This paper presents the design of an application for engagement with audiovisual digital cultural heritage in the classroom, called the Carrot. The aim of this interactive tool is to make online cultural heritage accessible and understandable for students in different levels of education. In relation to this work we pose two research questions: Why do we need to develop tools for contextualization of audiovisual cultural heritage? And: How do we design and develop such tools? The preliminary answers to these questions come from our experiences in the design process, which deepened our understanding of a tool in the context of the classroom. We then relate this to the digital humanities project, EUscreenXL. Initial conclusions suggest that tools for contextualization of audiovisual cultural heritage can engage students with cultural heritage, develop digital media literacy, and support contemporary didactics. These tools need to be developed across platforms, using nonproprietary software and involving a multidisciplinary group of experts.

1. Designing access to audiovisual cultural heritage.
The case of the Carrot
Mariana Salgado
Department of Media - ARTS
Aalto University
Espoo, Finland
mariana.salgado@aalto.fi
Willemien Sanders
Department of Media and Culture Studies
Utrecht University
Utrecht, the Netherlands
w.sanders@uu.nl
Abstract—This paper presents the design of an application
for engagement with audiovisual digital cultural heritage in
the classroom, called the Carrot. The aim of this interactive
tool is to make online cultural heritage accessible and
understandable for students in different levels of education.
In relation to this work we pose two research questions: Why
do we need to develop tools for contextualization of
audiovisual cultural heritage? And: How do we design and
develop such tools? The preliminary answers to these
questions come from our experiences in the design process,
which deepened our understanding of a tool in the context of
the classroom. We then relate this to the digital humanities
project, EUscreenXL. Initial conclusions suggest that tools
for contextualization of audiovisual cultural heritage can
engage students with cultural heritage, develop digital media
literacy, and support contemporary didactics. These tools
need to be developed across platforms, using non-
proprietary software and involving a multidisciplinary
group of experts.
Keywords: audiovisual cultural heritage; interaction design;
digital humanities; digital literacy; education
I. INTRODUCTION
EUscreenXL is a European project that offers access
to a million audiovisual items online, including 60.000
videos, by March 2016. Since the early 2000s and through
a number of consecutive projects, the archives of
European public broadcasters have been made accessible
through the EUscreen portal.1
This portal serves as the
audiovisual cultural heritage aggregator for Europeana,
the principal site for European cultural heritage
(http://www.europeana.eu). However, providing access to
this content is not enough. Cultural heritage content such
as television archive material can only become
meaningful if researchers, teachers and students, artists,
and the general public engage and interact with it. To this
end, researchers and developers within the EUscreenXL
project are developing a toolkit to engage with the
material in a variety of ways. In the first phase of this
development, we explored different formats and user-
friendly ways for interaction with the resources on the
portal. This paper concerns this first phase. In later
1
The EUscreen portal (www.euscreen.eu) was built and developed
within the EUscreen project and its successor EUscreenXL. Currently,
the EUscreenXL consortium consist of 32 European audiovisual
archives, public broadcasters, academic and technical partners, coming
from 22 countries.
phases, more complex formats are being developed as
well, but this is beyond the scope of this paper.
In this paper we focus on one part of the design and
development process of an easy-to-use tool for the
EUscreen portal: the Carrot. The Carrot is a design
concept for a multi-screen application for the
collaborative creation of video posters. A prototype was
developed and demoed in a Europeana Space hackathon
by an interdisciplinary team of scholars, designers and
developers, some of whom are also involved in the
EUscreenXL project. Developing this application served
to better define the scope and limitations of the toolkit we
are building for the EUscreen portal, and to develop ideas
and an understanding of the practical use of such tools in
concrete settings.
Many existing tools for creating video collages are
proprietary ones, such as the app PicCollage and the
platform Scalar (http://pic-collage.com; http://scalar.usc.
edu/scalar). Scalar facilitates a wide range of formats with
the use of audiovisual materials, but asks the user to
upload their own videos. EUscreen, like many other
portals with cultural heritage content, such as Televisió de
Catalunya, Spain (TVC, http://tv3.cat) and the European
Film Gateaway (http://www.europeanfilmgateway.eu), do
not support free download and reuse of videos by users.
