Richard Wainess Motivation and Games Framework

A Framework for Research on Motivation and Games-based Learning

The mantra of education today seems to be, “games are good for learning because they’re
motivating21, 26, 27, 51 .” This mantra includes the belief that motivation leads to learning; or
to some, guarantees learning. Much of this connection between games and motivation
and learning dates back to the work of Malone 38 where he and colleagues39 defined a
number of constructs that provided motivational appeal and the implication that these
constructs and their related motivational characteristics were beneficial to learning and,
ultimately, learning from games. However, empirical evidence hasn’t necessarily
supported those conclusions. While motivation may be a contributor to learning within
games, research suggests it is the instructional methods embedded in games that lead to
learning43 ; strong evidence suggests motivation alone does not lead to learning5, 23, 49 . The
purpose of this paper is to propose an empirically-based framework of motivation and
games-based learning to guide future research on motivation and games-based learning.
In this paper, a model based on an extensive body of empirical research linking
motivation to learning through mediating and moderating variables is proposed. From
that model, a framework is proposed for addressing a wide range of research questions
and hypotheses that can be inferred from the model.

The Model of Motivation and Game-Based Learning

The model (Figure 1) is composed of independent variables (IVs), mediating and

moderating variables (MVs), and a dependent variable (DV). The IVs (on the left) are
comprise the motivational constructs originally proposed by Malone38 along with
motivational constructs added by later research21, 26, 27, 51. The MVs (in the midd le portion
of the model) are those most relevant to the IVs and to learning from games-based
environments. The MVs are instructional methods, Cognitive Load Theory, and
Expectancy-Value Theory. The DV—learning outcomes—is an ordinal variable with a
range of potential values from low (minimal) learning to high (substantial) learning.

Figure 1: Overview of the Proposed Model of Motivation and Learning with Games
Independent Variables Mediating & Moderating Dependent Variable
Variables

Instructional Methods
(Scaffolds)

Motivational Learning
Cognitive Load Theory
Characteristics Outcomes
of Games
Expectancy-Value
Theory

1
Richard Wainess Motivation and Games Framework

The variables and, ultimately, the framework are based on empirical data indicating
correlations and causal connections among the various IVs and MVs, and their impact on
the DV. A mediating variable explains how the relationship between an independent and
dependent variable occurs (retrieved July 27, 2007 from http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/
Mediator_variable). For example, consider the relationship where aging leading to better
driving. The missing variable in this causal relationship is increased wisdom; that is,
aging correlates with increased wisdom which correlates with better driving. In this
example, increased wisdom is a mediating variable, as it explains why aging leads to
better driving.

Moderating variables describe the conditions under which an independent variable exerts
its effect on a dependent variable. For example, in the relationship between challenge (the
IV) and achievement (the DV), expectancy could be a moderating variable; therefore, the
full path is challenge is correlated with expectancy which contributes to achievement. In
other words, amount of achievement is directly affected by one’s expectancy to succeed.
A moderating relationship can be thought of as an interaction. That is, the relationship
between A and B depends on the level of interaction from C. In the previous relationship,
A would be challenge, B achievement, and C expectancy.

Figure 2: Model of the Relationship between Motivational Constructs and Games-Based

Learning Outcomes

Figure 2 is an expanded model of the overview model depicted in Figure 1. In the

expanded version, seven motivational characteristics (constructs) are shown on the left.

2
Richard Wainess Motivation and Games Framework

Five of the seven are further analyzed into subconstructs. For example, Fantasy is
composed of Environment and Story, as well as Analogy and Metaphor. In the center
portion of the model, each of the three mediating or moderating variables has been
analyzed into their component constructs. The two constructs under expectancy value
theory are the two constructs that comprise that theory. For the other two mediating
variables, the constructs shown rep resent only some of those associated with the variable.
For example, long-term memory is a construct associated with cognitive load theory, but
is not present in the model. Similarly, there are a number of instructional methods that
could appear under the “instructional methods” MV but are not included in the model. In
both instances (cognitive load theory and instructional methods), the constructs listed are
those most relevant to research findings related to the IV constructs of motivation and the
DV of learning outcomes. While the dependent variable is ordinal, with an infinite range
of possible values from low to high, it is shown in the model as a dichotomous variable
(low and high), because the focus of this paper is on which motivational constructs ha ve
the greatest potential of inducing low learning outcomes and which have the greatest
potential of inducing high learning outcomes.

