It is great to see further support for engagement in education environments, as I extolled in ITForum #18.
Marshall has used Czikszentmihalyi's Flow work far more thoroughly; the above paper included other work as a basis from which to attempt a listing of elements of engagement.
While I obviously cannot fault the overall theme of Marshall's discussion, there are points about which to comment....
I believe Malone's distinction between extrinsic and intrinsic motivation is somewhat different than how Marshall refers to it, which would also perhaps address Manas' question in his comments [4 Dec 98.a] on Marshall. I don't think Malone would approve of adding extrinsic factors to add engagement, but would instead add "bells and whistles" that are coherent to the overall fantasy, retaining their motivation as intrinsic. This addresses one of Manas' questions, and indicates how to resolve the issue of whether addition is endogenous or juxtaposition.
Malone's elements of fun (fantasy, challenge, curiosity, and later including control) tie together some other disparate elements Marshall touches upon. As above, the fantasy concept (what I term "thematic coherence") more cogently integrates the creation of convincing worlds. Which suggests why the Jazz Club example is more than a metaphor (if less than fully endogenous, as could be preferable). Also, Malone's curiosity accounts for the unexpected surprises in environmental juxtaposition Marshall is interested in.
Similarly, challenge is a concept that is key in the educational realm, and one of my greatest beliefs is that the natural challenge that engages the intellect is just the one that leads to learning! To address another of Manas' questions, building the increasing complexity of challenge into the various tasks in the thematically linked story is a more pragmatic way of addressing individual progression, but adaptive systems hold promise for the future.
I also query Marshall's interpretation of Flow on the topic of "sense of duration of time" alteration. I believe that's a phenomena experienced by the participant in a flow experience, not an epiphenomena of the design of the environment. While one of the powerful tools provided by the digital environment is that capability, it would not necessarily contribute to the flow experience unless integrated into the experience as a whole.
I would elaborate the concept of immediate feedback to include Draper's "input-output interreferentiality," so that the feedback is tightly coupled both in time and in representation to the actions of the player/learner. This is also a component in the "direct manipulation" approaches.
As a very pedantic note, I feel it's inappropriate to suggest the Myst defined the pattern of interaction it incorporates. While it used aesthetics to complement the pattern of interaction in ways that raised the engagement to a new plane, the interaction is not fundamentally different than that generated in the original Crowther/Woods Colossal Cave adventure.
Manas subsequently [4 Dec 98.b] asks about the relation to gender and engagement. While it is clear that we can create themes that are likely to predispose gender-specific enthusiasms, in general when we have themes that are focus-group tested to match our audience, and sufficiently integrate pedagogical goals.
To conclude on a positive note, Marshall has raised another issue which I have grappled with. I, too, pointed to Czikszentmihalyi's issue of clear goals, but yet we know that many exploratory environments require exploration to discover the overall goal. I do not have a satisfactory answer to this yet, and think it is important that we recognize this as a challenge we must understand to progress in adding engagement to education.