Differences

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

--- communication_of_science [2007-10-12 10:39] – theunkarelse
+++ communication_of_science [2007-10-12 12:42] – 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.\\
+== 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: ===
 ----
@@ Line 51: / 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.\\
-== 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 budged for research into education in the USA is dominated by exploring the use of avatars as a learning tool**.
@@ Line 60: / 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.**
@@ Line 71: / Line 70: @@
   - 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.\\
@@ Line 142: / 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, but they can also give very meaningful experiences to people.
   * 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:
     * hart rate and other physiological measures.
@@ Line 155: / Line 161: @@
     * 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.
+== 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                          |