Abstract
This study aims to develop and validate essential design principles for improving emotional affordances in an online learning environment by investigating theoretical and practical mechanisms of integrating emotions into the instructional design and technology. To achieve this goal, we applied design and development research methodology in accordance with the procedure of development by reviewing relevant extant literature and then performing validation through a three-round expert review and usability evaluation. For the first stage of development, ten design principles were derived after synthesizing and elaborating related variables through a literature review. For the next stage of validation, eight experts were asked to review these principles, and three instructional designers participated in testing the usability. The findings suggest that online learning environments should reflect the eight design principles of positivity, playfulness, humanity, self-disclosure, safety, personalization, affinity, and intimacy for enhancing visceral, behavioral, and reflective emotional affordances with regard to learning activities, learning support, learner interface (LI)/learner eXperience (LX), and learning screen. We discuss the results and practical implications of the findings for future research.
Similar content being viewed by others
Explore related subjects
Discover the latest articles, news and stories from top researchers in related subjects.Avoid common mistakes on your manuscript.
Introduction
In an online learning environment, learners might feel lonely, anxious, bored, or frustrated (Järvelä et al. 2011; Wosnitza and Volet 2005; Zembylas et al. 2008). One possible explanation for this is that when students lack direct interactions with teachers and peers, they are likely to face emotional challenges (Artino and Jones 2012; Dabbagh and Kitsantas 2004; MacFadden et al. 2005; Whipp and Chiarelli 2004). Emotions are important contributors to learning, self-regulation, and academic achievement. They also have an influence on human judgment and behavior (Pekrun et al. 2002; Pekrun 2011). Studies emerging from neuroscience, education, psychology, HCI, and affective computing have proven that emotions directly and indirectly affect students’ learning by mediating their memory, attention, decision making, motivation, self-regulation/self-direction, social interaction, higher-order thinking and, lastly, creativity (D’Mello and Graesser 2012; LeDoux 1998; Norman 2004; Pekrun et al. 2002). Particularly, research on neuroscience reveals that the emotional brain and the cognitive brain are linked to each other in that a person cannot memorize, reason, judge, learn, and act without a working emotional brain; thus, an integrated view of emotion and cognition is needed. (LeDoux 1998; Sparrow and Knight 2006).
The distance education theory of Holmberg (1989, 2003) illustrates the role of course providers and instructors in inducing a sense of belonging and empathy. Thus, an online learning environment should be designed in such a way that induces learners’ positive feelings and furthermore decrease their negative emotions. A growing body of research has demonstrated that emotions felt during online learning can enhance as well as hinder the learning process (Järvelä et al. 2011; Juutinen and Saariluoma 2010; Zembylas et al. 2008). When learners have emotional competence, they face the challenge of having continued motivation to learn especially in an online learning environment. According to MacFadden et al. (2005), the importance of learners’ experiences of emotions has not been fully considered in the literature. Yet, there is little information on how we can integrate emotions in the design of instruction.
In this contemporary society of information, high-tech and high-touch artifacts which hide the coldness of digital technology with warm analog emotions have taken the spotlight (Pink 2006). Emotional competence and technological literacy are critical skills for the twenty-first century (WEF 2015). Emotional intelligence suggested by Salovey et al. (1995) does not entail the important role of the self and context in an individual’s emotional skills. However, emotional competence is the individual’s efficacy and motivation for engaging in some emotion-evoking situations or contexts and the individual’s values and beliefs to their emotional experiences. Emotional competence is a general term that refers to many kinds of emotion-related skills (Garner 2010). Currently, emotional competence has been defined as the ability to be aware of, use, manage one’s emotional reactions in ways that are appropriate to the audience, contexts, and situations (Cole et al. 2004; Eisenberg and Spinrad 2004). An emotionally supportive online learning environment facilitates learning by inducing learners’ emotional reactions (Pekrun et al. 2009).
As the significance of emotions is growing in education and technology (Prendinger and Ishizuka 2005), the necessity of designing an emotionally supportive or affordable online learning environment is critical. The increasing emphasis on emotions is found in widespread fields (Norman 2004). Nevertheless, there is a limited body of research that indicates essential principles to design and create an emotionally affordable online environment. Furthermore, information is also lacking on how an online learning environment affords learners’ emotions. One reason for this knowledge gap is that theories related to emotional design are too abstract. Recently, the concept of emotional affordance (EA) has been introduced and applied to develop a variety of technological tools or environments including a Virtual Reality (VR)-based online learning environment (Park et al. 2012; Seif El-Nasr et al. 2011; Zhang 2008). EA facilitates students’ learning (Morie et al. 2005) and emotional skills (Schutte et al. 2008) in an online setting. To enhance online learners’ emotional competence and learning, it is important to adopt EA theories to design an emotionally supportive learning environment.
