because I’ve not written here in a long time, and because I had to write a paper for class I got write down the beginnings of my thoughts about what it does mean to localize, I’ve decided to put one of my papers in this space. maybe thats kinda geeky, or maybe its the end of the semester, and I have way to much work to do, with waay to little motivation to do it with.

*note* the pbl stuff included in this paper, while i do appreciate the work, is not central to my plan for the next 3.5 years. the pbl part was just a requirement of the paper.

Localization is a process I have only begun to research, and I am currently in the process of preparing for a study to be conducted in the spring. As I have been doing my literature review I have discovered that haven’t been many empirical studies about how I will be looking at localization, but there have been quite a few studies looking at personalization, a type of localization. The purpose of all these studies is to look at the effectiveness of personalizing math content for a user – essentially using knowledge of personal events in math word problems to increase learning. Each of these studies also had an attitude component, one that was linked to motivation. In reading study after study, and also looking at other literature, I began to understand that localization is not just about making something sensitive culturally, but it is also about making a piece of content relevant to a user. So, I started to ask questions, and have begun to understand that as we localize we change things in content to make it more motivating. By looking localization through the lens of relevance related to motivation I have started to create a theoretical understanding of why localization is important not just for cultural sensitivity, but also an important tool for good instructional design. In the brief look I have made at the problem based learning literature, I have also found connections to motivation and content relevance.

In thinking about the concept of relevance and the field of instructional design the first place I went was to Keller’s ARCS model. Keller defines relevance as “perceived likelihood of a task to satisfy a basic need, motive, or value.” (Wiley, 1998) He divides relevance into 5 categories – experience, present worth, future usefulness, need matching, modeling and choice. Applying the concept of localization to Keller’s model, it is the first category – experience – that is of most interest to me. Means, Jonassen, and Dwyer researched specifically the relevance piece of Keller’s model. They used a variety of strategies to enhance relevance of content about the heart, including the use of concrete language, portraying familiar types of situations, use of imagery and analogies, and use of concrete examples (Means, Jonassen, Dwyer 1986). The strategies used are the same strategies I plan to use in my research study in the spring. In my view, Means, et. al localized the content to the users, and found that the enhanced content was more motivating than the unenhanced content.

Wiley added on to ARCS in his Getting Students Interested Model. His model consists of necessary learning activities, and facilitating activities. Under strategies for his facilitating activity of preparing students, he discusses the need for relevance, and gives discrete examples of ways to make content more relevant (Wiley, 1998). Wiley’s concept of relevance is the same as Keller’s and his last strategy falls into the same use of relevance as I am using in localization — connect the content to the student personally.

In Barrow’s taxonomy of problem based learning methods, he discussed the four main educational objectives that should come out of problem based learning. His fourth objective is “increased motivation for learning.” In his description he specifically talks about relevance saying “the perceived relevance of work with medical problems provides strong motivation for learning.” (Barrows, 1986) In his 1986 article did not discuss specific strategies, though, but he did set the stage for discussions of motivation and problem based learning.

Marjorie MacKinnon in looking at problem based learning instruction, developed a model of motivational strategies called CORE – Community, Ownership, Relevance and Empowerment. She conducted a research study within a problem based learning course and examined how these four themes played out in journal entries written by students in the course discussing the question “What stands out?” She found that while the theme of relevance was only written about in 48 percent of journal entries (as compared with 81 and 82 percent discussing community and ownership), it was still an important aspect of motivation in problem based learning (MacKinnon, 1999). Unfortunately, unlike Keller and Wiley, MacKinnon does not break down the strategies of how to make the content relevant. Maybe this is a piece I could have gotten out of the problem based learning literature, or, in my view, it is a piece should be added. Knowing how the how the different elements of the model work specifically within the context of the content is helpful. She does make a good point at the end of her article, though. She says “If any element is missing, it is likely that the motivational aspects of the remaining elements will somehow be diminished.” (MacKinnon, 1999) In the other models of motivation discussed, this was apparent as well.

So, based on what I’ve written, what is my recommendation for a future research possibilities? It’s quite obvious – looking further at how relevance, specifically, content relevance, plays into motivation in problem based learning. Questions such as – what does it mean to make content relevant in problem based learning; if localizing a piece of problem based learning how does content relevance play into to making it as motivating as it was in its original form? Another possible research area could be into to the models I presented. In my opinion, many more replications of MacKinnon’s study needs to happen to make it valid. Keller’s model, while widely disseminated, doesn’t have as many research studies backing it up as it could have. I think it would be interesting to use Keller’s model in a problem based learning situation, and connecting it to my own research, looking at how content relevance plays a part in localizing problem based learning courses. Wiley’s model has had no research done on it. I would recommend using Wiley’s strategies in a problem based learning course, specifically looking at the piece on relevance. Wiley’s model could also be used to look at how content relevance effects motivation in localizing problem based learning courses.

References

Barrows, H.S. (1986). A Taxonomy of Problem-Based Learning Methods. Medical Education, 20, 481-486.

Keller, J.M. (1987). Development and use of the ARCS model of instructional design. Journal of Instructional Development, 10(3), 2-10.

MacKinnon, M. (1999). CORE Elements of Student Motivation in Problem-Based Learning. New Directions for Teaching and Learning, 1999 (78), 49 – 58.

Means, T., Jonassen, D., Dwyer, F. (1997). Enhancing Relevance: Embedded ARCS strategies vs. Purpose. Educational Technology Research and Development, 45(1), 5-17.

Wiley, D. A. (1998). Getting Students Interested. Unpublished Manuscript.