Verification of the Practical Uses of the ARCS-V Model
Koji Nakajima
nakajima@ogu.ac.jp
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 describe the progress of their study about practical usesof the ARCS-V model. After more than twenty years of stable periods, the ARCS-V
model has been expanded from one of the representative instructional designmodels, the ARCS model. The “V” factor is planned to assist instructors for having
learners keep their motivation and volition for reaching their goals. The authors
planned to verify the practical uses of the ARCS-V model to make clear if there is
any situation where the ARCS-V model is more useful than the original ARCS
model. Volition-related tools for the ARCS-V model were designed to follow theidea of the tools for the ARCS model, such as a hints list and a worksheet of
motivational design steps. They were to be applied in this study to verify if thesetools can assist instructors to prepare proper and useful strategies for learner’s
volition. The tools were reviewed by the instructional design experts to be
improved regarding the validity and the intelligibility. Also, potential scenarios ofa sample class which has motivational issues are going to be provided as a tool forthe verification. The processes for the verification including the usage of the
scenarios are described in detail and the future tasks are also discussed.

Keywords: the ARCS model, the ARCS-V Model, volition, design tools, learnermotivation

INTRODUCTION
Recently, one of the representative instructional design (ID) models, the ARCS model,that deals with learner’s motivation was expanded by adding the volition factor and was
advocated as the ARCS-V model (Keller, 2008). On the other hand, there is the otherexpanded model called the ARCS+AT model with an additional factor of “Assistance andTools (AT)” which is aimed to provide universities a framework for assisting university
faculty for utilizing e-learning (Nakajima et al., 2011). In this paper, the ARCS-V model isfocused on and a study about the verification of the practical uses of the model is described.
While the ARCS model classifies learner’s motivation in four aspects of Attention,
Relevance, Confidence and Satisfaction and provides instructors hints for motivating
learners, the ARCS-V model focuses especially on the strategies for sustaining the
motivation learners once get by adding a new factor of volition. “Volition” is defined as “aconcept of actions and attitudes regarding continuance of the effort to achieve a goal”.
“Motivation” is defined as “a meaning of what people want, select and act, and a meaning ofwhat people devote all the strength to” (Suzuki, 2010).
The ARCS-V model has not been studied much when compared to the original ARCS
model. The subcategories of volition factor of the ARCS-V model are not identified yet,while the subcategories of the original four factors are already defined. To deal with this,
there is a study which has proposed the subcategories of volition factor (Nakajima et al,
2012a ; Nakajima et al, 2012b). The subcategories proposed in this study were applied
directly to the ARCS model proponent, Keller. Then the differences between the applied
ones and the ideas Keller had explained became clear (Table 1). So the authors continue
discussions with Keller now to meet with the best conclusion. At the classification of thevolition subcategories of the ARCS-V model, it is vital to clarify a domain concerned withvolition in a macro model (MVP model; Keller, 2008) that expresses the cycle of learning
activities and learner’s psychological environment because it is the background of the
ARCS-V model. The reason why the differences at the classification came out will bebecause of the differences of understandings of this domain in the cycle. Nakajima et al(2012) proposed that the domain will include also the area of “mental resource management”
that connects between “motivation & volitional processing” and “information &psychomotor processing”.
Table 1. Comparative table of the volition subcategories
Keller’s subcategories
Nakajima et al.’s subcategories
StrongIntentions(Commitment)
Implementation
Intention
V-1
Appropriate
Self-control
Taking
the
First
Step
(ActionInitiation)
V-2
Self-monitoring
V-3 Self-Regulation (Action Control)*Keller’s subcategories are quoted from Keller (2012).

PURPOSE OF THIS STUDY
After it was advocated in 1983, the ARCS model has been studied by many researches(Suzuki et al, 2010) and practiced in Japan in many situations, not only at school but also
in business training. To realize why such a popular ID model was expanded recently, it
must be significant to verify if the expanded model can be beneficial in practical situations.
By this verification, the answers to questions such as “Does the ARCS model need to be
expanded?” or “Isn’t the ARCS model already enough for any situation?” will be guided
clearly. The purpose of this study is to clarify if the ARCS-V model can provide instructors
hints to solve motivational and volitional problems more properly than the ARCS model.
The other purpose is to identify the situations in which the ARCS-V model can be useful.
Then the method of using the ARCS-V model effectively will be suggested.

VERIFICATION OF THE PRACTICAL USES OF THE ARCS-V MODEL
To verify the practical uses of the ARCS-V model, the authors arranged some tools forchecking how this model can guide strategies for solving motivational and volitional
problems at practical situations. These tools are prepared to be used by instructors atuniversities and are going to be analyzed by checking the results of the uses.

