Interactive Learning Environments

ISSN: (Print) (Online) Journal homepage: www.tandfonline.com/journals/nile20

The applications of the ARCS model in

instructional design, theoretical framework,
and measurement tool: a systematic review of
empirical studies

Xiaoxuan Fang, Davy Tsz Kit Ng, Jac Ka Lok Leung & Huixuan Xu

To cite this article: Xiaoxuan Fang, Davy Tsz Kit Ng, Jac Ka Lok Leung & Huixuan Xu (23 Aug
2023): The applications of the ARCS model in instructional design, theoretical framework,
and measurement tool: a systematic review of empirical studies, Interactive Learning
Environments, DOI: 10.1080/10494820.2023.2240867

To link to this article: https://doi.org/10.1080/10494820.2023.2240867

© 2023 The Author(s). Published by Informa

UK Limited, trading as Taylor & Francis
Group

Published online: 23 Aug 2023.

Submit your article to this journal

Article views: 5681

View related articles

View Crossmark data

Citing articles: 3 View citing articles

Full Terms & Conditions of access and use can be found at

https://www.tandfonline.com/action/journalInformation?journalCode=nile20
INTERACTIVE LEARNING ENVIRONMENTS
https://doi.org/10.1080/10494820.2023.2240867

The applications of the ARCS model in instructional design,

theoretical framework, and measurement tool: a systematic
review of empirical studies
a b c a
Xiaoxuan Fang , Davy Tsz Kit Ng , Jac Ka Lok Leung and Huixuan Xu
a
Department of Curriculum and Instruction, The Education University of Hong Kong, Hong Kong, People’s Republic
of China; bFaculty of Education, The University of Hong Kong, Hong Kong, People’s Republic of China; cDivision of
Integrative Systems and Design, The Hong Kong University of Science and Technology, Hong Kong, People’s
Republic of China

ABSTRACT ARTICLE HISTORY

The Attention, Relevance, Confidence, and Satisfaction or ARCS model is Received 17 August 2022
an effective motivational model that has been widely accepted by Accepted 20 July 2023
education practitioners. Literature on the ARCS model has focused
KEYWORDS
primarily on aspects of educational settings, research methods, and ARCS model; instructional
outcomes. However, few studies have addressed the applications of the design; theoretical
ARCS model based on its role in educational research. This review study framework; IMMS; systematic
investigates what and how the ARCS model has been adopted in existing review
literature from 2011 to 2022. 55 empirical studies were identified and
analyzed in three dimensions: instructional design, theoretical foundation,
and measurement tools. The instructional design sums up pedagogical
approaches, learning outcomes, and effects of the ARCS model. The
theoretical framework outlines the roles and other theoretical frameworks
integrated with the ARCS model. The measurement tools report versions
and reliability of the Instruction Materials Motivation Survey (IMMS). This
study contributes to strengthening our understanding of the ARCS model
applied in the three dimensions. Lastly, a set of limitations and
recommendations for future research are summarized.

Introduction
Motivation is an essential topic in educational research, it has a close relationship with students’
learning outcomes. Researchers have made significant efforts to identify effective motivational
models that stimulate students’ motivation to learn and enhance their learning performances
(e.g. Ng & Chu, 2021; Refat et al., 2019). Among current motivational models, Keller’s (1984) Atten-
tion, Relevance, Confidence, and Satisfaction or ARCS model is popular in both educational research
and practice, of which a growing interest in applying this model in technology-enhanced learning
environments (Ma & Lee, 2021). Moreover, it has been frequently used in web-based, online, and
blended learning (Aşıksoy & Özdamlı, 2016; Mirzaei et al., 2022). This learning model has emerged
as a mainstream educational method in the post-pandemic era, which contributes to the develop-
ment of an education revolution from face-to-face to hybrid learning modes (Singh et al., 2021). In
this digital era, a practical motivational model in a technology-based learning environment is much

CONTACT Huixuan Xu [email protected]

© 2023 The Author(s). Published by Informa UK Limited, trading as Taylor & Francis Group
This is an Open Access article distributed under the terms of the Creative Commons Attribution-NonCommercial-NoDerivatives License (http://
creativecommons.org/licenses/by-nc-nd/4.0/), which permits non-commercial re-use, distribution, and reproduction in any medium, provided the
original work is properly cited, and is not altered, transformed, or built upon in any way. The terms on which this article has been published
allow the posting of the Accepted Manuscript in a repository by the author(s) or with their consent.
2 X. FANG ET AL.

needed in educational research. However, studies applying the ARCS model are scattered and
difficult to generalize into useful insights. Therefore, this study initiates a systematic review of empiri-
cal studies of the ARCS model, which help educators summarize the applications of the ARCS model
in modern education and provide practical suggestions for future educational research.
The expectancy-value theory developed by Tolman (1932) and Lewin (1938) is the theoretical foun-
dation of the ARCS model. Keller (1987a, 2009) proposed that motivational instruction should include
the following four components: (1) the instruction incorporates elements that can stimulate students’
curiosity and maintain their interests; (2) the teaching contents have strong relevance to students’
prior knowledge; (3) students have the confidence to achieve the learning goals; and (4) students
feel satisfied after they complete the learning goals. Keller (1987b) proposed a four-step systematic
design process (i.e. Define, Design, Develop, and Evaluate), that facilitates instructional designers to
systematically design and implement motivational elements to engage learners in different learning
interventions. The ARCS model has long been used worldwide to design effective motivational instruc-
tions in a wide range of subjects by adapting different teaching methods (Li & Keller, 2018).
A review study by Li and Keller (2018) reported the information on the ARCS model based on 27
reviewed articles in terms of educational settings, research methods, and outcomes. However, they did
not categorize the applications of the ARCS model based on its roles in educational research. The roles
refer to dimensions that gear towards a pedagogical view, including instructional design, theoretical foun-
dation, and measurement tools. This study addresses this gap by conducting a review and analyzing the
three dimensions of the ARCS model, which could provide added value for educators to understand what
and how the three dimensions have been adopted. Hence, this study conducts a systematic review of
available empirical studies to examine the applications of the ARCS model. The findings are presented
in three dimensions: (a) Instructional design: the ARCS model was embedded into the instructional
design and integrated motivational strategies in developing new instructions (Keller, 1987b); (b) Theoreti-
cal framework: the ARCS model was used as a theoretical framework to analyze the instructional design or
motivational data (Keller, 1984); (c) Measurement tool: the ARCS model was used as an instrument on
measuring motivation, i.e. the Instruction Materials Motivation Survey (IMMS) (Keller, 2010).

Research purpose and research questions

This review aims to provide a holistic view of how the ARCS model functions and to contribute practical
implications of the integrated applications for future research. With the increased popularity of online
and hybrid learning, a review of the latest trends and research context of the ARCS model would be
timely in this research domain. A systematic review approach is a type of research synthesis used to
identify and retrieve scientific evidence related to a particular topic by analyzing and synthesizing
the results of this search to inform suggestions for further research (Munn et al., 2018). This approach
is suitable for understanding how the ARCS model has been empirically applied, supported by a
coding framework and synthesis of data (Petticrew & Roberts, 2008). It enabled us to methodically
identify the educational contexts in terms of year of publications, regions, educational levels,
subject matters, and learning environments. Moreover, it helped us analyze pedagogical approaches,
learning outcomes, and effects reported in the instructional design dimension; roles and theoretical
frameworks reported in the theoretical framework dimension; and versions and reliability reported
in the measurement tool dimension. This study aims to address the following research questions:

(1) What are the educational contexts of the ARCS model situated in the reviewed studies?
(2) What pedagogical approaches, learning outcomes, and effects have been reported in the
reviewed studies within the instructional design dimension?
(3) What roles and theoretical frameworks have been reported in the reviewed studies within the
theoretical framework dimension?
(4) What versions and reliability of the IMMS scale have been reported in the reviewed studies
within the measurement tool dimension?
 INTERACTIVE LEARNING ENVIRONMENTS 3

Methods
This study adopted a multi-step approach to review the literature on applying the ARCS model in edu-
cational research. This approach was adapted from the Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Reviews
and Meta-Analyses extension for Scoping Reviews (PRISMA-ScR) guidelines (Tricco et al., 2018). As
shown in Figure 1, this review involved the following four main steps: (1) identification, (2) screening,
(3) eligibility, and (4) inclusion. The PRISMA criteria have been widely used in other systematic
reviews (e.g. Lo, 2023). It ensures the credibility and quality of the research, as the detailed reports of
the review process allow readers to repeat and verify the implementation of the research.

Search terms and process

This study investigated peer-reviewed articles published from Jan 2011 to July 2022. The terms
searched were “ARCS,” “ARCS model,” and “Attention, Relevance, Confidence, Satisfaction.” Similar
terms were also searched in the review article of the ARCS model, authored by Li and Keller (2018).
During the review process, the researchers downloaded the articles that referred to the above keywords
and reviewed them one after another. One hundred and fourteen (114) articles were found from three
databases: 31 from Web of Science, 53 from ERIC, and 30 from ProQuest Education Database.

Inclusion and exclusion criteria

The current study used strict criteria to guarantee the quality of the articles and prevent biases in the
selection process. The following criteria were adopted in the present study: (1) the articles were
empirical studies published in three renowned databases (e.g. Web of Science, ERIC, ProQuest Edu-
cation). The reviewed articles excluded books, book chapters, and conference proceedings; (2)
studies contained any education level from primary school to adult or higher education and were
not limited to the learning modes, such as computer-assisted learning, game-based learning, etc.;
(3) studies that included the application of the ARCS model in designing instruction; (4) studies

Figure 1. The selection procedure of reviewed studies.

4 X. FANG ET AL.

that included the ARCS model as a theoretical framework to analyze instructional design or students’
motivation; (5) studies that included the application of the ARCS model as a measurement tool
(IMMS) to evaluate participants’ motivation; and (6) studies written in English.
Based on the above criteria, the following articles were removed from the present study: (1) the
content of the articles unrelated to the ARCS model (n = 38); (2) non-empirical studies such as review
articles and document interviews of the ARCS model (n = 2); (3) articles which adopted the extended
model of the ARCS model (e.g. MVP model) (n = 3); (4) pilot studies without findings (n = 9);
(5) articles using self-developed motivational questionnaires based on the ARCS model instead of
using IMMS (n = 4); (6) overlapped articles (n = 3). A summary of the inclusion and exclusion pro-
cedure of the reviewed studies is shown in Figure 1. After screening the numbers of the above
five criteria, 55 articles were thoroughly reviewed in this study. The list of articles can be found in
Appendix A.

