Research for proposing the subcategories of the volitional element for
the ARCS-V model
Koji Nakaima
nakajima@ogu.ac.jp
Assistant Manager, IT Center / Student ofGraduate School
Osaka Gakuin University / Kumamoto
University
Osaka / Kumamoto, Japan

Aya Watanabe
ayaw@kumamoto-u.ac.jp
Graduate School of Instructional Systems
Kumamoto University
Kumamoto, Japan

Hiroshi Nakano
nakano@cc.kumamoto-u.ac.jp
Graduate School of Instructional Systems
Kumamoto University
Kumamoto, Japan

Katsuaki Suzuki
ksuzuki@kumamoto-u.ac.jp
Graduate School of Instructional Systems
Kumamoto University
Kumamoto, Japan

ABSTRACTIn this paper, the authors discuss the significance of proposing the subcategories of thevolitional elements for the ARCS-V model which has been expanded from the ARCS model byJohn M. Keller recently. There are some steps for motivating learners. One earlier step is tomake learners form intention to implement for a goal, and the next is to have them keep theirvolition until they reach the goal. Three categories for each element of Attention, Relevance,
Confidence and Satisfaction which provides some hints for instructors and learners have been
identified in the ARCS model, but any particular category for the volitional element has notbeen identified yet according to the authors’ research while Keller pointed out that‘commitment’ and ‘action control’ will be the key factors for the volitional phase of learning.
Refer to these points, volition-related researches are reviewed. One of these is Kuhl’s ‘action
control theory’ that he discussed about ‘motivation’, ‘action control’, and ‘performance control’
to try to explain and predict human action. All through these research reviews, the authors pickup some keywords to classify categories for volitional element of the ARCS-V model and thenattempt to outline practical hints which instructors and learners can use. The proposal and thehints for volitional elements are going to be described as practical as possible, so that it allows
instructors and learners to use the hints easily and they will come close to meet successful
outcomes. The authors discuss if the proposal can be one of resources to make the ARCS-V
model more persuasive in the volitional phase at learning. The implications of the findings at
the proposal are also discussed. It is our hope to contribute to the ARCS-V model research andall the classrooms where there are motivational problems to be solved.
Keywords: ARCS model, ARCS-V Model, motivation, volition, intention

INTRODUCTION
A variety of researches regarding the motivational problems have been done for these years, andmany theories and models are constructed and introduced as outcomes from the researches (Uebuchi, et al,2004). The ARCS model, which is one of the most popular instructional design (ID) models and is known
as a model directly dealing with the attractiveness of the instruction and the learner’s motivation, wasadvocated by Keller in1983 and introduced to Japan in 1987 (Suzuki, 2010). Since then, many ARCSrelated researches have been done in Japan and 34 papers which included analytical, descriptive,
prescriptive and evaluation related studies were published in 15 years from 1995 to 2010 (Suzuki et al,2010). One of the current characteristic studies is that Nakajima et al (2010) expanded the ARCS model

by adding another element of Assistance & Tools (AT). In the model called The ARCS+AT model,
faculty at a university are taken as “a learner” for utilizing e-learning, the university will assist them froma viewpoint of motivation with a checklist and some tools which the model provides. The ARCS+AT
model is aimed to provide a framework for solving issues of utilizing e-learning at universities.
Regarding the expansion of the ARCS model, it was started by the ARCS model proponent, Keller(2008) and is ongoing. In the expanded model called the ARCS-V model, the category of volition is
newly focused. The motivation that a learner once gets will be expected to last until he/she gets to thegoal but it will be often interfered by many factors, so the volition should be assisted or guided properly.
The ARCS-V model integrated the volitional point of view into the original ARCS model. Although it
was expanded, the study for that is not done much when comparing to that of the ARCS model (Suzuki,2010), so the purpose of this paper is to explore the detail of the ARCS-V model, reviewing related
references and discussing about proposing the subcategories of the volitional category.

THE ARCS MODEL AND ITS EXPANSION
It is the design process that is built into the ARCS model that makes it a practical, applicationfocused theory instead of being purely a descriptive or prescriptive theory. (Keller, 2009). Keller
integrated a large amount of motivation-related concepts and theories into four categories of ARCS andcombined them with the systematic approaches of designing motivation for learning. This allows the
ARCS model to be useful for wide area of teaching and learning, so that the ARCS model provides
instructors and learners opportunities and tools not only for diagnosis of the cause of the motivational
problems in a class, but also for strategies for solving them.
As described above, the ARCS model consists of four categories; Attention, Relevance, Confidence
and Satisfaction. Each category is constructed with the theoretical evidence, and has subcategories which
are aimed to provide instructors practical hints for their issues. Referring to Keller (2009), the four
categories of the ARCS model and subcategories for each are shown in Table 1. To show more
information about the ARCS model, process questions for instructors who will use the ARCS model arealso described.
Table 1. Four categories of the ARCS model and subcategories and process questions (Keller, 2009)
Category
Attention