Little has been recognized about how online learning environments afford learners’ emotions. The main reason for the lack of research on the emotional design of online learning sites, systems, or programs is that the theory of emotional design is too disorganized or abstract to be used in the design of an online learning environment. Recently, the concept and models of EA were introduced and applied to a variety of technological tools or environments, including VR-based learning environments.
This study attempts to use emotional affordances to design an online learning environment to support learners’ emotional competence. To address it, this study has applied EA theory to design and develop emotional affordable online learning environments. This article starts with a review of the theories relating to emotions in the fields of neuroscience, psychology, education, and computing that have been used to study the linkage between emotion and cognition. This review is meant to be comprehensive to synthesize the existing research findings and implications and include various theoretical frameworks and definitions. Then, a systematic summary of the empirical research on the relationships between emotional design aspects, namely, EAs and their effects in online learning environments are presented. Next, research on the development and validation of design principles for emotional affordances in online learning environments will be carried out. Thus, this study investigates the importance of emotions and the necessity of emotional affordances in online learning environments from the perspective of affordance. Ultimately, the primary purpose of this study is to construct and internally validate design principles for designing emotional affordances in an online learning environment. In view of such a research purpose, the following two research questions were proposed:
-
1.
What are the design principles of EA in online learning environments?
-
2.
How can design principles of EA in online learning environments be validated by experts and end-users (i.e., instructional designers)?
Theoretical background
Emotion in an online learning environment
The representative educational theories relating to emotions are “discrete emotion theories” and “componential models of emotions.” While discrete emotion theories assume that facial expressions reflect basic emotions that are patterned by specific emotion-evoking conditions or programs (Izard 1991; Ekman 1994), componential models of emotions assume that facial expressions convey components of the emotion process differentiated by the outcomes of appraisal (Scherer 1993, 2009). More current theoretical perspectives have supported the view that emotions influence learners’ achievement (Pekrun et al. 2002). Feedback for learning progress as well as success/failure experiences can affect learners’ emotions (Pekrun et al. 2002). An emotional climate of online learning shapes learners’ expectancies, attitudes, feelings, and behaviors while they are engaged in learning (Wosnitza and Volet 2005). Moreover, emotions affect their experiences and learning (Reily et al. 2012). According to Cheng (2014), an online learning context like MOOCs, which is required to meet diverse needs of learners, should address individual differences in emotions occurring in the process of learning. However, the mass production of cognitive and social experiences of learners in an online learning environment may not synchronize with the personalized or emotional engagement. Therefore, online learning could affect their emotions negatively as well as positively. By reviewing the previous literature, we classified emotions that learners tend to feel during online learning into ‘positive’ and ‘negative’ ones as shown in Table 1.
A recent advancement in affective computing and neurobiology, online learning systems have started recognizing and responding to learners’ feelings through its user interface (UI) or user eXperience (UX) (Hassenzahl and Tractinsky 2006; Zurloni et al. 2008). Instructional designers and online learning system developers must consider critical factors promoting positive emotions or reducing negative emotions among learners for learning and performance (Pekrun 2011).
Emotional affordance (EA)
Gibson (1979), one of the ecologists of visual perception, coined a word affordance as the link between perceived elements of the environment and the possibility of human actions. Park et al. (2008) defined affordance as a property of an object, animal, and environment that causes certain actions. According to Kirschner et al. (2004) and Norman (2002), the concept of affordance gives an alternative theoretical framework for designing and evaluating online learning systems. EA is sometimes found in physical spaces that engage learners with emotional experiences (Kytta 2003). Thus, the value of affordances can be expanded from functional to emotional areas. Morie et al. (2005) mentioned that all affordances play triggering roles that could lead to a certain action (e.g., physical responses) or a certain reaction (e.g., emotional responses) among the users. Moreover, emotional outcomes of EA can be positive/negative and intended/unintended, in accordance with students’ internal and contextual features (Cheng 2014). Through reviewing prior studies on the concepts and characteristics of EAs as shown in Table 2, EA can be a critical element of learning design processes given that they can ultimately motivate or distract learners during learning.
The crucial determinant for using motivational affordances for designing information and communication technology (ICT) is inducing desired emotions by initially exposing to ICT and inducing intended emotions by intensively interacting with ICT (Zhang 2008). Such emotional design factors, namely, EA can induce optimal flow experience (Kytta 2003). EA would refer to emotional components for designing and developing learning environments design that contribute to facilitating students’ engagement and learning.
