6
Learning Technology at Home and Preschool

Lydia Plowman

6.1 Learning Technology

“Learning technology” is not a term associated with the early years of childhood. During the period up to the age of entry to formal education, little distinction is made between the technologies that are dedicated to learning and those that children use for playful purposes. There are, however, differences in the types of technology that they are likely to encounter depending on whether they are at home or in a preschool setting.

This chapter therefore uses the more inclusive terms “digital media” or “technology” interchangeably rather than “learning technology” as this reflects the broad range of devices likely to be experienced by preschool children across home and preschool environments. As used here, the term refers to digital devices (such as desktop, laptop, and tablet computers, games consoles, e-readers and mobile phones) and to products or outputs (applications or apps, DVDs, websites, games, and interactive stories) that are viewed, read, played or created on these devices, along with television and broadcast or streaming media. The term can also include toys such as play mobile phones and laptops that provide a means for children to engage in role play about how these devices are used in everyday life. These toys get less attention than the technologies that have more obvious educational potential but they can be an important part of the technological landscape in which children grow up.

The different approaches to conceptualizing technology at home and in educational settings are highlighted by the language used. ICT is generally used to describe the information and communication technologies available in preschool and school, a policy term that is strongly associated with educational uses of computers and interactive whiteboards. Parents do not use the term ICT, another reason for using the term “digital media” as it suggests a broader range of products that are associated as much with leisure as with educational activities.

This chapter discusses the particular requirements and perceived vulnerabilities of preschool children followed by a consideration of the close relationship between learning and play, and what this means for the use of digital media. Some of the differences between practices in preschool and home settings are outlined, concluding with reflections on the design of digital media and possible future developments.

6.1.1 Defining preschool

Preschool can refer both to the period in a child’s life before they start school and to an education setting, which might also be described as a nursery or kindergarten. The compulsory age for starting school varies widely, even within Europe, ranging from four in Northern Ireland to five in Scotland and England, and seven in Bulgaria, Finland, Serbia, and Sweden (Eurydice 2013). This is in line with data from the World Bank (2013) that shows that, globally, children start school between the ages of five and seven. The focus here is therefore on the under fives, but extends to include children up to the age of seven.

References to ‘preschool’ encompass a wide age range at a time in children’s lives when there are many developmental changes in a short timespan. During the preschool years children in the industrialized world are generally the recipients of close parental attention. Their worlds revolve around home and family, and they demonstrate markedly different competences and interests from children who are a year or two older, when an increase in independence, developing reading and writing skills, and a wider peer group mean that their digital media practices shift substantially. It is therefore important to consider the preschool age range as a distinct category.

6.1.2 Developmentally appropriate technology

Many educators make reference to the construct of developmental appropriateness when discussing children in the relatively early stages of learning. While this is associated with preschool pedagogy, it also dominates the marketing of interactive learning toys and games for home use as parents are perceived to be primarily interested in such products as a way of accelerating their child’s learning. The construct is central to the influential position statement issued by the National Association for the Education of Young Children (NAEYC 2012) in the United States, Technology and Interactive Media as Tools in Early Childhood Programs Serving Children from Birth through Age 8. This is the most comprehensive policy-related document on the use of technologies in the education of young children to date. Starting from the assumption that technologies are potentially malign, its first principle is that the use of technology tools and interactive media should not harm children, although it also acknowledges that they can be valuable tools “when used intentionally with children to extend and support active, hands-on, creative, and authentic engagement with those around them and with their world” (NAEYC 2012, 11) within a framework of developmentally appropriate practice.

The emphasis throughout the position statement on developmentally appropriate technology initially seems commonsensical and there is no doubt that the imposition on children of technologies designed for adults can be inappropriate. For instance, desktop computers can be difficult for young children to use because, as a workplace technology, their physical construction and interface are designed for bigger users with more highly developed literacies. However, the notion of developmentally appropriate technology is contested as it is rooted in a Piagetian model of development and may be interpreted as focusing on what children cannot or should not do rather than what they can, and on the notion of a universal rather than individual child.

Bearing in mind that there is an enormous spectrum of dispositions, skills, and competences within a single year of a child’s life, it is only possible to make generalized statements about some of the developmental processes that may impact on a child’s interaction with technology. It is important to remember that these vary for each child. The examples below describe changes in the areas of physical, cognitive, linguistic, and social and emotional development, but any child’s use of technology will be influenced by interactions between these different dimensions of growing up as well as with the design of different types of device.

As children develop, the ability to produce precise movements (fine motor skills) enables them to use a mouse or track pad, swipe a touchscreen, scroll through pages on a website, and depress the buttons on keyboards, remote controls, and mobile phones, although very controlled movements may still be difficult. Using games consoles and other mobile devices becomes possible as they learn to coordinate movement in both hands at the same time. With developments in gross motor skills and whole-body movement, mobile technologies that support or encourage activity may be enjoyable for children who enjoy running, jumping, and playing outside.

