Category: LRNT 524

Instead of copy/pasting the whole thing, here’s a link to John’s blog post that contains our solution

    I find the reflections of others on design practice depressing and encouraging at the same. I am not working at the moment and don’t have much to examine. All I can do is passively absorb the experience of fellow MALAT students. Jean-Pierre mentioned Freedcamp, never used it before but seems like a pretty good project management software. Mike mentioned transformational leadership which I had to google, a very interesting theory, it is too bad I don’t fit the profile as it takes certain personality traits of a Five-Factor model to be a transformational leader. David mentioned Kahoot, which seems like a great way to engage students through playing learning games. I laughed at him listing his wife as one of the tools. His post, as well as the whole blog in general, points to someone who loves what he does. It reminds me of myself back when I was working, I could talk or write about my job for hours, exploring every aspect in detail, bursting with enthusiasm and it also reminds me of how little effort I am able to put in at the moment because I have nothing relevant or interesting to share, considering that I have no instructing experience. I am in the process of looking for a job in the education/training sector, so hopefully, I am not stuck in a passive mode for long. This post is just to keep the momentum going.

ARCS model was developed by John Keller(1987), it is based on his macro theory of motivation and instructional design(1979), which he derived from the work of Tolman (1932) and Lewin (1938). Their theories assume that people are motivated to engage in an activity if they perceive that it will satisfy their personal needs and if they perceive success as possible. At the time of development of the ARCS Model no other theory or model focused on creating the instruction that would motivate to learn. The ARCS model aims to address the motivational challenges of both the learners and the instructors. Learner motivation is not seen as a separate and isolated factor, but rather something that can be stimulated and sustained by an instructor. In the original model Keller (1979) divided motivational aspects into 4 categories and renamed them, as the research progressed, into Attention, Relevance, Confidence and Satisfaction. Then strategies from research findings and practices that resulted in motivated learners were compiled and categorized.

The attention category is for strategies based on research on curiosity and arousal, interest, boredom, etc. The relevance category is for strategies based on compatibility of learning styles, relatedness to past experiences, etc. The confidence category is for strategies based on attributions and experiences of success. The satisfaction category is for strategies based on intrinsically and extrinsically rewarding outcomes. Later, Keller (2008) added another category – volition, which incorporated strategies related to persistence.

The model was tested in the field. Keller(1987) provides an example of including ARCS model in a series of workshops for teachers where they defined motivational problems, formulated objectives, selected strategies and then implemented a plan. Basically, they developed or revised modules of instruction to make them more interesting and reported back the results after trying out the new approach. The teachers that used various strategies provided by the model made better progress and felt more positive about their experience. The field test had its limitations though, there were many uncontrolled aspects in it. Keller also admits It is not as effective for e-learning, although he does not provide specific reasons for it. In my opinion, it is because ARCS heavily relies on a motivational effort of an instructor designed to engage learners in real-time. Although its Motivational Design Model (Define, Design, Develop, Evaluate) can be useful for implementing suggested strategies for e-learning as well. I found the following aid for motivational strategy design very useful while thinking about how I could use the ARCS model to design my own digital learning environments.

Table 4

Job aid for motivational strategy design

Categories	Instructor’s Self-Analysis	Instructor’s Analysis of Learners
Attention	Am I excited about this learning experience and how I can make it interesting?	Are the learners going to be interested? What tactics will stimulate curiosity and interest?
Relevance	Do I believe that this learning experience will be valuable for my learners?	Will learners believe it’s valuable? What can I do to help them believe it’s important?
Confidence	Am I confident in my ability to lead this learning experience effectively and interestingly?	Will learners feel confident about their ability to learn this? What do I need to help them feel confident?
Satisfaction	Do I expect to have positive feelings about this learning experience?	What can I do to help the learners feel good about their experience and desire to continue learning?
Volition	Will I provide effective supervision and support to the learners throughout this learning event?	What can I do to help the learners maintain their goal orientation and task-focus throughout this learning event?

 

If ARCS model covers the motivational aspect, Bloom’s Taxonomy covers the cognitive, emotional and physical aspects of education(1956). It was named after Benjamin Bloom, who edited the first volume of a handbook, although it was also co-authored by Max Englehart, Edward Furst, David Krathwohl and Walter Hill. It became a framework for classifying educational goals and objectives. Bloom’s Taxonomy consisted of six categories or levels: Knowledge, Comprehension, Application, Analysis, Synthesis and Evaluation. It was later revised and the levels were renamed to Remember, Understand, Apply, Analyze, Evaluate, Create (Anderson & Krathwohl, 2001) to move away from a static concept of educational objectives to a more dynamic classification. The role of a teacher is to help students move up from lower-level to higher-level thinking. The revised model contains an interesting novelty, knowledge has been classified into four distinct types: Factual, Conceptual, Procedural and Meta-cognitive. Forehand (2017) provides a great example of how Bloom’s Taxonomy can be applied to a lesson objective.

Remember: Describe where Goldilocks lived.

Understand: Summarize what the Goldilocks story was about.

Apply: Construct a theory as to why Goldilocks went into the house.

Analyze: Differentiate between how Goldilocks reacted and how you would react in each story event.

Evaluate: Assess whether or not you think this really happened to Goldilocks.

Create: Compose a song, skit, poem, or rap to convey the Goldilocks story in a new form.

