Computers in Human Behavior 27 (2011) 694–704

Contents lists available at ScienceDirect

Computers in Human Behavior

journal homepage: www.elsevier.com/locate/comphumbeh

Evaluating learners’ motivational and cognitive processing in an online

game-based learning environment
Wen-Hao Huang *
Department of Human Resource Education, Department of Educational Psychology, University of Illinois, IL, USA

a r t i c l e i n f o a b s t r a c t

Article history: This paper describes the process and results of an evaluation on an online game-based learning environ-
Available online 17 August 2010 ment (GBLE) by focusing on learners’ motivational processing and cognitive processing. The goal is to
explore how online GBLE might initiate and support learners’ goal-setting activities and impact learners’
Keywords: cognitive loads. The study surveyed 144 undergraduate students after their autonomous participation in
Motivation the online game available at the Nobel Prize Foundation website teaching the Heckscher–Ohlin Theory on
Cognitive load international trade. Grounded in the integrative theory of motivation, volition, and performance (MVP),
Game-based learning
the evaluation indicated that participants felt significantly confident in learning the subject. The per-
Mental effort investment
ceived satisfaction, however, was lower than the rest of motivational components possibly due to heavy
cognitive processing. The finding of cognitive load reported that learners perceived a significantly higher
level of intrinsic load than the germane load due to the novelty of the subject matter. Data analysis fur-
ther indicated a significant canonical correlation between learners’ motivational and cognitive process-
ing. This particular finding could inform future research to investigate specific motivational processing
components’ effects on learners’ cognitive load levels in online GBLEs.
Ó 2010 Elsevier Ltd. All rights reserved.

1. Introduction system, and players continuously devise, implement, evaluate,

Studies in education and instructional design have been con-
ducted with the intention of finding effective interventions that
can increase and sustain learning motivation. With today’s learn-
ing technologies, however, insufficient emphasis has been placed
on the motivational impact induced by complex learning environ-
ments enriched with multimedia and interactions. The complexity
of highly interactive learning environments coupled with high le-
vel motivational support could pose high demand on learners’ lim-
ited cognitive processing capacity, which in turn, might impede the
learning process (Warschauer, 2007). Online game-based learning
environment (GBLE), as an example, might dissipate excessive
motivational support that could very likely overwhelm learners’
cognitive processing capacity (Ang, Zaphiris, & Mahmood, 2007;
Huang & Aragon, 2009).
A game, regardless of its delivery mechanism, is a context in
which individual and teamed players compete to attain game
objectives by following rules and principles. The playing process
is fun, voluntary, and intended to overcome challenges (Gredler,
1994; Suits, 1978). In GBLE, playing becomes ‘‘serious” activities
that require players to achieve the game and learning objectives
(Apt, 1970). Avedon and Sutton-Smith (1971) argued that playing
instructional games allows learners to control a disequilibrium
* Tel.: +1 217 333 0807.
E-mail address: wdhuang@illinois.edu
and revise new strategies to restore the system to the equilibrium
state. The game playing process therefore supports the learning
process by allowing players to acquire learning experiences in
games, encouraging interactions between learners and the game
system, and situating learners in complex learning environments
(Johnson & Huang, 2008; Pannese & Carlesi, 2007).
While the learning process in online GBLE might be promising
to engage learners, the inherent complexity of interacting with on-
line GBLE might pose problems for learners. Huang and Johnson
(2008) identified 10 digital game characteristics that are often seen
in computer-based instructional games, all require learners’ signif-
icant cognitive investment to process the environmental and social
stimuli while identifying essential cues for the performance goals.
If managed improperly the learning process could be interrupted
early, because learners’ limited motivational processing as well
as cognitive processing capacity could be overloaded (Ang et al.,
2007; Keller, 2008).
Studies have utilized the attention, relevance, confidence, and
satisfaction (ARCS) model of motivational design (Keller, 1987a,
1987b) to evaluate GBLEs’ motivational stimuli for learners’ perfor-
mance (Chang & Lehman, 2002; House, 2003; Huang, Huang,
Diefes-Dux, & Imbrie, 2006; Means, 1997; Song & Keller, 2001;
Wongwiwatthananukit & Popovick, 2000). Recently ChanLin
(2009, p.101) applied ARCS model in guiding the design of
web-based courses. The qualitative analysis on participants’ online
discussion postings suggests that online learners could be

