本研究透過電腦模擬遊戲safecracker，比較多媒體示例法(影片+旁白 VS. 圖片+文字)對增進學習者問題解決能力之成效差異，以及這兩種示例法對於學習者有無造成認知負荷上的差異，以供未來示例法的設計參考。
    本研究參照CRESST問題解決模式，此模式由內容的理解、問題解決的策略和自我調整這三個部份所組成，故研究者藉由1、知識圖(測內容理解)，2、問題解決策略的保留和遷移題目(測問題解決策略)，3、自我調整量表(測自我調整)，來測量受試者的問題解決能力有無增進。
    研究發現：
    影片+旁白組的問題解決能力沒有顯著優於圖+文組，且影片+旁白組的認知負荷也沒有顯著低於圖+文組，另外，自我調整和知識圖、問題解決策略也沒有顯著相關。但是雖然兩組在問題解決能力及認知負荷上，皆沒有顯著差異，但兩組的問題解決能力皆有顯著增加，可知示例法對增進問題解決能力確有其成效。
    既知兩組的差異不大，則以後教學者在設計教材時，可不用執著教材一定要做成動畫，以免花費了許多時間，卻沒有使學習者達到更好的學習效果。
未來研究方向：
一、可針對不同教學策略進行探究。
二、可拉長研究時間、做成一系列課程。
三、可開發或選用適宜的本國解謎遊戲來做研究。

This research is through computer simulation game“safecracker”, comparing multimedia worked example instruction ( the film + aside VS. The picture + word) to promoting the effect difference on learner's problem solving skill , and these two kinds worked examples cause the difference on cognitive load to the learners, for the future of the worked examples design is consulted . 
CRESST problem solving solution containing three parts that the content of understanding , problem solving strategies and self regulation , the researcher by 1. knowledge graph (examine the content of understanding), 2 . the retainment and the migration topic of the problem solving strategies (examine the problem solving strategies), 3. self regulation form (examine self regulation), measuring the problem solving solution of experimenters promoting or not . 
The conclusion of the research suggests the followings：
   The problem solving solution of the film + aside group is not superior to the picture + word group, and The cognitive load of The film + aside is not superior to The pictures + words. Beside, Self regulation, the knowledge map and the problem solving strategies are not correlated with each other.Although the problem solving solution and the cognitive load of the film + aside group is not superior to the picture + word group, but the problem solving solution is apparently the problem solving solution.
The way of the future：
一、The future researchers can uses different teaching strategies. 
二、Elongating study time. 
三、The future researchers can select the suitable solving games to study.

目錄
第一章	緒論
第一節	研究背景與動機……………………………………………1
第二節	研究目的與問題……………………………………………4
      壹、研究目的…………………………………………………4
貳、研究問題與假設…………………………………………………4
第三節	研究範圍與限制……………………………………………5
壹、研究範圍……………………………………………………………5
貳、研究限制……………………………………………………………5
第四節	名詞釋義……………………………………………………6
壹、問題解決能力………………………………………………………6
貳、示例教學法…………………………………………………………6
參、電腦模擬遊戲………………………………………………………6
肆、認知負荷……………………………………………………………6
