[quoting Klock, 8 Dec 98] The issue that comes to my mind when I read both the paper and reactions is what is it about games that we as educators could borrow?
I would agree with this. I think that we should look to computer games particularly because they are engaging computer-based environments. If we can figure out WHY they are engaging, then maybe we can make educational environments more engaging. Flow Theory seemed to me to be an interesting angle to approach this from because it did seem like a good way to both describe and define engagement. I fully recognize that there are others who have done much work in this area, Malone (who I have not read) and Laurel (who I have) have been mentioned. There are many others, such as Sternberg, Torrance, Jung, and, yes I would argue, Skinner, to name only a handful. But what I like about Flow Theory is its attempt to speak to optimal experiences in general.
When a person plays a game, the environment invites you in, but it is solving the problem that keeps the gamer there. ...In addition, Marshall writes "Reflective cognition is that of comparison and contrast of thought, of decision making. It is the type of cognition that leads to new ideas and novel responses."
This is an excellent point. You may get into the environment initially, but having a reason to stay there (i.e., attend to the problem at hand) is the crucial point. An educational environment I have always like has been The Oregon Trail. I know many don't, but for the moment consider this example: In the environment, you must make the trip along the Oregon Trail in pioneer days America. At the start you lay on provisions, and make decisions about what to take and who to take with you on your journey. At some point, you run out of food. You can then choose to go hunting for food. If you remembered to buy bullets before you started, you can go to a very "arcade" looking area of the program. Buffalo run by, as do deer, and the elusive rabbit. You shoot at them by pointing and clicking. This is without a doubt a twitch activity, and it is represented visually in such a way as to LOOK like a game. The difference is that when you are done hunting, you are told how many pounds of game you killed. The first time most people do this, they get carried away, and when they leave, they find out that they have killed four tons of animals, but can only take 300 pounds with them on their journey. The rest must be left behind. Which means a number of things. They wasted ammunition, which they will need the next time they hunt, and that they were "poor pioneer ecologists." Depending on how a teacher may choose to address this issue in the class, there are a number of things that can be done. The activity is definitely twitch. Comes right from arcades games. But reflection comes after the activity. AND reflection comes DURING the next time they go out to hunt. The problem does keep the learner there, but also the activities themselves can keep people engaged as well.
Furthermore, it is the idea that the game is a whole world and you have to figure out exactly what to do or not do. It's a lot like visiting a foreign country.
To me, this is where Laurel and games intersect pretty well. What we are asking people to do is to suspend their belief systems while they are in this environment. As a researcher in user interface design, I used to try and come up with great metaphors for the interface. Because of my study of games, I no longer think this is the best way to approach the problem. Three dimensional metaphors are hard to represent in a two dimensional world. At some point, you end up having to do things inconsistent to the chosen metaphor. Now I just try to create worlds that make sense. It is more challenging to me as a designer, but a heck of a lot more interesting. I initially found this out in a study of people playing games. In games, people are not concerned that there is no counter part in the physical world top what is going on on the screen, or that the laws of physics are we understand them simply do no apply there. As long as we can create environments that make sense relative to themselves, then learners CAN begin to understand them. Whether or not they choose to is another issue entirely. Which, again, gets to issues of relevance and motivation.
Thanks for the comments Jackie. I think what you have added is extremely interesting, and adds to the discussion of the issues at hand. I also think it swings the conversation back to issues of learning environments in general, and not so much whether games are good or bad.