Quantitative Analysis of Infant’s Computer-supported Sketch and Design of Drawing Software

Ayako CHIKAWA*, Mitsuru IWATA**, Shun'ichi TANO***

*Graduate School of Information Systems, University of Electro-Communications 1-5-1 Chofugaoka

Chofu-shi Tokyo182-8585 JAPAN, ayako@tlab.is.uec.ac.jp **Graduate School of Information Systems, University of Electro-Communications 1-5-1 Chofugaoka

Chofu-shi Tokyo182-8585 JAPAN, miwata@is.uec.ac.jp ***Graduate School of Information Systems, University of Electro-Communications 1-5-1

Chofugaoka Chofu-shi Tokyo182-8585 JAPAN, tano@is.uec.ac.jp

Abstract: Children’s creative work by using a computer becomes more and more popular. However, it has not been

studied quantitatively how use of computer gives the positive and negative influence on children's creative work. In

this paper, we have made an experiment to know the effect of a computer on the infant's drawing behavior. While four

infants drew their favorite animals by "pen and paper" and "computer software," we videotaped their actions and

deduced characteristic behaviors. Occurrences of the behaviors were measured in every five seconds. The results were

analyzed by combining the well-known “Time Sampling Observation method” and “Event Sampling Observation

method.” Several serious problems were found such that the small color palettes made it difficult for the infants not

only to select the color but also to get the rich stimulus for the creativity. We propose a new user interface which is

indispensable for infants; it was also shown that the drawing software should have a big color palette to promote

infants creative activity and the pen for assigning color should be easily movable to reduce the infant’s mental load.

Key words: Creative Work, Infants, Computer-supported Drawing, Sketching on paper, Quantitative Analysis

1. Introduction

As computers become spread in our life atmosphere, chance to use computer is increased rapidly for children

as well as adults. Children’s creative activities such as game and painting aided by computer software are

expanding. However, it has not been shown how the use of computer gives the positive and negative influence on

children's creative work and whether supports to stimulate the creativity are more effective than the conventional

tool which children always used. In order to design computer support which develops children's creativity, it is

important to consider what influence on sensitivity and creativity arise with the use of computer.

Orihata [1] indicated that the expression process to tackle honestly may be missing in drawing using the

computer. However, there is a report that the abstract expression accompanied by the drawing function of a

computer is reflected in sketching on paper. In addition, one may expect the advantage that children inferior in

drawing can paint without being afraid of failure by using a computer. However the self-expression may become

poor [2]. Schumann et al [3] investigated the reaction to the designs by handwriting sketches and CAD

expressions. Tano et al and the present authors studied influence of the CG presentation to a car body designer [4,

5]. Marrhews carried out the drawing experiment with drawing software by mouse operation and conventional

(1) Appearance (2) Production (b) Computer-supported drawing

Fig.1 Snapshots of drawing experiment

(1) Appearance (2) Production (a) Sketching on paper

media like a pencil or a felt pen in order to investigate the development of an infantile graphic expression and

analyzed the resemblance and difference of drawing behavior from observation data qualitatively [6]. Moreover,

Koike analyzed a video mainly on the function that needs support of a proficiency person in a schoolchild's CG

work [7].

Although the influence on the creative work using computer has been studied extensively, the studies have

been based on qualitative analysis. The purpose of the present study is to analyze quantitatively the similarities

and differences between computer-supported drawing and conventional drawing with paper and crayon. The

analysis has led to improvements of current drawing user interface.

2. Experimental

It is considered to be impossible to collect pure comparison data of the conventional tool and a computer from

infants who have weak consciousness to drawing. Therefore, we targeted the infants of the age who have yet no

sense of superior or inferior to their own drawing. Also the infants should be old enough to express their thought

and feeling in their own words and able to answer easy question. Thus infants in 4 or 5 years old were considered

to be suitable for our experiment.

2.1 Problems of the preparatory experiment

We made a preparatory experiment using protocol analysis for behavior analysis in order to clarify problems

on an experiment.

2.1.1 Procedure of the experiment

We made the experiment of a 5-year-old infant drawing "a favorite animal" with conventional tool (paper,

crayon) and plural drawing software (Art Dabbler, Kid pix). The process of drawing was recorded on the

videotapes (Fig.1). After the drawing, the infant was interviewed and characteristic actions with each tool were

extracted using a protocol analysis method of asking questions while looking at video.

