Thanks, Clark, for providing the stimulus to discuss "engagement," of which gaming can be an effective instructional strategy. However, I do not necessarily agree that instruction must be entertaining in order to be engaging, engrossing, or effective. I, personally, react negatively toward the focus on entertaining or "games." For training or education of adults, I would propose a focus on relevance, rather than engagement or entertainment. I personally think that with adults, engagement almost automatically follows if relevance is first established. As an example, many MBA programs focus their primary instruction around "case studies."
I do agree, however, that we have a "converging model" for instruction of cognitive skills (higher-order rules or problem-solving, ala Robert Gagne). In fact, Gagne and M. David Merrill's most recent collaborations (that I'm aware of--I can't find the citation) even agree on the theoretical construct of "enterprises" and address the issue of making the instruction both relevant and engaging to improve the effectiveness of instruction and its transfer (both near and far transfer). Training has used the basic model that you've noted for quite a while (my 15 years plus, at least). It isn't new. I don't know who to give the specific "credit or cite" to, but I know that Gagne, Briggs, and others at Florida State contributed heavily. Also, I think Robert Mager deserves some credit, at least to bring it "down" to the layman practitioner's perspective. Training, as a field and a practice, has had (or should have, at least) the "luxury" of the relevance being much more obvious than the challenges faced by educators, especially K-12.
Perhaps an elaboration would help. In training, "time is money." Branson (1977) attributes this emphasis on cost-effectiveness to the fact that employees are being paid while they are trained. A major cost factor is the amount of time necessary to learn the required knowledge or skill. The development cost for the training materials and the ongoing presentation costs (instructor salaries, travel costs, temporary living expenses, etc.) are also major cost factors. However, the primary direct expense of ongoing training programs is usually the cost of the students' salaries, regardless of the method or media used for instruction.
Additionally, training in industry is viewed as an "overhead cost" (Branson, 1977), that only indirectly supports the primary mission of the organization. Along with the direct costs discussed above, the learners are not productive in their primary role during the training, adding an indirect cost. The organization actually "pays twice" for the learner's learning experience--their salaries, travel, etc., that are the direct costs, plus the lost productivity during the training period. Consequently, efficiency is very important. Compare this to higher education, where the learners pay to attend (based roughly on the amount of time they will spend in the classroom) and any additional costs (such as texts, living expenses, lab fees, etc.) are passed on directly to the learners. Or, compare training to K-12 public education where the schools are "paid" by the number of learners and the number of days that they have them in class-regardless of how much content is presented or how much learning takes place. There is obviously not the same emphasis on instructional efficiency (i.e., teaching the necessary content to the required proficiency level in the least amount of time) since the organization or institution does not pay these expenses of learner salaries, living expenses, etc., but primarily the development and ongoing presentation costs.
Branson (1977, p. 357) also points out the idea of "consequences of inadequate performance." In industry or the military, the consequences of failing to perform when needed (at the level of proficiency required) can be catastrophic. For example, should a commercial pilot fail to execute the necessary procedures in the context of an emergency, hundreds of people can die and millions of dollars in property be destroyed. Compare this with the consequences of mistakes in an academic environment where embarrassment and a temporary setback in accomplishing some goal are likely the most severe results. While there are definitely frequent and "trivial" mistakes that can and do occur in the military and industry, many tasks have very significant consequences and require a high degree of proficiency. It is exactly these types of training requirements where the military and industry have made the largest investments in instructional technology such as multimedia, simulators, and the like.
Transfer of training to the "real world" MUST occur, while education may not share the same focus (though it should). Following all these points, it stands to reason that training, if it does not transfer, is simply an added expense. If training does not yield improved performance in the workplace, it adds no value (even though it retains both the direct and indirect costs that the organization paid for the individual's training) and it has a direct additional cost--this cost of non-performance or inadequate performance. This cost, as just described, can be catastrophic. Again, the organization is required to "pay double or more" for the cost of training if it does not transfer.