Hence, a platform like Scalar is not an option for users
eager to explore, use and remix online collections with
such limitations. To facilitate practical engagement with
audiovisual cultural heritage, a complex project like
EUscreen needs to build its own tools, which
acknowledge the specificities of the project and the needs
of site users. The development of the Carrot was an
integral part of this process.
The Carrot supports the use of audiovisual cultural
heritage in the classroom. It addresses not only the need to
access and build an understanding of cultural heritage
material, but also addresses the increased demand for
digital media literacy, given the rise in multimedia data in
the present and in the near future [1]. Furthermore for
understanding media literacy it is key to consider the
general increase in the use of digital tools in general [2]
and in education [3]. Sample [4, p. 404] advocates
forgetting about written essays altogether. He asks his
students “to weave - to build, to fabricate, to design”
(emphasis in the original) using mixed media, and he calls
this approach creative analysis. Benmayor [5, p. 188]
even claims that “... digital storytelling is a signature

2. pedagogy of the ‘New Humanities’, engaging an
interdisciplinary integration of critical thought and
creative practice”. Our aims with the Carrot were slightly
less ambitious; however, it is useful to consider Säljö’s [3]
opinion when he argues that technology does not affect
learning in any straightforward way, but it does change
our understanding of what constitutes learning and
knowing.
One of the pressing questions within the digital
humanities is how information will be made meaningful
[6]. Bartscherer and Coover [6, p. 4] also note a shift
towards collaboration and “collective modes of working”
in scholarship and the arts, which impacts our
understanding of what might count as scholarly output. In
our work on the Carrot, these concerns, media literacy,
digital technology, and collaborative learning, come
together.
In this context, in which the digital humanities are
opening a path to make meaningful contributions to
educational settings, we explore two research questions:
Why do we need tools for contextualization of audiovisual
cultural heritage? And: How do we design and develop
such tools? To this end we discuss the design process of
the Carrot, in which an interdisciplinary team was
involved. We present the application and explain how it
works, and finally we analyse its opportunities and
challenges with respect to the use and contextualization of
audiovisual cultural heritage in the classroom. (Many
other contexts for use of the Carrot are thinkable, but they
are beyond the scope of this paper.)
II. SETTING THE FRAMEWORK: COLLABORATION,
CLASSROOM DYNAMICS AND MULTISCREEN TECHNOLOGY
PRODUCTION
The development of the Carrot began in a Europeana
Space hackathon, the Hacking Culture Bootcamp
(http://www.europeana-space.eu/hackathons/europeana-
tv-hackathon). This event took place in Amsterdam in
May, 2015. Its aim was to promote the use of Europeana
TV and video content and to explore the development of
multiscreen applications.
As EUscreenXL partners, we first gathered a team
eager to participate in the bootcamp. (We were six
persons in the team. During the hackathon we received
help from a content provider as well.) We contacted
scholars, designers and developers from within the project
consortium and beyond and began to gather initial ideas
collaboratively.
Each partner brought her own perspective and interest
to the hackathon. In this section we describe the interests
of the interaction designer, the media scholar/teacher and
the technical developers, which were discussed during a
meeting preceding the hackathon, to develop our ideas.
This crucial discussion shaped our hackathon plans and
provided us with the framework for the development and
design work during the two hackathon days.
A. Interaction designer’s perspective
One of the participants was a designer. For her it was
important that students could collaborate on an
assignment. Design education promotes learning
following the principles of distributed constructivism as
explained by Resnick [7]. Distributed constructivism
extends on the constructivism theory proposed by Paper
[8], in which people construct new knowledge while
making things. They could be making a kite, a sand castle
or - in this case - a video poster. Resnick [7, p. 280]
expands this idea, demonstrating that students work
together on “design and construction activities”, and he
argues that these types of activities are particularly
effective in supporting the development of knowledge-
building communities. As the designer perceived the
classroom as a type of knowledge building community,
she considered it appropriate to develop an application
that would motivate students to make a video poster
together, rather than only discuss it in groups and then
make one separately.
