Which of the following is not listed as one of the possible uses of positive psychology?

Introduction

Mihaly Csikszentmihalyi introduced flow theory in the 1970s based on research examining people who did activities for pleasure, even when they were not rewarded with money or fame. He considered artists, writers, athletes, chess masters, and surgeons – individuals who were involved in activities they preferred. He was surprised to discover that enjoyment did not result from relaxing or living without stress, but during these intense activities, in which their attention was fully absorbed. He called this state flow, because during his research, people illustrated their intense experiences using the metaphor of being carried by a current like a river flows.

Participants were motivated by the quality of the experience they had while they were engaged in the activity. The flow experience came when the activity was difficult and involved risk. It usually stretched the person's capacity and provided a challenge to his/her skills.

The concept of flow became the key element for the theory of optimal experience, since it provided the best user experience. Flow refers to a state of mind which brings together cognitive, physiological and affective aspects. Flow experience corresponds to an optimal psychophysical state: participants said it is like being in the zone, being on the ball, being in the groove. Flow also inspires peak performances so some use expressions such as ‘everything clicks’ and ‘experiencing a magic moment’.

Csikszentmihalyi reported that flow occurred more often during work than free time. It was easier to achieve the flow state in activities such as performing music, dance and writing since they had rules and required the learning of skills. In these activities people were deeply involved and motivated because they were participating in an enjoyable experience. While almost any active involvement can potentially lead to flow, activities which are passive, such as watching television, do not normally lead to flow. However in 2007 Steven Pritzker proposed that audience flow can occur if a television show is relevant to the viewers' life.

Flow is an interdisciplinary field of research, addressed by psychologists working in the fields of positive psychology, cognitive psychology, arts, sports, science, sociologists and by anthropologists interested in altered states of consciousness, spiritual experiences, and rituals in different cultures.

Looking Back, Looking Ahead

An examination of students’ educational experience from the perspective of flow theory is informative to both researchers and educators in that it helps us understand the personal and situational factors that promote students’ deep engagement in learning. There is enormous potential for students to experience flow in schools, but this potential is often thwarted because some key conditions for flow are largely missing from many of today's classrooms. While students generally experience two of the main conditions in that they are using their skills to address increased levels of challenges in the classroom, they often fail to experience flow. This may be because school environments generally offer few opportunities for choice. Moreover, the goals and feedback in classrooms may be focused on a target that is less immediate than the goals that are usually salient in flow experiences. Finally, classrooms may need to be structured in a way that helps students focus their attention on the tasks at hand.

Most encouraging is the fact that flow is consistently observed in a number of unique school contexts. Students often feel flow in their nonacademic classes, most of which provide a number of flow conditions like choice, autonomy, and focus that are typically absent in academic subjects. Likewise, students tend to experience flow when engaged in hands-on learning tasks. Additionally, a number of nontraditional schools and school programs are very successful in facilitating flow among their students – this appears to be attributable to greater focus on many of the conditions that produce flow. Teachers interested in increasing their students’ engagement in classrooms may learn a lot by examining the structure of nonacademic classes, as well as the nontraditional programs mentioned here, to take some cues about how to create more of the conditions for flow in students’ everyday experience.

Looking to the future of research on flow in education, there is still much work to be done. First, more research needs to be done linking the experience of flow in academic pursuits with a variety of learning outcomes, as the few studies that have addressed this issue have produced mixed results. Future research must further examine the nature of links between the experience of flow and specific learning outcomes. Additionally, more research is needed to understand the link between flow in a given subject area, and long-term commitment to that field.

Second, relatively little work has been done to examine the role of flow in learning environments beyond the classroom. One emerging application of flow theory in education concerns the use of computers and video games. Children and adolescents frequently experience flow when engaged in video and computer games [Bassi and Delle Fave, 2004]. In recent years, researchers and educators alike have attempted to use the appeal of videogames to construct interactive computer technology for learning. A growing body of evidence suggests not only that these e-learning environments can be intensely engaging, but also that such engagement is linked to a variety of positive learning outcomes [Coller and Shernoff, 2006; Pearce, 2005; see Scoresby and Shelton, 2007 for a review]. An examination of the e-learning experience from the perspective of flow theory will assist in the understanding and design of these increasingly used educational tools. Likewise, researchers should continue to examine the role of flow as it relates to learning in other extracurricular environments.

Third, the vast majority of research on flow in education has involved children and adolescents. While the experience of flow appears to be consistent across age groups, it is possible that certain conditions for flow, similar to challenge or autonomy, might be differentially salient to learners of different ages. Thus, examining a broader age range of learners, including adults, would be informative. In general, research on flow in schools should take into consideration the developmental stage of the students under investigation.

