Parent-Child Joint Media Engagement Within HCI: A Scoping Analysis of the Research Landscape
Authors: 
Junnan Yu, 
Xiang Qi, Siqi YangAuthors Info & Claims
Article No.: 121, Pages 1 - 21
Abstract
Parents play essential roles in children’s play and learning with various media, often leading to positive and productive engagement outcomes for both parties. As such, an increasing number of HCI research has focused on understanding parent-child joint media engagement (JME) and designing new technologies to foster productive joint media experiences for children and parents. However, we currently lack a systematic view of this emerging field, which hinders the research and design of new joint media experiences and technologies for families. In this work, we conduct a scoping review of parent-child JME research within HCI (N = 89) and analyze the included papers from three lenses: publication features, methodological features, and JME features. Based on these findings, we identify gaps and opportunities in parent-child JME research and further expand the theoretical framing of JME by developing a framework that captures different JME dimensions.
1 Introduction
Parents are deeply engaged in various aspects of their children’s lives and are an indispensable part of their development. Particularly, with the ubiquity of technologies, children nowadays consume a lot of media and technology and are often referred to as “digital natives,” i.e., people who grow up in the digital age and are comfortable with the Internet, electronic devices, and digital platforms [91]. Parents’ engagement becomes even more critical for “digital natives” as many media and technologies may negatively impact children’s lives and development, e.g., exposing them to age-inappropriate information like violence [83], resulting in excessive screen time [80], and causing anxiety and depression [2]. Therefore, parents have implemented various mediation strategies to help their children maximize the benefits and minimize the negative impacts from media usage. Examples include restricting children’s media access and scaffolding children’s learning with educational media [22, 31, 77, 128]. Among these mediation strategies, an important practice widely utilized by parents is using media together with their children, intentionally or unintentionally, such as playing video games together [105] and participating in their learning with educational apps [42], which is framed as “Joint Media Engagement” (JME) by HCI scholars (e.g., [110, 130]).
JME refers to the phenomenon of people using media together [110]. Parent-child JME has garnered considerable attention from HCI researchers in the past decade due to the significant roles that parents play in children’s play and learning with technologies, such as project collaborator, logistics supporter, and learning opportunity broker [12, 29, 127]. Notably, such shared media use between parents and children is not only valuable for children’s development and learning but also contributes to positive family dynamics and provides benefits to parents as well, such as increasing family bonding and aiding parents in learning new information about technology [87, 105]. Consequently, prior studies have explored parent-child JME across various media (e.g., video games [53] social media [27], and learning technologies [129]) and suggested design guidelines to facilitate productive shared media use. Simultaneously, to design more productive parent-child JME experiences and technologies, exploring different aspects of how parents and children interact with each other around technologies is necessary, especially considering that new domestic, entertainment, and learning technologies are consistently emerging. Ewin and colleagues conducted a systematic literature review in 2021 on mobile-device-based JME between parents and children, in which they included 27 papers and analyzed how parents and children interacted with each other and how mobile devices impacted the interaction [33]. However, this review specifically focused on mobile-device-based JME while excluding other media types, such as parent-child JME with smart voice assistants (e.g., [16]) and smart toys (e.g., [38]). Moreover, Ewin et al.’s review included only four papers from HCI venues due to its demanding paper inclusion criteria, although there are many HCI papers on parent-child JME. We still lack a comprehensive view of the current research landscape of parent-child JME within HCI, such as what media types have been explored, what JME aspects HCI scholars focus on, and how HCI scholars frame parent-child interactions. This gap may hinder further research and designs that aim to create innovative joint media experiences and technologies for families.
In this work, we conduct a scoping analysis of parent-child JME research within HCI by searching for relevant papers in the ACM Digital Library and major HCI journals archived in other databases. Our analysis, based on the curated papers (N = 89), focuses on understanding the overall research landscape of parent-child JME through three lenses: 1) publication features, i.e., publication years, venues, and contribution types; 2) methodological features, such as participants’ demographical backgrounds, research methods, and participants’ engagement length; and 3) JME features, i.e., media types, JME settings, theoretical perspectives, and analytical perspectives for JME. Our findings show parent-child JME is a relevantly new research field in HCI but has accumulated considerable attention from HCI scholars recently, who have paid attention to parent-child joint use of different media (e.g., educational media, communication media, and entertainment media) in various settings (e.g., homes, community centers, and fields). Interestingly, HCI scholars approach parent-child JME from various theoretical and analytical perspectives, such as leveraging theories from Communication, Learning Sciences, and Cognition, and framing parent-child interactions by highlighting the agencies of parents, children, or technologies. Based on these findings, we develop a JME framework consisting of essential components for understanding the phenomenon of people using media together, and further reflect on the gaps and opportunities for more research and design work on parent-child JME.
This work primarily offers three contributions to the HCI communities interested in designing and developing joint media experiences and technologies for families: 1) It provides a comprehensive overview of the landscape of parent-child JME research within HCI, the first and much-needed review of parent-child JME within HCI given the increasing interest in research and design for family JME; 2) It proposes a JME framework that can be employed by researchers and designers to guide the analysis and design of people’s joint media engagement; and 3) It uncovers gaps and potential avenues for future research and design practices to support joint media use for families.
2 Theoretical Underpinning: Parental Mediation Theory AND Joint Media Engagement
HCI scholars often borrow the theoretical framing of Parental Mediation Theory, which originated from Media and Communication studies, to understand the shared engagement of parents and children with media and technologies. Parental mediation theory refers to the strategies parents use to help their children maximize the benefits and minimize the risks posed by media use [22, 53]. The theory encompasses three broad types of mediation: restrictive mediation, where parents set rules for and regulate their children’s media use, such as restricting what media children can play with, when they can use the media, and the use length [50, 58]; active mediation, where parents explain or discuss media content and its use with their children, such as discussing Internet content or game strategies together [32, 53]; and co-using, where parents join their children’s media activities, such as playing video games together [53, 105] or joining their children’s learning with learning technologies [128]. However, as new technologies have evolved, media and HCI scholars have found the current framing of parental mediation theory inadequate. For instance, it falls short in capturing the nuanced details of parent-child interactions made possible by newly emerged, highly networked technologies [53, 128]. This has led to the development and application of new framings of parent-child interactions with technology, such as adding new dimensions to the framework [22, 53], framing the interaction through the lenses of parent roles [12, 29, 127], or creating new theoretical framings like Joint Media Engagement [110], which is the theoretical foundation of the present work.
Joint Media Engagement (JME) was coined by Takeuchi and Stevens in 2011 and is defined as “spontaneous and designed experiences of people using media together” [110, p.9]. JME has broad applicability and can occur across space and boundary as long as multiple people use media together [33, 110]. Therefore, JME has been widely cited by HCI scholars in studies involving multiple people in technology use, particularly in family contexts, such as families’ online information search [87] and family co-making with creative computing technologies [130]. When researching and designing JME experiences and technologies, researchers and practitioners have paid particular attention to supporting "productive" JME, i.e., joint experiences that positively contribute to participants’ shared media use. Such experiences can lead to a deeper understanding of media content, provide inspiration, or result in improved physical and mental wellbeing [70, 105, 110]. To facilitate these productive JME experiences, some design principles have been proposed. Examples include maintaining meaningful engagement for all participants, encouraging communicative interactions among participants, and scaffolding affective interactions [70, 110]. Overall, JME is an important research thread in HCI and computer-supported cooperative work, and it can contribute to more human-centered, productive, and engaging technology-mediated experiences among people. The present work focuses on a notable JME phenomenon–parent-child joint media use–and aims to better understand how HCI scholars approach parent-child JME through a scoping review, finally informing new designs of productive experiences and technologies for family use.
Table 1:
| Dimensions | Inclusion | Exclusion |
|---|---|---|
| Population | Parents: Including fathers and/or mothers in the JME, regardless of involving other family members | Only including none-parent family members (e.g., grandparents, older siblings) and no parents were included |
| Children: Including young people between 0-18 years old in the JME | No children (0-18 years old) were included | |
| Intervention | Parents and children co-engaged in the reported media experiences, in-person or remotely, regardless of the involvement of other family members like siblings | No media co-engagement between parents and children, e.g., solo engagement, sibling interactions, or only grandparent-grand interactions |
| Outcomes | Empirical data: provide clear, identifiable empirical accounts of parent-child interactions in the findings, i.e., readers can clearly tell which interactions belongs to parent-child dyads | Did not present empirical data about parent-child JME (e.g., argument papers and literature reviews), or which interactions belong to parent-child dyads cannot be identified like [68] |
| Peer-reviewed full papers | Posters, workshop papers, work-in-progress papers, papers not published in not fully peer-reviewed venues, etc. | |
| Presented in English | Presented in other languages |
3 Method
We followed the PRISMA protocol [82] to structure our processes of paper search, analysis, and report, which are detailed in this section.
3.1 Collecting Papers
Figure 1:
To locate papers about parent-child JME within HCI, we searched two data sources–the ACM Digital Library (the primary database archiving high-quality conferences and journals for HCI and Child-Computer Interaction, such as the ACM CHI, CSCW, and IDC conferences) and major journals for HCI and Child-Computer Interaction archived in other databases. The latter examples include the International Journal of Human-Computer Studies, International Journal of Child-Computer Interaction, and International Journal of Human-Computer Interaction. We have provided a complete list of the selected HCI journals not archived in the ACM Digital Library in the appendix table (N = 29). We selected these journals by consulting the journal lists in the HCI Bibliography [85], Google Scholar’s top publications on Human-Computer Interaction [74], and the journal rankings on Human-Computer Interaction by the Scimago Journal & Country Rank (SJR) [79].
We used the keyword combinations of {["Parent*" AND "Child*"] OR ["Famil*" AND "Joint Media Engagement"]} in the paper abstracts for our data sources. We employed broad terms like “parent*” and “child*” in the search because many papers about parent-child interactions with media/technologies did not mention the phrase “joint media engagement,” as the phrase is relatively new and not yet a universally applied term by relevant HCI scholars (e.g., [49, 96, 100]). The search was conducted in two rounds: the first in December 2022 to include all relevant HCI papers up to that point, and the second in June 2023 to include newly published papers from the first half of 2023. For the returned search results from the two batches (N = 3, 437), we first carried out a loose screening by reading the titles and abstracts of the papers to include those about parent-child or family interactions with technologies, resulting in 228 papers. Next, we applied a stricter filtering process to the 228 papers, which involved reading a paper’s introduction, method, and findings sections to determine if it met the inclusion and exclusion criteria specified in Table 1. Note that we followed the definition of JME as “spontaneous and designed experiences of people using media together” [110, p.9] to decide if a paper covers parent-child JME, i.e., if a paper provides empirical findings on parent-child interactions around media, regardless whether other family members were involved. This process led to the inclusion of 89 papers in the review, comprising 80 papers from the ACM Digital Library and nine papers from HCI journals. It is important to note that to ensure the rigor of our paper screening and filtering, the second step was conducted independently by two research assistants (the second and third authors). Their results were compared to determine if a paper should be included. Any discrepancies were then discussed and resolved among all the authors. Figure 1 provides the documentation of our paper search and screening processes. The full list of the 89 included papers for this review can be found in the supplementary file.
3.2 Analyzing Papers
The analysis was structured around our research goal for this review, i.e., understanding the research landscape of parent-child JME in HCI. Specifically, we followed a content analysis approach [60, 90] and focused on three dimensions of the collected papers: 1) publications features, including publication years, venues, and contribution types; 2) methodological features, including participants’ demographical backgrounds (i.e., geographical locations, ethnical backgrounds, socioeconomic status, children’s ages and genders, children’s special needs if any, and parents’ genders), the employed research methods, and participants’ engagement length; and 3) JME features, including media types, JME settings, theoretical perspectives, and analytical perspectives.
Three authors (referred to as A1, A2, and A3) participated in the data analysis process. Specifically, A1 and A2 divided the analysis work: A1 focused on the dimension of JME features, while A2 analyzed publication and methodological features. A1 and A2 each read through all the included papers to identify and label information related to their assigned analysis dimensions using the qualitative analysis software MAXQDA. Any uncertainties or questions arising from the analysis were discussed between the two researchers throughout this process. It’s worth noting that for most of our analysis, we did not need to develop codebooks as relevant information could be directly found in the included papers, such as the papers’ publication features, employed methods, and theories. Therefore, the analysis largely involved finding relevant information from each paper. One exception was the analysis of contribution types under the publication features dimension, where we followed Wobbrock and Kientz’s summary of seven research contribution types in HCI for deductive analysis (i.e., empirical research contributions, artifact contributions, methodological contributions, theoretical contributions, data set contributions, survey contributions, and opinion contributions) [120].
After labeling all relevant information, A1 and A2 came together to summarize their extracted information into findings. It was at this point that a higher level of information abstraction and knowledge generation occurred as the two researchers discussed and synthesized their extracted data. Examples include the taxonomy of media types and the development of a new JME framework. To test the reliability of the information extraction and labeling by A1 and A2, A3 independently analyzed 10 randomly sampled papers following the three analysis focuses and the developed codes by A1 and A2. The results were compared to those from A1 and A2, achieving Cohen’s Kappa scores of .837 ("Almost Perfect" [61]) and .712 ("Substantial" [61]), respectively, demonstrating the high effectiveness of A1’s and A2’s analyses. Finally, A1 organized all the analysis results and summaries and further reflected on the findings with a specific focus on research gaps and opportunities for parent-child JME research.