          伍、多媒體學習認知理論…………………………………7
第五節	預期貢獻……………………………………………………8
壹、學術研究……………………………………………………………8
貳、應用方面……………………………………………………………8
第二章	文獻探討
第一節	問題解決……………………………………………………9
壹、問題的概念…………………………………………………………9
貳、問題解決的概念…………………………………………………15
第二節	示例教學法…………………………………………………27
壹、示例的定義………………………………………………………27
貳、示例教學法的應用………………………………………………27
參、示例法的教學設計原則…………………………………………33
肆、相關的理論………………………………………………………37
第三節	電腦模擬遊戲……………………………………………43
壹、遊戲的概念………………………………………………………43
貳、模擬遊戲的概念…………………………………………………49
第三章	研究方法
第一節	研究問題與假設…………………………………………53
第二節	研究架構與設計…………………………………………54
壹、研究架構…………………………………………………………54
貳、研究設計說明……………………………………………………54
    第三節  研究對象………………………………………………55
第四節	  研究工具………………………………………………55
壹、電腦模擬遊戲……………………………………………………56
貳、示例之設計………………………………………………………59
      參、基本資料調查表…………………………………………64
          肆、自我調整量表………………………………………64
          伍、知識圖………………………………………………64
      陸、 問題解決策略……………………………………………66
          柒、 認知負荷量表計分方式……………………………67
第五節  研究流程與甘特圖…………………………………………67
壹、研究流程圖………………………………………………………68
貳、研究流程…………………………………………………………69
參、甘特圖……………………………………………………………74
    第六節  統計方法………………………………………………75
第四章	 研究結果與討論
    第一節  問題解決能力…………………………………………76
           壹、知識圖……………………………………………78
           貳、問題解決策略……………………………………79
           參、保險箱破關數……………………………………83
    第二節  認知負荷………………………………………………85
壹、	實驗組與控制組在認知負荷量表的比較………………85
   第三節   自我調整量表、知識圖和問題解決策略……………86
壹、	自我調整量表與知識圖的相關情形……………………86
           貳、自我調整量表與問題解決策略的相關情形………87
第五章	結論與建議
    第一節   結論……………………………………………………89
第二節	建議…………………………………………………………91
壹、	實務應用上的建議…………………………………………91
貳、	未來研究方向………………………………………………92
參考文獻 .……………………………………………………………94
附錄
    附件一：專家審核意見表………………………………………106
附件二：根據專家審核意見表而做的修正…………………………107
附件三：基本資料調查表……………………………………………108
    附件四：自我調整量表…………………………………………110
    附件五：知識圖…………………………………………………112
    附件六：問題解決策略問題……………………………………113
    附件七：認知負荷量表…………………………………………114
    附件八：專家地圖1……………………………………………115
    附件九：專家地圖2……………………………………………116
    附件十：專家地圖3……………………………………………117
    附件十一：專家對保留問題的答案…………………………118
    附件十二：專家對遷移問題的答案…………………………120
    附件十三：遊戲及滑鼠使用說明……………………………121
表次

表2-1-1  問題的分類………………………………………………………………10、11
表2-1-2  結構良好的問題之問題類型分類………………………………………12、13
表2-1-3  結構模糊的問題之問題類型分類……………………………………………14
表2-1-4  一般性問題解題取向…………………………………………………………19
表2-2-1  示例法運用現況………………………………………………………………31
表2-2-2  多媒體學習認知理論之三項假設……………………………………………40
表3-3-1  遊戲特徵………………………………………………………………………56
表3-3-2  知識圖使用說明………………………………………………………………64
表3-3-3  知識圖系統的特徵……………………………………………………………65
表3-3-4  知識圖的計分方式……………………………………………………………66
表3-4-1  研究程序………………………………………………………………………71
表4-1-1  實驗組與控制組在遊戲第一回合保險箱破關數統計量……………………77