B. Media scholar/teacher’s perspective
Another participant was a media scholar and lecturer.
She was aware that variety, and alternation of assignments
and learning formats are effective practices to keep
students motivated and engaged in the classroom [9].
Therefore, she argued that the tool should support a
variety of activities and tasks. She also stressed the
importance of classroom dynamics and the need to
alternate between individual work, group work and
plenary work. She advocated including an awareness of
such dynamics in the concept of the tool-to-be-developed
by making sure it would support both individual work or
work in small groups, plenary work in the classroom, and
possibly individual work outside the classroom as well.
C. Technical developers’ perspective
The main technical partner of the Hacking Culture
Bootcamp was Noterik, an Amsterdam based IT company
specializing in video apps and longstanding member of
the EUscreen consortium (http://www.noterik.nl). Noterik
had developed a spacial spotting technology, which
allows for the spacial identification of points on a screen
from a second screen, for instance, a smartphone or tablet.
The interest of the technical partners in our project was to
use and development this technology, and for commercial
purposes they wanted to develop an application for use in
the classroom. Their interest was to create a tool for the
classroom that would include spacial tagging, the abiliy to
add information to different parts of the screen using a
second screen.
Compiling the insights of these group members
resulted in a list of requirements, which can be
summarized as follows: to develop a multiscreen
application using audiovisual cultural heritage content
that supports different classroom activities and dynamics,
allows building together, and applies spacial tagging.
While challenging, these requirements were not
mutually exclusive. We could have neglected one of the
perspectives, as it can be demanding to include many
requirements. According to Sivaloganathan, Andrews and
Shahin [10] prioritizing requirements is the first stage of a
design process. However, we wanted to stick to the above-
mentioned requirements to acknowledge the practice of

3. interdisciplinary collaboration within EUscreen and
EUscreenXL as well as to keep all the members of the
design team engaged. This multi-perspectival
collaboration extends beyond traditional forms of
interdisciplinarity and was insightful and stimulating.
After two days of intense collaboration the Carrot was
created.
III. WHAT IS THE CARROT?
The completed Carrot is an educational tool for high
school and university use. With this tool teachers and
students are able to collaboratively view, discuss,
comment on, and tag videos related to a specific topic and
then extract clips and produce digital multimedia essays
(video posters) as an assignment. This collaborative
interaction with video content stimulates discussion and
participation, enhances students’ engagement with
audiovisual cultural heritage, and develops their digital
storytelling skills [11]; it also allows teachers to adopt
contemporary media didactics [3; 5]. Specifically, it
supports the engagement with audiovisual cultural
heritage, it develops digital media literacy in students, and
it reinforces contemporary digital media didactics by
teachers.
Starting from a research question or interest, students
watch a video collectively and tag it via their mobile
phones or tablets, using the spacial spotting technology
(see Fig. 1. Smartphone displaying tags). These time-
based tags are predefined by the teacher and/or students
and therefore related to the research interest.
While students remain unaware of each other’s tags, to
prevent them responding to each other rather than to the
video, the teacher sees, on her own screen, which students
place which tags (see Fig. 2). The students get to see all
the tags once the video is finished.
Figure 1. Smartphone displaying tags.
The tags serve as indicators of students’ ideas, and can
easily invite a (plenary) discussion around them. Through
this discussion, relevant scenes with respect to the
research interest can be identified, debated and analyzed.
Afterwards, students create clips based on the tags and
discussion, and create their argument in the form of a
video poster: a combination of a number of clips and a
text about them, together forming an argument in relation
to the research question or interest (see Fig. 3).