Data coding and analysis processes

To ensure the academic rigor of the systematic review, several strategies were undertaken in the
coding and analysis processes. We first classified the empirical data by instructional design, theoreti-
cal framework, and measurement tool (see Appendix B). The coding framework of the three dimen-
sions of the ARCS model’s application is shown in Table 1. Of these, 15 studies included two out of
three dimensions. Specifically, 13 studies covered the instructional design and measurement tools,
and two covered the theoretical framework and measurement tools. Articles that mentioned at least
one of the three dimensions are: 26 on instructional design, nine on theoretical framework, and 35
on measurement tools.
For data analysis, this study adopts thematic content analysis, a type of document analysis which
corroborates credibility through data triangulation (Kern, 2018). The thematic content analysis
assigns the content to the different thematic topics to make the consistency of all the empirical
evidence into the themes, ensuring the documental format can be transferred to specific themes
(Zainuddin et al., 2020). Data under each theme was analyzed descriptively and summarized in fre-
quency, percentage, characteristic, and themes.
The empirical data were analyzed and summarized based on a coding scheme (see Appendix C).
The scheme included four main themes based on the research questions. A summary of the thematic

Table 1. Coding framework of the applications of the ARCS model.

Dimensions Description N Sample references Sample studies
Instructional Use the ARCS strategies to develop 26 While designing the RTA, the ARCS Deublein et al.
design instructions or integrate the ARCS model was adopted as the guided (2018); Gedik et al.
model into current instruction to instructional strategy (Hung et al., (2012); Hao and
enhance students’ motivation and 2013). Lee (2021)
related motivational outcomes
(Keller, 1987a, 1987c).
Theoretical Use the ARCS model to analyze 6 The four categories adapted from the Huang and Oh
framework students’ motivation results based ARCS model of motivation were used (2018); Wyss et al.
on the ARCS model (Keller, 2009). as a lens to view and analyze the (2014)
data using theoretical thematic
analysis (Spangenberg & Roberts,
2020).
Use the ARCS model to analyze the 3 This study sought to determine the Leiste and Jensen
instructional design via linking with effects of an experiential approach to (2011); Tung and
the ARCS model (Keller, 2009). learning on student motivation, as Alissa (2021)
defined by Keller’s (1987a) ARCS
model (Baker & Robinson, 2017).
Measurement Use the Instructional Materials 35 The Instructional Materials Charsky and Ressler
tool Motivation Survey (IMMS) to Motivational Scale (36 items) was (2011); Di Serio
evaluate students’ motivation applied to measure participants’ et al. (2013); Guo
(Keller, 2009), developed based on perceived motivational support et al. (2015)
the ARCS model. (Shackelford et al., 2019).
 INTERACTIVE LEARNING ENVIRONMENTS 5

Figure 2. Thematic map.

map is depicted in Figure 2. Researchers had regular meetings during the review process to ensure
the reliability of the thematic analysis to identify the trends and patterns of the ARCS model applied
in educational research. For example, the educational levels were classified into primary, secondary,
higher education and adult education/teacher training based on the school age and adult year of
participants. To maintain academic rigor, researchers reached consensus upon comparing their
notes on each theme after several rounds of discussions.

Results
This session presents the applications of the ARCS model in terms of instructional design, theoretical
framework, and measurement tools, in combination with statistics and text forms to elucidate the
applications of the ARCS model. The tabulated results of the ARCS used in the 55 reviewed
studies on each dimension can be found in Appendix D, E, and F.

RQ1: What are the educational contexts of the ARCS model situated in the reviewed
studies?
Distribution by publication year
The distribution of publication year revealed a non-linear increase in the number of articles pub-
lished in the areas studied between 2011 and 2020, with a sharp decrease in 2021. Interestingly,
53% (29 of 55) of the studies have been found in the recent five years (see Figure 3).
6 X. FANG ET AL.

Figure 3. Distribution of publications by year.

Distribution by region
As shown in Figure 4, the majority of the studies (27 of 55) were conducted in Asia (mostly China,
Singapore, Indonesia, and Taiwan). About one-sixth of the studies (9 of 55) were conducted in
Europe (including Italy, Spain, Germany, Roman Empire), and another sixth (9 of 55) were conducted
in North America (the USA and Mexico). Eight studies (15%) were conducted in the Middle East
(Turkey). Only two studies were conducted in a South American country (Chile) and a Southern
African country (South Africa), respectively. Note that two studies involved participants from more
than one country.

Figure 4. Distribution of publications by region.

 INTERACTIVE LEARNING ENVIRONMENTS 7

Distribution by educational level

The majority of the reviewed studies (26 of 55, 47%) were conducted at the higher education level
(see Figure 5). About a quarter of the studies (13 of 55) focused on secondary education, including
sedentary school and high school. About one-fifth of the studies (12 of 55) focused on primary edu-
cation. Four studies focused on teacher training. Only two studies focused on adult education.

Distribution by subject matter

Of the reviewed studies, 47 had stated a clear context of a given subject matter. Of these, 30 out of 55
took place in non-STEM-related subjects (e.g. history, biology, geometry). 15 studies (27%) situated in
STEM contexts, either as part of a computer science or programming course (6 studies), or other
STEM-related disciplines, such as science, technology, engineering, and mathematics (9 studies).
Lastly, two studies were situated in cross-curriculum subjects.

Distribution by the learning environment

To provide an organized view of the learning environments, Bransford, Brown and Cocking’s (2000)
classification was adopted to classify learning environments into the following four categories:

(1) Learner-centered environments. Students are the key role in the learning process, teachers
design instructions of the learning contents based on students’ prior knowledge skills, attitude
and beliefs. For example, students acquired knowledge in the learning process of web-based
learning or digital game-based learning.
(2) Knowledge-centered environments. Knowledge is the key objective of instructional design,
which aims to help students learn and master knowledge in the learning process. One of
classic examples is traditional or rote learning which aims to transfer knowledge and concepts
to students by lecturing.
(3) Assessment-centered environments. Teachers focus on the importance of continuous feedback
in improving students’ learning. For example, teachers conduct formative assessments and give
feedback on students’ learning performance so that students can reflect on their learning
experiences.

Figure 5. Distribution of publications by educational level.

8 X. FANG ET AL.

(4) Community-centered environments. It utilized the community environment to facilitate stu-

dents’ collaboration with community members to meet the learning goals. In this context, stu-
dents and teachers are closely connected to the community and experience the learning process
outside brick-and-mortar schools.

Vast majority of the studies (47 of 55) have applied learner-centered environments. In these learn-
ing environments, most studies integrated the ARCS model with (digital) game-based learning, aug-
mented reality learning, virtual reality learning, online learning and mobile learning. Several studies
applied the model in flipped classroom and Elearning settings. Only a few studies (3 of 55) applied
the ARCS model in knowledge-centered environments. For example, in Spangenberg and Roberts
(2020)’s study, teachers motivated students to learn math in a traditional classroom. Three studies
incorporated the ARCS model into assessment-centered environments, such as prior learning assess-
ment, formative assessment and ability assessment. Lastly, only two studies used community-
centered environments. For example, teachers developed a context-aware ubiquitous learning
system based on the ARCS model used in the 921 Earthquake Museum of Taiwan (Chen & Chen,
2018).

RQ2: What pedagogical approaches, learning outcomes, and effects have been reported
in the reviewed studies within the instructional design dimension?
Sub-question 1: What pedagogical approaches have been applied in the selected studies?
To classify the pedagogical approaches, Garzón et al.’s (2020) classification of pedagogical strat-
egies was adapted, namely (1) Collaborative learning, (2) Inquiry-based learning, (3) Situated learn-
ing, (4) Project-based learning, and (5) Multimedia learning (see Table 2). Collaborative learning
describes students interacting with others to generate and trigger learning mechanisms.
Inquiry-based learning requires students to discover a problem, propose questions, and then
find out the possible solutions to the question. Situated learning describes students interacting
in social and physical contexts and finally obtaining knowledge. Project-based learning means
that students learn knowledge and skills in real-world contexts to investigate and respond to a
complicated question or problem. Multimedia learning states students gain knowledge better
from text and graphics than text alone. This approach is able to present text, graphics, video,
animation, and sound.
Results showed that the majority of the studies (20 of 26, 77%) applied multimedia learning to
facilitate students’ learning. For example, Hao and Lee (2021) linked game-based design theory
and the ARCS model to develop an interactive augmented reality learning environment. Then,
two studies used inquiry-based learning to design the instruction in class. Only Roberts’s (2017)
study adopted the ARCS model and problem-based learning to develop new instruction for a
library workshop. Another two studies utilized collaborative learning to interact with classmates
or in groups. Chao et al. (2019) implemented teamwork activities to promote students’ interaction
with others during the learning process. Chen and Chen (2018) applied situated learning to help stu-
dents learn history using mobile technology in the 921 Earthquake Museum. And lastly, Lin and
Wang (2022) used project-based learning by conducting an AR creative project among English L2
learners.

Table 2. Pedagogical approaches applied in studies of instructional design.

Pedagogical approaches Number of articles Proportion Example studies
Collaborative learning 2 8% Chao et al. (2019)
Inquiry-based learning 2 8% Kim and Lim (2019); Roberts (2017)
Situated learning 1 4% Chen and Chen (2018)
Project-based learning 1 4% Lin and Wang (2022)
Multimedia learning 20 77% Chang et al. (2017); Hao and Lee (2021); Tapingkae et al. (2020)
 INTERACTIVE LEARNING ENVIRONMENTS 9

Sub-question 2: What learning outcomes of the ARCS model have been reported in the
selected studies?
Regarding the learning outcomes of the reviewed studies, six types of learning outcomes, including
affective, cognitive, conceptual, academic, linguistic, and social were identified (see Table 3). This
classification has been used in another review study (Wu & Chen, 2020). Affective outcomes refer
to learner attitude and emotional engagement, including motivation, interest, and anxiety. Cognitive
outcomes refer to thinking outcomes (e.g. creative thinking). Conceptual outcomes refer to the
understanding of concepts. Academic outcomes refer to study skills, research skills, and academic
performance. Linguistic outcomes refer to language skills, including writing and reading. Social out-
comes refer to communication skills and teamwork skills.
Of the 26 studies, the majority (23 of 26, 88%) reported effective outcomes. For example, Turel
and Sanal (2018) posited that students who used digital books to learn mathematics positively
affected their motivation. Students’ interviews also pointed out that they preferred to use digital
materials to enhance their engagement in mathematics learning. Nearly 40% of the studies reported
academic outcomes. Karakış et al. (2016) claimed that computer-assisted instructional design in
mathematics positively affected students’ academic achievement.
About one-sixth of the studies (15%) investigated linguistic outcomes. Hung et al. (2013) postu-
lated that an English reading robot collaborating with students has improved their performance.
Three studies reported cognitive outcomes. Hao and Lee (2021) stated that AR game-based learning
in a primary English course has successfully inspired students’ creativity.
Two studies reported conceptual outcomes. For example, Chao et al. (2019) reported that stu-
dents enhanced their understanding of local culture in an information technology learning environ-
ment. Only one study reported social outcomes. Chao et al. (2019) found that students who adopted
a new interdisciplinary curriculum positively influenced their teamwork, creativity, and communi-
cation abilities more than the students who did not take this curriculum.
Further, the frequency of all learning outcomes is accessed. Of the reviewed studies, the most
frequently reported outcome is motivation, appearing in 17 studies. Followed by academic achieve-
ment with ten counts. Then language skills (reading and writing skills) and interest each with four
times. Learning behavior and learning engagement were both reported three times. Attitude, crea-
tive thinking, and understanding of concepts have appeared twice. Anxiety, confidence, teamwork,
continuance intention, communication abilities, problem-solving skills, and higher technology
acceptance each appeared once.

