[quoting Quinn, 24 Jan 97.e] 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 been focused more on near transfer than far transfer.
I don't think the ISD'ers (I agree with your characterization) had it right all along either, but they did develop an early, cohesive model that addressed all the elements that you described. Gagne's ninth event of instruction was intended to enhance retention and transfer, and reflection could/should readily be used as the instructional technique to do so. However, there have been criticisms inside the training community that ISD'ers can get easily "bogged down in the details" and produce very dry, mechanical, and often boring training. Montague (whom I'm also a fan of) identified the tendency for "topic-oriented training" and called for a Functional Context Training (FCT) model, which seems consistent with others who call for "situated learning." The Merrill & Gagne concept of enterprises would seem to almost require reflection as a component part of the overall strategy.
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.
I also am interested in learning and see this as an artificial distinction. But, I like to use it in a "self-effacing" kind of way that allows me to (1) "play devil's advocate" from an outsider's point of view and (2) clearly communicate that I'm interested in practical, useful results and not semantics, paradigms, or "pet theories."
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.
I try very hard to be a pragmatist, since quantifiable results "drive or fuel" my business and opportunities. I like games, and try to include them where I can (and the project can afford) but essentially everything that I design incorporates one or more (typically about three, due to budget) relevant, engaging, "real-world" simulations that the student must solve. If the learner enjoys them, all the better. But, that enjoyment is likely attributed to their sense of challenge--not my intent to entertain.
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.
I agree. Tutorials (for lower level knowledge) and simulations (for cognitive skills) are the "workhorses" of my design tool kit.
I'm arguing that the elements that make good game play make effective learning. Maybe we're furiously agreeing.
We are, I think. I start from the perspective of relevance, you from engagement, and the results appear to be the same.
But why is relevance opposed to game elements? I don't think it is.
I don't either, but the perspective that you start the design with CAN dramatically impact the overall effectiveness of the results, especially when time and budget limit the design (as they always seem to do). Where do you focus, in order to obtain the most results (instructional efficiency, not necessarily just effectiveness)? For example, if you design from the "media and entertainment/edutainment" perspective, you'll almost inevitably end up with expensive multimedia elements that MAY or MAY NOT contribute significantly to learning. If you design for ADULTS (where relevance is a primary and seemingly quite consistent motivator) from the perspective of relevance, you'll almost inevitably end up with engaging training that will transfer back to their "real-world" requirements. I, as a practitioner, must make these type of "tradeoff decisions" daily, in determining the "media mix" that a project can afford and yet meet the deadlines, budgets, etc. Examples: "sound over a still picture," "video clip" or a still picture with a word description of the "problem setup, scenario, or case-to-be solved"--all communicate the same basic information to the learner, yet significantly differ in the time/costs to produce them. I'll choose to focus on ensuring that I include a sufficient number of "problems to be solved," then allocate the available media production budget only after I ensure that I include that sufficient number. I think the other thread that developed in this forum discussion helps support that.
I'll choose "steak, over sizzle" every time--it's much more cost-effective, and yields what I think is the greatest "learning-per unit of time spent" either from my design/production side, or the learner's side. If the learner has fun, great! If they learn and can apply it, I've done my job well and will likely get "repeat business" from the client who paid for my efforts--even if the learners didn't necessarily enjoy it. Perspectives are important, and "feeding my family" is a very high priority.
Montague, W.E. (1988). Promoting cognitive processing and learning by designing the learning environment. In D.H. Jonassen (Ed.), Instructional designs for microcomputer courseware (pp. 125-149). Hillsdale, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates.