Linda, I think you did a very nice job of synthesizing a lot of the comments made so far. When you talked about fun, I was reminded of an interesting commentary on public radio about fun. The author/speaker was a Russian (I believe) immigrant living in America commenting on the difference between American fun, and European fun. American fun, he argued, was getting behind the wheel of a large car and driving across the country, cranked up on caffeine and amphetamines and shooting at road signs. European fun, he argued, was playing cards with close friends and enjoying good conversations. For those of you who heard it, yes, I am paraphrasing a little bit.
I am with Linda Gilbert: The word fun in education can be odd to use. It does tend to make me think that if someone tells me it is going to be "fun," then it is likely to be trivial. Fun is a word that we fell into in this discussion. It may not a bad one, but it could be defined. I don't think that "fun" education should have to mean rollicking, side splitting, whoop it up kind of stuff. I think that fun can be a sense of accomplishment, relevance, and usefulness. So, I think Linda is right that words like engaging or interesting are better choices.
[quoting Gilbert, 9 Dec 98] 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?
Yes, I would say that sums it up pretty well. Maybe I should use that line in the paper. To me what has been interesting about Flow as a theory to apply to the design of learning environments has been is that its promise to help us identify things that are engaging in learning. Again, not the techniques, but the larger principles. In terms of "categorizing the games in some way," Jack Dempsey, and a group of people at The University of South Alabama have done a fairly extensive meta-analysis of computer games. I used to have the URL for it, but I have lost it since moving to Memphis. I don't know if Jack or somebody else from South Alabama will read this and can provide us with more detail. But surely, this is a valuable and important step.
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.
I would agree. What I have always admired about the ARCS model is its ability to apply to so many areas. I think this is also true of Flow Theory. Again what I have been working on for some time has been how can we build environments that are engaging to users? I think that Flow theory can help inform this question.