Page locked

This page is currently locked for editing by another user. You have to wait until this user finishes editing or the lock expires.
Currently locked by: 94.74.85.211
Lock expires at: 2024-05-04 19:51 (5 min)
This page is read only. You can view the source, but not change it. Ask your administrator if you think this is wrong.
=== 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. ==




==== > Role of Gaming in PCST: ====
----

Lecture by __Peter Vorderer__\\

**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]]\\
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? ==
  - excitatory homeostasis: optimal level of arousal.
  - intervention potential: level of absorption of the medium.
  - message-behavioral affinity: does it fit my mood?
  - hedonistic valence: is it uplifting or distressing, can it change my mood?

Problems of this approach:
  - entertainment is multifaceted and multidimensional.
  - interactive entertainment is completely different from classical media.

More recent approaches:
  * [[http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Evolutionary_psychology|evolutionary psychology]]: explaining our behavior from evolutionary principles.
  * motivational theories: intrinsic and external motivations.
  * self-determination theory: which states that __people need 3 things__ for enjoyment or even mental health:
    - need for competence: a challenge to overcome at just the right level of difficulty to not get frustrated.
    - need for autonomy: the feeling of personal achievements.
    - 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: ==

Competence:\\
In traditional media you almost always feel competent; you don't switch of the television because it's too challenging.\\
In interactive media the level can change so it delivers excitatory homeostasis.

Autonomy:\\
Users of any media underestimate the interdependence from outside influences. When asked they think media influences others a lot, but not so much themselves.\\
In interactive media, you are not part of a movie-audience, you are scoring points and exploring individually.\\

Relatedness:\\
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.**

== 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**.




==== > 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. ===

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                          |