Design of the Tools for the Verification
For the ARCS model, the hints list of each factor for practical uses is provided for
instructors and learners (Suzuki, 2002). So the authors proposed additional hints forvolitional factor and arranged it as the hints list for the ARCS-V model. At this preparation,the authors supported the classification of volition subcategories by Nakajima et al (2012a).
These theories such as “implementation intention (Gollwitzer, 1996)”, “action control theory(Kuhl, 1984)”, “self-regulated learning (Zimmerman, 1990)” were rationale for thisclassification. The hints for volition subcategories were picked up by presuming that thestrategies supported by these theories will sustain learner’s volition to reach the goal. Thenthe Design-Step for Motivational Strategies sheet (Design-Step sheet) were prepared so as
to assist instructors to analyze learners and his/her own class and contrive strategies forthe motivational and volitional problems. Design-Step sheet is based on the idea of 10 steps
for the motivational design (Keller, 2010; Table 2) and was arranged in a simple format.
Instructors will be able to find out the best strategies by taking steps of the sheet thatreflects the concept of the ARCS model or the ARCS-V model.

Review by ID Experts
A review by two ID experts was done before the verification by these tools to evaluate
the validity and the intelligibility of the hints list and the Design-Step sheet and improvethem. The reviewers have considerable insight of ID through the experiences of ID researchor practical implementations at ID experts institute. They tested the tools and answered
the questionnaires and then they were involved in a meeting to explain the results of thereview. They pointed out the lack of concreteness in the hints list and suggested how toshow examples for the instructors, so that they will feel confidence to try for the actions.
Then the hints list was revised and completed as the hints list for ARCS-V model (Table 3).
The notation in Design-Step sheet was also revised and completed (Table 4).

Analyze

Table 2. 10 Steps for Motivational Design（Keller, 2010）
DesignDevelop
Pilot Test

1. Obtain course
information
2. Obtain audience
information
3. Analyze
audience
4. Analyze existingmaterials

5. List objectives
andassessments

9. Select anddevelopmaterials

10. Evaluate andrevise6. List potential
tactics
7. Select anddesign tactics
8. Integrate with
instruction

Table 3. Hints list for the ARCS-V model (extracted) (Nakajima et al, 2013)
Attention
A-1: Perceptual Arousal
 Devise an opening and attract attention. (Illustration at the cover, Title naming etc.)
A-2: Inquiry Arousal
 Lock first and guide them to figure out in the textbook.
A-3: Variability
 Not with long explanation. Keep making changes at check-tests, exercises or summary.

Relevance
R-1: Familiarity
 Explain how it connects to the things they learned before or their premise skills.
R-2: Goal Orientation
 Explain how they can make the best use of what they learned.
R-3: Motive Matching Pay attention where to write advices or hints for learners who want to access to them.

ConfidenceC-1: Learning Requirement
 Show clearly what must be done for reaching the goal. (conditions or standard)
C-2: Success Opportunities
 From easy ones to difficult ones. Give chances to experience small but steady success.
C-3: Personal Control
 Let learners decide when to finish. Let them keep trying as much as they wish.

Volition

V-1: Implementation Intention
 Let learners write down (1) why motivated? (2) why heading for the goal?, at the
beginning. Let them realize that they will look back what they described later Let learners make clear of the goals and when and what to do in their schedule.
 Let learners realize that they will look back at the goals and the schedule of fixedinternals.
V-2: Appropriate Self-control
 Let learners realize that there are things that may cause them to lose theirmotivation on the way to their goals.
 Let learners check if there are things with no relation for reaching the goals and letthem exclude these things from their plan.
 Let learners check if there are things in their plan which will weaken or bother theirmotivation or distract them.
 Let learners look back at what they wrote; (1) why motivated? (2) why heading for the
goal?, and remind them the motivation they had at the beginning.
 Let learners realize that they can avoid or ask others for help when they meet withthings that they cannot deal with themselves.
 Let learners discuss with others about their plans and learning activities each other.
V-3: Self-monitoring Let each learner manage a learning-portfolio and collect their learning outcomes.
 Let learners check how much they progress and realize how much they have left for
the goals.
 Let learners reflect what they have learned and let them modify the plan if it has notprogressed properly when compared to the original plan.

Satisfaction
S-1: Natural Consequences Give chances to check how they accomplished on the basis of the goal.
S-2: Positive Consequences Emphasis the utility value or the importance of knowledge and skills they mastered.
S-3: Equity
 Keep consistency through goals, exercises and examinations in class.
* Hints for ARCS are extracted from Suzuki (2002). Hints for V are proposed additionally.

Step
1
2
3
4

5
6

Table 4. Design-Step sheet (extracted) (Nakajima et al, 2013)
Task
Type the basic information of your class.
Check if there is any motivational problem in your class.
 Analyze your learners (by the ARCS model or the ARCS-V model).
 Analyze your lectures (by the ARCS model or the ARCS-V model).
 List up (1) goals for solving motivational and volitional problems, and (2)evaluation methods for each, based on the results from the previous step.
 List up strategies for reaching the goals by referring to the hints list of the
ARCS model or the ARCS-V model.
Design and develop your class and textbook by these strategies.
Implement the strategies and evaluate them.

