Why video calling alone isn’t enough

The question

Is an unstructured video call enough?

The report investigates how structured digital video calls can help long-distance parents maintain emotional closeness with their children. It asks whether a regular, unstructured call is enough, and which communication elements can increase emotional closeness.

In the report, structured calls are guided, activity-based interactions with prompts, shared tasks and playful elements. The project was undertaken for iZiViD to understand families’ needs and turn them into design recommendations.

Source: Summary and Introduction, report p. 2.

How the project worked

Interviews, design thinking and prototype testing

Parents interviewed

10 parents, aged 30–45

Children interviewed

10 children, aged 5–15

Family context

Long-distance or divorced family situations

Approach

Desk research, interviews and prototype testing

The team followed six design-thinking stages: empathizing, defining, ideating, prototyping, evaluating and recommending. Interviews explored what families felt was missing from regular calls. The problem statement was then defined together with iZiViD.

The prototype, Doodle Diary, combined storytelling, quizzes, co-drawing and digital rewards. Testing used simplified tools, including Zoom’s whiteboard for the drawing concept.

Source: design-thinking discussion, pp. 3–4; Conclusion & Recommendations, p. 7. The interview counts do not establish a separate prototype-testing sample size.

What the report found

From practical check-ins to shared experiences

These are the report’s findings from its literature review, interviews and prototype work. They should be read alongside the limitations below.

Attention was difficult to sustain

The report describes unstructured calls becoming short, practical check-ins. Parents said younger children lost attention, became distracted or grew bored with basic contact.

Shared activities gave the call a focus

The report suggests that structured, interactive calls may support emotional closeness through joint, co-created experiences. Its testing feedback described greater involvement and a sense of presence when parents and children did activities together.

Co-drawing stood out in the prototype

The team identified co-drawing as the most effective prototype feature. Children stayed engaged longer and parents reported feeling more involved. Storytelling was too verbally focused for younger children, while quizzes were too brief to create a feeling of connection.

Source: Main Findings, pp. 4–6; Conclusion & Recommendations, pp. 7–8.

Reading the findings carefully

What this project cannot tell us

The report identifies three limitations:

• Interviewing young children was difficult. Children could be shy and needed time to become comfortable. The team used simple questions and invited parents to stay in the room.
• The prototype was simplified. Zoom’s whiteboard did not reproduce the full look, feel or guided features intended for iZiViD.
• Families differ. Participants’ routines, habits and comfort with technology shaped their feedback. The insights may not apply to every parenting situation.

Source: limitations discussion, p. 4.

iZiViD editorial context: This is a student consultancy project, not peer-reviewed evidence or proof of the effectiveness of the current iZiViD product. The prototype findings are not a guarantee of outcomes for individual families.

iZiViD’s interpretation

What this means for iZiViD

The report explicitly describes its findings as aligned with the iZiViD approach. We see that alignment in the emphasis on shared activities, structure and co-created experiences: a call can have something to do together, with less reliance on keeping a conversation going continuously.

This is our interpretation of the report’s relevance to the product direction. It does not mean every current feature originated in this project, and the student project does not constitute a university endorsement.

Explore how iZiViD works →

Original report

The original report will be published here after publication permission has been confirmed.

References from the report

The original Reference List is reproduced below with line wrapping normalized. Its wording and bibliographic details have not been corrected or independently verified. These are the report’s references, not additional research conducted by iZiViD.

1. Andreas, M., & Hasanah, N. (2024). Analyzing Communication Patterns in Long-Distance Parent-Child Relationships: A Mixed-Methods Study. Kampret Journal, 3(2), 65-71
2. Duursma, E., Wright, A. C., Hanley, N., & Simpson, H. (2024). A window into Their World: How Video Visits Facilitate Father–Child Relationships. Journal of Child and Family Studies, 33(11), 3416–3427. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10826-024-02925-9
3. Follmer, S., Raffle, H., Go, J., Ballagas, R., & Ishii, H. (2010). Video play: playful interactions in video conferencing for long-distance families with young children. Proceedings of the 9th International Conference on Interaction Design and Children, 49–58. https://doi.org/10.1145/1810543.1810550
4. Han, X. (2024). Being family via WeChat: Children’s interpretation of long‐distance family relationships. Children & Society, 39(1), 286–303. https://doi.org/10.1111/chso.12912
5. Johnson, A., & Rogers, M. (2024). Strengthening and supporting parent–child relationships through digital technology: Benefits and challenges. Family Relations, 73(3), 1550–1567. https://doi.org/10.1111/fare.12960
6. Kreijns, K., Xu, K., & Weidlich, J. (2022). Social Presence: Conceptualization and Measurement. Educational Psychology Review, 34(1), 139–170. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10648-021-09623-8
7. Pan, L., Tian, F., Lu, F., Zhang, X., Liu, Y., Feng, W., Dai, G., & Wang, H. (2013). An exploration on long distance communications between left-behind children and their parents in China. Association For Computing Machinery, 1147–1156. https://doi.org/10.1145/2441776.2441906
8. Strouse, G. A., McClure, E., Myers, L. J., Zosh, J. M., Troseth, G. L., Blanchfield, O., Roche, E., Malik, S., & Barr, R. (2021). Zooming through development: Using video chat to support family connections. Human Behavior and Emerging Technologies, 3(4), 552–571. https://doi.org/10.1002/hbe2.268
9. Yadav, S., & Chakraborty, P. (2022). Children’s ability to engage in video chatting: Expressiveness, recall and problem solving. Journal of Human Behavior in the Social Environment, 32(8), 1070–1088. https://doi.org/10.1080/10911359.2021.1988794