Interactivity3 Design and Assessment Framework for Educational Games to Promote Motivation and Complex Problem-Solving Skills

  • Deniz Eseryel
  • Yu Guo
  • Victor Law


Complex problem solving and motivation are often argued as the most important benefits of massively multiplayer role-playing online games. However, little empirical research exists to support these assertions. Current research and educational game design theory are insufficient to explain the relationship between complex problem solving, motivation, and games; nor do they support the design of educational games intended to promote motivation and complex problem-solving skills. For the past few years, we have been engaged with design-based research (DBR) to address this gap in the literature. In this chapter, we present the findings of this study in a framework for designing and assessing educational MMORPGs for facilitating learners’ motivation and complex problem-solving skill acquisition. This game design and assessment framework bridges three levels of interactivity that were identified in a series of DBR studies as being crucial for effective educational game design: (1) interface interactivity, (2) narrative interactivity, and (3) social interactivity. In this chapter, we present Interactivity3 design and assessment framework and discuss the findings of a study that shows the validity of this framework for designing and assessing educational MMORPGs.


Game Play Assessment Framework Design Cycle Educational Game Game Environment 
These keywords were added by machine and not by the authors. This process is experimental and the keywords may be updated as the learning algorithm improves.



McLarin’s Adventures MMOG is developed by the K20 Center at the University of Oklahoma through a Star Schools research grant from the U.S. Department of Education. It is with gratitude that the authors thank the K20 Center game development team for allowing our research team to use the game, hence, contributing advancement of research on games and learning.