Motivational Constructs Likely to Reduce Learning.

While the assumption is that motivation always leads to learning, a number of researchers
suggest that this relationship may not be true 5, 23, 49 . Salomon50 even contended that a
positive attitude can actually indicate less learning, and Dekkers and Donatti20 found that
motivation wanes over time, as the novelty of a game subsides. A large number of
researchers contend that the negative, mixed, or null findings pertaining to games and
learning might be related to a lack of sound instructional design embedded in the games17,
25, 28, 36, 37, 52, 53
; that it is the instructiona l methods embedded in a medium and not the
medium itself that determines to learning. The proposed framework has been modeled on
this perspective

To demonstrate the framework, Figure 3 shows the motivational constructs (in black) that
research suggests ha ve a high potential of leading to poor learning outcomes. Consider
the motivational construct of control. Research contends that giving learners control over
their learning environment is potentially detrimental, because most learners lack the prior
knowledge or metacognitive abilities necessary for controlling their own learning11, 15, 22,
making it difficult, when given control, to establish goals, monitor progress, assess the
importance of data, and effectively organize knowledge or integrate knowledge into
appropriate schema; all of which are metacognitive processes. Therefore, control is
linked to metacognition as an obstacle, which is then linked to low learning outcomes.
This example highlights an important issue in games-based learning. The nature of games
is to give the learner control over the environment. However, in games-based education,
this control can be detrimental.

3
Richard Wainess Motivation and Games Framework

Figure 3: Motivational Constructs that May Result in Low Learning Outcomes

Competition provides another example of the potentially negative outcome of a supposed

motivational construct. Research suggests that competitive people like competitive
environments but do not reject cooperative environments. In contrast, non-competitive
people like cooperative environments but dislike competitive environments. Therefore,
competitive environments might cause non-competitive learners to disengage, while
cooperative environments will not, of themselves, cause either type of learner to
disengage. In the model (Figure 3), competition is linked value, because competition can
negatively affect a learner’s perceived value of the learning environment, which in turn
leads to lowered mental effort, which in turn leads to low learning outcomes.

Motivational Constructs Likely to Aid in Learning.

While, as shown in Figure 3, some of the motivational constructs do, or can, have a
negative effect on learning, Figure 4 lists, in black, those motivational characteristics
which are likely to support or improve learning outcomes. For example, curiosity can
instill value in the learning. Value, in turn, leads to engagement. And engagement (i.e.,
cognitive engagement) is reflected in mental effort, which can lead, in the form of
germane cognitive load, to high learning outcomes. As a more complex example,
analogy and metaphor are linked two high learning outcomes through two possible paths.
In one path, analogy and metaphor are linked to reflection and elaboration, because they
can foster understanding by connecting new information to existing schema and mental

4
Richard Wainess Motivation and Games Framework

models. Reflection and Elaboration are subsequently linked to the attentional and
organizational components of metacognition which then link to high learning outcomes.
In a second path, analogy and metaphor are linked to germane cognitive load (becaus e
use of analogies and metaphors are considered effective learning strategies) which is then
linked to high learning outcomes.

Figure 4: Motivational Components that May Result in High Learning Outcomes

Data Sources and Evidence Contributing to the Model

The proposed model (Figure 1) is the result of a grounded theory research, using diverse
literature reviews of relevant topics such as games, cognitive load, motivation,
scaffolding, learner control, instructional methods, and meaningful learning.

Motivational Characteristics of Games

Beginning with the work of Malone 38 , seven constructs have been cited as providing
positive motivational aspects in games: fantasy, control and manipulation, challenge and
complexity, curiosity, competition, feedback , and fun. The following describe key
characteristics of each of the seven motivational constructs.

• Fantasy is defined as an environment that evokes “mental images of physical or

social situations that do not exist”39, p. 250. Malone & Lepper38 also commented
that fantasies can offer analogies and metaphors.

5
Richard Wainess Motivation and Games Framework

• Control and manipulation have been argued to promote intrinsic motivation,

because learners are given a sense of control over their choices and actions18, 19.

• Challenge has been argued to promote intrinsic motivation when there is a match
between a task and the learner’s skills4, 13, 31 .

• Research on complexity suggests a task should be neither too hard nor too easy8,
39
. Element interactivity44 (described later) is a driving force in determining the
overall learning impact of complexity.