The functioning of EAs in online learning environments has been underlined by various empirical studies. Cheng (2014) reported that MOOC discussion boards induced different emotions of participants such as positive emotions, negative emotions, and non-achievement emotions according to their learning progress (beginning/middle/end). Research adopting EAs in designing online learning environments has shown that EAs may have a positive effect on learners’ emotion and learning. For instance, Morie et al. (2005) observed that emotionally affordable virtual environments for military training influenced subjects’ perception/arousal and behaviors as a result of analyzing their skin conductance response, heart rate, self-report, and questionnaire. Research by Chuah et al. (2011) indicated that VR-based environments with EAs for learning pedestrian safety skills induced positive emotions among the learners. It is necessary to take into account EA design elements in such online learning environments to make learners feel more positive to learn.
Norman’s (2004) user-centered thoughts on how to consider emotion in the design process should be regarded as some of the best advice currently available to design and develop emotionally affordable online learning environments. He suggested the three levels of the user interaction model for emotional design: visceral, behavioral, and reflective level. An increasing number of studies have investigated the design variables of various artifacts such as products, websites, and systems for the three levels of EAs as shown in Table 3.
Research methods
The objective of this study was to develop and validate online learning design principles to enhance EAs by utilizing affordance-based design methodology as a solution for the emotional designs of online learning environments. Online learning design principles for EAs are initially developed based on a literature review and validated by an expert review. Then their usability is tested by instructional designers’ evaluations by developing online learning program prototypes reflecting the design principles.
This study adopted “design and development research,” proposed by Richey and Klein (2007) which represents the systematic study of designing, developing, and evaluating processes to establish an empirical basis of creating instructional and non-instructional artifacts in the educational domains. Among the suggested methods, the development of principles was carried out through a literature review. This review consisted of searching for and selecting relevant prior studies, drawing and classifying results and implications into variables, and synthesizing and elaborating related variables according to the core components of EAs in online learning environments. Validation of the principles was carried out through three rounds of expert reviews utilizing validation questionnaires and in-depth interviews, and then a usability evaluation with experienced instructional designers of online learning. Detailed research methods and activities of each step that this study applied are as shown in Fig. 1.
Research procedure and methods
Participants
In order to validate the components and principles developed by literature review, two validation methods of expert review and usability evaluation were employed. Three-round expert reviews were conducted. The panel of experts was selected to test internal validity with respect to the design components and principles. Selected experts have expertise in the academic or practical fields of the educational technology (3), human–computer interaction (1), visual design (1), computer science (1), and online learning industry (1). The experts’ profiles are shown in Table 4.
Three of the experienced instructional designers of online learning system or content participated in the usability evaluation of the principles. They have more than 5-year online learning design experiences either in academic or corporate settings as shown in Table 5.
Instruments
The researcher guided the experts on the validation processes, and asked them to review on the principles’ theorization process, the overall principles, and each of the principles. They were asked to validate them by filling out the 4-point Likert scale questionnaire and commenting on the principles with the following validation instrument as shown in Table 6.
The principles’ usability evaluation consists of designing PowerPoint-based storyboards following the principles as a simulated design tasks, completing the questionnaire, and commenting on the principles. The questionnaire from Tracey’s (2001) research was adopted, and modified. The question items are shown in Table 7.
Data analysis
The content validity index (CVI) and inter-rater agreement (IRA) were used to analyze quantitative data of experts’ and instructional designers’ ratings. For this research, 4-point scale questionnaires were used for a valid report of CVI and IRA. Specifically, CVI is calculated by dividing the number of positive review ratings including 3 and 4 in the four-point scale by the number of experts (Haynes et al. 1995; Lynn 1986). The CVI value exceeding 0.80 is acceptably valid (Davis 1992; Grant and Davis 1997). IRA is measured by the number of items with agreement among raters divided by the total number of items. Higher than IRA 0.80 is acceptably reliable (Lynn 1986; Rubio et al. 2003).
Results
Initial design principles through a literature review
The initial theoretical design principles were constructed by analyzing and synthesizing the results and implications from related literature in the fields of affective psychology, emotional instruction, online learning, affective computing, and HCI. The resulting five design components and ten principles are shown in Table 8.
The ten design principles for designing EAs in online learning environments were developed by connecting design components of an expressive and manipulative user interface, learning activities, learning support, and social interaction support. The principles describe general rules for how e-learning environments should be represented and designed to help learners understand, express, or regulate their emotions in online learning situations.
Validation results by an expert review
Experts were required to review the internal validity of both the overall and individual principles during three rounds. The results of the validation following the first round of expert review on the processes and results of the initial principles through the literature review are shown in Table 9.
The mean scores range from 2.8 to 3.8. One item had a CVI lower than 0.8, which suggests that it may need to be revised or deleted. The reliability of this scale is acceptable, for the total IRA = 0.8.
