http://www.icas.nctu.edu.tw/Course/互動與新媒體（陶振超老師）.doc
開課單位 傳播研究所 授課教師 陶振超
授課學期 九十五學年度第一學期
課程名稱 互動與新媒體 人數上限
英文名稱 Interactivity & New Media
學 分 數 3 上課時數 3 先修課程 選修
課程目標：The purpose of this seminar is to introduce the
research of interactivity from both theoretical and applied
perspectives. This seminar begins with various approaches
to capturing the emergence of interactive media. Next, the
central question, where interactivity resides - in media
technology, message exchanges, or user perceptions - is
discussed. Finally, two possible integrated models of
interactivity are reviewed, which advance interactivity by
introducing the concept of third variables and a theoretical
framework to combine different variables.
The seminar is intended to provide students with a theoretical
and practical understanding of interactivity in the context of
new media. Specific goals include:
§ To analyze and compare different approaches to interactivity
found in the research literature and to investigate critically
our own theoretical stances;
§ To examine how communication theories are employed in
interactivity research and explore their future development
§ To apply conceptual understandings of interactivity to
communication processes across a variety of settings.
課程綱要：
Part 1: Dawn of interactivity
Week 1 Introduction: Inter + Activity = Interactivity?
Week 2 The rise of interactive media
Week 3 Does interactivity just mimic the face-to-face
model or social interaction?
Week 4 Merging mass and interpersonal processes?
Week 5 Interactive space
Week 6 Explicating interactivity, to be continued (or endless?)
Part 2: Where does interactivity reside
Week 7 Message-centered approaches
Week 8 Application of message-center approaches
Week 9 Research paper proposal presentations
Week 10 Functional approaches: N-dimensional models
Week 11 Functional approaches: Media effects
Week 12 Perceptual approaches arising from parasocial interaction
Week 13 Perceptual approaches and media effects
Week 14 Panel: How do online media view and use "interactivity?"
Three guest speakers will be invited to present their
experiences.
Part 3: Theoretical foundation in media effects research
Week 15 Basic elements in communication research
Week 16 Empirical studies related to third variables
Week 17 An integrated model of interactivity and its effects
Week 18 Paper presentations: Proliferation or explication?
參考書目：
Bolter, J. D., & Grusin, R. (1999). Remediation: Understanding new
media. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press.
Rogers, E. M. (1986). Communication technology: The new media in
society. New York: The Free Press.
Duncan, S. (1989). Interaction, face-to-face. In E. Barnouw (Ed.),
International encyclopedia of communications (pp. 325-328). New York,
NY: Oxford University PRess.
Carey, J. (1989). Interactive media. In E. Barnouw (Ed.),
International encyclopedia of communications (pp. 328-330).
New York, NY: Oxford University PRess.
Holmqvist, B. (1993). Face to interface. In P. B. Andersen, B.
Holmqvist & J. F. Jensen (Eds.), The computer as medium (pp. 222-235).
New York, NY: Cambridge University Press.
McMillan, S. J. (2001). Interactivity. In S. Jones (Ed.), Encyclopedia
of new media. New York, NY: Moschovitis Group.
Schudson, M. (1978). The idea of conversation in the study of mass media.
Communication Research, 5(3), 320-329.
Hanssen, L., Jankowski, N. W., & Etienne, R. (1996). Interactivity from
the perspective of communication studies. In N. W. Jankowski & L. Hanssen
(Eds.), The contours of multimedia: Recent technological theoretical and
empirical developments (pp. 61-73).Luton, UK: University of Luton Press.
Beniger, J. R. (1987). Personalization of mass media and the growth of
pseudo-community. Communication Research, 14(3), 352-371.
Bucy, E. P., & Newhagen, J. E. (1999). The micro- and macrodrama of
politics on television: Effects of media format on candidate evaluations.
Journal of Broadcasting & Electronic Media, 43(2), 193-210.
Heller, R. S., & McKeeby, J. (1993). Computing access in public spaces:
A case study. Interactive learning environments, 3(1), 77-89.
Laurel, B. (2000). Musings on amusements in America, or what I did on my
summer vacation. In P. Lunenfeld (Ed.), The digital dialectic: New essays
on new media (pp. 214-235). Cambridge, MA: MIT Press.
Screven, C. G. (1999). Information design in informal settings: Museums
and other public spaces. In R. Jacobson (Ed.), Information design
(pp. 131-192). Cambridge, MA: MIT Press.
