Computers and Education: Artificial Intelligence 2 (2021) 100006

Contents lists available at ScienceDirect

Computers and Education: Artificial Intelligence

journal homepage: www.elsevier.com/locate/caeai

Modeling the structural relationship among primary students’ motivation to

learn artificial intelligence
Pei-Yi Lin a, Ching-Sing Chai b, Morris Siu-Yung Jong b, *, Yun Dai b, Yanmei Guo c, Jianjun Qin d
a
Department of Education, National Kaohsiung Normal University, Taiwan
b
Department of Curriculum and Instruction, The Chinese University of Hong Kong, Hong Kong
c
Teacher Training and Development Centre of Dongcheng District Beijing, Beijing, China
d
School of Mechanical-Electronic and Vehicle Engineering, Beijing University of Civil Engineering and Architecture, Beijing, 100044, China

A R T I C L E I N F O A B S T R A C T

Keywords: The recent advances in artificial intelligence (AI) present both challenges and opportunities for educational
Artificial intelligence practitioners. A new AI curriculum has been developed and piloted in many primary schools in Beijing, China. The
ARCS present study had two aims: (1) to test the factor structure of students’ motivation to learn AI and (2) to examine
Intrinsic motivation
possible gender differences in students’ motivation to learn AI. This online questionnaire–based research recruited
Career motivation
Gender difference
420 primary students from the piloting schools. Structural equation modeling was employed to test a hypothe-
sized model comprising six motivational factors and strategies: (1) intrinsic motivation, (2) career motivation, (3)
attention, (4) relevance, (5) confidence, and (6) satisfaction. The study discovered intrinsic motivation to have the
strongest influence on career motivation, while the motivational strategies of attention, relevance, and confidence
also influenced career motivation. Additionally, compared with female students, male students scored higher in
terms of motivational factors and strategies. The findings serve as a reference for the future development of AI
curricula and instruction.

1. Introduction Currently, AI as a discipline and associated studies on learners’ per-

The Oxford English Living Dictionary defines artificial intelligence
(AI) as a branch of computer science that concerns computer systems that
can perform tasks that usually require human intelligence. As a booming
technology, AI has been revolutionizing the economic and societal sec-
tors, including the field of education (Shang et al., 2006). AI de-
velopments in education primarily include building adaptive systems,
personalization, and intelligent tutoring systems (Zawacki-Richter et al.,
2019). Recent AI research has introduced new teaching tools and
methods of learning that focus on providing human–AI interaction
(Starcic, 2019). Currently, ideas such as AI-assisted language learning (Fu
et al., 2020), AI adaptive instructional guidance in a mixed-reality setting
(Yannier et al., 2020), and pedagogical agents to foster students’ moti-
vation (Veletsianos and Russell, 2014) are being tested and launched.
The ongoing research on AI, however, has focused on systems develop-
ment and application. There is a lack of studies adopting educational
framework to investigate students learning motivation among AI learners
(Chen et al., 2020).
ceptions of learning AI is largely confined to computer science and sci-
ence, technology, engineering, and mathematics (STEM) departments in
higher education institutes (Geng et al., 2019; Zawacki-Richter et al.,
2019). However, given the growing importance of AI technology, edu-
cators are advocating for AI to be included in elementary and secondary
school curricula (Knox, 2020). The associated curriculum questions that
arise such as when to educate the young, how to design the curricula,
what to include for different levels of students, and the effects of such
decisions warrant further research. Additionally, AI-related elements
may cultivate teachers’ and students’ digital competency in an
AI-saturated world. Certain initiatives, such as promoting computational
thinking, have been taken to expand K-12 students’ digital learning ex-
periences, coding ability, and algorithmic problem-solving ability with
computers (So et al., 2020). However, AI learning in the K-12 setting is
still in its nascent stage. Incorporating new technologies implies new
pedagogical ideas. It is suggested to evaluate levels of motivations among
AI learners when incorporating AI-technologies in K-12 classroom setting
(Hwang et al., 2020).

* Corresponding author.
E-mail addresses: pylin@nknu.edu.tw (P.-Y. Lin), cschai@cuhk.edu.hk (C.-S. Chai), mjong@cuhk.edu.hk (M.S.-Y. Jong), yundai@cuhk.edu.hk (Y. Dai), guoyanmei_
0907@163.com (Y. Guo), qinjianjun@bucea.edu.cn (J. Qin).