During the preschool years children learn to sort and match items, to arrange objects in order of size, and to understand “more” and “less.” Children become increasingly able to think about routines and sequences so they should be able to make choices from a basic menu and to understand and remember simple rules of a game. These changes in cognition and the use of categories such as shape and color mean that games that involve sorting and matching skills are likely to be suitable.

As children start to understand the use of symbols they can identify stop, start, and fast-forward controls and the icons for their favorite games and websites. Some children are able to read or recognize simple instructions. By five, they can generally provide a narrative or commentary to accompany photos or video. Children of this age may not be able to read continuous text and may be in the early stages of learning to write, so designers need to be creative about how to convey the information needed to promote interaction and to find alternatives to text-based input.

Children of this age grow in independence, understand rules, become more able to control their behavior, and respond to animations and characters that appeal to their sense of humor. They are learning to take turns and cooperate with others, although they can still get frustrated when they do not get their way or cannot readily achieve success at a game or activity.

The risk involved in making developmental appropriateness the overriding criterion for the selection of resources is its restrictiveness: young children may struggle with the operational features of certain technologies but be capable of meaningful interaction if they benefit from guidance. Research by Plowman, Stephen, and McPake (2010) found that products specifically designed for young children and described as developmentally appropriate sometimes lacked the elements that made adult technologies seem attractive. Limiting children to these products may mean inhibiting their potential for learning by restricting their creativity and curiosity. Though young children may still be developing their motor skills and are in the early stages of becoming literate, their interests are often much more wide-ranging and ambitious than the kinds of activities that many technologies designed for young children currently permit, particularly if their play is partnered by siblings or caregivers.

However, the opposing belief in an affinity between young children and technology reflected in the widespread use of the term “digital natives” should also be treated with caution. Although Prensky (2001) originally coined the term to refer to college students, it is now applied to children of all ages as a contrast to the so-called “digital immigrants,” such as their parents and teachers, who have adopted technology later in life. While it is undeniable that some children appear to have an aptitude for technology, many children of this age do not behave as digital natives and their play with digital games or interactive learning toys can be characterized by timidity or disinterest. This is typically the result of individual differences of preference or skill, but may be a consequence of poor design (Plowman et al. 2012). Regardless, enjoyable experiences may not come as naturally as the term suggests for children under five who are faced with an unfamiliar website or app and are unaware of the conventions of interface design. There is an enormous spectrum of dispositions, skills, and competences even within a single year of a child’s life at this stage, but for typically developing preschool children there is a tendency to under-estimate their capacity for learning while over-estimating the extent to which they can get to grips with an unfamiliar and poorly designed interface.

6.2 Data on Availability and Use of Digital Media

Surveys can provide useful data on the prevalence of different forms of digital media in both domestic and educational environments but they need to be interpreted judiciously. In particular, access and use by young children cannot be inferred from the quantity or variety of technologies available in different settings. Plowman, Stevenson, Stephen and McPake’s (2012) detailed cases studies of 14 families showed that a high level of presence in the home did not necessarily mean digital media were made available to the children and when they were, it did not follow that children were drawn to use these resources, even if they were encouraged to do so by their families. Family ownership was not the key criterion for use by young children: it was a necessary, but not sufficient, condition as use depended on a complex mix of household income, geographical location, and the educational aspirations that parents had for their children. While internet access is widely regarded as the key marker of the digital divide for adults it was less important than some other factors for preschool children because a relatively small proportion of their activities required it. Playing games on children's websites was popular, but watching television or DVDs and play with other types of interactive toys accounted for more of their time.

Nevertheless, surveys can provide a useful baseline for noting trends and informing debate, especially if they are supplemented with detailed case studies. Most of the recent research on digital media and children has taken place in the United States and covers a broad age range rather than providing a specific focus on the early years: Takeuchi and Stevens (2011) combined case studies with a national survey of 800 parents of children aged from three to 10 and Gutnick et al. (2011) synthesized a number of studies of children from nought to 11. This emphasis on incidence in the home is demonstrated by Rideout’s (2011, 2013) surveys conducted two years apart, the first of 1834 parents and the second of 1463 parents of children between the ages of nought and eight. The surveys were explicitly aimed at those with a concern for promoting healthy child development and increasing the quality of children’s media by providing data on a range of screen technologies, such as computers, games consoles, tablets, smartphones, and television. Changes across the two years were marked in some cases: there was a five-fold increase in family ownership of tablet devices (from 8% of all families to 40%) and the percentage of children with access to a mobile device such as a smartphone or tablet at home increased from half (52%) to three-quarters (75%), but with considerable differences depending on household income.

Data from Rideout’s 2013 survey are not disaggregated for children of preschool age but in 2011 the survey found that among two- to four-year-olds, 12% used a computer every day, with another 24% doing so at least once a week. Television remained their dominant form of screen exposure, with 73% watching television at least once every day. Across nought- to eight-year-olds activities varied significantly by race and socioeconomic status but not by gender, the only substantial difference being in preferences for types of video games.