Sub-question 3: What effects of the ARCS model have been reported in the selected studies?
To have a critical understanding of the effectiveness of instructional design, the reported findings
were classified based on the effects of the ARCS instructional design model into either effective
or ineffective findings (see Tables 4 and 5, respectively). Effective findings mean that the
implemented instructional design achieved the teaching goals and showed significantly improved
learning outcomes. Ineffective findings mean that the instructional design did not meet the
expected objectives and outcomes.
Five categories of effective findings were identified that were associated with students’ learning
outcomes. (1) 17 studies referred to the contribution of the ARCS model in enhancing students’

Table 3. Learning outcomes in studies of instructional design.

Learning outcomes Number of articles Proportion Example studies
Affective 23 88% Kao et al. (2016); Mirzaei et al. (2022); Turel and Sanal (2018)
Cognitive 3 11% Chao et al. (2019); Hao and Lee (2021)
Conceptual 2 8% Chao et al. (2019); Kao et al. (2016)
Academic 10 38% Karakış et al. (2016); Kim and Lim (2019)
Linguistic 4 15% Hung et al. (2013); Proske et al. (2014)
Social 1 4% Chao et al. (2019)
10 X. FANG ET AL.

Table 4. Summary of effectiveness of the ARCS model used in instructional design.

Number of
Effective findings articles Example studies
Related to students’ learning outcomes
Students’ motivation was improved after using the ARCS 17 Aşıksoy and Özdamlı (2016); Chang et al. (2017);
instructional design model. Chen and Chen (2018)
Student’s academic achievement or language skills 14 Hung et al. (2013); Hao and Lee (2021); Karakış
significantly improved after integrating the ARCS model et al. (2016); Kim and Lim (2019)
with new instruction.
Students had higher interest after adopting the new 4 Aşıksoy and Özdamlı (2016); Chang et al. (2017)
instruction.
Students’ cognitive skills were enhanced after adopting new 3 Chao et al. (2019); Gedik et al. (2012)
instruction.
Students’ attitudes towards new instruction were positive. 2 Chao et al. (2019); Hodges and Kim (2013)
Related to the ARCS model
Students’ learning performance had a correlation with 5 Deublein et al. (2018); Hao and Lee (2021); Kao
attention, relevance, confidence, and satisfaction. et al. (2016); Mirzaei et al. (2022); Tsai et al.
(2022)
Students’ motivation on four components (ARCS) or two 4 Chang et al. (2017); Proske et al. (2014); Roberts
components (CS; RS) was enhanced during the learning (2017); Wei et al. (2015)
process.
Attention yielded significantly positive relationships with 1 Lin and Wang (2022)
relevance, confidence, and satisfaction.

Table 5. Summary of ineffectiveness of the ARCS model used in instructional design.

Number of
Ineffective findings articles Studies
Related to students’ learning outcomes
The learning effectiveness of the experimental and control groups did not differ 1 Hao and Lee (2021)
significantly because some students preferred traditional teaching methods, and some
preferred AR-multimedia games.
No significant differences were detected between the control and experimental groups on 1 Hodges and Kim
course interest surveys and test scores. (2013)
The attitude toward mathematics lessons had no significant difference. 1 Karakış et al. (2016)
Students reporting satisfaction with writing-based practice performed more poorly than 1 Proske et al. (2014)
students reporting low satisfaction with writing-based practice.
Related to the ARCS model
Students’ confidence related to a successful experience does not yield a significant 1 Lin and Wang
relationship with relevance and satisfaction. (2022)
No significant differences were found between the two conditions (Attention-Relevance 1 Deublein et al.
and Confidence-Satisfaction) regarding participants’ motivation for learning success. (2018)
Correlations between attention, relevance, satisfaction, and learning outcome did not
differ significantly from zero. There was no significant difference in influence on
confidence in the Confidence-Satisfaction condition.

motivation. For example, Aşıksoy and Özdamlı (2016) reported that flipped classrooms adapted to
the ARCS model in a physics course improved students’ learning motivation. (2) 14 studies stated
the ARCS model was beneficial to improving students’ academic achievement and other learning
achievements. Hung et al. (2013) reported students’ English reading skills were significantly
enhanced when designing a robot teaching assistance using the ARCS model in English reading
practice. (3) Four studies found that students’ interests significantly improved after implementing
the ARCS instructional design. Chang et al. (2017) concluded that a game-based interactive learning
system integrating the ARCS model enhanced students’ interest during the learning process. (4)
Three studies concluded that the ARCS model improved students’ cognitive skills. Gedik et al.
(2012) revealed that a cellular phone-based mobile learning project was beneficial to improve stu-
dents’ critical thinking skills. (5) Lastly, two studies mentioned that the ARCS strategies positively
impact students’ attitudes. Hodges and Kim (2013) claimed that mathematics in an introductory
algebra course developed based on the ARCS model was a positive influence on students’ attitudes.
 INTERACTIVE LEARNING ENVIRONMENTS 11

Some studies were found to map effectiveness directly to the components of the ARCS model.
(1) Five studies presented that students’ learning performance has a close relationship with atten-
tion, relevance, confidence, and satisfaction. For example, Tsai et al. (2022) stated that students’
perceived protection motivation on information security course design based on the ARCS
model was positive compared to the control group’s students. (2) Four studies reported that com-
ponents of the ARCS model were enhanced during the learning process. Wei et al. (2015) con-
cluded that students’ attention, relevance, confidence, and satisfaction were improved after they
participated in the “AR-creative design course” developed based on the ARCS model. (3) One
study concluded that attention had a significant relationship with relevance, confidence, and sat-
isfaction. Lin and Wang (2022) reported there was a positive relationship between attention and
the other three motivational components of AR-creative projects designed based on the ARCS
model in university English classes.
While most articles demonstrated the positive impacts of applying the ARCS model, ineffective
findings were also noted. Regarding students’ learning outcomes, three studies mentioned the
ineffectiveness of the ARCS model used in instructional design. For example, Hodges and Kim
(2013) referred to no significant difference between the scores from the experimental and
control groups. Similarly, Hao and Lee (2021) stated that the learning effectiveness of the two
groups was no different. Regarding direct association with the ARCS strategies, two studies con-
cluded that the ARCS strategies have not correlated with students’ learning performance. For
example, Deublein et al. (2018) suggested that there was no significant correlation between the
ARCS strategies and students’ learning outcomes. This study also summarized the confidence strat-
egies that had no significant influence on confidence and satisfaction conditions. Similarly, Lin and
Wang (2022) mentioned that confidence was significantly correlated to relevance and satisfaction
in their study.

RQ3: What roles and theoretical frameworks have been reported in the reviewed studies
within the theoretical framework dimension?
Sub-question 1: What roles of the ARCS model have been played in the selected studies?
In order to have an understanding of the ARCS model used as a theoretical framework, we analyzed
and categorized based on a review paper on theoretical frameworks (Kivunja, 2018). It explains the
roles of the theoretical framework, which was used to analyze the research data and its roles as an
analytics structure so as to define the educational context (see Table 6).
Of nine reviewed studies, six mentioned using the theoretical framework of the ARCS model to
analyze students’ motivation. For example, Spangenberg and Roberts (2020) utilized four categories
of the ARCS model to analyze interview data using theoretical thematic analysis. Three studies used
the model to analyze instructional design based on the concepts of the ARCS components. Leiste
and Jensen (2011) adopted the definition of the ARCS model to analyze the motivational factors
in a prior learning assessment curriculum.

Sub-question 2: What theoretical frameworks have been used in the empirical studies?
In view of theoretical frameworks (besides the ARCS model), two major learning theories proposed
by Ahmad’s et al. (2014) were adopted for the review, namely behaviorism and humanism (see
Table 7). According to behaviorism theory, behavior may be changed via learning, and the environ-
ment can also affect behavior and the concept of reinforcement, such as direct instruction and social

Table 6. The summary of roles of the ARCS theoretical frameworks used in studies.
Functions Number of articles Example studies
Analysis of students’ motivation 6 Huang and Oh (2018); Spangenberg and Roberts (2020); Wyss et al. (2014)
Analysis of instructional design 3 Leiste and Jensen (2011); Tung and Alissa (2021)
12 X. FANG ET AL.

Table 7. The summary of the theoretical frameworks used in studies.

Theoretical framework Number of articles Example studies
Only the ARCS model 6 Huang and Oh (2018); Karoulis (2011); Wyss et al. (2014)
The ARCS model and behaviorism theory 2 Almasri (2022); Tung and Alissa (2021)
The ARCS model and humanism theory 1 Baker and Robinson (2017)

learning theory. Humanism theory is related to both individual and social factors (e.g. self-determi-
nation, implementers’ value and potential), such as experiential learning.
Of the reviewed studies, five studies implemented the theoretical framework of the ARCS model
to support their research. For example, Huang and Oh (2018) adopted the ARCS model as a theor-
etical framework to guide the researchers to analyze the data based on attention, relevance, satis-
faction, and confidence. Three studies used the ARCS model and behaviorism theory to analyze
their data. Tung and Alissa (2021) adopted the ARCS model and Robert Gagné’s learning theory
(1985) to interpret the flipped learning model. Baker and Robinson’s (2017) study used the definition
of the ARCS model to explain their experiential learning instructional approach.

RQ4: What versions and reliability of the IMMS scale have been reported in the reviewed
studies within the measurement tool dimension?
Sub-question 1: What versions of the IMMS scale have been used in the empirical studies?
To have an understanding of how the ARCS questionnaire was used in the empirical studies, a
number of versions of the IMMS scale were revealed. We categorized these versions based on the
number of items constructed in the IMMS (see Table 8). Of the 35 reviewed studies, more than
half of the studies (18 of 35, 51%) adopted the original version of the IMMS scale, containing 36
items on a 5-point Likert scale. For example, Ozcelik et al. (2013) adopted the original version
designed by Keller (2009), which was 36 items (attention 9 items, relevance 9 items, confidence 9
items, satisfaction 9 items) with a 5-Likert point scale. 16 studies (46%) adapted the original
version to other versions based on their research context, such as reducing the item numbers or
changing the keywords of the items. For example, Villena Taranilla et al. (2022) revised the IMMS
scale from the original 36 items to a short version with 12 items on the four dimensions of the
ARCS model. Only one study did not reveal the number of items in the IMMS.

