[quoting Solomon, 10 Dec 98.a] Learning aided by flow seemed a more efficient process than learning without flow.
It's been said that instruction should be engaging, effective, and efficient. In a flow-type learning experience, instruction is obviously engaging and probably pretty effective, but efficient? In my humble opinion, hours and hours making the same mistakes until you figure out a way around them on your own isn't very efficient.
The interesting part is, players/learners don't seem to mind that it isn't efficient because as Linda Gilbert wrote:
[quoting Gilbert, 9 Dec 98] [Flow] tends to occur when there is a balance between challenge and ability.
Because there is a challenge that people believe they have the ability to overcome, they keep coming back for more. I find the idea of creating flow-type learning experiences interesting, but I wonder how practical it is in the business world? If a manager is faced with having her employees going through some training exercise that takes a couple of hours vs. going through a flow experience that takes hours and hours, I can tell you which one she will choose (to pay for). The challenge is to deliver flow-type learning experiences in smaller (less expensive) chunks. Is this possible or are time restraints (which equate to budget constraints) inimical to flow?