Studies on the psychological and behavioral effects of media content, form, and technologies are known as media effects research. Sometimes based on laboratory interventions, such studies may fail to take account of the context in which technologies are being used (Oakes 2009) or focus on measures of use rather than analysis of content (Vandewater and Lee 2009). Data from Tandon et al. (2011) indicating that preschool-aged children in the United States watch television for more than four hours each day prompted a randomized control trial with 565 parents of children aged three to five years. Based on the view that children from disadvantaged families tend to have more exposure to inappropriate programming, defined by the authors (Christakis et al. 2013, 432) as “non-educational” or “older child/adult focused,” an intervention to reduce exposure to screen violence and increase exposure to prosocial programming was reported as positively impacting on child behavior, although the nature of the study meant that variables that might contribute to explaining this relationship were not taken into account.

In terms of the UK, the independent regulator for the communications industries, Ofcom, has recently started collecting market research data that includes children under the age of five. Data from 2013 showed that just under a third of three- to four-year-old children were going online using a desktop computer, laptop, or netbook and that this figure has been declining as more young children (28%) make use of touchscreen tablet devices. Ownership of tablets in UK households that include a preschooler was 51% (Ofcom 2013a). Price reductions mean that children are increasingly likely to have sole use of their own tablet rather than share their parents’ and there is a rapidly developing market for games, videos, and story apps designed for very young children. Data (Ofcom 2013b) also showed that most (97%) three- to four-year-olds watched television, but 18% have also watched programs on devices such as a desktop, laptop, or netbook computer (12%), a games console or player (7%), a tablet computer (6%).

6.3 The Debates about Young Children and Technology

The data from these surveys indicate a rapid rise in the ubiquity of digital media. Most people would agree that, whether for play, learning, or communication, children’s experiences with technology will have significant implications for their future lives and that there are uncertainties about what this means in the long term. While a miscellany of threats is perceived to endanger sociocultural, health, and cognitive areas of children’s lives, as summarized in Plowman, McPake, and Stephen (2010), anxieties are particularly focused on a widespread belief that screen-based activities dominate the lives of young children at the expense of worthwhile activities such as being outdoors or engaged in social interaction.

6.3.1 Screens and screen time

Most devices currently rely on a screen as the main interface between the child and the technology, giving rise to the concept of “screen time” as an expression of the length of time in a day that children’s experiences are seen as mediated, virtual, and static. Surveys that report children’s use of digital media in the home often elicit estimates of screen time as the measure of exposure. The American Academy of Pediatrics (AAP 2011) discourages children under the age of two from having any screen exposure and suggests that older children’s screen time should be restricted to less than two hours per day, a position endorsed by the National Association for the Education of Young Children.

However, Vanderwater et al. (2007) found that 62% of nought- to two-year-old children in the United States had watched some television on the target day although screen-time estimates for the majority of those in the three to six age range fell within AAP guidelines. The headline figures from surveys such as these often raise concerns about the role of digital media in the lives of young children but the confidence with which assertions can be made is limited as data usually rely on parental recall through interviews or media diaries and are restricted to a specified range of screen-based technologies. Young children often play with traditional toys while the television is on in the background and the extent to which they can be defined as being exposed to the screen in these cases is unclear, although a study by Lapierre, Piotrowski, and Linebarger (2012) suggests that exposure to background television may be negatively associated with children’s cognitive functioning and social play.

As an association that represents pediatricians, perhaps it is unsurprising that a public health model of a child’s wellbeing underpins the guidance issued by the AAP. In declaring the negative effects of digital media for healthy development they emphasize the dangers rather than identify any benefits and do not take fully into account the day-to-day realities of family life or consider the social and cultural dimensions of use. Providing a more holistic approach, Takeuchi and Stevens (2011) describe the social interactions that can be generated by television and other screen-based media, suggesting that television in itself is not harmful and that the experience can be used positively. Similarly, Plowman and Stephen (2007) suggest that interactions with others can be beneficial for young children using digital media and that finding opportunities to share activities, such as online shopping, finding out about pet care or where to go on holiday, can provide children with a sense of purpose and opportunities to talk as well as developing operational know-how. Indeed, some now consider that adults should reduce the amount of screen time they dedicate to social media and online browsing in order to release some time to share with their children.