Sub-question 2: What is the level of reliability of the IMMS scale resulted in the empirical
studies?
Of the 35 reviewed studies, 25 reported the resulting reliability coefficient (Cronbach’s alpha) of the
IMMS scale (see Table 9). Among these, 14 studies stated that Cronbach’s alpha of the total items
was greater than 0.9. For example, Turel and Sanal (2018) reported that the overall Cronbach
alpha of the whole questionnaire was 0.96. Five studies mentioned that the reliability coefficient

Table 8. The summary of versions of the IMMS scale used in studies of measurement tools.
Versions Number of articles Example studies
Original version 18 Guo et al. (2015); Huang et al. (2014); Ozcelik et al. (2013); Shackelford et al. (2019)
Adapted version 16 Dincer and Doganay (2017); Sulisworo et al. (2017); Villena Taranilla et al. (2022)

Table 9. Cronbach’s alpha of the IMMS scale reported in studies of measurement tools.
Cronbach’s alpha Number of articles Example studies
>0.7 6 Chen and Chen (2018); Hao and Lee (2021); Wyss et al. (2014)
0.8–0.9 5 Deublein et al. (2018); Laurens-Arredondo (2022); Shackelford et al. (2019)
>0.9 14 Chang et al. (2017); Kao et al. (2016); Turel and Sanal (2018)
 INTERACTIVE LEARNING ENVIRONMENTS 13

of the whole questionnaire was between 0.8–0.9. Laurens-Arredondo (2022) reported that the overall
Cronbach’s alpha of the questionnaire was 0.89. Six studies had Cronbach’s alpha greater than the
lower limit of acceptability of 0.7. Hao and Lee (2021) only reported Cronbach’s alpha of the total
questionnaire at 0.759.

Discussion
In this article, empirical studies (N = 55) using the ARCS model in educational research between 2011
and 2022 were identified. The review of the applications of the ARCS model was organized into three
dimensions: instructional design, theoretical framework, and measurement tool. We analyzed the
educational contexts in which the reviewed studies were presented, the instructional design in
terms of ARCS strategies, pedagogical approaches, learning outcomes, and effects they reported,
the theoretical framework in terms of functions and theoretical framework integrated with the
ARCS model they adopted, and the measurement tool in terms of versions and the level of reliability.
Based on our findings, the applications of the ARCS model in educational research are shown in
Figure 6.

Educational contexts
Our findings highlight that most of the studies were conducted in the recent five years (2017–2022).
There was a sharp decline in 2021, this may be caused by the school suspension during the pan-
demic, influencing the numbers of the education studies. Motivation is a major concern in the
domain of instructional design. In line with Li and Keller’s (2018) literature review, the ARCS

Figure 6. The applications of the ARCS model in educational research (adapted from Molenda’s ADDIE model, 2003).
14 X. FANG ET AL.

model used in education has been increasingly focused on by researchers and educators. Also, we
found that most of the studies were implemented in developed countries in Asia, North America, and
Europe. In comparison, there is a clear underrepresentation of South America and Africa. Many
articles originated from the US, Taiwan, and Turkey which is similar to the recent literature review
by Li and Keller (2018). However, articles from the UK and Australia are missing from our analysis
compared with the former review, which may be caused by the early stages of adopting such a moti-
vational model, resulting in the absence of studies involving the ARCS model in education. More
important is the underrepresentation of developing countries, as the ARCS model has useful motiva-
tional strategies that can help educators develop new instruction to address students’ motivational
problems (KeIIer, 1987b). One of the problems underlying the situation of implementing the ARCS
motivational model integrated with advanced technology in developing countries is low technologi-
cal accessibility (Costan et al., 2021); however, this could be addressed by using experiential learning
which enables students to learn knowledge from the community outside schools (Chen & Chen,
2018); such cases were evident to improving students’ motivation (Trolian & Jach, 2020).
Another finding is that most studies were conducted in higher education, including university and
college students, followed by K-12 education (primary and secondary). The last is adult education,
including teacher training and adult learning. The ARCS model was proposed to be suitable across
all grade-levels (Li & Keller, 2018), the higher education sector (Kurt & Kecik, 2017; Zhang, 2017)
and adults (Doering et al., 2010). However, the number of articles in the K-12 context has grown com-
pared to Li and Keller’s (2018) article. This phenomenon reveals that the schools and K-12 teachers
are increasingly focusing on exploring students’ learning motivation or their attitudes and emotions
towards the learning course, and hence explains the frequent adoption in K-12 settings.
Further, studies that adopted the ARCS model are more associated with the school discipline,
including non-STEM (e.g. English, Physics, History) and STEM disciplines (Science, Mathematics, Tech-
nology, Engineering). The results are consistent with the recent literature review, Li and Keller (2018)
claimed that the ARCS model is a practical framework that can be used across curricula. STEM dis-
ciplines have been highly recommended in K-12 education to develop students’ multidisciplinary
skills. However, the application in non-STEM curricula increases rapidly. One possibility is that edu-
cators tend to focus more on students’ learning motivation across all disciplines rather than STEM
disciplines. Moreover, the ARCS model builds a bridge between two or more disciplines in a way
that could benefit cross-curriculum context.
Lastly, we found that the majority of the studies adopted learner-centered learning environments.
This phenomenon can be explained by the focus of the ARCS model, which aims to explore students’
motivation during the learning process. Therefore, students are at the center of the educational
setting. Other learning environments have the potential to promote students’ motivation by inte-
grating the ARCS model into different learning objects and contexts. Importantly, such implemen-
tation may help in expanding students’ learning experiences in different educational practices.

ARCS used as an instructional design model

Our findings revealed that most studies adopted a multimedia learning approach, including game-
based learning, mobile learning, online learning, web-based learning, AR-based learning, and
VR-based learning. This phenomenon is consistent with previous literature review, Li and Keller
(2018) pointed out that the ARCS model has been frequently adopted in IT-based learning environ-
ments, such as web-based instruction (Chen, 2014; Doering et al., 2010), computer-assisted instruction
(Annamalai, 2016; Wu et al., 2012), and blend instruction (OCAK & AKÇAYIR, 2013). This educational
situation can be analyzed by the fast development of modern technologies (e.g. ICT, AI), which make
educators convenient to conduct high-technological learning approaches.
Most studies reported that the ARCS model adopted in instructional design was beneficial to stu-
dents’ affective and academic outcomes. The results are aligned with the Li and Keller’s (2018)
review articles; there is a positive influence of the ARCS model on students’ motivation and academic
 INTERACTIVE LEARNING ENVIRONMENTS 15

achievement. Contributed to the fact that this model was developed based on the expectancy and
value theory, including intrinsic and extrinsic motivation, which aims to help students improve their
motivation (Cheng & Yeh, 2009). On this note, there is a close relationship between motivation and
academic achievement. Designers can enhance students’ instinctive motivation by using motiva-
tional strategies (Robb & Sutton, 2014). We used a different classification method as compared to
Li and Keller’s (2018) study. Therefore, four more outcomes are listed in this study, including linguis-
tic, cognitive, conceptual, and social outcomes. These outcomes are also important for students’
learning skills, reflecting the practical value of the ARCS model used in the educational domain.
Another important finding was that the ARCS instructional design model has positive effects on
students’ motivational elements. Students’ attention, relevance, confidence, and satisfaction were
consistently improved after conducting the instruction designed based on the ARCS model. It is
evident that the ARCS model has effective strategies to enhance students’ four conditions of the
motivational domain. However, the reviewed studies also reported the ineffective effects on stu-
dents’ learning outcomes and four motivational components. These results reflect that there was
no significant difference in students’ interest, attitude and learning effectiveness. Also, the relation-
ship between attention, relevance, confidence, satisfaction and learning outcomes was not signifi-
cant. These results are consistent with Laurens-Arredondo’s (2022) statements, he mentioned that
although the ARCS model is recommended to be adopted in various subjects and countries, its effec-
tiveness would be different based on various educational backgrounds, participants, and instruc-
tional designers.

ARCS used as a theoretical framework and a measurement tool

This review reveals that most articles adopted the ARCS model as a theoretical framework in data
analysis, while other studies used the definitions of the four components to analyze the instructional
design. This finding is a new insight that has not been reviewed in recent literature reviews. That is,
the model can be used as a theoretical framework to guide the researchers in a direction to analyze
motivational issues in the education field. As Kivunja (2018) stated, a theoretical framework plays an
important role to help researchers build a theoretical background and analyze the meaning of the
data. Furthermore, we found that some studies integrated the ARCS model with cognitivism and
behaviorism theories together with the ARCS model. Although the ARCS model can be used as a
theoretical framework to analyze students’ motivational issues, other aspects of students’ develop-
ment can be addressed by different learning theories. Hence, it is sensible to combine the ARCS
model with other theoretical frameworks, which provides more opportunities for researchers to
explore more depths in students’ learning.
For measurement tools, our findings pointed out that most studies adopted the original version
of the IMMS scale (36 items, 5-point-Likert scale) to evaluate students’ motivation. This scale is ben-
eficial for researchers to assess motivation in terms of attention, relevance, confidence, and satisfac-
tion. Some studies used adapted versions developed by other researchers (Loorbach et al., 2015), or
modified original items based on their research background and intentions. Such implementation
helps the development of the IMMS scale used in motivation research. Moreover, we found that
most studies reported the reliability of the IMMS scale is good, revealing a reliable and good-
quality questionnaire that can be used in various educational contexts.

Limitations
The current study has several limitations. The first is the limited scope of the databases included in
this study. We searched three large and well-established databases, but we may have missed studies
published in additional databases. Due to the limited sample size, the understanding of the ARCS
model in terms of three dimensions (instructional design, theoretical framework, and measurement
tool) may not be enough. Also, we adopted a systematic review method to review the empirical
16 X. FANG ET AL.

studies related to the ARCS model rather than using meta-analysis. Another limitation is that this
study does not present the data analysis procedure used in the reviewed publications (e.g. t-test,
one-way analysis of variance, factor analysis).

Conclusion
This systematic review maps the current research on applications of the ARCS model in instructional
design, theoretical framework, and measurement tools. It also points out the future directions this
field of study should follow. The results show a marked increase in empirical studies of the ARCS
model, particularly in the last year. Following the gaps we demonstrated in terms of regions and edu-
cational levels in which this model is studied, we suggest that researchers consider the following
aspects in planning and designing related studies in the future: (a) Expand research to developing
countries, thus encouraging the implementation of the ARCS model in educational research in
these populations; (b) Focus on adopting the ARCS model in early childhood education; (c) Encou-
rage the implementation of the ARCS model in various learning environments, providing more
opportunities for students to fulfill their learning experience; (d) Suggest the ARCS model incorpor-
ated in different pedagogies - this will benefit the field of teaching and learning in education; (e)
Support the ARCS model integrated with other theoretical frameworks to analyze data or researched
instructions. Taken together, these suggestions for future research will strengthen our understand-
ing of the ARCS model in a wider range of populations and educational contexts.

Disclosure statement
No potential conflict of interest was reported by the author(s).

