User:Jhodythedesigner/sandbox

= The ARCS Model of Motivation for Instructional Designers = The ARCS model of motivation was invented by John Keller in 1979. According to Keller (1979) as cited by Woolwine M “we have not given adequate systematic attention to the problem of motivation in instructional theory and technology, to the understanding of motivation in individual learners, or to the development of a technology for influencing motivation”. The ARCS model of motivation was developed in order to address Keller’s desire to ensure that learners are engaged in the lesson by using motivation. The ARCS model was derived from the expectancy-value theory, which suggest that “persons are willing to participate in activities in order to accomplish a task if there is an expectation that they will be successful” (Green, 2002). The categories expectancy and value was further extended to interest, relevance, expectancy and outcomes. According to the oxford dictionary motivation is a reason or reasons for acting or behaving in a particular way. The premier aim of every educator should be the creation of a learning environment where the learner is motivated to be an active participant. The ARCS model is tailored to assist the educator to promote and maintain such an environment of motivation, through the use of four lesson categories; attention (A), relevance (R), confidence (C), and satisfaction (S) (Keller, 1987). Figure one outlines different approaches that may be used for each category under the ARCS model

Categories of Motivation
• Attention- The Development of strategies that may be used to stimulate the learners curiosity of the lessons’ content. The educator is expected to first obtain the attention of the learner. Keller suggests that the learners attention may be obtain through Perceptual Arousal, Inquiry Arousal or Variability.

·        Perceptual Arousal: method employed to obtain leaners initial interest for example, the use songs, stories, poems, impacting teaching aid, jingles or games.

·        Inquiry Arousal: indirect testing of the learners critical thinking skills through the use of questioning, problem-solving, mystery, active participation and on-going discussion to increase interest

·        Variability: use variety of methodology such as group activity, power-point presentations, panel discussion, videos and games.

• Relevance- A clear association is made between instruction and the interest, needs and culture of the learners. Relevance involves the integration of real life language and that the student will be able to relate to and examples that the learner will find useful to them as an individual. Keller suggests three main approaches to stimulate relevance:

·        Goal Orientation: It is the role of the instructor to ensure that the objectives are presented the learner in a clear manner. Students should understand the how the specific objectives may be related to the instructions. Rubrics and criteria for evaluation should be shared, so that it may be used as a guide as they complete assignments.

·        Motive Matching: the instructions given should be linked to students learning styles and future career intentions. For example students may be given the option to present their assignment in the form of a song, poem, and story etc. This method appeals to their interests and the learning environment is richer and easier for both facilitator and learner.

·        Familiarity: Students should be able to relate instructional materials and content to what may be their culture and value. Instructors may also model the expected behavior of the students.

Confidence- The instructor has the responsibility to ensure that the learner has the expectancy that they will succeed. This will build their self-esteem and encourage them to keep on aspiring for greatness. Keller suggests three main methods to fuel confidence:

·        Learning Requirements: students should be informed of the objectives of the lesson, clear steps to accomplish a certain task and the expected criteria or rubric.

·        Success Opportunities: Student will be allowed the opportunity to be involved meaningfully with the process of being successful while learning. For example the learner may be informed of the upcoming topic and students may be encouraged to do prior research, in that way students will have an idea of the content which would be reinforced at the following class.

·        Personal Responsibility: The instructor should provide to opportunity for the learner to recognize how their effort contributed to the learning success. For example whenever the learner solve a problem, used critical thinking skills or actively participated in class they should receive positive feedback about their effort.

Satisfaction- The instructor should provide the learner with rewards, and positive feedback about their learning experience. Student should receive the satisfaction that they effort to learn results in a positive outcome. Keller suggests three main approaches to stimulate satisfaction:

·        Intrinsic Reinforcement:  Allow learner to share with the class of the intrinsic fulfillment they received from their journey of learning.

·        Extrinsic Rewards: Student may be rewarded with positive tangible reinforcement and praises. This will motivate the learner to continue striving to do well. The instructor should be careful not to constantly reward learner for easy tasks as this will result in them becoming complacent and being of the impression that they don’t have to work hard.

·        Equity: the instructor should be consistent with the expectations of the learners in order to maintain a high standard to be successful. Therefore there should be no fluctuation with returning feed-back and evaluation of task given thus maintaining consistent standards and consequences for success.

About John M. Keller
John M. Keller graduated from the University of California, Riverside in 1965 with a bachelor’s degree in Philosophy with a minor in English. He taught at a high school for six years, during that time he was pursued his graduated studies. In 1971 Keller was awarded a NDEA Title IV Fellowship in instructional systems technology at Indiana University, Bloomington. (Shellnut B., 1998). Keller was in guided toward his dissertation on learned helplessness and locus of control by professors William Scott and Richard Pugh. Soon after being awarded a Ph.D. in 1974, Keller continued his focus on locus of control (Keller & Pugh, 1976). In 1974 he completed his doctoral studies at Indianna University with a major in instructional systems technology and minors in research & evaluation and organizational behavior.

