Improving process of teaching students by means of methods and

Transcription

EduAkcja. Magazyn edukacji elektronicznej
nr 1 (5)/2013, str. 32—42
New technologies in the process of educating about
the archaeological heritage
Roksana Chowaniec
Uniwersytet Warszawski
[email protected]
Streszczenie: Multimedia with their continuously growing popularity and huge technological advances assist
archaeology and archaeologists in this scope, providing ever new possibilities for popularizing the archaeological
heritage. Despite reservations on the part of most archaeologists and museum workers accustomed to more traditional forms of presenting their discoveries and interpretations of the results of their work to non-professionals,
modern multimedia techniques have progressively forced their way into archaeology in the form of computer animations, holograms, 3D-5D models, augmented reality, interactive webpages, QR codes and mobile applications,
shockingly fast replacing traditional methods of communication and education, also in the archaeological heritage
education
Słowa kluczowe: archaeological heritage, QR code, augmented reality, virtual archaeology
1. Introduction
People have always been interested in the Past. Before archaeology started being considered as
a science, the knowledge of the Past came from written sources, oral tradition, even beliefs,
legends and superstitions (cf. Bahn, 1996; Schnapp, 1996). Ways of passing on this knowledge
evolved as well, beginning with collecting and displaying items at home and in the public
marketplaces of ancient Greece and Rome, via royal, papal and wealthy family collections and
the first exhibitions with museum curators to guide people around and also by the museum
lessons and self-study worksheets up to the application in the educational process of multimedia
forms using collections of antiquities (Chowaniec, 2010).
The desire to uncover the Past is not solely the domain of archaeologists and historians
(Layton, 1989; Torowska, 2008)—it is universal, and the Past is close to many people. “We are
interested in the past, because we are interested in our roots, or because we are interested in
the way the world around us has been shaped, or because we are intrigued by the ‘otherness’ of
different people who lived at different times” (Husbands, 1996, p. 1). Archaeology stirs a genuine
admiration among laymen, who usually link it to fabulous journeys and brilliant discoveries.
On the one hand, this view discredits a discipline that is involved in, after all, laborious archival
queries, field surveys and excavations, studying artifacts. On the other hand, the huge interest
among non-professionals opens the way to popularizing the topic like no other. Archaeology is
like a giant jigsaw puzzle, attempting to put together a picture of life of our ancestors, a reconstruction of diverse aspects of everyday life in the past, which is of great interest to most people
and which archaeologists supply through their research.
Multimedia with their continuously growing popularity and huge technological advances assist
archaeology and archaeologists in this scope, providing ever new possibilities for popularizing
the archaeological heritage (Economou, 2003; Parry, 2010; Williams, 2010). Despite reservations
on the part of most archaeologists and museum workers accustomed to more traditional forms of
presenting their discoveries and interpretations of the results of their work to non-professionals,
modern multimedia techniques have progressively forced their way into archaeology in the form
Roksana Chowaniec, New technologies in the process of educating about the archaeological...
of computer animations, holograms, 3D-5D models, augmented reality, interactive webpages,
QR codes and mobile applications, astonishingly fast replacing traditional methods of communication and education, also in the archaeological heritage education (cf. White, Liarokapis, Darcy,
Mourkoussis, Petridis & Lister, 2003; Johnston, 2009; Wheeler, 2011; Ciejka, 2012).
Methods of popularizing knowledge have progressed from static to hyper dynamic and
almost ‘cosmic’ ones. Computer technologies have started to diversify traditional museum exhibitions too. Museums have introduced touch screens, holograms, virtual collections of artifacts
(hands-on displays), e.g., Musée d’archéologie et d’histoire de Montréal in Canada, Museum
of London in Great Britain, Museo Archeologico Virtuale, Herculano in Italy, Allard Pierson
Museum, Amsterdam in Holland, The Getty Museum, Los Angeles in US, and many others.
Children and young people, as well as already adults, are disposed well to multiple stimuli: mobile
and interactive television, computer and mobile games, QRpedia, technologies behind the five
