I was intrigued by Clark's perspective on engagement, gaming, and learning task hierarchies. I too feel that knowledge can be constructed in a format that is both engaging and educational, motivating and entertaining, foundational and applicable. To me his following statement spoke volumes:
[quoting Quinn's paper] If we first distinguish between knowledge "how" to do things and knowledge "about" things, we can then characterize the use of cognitive skills as the application of "how" knowledge to use "about" knowledge to solve a problem.
To me Clark's paper is about how students can learn to solve problems by embedding "how" knowledge and "about" knowledge in a motivating environment to apply the "how" and "about" knowledge to solve a problem. In the section on elements he suggests ways to contribute to effective learning environments. An important point he makes is the coupling of feedback with the action taken by the learner. The success of engaged learning lies in this immediate return on effort.
Yes, immediate feedback based upon action does currently exist in the classroom, but let's focus on the instruction and not disciplinary control of the students. Think back to your days as a student. You attempted to ask a question, only to be rebuffed by the instructor. Or your question is dealt with by a terse reply and an attitude of dismay that you would interrupt the lecture or "instructor's flow."
I am not suggesting that a non-human response by a computer or multimedia tool might be more effective or less impersonal, but it does eliminate the potential for public embarrassment which keeps so many of our college students from asking questions. I am suggesting that seeking the correct answer or solution to a problem held within the decision matrix of a multimedia tool may hold the same motivation that a game holds for the participant who will spend hours to attain the last screen and the final battle.
What is engagement and is engagement active, passive, or both? Ian Hart [22 Jan 97] in his response to Clark's paper makes several suggestions that passive forms of entertainment and communications are engaging. He makes a careful point about radio. Radio seems to me like a passive activity (unless asked by the DJ to be the 9th caller to win tickets to a band's concert). I agree that radio can engage the listener, depending on what is being delivered. I remember when I was younger, before I was old enough to date or drive, I would listen to CBS radio at 1:00 in the morning on Friday night. The radio program was the CBS Mystery Theater and I can echo Ian's point that the imagery brought a world of imagination to my mind. How is this active in the sense of the phase "active learning" as the fields encompassing learning define it? When radio asks the listener to picture an event or place, then the listener is engaged. Is that the form of engagement Clark refers to in his paper?
Clark mentions the works of Laurel (1991) and Tognazzini (1993) as a way to illustrating how "action" (presumably of what is being shown by the computer based software) must be coherent theatrically in order to be successful in engaging the learner, another element to engaged learning. Ian takes issue with Clark's characterization of theater and stage magic as "passive" for the learner. I see Ian's point about these forms of entertainment stimulating the mind. I too am stimulated with imagery and imagination from theater and magic (not so much by Opera), but aren't these forms of entertainment passive in the sense that the learner doesn't actively seek the "how" or "about" knowledge?
To me "active learning" is the pursuit of "how" and "about" knowledge to resolve a problem, a conflict, or a situation, and that pursuit must be carried out by the learner to become a fundamental part the persons interaction with their environment. Engagement comes when the learner, who loses a sense of completing a task to obtain a grade, becomes engrossed in the process not realizing they are learning new "how" knowledge to use new "about" knowledge to accomplish their task. Clark outlines elements and models of how to obtain that engagement which is sorely lacking in current multimedia titles as Ian points out.
Ian gives several scenarios of how a particular piece of literature might be played out in text, radio, film, and even CBE. He suggests that the ability to alter the environment, manipulate the story, and change the program parameters somehow denies the contribution of the artist towards the engagement of the viewer/reader. I maintain it may activate the learning of a particular viewer/reader that wasn't engaged by the text, radio, or film version. I won't deny passive education works, it works for some. After all, it is the major model used in education today, and we have many educated people.
I cannot yet answer the question I posed above: "What is engagement and is engagement active, passive, or both?" I agree with Ian, passive activities can be engaging, but I suspect an educated mind is more easily engaged. Active learning is clearly the key to me to obtain some of the educational goals we seek. And Clark provides a guide to follow that will ensure the learner is engaged in the active learning process and not simply following a canned software title.