First I'd just like to say how interesting Chet's [Hedden, 6 Dec 98] message was: too authoritative to reply to, but I've saved it.
On simpler matters, If I've understood right: Clark [Quinn, 7 Dec 98] thinks games can be good for learning. Twitch games are not; but others that promote cognitive conflict, reflection, and resolution are. Marshall says some stuff on this too; and I agree. But the point I want to debate is this: flow seems a theory of exactly the wrong (twitch) sort of games, and does not describe the educationally valuable kind. If this is right, then flow, games, learning are all separately interesting, but do not go together in the way that Marshall's paper argues.
Is this a reasonable view?