In the first round of the review process, the experts mainly critiqued the clarity of the principles and guidelines, the necessity or redundancy of the principles and guidelines, and abstract or complicated expressions. A revision of the design principles was conducted to highlight the uniqueness of the study in accordance with the experts’ comments. In consideration of the comments of experts A and F, “expressive UI” and “manipulative UI” were replaced with “learning screen” and “learning interface,” respectively. After considering the comments of experts A and H, “interpersonal interaction support” was substituted for “social interaction support” in order to include cognitive, social, and affective components in interpersonally interactive online learning environments. In response to the comments of experts B and D, “solidarity” and “self-disclosure” were combined into “self-disclosure.” To accommodate the feedback of experts A and F, many samples or examples were presented next to the principles.
The first revised design principles were validated again by the second round of expert review. As indicated in Table 10, both all of the CVI and IRA values were higher than 0.8 confirming that the overall design principles are valid and the reliability of this measurement is acceptable. Mean scores of four items were slightly lower thatn 3.0 which means suggests that they may need to be amended or improved.
The experts provided various detailed comments. Most requested the rephrasing of the principles for greater clarity and consistency. Some of the experts recommended that the design principles be combined. For example, “social interaction support” and “learning support” were combined into “learning support,” and “balance” and “humanity” were combined into “humanity.” Also, other experts suggested the terms of the design principles be revised. Thus, “aesthetics,” “controllability,” “ease of use,” and “clarity” were changed into “affinity,” “autonomy,” “safety,” and “positivity,” respectively. The experts A, B, D, and E recommended the principles be reordered so as to correspond with the steps of the procedural model, as this would enable designers to easily apply the right principle to the right step in the process. The experts A, B, C, D, E, and F provided suggestions for presenting intended negative or positive emotions for each principle. The experts A, B, D, E, and F suggested that specific samples or technical examples for each principle be offered to enhance comprehension and explainability. In accordance with those experts’ comments, the corresponding revision was carried out.
As shown in Table 11, the second revised design principles were validated again by the third round of expert review. Since all of the CVI and IRA values were higher than 0.8, the overall design principles are sufficiently valid and reliable in terms of all criteria for the following criteria.
In addition to the validation scores, the experts provided detailed comments on the principles. Most of them asked that the phrases and sentences on the principles be restated for greater coherence and cohesion. In response to the comments of experts A and D, the term “autonomy” was revised to “personalization.” Some experts suggested the framework be restructured by changing the column position of the examples to be behind the column of intended emotions, rearranging the intended emotions (experts A, G), based on their frequency or essentiality (experts B, F, G) and dividing the emotions into two categories: positive and negative (experts A, B, D, E).
Usability evaluation results by instructional designers
The refined design principles resulting from the three rounds of expert review were evaluated on their operational validity by four instructional designers who are field practitioners in the designing of online learning environments. The instructional designers, each with over 5 years of experience, performed a simulated prototype design task following the EA design model, and evaluated to what degree the model guided them through the process of EA design in online learning environments. The instructional designers’ responses to the questions of usability evaluation on the principles are shown in Table 12.
The instructional designers designed EAs in an MOOC-type online learning environment (http://snuon.snu.ac.kr/) and developed PPT-based storyboards partially as shown in Table 13.
The instructional designers also commented on the usability of the principles in the follow-up interview. They mentioned that the main strengths of these design principles, were as follows: the usefulness of checking out intended emotions for each design principle (instructional designers A, B, C), the convenience of designing EAs in online learning programs with the help of very well-organized and elaborated design components and principles (instructional designers B, C), and their ease of being understood and practically applied by novice designers (instructional designer A) are mentioned. However, instructional designers pointed out the difficulty in visualizing the learner interface or experience elements (instructional designers B, C) and in following the design procedure considering actual learning processes (instructional designers A, C). These comments on pointing out the weaknesses were considered for the revision, resulting in the offering of technical examples for each principle and the reordering of the sequence of principles.
Final design principles
According to the results of the study, the theoretically crucial components for designing EAs in online learning settings comprise learning activities, learning support, learning interface(LI)/learning eXperience(LX), and learning screen. While learning activities imply content-related design elements which are related to the quality, quantity, difficulty, structure, processes, and types of learning tasks, learning support means supportive design elements which cover instructional interventions and communication with instructors and peers. Whereas LI/LX represents manipulative design elements to navigate the interface objects of an online learning environment, a learning screen represents the visual design elements of typography, images, infographics, graphs/charts, timelines, videos, progress bars, menus, buttons/icons, and characters in an online learning environment (Tables 13, 14).
Finalized design principles for EAs in an online learning environment are “positivity” and “playfulness” for designing the learning activities, “humanity” and “self-disclosure” for designing learning support, “safety” and “personalization” for designing LI/LX, and “affinity” and “intimacy” for designing learning screen design. Specific samples of technical examples are shown as in Table 15.
