A model for 3D remediation – in colors
… because the seeming dichotomy between augmentation and immersion approaches to remediation in 3D virtual worlds like SL isn’t real and the world isn’t black and white ;-)
As mentioned in my previous post we had a great discussion on augmentation vs. immersion in the MIL course in relation to our 2. Didactic Design Discussion. Even though I personally do not consider the two approaches to be mutually exclusive (as it would seem in this post), I do think the discussion is worth having, since it highlights some difference there can be in different users’ perception of and engagement in 3D virtual worlds. Remediation is a core concept in my PhD, and last year one of the students, Carsten Storgaard created this model to show the relations between augmentation-immersion and respectful-radical remediation, including different types of activities and places:
While I do find the basics of the model quite useful, I do not necessarily agree with Storgaard´s suggestions to activities and places in the four quadrants, but it has inspired me to create a new model where I’ve made some changes and added more foci points from my PhD.
First of all, I decided to flip augmentation and immersion, so that augmentation now is placed in the left side of the model and immersion in the right side in an attempt to relate to the two brain hemispheres each representing different qualities and approaches to the world. Secondly, I decided to make the borders between the quadrants permeable thinking they can influence each other and that it will only be in rare cases that one would find “pure” examples – at least in my educational context. Finally, I added three other foci points from my PhD – my analytical units; people, places and practices.
For now I’ve decided to leave out examples of people, places and practices, because I need to analyze my data thoroughly and further develop the theoretical foundation for the model. In regard to the remediation concept I’m highly inspired by the work of Professor Tringham of UC Berkeley, and as it happens I just received a scholarship to go work with her for four months in the spring 2010. In the original remediation concept Bolter & Grusin (2000) made a distinction between immediacy and hypermediacy as ways of describing different remediation strategies. Interestingly, Professor Tringham and colleagues decided to place respectful and radical remediation in relation to hypermediacy only. I’m not sure I agree with that decision and this is just one of many reasons as to why I’m really looking forward to my Berkeley stay – I’m quite sure I’ll learn a lot and that we’ll have some highly inspirational discussions :-)