Flow - A Theory of Optimal Experience: History and Critical Evaluation, by Walter John Carl III
Give your thoughts.
The article begins by posing the question, "Have you even been involved in an activity where you felt alert, in effortless control, unselfconscious, performing at your best? A sense of time and emotional problems seem to disappear, and maybe there is a feeling of transcendence, or oneness with the activity?" Several examples immediately came to mind. First, when I knew I was great job teaching. Second, when I knew I was doing great programming. And third, when I was doing great hiking. What a strange mix, huh? Teaching, programming, and hiking?
The interest in flow is intrinsic motivation. Why do different individuals perceive different activities to be so deeply satisfying? As with my "strange mix" mentioned above, research shows that "intrinsic rewards could be built into any activity, including work".
"The result of this (Csikszentmihalyi & Larson 1987) study showed that almost any activity in daily life can produce a flow like experience. Also, it showed that activities like studying and schoolwork were conducive to flow the same as typical leisure activities were. It was also shown that television viewing was the activity that produced the greatest amount of apathy in an individual." I enjoy going to school (though I don't particularly enjoy schoolwork) but I get very little enjoyment from television. In fact, we haven't had a television in our home for three years.
So why do so many people (seem to) enjoy TV? The article doesn't really address why some things create a flow experience for some people but not for others. (Beyond being too challenging or too boring.)
The author said "To remain in flow, one must increase the complexity of the activity by developing new skills to meet new challenges." I am not convinced this is the case. Likewise, "(Edward Deci) noticed that when people were given money for activities they enjoyed, they lost interest in those things faster than if they were not rewarded." Oh really? Let's test that theory. Pay me to hike. Please.
What are the features of some games that lend them to inducing flow?
I am not really qualified to answer this question since, as I have stated before, I am not really a game player. But I'll take a stab at it. Consider the model shown on page 11, with Skills on the x-axis, Challenges on the y-axis, and Flow along the diagonal.
I like the model: it is simple, "parsimonious". But if I were to attempt to apply the model, I would say that people tend to gravitate towards those games which, for them, fall along the diagonal. Still, there are flaws in the model (as with most models) when applied to games. For example, I'm sure there are games which are not very challenging, and for which I have no skills, but I would doubtless find boring. Likewise, I'm sure there are games which are quite challenging, and for which I might have the requisite skills, but I would also find boring. Example: I am a pretty good chess player, but I find chess boring.
So I guess what I am saying is that I don't think some games are "better" than others at "inducing flow". I think people are just drawn to the games which "flow" for them.
Can you recall a situation in which you experienced flow? Now try to think of another in an educational setting.
As I mentioned in the first paragraph of this reflection, I have had flow experiences when I have been teaching, programming, and hiking. As for flow experiences in an educational setting, I have them when I leave a classroom feeling as though I have learned something, especially something that is relevent to me.
Do you think flow is antithetical to traditional learning?
Not if we follow the model presented by the author. The challenge to educators is to move learners towards the middle -- towards the flow diagonal -- to add challenges when they are bored, and to remove challenges (or provide hints, thereby lessening the challenge or guiding them to the solution) when they are anxious.
No comments:
Post a Comment