Advertisement

Exploiting Human Cognitive Architecture to Design a New Cultural Narrative for Non-captive Audiences: The TOURiBOOST Project

  • Dorothea Papathanasiou-ZuhrtEmail author
  • Aldo Di Russo
  • Kevser Cinar
Conference paper
  • 54 Downloads
Part of the Springer Proceedings in Business and Economics book series (SPBE)

Abstract

Heritage settings generate often a spatiotemporal gap between the object and the audience, as the tangible form is perceivable by the eye, but the meanings are codified. This particular condition, further supported by cultural and mentality differences, impedes non-captive audiences to fulfill satisfactory experiences. Following Aristotelian hermeneutics we defend that the spatio-temporal gap in heritage settings is of cognitive nature. Thus, to understand and embrace heritage values and effectively bridge the gap between the object and the observer, we need to link the audience to heritage meanings and values. The supply side, is often unaware of the human cognitive architecture, thus narratives and descriptions stay codified in the expert language, while the demand side is looking for compelling stories and multisensory experiences. The still ongoing ERASMUS + Project 2018-1-TR01-KA203-058344 (TOURiBOOST) for Higher Education builds an attempt to design and test a knowledge acquisition pattern for non-captive audiences from a human cognitive architecture point of view. In this vein, we present the design for the production of a multimedia iBook presenting 30 heritage places in TR/HU/NL/IT/GR with the principal aim to create the enabling environment for both onsite and dislocated audiences to engage in critical thinking and inspire them to replace gazing and clicking with cognition and emotions.