4 Findings
This section is structured based on our three analytical dimensions, i.e., publication features, methodological features, and parent-child JME features.
4.1 Publication Features
Publication features present the publication years, venues, and contribution types of the reviewed papers.
4.1.1 Publication Years & Venues.
Our results show that the number of papers focused on parent-child JME has been increasing yearly from 2009 to 2023, see Figure 7.1 (a) in the appendix1. The majority of these papers were published within the last six years (from 2017 to 2023), totaling 64 papers (71.91%) of the overall number. In comparison, 25 papers were published between 2009 and 2016, constituting 28.09% of the total. The publication year distribution indicates growing research interest in parent-child JME within HCI. Regarding publication venues, we found a total of 18 different venues (Figure 7.1 (b)). The majority of papers were published in ACM conferences (N = 80, 89.89%), with only a few appearing in HCI journals (N = 9, 10.11%). More specifically, The ACM Conference on Human Factors in Computing Systems (CHI, N = 27, 30.34%), The ACM Conference on Interaction and Children (IDC, N = 23, 25.84%), The ACM Conference on Computer-Supported Cooperative Work & Social Computing (CSCW, N = 14, 15.73%), and International Journal of Child-Computer Interaction (IJCCI, N = 7, 7.87%) are the top four publication venues for parent-child JME research, accounting for 79.78% of the total papers. New scholars to JME research can focus on these venues for finding relevant research and publishing their work.
4.1.2 Contribution Types.
Following Wobbrock and Kientz’s research contribution taxonomy in HCI [120], we identified three types of contributions among the included papers: empirical contributions (N = 89, 100%), artifact contributions (N = 35, 39.33%), and theoretical contributions (N = 13, 14.61%). Because of the paper inclusion criterion, which mandates the inclusion of empirical data regarding parent-child JME, all 89 papers have made empirical contributions by providing descriptive accounts of parent-child interaction behaviors using various media and technologies. Out of these 89 papers, 54 of them (60.67%) are focused on empirically investigating parent-child interactions with existing technologies (e.g., [96, 105]). The remaining 35 papers (39.33%) report parent-child JME around new technologies developed by the researchers (i.e., artifact contributions), e.g., new technologies for families’ co-building of Machine Learning models [114] or for parents’ participatory mediation of their children’s smartphone use [58]. Thirteen papers made theoretical contributions, i.e., involving the development of “new or improved concepts, definitions, models, principles, or frameworks” [120, p.41]. Among the 13 papers, five papers (38.46%) introduced novel concepts, models, or frameworks related to parent-child interaction or children’s media use, such as the concept of Centering and Decentering that emphasize the agencies of both parents and children during JME [47], and children’s ecological context of choosing media content [55]. The remaining eight out of the 13 papers (61.54%) expanded JME framing and related theories, such as broadening the scope of JME [65, 87], proposing fresh perspectives for analyzing JME (i.e., Discord [65], Negotiation [130], and Family Values [125]), and introducing new principles for productive JME [70, 125].
4.2 Methodological Features
We extracted and synthesized participants’ demographic backgrounds and the methods employed to investigate JME.
4.2.1 Participants’ Demographic Backgrounds.
In this dimension, we extracted and synthesized participants’ geographical locations, ethnical backgrounds, parent marital status, family socioeconomic status, children’s ages, children’s genders, children’s special needs when applicable (e.g., children with disability), parents’ genders, and parenting roles (i.e., father or mother). Regarding the paper count, if a specific dimension (e.g., age) covers a wide range, then all the covered categories under this dimension will be counted. For example, if a paper includes children ages 6-8 years and 15-17 years old, then the counts of both the "Middle Childhood (6-8 years old)" and "Teenagers (15-17 years old)" categories will increase by one. We applied this rule to the counts of participants’ geographical locations, ethnic backgrounds, parent marital status, children’s ages, and children with special needs. For the counts of children’s genders, parents’ genders, and family socioeconomic status, almost all papers involved different features (e.g., all papers involved/targeted both boys and girls), making the counting meaningless. Therefore, we followed the rule of dominance, i.e., if a specific feature dominates the category using the threshold of 70%. For example, “predominantly girls” means that 70%+ of the involved/targeted children were girls while less than 30% were boys.
Participants’ Geographical Locations. We identified a total of 19 countries/regions from the 89 papers, see Figure 7.2. However, most studies were conducted in the USA (N = 65, 73.03%), followed by Canada (N = 6, 6.74%), the UK (N = 5, 5.62%), and South Korea (N = 3, 3.37%). The remaining locations included only one or two papers. A few papers introduced cross-cultural contexts and collected data from multiple locations (N = 7, 7.87%), such as those in both Austria and Middle Eastern countries [115], or the USA and Saudi Arabia [51].
Participants’ Ethnic Backgrounds. Fourty-one papers (46.07%) reported White participants, 25 papers (28.09%) reported Asian participants, 20 papers (22.47%) reported Black participants, 19 papers (21.35%) reported Hispanic/Latinx participants, two papers (2.25%) reported Pacific Islanders, and one study (1.12%) reported Native American participants (Figure 7.3 (a)). Additionally, 10 papers (11.24%) reported participants of mixed races, all of whom were from the USA. Fourty papers (44.94%) did not disclose participants’ ethnic backgrounds.
Family Marital and Socioeconomic Status. Twenty-one papers (23.60%) reported two-parent families, 12 papers (13.48%) reported divorced or single-parent families, while the majority of papers (N = 70, 78.65%) did not fully report the family marital status, see Figure 7.3 (b). Additionally, we did not find any of the 89 papers specifically mentions including same-sex households. As for the families’ SES, the papers were more evenly distributed. Twenty-three papers (25.84%) focused predominantly on high SES, sixteen papers (17.98%) on predominantly low SES, and seven papers (7.87%) explored both. However, a significant portion of the papers (N = 43, 48.31%) did not disclose the families’ SES.
Children’s Ages & Genders . We categorized children’s ages based on the eight developmental stages outlined by the US Centers for Disease Control and Prevention (CDC) [113]. Specifically, 83 papers (93.26%) provided detailed age information of the target children, whereas six papers (6.74%) did not define children’s age information clearly. Overall, despite a wide age range being represented in these studies, the focus is on the middle childhood stage, i.e., children between 6-11 years old (Figure 7.4 (a)), including children in middle childhood (6-8 years old: N = 57, 64.04%; 9-11 years old: N = 54, 60.67%) and preschoolers (3-5 years old: N = 50, 56.18%). Young teens aged 12-14 years also constituted a significant group, being the focus of 34 papers (38.20%). Comparatively, research involving the youngest and oldest ends of the age spectrum was less common. Regarding children’s genders (Figure 7.5 (a)), the majority of the papers, 49 in number, reported a mix of girls and boys, accounting for 55.06% of the total; Six papers (6.74%) predominantly reported boys (i.e., boys made up more than 70%); And four papers (4.49%) predominantly reported girls (i.e., girls made up more than 70%). The remaining 30 papers (33.71%) did not clearly state the genders of their target children.
Children with Special Needs. Eight papers reported children with special needs (N = 8, 8.99%), including those with visual impairments (N = 2, 2.25%), emotion regulatory difficulties (N = 1, 1.12%), developmental delay (N = 1, 1.12%), Autism (N = 1, 1.12%), language delay (N = 1, 1.12%), sleep issues (N = 1, 1.12%), and attention deficit hyperactivity disorder (N = 1, 1.12%), see Figure 7.4 (b). The remaining 82 papers focused on typically developing children, accounting for 92.13% of the total papers. In sum, children with special needs are significantly underrepresented.
Which Parent. Thirty papers predominantly featured mothers (33.71%, i.e., mothers made up more than 70%), while a significantly smaller number, three papers (3.37%), focused primarily on fathers, see Figure 7.5 (b). Twenty-three papers (25.84%) reported a mix of fathers and mothers, and 33 papers (37.08%) did not disclose this information.
4.2.2 The Employed Methods for Investigating JME.
We examined the research methods the reviewed papers employed to approach parent-child JME. Also, we analyzed participants’ engagement length in each study.
Research Methods. We identified three paradigms for approaching parent-child JME: 1) Designing and developing new systems, and then conducting system evaluations with families (N = 35, 39.33%), i.e., the papers that made artifact contributions; 2) Selecting existing technologies and deploying them with families (N = 34, 38.20%) in various settings, such as engaging families in collaborative activities in community centers [130] and mailing smart speakers to families to explore their use experience [16]; 3) Examining families’ existing media practices without deploying any technologies (N = 20, 22.47%) like investigating family’s existing video call practices [4].
To document and investigate family parent-child JME experiences, various data collection methods were employed (Figure 7.6 (a)), mainly including interviews (N = 60, 67.42%), video recordings (N = 40, 44.94%), surveys/questionnaires (N = 33, 37.08%), system use logs (N = 27, 30.34%), field notes (N = 15, 16.85%), screen recordings (N = 8, 8.99%). Most papers (N = 70, 78.65%) employed multiple data collection methods, such as combining survey, video recording, and interview [125]; The remaining 19 papers (21.35%) only employed a single data collection method, either video recordings, interviews, field notes, or use logs (e.g., [17, 47, 127]). Additionally, among the 35 papers that made artifact contributions, 13 of them conducted formative studies to understand relevant design space and guide system design, using methods such as interviews, technology probes, and surveys.
Participation Length. Regarding the time duration during which participants were involved in the study, the data reveals a wide range, from less than 30 minutes to longer than one year (Figure 7.6 (b)). Tweety-four papers (26.97%) involved participants for 30 to 120 minutes, followed by papers spanning one week to one month (N = 21, 23.60%) and one to three months (N = 12, 13.48%). Eight papers (8.99%) did not disclose the engagement duration. Lastly, papers with engagement less than one day (N = 39, 43.82%) primarily consisted of interview studies or short activity interventions conducted in research labs and community centers, while studies spanning from one day to more than one year typically tracked families’ interactions with researcher-deployed media or existing media.
4.3 JME Features
In the third dimension, we examined features of parent-child JME experiences, including media types, JME settings (i.e., where the JME experience took place), theoretical perspectives adopted by different papers, and their analytical perspectives (i.e., how parent-child joint experiences were described). Theoretical and analytical perspectives are included because they provide insights into how HCI scholars view and frame JME and reveal the richness and complexity of JME, which can help researchers and practitioners better understand and design for JME. They can further serve as a reference for researchers to decide on appropriate perspectives for examining and understanding JME.
4.3.1 Media Types.
As depicted in Figure 7.7 (a), more than half of the papers reviewed (N = 50, 56.18%) focused on educational media, which are technologies designed for learning purposes, such as teaching children computational concepts [114], knowledge about energy [9], and emotional skills [104]. Communication media (N = 21, 23.60%), which support connection and communication between individuals, formed another significant category, such as video conferencing [4] and phone calls [23]. The remaining three media types received comparatively less attention from HCI scholars: entertainment media (N = 8, 8.99%) such as video games [26]; general everyday devices used by families (N = 6, 6.74%) such as iPads and smartphones [102]; and information trackers (N = 5, 5.62%) like physical activity trackers [99]. Note that some papers involved multiple types of media (e.g., [38, 71]).
4.3.2 JME Settings.
Regarding the settings for the examined JME (Figure 7.7 (b)), the majority of them took place physically in-person (N = 83, 93.26%), while only a few papers focused on remote joint experiences (N = 6, 6.74%). Furthermore, we investigated the specific locations where the JMEs occurred and identified six types: the most common being participants’ homes (N = 58, 65.17%), followed by community centers (N = 15, 16.85%), such as museums, libraries, and makerspaces; university labs (N = 14, 15.73%); field use (N = 6, 6.74%), such as natural environments and parks; children’s schools (N = 2, 2.25%); and the researcher’s home (N = 1, 1.12%). Additionally, two papers (2.25%) did not specify the locations of their JMEs, and six papers involved multiple locations, such as both university labs and participants’ homes [20].
