Kids DIY Media Partnership Workshop 2: Session 1

Daylong workshop aimed reviewing the Kids DIY Media Partnership’s ongoing research into children's digital do-ityourself (DIY) media production, and discussing the social, ethical and
educational implications of young children’s increased participation in making and sharing their own media creations online with project partners and key stakeholders.

Session 1 was presented by: Dr. Sara Grimes (Principal Investigator, University of Toronto), Dr. Deborah Fields (Co-PI, Utah State University), and Yana Boeva (PhD Candidate, Research Assistant, York University). Allen Kempton (PhD Student, Research Assistant, University of Toronto), and Matt Wells (PhD Candidate, Research Assistant, University of Toronto).

Transcript

2. 2 Welcome! and Introductions
3. 3 Sara M. Grimes •  Associate Professor with the Faculty of Information, University of Toronto •  Associate Director, Semaphore Lab •  Research on kids’ digital culture, gaming and play, critical theories of technology, policy and ethical implications of kids’ online participation Deborah A. Fields •  Assistant Professor in Instructional Technology and Learning Sciences at Utah State University •  Co-director of the Computational Craft Lab •  Research on children’s learning through design with digital technologies, virtual worlds, computational media, tangible craft technologies Who We Are
4. 4 “Doodle Kids”: Lim Ding Wen, 9 yrs old “iJailbreak”: Ari “AriX” Weinstein, 15yrs old “Fire Spiral” by Lego Hacker “Sissy’s Magical Ponycorn Adventure”: Cassie Creighton, 5 yrs old Kids Make Media
5. Picture Place Holder What is Kids’ DIY Media? The partnership is aimed at advancing our understanding of an important emerging phenomenon – children’s increased participation in making and sharing digital/ media creations online – as well as mapping the various opportunities and challenges involved.
6. 6 Partnership Development Grant 2013-2017 •  Build knowledge and understanding from disciplinary, interdisciplinary and/or cross-sector perspectives through support for the best researchers; •  Support new approaches to research on complex and important topics, including those that transcend the capacity of any one scholar, institution or discipline
7. 7 Policy Makers Academics Programmers Educators Non Profits Designers
8. 8 UofT Research Team •  Dr. Lisa Quirke, Consultant. Workshop coordinator/organizer •  Allen Kempton, PhD Student, Faculty of Information: policy & data analysis (lead) •  Yana Boeva, PhD Candidate, STS Dept. at York University: data analysis, case studies, project management •  Dr. Amy Ratelle, Semaphore Lab: incoming project coordinator (data analysis and communication of results) •  Melissa Tomko, MI Student, Faculty of Information: policy analysis, project communications •  Olivia Doggett, MI Student, Faculty of Information: event support, workshop feedback synthesis and analysis •  The Playing at Making Team: Matt Wells (PhD Candidate, iSchool), Vinca Merriman (MI Student, iSchool), Marco Piccolo (4th yr UG, Book&Media Studies) Who We Are
9. 9 USU Research Team •  Katarina Pantic, PhD Student in Instructional Technology and Learning Sciences, USU: Content analysis data analysis; case studies Kids DIY Alumni •  Averie MacDonald, MA, OISE, UofT: Website content analysis •  Sam Novak, MI iSchool, UofT: Policy content analysis, website design •  Kimberly Davis, MA, Instructional Technology and Learning Sciences, USU: Media scan, lit review •  Whitney King, PhD student, Instructional Technology and Learning Sciences, USU. Media scan, lit review. •  Dr. Grace Gu (Instructional Technology and Learning Sciences, USU): Content analysis Who We Are
10. 10 Project Partners:
11. 11 Project Partners •  Joan Ganz Cooney Centre (represented by Allison Mishkin) •  foundry10 (represented by Lisa Castaneda and Marc Pacampara) •  TIFF Kids (represented by Nicholas Pagee and Elizabeth Muskala) •  Common Sense Media (represented by Tanner Higgin) •  kidsmediacentre@Centennial College (represented by Debbie Gordon) Who We Are
12. 12 Other Project Partners (who couldn’t make it today & send their regrets) •  Storybird Inc. (represented by Mark Ury) •  Media Smarts •  Sago Sago Toys Inc. •  Dr. Alissa Antle (Simon Fraser University) Who We Are
