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 10:41] – 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 === | ||
Line 20: | Line 18: | ||
But Vorderer advocates the use of __entertainment research/ | But Vorderer advocates the use of __entertainment research/ | ||
- | === 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: | - excitatory homeostasis: | ||
- intervention potential: level of absorption of the medium. | - intervention potential: level of absorption of the medium. | ||
Line 38: | Line 36: | ||
- need for relatedness: | - need for relatedness: | ||
- | === Relevance of self-determination theory to media and games: | + | == Relevance of self-determination theory to media and games: == |
Competence: | Competence: | ||
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.\\ | 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 62: | 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 98: | Line 97: | ||
^ 5% | awareness / attitude change| behaving well | | ^ 5% | awareness / attitude change| behaving well | | ||
- | === Gaming environments; | + | == 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. | 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 110: | 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 124: | 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 141: | Line 140: | ||
From neurological data gathered on gaming in a MRI-scanner, | 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. | ||
Line 147: | Line 153: | ||
* 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 155: | Line 161: | ||
* monitor voice and language. | * monitor voice and language. | ||
- | === Attributes of the Perfect 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 | ||