dimensions (cf. Siemieniecki, 1997; Batorowska, 2001; Radomski & Karauda, 2005; Suchoński,
2007). The old way of looking at archaeological objects presented in showcases, behind glass
without being able to touch, has become boring, as have long texts to be read on fading exhibition plates. The expectations of the general public were met first with Power Point presentations
shown on suspended screens, then with regular films and the first 3D models to explain to
non-professionals, for example, how a dome could have been constructed or a tapestry woven
on a vertical loom. The interest was huge and, hopefully—I say this as an archaeologist—people
found it easier to absorb and internalize knowledge about the Past (Barceló, 2000; Barceló, Forte
& Sanders, 2000).
2. The few examples of virtual animation used in the process of educating about the archaeological heritage.
In latest decades, the dissemination of cultural heritage through Information and Communication Technologies (ICT) has assumed great importance, involving different expertise and
enhancing “preservation and scholarship, providing tools for large collections to be preserved,
catalogued and searched effectively” (European Commission, 2007). Moreover, high-quality
digital representations of cultural relics that can be accessed and investigated worldwide have
been produced. This kind of cultural heritage dissemination has been focused on the involvement
of young generation, offering “Edutainment,” the effect of the combination of “education” with
“entertainment” (Chowaniec, 2010; Pantano & Tavernise, 2011; Bertacchini, Gabriele, Tavernise
2011; Chowaniec & Tavernise, 2012). Additionally, since many empirical studies confirm that
young people tend to devote a lot of time to personal computers playing with software games
and virtual worlds, advanced virtual environments have been invented and realized in order to
constitute the principal way by which children and adolescents become acquainted with cultural
heritage contents.
Different types of multimedia have been prepared for many archaeological sites owing to their
attractiveness, interactivity and assistance in communicating knowledge of archaeological heritage
(Guidi et al., 2005). This way of promoting archaeological heritage is rather new in European
archaeological museums and first of all in archaeological open air museums. Most visitors to the
archaeological sites in Europe have experienced the frustration of looking at ancient ruins lacking
any signs, explanations or illustrations, as well as the imagination how they looked in the past.
Often there is nothing but a heap of stones in place of the fabulous Greek temples and Roman villas
ornately described in guidebooks or the museum exhibition advertised on the internet pages is
no longer up-to-date. The modern technology allows visitors to download to their mobile phones
(practically everybody has a mobile phone nowadays) descriptions, 3D pictures and photographs
designed to support in visiting an archaeological site, as well as augmented reality applications.
EduAkcja. Magazyn edukacji elektronicznej, nr 1 (5)/2013 , str. 33
In the case of protected or preserved archaeological sites downloading is accomplished through
special transmitters/marks/points, located on site. For archaeological sites at the peripheries of
modern human settlement or in secluded areas solutions can be modeled by the Italian project
‘Agamemnon’ (The ‘Agamemnon’–Pictures from the past: a wireless network of magic digital
cameras and palmtops for archaeological travels through the time, was carried out within the
6th Framework Program; Pian, Traverso & Villa 2004; Ancona et al., 2006). ‘Agamemnon’ was
prepared and tested in Paestum (southern Italy) and Mycenae (Greece). Visitors first choose
a language, then a login and a password. Their mobiles are identified at the moment they reach
a site. The advantage of mobile phone applications is that they do not impose the knowledge and
the directions of sightseeing, and that they facilitate a tour of the site without forcing sightseeing.
Users can also express interest in an artifact not available in the system and the program will
‘respond’ by updating its database (Pian et al., 2004).
But these mobile applications can also be used in the cities or around the memorial places. The
perfect examples are the projects of the Museum of London, England, so called ‘StreetMuseum’ (see
http://www.museumoflondon.org.uk/Resources/app/you-are-here-app/home.html) or ‘Chopin’ in
Fryderyk Chopin Museum in Żelazowa Wola (see http://chopin.museum/pl/events/news/id/439).
The only weakness of mobile phone applications are technical requirements—one needs
