I think the whole topic of emotion and enjoyment in learning is important, but I find it difficult to deal with. Perhaps the slow start to responses to Clark is because many other ITForum participants feel that too. So thank you Clark for ensuring that ITForum maintains the necessary breadth by facing the tricky topics as well as the more obvious ones. I'll try to make time soon to address the deeper issues, (including the one Ian Hart [22 Jan 97] raises with an anti-multimedia sensory drowning approach). But here, just a quick remark bordering on the cheap:
If games and enjoyment are the key to learning, why did Clark not express his ideas in this form, but write an essay? Some different possible answers:
(1) Deep down he don't believe it, and when he wants to address his peers he drops this games rubbish and tries with straightforward expository argument.
(2) He does believe it, but it's expensive to write, so although mass market learners deserve the best, ITForum is only a small audience so we can't afford a proper convincing and instructive game; and the fact we don't all immediately agree with him just proves his point that only games really change minds and cause learning.
(3) Actually by the end of the paper it almost sounded as if games meant a repetitive activity, and would be good for skill training and perhaps repeated drills like math problem solving, but would never be the medium for conveying new concepts. In that case, while games will only ever be a minority part of teaching and learning, it was appropriate for Clark to use. If we were however convinced by his non-fun non-games exposition, he would then write us a game to train us in how to author educationally effective games, which is a skill.
Which of these do you pick, Clark?