表4-1-2  實驗組與控制組在遊戲第一回合保險箱破關數獨立樣本t檢定…………77
表4-1-3  實驗組與控制組在知識圖得分前後測的敘述統計…………………………78
表4-1-4  實驗組與控制組在知識圖得分前後測的單因子共變數分析………………78
表4-1-5  實驗組與控制組在知識圖得分的成對樣本統計量…………………………79
表4-1-6  實驗組與控制組在知識圖得分的成對樣本t檢定…………………………79
表4-1-7  實驗組與控制組在問題解決策略保留問題前後測的敘述統計……………79
表4-1-8  實驗組與控制組在問題解決策略保留問題前後測的單因子共變數分析..80
表4-1-9  實驗組與控制組在問題解決策略遷移問題前後測的敘述統計……………80
表4-1-10 實驗組與控制組在問題解決策略遷移問題前後測的單因子共變數分析…81
表4-1-11 實驗組與控制組在問題解決策略保留問題的成對樣本統計量……………81
表4-1-12 實驗組與控制組在問題解決策略保留問題的成對樣本t檢定……………82
表4-1-13 實驗組與控制組在問題解決策略遷移問題的成對樣本統計量……………82
表4-1-14  實驗組與控制組在問題解決策略遷移問題的成對樣本t檢定……………82
表4-1-15  實驗組與控制組在保險箱破關數前後測的敘述統計………………………83
表4-1-16  實驗組與控制組在保險箱破關數的單因子共變數分析……………………83
表4-1-17  實驗組與控制組在保險箱破關數的成對樣本統計量………………………84
表4-1-18  實驗組與控制組在保險箱破關數的成對樣本t檢定………………………84
表4-2-1  實驗組與控制組認知負荷量表統計量………………………………………85
表4-2-2  實驗組與控制組在認知負荷量表獨立樣本t檢定…………………………86
表4-3-1  自我調整量表與知識圖得分的Pearson相關………………………………87
表4-3-2  自我調整量表與問題解決策略保留問題的Pearson相關…………………87
表4-3-3  自我調整量表與問題解決策略遷移問題的Pearson相關…………………88


  













圖次
圖2-1-1  問題解決模式…………………………………………………………………17
圖2-1-2  加州大學CRESST學習模式………………………………………………… 23
圖2-1-3  問題解決步驟…………………………………………………………………26
圖2-2-1  多媒體學習認知理論模型……………………………………………………41
圖3-2-1   研究架構圖……………………………………………………………………54
圖3-3-1   SafeCracker的一樓平面圖…………………………………………………58
圖3-3-2   SafeCracker地下室平面圖…………………………………………………58
圖3-3-3   第一回合廚房升降櫃保險箱示例圖…………………………………………60
圖3-3-4   第二回合貯存室水壓鎖保險箱示例圖………………………………………60
圖3-3-5   第一回合遊戲間密碼鎖保險箱示例圖………………………………………61
圖3-3-6   第二回合餐廳保險箱示例圖…………………………………………………61
圖3-3-7   第一回合頂樓管線保險箱示例圖……………………………………………62
圖3-3-8   第二回合地下室入口保箱示例圖……………………………………………62
圖3-3-9   廚房保險箱示例步驟的第一步………………………………………………63
圖3-3-10  知識圖範例……………………………………………………………………65
圖3-4-1   研究流程圖……………………………………………………………………68
圖3-4-2   第一回合平面圖………………………………………………………………69
圖3-4-3   第一回合平面圖-1……………………………………………………………70
圖3-4-4   第一回合平面圖-2……………………………………………………………70
圖3-4-2   甘特圖…………………………………………………………………………74

參考文獻
一、中文部分
王甦、汪安聖(2004)。認知心理學。台北：五南。
江天健(譯)(1999)。Inbar, M. & Stoll, C.S. 教學科技與媒體(頁43)。台北。
林菁、李曉媛(2003)。網路教學的媒體呈現方式之研究。教學科技與媒體，65，頁34-58。
李文瑞、高博銓、陳姚真、楊美雪、徐新逸、邱瓊慧等(譯)(2004)。W. R. Foshay, K. H. Silber, & M.Stelnicki 著。教材設計：原理與實務。台北：雙葉。
李文瑞、單文經、朱則剛、吳明德、沈中偉、黃雅琴等 (譯) (1995)。R. Heinich, M. Molenda, & J. D.     Russell著。教學媒體與教學新科技。台北：心理。
李文瑞、趙寧、單文經、田耐青、朱則剛、李世忠等 (譯) (2002)。R. Heinich, M. Molenda, & J. D. Russell,    & S. E. Smaldino著。教學媒體與教學新科技。台北：雙葉。
吳如意(2006)。最受器重的核心職能：問題分析與解決能力。2007年5月4日，取自http://hrd.college.itri.org.tw。
林奕宏、張景媛(2001)。多元智能與問題解決整合型教學模式對國小學生數學學習表現之影響。教育心理學報，第33卷第1期，1-30。
林春山、陳永祝(1994)。新標準英文法下冊。台北：南一。
洪文東(2006)。以創造性問題解決教學活動設計提升學生解決問題能力。科學教育研究與發展季刊，第43期，26-42。