to have a newer phone model. For example the Verulamium Museum, in Great Britain has
successfully implemented this form of visiting the site, giving visitors the opportunity to look at
artifacts in the museum glass-cases even as they walk around the ruins of the Roman town. The
program includes not only color photos and descriptions of archaeological artifacts, but also
plans, photographs and reconstructions of the ancient town. The additional items are interactive
archaeological games.
Virtual sightseeing and mobile phone applications undoubtedly broaden the educational
offer in terms of the archaeological heritage, but it is important to make sure that the computer
image is not oversimplified or even distorted due to misunderstanding by its authors or deficient
cooperation with relevant scholars. Authors of computer visualizations require all available data,
such as appropriate photographs, technical drawings, sketches, the objects themselves, bibliography. Differences are apparent in the very expectations. There are three factors to consider:
the documentation materials mentioned above, the equipment with its technical capacity, and
the costs which are excessive for most scientists and museum workers. Archaeologists are often
unaware of what computer designers actually need in order to create moving pictures that will
satisfy equally customers meaning viewers, clients meaning archaeologists and themselves as
the authors. Hence the need for sound cooperation between specialists on both sides in order to
avoid serving banal entertainment or encyclopedic information instead of interactive education
about the archaeological heritage.
3. Biskupin case study
The ‘Biskupin without secrets. Interactive guide to ancient fortified settlements’, created within
the framework of the NETConnect Connecting European Culture through New Technology
project, which was part of the Culture 2000 program, is also the proper example of the application of computer technologies for the purpose of education and popularization in archaeology
(Chowaniec, 2011; Chowaniec & Tavernise, 2012).
The DVD is prepared in two languages (Polish and English), and furnished with a choice
of captions and voiceover for the hearing- and sight-impaired. It is designed for the pupils of
primary and junior high schools. It contains two ways of a visit to the fortified settlement in
Biskupin, one, so called educational—a 35 minute presentation, which could be shown during
a school lesson, and another one – an interactive personal tour around the famous Polish
archaeological site (Fig. 1).
Figure 1. ‘Virtual’ Biskupin, interface of interactive presentation.
The story begins around 600 BC when a Greek merchant named Ksander from ancient Greek
colony Locri, in south Italy—the user impersonates in him—recalls his journey around 650
BC, through terra incognita to the southern costs of Baltic Sea to collect the amber, ‘gold of the
North’; and by accident visits Biskupin. A young girl named Ina, who lives there (Fig. 2) shows
him the settlement. Thanks to such a combination the user is able to compare two cultures:
Greek and Lusatian. The program combines animations, 3D models of archaeological artifacts
and remains, experimental archaeology films, archival material from the excavations in the
Lusatian settlement at Biskupin and pictures of the current status of the archaeological site, the
texts of the video, and additional contents1.
Figure 2. Ina, main figure of animation, who virtually guides users through fortified settlement in Biskupin
It is very important to underline that all materials were created on the grounds of data from excavations in Biskupin (drawing and photographic documentation, registers of artifacts, maps) and information from scientific
publications. It gives the users the most accurate information, and the knowledge is created not only by computer.
1
The interactive version allows visiting the settlement in a very informal way and the user is
also allowed to choose to operate any active element of the presentation (Fig. 3).
Figure 3. The examples of visualized interiors of the Lusation culture houses in Biskupin
At the beginning, when you choose the language, the DVD offers a short introduction about
the history of excavation and the structure of this prehistoric settlement, which is a composition of movies and pictures. Later, the user can be transferred into the interior of a site and visit
the virtual worlds from a list of 22 points of interest, present in the menu on the left side of the
screen, among them being the breakwaters; the defense rampart; the entrance-gate with platform-bridge; the circular and cross streets; the square; the house construction and the classic