In the appendix we present a scenario for the use of
the Carrot in the classroom, which elucidates this further,
while we will now discuss how the Carrot supports a
number of competencies and practices, and why these are
relevant.
IV. UNFOLDING COMPETENCIES AND PRACTICES IN THE
CARROT
As identified, the Carrot provides the opportunity to
combine a number of key competencies and practices
related to contemporary humanities education and
didactics: engagement with the growing amount of digital
cultural heritage; the development of digital media
literacy; and the application of contemporary digital
media didactics. Below we will discuss them in more
detail, focusing on opportunities and challenges related to
each.
A. Engagement with audiovisual cultural heritage
Given the dominance of Google as an access point for
the web [12], “curated digital collections will become
increasingly important as anchors for meaningful
engagement with digital information” [13, p. 1]. Apart
from providing access to Europe’s rich audiovisual
cultural heritage, there is a need to provide tools for
curation, in order to facilitate contextualization and
engagement with the digital content.
Liestøl [14, p. 62], writing about digital media design
and innovation, wonders how the humanities can
“innovate by reinventing and redefining their cultural
positions and practices? Can they move from the role of
analytical observation in hindsight and instead become
proactively participant in furthering the processes of
innovation by means of both digital media design and
textual interpretations, i.e. by combining synthesis and
analysis in critical construction of new digital artefacts?”.
We believe the Carrot can: it allows for the analysis of a
video and the (immediate) creation of an argument or
discussion, presenting video and argument in a single
video poster. This in itself becomes a new cultural
heritage artefact.
B. Development of digital media literacy
Audiovisual material is widespread among young
people, given the popularity of YouTube and Vimeo, and
the increasing possibilities for sharing audiovisual
materials through social media such as Facebook and,
more recently, Twitter [15] As mentioned above, the
audiovisual cultural heritage content on portals like
EUscreen comes with a number of limitations regarding
the use and re-use of its material, including copyright

4. Figure 2. Screenshot from the Carrot: teacher’s view.
Figure 3. Video poster.
issues, which in turn create specific requirements for
tools for such use [16].
Peer-to-peer and collaborative learning have been
praised in many educational forums [see for e.g. 17]. Van
den Berg, Wilfried and Pilot, [18] argue that students
learn more when the assessment procedure includes
feedback on the products and processes, characteristics
that our application supports. By collaborating in making,
students support each other’s goals, gaining insights in the
process from peers. One student might have a strong
visual background and be ready to identify the aesthetic
qualities of a video; another might identify a piece of
music; and a third one might have ideas about a narrative.
This cross-fertilization is also part of digital media
education.
Students involved in making a poster advance their
media literacy because they are creating in a different
language, i.e., an audiovisual language, rather than or in

5. addition to the written one used for conventional
assignments. The Carrot allows students to analyse and
comment on AV content, using a multimedia language, in
this case, video and text. It supports the visual way people
increasingly express themselves.
The makerspace movement proposes new spaces and
ways of learning in which making is an active process of
building, designing, and innovating with tools and
materials, to produce shareable artefacts within a given
group [19]. These informal learning ecosystems provide
opportunities to understand the opportunities of making in
education. “Making matters, not just because it improves
academic outcomes like obtaining a college degree but
also because it develops the creative, confident, and tech-
savvy dispositions that are important to 21st century
learning”, according to Peppler [20, p. 48).
Conventionally, students work together on writing
assignments. Tools such as the Carrot, which motivate
learning by making, should be developed and their impact
evaluated to understand how their contribution to media
literacy and ‘creative, confident, and tech-savvy’
dispositions might be optimized.
C. Implementation of contemporary digital media
didactics
Benmayor [5] used digital storytelling in her course on
life stories. Through a number of steps and a combination
of assignments, she taught her students to discuss
literature and their own experiences, before engaging in
the creation of a personal narrative and a visual narrative
to accompany it. She observes that this course enables
both critical thinking and creative expression in her
students. We envisage the Carrot working in a similar
way. By introducing students to content first, encouraging
them to discuss it and generate ideas, before requiring
them to address the content in a creative way, they can
develop their critical thinking and reflection about the
content as well as the process. In addition, through such
creative work, which allows for more individual
expression, the role of personal backgrounds can be
acknowledged, which can “help[s] to demystify theory”
and “empowers students to become theorizers (...)” [5, p.