洪榮昭，劉明洲(1999a)。電腦輔助教學之設計原理與應用(增訂一版)。台北：師大書苑。
洪榮昭，劉明洲(1999b)。電腦遊戲策略性思考學習之研究。第八屆國際電腦輔助教學研討會。台中，逢甲大學。
計惠卿、李彩瑩、曾乙嵐、劉怡甫(2006年12月)。客戶服務情境模擬數位教材之研發。論文發展於臺灣教育傳播暨科技學會主辦之「資訊傳播與科技對教育的影響」學術研討會，台北。
張玉山(2006)。創造力導向的網路化問題解決活動設計─ ─國小生活科技課程的實例。生活科技月刊，第39卷第5期，48-64。
張俊彥、翁玉華(2000)。我國高一學生的問題解決能力與其科學過程技能之相關性研究。科學教育學刊，8(1)，35-55。
張春興(1989)。張氏心理學辭典。台北：東華。
張春與(1996)。教育心理學：三化取向的理論與實踐。台北：東華。
許瀞方、陳琮琳(2003)。從認知觀點談「問題解決」─ ─ 及其在醫學教學之應用。台灣醫學人文學刊，第4卷第1-2期，69-83。
陳惠美(2002)。互動式科技在博物館展示教育之應用。載於張霄亭(主編)，教學科技融入領域學習(頁411-426)。台北：學富。
陳俊良(2006)。高職學生學習專業科目之認知負荷問題-以基本電學為例。碩士論文，國立臺灣師範大學。
陳銘偉(2004)。「問題本位學習」教學模式對高職學生之合作學習與批判思考歷程。中原大學教育研究所碩士論文。未出版，中壢。
陳繁興(2004)。問題解決策略在教學的應用。2007年7月14日，取自http://www.hcjh.tn.edu.tw/curator/dlfile/dlfile.asp?id=184。
喻平(2002)。論數學解題教學的現代理論基礎。數學傳播，第26卷第4期，60-68。
曾秋森(1995)。問題解決教學法在科技教育的角色與功能之探討。中學工藝教育，第28卷第8期，17-22。
黃茂在，陳文典(2004)。「問題解決」的能力。科學教育月刊，第273期，21-42。
溫在正(2001)。問題解決歷程之架構分析研究。中原大學工業工程學系碩士論文。未出版，中壢。
遊俠NETSHOW論壇(2006)破箱人攻略。取自http://www.gamyy.com/hk/games/165.htm
電腦遊戲發明人諾蘭布希納爾為首屆中國電子競技大會致詞(2002)。中國網友報。2007年10月10日，取自http://wy.cnii.com.cn/20020714/ca56458.htm
葉玉珠、高源令、修慧蘭、曾慧敏、王珮玲、陳惠萍(2003)。教育心理學。台北：心理。
蔡佳良(2002)。新科技在體育上之應用。載於張霄亭(主編)，教學科技融入領域學習(頁143-161)。台北：學富。
鄭名惠、趙貞怡(2006年12月)。國小自然與生活科技領域電腦遊戲數位教材設計─以「認識星星」單元為例。論文發表於臺灣教育傳播暨科技學會主辦之「資訊傳播與科技對教育的影響」學術研討會，台北。
聯合新聞網數位玩樂誌(2007年，10月13日)。從遊戲了解全球暖化問題《模擬城市：夢之都》融合環保議題。2007年10月18日，取自http://mag.udn.com/mag/it/storypage.jsp?f_ART_ID=87118
鍾樹椂(2002)。落實電腦於特殊兒童學習相關因素之探討。載於張霄亭(主編)，教學科技融入領域學習(頁329-344)。台北：學富。
魏立欣(譯)(2004)。M. D. Roblyer著。教育科技融入教學。台北：高等教育。
羅佳(2006)。問題解決技巧。諮商與輔導，第241期，9。
蘇秀玲，謝秀月(2006)。科學遊戲融入國小自然科學童的問題解決能力之研究。國立臺南大學「理工研究學報」，第40卷第1期，47-68。

二、英文部分
Adams, P. C. (1998). Teaching and learning with SimCity 2000 [Electronic Version]. Journal of Geography, 97(2), 47-55.
Aldrich, C. (2006). 9 Paradoxes of educational simulations. T+D, 60(5), pp.49-52.
Alessie, S. M., & Trollip, S. R. (2001). Multimedia for learning:Methods and development(3rd ed.). Boston:Allyn & Bacon.
Alexander, P. A. (1992). Domain knowledge: Evolving themes and emerging concerns. Educational Psychologist, 27(1), 33-51.
Amory, A. (2001). Building an educational adventure game: Theory, design, and lessons. Journal of Interactive Learning Research, 12(2/3), 249-263.
Amory, A., Naicker, K., Vincent, J., & Adams, C. (1999). The use of computer games as an educational tool: Identification of appropriate game types and game elements. British Journal of Educational Technology, 30(4), 311-321.
Anderson, J. R. (1993). Problem solving and learning. American Psychologist, 48(1), 35-44.
