Photo by Jack Anstey on Unsplash
Much about design theories, models, and processes to guide instructional decisions are readily available, yet it is unclear if these theories and models have been used by instructional designer (ID) practitioners or teachers (Christensen & Osguthorpe, 2014). The authors propose it could be due to the “implicit assumption behind all this work is that practitioners will assimilate and use this information to inform their instructional decision-making” (p.45). Additionally, Rowland (1992) suggests the matter is one of theory versus practice. More specifically, because instructional designing and teaching are situational, and the work based on theory can be discrepant from practice. Thus, this article will review the origins of two design models, ARCS-V and 5E, to explore their strengths, weaknesses and analyze the models’ efficacy of application into practice in a classroom.
ARCS Design Model
Dr. John Keller developed the ARCS-V (Attention, Relevance, Confidence, Satisfaction, and Volition) model in 1984. The model is based upon the macro theory systematic motivational design process, initially called ‘interest,’ ‘relevance,’ ‘expectancy,’ and ‘outcomes’ in 1979. However, the model shifted towards an application-focused model that lead to a renaming of categories to ARCS in 1984 to be more memorable and theoretically valid (Keller, 2016). The attention category seeks areas of sensation, such as interest and curiosity. Relevance refers to the learner’s perception that the instructional requirements are consistent with their learning goals. Confidence is the learner’s positive expectancies for success, the experience of success, and attribution of the learner’s abilities. Satisfaction is a well-balanced mixture of intrinsically and extrinsically rewarding outcomes to sustain the desire to learn. Volition refers to persistence and self-regulation.
Furthermore, according to Ucar & Kumtepe (2020), the model’s motivational techniques and strategies are known to steer learners’ experiences positively and increase their achievement and satisfaction levels in face-to-face and distance learning environments. Thus, motivation is widely recognized as one of the most crucial aspects of a successful teaching process if appropriate strategies are correctly applied (Hodges, 2004). As such, an example of how to incorporate teaching strategies and models into a course is by creating a problem-based learning environment. According to Keller (2016), begin with an ill-structured problem that requires learners to analyze the problem, identify the known and unknown aspects of the problem, and then propose possible solutions. For more comprehensive examples, see the work of Keller (2016).
Due to the complexity of the general concepts of motivation, an analysis revealed that the ARCS-V model is abstract, intertwined, and sophisticated. Thus, the model strategies’ effectiveness may vary according to the culture, study group, and process (Ucar & Kumtepe, 2020). However, the authors suggest that from previous research, motivational strategies that are “systematically designed and applied in the context of the motivational model may increase distance learner motivation, interest in the course, volition, and performance levels, as theory dictates” (p.9).
5E Instructional Model
The 5E (Engage, Explore, Explain, Elaborate, and Evaluate) instructional model was developed in 1987 by the Biological Science Curriculum Study (BSCS) team, lead by and credited to Dr. Rodger W. Bybee. The BSCS 5Es model grounds on the Constructivism and Learning Cycle theory. A structured sequence of Constructivism, a philosophy of how learners actively construct their knowledge and that reality is determined by the learner’s experience (Elliott et al., 2000). Learning Cycle is a three-phase inquiry encouraging learners to understand a scientific concept on their own by exploring and applying their new understanding to a new situation (Nuhoğlu & Yalçin, 2006). There are several ‘E’ versions, such as 3E, 4E, and other modifications. However, according to Jobrack (2015), the BSCS 5Es was designed “specifically to provide a model that promotes a constructivist approach to science education while incorporating aspects of behaviourism and cognitivism” (p.1). The author expressed that science educators widely adopt the model, and it is useful for other subjects. Each phase of the five ‘Es’ is carefully curated to promote knowledge construction for learners. The Engagement phase is where the teacher access the learner’s prior knowledge and engage them in new concepts through short activities to promote curiosity. Exploring phase provides the learners with activities to use their prior learning knowledge, generate new ideas, and explore questions and possibilities. Explanation gives learners the opportunities to demonstrate conceptual understanding, process their skills or behaviours. The next phase is Elaboration, where teachers challenge the learner’s conceptual knowledge and skills through developing new experience, more profound, and broader understanding. Finally, the last phase is Evaluation, where teachers and learners access the learner’s understanding, progress according to the educational objectives. For a template with comprehensive examples and tools, see Tucker (2020).