0747-5632/$ - see front matter Ó 2010 Elsevier Ltd. All rights reserved.
doi:10.1016/j.chb.2010.07.021
 W.-H. Huang / Computers in Human Behavior 27 (2011) 694–704
benefited by the motivational strategies embedded in web-based
courses based on ARCS principles. Other attempts have been situ-
ated in interactive instructional settings to address the motiva-
tional processing issue (Dempsey & Johnson, 1998; Klein &
Freitag, 1991; Small & Ferreira, 1994). The learning environments
that hosted these studies, however, were far less complex and dis-
tracting than what is commonly available in online GBLEs today.
With regards to the cognitive demand, studies have concurred
that learners could be cognitively overloaded by highly interactive
learning activities in GBLEs. In massively multiplayer online role
playing games (MMORPGs), for instance, players need to invest a
substantial amount of mental effort to be able to simultaneously
interact with the game environment, game objects, game tasks,
and other players. If it is beyond what the player’s limited cogni-
tive processing could handle, cognitive overload occurs (Ang
et al., 2007). Enriched multimedia in educational games also im-
pacts the efficiency on learners’ cognitive processing. Nelson and
Erlandson (2008) argued that the multimedia information process-
ing drawn from multiple information sources increases learners’
mental effort investment (cognitive load) to process the visual, tex-
tual, and audio elements. The design of multimedia messages
should be based on multimedia learning principles in order to
avoid cognitive overload (Mayer & Moreno, 2003).
To emphasize the equal positions of motivational and cognitive
aspects of learning processes in multimedia learning environments,
studies have proposed a potential relationship between learners’
motivational processing and their mental effort investment. Situ-
ated in the theory of multimedia learning (Mayer, 2001), Astleitner
and Wiesner (2004) proposed an integrated model of multimedia
learning and motivation to connect learners’ cognitive processing in
multimedia learning environments with their motivational levels
measured by the ARCS model of motivational design. Later Deimann
and Keller (2006) included learners’ volitional control to explain
motivational learning process in multimedia learning environ-
ments. Both theoretical frameworks, however, have not been empir-
ically examined in online game-based learning environments.
Therefore, this study aimed to understand (1) how a common
online GBLE might impact learners’ motivational processing capac-
ity, (2) how the GBLE might impact learners’ mental effort invest-
ment based on the cognitive load theory, and (3) what might be the
empirical relationship between learners’ motivational processing
and cognitive processing suggested by recent integrative theories
(Keller, 2008).
2. Literature review
Learning motivation is complex to measure due to its multiple
constructs inherent within the domain (Driscoll, 2000; Mayer,
2003). The increasing complexity of today’s online GBLEs further
challenges the current understanding of motivational processing.
The following section first discusses the neglected motivation
component in instructional design and ARCS model of motivational
design (Keller, 1987a, 1987b). Then the paper discusses the inte-
grative theory of motivation, volition, and performance (MVP) with
specific focus on motivational processing and cognitive processing
(Keller, 2008). A selected group of recent studies then demonstrate
the need to implement empirical studies to investigate learners’
motivational and cognitive processing in online GBLEs. Finally
the instructional materials motivational survey and cognitive load
scale are discussed as instruments for this study.
2.1. The neglected motivation component in instructional design
Goal-directed behaviors are often stimulated and maintained by
an essential process known as motivation (Berliner & Gage, 1998;
695
Schunk, 1990), which plays a critical role in learning (Weiner,
1985). Studies also identified positive correlations between learn-
ers’ motivational levels and performance achievements (ChanLin,
2009; Sachs, 2001; Sankaran & Bui, 2001). It is, however, often ne-
glected in instructional design owing to its inherent complexity in-
volved with self-regulatory skills, learner control (Armstrong,
1989; Baird & White, 1982; Lee, 1990) and meta-cognitive activi-
ties (Zimmerman, 1989; Zimmerman & Martinez-Pons, 1988).
The ignored motivational components might discount the final
learning and performance outcomes attained by learners (Cheng
& Yeh, 2009; Keller, 1983; Spitzer, 1996).
2.2. ARCS model of motivational design
The ARCS model of motivational design (Keller, 1983, 1987a,
1987b), widely applied in instructional design processes that con-
nects learning motivation with performance (Ames, 1992; Ander-
man & Maehr, 1994; Bandura, 1997; Huang & Johnson, 2002;
Keller, 2008; Weiner, 1985), suggests that learning motivation is
dependent of four perceptual components: attention, relevance,
confidence and satisfaction (Keller, 2008). Attention refers to the
learner’s response to perceived instructional stimuli provided by
the instruction (Keller, 1983). Relevance helps learners associate
their prior learning experience with the given instruction. Confi-
dence stresses the importance of building learners’ positive expec-
tation towards their performance on the learning task. Satisfaction
comes near the end of the learning process when learners are al-
lowed to practice newly acquired knowledge or skills (Keller,
1987b). The model was initially developed as a conceptual tool
for diagnosing motivational problems and prescribing motivational
strategies (Keller, 1983), which includes pre-measurement of
learners’ motivational level, motivational intervention implemen-
tation, and post-measurement of learners’ motivational level.
ARCS model, based on various learning, instructional, and moti-
vation theories (Driscoll, 2000; Small & Gluck, 1994; Steers & Por-
ter, 1983), focuses on the interactions between learners and the
instructional programs. Its main thesis is rooted in the expec-
tancy-value theory (Porter & Lawler, 1968; Vroom, 1964) that
views human behaviors as evaluative outcomes among expecta-
tions (beliefs), perceived probability for success (expectancy), and
perceived impact of the success (value) (Palmgreen, 1984). What
the model theoretically measures, therefore, is the amount of effort
invested by learners to achieve the learning goal (Small, 2000;
Song & Keller, 2001).
2.3. Integrative theory of motivation, volition, and performance
In his latest rendition of motivational learning, the integrative
theory of motivation, volition, and performance (MVP), Keller
(2008) argues that a complete motivational learning cycle is con-
sisted of several stages: motivational and volitional processing,
motivational and information processing interfacing, information
and psychomotor processing, and finally, the outcome processing
(p. 94). Motivational processing helps learners set up initial perfor-
mance goals that are critical for sustainable learning processes.
Learners at first should have sufficient level of curiosity to explore
the learning task (attention); then understand the value of the
learning task (relevance), and evaluate the possibility of attaining
successful performance (confidence), to identify and confirm the
performance goal. These processes, in turn, prepare learners for
the follow-up actions of learning. The satisfaction component seen
in the ARCS model, however, is only considered at the end of the
learning cycle.
The next stage is the volitional processing that converts learn-
ers’ learning intentions into executable learning actions. Learners
at this point should apply action control strategies to implement
696 W.-H. Huang / Computers in Human Behavior 27 (2011) 694–704
needed activities that move them towards the performance goal.
At the effect of volitional processing learners enter the interface
between motivation and information processing. This is where
learners apply meta-cognitive strategies to actively manage their
learning processes within the limited cognitive processing capac-
ity. The next stage, information and psychomotor processing, fo-
cuses on how learners might utilize a variety of mental activities
to process information that leads to the desired performance.
Learners at this stage carry out learning activities that help them
create and automate transferrable mental models. The processing
capacity, however, is limited by learners’ working memory.
Finally, the outcome processing stage allows learners to evalu-
ate the discrepancy between the performance consequence and
their invested efforts. Learners reflect upon all previous stages’
experiences emotionally and cognitively, and develop a collective
sense of satisfaction towards the learning process.
The implication of the theory of MVP is twofold. First, since
motivational processing is crucial at the early stage of the learning
process, instructional designers must be cautious to neither over-
whelm learners’ processing capacity nor distract them with com-
peting stimuli. In online GBLEs this design consideration is
particularly important (Astleitner & Wiesner, 2004). Second, learn-
ers’ cognitive processing activities could play a substantial role in
sustaining the learners’ motivation, because after the motivational
and volitional processing, learners must interact with the learning
environment cognitively with their limited processing capacity be-
fore the final outcome processing. Learners overloaded with cogni-
tive stimuli, regardless of their initial attention, confidence, and
relevance levels (motivational processing results), are still vulner-
able to be unmotivated by exhausting cognitive information pro-
cessing tasks.
2.4. Recent studies on motivational and cognitive processing in online
instructional games
GBLEs and many of their derivative forms are motivating to play
(Huang & Johnson, 2008). Their effect in promoting meaningful
learning might be due to opportunities for ‘‘learning by doing”
(Pannese & Carlesi, 2007). Klein and Freitag (1991) concluded that
instructional board games had a positive impact on students’
attention, relevance, confidence, and satisfaction levels. The
context of the instructional board game, however, was not as inter-
active and complex as learners can experience in online environ-
ments today. Dickey (2007) analyzed a massively multiple-player
online game environment and reached two conclusions. First, on-
line game environments could provide practical design models
for creating complex learning environments. Second, the character
design and narrative environments of game environments could
foster players’ intrinsic motivation and sustain their persistent par-
ticipation in the game playing process. In a case study, Pannese and
Carlesi (2007) too identified factors that might integrate game
playing with intended motivational learning processes with focus
on the reflection aspect of the motivational processing. Although
studies have reported that digital games could be repurposed for
instructional applications due to their motivational support (Gee,
2003; Papastergiou, 2008; Prensky, 2001; Rieber, 1996), it remains
inconclusive as to how those GBLEs could impact each motiva-
tional processing component, which poses challenges for designers
to prescribe effective motivational design strategies (Cheng & Yeh,
2009).
With regards to the cognitive processing in online GBLEs, many
have discussed the design of GBLEs with focus on reducing learn-
ers’ cognitive load. In a qualitative exploratory study, Ang et al.
(2007) found that the game playing process in complex game-