Table 2:
| Theory Domains | Specific Theoretical Perspectives |
|---|---|
| Communication | Joint Media Engagement [10, 16, 17, 20, 28, 29, 36, 48, 56, 64, 70, 75, 81, 87, 105, 125, 128, 129, 130] |
| and HCI (N = 28) | Parental Mediation Theory [15, 39, 45, 58, 75, 81, 105, 127, 128, 129] |
| Communication Repair [16, 20] | |
| Discord/Negotiation [65, 130] | |
| Centering and Decentering [47] | |
| Differentiated Participation [26] | |
| Interaction as Performance [26] | |
| Othermother [102] | |
| Parental Scaffolding Behaviors [29] | |
| Pragmatics [16] | |
| Education and | Sociocultural Learning Perspective [1, 7, 17, 63, 96, 114, 119, 130] |
| Learning Sciences | Culturally Responsive Computing/Cultural Forms [9, 51, 52, 96] |
| (N = 23) | Sensemaking Talk/Learning Talk/Self Talk [36, 66, 135] |
| AI Literacy Framework [29, 114] | |
| Computational Thinking [43, 95] | |
| Constructionism [52, 135] | |
| Experiential Learning Framework [99, 104] | |
| Active Prolonged Engagement (APE) Framework [65] | |
| Discourse Scaffolding [16] | |
| Engineering is Elementary Model [135] | |
| Family Alignment of data Models and Stories (FAMS) [7] | |
| Information Problem-Solving – Internet (IPS-I) [87] | |
| Multiple Literacies [29] | |
| Problem-based Gaming [25] | |
| Psychology and | Self-Determination Theory [49, 98, 100] |
| Cognition (N = 13) | Ecological Systems Theory [55, 81, 87] |
| Reflection/Reflection-in-Action [25, 97] | |
| Empowerment Theory [123] | |
| Family Systems Theory [86] | |
| Family Resilience Framework [39] | |
| Self-Efficacy [102] | |
| Symbol Systems [89] |
4.3.3 Theoretical Perspectives.
Among the 89 papers, 52 (58.43%) specifically mentioned theoretical perspectives in their writing, which we classified into three main categories based on their application fields. Table 2 presents these three categories, along with the specific theoretical framings and the papers that utilized them.
The first category of theoretical perspectives is rooted in the fields of Communication and HCI (N = 28 out of 52, 53.85%) and includes 10 theoretical framings, such as Parental Mediation Theory [116], Joint Media Engagement [110], and Parental Scaffolding Behaviors [33]. We merge theoretical framings from Communication and HCI into one category because current theories framing parent-child interaction in HCI were mostly adopted from Communication studies and were often expanded by HCI scholars, making the boundary hard to define. For example, Parental Mediation Theory was developed by Communication scholars to describe parental involvement in children’s television-watching practices [116] and has been employed by HCI scholars to frame parental involvement in children’s other media engagement, such as video games [75] and smartphone use [58]. The second theoretical category is centered around Education and Learning Sciences (N = 23 out of 52, 44.23%) and includes 14 different theoretical framings, such as Sociocultural Learning Perspective [62], Experiential Learning Framework [59], and Culturally Responsive Computing [101]. The third category is rooted in Psychology and Cognition fields and consists of eight theoretical frameworks from 13 out of 52 papers (25.00%), such as Self-Determination Theory [24], Empowerment Theory [112], and Self-Efficacy [8]. Note that some papers combined theoretical perspectives from different domains, for example, using both the Family Resilience Framework (i.e., Psychology) and Parental Mediation Theory (i.e., Communication and HCI) when examining family technology in Asian Indian families in the USA during the COVID-19 pandemic [39].
Table 3:
| Agency Orientations | Specific Analytical Perspectives | Explanation |
|---|---|---|
| Emphasizing parent agency (N = 50, | Parents’ scaffolding and facilitation (N = 25) [4, 6, 9, 17, 20, 36, 37, 43, 49, 51, 54, 67, 73, 81, 88, 95, 104, 106, 111, 115, 125, 127, 128, 129, 135] | How parents scaffold and facilitate children’s media engagement |
| 56.18%) | Parents’ perceptions (N = 20) [36, 39, 40, 46, 49, 52, 56, 64, 69, 73, 97, 98, 102, 104, 105, 109, 115, 119, 122, 127] | How parents perceive children’s media engagement |
| Parents’ regulation and restriction (N = 12) [15, 38, 39, 45, 56, 58, 71, 72, 76, 103, 128] | How parents regulate children’s media engagement | |
| Parents’ roles (N = 6) [14, 29, 39, 48, 92, 127] | The different roles parents play | |
| Emphasizing child agency | Children’s engagement (N = 9) [19, 36, 39, 49, 56, 81, 95, 106, 123] | Direct description of various physical interaction behaviors between family members |
| (N = 13, 14.61%) | Children’s perceptions (N = 5) [36, 40, 52, 95, 104] | How children perceive media engagement |
| Centering and decentering (N = 1) [47] | How children’s participation is centered and decentered | |
| Emphasizing both parent and child | Descriptive physical interaction (N = 25) [4, 7, 11, 14, 20, 23, 28, 35, 40, 44, 48, 52, 63, 75, 87, 88, 89, 92, 97, 102, 105, 114, 122, 124, 131] | Direct description of various physical interaction behaviors between family members |
| agency (N = 49, 55.06%) | Conversation/Communication (N = 15) [13, 16, 20, 21, 41, 46, 48, 63, 64, 65, 66, 107, 121, 122, 123] | How family members verbally communicate with each other and technologies |
| Collaboration (N = 8) [13, 17, 84, 87, 100, 106, 109, 134] | How family members collaboratively engaged in media | |
| Tension and negotiation (N = 6) [39, 56, 69, 87, 103, 130] | Tensions around engagement and family members negotiate with each other | |
| Engagement (N = 4) [26, 65, 70, 105] | Engagement levels and their alignment with productive JME principles | |
| Reflection (N = 3) [97, 99, 114] | How family members reflect on joint media experience | |
| Emphasizing material agency (N = 37, 41.57%) | Technology roles (N = 34) [1, 9, 13, 15, 20, 25, 35, 37, 38, 38, 40, 46, 49, 58, 69, 71, 75, 76, 84, 86, 89, 92, 96, 97, 100, 103, 105, 107, 111, 115, 121, 122, 133, 135] | How technology mediates engagement |
| Environmental influence (N = 5) [19, 38, 51, 123, 125] | How environments like cultural factors and family economic status impact engagement |
Although theories from different domains were employed, they mainly served four purposes in the analyzed papers: 1) providing relevant background information and motivating research goals, such as introducing Parental Mediation Theory to provide background for parent-child interactions around technologies [125, 129]; 2) providing data analysis directions or serve as analysis frameworks, e.g., using Ecological Systems Theory to analyze how families drew on different resources for joint information searching practices [87]; 3) functioning as design guidelines for activities and technologies to facilitate productive media experiences, such as incorporating Cultural Forms in children’s computational learning tools [9]; and 4) serving as interpretation lenses to gain a deep understanding of findings and generate meaningful discussions, such as discussing how Symbol Systems were represented in families’ collaborative coding activities and how this lens could help identify key collaborative learning moments and guide new learning tool design [89].
Particularly, we paid special attention to how Joint Media Engagement was employed by the 19 papers (21.35%) that included it as a theoretical perspective. We found that JME was mostly leveraged to provide background framing for parent-child joint media practice at the concept level (N = 19 out of 19, 100%). In other words, JME was used as a concept to describe the phenomenon of shared media experiences between parents and children (e.g., [16, 17, 48]). Additionally, three out of 19 papers (15.79%) employed the principles for productive JME developed by Takeuchi and Stevens [110] as an analytical framework to examine parent-child joint media activities [17, 70, 105]. Two papers (10.53%) used JME to inform data analytical direction, focusing on interpersonal interaction for data analysis [10, 28]. Lastly, two papers (10.53%) situated their findings in JME to discuss the conceptual expansion of what productive JME means [125, 130].
To sum up, HCI scholars have borrowed theoretical perspectives from various research fields to design or examine parent-child JME experiences and technologies. Given the interdisciplinary nature of HCI research and the diverse family JME contexts (e.g., family communication, entertainment, and learning in different settings), leveraging theories from various research fields is often necessary and can yield enriching outcomes. This can enhance our understanding of parent-child interaction during joint media experiences by providing valuable insights from various dimensions not captured by the current JME framing, such as parents’ various scaffolding behaviors [29], how to effectively support the intended learning goals [99, 104], and how to facilitate family members’ reflection on their media engagement [25, 97]. Therefore, HCI scholars are encouraged to continue seeking and utilizing appropriate theoretical frameworks from other fields to facilitate JME research and provide new JME perspectives.
4.3.4 Analytical Perspectives.
In this dimension, we examine how different papers describe parent-child JME and classify these analytical perspectives into four broad categories based on whose agency is emphasized (Table 3): emphasizing parent agency, child agency, both parent and child agency, and material agency.
The number of papers (N = 50, 56.18%) framing parent-child JME from perspectives that highlight parents’ agency is the highest. These perspectives include parents’ scaffolding and facilitation behaviors (e.g., [6, 129]), parents’ perceptions of their children’s media engagement (e.g., [39, 56]), parents’ regulation and restriction behaviors (e.g., [71, 103]), as well as parent roles in children’s media engagement [29, 48]. Comparatively, a much smaller number of papers (N = 13, 14.61%) specifically emphasize children’s agency. These child-agency perspectives include framings around how children initiate and lead media engagement (e.g., [19, 81]), how children perceive media engagement [40, 95], and how children are centered and decentered for participation [47]. Additionally, 49 papers (55.06%) include analytical perspectives that highlight both parents’ and children’s agency during JME, i.e., direct descriptions of parent-child physical interactions (e.g., turn-taking [75, 124]), conversations and communication (e.g., utterances and dialogues [16, 41]), collaboration (e.g., [87, 134]), tension and negotiation (e.g., [56, 130]), engagement (e.g., principles of productive JME [70, 105]), and reflection (e.g., [97, 99]). Lastly, 37 papers (41.57%) describe parent-child JME from the perspective of material agency, including how technologies mediate the engagement (e.g., [15, 115]) and how environmental factors like cultures impact the engagement (e.g., [38, 51]). It is worth pointing out that these different analytical perspectives are not mutually exclusive and often coexist in the reviewed papers, as shown in Table 3 where the same paper references appear in different categories. In brief, the reviewed papers employed various analytical perspectives to frame parent-child interactions during JME, such as parents’ scaffolding and facilitation behaviors (e.g., [104, 129]), tensions and negotiations (e.g., [56, 130]), and the roles of technology in mediating joint experiences (e.g., [96, 103]). These perspectives highlight the agency of different components involved in parent-child JME activities, including parents, children, tools, and environments.
5 Discussion
Parent-child JME is a relatively new research field within HCI, with the first paper published in 2009 at IDC [124]. However, there has been an increase in attention to understanding and designing shared media experiences for parents and children, especially in the past five years. To this end, this work offers a comprehensive view of the state-of-the-art research landscape of parent-child JME within HCI through a scoping review, which can be beneficial for researchers, designers, and practitioners who are interested in understanding, supporting, and designing joint family media experiences. In this section, we reflect on the implications of our review results, with a focus on 1) theoretical development for JME based on the findings of theoretical and analytical perspectives, and 2) future research and design opportunities for parent-child joint media experiences based on the overall findings.
5.1 Opportunities to Advance JME Theorization
Our findings show that HCI scholars employed theories from different disciplines (e.g., Communication, Learning Sciences, and Psychology) and various analytical perspectives (e.g., parental regulation tension and negotiation, and technology roles) to structure, situate, and/or communicate their JME research. Such a wide application of theoretical and analytical perspectives, especially those borrowed from other fields, underscores JME as a complex social phenomenon. This complexity is influenced not only by the participants involved but also by the type of media selected and the intricate sociocultural and physical environments in which the joint use is situated. Simultaneously, the wide use of theories from different domains and the diverse employed analytical perspectives further shed light on the opportunity to advance the theorization for JME. Specifically, as a relatively new term emerged in 2011, JME has not been theorized yet and remains at the conceptual level, namely, a terminology to describe the phenomena of people engaging media together [110]. Therefore, it is not surprising that much of the analyzed literature used JME to provide a background framing for parent-child joint media practices (e.g., [16, 17, 48]) rather than as an analytical perspective. However, lacking relevant theoretical frameworks for JME may not be productive in facilitating JME research and practice, as researchers and practitioners will need to search and find appropriate theoretical frameworks and analytical perspectives from other domains that are not tailored for JME, as shown in Table 2 and Table 3. In other words, HCI scholars interested in people’s shared use of media still lack a handy, operational JME theory to guide their exploration and understanding of the joint experience. As such, we call for more research from HCI scholars to advance the theorization of JME.
Given the diversity and complexity of JME, theorizing JME may not be easy. Here, by connecting to the features of theory, we propose some potential directions for JME theorization. Across different research paradigms (e.g., positivism, interpretivism, and pragmatism), the meanings of theory remain largely the same – a theory is a set of propositions that are logically related, expressing the relation(s) among several different constructs and propositions to explain and even predict phenomena [57, 117, 118]. Accordingly, the goal of theory building for JME is to develop such propositions that help us understand, explain, and even predict a specific type of JME phenomena. Under this grand theorization goal, there could be multiple concrete and actionable directions, which include but are not limited to [30, 57, 118]: 1) descriptive JME theories that characterize a specific type of JME phenomena, such as theories that describe parent-child interaction patterns with educational digital media or sibling interactions with analog toys; 2) explanatory JME theories that clarify and/or predict the relationships between different constructs in a specific type of JME phenomena, such as how entertainment media like video games mediate family members’ interactions; 3) critical JME theories that sort out power dynamics among media participants in a specific type of JME phenomena and question the status quo to create more equitable joint media experiences, such as how children’s voices are centered and decentered when using educational media together with their parents [47]. Although this work is grounded in and aimed at the HCI community, these different JME theory-building directions are not limited to HCI. For example, researchers in Media Studies, Family Studies, and Learning Sciences can develop JME theories in their specific domain contexts. For instance, a learning scientist could develop a descriptive JME theory that articulates how JME can facilitate productive learning outcomes. Conversely, HCI scholars, who focus on the interaction between humans and technology, might orient their attention more toward the interaction between media partners and technology, as well as how to facilitate such interactions through media design.
