skip to main content
article

Think science!: entertainment education in interactive theaters

Published:01 January 2004Publication History
Skip Abstract Section

Abstract

In February 2003, the JASON Foundation for Education supported an interactive show, the Immersion Institutes Exploration: Sea Lions, intended to enhance children’s understanding of science; it played at three different theaters throughout the US. The production, provided by Immersion Studios Inc., involved about 2000 students, mostly from ages 9 to 14. During the two-week event, a random sample of students and their teachers participated in an assessment of the show, including aspects of usability, entertainment experience, and impact on learning. About a month later, a follow-up was undertaken to complete the evaluation.

Results demonstrate that the show was highly appreciated by both the participating students and teachers: The usability aspect of the show was satisfying; the technology was found to be suitable for all age groups involved, and the entertainment experience was clearly intense. Students reported a high learning impact; this opinion was reinforced by the teachers. The follow-up results, however, did not provide proof of long-lasting recall of facts embedded in the show. But it did provide some surprising evidence that students gained detailed knowledge about show-related facts, raising the question whether such a show can be used to make students become more interested in a topic.

References

  1. ANDERSON, D. R. AND BURNS, J. 1991. Paying attention to television. In Responding to the Screen: Reception and Reaction Processes J. Bryant and D. Zillmann, eds. Lawrence Erlbaum Associates, Hillsdale, NJ, 3- 25.Google ScholarGoogle Scholar
  2. BANDURA, A. 2004. Social cognitive theory for personal and social change by enabling media. In Entertainment-Education Worldwide: History, Research, and Practice. A.S. SINGHAL et al., eds. Lawrence Erlbaum Associates. Mahwah, NJ (2004).Google ScholarGoogle Scholar
  3. BIOCCA, F. 2002. The evolution of interactive media. In Narrative Impact. Social and Cognitive Foundations. M. C. Green et al., eds. Lawrence Erlbaum Associates, Mahwah, NJ, 97-130.Google ScholarGoogle Scholar
  4. BIOCCA, F. 2003. The evolution of interactive media: Towards being there in nonlinear narrative worlds. In Narrative Impact: Social and Cognitive Foundations. M. C. Green et al., eds. Lawrence Erlbaum Associates, Hillsdale, NJ, 97-130.Google ScholarGoogle Scholar
  5. BLANTON, W. E., GREEN, M.W., AND COLE, M. 1999. Computer mediation for learning and play. J. Adolescent and Adult Literacy 43, 3 (1999), 272-278.Google ScholarGoogle Scholar
  6. BRANDON, D. P. AND HOLLINGSHEAD, A. B. 1999. Collaborative learning and computer-supported groups. Commun. Education 48, 2 (1999), 109-126.Google ScholarGoogle ScholarCross RefCross Ref
  7. BREIMAN, L., FRIEDMAN, J. H., OLSHEN, R. AND STONE, C. J. 1984. Classification and Regression Trees. Wadsworth International, Belmont, CA.Google ScholarGoogle Scholar
  8. CRAVOTTA, N. 2003. Debunking the distance learning myth. EDN 48, 1 (2003), 161-166.Google ScholarGoogle Scholar
  9. FREDERICKSEN, E. 1999. Playing through: Increasing literacy through interaction. J. Adolescent and Adult Literacy 43, 2 (1999), 116-124.Google ScholarGoogle Scholar
  10. GAY, G. AND LENTINI, M. 1995. Use of collaborative resources in a networked collaborative design environment. J. Comput. Mediated Commun. 1, 12 (1995). http://www.ascusc.org/jcmc/vol1/issue12/gay.html.Google ScholarGoogle Scholar
  11. GREEN, M. C. AND BROCK, T. C. 2003. In the mind's eye: Transportation-imagery model of narrative persuasion. In Narrative Impact: Social and Cognitive Foundations. M. C. Green et al., eds. Lawrence Erlbaum Associates, Hillsdale, NJ, 315-342.Google ScholarGoogle Scholar
  12. GUZLEY, R. M., AVANZINO, S., AND BOR, A. 2001. Simulated computer-mediated/video-interactive distance learning: A test of motivation, interaction satisfaction, delivery, learning & perceived effectiveness. J. Comput. Mediated Commun. 6, 3 (2001). http://www.ascusc.org/jcmc/vol6/issue3/guzley.html.Google ScholarGoogle Scholar
  13. HARRIS, R. J. 1989. A Cognitive Psychology of Mass Communication. Lawrence Erlbaum Associates, Hillsdale, NJ.Google ScholarGoogle Scholar
  14. KINCAID, D. L. 2002. Drama, emotion, and cultural convergence. Commun. Theory 12, 2 (2002), 136-152.Google ScholarGoogle ScholarCross RefCross Ref
  15. KLIMMT, C. AND VORDERER, P. 2003. Media psychology "is not yet there": Introducing theories on media entertainment to the presence debate. Presence: Teleoperators and Virtual Environments 12, 4 (2003), 346- 359. Google ScholarGoogle ScholarDigital LibraryDigital Library
  16. LAROSE, R., GREGG, J., AND EASTIN, M. 1998. Audiographic telecourses for the Web: An experiment. J. Comput. Mediated Commun. 4, 2 (1998). http://www.ascusc.org/jcmc/vol4/issue2/larose.html.Google ScholarGoogle Scholar
  17. MALONE, T. W. 1981. Toward a theory of intrinsically motivating instruction. Cognitive Sci., 4 (1981), 333- 369.Google ScholarGoogle Scholar