Relevance

Confidence

Subcategories
A-1 : Perceptual Arousal
A-2 : Inquiry Arousal
A-3 : Variability
R-1 : Goal-Orientation
R-2 : Motive Matching
R-3 : Familiarity
C-1 : Learning Requirement
C-2 : Success Opportunities
C-3 : Personal Control

Satisfaction

S-1 : Natural Consequences
S-2 : Positive Consequences
S-3 : Equity

Process question for Instructor
What can I do to capture their interest?
How can I stimulate an attitude of inquiry?
How can I maintain their attention?
How can I best meet my learner’s needs? (Do I know their needs?)
How and when can I link my instruction to the learning styles andpersonal interests of the learners?
How can I tie the instruction to the learners’ experiences?
How can I assist in building a positive expectation for success?
How will the learning experience support or enhance the learners’
beliefs in their competence?
How will the learners clearly know their success is based upon theirefforts and abilities?
How can I encourage and support their intrinsic enjoyment of thelearning experience?
What will provide rewarding consequences to the learners’ successes?
What can I do to build learner perceptions of fair treatment?

Attention
In the attention category which aims to catch learner’s interests, some concepts of arousal theory,
curiosity, boredom, and sensation seeking are represented in the term of “attention”. Physiologicallybased & cognitively-based curiosity (James, 1890), specific exploration & diversive exploration (Berlyne,1965), sensation seeking (Zuckerman, 1979) and so on are integrated into this category. Then,“Perceptual Arousal”, “Inquiry Arousal” and “Variability” were selected as subcategory titles which will
provide strategies for catching learner’s attention (Keller, 2009).

RelevanceIn the relevance category which aims to make learners realize that it is related to themselves and feelthat it is worth challenging, the value-related concept from the Expectancy-Value theory is dealt. The
Expectancy-Value theory appears when the outcomes that learners will meet can be desirable and they
feel they can do it. Tolman’s theory which explained that behavior is purposeful and is persistent,
patterned, and selective (Tolman, 1932), three needs: achievement, affiliation, & power (McClelland,1976), absolute interest (Schank, 1979) and so on are integrated into this category. Then, “Familiarity”,“Goal-orientation”, and “Motive Matching” were selected as subcategory titles which will provide
strategies for having learners realize the relevance (Keller, 2009).

Confidence
In the confidence category which aims to reduce learners’ uneasiness and encourage them to expect
for their success in the near future, personal control is one of the most important concepts. Locus ofcontrol (Rotter, 1966), origin-pawn concept (deChams, 1968), self-efficacy (Bandura, 1977) and so on are
integrated into this category. Then, “Learning Requirement”, “Success Opportunities”, “Personal Control”
were selected as subcategory titles which will provide strategies for encouraging learners to haveconfidence to do it (Keller, 2009).

Satisfaction
At the satisfaction category which aims to make learners feel “I am glad I did it!”, conditions will begiven to learners to gain satisfaction from the consequences and then reinforcement will be done. Also,
the concept of being fair is important in this category. Based on theories like classical conditioning,
operant conditioning, fair or unfair (Adams, 1965) and so on, these are integrated into one category andthen “Natural Consequences”, “Positive Consequences” and “Equity” were selected as subcategory titles
which will provide strategies for giving learners satisfaction and making them feel that they would like tolearn more (Keller, 2009).
As we described earlier, the ARCS model is currently on work of expansion and got another conceptof volition as a new category. Keller (2008) pointed out this category when he presented “First principles
of motivation to learn”. The definition of the term “volition” is “A concept of all the actions and attitudes
related to the persistence of effort to reach a goal.” On the other hand, the definition of “motivation” is “ameaning of what people hope, what they select and perform, and what they devote all their energies to.
(Suzuki, 2010)”. By the way, the macro model which supports the ARCS model also was expanded to the
MVP model of Motivation, Volition, and Performance (Keller, 2010). However, subcategories of theVolition of the ARCS-V model have not been proposed. Therefore, by referring to the context of defining
each category and subcategory for the ARCS model, we will propose subcategories of Volition in the next
section.

