=== 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 |