Story Experience in a Virtual San Storytelling Environment: a Cultural Heritage Application for Children and Young Adults
Total Page:16
File Type:pdf, Size:1020Kb
STORY EXPERIENCE IN A VIRTUAL SAN STORYTELLING ENVIRONMENT: A CULTURAL HERITAGE APPLICATION FOR CHILDREN AND YOUNG ADULTS A DISSERTATION SUBMITTED TO THE DEPARTMENT OF COMPUTER SCIENCE, FACULTY OF SCIENCE AT THE UNIVERSITY OF CAPE TOWN IN FULFILLMENT OF THE REQUIREMENTS FOR THE DEGREE OF MASTER OF SCIENCE By Ilda Ladeira 2005 Supervised by Edwin H. Blake Copyright 2005 by Ilda Ladeira A lot of our culture is lost in our lives – the old stories that were told by mothers and fathers who would go into the bush and then return to tell the others what they had seen…. We have no stories to tell our children. We have nothing to pass on. We will have to find the strength to make a place for ourselves in this world. Otherwise there will soon be no more of us. We will all be gone. And so will our memories. Only our paintings will remain behind to remind you of us. Quote from Mario Mahongo, a !Xu Bushman National Geographic (Godwin, 2001) Abstract This dissertation explores virtual storytelling for conveying cultural stories effectively. We set out to investigate: (1) the strengths and/or weaknesses of VR as a storytelling medium; (2) the use of a culturally familiar introductory VE to preface a VE presenting traditional storytelling; (3) the relationship between presence and story experience. We conducted two studies to pursue these aims. Our aims were stated in terms of effective story experience, in the realm of cultural heritage. This was conceptualised as a story experience where story comprehension, interest in the story’s cultural context and story enjoyment were achieved, and where boredom and confusion in the story were low. This conceptualisation was empirically validated by our studies. Three storytelling scenarios were created to tell a traditional San story: text (T); a storytelling VE with no introductory VE (VR+NI); a storytelling VE with a hip-hop themed introductory VE (VR+I). These scenarios comprised our experimental conditions. Questionnaires, measuring interest in hip-hop and the story experience aspects identified above, were developed and psychometrically validated. Study 1 was conducted with a sample of 44 high-school learners and Study 2 with 98 university students. Both studies used a between-subjects design. Study 2 was a refined version of Study 1, improving Study 1’s questionnaires for use in Study 2 and considering two additional variables: attention to the story and perceived strangeness of the story. For our first aim, story experience in the text and VR storytelling scenarios were compared. In Study 1 and 2, comprehension was significantly higher in the T condition than in the two VR conditions combined and attention was higher in Study 2’s T condition. Therefore, we conclude that text is better for achieving story comprehension. In Study 1, interest and enjoyment were significantly higher in the VR condition, while boredom was higher in the T condition. But, no significant differences between text and VR were noted for these variables in Study 2. Comparisons of the T and VR conditions across Study 1 and 2 showed a particularly poor story experience in Study 1’s T group; we speculate that this was due to differences in Study 1 and 2’s samples and procedures. Barring this, there were no interest, enjoyment or boredom differences between T and VR across Study 1 and 2. Thus, we conclude, conservatively, that text and VR are equally good in terms of interest enjoyment and boredom. Confusion was higher in Study 1’s T condition, but this result was counter-intuitive since this condition had also shown higher comprehension. In contrast, Study 2’s VR condition showed significantly higher confusion and lower strangeness. We conclude that Study 1’s participants had reported strangeness rather than confusion and, while virtual storytelling resulted in more confusion, it also resulted in less perceived strangeness of the story. Presence and story experience in the VR+NI and VR+I storytelling scenarios were compared for our second aim. The introductory VE only had an effect for participants who showed a pre-existing interest in hip-hop. In Study 1’s VR+I condition, hip-hop interest was a significant predictor of enjoyment. In Study 2’s VR+I condition, those who identified hip-hop as a favourite music genre showed significantly higher presence than those who identified other genres as a favourite. This suggests that strongly themed introductory VE’s do not benefit virtual storytelling, and that content familiarity and preference interact with VE content to influence virtual experiences. Regarding our third aim; we did not find strong evidence of a relationship between presence and story experience since presence only correlated significantly with interest in Study 1. 