1. Enhancing the Creativity of Children through
the Use of Digital Video Technology
Janak Bhimani, Ichiya Nakamura
Keio University, Graduate School of Media Design

2. Theme
At the crossroads of creativity and technology,
children, through the use of digital video
hardware and software, combined with
traditional play artifacts and activities, have
unique opportunities to enhance their
imaginative output like never before.

3. Overview
• Background and Motivation
• Literature Review and Related works
•Workshop Method
•Workshops
• Evaluation and Discussion
•Conclusion

4. Background and Motivation
• Time is right
• Children as earliest “early adopters” in digital age
• Economic Factors  affordability
• Digital Video Technology  portability
• Convergence Culture
• Paradigm shift in media production and consumption
• Parallel in education  passive to active learning
• Author’s Professional Background
• Elementary Education Learning Niche
• Broadcast Media

5. Literature Review and Related Works
• Creativity In Children
• Vygotsky –children, by their nature, are creative
• Csikszentmihalyi – creativity must be developed (adults)
• Sternberg – outside factors affect creativity (+ and -)
• Participatory Culture
• Bruner – learning is collaborative; old models of education
defunct in age of communication and interconnectedness
• Jenkins – New Media Literacies to confront obstacles
hampering progression of participatory culture

6. Literature Review and Related Works
• Interaction Design for Children
• Interdisciplinary – education, mobile devices, robotics, art,
sociology, video technology, etc. – emphasis on creativity
• Focus on narrative story telling
• Activities with educational and emotional value
• Related Works
• Corporations, private companies, international and
regional non-profit organizations
• The video L.A.B. (BBC Scotland), Kidzania Tokyo, Kids with
Cameras (India and Global), Canvas (Japan)

7. Method
NAM++ Method [1] T2=C method
[1] Decortis, F., A. Rizzo, and B. Saudelli. "Mediating effects of active distributed instruments on narrative activities." Interacting with Computers 15.6 (2003): 801-830.

8. Workshops Incorporating Digital Video
Technology
1.
2.
Background
Design
3.
Process and
Creative Output
4.

9. Social Finger
Issues Puppets
Through
Story
and HD
Telling Video

10. WEF KIDS
Background
Design
 Process and Creative Output

12. .
Real-time
Media Blue
Literacy Screen
Reporting

13. KIDS VIDS
Background
Design
 Process and Creative Output

15. 3
Film-
Video making
Journalism and editing
(Documentary)

16. 1 Day Reporter – Behind the Scenes at Yokohama Burg 13
Background @
Design
 Process and Creative Output

18. Traditional Start to
Finish
& Production
Digital w/stop
Storytelling motion
filming

19. Nendomation
Background @
Design
 Process and Creative Output

21. Evaluation
• Analysis of the four workshops
 To demonstrate that workshops for children incorporating digital video
technology provide children with means of expressing their creativity
in ways which are different, and even new, from those they are
exposed to in their everyday life
 Quantitative: Results and Findings
• Data from Interviews and/or questionnaires
• Two perspectives:
• Children – Participants
• Parents /Guardians -- observers with intimate knowledge of the participants
 Qualitative: Observation and Reflection
• Lessons Learned  improvements/modifications for future workshops
• Management/Design perspective

22. Evaluation
Nendomation Survey Questions for Children Nendomation Survey Questions for Parents/Guardians
1) How did you hear about this event? (Select as many as you like)
1) Was this your first time making clay animation?
1.Flyer 2.Internet 3.Friends 4.School 5.Other__________________________
1.Yes 2.No
2) Please tell us your reasons for having your children participate in the workshop?
2) Was this workshop fun? (Select as many as you like)
1.Very Fun 2. Fun 3. Average 4. Not so fun 5. Not fun at all 1.Looked interesting/fun 2.Looked educational 3.Child/children wanted to
participate 4.Wanted child/children to be familiar with digital technology
5.Other_______________________________
3) Was this workshop difficult?
1.Very difficult 2.Difficult 3.Okay 4.Easy 5.Very easy 3) “What did you expect your children to learn from the workshop?”
4) What was the most interesting part of the workshop? 4) What did you like the most about the workshop?
1.Story/scenario making 2.Character making 3.Filming 4.Presentation
1.Story/scenario making 2.Character making 3.Filming 4.Presentation
5) How would you rate the quality of the workshop?
5) How would you describe your facilitator’s performance? 1.Very good 2.Good 3.Standard 4.Not good 5.Bad
1.Very Good 2.Good 3.Avergae 4. Not so good 5. Not good
6) How would you evaluate the structure of the workshop?
1.Very Good 2.Good 3.Average 4.Bad 5.Very bad
6) How would you evaluate the structure of the workshop?
1.Very Good 2.Good 3.Average 4.Bad 5.Very bad 7) How familiar were your children with digital technology before participating in the
workshop?
7) How would you describe using the camera, computer and animation software? 1.Very familiar 2.Familiar 3. Average 4.Not very familiar 5.Not familiar
1.Very difficult 2.Difficult 3.Average 4. Easy 5.Very easy
8) Would you like your child to participate in a similar type of workshop?
1.Yes 2.No
8) Please leave any comments or suggestions.
9) Please leave any comments or suggestions.

23. Evaluation
 Discussion
 Researcher's observation combined with quantitative and qualitative
results
 Commonality: T2=C method
 Ethnographic methodology[2] to evaluate research:
 Substantive Contribution: creative output with technology is not possible without it
 Aesthetic Merit: workshop detail, children’s enjoyment, imaginative contents by children
 Reflexivity: project leader, responsible for design, management and oversight
 Impact: participants moved intellectually (novelty) and emotionally (involvement and/or
research)
 Expresses a Reality: participants gain an understanding of digital video based workshops both
in both intricate detail and state of the art in the larger scope of society
[2]Richardson, Laurel. "Evaluating Ethnography." Qualitative Inquiry 6.2 (2000): 253-255.

24. Conclusion
 Never stop starting
 Research never ends
 More work needed
 Future Works
 More participation/involvement
 Manual development
• First step in building a community based workshop-knowledge database
• Grassroots distribution/contribution with potential global impact
• Simplicity: Adaptability and Scalability  easy to modify and adapt
• Creative Commons Attribution-NonCommercial-ShareAlike License

25. Conclusion

26. Conclusion