https://doi.org/10.1016/j.caeai.2020.100006
Received 25 October 2020; Received in revised form 12 December 2020; Accepted 13 December 2020
2666-920X/© 2020 The Author(s). Published by Elsevier Ltd. This is an open access article under the CC BY-NC-ND license (http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-
nc-nd/4.0/).
P.-Y. Lin et al.
Motivation is directly related to the development of students’ atti-
tudes and persistent efforts toward achieving a goal (Ryan and Deci,
2000). It is an important determinant of learning performances and
career decisions. Therefore, this study explored students’ intrinsic
motivation that drives their participation in AI learning for reasons such
as challenge, curiosity, and mastery. Ideally, harnessing students’
intrinsic motivation during instruction can facilitate their career moti-
vation in the long term, because people tend to choose a career based on
their inherent interests and the value they attach to a career. However,
studies have reported that students’ intrinsic motivation to engage in
school-related activities and set career goals declines when they advance
to higher grades (Scherrer and Preckel, 2019). Therefore, to sustain
students’ learning interest in the long term, curriculum designers must
address students’ motivation needs (e.g., strategies to capture students’
attention and engage them in learning tasks) (Ryan and Deci, 2020). The
successful application of Keller’s (1987) motivational concepts of atten-
tion, relevance, confidence, and satisfaction (ARCS) across numerous
instructional settings highlight the positive influence student motivation
has on their learning (for example, see Ucar & Kumtepe [2020] and Jong
[2020]; for a review, see Li & Keller [2018]). Hence, the ARCS motiva-
tional model has the potential to serve as a pedagogical framework for
delivering satisfying learning experiences, thereby sustaining students’
motivation to learn AI. Additionally, this sustained motivation may lead
to some students developing long-term career aspirations in the field of
AI. Therefore, we considered the relationships between six constructs
(intrinsic motivation, career motivation, attention, relevance, confi-
dence, and satisfaction), and used a structural equation modeling (SEM)
to examine the predictive relations among in an AI curriculum imple-
mented in selected Beijing primary schools. There are two research
questions guided the current research: (1) Are the hypothesized re-
lationships in the motivational model supported? (2) Do any gender
differences influence the measured variables?
2. Literature review
2.1. Motivation for AI learning
Research in recent decades has strongly evidenced the role motiva-
tion plays in enhancing students’ willingness to learn (e.g., Chai et al.,
2020; Jong, 2014; Jong et al., 2006; Lan et al., 2018; Pintrich, 2003). As
highlighted by Ryan and Deci (2000) and Elliott and Dweck (1988),
intrinsic motivation and career motivation can universally explain how
people’s self-motivated beliefs direct their goal-oriented behaviors.
People feel intrinsically motivated when they are interested in and enjoy
a learning activity and are satisfied by it (Ryan and Deci, 2000). Studies
have highlighted that intrinsic motivation directs academic goal-setting
and sustains students’ engagement in relevant activities, which in turn
results in the achievement of intended learning outcomes and career
plans (Froiland and Worrell, 2016; Jong et al., 2010; Lauermann et al.,
2017).
Career motivation stems from students engaging in tasks and activ-
ities of a particular subject when they perceive high value of a future
career and successful performance in that subject (Eccles and Wigfield,
2020; Glynn et al., 2009). For example, students interested in pursuing
STEM-related careers have been found to be highly motivated to learn
science upon recognizing its utilitarian value (Rozek et al., 2015).
Conversely, students disinterested in science-related careers were poorly
motivated to learn STEM subjects (Rosenzweig and Wigfield, 2016).
Therefore, educators who wish to cultivate a considerably large number
of future AI engineers must develop strategies to cultivate students’
career motivation toward the field of AI. To this end, building students’
initial interest in AI through motivation-based instructional design may
be beneficial.
Hidi and Harackiewicz (2000) argued that interests and goals can
cultivate both intrinsic and extrinsic motivation in people. Accordingly,
this study assumed that in the initial stages, students learn AI because
2
Computers and Education: Artificial Intelligence 2 (2021) 100006
they are curious about it or find the topic interesting. AI is a novel
advancement, and news such as AI beating human experts in the Go game
is intriguing to many. However, developing students’ initial interest in AI
through sound instructional design is critical to increase students’
knowledge of the subject matter and to help them to decide whether they
should continue learning the subject in the long run. Students must invest
sustained efforts to confidently master the increasingly complex knowl-
edge in the field of AI. Additionally, they must continuously assess the
subject’s relevance to their career goals (Authors, in press). When stu-
dents’ initial interest is enhanced through a well-designed curriculum,
their initial motivation may likely evolve into a long-term career choice.
2.2. Motivational strategies to learn AI: the ARCS model approach
In terms of pedagogy, the ARCS model provides instructors with
guidelines for designing and developing strategies to motivate student
learning (Keller and Suzuki, 2004; Wah, 2015). The model requires
curriculum designers to adopt appropriate instructional strategies to
attract and maintain students’ attention to the instruction because
attention is a prerequisite for information processing, which in turn leads
to understanding. Understanding a subject could build students’ confi-
dence and help them recognize the relevance of the subject matter to
their goals. These three factors (i.e., attention, relevance, and confidence)
of motivational design lead to satisfying learning experiences. When
appropriately designed and implemented, the ARCS model’s four factors
maintain students’ continuous interest and learning motivation (Keller,
2010). Past and recent studies have employed the ARCS model to
examine the motivational effects of various instructional designs, espe-
cially in emerging technology-integrated learning environments (e.g.,
STEM learning, Julia and Antolí, 2019; ubiquitous learning, Chen and
Chen, 2018; virtual reality, Villena Taranilla, C ozar-Gutierrez,
Gonzalez-Calero and L opez Cirugeda, 2019; AR-based ubiquitous
learning systems, Huang et al., 2019). These studies have all highlighted
the role of attention, relevance, and confidence strategies play in
improving students’ learning satisfaction and maintaining their motiva-
tion when the ARCS model is properly integrated into the lesson design.
Therefore, this study attempted to foster students’ motivation to learn
AI through ARCS motivational strategies by attracting and sustaining
students’ attention to the learning content (attention) (Hung et al.,
2013); comprehending and establishing a relationship between the
content and the students (relevance) (Keller and Suzuki, 2004); facili-
tating positive learning experiences and building confidence in a
technology-based environment (confidence) (Hong et al., 2017); and
promoting students’ satisfaction with the learning procedure or outcome
(satisfaction) (Keller, 2010).
Previous studies have conducted surveys to validate the ARCS model
and have explored the interaction among its constituting factors in
different educational settings (e.g., a college-level course, Huang et al.,
2006; education for senior citizens, Loorbach et al., 2015). Their findings
indicate the effectiveness of motivational strategies in enhancing stu-
dents’ motivation. However, the ARCS model does not seem to have been
employed to examine primary students’ motivation to learn AI through
SEM. Therefore, a contextualized study with the ARCS motivational
strategies was designed to validate primary students’ motivation for
learning AI.
2.3. Gender differences
Gender differences in technology-based learning have emerged as an
issue that merits investigation (Cai et al., 2017). Research has provided
different explanations for STEM gender gap in students’ motivated
achievement-related choices (e.g., Lee et al., 2019; Wang et al., 2015;
Wang and Degol, 2017), including gender differences in psychological
processes (e.g., motivations, Degol et al., 2018), social-cognitive career
theory (e.g., Lent et al., 2018), developmental processes (e.g.,
self-theories, Fisher et al., 2020). The current research focused on the
P.-Y. Lin et al.
psychological process (i.e., motivations) for improving students’ career
motivation.
Research has indicated male students had higher intrinsic motivation
in pursuing STEM career in future (e.g., Degol et al., 2018; Moe et al.,
2018). In addition, incorporating AI technology in a course implies new
instructions. Students perceived teachers’ instructional efforts to
improve and maintain students motivation could impact how students
motivation change during the instruction (Cheng et al., 2020; Young
et al., 2018). Notable gender gaps in STEM courses have been observed in
mathematics and the physical sciences and related to students
self-confidence (e.g., Litzler et al., 2014), in programming experience and
related to students STEM motivation (e.g., Master et al., 2017).
AI is a sub-discipline of computer engineering. The design of AI ap-
plications depends on programming, scientific thinking, and mathemat-
ical algorithms, which explains why male and female students may react
differently to learning AI. Hence, an empirical examination of the po-
tential gender differences that may underlie students’ motivational fac-
tors is necessary.
2.4. Purpose of the present study
As suggested by the literature review, motivational factors are
multifaceted, and an examination of these motivational factors in the
context of AI learning in primary schools is essential for constructing AI
curricula with a motivational design. Students with high intrinsic moti-
vation usually show higher engagement during learning and achieve-
ment, that predicts career orentation (Froiland and Worrell, 2016; Ryan
and Deci, 2000). Within the ARCS model, Keller (2010) explains that
instructional strategies that promotes student attention, perceptions of
content relevance, and confidence, are important predictors of satisfac-
tion. Therefore, this study proposed a model to explain the relationships
between intrinsic motivation, career motivation, and the ARCS motiva-
tional components in a newly designed AI curriculum. Accordingly, our
model examined the hypotheses for the SEM proposed below:
Fig. 1 illustrates the study’s theoretical model. The hypotheses (H)
tested in the model include the following:
H1. Intrinsic motivation (IM) predicts career motivation (CM).
H2. IM predicts attention.
H3. IM predicts confidence.
H4. IM predicts relevance.
H5. Attention predicts confidence.
H6. Attention predicts relevance.
H7. Attention predicts satisfaction.
H8. Attention predicts CM.
H9. Confidence predicts relevance.
Fig. 1. The theoretical model proposed in this paper.
3
Computers and Education: Artificial Intelligence 2 (2021) 100006
H10. Confidence predicts satisfaction.
H11. Confidence predicts CM.
H12. Relevance predicts satisfaction.
H13. Relevance predicts CM.
H14. Satisfaction predicts CM.
3. Method
3.1. Participants
Through convenience sampling, 420 students (male, 50.7%; female,
49.3%) were recruited from primary schools in Beijing, China. The par-
ticipants comprised fourth to sixth graders, with an average age of 10.23
(SD ¼ 0.75) years. All recruited students took an AI course, and the mean
time spent by them on AI-related activities was 6.69 (SD ¼ 5.32) hours.
At the end of their AI course, they were invited by their teachers to
voluntarily participate in a 15-min online survey.
3.2. The instructional context
The AI curriculum taught in the selected schools was based on a new
textbook (Qin et al., 2019) issued by the local education authority.
Through class observations and textbook content, teachers taught the AI
course through direct instruction followed by hands-on activities related
to the knowledge and applications taught. Through this course, students
acquired basic AI knowledge, including the meaning of data, data
collection and processing, and the outputs generated, and learned about
AI applications, including facial and voice recognition, content recom-
mendation, and machine learning. A device similar to Micro:bit with a
Chinese coding environment supported students’ AI learning.
Supported by classroom observations, a teaching design based on the
ARCS motivational components was implemented in the teaching pro-
cess. The motivational design strategies focused on the following: (1)
attention: AI-related activities that demonstrate the usefulness of AI such
as speedy object recognition; students experienced using AI applications
such as a poetry generator; (2) relevance: students were asked to recall
personal experiences related to the content being learned; AI applications
that help them complete inquiry tasks, such as flower recognition apps;
(3) confidence: the teacher encouraged the students to share their
learning experiences to achieve the course’s learning goals and gave
encouraging feedback; (4) satisfaction: the teacher motivated the stu-
dents through verbal praises and encouraging feedback. Generally, the
lessons were well paced with sufficient challenging coding activities that
were conducted under the guidance of teachers.
3.3. Instrument
An instrument was designed to examine students’ motivation to learn
AI using a 4-point Likert scale (1 ¼ strongly disagree; 4 ¼ strongly agree).
Additionally, the survey included items regarding the participating stu-
dents’ demographic information, namely gender, age, grade level, and
hours spent on AI learning and projects. The instrument items were
adopted from several sources: (1) the three items of intrinsic motivation
were adapted from the Motivated Strategies for Learning Questionnaire
(MSLQ) (Pintrich et al., 1991) (e.g., In the AI class, I prefer lesson ma-
terials that arouse my curiosity, even if they are difficult to learn); (2) for
career motivation (three items), two items were adapted from Glynn
et al. (2009) and one was adapted from Vennix, den Brok, and Taconis
(2018) (e.g., I think that learning AI can help my future career); (3)
attention was examined through three self-constructed items (e.g., I
actively pay attention to AI applications); (4) the four items of relevance
were adapted from Keller (2010) (e.g., I am aware that AI technology will
change the world); (5) confidence was assessed through two items
modified from Keller (2010) and one item modified from the MSLQ
P.-Y. Lin et al. Computers and Education: Artificial Intelligence 2 (2021) 100006