Anderson, P. H. & Lawton, L. (1992). The Relationship between Financial Performance and Other Measures of Learning on a Simulation Exercise. Simulation & Gaming, 23(3), 326-40. 
Atkinson, R. K., Derry, S. J.; Renkl, A., & Wortham, D. (2000). Learning from Examples: Instructional Principles from the Worked Examples Research. Review of Educational Research, 70(2), 181-214.
Atkinson R. K., Mayer R., & Merrill M. (2005). Fostering social agency in multimedia learning: Examining the impact of an animated agent s voice. Contemporary Educational Psychology, 30, 117–139
Baker, E. L. & Mayer, R. E. (1999). Computer-based assessment of problem solving. Computers in Human Behavior, 15, 269-282.
Baker, E. L., & O’Neil, H. F. Jr. (2002). Measuring problem solving in computer environments: Current and future states. Computers in Human Behavior, 18(6), 609-622. 
Bandura, A. (2001). Impact of Guided Exploration and Enactive Exploration on Self-Regulatory mechanisms and Information Acquisition Through Electronic Search. Journal of Applied Psychology, 86 (6), 1129-1141.
Baek, Y. K, & Layne, B. H. (1988). Color, Graphics, and Animation in a Computer-Assisted Learning Tutorial Lesson. Journal of Computer-Based Instruction, 15(4), 131-135.
Betz, J. A. (1995). Computer games: Increase learning in an interactive multidisciplinary environment. Journal of Educational Technology Systems, 24, 195-205.
Bisson, C. & Luckner, J. (1996). Fun in Learning: The Pedagogical Role of Fun in Adventure Education. Journal of Experiential Education, 19(2), 108-12.
Bransford, J. D., Brown, A. L., & Cocking, R. R. (Eds.). (1999). How People Learn : Brain, Mind, Experience, and School. Washington, D. C.: National Academy Press.
Brunning, R. H., Schraw, G. J., & Ronning, R R. (1999). Cognitive psychology and instruction (3rd ed.). Upper Saddle River, NJ: Merrill.
Carlson, R., Chandler, P., & Sweller, J. (2003). Learning and understanding science instructional material. Journal of Educational Psychology, 95(3), 629-640
Carroll, W. M. (1994). Using Worked Examples as an Instructional Support in the Algebra Classroom. Journal of Educational Psychology, 86(3), 360-67.
Chambers, C., Sherlock, T. D., & Kucik, P. (2002). The Army Game Project. Army, 52(6), 59-62.
Chappell, K. K., & Taylor, C. S. (1997). Evidence for the reliability and factorial validity of the computer game attitude scale. Journal of Educational Computing Research, 17(1), 67-77.
Chen H.-H. (2005). A formative evaluation of the training effectiveness of a computer game. Unpublished doctoral dissertation, University of Southern California.
Christopher, E. M. (1999). Simulations and games as subversive activities. Simulation & Gaming, 30(4), 441-455.
Cooper, G., Tindall-Ford, S., Chandler, P., & Sweller, J. (2001). Learning by imagining. Journal of Experimental Psychology: Applied, 7(1), 68-82.
Dansereau, D. F. (1979). Development and Evaluation of a Learning Strategy Training Program. Journal of Educational Psychology, 7(1), 64-73.
Dawes, L., & Dumbleton, T. (2001). Computer games in education. BECT ahttp://www.becta.org.uk/technology/software/curriculum/computergames/docs/report.pdf
Day, E. A., Arthur, W, & Gettman, D. (2001). Knowledge structures and the acquisition of a complex skill. Journal of Applied Psychology, 86(5), 1022-1033.
Deci, E. L., Vallerand, R. J., Pelletier, L. G., & Ryan, R. M. (1991). Motivation and education: The self-determination perspective. Educational Psychologist, 26(3-4), 325-346.
Gagné, E. (1977). Educating delinquents: A review of research. Journal of Special Education, 11(1), 13-27.
Gerjets, P., & Scheiter, K. (2003). Goal Configurations and Processing Strategies as Moderators Between Instructional Design and Cognitive Load: Evidence From Hypertext-Based Instruction. Educational Psychologist, 38(1), 33-41.
Gick, M. L. (1986). Problem-solving strategies. Educational Psychologist, 21(1-2), 99-120
Ginns, P., Chandler, P., & Sweller, J. (2003). When imagining information is effective. Contemporary Educational Psychology, 28(2), 229-51.