13. 13 Key Objectives What types of support systems—regulatory, infrastructural, and technical—best foster a rights-based, child-centric, inclusive approach to children's online DIY media production. Identifying Support Systems How often do children engage in DIY media making, what tools do they use, how are their creations shaped and moderated by those tools and their owners? Using our research and cross-sector collaboration to inform/guide future development of relevant policies, tools, activities and forums. Policy Recommendations and Best Practices Filling Gaps in Knowledge
14. 14 Research Plan Mapping the landscape (2013-2014) Literature review, media scan, content analysis of websites aimed at kids’ DIY media making, policy analysis (governmental and industry). 01 In-depth comparative case studies (2015-2016) Series of approx. 8 case studies of kids’ DIY media sites, games, apps: design analysis, interviews with developers/owners, interviews with child users, analysis of children’s creations. 02 Consultations with key stakeholders (2016-2017) Workshops, webinars and public events aimed at presenting project findings to date, soliciting feedback on research design and outcomes with key stakeholders (non-profit, media industries, child advisory). 03
15. 15 Our Guests: •  Jennifer Burkitt & Tara Harte (Log Cabin Productions) •  Alison Bryant (PlayScience) •  Marie McCann (CBC Kids) •  Christyn Edwards, Caitlin Davey, Trev Murphy, Michele Runowski (CBC Kids Digital) •  Marney Malabar (Kids TV @ TVO) •  Leslie Regan Shade (UofT) •  Giovanni Gerbolini (TedX Toronto) •  Tom Henheffer (Canadian Journalists for Free Expression) •  Liz Haines & Evan Doherty (Story Planet) Workshop Participants
16. 16 Agency •  How much freedom do children currently have when it comes to expressing themselves, creating, sharing and engaging in networked DIY media making? •  How can we balance structure and agency when designing tools, forums, etc., for children’s DIY media? Today’s Theme
17. Picture Place Holder Session 1
18. 18 Yana Boeva Session 1: Content Analysis
19. 19 Content Analysis — Background Steps 1 - Find websites (~140) 2 - Content analysis on 120 websites 3 - Review and cross-reference analysis of initial website content analysis Content Analysis Based on standardized coding protocol 82 questions 20 websites required special permission to access Review & Cross-Reference Analysis Criteria for inclusion: •  Focus on making •  Sharing of content •  Children have some presence on website •  Website presence Websites Review of current state of websites Data clean up and filling the blanks Comparison between questions/categories to explore trends Key finding media scan: Sharing features largely absent
20. 20 Content Analysis — Websites
21. 21 Trends on Descriptive Website Data •  State children as intended user •  About a quarter do not state intended user 62.5%, n=75 Country of Origin •  Do not openly state their country of origin or date of creation •  In-depth analysis of further sources reduced the sites with unidentified country of origin to 12% (n=15) Type of User Account 17.5%, n=21 Kids’ account separate from adults’ account 82%, n=98 One type for all Intended User 54%, n=64
22. 22 Trends on Agency – Access & Control •  Consistent (88%, n=106): Sign up to use the site’s features •  International participation: Less than 1/3 allow language choice •  Accessibility scores lower than average: Only 1 website provides access to those differently abled •  Protection language (40%, n=48): Mostly present on sites with special parents’ or safety pages •  Parental control is not prominent •  Users can flag inappropriate comments (26%, n=31) or content (37%, n=45) •  Site admins rarely put restrictions on communication content Accessibility Control
23. 23 Trends on Agency – Participation & Support •  Free membership (97.5%, n=117) •  23%, n=28 sites offer different levels of service for additional fees •  Provide user support such as tutorials/instructions (69%, n=83) or a display of model projects (67%, n=80) •  14 websites have no support features •  Websites that offer support present the community on the homepage through UGC Participation Support 26 32 25 0 Support Features Model users & Tutorials Model project & Tutorials