(Pintrich et al., 1991) (e.g., I am taking this AI class because I believe that Table 2
I can succeed if I try hard enough); and (6) the three items for satisfaction Standardized and unstandardized coefficients of CFA.
were modified from Keller (2010) (e.g., I feel satisfied with what I am Observed Standardized Unstandardized Standard Critical
gaining from the AI class). The finalized instrument was reviewed by four variable estimate estimate error ratio (p-
researchers who specialize in the fields of curriculum and instruction and value)
psychology, and 12 primary school teachers of the AI curriculum. Table 1 Intrinsic motivation
presents the means, standard deviations, and Cronbach’s alphas of the 1 0.88 1.00
composite variables. 2 0.84 0.98 0.04 22.03***
3 0.81 0.95 0.05 20.88***
Career motivation
1 0.84 1.00
3.4. Data analysis 2 0.76 0.96 0.06 17.45***
3 0.80 1.01 0.05 18.61***
Prior to the analyses, tests of univariate and multivariate normality Attention
were conducted to ensure that the model was acceptable. Subsequently, 1 0.90 1.00
2 0.86 0.98 0.04 24.29***
the data were analyzed guided by the study’s research questions. 3 0.60 0.73 0.05 13.73***
Univariate normality was tested in accordance with Kline’s (2005) Relevance
criteria. The values of skewness (ranging from 1.65 to 1.00) and 1 0.67 1.00
kurtosis (ranging from 0.68 to 3.15) (see Table 1) indicated that the 2 0.86 1.16 0.08 15.27***
3 0.84 1.13 0.08 14.89***
dataset was normally distributed following the recommended value of
4 0.76 1.21 0.09 13.79***
under |3| and |10|, respectively. Mardia’s coefficient was used to Confidence
examine the multivariate normality of the measurement model (Raykov 1 0.82 1.00
and Marcoulides, 2008). Mardia’s coefficient obtained from the data was 2 0.83 0.86 0.04 19.45***
329.651, which was less than the recommended value of p (pþ2) ¼ 19 3 0.89 1.01 0.05 21.01***
Satisfaction
(19 þ 2) ¼ 399 (where p is the number of observed variables). Hence, the 1 0.82 1.00
model’s multivariate normality was supported. 2 0.88 0.99 0.05 21.30***
For the first research question, AMOS (version 23.0) was employed 3 0.85 0.99 0.05 20.26***
using maximum likelihood estimation to test whether the measurement Note. *** p < .001.
model’s fitness indices χ2/df (<5.0), GFI(>0.90), TLI(>0.90),
CFI(>0.90), RMSEA(<0.08), SRMR(<0.05) were acceptable. Thereafter,
demonstrated to influence the examined constructs, we decided to
SEM was used to examine the hypothetical model.
include them in the SEM analyses. As noted in Table 3, each subscale’s
For the second research question, instead of using a t-test and analysis
convergent validity was satisfied by the following criteria: the composite
of variance (ANOVA) to make cross-group comparisons, we followed
reliability (CR) (>0.7) and the average variance extracted (AVE) (>0.5)
Hong et al.’s (2003) recommendation to use the latent mean analysis
of each sub-scale (Hair et al., 2010). The discriminant validity indices
approach for latent variables that cannot be directly measured. Mea-
(see Table 3) were computed on the basis of the AVE values, and they
surement invariance (i.e., configural, metric, and scalar invariance tests)
confirmed that the discriminant validity was satisfied (Fornell and
is a prerequisite for making comparisons across groups using latent mean
Larcker, 1981).
analysis (Hong et al., 2003). Finally, measurement invariance tests were
conducted to determine the latent mean differences across groups
(Cheung and Rensvold, 2002). 4.2. Test of the structural model

