ARCS

This article or chapter is incomplete and its contents need further attention. Some information may be missing or may be wrong, spelling and grammar may have to be improved, use your judgment!

## Contents

* 1 Definition
* 2 Basic aspects
* 3 The ARCS Model of Motivational Design
* 4 Subcomponents
* 5 Methods
* 6 Links
* 7 References

## Definition[edit | edit source]

* ARCS is an instructional design model developed by John Keller and that focuses on motivation.
* ARCS stands for: Attention, Relevance, Confidence, Satisfaction

This model is particularly important for distance education, since motivation seems to be a key factor that determines if learner's complete their training. Motivation is a diametral responsibility for learners and teachers, and so it has to be boost over the entire learning process respectivly the developing of an learning environment.

## Basic aspects[edit | edit source]

The significance of motivation was early developed by some scientists. The implementation of multimedia elements isn't enough to reach permanently motivational goals. So the ARCS Model was developed in the 80s by John Keller, for the systematically boosting of motivational aspects. It contains four main categories.

* Attention - Getting and Holding Learners's Interests and Attention
* Relevance - The learning has to show a kind of usefulness. The learner should reach personal goals.
* Confidence - The user has to espect success and should have the possibility to controll his learning process Self-regulation
* Satisfaction - There has to be attractive acts, rewards, feedback, and Self-Assement.

(Niegemann 2008) See also: Super motivation

## The ARCS Model of Motivational Design[edit | edit source]

(This needs to be rewritten sometimes, it's basically just a potpourri from links you can find below - Daniel K. Schneider 23:26, 14 August 2007 (MEST))

Attention (perceptual arousal, inquiry arousal, variability)

As in Gagné's model (nine events of instruction) one must gain the learner's attention and keep it. A few pedagogic methods are:

* Provide variety (e.g. in the teaching materials used and within these materials, e.g. see textbook writing tutorial
* Create mystery by presenting interesting case problems.
* Use different methods to instruction
* Engage learners in active participation, e.g. questions, role-play
* Use interesting examples or cases (in particular some that run contrary to learner's expectations)
* Use humor
* Avoid distraction
* Boost inquiry learning
* Short Instructions
* Variate the format of pictures

Practical implementation:  The attention can be boost through contents, which are unexpected, surprising, conflicting or ambiguous. So they unexpected appearance of a water fountain, if you do a "Mentos" into a "Cola Bottle" can bring the learners to interest to chemical aspects. So a learning environment could contain interesting multi media elements with interesting and unexpected experiments. (Niegmann et. al. 2008)

Relevance (goal orientation, motive orientation, familiarity)

The learner has to believe that learning is relevant. A few pedagogic methods are:

* Relate new information to something the student is familiar with, in particular how they reuse previous knowledge and skills.
* Make sure that the learner can relate instruction to personal learning goals.
* Working together with Collaboration / Cooperation
* Language has to be coherent
* Show things, which are similar und things which are equal

Practical implementation: The learner has to know why he has to learn the stuff. So it's advisable to use adequate games and simulations, to make this aspect visible. If the learners abilities are very similar (heterogeneity), it could be good to offer similar learning methods and similar learning goals In an interactive language journey, learner have to possibility to choose there own learning goals. It depends of there similar goals. Some want to learn for an exam, others want to train there pronunciation. (Niegemann et. al 2008).

Confidence (learning requirements, success opportunities, personal control)

Learners should feel that they could achieve the learning goals. A few pedagogic methods are:

* Provide opportunities for success
* Go from the simple to complex stuff
* Make clear what kind of sub-learning goals are expected and make clear that learning may involve climbing small steps.
* Give learners some control over their own learning
* Provide precise feedback
* Control the Learning Process through canceling and jumping over some chapters.
* No automatically change between pages on the monitor.

Pracitical Implementation Learners should search a challenge, but the risk to don't pass a challenge should be limited. The criterias of assement has to be clearly visible. Furthermore they should know in a exam, how many time they have and how many items they have to solve. (Niegemann et. al 2008)

Satisfaction (intrinsic reinforcement, extrinsic rewards, equity)

Learners should receive awards. A few pedagogic methods are:

* Let learners apply newly acquired skill
* Assess with a score and hand out praise (if deserved)
* Learn > Practice > Test
* No exceeding praise

Practical Implementation In according to the point "Learn> Pracitce > Test", learners have to use abilities they learn into the learning environment in gaming or simulated situations. (Niegemann et al. 2008).

## Subcomponents[edit | edit source]

According to Huang (2006),

the ARCS model is mostly applied as a design guideline for developing effective motivational strategies (Song & Keller, 2001). In addition to the four ARCS components (i.e., attention, relevance, confidence and satisfaction), there are sub-categories attached to each component to facilitate the design process. Small (2000) summarized all four components and sub-categories as follows.