Ali Simsek Anadolu, conducted an interview with John M. Keller on Motivational Design of Instruction. John M. Keller was asked How did you develop an interest in motivation, his response was “I was keenly interested in writers and philosophers such as Faulkner, Dostoevsky, Unamuno (e.g. Tragic Sense of Life), and many others that explored human motives, beliefs and values in depth. Later, when I began to study psychology and organizational behavior, I was interested in theories pertaining to motivation and performance.” In 1974 Keller started to work at the Syracuse University as an assistant professor in instructional technology where he became a respected scholar and practitioner of instructional systems design (Anadolu, 2014). Keller notes that the ARCS Model, like Gagné’s Events of Instruction and Reigeluth’s Elaboration Theory, is concerned with selecting strategies that match the learners’ prerequisite skills and attitudes (Keller, 1983).

Using the ARCS Model- System Design
The four components of the ARCS model describe above provide the foundation of the collection of the various concepts, theories, strategies, and schemes that influence the motivation of the learner (Keller, J. M., 1987). The ARCS model also includes a systematic design which is fuel by the components attention, relevance, confidence and satisfaction. This systematic design provides the avenue that can be used to develop instructional design and motivational strategies to meet the needs of the learners (Keller, 1987). According to Keller (2000) the ARCS motivational design process is a “systematic problem solving approach that requires knowledge of human motivation and progresses from learner analysis to solution design”.

The first step includes obtaining the course information, by classifying the problem. The instructor will gather and analyze relevant information about the audience and the problem. This will influence the development of the objectives to meet the need of the intended audience which may either be intrinsically or extrinsically motivated. After the instructor has developed an understanding of the mental characteristics of the audience he or she then will try to determine the availability of the appropriate motivational instructional materials. These materials should be analyzed to test its capability to address motivational issues that may arise and to maintain suitable motivational tactics.

The instructor should then be able to develop suitable objectives and assessment geared toward ensuring that the intended learners’ high level of motivation is maintained. This will act as an impetus to keeping them motivated to do well. Brainstorming is an important component of the lesson plan. The instructor will write all of the possible strategies and tactics that may be used throughout the lesson. The tactics developed should be influenced by the four components of the ARCS model. The learners’ attention must first be obtained by using strategies such as videos, songs and poem and the relevance of the tactics are important. The selected objectives and assessment should be geared at stimulating the learners’ confidence. The use of positive feedback and rewards are essential to give students a sense of satisfaction. The most suitable tactics would then be selected and integrated into the instructions. According to Keller (1987) to the motivation tactics developed the instructor will finalize the selection of materials and create new ones if necessary. At the final step the instructor will decide if the selected tactics were suitable based on the reaction of the learners. Depending on what is gleaned from the observation, the instructor may decide whether adjustments need to be made to approach the next attempt at using the ARCS model.

Conclusion
Richey (1995) points out that Keller’s ARCS Model of Motivation views learning as an “internal process.” The ARCS Model and other micro-design models also indicate that learning is preceded by “sequenced instructional strategies that provide motivation, direction, guided practice, feedback, and reinforcement" . It is safe to assume that the ARCS model when followed correctly has been successful on many levels. This is so largely due to the focus placed on students’ engagement and input. The ARCS model has been successfully applied to diverse audiences.  Keller taught the ARCS model to train teachers in the use of the Dick and Carey ISD model in Africa (Shellnut, 1996) . The results of the clinical intervention in Africa provided data that the ARCS model positively influenced student motivation to learn.  Use of intensive instruction and motivational intervention indicate that designers and instructors can deliver alternate instruction to meet the needs of students who have a low motivation to learn (Shellnut, 1996). Since the learners are given an active role to play in the transfer of knowledge, they are generally more confident and industrious.

Publications related to the ARCS model of Motivation
Keller, J. M. (2010). Motivational design for learning and performance: The ARCS model approach. New York: Springer.

Suzuki, K. (2010), Lead translator, Japanese edition of Keller, J. M. (2010). Motivational design for learning and performance: The ARCS model approach.

Jo, I.H. (2013), Lead translator Korean edition of Keller, J. M. (2010). Motivational design for learning and performance: The ARCS model approach.

Keller, J. M., & Song, S.H. (1999). The design of appealing courseware. Seoul: Educational Science Publisher. (Available only in Korean language.)

Keller, J. M. & Deimann, M. (2012). Motivation, volition, and performance. In R. A. Reiser & J. V. Dempsey (Eds.). Trends and Issues in Instructional Design and Technology, 3rd Edition. Boston: Pearson Education.

Keller, J.M. (1984). The use of the ARCS model of motivation in teacher training. In Shaw, K., & Trott, A.J. (Eds.). Aspects of Educational Technology, Volume XVII. London:  Kogan Page, pp. 140 - 145.