Notes on Contributors
Xiaoxuan Fang is an EdD candidate of the Department of Curriculum and Instruction at the Education University of
Hong Kong (EdUHK). She obtained a Master of Education degree in Educational Management and Leadership, and
Curriculum, Teaching, Assessment from EdUHK. Her research interests include learning motivations, instructional
design, STEM education, AI in education, and digital education. Her recent publications focus on ARCS motivational
model, AI-supported creative writing, and computational thinking in mathematics education.
Davy Tsz Kit Ng is the IT Panel at local secondary school in Hong Kong and a PhD candidate in the Faculty of Education,
the University of Hong Kong. He holds a MEd Educational Psychology, BS Computer Science and Postgraduate in IT
Education from the Chinese University of Hong Kong. His research interests lie in the areas of AI literacy, STEAM Edu-
cation and technology-enhanced pedagogic innovation. It is informed by his recent research on defining AI literacy,
online learning, and STEAM education.
Jac Ka Lok Leung received the B.Eng. degree in mechanical engineering from Hong Kong Polytechnic University in 2008,
the M.Sc. degree in environmental engineering from the Hong Kong University of Science and Technology (HKUST) and
the Ed.D. (Doctor) degree in education the the University of Hong Kong in 2021. He is a Lecturer with the Division of
Integrative Systems and Design, HKUST. He has over nine years of combined teaching, training, and research experi-
ences, primarily in engineering education. His research interests include Blended learning, Teacher education, Edu-
cational technologies, Makerspace, Design and innovation, and Self-determination Theory.
Huixuan Xu is an Assistant Professor in the Department of Curriculum and Instruction, the Education University of Hong
Kong. She works in the field of service-learning and curriculum studies. Her research interest includes adolescent iden-
tity formation through service-learning, emerging adult’s competence enhancement in service-learning, intercultural
competence development in international service-learning, quality elements in service-learning programmes.
Xu also situates her studies in self-regulated learning, integrated curriculum, and curriculum design and planning.

ORCID
Xiaoxuan Fang http://orcid.org/0000-0002-3953-3993
Davy Tsz Kit Ng http://orcid.org/0000-0002-2380-7814
Jac Ka Lok Leung http://orcid.org/0000-0001-6490-7005
Huixuan Xu http://orcid.org/0000-0002-9480-416X
 INTERACTIVE LEARNING ENVIRONMENTS 17

References
Acosta, J. L. B., Navarro, S. M. B., Gesa, R. F., & Kinshuk, K. (2019). Framework for designing motivational augmented
reality applications in vocational education and training. Australasian Journal of Educational Technology, 35(3),
102–117. https://doi.org/10.14742/ajet.4182
Ahmad, M., Rahim, L. A., & Arshad, N. I. (2014, June). A review of educational games design frameworks: An analysis from
software engineering. In 2014 international conference on computer and information sciences (ICCOINS). 1–6. IEEE.
https://doi.org/10.1109/ICCOINS.2014.6868452
Almasri, F. (2022). The impact of e-learning, gender-groupings and learning pedagogies in biology undergraduate
female and male students’ attitudes and achievement. Education and Information Technologies, 27(6), 8329–8380.
https://doi.org/10.1007/s10639-022-10967-z
Annamalai, S. (2016). Implementing ARCS model to design a motivating multimedia e-book for polytechnic ESL class-
room. Journal of Telecommunication, Electronic and Computer Engineering, 8(8), 57–60.
Aşıksoy, G., & Özdamlı, F. (2016). Flipped classroom adapted to the ARCS model of motivation and applied to a physics
course. Eurasia Journal of Mathematics, Science and Technology Education, 12(6), 1589–1603. https://doi.org/10.
12973/eurasia.2016.1251a
Baker, M., & Robinson, S. (2017). The effects of an experiential approach to learning on student motivation. Journal of
Agricultural Education, 58(3), 150–167. https://doi.org/10.5032/jae.2017.03150
Bransford, J. D., Brown, A. L., & Cocking, R. R. (2000). How people learn. National academy press.
Cagiltay, N. E., Ozcelik, E., & Ozcelik, N. S. (2015). The effect of competition on learning in games. Computers & Education,
87, 35–41. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.compedu.2015.04.001
Carvalho, M. B., Bellotti, F., Berta, R., De Gloria, A., Sedano, C. I., Hauge, J. B., Hu, J., & Rauterberg, M. (2015). An activity
theory-based model for serious games analysis and conceptual design. Computers & Education, 87, 166–181. https://
doi.org/10.1016/j.compedu.2015.03.023
Chang, Y. H., Hwang, J. H., Fang, R. J., & Lu, Y. T. (2017). A kinect- and game-based interactive learning system. Eurasia
Journal of Mathematics, Science and Technology Education, 13(8), 4897–4914. https://doi.org/10.12973/eurasia.2017.
00972a
Chao, J., Jiang, T. W., Yeh, Y. H., Liu, C. H., & Lin, C. M. (2019). Integration of ARCS motivational model and IT to enhance
students learning in the context of Atayal culture. EURASIA Journal of Mathematics, Science and Technology Education,
15(11), em1771. https://doi.org/10.29333/ejmste/109608
Charsky, D., & Ressler, W. (2011). “Games are made for fun”: Lessons on the effects of concept maps in the classroom use
of computer games. Computers & Education, 56(3), 604–615. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.compedu.2010.10.001
Chen, C. C., & Chen, C. Y. (2018). Exploring the effect of learning styles on learning achievement in a u-Museum.
Interactive Learning Environments, 26(5), 664–681. https://doi.org/10.1080/10494820.2017.1385488
Chen, Y.-T. (2014). A study to explore the effects of self-regulated learning environment for hearing-impaired students.
Journal of Computer Assisted Learning, 30(2), 97–109. http://dx.doi.org/10.1111/jcal.12023
Cheng, Y. C., & Yeh, H. T. (2009). From concepts of motivation to its application in instructional design: Reconsidering
motivation from an instructional design perspective. British Journal of Educational Technology, 40(4), 597–605.
https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1467-8535.2008.00857.x
Costan, E., Gonzales, G., Gonzales, R., Enriquez, L., Costan, F., Suladay, D., Atibing N. M., Aro J. L., Evangelista S. S., Maturan
F., Selerio E., & Ocampo, L. (2021). Education 4.0 in developing economies: a systematic literature review of
implementation barriers and future research agenda. Sustainability, 13(22), 12763. https://doi.org/10.3390/
su132212763
del Olmo-Muñoz, J., Cózar-Gutiérrez, R., & González-Calero, J. A. (2020). Computational thinking through unplugged
activities in early years of Primary Education. Computers & Education, 150, 103832. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.
compedu.2020.103832
Deublein, A., Pfeifer, A., Merbach, K., Bruckner, K., Mengelkamp, C., & Lugrin, B. (2018). Scaffolding of motivation in learn-
ing using a social robot. Computers & Education, 125, 182–190. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.compedu.2018.06.015
Dincer, S., & Doganay, A. (2017). The effects of multiple-pedagogical agents on learners’ academic success, motivation,
and cognitive load. Computers & Education, 111, 74–100. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.compedu.2017.04.005
Doering, A., Scharber, C., Riedel, E., & Miller, C. (2010). Timber for president": adventure learning and motivation. Journal
of Interactive Learning Research, 21(4), 483–513. https://www.learntechlib.org/p/30331/
Gagne, R. (1985). The conditions of learning and theory of instruction Robert Gagné. New York, NY: Holt, Rinehart ja
Winston.
Garzón, J., Baldiris, S., Gutiérrez, J., & Pavón, J. (2020). How do pedagogical approaches affect the impact of augmented
reality on education? A meta-analysis and research synthesis. Educational Research Review, 31, 100334. https://doi.
org/10.1016/j.edurev.2020.100334
Gedik, N., Hanci-Karademirci, A., Kursun, E., & Cagiltay, K. (2012). Key instructional design issues in a cellular phone-based
mobile learning project. Computers & Education, 58(4), 1149–1159. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.compedu.2011.12.002
Guo, Y. R., & Goh, D. H.-L. (2016). Evaluation of affective embodied agents in an information literacy game. Computers &
Education, 103, 59–75. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.compedu.2016.09.013
18 X. FANG ET AL.

Guo, Y. R., Goh, D. H.-L., Luyt, B., Sin, S.-C. J., & Ang, R. P. (2015). The effectiveness and acceptance of an affective infor-
mation literacy tutorial. Computers & Education, 87, 368–384. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.compedu.2015.07.015
Hao, K. C., & Lee, L. C. (2021). The development and evaluation of an educational game integrating augmented reality,
ARCS model, and types of games for English experiment learning: an analysis of learning. Interactive Learning
Environments, 29(7), 1101–1114. https://doi.org/10.1080/10494820.2019.1619590
Hodges, C. B., & Kim, C. (2013). Improving college students’ attitudes toward mathematics. TechTrends, 57(4), 59–66.
https://doi.org/10.1007/s11528-013-0679-4
Huang, T.-C., Chen, M.-Y., & Hsu, W.-P. (2019). Do learning styles matter? Motivating learners in an augmented geopark.
Educational Technology & Society, 22(1), 70–81. https://www.jstor.org/stable/26558829
Huang, W. D., & Oh, E. G. (2018). Motivational support from digital game-based learning environments (DGBLEs) for
scientific topics designed by novice end users. Educational Media International, 55(2), 123–136. https://doi.org/10.
1080/09523987.2018.1484043
Huang, Y.-M., Huang, S.-H., & Wu, T.-T. (2014). Embedding diagnostic mechanisms in a digital game for learning math-
ematics. Educational Technology Research and Development, 62(2), 187–207. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11423-013-
9315-4
Hung, I. C., Chao, K. J., Lee, L., & Chen, N. S. (2013). Designing a robot teaching assistant for enhancing and sustaining
learning motivation. Interactive Learning Environments, 21(2), 156–171. https://doi.org/10.1080/10494820.2012.
705855
Hwang, G., Chang, C., & Chien, S. (2022). A motivational model-based virtual reality approach to prompting learners’
sense of presence, learning achievements, and higher-order thinking in professional safety training. British Journal
of Educational Technology, 53(5), 1343–1360. https://doi.org/10.1111/bjet.13196
Ibáñez, M. B., Uriarte Portillo, A., Zatarain Cabada, R., & Barrón, M. L. (2020). Impact of augmented reality technology on
academic achievement and motivation of students from public and private Mexican schools. A case study in a
middle-school geometry course. Computers & Education, 145, 103734. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.compedu.2019.
103734
Israel-Fishelson, R., & Hershkovitz, A. (2022). Studying interrelations of computational thinking and creativity: A scoping
review (2011–2020). Computers & Education, 176, 104353. http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.compedu.2021.104353
Julià, C., & Antolí, JÒ. (2019). Impact of implementing a long-term STEM-based active learning course on students’
motivation. International Journal of Technology and Design Education, 29(2), 303–327. https://doi.org/10.1007/
s10798-018-9441-8
Kao, G. Y.-M., Tsai, C., Liu, C.-Y., & Yang, C.-H. (2016). The effects of high/low interactive electronic storybooks on elemen-
tary school students’ Reading motivation, story comprehension and chromatics concepts. Computers & Education,
100, 56–70. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.compedu.2016.04.013
Karakış, H., Karamete, A., & Okçu, A. (2016). The effects of a computer-assisted teaching material, designed according to
the assure ınstructional design and the arcs model of motivation, on students’ achievement levels in a mathematics
lesson and their resulting attitudes.
Karoulis, A. (2011). On motivation to apply ODL in adult teachers’ education. Informatics in Education, 10(1), 37–45.
https://doi.org/10.15388/infedu.2011.03
Keller, J. M. (1984). The use of the ARCS model of motivation in teacher training. Aspects of Educational Technology, 17,
140–145.
Keller, J. M. (1987a). Development and use of the ARCS model of instructional design. Journal of Instructional
Development, 10(3), 2–10. https://doi.org/10.1007/BF02905780
Keller, J. M. (1987b). The systematic process of motivational design. Perform. Instr, 26, 1–8. https://doi.org/10.1002/pfi.
4160260902
Keller, J. M. (1987c). Strategies for stimulating the motivation to learn. Performance + Instruction, 26(8), 1–7. https://doi.
org/10.1002/pfi.4160260802
Keller, J. M. (2009). Motivational design for learning and performance: the ARCS model approach. Springer Science &
Business Media.
Kern, F. G. (2018). The trials and tribulations of applied triangulation: Weighing different data sources. Journal of Mixed
Methods Research, 12(2), 166–181. https://doi.org/10.1177/1558689816651032
Kim, J. Y., & Lim, K. Y. (2019). Promoting learning in online, ill-structured problem solving: The effects of scaffolding type
and metacognition level. Computers & Education, 138, 116–129. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.compedu.2019.05.001
Kivunja, C. (2018). Distinguishing between theory, theoretical framework, and conceptual framework: A systematic
review of lessons from the field. International Journal of Higher Education, 7(6), 44–53. https://doi.org/10.5430/ijhe.
v7n6p44
Kolbe, D. A. (1984). Experiential learning. New Jersey: Eaglewood Cliffs.
Kurt, P. Y., & Kecik, I. (2017). The effects of ARCS motivational model on student motivation to learn English. European
Journal of Foreign Language Teaching, 2(1), 22–44. https://doi.org/10.5281/zenodo.254605
Laurens-Arredondo, L. (2022). Mobile augmented reality adapted to the ARCS model of motivation: a case study during
the COVID-19 pandemic. Education and Information Technologies, 27(6), 7927–7946. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10639-
022-10933-9
 INTERACTIVE LEARNING ENVIRONMENTS 19