While designing my own digital learning environments, I could easily apply this Taxonomy to create individual lesson objectives.

The model has also been used to evaluate the effectiveness of e-learning (Halawi et al., 2009, p. 379)

One of the weaknesses of the model is that it presents a linear theory of learning, while most of the learning is not linear (Irvine, 2017). It is criticized for the lack of scientific validity, critics question whether lower- and higher-order thinking exists, among other unproven assumptions (“Why it is time to retire bloom’s taxonomy,” 2017). Some significant gaps have been identified, such as the absence of a motivational aspect from the concept. While Bloom’s Taxonomy offers a useful classification of knowledge and levels of learning, personally, I find that it lacks practical strategies for its implementation, especially when it comes to innovation. How do I use this fairly rigid classification system to improve the always changing course design?

References

Anderson, L., & Krathwohl, D. (Eds.). (2001). A taxonomy for learning, teaching, and assessing: A revision of Bloom’s taxonomy of educational objectives—Complete edition. New York, NY: Addison Wesley Longman.

Bloom, B. S.; Engelhart, M. D.; Furst, E. J.; Hill, W. H.;Krathwohl, D. R. (1956). Taxonomy of educational objectives: The classification of educational goals. Handbook I: Cognitive domain. New York: David McKay Company.

Forehand, M. (2017, October 11). Bloom’s taxonomy. Emerging Perspectives on Learning, Teaching and Technology. https://epltt.coe.uga.edu/index.php?title=Bloom%27s_Taxonomy

Halawi, L. A., McCarthy, R. V., & Pires, S. (2009). An evaluation of E-learning on the basis of bloom’s taxonomy: An exploratory study. Journal of Education for Business, 84(6), 374-380. https://doi.org/10.3200/joeb.84.6.374-380

Irvine, J. (2017). A Comparison of Revised Bloom and Marzano’s New Taxonomy of Learning. Research in Higher Education Journal, 33.

Keller, J. M. (2008). “An integrative theory of motivation, volition, and performance.” Technology, Instruction, Cognition, and Learning 6(2): 79-104.

Keller, J. M. (1987). Development and use of the ARCS model of instructional design. Journal of instructional development, 10(3), 2.

Keller, J. M. (1979). Motivation and instructional design: A theoretical perspective. Journal of Instructional Development, 2(4), 26 – 34.

Lewin, K. (1938). The conceptual representation and measurement of psychological forces. Durham, NC: Duke University Press.

Tolman, E.C. (1932). Purposive behavior in animals and men. New York: Century.

Why it is time to retire bloom’s taxonomy. (2017, March 5). Joana Stella Kompa. https://joanakompa.com/2017/02/07/why-it-is-time-to-retire-blooms-taxonomy/

     I have a love/hate relationship with writing this blog and often it applies to the whole program. On one hand, I hate it because I have no instructing experience and therefore I have nothing interesting or unique to say about the subject. I also find it boring to regurgitate the information I learned from assigned readings. It’s killing my soul to put out these bland posts. On the other hand, I love reading blogs of other students because they contain the useful personal experience and valuable insights.

     What are some things to consider when selecting a design model? I don’t know, therefore I have to turn to the experts. According to Dousay (2018), it is important to consider the anticipated delivery format, if the instruction will be synchronous online, synchronous face to face, asynchronous online, or some combination of these formats. How do I make design decisions? It helps to have a model or process to follow once it is selected. For example, The Gagne-Briggs model describes not only how to create instruction but how to determine the content (Gagne et al., 1988). What I liked about it is that it breaks down the learning process into 9 steps, although it seems to be more appropriate for a synchronous face to face instruction. 

1. Gain Attention
2. Inform learner of objective
3. Stimulate prerequisite recall
4. Present stimulus material
5. Provide learning guidance
6 Elicit performance
7. Provide feedback
8. Assess performance
9. Enhance retention and transfer

Every model has its own set of principles and processes. I’ve never actually used one, but it seems that breaking down a learning process into smaller chunks should be helpful in making design decisions. Which model would I choose? According to Dousay (2018) “instructional design models seek to help designers overcome gaps in what is learned due to either instruction, motivation, or resources.” I have some experience in group facilitation where many participants lacked motivation, so ARCS-V model created by Keller (2016) sounds interesting. It breaks down motivation into four variables: attention, relevance, confidence and satisfaction. These four variables are used in a Motivational Design Process which has 10 steps. 

1. Obtain course information
2. Obtain audience information
3. Analyze audience
4. Analyze other course elements
5. List objectives and assessments
6. List potential tactics
7. Select & design tactics
8. Integrate with instruction
9. Select and develop materials
10. Evaluate and revise

What I liked about Keller’s work is that he doesn’t just provide a model and 10 steps to guide a design process, he also discusses various tactics and strategies to keep the students engaged and motivated.

Dousay, T. (2017). Chapter 22. Instructional Design Models. In Foundations of Learning and Instructional Design Technology (1st ed.).

Gagne, R. M., Briggs, L. J., & Wager, W. W. (1988). Instructional design. Rinehart and Winston Inc, New York.

Keller, J. M. (2016). Motivation, learning, and technology: Applying the ARCS-V motivation model. Participatory Educational Research, 3(2), 1-15. https://doi.org/10.17275/per.16.06.3.2