• Curiosity and challenge are intertwined48. According to Davis and Wiedenbeck16,

curiosity arises from situations in which there is complexity, incongruity, and
discrepancy.

• Malone 38 defines competition as important to motivation, yet studies on

competition with games and simulations have resulted in mixed findings, due to
individual learner preferences, as well as the types of reward structures connected
to the competition45, 54 .

• Feedback, allows learners to quickly evaluate their progress and can take many
forms, such as textual, visual, and aural48.

• Fun is likely an amalgam of three constructs (play, flow, and engagement), rather
than a single construct.

o Play is entertainment without fear of present or future cons equences47 .

o Csikszentmihalyi13, 14 defined flow as an optimal experience in which a

person is so involved in an activity that nothing else seems to matter.

o Guthrie and Davis30 defined engagement as the mixture of cognitive

competence, motivation, and social interaction. Greene and Miller29
defined cognitive engagement as self-regulation and deep strategy use, and
Hede32 defined cognitive engagement as a process whereby learners
become motivated to take control of their learning.

Based on research evidence, the seven motivational constructs have, in some cases, been
further analyzed.

• Fantasy was analyzed into

o Environment and Story
o Analogy and Metaphor

• Control and Manipulation were bifurcated

6
Richard Wainess Motivation and Games Framework

• Challenge and Complexity were bifurcated

• Competition was analyzed into

o Competition
o Cooperation (which includes collaboration)

• Fun was analyzed into

o Play
o Flow
o Engagement

Instructional Methods

As defined by Clark9 , instructional methods are external representations of internal

(metacognitive) processes necessary for learning but which learners cannot or will not
provide for themselves, such as monitoring9 , selection1, 9 , and organizing33 . The three
instructional methods included in the proposed model are:

• Elaboration and reflection. According to Chi7, the self-explanation effect (also

known as reflection or elaboration) is a dual process that involves generating
inferences and correcting the learner’s own mental model (as cited in Atkins on,
Renkl, & Merrill2 ).

• Feedback 10, 48 was described briefly above in the discussion of the motivational
characteristics of games.

• Guidance is defined as “providing information that fully explains the concepts

and procedures that students are required to learn as well as learning strategy
support that is compatible with human cognitive architecture”35, p. 75 . However, the
amount of guidance needed varies, depending on the learner and the learning
condition.

Cognitive Load Theory

Cognitive load theory3, 6, 34, 41, 42, 44, 46 is concerned with the development of instructional
methods aligned with learners’ limited cognitive processing capacity. Cognitive load
researchers have identified up to three types of cognitive load; intrinsic cognitive load,
germane cognitive load, and extraneous cognitive load.

• Intrinsic cognitive load 6, 44, 46 is the load involved in the process of learning; the
load required by metacognition, working memory, and long-term memory.

• Germane cognitive load is the cognitive load required to process the intrinsic
cognitive load46. For example, searching a book or organizing notes, or a
computer interface and controls (buttons).

7
Richard Wainess Motivation and Games Framework

• Extraneous cognitive load is the load caused by any unnecessary stimuli, such as
fancy interface designs or extraneous sounds6.

According to Paas et al. 44 low-element interactivity refers to environments where each

element can be learned independently of the other elements, and there is little direct
interaction among the elements. High-element interactivity refers to environments where
there is so much interaction between elements that they cannot be understood until all the
elements and their interactions are processed simultaneously. As a consequence, high-
element interactivity material is difficult to understand , due to high cognitive load
requirements. Under the motivational characteristics of games, the construct complexity is
analogous to element interactivity.

Metacognition, or the management of cognitive processes, involves goal-setting, strategy

selection, attention, and goal checking33 . Metacognitive processes are the overarching
control mechanisms involved in meaningful learning.

• Meaningful learning is defined as deep understanding of the material, which

includes the metacognitive processes of attending to important aspects of the
presented material, mentally organizing the material into a coherent cognitive
structure, and integrating it with relevant existing knowledge41 .

• Meaningful learning requires mental effort16, 40 . Salomon50 described mental effort

as the depth or thoughtfulness a learner invests in processing mater ial.