Practically, HCI scholars may consider two methodological approaches to develop potential JME theories based on relevant theory development practices. First, researchers can follow the Grounded Theory approach [78] to extract and abstract the features, constructs, and their relationships of specific JME phenomena based on empirical data. For instance, Barron et al. [12] extracted and summarized seven types of parent roles in children’s development of technology fluency based on the interview data with parents following the Grounded Theory approach, identifying and summarizing roles such as being a teacher, collaborator, and learning broker. These roles as a whole can be viewed as a descriptive theory of parent-child interactions around technologies from the perspective of parent roles. Second, researchers can borrow existing theoretical perspectives from other fields to form a new framework as theory building for JME. Yip and colleagues [126], for example, combined theories of ecological systems, family resilience, funds of knowledge, and collaboration as a JME lens to understand and explain how immigrant English-language learning families collaboratively search for online information. Note that the two proposed approaches can serve as methodological references for other researchers building JME theory. Instead of strictly following existing examples of JME-related theory building (e.g., [12, 126]), researchers have the freedom to choose their own directions in terms of what JME theory to build and how to build it.
Lastly, it might be challenging to develop a grand JME theory that fits all JME phenomena given the vast diversity of people involved (e.g., intergenerational JME, siblings, and peers), media types (e.g., media for education, communication, and entertainment), physical environments (e.g., home, school, community centers, and remote), and sociocultural contexts (e.g., geographical locations, gender identities, and ethnicity and race), as evidenced in our findings. Therefore, grounding in a specific type of JME phenomena to develop middle-ranged theories that address interactions among media participants or micro theories that describe relationships at the individual levels (e.g., parent roles or child agency) could be more feasible and productive [57, 117].
5.2 Developing a Holistic Framework to Approach JME
Figure 2:
Figure 3:
Building upon our review findings on the methodological and JME features as well as acknowledging JME’s complexity, we propose a JME framework that provides a holistic view for systematically approaching and understanding JME, see Figure 2. The framework comprises four dimensions: participants, media types, use contexts, and engagement. Based on these four dimensions, we posit that a JME experience should be understood from the perspective of engagement as a result of who (i.e., participants) are engaged in what type of media experiences (i.e., media types) within specific physical, social, and cultural settings (i.e., use contexts):
•
Participants, i.e., who are joint in the experience and their characteristics. Those who are involved are the foundation of a joint engagement experience. Therefore, it is essential to thoroughly consider the features of participants for JME, including their demographics (e.g., age, gender, and family socioeconomic status), their relationships (e.g., a couple, parent-child dyads, and siblings), and the associated power dynamics (e.g., the agency and autonomy of different participants and how they are demonstrated).
•
Media Types, i.e., what media is used and the media’s characteristics. Media and technologies play crucial roles in mediating parent-child interactions. Indeed, many papers directly frame the interactions through the lens of technology’s roles (see Table 3). When considering the media dimension, the focus can be on its purposes (e.g., for communication, entertainment, or education), formats (e.g., mobile apps, web-based applications, or wearables), and platforms (e.g., running on smartphones, smartwatches, etc.).
•
Use Contexts, i.e., where the joint media experience happens, including physical environments (e.g., home, school, or library), social environments (i.e., who else are involved and mediating the experience, e.g., facilitators), and cultural environments (i.e., cultural factors and how they influence participants’ practices, e.g., parenting styles vary in different cultural contexts [5, 125]).
•
Engagement, i.e., what the engagement looks like within participants around the media under the holistic influence of participant features, media types, and use contexts. Simultaneously, engagement can be further approached from three levels – physical engagement (e.g., the behavioral interactions between participants and how media impacts the interaction), cognitive and psychological engagement (e.g., conceptual understanding and emotional response), and engagement outcomes (e.g., participants’ learning gains, perceptions, attitude changes, and behavior changes).
Through developing a holistic framework that delineates different JME dimensions and their relationships, we expand the JME framing of "spontaneous and designed experiences of people using media together" [110, p.9] and make the JME concept more operational. To make this framework even more tangible and actionable, we further create a checklist (Figure 3) for the four dimensions based on the findings from our three analytical lenses. The checklist lays out major consideration factors for the dimensions of participants, media types, use contexts, and engagement mechanisms. It is worth pointing out that these factors, summarized from and inspired by the review results of 89 papers, cover a wide range of JME factors and can serve as a comprehensive JME factor reference. However, these factors are by no means exhaustive, especially given that new technologies and media formats are consistently emerging. Accordingly, future research can continue to update the checklist.
In terms of application, the holistic framework and checklist offer a tool for researchers, designers, and practitioners to design and understand JME experiences from a systematic perspective. More specifically, the framework and checklist, on one hand, can serve as an analytical guide to examine and understand JME experiences. Using the engagement dimension as an example, the framework and checklist can inform researchers about what kind of engagement they can pay attention to and help them decide what to focus on during a JME for their specific research purposes, such as physical engagement (e.g., behaviors interactions among participants, with materials, or with the environments) and/or cognitive engagement (e.g., learning process and reflection). On the other hand, the framework and checklist can serve as a design factor reference for designing new JME experiences and technologies. For instance, our framework and checklist can remind designers and practitioners to consider not just what media is used for their design, but also the features of participants and use contexts, ensuring a comprehensive consideration of different JME factors. It’s important to clarify that we are not suggesting all future JME experiences should be analyzed or designed through the four dimensions of participants, media types, use contexts, and engagement. These dimensions instead provide a holistic reference for scrutinizing specific aspects of a joint media experience. For example, one can examine a joint media experience by combining specific elements from our framework and checklist as investigatory lenses and ignore other elements, such as exploring the cultural influence (i.e., environmental factors) on parent-child interactions (i.e., physical engagement) surrounding digital games (i.e., media types) while not necessarily needing to explore children’s learning gains [125].
5.3 Gaps and Opportunities in Researching and Designing for Family JME
In addition to the theory gaps and opportunities above, our findings also reveal that current parent-child JME research covers a wide range of family groups in various geographical locations, using various media types in different media-use contexts. However, these different methodological and JME characteristics are not balanced, with the majority of the studies focusing on educational media in home settings from the USA. While families’ use of other media types like entertainment technologies from other geographical and cultural contexts are significantly under-represented and under-explored. This imbalance unveils the gaps in existing parent-child JME research and highlights future opportunities for the design and research of joint media experiences and technologies for families of diverse backgrounds, which are further detailed as follows.
Expanding Analytical Perspectives for JME. Our findings show that JME encompasses different agencies, including the agency of parents, children, media, and environments. Nevertheless, some agencies are more explored than others – far fewer studies focus on children’s agency and the influence of environmental factors on JME compared to papers emphasizing parents’ agency. For instance, several studies present parent-child interactions by framing the different roles parents play, such as collaborator, teacher, and enforcer (e.g., [29, 127]), whereas none specifically name and describe the various roles children may assume. Future research on family JME can broaden the framings of parent-child JME by incorporating various perspectives, such as child agency and environmental factors.
Expanding Family JME Research to Various Geographical and Cultural Contexts.Previous studies demonstrate that parenting is a cultural practice and families from different geographical and cultural contexts may interact with each other in different ways [5, 18]. For example, parents in the USA and China engage in their children’s digital gaming activities differently in terms of the roles they play and instruction styles [125]. Although many HCI studies have investigated and designed for parent-child JME experiences, the majority were conducted in the USA. Nonetheless, technologies and media activities developed and tested in the USA context may not optimize families’ engaging experiences in other geographical and cultural contexts. Therefore, we advocate for more JME research for families from less explored geographical and cultural contexts to address this gap.
Increasing Family JME Research among Marginalized and Under-resourced Groups.Our findings indicate that families of different ethnicities and socioeconomic statuses are represented in current parent-child JME research. However, the distribution is disproportionally skewed. For instance, papers involving White families are the most common, often outnumbering the papers featuring families from other ethnicities such as Black and Hispanic/Latinx. Similarly, there are about 30% fewer papers focusing on low-SES families compared to those investigating high-SES families. Thus, we urge HCI scholars to continue researching and designing for historically underrepresented and under-resourced families.
Researching for Children with Special Needs. Only eight out of 89 papers reported children with special needs, such as children with Autism [69] and development delays [107], although these children need more parental support than their typically developing peers without these challenges do. Considering that a large percentage of children worldwide face various challenges and special needs [108, 132], we recommend HCI scholars employ their advanced knowledge and skills to investigate and create better joint media experiences for children with special needs.
Investigating and Promoting Father-Participated Family JME. Our analysis results indicate that compared to mothers, fathers are significantly less visible in current parent-child JME. Only three papers predominantly focused on fathers, while 30 papers primarily centered on mothers. It is not uncommon in many families for mothers to be more involved in their children’s activities than fathers, largely due to societal expectations that mothers assume more childcare responsibilities while fathers focus on providing financial support [93, 94, 129]. However, fathers play an equally crucial role in their children’s lives and development, contributing to aspects such as social and cognitive development and mental health [3, 34]. Therefore, future research should aim to examine how fathers engage in children’s media experiences and design technologies that encourage father-participated family JME.
Suggestions for Reporting Family JME Research. While analyzing the included papers, we encountered difficulties extracting relevant background information from many papers, as the authors did not disclose it. This missing information included participants’ ethnic backgrounds, families’ socioeconomic statuses, children’s ages and genders, parents’ marital statuses, as well as parents’ ages and genders, as shown in Figures 7.3, 7.4, and 7.5. Considering that family JME is a social practice heavily influenced by participants’ backgrounds and their sociocultural environments [5, 18], missing this information could hinder our precise understanding of the investigated parent-child JME phenomena and the extent to which the findings can be applied to different family contexts. Thus, we recommend future family JME studies report families’ background information (e.g., geographical locations, socioeconomic statuses, parents’ marital statuses, parents’ and children’s genders and ages) and JME settings, as well as include researchers’ reflections on how families’ backgrounds affect their JME behaviors. This would allow other designers and practitioners to more accurately interpret the findings and apply them appropriately in their respective contexts.
Limitations
JME is a highly interdisciplinary research field, also explored by scholars in other research fields, such as Learning Sciences, Media Studies, and Communication research [33]. As HCI researchers, we have included papers only from HCI venues, which may not encompass all parent-child JME papers. Additionally, although we aimed to be as comprehensive as possible, there might still be some qualified papers that were not included in our analysis. Nevertheless, this review from an HCI perspective is valuable and meaningful for the HCI community, as it helps further the research and design for technology-mediated family media experiences by highlighting existing gaps and new opportunities, as well as enhancing JME framing through the development of a holistic-view framework.
6 Conclusion
We conducted a scoping review of parent-child JME research within HCI and analyzed the included papers through three lenses: publications, methodological features, and JME features. Our findings offer a comprehensive overview of the research landscape of parent-child JME within HCI and demonstrate an increasing research interest in this topic from HCI scholars. Based on these findings, we developed a JME framework and checklist that outline various dimensions to consider when designing and researching JME. Additionally, we highlighted current research gaps and opportunities in parent-child JME, such as expanding research into different cultural and marginalized groups. Ultimately, we hope this work will stimulate further research to better understand JME phenomena and design for families’ shared use of media and technology.
Acknowledgments
We thank the reviewers for their valuable feedback and Kaiyue Jia for proofreading the manuscript. Regarding the authors’ contributions, Junnan Yu designed the study, led the data analysis and finding synthesis, as well as wrote and revised the paper; Xiang Qi was responsible for the paper search, paper analysis, finding synthesis, creation of figures, paper formatting, and proofreading; Siqi Yang assisted with the paper search and partial data analysis. This work was supported by Junnan Yu’s Departmental General Research Fund at The Hong Kong Polytechnic University (#: P0044773).
Appendices
7 Appended Figures for Publication AND Methodological Features
Figure 7.1:
Figure 7.2:
Figure 7.3:
Figure 7.4:
Figure 7.5:
Figure 7.6:
Figure 7.7:
Footnote
1
Note that all figures starting with “Figure 7.” are attached in the appendix
Supplemental Material
- Download
- 17.94 MB
- Transcript
ZIP File - Dataset
1. The HCI journals not archived in ACM DL that we searched; 2. The full list of papers we included for analysis
- Download
- 197.10 KB
References
[1]
Soaad M. Abdelhadi. 2020. Responses to hotspots during parent–child shared reading of eBook. International Journal of Child-Computer Interaction 23-24 (2020), 100164. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ijcci.2019.100164
[2]
Evon M. Abu-Taieh, Issam AlHadid, Ra’ed Masa’deh, Rami S. Alkhawaldeh, Sufian Khwaldeh, and Ala’aldin Alrowwad. 2022. Factors Affecting the Use of Social Networks and Its Effect on Anxiety and Depression among Parents and Their Children: Predictors Using ML, SEM and Extended TAM. International Journal of Environmental Research and Public Health 19, 21 (2022), 13764. https://doi.org/10.3390/ijerph192113764
[3]
Sarah Allen and Kerry J Daly. 2007. The effects of father involvement. An Updated Research Sum 603 (2007), 1–27.
