In the late
1970s, John Keller began work on motivation in instruction, which
was an outgrowth of his interest in effort and its variability. It
was largely born out a frustartion that so much of the interest in
psychology - especially research and theory that accounted for learner
differences in achievement - was concentrated on differences in leaner
time and money constraints of the development ansd implementation
phases of the instruction.
to the audience
with the delivery system, including the instructors personal style.
Increase perceptual arousal with the use of novel, surprising, incongruous
and uncertain events. Increase inquiry arousal by stimulating information
seeking behavior; pose or have the learner generate questions or a
problem to solve. Maintain interest by varying the elements of instruction.
Emphasize relevance within the instruction to increase motivation.
Use concrete language and examples with which students are familiar.
Provide examples and concepts that are related to learners' previous
experiences and values. Present goal orienting statements and objectives.
Explain the utility of instruction for both present and future uses.
Allow students to develop confidence by enabling them to succeed.
Present a degree of challenge that allows for meaningful success under
both learning and performance conditions. Show the student that his
or her expended effort directly influences the consequences. Generate
positive expectations. Provide feedback and support internal attributions
for success. Help students estimate the probability of success by
presenting performance requirements and evaluation criteria.
Provide opportunities to use newly acquired knowledge or skill in
a real or simulated setting. Provide feedback and reinforcements that
will sustain the desired behavior. Maintain consistent standards and
consequences for task accomplishments. Manage reinforcement: keep
outcomes of learner's efforts consistent with expectations.
the traditional ISD orientation and includes motivational criterion
measures. It also considers expected and unexpected motivational effects
of instruction during formative and summative evaluation. One of first
to imply that designers should assume responsibility for motivation;
major contribution was not too focus on learner ability like others
were doing to account for different achievement, but look at motivation.
The theory overview presented here is all but directly quoted from the Keller/Kopp
paper. Only minor edits have been made by me for my own clarity. (see bottom
of page for full citation)
Keller J. M. & Kopp T. W. (1987). An Application of the ARCS Model of
Motivational Design. ology for Teaching General Methods of Thinking. Ch. 9
in Instructional Theories in Action. C.M. Reigeluth (ed.)