 |
[email protected] |
 |
3275638434 |
 |
 |
| Paper Publishing WeChat |
This work is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution-NonCommercial 4.0 International License
Huiwen Sun, Albert Young Choi
Full-Text PDF
XML 246 Views
DOI:10.17265/2159-5542/2024.06.002
Hanyang University ERICA, Ansan, South Korea
In the process of optimizing modern higher education in visual design, if educators can adopt advanced teaching concepts and actively explore issues related to students’ learning motivation, it can significantly enhance students’ initiative in learning while making the teaching process more targeted and effective. Motivation, as the key factor driving individuals to take action and achieve specific goals, directly affects students’ enthusiasm and creativity. Teaching strategies based on motivation can improve educational outcomes. The Self-Determination Theory provides a framework for enhancing students’ intrinsic motivation, emphasizing the fulfillment of three basic psychological needs: autonomy, competence, and relatedness. Satisfying these needs allows students to demonstrate stronger learning motivation and sustained interest. Higher education instructors can support autonomy by giving students more choices, allowing them to create based on their interests, thus fostering creativity and increasing engagement. Additionally, teachers should provide competence support by setting appropriately challenging tasks, helping students gradually improve their skills and confidence, and enhancing their sense of competence. Finally, relatedness support emphasizes creating a collaborative learning environment where students can strengthen emotional connections and perceive the value of learning through group cooperation and discussions. Optimizing visual design education not only requires attention to motivation issues but also necessitates designing teaching strategies based on the Self-Determination Theory. Through support for autonomy, competence, and relatedness, educators can effectively stimulate students’ intrinsic motivation, and enhance their creativity, problem-solving abilities, and interest in long-term learning. This approach makes education more meaningful and valuable, helping to cultivate more outstanding design talents.
Motivational Issues in Visual Design Education:
Improving Teaching Methods From the Perspective of Self-Determination Theory
Psychology Research, June 2024, Vol. 14, No. 6, 196-206
Assor, A., Kaplan, H., & Roth, G. (2002). Choice is good, but relevance is excellent: Autonomy-enhancing and suppressing teacher behaviors predicting students’ engagement in schoolwork. British Journal of Educational Psychology, 72(2), 261-278.
Chirkov, V. I., & Ryan, R. M. (2001). Parent and teacher autonomy support in Russian and U.S. adolescents: Common effects on well-being and academic motivation. Journal of Cross-Cultural Psychology, 32(5), 618-635.
Cho, A. H. (2021). Visual design literacy: Exploring the power of design in education through the lens of art history. Journal of Aesthetic Education, 55(3), 89-103.
Deci, E. L., & Ryan, R. M. (1985). Intrinsic motivation and self-determination in human behavior. New York, NY: Plenum.
Deci, E. L., Vallerand, R. J., Pelletier, L. G., & Ryan, R. M. (1991). Motivation and education: The self-determination perspective. Educational Psychologist, 26(3-4), 325-346.
De Naeghel, J., Van Keer, H., Vansteenkiste, M., & Rosseel, Y. (2012). The relation between elementary students’ recreational and academic reading motivation, reading frequency, engagement, and comprehension: A self-determination theory perspective. Journal of Educational Psychology, 104(4), 1006-1021.
Dewey, J. (1980). Art as experience. New York: Perigee Books.
Greer, W. D. (1984). Discipline-based art education: Approaching art as a subject of study. Studies in Art Education, 25(4), 212-218.
Grolnick, W. S., & Ryan, R. M. (1987). Autonomy in children’s learning: An experimental and individual difference investigation. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 52(5), 890-898.
Guay, F., Ratelle, C. F., & Chanal, J. (2008). Optimal learning in optimal contexts: The role of self-determination in education. Educational Psychology, 43(4), 312-321.
Jang, H., Reeve, J., & Deci, E. L. (2010). Engaging students in learning activities: It is not autonomy support or structure but autonomy support and structure. Journal of Educational Psychology, 102(3), 588-600.
Lemos, M. S., & Rothes, A. (2022). Motivation in higher education: The impact of self-determination theory on academic performance. Educational Psychology Review, 12(2), 156-175.
Lilechi, V. W., & Ndunda, H. K. (2022). Enhancing Afrikan visual design learning through virtual reality. Africa Design Review Journal, 1(3), 70-83.
Lin, C., Shipton, H., Teng, W., Kitt, A., & Do, H. (2022). Sparking creativity using extrinsic rewards: A self-determination theory perspective. Human Resource Management, 61(6), 723-735.
Liu, Q., Chen, H., & Crabbe, M. J. C. (2021). Interactive study of multimedia and virtual technology in art education. International Journal of Emerging Technologies in Learning, 16(1), 80-93.
Marks, B., & Thomas, J. (2021). Adoption of virtual reality technology in higher education: An evaluation of five teaching semesters in a purpose-designed laboratory. Education and Information Technologies, 27(1), 1287-1305.
Mohamed, T., & Sicklinger, A. (2022). An integrated curriculum of virtual/augmented reality for multiple design students. Education and Information Technologies, 27(8), 11137-11159.
Niemiec, C. P., & Ryan, R. M. (2009). Autonomy, competence, and relatedness in the classroom: Applying self-determination theory to educational practice. Theory and Research in Education, 7(2), 133-144.
Niemiec, C. P., Ryan, R. M., & Deci, E. L. (2010). Self-determination theory and the relation of autonomy to self-regulatory processes and personality development. In Handbook of personality and self-regulation (pp. 169-191). Hoboken: John Wiley & Sons.
Reeve, J. (2002). Self-determination theory applied to educational settings. In E. L. Deci and R. M. Ryan (Eds.), Handbook of self-determination research (pp. 183-203). Rochester: University of Rochester Press.
Reeve, J., & Jang, H. (2006). What teachers say and do to support students’ autonomy during a learning activity: The motivating role of autonomy supportive instructional behaviors. Journal of Educational Psychology, 98(1), 209-218.
Rothes, A., Lemos, M. S., & Gonçalves, T. (2022). The influence of students’ self-determination and personal achievement goals in learning and engagement: A mediation model. Educational Sciences, 12(6), 369.
Ryan, R. M., & Deci, E. L. (2000). Self-determination theory and the facilitation of intrinsic motivation, social development, and well-being. American Psychologist, 55(1), 68-78.
Standage, M., Duda, J. L., & Ntoumanis, N. (2005). A test of self-determination theory in school physical education. Journal of Educational Psychology, 97(3), 478-488.
Vansteenkiste, M., Lens, W., & Deci, E. L. (2006). Intrinsic versus extrinsic goal contents in self-determination theory: Another look at the quality of academic motivation. Educational Psychologist, 41(1), 19-31.
Vallerand, R. J., Pelletier, L. G., Blais, M. R., & Brière, N. M. (1992). The academic motivation scale: A measure of intrinsic, extrinsic, and amotivation in education. Educational and Psychological Measurement, 52(4), 1003-1017.
Williams, G. C., & Deci, E. L. (1996). Internalization of biopsychosocial values by medical students: A test of self-determination theory. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 70(4), 767-779.