[4]
Morgan G. Ames, Janet Go, Joseph ’Jofish’ Kaye, and Mirjana Spasojevic. 2010. Making Love in the Network Closet: The Benefits and Work of Family Videochat. In Proceedings of the 2010 ACM Conference on Computer Supported Cooperative Work (Savannah, Georgia, USA) (CSCW ’10). Association for Computing Machinery, New York, NY, USA, 145–154. https://doi.org/10.1145/1718918.1718946
[5]
Patricia Mawusi Amos. 2013. Parenting and Culture – Evidence from Some African Communities. In Parenting in South American and African Contexts, Maria Lucia Seidl de Moura (Ed.). IntechOpen, Rijeka, Chapter 4. https://doi.org/10.5772/56967
[6]
Dorit Aram and Orit Chorowicz Bar-Am. 2016. Mothers helping their preschool children to spell words: A comparison between interactions using the computer vs. pencil and paper. International Journal of Child-Computer Interaction 7 (2016), 15–21. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ijcci.2016.03.001
[7]
Daryl B. Axelrod and Jennifer Kahn. 2019. Intergenerational Family Storytelling and Modeling with Large-Scale Data Sets. In Proceedings of the 18th ACM International Conference on Interaction Design and Children (Boise, ID, USA) (IDC ’19). Association for Computing Machinery, New York, NY, USA, 352–360. https://doi.org/10.1145/3311927.3323153
[8]
Albert Bandura. 1977. Self-efficacy: Toward a unifying theory of behavioral change. Psychological Review 84, 2 (1977), 191–215. https://doi.org/10.1037/0033-295X.84.2.191
[9]
Amartya Banerjee and Michael S. Horn. 2014. Ghost Hunter: Parents and Children Playing Together to Learn about Energy Consumption. In Proceedings of the 8th International Conference on Tangible, Embedded and Embodied Interaction (Munich, Germany) (TEI ’14). Association for Computing Machinery, New York, NY, USA, 267–274. https://doi.org/10.1145/2540930.2540964
[10]
Rahul Banerjee, Leanne Liu, Kiley Sobel, Caroline Pitt, Kung Jin Lee, Meng Wang, Sijin Chen, Lydia Davison, Jason C. Yip, Amy J. Ko, and Zoran Popovic. 2018. Empowering Families Facing English Literacy Challenges to Jointly Engage in Computer Programming. In Proceedings of the 2018 CHI Conference on Human Factors in Computing Systems (Montreal QC, Canada) (CHI ’18). Association for Computing Machinery, New York, NY, USA, 1–13. https://doi.org/10.1145/3173574.3174196
[11]
Wolmet Barendregt. 2012. You Have to Die! Parents and Children Playing Cooperative Games. In Proceedings of the 11th International Conference on Interaction Design and Children (Bremen, Germany) (IDC ’12). Association for Computing Machinery, New York, NY, USA, 288–291. https://doi.org/10.1145/2307096.2307147
[12]
Brigid Barron, Caitlin Kennedy Martin, Lori Takeuchi, and Rachel Fithian. 2009. Parents as learning partners in the development of technological fluency. International Journal of Learning and Media 1, 2 (2009), 55–77. https://doi.org/10.1162/ijlm.2009.0021
[13]
Elham Beheshti, Katya Borgos-Rodriguez, and Anne Marie Piper. 2019. Supporting Parent-Child Collaborative Learning through Haptic Feedback Displays. In Proceedings of the 18th ACM International Conference on Interaction Design and Children (Boise, ID, USA) (IDC ’19). Association for Computing Machinery, New York, NY, USA, 58–70. https://doi.org/10.1145/3311927.3323137
[14]
Elham Beheshti, David Kim, Gabrielle Ecanow, and Michael S. Horn. 2017. Looking Inside the Wires: Understanding Museum Visitor Learning with an Augmented Circuit Exhibit. In Proceedings of the 2017 CHI Conference on Human Factors in Computing Systems (Denver, Colorado, USA) (CHI ’17). Association for Computing Machinery, New York, NY, USA, 1583–1594. https://doi.org/10.1145/3025453.3025479
[15]
Erin Beneteau, Ashley Boone, Yuxing Wu, Julie A. Kientz, Jason Yip, and Alexis Hiniker. 2020. Parenting with Alexa: Exploring the Introduction of Smart Speakers on Family Dynamics. In Proceedings of the 2020 CHI Conference on Human Factors in Computing Systems (Honolulu, HI, USA) (CHI ’20). Association for Computing Machinery, New York, NY, USA, 1–13. https://doi.org/10.1145/3313831.3376344
[16]
Erin Beneteau, Olivia K. Richards, Mingrui Zhang, Julie A. Kientz, Jason Yip, and Alexis Hiniker. 2019. Communication Breakdowns Between Families and Alexa. In Proceedings of the 2019 CHI Conference on Human Factors in Computing Systems (Glasgow, Scotland Uk) (CHI ’19). Association for Computing Machinery, New York, NY, USA, 1–13. https://doi.org/10.1145/3290605.3300473
[17]
Samantha Worzalla Bindman, Kiley Sobel, Sara M Behbakht, Riddhi A Divanji, Ella Shahn, and Mike Scanlon. 2021. “Let’s Draw Chocolate Milk Together”: Supports and Challenges for Families’ Joint Engagement with Artistic Tablet Apps. In Proceedings of the 20th Annual ACM Interaction Design and Children Conference (Athens, Greece) (IDC ’21). Association for Computing Machinery, New York, NY, USA, 183–195. https://doi.org/10.1145/3459990.3460693
[18]
Marc H. Bornstein. 2012. Cultural Approaches to Parenting. Parenting 12, 2-3 (2012), 212–221. https://doi.org/10.1080/15295192.2012.683359 22962544.
[19]
Bengisu Cagiltay, Nathan Thomas White, Rabia Ibtasar, Bilge Mutlu, and Joseph Michaelis. 2022. Understanding Factors That Shape Children’s Long Term Engagement with an In-Home Learning Companion Robot. In Proceedings of the 21st Annual ACM Interaction Design and Children Conference (Braga, Portugal) (IDC ’22). Association for Computing Machinery, New York, NY, USA, 362–373. https://doi.org/10.1145/3501712.3529747
[20]
Yi Cheng, Kate Yen, Yeqi Chen, Sijin Chen, and Alexis Hiniker. 2018. Why Doesn’t It Work? Voice-Driven Interfaces and Young Children’s Communication Repair Strategies. In Proceedings of the 17th ACM Conference on Interaction Design and Children (Trondheim, Norway) (IDC ’18). Association for Computing Machinery, New York, NY, USA, 337–348. https://doi.org/10.1145/3202185.3202749
[21]
Drew Cingel and Anne Marie Piper. 2017. How Parents Engage Children in Tablet-Based Reading Experiences: An Exploration of Haptic Feedback. In Proceedings of the 2017 ACM Conference on Computer Supported Cooperative Work and Social Computing (Portland, Oregon, USA) (CSCW ’17). Association for Computing Machinery, New York, NY, USA, 505–510. https://doi.org/10.1145/2998181.2998240
[22]
Lynn Schofield Clark. 2011. Parental Mediation Theory for the Digital Age. Communication Theory 21, 4 (10 2011), 323–343. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1468-2885.2011.01391.x
[23]
Chandrika Cycil, Mark Perry, Eric Laurier, and Alex Taylor. 2013. ’Eyes Free’ in-Car Assistance: Parent and Child Passenger Collaboration during Phone Calls. In Proceedings of the 15th International Conference on Human-Computer Interaction with Mobile Devices and Services (Munich, Germany) (MobileHCI ’13). Association for Computing Machinery, New York, NY, USA, 332–341. https://doi.org/10.1145/2493190.2493207
[24]
Edward L. Deci and Richard M. Ryan. 2012. Self-determination theory. Sage Publications Ltd, Thousand Oaks, CA, 416–436. https://doi.org/10.4135/9781446249215.n21
[25]
Tao Dong, Mark W. Newman, Mark S. Ackerman, and Sarita Schoenebeck. 2015. Supporting Reflection through Play: Field Testing the Home Trivia System. In Proceedings of the 2015 ACM International Joint Conference on Pervasive and Ubiquitous Computing (Osaka, Japan) (UbiComp ’15). Association for Computing Machinery, New York, NY, USA, 251–262. https://doi.org/10.1145/2750858.2804294
[26]
John Downs, Frank Vetere, and Wally Smith. 2015. Differentiated Participation in Social Videogaming. In Proceedings of the Annual Meeting of the Australian Special Interest Group for Computer Human Interaction (Parkville, VIC, Australia) (OzCHI ’15). Association for Computing Machinery, New York, NY, USA, 92–100. https://doi.org/10.1145/2838739.2838777
[27]
Michelle Drouin, Brandon T. McDaniel, Jessica Pater, and Tammy Toscos. 2020. How Parents and Their Children Used Social Media and Technology at the Beginning of the COVID-19 Pandemic and Associations with Anxiety. Cyberpsychology, Behavior, and Social Networking 23, 11 (2020), 727–736. https://doi.org/10.1089/cyber.2020.0284 32726144.
[28]
Stefania Druga, Thomas Ball, and Amy Ko. 2022. How Families Design and Program Games: A Qualitative Analysis of a 4-Week Online in-Home Study. In Proceedings of the 21st Annual ACM Interaction Design and Children Conference (Braga, Portugal) (IDC ’22). Association for Computing Machinery, New York, NY, USA, 237–252. https://doi.org/10.1145/3501712.3529724
[29]
Stefania Druga, Fee Lia Christoph, and Amy J Ko. 2022. Family as a Third Space for AI Literacies: How Do Children and Parents Learn about AI Together?. In Proceedings of the 2022 CHI Conference on Human Factors in Computing Systems (New Orleans, LA, USA) (CHI ’22). Association for Computing Machinery, New York, NY, USA, Article 225, 17 pages. https://doi.org/10.1145/3491102.3502031
[30]