  18. MAYER, R. E. AND SIMS, V. K. 1994. For whom is a picture worth a thousand words? Extensions of a dual-coding theory of multimedia learning. J. Edu. Psychology 86, 3 (1994), 389-401.Google ScholarGoogle ScholarCross RefCross Ref
  19. OATLEY, K. 2003. Emotions and the story worlds of fiction. In Narrative Impact: Social and Cognitive Foundations. M. C. Green et al., eds. Lawrence Erlbaum Associates, Hillsdale, NJ, 39-70.Google ScholarGoogle Scholar
  20. PAPA, M. J., AUWAL, M. A., AND SINGHAL, A. 1995. Dialectic of control and emancipation in organizing for social change: A multitheoretic study of the Grameen Bank in Bangladesh. Commun. Theory 5 (1995), 189- 223.Google ScholarGoogle ScholarCross RefCross Ref
  21. PAPA, M. J., AUWAL, M. A., AND SINGHAL, A. 1997. Organizing for social change within conservative control systems: Member identification, empowerment, and the masking of discipline. Commun. Monographs 64 (1997), 219-250.Google ScholarGoogle ScholarCross RefCross Ref
  22. PAPA, M. J., SINGHAL, A., LAW, S., PANT, S., SOOD, S., ROGERS, E. M., AND SHEFNER-ROGERS, C. L. 2000. Entertainment-education and social change: An analysis of parasocial interaction, social learning, collective efficacy, and paradoxical communication. J. Commun. 50, 4 (2000), 31-55.Google ScholarGoogle ScholarCross RefCross Ref
  23. PETTY, R. E. AND CACIOPPO, J. T. 1986. Communication and Persuasion: Central and Peripheral Routes to Attitude Change. Springer Verlag, New York.Google ScholarGoogle Scholar
  24. PILLAY, H. 2002. An investigation of cognitive processes engaged in by recreational computer game players: Implications for skills of the future. J. Res. Technol. Education 34, 3 (2002), 336-350.Google ScholarGoogle ScholarCross RefCross Ref
  25. POLICHAK, J. W. AND GERRIG, R. J. 2003. Get up and win: Participatory responses to narrative. In Narrative Impact: Social and Cognitive Foundations. M. C. Green et al., eds. Lawrence Erlbaum Associates, Hillsdale, NJ, 71-96.Google ScholarGoogle Scholar
  26. PONTE, P. 2002. How teachers become action researchers and how teacher educators become their facilitators. Educational Action Res. 10 (2002), 399-422.Google ScholarGoogle ScholarCross RefCross Ref
  27. ROGOFF, B. 1990. Apprenticeship in Thinking: Cognitive Development in Social Context. Oxford University Press, New York.Google ScholarGoogle Scholar
  28. SCHANK R. C. AND BERMAN, T. R. 2003. The pervasive role of stories in knowledge and action. In Narrative Impact: Social and Cognitive Foundations. M. C. Green et al., eds. Lawrence Erlbaum Associates, Hillsdale, NJ, 287-314.Google ScholarGoogle Scholar
  29. SINGHAL, A.S., CODY, M. J., ROGERS, E. M. AND SABIDO, M. 2004. Entertainment Education Worldwide: History, Research, and Practice. Lawrence Erlbaum Associates, Mahwah, NJ (2004).Google ScholarGoogle Scholar
  30. SINGHAL, A. AND ROGERS, E. M. 1999. Entertainment-Education: A Communication Strategy for Social Change. Erlbaum Associates, Mahwah, NJ.Google ScholarGoogle Scholar
  31. SINGHAL, A. AND ROGERS, E. M. 2002 A theoretical agenda for entertainment-education. Commun. Theory 12, 2 (2002), 117-135.Google ScholarGoogle Scholar
  32. SLATER, M. D. 2002. Entertainment Education and the persuasive impact of narratives. In Narrative Impact. Social and Cognitive Foundations. M. C. Green et al., eds. Lawrence Erlbaum Associates, Mahwah, NJ, 157-182.Google ScholarGoogle Scholar
  33. URIBE, D., KLEINE, J. D., AND SULLIVAN, H. 2003. The effect of computer-mediated collaborative learning on solving ill-defined problems. Educational Technol. Res. Dev. 53, 1 (2003).Google ScholarGoogle Scholar
  34. VYGOTSKY, L. S. 1997. Educational Psychology. St. Lucie Press, Boca Raton, FL (originally published in 1926).Google ScholarGoogle Scholar

Index Terms

  1. Think science!: entertainment education in interactive theaters
      Index terms have been assigned to the content through auto-classification.

      Recommendations

      Comments

      Login options

      Check if you have access through your login credentials or your institution to get full access on this article.

      Sign in

      Full Access

      • Published in

        cover image Computers in Entertainment
        Computers in Entertainment   Volume 2, Issue 1
        Theoretical and Practical Computer Applications in Entertainment
        January 2004
        182 pages
        EISSN:1544-3574
        DOI:10.1145/973801
        Issue’s Table of Contents

        Copyright © 2004 ACM

        Publisher

        Association for Computing Machinery

        New York, NY, United States

        Publication History

        • Published: 1 January 2004

        Permissions

        Request permissions about this article.

        Request Permissions

        Check for updates

        Qualifiers

        • article

      PDF Format

      View or Download as a PDF file.

      PDF

      eReader

      View online with eReader.

      eReader

      HTML Format

      View this article in HTML Format .

      View HTML Format