Keywords

Cultural heritage Human cognitive architecture (HCA) Spatio-temporal gap 

References

  1. 1.
    Lowenthal D (1985) The past is a foreign country. Cambridge University Press, CambridgeGoogle Scholar
  2. 2.
    Gadamer H-G (1975) Truth and method. Sheed and Ward, LondonGoogle Scholar
  3. 3.
    Antinucci F (2014) Communicare nel museo. Laterza, BariGoogle Scholar
  4. 4.
    Pine BJ, Gilmore JH (1999) The experience economy: work is theatre & every business a stage. Harvard Business Press, BostonGoogle Scholar
  5. 5.
    Nichols A (1909) Goethe in Italy. Henry Holt and Company, New YorkGoogle Scholar
  6. 6.
    Tussyadiah I (2014) Toward a theoretical foundation for experience design in tourism. J Travel Res 53:543–564.  https://doi.org/10.1177/0047287513513172 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  7. 7.
    Bulencea P, Egger R (2015) Gamification in tourism. Designing memorable experiences. Books on Demand, NorderstedtGoogle Scholar
  8. 8.
    Buonincontri P, Marasco A, Ramkissoon H (2017) Visitors’ experience, place attachment and sustainable behaviour at cultural heritage sites: a conceptual framework. Sustainability 9:1–19.  https://doi.org/10.3390/su9071112 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  9. 9.
    Kempiaka J, Hollywood L, Bolana P, McMahon-Beattieb U (2017) The heritage tourist: an understanding of the visitor experience at heritage attractions’. Int J Herit Stud 23:375–392. https://www.tandfonline.com/doi/full/10.1080/13527258.2016.1277776 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  10. 10.
    EUROBAROMETER (2017) Cultural heritage, EC, Directorate-General for education, youth, sport and culture, BrusselsGoogle Scholar
  11. 11.
    Fernández-Blanco V, García-Diez M, Prieto-Rodríguez J (2004) Educational performance and cultural consumption. Some evidence from OECD teenagers, in AEDE 2004, DonostiaGoogle Scholar
  12. 12.
    Hanquinet L, Savage M (2012) Educative leisure’ and the art museum. Mus Soc 10:42–59. https://journals.le.ac.uk/ojs1/index.php/mas/article/view/194 Google Scholar
  13. 13.
    Hanquinet L (2016) Place and cultural capital: art museum visitors across space’. Mus Soc 14:65–81. https://journals.le.ac.uk/ojs1/index.php/mas/article/view/677. Accessed 03 Mar 2019CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  14. 14.
    Pasikowska-Schnass M (2017) Access to culture in the European Union. European Parliamentary Research Service, StrasbourgGoogle Scholar
  15. 15.
    Miller GA (1956) The magical number seven, plus or minus two: some limits on our capacity for processing information. Psychol Rev 63:81–97.  https://doi.org/10.1037/h0043158 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  16. 16.
    Baddeley A (1981) The concept of working memory: a view of its current state and probable future development. Cognition 10:17–23.  https://doi.org/10.1016/0010-0277(81)90020-2 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  17. 17.
    Baddeley AD, Eysenck M, Anderson MC (2014) Memory. Psychology Press, HoveGoogle Scholar
  18. 18.
    Cowan N (2017) The many faces of working memory and short-term storage. Psychon Bull Rev 24:1158–1170.  https://doi.org/10.3758/s13423-016-1191-6 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  19. 19.
    Skavronskaya L, Scott N, Moyle B, Le D, Hadinejad A, Zhang R, Gardiner S, Coghlan A, Shakeela A (2017) Cognitive psychology and tourism research: state of the art. Tour Rev 72:221–237.  https://doi.org/10.1108/TR-03-2017-004120 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  20. 20.
    Papathanasiou-Zuhrt D, Weiss-Ibáñez DF (2014) Cognitive processing of information with visitor value in cultural heritage environments. The case of the SEE TCP SAGITTARIUS 2011–2014. Proc Econ Fin 15(2014):303–311.  https://doi.org/10.1016/S2212-5671(14)00509-7.21 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  21. 21.
    Papathanassiou-Zuhrt D (2015) Cognitive load management of cultural heritage information: an application multi-mix for recreational learners. Proc Soc Behav Sci 188:57–73.  https://doi.org/10.1016/j.sbspro.2015.03.3 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  22. 22.
    Sweller J, van Merrienboer J, Paas F (1998) Cognitive architecture and instructional design. Educ Psychol Rev 10:251–296.  https://doi.org/10.1023/A:1022193728205 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  23. 23.
    Paas F, Renkl A, Sweller J (2004) Cognitive load theory: instructional implications of the interaction between information structures and cognitive architecture. Instr Sci 32:1–8.  https://doi.org/10.1023/B:TRUC.0000021806.17516.d0 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  24. 24.
    Sweller J, Ayres P, Kalyuga S (2007) Cognitive load theory. Springer, New YorkGoogle Scholar
  25. 25.
    Paas F, van Gog T, Sweller J (2010) Cognitive load theory: new conceptualizations, specifications, and integrated research perspectives. Educ Psychol Rev 22:115–121.  https://doi.org/10.1007/s10648-010-9133-8 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  26. 26.
    Bitgood S (2009) Museum fatigue: a critical review. Vis Stud 12:93–111. https://www.tandfonline.com/doi/abs/10.1080/10645570903203406 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  27. 27.
    Bitgood S (2013) Attention and value: a key to understanding museum visitors. Routledge, London and New YorkGoogle Scholar
  28. 28.
    Kavoura A, Sylaiou S (2018) Effective cultural communication via information and communication technologies and social media use. In: Khosrow-Pour M (ed) Encyclopedia of information science and technology, 4th edn. IGI Global, Hershey, pp 7002–7013CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  29. 29.
    Briciu VA, Nechita F, Demeter R, Kavoura A (2019) Minding the gap between perceived and projected destination image by using information and communication platforms and software. Int J Comput Methods Herit (IJCMHS) 3:17.  https://doi.org/10.4018/IJCMHS.2019070101 CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer Nature Switzerland AG 2020

Authors and Affiliations

  • Dorothea Papathanasiou-Zuhrt
    • 1
    Email author
  • Aldo Di Russo
    • 2
  • Kevser Cinar
    • 3
  1. 1.Hellenic Open UniversityPatrasGreece
  2. 2.ArtifactoryRomeItaly
  3. 3.Necmettin Erbakan UniversitySelçuklu/KonyaTurkey

Personalised recommendations