Research Trends related to Keller's ARCS Model:
A Review of Literature in Japan
Katsuaki Suzuki (Kumamoto University, Japan)
Junko Nemoto (Kumamoto University, Japan)
Yoshiko Goda (Kumamoto University, Japan)
ksuzuki@kumamoto-u.ac.jp
Abstract: This research reports on research trends in Japan related to Keller’s ARCS
Model by reviewing literature. Thirty-four (34) articles were located in CiNii, whichwere categorized by two independent raters into five categories suggested by Suzuki(1995). Both descriptive and prescriptive studies were found more frequently thananalytic and evaluation studies. No research was found to be categorized as Learning
Strategy Study. The trends have been strong in applying the ARCS model in various
areas of inquiries from various perspectives.

Introduction
The ARCS Model of motivational design was first introduced to Japanese research community in 1987
(Suzuki, 1987). Since then, various researchers have incorporated the Model into their research indifferent ways. Suzuki (1993) reviewed such early trends and concluded that the adoption process could
best be interpreted not as introducing the ARCS Model per se, but as advocating the importance ofconsidering “appeal” of instruction as the third outcome variable of instructional design after“effectiveness” and “efficiency.” Likewise, the ARCS Model has been one of the major frameworks inresearch and practices of motivational design worldwide. There have been research studies, reported in
English, from more than 50 countries, which shows the multi-nationality of the ARCS Model (Keller &Suzuki, 2004).
When discussed about the framework of designing and developing "appealing” instruction, using theARCS Model, Suzuki (1995) proposed a framework of categorizing research activities into five areas
with some examples for each: (1) Analytical Research, to analyze motivational characteristics ofinstructional materials and learning environment using the ARCS framework, (2) Descriptive Research, tofind out which of the ARCS elements are being used as motivational strategies in classroom instruction as
well as online environment, (3) Prescriptive Research, to design and implement motivationalenhancement with existing or new educational interventions using the ARCS framework, (4) Evaluation
Research, to establish assessment methodologies of learner motivation in various instructional settings
using the ARCS framework, and (5) Learning Strategy Research, to use the ARCS Model as instructional
content to teach self-study skills or cognitive strategies.

Research Question
The purpose of this study was to analyze the trends in Japanese research community as to how the ARCS
Model had been used. A framework of research categories by Suzuki (1995) was used to depict thecharacteristics of the trends. It aimed to provide basic data of research activities, mainly reported inJapanese, for possible comparative studies to depict commonalities and differences of trends in Japan,
when compared with those of other countries.

Research Design and Methods
A literature review was conducted through searching the databases of academic writings of CiNii (NIIScholarly and Academic Information Navigator, http://ci.nii.ac.jp/) and KAKEN (Database ofGrants-in-Aid for Scientific Research, http://kaken.nii.ac.jp/) provided by National Institute ofInformation, using keywords "ARCS Model" and "ARCS Motivation Model" in Japanese and English.
Also conducted was a Web search on Google (http://www.google.co.jp/) with the same keyword to locate
other articles that were not included in the above mentioned databases. This report deals only with the㪉㪏㪐first of the above mentioned three sources, i.e., CiNii.
After locating writings on the ARCS Model, two researchers (second and third authors of this paper) readeach of the writings independently to judge the categories of each research based on Suzuki (1995). Outof 40 studies found in CiNii, two sets were regarded identical, although listed as separate studies. Threeothers were considered to be three parts of one study, thus counted as one. Another study used ARCS in
its keywords, described the Model, but never used it in the study, thus excluded from the analysis. Onemore study excluded from the analysis was the literature review by Suzuki (1995), resulting a total of 34studies in the analysis. Two collaborators agreed on the categories of 27 out of 34 research studies, thus
the inter-rater reliability was .76. The remaining categories were determined by discussing with the firstauthor.

Results
There were 34 studies on the ARCS Model found in CiNii. The authors and titles of these writings werelisted in Appendix 1. The categories of research studies are shown in Figure 1, and the publication year issummarized in Figure 2. Both descriptive and prescriptive studies have been conducted most frequently(13 studies, or 38% each), which was followed by analytical studies (5 studies, or 15%), and evaluationstudies (3 studies, or 9%). No learning strategy studies were found in this survey.