Discussion and conclusion
This study intended to develop design principles and validate them for improving EAs in an online learning environment which could support students’ emotional competence and facilitate learning by adopting affordance-based design theory. The design principles for EAs of an online learning environment were firstly developed through a comprehensive literature review and then reviewed by experts. After their usability was evaluated by instructional designers, we finalized the eight design principles: positivity, playfulness, humanity, self-disclosure, safety, personalization, affinity, and intimacy. Based on the research results, the importance and implications with respect to the following details are explored.
A theoretical and practical guide for designing an emotionally affordable online learning environment
The development and validation of design in an emotionally affordable online learning environment are conducted by not only analyzing prior literature but also carrying out iterative expert review and usability evaluation by instructional designers. This study provides more systematic guides so that multidimensional advice from researchers and field practitioners in educational technology, educational psychology, computer engineering, HCI, and visual design might be used to design and develop an affordable online learning content and platform. The design principles integrate knowledge from diverse theoretical backgrounds such as educational technology, ecological psychology, affective psychology, educational psychology, neuroscience, cognitive science, affective computing, and HCI, and make that knowledge systematically applicable in practice. Also, the design principles are intricately customized for instructional designers’ use. In accordance with the comments of instructional designers, the order of the design principles is rearranged or moved, taking into account the actual processes of their design and students’ learning. Moreover, the technical examples are included to help them visualize LI/LX and screen design. This hybrid systematic prescription would be a theoretical framework for designing online learning programs, sites, or systems with positive EAs, and it may become practical online learning design tips or guides.
Integrating affective factors into instructional design by taking into account learners’ emotional competence
This study guides instructional designers through the design process from broader instructional perspectives throughout affective domains as well as cognitive domains. Researchers are increasingly concerned to understand the benefits and importance of emotional design of instruction or affective instructional design in online learning environments as well as traditional face-to-face classrooms (Astleitner 2000; Glaser-Zikuda et al. 2005; MacFadden et al. 2005; Nummenmaa and Nummenmaa 2008; Pekrun 2011; Reilly et al. 2012; Rowe 2005). This trend could prevent instructional designers from focusing on only cognitive instructional design elements. Emotional design factors of online learning can contribute to the expansion of an instructional design theory as an emotional design of instruction. EAs in online learning are emotional factors of instructional design for considering online learners’ emotional competence. As the emerging role of new technologies in education is becoming more important, emotionally affordable online learning environments from a learner-centered perspective are needed to help cultivate learners’ positive emotions or/and lower their negative emotions. The suggested design principles for emotionally affordable online learning environments are expected to make online learners perceive and monitor their own and others’ emotions, and express and regulate their own emotions.
Applying an affordance-based approach to develop online learning programs
Dynamic innovation and cutting-edge technologies enable designers and developers to design more affordable and supportable learning environments. For learners to achieve meaningful and successful online learning, emotional support should be provided. This study developed design principles for designing EA-based online learning environments by integrating technical and educational properties and elements from a variety of academic and professional fields on emotions and emotional design. The present study is significant in the sense that it could provide an actual and comprehensive guidance for developing online learning programs, websites, or systems that take emotional aspects into consideration.
In designing and developing technology integrated or enhanced learning environments in the field of instructional design, educational attributes are more emphasized compared to technical attributes (Kabilan et al. 2010; Lee 2014; Nummenmaa and Nummenmaa 2008). The technical affordances which fairly influence interactivity of online learning are often overlooked in the process of its design and development. For high-quality online learning courses, educational attributes and technical attributes must be considered in a well-balanced manner. This study claims that designers and developers of online learning content and platform take an integrative affordance-based approach combining both its technical and educational affordances.
Limitations and recommendations for future research
This study faces limitations that suggest the direction of future research. The research is restricted to the internal validation of design principles through expert review and usability testing. It attempted to bridge theoretical and practical approaches such as the literature review, the expert review, and the usability testing of simulated prototype design tasks. Prior studies mentioned that internal model validation demonstrates the integrity and usefulness of the instructional design components, principles, and other artifacts, while also guiding instructional designers with descriptions of details involved in the design processes. In spite of these advantages, external validation through empirical research should be additionally conducted to examine the effectiveness of the design principles. Future research is needed to implement field evaluations or experimental tests which can investigate learners’ reactions and experiences on an online learning site, content, platform, or program applying the design principles. Furthermore, it is necessary to extract factors that have significant effects of EAs on online learning environments and develop reliable and valid questionnaires through exploratory factor analysis and confirmatory factor analysis. Thus, future research can examine and empirically verify the effectiveness of the design principles through learners’ evaluations of a developed online learning course applying the design principles. In consideration of the stages of learners’ affective development, empirical studies on learners of various age groups are required.