4. Results
4.1. Test of the measurement model
Confirmatory factor analysis (CFA) was conducted to test the mea-
surement model. The overall model fit was assessed using six goodness-
of-fit indices: χ2/df ¼ 2.186, GFI ¼ 0.930, TLI ¼ 0.966, CFI ¼ 0.973,
RMSEA ¼ 0.053, SRMR ¼ 0.032 (Hair et al., 2010). The results confirmed
that the survey items had satisfactory construct validity in the AI learning
context. Table 2 presents the standardized and unstandardized parameter
estimates. All item parameters are statistically significant at the p < .001
level.
Pearson’s correlations were computed to investigate the relationships
among the motivational factors to serve as a foundation for SEM. The
students’ perceptions of motivational factors were significantly corre-
lated (r ¼ 0.58–0.75; p < .001; see Table 3). Given the variables were
Table 1
Descriptive statistics of measured variables.
After confirming the fit of the measurement model, the full model
with hypothesized relationships was statistically tested to perform a path
analysis using maximum likelihood estimation. The hypothesized model
had good fit: χ2/df ¼ 2.170, GFI ¼ 0.930, TLI ¼ 0.966, CFI ¼ 0.973,
RMSEA ¼ 0.053, SRMR ¼ 0.032 (Hair et al., 2010). The standardized
path coefficients for the research model are presented in Fig. 2 and
Table 4. The results indicated that people’s intrinsic motivation is the
strongest predictor of career motivation (H1; β ¼ 0.37, p < .001).
Additionally, intrinsic motivation was found to predict attention (H2; β
¼ 0.86, p < .001), confidence (H3; β ¼ 0.46, p < .001), and relevance
(H4; β ¼ 0.33, p < .001). Attention improved confidence (H5; β ¼ 0.37, p
< .001), and was related to relevance (H6; β ¼ 0.36, p < .001), and
promoted career motivation (H8; β ¼ 0.25, p < .05); however, attention
did not predict satisfaction directly (H7; β ¼ 0.11, p > .05). In our study,
confidence directly predicted relevance (H9; β ¼ 0.22, p < .01), satis-
faction (H10; β ¼ 0.24, p < .001), and career motivation (H11; β ¼ 0.17,
p < .05). Relevance predicted satisfaction (H12; β ¼ 0.56, p < .001) and
career motivation (H13; β ¼ 0.26, p < .01). Satisfaction did not predict
career motivation directly (H14; β ¼ 0.11, p > .05).