house; as well as the points of interest which could bring one closer to the prehistoric activities
and craftsmen: the houses of weaver, potter, amber maker, bronze maker and jeweller, basket
and rope maker, birch tar maker and wood distiller, salter, horn and bone maker (Fig. 4), fishing,
hunting, preparing the food, animal husbandry and farming.
Figure 4. PrtSc of a multimedia presentation about experimental archaeology.
This choice causes the opening of a multimedia section on the selected topic, and a direct
connection with the chosen point of the settlements—clicking on ‘Back’ (Chowaniec, 2012).
Moreover, the user can also choose to explore the settlement as it is in real life, walking along the
streets, using a map present on the right side of the screen, or following big arrows showing the
location of the points of interest. Since the exploration of the environment follows an approach
which is very similar to videogames, the user can use the mouse or keyboard as well as a joystick
to move around (Pantano & Tavernise, 2011).
From the technical point of view care was taken to ensure a choice of resolution, so that
the DVD can be played also on lower-class computers with weaker graphic cards. It is also
possible to select particular applications freely from each user level. The same project provided
the framework for a test guide allowing free walking around the site, viewing 3D reconstructions on mobile phones (Fig. 5).
Figure 5. A mobile phone guide. An example from Biskupin
4. Conclusion
Computer technology has proved useful in popularizing the archaeological heritage for
a number of reasons2. First, it provides a clear and easily absorbed way of explaining complicated creative processes (Fig. 6) and research methods used by scholars (among others, transformation of human settlements and changes of the natural environment).
Students (all together 264 persons) of various faculties (e.g., sociology, pedagogy, philology, psychology, Mediterranean civilizations, archaeology) at the University of Warsaw, participating in an e-learning course on ‘Traditional and interactive museums’, between 2010-2013, were asked about the significance of computer animations,
3D models, holograms, QR codes etc. for popularizing archaeological heritage or more broadly speaking, cultural
heritage. They mentioned many advantages, while being practically unable to point out any weak sides of this form
of education. Their attitude is hardly surprising considering that they belong to the so-called ‘internet’ or ‘google’
generation, unable to imagine learning using only traditional methods like static photos and printed text.
2
Figure 6. A virtual animation which explains the olive oil extrusion process
Secondly, they help to visualize archaeological interpretations (e.g., different ways of decorating ancient statuary, fortification-building techniques) (Fig. 7).
Figure 7. An archaeological interpretation of earth banks in Giecz
They can also help to demonstrate the link between artifacts and their original archaeological context, present architectural reconstructions as well as reconstructions of lost or damaged
artifacts, show the evolution of artifacts over the ages and illustrate forgotten or disappearing
crafts and technologies (Fig. 8).
Figure 8. The processes of flint extraction in the mine of Krzemionki Opatowskie
They can also encourage learning before or after visiting an archaeological site or museum.
Finally, their use can make school lessons in history, art or knowledge about society more interesting, as well as diversifying classes for students of archaeology, history and art history, and
supporting and enhancing self-education.
Moreover, they can be of use for the disabled people, replacing real visits to museums or
specific exhibitions or encouraging such visits (Fig. 9). Of considerable importance is the possibility of combining computer animation with audio-description, which is a technique, dedicated
to the blind or visually impaired people, providing a verbal description of visual art3.
Figure 9. The examples of different archaeological sites in several parts of the world
A visitor to a museum or a reader of a textbook does not have the opportunity to get to know
either the site, the landscape or the climate in which artifacts were discovered. New technologies fulfill this deficiency, providing the opportunity of revising, modifying and updating these
reconstructions in the wake of new archaeological discoveries and studies. Archaeologists and
museum workers find this invaluable. Computer techniques in education about the archaeological heritage are even more useful due to their mass distribution and accessibility at all hours of
the day and night, availability in an unlimited number of language versions and easy spreading
