Differences
This shows you the differences between two versions of the page.
Both sides previous revision Previous revision Next revision | Previous revision | ||
communication_of_science [2007-10-12 09:10] – theunkarelse | communication_of_science [2007-10-12 12:42] (current) – theunkarelse | ||
---|---|---|---|
Line 1: | Line 1: | ||
- | === PCST: Public Communication of Science and Technology === | + | === New Media and PCST: Public Communication of Science and Technology === |
Notes from the __Sharing Knowledge__ conference organized by the __Da Vinchi Institute__ in Amsterdam.\\ | Notes from the __Sharing Knowledge__ conference organized by the __Da Vinchi Institute__ in Amsterdam.\\ | ||
+ | == Some of this may be useful for our research into an ARG for groworld, what attracts people, what problems are associated with informative games, etc. == | ||
- | === Communication of Science and New Media === | ||
- | + | ==== > Role of Gaming in PCST: ==== | |
- | + | ||
- | === > Role of Gaming in PCST: === | + | |
---- | ---- | ||
Lecture by __Peter Vorderer__\\ | Lecture by __Peter Vorderer__\\ | ||
- | What attracts people to games or anything else for that matter?\\ | + | **What attracts people to games or anything else for that matter?**\\ |
The standard way of looking at this is the [[http:// | The standard way of looking at this is the [[http:// | ||
But Vorderer advocates the use of __entertainment research/ | But Vorderer advocates the use of __entertainment research/ | ||
Line 50: | Line 49: | ||
PSI/PSR affective dispositions. This is of mayor importance. The success of a tv-show or game (MMOG) or a film depends very much on the popularity or unpopularity of show-hosts, avatars, movie-stars. Do we feel related, this is crucial to success.\\ | PSI/PSR affective dispositions. This is of mayor importance. The success of a tv-show or game (MMOG) or a film depends very much on the popularity or unpopularity of show-hosts, avatars, movie-stars. Do we feel related, this is crucial to success.\\ | ||
- | == Conclusion: PCST has to target these three needs just like entertainment has to and gaming meets them better than any other media. | + | === Conclusion. === |
+ | **PCST has to target these three needs just like entertainment has to and gaming meets them better than any other media.** | ||
- | Notes: | + | == Notes: |
* **the popularity of destruction**. We like things exploding, falling over, and crashing, especially old and expensive things. Vorderer speculates that this tapps into a deep longing for change and renewal and the liberation from existing structures. The collapsing of the World Trade Center has overtaken the Challenger-explosion as the most broadcast picture of all time. | * **the popularity of destruction**. We like things exploding, falling over, and crashing, especially old and expensive things. Vorderer speculates that this tapps into a deep longing for change and renewal and the liberation from existing structures. The collapsing of the World Trade Center has overtaken the Challenger-explosion as the most broadcast picture of all time. | ||
* **The budged for research into education in the USA is dominated by exploring the use of avatars as a learning tool**. | * **The budged for research into education in the USA is dominated by exploring the use of avatars as a learning tool**. | ||
Line 59: | Line 59: | ||
- | === > Games and Learning. === | + | ==== > Games and Learning. |
---- | ---- | ||
- | Lecture by Ute Ritterfeld. | + | Lecture by Ute Ritterfeld.\\ |
+ | |||
+ | **Games, if kids would only devote this kind of attention to their education.** | ||
+ | |||
+ | == Three ways to improve learning: == | ||
+ | - motivation paradigm: making it more fun, and rewarding good results. | ||
+ | - reenforcement paradigm: combining different ways to deliver the message, text, graphics. | ||
+ | - blending paradigm: (as she calls it) enjoying the process of learning. | ||