Leiste, S. M., & Jensen, K. (2011). Creating a positive prior learning assessment (PLA) experience: A step-by-step look at
university PLA. The International Review of Research in Open and Distributed Learning, 12(1), 61. https://doi.org/10.
19173/irrodl.v12i1.898
Lewin, K. (1938). The conceptual representation and measurement of psychological forces. Duke University.
Li, K., & Keller, J. M. (2018). Use of the ARCS model in education: A literature review. Computers & Education, 122, 54–62.
https://doi.org/10.1016/j.compedu.2018.03.019
Lin, Y. J., & Wang, H. C. (2022). Applying augmented reality in a university English class: Learners’ perceptions of crea-
tivity and learning motivation. Innovation in Language Learning and Teaching, 1–15. https://doi.org/10.1080/
17501229.2022.2040513
Lo, C. K. (2023). Strategies for enhancing online flipped learning: a systematic review of empirical studies during the
COVID-19 pandemic. Interactive Learning Environments, 1–29. https://doi.org/10.1080/10494820.2023.2184392
Loorbach, N., Peters, O., Karreman, J., & Steehouder, M. (2015). Validation of the Instructional Materials Motivation
Survey (IMMS) in a self-directed instructional setting aimed at working with technology. British Journal of
Educational Technology, 46(1), 204–218. https://doi.org/10.1111/bjet.12138
Lu, S. J., Liu, Y. C., Chen, P. J., & Hsieh, M. R. (2020). Evaluation of AR embedded physical puzzle game on students’ learn-
ing achievement and motivation on elementary natural science. Interactive Learning Environments, 28(4), 451–463.
https://doi.org/10.1080/10494820.2018.1541908
Ma, L., & Lee, C. S. (2021). Evaluating the effectiveness of blended learning using the ARCS model. Journal of Computer
Assisted Learning, 37(5), 1397–1408. https://doi.org/10.1111/jcal.12579
Mirzaei, A., Shafiee Rad, H., & Rahimi, E. (2022). Integrating ARCS motivational model and flipped teaching in L2 class-
rooms: a case of EFL expository writing. Computer Assisted Language Learning, 1–30. https://doi.org/10.1080/
09588221.2022.2068614
Molenda, M. (2003). In search of the elusive ADDIE model. Performance Improvement, 42(5), 34–36. https://doi.org/10.
1002/pfi.4930420508
Munn, Z., Peters, M. D., Stern, C., Tufanaru, C., McArthur, A., & Aromataris, E. (2018). Systematic review or scoping review?
Guidance for authors when choosing between a systematic or scoping review approach. BMC Medical Research
Methodology, 18(1), 1–7. https://doi.org/10.1186/s12874-017-0458-6
Mustami, M. K., & Safitri, D. (2018). The effects of numbered heads together-Assurance Relevance Interest Assessment
Satisfaction on students’ motivation. International Journal of Instruction, 11(3), 123–134. https://doi.org/10.12973/iji.
2018.1139a
Ng, D. T. K., & Chu, S. K. W. (2021). Motivating students to learn STEM via engaging flight simulation activities. Journal of
Science Education and Technology, 30(5), 608–629. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10956-021-09907-2
Nur, S. (2020). Students’ perception toward the use of deductive and inductive approaches in teaching English
grammar. TESOL International Journal, 15(1), 6–19.
OCAK, M., & AKÇAYIR, M. (2013). Do motivation tactics work in blended learning environments?: The ARCS model
approach. International Journal of Social Sciences Education, 3(4), 1058–1070. https://avesis.gazi.edu.tr/yayin/
1c02f46e-7c1b-476a-9438-f81978e02c3d/domotivation- tactics-work-in-blended-learning-environments-the-arcs-
model-approach.
Ozcelik, E., Cagiltay, N. E., & Ozcelik, N. S. (2013). The effect of uncertainty on learning in game-like environments.
Computers & Education, 67, 12–20. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.compedu.2013.02.009
Petticrew, M., & Roberts, H. (2008). Systematic reviews in the social sciences: A practical guide. John Wiley & Sons.
Proske, A., Roscoe, R. D., & McNamara, D. S. (2014). Game-based practice versus traditional practice in computer-based
writing strategy training: effects on motivation and achievement. Educational Technology Research and Development,
62(5), 481–505. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11423-014-9349-2
Refat, N., Rahman, M. A., Asyhari, A. T., Kurniawan, I. F., Bhuiyan, M. Z. A., & Kassim, H. (2019). Interactive learning experi-
ence-driven smart communications networks for cognitive load management in grammar learning context. IEEE
Access, 7, 64545–64557. https://doi.org/10.1109/ACCESS.2019.2915174
Robb, C. A., & Sutton, J. (2014). The importance of social presence and motivation in distance learning. The Journal of
Technology, Management, and Applied Engineering, 31(2), 1–10. https://www.iastatedigitalpress.com/jtmae/article/id/
14144/
Roberts, L. W. (2017). Research in the real world: Improving adult learners web search and evaluation skills through
motivational design and problem-based learning. College & Research Libraries, 78(4), 527. https://doi.org/10.5860/
crl.78.4.527
Sekine, T. (2020). Empirical verifications of web-learning environment to enhance learning effectiveness and motivation in
mechanical drawing. Journal of Technology and Science Education, 10(2), 179–189. https://doi.org/10.3926/jotse.856
Serio, D. A., Ibáñez, M. B., & Kloos, C. D. (2013). Impact of an augmented reality system on students’ motivation for a
visual art course. Computers & Education, 68, 586–596. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.compedu.2012.03.002
Shackelford, L., David Huang, W., Craig, A., Merrill, C., & Chen, D. (2019). Relationships between motivational support and
game features in a game-based virtual reality learning environment for teaching introductory archaeology.
Educational Media International, 56(3), 183–200. https://doi.org/10.1080/09523987.2019.1669946
20 X. FANG ET AL.

Singh, J., Steele, K., & Singh, L. (2021). Combining the best of online and face-to-face learning: Hybrid and blended learn-
ing approach for COVID-19, post vaccine, & post-pandemic world. Journal of Educational Technology Systems, 50(2),
140–171. https://doi.org/10.1177/00472395211047865
Spangenberg, E. D., & Roberts, A. K. (2020). Peer tutors’ views on their role in motivating learners to learn mathematics.
Pythagoras (Pretoria, South Africa), 41(1), 1–13. https://doi.org/10.4102/pythagoras.v41i1.520
Su, C. (2016). The effects of students’ learning anxiety and motivation on the learning achievement in the activity theory
based gamified learning environment. EURASIA Journal of Mathematics, Science and Technology Education, 13(5),
1229–1258. https://doi.org/10.12973/eurasia.2017.00669a
Sulisworo, D., Sulistiyo, E. N., & Akhsan, R. N. (2017). The motivation impact of open educational resources utilization on
physics learning using quipper school app. Turkish Online Journal of Distance Education, 18(4), 120–128. https://doi.
org/10.17718/tojde.340399
Tan, J. L., Goh, D. H. L., Ang, R. P., & Huan, V. S. (2013). Participatory evaluation of an educational game for social skills
acquisition. Computers & Education, 64, 70–80. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.compedu.2013.01.006
Tapingkae, P., Panjaburee, P., Hwang, G. J., & Srisawasdi, N. (2020). Effects of a formative assessment-based contextual
gaming approach on students’ digital citizenship behaviours, learning motivations, and perceptions. Computers &
Education, 159, 103998. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.compedu.2020.103998
Tolman, E. C. (1932). Purposive behavior in animals and men. Century.
Tricco, A. C, Lillie, E., Zarin, W., O’Brien, K. K., Colquhoun, H., Levac, D., Moher, D., Peters, M. D. J., Horsley, T., Weeks, L.,
Hempel, S., Akl, E. A., Chang, C., McGowan, J., Stewart, L., Hartling, L., Aldcroft, A., Wilson, M. G., Garritty, C., … Straus,
S. E. (2018). PRISMA Extension for Scoping Reviews (PRISMA-ScR): Checklist and Explanation. Annals of Internal
Medicine, 169(7), 467–473. http://dx.doi.org/10.7326/M18-0850
Trolian, T. L., & Jach, E. A. (2020). Engagement in college and university applied learning experiences and students’ aca-
demic motivation. Journal of Experiential Education, 43(3), 317–335. https://doi.org/10.1177/1053825920925100
Tsai, C.-Y., Shih, W.-L., Hsieh, F.-P., Chen, Y.-A., Lin, C.-L., & Wu, H.-J. (2022). Using the ARCS model to improve under-
graduates’ perceived information security protection motivation and behavior. Computers and Education, 181, 1–
12. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.compedu.2022.104449.
Tufail, M. (2018). An investigation of factors responsible for sustaining students motivation in E-learning system.
Pakistan Journal of Distance and Online Learning, 4(1), 37–48. https://eric.ed.gov/?id=EJ1267278
Tung, K. Y., & Alissa, A. (2021). Flipperentiated learning in biology class to improve cognitive learning outcomes,
problem-solving skill, and motivation. International Journal of Education and Literacy Studies, 9(1), 183–190.
https://doi.org/10.7575/aiac.ijels.v.9n.1p.183
Turel, Y. K., & Sanal, S. O. (2018). The effects of an ARCS based e-book on student’s achievement, motivation and anxiety.
Computers & Education, 127, 130–140. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.compedu.2018.08.006
Villena Taranilla, R., Cózar-Gutiérrez, R., González-Calero, J. A., & López Cirugeda, I. (2022). Strolling through a city of the
Roman Empire: an analysis of the potential of virtual reality to teach history in Primary Education. Interactive Learning
Environments, 30(4), 608–618. https://doi.org/10.1080/10494820.2019.1674886
Wei, X., Weng, D., Liu, Y., & Wang, Y. (2015). Teaching based on augmented reality for a technical creative design course.
Computers & Education, 81, 221–234. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.compedu.2014.10.017
Wu, J., & Chen, D. T. V. (2020). A systematic review of educational digital storytelling. Computers & Education, 147,
103786. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.compedu.2019.103786
Wu, P. L., Tsai, C. H., Yang, T. H., Huang, S. H., & Lin, C. H. (2012). Using ARCS model to promote technical and vocational
college students’ motivation and achievement. International Journal of Learning, 18(4), 79–92. https://doi.org/10.
18848/1447-9494/cgp/v18i04/47568
Wyss, J., Lee, S. E., Domina, T., & MacGillivray, M. (2014). Cotton Island: Students’ learning motivation using a virtual
world. Decision Sciences Journal of Innovative Education, 12(3), 219–232. https://doi.org/10.1111/dsji.12036
Yoshida, M., & Petsangsri, S. (2022). Analysis of scholarly communications of students on twitter. International Journal of
Emerging Technologies in Learning (iJET), 17(9), 4–19. https://doi.org/10.3991/ijet.v17i09.27197
Zainuddin, Z., Chu, S. K. W., Shujahat, M., & Perera, C. J. (2020). The impact of gamification on learning and instruction: A
systematic review of empirical evidence. Educational Research Review, 30, 100326. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.edurev.
2020.100326
Zhang, W. (2017). Design a civil engineering micro-lecture platform based on the ARCS model perspective. International
Journal of Emerging Technologies in Learning (iJET), 12(1), 107–118. https://doi.org/10.3991/ijet.v12i01.6487
 INTERACTIVE LEARNING ENVIRONMENTS 21

