[quoting Thomas, 23 Jan 97] 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.
Well, I'm not limiting myself to adults. And while I agree with relevance, I don't think that's in opposition to engagement. See the Computer Auditing example.
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 ... 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... 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.
Well, I agree that the ISD approach (how I characterize the influences you are citing above) is similarly converging on this model, but I don't think they've had it right all along. I believe they have neglected some of the reflection aspects and have been focused more on near transfer than far transfer. I suppose I should emphasize that I'm more interested in "education" than "training," but I hate artificial distinctions and try to talk about learning.
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.
Kent brings up some very important aspects of the pragmatics of development, ones that I would not disagree with. If you've got to get specific workplace skills performed, and you can develop training for them, fine. However, in designing the elements that add to the effectiveness, I'm arguing you're adding to the engagement.
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.
Yes, I have flown a helicopter simulator (one of the ones with cockpit of a real helicopter one the end of a boom), and was thoroughly knackered at the end of it. (Don't EVER believe a movie where someone with no experience hops in a flies a helicopter.) The boundaries between a simulation and a game are not clear-cut, and only the player can tell you which it is. In fact, context can determine it, not the application itself. But look at the elements that are in such a simulation and compare them to my list. Thematically coherent, tight coupling between action and feedback, high challenge, large and meaningful choice of action.
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.
I'm arguing that the elements that make good game play make effective learning. Maybe we're furiously agreeing.
Some gaming strategies simply add a competitive scoring mechanism to typical performances in the course, either when answering questions or practicing procedures.
I have not talked at all about adding scores to games. That's the "extrinsic" motivation Malone denigrates in comparison to "intrinsic" motivation. The feedback should be relevant to the action, enabling further progress in the game. Not tacked on.
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).
I have seen two programs on workplace safety that were gamelike, engaging, and I would argue effective. However, I have a broad definition of game. They were vastly different. One was like an arcade game, where you moved around the floors of a building and had to lift loads, you had to choose how to do it (with an aid, free lift, etc.). The other was more like an adventure game where you went to locations, chose tools, went to a work location, and tried to perform a task. Both were relevant, engaging, and were likely to be effective. I believe it was because they had the elements I have postulated.
In summation, relevannce is SAFE, games are RISKY. Both work, but relevance seems a consistent predictor of success with adults.
But why is relevance opposed to game elements? I don't think it is.