+ | |||
+ | == Serious Games, some statistics: == | ||
+ | |||
+ | Ritterfeld looked into serious games in the English language.\\ | ||
+ | In early 2007 they found some 650 of them:\\ | ||
+ | |||
+ | | ^ subject area ^ example | ||
+ | ^ 60% | academic education | ||
+ | ^ 15% | social change | ||
+ | ^ 10% | occupation related training | the Business Game | | ||
+ | ^ 10% | health knowledge | ||
+ | ^ 5% | military training | ||
+ | ^ 1% | consumer behavior | ||
+ | |||
+ | My rough translation of her statistics: | ||
+ | |||
+ | | ^ age group ^ | ||
+ | ^ 40% | elementary school| | ||
+ | ^ 40% | high school | ||
+ | ^ 15% | adult | | ||
+ | ^ 5% | preschool | ||
+ | |||
+ | | ^ educational goal ^ example | ||
+ | ^ 50% | skills | ||
+ | ^ 25% | problem solving | ||
+ | ^ 20% | discovery / exploration | ||
+ | ^ 5% | awareness / attitude change| behaving well | | ||
+ | |||
+ | == Gaming environments; | ||
+ | |||
+ | In working with disadvantaged children in LA she found that it remains extremely difficult to engage children into a topic they are not already interested in, even with gaming-environments. | ||
+ | |||
+ | They did an experiment where they presented the exact same content in 4 different ways: | ||
+ | - interactive game. | ||
+ | - just action replay. | ||
+ | - hypertext. | ||
+ | - text. | ||
+ | |||
+ | (I will develop this further later.) | ||
+ | |||
+ | == Determinants of presence. == | ||
+ | |||
+ | What holds the attention / increases engagement in educational games? | ||
+ | * aesthetics. | ||
+ | * challenge (at the optimal level). | ||
+ | * narrative, the power of which she feels, is only very recently acknowledged. | ||
+ | * personal relevance; | ||
+ | * as a private laboratory for identity development. | ||
+ | * developmental tasks such as dealing with competition, | ||
+ | * mimic past experiences, | ||
+ | * enabling you to go beyond limitations, | ||
+ | * physiological arousal. | ||
+ | * suspense / arousal due to the use of time and time-limits. | ||
+ | |||
+ | == Some Interesting Experiments with Games: == | ||
+ | |||
+ | Virtual Cliff (Blascovich 2006)\\ | ||
+ | Person enters a room then gets a VR-headset which presents a cliff. The rendering is just with simple lines, nothing very intricate, and the person is asked to walk forward. 50% refuse to go there and 40% of those still refuse with a guide. | ||
+ | |||
+ | Virtual Combat 1 (Rizzo et al. 2007)\\ | ||
+ | War veterans are helped to overcome their Post Traumatic Stress Syndrome. | ||
+ | |||
+ | Virtual Combat 2 (Henderlite 2005) | ||
+ | War veterans with and without combat experience are allowed to play for as long as they like. | ||
+ | * without combat experience - 4 hours. | ||
+ | * with combat experience - 9 hours. | ||
+ | |||
+ | |||
+ | Temporary Suspension of Disbelief.\\ | ||
+ | From neurological data gathered on gaming in a MRI-scanner, | ||
+ | |||
+ | |||
+ | == Attributes of the Perfect Educational Game. == | ||
+ | |||
+ | * scaffolding learning environment. | ||
+ | * encourages self regulated learning. | ||
+ | * is a safe and private environment. | ||
+ | * challenges you to go beyond impasses and problems. | ||
+ | |||
+ | |||
+ | === Conclusion.=== | ||
+ | |||
+ | * Games can be shallow entertainment, | ||
+ | * Games are excellent at keeping the attention of individuals. | ||
+ | * deliberate and sustained practice is the most important factor in learning, not just talent. | ||
+ | * future games will respond to the learner state more closely to give the optimal challenge level by monitoring physical behavior: | ||
+ | * hart rate and other physiological measures. | ||
+ | * keyboard speed and correctness. | ||
+ | * monitor facial expression. | ||
+ | * body posture. | ||
+ | * monitor voice and language. | ||
+ | |||
+ | |||
+ | ==== > Transaction approach to Interactive Learning. ==== | ||
+ | |||
+ | Lecture by Jaqueline Broerse.\\ | ||