Goldstein, J. H., Cajko, L., Oosterbroek, M., Michielsen, M., van Houten, O., & Salverda, F. (1997). Video games and the elderly. Social Behavior & Personality, 25(4), 345-352
Gonzales, C. & Roblyer, M. D. (1996). Rhetoric and Reality--Technology's Role in Restructuring Education. Learning and Leading with Technology, 24(3), 11-15.
Gredler, M. E. (1996). Educational games and simulations: A technology in search of a (research) paradigm. In D. Jonassen (Ed.). Handbook of Research for Educational Communications and Technology (pp521-540). New York: Macmillan.
Hartley, D.E.(2006). Learning can be fun. T+D Magazine, 60(5), pp. 53-55.
Henderson, L., Klemes, J., & Eshet, Y. (2000). Just playing a game? Educational simulation software and cognitive outcomes. Journal of Educational Computing Research, 22(1), 105-129.
Herl, H. E., O’Neil, H. F., Jr., Chung, G., & Schacter, J. (1999) Reliability and validity of a computer-based knowledge mapping system to measure content understanding. Computer in Human Behavior, 15, 315-333.
Hong, E., & O’Neil, H. F. Jr. (2001). Construct validation of a trait self-regulation model. International Journal of Psychology, 36(3), 186-194.
Howard, B. C., McGee, S., Hong, N. S., & Shia, R. (2000, April). The influence of Metacognitive self-regulation on problem-solving in computer-based science inquiry. Paper presented at the annual meeting of the American Educational Research Association, New Orleans, LA.
Hsieh, I. (2001). Types of feedback in a computer-based collaborative problem-solving Group Task. Unpublished doctoral dissertation. University of Southern California.
Jonassen, D. H. (2000). Toward a design theory of problem solving. Educational Technology, 48(4), 63-85.
Kolb, D. A. (1985). Experiential learning : Experience as the source of learning and development. Englewood Cliffs, NJ : Prentice-Hall.
Laff, M. (2007). Serious Gaming: The Trainer’s New Best Friend. T+D, 61(1), 52-57.
Lim, E. L., & Moore, D. W. (2002). Problem solving in geometry: Comparing the effects of non-goal specific instruction and conventional worked examples. Educational Psychology, 22(5), 591-612
Malone, T. W. (1981). Toward a theory of intrinsically motivating instruction. Cognitive Science, 4, 333-369.
Mayer, R. E. (2002). A taxonomy for computer-based assessment of problem-solving. Computer in Human Behavior, 18, 623-632.
Mayer, R. E. (2005). The Cambridge handbook of multimedia learning. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
Mayer, R. E., & Moreno, R. (1998). A split-attention effect in multimedia learning: evidence for dual processing systems in working memory. Journal of Educational Psychology, 90(2), 312-320.
Mayer, R. E., & Moreno, R. (2003). Nine Ways to Reduce Cognitive Load in Multimedia Learning. Educational Psychologist, 38(1), 3-52
Mayer, R. E., Moutone, P., & Prothero, W. (2002). Pictorial aids for learning by doing in a multimedia geology simulation game. Journal of Educational Psychology, 94(1), 171-185.
Mayer, R. E., & Sims, V. K. (1994). For whom is a picture worth a thousand words? Extensions of a dual-coding theory of multimedia learning. Journal of Educational Psychology, 86, 389-401.
Mayer, R. E., & Wittrock, M. C. (1996). Problem-solving transfer. In D. C. Berliner, & Calfee, R.C. (Ed.), Handbook of educational psychology (pp. 47-62). New York, NJ: Macmillian Library Reference USA, Simon & Schuster Macmillan.
Molenda, M., & Sullivan, M. (2003). Issues and trends in instructional technology:Treading
Moreno, R. & Mayer, R. (2005). Role of Guidance, Reflection, and Interactivity in an Agent-Based Multimedia Game. Journal of Educational Psychology, 97(1), 117-28.
Mwangi, W., & Sweller, J. (1998). Learning To Solve Compare Word Problems: The Effect of Example Format and Generating Self-Explanations. Cognition and Instruction, 16(2), 173-99.
Novak, J. D. (1990). Knowledge maps and Vee diagrams: Two metacognitive tools to facilitate meaningful learning. Instructional Science, 19(1), 29-52.