based environments could overtax players’ cognitive capacity due
to common factors that are available in online GBLEs in general
(e.g., multiple interactions in the game, user interface activities,
and identity construction). The design online GBLEs, as interactive
learning environments, must consider learners’ limited cognitive
processing capacity, to ensure efficient learning processes (Kalyu-
ga, 2007). Substantial efforts have also been devoted to study indi-
vidual design elements in interactive learning environments and
their effect on cognitive load. For example, the nonlinear fashion
of textual information presentation often seen in GBLEs might in-
crease learners’ cognitive load (Zumbach & Mohraz, 2008). Ani-
mated instructional messages, by posing a higher level of
ineffective cognitive load, also might demand more cognitive pro-
cessing capacity from learners (Ayres, Kalyuga, Marcus, & Sweller,
2005; Ayres & Paas, 2007). While those findings were fruitful for
cognitive load studies to a large extent, further investigations are
needed to discuss the collective effect of online GBLE elements
on learners’ cognitive processing.
2.5. Instructional materials motivational survey (IMMS) and cognitive
load scale
Keller (1993) developed a measuring instrument, instructional
materials motivational survey (IMMS), to complement the imple-
mentation of the ARCS model. The instrument itself has raised sev-
eral issues concerning its applicability to computer-based
instructional programs. First, there is a lack of empirical studies
supporting the IMMS’s validity to measure each ARCS component.
Most of ARCS model-based research utilized ARCS model as a de-
sign guideline to design motivationally sound instructions
(Arnone, 2003; Chyung, 2001; Jacobson & Xu, 2002). Second, there
is a lack of studies investigating the motivational processing com-
ponents as a whole. Sachs (2001) discussed the impact of confi-
dence level on learners’ ability to perform well, while Chang and
Lehman (2002) and Means (1997) both focused on the relevance
component of the ARCS model.
To address these issues, a study was conducted to preliminarily
validate the instrument in a computer-based learning environ-
ment. Based on the results of exploratory and confirmatory analy-
ses from 875 undergraduate students, the study concluded that
IMMS, while valid and applicable for the computer-based setting,
its responsiveness to instructional programs’ features makes the
instrument a design-practical diagnostic tool to evaluate learners’
motivational processing in similar instructional settings (Huang
et al., 2006).
2.6. Cognitive load theory and mental effort measurement
The gap between information structures presented in the
instructional material and human cognitive architecture must be
bridged so that learners can use their working memory efficiently
(Sweller, van Merriënboer, & Paas, 1998). Based on the assumption
that learning is supported by schema construction and automation,
cognitive load theory (CLT) (Chandler & Sweller, 1991) proposes a
framework to connect cognitive learning processes with instruc-
tional design (van Merriënboer, Clark, & De Croock, 2002).
CLT defines cognitive load as a multidimensional construct that
includes task-based mental load induced by task characteristics,
learners’ performance, and mental effort invested by learners in
the working memory to process information (Paas, Tuovinen, Tab-
bers, & van Gerven, 2003; Paas & van Merriënboer, 1994; Sweller
et al., 1998). Mental effort, among the three, is suggested as the
measure that reflects the authentic cognitive load of learners,
which indicates the actual cognitive load allocation by learners
as the result of interacting with task characteristics while achiev-
ing the desired performance (Kalyuga, 2007; Paas et al., 2003).
Three types of cognitive load which, combined, compose the to-
tal cognitive load: intrinsic, extraneous, and germane. The total
 W.-H. Huang / Computers in Human Behavior 27 (2011) 694–704
cognitive load can never exceed a learner’s working memory
capacity. The total extraneous and germane cognitive load, com-
bined, is assumed to be equal to the total cognitive load minus
the intrinsic cognitive load. Since the intrinsic cognitive load can-
not be manipulated via instructional interventions, instructional
design’s main purpose is to optimize the combination of the extra-
neous cognitive load and the germane cognitive load. That is to re-
duce the extraneous while increasing the germane cognitive load
(van Gerven, Paas, van Merriënboer, & Schmidt, 2006).
Intrinsic cognitive load is associated with the element interac-
tivity – the degree to which information can be understood alone
without other elements’ involvement – inherent to the instruc-
tional material itself. Information with high element interactivity
is difficult to understand thus induces a high intrinsic cognitive
load, since the instruction requires more working memory for
information processing (Paas et al., 2003). The extraneous cogni-
tive load and germane cognitive load, in contrast, can be manipu-
lated by instructional design (Brünken, Plass, & Leutner, 2003).
Also known as ineffective cognitive load, as it only involves the
process of searching for information, extraneous cognitive load can
be influenced by the way information is structured and presented
(Paas et al., 2003; Sweller et al., 1998). Considered a necessary cog-
nitive cost of processing information, yet not related to the under-
standing of the information or the construction of new schema or
mental models, extraneous cognitive load must be reduced (Brün-
ken et al., 2003). One method found to be successful in reducing
extraneous cognitive load is the use of well-structured instruc-
tional multimedia components since multimedia representations
are able to lower the cognitive load by utilizing learners’ multiple
modalities to process information (Khalil, Paas, Johnson, & Payer,
2005a, 2005b; Mayer & Moreno, 2003).
In contrast to the desired low degree of the extraneous cogni-
tive load, instructional materials should be designed to increase
the germane cognitive load. Also known as effective cognitive load,
the germane cognitive load indicates the mental effort learners in-
vest in learning (Paas et al., 2003). A higher germane cognitive load
level is suggested to induce a deeper learning experience, which in
turn, supports both near and far transfers of desired performance
(Kalyuga, 2009; van Merriënboer et al., 2002). The essential design
principle for enhancing germane cognitive load is to deliver
instructions that compel learners to constantly reexamine every
new piece of information while accessing their long-term memory
(de Crook, van Merriënboer, & Paas, 1998).
CLT provides a framework to allow researchers constantly
developing and revising valid and reliable measurements to gauge
learners’ cognitive load and it is an ongoing process (Kalyuga,
2009), which focuses on learners’ mental effort as the result of
interacting with instructional materials and environments (Sweller
et al., 1998). The subjective category of the mental effort measure-
ment was often used as the main indicator of learners’ overall cog-
nitive load in earlier studies, because its higher reliability, validity,
and sensitivity to learners’ small cognitive load changes when
compared to the other two categories (physiological, and task/per-
formance-based) (Paas & van Merriënboer, 1994; Paas, van Merrië-
nboer, & Adam, 1994). Paas and van Merriënboer (1994) proposed
a 9-point symmetrical category scale to ask learners to report their
invested mental effort. Later a similar 7-point symmetrical scale
was proposed the tested by other researchers (Kalyuga, Chandler,
& Sweller, 1999; Marcus, Cooper, & Sweller, 1996). Recent studies
suggested that the measurements also need to include data sources
to identify individual types of cognitive load to better inform fol-
low-up design actions, which suggest that learners’ self-reported
mental effort was related to the intrinsic cognitive load; and self-
reported task difficulty rating might indicate the germane cogni-
tive load (Ciernak, Scheiter, & Gerjets, 2009; DeLeeuw & Mayer,
2008).
697
2.7. Purposes of the study
Based on previous discussions on the lack of empirical support
on how learners’ motivational processing and cognitive processing
might be influenced by online GBLEs’, this study aimed to address
the following questions.
1. What are learners’ motivational processing levels induced by
online GBLE based on the ARCS model of motivational design?
2. What are learners’ cognitive processing levels induced by online
GBLE based on cognitive load theory?
3. Is there any empirical relationship between motivational pro-
cessing and cognitive processing that might support the theory
of motivation, volition, and performance?
3. Methodology
3.1. Overview of the online instructional game
The ‘‘Trade Ruler” game developed by the Nobel Prize Founda-
tion was selected as the target online GBLE for two reasons. First,
the content of the instructional game (economic theory) is novel
to the participants (undergraduate students majoring in Educa-
tion), and second, the interaction between learners and the game
is enriched by its multimedia components and consistent cognitive
activities.
Based on the Heckscher–Ohlin Theory, this online GBLE was de-
signed to teach general public about why countries need to trade
goods and services with each other. The theory won the Sveriges
Riksbank Prize in Economic Sciences in Memory of Alfred Nobel
in 1977 for its contribution to the field of international trade. The
game is accessible online with web browsers. When players access
the entry page (http://nobelprize.org/educational_games/econom-
ics/trade/) they can review the overview of the instructional game
consisting of the introduction and rules of the game, system
requirement for playing the game, history of Nobel Prize, and the
Heckscher–Ohlin Theory. Players are directed to the theory page
of the game, Why Trade, at the end of the overview page. Players
can easily start the game using a link consistently listed on the
top-right corner of the page.
Once the game starts, an ambient sound plays to simulate the
oceanic climate of the island. The player is the ‘‘trade ruler” of
the island of his/her choice. The ruler has two tasks. First, the ruler
is responsible of managing the island’s production on its labor-
intensive (jeans) and capital-intensive (cell phones) products.
Some islands are better for manufacturing labor-intensive prod-
ucts while others might be advantageous in making capital-con-
centrated goods. The second task of the ruler then is to decide
what to trade with its trading partner, to maximize the islanders’
welfare. Based on the rules of Heckscher–Ohlin Theory the game
provides immediate feedback to the ruler’s trading decisions and
it completes one play cycle. Each player has three cycles to accu-
mulate as many points as possible. See Appendix A for the screen-
shots accompanied by each step.
3.2. Participants and setting
The study recruited undergraduate students from a subject pool
of a public Midwestern University in the United States. All partic-
ipants were majoring in Education and novice about the topic of
the GBLE. They accessed the target online GBLE in a laboratory set-
ting with minimal interruption. No time limit was imposed for par-
ticipants to finish the game. All participants were instructed to
read the intended economic theory on the entry page then proceed
to the game. After completing the game participants were redi-
rected to an online survey program to respond to the motivational
698 W.-H. Huang / Computers in Human Behavior 27 (2011) 694–704