2.1.2 Problems

The following problems became clear from a preparatory experiment.

(1) As a result of extracting characteristic actions, size of the color

icon attached to drawing software was found to be too small for

infant to choose it.

(2) We were planning to ask questions while looking at the video

after a drawing and to investigate what infant was thinking during

drawing. However, it turned out that it was difficult to collect the

infant’s opinion about drawing, since infant’s concentration did

not continue.

(3) Characteristic actions were extracted using the protocol analysis

while looking at video. However, this analysis may be influenced

by an observer's subjectivity.

2.2 Examination of the experimental tools

In consideration of problems (1) we used drawing software having a color icon of the relatively big size.

Drawing software is distinguished by the drawing functional level. In this experiment, we set a level of drawing

software to three stages and selected appropriate drawing software in each level. Drawing performed on a pen pad

and an electronic pen is used for an input. The drawing behavior with drawing software is compared to that with a

conventional tool. The tools used by infants are indicated by the following symbols:

P：The conventional tool (paper and crayon, the color size:12)

Infants use crayons with 12 colors and papers of size B5 that they usually use to draw.

T1：Drawing software which has a basic function (“Kakoue”, the color size:14)

This is a drawing software only with a function equivalent to the conventional tool. We adopt drawing

software having palette with the color size about the same as crayons and function only for a line drawing.

T2：Drawing software having a figure drawing function (“Oekaki”, the color size:8)

In addition to the color palette and a line drawing function, T2 drawing software has a basic figure drawing

function such as squares and circles.

T3：Drawing software having many drawing functions (“Oekaki”, the color size:8)

In addition to a basic line and figure drawing function, T3 drawing software has a stamp function of animals.

2.3 Consideration of quantitative analysis

Because of the problem (2) and (3), it became clear that the method without any interview is necessary to

analyze the specific behavior quantitatively.

There is the observation method that is possible for infants having language misunderstanding and ambiguous

expression [8].This method can be used for a natural action on daily life and is proper to investigate qualitative

and quantitive feature of actions and rules. There is the Time Sampling Observation method for quantitatively

analysis. In this method the observation time is divided with a fixed interval (called “observation unit”) and action

occurring in each observation unit is recorded. The observed actions in each observation unit are classified into

several action categories.

It is important to extract the actions to be observed and set up the observation time unit. However, the actions

to be observed for infant’s drawing are unclear. In addition, to set up the observation unit is difficult because the

drawing pace with different tools is unknown. Therefore, to find the action categories and time unit, we use the

Event Sampling Observation method the generating time and the contents of the observed actions are recorded

freely in the categories which roughly classified beforehand. In this way, the occurrence factor and process

observed systematically are analyzed qualitatively. We made the check list for several action categories and

described the time and phenomenon continuously, to determine the action categories to be observed and the

observation unit in infant’s drawing.

Thus, the quantitative analysis of infants drawing becomes possible by employing the proposed method to

combine the Time Sampling Observation method and the Event Sampling Observation method.

2.4 The analytical flow

On the basis of the proposed method, we planned the analytical flow.

[Step1: Drawing experiment for infant]

Plural 4 or 5 years old infants draw "the favorite animal" with four experimental tools. The general appearance

and hand action are recorded on videotapes in order to investigate the body movement and expression.

[Step2: Investigation of the basic drawing behavior]

By the recorded video, we find basic drawing behavior for four experimental tools. From this result, the

category is created by classifying observation behavior roughly, and the check list for the Event Sampling

Observation method is made.

[Step3: Observation by the Event Sampling Observation method]

By the video, time and phenomenon are continuously described into the check list. From this, the specific

behaviors to be observed and the observation unit are determined.

Then the category is created by classifying observed behavior. And

the check list for the Time Sampling Observation method is formed.

[Step4: Observation by the Time Sampling Observation method]

By the video, we describe into the check list in the Time Sampling

Observation method.

[Step5: Quantitative analysis]

From the result in Step4, the occurrence frequency and duration

time of the specific behaviors are measured.

3. The Drawing Comparison Experiment

Along the analytical flow, we made the drawing experiment for plural infants (girls), A, B, C, and D.

