[quoting Quinn, 24 Jan 97.e] 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.
It would seem useful to build the model of gaming (simulation, interactive education, consumer-driven learning, or whatever) on measuring the more effective models available in the field. Most aren't measured, but some, at least, are old and have some history. If adult interactive curricular elements were designed like Montessori materials, with clear objectives for each material, consumer driven but instructor guided, they might look like a university library or some comparable university arcade. Whether the materials are Montessori or Algebra Project or Creative Playthings, the structuring of the education of small children, to achieve multimodal stimulation for conceptual, skill, and aptitude development represents a paradigm (with apologies to Reigeluth) worthy of (a) formal evaluation and (b) extension to older consumers.
[Quinn quoting Thomas, 23 Jan 97] 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.
There ought to be very specific performance criteria for games or other designed interactions, reflecting the intentionality of the designer and the expressed intention of the consumer (I want to know such-and-such, or how to such-and-such). Those criteria make for simple measures of "effective learning," and, once understood, they lead to consumer awareness and clearer consumer expectations. Such expectations make the game infinitely more productive, since there are usually several different uses available for most instructional objects.
For example, a game may be played for social skills, cognitive skills, or other skill development, or some combination by different individuals with different goals. This kind of differentiation only highlights how games are analogies of "real life," in which we all operate from several different and ideally converging motivations. The difficulty of games in curriculum is the measurement of satisfaction: whether the learner is satisfied with play, or requires more confirmation. I once had an extended dialogue with ETS about the value of simulations as evaluation exercises which transcend language or mathematics skill barriers and jump to aptitudes which may not be evident in standard SAT measures. They were very intrigued but we dropped it all over the issues of scoring.
But why is relevance opposed to game elements? I don't think it is.
Relevance is, perhaps, too central to game elements. A player who finds the game relevant may invest more energy and affect, while other players, distrusting the interaction, may opt out before "suspending their disbelief" and engaging themselves. The game may not work the same way for everyone (so, also, the book), and in that variation the whole question of curricular materials comes together: games are alternatives, valid for many, to other techniques and materials which a full complement of education and training must make available to address the varied needs of many learners. What ho, that sound pretty bland.