Variable Mean SD α Skewness Kurtosis

4.3. Invariance tests
Intrinsic motivation 3.33 0.73 0.88 1.07 0.78
Career motivation 3.30 0.72 0.85 1.06 1.03
Attention 3.38 0.68 0.82 1.00 0.68 Several invariance tests were performed before conducting the latent
Relevance 3.42 0.65 0.86 1.33 1.95 mean analysis. First, configural invariance was assessed without con-
Confidence 3.41 0.68 0.88 1.24 1.55 straining equality across the groups (i.e., male and female). The results of
Satisfaction 3.46 0.67 0.89 1.65 3.15
goodness-of-fit (χ2 ¼ 617.496, df ¼ 274, χ2/df ¼ 2.254, CFI ¼ 0.943,

4
P.-Y. Lin et al. Computers and Education: Artificial Intelligence 2 (2021) 100006

Table 3
Correlation analyses of the relationships among the measured variables.
CR AVE 1 2 3 4 5 6

1. Intrinsic motivation 0.88 0.71 (0.84)

2. Career motivation 0.84 0.64 0.70 (0.8)
3. Attention 0.84 0.64 0.67 0.66 (0.8)
4. Relevance 0.86 0.62 0.63 0.73 0.65 (0.79)
5. Confidence 0.88 0.71 0.75 0.70 0.69 0.65 (0.84)
6. Satisfaction 0.89 0.73 0.70 0.67 0.65 0.58 0.72 (0.85)

Note. All correlations were statistically significant at p < .001.

Diagonal elements are the square roots of the AVE; off-diagonal elements are the correlation estimates.

4.4. Latent mean analysis

The latent mean analysis was performed by constraining the male

group’s latent means to be zero. This was done to use the male group as a
reference group for comparison with the female group. The latent mean
represented a good model fit (χ2 ¼ 668.849, df ¼ 300, χ2/df ¼ 2.229,
CFI ¼ 0.939, RMSEA ¼ 0.054). Table 6 presents the results of the latent
variables with significant gender differences for the factors of intrinsic
motivation, career motivation, attention, relevance, confidence, and
satisfaction. Overall, male students had higher mean values for all factors
than female students did.

Table 5
Summary of invariance tests.
Fig. 2. Structural model of the measured factors. Note. * p < .05; ** p < .01; ***
p < .001. X2 Df X2/df p- CFI △CFI RMSEA
value

RMSEA ¼ 0.055) in the configural invariance test (see Table 5) indicated Configural 617.496 274 2.254 .000 0.943 0.055
invariance
that the structural patterns were similar across groups. This implied that
Metric 651.887 287 2.271 .000 0.939 0.004 0.055
the configural model could serve as a baseline for comparison with other invariance
restricted models in the invariance tests. Subsequently, metric invariance Scalar 687.404 306 2.246 .000 0.937 0.002 0.055
was assessed by constraining the factor loadings to be equal across invariance
groups. The results demonstrated a good model fit: χ2 ¼ 651.887, df ¼
287, χ2/df ¼ 2.271, CFI ¼ 0.939, RMSEA ¼ 0.055. Finally, a scalar
invariance test was performed by constraining the intercepts across Table 6
groups to be invariant. The model fit indices showed that χ2 ¼ 687.404, Tests of latent mean differences.
df ¼ 306, χ2/df ¼ 2.246, CFI ¼ 0.937, RMSEA ¼ 0.055. Because the χ2 Differences in latent mean C.R.
test is highly sensitive to sample sizes (Quintana and Maxwell, 1999), we Intrinsic motivation 0.30 4.17***
adopted the criteria recommended by Cheung and Rensvold (2002). The Career motivation 0.20 2.76**
absolute value of △CFI was <0.01, suggesting that the invariance hy- Attention 0.24 3.43***
Relevance 0.14 2.45*
potheses were supported. Given that the assumptions of configural,
Confidence 0.22 3.14**
metric, and scalar invariance were satisfied, a latent mean analysis could Satisfaction 0.16 2.43*
be conducted.
Note. * p < .05; ** p < .01; *** p < .001.

Table 4
Hypothesis testing through SEM.
Hypothesis From To Unstandardized estimate Standardized estimate Critical ratio (p-value) Hypotheses supported?

H1 Intrinsic motivation Career motivation 0.34 0.37 3.63*** Yes

H2 Intrinsic motivation Attention 0.84 0.86 19.42*** Yes
H3 Intrinsic motivation Confidence 0.44 0.46 4.68*** Yes
H4 Intrinsic motivation Relevance 0.25 0.33 3.37*** Yes
H5 Attention Confidence 0.36 0.37 3.82*** Yes
H6 Attention Relevance 0.28 0.36 3.76*** Yes
H7 Attention Satisfaction 0.10 0.11 1.34 No
H8 Attention Career motivation 0.24 0.25 2.56* Yes
H9 Confidence Relevance 0.18 0.22 3.15** Yes
H10 Confidence Satisfaction 0.23 0.24 3.49*** Yes
H11 Confidence Career motivation 0.18 0.17 2.40* Yes
H12 Relevance Satisfaction 0.66 0.56 6.55*** Yes
H13 Relevance Career motivation 0.32 0.26 2.65** Yes
H14 Satisfaction Career motivation 0.12 0.11 1.43 No

Note. * p < .05; ** p < .01; *** p < .001.

