Differences
This shows you the differences between two versions of the page.
| Both sides previous revisionPrevious revisionNext revision | Previous revision | ||
| communication_of_science [2007-10-12 10:35] – 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.\\ |
| - | If kids would only devote this kind of attention to their education. | + | **Games, if kids would only devote this kind of attention to their education.** |
| == Three ways to improve learning: == | == Three ways to improve learning: == | ||
| Line 70: | Line 70: | ||
| - blending paradigm: (as she calls it) enjoying the process of learning. | - blending paradigm: (as she calls it) enjoying the process of learning. | ||
| - | == Serious Games. == | + | == Serious Games, some statistics: |
| Ritterfeld looked into serious games in the English language.\\ | Ritterfeld looked into serious games in the English language.\\ | ||
| Line 141: | Line 141: | ||
| + | == Attributes of the Perfect Educational Game. == | ||
| - | == Conclusion.== | + | * 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 can be shallow entertainment, | ||
| * Games are excellent at keeping the attention of individuals. | * Games are excellent at keeping the attention of individuals. | ||
| - | * deliberate and sustained practice is the most imporant | + | * deliberate and sustained practice is the most important |
| * future games will respond to the learner state more closely to give the optimal challenge level by monitoring physical behavior: | * 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. | * hart rate and other physiological measures. | ||
| Line 154: | Line 161: | ||
| * monitor voice and language. | * monitor voice and language. | ||
| - | == Attributes of the Perfct Educational Game. == | ||
| - | | + | ==== > Transaction approach to Interactive Learning. ==== |
| - | * encourages self regulated | + | |
| - | * is a safe and private environment. | + | Lecture by Jaqueline Broerse.\\ |
| - | * challenges you to go beyong impasses | + | ---- |
| + | **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 | ||
| + | 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 | ||
| + | |||
| + | === 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 | ||
| + | * it remains difficult | ||
| + | * 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 | ||