A significant body of research has indicated that 5E is useful in the educational environment and in the learner’s positive views towards the subject matter (Özsevgeç, 2006). Additionally, Fazelian et al. (2010) echoed that science-based course sample studies showed that the application of the 5E model had positive effects in learning quantity of science lessons, increase the level of learner retention, and effective in influencing learners to develop educational and instructional concepts. It is on this point; however, a commonly critiqued on implementing and applying the 5E model requires pedagogical design capacities of the ID and teachers to be able to “identify the strengths and weaknesses of curriculum materials while considering instructional goals” (Namdar & Kucuk, 2018, p.480). Thus, successful implementations must enhance the opportunity for pedagogical design development and educative support for both ID practitioners and teachers.
As we examine the origins of the ARCS and 5E design models, they both possess sound pedagogical strategies, built upon a long history of well-researched and reliable theories, with many great strengths. However, the application’s success still lay upon the ID and teachers to articulate and navigate between the lines of theory and practice. Brown & Green (2018) echoed “to introduce the concepts of design complexity and variation; to make greater use exploration as part of the ID process, and to find ways to showcase innovative work produced by expert designers.’ (p. 8).
References:
Brown, A. H., & Green, T. D. (2018). Beyond teaching instructional design models: Exploring the design process to advance professional development and expertise. Journal of Computing in Higher Education, 30(1), 176–186. https://doi.org/10.1007/s12528-017-9164-y
Christensen, T. K., & Osguthorpe, R. T. (2014). How Do Instructional‐Design Practitioners Make Instructional‐Strategy Decisions? https://onlinelibrary-wiley-com.ezproxy.royalroads.ca/doi/abs/10.1111/j.1937-8327.2004.tb00313.x
Elliott, S. N., Kratochwill, T. R., & Littlefield, J. (2000). Student study guide to accompany educational psychology: Effective teaching, effective learning. (3rd ed.). McGraw-Hill.
Fazelian, P., ebrahim, A. N., & Soraghi, S. (2010). The effect of 5E instructional design model on learning and retention of sciences for middle class students. Procedia – Social and Behavioral Sciences, 5, 140–143. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.sbspro.2010.07.062
Hodges, C. B. (2004). Designing to Motivate: Motivational Techniques to Incorporate in E-Learning Experiences. https://www.ncolr.org/jiol/issues/pdf/2.3.1.pdf
Jobrack, B. (2015). The 5E Instructional Model. 11.
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
Namdar, B., & Kucuk, M. (2018). Preservice Science Teachers’ Practices of Critiquing and Revising 5E Lesson Plans. Journal of Science Teacher Education, 29(6), 468–484. https://doi.org/10.1080/1046560X.2018.1469188
Nuhoğlu, H., & Yalçin, N. (2006). The Effectiveness of The Learning Cycle Model to Increase. http://citeseerx.ist.psu.edu/viewdoc/download?doi=10.1.1.507.2133&rep=rep1&type=pdf
Özsevgeç, T. (2006). Determining Effectiveness of Student Guiding Material Based On the 5E Model in “Force and Motion.” Journal of Turkish Science Education.
Rowland, G. (1992). What Do Instructional Designers Actually Do? An Initial Investigation of Expert Practice. Performance Improvement Quarterly, 5(2), 65–86. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1937-8327.1992.tb00546.x
Tucker, C. (2020). Tips for Designing an Online Learning Experience Using the 5 Es Instructional Model – Dr. Catlin Tucker. https://catlintucker.com/2020/03/designing-an-online-lesson/
Ucar, H., & Kumtepe, A. T. (2020). Effects of the ARCS-V-based motivational strategies on online learners’ academic performance, motivation, volition, and course interest. Journal of Computer Assisted Learning, 36(3), 335–349. https://doi.org/10.1111/jcal.12404