PROPOSING THE SUBCATEGORIES OF THE VOLITIONAL CATEGORYThe Volition in the expanded ARCS-V model is attempted to supplement the concept of volition
which is not explained in detail in the original ARCS model. So it must be significant to fill that blank bymaking practical explanations or proposals to the volitional part for the benefit of instructors. First, we
will propose the subcategories for the Volition in the same style of each ARCS category. To make clearof the area followed by “volition”, see Figure1.
A, R, C of ARCS

S of ARCS

Motivation

Satisfaction

EffortPerformance

Consequences

Volition-related area
Figure 1. Volition-related area in the cycle of the ARCS-V modelIn the area of volition-related area shown in Figure.1, we can find some steps in that area. At theearliest step, learners are motivated, and then they prepare for making their effort, and output theirperformance until they meet a goal. To check and see if there is any problem of volition at each step, it isworth picking up strategic keywords which are supported by theoretical evidences. The keywords wepicked up are as follows:

Implementation Intention
An intention once motivated and formed will become “Implementation Intention” that is going toconduct efforts to reach the goal. This will lead the person to goal-oriented actions (Gollwitzer, 1996). At
the same time, “volition” for maintaining the efforts will be accompanied to that. It is important for
instructors to assist learners to form an intention-volition link, first. For practicing this, instructors should
focus on the transition to intention implementation by having learners create a plan which reflects theintention.

Appropriate Self-control
Instructors need to prepare strategies to assist learners to have self-control for learning activities
properly while the plan they made with the implementation intention is being practiced. Kuhl (1985) who
advocated in his “Action Control Theory” that 1) selective attention, 2) encoding control, 3) emotion
control, 4) motivation control, 5) environment control, 6) parsimonious information processing will be
important when controlling own actions. Instructors should induce learners to check their own emotion orcapacity and also instructors should help learners control themselves by arranging their environments.

Self-monitoring
Maintaining volition will demand learners not just to control themselves but to ascertain their own
current progress for learning objectively. This objectivity in learning will allow learners to realize what tolearn next to get a goal in a proper way, and then volition to learn will be maintained. To monitor
him/herself is one of the most important actions according to Self-Regulated Learning (SRL)(Zimmerman, 1990). Instructors should encourage learners to reflect themselves objectively in between.
Portfolio system which is popular in Japan recently might be useful in this situation.
We put these keywords as titles of the subcategories of the Volition in the same style of the ARCS
model’s as shown in Table. 2.
Table 2．
．Subcategories Proposed for the Volition of the ARCS-V model
Category
Volition

Subcategory
V-1: Implementation Intention
V-2: Appropriate Self-control
V-3: Self-monitoring

Process Question for Instructor
How can I guide learners to make a practical plan for getting
to their goal?
How can I encourage learners to behave to keep their learning controlled?
How can I provide learners opportunities to realize their learning progress?

DISCUSSION
It must be needed to check the validity of the proposed subcategories of the Volition of the ARCS-V
model. Also, we should discuss if there is more to consider when the proposal is presented.
We can anticipate that the volition will be maintained and a learner will be able to reach the goal as
results of the efforts if 1) the learner is allowed anytime until he/she gets to the goal to look back the plan
for learning which was made right after the learner was motivated to go for the goal, 2) the learner can
avoid anything that interferes with the efforts, and can adjust the plan to the situation by grasping own
progress of learning, and 3) the instructor can assist the learner at these points above. From this point ofview, the subcategories we proposed will be adequate, as long as “V-1: Implementation Intention” aims to
support learners to make an actual plan for the goal and make a commitment and start efforts, “V-2:
Appropriate Self-control” aims to help learners to avoid the overwhelming load by conducting self-control, “V-3: Self-monitoring” aims to help learners to make clear how much left for the goal and thenmodify the plan.
However, we came to realize that we need to study how the original ARCS model could be
influenced from the appearance of the volitional element, also we need to study if it should be revised atsome parts. Keller (2010) explained that the main elements of the concept of learner’s volition were
“implementation intention”, “action control”, and “self-regulation”. Based on this point of view, we
checked if each subcategory of the ARCS model is related to the concept of volition (See Table 3).
Table 3．
．Results of checking the volition in the ARCS model
△
△
○
○
○
○

A-1 : Perceptual Arousal
A-2 : Inquiry Arousal
A-3 : Variability
C-1 : Learning Requirement
C-2 : Success Opportunities
C-3 : Personal Control

○
○
○
×
×
×

R-1 : Goal-Orientation
R-2 : Motive Matching
R-3 : Familiarity
S-1 : Natural Consequences
S-2 : Positive Consequences
S-3 : Equity

Note: “○”- Related, “△”-Related in some situations, “×”-Not-related
From the results of checking, we found that the expansion of the ARCS model by Keller did not justadd another new factor, but focused again on the cognitive concept which has already been there in the
ARCS model. The ARCS-V model was arranged to make it clear. After all, accompaniment to the
expansion has caused a necessity to check the original ARCS model if any modification is needed or not.