on television, tablets, laptops, and other mobile media. As a result, archaeological knowledge
reaches an ever growing public without imposing any given method of education, because users
choose their own education methods and time.
The virtual reality creates the proper environment for virtual museums with virtual artifacts,
operating only over the Internet without having to think about sufficient storage and exhibition space. Much more can be seen in this way than in a traditional museum. Intercultural
exchange is easier because three-dimensional artifacts need no insurance, security and professional moving to be exhibited in a museum on the other hemisphere.
Audio-description is increasingly more widespread, having been adopted also for the needs of theater and cinema,
as well as museums, galleries, webpages and e-learning.
3
The most important feature of virtual reconstructions is, however, their interactive character4,
connected with participation, involvement and communication. Confucius (551-479) was the
first to say: “Tell me and I will forget, show me and I will remember. Involve me and I will understand.” People learn more quickly and effectively, if given the opportunity to participate actively
in the education process through looking, modifying, shaping, touching. Interactive science
engages all the senses for the purpose of increasing knowledge of the past. One example of this is
given by archaeological puzzles to be arranged on screen. Potsherds will not tell a student much
about the shape of a vessel, its decoration and even more so, its function. But if a user is allowed
to reconstruct the vessel from fragments (similarly to the way it is done in computer games of
the point and click type) and additionally use a quiz to decipher the vessel’s uses, the vessel will
be remembered much better than if the student had read the caption under a drawing or on
a museum label (Chowaniec, 2012)5.
Three-dimensional reality is also cheaper than building full-scale reconstructions in archaeological open-air museums, not to mention frequent national and European funding for virtual
exhibitions of all kinds. The public is equally interested in this aspect, being able to “use” visualizations of artifacts and archaeological sites repeatedly or to make their own “virtual souvenirs”.
For example, visitors to the Science Center ‘Kopernik’ in Warsaw are able to write their name
in hieroglyphs and send it to a personal e-mail address, and guests to the Smithsonian Natural
History in Washington could participate in an activity called ‘MEanderthal’, and after scanning
the barcode with a mobile, could transform their own face into the face of an early human, and
later share it on numerous social media.
Personally I endorse learning through the virtual reality, but I am fully aware of the shortcomings and pitfalls of the method. Virtual reconstructions and artifacts will not replace personal
contact with the cultural heritage and the boundary between the real and virtual worlds is
easily blurred leading to misrepresentation. It’s enough to quote Umberto Eco on the creation
of hyper-real museums and replacing real things with an ideal phantom: “This is the reason for
this journey into hyperreality, in search of instances where the American imagination demands
the real thing and, to attain it, must fabricate the absolute fake; where the boundaries between
game and illusion are blurred, the art museum is contaminated by the freak show, and falsehood
is enjoyed in a situation of ‘fullness’ of horror vacui” (Eco, 1990, p. 8). The visitor always needs
to be made aware of what is real and what a substitute for the real thing is. Ideal virtual reconstructions may give rise to false expectations regarding the artifacts compared to their actual
condition and lead to disappointment due to their being too ideal and too new. After all, the
archaeological artifacts are often damaged or destroyed, while archaeological sites preserved
fragmentarily and hence unattractive. The restraint is therefore advocated in this, as in many
other matters.
In fact, virtual worlds incorporate information about the culture of the historical period
and provide an advanced learning opportunity through different paths of fruition (Pantano &
Tavernise, 2009). The technology-enhanced exploration gives a great chance to carry on unique
and personalized experiences through the placement of activities and tasks that can support
learners’ own interests (de Freitas & Neumann 2009; Naccarato, Pantano & Tavernise, 2011).
Latin interactus and English interactivity literally means: mutual action and refers to the capacity for mutual impact of the parties communicating with one another. In information, television, electronic devices it refers to the
