The aim of the article is to employ results from philosophy of mind and cognitive sciences in order to answer certain questions from the field of philosophy of art. What is specifically at issue is the problem of the cognitive underpinnings of subject’s relation to narrative fictions presented in novels and movies. A proposal according to which this relation is mediated by mental simulation is critically assessed. The author discusses two theses that are based on this general simulationist idea, namely theses that (1) a person engaged in reading a novel or watching a movie simulates mental states of the protagonists (empathizes with them); (2) the simulation mechanism underlies the ability to imagine fictional events presented in narratives.
The purpose of the study was to explore the role of emotions, promotion-prevention orientation and feedback on cognitive engagement. In the experiment participants had the possibility to engage in a categorization task thrice. After the first categorization all participants were informed that around 75% of their answers were correct. After the second categorization, depending on the experimental condition, participants received feedback either about success or failure. Involvement in the third categorization was depended on participants’ decision whether to take part in it or not. Each time, before and after categorization, the emotional state was assessed. Results showed that promotion orientation predicted experiencing curiosity before the task, which in turn led to a higher cognitive engagement in the first categorization. Promotion and prevention orientation moderated the type of emotional response to positive feedback. Promotion orientation also predicted cognitive engagement after the feedback of success was provided. Generally results confirmed the positive effect of positive emotions as well as promotion orientation on cognitive engagement.
This study takes a dynamic approach to investigating engagement, examining fluctuations in cognitive-affective variables at regular time intervals during online collaborative second language (L2) writing tasks. Using online conference software and online editing software, 16 university students who use English as an L2, completed two collaborative problem-solution L2 writing tasks in two communication modes: video-chat and text-chat. After each task, learners viewed videos of their performances in 12 three-minute segments and were asked to rate their engagement on two scales (interest, focus). They were then interviewed about their attributions for fluctuations in their ratings. Group-level analysis revealed that learners experienced significantly higher focus and interest during tasks performed in video-chat mode than text-chat mode. This was contrasted with an analysis from a dynamic perspective, which produced a more nuanced picture of individual engagement trajectories during the tasks. Dynamic patterns of engagement fell into either moderately steady, increasing, decreasing, or rollercoaster pattern categories. A content analysis of 32 interviews revealed four factors that accounted for changes in engagement during tasks: task design (e.g., task familiarity), task process (e.g., instances of collaboration), task condition (e.g., communication mode), and learner factors (e.g., perceptions of proficiency).
4
Dostęp do pełnego tekstu na zewnętrznej witrynie WWW
Artykuł poświęcony jest analizie problemów związanych z dychotomią hardcore/casual, która używana jest powszechnie w dyskursie związanym z grami wideo. Wskazane są dwa typy problemów: globalne, związane ze znaczeniem obu terminów, oraz lokalne, związane z przekładem tych terminów na język polski. Twierdzę, że najważniejszym powodem niejasności jest dwuznaczność terminu „hardcore”. W jednym znaczeniu odnosi się on do zaangażowania kulturowego graczy, w drugim do zaangażowania kognitywnego podczas gry. Wskazuję, w jaki sposób rozróżnienie tych sensów objaśnia dychotomię H/C oraz dlaczego może ono stanowić podstawę polskiego przekładu obu tych terminów.
EN
The paper analyzes problems associated with the hardcore/casual dichotomy which is commonly used in current discourse surrounding video games. Two types of problems are differentiated: global problems concerning the meaning of both terms, and local problems concerning the correct translation of both terms into Polish. I suggest that the most important source of confusion is the ambiguity of the term “hardcore.” In one sense it means the cultural engagement of players; in the other sense it means their cognitive engagement during play. It is shown how honoring this distinction explicates the H/C opposition and why it may form the basis for the Polish translation of both terms.
JavaScript jest wyłączony w Twojej przeglądarce internetowej. Włącz go, a następnie odśwież stronę, aby móc w pełni z niej korzystać.