200).
Tools need to be designed to be flexible enough to
allow learning in various disciplines. Although we
originally conceived of the Carrot as a tool for learning
about media, communication and design, it is adaptable
enough to be used in different contexts, for example
making video posters could be useful for other subjects,
such as mathematics. The Khan Academy
(https://www.khanacademy.org) made available a library
of free online tutoring videos spanning a variety of
academic subjects at different levels of the education
system. Even though the project received criticism, these
videos are still used in the classroom [21], and Salman
Khan’s flipped classroom method is a topic highly
discussed in educational forums [22]. The presence of
online repositories of learning videos, such as the one
provided by Khan Academy, reassures the demand to
manipulate video in the classroom for various subjects. As
video advances as an educational means, tools for
discussing and creating videos are becoming a necessity.
Since the Carrot can be used for studying both the content
of videos and for their formal analysis as a media text, it
can function in a wide variety of courses unrestricted by
academic discipline.
The Carrot also addresses issues of interaction in the
classroom. However, other learning initiatives pay a lot of
attention to online collaboration in platforms that support,
for instance, massive open online courses (MOOCs), but
less for use in the classroom. Initiatives like Shakespeak
(http://www.shakespeak.com) and Presemo
(http://www.screen.io/en/presemo.html) suggest there is a
market for interactive tools that motivate discussion in the
classroom.
The above shows that a concept like the Carrot comes
with opportunities and challenges. While it supports
engagement with audiovisual cultural heritage, digital
literacy and contemporary digital media didactics, its
possibilities are also bound by the portal it serves.
V. DISCUSSION
In design processes multidisciplinary activity is often
perceived as a key part of the process. Many design
studios hire people from different disciplines to contribute
to the creative design process. In our case, the first
meeting for the hackathon, in which different participants
explained their individual and organizational goals and
interests, was key to the further development of the
Carrot. We were not only a multidisciplinary group, but
we were also affiliated to four different organizations,
with their own agendas in relation to the development of
online applications for the cultural and educational
sectors. In spite of these differences, we could work
together to a common goal. In the end the high ambitions
and objectives enriched the final result and ensured that
all of the participants remained committed until the end of
the process.
But the Carrot is certainly not a panacea. Developing it
based on integration with EUscreen is a challenge because
of the need to allow students to create clips. This is
something not all EUscreen content partners are able to
agree to. Allowing students to use videos from different
sources is also not a priority within strongly content-
driven projects like EUscreen.
Recently, the British Broadcasting Corporation (BBC)
has launched Mixital (https://www.mixital.co.uk), a
creative space that allow users to make, publish and share
digital creations. In the same vein, European projects such
as EUscreen advance the development of online tools for
their own portals. As much as such initiatives are
welcome, these tools are restricted to only one platform.
As audiovisual cultural heritage material is spread across
many online repositories, it would be most beneficial to
develop tools that could be used for many portals and
platforms, or at least combine content from various portals
and collections.
Copyright challenges the development of such tools,
as it imposes limitations for the access and sharing of
cultural heritage, as it has for the development of the

6. EUscreen portal: Marttila and Hyppää [16, p. 1] argue
“how copyrights become a driver of the design process
and override goals of human-centered and participatory
design, and design for collective action”. Arguably such
restrictions are counter-productive.
There are many commercial initiatives to facilitate the
creative re-use of audiovisual cultural heritage. In
principle, these could easily serve educational needs as
well. However, it is worth considering what it means for
cultural heritage work when collections of material relate
to commercial infrastructures and imperatives. If our and
our students’ work is to be hosted and shared in
proprietary environments, such as Google, with its
proliferation of services and its many acquisitions, we are
not ensuring sustainable access to these materials for
future generations, an outcome that is highly undesirable.
