[quoting Doherty, 8 Dec 98] I agree that children are the majority players of computer games, but the amount of players decreases exponentially with age. I can't think of any 65 year old I know who plays computer games!
[quoting Bruce Jones, 8 Dec 98.a] I think here you have to explore the definition of game. I know a large number of persons who are age enhanced that play games on the computer. True, they do not play "adventure" games. They play mind and strategy games; bridge, free cell, and yes even MYST.
Too right! The previous examples of "games" are a little restrictive here. My 70-year-old father is addicted to Hearts on the computer, and my mother plays Freecell.
One of the biggest games of all time (particularly noted for its attractiveness across gender boundaries) was Tetris--which I loved. And one could argue that it enhanced spatial reasoning...if one needed to justify playing it. ;^)
But I can't stand shoot-'em-ups at any price, and liked Myst but just didn't have time for it. My husband plays Hexen, a Doom-like game that some element of problem-solving (finding hidden doors and "treasure"), but he likes the visual world as much as the "official" game.
Marshall, as I understand your goal here, you're basically deconstructing computer games to see what makes them promote "flow," in order to incorporate those elements into educational materials. Sound on target?
I had the privilege of hearing Cszikzentmihalyi (CZ) speak here at UGA, and here are a few things that I came away with that may or may not relate to your ideas:
(1) Flow is a moving target. It tends to occur when there is a balance between challenge and ability. As skill at an activity increases, challenge must also increase, or the person is bored. If an activity is too challenging/difficult, it produces anxiety rather than flow.
(2) Flow is an enjoyable mental state, but the experiences that promote it are not intrinsically good or bad. For example, juvenile delinquents may be in a state of flow when breaking windows or other non-social activities (CZ's example) because the appropriate relationship between challenge and ability is present.
(3) CZ closed his presentation by challenging the educators in the audience (and other thoughtful members of society) to think about developing socially-desirable activities that promoted flow. (Big re-phrasing here--as I said, these are my interpretations of his presentation).
I see no dissonance between flow theory and Keller's ARCS theory--in fact, they seem quite related, particularly the confidence/success aspects of ARCS. Flow is desirable in that people tend to repeat activities that give them a sense of flow--they become intrinsically motivated to do those activities.
Summary of discussion threads, and some comments on them...
(1) Are computer games really engaging? Arguments: they are to some, aren't to others--age, gender, previous computer experience all play a role, as does type of game.
This is not a trivial issue. A "mapping" between the target learning audience and the types of games they enjoy is essential if you plan to incorporate elements from games. (I once showed someone that was learning mouse skills on the computer how to play solitaire, and was told "Are you showing me this because you think it would be a fun way for me to learn? I hate card games. Give me another way to practice." Learning experience for me.)
See earlier comments on types of games. You may want to look at a larger variety, and start categorizing them in some way.
(2) Is flow "fun"? Should learning be "fun"?
I prefer the terms "engaging" or "interesting" to fun. As a learner, I cringe when I'm told that an educational experience is going to be "fun." From past experience, that usually means "trivial and non-challenging, with minimal substance." So, I just don't like the term.
That doesn't mean that humor, playfulness, and creativity should be abandoned--they're great--as long as the challenge level is appropriate and the content meaningful. And I certainly like to participate in and create learning experiences that are enjoyable.
When you're really engaged in something, you're so into the activity that you don't even stop to characterize it as "fun" or not. It just absorbs you. There's a feeling of satisfaction and accomplishment later, but at the time, you don't think of yourself.
In addition, whether learning "should" be fun or not, the fact is that it isn't always. Some of my most memorable life lessons were painfully learned. Now, that doesn't mean that learning ought to be intentionally painful (terrible thought!!), but I think it's counter-productive to create the expectation that "learning is fun." It doesn't help develop the skills to slog through the times when you just have learn something boring in order to do something you want--like practice scales to play music, or memorize verbs to speak a foreign language.
Probably some other big ideas that I've missed, but have spent too much time on this already.