capacity of receiving information with the simultaneous capacity of reacting to them, if desired.
4
Please visit as well the following webpages: ‘Mysteries of Çatalhöyük’ (http://www.smm.org/catal/), ‘Archeokids’
(http://www.archeodzieciaki.pl/), ‘Archaeology for Kids’ (http://archaeology.mrdonn.org/).
5
5. Bibliography
1. Ancona, M., Cappello, M., Casamassima, M., Cazzola, W., Conte, D., Pittore, M., Quercini, G., Villa, M. (2006). Mobile
Vision and Cultural Heritage: the AGAMEMNON Project. In B. Schiele, L. Paletta & L. V. Gool (Eds.), Proceedings of
the First International Workshop on Mobile Vision, ECCV 2006 (pp. 3–17).
2. Bahn, P. G. (Ed.). (1996). The Cambridge Illustrated History of Archaeology. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
3. Barceló, J. A. (2000). Visualizing what might be: an Introduction to Virtual Reality Techniques in Archaeology. In J. A.
Barceló, M. Forte & D. Sanders (Eds.), Virtual Reality in Archaeology. Computer Applications and Quantitative Methods in Archaeology (pp. 9–36). Oxford: British Archaeological Reports.
4. Barceló, J. A., Forte, M. & Sanders, D. H. (2000). The diversity of archaeological virtual worlds. In J. A. Barceló, M. Forte
& D. Sanders (Eds.), Virtual Reality in Archaeology. Computer Applications and Quantitative Methods in Archaeology
(pp. 3-8). Oxford: British Archaeological Reports.
5. Batorowska, H. (2001). Technologia informacyjna w kształceniu ogólnym. Kraków: Wydawnictwo i Poligrafia Zakonu
Pijarów.
6. Bertacchini, F., Gabriele, L., Tavernise, A. (2011). Bridging Educational Technologies and School Environment: implementations and findings from research studies. In J. Hassaskhah (Ed.), Educational Theory (pp. 63–82). Hauppauge,
NY: Nova Science Publishers.
7. Chowaniec, R. (2010). Dziedzictwo archeologiczne w Polsce: Formy edukacji i promocji. Warszawa: Instytut Archeologii UW.
8. Chowaniec, R. (2011). „Biskupin bez tajemnic. Interaktywny przewodnik po starożytnym grodzie”: czyli o animacjach
komputerowych w edukacji i popularyzacji archeologii. In R. Zapłata (Ed.), Digitalizacja dziedzictwa archeologicznego
– wybrane zagadnienia (pp. 76-90). Lublin: Wiedza i Edukacja. Retrieved from http://wiedzaiedukacja.eu/wp-content/
uploads/2012/02/Digitalizacja%20dziedzictwa%20archeologicznego%20%5Bred%5D%20Rafal%20Zaplata.pdf
9. Chowaniec, R. (2012). Archaeology on the Web: Educating children and youth though internet portals. In R. Chowaniec & W. Więckowski (Eds.), Archaeological Heritage: Methods of Education and Popularization (pp. 37–41). Oxford:
Archaeopress.
10. Chowaniec, R. & Tavernise, A. (2012). Fostering education through virtual worlds: the learning and dissemination of
ancient Biskupin. In R. Chowaniec & W. Więckowski (Eds.), Archaeological Heritage: Methods of Education and Popularization (pp. 43-47). Oxford: Archaeopress.
11. Ciejka, K. (2012). Using social media and new technologies in the popularization and promotion of archaeology. In R.
Chowaniec & W. Więckowski (Eds.), Archaeological Heritage: Methods of Education and Popularization (pp. 53–57).
Oxford: Archaeopress.
12. de Freitas S. & Neumann, T. (2009). The use of ’exploratory learning‘ for supporting immersive learning in virtual environments. Computers & Education, 52(2), 343–352. doi: 10.1016/j.compedu.2008.09.010
13. Eco, U. (1990). Travels in Hyperreality: Essays. San Diego, CA: Harcourt Brace Jovanovich.
14. Economou, M. (2003). New Media for Interpreting Archaeology in Museums: Issues and Challenges. In M. Doerr & A.
Sarris (Eds.), The Digital Heritage of Archaeology. Computer Applications and Quantitative Methods in Archaeology.
Proceedings of the 30th Conference, Heraklion, Crete, April 2002 (pp. 371–375). Heraklion.
15. European Commission. (2007). Access to and preservation of cultural heritage-Fact sheets of 25 research projects funded under the Sixth Framework Programme for Research and Technological Development (FP6), Imprimé par OIL,
Luxemburg.
16. Guidi, G., Frischer, B., De Simone, M., Cioci, A., Spinetti, A., Carosso, L., Micoli, L. L., Grasso, T. (2005). Virtualizing
Ancient Rome: 3D Acquisition and Modeling of a Large Plaster-of-Paris Model of Imperial Rome. In J. A. Beraldin, S. F.
El-Hakim, A. Gruen & J. S. Walton (Eds.), Videometrics 8 (pp. 119–133). doi: 10.1117/12.587355
17. Husbands, C. (1996). What is History Teaching? Language, Ideas and Meaning in Learning about the Past. Buckingham:
Open University Press.
18. Johnston, S. F. (2009). Representing Holography in Museum Collections. In P. Morris & K. Staubermann (Eds.), Illuminating Instruments (pp. 97–116). Washington, DC: Smithsonian Institution Scholarly Press.