The design principles developed and internally validated through this research have the basic goal of maintaining and enhancing learning by inducing learners’ positive emotions and mitigating negative emotions. However, it has been examined that in certain circumstances, negative emotions such as confusion, discomfort, and frustration produce positive educational effects of facilitating learners’ metacognition and learning. Therefore, it is necessary to focus on appropriately regulating learners’ emotional states or adaptively supporting their emotions for learning instead of simply maximizing their positive emotions and suppressing their negative emotions.
References
Artino, A. R., & Jones, K. D. (2012). Exploring the complex relations between achievement emotions and self-regulated learning behaviours in online learning. The Internet and Higher Education, 15(3), 170–175.
Astleitner, H. (2000). Designing emotionally sound instruction: The FEASP-approach. Journal of Instructional Psychology, 28(4), 209–219.
Breazeal, C., & Brooks, R. (2005). ‘Robot Emotion: A functional perspective’. In J. M. Fellous & M. A. Arbib (Eds.), Who needs emotions? The brain meets the robot, series in affective science (pp. 210–271). New York: Oxford University Press.
Cheng, J. C. (2014). An exploratory study of emotional affordance of a massive open online course. European Journal of Open, Distance and E-learning, 17(1), 43–55.
Chuah, K. M., Chen, C. J., & Teh, C. S. (2011). Emotional affordances in virtual reality-based learning environments: Theoretical and practical consideration. Saarbrücken: Lambert Academic Publishing.
Cole, P. M., Martin, S. E., & Dennis, T. A. (2004). Emotion regulation as a scientific construct: Methodological challenges and directions for child development research. Child Development, 75(2), 317–333.
D’Mello, S., & Graesser, A. (2012). AutoTutor and affective AutoTutor: Learning by talking with cognitively and emotionally intelligent computers that talk back. ACM Transactions on Interactive Intelligent Systems (TiiS), 2(4), 1–23.
Dabbagh, N., & Kitsantas, A. (2004). Supporting self-regulation in student-centered web-based learning environments. International Journal on E-learning, 3(1), 40–47.
Davis, L. L. (1992). Instrument review: Getting the most from your panel of experts. Applied Nursing Research, 5. 194–197.
Demir, E. (2008). The field of design and emotion: Concepts, arguments, tools and current issues. METU JFA, 1(1), 135–152.
Desmet, P. M. A. (2002). Designing emotions. Unpublished Doctoral Dissertation, Delft University of Technology.
Eisenberg, N., & Spinrad, T. L. (2004). Emotion-related regulation: Sharpening the definition. Child Development, 75(2), 334–339.
Ekman, P. (1994). All emotions are basic. In P. Ekman & R. Davidson (Eds.), The nature of emotion: Fundamental questions (pp. 15–19). New York: Oxford University Press.
Garner, P. W. (2010). Emotional competence and its influences on teaching and learning. Educational Psychology Review, 22(3), 297–321.
Gaver, W. W. (1996). Situating action II: Affordances for interaction: The social is material for design. Ecological Psychology, 8(2), 111–129.
Gay, V. P. (1992). Freud on sublimation: Reconsiderations. Albany: State University of New York Press.
Gibson, J. J. (1979). The ecological approach to visual perception. Boston: Houghton Mifflin.
Glaser-Zikuda, M., Fub, S., Laukenmann, M., Metz, K., & Randler, C. (2005). Promoting students’ emotions and achievement-instructional design and evaluation of the ECOLE-approach. Learning and Instruction, 15, 481–495.
Grant, J. S., & Davis, L. L. (1997). Selection and use of content experts for instrument development. Research in Nursing & Health, 20(3), 269–274.
Hartson, R., & Pyla, P. (2012). The UX book: Process and guidelines for ensuring a quality user experience. Waltham: Elsevier/Morgan Kaufmann.
Hassenzahl, M., & Tractinsky, N. (2006). User experience-a research agenda. Behaviour & Information Technology, 25(2), 91–97.
Haynes, S. N., Richard, D., & Kubany, E. S. (1995). Content validity in psychological assessment: A functional approach to concepts and methods. Psychological assessment, 7(3), 238–247.
Holmberg, B. (1989). Theory and practice of distance education. London: Routledge.
Holmberg, B. (2003). A theory of distance education based on empathy. In Handbook of distance education. Mahwah: Lawrence Erlbaum
Izard, C. E. (1991). Psychology of emotions. New York: Plenum.
Järvelä, S., Hurme, T. R., & Järvenoja, H. (2011). Self-regulation and motivation in computer-supported collaborative learning environments. Learning Across Sites: New Tools, Infrastructures and Practices, 330–345.
Jordan, P. (2000). Designing pleasurable products. An introduction to the new human factors. London: Taylor & Francis.
Juutinen, S., & Saariluoma, P. (2010). Emotional obstacles for e-learning: A user psychological analysis. European Journal of Open, Distance and E-Learning. Retrieved from http://www.eurodl.org/materials/contrib/2010/Juutinen_Saariluoma.pdf.