  1. Amory, A. (2007). Game object model version II: A theoretical framework for educational game development. Educational Technology Research and Development, 55(1), 51–77.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  2. Azevedo, R., Winters, F. I., & Moos, D. C. (2004). Can students collaboratively use hypermedia to learn about science? The dynamics of self- and other-regulatory processes in an ecology classroom. Journal of Educational Computing Research, 31(3), 215–245.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  3. Barab, S., Squire, K., & Dueber, W. (2000). A co-evolutionary model for supporting the emergence of authenticity. Educational Technology Research and Development, 48(2), 37–62.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  4. Blumberg, F. C., Rosenthal, S. F., & Randall, J. D. (2008). Impasse-driven learning in the context of video games. Computers in Human Behavior, 24(4), 1530–1541.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  5. Brown, J., Collins, A., & Duguid, P. (1989). Situated cognition and the culture of learning. Educational Researcher, 18(1), 32–42.Google Scholar
  6. Chen, H., Dun, H. B. L., Phuah, P. S. K., & Lam, D. Z. Y. (2006). Enjoyment or engagement? Role of social interaction in playing massively multiplayer online role-playing games (MMORPGS). In R. Harper, M. Rauterberg, M. Combetto (Eds.), Entertainment computing—ICEC 2006: 5th international conference (pp. 262–267). Cambridge, UK.Google Scholar
  7. Cordova, D. I., & Lepper, M. R. (1996). Intrinsic motivation and the process of learning: Beneficial effects of contextualization, personalization, and choice. Journal of Educational Psychology, 88(4), 715–730.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  8. Crawford, C. (1984). The art of computer game design. Berkley, CA: McGraw–Hill.Google Scholar
  9. Crawford, C. (2010). Interactivity, process, and algorithm. In R. van Eck (Ed.), Interdisciplinary models and tools for serious games: Emerging concepts and future directions (pp. 333–346). Hershey, PA: IGI Global.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  10. Csikszentmihalyi, M. (1991). Flow: The psychology of optimal experience. New York, NY: Harper Perennial.Google Scholar
  11. Dansky, R. (2007). Introduction to game narrative. In C. Bateman (Ed.), Game writing: Narrative sills for videogames. Boston, MA: Charles River Media.Google Scholar
  12. Dempsey, J. V., Haynes, L. L., Lucassen, B. A., & Casey, M. S. (2002). Forty simple computer games and what they could mean to educators. Simulation & Gaming, 33(2), 157–168.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  13. Dickey, M. (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.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  14. Dochy, F., Segers, M., Van den Bossche, P., & Gijbels, D. (2003). Effects of problem-based learning: A meta-analysis. Learning and Instruction, 13(5), 533–568.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  15. Dondlinger, M. J., & Lunce, L. M. (2009). Wayfinding affordances are essential for effective use of virtual environment for instructional applications. MERLOT Journal of Online Learning and Teaching, 5(3), Retrieved February 19, 2011, from
  16. Dörner, D. (1987). On the difficulties people have in dealing with complexity. In K. Duncan, J. Rasmussen, & L. Leplat (Eds.), New technology and human error (pp. 97–109). Chichester, NY: Wiley.Google Scholar
  17. Ducheneaut, N., & Moore, R. J. (2004). The social side of gaming: A study of interaction patterns in a massively multiplayer online game. In J. Herbsleb & G. Olson (Eds.), Proceedings of the 2004 ACM conference on computer supported cooperative work (pp. 360–369). New York: The Association for Computer Machinery.Google Scholar
  18. Eifferman, R. R. (1974). It’s child’s play. In L. M. Shears & E. M. Bower (Eds.), Games in education and development (pp. 75–102). Springfield, IL: Charles C. Thomas.Google Scholar
  19. Eseryel, D., & Ge, X. (2010). Designing effective game-based learning environments: Implications for design research. Paper presented at “Educational Design Research: Local Change, Global Impact”: A Special Conference to Honor Professor Thomas C. Reeves Upon his Retirement from the University of Georgia, March 26–27, 2010.Google Scholar
  20. Eseryel, D., Ge, X., Ifenthaler, D., & Law, V. (2011). Dynamic modeling as a cognitive regulation scaffold for complex problem solving skill acquisition in an educational massively multiplayer online game environment. Journal of Educational Computing Research, 45(3), 265–287.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  21. Eseryel, D., Ifenthaler, D., & Ge, X. (2010). Alternative assessment strategies for game-based learning environments. In D. Ifenthaler, K. PIsaias, D. G. Sampson, & J. M. Spector (Eds.), Multiple perspectives on problem solving and learning in the digital age (pp. 159–178). New York, NY: Springer.Google Scholar
  22. Eseryel, D., Miller, R. B., Ge, X., Ifenthaler, D., Law, V., & Guo, Y. (2010). A longitudinal study on the impact of digital game-based learning on complex problem solving skill acquisition and student motivation. Paper presented at the 2010 Annual Convention of Association for Educational Communications and Technology, Anaheim, CA, October 26–30, 2010.Google Scholar
  23. Feltovich, P. J., Spiro, R. J., Coulson, R. L., & Feltovich, J. (1996). Collaboration within and among minds: Mastering complexity, individually and in groups. In T. D. Koschmann (Ed.), CSCL: Theory and practice of an emerging paradigm (pp. 25–44). New York, NY: Lawrence Erlbaum.Google Scholar
  24. Fullerton, T., Swain, C., & Hoffman, S. (2004). Game design workshop: Designing, prototyping, and playtesting games. San Francisco, CA: CMP Books.Google Scholar
  25. Ge, X., Thomas, M., & Greene, B. (2006). Technology-rich ethnography for examining the transition to authentic problem-solving in a high school computer programming class. Journal of Educational Computing Research, 34(4), 319–352.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  26. Gee, J. P. (2003). What video games have to teach us about learning and literacy. New York: Palgrave-Macmillan.Google Scholar
  27. Gee, J. P. (2007). Games and learning: Issues, perils, and potentials. In J. P. Gee (Ed.), Good video games and good learning: Collected essays on video games, learning, and literacy (pp. 129–174). New York: Palgrave/MacMillan.Google Scholar
  28. Granovetter, M. (1985). Economic action and social structure: The problem of embeddedness. The American Journal of Sociology, 91(3), 481.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  29. Gredler, M. E. (2004). Games and simulations and their relationship to learning. In D. Jonassen (Ed.), The handbook of research on educational communications and technology (2nd ed., pp. 571–581). Bloomington, IN: AECT.Google Scholar