processing and cognitive load survey. At the end 144 sets of re- Table 2
sponses were valid for data analysis. ARCS levels by components.

ARCS components Mean score

3.3. Instrument and data analysis Attention 5.68

Relevance 5.51
Confidence 6.20
For motivational processing, this study used a validated IMMS Satisfaction 5.28
scale (Huang et al., 2006) consisting of 20 items. Minor modifications
were incorporated to accommodate the online GBLE setting. The ori-
6.62 while the lowest is 4.17. See Table 1 for the tabulated results
ginal grammatical structure and tone of each survey item was pur-
by items.
posefully maintained to align with the research questions. Upon
the analysis of the scale’s reliability, scores of all ARCS components
4.2. Levels of motivational processing
were calculated to indicate the level of motivational processing.
For learners’ cognitive processing, this study asked participants to
Based on the scale validated in the previous study, the attention
self-report the mental effort investment level and the difficulty level
subscale has 11 items; confidence subscale has five items; and the
associated with the learning task on a 9-point symmetrical Likert
relevance subscale has three items. Each subscale generated an
scale. See Table 1 for the all employed items and reported ratings.
averaged score based on 144 participants’ responses on included
To identify the potential relationship between learners’ motiva-
items. The confidence scale has the highest mean of 6.20 while
tional processing and cognitive processing suggested by the theory
the relevance scale has the lowest mean at 5.51. All average scores,
of MVP, the study conducted a canonical correlation analysis to
nevertheless, were above the mid-point of the 9-point scale. See
investigate preliminary associations between two sets of multiple
Table 2 for the averaged ARC levels. To identify if the difference be-
variables (Newton & Rudestam, 1998, p. 278). According to the re-
tween subscales is significant, paired-sample t-test was employed
search question, the first set of variables was derived from the
at p = .05. The results reported that the confidence level was signif-
motivational processing components (attention, relevance, confi-
icantly different from the rest of the motivational processing com-
dence, satisfaction) and the second set of variables was from learn-
ponents; the attention component was different from the
ers’ self-reported mental efforts (intrinsic cognitive load) and
confidence and the satisfaction components; the relevance compo-
difficulty ratings (germane cognitive load).
nent was only different from the confidence component; and the
satisfaction component was different from the attention and confi-
4. Results dence components. This finding suggested a need to further exam-
ine the role of relevance during motivational processing and its
4.1. Scale reliability relationship with outcome processing. Because the relevance com-
ponent, in contrast with the attention and confidence components
The overall reliability of the scale on standardized Cronbach’s that are intrinsic in nature (Malone & Lepper, 1987), might be part
Alpha is .91 (n = 144 on 20 items), which indicated a good reliabil- of extrinsic motives (Ryan & Deci, 2000), it is possible that the rel-
ity of the scale. On the 9-point Likert Scale the highest item mean is evance component needs to be extracted from the motivational

Table 1
Reported levels by items.

Items for motivational processing Reported level 9-point scale

Attention
There was something interesting at the beginning of the game that got my attention. 5.78
Absolutely disagree (1)  Absolutely agree (9)
The interface design of the game is eye-catching 5.92
The quality of the writing in the game helped to hold my attention 5.63
I enjoyed the game so much that I would like to know more about his topic 4.41
The way the information is arranged in the game helped keep my attention 5.82
The game has things that stimulated my curiosity 5.77
I really enjoyed learning with the game 5.53
The wording of feedback after the exercises, or of other comments in the game, helped me feel rewarded for my effort 5.69
The variety of reading passages, exercises, illustrations, etc., helped keep my attention on the game 5.73
I could relate the content of the game to things I have seen, done or thought about in my own life 4.89
It was a pleasure to work on such a well-designed game 6.09
Relevance
It is clear to me how the content of the game is related to things I already know 5.88
There were examples that showed me how the game could be important to some people in the learning setting 6.14
The content of the game is relevant to my interests 4.17
Confidence
The game was more difficult to understand than I would like for it to be 4.97
The game had so much information that it was hard to pick out and remember the important points 6.24
The game is so abstract that it was hard to keep my attention on it 6.54
The exercises in the game were too difficult 6.62
I could not really understand quite a bit of the material in the game 6.00
Satisfaction
It felt good to successfully complete the game 5.18
Items for cognitive processing
How much mental effort did you invest to learn the content from the game? 5.07
Very very low mental effort (1)  Very very high mental effort (9)
How difficult was it for you to learn the content from the game? 4.50
Very very easy (1)  Very very difficult (9)
 W.-H. Huang / Computers in Human Behavior 27 (2011) 694–704 699

Table 3
Paired t-test results.