5
P.-Y. Lin et al.
5. Discussion and conclusions
Given that students will work in an AI-empowered society in the
future, fueling students’ motivation to learn AI is crucial. This study
tested an SEM of motivational factors, comprising intrinsic motivation,
career motivation, and the ARCS motivational strategies (i.e., attention,
relevance, confidence, and satisfaction) among primary students (Grades
4–6) in Beijing, China who were attending AI lessons. Accordingly, the
following two research objectives were executed: (1) testing a hypo-
thetical model with six motivational factors and strategies: intrinsic
motivation, career motivation, attention, relevance, confidence, and
satisfaction; and (2) examining the potential effect of gender differences
on these motivational factors and strategies that influence male and fe-
male students’ motivation to learn AI.
For the first research objective of testing the hypotheses, the results
indicated that 12 out of 14 hypotheses were supported. Consistent with
previous studies, this model highlighted that intrinsic motivation (e.g.,
interests) is the most important factor that directly predicts students’
career orientation (H1) (Degol et al., 2018; Ryan and Deci, 2000) and
motivational strategies, including attention (H8), confidence (H11), and
relevance (H13) (Su and Cheng, 2015). According to the hypothesized
motivational model, SEM results confirmed that intrinsic motivation also
predicted attention (H2), confidence (H3), and relevance (H4). In addi-
tion, the correlation analysis showed that attention, confidence, rele-
vance and satisfaction were positively and significantly correlated. When
analyzing results, it is observed that attention is a predictive of confi-
dence (H5) and relevance (H6). Confidence is a predictive of relevance of
AI (H9). Also, confidence (H10), and relevance (H12) were significant
predictors for satisfaction This is aligned with previous studies that
examine students’ motivation using the ARCS model (Huang et al., 2006;
Loorbach et al., 2015). The findings attest to the quality of the designed
AI curriculum and implementation. Overall, the model depicts three
interrelated forms of motivation that AI curriculum designers may need
to address. The intrinsic motivation that students possess before they
learn about AI; the instructional motivation their experience as a result of
the designed curriculum; and the career motivation which represent the
continuous intention to learn about AI after the course. The model we
obtained is generally consistent with recent study that emphasizes
enhancing students’ intention to learn about AI by highlighting the
relevance of AI through helping students to appreciate the usefulness of
AI and its potential to promote social good (Chai et al., 2020). The study
informs educators about the possibility of engaging students to learn AI
in primary school with good motivational effects. Moreover, the results
corresponded to that of previous studies that have suggested that the
ARCS motivational model could provide instructors with a means to meet
students’ motivational demands (Ucar and Kumtepe, 2020; Wah, 2015).
Nonetheless, attention did not directly predict satisfaction (H7), and
satisfaction did not directly predict career motivation (H14). This indi-
cated that attention alone cannot satisfy students’ AI learning needs. We
found that within the ARCS model, the influence of attention is mediated
by relevance and confidence. Apparently, relevance of AI and confidence
in AI may constitute key elements to focus the students’ attention on AI
and thus increase their satisfaction. The findings reflect that reinforcing
the relevance of AI and confidence in AI may enhance satisfaction.
The findings provide insights into the motivational design of AI
curricula. From introducing students to powerful AI apps that help them
relate the subject matter to their personal life experiences to unpacking
complex knowledge pertaining to AI, different methods can be adopted to
construct an effective motivational design. This seems to correspond to
the authentic learning process in general (Wah, 2015).
For the second research objective concerning gender differences in
the motivational factors and strategies in the AI learning context, the
results revealed statistical gender differences in terms of intrinsic moti-
vation, career motivation, attention, relevance, confidence, and satis-
faction. This finding is consistent with that of previous studies that have
reported a significant gender difference in STEM-learning motivation and
6
Computers and Education: Artificial Intelligence 2 (2021) 100006
career orientation (Degol et al., 2018; Wang et al., 2015). The responses
from the male and female students in this study indicated that female
students may perceive themselves as being less motivated to learn AI.
This suggests that facilitating female students’ motivation by cultivating
their interests in AI through proper instructional strategies is critical. For
example, teachers may highlight some very successful female AI engi-
neers who have contributed to the field to inspire female students.
In conclusion, this study investigated the motivational factors and
strategies that influenced students’ AI learning and discovered that
increasing students’ intrinsic motivation, sustaining their attention to AI,
highlighting the relevance of AI, and promoting confidence in learning AI
results in enhanced career motivation. Additionally, research has indi-
cated gender effects on the pursuit of certain career paths (STEM; Wang
et al., 2015). This study tested gender group differences in the AI learning
motivational model and discovered that female students perceived
themselves to be less motivated to learn AI. Overall, the results suggest
that educators should foster students’ intrinsic motivation and design
appropriate instructional strategies to motivate students during the AI
learning process. This will strengthen students’ career motivation to
pursue AI-related knowledge and careers.
Declaration of competing interest
Research approval was obtained from the Survey and Behavioural
Research Ethics Committee in the authors’ institution.
The authors have no conflict of interest.
Acknowledgements
We appreciate the support offered by the school principals to the
study. We are also thankful to the teachers and students for participating
in the experiment.
References
Cai, Z., Fan, X., & Du, J. (2017). Gender and attitudes toward technology use: a meta-
analysis. Computers & Education, 105, 1–13.