R. Dubin. 1976. Theory building in applied areas. 17–39.
[31]
Aykut Durak and Hüseyin Kaygin. 2020. Parental mediation of young children’s internet use: Adaptation of parental mediation scale and review of parental mediation based on the demographic variables and digital data security awareness. Education and Information Technologies 25, 3 (2020), 2275–2296. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10639-019-10079-1
[32]
Matthew S. Eastin, Bradley S. Greenberg, and Linda Hofschire. 2006. Parenting the Internet. Journal of Communication 56, 3 (08 2006), 486–504. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1460-2466.2006.00297.x
[33]
Carrie A. Ewin, Andrea E. Reupert, Louise A. McLean, and Christopher J. Ewin. 2021. The impact of joint media engagement on parent–child interactions: A systematic review. Human Behavior and Emerging Technologies 3, 2 (2021), 230–254. https://doi.org/10.1002/hbe2.203
[34]
Eirini Flouri and Ann Buchanan. 2003. The role of father involvement in children’s later mental health. Journal of Adolescence 26, 1 (2003), 63–78. https://doi.org/10.1016/S0140-1971(02)00116-1
[35]
Sean Follmer, Rafael (Tico) Ballagas, Hayes Raffle, Mirjana Spasojevic, and Hiroshi Ishii. 2012. People in Books: Using a FlashCam to Become Part of an Interactive Book for Connected Reading. In Proceedings of the ACM 2012 Conference on Computer Supported Cooperative Work (Seattle, Washington, USA) (CSCW ’12). Association for Computing Machinery, New York, NY, USA, 685–694. https://doi.org/10.1145/2145204.2145309
[36]
Yue Fu, Mingrui Zhang, Lynn K Nguyen, Yifan Lin, Rebecca Michelson, Tala June Tayebi, and Alexis Hiniker. 2023. Self-Talk with Superhero Zip: Supporting Children’s Socioemotional Learning with Conversational Agents. In Proceedings of the 22nd Annual ACM Interaction Design and Children Conference (Chicago, IL, USA) (IDC ’23). Association for Computing Machinery, New York, NY, USA, 173–186. https://doi.org/10.1145/3585088.3589376
[37]
Vinitha Gadiraju, Annika Muehlbradt, and Shaun K. Kane. 2020. BrailleBlocks: Computational Braille Toys for Collaborative Learning. In Proceedings of the 2020 CHI Conference on Human Factors in Computing Systems (Honolulu, HI, USA) (CHI ’20). Association for Computing Machinery, New York, NY, USA, 1–12. https://doi.org/10.1145/3313831.3376295
[38]
Radhika Garg. 2021. Understanding Families’ Non-/Use Practices and Choices: The Case of Smart Speakers and Smart Interactive Toys. Proc. ACM Hum.-Comput. Interact. 5, CSCW2, Article 295 (oct 2021), 26 pages. https://doi.org/10.1145/3476036
[39]
Radhika Garg. 2021. Understanding Tensions and Resilient Practices That Emerge from Technology Use in Asian India Families in the U.S.: The Case of COVID-19. Proc. ACM Hum.-Comput. Interact. 5, CSCW2, Article 414 (oct 2021), 33 pages. https://doi.org/10.1145/3479558
[40]
Radhika Garg and Subhasree Sengupta. 2020. He Is Just Like Me: A Study of the Long-Term Use of Smart Speakers by Parents and Children. Proc. ACM Interact. Mob. Wearable Ubiquitous Technol. 4, 1, Article 11 (mar 2020), 24 pages. https://doi.org/10.1145/3381002
[41]
Connie Golsteijn and Elise van den Hoven. 2013. Facilitating parent-teenager communication through interactive photo cubes. Personal and Ubiquitous Computing 17, 2 (2013), 273–286. https://doi.org/10.1007/s00779-011-0487-9
[42]
Shayl F. Griffith and David H. Arnold. 2019. Home learning in the new mobile age: parent–child interactions during joint play with educational apps in the US. Journal of Children and Media 13, 1 (2019), 1–19. https://doi.org/10.1080/17482798.2018.1489866
[43]
Shuchi Grover, Ximena Dominguez, Tiffany Leones, Danae Kamdar, Phil Vahey, and Sara Gracely. 2022. Strengthening Early STEM Learning by Integrating CT into Science and Math Activities at Home. Association for Computing Machinery, New York, NY, USA, 72–84. https://doi.org/10.1145/3507951.3519290
[44]
Anton Gustafsson, Cecilia Katzeff, and Magnus Bang. 2010. Evaluation of a Pervasive Game for Domestic Energy Engagement among Teenagers. Comput. Entertain. 7, 4, Article 54 (jan 2010), 19 pages. https://doi.org/10.1145/1658866.1658873
[45]
Gahgene Gweon, Bugeun Kim, Jinyoung Kim, Kung Jin Lee, Jungwook Rhim, and Jueun Choi. 2018. MABLE: Mediating Young Children’s Smart Media Usage with Augmented Reality. In Proceedings of the 2018 CHI Conference on Human Factors in Computing Systems (Montreal QC, Canada) (CHI ’18). Association for Computing Machinery, New York, NY, USA, 1–9. https://doi.org/10.1145/3173574.3173587
[46]
Yasmeen Hashish, Andrea Bunt, and James E. Young. 2014. Involving Children in Content Control: A Collaborative and Education-Oriented Content Filtering Approach. In Proceedings of the SIGCHI Conference on Human Factors in Computing Systems (Toronto, Ontario, Canada) (CHI ’14). Association for Computing Machinery, New York, NY, USA, 1797–1806. https://doi.org/10.1145/2556288.2557128
[47]
Basak Helvaci Ozacar and Stephanie Hladik. 2023. Centering and decentering children in computing through joint activity at a computational science exhibit. International Journal of Child-Computer Interaction 35 (2023), 100560. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ijcci.2022.100560
[48]
Alexis Hiniker, Bongshin Lee, Julie A. Kientz, and Jenny S. Radesky. 2018. Let’s Play! Digital and Analog Play between Preschoolers and Parents. In Proceedings of the 2018 CHI Conference on Human Factors in Computing Systems (Montreal QC, Canada) (CHI ’18). Association for Computing Machinery, New York, NY, USA, 1–13. https://doi.org/10.1145/3173574.3174233
[49]
Alexis Hiniker, Bongshin Lee, Kiley Sobel, and Eun Kyoung Choe. 2017. Plan & Play: Supporting Intentional Media Use in Early Childhood. In Proceedings of the 2017 Conference on Interaction Design and Children (Stanford, California, USA) (IDC ’17). Association for Computing Machinery, New York, NY, USA, 85–95. https://doi.org/10.1145/3078072.3079752
[50]
Alexis Hiniker, Sarita Y. Schoenebeck, and Julie A. Kientz. 2016. Not at the Dinner Table: Parents’ and Children’s Perspectives on Family Technology Rules. In Proceedings of the 19th ACM Conference on Computer-Supported Cooperative Work & Social Computing (San Francisco, California, USA) (CSCW ’16). Association for Computing Machinery, New York, NY, USA, 1376–1389. https://doi.org/10.1145/2818048.2819940
[51]
Michael S. Horn, Sarah AlSulaiman, and Jaime Koh. 2013. Translating Roberto to Omar: Computational Literacy, Stickerbooks, and Cultural Forms. In Proceedings of the 12th International Conference on Interaction Design and Children (New York, New York, USA) (IDC ’13). Association for Computing Machinery, New York, NY, USA, 120–127. https://doi.org/10.1145/2485760.2485773
[52]
Seth E. Hunter, Pattie Maes, Anthony Tang, Kori M. Inkpen, and Susan M. Hessey. 2014. WaaZam! Supporting Creative Play at a Distance in Customized Video Environments. In Proceedings of the SIGCHI Conference on Human Factors in Computing Systems (Toronto, Ontario, Canada) (CHI ’14). Association for Computing Machinery, New York, NY, USA, 1197–1206. https://doi.org/10.1145/2556288.2557382
[53]
Hee Jhee Jiow, Sun Sun Lim, and Julian Lin. 2016. Level up! Refreshing Parental Mediation Theory for Our Digital Media Landscape. Communication Theory 27, 3 (11 2016), 309–328. https://doi.org/10.1111/comt.12109
[54]
Stephanie T. Jones, Melissa Perez, Sarah P. Lee, Kira Furuichi, and Marcelo Worsley. 2019. Facilitation in an Intergenerational Making Activity: How Facilitative Moves Shift Across Traditional and Digital Fabrication. In Proceedings of the 18th ACM International Conference on Interaction Design and Children (Boise, ID, USA) (IDC ’19). Association for Computing Machinery, New York, NY, USA, 237–245. https://doi.org/10.1145/3311927.3323125
[55]
Robert D Kalinowski, Ying Xu, and Katie Salen. 2021. The Ecological Context of Preschool-Aged Children’s Selection of Media Content. In Proceedings of the 2021 CHI Conference on Human Factors in Computing Systems (Yokohama, Japan) (CHI ’21). Association for Computing Machinery, New York, NY, USA, Article 349, 14 pages. https://doi.org/10.1145/3411764.3445429
[56]
Saba Kawas, Nicole S. Kuhn, Kyle Sorstokke, Emily Bascom, Alexis Hiniker, and Katie Davis. 2021. When Screen Time Isn’t Screen Time: Tensions and Needs Between Tweens and Their Parents During Nature-Based Exploration. In Proceedings of the 2021 CHI Conference on Human Factors in Computing Systems (Yokohama, Japan) (CHI ’21). Association for Computing Machinery, New York, NY, USA, Article 474, 14 pages. https://doi.org/10.1145/3411764.3445142
[57]
Charles Kivunja. 2018. Distinguishing between theory, theoretical framework, and conceptual framework: A systematic review of lessons from the field. International Journal of Higher Education 7 (2018), 44–53. Issue 6. https://doi.org/10.5430/ijhe.v7n6p44
[58]
Minsam Ko, Seungwoo Choi, Subin Yang, Joonwon Lee, and Uichin Lee. 2015. FamiLync: Facilitating Participatory Parental Mediation of Adolescents’ Smartphone Use. In Proceedings of the 2015 ACM International Joint Conference on Pervasive and Ubiquitous Computing (Osaka, Japan) (UbiComp ’15). Association for Computing Machinery, New York, NY, USA, 867–878. https://doi.org/10.1145/2750858.2804283
[59]
D.A. Kolb. 1984. Experiential learning: experience as the source of learning and development. Prentice Hall, Englewood Cliffs, NJ. http://www.learningfromexperience.com/images/uploads/process-of-experiential-learning.pdf (date of download: 31.05.2006)
[60]
Nancy L. Kondracki, Nancy S. Wellman, and Daniel R. Amundson. 2002. Content Analysis: Review of Methods and Their Applications in Nutrition Education. Journal of Nutrition Education and Behavior 34, 4 (2002), 224–230. https://doi.org/10.1016/S1499-4046(06)60097-3
[61]
J. Richard Landis and Gary G. Koch. 1977. The Measurement of Observer Agreement for Categorical Data. Biometrics 33, 1 (1977), 159–174. http://www.jstor.org/stable/2529310
[62]
James P. Lantolf. 2007. Sociocultural Theory. Springer US, Boston, MA, 693–700. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-0-387-46301-8_45
[63]
Alexis R. Lauricella, Rachel Barr, and Sandra L. Calvert. 2014. Parent–child interactions during traditional and computer storybook reading for children’s comprehension: Implications for electronic storybook design. International Journal of Child-Computer Interaction 2, 1 (2014), 17–25. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ijcci.2014.07.001
[64]
Grace C. Lin, Ilana Schoenfeld, Meredith Thompson, Yiting Xia, Cigdem Uz-Bilgin, and Kathryn Leech. 2022. ”What Color Are the Fish’s Scales?” Exploring Parents’ and Children’s Natural Interactions with a Child-Friendly Virtual Agent during Storybook Reading. In Proceedings of the 21st Annual ACM Interaction Design and Children Conference (Braga, Portugal) (IDC ’22). Association for Computing Machinery, New York, NY, USA, 185–195. https://doi.org/10.1145/3501712.3529734
[65]
Duri Long, Tom McKlin, Anna Weisling, William Martin, Steven Blough, Katlyn Voravong, and Brian Magerko. 2020. Out of Tune: Discord and Learning in a Music Programming Museum Exhibit. In Proceedings of the Interaction Design and Children Conference (London, United Kingdom) (IDC ’20). Association for Computing Machinery, New York, NY, USA, 75–86. https://doi.org/10.1145/3392063.3394430
[66]
Duri Long, Anthony Teachey, and Brian Magerko. 2022. Family Learning Talk in AI Literacy Learning Activities. In Proceedings of the 2022 CHI Conference on Human Factors in Computing Systems (New Orleans, LA, USA) (CHI ’22). Association for Computing Machinery, New York, NY, USA, Article 226, 20 pages. https://doi.org/10.1145/3491102.3502091
[67]
Michael A. Madaio, Vikram Kamath, Evelyn Yarzebinski, Shelby Zasacky, Fabrice Tanoh, Joelle Hannon-Cropp, Justine Cassell, Kaja Jasinska, and Amy Ogan. 2019. ""You Give a Little of Yourself"": Family Support for Children’s Use of an IVR Literacy System. Association for Computing Machinery, New York, NY, USA, 86–98. https://doi.org/10.1145/3314344.3332504
[68]
Michael A. Madaio, Evelyn Yarzebinski, Vikram Kamath, Benjamin D. Zinszer, Joelle Hannon-Cropp, Fabrice Tanoh, Yapo Hermann Akpe, Axel Blahoua Seri, Kaja K. Jasińska, and Amy Ogan. 2020. Collective Support and Independent Learning with a Voice-Based Literacy Technology in Rural Communities. In Proceedings of the 2020 CHI Conference on Human Factors in Computing Systems (Honolulu, HI, USA) (CHI ’20). Association for Computing Machinery, New York, NY, USA, 1–14. https://doi.org/10.1145/3313831.3376276
[69]
Gabriela Marcu, Anind K. Dey, and Sara Kiesler. 2012. Parent-Driven Use of Wearable Cameras for Autism Support: A Field Study with Families. In Proceedings of the 2012 ACM Conference on Ubiquitous Computing (Pittsburgh, Pennsylvania) (UbiComp ’12). Association for Computing Machinery, New York, NY, USA, 401–410. https://doi.org/10.1145/2370216.2370277
[70]
Jesse J. Martinez, Travis W. Windleharth, Qisheng Li, Arpita Bhattacharya, Katy E. Pearce, Jason Yip, and Jin Ha Lee. 2022. Joint Media Engagement in Families Playing Animal Crossing: New Horizons during the COVID-19 Pandemic. Proc. ACM Hum.-Comput. Interact. 6, CSCW1, Article 100 (apr 2022), 22 pages. https://doi.org/10.1145/3512947
[71]
Joe Matthews, Romana Burgess, Bridget Ellis, Morgan Jenkinson, Amid Ayobi, Esther Dermott, and Aisling Ann O’Kane. 2022. Fathers, Young Children and Technology: Changes in Device Use and Family Dynamics during the COVID-19 UK Lockdown. Proc. ACM Hum.-Comput. Interact. 6, CSCW2, Article 297 (nov 2022), 32 pages. https://doi.org/10.1145/3555188
[72]
Melissa Mazmanian and Simone Lanette. 2017. ""Okay, One More Episode"": An Ethnography of Parenting in the Digital Age. In Proceedings of the 2017 ACM Conference on Computer Supported Cooperative Work and Social Computing (Portland, Oregon, USA) (CSCW ’17). Association for Computing Machinery, New York, NY, USA, 2273–2286. https://doi.org/10.1145/2998181.2998218
[73]
Betsy McCarthy, Linlin Li, Michelle Tiu, and Sara Atienza. 2013. PBS KIDS Mathematics Transmedia Suites in Preschool Homes. In Proceedings of the 12th International Conference on Interaction Design and Children (New York, New York, USA) (IDC ’13). Association for Computing Machinery, New York, NY, USA, 128–136. https://doi.org/10.1145/2485760.2485777
[74]
Human Computer Interaction Google Scholar Metrics. 2023. Human Computer Interaction - Google Scholar Metrics — scholar.google.nl. https://scholar.google.nl/citations?view_op=top_venues&hl=en&vq=eng_humancomputerinteraction.