㻭㻾㻯㻿㻌㻿㼠㼡㼐㼥㻌㼕㼚㻌㻶㼍㼜㼍㼚㻟㻜㻡㻭㼚㼍㼘㼥㼠㼕㼏㼍㼘㻰㼑㼟㼏㼞㼕㼜㼠㼕㼢㼑㻼㼞㼑㼟㼏㼞㼕㼜㼠㼕㼢㼑㻱㼢㼍㼘㼡㼍㼠㼕㼛㼚㻝㻟㻯㼛㼚㼠㼑㼚㼠㻝㻟

Figure 1: ARCS Study in Japan by Categories㻭㻾㻯㻿㻌㻿㼠㼡㼐㼥㻌㼕㼚㻌㻶㼍㼜㼍㼚㻣㻢㻭㼚㼍㼘㼥㼠㼕㼏㼍㼘㻰㼑㼟㼏㼞㼕㼜㼠㼕㼢㼑㻼㼞㼑㼟㼏㼞㼕㼜㼠㼕㼢㼑㻱㼢㼍㼘㼡㼍㼠㼕㼛㼚㻯㼛㼚㼠㼑㼚㼠

㻡㻠㻟㻞㻝㻜㻝㻥㻥㻢㻝㻥㻥㻣㻝㻥㻥㻤㻝㻥㻥㻥㻞㻜㻜㻜㻞㻜㻜㻝㻞㻜㻜㻞㻞㻜㻜㻟㻞㻜㻜㻠㻞㻜㻜㻡㻞㻜㻜㻢㻞㻜㻜㻣㻞㻜㻜㻤㻞㻜㻜㻥㼅㻱㻭㻾

Figure 2: ARCS Study in Japan by Publication Years㪉㪐㪇㻞㻜㻝㻜Examples of ARCS Studies
Analytical study
Ishikawa (2000) conducted a study, in which 40 junior college students evaluated 79 pieces of material
for English listening skill improvement. The aim of this study was to obtain criteria for selecting suchmaterials for the future uses. Questionnaire created based on ARCS four categories with 5-point Likert
scales revealed higher scores for Relevance and Satisfaction than the other two scales, and the two scales(Relevance and Satisfaction) are highly correlated to each other, but not so with Confidence. Further
analyses of how the nature of learning activities were related to high scores on Satisfaction, such activities
as seeing pictures and graphs, layout with matrix formats, using concrete persons, and writing were foundto be positively related to the Satisfaction score.
Descriptive study
Matsuzaki, et.al (2007) designed and conducted a two-credit e-mail writing class for nursing students,
utilizing portfolio as instructional tool. They used the ARCS framework for evaluating their class, using 4
item 5-point Likert scale, revealing high scores in Attention, Relevance, and Satisfaction. From ananalysis of free-response questionnaire, 85 out of 118 sentences the students produced were related to oneof the ARCS. The quantities of positive statements were bigger in those categories than Confidence,
which supported the higher scores in the Likert scale.
Prescriptive study
Wang et.al (2007) reported a study of revising a programming training self-study material in a university.
They created a motivationally enhanced material, by mainly altering the order of traditionally usedmaterial based on the ARCS model and Gagne’s nine events of instruction. Sixty students who wererandomly assigned to the motivationally enhanced group studied and completed significantly more thanthose who used the traditional material. There also were significant differences in the posttest averagescore and expressed more positively in the questionnaire on their subjective understanding level andenjoyment level. They concluded that “the motivationally enhanced material with its example programand execution result at the very beginning of the material aroused the users’ perceptual interest and mindof inquiry, which may have led to their motivation for learning (p. 354)”.
Evaluation studySugimoto and Kogo (1996) created and tested a questionnaire to evaluate computer-assisted instruction(CAI) materials based on the ARCS Model. They first created 23 items of 5-point scale of pairs ofopposite adjectives (e.g., old vs. fresh) with 4 to 5 items for each of the ARCS categories and added 6
more items of generic evaluation aspect of instruction. They then asked 114 university students toevaluate 28 kinds of CAI materials, using the 23 item scale. Factor analyses were conducted to eliminate
items from the scale, resulted in fair sets for Attention and Relevance. They suggested that more items
may be needed to obtain better fits for Confidence and Satisfaction for further analyses.