This prioritizes the need to offer non-proprietary tools to
ensure that cultural heritage engagement and expressions
are hosted and shared in safe and sustainable
environments that promote democratic values.
VI. CONCLUSION
Following this discussion and our explanation of the
development of the Carrot we can now return to our
original research questions. Firstly, why do we need to
develop tools for contextualization of audiovisual cultural
heritage? Because with them we can engage students in
meaningful activities with digital cultural heritage, such as
the creation of new audiovisual artifacts; because we need
to expand students’ digital media literacy; and because we
need to embrace contemporary media didactics.
And how should we design these tools? Our
preliminary findings indicate that in multidisciplinary
design processes that involve content experts, scholars,
designers, and developers, tools can be developed which
are based on non-proprietary software which is flexible
enough to work across platforms and collections, and are
based on scenarios for real-world use.
Online tools play an increasingly important role in
education. Säljö [3, p. 54] has argued that despite the
introduction of digital infrastructures in education,
including the interactive whiteboard replacing the
blackboard, “Digital curriculum materials and multimedia
resources have not been able to assert themselves as part
of regular educational practices to the extent that some
predicted they would”.
The future development of the Carrot, which is now in
a concept stage, depends on the funding opportunities that
the team involved is able to secure. In the light of the
importance of visual thinking and its expressions and the
increasing ubiquitous presence of audiovisual media, it is
evident that tools for editing, remixing and publishing
audiovisual cultural heritage are needed.
Sternberg & Preiss’ [23, p. 9] claim that a positive
impact of the use of IT in general depends on “a positive
confluence of several variables such as student
engagement, group participation, frequent interaction and
feedback from mentors, and connections to real-world
contexts”. Although the didactic value of the Carrot can
only be assessed if the application is developed and used,
and its success will depend on the proper use by teachers
and students alike, we believe it does offer opportunities
for these variables to confluence positively.
ACKNOWLEDGMENT
First of all, we wish to thank the team that collaborated
with us in conceiving the Carrot: Sebastian Zelonka, Laura
Osswald, David Ammeraal, Marco Regina and Rutger
Rozendal. A special thanks goes to one of our team
members, Neea Laakso, who did the graphic design for the
screenshots presented in this paper. Thanks also to the
organizers of the E-Space Hacking Culture Bootcamp. We
could not have done this work without the support of all
the members of the EUscreenXL project, all motivated
participants and eager commenters of our developments:
thanks for that.
REFERENCES
[1] J. R. Smith, “Riding the multimedia big data wave,” in
Proc. 36th international ACM SIGIR Conference on
Research and Development in Information Retriev (SIGIR ;
‘13), ACM Press, July-Aug. 2013, pp. 1–2, doi:
10.1145/2484028.2494492.
[2] A. Doering, R. Beach, and D. O’Brien, “Infusing
Multimodal Tools and Digital Literacies into an English
Education Program,” English Education, vol. 40, Oct. 2007,
pp. 41–60.
[3] R. Säljö, “Digital tools and challenges to institutional
traditions of learning: technologies, social memory and the
performative nature of learning: The performative nature of
learning,” Journal of Computer Assisted Learning, vol. 26,
Jan. 2010, pp. 53–64, doi: 10.1111/j.1365-
2729.2009.00341.x.
[4] M. L. Sample, “What’s Wrong with Writing Essays,” in
Debates in the Digital Humanities, M. K. Gold, Ed.
Minneapolis: University of Minnesota Press, 2012, pp.
404–405.
[5] R. Benmayor, “Digital Storytelling as a Signature
Pedagogy for the New Humanities,” Arts and Humanities
in Higher Education, vol. 7, June 2008, pp. 188–204,
doi:10.1177/1474022208088648.