CONCLUSION
The purpose of this paper is to discuss about proposing the subcategories of the Volition for the
ARCS-V model. We selected three subcategory titles, “Implementation Intention”, “Appropriate Selfcontrol”, and “Self-monitoring” as results of this study. Also, we discussed about the validity of the
proposal and the implication of what we pointed out, which is about the influence from focusing thevolitional aspect to the definition of the original ARCS model. We found that further research will beneeded. We will continue this study and will propose practical volitional strategies for assisting thediagnosis and solution for the motivational/volitional problems. Then the contribution to the progress of
the ARCS study will be made. We will also present this study in Japan.

ACKNOWLEDGEMENT
This work was supported by JSPS KAKENHI (24501225), Grant-in-Aid for Scientific Research (C),2012-2014, by Japan Society for the Promotion of Science (JSPS), JAPAN.

REFERENCES
Adams, J.S. (1965), Inquiry in Social Exchange, In L. Berkowitz (Ed.), Advances in Experimental Social
Psychology (Vol2), New York: Academic Press
Bandula, A. (1977), Self-efficacy: Toward a Unifying Theory of Behavioral Change, Psychological
Review, 84, 191-215
Berlyne, D.E. (1965), Motivational Problems Raised by Explanatory and Epistemic Behavior, In S. Koch(Ed.), Psychology: A study of a science (Vol.5), New York: McGraw-Hill.
deCharms, R. (1968), Personal Causation, New York: Academic Press
Gollwitzer, P. M. (1996), The volitional Benefits of Planning, First publ. in: The psychology of action / ed.
by P. M. Gollwitzer and J. A. Bargh. New York: Guilkford Pr., 287-312

Gollwitzer, P. M. (1993),Goal achievement: The role of intentions, In W. Stroebe & M. Hewstone. (Eds.),
European Review of Social Psychology, 4, 141-185
James, W. (1890), The principles of psychology (Vol.2), New York: Henry Holt.
Keller, J. M. (2008), First principles of motivation to learn and e3-learning, Distance Education,
29:2,175-185,
Keller, J. M. (2009), Motivational Design for Learning and Performance: The ARCS Model Approach, ,Springer
Keller, J.M.(2010), Challenging in Learner Motivation: A Holistic, Integrative Model for Research and
Design on Learner Motivation, The 11th International Conference on Education Research, 1-18
Kim, C.M., & Keller, J.M. (2008). Effects of motivational and volitional email messages (MVEM) withpersonal messages on undergraduate students’ motivation, study habits and achievement. British
Journal of Educational Technology, 39(1), 36–51.
Kuhl, J. (1984), Volitional aspects of achievement motivation and learned helplessness: toward acomprehensive theory of action control, Progress in Experimental Personality Research, 13, 99171
McClelland, D.C. (1976), The achieving society, New York: Irvington Publishers
Nakajima, K., Nakano, H., Ohmori, F., & Suzuki, K. (2011), The Effectiveness of Campus-wide eLearning Supports Designed by an Extended ARCS Model, International Journal for Educational
Media and Technology,5(1), 150-161.
Rotter, J.B. (1966), Generalized Expectancies for Internal Versus External Control of Reinforcement,
Psychological Monographs, 80 Whole No. 609, 1-28
Schank, R. C. (1979), Interestingness: Controlling Inferences, Artificial Intelligence, 12(3), 273-297
Surry, D. W. & Land, S. M. (2000), Strategies for Motivating Higher Education Faculty to Use
Technology, Innovations in Education and Teaching International, 37: 2, 145-153
Suzuki, K. (2010), On Expansion of ARCS model to ARCS-V Model, A paper presented at 17th Japan
Association for Education Media Study, 115-116 [in Japanese]
Suzuki, K., Nemoto J., & Goda Y. (2010), Research Trends on ARCS Model in Japan, A paper presented
at 35th Japanese Society for Information and Systems in Education, 99-100 [in Japanese]
Sweller, J.（1994）, Cognitive Load Theory, Learning difficulty, and Instructional Design, Learning andInstruction, 4, 295-312
Tolman, E.C. (1932), Purposive Behavior in Animals and men, New York: Appleton-Century
Uebuchi H. (2004), Frontline of the Motivational Research, Kitaoji-shobo [in Japanese]
Zimmerman, B.J. (1990), Self-regulated learning and academic achievement: An overview, Educational
Psychologist, 25, 3-17
Zimmerman B. J. and Schunk D. H.(2006), Self-regulated Learning and Academic Achievement, Tras. &Ed. by Shuici Tsuano Kitaoji-Shobo [in Japanese]
Zuckerman, M. (1979), SensationSeeking: Beyond the Optional Level of Arousal, Hillsdale, NJ: Erlbaum