Discussion
It is natural courses of action, when one would try to utilize a conceptual model such as the ARCS Model,
to first try to analyze the nature and possibilities of current situation (i.e., analytical study), then try toevaluate the status-of-quo of an instructional practice (i.e., descriptive study). Then, one would try toimprove the situation by applying the model for designing and implementing better intervention (i.e.,prescriptive study). This study found that such a natural courses of action have been taken in Japan, whenthe ARCS Model has been the issue of research activities. On the other hand, when one tries to evaluate
the effect of the introduction of such a model, then it would be necessary to come up with a specificmethod to measure the motivational enhancement. Such research studies to invent new instruments
regarding the ARCS Model (i.e., evaluation study) were found at earlier stages (1990’s), which then wereutilized in the following studies as evaluation instrument. However, no study was found that uses IMMS
or CIS, assessment tools created by Keller (2010) himself.
The inter-rater reliability was not very high in this study (.76), partly due to difficulties to distinguishanalytical study from descriptive study. Discussion among three authors of this paper resulted in deeper㪉㪐㪈understanding of the distinction in that analytical studies are more general and to try to speculate not only
actual characteristics of the given environment (e.g., online learning), but also possible characteristics offuture implementation. On the other hand, descriptive study would focus specifically on an actual
example of educational practice, where certain motivational characteristics may or may not present, evenwhen it is possible to include such strategies. Further refinement may be in order to make clearer thedistinction between these two categories.
Although Suzuki (1995) argued that there could be the fifth categories of ARCS research being learning
strategy study, this study found no such example in the CiNii database. Only possible example, or theclosest one, was done by Yamamoto, et al (2003), in which not students but teachers were to be taught thestrategies and categories of the ARCS when they were faced with how to come up with the ideas toimprove their teaching plan based on students reaction data formulated in terms of the ARCS. It wasregarded a prescriptive study, because the teachers were at an initial stage of revising their instructional
plan for the next implementation. However, the emphasis seemed to be placed in learning the ARCS
categories, in order to prioritize motivational enhancement based on the weakness of their current
teaching. It was not counted as an example of learning strategy study, because students were not to betaught the ARCS. However, the category itself may be expanded to include teacher training aspect ofARCS application, such as this study, in order to show the difference among studies within theprescriptive study category.
As the next phase of this study, not only CiNii, but other sources of research indexes and Web searchshould be done to further analyze the research trends of the ARCS model in Japan. There are more studies
that have been done, which are not included in this analysis. This is just the first piece of report on thisissue, and the follow-ups should be in order. When that will be done, similar search can be done in othercountries, including the literature written in English in other countries, for a comparison study. It is ourhope that by making clear about what have been done with the ARCS Model, we may be able to utilize
the Model more wisely and from wider perspectives by learning from each other.

References
Ishikawa,T. (2000). A study of learners' satisfaction in listening tasks: Evaluation of junior college
students based on ARCS Model. The bulletin of the Junior College, Seitoku University, 33, 151-157[in Japanese].
Keller, J. M. (2010). Motivational design for learning and performance: The ARCS model approach.
Springer.
Keller, J. M., & Suzuki, K. (2004). Learner motivation and e-Learning design: A mutinationally validated
process. Journal of Educational Media (Special Issue), 29 (3), 229-239.
Matsuzaki, K., Hojo, R. (2007). Investigation of instructional design for portfolios using as an
instructional tool: A case study of EFL writing at K Nursing School. Japan Journal of Educational
Technology, 31(1), 69-77 [in Japanese].
Sugimoto,Y. & Kogo, C. (1996). Making an evaluation sheet for CAI courseware based on ARCS
motivation model. Bulletin of the Center for Research and Training in Teacher Education Toyama
University, 14, 53-59 [in Japanese].
Suzuki, K. (1987). Toward designing and developing appealing courseware: ARCS Motivation Model andits application to CAI design. A paper presented at the 3rd Annual Meeting of the Japanese Societyof Educational Technology, Proceedings, 375-376 [in Japanese].
Suzuki, K. (1993). Applying the ARCS model in Japan. A paper presented at the Annual Meeting of theAssociation for Educational Communications and Technology, New Orleans, LA, U.S.A.
Suzuki, K. (1995).On the framework of designing and developing "appealing instruction": The ARCS
Motivation Model. Japanese Journal of Educational Media Research, 1(1), 50-61 [in Japanese]
Wang,W., Ikeda, M., & Li, F. (2007). Proposal and evaluation of the "Motivation-Oriented" teaching
method in programming education (<Special Issue> Application and Aggregation of Learning
Objects and Learning Data). Japan Journal of Educational Technology, 31(3), 349-357 [inJapanese].
Yamamoto, M., Nishibuchi, A., & Suzuki, K. (2003). Formative evaluation of Website"Check-and-Revise your motivational design" based on the ARCS model. Proceedings of the 19th
National Conference for the Japanese Society for Educational Technology, 83-84 [in Japanese].

㪉㪐㪉Appendix 1: Research on ARCS Model found in CiNii
1996 SUGIMOTO,Y. KOGO, C.
1997

SENDAI DAI-ICHI JUNIORHIGH SCHOOL

1998 SUZUKI,K.
1998 KOGO,C. SUZUKI,K.
1999 ISHIKAWA,T.

2000 ISHIKAWA,T.

2001 ISHIKAWA,T.
2003

YAMAMOTO,M. ISHIBUCHI, A.
SUZUKI, K.

2003 KIJIMA,H.SUZUKI,Y.
2004 NAGAHASHI,T. L.
2004 SEKI,Y. ITO,T.
2005 HOSHINO,Y.
2005 MITSUNAGA, F.

2005

OYAMADA,M. IWASAKI, S.
MOGAMI, T. et al.