Expectancy-Value Theory
Expectancy-value theory proposes that the probability of be havior depends on the value
of the goal and the expectancy of obtaining that goal12 . Expectancies refer to beliefs
about how we will do on different tasks or activities, and values have to do with
incentives or reasons for doing the activity24 . Expectancy and value are both internal.
That is, they refer to the learner’s perceived value of the task and the learner’s perceived
expectancy of success.
Considerations , Conclusions , and Implications

The model proposed in this paper should not be thought to indicate the completeness of
any of the paths, particularly those suggested to contribute to lower levels of learning. For
example, as discussed earlier, Figure 2 indicates that control likely reduces learning.
However, it only does so because of limits to learners’ cognitive and metacognitive
abilities. Guidance (an instructional method) may provide a sufficient level of support for
learner’s cognitive and metacognitive needs to offset the negative effects of learner
control. Research indicates that learners like to be given control of their learning. By
adding proper types and amounts of guidance, learners could benefit from the
motivational characteristics of control yet not be subjected to the deficiencies in learning
associated with control.

8
Richard Wainess Motivation and Games Framework

Competition provides another example of how a potentially negative motivational

construct can be controlled, such that some people may benefit from it while others are
not harmed by it. Social research suggests that people value being part of a group. This
group effect might offer a way of successfully including competition in a learning
environment. That is, while non-competitive people might have reduced value for an
activity that includes competition, being part of a group that is competing may
successfully override the aversion to competition through the emotional fulfillment of
being part of a group. Care must be taken, though, not to include other features in the
environment tha t might offset the group effect. For example, posting individual scores or
including one-on-one competition among learners could negatively affect non-
competitive learners.

While the above two examples illustrate how potentially negative motivational cons tructs
can be embedded within specific instructional strategies (e.g. group competition) to foster
positive learning outcomes, positive motivational constructs, if not implemented
corrected could potentially lead to negative learning outcomes. For example, analogies
and metaphors are only beneficial to learning if they are germane to the learning task and
structurally representative of the task. Therefore, endogenous (related) analogies and
metaphors may aid learning while exogenous (unrelated) analogies and metaphors may
harm learning. For example, environments (or fantasy) based on exogenous analogies and
metaphors would likely harm learning, while those based on endogenous analogies and
metaphors would likely support learning. That is, teaching chemistry using a game where
players are running around an alien planet in a treasure hunt to find chemicals are
unlikely to do anything to foster learning, while placing learners in a plague-ridden
futuristic world where they’re appropriately guided in creating a chemical cure for the
inhabitants could be beneficial.

Using these last three discussions of control, competition, and fantasy as ways to generate
research questions regarding how best to instantiate learning in games, the proposed
model offers a representation of game-based learning that can support a framework for
guiding current and future research on motivation and learning with games. Research has
provided some strong evidence regarding the relationship of motivation and games-based
learning; not all of it good. If we are to continue moving forward toward the adoption of
games for learning, particularly because they motivate, we must understand how each
component of motivation can affect learning, for whom, under what conditions, and why.
We must learn which combinations of motivation and moderating and mediating
variables are most likely to foster positive learning outcomes and which to avoid. This
framework supports both descriptive and control study methodologies where the various
IVs and MVs are manipulated within empirical research design settings.

9
Richard Wainess Motivation and Games Framework

References

1. Alessi, S. M. (2000). Simulation design for training and assessment. In H. F. O’Neil,

Jr. & D. H. Andrews (Eds.), Aircrew training and assessment (pp. 197-222).
Mahwah, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates.

2. Atkinson, R. K., Renkl, A., Merrill, M. M. (2003). Transitioning from studying

examples to solving problems: Effects of self-explanation prompts and fading
worked-out steps. Journal of Educational Psychology, 95(4), 774-783.

3. Baddeley, A. D. (1986). Working memory. Oxford, England: Oxford University

Press.

4. Bandura, A. (1977). Self efficacy: Toward a unifying theory of behavioral change.

Psychological Review, 84, 191-215.

5. Brougere, G. (1999, June). Some elements relating to children’s play and adult
simulation/gaming. Simulation & Gaming, 30(2), 134-146.

6. Brunken, R., Plass, J. L., & Leutner, D. (2003). Direct measurement of cognitive load
in multimedia learning. Educational Psychologist 38(1), 53-61.

7. Chi, M. T. (2000). Self-explaining expository texts: The dual process of generating

inferences and repairing mental models. In R. Glaser (Ed.), Advances in instructional
psychology: Educational design and cognitive science (pp. 161-238). Mahwah, NJ:
Erlbaum.

