[quoting Rieber, 24 Jan 97] First, I think the word "game" is one of those loaded terms into which people quickly pour their biases as soon as they hear it. ... The word game invokes a feeling of childishness which can quickly insult an adult. I, too, would be reasonably suspicious of any instructor who started gushing about "our goal is to have fun and play games."
I couldn't agree more. Beta-testing courseware in a correctional facility many moons ago, we found the testers reacted negatively to the parts of the courseware we titled games. We changed the title to "Practice Activities" (did nothing else) and lo and behold, the practice activities were looked upon favorably!
My graduate training in instructional technology was rooted in disavowing any artistic elements in the design process (aka "the proper study of IT"). I've long been annoyed by that because I know that the very best instruction is also among the most creative and innovative. Despite our best efforts to the contrary, we clearly do not understand the instructional design process very well, at least when carried out at its very best.
I'll stick my neck out here and say (in my humble opinion) ISD is not just a fill-in-the-blank, it's also an art. The best ISD "covers the bases" (objectives, etc.) in a creative and engaging way. Yet this aspect is overlooked both in the education of ISD professionals and in the construction of design teams. My questions to the group: How does one acquire these creative skills (if possible)? Should design teams have "creative consultants," as TV shows, etc., do?