3.1 [Step1: Drawing experiment for infant]

Four 5 years old girls drew "a favorite

animal" with the four experimental tools. The

general appearance and hand action were

recorded on videotapes (Fig.2). Table1 shows the

drawing time.

3.2 [Step2: Investigation of the basic drawing behavior]

From the video, we investigated basic drawing

behaviors with the drawing software and the

conventional tool (Table2). From this, six kinds of

category were extracted: tool/color selection, drawing

object, tool movement, body movement, face

expression, and others. The check list for the Event

Sampling Observation method was shown in Table3.

3.3 [Step3: Observation by the Event Sampling Observation method]

By the video, the time and phenomenon were continuously input into the check list made in 4.2. From this, the

specific behaviors were extracted as categories, as shown in Table4, so as to check all important behaviors in

order to compare all experimental tools. In addition, observed change of drawing behaviors made it clear that the

observation unit should be set up as short as 5 seconds. Thus, we created the proper check list for the Time

Sampling Observation method as shown in Table5.

3.4 [Step4: Observation by the Time Sampling Observation method]

The results observed with video were input into the created check list.

3.5 [Step5: Quantitative analysis]

By the result in Step4, the occurrence frequency of a specific behavior was measured (Table6). The result will

be analyzed in section4, 5.

Table1. Drawing times with the experimental tools (minutes) Target

Experimental Tool A B C D

(1) P: The conventional tool 9.5 5.0 1.0 5.5

(2) T1: Drawing software (Kakoue) 5.5 3.0 2.0 8.0

(3) T2: Drawing software (Oekaki) 5.5 4.0 4.5 9.0

(4) T3: Drawing software (Oekaki) 9.0 3.5 3.0 9.5

Table2. Basic drawing behaviors

Conventional tool

Drawing time, Turn to draw, Coloring, Draw a line, Color selection, Used color size, Look at a picture, Body movement, Tool movement, Face expression

Drawing software

Drawing time, Turn to draw, Coloring, Draw a line, Color selection, Used color size，Kinds of used tools, Operation mistake, Look at a picture, Body movement, Tool movement, Machine trouble, Face expression

(1) Appearance (2) Hand action

(a) Sketching on paper

(1) Appearance (2) Hand action

(b) Computer-supported drawing Fig.2 Snapshots of drawing experiment

(Experimental target D)

Table5. Check list for the Time Sampling Observation method

Table3. Check list for the Event Sampling Observation method

Table4. Categories of check list for the Time Sampling Observation method Main Category Sub Category

New paper Tool selection Pen, Figure tools (□, ○), Stamp (figure, animal) Color selection Color change, Color’s name

Object (new, past)

Drawing object drawing

Pen(line, color, coloring), Figure tools(□, ○), Stamp (figure, animal, variety), failure, unintended failure

Eraser Performance, Failure Tool movement Paper,/Pad, Crayons’ box

Attention Synchronous activity, Crayon/Palette, Picture (drawing area), Others

Body position Body movement, Others Thinking Others Expression Negative, Positive

Table6. The number of average measurement (4 infants’ average) Experimental Tool

Category P T1 T2 T3

The observation units 66.0 57.0 69.0 74.5 New paper 1.0 1.0 1.5 2.3

Pen 1.5 3.3 □ 0.5 0.0 Figure tool ○ 1.0 0.0 Figure 1.0 0.0 Animal 2.0

Tool selection

Stamp Variety 1.0 1.3

Selection times 8.8 11.5 11.0 13.0 Color selection Number of selected color 3.8 5.0 4.5 3.5

New 4.5 2.8 5.8 6.0 Object Past 0.3 0.0 0.0 0.0 Line 19.3 19.3 24.3 32.8 Number of used color 3.8 4.8 4.0 3.5 pen

Coloring 19.8 18.3 12.8 14.0 □ 1.3 0.0 Figure

tool ○ 1.3 0.0 Figure 4.3 0.0 Animal 3.8 Stamp Variety 1.5 1.0

Failure 0.0 2.0 4.5 5.3

Drawing Objects Draw

Unintended failure 0.0 0.8 1.8 1.8 Performance 2.0 Eraser Failure 0.0 Paper/Pad 8.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 Tool

movement Crayons’ Box 2.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 Synchronous activity 5.5 0.8 0.3 0.0 Crayon/ Palette 19.0 15.5 20.8 27.5 Drawing area 49.0 40.8 48.0 53.5 Attention