  30. Greenfield, P. M. (2010). Video games. In R. van Eck (Ed.), Gaming and cognition: Theories and practice from the learning sciences (pp. 1–21). Hershey, PA: IGI Global.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  31. Gunter, G. A., Kenny, R. F., & Vick, E. H. (2008). Taking educational games seriously: Using the retain model to design endogenous fantasy into standalone educational games. Educational Technology Research and Development, 56(5), 619–641.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  32. Ifenthaler, D. (2010). Relational, structural, and semantic analysis of graphical representations and concept maps. Educational Technology Research and Development, 58(1), 81–97.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  33. Jonassen, D. H. (1997). Instructional design models for well-structured and III-structured problem-solving learning outcomes. Educational Technology Research and Development, 45(1), 65–94.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  34. Kagan, J. (1978). The growth of the child. New York, NY: Norton.Google Scholar
  35. Komerska, R., & Ware, C. (2003). Haptic-geozui3D: Exploring the use of haptics in auv path planning. Proceedings 13th international symposium on unmanned Untethered Submersible Technology UUST’03, Durham, NH.Google Scholar
  36. Konzack, L. (2002). Computer game criticism: A method for computer game analysis. In F. Mayra (Ed.), CGDC conference proceedings (pp. 89–100). Tampere, Finland: Tampere University Press.Google Scholar
  37. Lave, J., & Wenger, E. (1991). Situated learning: Legitimate peripheral participation. Cambridge, UK: Cambridge University Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  38. Liarokapis, F. (2006). An exploration from virtual to augmented reality gaming. Simulation & Gaming, 37(4), 507–533. Mahwah, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum.Google Scholar
  39. Malone, T. W. (1980). What makes things fun to learn? A study of intrinsically motivating computer games (Cognitive and Instructional Sciences Series CIS-7 (SSL-80-11)). Palo Alto, CA: XEROX Palo Alto Research Center.Google Scholar
  40. Miller, R. B., Eseryel, D., & Ge, X. (2009) Surviving in Space: The effects of a massively multiplayer online game (MMOG) on students’ motivation. Paper presented at the Annual Meeting of the American Educational Research Association, San Diego, April 13–17, 2009.Google Scholar
  41. Nahapiet, J., & Ghoshal, S. (1998). Social capital, intellectual capital, and the organizational advantage. Academy of Management Review, 23(2), 242–266.Google Scholar
  42. Parker, L., & Lepper, M. (1992). Effects of fantasy contexts on children’s learning and motivation: Making learning more fun. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 62(4), 625–633.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  43. Pirnay-Dummer, P., & Ifenthaler, D. (2010). Automated knowledge visualization and assessment. In D. Ifenthaler, P. Pirnay-Dummer, & N. M. Seel (Eds.), Computer-based diagnostics and systematic analysis of knowledge (pp. 77–115). New York: Springer.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  44. Prensky, M. (2006). Don’t bother me mom–I’m learning. St. Paul, MN: Paragon House.Google Scholar
  45. Prensky, M. (2007). Digital game-based learning. St. Paul, MN: Paragon House.Google Scholar
  46. Rieber, L. (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.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  47. Ryan, R., & Deci, E. (2000). Self-determination theory and the facilitation of intrinsic motivation, social development, and well-being. American Psychologist, 55(1), 68–78.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  48. Salen, K., & Zimmerman, E. (2004). Rules of play. Cambridge, MA: MIT.Google Scholar
  49. Salen, K., & Zimmerman, E. (2005). Game design and meaningful play. In J. Raessens & J. H. Goldstein (Eds.), Handbook of computer game studies. Cambridge, MA: MIT.Google Scholar
  50. Schank, R. C., Berman, T. R., & Macpherson, K. A. (1999). Learning by doing. In C. M. Reigeluth (Ed.), Instructional-design theories and models: A new paradigm of instructional theory (Vol. II, pp. 161–181). Mahwah: Lawrence Erlbaum.Google Scholar
  51. Shaffer, D. W. (2006). How computer games help children learn? New York: Palgrave Macmillan.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  52. Steinkuehler, C. A. (2004). Learning in massively multiplayer online games. In Y. B. Kafai, W. A. Sandoval, & N. Enyedy (Eds.), Proceedings of the 6th international conference on learning sciences (pp. 521–528).Google Scholar
  53. Sweetser, P., & Wyeth, P. (2005). GameFlow: A model for evaluating player enjoyment in games. ACM Computers in Entertainment, 3(3), 1–24.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  54. Uribe, D., Klein, J., & Sullivan, H. (2003). The effect of computer-mediated collaborative learning on solving III-defined problems. Educational Technology Research and Development, 51(1), 5–19.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  55. van Eck, R. (2006). Building intelligent learning games. In D. Gibson, C. Aldrich, & M. Prensky (Eds.), Games and simulations in online learning: Research and development frameworks. Hershey, PA: Idea Group.Google Scholar
  56. van Eck, R. (2007). Six ideas in search of a discipline. In B. Shelton & D. Wiley (Eds.), The educational design and use of computer simulation games. Boston, MA: Sense.Google Scholar
  57. Wideman, H., Owston, R., Brown, C., Kushniruk, A., Ho, F., & Pitts, K. (2007). Unpacking the potential of educational gaming: A new tool for gaming research. Simulation & Gaming, 38(1), 10.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  58. Wilson, K., Bedwell, W., Lazzara, E., Salas, E., Burke, C., Estock, J., & Conkey, C. (2009). Relationships between game attributes and learning outcomes. Simulation & Gaming, 40(2), 217–266.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  59. Wilson, S., & Williams, L. (2010). Serious games for the classroom: A case study of designing and developing a massive multiplayer online game. In R. van Eck (Ed.), Interdisciplinary models and tools for serious games: Emerging concepts and future directions (pp. 264–287). Hershey, PA: IGI Global.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  60. Yanuzzi, T. J., & Behrenshausen, B. G. (2010). Serious games for transformative learning: A communication perspective on the radical binarisation of everyday life. In R. van Eck (Ed.), Interdisciplinary models and tools for serious games: Emerging concepts and future directions (pp. 74–102). Hershey, PA: IGI Global.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  61. Yee, N. (2006). Motivations for play in online games. Cyberpsychology & Behavior, 9(6), 772–775.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer Science+Business Media New York 2012

Authors and Affiliations

  1. 1.Department of Educational PsychologyUniversity of OklahomaNormanUSA
  2. 2.Oklahoma State UniversityStillwaterUSA

Personalised recommendations