19. Layton, R. (1989). Introduction: Who needs the Past? In R. Layton (Ed.), Who needs the Past? Indigenous Values and
Archaeology (pp. 1–20). London: Routledge.
20. Naccarato, G., Pantano, E. & Tavernise, A. (2011). Educational personalized contents in a Web environment: Virtual
Museum Net of Magna Graecia. In G. Styliaras, D. Koukopoulos & F. Lazarinis (Eds.), Handbook of Research on Technologies and Cultural Heritage: Applications and Environments. Hershey, PA: Information Science Reference.
21. Pantano, E. & Tavernise, A. (2009). Learning Cultural Heritage through Information and Communication Technologies: A case study. International Journal of Information Communication Technologies and Human Development, 1(3),
68–87. doi: 10.4018/jicthd.2009070104
22. Parry, R. (2010). The Practice of Digital Heritage and Heritage of Digital Practice. In R. Perry (Ed.), Museum in a Digital
Age (pp. 1–14). London: Routledge.
23. Pian, D., Traverso, A. & Villa, M. (2004). Visiting Archaeological Sites with Our Mobile Phone. New Perspectives for
Research in the Sixth Framework Programme: The Agamemnon case. In K. Cain, Y. Chrysanthou, F. Niccolucci, N.
Silberman, D. Pletinckx & N. Silberman (Eds.), Interdisciplinarity or the Best of Both Worlds. The Grand Challenge for
Cultural Heritage Informatics in the 21st Century. The 5th International Symposium on Virtual Reality. Archaeology
and Cultural Heritage VAST 2004 (pp. 53–54).
24. Radomski, A. & Karauda, K. (2005). Edukacja historyczna w szkole a społeczeństwo informacyjne – kilka propozycji.
Kultura i Historia, 8.
25. Reilly, P. (1990). Towards a Virtual Archaeology. In K. Lockyear & S. Rahtz (Eds.), Computer Applications in Archaeology (pp. 133–139). Oxford.
26. Schnapp, A. (1996). The Discovery of the Past: The Origin of Archaeology. London: British Museum Press.
27. Siemieniecki, B. (1997). Komputer w edukacji: podstawowe problemy technologii informacyjnej. Toruń: Wydawnictwo
Adam Marszałek.
28. Suchoński, A. (2007). Multimedia w nauczaniu i uczeniu się historii. Wiadomości Historyczne, 1, 24–27.
29. Torowska, J. (2008). Edukacja na rzecz dziedzictwa kulturowego. Kraków: Wydawnictwo Uniwersytetu Jagiellońskiego.
30. Wheeler, J. (2011, August 30). QR Codes in Museums. The Mobilists. Retrieved from http://www.themobilists.
com/2011/08/30/qr-codes-in-museums
31. White, M., Liarokapis, F., Darcy, J., Mourkoussis, N., Petridis, P. & Lister, P. F. (2003). Augmented Reality for Museum
Artefact Visualization. In Proceedings of 4th Irish Workshop on Computer Graphics, Eurographics Ireland Chapter,
Coleraine, Northern Ireland, 29-30th April, 2003 (pp. 75–80).
32. Williams, D. (2010). A Brief History of Museum Computerization. In R. Perry (Ed.), Museum in a Digital Age (pp.
15–21). London: Routledge.
Nowe technologie w kształceniu w zakresie
dziedzictwa archeologicznego
Streszczenie
Słowa kluczowe: Dziedzictwo archeologiczne, kody QR, poszerzona rzeczywistość, archeologia wirtualna
Edukacja w zakresie dziedzictwa archeologicznego może rozwijać się dzięki technikom multimedialnym, których
ogromny progres oraz nieustający wzrost popularności stwarzają coraz to nowe możliwości upowszechniania dziedzictwa archeologicznego. Pomimo dużej nieufności archeologów oraz muzealników – przyzwyczajonych do bardziej
tradycyjnych form utrwalania swoich odkryć oraz przedstawiania laikom interpretacji swoich badań – nowoczesne
techniki multimedialne, w tym animacje komputerowe, hologramy, modele 3D-5D, poszerzona rzeczywistość, interaktywne strony internetowe, kody QR oraz aplikacje wykorzystywane w iPodach czy telefonach komórkowych,
sukcesywnie wdarły się również do archeologii i zastąpiły tradycyjne sposoby komunikowania się i uczenia.

Improving process of teaching students by means of methods and

Transcription

Similar documents

Invitation to seminar and workshop

From: Smith, Roland [mailto:[email protected]] Sent: 09

November - Professional Archaeologists of New York City

Hukay - UP Diliman Journals Online - University of the Philippines

CAA2015 - PUMA

Memberships from Coast to Coast and Everywhere In Between

Paintbrush Ball Invitation - Museum of Art and Archaeology

Dredged Up from the Past

Saturday, June 16th 2:00 to 5:00 pm Tickets: $15

Tracing the “People of the Sea”: Archaeology and History of the

Artefact - University of Southampton

Flyer

this PDF file

Nayland Farm, Mill Road, Battisford Tye, Stowmarket (Ringshall

Volume 22, Number 2, Fall 2005 - Council of Virginia Archaeologists

Department of Archaeology`s 2012–2013 annual report

François Bordes and the Old Stone Age

ASA09 conference book (lo-res)

996.5 KiB - School of Archaeology

The La Mojarra Chronicle

40th International Symposium on Archaeometry | ISA 2014

Shanks Tilley 1987