Differences

This shows you the differences between two versions of the page.

Link to this comparison view

Both sides previous revisionPrevious revision
Next revision		Previous revision
communication_of_science [2007-10-12 10:43] – theunkarelsecommunication_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 === 
  
  
Line 20: Line 18:
 But Vorderer advocates the use of __entertainment research/theory__: effect-dependent theory of stimulus arrangement. But Vorderer advocates the use of __entertainment research/theory__: effect-dependent theory of stimulus arrangement.
  
-=== How do we select a medium? Do we watch a movie or read a book? ===+== How do we select a medium? Do we watch a movie or read a book? ==
   - excitatory homeostasis: optimal level of arousal.   - excitatory homeostasis: optimal level of arousal.
   - intervention potential: level of absorption of the medium.   - intervention potential: level of absorption of the medium.
Line 38: Line 36:
     - need for relatedness: being part of a group where there are not only rivals but also friends.     - need for relatedness: being part of a group where there are not only rivals but also friends.
  
-=== Relevance of self-determination theory to media and games: ===+== Relevance of self-determination theory to media and games: ==
  
 Competence:\\ Competence:\\
Line 54: Line 52:
 **PCST has to target these three needs just like entertainment has to and gaming meets them better than any other media.** **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 63: Line 61:
 ==== > 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.** **Games, if kids would only devote this kind of attention to their education.**
  
-=== Three ways to improve learning: ===+== Three ways to improve learning: ==
   - motivation paradigm: making it more fun, and rewarding good results.   - motivation paradigm: making it more fun, and rewarding good results.
   - reenforcement paradigm: combining different ways to deliver the message, text, graphics.   - reenforcement paradigm: combining different ways to deliver the message, text, graphics.
   - blending paradigm: (as she calls it) enjoying the process of learning.   - blending paradigm: (as she calls it) enjoying the process of learning.
  
-=== Serious Games, some statistics: ===+== Serious Games, some statistics: ==
  
 Ritterfeld looked into serious games in the English language.\\ Ritterfeld looked into serious games in the English language.\\
Line 99: Line 97:
 ^  5%    | awareness / attitude change| behaving well    | ^  5%    | awareness / attitude change| behaving well    |
  
-=== Gaming environments; some results: ===+== Gaming environments; some results: ==
  
 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. 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.
Line 111: Line 109:
 (I will develop this further later.) (I will develop this further later.)
  
-=== Determinants of presence. ===+== Determinants of presence. ==
  
 What holds the attention / increases engagement in educational games? What holds the attention / increases engagement in educational games?
Line 125: Line 123:
     * suspense / arousal due to the use of time and time-limits.      * suspense / arousal due to the use of time and time-limits. 
  
-=== Some Interesting Experiments with Games: ===+== Some Interesting Experiments with Games: ==
  
 Virtual Cliff (Blascovich 2006)\\ Virtual Cliff (Blascovich 2006)\\
Line 142: Line 140:
 From neurological data gathered on gaming in a MRI-scanner, Ritterfeld speculates that subjects when gaming are constantly engaged in a balancing-act between accepting the fiction as real and sometimes letting it collapse into disbelief. From neurological data gathered on gaming in a MRI-scanner, Ritterfeld speculates that subjects when gaming are constantly engaged in a balancing-act between accepting the fiction as real and sometimes letting it collapse into disbelief.
  
 +
 +== 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.
  
  
Line 148: Line 153:
   * Games can be shallow entertainment, but they can also give very meaningful experiences to people.   * Games can be shallow entertainment, but they can also give very meaningful experiences to people.
   * 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 factor in learning, not just talent.+  * 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:   * 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 156: Line 161:
     * monitor voice and language.     * monitor voice and language.
  
-=== Attributes of the Perfect Educational Game. === 
  
-  * scaffolding learning environment. +==== > Transaction approach to Interactive Learning. ==== 
-  * encourages self regulated learning. + 
-  * is a safe and private environment. +Lecture by Jaqueline Broerse.\\ 
-  * challenges you to go beyong impasses and problems.+---- 
 +**Science communication and public health.** 
 + 
 +== Two Models: == 
 + 
 +|        ^ model        ^ methods                             ^ influences ^  
 +^ old    | transmission | top down dissemination of knowledge | public     | 
 +^ new    | transaction  | consultation / dialog / discussion  | scientists | 
 + 
 +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't continue when the project ends. 
 +  * 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 'naive' anymore but are well informed proto-professionals, which gives them a certain mindset similar to the scientists. The real 'naive' patients that you want, are hard to find. 
 + 
 +===Conclusion. ===
  
 +== How do the anticipated results pan-out? ==
  
 +| ^ anticipated problems              ^ results                                        ^ 
 +^ |small impact on policy and science | a large impact due to involving patient groups |
 +^ |little public interest             | a much closer network with the general public  |
 +^ |results are not representative     | more implementation of research                |
 +^ |expensive                          | same                                           |
 +^ |science-illiteracy problem         | needs good moderation                          |
  
  

User Tools

Page Tools

Site Tools