Finally, we must not forget that teachers play a key role in educational processes – an examination of teachers from the perspective of flow theory would be informative as well. Dissertation work by Di Bianca, in 2000, suggests that when teachers report the most flow, students generally report the least. In other words, those moments that are most engaging to teachers are least engaging to students. Further research is needed to corroborate and explain these findings.

The flow model and related research provides a solid base of knowledge regarding how students might become more engaged in their learning and how they feel when they are so engaged. This knowledge base is of practical use to educators interested in increasing student engagement. There is, however, much work remaining to be done in this field in order to more fully understand the complexities of flow's role in educational processes.

Introduction

There has been a lot of research since when Mihaly Csikszentmihalyi introduced flow theory in the 1970s. Flow theory was developed with the aim of understanding how people feel when they most enjoyed themselves, and why. Csikszentmihalyi came upon the concept of flow as a result of researching the question “What is enjoyment?” He studied people who did activities for pleasure even when they were not rewarded with money or fame. He considered artists, writers, athletes, chess masters and surgeons,—people who were involved in activities they preferred. It was surprising to discover that enjoyment did not result from relaxing or living without stress, but during these intense activities, in which their attention was fully absorbed. This state was called by Csikszentmihalyi flow, because during the research, people illustrated their intense experiences using the metaphor of being carried by a current like a river flows. Participants were motivated by the quality of the experience they had while they were engaged in the activity. The flow experience came when the activity was difficult and involved risk. It usually stretched the person's capacity and provided a challenge to his/her skills.

The concept of flow became the key element for the theory of optimal experience since it provided the best user experience. Flow refers to a state of mind which brings together cognitive, physiological and affective aspects. Flow experience corresponds to an optimal psychophysical state: participants said it is like being in the zone, being on the ball, being in the groove. Flow also inspires peak performances so some use expressions such as “everything clicks” [Jackson and Csikszentmihalyi, 1999; Martin and Jackson, 2008] and “experiencing a magic moment” [Kossak, 2009, p. 16].

Csikszentmihalyi reported that flow occurred more often during work than free time. It was easier to achieve the flow state in activities such as performing music, dance and writing since they had rules and required the learning of skills. In these activities people were deeply involved and motivated because they were participating in an enjoyable experience. While almost any active involvement can potentially lead to flow, activities which are passive, such as watching television, do not normally lead to flow. However, Pritzker [2007] proposed that audience flow can occur if a television show is relevant to the viewers' life. Flow is an interdisciplinary field of research, addressed by psychologists working in the fields of positive psychology, cognitive psychology, arts, sports, science, sociologists and by anthropologists interested in altered states of consciousness, spiritual experiences and rituals in different cultures.

Player Ricardo—A Competitor

Ricardo appears to be a competitor who came from behind to iteratively build a viable mental model and expertise, especially within the Surface Features module. Timed Report metrics, dashboards, and gameplay scores clearly document his persistence and improvement. Player logs suggest that Ricardo consulted the dashboard to build Selene expertise. He submitted 112 Flowometer reports. His subjective perceptions of experience during periods of learning did not categorize as flow. There is some evidence Ricardo experienced flow when he felt at the top of his game, controlling the game parameters. Patterns of high volume in player dashboard gestures during gameplay suggest Ricardo was building models of Selene expertise in applying Accretion and, especially, Surface Features concepts [see Table 11.1 and Appendix]. Interleaving his learning trajectories, dashboard gestures, and Flowometer reports for Surface Features suggests Ricardo might have experienced eustress while using the dashboard to define and build expertise.

Table 11.1. Ricardo’s replays and dashboard gestures by module, postgame, and round

The following figures document the story of his achievement and affective response:

Figures 11.14 and 11.15 illustrate his goal achievement within the Accretion module.

Figure 11.16 plots all his affective responses using the nine-channel format from flow theory.

Figure 11.17 provides a nine-channel format for comparison player Juana.

Figures 11.18–11.22 contain his Selene dashboards at critical incidents and the final dashboard for comparison player Juana.

Figure 11.23 displays the Selene leaderboard at the time Ricardo earned first place.

Figures 11.24 and 11.25 display a comparison between Ricardo’s Surface Features module achievement and goal states at the one-second unit.

2.12.3.7 Simulated Rotation

The rotation problem has been investigated using displays that simulate the retinal flow corresponding to a pursuit rotation, while the eye is actually stationary [see Figure 2[c]]; any extraretinal signal thus indicates zero rotation. Initially, Warren W. H. and Hannon D. J. [1988; 1990] reported heading thresholds better than 1.5° during both simulated and real eye rotation [for rotation rates