O’Neil, H. F., Jr. (1999). Perspectives on computer-based performance assessment of problem-solving. Computers in Human Behavior, 15, 225-268.
O’Neil, H. F., Jr., & Abedi, J. (1996). Reliability and validity of a state metacognitive inventory: Potential for alternative assessment. Journal of Educational Research, 89, 234-245.
O’Neil, H. F., Jr., & Fisher, J. Y.-C. (2002). A technology to support leader development: Computer games. In Day, V. D., & Zaccaro, S. J. (Eds.), Leadership development for transforming organization. Mahwah, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates. 
O’Neil, H. F., Wainess, R., & Baker, E. L. (2005). Classification of learning outcomes:evidence from the computer games literature. The Curriculum Journ, 16(4), 455-474.
O’Neil, H. F., & Chen, H. –H. (2007). Assessing problem solving in simulation games. Retrieved July 14, 2007 from http://www.cse.ucla.edu/products/overheads/AERA2007/oneil_instructional.ppt.
Paas, F., Renkl, A., & Sweller, J. (2003). Cognitive Load Theory. Educational Psychologist, 38(1), 5-71.
Paas, F., Tuovinen, J. E., & Tabbers, H. (2003). Cognitive Load Measurement as a Means to Advance Cognitive Load Theory. Educational Psychologist, 38(1), 63-71
Paas, F., & Van Merrienboer, J. (1994). Variability of Worked Examples and Transfer of Geometrical Problemsolvings: A Cognitive-Load Approach. Journal of Educational Psychology, 86(1), 122-33.
Petty, R. E., Priester, J. R., & Wegener, D. T. (1994). Handbook of social cognition. Hillsdale, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates.
Phye, G.. D. (1998, April). Components of shelf-regulation during within- and between-domain problem-solving performance. Paper presented at the annual meeting of the American Educational Research Association, San Diego, CA.
Pillay, H. K., Brownlee, J., & Wilss, L. (1999). Cognition and recreational omputer games: implications for educational technology. Journal of Research on Computing in Education, 32, 203-216.
Prensky, M. (2001). Digital game-based learning. New York: McGraw-Hill.
Quinn, C. N. (1996). Designing an instructional game: Reflections on “Quest for independence.” Education and Information Technologies, 1, 251-269.
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), 15-22.
Renkl, A., Atkinson, R. K., Maier, U. H., & Staley, R. (2002). From example study to problem solving: smooth transitions help learning. The Journal of Experimental Education, 70(4), 293-315.
Roblyer,M. D. (2003). InIntegration educational technology into teaching (3rd ed.). New Jersey:Prentice Hall.
Ricci, K. E., Salas, E., & Cannon-Bowers, J. A. (1996). Do computer-based games facilitate knowledge acquisition and retention? Military Psychology, 8, 295-307.
Ridley, D. S., Schutz, P. A., Glanz, R. S., & Weinstein, C. E, (1992). Self-regulated learning: The interactive influence of metacognitive awareness and goal-setting. Journal of Experimental Education, 60(4), 293-306.
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.
Ruben, B. D. (1999). Simulations, Games, and experience-based learning: The quest for a new paradigm for teaching and learning. Simulation & Gaming, 30(4), 498-505.
Ruiz-Primo, M. A., Schultz, S. E., & Shavelson, R. J. (1997). Knowledge map-based assessment in science: Two exploratory studies (CSE Tech. Rep. No. 436). Los Angeles, University if California, Center for Research on Evaluation, Standards, and Student Testing (CRESST).
Saaty, T. L. (2001). Creative thinking, problem solving and decision making. Pittsburgh, PA: RWS Publications, c2001.
Schacter, J., Herl, H. E., Chung, G., Dennis, R. A., O’Neil, H. F., Jr. (1999). Computer-based performance assessments: a solution to the narrow measurement and reporting of problem-solving. Computers in Human Behavior, 13, 403-418.
Schau, C. & Mattern, N. (1997). Use of map techniques in teaching applied statistics courses. American statistician, 51, 171-175.
Schau, C., Mattern, N., Zeilik, M., Teague, K., & Weber, R. (2001). Select-and-fill-in knowledge map scores as a measure of students' connected understanding of science. Educational & Psychological Measurement, 61(1), 136-158. 