Chai, C. S., Wang, X., & Xu, C. (2020). An extended theory of planned behavior for the
modelling of Chinese secondary school students’ intention to learn Artificial
Intelligence. Mathematics, 8(11), 2089. https://doi.org/10.3390/math8112089
Chen, C. C., & Chen, C. Y. (2018). Exploring the effect of learning styles on learning
achievement in a u-Museum. Interactive Learning Environments, 26(5), 664–681.
Chen, X., Xie, H., Zou, D., & Hwang, G. J. (2020). Application and theory gaps during the
rise of artificial intelligence in education. Computers and Education: Artificial
Intelligence, 1, 100002.
Cheng, L., Antonenko, P. D., Ritzhaupt, A. D., Dawson, K., Miller, D., MacFadden, B. J.,
Grant, C., Sheppard, T. D., & Ziegler, M. (2020). Exploring the influence of teachers’
beliefs and 3D printing integrated STEM instruction on students’ STEM motivation.
Computers & Education, 158, 103983.
Cheung, G. W., & Rensvold, R. B. (2002). Evaluating goodness-of-fit indexes for testing
measurement invariance. Structural equation modeling, 9(2), 233–255.
Degol, J. L., Wang, M. T., Zhang, Y., & Allerton, J. (2018). Do growth mindsets in math
benefit females? Identifying pathways between gender, mindset, and motivation.
Journal of youth and adolescence, 47(5), 976–990.
Eccles, J. S., & Wigfield, A. (2020). From expectancy-value theory to situated expectancy-
value theory: a developmental, social cognitive, and sociocultural perspective on
motivation. Contemporary Educational Psychology, 101859.
Elliott, E. S., & Dweck, C. S. (1988). Goals: an approach to motivation and achievement.
Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 54(1), 5–12.
Fisher, C. R., Thompson, C. D., & Brookes, R. H. (2020). Gender differences in the Australian
undergraduate STEM student experience: a systematic review (pp. 1–14). Higher
Education Research & Development.
Fornell, C., & Larcker, D. F. (1981). Evaluating structural equation models with
unobservable and measurement error. Journal of Marketing Research, 18, 39–50.
Froiland, J. M., & Worrell, F. C. (2016). Intrinsic motivation, learning goals, engagement,
and achievement in a diverse high school. Psychology in the Schools, 53(3), 321–336.
Fu, S., Gu, H., & Yang, B. (2020). The affordances of AI-enabled automatic scoring
applications on learners’ continuous learning intention: an empirical study in China.
British Journal of Educational Technology. https://doi.org/10.1111/bjet.12995
Geng, J., Jong, M. S. Y., & Chai, C. S. (2019). Hong Kong teachers’ self-efficacy and
concerns about STEM education. The Asia-Pacific Education Researcher, 28(1), 35–45.
Glynn, S. M., Taasoobshirazi, G., & Brickman, P. (2009). Science motivation
questionnaire: construct validation with nonscience majors. Journal of Research in
Science Teaching: The Official Journal of the National Association for Research in Science
Teaching, 46(2), 127–146.
P.-Y. Lin et al.
Hair, J. F., Jr., Black, W. C., Babin, B. J., Anderson, R. E., & Tatham, R. L. (2010). SEM: an
Introduction. Multivariate Data Analysis: A Global Perspective (seventh ed., pp.
629–686). Upper Saddle River, NJ: Pearson Education.
Hidi, S., & Harackiewicz, J. M. (2000). Motivating the academically unmotivated: a
critical issue for the 21st century. Review of educational research, 70(2), 151–179.
Hong, J. C., Hwang, M. Y., Tai, K. H., & Tsai, C. R. (2017). An exploration of students’
science learning interest related to their cognitive anxiety, cognitive load, self-
confidence and learning progress using inquiry-based learning with an iPad. Research
in Science Education, 47(6), 1193–1212.
Hong, S., Malik, M. L., & Lee, M. K. (2003). Testing configural, metric, scalar, and latent
mean invariance across genders in sociotropy and autonomy using a non-Western
sample. Educational and psychological measurement, 63(4), 636–654.
Huang, T. C., Chen, M. Y., & Hsu, W. P. (2019). Do learning styles matter? Motivating
learners in an Augmented geopark. Journal of Educational Technology & Society, 22(1),
70–81.
Huang, W., Huang, W., Diefes-Dux, H., & Imbrie, P. K. (2006). A preliminary validation of
Attention, Relevance, Confidence and Satisfaction model-based Instructional Material
Motivational Survey in a computer-based tutorial setting. British Journal of
Educational Technology, 37(2), 243–259.
Hung, I. C., Chao, K. J., Lee, L., & Chen, N. S. (2013). Designing a robot teaching assistant
for enhancing and sustaining learning motivation. Interactive learning environments,
21(2), 156–171.
Hwang, G. J., Xie, H., Wah, B. W., & Gasevic, D. (2020). Vision, challenges, roles and
research issues of Artificial Intelligence in Education. Computers and Education:
Artificial Intelligence, 1, 100001.
Jong, M. S. Y. (2014). Elementary students’ view of collaborative knowledge building in
LearningVillages. Interaction Design and Architecture(s), 21, 37–56.
Jong, M. S. Y. (2020). Promoting elementary pupils’ learning motivation in
environmental education with mobile inquiry-oriented ambience-aware fieldwork.
International Journal of Environmental Research & Public Health, 17(7). Article 2504.
Jong, M. S. Y., Shang, J. J., Lee, F. L., Lee, J. H. M., & Law, H. Y. (2006). Learning online: a
comparative study of a game-based situated learning approach and a traditional web-
based learning approach. In Z. Pan, R. Aylett, H. Diener, X. Jin, S. Gobel, & L. Li
(Eds.), Lecture Notes in Computer Science: Technologies for E-Learning and Digital
Entertainment (pp. 541–551). Heidelberg: Springer.
Jong, M. S. Y., Shang, J. J., Lee, F. L., & Lee, J. H. M. (2010). Constructivist Learning through
Computer Gaming. Technologies Shaping Instruction and Distance Education: New Studies
and Utilization (pp. 207–222). New York: Information Science Reference.
Juli
a, C., & Antolí, J.O. (2019). Impact of implementing a long-term STEM-based active
learning course on students’ motivation. International Journal of Technology and Design
Education, 29(2), 303–327.
Keller, J. M. (1987). Development and use of the ARCS model of instructional design.
Journal of Instructional Development, 10(3), 2–10.
Keller, J. M. (2010). The Arcs model of motivational design. In Motivational Design for
Learning and Performance (pp. 43–74). Boston, MA: Springer.
Keller, J., & Suzuki, K. (2004). Learner motivation and e-learning design: a
multinationally validated process. Journal of educational Media, 29(3), 229–239.
Kline, R. B. (2005). Principles and Practices of Structural Equation Modeling. New York: The
Guildford Press.
Knox, J. (2020). Artificial Intelligence and Education in China. Learning, Media and
Technology. https://doi.org/10.1080/17439884.2020.1754236