2 Acknowledgements I have many, many people to thank, some who contributed directly to my work and others who contributed to my sanity through these past three years, and, true to form, I’m not going to be concise about it… God: for unearthly stamina. CAVES and CAMA: Vera for lending your skill to the San reference sketches and rock art textures. Karl for my storyteller model and fielding my endless queries on Maya. Jak, Dennis and Shaun, the VR Direct/CAVEAT go-to guys. John Turest-Swartz & Rob Hofmeyr for the San and hip-hop soundtracks. The voice artists: Dawn Langdown and her drama students at Okiep for bringing the San gathering, especially the storyteller, to vivid life. Oswald Musokwa for writing and recording a very cool San rap and creating the background music. The experts: Prof. John Parkington, for his wealth of insight into the San, their caves and folklore and for making sure my San VE wasn’t embarrassingly inaccurate. Neil Rusch and Stephen Townley-Basset for their rock art photography. Familia: who humoured me even though I seemed to be spending an inordinate amount of time on something very obscure to do with ‘San stories and computers or something’. Isabel and Luisa, big sisters and unconditional fans. My parents for their work ethic – ‘a theory of dirty hands, and tired feet, but a busy mind’. Fellow lab rats: who came in all sorts – dusty, jaded, keen, cynical, strange, driven and green, it’s been a really awesome to work in such close proximity to your keen and brilliant minds. Rudy, Marshini, Oks, Jak, Ilan, Simon the Swede, Nico, Dino, Yaqueen, Carl, Bruce, Perkins, Duke, Charlene, Chris, Dom, Andrew, thank-you for being in the boat. The docs & profs, Gary Marsden and James Gain: for the regular advice and encouragement. The fabulous ladies, Sarah and Cara: we all started virtual San storytelling research together in 2002, you set a high benchmark for me to aim for in continuing the work and I hope I’ve done it some kind of justice. Thank-you for the red wine, card games and your, very dear, friendship. My supervisor Prof. Edwin Blake: for the opportunity to get my hands on this research and the many opportunities along the way to attend conferences and be a grown-up researcher. Thank- you for making me sell my ideas, holding me to my promises and allowing me to think independently. Dave: for giving me the insider smarts, but, wisely, never handing me the answers, for standing at the side-lines and yelling ‘ganbatte!’ and for being goofy when it was all getting a little too serious. I am quite sure that without you both I and my thesis would be far worse off. 3 Contents CHAPTER 1 INTRODUCTION................................................................................... 13 1.1 AIMS AND HYPOTHESES .......................................................................................... 14 1.2 OVERVIEW OF THE RESEARCH................................................................................. 15 1.3 OUTLINE OF DISSERTATION..................................................................................... 16 CHAPTER 2 BACKGROUND ..................................................................................... 18 2.1 STORYTELLING ........................................................................................................ 18 2.1.1 Storytelling Media............................................................................................ 18 2.2 VIRTUAL REALITY ................................................................................................... 19 2.2.1 Presence and Task Performance...................................................................... 20 2.2.2 Priming............................................................................................................. 20 2.3 VIRTUAL STORYTELLING......................................................................................... 21 2.3.1 Linear and Non-linear Storytelling .................................................................. 21 2.3.2 Film and Virtual Storytelling ........................................................................... 22 2.3.3 Evaluating Virtual Storytelling ........................................................................ 23 2.4 EVALUATING STORY EXPERIENCE .......................................................................... 24 2.5 VR AND CULTURAL HERITAGE ............................................................................... 25 2.6 SAN CULTURAL HERITAGE...................................................................................... 26 2.6.1 San folklore ...................................................................................................... 26 CHAPTER 3 OUR APPROACH: TELLING A STORY PROPERLY .................... 28 3.1 AN EFFECTIVE STORY EXPERIENCE .......................................................................