8. Clark, R. E. (1999). The CANE model of motivation to learn and to work: A two-
stage process of goal commitment and effort [Electronic Version]. In J. Lowyck
(Ed.), Trends in Corporate Training. Leuven, Belgium: University of Leuven Press.

9. Clark, R. E. (Ed.) (2001). Learning from media: Arguments, analysis, and evidence.
Greenwich, CT: Information Age Publishing.

10. Clark, R. E. (2003a, February). Strategies based on effective feedback during

learning. In H. F. O’Neil (Ed.), What Works in Distance Education. Report to the
Office of Naval Research by the National Center for Research on Evaluation,
Standards, and Student Testing (pp. 18-19).

11. Clark, R. E. (2003b, February). Strategies based on providing learner control of

instructional navigation. In H. F. O’Neil (Ed.), What Works in Distance Education.
Report to the Office of Naval Research by the National Center for Research on
Evaluation, Standards, and Student Testing (pp. 14-15).

12. Coffin, R. J., & MacIntyre, P. D. (1999). Motivational influences on computer-related

affective states. Computers in Human Behavior, 15, 549-569.

10
Richard Wainess Motivation and Games Framework

13. Csikszentmihalyi, M. (1975). Beyond boredom and anxiety. San Francisco: Jossey
Bass.

14. Csikszentmihalyi, M. (1990). Flow: The psychology of optimal performance. New

York: Cambridge University Press.

15. Daniels, H. L., & Moore, D. M. (2000). Interaction of cognitive style and learner
control in a hypermedia environment. International Journal of Instructional Media,
27(4), 369-383.

16. Davis, S., & Wiedenbeck, S. (2001). The mediating effects of intrinsic motivation,
ease of use and usefulness perceptions on performance in first-time and subsequent
computer users. Interacting with Computers, 13, 549-580.

17. de Jong, T., & van Joolingen, W. R. (1998). Scientific discovery learning with
computer simulations of conceptual domains. Review of Educational Research, 68,
179-202.

18. deCharms, R. (1986). Personal Causation. New York: Academic Press.

19. Deci, E. L. (1975). Intrinsic Motivation. New York: Plenum Press.

20. Dekkers, J., & Donati, S. (1981). The interpretation of research studies on the use of
simulation as an instructional strategy. Journal of Educational Research, 74(6), 64-
79.

21. Dickey, M. D. (2005). Engaging by design: How engagement strategies in popular

computer and video games can inform instructional design. Educational Technology
Research & Development, 53(2), 67-83.

22. Dillon, A., & Gabbard, R. (1998, Fall). Hypermedia as an educational technology: A
review of the quantitative research literature on learner comprehension, control, and
style. Review of Educational Research, 63(3), 322-349.

23. Druckman, D. (1995 ). The educational effectiveness of interactive games. In D.

Crookall & K. Aria (Eds.), Simulation and gaming across disciplines and cultures:
ISAGA at a watershed (pp. 178-187). Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage

24. Eccles, J. S., & Wigfeld, A. (2002). Motivational beliefs, values, and goals. Annual
Review of Psychology, 53, 109-132.

25. Garris, R., Ahlers, R., & Driskell, J. E. (2002). Games, motivation, and learning: A
research and practice model. Simulation & Gaming, 33(4), 441-467.

26. Gee, J. P. (2003) What video games have to teach us about learning and literacy.
New York: Palgrave Macmillan.

11
Richard Wainess Motivation and Games Framework

27. Gee, J. P. (2006, August). Are video games good for learning. Keynote address
presented at the Curriculum Corporation 13th Annual Conference, Adelaide,
Australia.

28. Gredler, M.E. (1996). Educational games and simulations: a technology in search of a
research paradigm. In D. H. Jonassen (Ed.). Handbook of Research for Educational
Communications and Technology. (pp 521-540). New York: Simon & Schuster
Macmillan.

29. Greene, B. A., & Miller, R. B. (1996). Influences on achievement: Goals, perceived
ability, and cognitive engagement. Contemporary Educational Psychology, 21, 181-
192.
30. Guthrie, J. T., & Davis, M. H. (2003). Motivating struggling readers in middle school
through an engagement model of classroom practice. Reading & Writing Quarterly,
19, 59-85.

31. Harter, S. (1978). Effectance motivation reconsidered: Toward a developmental

model. Human Development, 1, 34-64.

32. Hede, A. (2002). An integrated model of multimedia effects on learning. Journal of

Educational Multimedia and Hypermedia, 11 (2), 177-191.

