[quoting Draper, 8 Dec 98] 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 don't think so, and really, if I did, why would I have written the paper?
But seriously, Flow isn't a theory about games. It is a theory about developing and/or participating in "optimal experiences." It has been applied to many disciplines, learning included. I don't know if I can convince you that it is relevant to learning beyond "twitch" activities. And that's cool. My paper is one attempt to define optimal experiences during learning, specifically computer-based learning environments. During the paper I said: "One would need efficient, seemingly effortless skills related to one's ability level (experiential cognition) and the ability to assimilate and accommodate new information (reflective cognition) in order to do most activities well enough to reach a state of flow." I believe that reflection is possible during flow and that reflection does not need to be a passive activity.