Jensen, J. F. (1998). Interactivity: Tracking a new concept in media
and communication studies. Nordicom Review(1), 185-204.
Kiousis, S. (2002). Interactivity: A concept explication. New Media &
Society, 4(3), 355-383.Liu, Y., & Shrum, L. J. (2002). What is
interactivity and is it always such a good thing? Implications of
definition, person, and situation for the influence of interactivity on
advertising effectiveness. Journal of Advertising, 31(4), 53-64.
McMillan, S. J. (2002). Exploring models of interactivity from multiple
research traditions: Users, documents, and systems. In L. Lievrouw & S.
Livingston (Eds.), Handbook of new media (pp. 163-182). London: Sage.
Rafaeli, S. (1988). Interactivity: From new media to communication.
In R. P. Hawkins, J. Wiemann & S. Pingree (Eds.), Advancing communication
science: Merging mass and interpersonal process (pp. 110-134).
Newbury Park, CA: Sage.
Rafaeli, S., & Sudweeks, F. (1997). Networked interactivity. Journal of
Computer Mediated Communication, 2(4). Retrieved March 30, 2004 from
http://www.ascusc.org/jcmc/vol2/issue4/rafaeli.sudweeks.html.
Newhagen, J. E. (2004). Interactivity, dynamic symbol processing, and
the emergence of content in human communication. The Information Society,
20(5), 397-402.
Tremayne, M., & Dunwoody, S. (2001). Interactivity, information
processing, and learning on the World Wide Web. Science Communication,
23(2), 111-134.
Cassell, M., Jackson, C., & Cheuvront, B. (1998). Health
communication on the Internet: An effective channel for health behavior
change? Journal of Health Communication, 3(1), 71-79.
Schultz, T. (2000). Mass media and the concept of interactivity: an
exploratory study of online forums and reader email. Media, Culture
& Society, 22(2), 205-221.
Heeter, C. (1989). Implications of new interactive technologies for
conceptualizing communication. In J. Salvaggio & J. Bryant (Eds.),
Media in the information age: Emerging patterns of adoption and consumer
use (pp. 217-235). Hillsdale, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates.
Ha, L., & James, E. L. (1998). Interactivity reexamined: A baseline
analysis of early business web sites. Journal of Broadcasting &
Electronic Media, 42(4), 457-474.
McMillan, S. J. (1999). Health communication and the Internet: Relations
between interactive characteristics of the medium and site creators,
content, and purpose. Health Communication, 11(4), 375-390.
Paul, M. J. (2001). Interactive disaster communication on the Internet:
A content analysis of sixty-four disaster relief home pages. Journalism
& Mass Communication Quarterly, 78(4), 739-753.
Bucy, E. P. (2004). The interactivity paradox: Closer to the news but
confused. In E. P. Bucy & J. E. Newhagen (Eds.), Media access: Social
and psychological dimensions of new technology use (pp. 47-72). Mahwah,
NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates.
Sundar, S. S., Narayan, S., Obregon, R., & Uppal, C. (1998). Does web
advertising work? Memory for print vs. online media. Journalism and
Mass Communication Quarterly, 75(4), 822-835.
Sundar, S. S., Kalyanaraman, S., & Brown, J. (2003). Explicating web
site interactivity: Impression formation effects in political campaign
sites. Communication Research, 30(1), 30-59.
Sundar, S. S. (2004). Theorizing interactivity's effects. The Information
Society, 20(5), 387-391.Horton, D., & Wohl, R. R. (1956). Mass
communication and parasocial interaction: Observations on intimacy at a
distance. Psychiatry, 19(3), 215-229.
Lee, J.-S. (2000). Interactivity: A new approach. Paper presented at the
annual meeting of the Association for Education in Journalism and Mass
Communication, Phoenix, AZ.
Newhagen, J. E., Cordes, J. W., & Levy, M. R. (1995). [email protected]:
Audience scope and the perception of interactivity in viewer mail on the
internet. Journal of Communication, 45(3), 164-175.
Wu, G. (1999). Perceived interactivity and attitude toward website.
Paper presented at the 1999 Annual Conference of American Academy of
Advertising, Albuquerque, New Mexico.
Bucy, E. P. (2004). Interactivity in society: Locating an elusive concept.
The Information Society, 20(5), 375-385.
Chung, H., & Zhao, X. (2004). Effects of perceived interactivity on Web
site preference and memory: Role of personal motivation. Journal of
Computer Mediated Communication, 10(1). Retrieved December 28, 2005 from
http://jcmc.indiana.edu/vol10/issue1/chung.html.