2006 KIKUCHI,H.
2006

MATSUZAKI,K.NAKAYAMA,M.
HOJO,R.

2006 SAEKI,A. UJIIE,A.
2006

MATSUZAKI,K.
NAKAYAMA,M. HOJO,R.

2007

HISHINA M., OKADA R.,SUZUKI K.

2007 OHE, H.

Making an Evaluation Sheet for CAI Courseware
Based on ARCS Motivation Model
Educational Practices using the ARCS Model inInstructional Design: A practical report
Development of Drill Shells for HyperCard: Adopting
Evaluation Phases Using Instructional Design Models
and Usability Enhancement
Making an Evaluation Sheet for Courses and Learning
Materials Based on ARCS Motivation Model
A Study of Learners' Attention to Listening Tasks : InRelation to Their Relevance, Satisfaction andConfidence
A Study of Learners' Satisfaction in Listening Tasks :Evaluation of Junior College Students Based on ARCS
Model
A Study of the Relevance of Listening Tasks :Evaluation of Junior College Students Based on ARCS
Model
Formative evaluation of website "Check-and-Revise
your motivational design" based on the ARCS modelA Study on the Support of Self-directed Learning inJapanese as a Second Language : Procedure andEvaluation using the ARCS Motivation Model
Rationale and Strategies for Motivating Students toLearn
Improving a Lecture on Natural Sciences to Humanities
MajorsAbout the Change of the Learning Motive by theARCS Model in the English Learning
Instructional design and practice of high school mathusing blackboard and e-materials: GRAPES andMathematica for Math C.
The Development and the Practice of the Ex-Physics
Class for High School Students Using an Accelerator
within the Collaboration between University and HighSchool Promoted by the Instructional Design Theories
and Information and Communication Technologies
Motivation in E-learning for Adult Learners : AJapanese Context (Educational Technology andCommunication)
A Case Study on Simplification of Portfolio
Conferencing Documents
1B1-E2 Transformation of students' interest,
enthusiasm and attitude of learning the differential
equation
Investigation of the Meetings of Teachers' Practice
Reports as In-school Training at J. H. S.
Measuring the effects of human relations on
willingness-to-learn for CMC-based one-to-one
instruction
Business management theory and practice report:
ARCS Model for evaluating corporate training (1-3)

㪉㪐㪊Appendix 1: Research on ARCS Model found in CiNii (Continued)

2007 HOJO,R. MATSUZAKI,K.

2007

KISHIDA,K. SHIOZAKI, Y.
IGARASHI, J.

2007 MATSUZAKI,K.HOJO,R.
2007 WANG,W. IKEDA, M. LI, F.
2008 FUJITA, M.

2008

SUGAWARA R., SATO K.,
MURAKI E.

2008 MATSUZAKI,K.
2009

UMEDA Y., MIZUTA S.,SUZUKI Y.

2009

SAITO,N. ONDO,T.
NAGANUMA,S. et al

2009

SUGAWARA R. SATO K.,
MURAKI E.

TASAKI,T. WATANABE, S.
OZAKI,K.
YAMAKAWA Y. Mackin, K. J.
2009
MATSUSHITA K.
2009

2009 IZUHARA,K. KOGO, C.
TAKAHARA, K. NAKANO, M.,2010 KAJIWARA, T.

Investigating the 'show and tell' method for the learningof English expressions (English composition andspeech) utilizing portfolios as an instructional tool for
Japanese nursing school students
Toward Lessons where Students feel the Values ofLearning Mathematics
Investigation of Instructional Design for Portfolios
Using as an Instructional Tool : A Case Study of EFL
Writing at K Nursing School
Proposal and Evaluation of the "Motivation-Oriented"
Teaching Method in Programming Education
Characteristics of self-educational ability andmotivation of 3rd year Nursing Students: Student
evaluation of the classes
A practice in "information" class based on learning mix
blended objectivism and constructivism and its
evaluation: a blended learning example utilizing typingsoftware
Designing portfolios as an instructional tool andinvestigating their effects: for the purpose of enhancing
motivation and lessening writing apprehension
Hiragana for young Korean learners: memory
strategies, the ARCS model and the association method
Development and improvement of an e-learning
training course for adult learners aimed forenhancement of their learning motivation
Practice and evaluation in "information" class based onlearning mix blended objectivism and constructivism:
example of blended learning utilizing typing software
to high school student
8-211 Development of Control Teaching Material thatcauses Sensibility
Development a programming learning support system"CAPTAIN"
Effects of Using Student Review Sheet on e-Learning
Course Evaluation
Communication Education for Students in the Scienceand Engineering Majors based on the Process of Valueand Attitude Changes of Students by Debate㪉㪐㪋