ID Model Presentation
Our ID Model presentation was on John Keller's ARCS model of motivational design. I thought our presentation went okay but I would have liked to spend more time on identifying the A, R, C and S in both the Toyota example and for the Jeopardy game. It was useful for Aaron to discuss how he used the ARCS model more specifically in his adventure learning project as it helped to reinforce the different sorts of motivations that can be addressed.
In terms of the overall project, I felt somewhat adrift as to how to actually get ahold of the assignment. As a newbie to the field, I would prefer to be assigned (or at least choose one from a list) an ID model and given a specific series of questions to walk through.
I found myself very interested in thinking about the concept of motivation, how to define it, how to measure, how to address it and found the ID model part of the assignment got in the way of my ability to really consider the concept of motivation. It seems to me that Keller's work is more interesting in terms of his attempts to create a systematic approach to addressing motivational issues within instructional design rather than his contribution to any sort of overall ID model.
Furthermore, it seems to me that Keller's work could be greatly improved upon by much more extensive theoretical work on the relationship between motivation and learning. I'm not really confident that ARCS makes sense as a comprehensive model in terms of addressing motivation. I assume it is because I am unfamiliar with the broader work on motivation in ed psych and that Keller's ARCS model somehow fits another model of motivation and learning that has been developed in educational psychology or cognitive psychology. And it is my ignorance but there it is -
An article by Debra Meyer and Julianne Turner, "Discovering Emotion in Classroom Motivation Research" in Educational Psychologist (2002) really brought on a lot of the above questions. This piece is more theoretical in that it attempts to articulate WHY these researchers themselves missed the importance of emotion in considering classroom motivation of students in their past research. They review the lit on motivation and conclude that the theoretical work had not been done that properly accounts for basic strategies that teachers have used forever to motivate students - such as their use of their personal relationship with the student to either elicit a behavior or to squelch a behavior. They conclude by rethinking the theoretical context for motivation.
"As Brophy (1999) noted, motivation to learn traditionally has been viewed as a disposition (i.e., â€śan enduring tendency to value learning,â€? p. 12) and as a situation-specific state. We initially followed this tradition by investigating how the traits of a motivated learner (e.g., studentsâ€™ goals, views of challenging learning, etc.) were influenced by the instructional context (e.g., teachersâ€™ instructional strategies, characteristics of the task, etc.). However, we have learned that classroom interactions and individual perceptions are interdependent (i.e., when you study one, you get the other). As we go beyond the separation of emotion from motivation and cognition, we also need to go beyond trait versus state in our theories of motivation to explain human learning."
This is where I am at with reflecting on the Keller ARCS model.