Kabilan, M. K., Ahmad, N., & Abidin, M. J. Z. (2010). Facebook: An online environment for learning of English in institutions of higher education? The Internet and Higher Education, 13(4), 179–187.
Kirschner, P. A., Strijbos, J. W., Kreijns, K., & Beers, P. J. (2004). Designing electronic collaborative learning environments. Educational Technology Research and Development, 52(3), 47–66.
Kort, B., Reilly, R., & Picard, R. W. (2001). An affective model of interplay between emotions and learning: Reengineering educational pedagogy-building a learning companion. Paper presented at the Proceedings IEEE International Conference on Advanced Learning Technologies (pp. 43–46).
Kreijns, K., Kirschner, P. A., & Jochems, W. (2002). The sociability of computer-supported collaborative learning environments. Educational Technology & Society, 5(1), 8–22.
Kytta, M. (2003). Children in Outdoor Contexts: Affordances and Independent Mobility in the Assessment of Environment Child Friendliness. Unpublished Doctoral Dissertation. Finland: Helsinki University of Technology.
LeDoux, J. E. (1998). The emotional brain: The mysterious underpinnings of emotional life. New York: Simon and Schuster.
Lee, I. (2014). Influence of experienced emotion and emotional regulation to learning activity and learning achievement in synchronous participative environment: Focusing on Facebook environment. Journal of Educational Technology, 30(3), 413–442.
Lim, Y. K., Donaldson, J., Jung, H., Kunz, B., Royer, D., Ramalingam, S., et al. (2008). Emotional experience and interaction design. In C. P. R. Beale (Ed.), Affect and emotion in human-computer interaction (pp. 116–129). Berlin: Springer.
Lynn, M. R. (1986). Determination and quantification of content validity. Nursing Research, 35(6), 382–386.
MacFadden, R. J., Herie, M., Maiter, S., & Dumbrill, G. (2005). Achieving high touch in high tech: A constructivist, emotionally-oriented model of web-based instruction. Journal of Teaching in Social Work, 25(1/2), 21–44.
MacLean, P. D. (1990). The triune brain in evolution: Role in paleocerebral functions. Berlin: Springer.
McGrenere, J., & Ho, N. W. (2000). Affordances: Clarifying and evolving a concept. Paper presented at the Proceedings of graphics interface.
Miller, C., Veletsianos, G., & Hooper, S. (2006). Demystifying aesthetics: An exploration of emotional design. Paper presented at the Proceedings of the 2006 computers and advanced technology in education (CATE) conference..
Morie, J. F., Williams, J., Dozois, A., & Luigi, D. P. (2005). The fidelity of feel: Emotional affordance in virtual environments. Paper presented at the Proceedings of the 11th international conference on human-computer interaction.
Norman, D. A. (2002). The design of everyday things (2nd ed.). New York: Basic books.
Norman, D. A. (2004). Emotional design. New York: Basic Books.
Norman, D. A. (2007). The design of future things. New York: Basic Books.
Norman, D. A., & Ortony, A. (2003). Designers and users: Two perspectives on emotion and design. Paper presented at the Symposium on foundations of interaction design.
Nummenmaa, M., & Nummenmaa, L. (2008). University students’ emotions, interest and activities in a web-based learning environment. British Journal of Educational Psychology, 78(1), 163–178.
O’Regan, K. (2003). Emotion and E-learning. Journal of Asynchronous Learning Networks, 7(3), 78–92.
Park, S. R., Nah, F. F. H., DeWester, D., Eschenbrenner, B., & Jeon, S. (2008). Virtual world affordances: Enhancing brand value. Journal for Virtual Worlds Research, 1(2), 1–18.
Park, T., Lim, C., & Kim, K. (2012). A study on developing emoticon supporting tool enabling emotional affordances in digital textbook mediated communication environments. The Journal of Educational Information and Media, 18(2), 199–225.
Pekrun, R. (2011). Emotions as drivers of learning and cognitive development. In R. A. Calvo & S. D’Mello (Eds.), New perspectives on affect and learning technologies (pp. 23–39). New York: Springer.
Pekrun, R., Elliot, A. J., & Maier, M. A. (2009). Achievement goals and achievement emotions: Testing a model of their joint relations with academic performance. Journal of Educational Psychology, 101(1), 115–135.
Pekrun, R., Goetz, T., Titz, W., & Perry, R. P. (2002). Academic emotions in students’ self-regulated learning and achievement: A program of qualitative and quantitative research. Educational Psychologist, 37, 91–106.
Prendinger, H., & Ishizuka, M. (2005). The empathic companion: A character-based interface that addresses users’ affective states. Applied Artificial Intelligence, 19(3–4), 267–285.