Although research does not currently provide evidence that exposure to screen technologies actually changes the cognitive processes associated with learning in any deleterious way, there may be areas of legitimate concern and, given the amount of time in the day spent in the presence of digital media, it would be surprising if there were no effects. Although it is usually the dangers that come to our attention, some of these changes may be beneficial. Howard-Jones (2011) conducted an analysis of research in neuroscience and psychology that investigated the impact of digital technologies on human wellbeing. Some forms of digital media can be used to improve working memory or to provide mental stimulation that helps to slow cognitive decline and he suggests that the multimodality of digital media (i.e., presenting content in different ways, such as image, text, audio, or touch) can enhance learning. However, he cautions that a child’s brain may be more susceptible to environmental influences than an adult’s (Howard-Jones 2011, 64). He judges that an increase in aggressive response from playing violent video games, interference with psychosocial wellbeing and attention, and the potential for disrupted sleep may be risks, although these concerns are based on excessive use and exposure to violent content. There is currently no evidence to suggest that preschool children are susceptible to these risks. Nevertheless, based on their survey of 2300 parents of children aged nought to eight, Wartella et al. (2013a) report that parents believed that screen media have a negative impact on children’s physical activity. For now, television continues to be the main form of children’s exposure to screens in the home but the increasing accessibility of tablet computers and smartphones has led to a resurgence in the use of screen-based technologies. It is becoming commonplace to have multiple screens, such as cell phone, tablet, and television, active simultaneously, making the calculation of screen time problematic.

Whether a child favors dressing up, playing with construction sets, riding their bike, or painting, most parents would prefer that they enjoyed a balanced range of activities rather than spending all of their time absorbed by one of them. Similar views are usually held about digital media and many families introduce some degree of regulation of their child’s screen time. Nikken and Jansz (2013), for instance, discuss parental mediation of children’s internet use in the Netherlands, although Wartella et al. (2013a) report that parents do not disclose having many family conflicts or concerns about their children’s media use.

6.4 Play and Learning in the Early Years

While the balance between unstructured play activities and more structured educator-directed activities in preschools varies from one national system to another, there is a general consensus that play is an important medium for learning in the early years and that it contributes to a child’s social, emotional, physical, aesthetic, and cognitive development. There is a multitude of ways in which play can be defined, often depending on the disciplinary perspective of the research, but it is particularly complex in the context of digital play, which can range from console games with pre-defined rules, through competition against a virtual partner, to role play with a discarded cell phone. All of these activities are referred to by adults and children as play and yet, despite its centrality in the lives of young children, the debates about young children and technology described earlier focus on what may enhance or inhibit development rather than with the kinds of play that they afford (Stephen and Plowman 2014).

The many manifestations of play suggest there may be a need for access to a broad range of resources, both digital and traditional, for preschool children. The NAEYC’s (2012, 5) position statement referred to earlier suggests that educators should use technology “if and when it serves healthy development, learning, creativity, interactions with others, and relationships” and that “technology resources should support active learning, conversation, exploration, and self-expression” (NAEYC 2012, 9). This position is not shared by UNESCO, which claims in its policy brief on ICT in early childhood care and education (Kalaš 2012, 6) that “any ICT tool used in the early years should be educational in nature. This effectively excludes all applications where clear learning aims cannot be identified.” This imposition sits uneasily with UNESCO’s stated principles that technology should be integrated into early childhood practices such as encouraging play as it narrows the range of technologies to which children have access and raises questions about what counts as “educational” and what constitutes “learning aims” in a preschool context. Statements such as this reflect widely held views about which technologies are appropriate for educational settings, particularly in countries in the early stages of introducing ICT into preschool curricula. But even in countries with a more established history of technology in preschool settings, its use still tends to be associated with instruction rather than play. Morgan (2010) describes how the use of interactive whiteboards can be inimical to play as a vehicle for learning because they tend to afford a directive pedagogy that is at odds with preschool practice, although Bourbour, Vigmo, and Pramling Samuelsson (2015) provide examples from a Swedish preschool of more imaginative uses that take the child’s interests as a point of departure, engage children in problem-solving activities, and provide a multisensory resource.

The use of digital games also tends to divide educators. Although at first sight they may seem to be compatible with a play-based curriculum and they are widely seen to promote motivation, collaboration, and problem-solving skills, some educators resist their use in the playroom in favor of more traditional approaches to play. Nolan and McBride (2014) report that games can be seen as “inconvenient” in kindergartens in the United States and Vangsnes and Økland (2013) describe the “didactic dissonance” that can occur when Norwegian teachers are uncertain about their role as pedagogues in relation to such games.

Rather than integrated into guidance on play, technology is discussed as a separate topic in the curriculum documentation for countries such as England, New Zealand, and Sweden (Edwards 2013a), suggesting that the gap between a pedagogy of play and the use of technologies in early childhood education remains. Many staff work from the premise that integrating technology into learning in the preschool setting requires more teacherly guidance than they feel comfortable with as practitioners and they may see the introduction of technology as undermining the more child-centered, holistic construction of preschool education that dominates practice in many countries.