Shin, N., Jonassen, D. H., & McGee, S. (2003). Predictors of well-structured and ill-structured problem solving in an astronomy simulation. Journal of Research in Science Teaching, 40(1), 6-33.
Spiro, R. J., Feltovich, P. J., & Coulson, R. L. (1996). Two epistemic world-views: Prefigurative schemas and learning in complex domains. Applied Cognitive Psychology, 10, S51-S61.
Smed, J., & Hakonen, H. (2003). Towards a definition of a computer game. TUCS Technical Report No. 553, Turku Centre for Computer Science. Retrieved October 21, 2007, from http://staff.cs.utu.fi/~jounsmed/papers/TR553.pdf
Smith, P. L., & Ragan, T. J. (2005). Instructional Design. (3rd ed). Hoboken, NJ : Wiley Jossey-Bass Education.
Sweller, J. (1989). Cognitive technology: some procedures for facilitating learning and problem solving in mathematics and science. Journal of Educational Psychology, 81, 457-66.
Sweller, J. (1990). Cognitive Processes and Instruction Procedures. Australian Journal of Education, 34(2), 125-30.
Sweller, J., & Chandler, P. (1994).Why Some Material Is Difficult to Learn. Cognition and Instruction, 12(3), 185-233
Sweller, J., Chandler, P., Tierney, P., & Cooper, M. (1990). Cognitive load as a factor in the structuring of technical material. Journal of Experimental Psychology: General, 119(2), 176-192.
Sweller, J.; Van Merriënboer, J. J. G., & Paas, F. G. W. C. (1998). Cognitive architecture and instructional design. Educational Psychology Review, 10(3), 251-96.
Taylor, H. A., Renshaw, C. E., & Jensen, M. D. (1997). Effects of computer-based role-playing on decision making skills. Journal of Educational Computing Research, 17(2), 147-64.
Theodorou, E. S., & Bonnie, J. F. (2001, April). Can self-regulated learning predict transfer of problem-solving and text structure? Paper presented at the annual meeting of the American Educational Research Association, Seattle, WA.
Thomas, P., & Macredie, R. (1994). Games and the design of human-computer interfaces. Educational Technology, 31, 134-142.
Van Gerven, P. W., Paas, F. G. W. C., Van Merrienboer, J. J. G., & Schmidt, H. G. (2002). Cognitive Load Theory and Aging: Effects of Worked Examples on Training Efficiency Learning and Instruction, 12(1), 87-105.
Wainess, R., & O’Neil, H. F. Jr. (2003, August). Feasibility study: Video game research platform. Manuscript: University of Southern California.
Washbush, J., & Gosen, J. (2001). An exploration of game-derived learning in total enterprise simulations. Simulation & Gaming, 32(3), 281-296.
Ward, M., & Sweller, J. (1990). Structuring effective worked examples. Cognition & Instruction, 7(1), 1-39.
Wellington, W. J., & Faria, A. J. (1996). Team cohesion, player attitude, and performance expectations in simulation. Simulation & Gaming, 27(1), 1-31.
West, D. C., Pomeroy, J. R., Park, J. K., Gerstenberger, E. A., Sandoval, J. (2000). Critical thinking in graduate medical education. Journal of the American Medical Association, 284(9), 1105-1110.
Westbrook, J. I. & Braithwaite, J. (2001). The health care game: An evaluation of heuristic, web-based simulation. Journal of Interactive Learning Research, 12(1), 89-104.
Westrom, M. Shaban, A. (1992). Intrinsic motivation in microcomputer games. Journal of Research on Computing in Education, 24, 433-45
Woolfolk, A. E. (2001). Educational Psychology (8th ed.). Needham Heights, MA: Allyn and Bacon.
Wulf, G., & Shea, C. (2002), Principles derived from the study of simple skills do not generalize to complex skill learning. Psychonomic Bulletin & Review, 9(2), 185-211
Zimmerman, B. J. (1994). Dimensions of academic self-regulation: A conceptual framework for education. In D. H. Schunk, & B. J. Zimmerman (Eds.), Self-regulation of learning and performance (pp. 3-21). Hillsdale, NJ: Erlbaum.
Zimmerman, B. J. (2000). Self-efficacy. An essential motive to learn. Contemporary Educational Psychology, 25(1), 82-91.
Zhu, X., & Simon, H. (1987). Learning mathematics from examples and by doing. Cognition and Instruction, 4, 137-66.