Others 7.3 4.0 5.0 3.5 Movement 0.0 7.5 12.0 24.5 Body

position Others 5.5 1.3 6.0 4.8 Thinking 11.5 9.5 9.3 10.5 Others 7.0 3.3 8.8 6.5

Negative 0.0 0.8 2.3 0.5 Face expression Positive 1.8 1.5 0.8 0.8

4. Consideration: Analysis Result

We analyzed from three viewpoints: the general drawing characteristic, behavior comparison between the

drawing software and the conventional tool, and unnatural behavior by the drawing software.

4.1 The general drawing characteristic

<The number of colors used >

As seen from "color selection" category (Table7), there is no significant difference in the number of colors

used for drawing between the experimental tools. In addition, the number of colors used drawing seems to be

independent of the color size offered by each experimental tool.

<Additional drawing >

In order to investigate the behavior of additional drawing to the past drawing object, the numbers of checks in

"drawing object" category was measured. In this experiment, "Object" means the drawing object and 1object have

a meaning by one set. For example, if an infant draw two rabbits, they are counted as "2 Objects." This behavior

was observed only once. It is considered that this behavior is hardly performed regardless of the used

experimental tool and the number of drawn object.

<The attention while drawing>

From the "attention" category, the

numbers of checks in

“crayon/palette” and “drawing area”

column were measured. Then, within

drawing times (subtract the number

of checks in "others" category that the

behavior is not related to drawing

from the total drawing times), the rate

of looking at “drawing area” and the

rate of looking at “crayon/palette”

were investigated (Table8). From this,

we found that infants were looking at

“drawing area” for a long time rather

than “crayon/palette” regardless of

the experimental tool and an

individual. We performed Wilcoxon’s

rank test in order to investigate the

significant difference between

“crayon/palette” and “drawing area.”

It was accepted from the result which

authorized with the significant level

0.05. However, since the rate of

“crayon/palette” was no less than

30%, it is considered that

crayon/palette may have some

Table7. The number of colors used for drawing Tool

Target P T1 T2 T3

A 5/12 4/14 2/8 3/8 B 3/12 2/14 4/8 2/8 C 2/12 5/14 4/8 4/8 D 5/12 9/14 8/8 5/8

(Used colors/Offered colors)

Table9. The rate of the drawing behavior within drawing time

Tool Target P T1 T2 T3

A 55% 66% 70% 70% B 70% 70% 64% 55% C 75% 75% 81% 70% D 65% 59% 69% 71%

Table10. The rate of color selection when looking at crayon/palette

Tool Target P T1 T2 T3

A 46% 75% 69% 75% B 41% 60% 86% 68% C 100% 88% 87% 80% D 45% 75% 71% 67%

influences on the infants while drawing.

<Drawing time>

The rate of actually drawing time such as draw a line, color,

and push the stamp was investigated. If there is the check in

"drawing Object" category, the observation unit was regarded

as draw. And the numbers of checks was measured (Table9).

From this, the average of the rate was about 70%. Moreover,

the significant difference in the used tools was not seen. It is

considered that the behavior other than drawing (such as

thinking) is performed to complete a picture.

4.2 Comparison between the drawing software and the conventional tool

The differences between the drawing software and the conventional tool were investigated.

<Relation between the attention and the behavior>

The change rate of color and drawing-tool : From the numbers of checks in “crayon/palette” of "attention"

category and the number of the observation unit when there were checks in "new paper", "tool selection", and

"color selection" category were measured, we investigated the rate of actually performed color and drawing tool

change when looking at the tool-bar. From Table10, it was found that the rate of the drawing software was higher

than that of the conventional tool. We performed Wilcoxon’s rank test. Therefore, the significant difference was

accepted from the result which authorized with the significant level 0.05. However, because the possibility of an

unusual value was high from the results of the Smirnov-Grubbs test, the data of Target C with the conventional

tool was not used.

The low rate means that infants looked at the tool-bar for the

purpose except changing of color and drawing-tool. The crayon

was looked for a long times for the purpose except the color

changing. It was supposed whether a crayon have the factor as

the tool which promotes thinking of infants.