[6] T. Bartscherer and R. Coover, “Introduction,” in Switching
Codes. Thinking through Digital Technology in the
Humanities and the Arts, T. Bartscherer and R. Coover,
Eds. Chicago, Ill./London: University of Chicago Press,
2011, pp. 1–11.
[7] M. Resnick, “Distributed Constructionism,” in Proc. 1996
International Conference on Learning Sciences (ICLS 96),
ISLS, July 1996, pp. 280–284.
[8] S. Papert and I. Harel, “Situating Constructionism,” in
Constructionism, S. Papert and I. Harel, Eds. Norwood,
N.J.: Ablex Publishing Corporation, 1991, pp. 1–11.
[9] D. Wiseman and G. Hunt, Best Practice in Motivation and
Management in the Classroom, 3rd ed. Springfield, IL:
Charles C. Thomas, 2014.
[10] S. Sivaloganathan, P. T. J. Andrews, and T. M. Shahin,
“Design Function Deployment: A Tutorial Introduction,”
Journal of Engineering Design, vol. 1, pp. 59–74, 2001, doi:
10.1080/09544820010031535.
[11] P. Wales, “Making, Creating and Shaping Meaning
Through the Art of Digital Storytelling,” in Contextualized
Practices in Arts Education, C.-H. Lum, Ed. Singapore:
Springer, 2013, pp. 49–65.

7. [12] M. Kemman, M. Kleppe, and S. Scagliola, “Just Google it.
Digital Research Practices of Humanities Scholars,” in
Proc. Digital Humanities Congress (DH2012), HRI Online
Publications, 2014, 20 pp.
[13] C. L. Palmer, O. L. Zavalina, and K. Fenlon, “Beyond Size
and Search: Building Contextual Mass in Digital
Aggregations for Scholarly Use,” Proc. American Society
for Information Science and Technology (ASIST 2010),
ASIST, Nov./Dec. 2010, pp. 1–10,
doi:10.1002/meet.14504701213.
[14] G. Liestøl, “Topics of innovation. Towards a method of
invention and innovation in digital media design,” in Media
Innovations. A Multidisciplinary Study of Change, T.
Storsul and A. H. Krumsvik, Eds. Göteborg, Sweden:
Nordicom, 2013, pp. 61–74.
[15] C. Kuang, “The Smart Details That Make Twitter’s New
Video Feature Easy to Use,” WIRED, 29-Jan-2015.
[Online]. Available: http://www.wired.com/2015/01/smart-
design-details-twitters-new-video-feature. Accessed: 15
Sept. 2015.
[16] S. Marttila and K. Hyyppä, “Rights to Remember?: How
Copyrights Complicate Media Design,” in Proc. 8th Nordic
Conference on Human-Computer Interaction: Fun, Fast,
Foundational (NordiCHI’14), ACM, Oct. 2014, pp. 481–
490, doi:10.1145/2639189.2641217.
[17] W. Dou, H.-M. Wang, Y. Jia, and P. Zou, “A
Recommendation-Based Peer-to-Peer Trust Model,”
Journal of Software, vol. 4, 2004, pp. 571-583.
[18] I. van den Berg, W. Admiraal, and A. Pilot, “Peer
assessment in university teaching: evaluating seven course
designs,” Assessment & Evaluation in Higher Education,
vol. 31, Feb. 2006, pp. 19–36,
doi:10.1080/02602930500262346.
[19] B. Litts, Making learning: Makerspaces as learning
environments. Unpublished doctoral dissertation,
University of Wisconsin-Madison, 2015.
http://informalscience.org/images/research/Litts_2015_Diss
ertation_Published.pdf
[20] K. Peppler, New Opportunities for Interest-Driven Arts
Learning in a Digital Age. New York, NY: The Wallace
Foundation, 2013. Retrieved from
http://www.wallacefoundation.org/knowledge-center/arts-
education/key-research/Documents/New-Opportunities-for-
Interest-Driven-Arts-Learning-in-a-Digital-Age.pdf.
