Differences

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

Link to this comparison view

Both sides previous revision Previous revision
Next revision
Previous revision
communication_of_science [2007-10-12 09:07] 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 === 
  
-=== 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://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Uses_and_Gratifications_Theory|uses and gratification theory]]\\ The standard way of looking at this is the [[http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Uses_and_Gratifications_Theory|uses and gratification theory]]\\
 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.
Line 47: 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.\\
  
-== ConclusionPCST 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 56: Line 59:
  
  
-=== Games and Learning. ===+==== > Games and Learning. ==== 
 +---- 
 +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          | Reading Blaster   | 
 +^ 15%    | social change               | Darfur is Dying   | 
 +^ 10%    | occupation related training | the Business Game | 
 +^ 10%    | health knowledge            | Remission         | 
 +^  5%    | military training           | Americas Army     | 
 +^  1%    | consumer behavior           | The Arcade Wire   | 
 + 
 +My rough translation of her statistics: 
 + 
 +|        ^ age group        ^ 
 +^ 40%    | elementary school| 
 +^ 40%    | high school      | 
 +^ 15%    | adult            | 
 +^  5%    | preschool        | 
 + 
 +|        ^ educational goal           ^ example          ^ 
 +^ 50%    | skills                     | maths / reading 
 +^ 25%    | problem solving            | saving seals game| 
 +^ 20%    | discovery / exploration    | history          | 
 +^  5%    | awareness / attitude change| behaving well    | 
 + 
 +== 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. 
 + 
 +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, fear, joy, losing, winning. 
 +    * mimic past experiences, for instance to deal with traumatic experiences. 
 +    * enabling you to go beyond limitations, like a boy with muscular dystrophy who claims walking around a game environment are his happiest moments. 
 +    * 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, 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. 
 + 
 + 
 +=== 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 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                             ^ 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. ===
  
-Lecture by Ute Ritterfeld.+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                          |
  
  
  • communication_of_science.1192180078.txt.gz
  • Last modified: 2007-10-12 09:07
  • by theunkarelse