The rate of drawing activity : Because we investigate the rate of

actually drawing activity when looking at the drawing area, the

numbers of checks in “drawing area” of "attention " category and

the numbers of the observation unit when there were checks in

"drawing Object" category were measured. From Table11, there

was almost no difference between the drawing software and the

conventional tool. The significant difference was not accepted by

the significant level 0.05 of Wilcoxon’s rank test. It was considered that the actually drawing activity when

Table8. The Attention while drawing The time rate (%)

(Looked at crayon or palette) The time rate (%)

(Looked at drawing area) P T1 T2 T3 P T1 T2 T3

A 32 12 19 26 A 65 68 66 78 B 25 28 44 45 B 75 67 73 48 C 15 29 29 41 C 85 86 76 86 D 30 36 31 43 D 87 72 67 71

Average : 30% Average : 73%

Table11. The rate of the drawing behavior when looking at the drawing

area Tool

Target P T1 T2 T3

A 69% 89% 91% 84% B 85% 88% 80% 85% C 82% 88% 97% 81% D 74% 80% 88% 95%

Table12. The failure times of icon selection (Failure times/Times of icon selection)

Factor Target Pen pressure Uncertainty

of change Memory Total

A 1/39 2/39 0/39 3/39 B 7/44 1/44 5/44 13/44 C 3/37 0/37 5/37 8/37 D 5/95 12/95 6/95 23/95

looking at drawing area doesn’t influence by the experimental tool.

The synchronous activity rate : Synchronous activity means that the behavior is differ from the attention, for

example; a crayon was taken looking at a picture or a picture was seen taking a crayon. To investigate this

occurrence frequency, the numbers of checks in "synchronous activity" of "attention" category was measured. It

was an average of 10% with the conventional tool and was hardly seen with drawing software. It is considered

that the conventional tool can be thinking and drawing at the same time, but with drawing software these were

performed independently.

4.3 Unnatural behavior by the drawing software

We found the unnatural behavior by the drawing Software.

Tool movement : To investigate tool movement, the numbers of checks in “paper/pad” and “Crayon-box” of "tool

movement" category were measured. Paper and crayon-box movement were seen an average of 8 and 2 times.

However, it wasn’t seemed in the drawing software. Although the conventional tool can be moved easily, the pad

cannot be moved easily by the physical problem of the size and weight.

The body movement : To investigate the body movement while drawing, the numbers of checks in the "move" in

"body position" category was measured. “Move” means a motion of the waist floats. Although this action wasn’t

seen in the conventional tool, but with drawing software the rate of “move” such as stand up was an average of

22%. It is consider that it was difficult for infants to select the color, because there are color icons at the upper part

of a screen and the icon’s visible color is changed by the degree of light.

Icon selection : With drawing software, the unnatural behavior such as clicking the same color icon repeatedly and

clicking the already selected icon were seen. Therefore we analyzed the cause and measuring method of these

behaviors. Consequently, the following three factors were considered and we measured these (Table12).

(1) Pen Pressure

Factor: Because infant doesn’t have enough pen pressure, if he clicks a color icon it cannot be selected.

Method: The numbers of times in case the check result of "drawing object" category which means the drawing

result differs from the selected icon in "tool selection" and "color selection" category is measured.

(2) Uncertainty of change

Factor: Because infants cannot recognize clearly the state of the selected icon, they cannot have confidence in

change.

Method: The numbers of times in case there is a check continuously in the same column of "new paper", "tool

selection", or "color selection" category is measured.

(3) Memory

Factor: If infants think about the next draws, they forget the current selected color because it cannot be

checked by the hand like a crayon.

Method: The numbers of times in case

there is a check in the same

column of "tool selection" and

"color" categories after there

are some empty observation

unit is measured.

Table13. The failure times of the drawing (a line, coloring) by pen pressure

Target A B C D Failure times/ Drawing times 5/148 6/47 2/70 16/189

<Others>

There was also problem by pen pressure. When infants move a pen quickly, they cannot draw a line because

pen pressure was not enough. To investigate this problem, the numbers of checks in “failure” of “drawing object"

category was measured (Table13).

Also puzzlement was seen by performing operation

which infants have unintended. The numbers of checks

in “unintended failure” of "drawing object" category

was measured and the contents were investigated.