IMPLEMENTATION PLAN FOR FORMATIVE EVALUATIONAt the verification, the tools are prepared for both of the ARCS model and the ARCS-V
model. Then potential scenarios of class situations were also prepared. It aims to save theresults of the experiments from too much diffusion that must happen in the case that we
ask the instructors to try the tools with their own classes. One of the scenarios is designed
as the volitional aspects seem to work, and another one is designed as it will not work
(Table 5).
Instructors at the verification will be divided into four groups by two factor design(Table 6) and be asked to contrive motivational strategies by using the tools. Then the sorts
and numbers of the strategies from each group will be analyzed.
At the formative evaluation the authors are planning, ID experts will be asked fortesting all the tools again to improve the quality. Then instructors from universities will be
asked to join the one-to-one evaluation of the tools. Observing the way each one uses thetools and the interviews after he/she finish it will help the revisions of the experiment plan.
And finally, the experiment for verification will be done with the four groups shown in Table
6. The results will make clear the situations the ARCS-V model is more useful than the
ARCS model, if it is true.
Table 5. Comparison of the characteristic of two scenarios
Scenario designed for volition
Scenario designed not for volition
Each task is connected through class.
Cooperation with other learners.

Each task is just for each lesson.
No cooperation with other learners.

No problem with the difficulty of instructions.

Problems with the difficulty of instructions.

The ability of learners is enough for the class.

Table 6. Grouping for the verification
Tools for the ARCS-V model
Tools for the ARCS model
Scenario for volition
Group 1
Group 2
Scenario not for volition
Group 3
Group 4DISCUSSION
The motivational or volitional strategies listed by the instructors in this verification
will be analyzed among four groups to find out if there is any significant difference.
Comparison indexes will be the results such as total numbers of strategies the instructors
from each group listed, and numbers or percentage of volition related strategies within. In
this case, we have to discuss if the assumption is valid; (1) there was no significant
difference about volition related strategies between group 3 and 4, and (2) there wassignificant difference about volition related strategies between group 1 and 2, if both of (1)and (2) is true, it proves that there is a situation the ARCS-V model can be more usefulthan the ARCS model. At this point, the authors presume that it is valid because it is true
the instructors succeeded in finding volitional solutions with the ARCS-V model more thanwith the ARCS model in that situation.
Another discussion is if the comparison indexes should include the outcomes from thelearners such as the changes of motivation or learning results after the class with thestrategies are done. We are going to work on this issue by taking time and planned steps.

CONCLUSION
In this study, we planned the verification of the practical uses of the ARCS-V modeland arranged some tools. Through the review by ID experts, we improved the validity andintelligibility of the tools. We planned to move to the next step of formative evaluation andthe final experiment. Also we discussed about the validity of the process of the verification.
We will contribute to the ARCS-V model study and try to show how to use the model forsolving the motivational and volitional problems in classes.

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
Gollwitzer, P. M. (1996). The volitional benefits of planning. In P. M. Gollwitzer & J. A.
Bargh (Eds.), The psychology of action. New York: Guilkford Press, 287-312.
Keller, J. M. (2008). An integrative theory of motivation, volition, and performance.
Cognition and Learning, 6, 79-104.
Keller, J. M. (2010). Motivational design for learning and performance: The ARCS model
approach. New York: Springer.
Keller, J. M. (2012). Education Lecture I: the ARCS model for nursing education. Presented
at the 22nd Japan Academy of Nursing Education.
Kuhl, J. (1984). Volitional aspects of achievement motivation and learned helplessness:
Toward a comprehensive theory of action control. Progress in Experimental Personality
Research, 13, 99-171.
Nakajima, K., Nakano, H., Ohmori, F., and Suzuki, K. (2011). The Effectiveness of campuswide e-learning supports designed by an extended ARCS model. International Journal
for Educational Media and Technology, 5 (1), 150-161.
Nakajima, K., Nakano, H., Watanabe, A., and Suzuki, K. (2012a). Research for Proposing
the Subcategories of the Volitional Element for the ARCS-V model. A paper presented
at ICoME (International Conference on Media in Education), China,
http://icome.bnu.edu.cn/content/full-papaer
Nakajima, K., Nakano, H., Watanabe, A., and Suzuki, K. (2012b). Proposal of thesubcategories of the volitional element for the ARCS-V model based on the expansion of
the MVP model. A paper presented at the 28th Japan Society for educational
Technology, 261-262 [in Japanese].
Nakajima, K., Nakano, H., Watanabe, A., and Suzuki, K. (2013). Design and Evaluation ofTools for Validating the Practical Effectiveness of the Expanded ARCS model. A paper
presented at Study Group in Nagasaki of Japan Society for educational Technology,147-154 [in Japanese].
Suzuki, K. (2002). Instructional Design Manual. Kyoto: Kitaoji-Shobo [in Japanese].
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 the 35th Japanese Society for Information and Systems in Education, 99100 [in Japanese].
Zimmerman, B. J. (1990). Self-regulated learning and academic achievement: An overview.
Educational Psychologist, 25, 3-17.