[quoting Draper, 8 Dec 98] On simpler matters, If I've understood right: Clark thinks games can be good for learning. Twitch games are not; but others that promote cognitive conflict, reflection, and resolution are.
Not quite. Twitch games might be good for some types of learning such as motor skill automation, but not for higher level cognition.
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?
I'd argue no. I believe that Myst engenders the flow state, while it's not a twitch game, and requires problem-solving and reflection. While I haven't played Myst deeply, I played earlier graphic adventure games (e.g., Shadowgate), and found hours had passed while I explored, found objects, reasoned which ones would solve which obstacle, and systematically tried alternatives.
In other words, I think you can be in a flow-like problem-solving state. Certainly we see this in programmers, slaving away over code. I wouldn't be surprised, Steve, to see that you recognized this!
This is not to say that I don't support some resemblance to a continuum from aversion to flow, and that pragmatically we may well settle for approaching flow rather than achieving it. Heck, we do tend to have limitations on time and budget, and as it's generally a team effort there're other elements like people management as well. It's just that I think we can improve the outcomes of our educational practice activities if we look to engagement for inspiration in design.
Thus, I'm not so sure that there isn't benefit to Flow. I'd still look to other elements (e.g., Laurel, Malone, Carroll, etc.) to support a rich framework to match between education and engagement, but Marshall's found much I'd support out of just Czikszentmihalyi's work.