Consequently, it was an average of 3.8 times and the contents were indicated by the following:

* The button attached to the electronic pen was pushed unconsciously.

* The unintended icon was selected by the electronic pen was dragged on the pad.

* The unintended icon was selected by run-over to the tool bar.

5. Consideration: drawing UI (user interface) for infant

We suggested the drawing UI for infant.

<Color icon size>

When looking at crayon/palette, the rate of changing color for the conventional tool was lower than that for the

drawing software. This implies that the behavior of looking at crayon is for not only color selection but thinking.

The color stimulus of a crayon is strong because the color is on the crayon itself. It is consider that a crayon is a

tool for thinking and promotes infantile creativity by this stimulus is. However, infant cannot fully get such

stimulus from a color icon because its size is quite smaller than that of a crayon. It is proposed that the drawing

software should have the big palette to promote infants creative activity.

<Pen pressure control>

Infants were puzzled because pen pressure is too high for infants to select the target icon and to draw a line. To

solve this problem, it must be easy for infant to adjust the pen pressure. The interface should be improved.

<Feedback to color icon selection>

The behavior to click the same color icon repeatedly was caused because the result of color selection is not

known clearly. Also the behavior to click the already selected color icon was caused because infants forget a

current color. Therefore, it is important to offer clear feedback about selection for infant. It is suggested that the

drawing software should have a pen interface which display the assigned color on it for infants to know the color

selection result clearly and easily and to check a current color by hand to reduce the infant’s mental load.

<Tool movement>

Moving paper and crayon at the position where it is easy to draw is natural behavior to be often seen in

drawing. Therefore, it is needed to prepare the light pad which can easily move for drawing software. Furthermore,

we considered that it is possible to support more natural drawing by prepared with separate hardware such as a

palette and a drawing area like the conventional tool.

6. Conclusions

Children's creative work by using a computer becomes more and more popular. However, it has not been

studied quantitatively how use of computer gives the positive and negative influence on children's creative work.

In this paper, we have made an experiment to analyze the effect of a computer on the infant's drawing behavior.

While four infants drew their favorite animals by "pen and paper" and "computer software," we videotaped their

actions and deduced characteristic behaviors. Occurrences of the behaviors were measured in every five seconds.

The results were analyzed by combining the well-known “Time Sampling Observation method” and “Event

Sampling Observation method.” Several serious problems were found such that the small color palettes made it

difficult for the infants not only to select the color but also to get the rich stimulus for the creativity.

We proposed a new user interface which is indispensable for infants; the drawing software should have a big

color palette to promote infants creative activity and the pen used color should have a display of the assigned

color on it to reduce the infant’s mental load.

References

1. T.Furihata: Using Personal Computers in the Creative Process of Art Education: Possibilities and Limitations,

the Art Education Society of Japan, No.18, 267-278(1997). (Japanese)

2. K.Asai, N.Osumi: a Study on the Educational Effects of Painting Software for Children Who Have Drawing

Difficulty (Based on the Survey to First Graders of Elementary School), JSSE, Vol.13, No.6, 11-16(1999).

(Japanese)

3. J.Schumann, T.Strothotte, A.Raab, S.Laser: Assessing the Effect of Non-Photorealistic Rendered Images in

CAD, CHI96 Conference Proceedings, 35-41(1996)

4. S.Tano, Others: Intelligent Environment by Seamless Combination of 2D and 3D Image for Design Work, IPA,

189-196(2000). (Japanese)

5. A.Chikawa, M.Iwata, S.Tano: Effect on Human Creative Work by Computer-supported Drawing and

Sketching on Paper, HIS2000, 219-222(2000). (Japanese)

6. J.Matthews, J.Jessel: Very Young Children Use Electronic Paint: A Study of Beginnings of Drawing with

Traditional Media and Computer Paintbox, Visual Art Research, Vol.19, No.1, London, 47-62(1993)

7. Koike, Uefuchi: Expert’s Functions in CG (Computer Graphics) Activities, Japan Society of Educational

Information, Vol.15, No.4, 3-9(2000.3). (Japanese)

8. Nakazawa, Oonogi, Minami: Psychology manual The Observation Method, Kitaoji-syobou(2000)