[quoting Doherty, 7 Dec 98] Firstly I would like to agree wholeheartedly with Steve Drapers comments on the Jones paper. Definitely "flow is the enemy of reflection" and "computer game playing is still a minority occupation" are good arguments against Jones proposition to incorporate game playing principles into computer based learning environments.
I'd very much disagree. Games don't have to be all of the learning experience. In certain games you might have reflection built in, and I'm not sure it can't be part of a flow experience. Regardless, if kids use well-designed games as practice, the reflection can be external to the games.
Also, why is game playing a minority occupation? Certainly doesn't seem to be among kids! Let's not substitute our old attitudes and approaches for our target audience....
I believe that the majority of computer games are simply about developing a level of skill at doing something... In other words, they undergo small increments of behavioral modification in learning how to beat the game. This being the case, surely Jones is not advocating a return to behaviorism in computer based learning environments? Surely this would be a step back rather than a step forward in the construction of learning environments?
Ahem. Let's discriminate between "twitch" games and other exploratory games. It's been pretty well discussed that non-time-critical, so-called adventure games are ones that can be used to embed cognitive skills. When your educational goal is skill automation, "twitch" games could have a role. When you want cognitive skill development, it doesn't mean you can't embed it in a game, you just need an appropriate game style! This is why, in my previous ITForum paper, I prefaced it with a brief discussion on game types.