Thanks to everyone for the discussion around fun flow and learning, beginning with Marshall and ending (for me) with Howard Solomon [10 Dec 98.a]. I feel I understand the issues better; and am considering writing them up (I'll announce it if I actually do). Briefly however, what I think I got out of the last part of the discussion was:
(1) Howard's conclusion that flow and learning are completely independent (can have either one with or without the other), yet learning with flow is better (more efficient) than without.
(2) To perceive something as fun (which I think is very close to flow, but I won't get into the caveats here), it must be intrinsically motivating. But it is a bit trickier than that: the intrinsic reward must be enough to outweigh the person's (the learner's) current main goal. So small jokes that would be very welcome while watching TV can be perceived as irritating in class for a serious learner. This I think explains why Linda Gilbert (and many of the rest of us) often don't like to be told that learning will be fun: we fear irrelevance. It also explains why a colleague of mine, famous for his jokes in lectures, is much more appreciated for this in the first year than in the fourth year: it is probably not that the students' sense of humor has changed, but their seriousness and methods for learning have developed.
However there is another trap/issue for teachers too: as I said in an earlier message, what to the teacher may be just bells and whistles could be deeply appreciated if it is in fact serving a learning purpose: I think that is what vivid demonstrations and "anecdotes" or stories that in fact show how the concepts apply in real life are doing. To a teacher with a sound grasp of the concepts, they may seem like decoration and hence "fun" only as a distractor, but in reality they may be a crucial part of the teaching.