Appendices
Appendix A. List of selected articles and journals analyzed from Web of Science, ERIC,
ProQuest Education Database (2011–2022)

Number of Impact Factor

No Studies Journal Publisher articles (JCR)
1 Carvalho et al. (2015); Charsky and Computers and Education Elsevier 19 8.538
Ressler (2011); Cagiltay et al.
(2015); Deublein et al. (2018); Serio
et al. (2013); Dincer and Doganay
(2017); del Olmo-Muñoz et al.
(2020); Gedik et al. (2012); Guo
et al. (2015); Guo and Goh (2016);
Ibáñez et al. (2020); Kao et al.
(2016); Kim and Lim (2019); Ozcelik
et al. (2013); Tan et al. (2013);
Tapingkae et al. (2020); Tsai et al.
(2022); Turel and Sanal (2018); Wei
et al. (2015)
2 Chen and Chen (2018); Hung et al. Interactive Learning Routledge 5 3.928
(2013); Hao and Lee (2021); Lu Environments
et al. (2020); Villena Taranilla et al.
(2022)
3 Aşıksoy and Özdamlı (2016); Chang EURASIA Journal of Modestum 4 0.903
et al. (2017); Chao et al. (2019); Su Mathematics Science
(2016) and Technology
Education
4 Almasri (2022); Laurens-Arredondo Education and Springer 2 3.666
(2022) Information
Technologies
5 Huang and Oh (2018); Shackelford Educational Media Education-Ascilite 2 1.00
et al. (2019) International Routledge
6 Huang et al. (2014); Proske et al. Educational Technology Springer Science + 2 3.565
(2014) Research and Business Media
Development
7 Hwang et al. (2022) British Journal of BERA 1 5.268
Educational Technology
8 Sekine (2020) Journal of Technology mniaScience 1 1.86 (IS)
and Science Education
9 Karakış et al. (2016) European Journal of Academic Publishing 1 1.18
Contemporary House Researcher
Education
10 Roberts (2017) College & Research Assoc Coll Research 1 2.381
Libraries Libraries
11 Hodges and Kim (2013) TechTrends Springer US 1 1.10
12 Mirzaei et al. (2022) Computer Assisted Taylor and Francis Ltd 1 4.789
Language Learning
13 Lin and Wang (2022) Innovation in Language Taylor and Francis Ltd 1 2.268
Learning and Teaching
14 Acosta et al. (2019) Australasian Journal of Australasian Soc 1 3.067
Educational Technology Computers Learning
Tertiary
15 Baker and Robinson (2017) Journal of Agricultural American Association 1 2.060
Education for Agricultural
Education
16 Nur (2020) TESOL International - 1 1.03 (IS)
Journal
17 Wyss et al. (2014) Decision Sciences Journal Wiley-Blackwell on 1 1.297 (IF)
of Innovative Education behalf of the
Decision Sciences
Institute

(Continued )
22 X. FANG ET AL.

Continued.
Number of Impact Factor
No Studies Journal Publisher articles (JCR)
18 Tufail (2018) Pakistan Journal of Allama Iqbal Open 1 -
Distance and Online University
Learning
19 Spangenberg and Roberts (2020) Journal of the Association African Online 1 -
for Mathematics Scientific
Education of South Information Systems
Africa
20 Leiste and Jensen (2011) International Review of Athabasca University 1 1.244 (2015)
Research in Open and Press
Distance Learning
21 Tung and Alissa (2021) International Journal of Australian 1 2.918 (IF)
Education and Literacy International
Studies Academic Center
PTY. Ltd
22 Karoulis (2011) Informatics in Education Vilniaus Universiteto 1 1.24
Leidykla
23 Sulisworo et al. (2017) Turkish Online Journal of Anadolu Universitesi 1 0.69
Distance Education
24 Mustami and Safitri (2018) International Journal of Eskisehir Osmangazi 1 0.81
Instruction University
25 Huang et al. (2019) Educational Technology & National Taiwan 1 3.522
Society Normal University
26 Julià and Antolí (2019) International Journal of Springer Netherlands 1 2.177
Technology and Design
Education
27 Yoshida and Petsangsri (2022) International Journal of Kassel University Press 1 2.587 (IF)
Emerging Technologies
in Learning
TOTAL 55 articles

Appendix B. The applications of the ARCS model in reviewed studies

No Studies Instructional design Theoretical framework Measurement tool

Instructional design
1 Acosta et al. (2019) * *
2 Aşıksoy and Özdamlı (2016) *
3 Carvalho et al. (2015) *
4 Chang et al. (2017) * *
5 Chao et al. (2019) *
6 Chen and Chen (2018) * *
7 Deublein et al. (2018) * *
8 Gedik et al. (2012) *
9 Hao and Lee (2021) * *
10 Hodges and Kim (2013) *
11 Hung et al. (2013) * *
12 Hwang et al. (2022) *
13 Karakış et al. (2016) *
14 Kao et al. (2016) * *
15 Kim and Lim (2019) *
16 Laurens-Arredondo (2022) * *
17 Lin and Wang (2022) * *
18 Mirzaei et al. (2022) *
19 Proske et al. (2014) * *
20 Roberts (2017) *
21 Sekine (2020) * *
22 Tapingkae et al. (2020) *
23 Tan et al. (2013) *
24 Tsai et al. (2022) *

(Continued )
 INTERACTIVE LEARNING ENVIRONMENTS 23

Continued.
No Studies Instructional design Theoretical framework Measurement tool
25 Turel and Sanal (2018) * *
26 Wei et al. (2015) * *
Theoretical framework
1 Almasri (2022) *
2 Baker and Robinson (2017) * *
3 Huang and Oh (2018) *
4 Karoulis (2011) *
5 Leiste and Jensen (2011) *
6 Spangenberg and Roberts (2020) *
7 Tufail (2018) *
8 Tung and Alissa (2021) *
9 Wyss et al. (2014) * *
Measurement tool
1 Cagiltay et al. (2015) *
2 Charsky and Ressler (2011) *
3 del Olmo-Muñoz et al. (2020) *
4 Serio et al. (2013) *
5 Dincer and Doganay (2017) *
6 Guo et al. (2015) *
7 Guo and Goh (2016) *
8 Huang et al. (2014) *
9 Huang et al. (2019) *
10 Ibáñez et al. (2020) *
11 Julià and Antolí (2019) *
12 Lu et al. (2020) *
13 Mustami and Safitri (2018) *
14 Nur (2020) *
15 Ozcelik et al. (2013) *
16 Shackelford et al. (2019) *
17 Su (2016) *
18 Sulisworo et al. (2017) *
19 Villena Taranilla et al. (2022) *
20 Yoshida and Petsangsri (2022) *

Appendix C. The coding scheme of RQs used in this study

Definitions Sample references Sample studies

1. Education contexts
(1) Years of The information of selected studies’ The journal article was published in Deublein et al. (2018);
publications publication year revealed the 2022 (Almasri, 2022). Gedik et al. (2012);
development trend of the usage of Hao and Lee (2021)
the ARCS model in educational
research from 2011 to 2022.
(2) Regions The information of selected studies’ Participants were 169 students who Tsai et al. (2022); Turel
locations revealed the distribution enrolled in a two-credit college level and Sanal (2018);
of intention countries which have course on instructional design for Wei et al. (2015)
used the ARCS model in the world. educators in South Korea (Kim &
Lim, 2019).
(3) Educational levels The information of selected studies’ The experiment selected 147 fifth Chao et al. (2019);
educational levels revealed the graders (from 76 females and 71 Tapingkae et al.
distribution of adult years or males, aged 11 years) as the study (2020); Tan et al.
students’ school age in the context participants (Hao & Lee, 2021). (2013)
of using the ARCS model in their
learning.
(4) Subject matters Subject matters are academic Participants (N = 175) were volunteer Proske et al. (2014);
subjects explored in the study German university students enrolled Roberts (2017);
context. The results are in English courses to acquire and Sekine (2020)
categorized based on Israel- improve English fluency (Proske
Fishelson and Hershkovitz’s (2022) et al., 2014).

(Continued )
24 X. FANG ET AL.