Lan, Y. J., Botha, A., Shang, J. J., & Jong, M. S. Y. (2018). Technology enhanced
contextual game-based language learning. Educational Technology & Society, 21(3),
86–89.
Lauermann, F., Tsai, Y.-M., & Eccles, J. S. (2017). Math-related career aspirations and
choices within Eccles et al.’s expectancy–value theory of achievement-related
behaviors. Developmental Psychology, 53(8), 1540–1559.
Lee, M. H., Chai, C. S., & Hong, H. Y. (2019). STEM education in Asia Pacific: challenges
and development. The Asia-Pacific Education Researcher, 28, 1–4.
Lent, R. W., Sheu, H. B., Miller, M. J., Cusick, M. E., Penn, L. T., & Truong, N. N. (2018).
Predictors of science, technology, engineering, and mathematics choice options: a
meta-analytic path analysis of the social–cognitive choice model by gender and race/
ethnicity. Journal of Counseling Psychology, 65(1), 17–35.
Li, K., & Keller, J. M. (2018). Use of the ARCS model in education: a literature review.
Computers & Education, 122, 54–62.
Litzler, E., Samuelson, C. C., & Lorah, J. A. (2014). Breaking it down: engineering student
STEM confidence at the intersection of race/ethnicity and gender. Research in Higher
Education, 55, 810–832.
Loorbach, N., Peters, O., Karreman, J., & Steehouder, M. (2015). Validation of the
Instructional Materials Motivation Survey (IMMS) in a self-directed instructional
setting aimed at working with technology. British journal of educational technology,
46(1), 204–218.
Computers and Education: Artificial Intelligence 2 (2021) 100006
Master, A., Cheryan, S., Moscatelli, A., & Meltzoff, A. N. (2017). Programming experience
promotes higher STEM motivation among first-grade girls. Journal of experimental
child psychology, 160, 92–106.
Moe, A., Jansen, P., & Pietsch, S. (2018). Childhood preference for spatial toys. Gender
differences and relationships with mental rotation in STEM and non-STEM students.
Learning and Individual Differences, 68, 108–115.
Pintrich, P. R. (2003). A motivational science perspective on the role of student
motivation in learning and teaching contexts. Journal of Educational Psychology,
95(4), 667–686.
Pintrich, P. R., Smith, D. A. F., Garcia, T., & McKeachie, W. J. (1991). A Manual for the Use
of the Motivated Strategies for Learning. Michigan: School of Education Building, The
University of Michigan.
Qin, J. J., Ma, F. G., & Guo, Y. M. (2019). Foundations of Artificial Intelligence for Primary
School. Beijing, CN: Popular Science Press.
Quintana, S. M., & Maxwell, S. E. (1999). Implications of recent developments in
structural equation modeling for counseling psychology. The Counseling Psychologist,
27(4), 485–527.
Raykov, T., & Marcoulides, G. A. (2008). An Introduction to Applied Multivariate Analysis.
Routledge.
Rosenzweig, E. Q., & Wigfield, A. (2016). STEM motivation interventions for adolescents:
a promising start, but further to go. Educational Psychologist, 51(2), 146–163.
Rozek, C. S., Hyde, J. S., Svoboda, R. C., Hulleman, C. S., & Harackiewicz, J. M. (2015).
Gender differences in the effects of a utility-value intervention to help parents
motivate adolescents in mathematics and science. Journal of Educational Psychology,
107(1), 195–206.
Ryan, R. M., & Deci, E. L. (2000). Intrinsic and extrinsic motivations: classic definitions
and new directions. Contemporary educational psychology, 25(1), 54–67.
Shang, J. J., Jong, M. S. Y., Lee, F. L., Lee, J. H. M., Wong, M., Luk, E., & Cheung, K.
(2006). Using the "Record-Replay" function for elaboration of knowledge in
educational games. Frontiers in Artificial Intelligence and Applications, 151, 503–506.
Scherrer, V., & Preckel, F. (2019). Development of motivational variables and self-esteem
during the school career: a meta-analysis of longitudinal studies. Review of
Educational Research, 89(2), 211–258.
So, H. J., Jong, M. S. Y., & Liu, C. C. (2020). Computational thinking education in the
Asian Pacific region. The Asia-Pacific Education Researcher, 29, 1–8.
Starcic, A. I. (2019). Human learning and learning analytics in the age of artificial
intelligence. British journal of educational technology, 50(6), 2974–2976.
Su, C. H., & Cheng, C. H. (2015). A mobile gamification learning system for improving the
learning motivation and achievements. Journal of Computer Assisted Learning, 31(3),
268–286.
Ucar, H., & Kumtepe, A. T. (2020). Effects of the ARCS-V-based motivational strategies on
online learners’ academic performance, motivation, volition, and course interest.
Journal of Computer Assisted Learning, 36(3), 335–349.
Veletsianos, G., & Russell, G. S. (2014). Pedagogical agents. In Handbook of Research on
Educational Communications and Technology (pp. 759–769). New York, NY: Springer.
Vennix, J., den Brok, P., & Taconis, R. (2018). Do outreach activities in secondary STEM
education motivate students and improve their attitudes towards STEM? International
Journal of Science Education, 40(11), 1263–1283.
Villena Taranilla, R., C ozar-Gutierrez, R., Gonzalez-Calero, J. A., & L
opez Cirugeda, I.
(2019). Strolling through a city of the Roman Empire: an analysis of the potential of
virtual reality to teach history in Primary Education. Interactive Learning Environments,
1–11.
Wah, L. K. (2015). The effects of instruction using the arcs model and geogebra on Upper
secondary students’ motivation and achievement in learning combined
transformation. Asia Pacific Journal of Educators and Education, 30, 141–158.
Wang, M. T., & Degol, J. L. (2017). Gender gap in science, technology, engineering, and
mathematics (STEM): current knowledge, implications for practice, policy, and future
directions. Educational psychology review, 29(1), 119–140.
Wang, M. T., Degol, J., & Ye, F. (2015). Math achievement is important, but task values
are critical, too: examining the intellectual and motivational factors leading to gender
disparities in STEM careers. Frontiers in psychology, 6, 36.
Yannier, N., Hudson, S. E., & Koedinger, K. R. (2020). Active learning is about more than
hands-on: a mixed-reality AI system to support STEM education. International Journal
of Artificial Intelligence in Education, 1–23.
Young, A. M., Wendel, P. J., Esson, J. M., & Plank, K. M. (2018). Motivational decline and
recovery in higher education STEM courses. International Journal of Science Education,
40(9), 1016–1033.
Zawacki-Richter, O., Marín, V. I., Bond, M., & Gouverneur, F. (2019). Systematic review
of research on artificial intelligence applications in higher education–where are the
educators? International Journal of Educational Technology in Higher Education, 16(1),
39.