* Attention: perceptual arousal, inquiry arousal and variability;
* Relevance: goal orientation and motive matching;
* Confidence: learning requirements, success opportunities and personal responsibility; and
* Satisfaction: intrinsic reinforcement, extrinsic rewards and equity.

See also: Flow theory

## Methods[edit | edit source]

The Instructional Material Motivational Survey (IMMS) (Keller, 1933) contains is a 36 Likert-scale statements. Each statement measures an individual ARCS component.

Huang et al. (2006), published a modified version, which they claim to be more appropriate for studies in higher education. Here is sample of 4 items:

* When I first looked at (M-Tutor), I had the impression that it would be easy for me. (confidence)

* There was something interesting at the beginning of (M-Tutor) that got my attention. (attention)

* Completing the exercises in (M-Tutor) gave me a satisfying feeling of accomplishment. (satisfaction)

* It is clear to me how the content of (M-Tutor) is related to things I already know. (relevance)

Niegemann et al. adds, that not every aspect of the ARCS Modell has to be consider. It's impossible, that a planner or designer chooses the aspects which are important for the individual project. (Niegemann et. al 2008)

## Links[edit | edit source]

* arcsmodel.com John Keller's official ARCS Website.

* John Keller's academic website

* Attribution Theory and Keller's ARCS Model of Motivation by Jerry T. Fernandez, George Mason University.

* Motivating Distance Learning Students Using the ARCS Method, a Netnet page

* Developing Instruction or Instructional Design

* ARCS Model of Motivational Design (Keller) at Learning-Theories.com.

* The Magic of Learner Motivation: The ARCS Model by Kevin Kruse, e-learningguru.com.

## References[edit | edit source]

* Bohlin, R. M. & Milheim, W. D. (1994). Analyses of the instructional motivation needs of adults. Canadian Journal of Educational Communication, 23, 47–55.

* Chang, M. & Lehman, J. D. (2002). Learning foreign language through an interactive multimedia program: an experimental study on the effects of the relevance component of the ARCS model. CALICO Journal, 20, 81-98.

* ChanMin Kim and John M. Keller. Effects of motivational and volitional email messages (MVEM) with personal messages on undergraduate students' motivation, study habits and achievement. British Journal of Educational Technology DOI 10.1111/j.1467-8535.2007.00701.x

* Driscoll, M. (1994). Psychology of learning for instruction. (1st edition). Boston: Allyn & Bacon.

* Driscoll, M. P. (2000). Introduction to theories of learning and instruction (2nd ed.). In M.P. Driscoll (Ed.), Psychology of learning for instruction (pp. 3-28). Boston, MA: Allyn and Bacon.

* Fritz, Constance (1997), Motivation To Learn, University of Saskatchewan, Term paper, HTML, retrieved 22:43, 14 August 2007 (MEST).

* Huang, Wenhao; Huang, Wenyeh; Diefes-Dux, Heidi; Imbrie, Peter 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, v37 n2 p243-259 Mar 2006. (One of the best starting points for educational technologists \- Daniel K. Schneider 14:52, 18 June 2008 (UTC))

* Keller, J. M. (1983). Motivational design of instruction. In C. M. Reigeluth (Ed.), Instructional-design theories and models: an overview of their current status (pp. 386-434). Hillsdale, NJ : Lawrence Erlbaum Associates.

* Keller, J. and T. Kopp, An Application of the ARCS Model of Motivational Design, in C. Reigeluth (ed.), Instructional Design Theories and Models, Erlbaum, Hillsdale, New Jersey, pp. 289-320, 1987.

* Keller, J. M. (1987a). Strategies for stimulating the motivation to learn. Performance and Instruction, 26, 1-7.

* Keller, J. M. (1987b). The systematic process of motivational design. Performance and Instruction, 26, 9/10, 1-8.

* Keller, J. M. (1993). Motivation by design. Unpublished manuscript, Florida State University, Florida.

* Niegemann, H.; Domagk S. ; Hassel, S. ; Hein, A.; Hupfer, M. ; Zobel, A.  : Kompendium Multimedials Lernen, Heidelberg 2008.

* Song, S. H. (2000). Research issues of motivation in web-based instruction. Quarterly Review of Distance Education, 1, 225-229.

* Song, S. H. & Keller, J. M. (2001). Effectiveness of motivationally adaptive computer-assisted instruction on the dynamic aspects of motivation. Educational Technology Research and Development, 49, 5. [ISI

* Wenhao Huang, Wenyeh Huang, Heidi Diefes-Dux, Peter K. Imbrie (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 http://xs.doi.org//10.1111/j.1467-8535.2005.00582.x (HTML/PDF)