6.4.1 Learning

In the field of research on technology-enhanced learning the emphasis is more often on the technology than it is on learning. Aware of this omission, Plowman and colleagues have developed a framework for understanding more about learning, refining it over a number of years as they collect and analyze data from different settings and with different technologies. This framework was originally based on a fine-grained analysis of video recorded in preschool settings, supplemented with notes and observations from staff, and has since been extended and revised. Their research (Plowman et al. 2012) on what children have learned as a result of their early home experiences with technology shows that, by the time they are ready to start school, children have developed their learning in five key areas:

  1. acquiring operational competences, such as how to use computers, televisions, DVD players, mobile phones, and games consoles
  2. extending knowledge about and awareness of the world by using digital content to find out about topics such as dinosaurs, numbers, castles, or insects
  3. developing dispositions to learn, including persistence, engagement, and confidence
  4. developing socio-emotional capabilities such as sharing and self-regulation of behavior
  5. learning about the social and cultural roles of technologies in everyday life, including how they can be used to communicate with family and friends, and their role in work, leisure, and study.

Of these, the first (learning how to switch equipment on and off, and to record, store, retrieve, and select) is perhaps the least significant inasmuch as its acquisition is a fairly straightforward matter, although it is often this learning that schools and preschools privilege. Open-ended, creative, and exploratory learning was rarely observed so it is not currently represented in these five key areas of young children’s learning, although technological and design developments should make this increasingly possible.

Plowman and Stephen (2007) suggest that adults and other more able partners, such as older siblings, have a critical role in developing children’s learning with computers and other digital media because preschool children are not usually able to derive maximum benefit from technology without additional assistance. The term they use to describe these various ways of providing support for learning with technology is “guided interaction.” This support does not necessarily mean instructing a child in how to use a particular device. It can also mean providing sensitive assistance in ways that adults often do instinctively: showing interest, asking questions, making suggestions, or being physically present. Although the obvious focus of guided interaction is proximal, or close by, dialogue with educators revealed that the activities that were more remote in terms of time and space (described as distal) also guided interaction, albeit indirectly. This form of guided interaction included making provision for learning in terms of access to and monitoring time spent with digital media, creating an environment to facilitate playing and learning, and planning the curriculum. Most adults were also unaware that their own use of technology provided support as children can learn by watching and imitation. These pedagogical actions were therefore guiding interaction at one remove from the face-to-face interactions described as proximal. As such, they were not as easily observable as proximal interactions and it is partly for this reason that these less visible aspects of support for learning do not receive as much attention from researchers.

Recent years have led to attention to the development of digital literacy practices that have been afforded by changes in technology. One body of research, often based on experimental designs, compares learning to read with traditional print sources and on a screen. Some of the features of books read on e-readers or touchscreen tablets that could motivate children to read include animation, read aloud narration, an easily accessible dictionary with spoken pronunciation, and the facility to highlight, annotate, and enlarge text, although both books and e-reading devices can be sharable, mobile, and portable. Miller and Warschauer (2014) provide a useful review of research into e-reading, discussing the particular affordances and limitations of technology for enhancing early literacy and how literacy instruction can be tailored to benefit from new technology. They point to the risk that a reader’s attention can be diverted to the surface characteristics rather than the story itself and conclude that studies that looked at literacy practices fostered in the home suggest that traditional print may be best for encouraging children’s emerging literacy and was the preferred reading medium for adults, whereas e-books appeared to help reluctant readers and “were better at engaging young children through text manipulation” (Miller and Warschauer 2014, 294). In their review of touchscreen devices, Neumann and Neumann (2014) found that tablets have the potential to enhance children’s emergent literacy skills, such as alphabet knowledge, print concepts, and emergent writing, but optimal use may depend on the type of scaffolding used by parents and teachers and the availability of suitable apps.

Others take a more expansive view of literacies that encompasses the multimodality of interacting with digital devices. Yamada-Rice (2014, 154) describes modes as “a range of resources such as image, writing, music, gesture and speech.” Facilitated by digital technologies, particularly those that are screen-based, these modes have shifted some of the ways in which we communicate, giving greater prominence to image, sound, and movement, and decreasing the earlier dominance of the written word. She asserts that children need to become familiar with the visual mode “not as a stepping stone to knowledge of the written mode but as part of their comprehension of multimodal texts” (Yamada-Rice 2014, 182) and that the visual mode is an intrinsic part of contemporary communication practices. For Wolfe and Flewitt (2010), literacy also entails multiple communicative modes and the twin sisters in their study were capable of navigating around screens, and connecting and taking meanings from still and moving images, words, and sounds.

6.5 Digital Media and Technology in Preschool Settings

Because the concerns about children’s over-exposure tend to focus on the home, there are fewer surveys relating to the use of digital media in preschool settings. However, Wartella et al. (2013b) conducted a survey of 1457 early childhood educators In the United States revealing that, at the time of the survey in 2012, access to digital cameras (92%), desktop or laptop computers (84%), and televisions and DVD players (80%) was high but access to tablet computers (29%), interactive whiteboards and MP3 players (both 21%), and e-readers (15%) was considerably lower. The majority of respondents (74%) reported using digital cameras to support learning in the area of social-emotional development, whereas interactive whiteboards, tablets, and other computers tended to be used for areas of the curriculum such as literacy, number, and science. Respondents generally believed that technology has a positive role in children’s learning, particularly in terms of documenting learning and for developing individualized approaches. For insights on the integration of digital devices into preschool contexts, most of the research consists of small-scale qualitative studies, typically of one or two settings.