24. 24 Content Analysis – Key Takeaways •  Content analysis based on 2-hour skim per website •  Websites cover a broad range of DIY/UGC •  Need for best practices •  Survey results and trends foreground the case studies à breadth over depth
25. 25 Allen Kempton Session 1: Policy Analysis
26. 26 Policy Recap Why a Policy Analysis? 01 Terms of Service and Privacy Policies 02 Preliminary Findings 03 04 Purpose of Policy Focus •  User Agency •  Issues of Ownership, Censorship, Data Collection, Sharing •  Investigation of 60 websites •  Contextualized by 2 Canadian Acts and 1 American Act •  Presence of documents •  Child-friendly language •  Copyright and Fair-Use •  Ownership and reimbursement •  Privacy and Legislation •  Best Practices •  Recommendations
27. 27 What We’re Looking At Now Website Policies 01 Laws and Policies 02 Reports, Guidelines, and Tip sheets 03 04 Policy Initiatives •  A total of 223 policies from 120 websites •  113 Terms of Services, 110 Privacy Policies •  Canadian: 5 Federal Acts, 2 Provincials Acts •  Abroad: 2 European Policy Directives, 3 American Acts •  International: United Nations Convention on the Rights of the Child •  Reports from Office of the Privacy Commissioner •  FTC Guidelines for COPPA; Guidelines from Organizations •  Individually released fact or tip-sheets for best practices •  Digital Canada 150
28. 28 Issues in Policy Child Users Treated as Subject, not Participant Lack of “Kidspeak”; Lack of “Readability” Low Visibility of Documents 01 02 03 04 Limited Interactive Capabilities and Autonomy •  “Meaningful” or “informed” consent hard to give if documents are unclear •  Policies often in “legalese” or difficult to read •  Privacy Policy and Terms of Service Documents not upfront •  Lack of Parental Involvement •  Child users as subject in relationships of power/authority •  Surveillance, data collection, limited autonomy
29. 29 Policy Trends to Watch Kid Specific Data Policies Privacy and Data Control Resources User-Generated Content Ownership •  Positive trends in assigning ownership to content creators. •  Separate policies specifically geared towards kids and their data. •  How parents can control their children’s data. •  Factsheets or tip-sheets to help businesses and start-ups protect children online and learn/follow existing regulations.
30. 30 Dr. Sara Grimes & Matt Wells Session 1: Playing at Making
31. 31 Kids Making Games
32. 32 Potential and Promise Opportunities for creative expression, informal learning (technical + critical skills), and autonomous play 01 More diverse and inclusive game “landscape” (genres, themes, structures, demographics represented) 02 Platforms for sharing and collaboration 03 04 Potential for unanticipated + radical design innovations
33. 33 Playing at Making Commercial/entertainment driven kids DIY game design: opening and closing off opportunities Critical consideration of how children use these games (to make and play); within and alongside regulatory structures & design limitations Understanding how the structure/ agency dynamic unfolds within these spaces
34. 34 Four Components Survey 01 Content Analysis 02 Governance Structures 03 04 Workshops
35. 35 Survey Designed to collect information on how kids play and make with video games, differences across demographics 35 questions for child, 21 for parent Minimal demographic differences among respondents: 80% boys, 80% suburban/urban, median upper middle-class. Many smartphone and tablet players, games such as Garry’s Mod and Baldur’s Gate. Variety of practices ~30 full responses
36. 36 Content Analysis Over 100 on initial list, incl. basic information (cost, rating, platforms, etc.) Broad collection of UGC-enabled games More detailed analysis of UGC tools and issues, including avatar creation, level editing, and distribution channels. 36 Games examined. In-depth analysis of 10-12 games, providing more specific insights about UGC features. Case studies Initial coding protocol
37. 37 Governance Structures Terms of service (TOS), end-user licence agreements (EULA), UGC curation practices. Analysis of governance structures How mods and hacks are/are not supported by game developers. Are rights of children considered in such documents? If not, why not? Impact on children Study of limitations