McMillan, S. J., & Hwang, J.-S. (2002). Measures of perceived interactivity:
An exploration of the role of direction of communication, user control,
and time in shaping perceptions of interactivity. Journal of Advertising,
31(3), 29-42.
McMillan, S. J., Hwang, J.-S., & Lee, G. (2003). Effects of structural and
perceptual factors on attitudes toward the website. Journal of Advertising
Research, 43(4), 400-409.
McLeod, D. M., Kosicki, G. M., & McLeod, J. M. (2002). Resurveying the
boundaries of political communication effects. In J. Bryant & D. Zillmann
(Eds.), Media effects: Advances in theory and research. Mahwah, NJ:
Erlbaum.
McLeod, J. M., & Reeves, B. (1980). On the nature or mass media effects.
In S. B. Withey & R. P. Abeles (Eds.), Television and Social Behavior:
Violence and Children (pp. 17-54). Hillsdale, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum
Associates.
O'Keefe, D. J. (2003). Message properties, mediating states, and
manipulation checks: Claims, evidence, and data analysis in experimental
persuasive message effects research. Communication Theory, 13(3),
251-274.
Eveland, W. P., Jr., Marton, K., & Seo, M. (2004). Moving beyond
"just the facts": The influence of online news on the content and
structure of public affairs knowledge. Communication Research,
31(1), 82-108.
Tao, C.-C., & Bucy, E. P. (2006, June). Conceptualizing media stimuli in
experimental research: Psychological versus attribute-based definitions.
Paper presented at the 56th Annual Conference of the International
Communication Association, Dresden, Germany.
Tao, C.-C., & Bucy, E. P. (2006, June). Search Google News: Interactivity,
emotion, and the moderating role of Internet self-efficacy. Paper presented
at the 56th Annual Conference of the International Communication Association,
Dresden, Germany.
Wu, G. (2005). The mediating role of perceived interactivity in the effect
of actual interactivity on attitude toward the website. Journal of
Interactive Advertising, 5(2). Retrieved December 28, 2005 from
http://jiad.org/vol5/no2/wu/index.htm.
Tao, C.-C., & Bucy, E. P. (2005, November). The mediated moderation model
of interactivity. Paper presented at the 91st Annual Conference of the
National Communication Association, Boston, MA.Tremayne, M. (2005).
Lessons learned from experiments with interactivity on the Web. Journal of
Interactive Advertising, 5(2). Retrieved December 28, 2005 from
http://jiad.org/vol5/no2/tremayne/index.html.
課程進行方式、課程要求及評分標準：
Grading/Evaluation
Assignment, Percent of grade, & Due date
Weekly reflections (critiques): 30% ( 9 am on the day of the class)
Field assignment:15% (Week 6)
Discussion leader: 10% (Week 1-8, 10-13, 15-17)
Research paper
Paper proposal:5% (Week 9)
Paper draft:10% (Week 14)
Peer review:10% (Week 15)
Paper presentation:5% (Week18)
Final paper:15% (Week 18)
Overview of assignments
Weekly reflections (critiques) require students to read assigned
readings every week and write a reflection. This reflection
should consist of at least three parts: (1) identify the research
question; (2) identify new concepts and definitions of interest to
you; (3) either criticize these authors' theoretical stances or
apply these authors' arguments to different situations, or both.
Ask for clarification if there is something you do not understand.
Remember that a reflection is not just a summary. In the reflection,
the summary should be no more than five lines. Post your reflections
on the assigned group weblog by 9 am on the day the readings is due.
A field assignment requires students to write a thoughtful 5-6 page
paper based on a trip to an interactive environment, whether a theme
park, museum, virtual reality game, or even laser tag.
Each student will be responsible for leading the discussion once.
When you are the discussion leader, you need to prepare a two-page
handout, read classmates' weblogs, and synthesize critical questions.
Presentations should be about 25 minutes in length, and should be
followed by 25 minutes of discussion.
Research paper should review some area of concepts and theoretical
frameworks of interactivity and apply that area to some aspect of
communication processes. The research paper will be written in stages,
beginning with a paper proposal and draft, followed by peer reviews,
and the final paper submission. For the final paper, students should
revise or extend their draft based on peer reviews and instructor
comments. During the last week of class, each student will be required
to present their paper in a panel format.
--
※ 發信站: 批踢踢實業坊(ptt.cc)
◆ From: 59.113.73.19