Pair t df Sig. (p = .05) Cohen’s d

A–R 1.61 143 .11 .13
A–C 3.91 143 .00* .32
A–S 2.53 143 .01* .21
R–C 5.03 143 .00* .42
R–S 1.27 143 .21 .11
C–S 4.80 143 .00* .40
*
Significant at p = .05.

Table 4
Tests of canonical dimensions.

Dimension Canonical corr. F df 1 df 2 p Fig. 1. ARCS levels.

1 .35 2.97 8 276
2 .19 1.75 3 139
processing stage in the theory of MVP. Table 3 shows the results of
paired-sample t-test.
4.3. Perceived cognitive load
At the end of the study participants self-reported to two items
measuring the level of intrinsic cognitive load (mental effort invest-
ment) and germane cognitive load (difficulty rating). The result indi-
cated that participants perceived a higher level of mental effort
investment than the task difficulty level. A paired t-test further con-
firmed that both scores are significantly different from each other
(t = 3.77, p < .01). See Table 1 for the item content and scores. This
finding confirmed the novelty of the subject matter for our partici-
pants as supported by the high intrinsic load. The germane load that
indicates the depth of the learning, however, only suggested a rather
shallow learning experience for our participants.
4.4. Canonical correlation between motivational processing and
cognitive processing
Tests of dimensionality for the canonical correlation analysis, as
shown in Table 4, indicated that the canonical correlation between
motivational processing and cognitive processing is significant with
one dimension (p < .05) (Dimension 1). Dimension 1 reported a
canonical correlation of .35 between two sets of variables. In terms
of original variables’ importance in predicting the identified canon-
ical correlation, the attention, confidence, and mental effort invest-
ment components were found to positively contribute to the
canonical correlation. While identifying the underlying constructs
of canonical variates, structure correlation analysis indicated that
the attention, confidence, and mental effort investment might be
essential for their individual variate. Table 5 shows the standardized
canonical coefficients, structure correlation coefficients, and the
redundancy index. The finding of canonical correlation mainly im-
plied an underlying relationship between motivational processing
.003*
.159 and cognitive processing in the GBLE of this study. Future research
with a larger sample size might be able to identify significant corre-
lations between the two constructs in GBLEs (Fig. 1).
5. Discussion
5.1. Motivational processing in GBLE
Overall the result of motivational processing in Trade Ruler was
beyond average. The study identified that learners perceived a sig-
nificantly higher level of confidence during the learning process.
Learners’ responses toward attention and relevance components,
however, seemed to be similar, which were both lower than the
confidence level perceived by learners.
The design of the Trade Ruler game might have helped learners
believe that they can accomplish the learning task easily as indi-
cated by their confidence levels. For example, the game uses com-
mon terminologies to convey complex concepts. An ‘‘island”
simplifies the concept of countries involved in the international
trading process. Players needed to choose their own island while
each island is differentiated by its abilities to produce ‘‘jeans”
and ‘‘cell phones”, which uses simple items to represent complex
concepts of international trading. The jeans stand for labor-inten-
sive manufacturing capacity while the cell phone symbolizes cap-
ital-intensive industries. Other game features could also sustain
players’ confidence level. First, players receive immediate and con-
structive feedback from the game on their manufacturing and trad-
ing decisions either from the news reporter or the reaction of
citizens. Second, players have three opportunities to trade with
their selected trading partners. They can learn from their previous
success or failures to inform follow-up decisions.
Participant’s attention level was reported the second highest
among ARC components for motivational processing. But it is only
statistically different from the confidence component. The target
GBLE has provided several features to support learners’ attention
level. In the beginning, the game uses oceanic ambience audio
and brief animation to open the entry page. Later players get to

Table 5
Standardized canonical coefficients.

Dimension 1*
Canonical coefficient Structure correlation Redundancy index
Motivational processing components .05
Attention 1.08 .78
Relevance .42 .22
Confidence .40 .58
Satisfaction .48 .03
Cognitive processing components .05
Mental effort investment .92 .77
Difficulty level .65 .44
700 W.-H. Huang / Computers in Human Behavior 27 (2011) 694–704

