Well, well, well. Just when I think I have a clear picture on my goals for the doctoral program, along comes some new information that makes me question what I am doing and the route I am taking.

The ARCS models and the 6 C’s made me rethink my whole idea for researching motivation. I have been researching intrinsic motivation, creativity and ways to enhance intrinsic motivation. My thought is that controlling for extrinsic motivation, intrinsic motivation could be enhanced and creativity in the art classroom could be affected. More intrinsically motivated students = more creative work? Maybe, maybe not. However, designing for intrinsic motivation is almost counter-intuitive, and maintaining or undermining extrinsic motivators, difficult to measure. Not to mention the challenge in measuring creativity. We can measure quantity of creative ideas, use a portfolio assessment, use a panel of independent judges, so I still think it’s doable.

This semester’s information on qualitative and quantitative research has me realizing that I need to be sure I can quantify using good, reliable methods if that is the direction I choose to take. Any research needs to be able to be replicated, I need to investigate measurement instruments already available, and consider things such as sample variances.

So, ARCS. Very interesting. I seem to be using this intuitively often, some components more than others. Could instruction be designing using the arcs model specifically and then measure creativity? Does the ARCS model of motivation influence creativity in the high school art room? Hmmmmm….

Seems a more straightforward question.

UPCOMING POSTS:

Lessons planned with the ARCS model

Analyzing individual AP ART students using the ARCS model

Thoughts on ARCS, the 6 C's and motivation in general.