[75]
Geoff Musick, Guo Freeman, and Nathan J. McNeese. 2021. Gaming as Family Time: Digital Game Co-Play in Modern Parent-Child Relationships. Proc. ACM Hum.-Comput. Interact. 5, CHI PLAY, Article 251 (oct 2021), 25 pages. https://doi.org/10.1145/3474678
[76]
Muslimah and Amir Syamsudin. 2021. Digital Learning for Early Years in Urban Family: A Qualitative Exploratory Study Across Four Urban Family. In Proceedings of the 4th International Conference on Learning Innovation and Quality Education (Surakarta, Indonesia) (ICLIQE 2020). Association for Computing Machinery, New York, NY, USA, Article 85, 9 pages. https://doi.org/10.1145/3452144.3452228
[77]
Amy I. Nathanson. 2008. Parental Mediation Strategies. John Wiley & Sons, Ltd. https://doi.org/10.1002/9781405186407.wbiecp007
[78]
Julianne S Oktay. 2012. Grounded theory. Pocket Guide to Social Work Re.
[79]
Journal Rankings on Human-Computer Interaction. 2023. Journal Rankings on Human-Computer Interaction — scimagojr.com. https://www.scimagojr.com/journalrank.php?area=1700&category=1709&country=all&year=2014&order=sjr&min=0&min_type=cd.
[80]
Tassia K. Oswald, Alice R. Rumbold, Sophie G. E. Kedzior, and Vivienne M. Moore. 2020. Psychological impacts of “screen time” and “green time” for children and adolescents: A systematic scoping review. PLOS ONE 15, 9 (09 2020), 1–52. https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pone.0237725
[81]
Iþil Oygur, Zhaoyuan Su, Daniel A. Epstein, and Yunan Chen. 2021. The Lived Experience of Child-Owned Wearables: Comparing Children’s and Parents’ Perspectives on Activity Tracking. In Proceedings of the 2021 CHI Conference on Human Factors in Computing Systems (Yokohama, Japan) (CHI ’21). Association for Computing Machinery, New York, NY, USA, Article 480, 12 pages. https://doi.org/10.1145/3411764.3445376
[82]
Matthew J Page, Joanne E McKenzie, Patrick M Bossuyt, Isabelle Boutron, Tammy C Hoffmann, Cynthia D Mulrow, Larissa Shamseer, Jennifer M Tetzlaff, Elie A Akl, Sue E Brennan, Roger Chou, Julie Glanville, Jeremy M Grimshaw, Asbjørn Hróbjartsson, Manoj M Lalu, Tianjing Li, Elizabeth W Loder, Evan Mayo-Wilson, Steve McDonald, Luke A McGuinness, Lesley A Stewart, James Thomas, Andrea C Tricco, Vivian A Welch, Penny Whiting, and David Moher. 2021. The PRISMA 2020 statement: an updated guideline for reporting systematic reviews. BMJ 372 (2021). https://doi.org/10.1136/bmj.n71
[83]
Desmond Upton Patton, Jun Sung Hong, Megan Ranney, Sadiq Patel, Caitlin Kelley, Rob Eschmann, and Tyreasa Washington. 2014. Social media as a vector for youth violence: A review of the literature. Computers in Human Behavior 35 (2014), 548–553. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.chb.2014.02.043
[84]
Melissa Escamilla Perez, Stephanie T. Jones, Sarah Priscilla Lee, and Marcelo Worsley. 2021. Intergenerational Making with Young Children. In Proceedings of the FabLearn 2020 - 9th Annual Conference on Maker Education (New York, NY, USA) (FabLearn ’20). Association for Computing Machinery, New York, NY, USA, 68–73. https://doi.org/10.1145/3386201.3386225
[85]
Gary Perlman. 2019. HCI Bibliography. http://www.hcibib.org/hci-sites/JOURNALS.html.
[86]
Laura Pina, Sang-Wha Sien, Clarissa Song, Teresa M. Ward, James Fogarty, Sean A. Munson, and Julie A. Kientz. 2020. DreamCatcher: Exploring How Parents and School-Age Children Can Track and Review Sleep Information Together. Proc. ACM Hum.-Comput. Interact. 4, CSCW1, Article 70 (may 2020), 25 pages. https://doi.org/10.1145/3392882
[87]
Laura R. Pina, Carmen Gonzalez, Carolina Nieto, Wendy Roldan, Edgar Onofre, and Jason C. Yip. 2018. How Latino Children in the U.S. Engage in Collaborative Online Information Problem Solving with Their Families. Proc. ACM Hum.-Comput. Interact. 2, CSCW, Article 140 (nov 2018), 26 pages. https://doi.org/10.1145/3274409
[88]
Anne Marie Piper, Nadir Weibel, and James Hollan. 2012. TAP & PLAY: An End-User Toolkit for Authoring Interactive Pen and Paper Language Activities. In Proceedings of the SIGCHI Conference on Human Factors in Computing Systems (Austin, Texas, USA) (CHI ’12). Association for Computing Machinery, New York, NY, USA, 149–158. https://doi.org/10.1145/2207676.2207698
[89]
Naomi Polinsky, Brian Andrus, Michael Horn, and David Uttal. 2021. Symbolic Relations in Collaborative Coding: How Children and Parents Map Across Symbol Systems While Coding Robots. In Proceedings of the 20th Annual ACM Interaction Design and Children Conference (Athens, Greece) (IDC ’21). Association for Computing Machinery, New York, NY, USA, 294–304. https://doi.org/10.1145/3459990.3460713
[90]
W. James Potter and Deborah Levine‐Donnerstein. 1999. Rethinking validity and reliability in content analysis. Journal of Applied Communication Research 27, 3 (1999), 258–284. https://doi.org/10.1080/00909889909365539
[91]
Marc Prensky. 2009. H. Sapiens Digital: From Digital Immigrants and Digital Natives to Digital Wisdom. Innovate: Journal of Online Education 5, 3 (2009). https://www.learntechlib.org/p/104264
[92]
Hayes Raffle, Glenda Revelle, Koichi Mori, Rafael Ballagas, Kyle Buza, Hiroshi Horii, Joseph Kaye, Kristin Cook, Natalie Freed, Janet Go, and Mirjana Spasojevic. 2011. Hello, is Grandma There? Let’s Read! StoryVisit: Family Video Chat and Connected e-Books. In Proceedings of the SIGCHI Conference on Human Factors in Computing Systems (Vancouver, BC, Canada) (CHI ’11). Association for Computing Machinery, New York, NY, USA, 1195–1204. https://doi.org/10.1145/1978942.1979121
[93]
Hasina Rakotomanana, Christine N. Walters, Joel J. Komakech, Deana Hildebrand, Gail E. Gates, David G. Thomas, Fanjaniaina Fawbush, and Barbara J. Stoecker. 2021. Fathers’ involvement in child care activities: Qualitative findings from the highlands of Madagascar. PLOS ONE 16, 3 (03 2021), 1–18. https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pone.0247112
[94]
Sara Raley, Suzanne M. Bianchi, and Wendy Wang. 2012. When Do Fathers Care? Mothers’ Economic Contribution and Fathers’ Involvement in Child Care. Amer. J. Sociology 117, 5 (2012), 1422–1459. https://doi.org/10.1086/663354
[95]
Filipa Rocha, Ana Cristina Pires, Isabel Neto, Hugo Nicolau, and Tiago Guerreiro. 2021. Accembly at Home: Accessible Spatial Programming for Children with Visual Impairments and Their Families. In Proceedings of the 20th Annual ACM Interaction Design and Children Conference (Athens, Greece) (IDC ’21). Association for Computing Machinery, New York, NY, USA, 100–111. https://doi.org/10.1145/3459990.3460699
[96]
Ricarose Roque, Mariana Aki Tamashiro, Kathryn Mcconnell, and Julisa Granados. 2021. Opportunities and Limitations of Construction Kits in Culturally Responsive Computing Contexts: Lessons from ScratchJr and Family Creative Learning. In Proceedings of the 20th Annual ACM Interaction Design and Children Conference (Athens, Greece) (IDC ’21). Association for Computing Machinery, New York, NY, USA, 246–256. https://doi.org/10.1145/3459990.3460728
[97]
Ofir Sadka, Hadas Erel, Andrey Grishko, and Oren Zuckerman. 2018. Tangible Interaction in Parent-Child Collaboration: Encouraging Awareness and Reflection. In Proceedings of the 17th ACM Conference on Interaction Design and Children (Trondheim, Norway) (IDC ’18). Association for Computing Machinery, New York, NY, USA, 157–169. https://doi.org/10.1145/3202185.3202746
[98]
Herman Saksono, Carmen Castaneda-Sceppa, Jessica Hoffman, Vivien Morris, Magy Seif El-Nasr, and Andrea G. Parker. 2020. Storywell: Designing for Family Fitness App Motivation by Using Social Rewards and Reflection. In Proceedings of the 2020 CHI Conference on Human Factors in Computing Systems (Honolulu, HI, USA) (CHI ’20). Association for Computing Machinery, New York, NY, USA, 1–13. https://doi.org/10.1145/3313831.3376686
[99]
Herman Saksono, Carmen Castaneda-Sceppa, Jessica Hoffman, Magy Seif El-Nasr, Vivien Morris, and Andrea G. Parker. 2019. Social Reflections on Fitness Tracking Data: A Study with Families in Low-SES Neighborhoods. In Proceedings of the 2019 CHI Conference on Human Factors in Computing Systems (Glasgow, Scotland Uk) (CHI ’19). Association for Computing Machinery, New York, NY, USA, 1–14. https://doi.org/10.1145/3290605.3300543
[100]
Herman Saksono, Ashwini Ranade, Geeta Kamarthi, Carmen Castaneda-Sceppa, Jessica A. Hoffman, Cathy Wirth, and Andrea G. Parker. 2015. Spaceship Launch: Designing a Collaborative Exergame for Families. In Proceedings of the 18th ACM Conference on Computer Supported Cooperative Work & Social Computing (Vancouver, BC, Canada) (CSCW ’15). Association for Computing Machinery, New York, NY, USA, 1776–1787. https://doi.org/10.1145/2675133.2675159
[101]
Kimberly A. Scott, Kimberly M. Sheridan, and Kevin Clark. 2015. Culturally responsive computing: a theory revisited. Learning, Media and Technology 40, 4 (2015), 412–436. https://doi.org/10.1080/17439884.2014.924966
[102]
Katerina Sergi, Ronald Gatewood, Anastasia Elder, and Jianzhong Xu. 2017. Parental perspectives on children’s use of portable digital devices. Behaviour & Information Technology 36, 11 (2017), 1148–1161. https://doi.org/10.1080/0144929X.2017.1360941
[103]
Lucas M. Silva, Franceli L. Cibrian, Elissa Monteiro, Arpita Bhattacharya, Jesus A. Beltran, Clarisse Bonang, Daniel A. Epstein, Sabrina E. B. Schuck, Kimberley D. Lakes, and Gillian R. Hayes. 2023. Unpacking the Lived Experiences of Smartwatch Mediated Self and Co-Regulation with ADHD Children. In Proceedings of the 2023 CHI Conference on Human Factors in Computing Systems (Hamburg, Germany) (CHI ’23). Association for Computing Machinery, New York, NY, USA, Article 90, 19 pages. https://doi.org/10.1145/3544548.3581316
[104]
Petr Slovák, Kael Rowan, Christopher Frauenberger, Ran Gilad-Bachrach, Mia Doces, Brian Smith, Rachel Kamb, and Geraldine Fitzpatrick. 2016. Scaffolding the Scaffolding: Supporting Children’s Social-Emotional Learning at Home. In Proceedings of the 19th ACM Conference on Computer-Supported Cooperative Work & Social Computing (San Francisco, California, USA) (CSCW ’16). Association for Computing Machinery, New York, NY, USA, 1751–1765. https://doi.org/10.1145/2818048.2820007
[105]
Kiley Sobel, Arpita Bhattacharya, Alexis Hiniker, Jin Ha Lee, Julie A. Kientz, and Jason C. Yip. 2017. It Wasn’t Really about the Pokémon: Parents’ Perspectives on a Location-Based Mobile Game. In Proceedings of the 2017 CHI Conference on Human Factors in Computing Systems (Denver, Colorado, USA) (CHI ’17). Association for Computing Machinery, New York, NY, USA, 1483–1496. https://doi.org/10.1145/3025453.3025761
[106]
Kiley Sobel, Kate Yen, Yi Cheng, Yeqi Chen, and Alexis Hiniker. 2019. No Touch Pig! Investigating Child-Parent Use of a System for Training Executive Function. In Proceedings of the 18th ACM International Conference on Interaction Design and Children (Boise, ID, USA) (IDC ’19). Association for Computing Machinery, New York, NY, USA, 339–351. https://doi.org/10.1145/3311927.3323132
[107]
Seokwoo Song, Seungho Kim, John Kim, Wonjeong Park, and Dongsun Yim. 2016. TalkLIME: Mobile System Intervention to Improve Parent-Child Interaction for Children with Language Delay. In Proceedings of the 2016 ACM International Joint Conference on Pervasive and Ubiquitous Computing (Heidelberg, Germany) (UbiComp ’16). Association for Computing Machinery, New York, NY, USA, 304–315. https://doi.org/10.1145/2971648.2971650
[108]
Statista. 2022. Number of schools for children with special needs in Germany 2010-2022. https://www-statista-com.ezproxy.lb.polyu.edu.hk/statistics/1182861/number-of-schools-for-children-with-special-needs-germany/
[109]
Kevin M. Storer and Stacy M. Branham. 2019. ""That’s the Way Sighted People Do It"": What Blind Parents Can Teach Technology Designers About Co-Reading with Children. In Proceedings of the 2019 on Designing Interactive Systems Conference (San Diego, CA, USA) (DIS ’19). Association for Computing Machinery, New York, NY, USA, 385–398. https://doi.org/10.1145/3322276.3322374
[110]
Lori Takeuchi and Reed Stevens. 2011. The new coviewing: Designing for learning through joint media engagement. The Joan Ganz Cooney Center.