design his or her characters in the game by customizing the char- processing that contributed to continuously explore the learning
acters’ hair, facial features, clothing, and names. Finally, the game task. At the end of the learning process, however, they reported a
uses vivid color contrast for all visual representations and its page relatively low level of satisfaction as the result of the outcome pro-
layout remains consistent throughout the game, which prevents cessing. This finding can be explained by theories reviewed previ-
the game from overloading players’ visual modality in processing ously. Considering the MVP theory (Keller, 2008), although the
information. In this study learners reported a moderately high le- stages between motivational processing and outcome processing
vel of attention to initiate their exploratory activities. The attention serve numerous purposes, all of them require cognitive processing
level represents learners’ curiosity induced by the GBLE. Too much capacity. For instance, the volitional control processing stage
of it in the early stage of the motivational process could distract would need learners’ mental effort to convert intentions into ac-
learners from the intended learning task (Keller, 2008). Consider- tions (Gollwitzer, 1999). Clearly learners’ cognitive capacities were
ing learners’ significantly higher confidence level later in the moti- in high demand in the online GBLE. Since researchers on cognitive
vational processing, this finding implies that the attention stimuli load have concluded that an overloaded cognitive capacity can de-
level might be appropriate in the GBLE. motivate learners (Sweller et al., 1998), this paper argues that the
Although participants reported a moderate to high levels on the target online GBLE might overload learners’ cognitive capacity thus
confidence and attention components, they did not perceive a sig- lead to a fairly unsatisfactory learning experience.
nificantly high level of relevance from interacting with the game.
The novelty of the game content might contribute to the finding.
5.3. Relationship between motivational processing and cognitive
By reviewing the items on relevance component, it is clear that
processing
although learners were moderately interested in the value of the
game content for other people, they did not see the immediate im-
The canonical relationship between motivational processing
pact of understanding international trade theory in their own lives.
and cognitive processing was found significant in the study. A
The self-determination theory (Ryan & Deci, 2000) also could par-
canonical coefficient of .35 in Dimension 1, considered by many,
tially explain the finding. The theory considers relevance as part of
is sufficient for further empirical investigation (Garson, 2008). Ren-
extrinsic motivation to drive learner behaviors and it often de-
cher (2002) argued that the redundancy index calculation is not
mands a high level of contextual support to help learners internal-
appropriate for multivariate analysis, which might contribute to
ize the behavior. In other words, the design of GBLE in this study
the low redundancy indexes found in the study. Furthermore, the
might need to strengthen the connection between the subject mat-
structure correlation analysis showed promising results on how ori-
ter and learners’ experiences and needs.
ginal variables of motivational processing and cognitive processing
The perceived satisfaction level reported from participants was
could impact the canonical correlation between the two constructs
the lowest when compared to the ARC components. The t-test sug-
with exceptions of satisfaction and task difficulty variables. Based
gested that it is only significantly different from the attention and
on the theory of MVP, learners’ motivational processing and cogni-
confidence components. Satisfaction, in the context of MVP theory,
tive processing contribute to the final perceived satisfaction level,
is the result of learners’ cognitive evaluation on the discrepancy
which suggests satisfaction’s independent role in forming the
between invested efforts and perceived outcome. A substantial
canonical variate from either side. With regards to the perceived
learning outcome coupled with a small effort investment, for in-
task difficulty, the finding, to a large extent, concurs with previous
stance, can increase the satisfaction level. In this study learners re-
cognitive load studies. Because the germane cognitive load (mea-
ported a moderate level of satisfaction that is higher than the mid-
sured by self-reported task difficulty) is part of the overall cognitive
point of the scale, which implies that learners might consider the
load (measured by mental effort investment) thus it does not di-
learning outcome a fair result of their invested efforts. This finding,
rectly contribute to the canonical variate. On the other hand, the
however, presents a sustainability issue. Given learners were only
attention and confidence components of motivational processing
moderately satisfied with the learning experiences, they might not
and mental effort investment of cognitive processing demonstrated
come back to the same GBLE for future learning tasks.
a strong association with their individual canonical variates (i.e., the
canonical structure loading >.30) (Garson, 2008). This finding sug-
5.2. Cognitive processing and learners’ motivation in online GBLE
gests their potential impact in managing the canonical correlation
since they could substantially affect the composition of individual
As indicated in the integrative theory of motivation, volition,
variates that enable the canonical correlation. In summary the find-
and performance (MVP) (Keller, 2008), a full motivational learning
ings preliminarily support the relationship suggested by the theory
cycle should begin with the motivational processing that helps
of MVP that learners’ motivational processing could impact their
learners identify the performance goals and end with an outcome
cognitive information processing effort. Moreover, the findings
processing with learners’ satisfaction level towards the learning
empirically validate a previous conceptual framework in calculating
process. The motivational processing’s goal is to synthesize learn-
the relationship between learners’ motivational involvement and
ers’ interests, motives, values, and expectancies thus confirms their
mental effort investment in the context of cognitive load (Paas,
intention to participate in the learning process further. In the con-
Tuovinen, van Merriënboer, & Darabi, 2005). The results of this
text of ARCS model of motivational design, the motivational pro-
study, however, did not conclude the direction of the effect between
cessing refers to the attention, relevance, and confidence
motivational and cognitive processing. Likewise the roles of both
components respectively. The satisfaction component, based on
processing in supporting learners’ perceived satisfactory learning
the theory of MVP, becomes the result of the outcome processing
experiences are beyond the scope of this study.
at the end of the motivational learning cycle. Between the motiva-
tional processing (ARC) and outcome processing (S) are series of
interrelated learning activities that demand learners’ cognitive 6. Conclusion and future research
information processing capacity. These cognitive processing activ-
ities, therefore, could impact learners’ perceived satisfaction levels. Grounded in the theory of MVP, the study empirically con-
Learners with a high level of intention to pursue the performance firmed the underlying relationship between learners’ motivational
goal could be either encouraged or frustrated at the end of the processing and cognitive processing in an online GBLE. The find-
learning process due to experienced cognitive processing activities. ings further present new research directions to investigate the
In this study learners started out with an effective motivational dynamics between learners’ motivational processing and their
 W.-H. Huang / Computers in Human Behavior 27 (2011) 694–704 701

cognitive activities. Future research should focus on the utilization 4. After selecting the island, the player can customize his or her
of game characteristics in online GBLEs to better manage learners’ avatar in the game and name it.
motivational level, volitional control, and cognitive activities.

Appendix A

1. The starting page of the game.

5. On these pages the player gets to choose the trading partner

based on its labor and capital resources. In this case the
player chose the Yellow Island that has less labor resource
2. The welcome page of the game that states the goal. The bot- but more capital capacity than the Pink Island.
tom of the page also shows the dashboard for the player. At
the top the players controls the volume of the game’s audio
component.