6.5.1 Pedagogy

Yelland (2007) refers to the need for effective pedagogy supporting “playful explorations” facilitated by technologies. In the course of interviewing staff in preschool settings on the relationships between play, learning, and technology, Plowman and Stephen (2007) found a consensus that learning to use digital media was important, both as preparation for children’s imminent transition to school and for their future employment. Educators generally conceptualized this learning as developing operational skills and, as implied by the notion of technology as “tools” for learning, some had a rather mechanistic approach to using computers and interactive whiteboards. In those preschool settings that engaged children in activities with a broader range of digital devices, such as video and still cameras, microscopes, and pedometers, there was scope for more imaginative, creative, and collaborative activities. The question for these preschool educators was how technology should be integrated into playroom practice so that it related to other aspects of the early years curriculum. Recognizing that the potential for enhancing learning depends at least as much on pedagogy as on specific forms of technology, the research project reported by Plowman and Stephen (2007) encouraged educators to extend their pedagogical repertoires to incorporate diverse forms of digital media into learning experiences and to see the potential for technology to provide fun, pleasure, and playful interactions as well as tools for learning.

Tablets appear to increase the potential for a more integrated approach to pedagogy. While they are not yet in widespread use in all early years settings, their light weight and portability, combined with the possibilities opened up by their video functionality, make it easier for practitioners to involve children in generating content by recording and tracking their own learning. Such practices support children in representing what they think is noteworthy about their world and to use this as a form of communication. For instance, children can provide a visual statement of their achievements in preschool, such as finishing their lunch, putting on their shoes, or getting to the top of the climbing frame, to share with parents as a focus for talk in response to the question “What did you do at nursery today?” The photos, video, audio, drawings, and notes made possible also record progress over time, enabling educators to create portfolios and illustrate steps to learning in ways that are meaningful for different audiences.

The ways in which tablets afforded opportunities for multimodal learning (linguistic, visual, oral, and aural) for preschool children aged two to six in Australia, including an example of using stop-motion animation to investigate how a butterfly emerges from its cocoon, are described by Yelland and Gilbert (2013). They comment that the tablets can be used both indoors and out, can support both individual and collaborative play, and could be used to create a record of the day and develop the potential for reflective learning. Flewitt, Messer, and Kucirkova (2014) state that iPad-based literacy activities in the classroom stimulated children’s motivation and concentration as well as opportunities for communication, collaborative interaction, and independent learning amidst practitioners’ concerns about technology “over-stimulating” children or displacing other activities. They report that children often squabbled over possession of the iPad, that apps did not function as intended, or content was lost because they did not know how to use the touchscreen interface. Similar observations have been made before in other contexts: the technology changes over the years but pedagogy has been slow to adapt (Plowman, Stephen, and McPake 2010). Indeed, there are potential drawbacks to tablets as with almost any technology: while features such as the touch screen and portability can solve some of the operational problems observed when children use desktop computers the relatively small size of the screen can inhibit collaboration and children need to be reasonably dexterous to use the gesture interface with accuracy.

The importance of pedagogy is not confined to the integration of technology into the preschool setting, of course, but the NAEYC (2012) emphasizes the need for training, professional development opportunities, and examples of successful practice for early childhood educators to meet the expectations set forth in their statement. The Wartella et al. (2013b) report indicates the scale of the problem, with 39% of respondents reporting insufficient technical support and 57% reporting that they received professional development in this area once a year or less. The continuing need for greater awareness and understanding of the role of technology and digital media in early childhood education is clear. This is confirmed by Blackwell et al. (2013), whose survey of 1329 teachers of children under the age of four suggests that the situation has changed little from studies many years earlier (Stephen and Plowman 2008) that also showed that extrinsic barriers such as levels of resources and technical support, combined with teachers’ beliefs about the value of technology, have a strong influence on the integration of technologies in preschool settings.

6.6 Digital Media and Technology at Home

Educators are more likely to be able to incorporate digital media into the cultural practices of the preschool setting if they have an understanding of children’s experiences in the home context. This is more than a matter of familiarity with survey findings about ownership of devices, it also means developing existing mechanisms to support links between home and preschool so that discussions with parents systematically include children’s experiences with home technologies in the same way that discussions routinely encompass a child’s developing literacies or other changes in their learning. Educators can build on this information, shifting the current focus on skills towards a broader range of competencies and dispositions. These differences between home and preschool are not confined to technology: Arrow and Finch (2013) describe how educators need to be aware of children’s literacy practices at home and how these diverge from expectations in a formal educational context; others (Burke and Marsh 2013; Marsh 2010; Verenikina and Kervin 2011) indicate some of the ways in which play can be more readily mediated by technology at home.

