A paperpresented at the 21st Annual Meeting of the Japan Society for Informatics and Systems in Education, Kanazawa, JAPAN, Aug., 3, 1996

Use of ARCS Motivational Design Matrix
in Designing Units with Computers at Sendai Daiichi Junior High School


Katsuaki Suzuki*1
Tohoku Gakuin University *1
Izumi, Sendai 981-31 JAPAN
suzuki@izcc.tohoku-gakuin.ac.jp

John M. Keller*2
Florida State University*2
Tallahassee, FL 32306 U.S.A.
kellerj@edres.fsu.edu

Computer Project Team*3
Sendai Diichi Junior High School*3
4-16-1, Hachiman-machi, Sendai 980 JAPAN
aizawa@daiichi-jhs.aoba.sendai.jp

Abstract: This study found that adopting the ARCS framework and newly proposed ARCS Motivational Design Matrixes were helpful to the teachers in designing instructional units using computers. The Matrix made the role of computers more apparent by breaking down the motivational characteristics of the learning task, the learner, the instructional methods using the ARCS categories. An example of such Matrix is provided and future study is suggested.

Keywords: ARCS Model, Motivational Design, Instructional Design,

1. Background


With an early intorduction of instructional computers in 1976 and frequent utilization in various subject areas since then, computers seem to have lost their novelty effect at Sendai Daiichi Junior High School, unlike other schools. Meanwhile, the new Standard Course of Study has set forth the direction of school instruction to emphasize students' motivation and self-directedness in learning. A new framework was in need so that computers could be used beyond their novelty effect.

Keller's ARCS Model of motivational design intoruduces four basic categories for motivational tactics: Attention to capture the interest of learners and to stimulate curiosity to learn, Relevance to meet the personal needs and goals of the learner, Confidence to help the learner develop positive expectancies for success, and Satisfaction to reinforce accomplishment (e.g., Keller, 1992). Various strageties have been proposed using this ARCS framework (e.g., Keller & Keller, 1991 for designing interaction in mutimedia products; Keller & Suzuki, 1988 for courseware design). Using this framework, one can find motivational tactics from various perspective other than novelty effect.

2. Purpose of the study


This study explored the feasibility of adopting the ARCS framework in designing instructional units utilizing computers as learning tools. Specifically, the ARCS Motivational Design Matrixes were proposed by the first author and prepared by teachers in the computer project team, when they designed the units, to see if roles of computers may become more apparent by breaking down the motivational characteristics of the learning task, the learner, and the instructional methods using the ARCS.

3. The Design process


The Computer Project Team consisted of 25 teachers in 8 subject areas. The design of learning units (3 - 9 hours) was prepared by subgroups of teachers in each subject first, and then discussed by all the members, combined with outside advisory board for which the first author was a member. Computer courseware was then either selected from commercially avaiable software, or developed by graduate and senior students, who majored in computer science at Tohoku Gakuin University.

During the design process above, eight ARCS Motivational Design Matrixes were created. An example of such a matrix is shown in Table 1. Each column of the Matrix represents one of the four basic categories of the ARCS Model. The first three rows represent such factors that determine motivational characteristics of the unit: (1)The Learning Task: its characteristics as percieved by the learner, (2)The Learner, (3)The Media: its characteristics percieved by the learner. The last two rows describe motivational strategies in the unit: (4)Courseware Design, and (5)Lesson Design. For those units that incorporated existing software, instead of developing a new courseware, interpretations of motivational characteristics of the software should be stated in the fourth category.

After the first author described aims and processes for creating such a matrix in a training session, a Matrix was prepared by teachers in each subgroup. It was then used to explain, to the members who taught other subjects, motivational characteristics of the unit, which led the subgroup to adopt motivational strategies in both courseware and the lesson plan. The entire team then discussed the unit plan to verify the motivational analysis of the unit. The Matrix was then revised if necessary.

4. Teachers' Perception of the ARCS Motivational Design Matrix


At the end of the design process, a questionnaire was conducted among the 25 teachers of Computer Project Team concerning various aspects of the project. Items on the ARCS Model itself and on the use of Matrix were included in the questionnaire.

Over 90% answered positively to such statements as, "Students' motivation is well-captured in The ARCS Model," or, "The Model was useful in lesson planning." To the items that asked "The ARCS" of the ARCS Model, 84% regarded that the Model was attractive (A) and 92% said it was meaningful/important (R), although only 60% agreed that they were confident (C) in and satisfied (S) with using the Model.

Regarding the use of the Matrix, 92% agreed that the Matrix was helpful in designing the unit. Positive comments included that the Matrix helped to clarify the weak aspects of the unit plan, and to identify which aspects of the motivational strategies were NOT necessary. However, more than 80% expressed that the process of analysis had some degrees of difficulty.

5. Conclusion


The ARCS Model itself and the newly proposed ARCS Motivational Design Matrix were both successfully integrated in the design process in this study. The Model and the Matrix helped the teachers clarify motivational characteristics of the unit being designed from the viewpoints of the learning task, the learner, and the media. Motivational strategies, but only those that were necessary, were then adopted based on the analysis of the unit's characteristics. It is especially noteworthy that it helped to communicate among teachers in various subject areas so that they could discuss motivational strategies outside of their specialized area. Such discussion had been a part of the Computer Project Team's strengths, which was furthered by adopting the ARCS framework.

Further study is in need to seek ways to make the design process easier. The Team expressed that many teachers felt some difficulty during the design process. Since this was a pioneer effort without proceeding examples of the Matrix, providing some examples from this study may result in a better perception by the teachers in subsequent efforts in using the Matrix.

References

Keller, J.M. (1992). Enhancing the motivation to learn: origins and applications of the ARCS model (Special Contribution based on Invited Address). Reports from the Institute of Education, Tohoku Gakuin University, 11, 45 - 67
Keller, J.M. & Keller, B. (1991). Motivating learners with multimedia instruction. Proceedings for ICOMMET'91, Tokyo, Japan, 313 - 316.
Keller, J.M. & Suzuki, K. (1988). Use of the ARCS motivation model in courseware design. In D.H. Jonassen (Ed.), Instructional designs for microcomputer courseware. Lawrence Erlbaum Associates, USA.


Table 1. ARCS Motivational Design Matrix 1: Elective Unit on Using International E-mails