3. On this page the player can select his or her island to rule.
Note that each island has different allocation of labor and
capital resources that impact its production capabilities. In
this case the player selects the Pink Island.
702 W.-H. Huang / Computers in Human Behavior 27 (2011) 694–704
6. On this page the player receives the specific of his or her
game tasks.
7. This page presents the trade ruler’s command center. All deci-
sion-making and feedback are delivered via the big monitor
on the right side of the room. The player needs to click on
the production, trade, and council buttons to decide what to
produce, what to trade, and receive feedback from the game.
8. The player clicks the production button to decide what to
manufacture. On the page the player can adjust the produc-
tion levels of jeans and cell phones in response to the island’s
labor and capital resources. Note that the value of goods also
changes based on the adjustment. The player should seek for
the highest goods value as the result of this activity.
9. On this page the game provides immediate feedback to your
production adjustment decision.
10. After receiving the feedback, the player clicks the trade but-
ton to decide what to trade. On this page the player can ad-
just the amount of jeans and cell phones to be sold to the
trading partner. In this case the ruler decided to trade six
pairs of jeans for six cell phones with the partner (Yellow
Island).
11. On this page the trading partner provides feedback to the
trade adjustment. In this case the Yellow Island liked the
deal.
 W.-H. Huang / Computers in Human Behavior 27 (2011) 694–704
12. At the end of the 1st play cycle, the player can review the
outcome of the trade decision. Note that in the result are
the citizens of the Pink Island were neither happy nor upset
about the trade outcome.
13. The player clicks on the council button to resume the 2nd
play cycle.
14. At the end of three cycles, the player receives feedback from
the game by analyzing the player’s production and trading
decisions against the theory.
703
15. Finally, the player gets to be compared to other players who
have played the game. Here shows an award stand with the
players.
References
Ames, C. (1992). Classroom: goals, structures, and student motivation. Journal of
Educational Psychology, 84, 261–271.
Anderman, E. M., & Maehr, M. L. (1994). Motivation and schooling in the middle
grades, review of educational research. Journal of Educational Psychology, 64,
287–309.
Ang, C. S., Zaphiris, P., & Mahmood, S. (2007). A model of cognitive loads in
massively multiplayer online role playing games. Interacting with Computers,
19(2), 167–179.
Apt, C. C. (1970). Serious games: The art and science of games that simulate life in
industry, Government and Education. New York: Viking.
Armstrong, A. M. (1989). Persistence and the causal perception of failure: Modifying
cognitive attributions. Journal of Educational Psychology, 70, 154–166.
Arnone, M. P. (2003). Using instructional design strategies to foster curiosity. (ERIC
Clearinghouse of Information and Technology, Syracuse, NY. No. ED 479842).
Astleitner, H., & Wiesner, C. (2004). An integrated model of multimedia learning and
motivation. Journal of Educational Multimedia and Hypermedia, 13(1), 3–21.
Avedon, E., & Sutton-Smith, B. (1971). The study of games. New York: Wiley.
Ayres, P., & Paas, F. (2007). Making instructional animations more effective: A
cognitive load approach. Applied Cognitive Psychology, 21, 695–700.
Ayres, P., Kalyuga, S., Marcus, N., & Sweller, J. (2005). The conditions under which
instructional animation may be effective. Paper presented at an International
Workshop and Mini-conference, Open University of the Netherlands: Heerlen,
The Netherlands.
Baird, J. R., & White, R. T. (1982). Promoting self-control of learning. Instructional
Science, 11, 227–247.
Bandura, A. (1997). Self-efficacy: The exercise of control. New York: Freeman.
Berliner, D. C., & Gage, N. L. (1998). Educational psychology. Boston, NY: Houghton
Mifflin Company.
Brünken, R., Plass, J., & Leutner, D. (2003). Direct measurement of cognitive load in
multimedia learning. Educational Psychologist, 38, 53–61.
Chandler, P., & Sweller, J. (1991). Cognitive load theory and the format of
instruction. Cognition and Instruction, 8, 293–332.
Chang, M., & Lehman, J. D. (2002). Learning foreign language through an interactive
multimedia program: An experimental study on the effects of the relevance
component of the ARCS model. CALICO Journal, 20, 81–98.
ChanLin, Lih.-Juan. (2009). Applying motivational analysis in a Web-based course.
Innovations in Education and training International, 46(1), 91–103.
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, 597–605.
Chyung, S. Y. (2001). Systematic and systemic approaches to reducing attrition rates
in online higher education. American Journal of Distance Education, 15, 36–49.
Ciernak, G., Scheiter, K., & Gerjets, P. (2009). Explaining the split-attention effect: Is
the reduction of extraneous cognitive load accompanied by an increase in
germane cognitive load? Computers in Human Behavior, 25(2), 315–324.
de Crook, M. B. M., van Merriënboer, J. J. G., & Paas, F. G. W. C. (1998). High versus
low contextual interference in simulation-based training of troubleshooting
skills: Effects on transfer performance and invested mental effort. Computers in
Human Behavior, 14, 249–267.
Deimann, M., & Keller, J. M. (2006). Volitional aspects of multimedia learning.
Journal of Educational Multimedia and Hypermedia, 15, 137–158.
Dempsey, J. V., & Johnson, B. (1998). The development of ARCS gaming scale. Journal
of Instructional Psychology, 25, 215–221.
704 W.-H. Huang / Computers in Human Behavior 27 (2011) 694–704
DeLeeuw, L. E., & Mayer, R. E. (2008). A comparison of three measures of
cognitive load: Evidence for separable measures of intrinsic, extraneous, and
germane load. Journal of Educational Psychology, 1, 223–234.
Dickey, M. D. (2007). Game design and learning: A conjectural analysis of how
massively multiple online role-playing games (MMORPGs) foster intrinsic
motivation. Educational Technology Research and Development, 55(3), 253–273.
Driscoll, M. P. (2000). Introduction to theories of learning and instruction. In M. P.
Driscoll (Ed.), Psychology of learning for instruction (2nd ed., pp. 3–28). Boston,
MA: Allyn and Bacon.
Garson, G. David (2008). Canonical correlation, from Statnotes: Topics in Multivariate
Analysis. Available from http://faculty.chass.ncsu.edu/garson/pa765/statnote.
htm. Retrieved 09/29/2009.
Gee, J. P. (2003). What video games have to teach us about learning and literacy. New
York: Palgrave.
Gollwitzer, P. M. (1999). Implementation intentions. American Psychologists, 54(7),
493–503.
Gredler, M. (1994). Designing and evaluating games and simulations. Houston: Gulf.
House, J. D. (2003). Instructional activities and interest in science learning for
adolescent students in Japan and the United States: Findings from the third
international mathematics and science study (TIMSS). International Journal of
Instructional Media, 30, 429–443.
Huang, W., & Johnson, J. (2002). Motivational level of a computer-based simulation:
A formative evaluation of the US Army Recruiting Simulation (USAREC). Paper
presented at the Annual Convention of the Association for Educational
Communication and Technology, Dallas, TX.
Huang, W., & Aragon, S. (2009). An integrated evaluation approach for E-learning
systems in career and technical education. In W. Victor (Ed.), Handbook of
research on E-learning applications for career and technical education: Technologies
for vocational training. Hershey PA, USA: IGI Global.
Huang, W., & Johnson, T. (2008). Instructional game design using cognitive load
theory. In R. Ferdig (Ed.), Handbook of research on effective electronic gaming in
education (pp. 1143–1165). Hershey PA, USA: Information Science Reference.
Huang, W., Huang, W. Y., Diefes-Dux, H., & Imbrie, P. K. (2006). A preliminary
validation of attention, relevance, confidence, and satisfaction model-based
instructional material motivational survey in a computer-based tutorial setting.
British Journal of Educational Technology, 37, 243–259.
Jacobson, T. E., & Xu, L. (2002). Motivating students in credit-based information
literacy courses: Theories and practice. Libraries and the Academy, 2, 423–441.
Johnson, T. E., & Huang, W. D. (2008). Complex skills development for today’s