Vanderwater et al. (2007) explored whether spending time with screen-based media reduced the time that children under six years old in the United States had available for more traditional pursuits and concluded that there was no relationship between screen time and time spent reading or in outdoor play, a point reinforced by Yelland and Gilbert (2013), who noted that there are no data currently available to support the notion that time spent with “new” technologies detracts from time spent on more traditional play activities. The implication of findings such as these is that digital play adds to the pursuits available to young children in many families rather than displacing whole areas of activity.

6.6.1 Support at home

Children may not be able to operate some of the technologies they see in use at home, but they have an awareness of their function because the activities are culturally embedded in family members’ day-to-day lives. Stephen, Stevenson, and Adey (2013) identified four dimensions of family life that make a difference to children’s digital play:

  • parents’ attitudes towards digital technologies and playthings
  • their ideas about how children learn and their own role in this process
  • patterns of family interactions and practices
  • individual differences between children.

Even in households with relatively limited access to technology, the home usually provides more diverse resources than many preschool settings, as well as providing opportunities for children to observe and participate in authentic activities. While children in the preschool age range do not typically use smartphones to make calls, they frequently participate in conversations that have been initiated by an adult or sibling and enjoy playing games on others’ phones or taking and viewing photos. Two studies of three- to five-year-old children’s everyday experiences at home found no evidence that play with digital media dominated their lives (Plowman et al. 2012), however. Parents privileged, and children chose, a balance of play with digital media and traditional toys, and families sought to ensure a mix of physically active and imaginative play both indoors and outside. Televisions, computers, and mobile phones were ubiquitous features of their homes but, regardless of family income, each home also contained large numbers of traditional toys, typically outnumbering those with technological features by at least three to one.

Apps used at home typically fall into three main categories:

  • games, which are often explicitly educational in orientation
  • open content designed to encourage children to generate their own materials, whether animations, stories, video, or drawing
  • interactive illustrated storybooks.

Interactive stories can be enjoyed in read-aloud mode, thus dispensing with the involvement of a more experienced reading partner, although Eagle (2012) describes the ways in which apps such as these and some of the learning games can promote social interaction in the home.

6.7 Design

While design is not the main focus of this chapter, a brief reference to its importance for preschool digital media is necessary. With some exceptions, neither interaction design nor content design currently serves the interests of children of this age as much as is desirable, with many products, apps, and websites marketed as educational typically drawing on models of learning that are narrow and outdated. Although many commercially available games make reference to the power of learning through play, they are often variants of drill and practice, and it is still relatively unusual to come across digital resources that stimulate imaginative or pretend play. Bers (2012, 23) states that “most of today’s technologies for young children are playpens and not playgrounds” by which she means that they restrict rather than encourage the explorations that are an essential part of children’s development.

Current educational thinking sees early learning as more than the development of cognitive processes and the accretion of skills: it includes changes in the ways in which children participate in the world around them, how they interact with people and objects with increased competence and independence, and an emphasis on creativity and exploration. Relationships are central to learning in the early years, so design needs to acknowledge that learning value arises from the process of interaction, it does not derive from the content alone. Innovative products that open up possibilities for new forms of interaction and recognize how young children learn, create, and communicate need to be designed for sharing—with parents, siblings, other family members, educators, and friends—as well as functioning for the independent user. This expanded way of thinking about learning is rarely seen in products designed for young children: many of the online games available to preschoolers could lead to the impression that putting numbers and letters in sequence or filling in blanks is the purpose of education.

Concerns are sometimes raised about whether technology hinders the more playful, physical, and exploratory aspects of learning but this is more likely to occur when it is limited to computers with upright screens, a mouse, and a keyboard. As new forms of technology are developed and it becomes easier to provide ways to design resources and digital playthings that children can touch, feel, move around, and share it may become easier to support these important areas of learning.

6.8 Looking Ahead

Predicting digital futures is replete with dangers. At the time of writing, it seems possible that further developments could involve the absence of a screen interface or playing and learning across hybrids of virtual and real worlds. Nevertheless, the screen continues to be the dominant interface and developments in dual screen technology may mean that television, in tandem with tablets and smartphones, will again become the object of research attention as children watch a program on the television which syncs a tablet device with the content, leading to a game involving the same characters or extra information on the second screen.

Hybrid mixes of the digital and non-digital are also becoming more widespread. Toy figures with tags can communicate with each other both on and off screen. Augmented reality games use a link between a tablet or smartphone and, typically, a set of interactive figures, with the device providing a screen through which the real world of the living room is viewed with the figures superimposed on it. Future toys are likely to build on advances in speech and gesture recognition to adapt to their owners by displaying emotional responses.

Building on the constructionism afforded by programmable toys that dispensed with a screen altogether, children will increasingly be able to use and program technology to construct their own play spaces and processes. Countries such as Estonia and England have already introduced computer programming into the curriculum for school-aged children. As Manches (2013) points out, tools such as Logo have been available as an accessible way to learn how to program for decades and there is still much to do to fulfill the hopes of policy makers and educators that children need to develop the skills to function fully in an increasingly digital world and to be creators rather than passive consumers of digital media.