[111]
Nikki Theofanopoulou and Petr Slovak. 2022. Exploring Technology-Mediated Parental Socialisation of Emotion: Leveraging an Embodied, In-Situ Intervention for Child Emotion Regulation. In Proceedings of the 2022 CHI Conference on Human Factors in Computing Systems (New Orleans, LA, USA) (CHI ’22). Association for Computing Machinery, New York, NY, USA, Article 217, 16 pages. https://doi.org/10.1145/3491102.3502130
[112]
Kenneth W. Thomas and Betty A. Velthouse. 1990. Cognitive Elements of Empowerment: An “Interpretive” Model of Intrinsic Task Motivation. Academy of Management Review 15, 4 (1990), 666–681. https://doi.org/10.5465/amr.1990.4310926
[113]
Positive Parenting Tips.2021. Child Development Positive Parenting Tips | CDC — cdc.gov. https://www.cdc.gov/ncbddd/childdevelopment/positiveparenting/index.html.
[114]
Tiffany Tseng, Jennifer King Chen, Mona Abdelrahman, Mary Beth Kery, Fred Hohman, Adriana Hilliard, and R. Benjamin Shapiro. 2023. Collaborative Machine Learning Model Building with Families Using Co-ML. In Proceedings of the 22nd Annual ACM Interaction Design and Children Conference (Chicago, IL, USA) (IDC ’23). Association for Computing Machinery, New York, NY, USA, 40–51. https://doi.org/10.1145/3585088.3589356
[115]
Razan U’wais, Bernd Ploderer, and Nicole E M Vickery. 2022. Exploring the Usage of Digital Technology for Active Play During the COVID-19 Pandemic Among Families with Young Children. In Proceedings of the 33rd Australian Conference on Human-Computer Interaction (Melbourne, VIC, Australia) (OzCHI ’21). Association for Computing Machinery, New York, NY, USA, 352–361. https://doi.org/10.1145/3520495.3520506
[116]
Patti M. Valkenburg, Marina Krcmar, Allerd L. Peeters, and Nies M. Marseille. 1999. Developing a scale to assess three styles of television mediation: “Instructive mediation,” “restrictive mediation,” and “social coviewing”. Journal of Broadcasting & Electronic Media 43, 1 (1999), 52–66. https://doi.org/10.1080/08838159909364474
[117]
Lara Varpio, Elise Paradis, Sebastian Uijtdehaage, and Meredith Young. 2020. The Distinctions Between Theory, Theoretical Framework, and Conceptual Framework., 989-994 pages. Issue 7. https://doi.org/10.1097/ACM.0000000000003075
[118]
Karl E. Weick. 1995. What theory is not, theorizing is. Administrative Science Quarterly 40 (1995), 385–390. Issue 3.
[119]
Phil Wilkinson, Jacqui Taylor, and Mark Readman. 2018. Mediating family play: Exploring the expectations of digital media through a mobile application designed to facilitate real-world child–parent play. International Journal of Child-Computer Interaction 18 (2018), 90–99. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ijcci.2018.10.003
[120]
Jacob O. Wobbrock and Julie A. Kientz. 2016. Research Contributions in Human-Computer Interaction. Interactions 23, 3 (apr 2016), 38–44. https://doi.org/10.1145/2907069
[121]
Wenjie Xu, Jiayi Ma, Jiayu Yao, Weijia Lin, Chao Zhang, Xuanhe Xia, Nan Zhuang, Shitong Weng, Xiaoqian Xie, Shuyue Feng, Fangtian Ying, Preben Hansen, and Cheng Yao. 2023. MathKingdom: Teaching Children Mathematical Language Through Speaking at Home via a Voice-Guided Game. In Proceedings of the 2023 CHI Conference on Human Factors in Computing Systems (Hamburg, Germany) (CHI ’23). Association for Computing Machinery, New York, NY, USA, Article 93, 14 pages. https://doi.org/10.1145/3544548.3581043
[122]
Ying Xu, Kunlei He, Valery Vigil, Santiago Ojeda-Ramirez, Xuechen Liu, Julian Levine, Kelsyann Cervera, and Mark Warschauer. 2023. “Rosita Reads With My Family”: Developing A Bilingual Conversational Agent to Support Parent-Child Shared Reading. In Proceedings of the 22nd Annual ACM Interaction Design and Children Conference (Chicago, IL, USA) (IDC ’23). Association for Computing Machinery, New York, NY, USA, 160–172. https://doi.org/10.1145/3585088.3589354
[123]
Svetlana Yarosh. 2015. Designing technology to empower children to communicate with non-residential parents. International Journal of Child-Computer Interaction 3-4 (2015), 1–13. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ijcci.2015.09.001
[124]
Svetlana Yarosh, Stephen Cuzzort, Hendrik Muller, and Gregory D. Abowd. 2009. Developing a Media Space for Remote Synchronous Parent-Child Interaction. In Proceedings of the 8th International Conference on Interaction Design and Children (Como, Italy) (IDC ’09). Association for Computing Machinery, New York, NY, USA, 97–105. https://doi.org/10.1145/1551788.1551806
[125]
Kate Yen, Yeqi Chen, Yi Cheng, Sijin Chen, Ying-Yu Chen, Yiran Ni, and Alexis Hiniker. 2018. Joint Media Engagement between Parents and Preschoolers in the U.S., China, and Taiwan. Proc. ACM Hum.-Comput. Interact. 2, CSCW, Article 192 (nov 2018), 19 pages. https://doi.org/10.1145/3274461
[126]
Jason Yip, Wendy Roldan, Carmen Gonzalez, Laura R. Pina, Maria Ruiz, and Paola Vanegas. 2022. Youth invisible work: the sociocultural and collaborative processes of online search and brokering between adolescents and English-language learning families. Information and Learning Science 123 (8 2022), 330–350. Issue 7-8. https://doi.org/10.1108/ILS-01-2022-0004
[127]
Junnan Yu, Chenke Bai, and Ricarose Roque. 2020. Considering Parents in Coding Kit Design: Understanding Parents’ Perspectives and Roles. In Proceedings of the 2020 CHI Conference on Human Factors in Computing Systems (Honolulu, HI, USA) (CHI ’20). Association for Computing Machinery, New York, NY, USA, 1–14. https://doi.org/10.1145/3313831.3376130
[128]
Junnan Yu, Andrea DeVore, and Ricarose Roque. 2021. Parental Mediation for Young Children’s Use of Educational Media: A Case Study with Computational Toys and Kits. In Proceedings of the 2021 CHI Conference on Human Factors in Computing Systems (Yokohama, Japan) (CHI ’21). Association for Computing Machinery, New York, NY, USA, Article 475, 12 pages. https://doi.org/10.1145/3411764.3445427
[129]
Junnan Yu, Julisa Granados, Ronni Hayden, and Ricarose Roque. 2021. Parental Facilitation of Young Children’s Technology-Based Learning Experiences from Nondominant Groups During the COVID-19 Pandemic. Proc. ACM Hum.-Comput. Interact. 5, CSCW2, Article 307 (oct 2021), 27 pages. https://doi.org/10.1145/3476048
[130]
Junnan Yu, Sari Widman, and Ricarose Roque. 2023. Family Negotiation in Joint Media Engagement with Creative Computing. In Proceedings of the 2023 CHI Conference on Human Factors in Computing Systems (Hamburg, Germany) (CHI ’23). Association for Computing Machinery, New York, NY, USA, Article 92, 15 pages. https://doi.org/10.1145/3544548.3580667
[131]
Nicola Yuill, Yvonne Rogers, and Jochen Rick. 2013. Pass the IPad: Collaborative Creating and Sharing in Family Groups. In Proceedings of the SIGCHI Conference on Human Factors in Computing Systems (Paris, France) (CHI ’13). Association for Computing Machinery, New York, NY, USA, 941–950. https://doi.org/10.1145/2470654.2466120
[132]
Benjamin Zablotsky and Lindsey I Black. 2020. Prevalence of Children Aged 3-17 Years With Developmental Disabilities, by Urbanicity: United States, 2015-2018. Natl Health Stat Report139 (2020), 1–7. https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/ /32510313
[133]
Zheng Zhang, Ying Xu, Yanhao Wang, Bingsheng Yao, Daniel Ritchie, Tongshuang Wu, Mo Yu, Dakuo Wang, and Toby Jia-Jun Li. 2022. StoryBuddy: A Human-AI Collaborative Chatbot for Parent-Child Interactive Storytelling with Flexible Parental Involvement. In Proceedings of the 2022 CHI Conference on Human Factors in Computing Systems (New Orleans, LA, USA) (CHI ’22). Association for Computing Machinery, New York, NY, USA, Article 218, 21 pages. https://doi.org/10.1145/3491102.3517479
[134]
Leah Zhang-Kennedy, Yomna Abdelaziz, and Sonia Chiasson. 2017. Cyberheroes: The design and evaluation of an interactive ebook to educate children about online privacy. International Journal of Child-Computer Interaction 13 (2017), 10–18. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ijcci.2017.05.001
[135]
Heather Toomey Zimmerman, Zachary A. McKinley, Soo Hyeon Kim, and Katharine E. Grills. 2019. Discussion Prompts to Support Family Engagement in Science: Talking about Astroengineering in Library-Based Making Programs. In Proceedings of the 18th ACM International Conference on Interaction Design and Children (Boise, ID, USA) (IDC ’19). Association for Computing Machinery, New York, NY, USA, 94–101. https://doi.org/10.1145/3311927.3323122
Index Terms
- Parent-Child Joint Media Engagement Within HCI: A Scoping Analysis of the Research Landscape
Recommendations
Parent and child problematic media use: The role of maternal postpartum depression and dysfunctional parent-child interactions in young children
AbstractProblematic media use, or media use that interferes with daily functioning, is most often studied in adolescent or young adult age groups. Less research has examined problematic media use within the family system, among parents and ...
Highlights- Problematic media use is seen in children as young as 3–4 years old and in their parents.
Parents? and Children?s Preferences about Parents Sharing about Children on Social Media
CHI '17: Proceedings of the 2017 CHI Conference on Human Factors in Computing SystemsPrior research shows that parents receive a number of benefits through sharing about their children online, but little is known about children?s perspectives about parent sharing. We conducted a survey with 331 parent-child pairs to examine parents? and ...
Digital distraction or accessible aid? Parental media use during feedings and parent-infant attachment, dysfunction, and relationship quality
AbstractOften parents are discouraged from using media around their infants, particularly during feeding time, as media use is thought to harm the development of parent-infant attachment. Little research, however, has examined the relationship ...
Highlights- The vast majority of mothers use media while feeding their infant.
- Mothers ...
Comments
Please enable JavaScript to view thecomments powered by Disqus.Information & Contributors
Information
Published In
May 2024
18961 pages
ISBN:9798400703300
DOI:10.1145/3613904
Copyright © 2024 ACM.
Permission to make digital or hard copies of all or part of this work for personal or classroom use is granted without fee provided that copies are not made or distributed for profit or commercial advantage and that copies bear this notice and the full citation on the first page. Copyrights for components of this work owned by others than the author(s) must be honored. Abstracting with credit is permitted. To copy otherwise, or republish, to post on servers or to redistribute to lists, requires prior specific permission and/or a fee. Request permissions from [email protected].
Sponsors
Publisher
Association for Computing Machinery
New York, NY, United States
Publication History
Published: 11 May 2024
Check for updates
Badges
Author Tags
Qualifiers
- Research-article
- Research
- Refereed limited
Conference
Acceptance Rates
Overall Acceptance Rate 6,199 of 26,314 submissions, 24%
Upcoming Conference
CHI 2025
- Sponsor:
- sigchi
Contributors
Other Metrics
Bibliometrics & Citations
Bibliometrics
Article Metrics
- 0Total Citations
- 2,691Total Downloads
- Downloads (Last 12 months)2,691
- Downloads (Last 6 weeks)648
Reflects downloads up to 10 Dec 2024
Other Metrics
Citations
View Options
View options
View or Download as a PDF file.
PDFeReader
View online with eReader.
eReaderHTML Format
View this article in HTML Format.
HTML FormatLogin options
Check if you have access through your login credentials or your institution to get full access on this article.
Sign in