workforce. In D. Ifenthaler, J. M. Spector, & P. Pirnay-Dummer (Eds.),
Understanding models for learning and instruction: Essays in Honor of Norbert M.
Seel (pp. 305–325). New York City NY, USA: Springer.
Kalyuga, S. (2007). Enhancing instructional efficiency of interactive E-learning
environments: A cognitive load perspective. Educational Psychology Review, 19,
387–399.
Kalyuga, S. (2009). Instructional design for the development of transferable
knowledge and skills: A cognitive load perspective. Computers in Human
Behavior, 25, 332–338.
Kalyuga, S., Chandler, P., & Sweller, J. (1999). Managing split-attention and
redundancy in multimedia instruction. Applied Cognitive Psychology, 13, 351–371.
Khalil, M. K., Paas, F., Johnson, T. E., & Payer, A. F. (2005a). Interactive and dynamic
visualizations in teaching and learning of anatomy: A cognitive load
perspectives. The Anatomical Record Part B: New Anatomist, 286B, 8–14.
Khalil, M. K., Paas, F., Johnson, T. E., & Payer, A. F. (2005b). Design of interactive and
dynamic anatomical visualizations: The implication of cognitive load theory.
The Anatomical Record Part B: New Anatomist, 286B, 15–20.
Keller, J. M. (1983). Motivational design of instruction. In C. M. Reigeluth (Ed.),
Instructional design theories and models: An overview of their current status
(pp. 386–434). Hillsdale, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates.
Keller, J. M. (1987a). Strategies for stimulating the motivation to learn. Performance
and Instruction, 26, 1–7.
Keller, J. M. (1987b). The systematic process of motivational design. Performance
and Instruction, 26(9/10), 1–8.
Keller, J. M. (1993). Motivation by design. Florida: Unpublished manuscript, Florida
State University.
Keller, J. M. (2008). An integrative theory of motivation, volition, and performance.
Technology, Instruction, Cognition, and Learning, 6, 79–104.
Klein, J. D., & Freitag, E. (1991). Enhancing motivation using an instructional game.
Journal of Instructional Psychology, 18, 111–117.
Lee, M. J. (1990). Effects of different loci of instructional control on students’ meta
cognition and cognition: Learner vs. program control. Paper presented at the
Annual Convention of the Association for Educational Communication and
Technology, (ERIC Document Reproduction Service No. ED 323938).
Malone, T. W., & Lepper, M. R. (1987). Making learning fun. A taxonomy of intrinsic
motivations for learning. In R. E. Snow & M. J. Farr (Eds.), Aptitude, Learning, and
Instruction. Volume 3: Cognitive and Affective Process Analyses (pp. 223–253).
Hillsdale, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum.
Marcus, N., Cooper, M., & Sweller, J. (1996). Understanding instructions. Journal of
Educational Psychology, 88, 49–63.
Mayer, R. E. (2001). Multimedia learning. New York: Cambridge University Press.
Mayer, R. (2003). Learning and instruction. Upper Saddle River, NJ: Merrill Prentice
Hall.
Mayer, R., & Moreno, R. (2003). Nine ways to reduce cognitive load in multimedia
learning. Educational Psychologist, 38, 43–52.
Means, T. B. (1997). Enhancing relevance: Embedded ARCS strategies vs. purpose.
Educational Technology Research and Development, 45, 5–17.
Nelson, B., & Erlandson, B. (2008). Managing cognitive load in educational multi-
user virtual environments: Reflection on design practice. Educational Technology
Research and Development, 56, 619–641.
Newton, R. R., & Rudestam, K. E. (1998). Your statistical consultant, answers to your
data analysis questions. Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage Publications.
Paas, F. G. W. C., & van Merriënboer, J. J. G. (1994). Instructional control of cognitive
load in the training of complex cognitive tasks. Educational Psychologist, 6,
351–371.
Paas, F. G. W. C., van Merriënboer, J. G. J., & Adam, J. J. (1994). Measurement of
cognitive load in instructional research. Perceptual and Motor Skills, 79, 419–430.
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, 63–71.
Paas, F., Tuovinen, J. E., van Merriënboer, J. G. J., & Darabi, A. A. (2005). A
motivational perspective on the relation between mental effort and
performance: Optimizing learner involvement in instruction. Educational
Technology Research & Development, 53(3), 25–34.
Palmgreen, P. (1984). Uses and gratifications: A theoretical perspective. In R. N.
Bostrom (Ed.). Communication yearbook (Vol. 8, pp. 61–72). Beverly Hills, CA:
Sage Publications.
Pannese, L., & Carlesi, M. (2007). Games and learning come together to maximise
effectiveness: The challenge of bridging the gap. British Journal of Educational
Technology, 38(3), 438–454.
Papastergiou, M. (2008). Are computer science and information technology still
masculine fields? High school students’ perceptions and career choices.
Computers and Education, 51(2), 594–608.
Porter, L. W., & Lawler, E. E. III, (1968). Managerial attitudes and performance.
Homewood, IL: Richard D. Irwin.
Prensky, M. (2001). Digital game-based learning. New York: McGraw-Hill.
Rencher, A. C. (2002). Methods of multivariate analysis. New York: Wiley.
Rieber, L. P. (1996). Seriously considering play: Designing interactive learning
environments based on the blending of microworlds, simulations, and games.
Educational Technology Research & Development, 44(2), 43–58.
Ryan, R. M., & Deci, E. L. (2000). Self-determination theory and the facilitation of
intrinsic motivation, social development, and well-being. American
Psychologists, 55(1), 68–78.
Sachs, J. (2001). A path model for adult learner feedback. Educational Psychology, 21,
267–275.
Sankaran, S. R., & Bui, T. (2001). Impact of learning strategies and motivation on
performance: A study in web-based instruction. Journal of Instructional
Psychology, 28, 191–198.
Schunk, D. H. (1990). Goal setting and self-efficacy during self-regulated learning.
Educational Psychologist, 25, 71–86.
Small, R. V., & Ferreira, S. M. (1994). Information location and use, motivation, and
learning patterns when using print or multimedia information resources.
Journal of Educational Multimedia and Hypermedia, 3, 251–273.
Small, R. V., & Gluck, M. (1994). The relationship of motivational conditions to
effective instructional attributes: A magnitude scaling approach. Educational
Technology, 34(8), 33–40.
Small, R. V. (2000). Motivation in instructional design. Teacher Librarian, 27, 29–31.
Song, S. H., & Keller, J. M. (2001). Effectiveness of motivationally adaptive computer-
assisted instruction on the dynamic aspects of motivation. Educational
Technology Research and Development, 49, 5–22.
Spitzer, D. R. (1996). Motivation: the neglected factor in instructional design.
Educational Technology, 36, 45–49.
Steers, R. M., & Porter, L. M. (1983). Motivation and work behavior. New York:
McGraw-Hill.
Suits, B. (1978). The Grasshopper: Games, life, and Utopia. Ontario, CA: University of
Toronto Press.
Sweller van Merriënboer , J. J. G., & Paas, F. G. W. C. . Cognitive architecture and
instructional design. Educational Psychology Review, 10(3), 251–296.
van Gerven, P. W. M., Paas, F., van Merriënboer, J. J. G., & Schmidt, H. G. (2006).
Modality and variability as factors in training the elderly. Applied Cognitive
Psychology, 20, 311–320.
van Merriënboer, J. J. G., Clark, R. E., & De Croock, M. B. M. (2002). Blueprints for
complex learning: The 4C/ID-model. Educational Technology Research and
Development, 50, 39–64.
Vroom, V. (1964). The motivation to work. New York: Wiley.
Warschauer, M. (2007). The paradoxical future of digital learning. Learning Inquiry,
1, 41–49.
Weiner, B. (1985). An attributional theory of achievement motivation. Psychology
Review, 92, 548–573.
Wongwiwatthananukit, S., & Popovick, N. G. (2000). Applying the ARCS model of
motivational design to pharmaceutical education. American Journal of
Pharmaceutical Education, 64(2), 188–196.
Zimmerman, B. J., & Martinez-Pons, M. (1988). Construct validation of a strategy
model of student self-regulated learning. Journal of Educational Psychology, 80,
284–290.
Zimmerman, B. J. (1989). Models for self-regulated learning and academic
achievement. In B. J. Zimmerman & D. H. Schunk (Eds.), Self-regulated learning
and academic achievement: Theory, research, and practice (pp. 1–25). New York:
Springer.
Zumbach, J., & Mohraz, M. (2008). Cognitive load in hypermedia reading
comprehension: Influence of text type and linearity. Computers in Human
Behavior, 24, 875–887.