33. Jones, M. G., Farquhar, J. D., & Surry, D. W. (1995, July/August). Using
metacognitive theories to design user interfaces for computer-based learning.
Educational Technology, 35(4), 12-22.

34. Kalyuga, S., Chandler, P., & Sweller, J. (1998). Levels of expertise and instructional
design. Human Factors, 40(1), 1-17.

35. Kirschner, P. A., Sweller, J., & Clark, R. E. (2006). Why minimal guidance during
instruction does not work: An analysis of the failure of constructivist, discovery,
problem-based, experiential, and inquiry-based teaching. Educational Psychologist,
41(2), 75-86.

36. Lee, J. (1999). Effectiveness of computer-based instructional simulation: A meta

analysis. International Journal of Instructional Media, 26(1), 71-85

37. Leemkuil, H., de Jong, T., de Hoog, R., & Christoph, N. (2003). KM Quest: A
collaborative Internet-based simulation game. Simulation & Gaming, 34(1), 89-111.

38. Malone, T. W. (1981). What makes computer games fun? Byte, 6(12), 258-277.

39. Malone, T. W., & Lepper, M. R. (1987). Making leraning fun: A taxonomy of
intrinsic motivation for learning. In R. E. Snow & M. J. Farr (Eds.), Aptitute,
learning, and instruction: Vol. 3. Conative and affective process analyses (pp. 223-
253). Hillsdale, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum.

12
Richard Wainess Motivation and Games Framework

40. Mayer, R. E. (1981). A psychology of how novices learn computer programming.

Computing Surveys, 13, 121-141.

41. Mayer, R. E., & Moreno, R. (2003). Nine ways to reduce cognitive load in
multimedia learning. Educational Psychologist, 38(1), 43-52.

42. Mousavi, S. Y., Low, R., & Sweller, J. (1995). Reducing cognitive load by mixing
auditory and visual presentation modes. Journal of Educational Psychology, 87(2),
319-334.

43. O’Neil, H. F., & Wainess, R., & Baker, E. L. (2005, December). Classification of
learning outcomes: Evidence from the computer games literature. The Curriculum
Journal, 16(4), 455-474.

44. Paas, F., Tuovinen, J. E., Tabbers, H., & Van Gerven, P. W. M. (2003). Cognitive
load measurement as a means to advance cognitive load theory. Educational
Psychologist, 38(1), 63-71.

45. Porter, D. B., Bird, M. E., & Wunder, A. (1990-1991). Competition, cooperation,
satisfaction, and the performance of complex tasks among Air Force cadets. Current
Psychology: Research & Reviews, 9(4), 347-354.

46. Renkl, A., & Atkinson, R. K. (2003). Structuring the transition from example study to
problem solving in cognitive skill acquisition: A cognitive load perspective.
Educational Psychologist, 38(1), 13-22.

47. Resnick, H., & Sherer, M. (1994). Computerized games in the human services--An
introduction. In H. Resnick (Ed.), Electronic Tools for Social Work Practice and
Education (pp. 5-16). Bington, NY: The Haworth Press.

48. Rieber, L. P. (1996). Seriously considering play: Designing interactive learning

environments based on the blending of microworlds, simulations, and games.
Educational Technology Research and Development, 44(2), 43-58.

49. Salas, E., Bowers, C. A., & Rhodenizer, L. (1998). It is not how much you have but
how you use it: Toward a rational use of simulation to support aviation training. The
International Journal of Aviation Psychology, 8(3), 197-208.

50. Salomon, G. (1983). The differential investment of mental effort in learning from
different sources. Educational Psychology, 18(1), 42-50.

51. Simpson, E. S. (2005). What teachers need to know about the video game generation.
TechTrends, 49(5). 17-22.

52. Thiagarajan, S. (1998, Sept/October). The myths and realities of simulations in

performance technology. Educational Technology, 38(4), 35-41.

13
Richard Wainess Motivation and Games Framework

53. Wolfe, J. (1997, December). The effectiveness of business games in strategic

management course work [Electronic Version]. Simulation & Gaming Special Issue:
Teaching Strategic Management, 28(4), 360-376.

54. Yu, F.-Y. (2001). Competition within computer-assisted cooperative learning

environments: Cognitive, affective, and social outcomes. Journal of Educational
Computing Research, 24(2), 99-11

14