[21] G. R. Parslow, “Commentary: The Khan academy and the
day-night flipped classroom,” Biochemistry and Molecular
Biology Education, vol. 40, Sept./Oct. 2012, pp. 337–338,
doi:10.1002/bmb.206421.
[22] K. Ash, “Educators Evaluate `Flipped Classrooms`.
Benefits and Drawbacks seen in Replacing Lectures with
On-Demand Video,” Education Week, vol. 32, Aug. 2012,
pp. 6–8. Retrieved from
http://cetis58.net/media/nfiles/2014/05/user_2_2014052016
5338.pdf.
[23] R. J. Sternberg and D. D. Preiss, “Preface,” in Intelligence
and Technology: the Impact of Tools on the Nature and
Development of Human Abilities, R. J. Sternberg and D. D.
Preiss, Eds. Mahwah, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates,
2005, pp. xiii–xxii.
[24] J. M. Carroll, “Five Reasons for Scenario-Based Design,”
in Proc. Annual Hawaii International Conference on
System Sciences (HICSS '99), IEEE Computer Society,
1999, pp. 3051–3062.
APPENDIX
To explain the collaborative creation of video posters
with the Carrot we presented a scenario. Scenario based
design [24] is a method used in the development of
interactive systems. We have used this scenario as part of
the development process to understand the many features,
interactive possibilities and challenges that the application
proposed. Because of the setting of the hackathon, the
interaction in this scenario is limited to a teacher and one
student (rather than a classroom of students). However,
this limitation does not interfere with the purpose of the
scenario.
In our use case Ulla is a high-school teacher and Eva
is her student. Using the Carrot tool, they discuss in the
classroom the topic of today’s class: everyday life in Italy.
They watch a short documentary Bambini (Children),
made in 1960.
Ulla: Good morning students. Today’s class will be
about Italian everyday life. In order to actually get
involved into Italian everyday life, we will discuss and
analyze a video about children’s life in the city. At the end
of this lesson, we create a video-poster. The first step is
viewing and tagging this video. On your mobile phones
you will see three different buttons, which mean the
following: green equals ‘city play’; orange equals
‘emotions’; and red equals ‘interaction’ (in groups and
alone). Use these buttons to add your tags to the video.
[Students watch the video and tag it – Fig. 1]
Ulla: Okay now, after watching the video, let’s look at
the tags you have added. You all get to see what tags were
added, on your own screens and the main screen. [Fig. 2]
So Eva, I see on my screen, that you added this ‘city
play’ tag to this scene. Can you tell me why? Explain
please.
Eva: Well I noticed that the children were on their
own, playing with random objects they found in the city.
This being alone, without their parents, was very
dominant for me, because they live in such a big city;
that’s why I tagged it.
[More tags are discussed by the students]
Ulla: Now that we have discussed the tags, you will
work in small groups and discuss an aspect you find
interesting. Eva’s idea about children playing alone in the
big city was a good one, but we have discussed others
also. Look at the tags and cut some clips from this video
to use for your discussion. Compare them and select three
of them to include in your video poster.
[The students work on their video clips and posters in
groups of 2-3 students]
Ulla: Are you finished and have you selected? Good!
We are going to make a video poster together. So, let’s
start with the first group. What is the topic of your video
poster?
Eva: We want to talk about lonely kids.
Ulla: Which clips did you select? You can place your
clips by pressing the sharing button.
Eva: Well I found these [swipes the clips to the main
screen into the video poster format]. Here you see three
examples of children playing alone.

8. Ulla: Excellent. But [to class]: do any of you have a
clip that fits better with their topic? Send it to the poster.
Students and teacher discuss the suitability of videos,
the topic and the argument they want to make about the
videos. After discussing the drafts, the students receive
their draft versions of the video poster.
Ulla: Now each of the groups will work with the drafts
of these video posters that were sent to you. You can
continue this work at home. Next week, please hand in
your final poster and you will get a grade. Good luck!