Compare this to education where there is likely no cost to the educational institution if the individual "forgets something" or fails to perform when required. The individual may bear the "costs" as discussed previously, but not the institution. In the military or industry, training must achieve its stated purpose (i.e., it must be valid) and it must be directly transferable to the work environment.
Relevance, alone, is a STRONG motivator for adults. If you've ever seen a pilot practicing emergency conditions leave a flight simulator, literally with knees knocking and wet with sweat, you can attest to the motivational power of relevance and realism. They may have not been entertained, but they certainly were engaged and engrossed, and they learned.
However, I fully agree with your thoughts on interactions, flow, "embeddness," and challenge, regardless of the instructional strategy being used. I think there is significant commonality between an "instructional simulation" and an "instructional game," ala Romiszowski. However, I don't think it is necessarily "prudent" for designers to try significant use of games when teaching adults. Relevance should be the primary focus, for reasons stated above. Or, simply to minimize risk.
The relationship of games to the course content can vary greatly. Most games are not used as a primary presentation strategy, only as a supplement to other strategies. Some gaming strategies simply add a competitive scoring mechanism to typical performances in the course, either when answering questions or practicing procedures. Other games are only indirectly related to the content, and used largely for motivational purposes. Note that if adult students do not see the relevance of the game they will likely not appreciate it, viewing the game as a "waste of time" for both themselves and the organization (Cooper, 1991). Further, games take time for the students to experience and for the designer to develop (Alessi & Trollip, 1991; Cooper, 1991). When looking at games from a cost-effectiveness perspective, games (if used) should be as directly related to the course content as possible, yet still interject challenge, competition, and some fun. Somehow, we need to strike a balance between the positive aspects of games (potential for increased motivation, learning, and recall) and the potential negative aspects (increased development time and increased student training time). This is especially true given Alessi and Trollip's final cautions regarding the use of games:
There is definitely an art to game design, and even if a game is technically well designed, it may not work. We have seen many attempts by our students and professional designers, adhering to accepted design guidelines, to create instructional games. We have seen few that are interesting or motivating.
One implication of this is that you should be cautious when deciding that games are a methodology that you want to embrace. It is easy to spend hundreds of hours preparing a game, only to find that it has no appeal. We recommend testing your game on paper before implementing on the computer, if at all possible. From this you should be able to sense whether it has a chance of success. (Alessi & Trollip, 1991, p. 202)
In summation, relevance is SAFE, games are RISKY. Both work, but relevance seems a consistent predictor of success with adults.
Alessi, S.M., & Trollip, S.R. (1991). Computer-based instruction: Methods and development. Englewood Cliffs NJ: Prentice-Hall.
Branson, R.K. (1977). Military and industrial training. In L.J. Briggs (Ed.), Instructional design: Principles and applications. Englewood Cliffs, NJ: Educational Technology Publications.
Cooper, R. (1991). Adults at play: CBT games can be serious business. Paper presented to CBT Conference & Exposition. San Antonio, TX: Weingarten Publications.
Gagne, R.M., & Briggs, L.J. (1979). Principles of instructional design (2nd ed.). New York: Holt, Rhinehart and Winston.
Gagne, R.M. (1985). The conditions of learning and theory of instruction (4th ed.) New York: Holt, Rhinehart and Winston.
Gagne, R.M., & Glaser, R. (1987). Foundations in learning research. In R.M. Gagne (Ed.), Instructional technology: Foundations (pp. 49-83). Hillsdale, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates.
Mager, R.F. (1982). Troubleshooting the troubleshooting course, or debug d'bugs. Belmont, CA: Pitman Learning.
Mager, R.F. (1984). Preparing instructional objectives (2nd Ed.). Belmont, CA: David S. Lake.
Romiszowski, A.J. (1988). The selection and use of instructional media: For improved classroom teaching and for interactive, individualized instruction (2nd Ed.). New York: Nichols Publishing.