+ | ---- | ||
+ | **Science communication and public health.** | ||
+ | |||
+ | == Two Models: == | ||
+ | |||
+ | | ^ model ^ methods | ||
+ | ^ old | transmission | top down dissemination of knowledge | public | ||
+ | ^ new | transaction | ||
+ | |||
+ | In the transaction model scientists and general public meet on equal terms and share their knowledge. | ||
+ | |||
+ | This leads to a win /win situation: | ||
+ | - More contextualized science. | ||
+ | - More societal legitimacy of science. | ||
+ | - More implementation of research. | ||
+ | |||
+ | Anticipated problems: | ||
+ | * small impact on policy and science. | ||
+ | * little public interest. | ||
+ | * results are not representative in any general sense. | ||
+ | * expensive. | ||
+ | * how to deal with science-illiteracy among non-scientific participants. | ||
+ | |||
+ | |||
+ | == Design Research for Interactive Learning. == | ||
+ | |||
+ | Broerse has developed processes for interactive learning with various patient groups for eight years.\\ | ||
+ | Working with: | ||
+ | * diabetics. | ||
+ | * people with burns. | ||
+ | * congenital heart defects. | ||
+ | * mentally disabled. | ||
+ | * //and several others// | ||
+ | |||
+ | === Ingredients. === | ||
+ | |||
+ | To achieve a good dialog between physicians and patients: | ||
+ | * mutual respect. | ||
+ | * active involvement throughout the project, there was a mentally disabled person involved from day 1 in all meetings for that project. | ||
+ | * attention for diversity and plurality, many age-groups, and social groups involved. | ||
+ | * integration of different kinds of knowledge, not a debate, because then people still tend to stick to their positions. | ||
+ | * design the process as flexible as possible. | ||
+ | * facilitators are key-persons for keeping things going. | ||
+ | * don't start the dialog to early or the experts will dominate the process. | ||
+ | * Visualization is a powerful tool for communicating between different groups. | ||
+ | === Results learned: === | ||
+ | * Patients are able to set research priorities: | ||
+ | * can prioritize topics (itching as top issue for people with burns) | ||
+ | * have attention for long term value of research. | ||
+ | * can bring new topics to research. | ||
+ | * This process clears up differences in priorities for researchers and patients. | ||
+ | * it remains difficult to address power differences between doctors and patients, but: | ||
+ | * increasing the number of patients helps. | ||
+ | * preparing patients for this helps. | ||
+ | * the facilitator is crucial. | ||
+ | * there are always issues with enthusiasm and mistrust. | ||
+ | * the dialog is seen as very gratifying for all parties. | ||
+ | * the use of peers increases impact of research results (like patient organizations) | ||
+ | * tackling scientific illiteracy by giving lessons, just makes patients more shy to share their part of the story. | ||
+ | * the dialog doesn' | ||
+ | * the medical system is not organized to work well with this new approach: | ||
+ | * scientists have to make a paradigm shift. | ||
+ | * lack of sense of urgency. | ||
+ | * fears of delay. | ||
+ | * financing dominated by scientists themselves. | ||
+ | * patients are not present in panels and boards. | ||
+ | * appraisal procedures are based on scientific data only. | ||
+ | * treating other types of knowledge such as a patients daily experience as equal to scientific knowledge can be felt as a threat to their authority by scientists. | ||
+ | * patients are not ' | ||
+ | ===Conclusion. === | ||
+ | == How do the anticipated results pan-out? == | ||
+ | | ^ anticipated problems | ||
+ | ^ |small impact on policy and science | a large impact due to involving patient groups | | ||
+ | ^ |little public interest | ||
+ | ^ |results are not representative | ||
+ | ^ |expensive | ||
+ | ^ |science-illiteracy problem | ||