ARCS

The educational technology and digital learning wiki
Jump to navigation Jump to search

Draft

Definition

ARCS is an instructional design model that focuses on motivation

ARCS = Attention, Relevance, Confidence, Satisfaction

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 (ie, attention, relevance, confidence and satisfaction), there are subcategories attached to each component to facilitate the design process. Small (2000) summarised all four components and subcategories 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

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)

Links

References

  • 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. 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.
  • 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.
  • Song, S. H. (2000). Research issues of motivation in web-based instruction. Quarterly Review of Distance Education, 1, 225�%G�–�%@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