti, E., Valente, A., & Valente, A. (2018). Interactivity and multimodality in language learning: the untapped potential of audiobooks. Universal Access in the Information Society, 17(2), 257–274. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10209-017-0549-5

Mkimbili, S., & Odegaard, M. (2019). Student motivation in science subjects in Tanzania, Including students’ voices. Research in Science Education (Australasian Science Education Research Association), 49(6), 1835–1859. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11165-017-9677-4

Shonfeld, M., & Magen-Nagar, N. (2017). The impact of an online collaborative program on intrinsic motivation, satisfaction and attitudes towards technology. Technology, Knowledge and Learning, 25(2), 297–313. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10758-017-9347-7

Sun, J. C.-Y., & Rueda, R. (2012). Situational interest, computer self-efficacy and self-regulation: Their impact on student engagement in distance education. British Journal of Educational Technology, 43(2), 191–204. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1467-8535.2010.01157.x

Pintrich, P.R., & De Groot, E.V. (1990). Motivational and self-regulated learning components of classroom academic performance. Journal of Educational Psychology, 82(1), 33–40. https://doi.org/10.1037/0022-0663.82.1.33

Vandewaetere, M., & Clarebout, G. (2011). Can instruction as such affect learning? The case of learner control. Computers and Education, 57(4), 2322–2332. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.compedu.2011.05.020

Vos, N., Van der Meijden, H., Denessen E. (2011). Effects of constructing versus playing an educational game on student motivation and deep learning strategy use, Computers & Education, 56 (1): 127-137. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.compedu.2010.08.013.

Whipp, J. L., & Chiarelli, S. (2004). Self-Regulation in a Web-Based Course: A Case Study. Educational Technology Research and Development, 52(4), 5–22. https://doi.org/10.1007/BF02504714

Yun-Yin, H., Chen-Chung, L., Yu W., Chin-Chung, T., & Hung-Ming, L. (2017). Student engagement in long-term collaborative efl storytelling activities. Educational Technology & Society, 20(3), 95–109.

Zimmerman, B. J. (2000). Chapter 2 - Attaining Self-Regulation: A Social Cognitive Perspective. In Handbook of Self-Regulation (pp. 13–39). Elsevier Inc. https://doi.org/10.1016/B978-012109890-2/50031-7