Continued.
Definitions Sample references Sample studies
classification, including non-STEM,
STEM, and cross-curricula.
(5) Learning Learning environments refer to the The authors designed an augmented Aşıksoy and Özdamlı
environments involvement of a specific learning reality application for students to (2016); Carvalho
environment with which practice the basic principles of et al. (2015); Chang
participants were engaged. The geometry, and a similar application et al. (2017)
results were categorized based on which encompasses identical
Bransford et al.’s (2000) learning objectives and content
classification, including learner- deployed in a Web-based learning
centered, knowledge-centered, environment (Ibáñez et al., 2020).
assessment-centered, and
community-centered.
2. Instructional design
(1) Pedagogical Pedagogical approaches refer to the This study examined the effects that Aşıksoy and Özdamlı
approaches methods of teaching and learning computer-assisted instruction had on (2016); Carvalho
applied in the reviewed studies. students‘ attitudes toward a et al. (2015); Gedik
The results were categorized based mathematics lesson and toward et al. (2012)
on Garzón et al.’s (2020) learning mathematics with
classification, including computer-assisted instruction
collaborative learning, inquiry- (Karakış et al., 2016).
based learning, situated learning,
project-based learning, and
multimedia learning.
(2) Learning outcomes Learning outcomes refer to students’ This study examined synergistic effects Roberts (2017); Sekine
knowledge, values, and skills that of ARCS-flipped teaching on Iranian (2020); Tapingkae
are demonstrated after they English-as-a-foreign- language (EFL) et al. (2020)
complete academic courses. The learners’ expository-writing
results were identified based on performance and motivation
Wu and Chen’s (2020) (Mirzaei et al., 2022).
classification, including affective,
cognitive, conceptual, academic,
linguistic, and social.
(3) Effects Effects refer to the effectiveness of Results show learners’ skill levels, Lin and Wang (2022);
instructional design, including perceived confidence, and perceived Mirzaei et al. (2022);
effective and ineffective findings. relevance increased significantly Proske et al. (2014)
(Roberts, 2017).
3. Theoretical framework
(1) Roles The roles of the ARCS model used as The four categories adapted from the Karoulis (2011); Leiste
a theoretical framework were ARCS model of motivation were used and Jensen (2011);
categorized based on Kivunja’s as a lens to view and analyze the Tufail (2018)
(2018) review paper, including data using theoretical thematic
analysis of students’ motivation analysis (Spangenberg & Roberts,
and analysis of instructional 2020).
design.
(2) Theoretical Theoretical frameworks refer to the Keller’s (1987a) ARCS Model of Almasri (2022); Huang
frameworks theories expressed by experts in Motivation serves as the primary and Oh (2018); Tung
integrated with the the field that can guide the theoretical frame of this study. Kolb’s and Alissa (2021)
ARCS model research and interpretation of data (1984) Experiential Learning Theory
results. The results are categorized (ELT) also plays an important role in
based on Ahmad’s et al.’s (2014) setting the context for the treatment
classification, including conditions in this experiment (Baker
behaviorism and humanism. & Robinson, 2017).
4. Measurement tool
(1) Versions Versions were categorized based on Motivation was assessed using a Julià and Antolí
the numbers of items constructed questionnaire adapted from the (2019); Lu et al.
in the IMMS. ARCS Model of Motivation (Keller, (2020); Mustami and
2009), including 24 questions related Safitri (2018)
to Attention, Relevance, Confidence,
and Satisfaction (Lu et al., 2020).
(2) Reliability Reliability was categorized based on The IMMS reported a Cronbach Alpha Guo et al. (2015); Guo
the reported Cronbach’s alpha of = .88 (Shackelford et al., 2019). and Goh (2016);
the IMMS scale. Huang et al. (2014)
Appendix D. Literature summary of ARCS model applied in instructional design (N = 26)

Learning Pedagogical
Study Location Edu level Subject matter environment approach Learning outcome Effect Version Reliability
Acosta et al. (2019) Spain Higher Education Chemistry Learner-centered Multimedia Affective Effective 36 items, a 5-point No details
learning Likert scale
Aşıksoy and Turkey Higher Education Physics Learner-centered Multimedia Affective Effective - -
Özdamlı (2016) learning
Carvalho et al. Italy, Higher Education, - Learner-centered Multimedia - Effective - -
(2015) Germany Adult Education learning
Chang et al. (2017) Taiwan Adult Education English Learner-centered Multimedia Affective Effective 24 items, a 5-point 0.957
learning Likert scale
Chao et al. (2019) Taiwan Secondary STEM Assessment- Collaborative Affective, Social, Effective - -
centered learning Cognitive, Conceptual
Chen and Chen Taiwan Primary Natural Science Community- Situated-based Affective Effective 36 items, a 5-point >0.7
(2018) centered learning Likert scale
Deublein et al. French Higher Education English Learner-centered Multimedia Affective, Linguistic Effective, 34 items, a 6-point >0.8
(2018) learning Ineffective Likert scale
Gedik et al. (2012) Turkey Secondary Cross-curriculum Learner-centered Multimedia - Effective - -
learning
Hao and Lee (2021) Taiwan Primary English Learner-centered Multimedia Affective, Cognitive Effective, 18 items, a 5-point 0.759
learning Ineffective Likert scale
Hodges and Kim United Higher Education STEM Learner-centered Multimedia Affective Ineffective - -

INTERACTIVE LEARNING ENVIRONMENTS

(2013) States learning
Hung et al. (2013) Taiwan Higher Education English Learner-centered Multimedia Affective, Linguistic Effective 36 items, a 5-point -
learning Likert scale
Hwang et al. (2022) Taiwan Adult Education Nursing Learner-centered Multimedia Affective, Academic, Effective - -
learning Cognitive
Karakış et al. (2016) Turkey Primary STEM Learner-centered Multimedia Affective, Academic Ineffective - -
learning
Kao et al. (2016) Taiwan Primary English Learner-centered Multimedia Affective, Conceptual Effective 35 items, a 5-point 0.94
learning Likert scale
Kim and Lim (2019) Korea Higher Education - Learner-centered Inquiry-based Academic Effective - -
approach
Laurens-Arredondo Chile Higher Education STEM Learner-centered Multimedia Affective, Academic Effective 36 items, a 5-point 0.89
(2022) learning Likert scale
Lin and Wang Taiwan Higher Education English Learner-centered Project-based Affective Effective, 36 items, a 5-point No details
(2022) learning Ineffective Likert scale
Mirzaei et al. (2022) Iran Adult Education English Learner-centered Multimedia Affective, Linguistic Effective - -
learning

25
(Continued)
 26
X. FANG ET AL.
Continued.
Learning Pedagogical
Study Location Edu level Subject matter environment approach Learning outcome Effect Version Reliability
Proske et al. (2014) Germany Higher Education English Learner-centered Multimedia Affective, Linguistic Effective, 36 items, a 5-point >0.7
learning Ineffective Likert scale
Roberts (2017) United Higher Education STEM Learner-centered Inquiry-based Affective Effective - -
States approach
Sekine (2020) Japan Higher Education Mechanical Learner-centered Multimedia Affective Effective 14 items, a 5-point 0.988
drawing learning Likert scale
Tapingkae et al. Thailand Secondary Common Sense Assessment- Multimedia Affective Effective - -
(2020) Media centered learning
Tan et al. (2013) Singapore Primary Cross-curriculum Learner-centered Multimedia Affective Effective - -
learning
Tsai et al. (2022) Taiwan Higher Education STEM Learner-centered Collaborative Affective Effective - -
learning
Turel and Sanal Turkey Higher Education STEM Learner-centered Multimedia Affective Effective 36 items, a 5-point 0.96
(2018) learning Likert scale
Wei et al. (2015) China Secondary STEM Learner-centered Multimedia Affective Effective 19 items, a 5-point >0.7
learning Likert scale
Appendix E. Literature summary of ARCS model applied in theoretical framework (N = 9)

Subject Learning
Study Location Edu level Matter Environment Function Theoretical framework Version Reliability
Almasri (2022) Kuwait Higher Biology Learner-centered Data analysis The ARCS model and behaviorism - -
Education theory
Baker and Robinson (2017) United Secondary Agricultural Community- Data analysis The ARCS model and humanism 36 items, a 5-point Likert 0.96
States centered theory scale
Huang and Oh (2018) United Teacher STEM Learner-centered Data analysis The ARCS model - -
States Education
Karoulis (2011) Germany Teacher - Learner-centered Data analysis The ARCS model - -
Education
Leiste and Jensen (2011) United Higher - Assessment- Analysis of The ARCS model - -
States Education centered instructions
Spangenberg and Roberts South Africa Secondary STEM Knowledge- Analysis of The ARCS model - -
(2020) centered instructions
Tufail (2018) Pakistan Higher - Learner-centered Data analysis The ARCS model - -
Education
Tung and Alissa (2021) Indonesia Secondary Biology Learner-centered Analysis of The ARCS model and behaviorism - -
instructions theory
Wyss et al. (2014) United Higher Cotton Learner-centered Data analysis The ARCS model 15 items, a 7-point Likert >0.7
States Education scale

INTERACTIVE LEARNING ENVIRONMENTS

27
28 X. FANG ET AL.

Appendix F. Literature summary of ARCS model applied in measurement tool (N = 20)

Learning
Study Location Edu level Subject Matter Environment Version Reliability
Cagiltay et al. (2015) Turkey Higher STEM Learner-centered 36 items, a 5-point No details
Education Likert scale
Charsky and Ressler United Secondary History Learner-centered 36 items, a 5-point 0.92
(2011) States Likert scale
del Olmo-Muñoz Spain Primary STEM Learner-centered 12 items, a 5-point >0.7
et al. (2020) Likert scale
Serio et al. (2013) Spain Secondary Visual Art Learner-centered 36 items, a 5-point 0.96
Likert scale
Dincer and Doganay Turkey Primary - Learner-centered 33 items, a 5-point 0.97
(2017) Likert scale
Guo et al. (2015) Singapore Higher - Learner-centered 36 items, a 5-point >0.8
Education Likert scale
Guo and Goh (2016) Singapore Higher - Learner-centered 36 items, a 5-point 0.914
Education Likert scale
Huang et al. (2014) Taiwan Primary STEM Learner-centered 36 items, a 5-point >0.8
Likert scale
Huang et al. (2019) Taiwan Primary Geology Learner-centered 25 items, a 5-point No details
Likert scale
Ibáñez et al. (2020) Mexico Secondary Geometry Learner-centered 36 items, a 5-point No details
Likert scale
Julià and Antolí Spain Primary, STEM Learner-centered 36 items, a 5-point 0.96
(2019) Secondary Likert scale
Lu et al. (2020) Taiwan Primary Natural Science Learner-centered 24 items, a 5-point 0.942
Likert scale
Mustami and Safitri Indonesia Secondary Biology Knowledge- 36 items, a 5-point >0.9
(2018) centered Likert scale
Nur (2020) Indonesia Higher English Knowledge- 32 items, a 5-point No details
Education centered Likert scale
Ozcelik et al. (2013) Turkey Higher STEM Learner-centered 36 items, a 5-point No details
Education Likert scale
Shackelford et al. United Higher Anthropology Learner-centered 36 items, a 9-point 0.88
(2019) States Education Likert scale
Su (2016) Taiwan Higher Nursing Learner-centered 36 items, a 5-point 0.95
Education Likert scale
Sulisworo et al. Indonesia Secondary Physics Learner-centered 27 items, a 5-point No details
(2017) Likert scale
Villena Taranilla et al. Roman Primary History Learner-centered 12 items, a 5-point No details
(2022) Empire Likert scale
Yoshida and Japan Higher General Learner-centered 36 items, a 5-point 0.93
Petsangsri (2022) Education Education Likert scale