Reilly, J. R., Gallagher-Lepak, S., & Killion, C. (2012). Me and my computer”: Emotional factors in online learning. Nursing Education Perspectives, 33(2), 100–105.
Rha, I., & Sung, E. (2005). Emotional expression factors and the dimensions of interactive messages in online learning community. Journal of Lifelong Learning Society, 1(1), 49–70.
Rha, I., Choi, Y., Lee, J., & Kim, Y. (2013). Multidimensional analysis of emotional affordance of digital texts. Paper presented at the proceedings of selected papers at the 2013 spring conference of educational technology (ICET) (pp. 291–304).
Richey, R. C., & Klein, J. D. (2007). Design and development research: Methods, strategies and issues. Mahwah: Lawrence Erlbaum.
Rodrigo, M. M. T., & De Baker, R. S. (2011). Comparing the incidence and persistence of learners’ affect during interactions with different educational software packages. In R. A. Calvo & S. D’Mello (Eds.), New perspectives on affect and learning technologies (pp. 183–200). New York: Springer.
Rowe, J. (2005). Since feeling is first: Narrative inquiry toward understanding emotion in online teaching and learning. Unpublished Doctoral Dissertation, University of Wisconsin-Madison.
Rubio, D. M., Berg-Weger, M., Tebb, S. S., Lee, E. S., & Rauch, S. (2003). Objectifying content validity: Conducting a content validity study in social work research. Social Work Research, 27(2), 94–104.
Salovey, P., Mayer, J. D., Goldman, S. L., Turvey, C., & Palfai, T. (1995). Emotional attention, clarity, and repair: Exploring emotional intelligence using the Trait Meta-Mood Scale. In J. W. Pennebaker (Ed.), Emotion, disclosure, and health (pp. 125–154). Washington, D.C.: American Psychological Association.
Sanders, E. B. N. (1992). Converging perspectives: Product development research for the 1990s. Design Management Journal, 3(4), 49–54.
Scherer, K. R. (1993). Studying the emotion-antecedent appraisal process: An expert system approach. Cognition & Emotion, 7(3–4), 325–355.
Scherer, K. R. (2009). The dynamic architecture of emotion: Evidence for the component process model. Cognition & Emotion, 23(7),1307–1351.
Schutte, N. S., Malouff, J. M., Price, I., Walter, S., Burke, G., & Wilkinson, C. (2008). Person-situation interaction in adaptive emotional functioning. Current Psychology, 27, 102–111.
Seif El-Nasr, M., Morie, J., & Drachen, A. (2011). A scientific look at the design of aesthetically and emotionally engaging interactive entertainment experiences. In D. Gokcay & G. Yildirim (Eds.), Affective computing and interaction: Psychological, cognitive and neuroscientific perspectives (pp. 281–307). Hershey: Information Science Publishing.
Sparrow, T., & Knight, A. (2006). Applied Emotional Intelligence: The Importance of Attitudes in Developing Emotional Intelligence (Vol. 25). Mississauga, Canada: John Wiley & Sons, Inc.
Tiger, L. (1992). The pursuit of pleasure. Boston: Little Brown and Company.
Tracey, M. W. (2001). The construction and validation of an instructional systems design model incorporating multiple intelligences. Unpublished Doctoral Dissertation, Wayne State University.
Van Gorp, T., & Adams, E. (2012). Design for emotion. Boston: Morgan Kaufmann/Elsevier.
Whipp, J. L., & Chiarelli, S. (2004). Self-regulation in a web-based course: A case study. Educational Technology Research and Development, 52(4), 5–21.
World Economic Forum. (2015). New vision for education: Unlocking the potential of technology. Colony/Geneva: World Economic Forum.
Wosnitza, M., & Volet, S. (2005). Origin, direction and impact of emotions in social online learning. Learning and Instruction, 15(5), 449–464.
Zembylas, M., Theodorou, M., & Pavlakis, A. (2008). The role of emotions in the experience of online learning: Challenges and opportunities. Educational Media International, 45(2), 107–117.
Zhang, P. (2008). Motivational affordances: Fundamental reasons for ICT design and use. Communications of the ACM (CACM), 51(11), 145–147.
Zurloni, V., Mantovani, F., Mortillaro, M., Vescovo, A., & Anolli, L. (2008). Addressing emotions within e-learning systems. In T. T. Kidd & H. Song (Eds.), Handbook of research on instructional systems and technology (pp. 803–816). Hershey: IGI Global.
Author information
Authors and Affiliations
Corresponding author
Rights and permissions
About this article
Cite this article
Park, T., Lim, C. Design principles for improving emotional affordances in an online learning environment. Asia Pacific Educ. Rev. 20, 53–67 (2019). https://doi.org/10.1007/s12564-018-9560-7
Received:
Revised:
Accepted:
Published:
Issue Date:
DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/s12564-018-9560-7