Research into preschool children’s play and learning with digital media is still in its early stages but needs to engage with questions that are bigger than how much screen time per day is acceptable. The tangible nature of some of the technologies that can support young children’s play and learning, and the multimodal nature of the feedback may have some impact on children’s movement, cognition, and emotions; at the same time, cultural and social change within the family and the wider community will influence patterns of play. Future research might productively continue to examine the ways in which different forms of digital media shape, and are shaped by, interactions, pedagogical choices, and family practices and to reveal more about the nature of engagement and the conditions that promote playful and creative encounters. Despite the increasing “schoolification” (Parker-Rees 2010) of young children’s learning, play remains fundamental to preschool education. For Edwards (2013b), “post-industrial” play, in which different forms of play have converged and boundaries between traditional and virtual play have dissolved, provides an opportunity for educators to integrate children’s play experiences into the early years curriculum without either form dominating. For now, technology continues to be associated more with educational than with play value but as educators recognize some of the ways in which the role of digital media in the home and the preschool setting can be mutually informing, they will be able to use this as a foundation for building on the everyday realities of children’s lives, merging the distinctions between the technologies that are dedicated to learning and those that children use for playful purposes.

References

  1. AAP. 2011. “Media Use by Children Younger than 2 Years.” Pediatrics 128 5: 1040–45. doi:10.1542/peds.2011-1753.
  2. Arrow, Alison W. and Brian T. Finch. 2013. “Multimedia literacy practices in beginning classrooms and at home: the differences in practices and beliefs.” Literacy 47 3: 131–41. doi:10.1111/lit.12006.
  3. Bers, Marina U. 2012. Designing Digital Experiences for Positive Youth Development: from Playpen to Playground. New York: Oxford University Press. ISBN-10: 019975702X.
  4. Blackwell, Courtney K., Alexis R. Lauricella, Ellen Wartella, Michael Robb, and Roberta Schomburg. 2013. “Adoption and use of technology in early education. The interplay of extrinsic barriers and teacher attitudes.” Computers & Education 69: 310–19. doi:10.1016/j.compedu.2013.07.024.
  5. Bourbour, Maryam, Sylvi Vigmo, and Ingrid Pramling Samuelsson. 2015. “Integration of interactive whiteboard in Swedish preschool practices.” Early Child Development and Care 185 1: 100–20. doi:10.1080/03004430.2014.908865.
  6. Burke, Anne and Jackie Marsh (eds). 2013. Children’s Virtual Play Worlds: Culture, learning and participation. New York: Peter Lang. ISBN-10: 1433118262.
  7. Christakis, Dimitri A., Michelle M. Garrison, Todd Herrenkohl, Kevin Haggerty, Frederick P. Rivara, Chuan Zhou, and Kimberly Liekweg. 2013. “Modifying Media Content for Preschool Children: A Randomized Control Trial.” Pediatrics 131 3: 431–38. doi:10.1542/peds.2012-1493.
  8. Eagle, Sarah. 2012. “Learning in the early years; Social interactions around picturebooks, puzzles and digital technologies.” Computers & Education 59 1: 38–49. doi:10.1016/j.compedu.2011.10.013.
  9. Edwards, Susan. 2013a. “Digital play in the early years: a contextual response to the problem of integrating technologies and play-based pedagogies in the early childhood curriculum.” European Early Childhood Education Research Journal 21 2: 199–212. doi:10.1080/1350293X.2013.789190.
  10. Edwards, Susan. 2013b. “Post-industrial play: Understanding the relationship between traditional and converged forms of play in the early years.” In Children’s Virtual Play Worlds: Culture, learning and participation, edited by Anne Burke and Jackie Marsh: pp. 10–25. New York: Peter Lang.
  11. Eurydice. 2013. “Compulsory age of starting school in European countries.” Eurydice, National Foundation for Educational Research. Accessed 25 October 2013: http://www.nfer.ac.uk/nfer/index.cfm?9B1C0068-C29E-AD4D-0AEC-8B4F43F54A28.
  12. Flewitt, Rosie, David Messer, and Natalia Kucirkova. 2014 “New directions for early literacy in a digital age: the iPad.” Journal of Early Childhood Literacy. doi:10.1177/1468798414533560.
  13. Gutnick, Aviva L., Michael Robb, Lori Takeuchi, and Jennifer Kotler. 2011. Always connected: The new digital media habits of young children. New York: The Joan Ganz Cooney Center at Sesame Workshop. Accessed 18 March 2015: http://www.joanganzcooneycenter.org/wp-content/uploads/2011/03/jgcc_alwaysconnected.pdf.
  14. Howard-Jones, Paul. 2011. The impact of digital technologies on human wellbeing: Evidence from the sciences of mind and brain. Oxford: Nominet Trust. Accessed 18 March 2015: http://www.nominettrust.org.uk/knowledge-centre/articles/impact-digital-technologies-human-wellbeing.
  15. Kalaš, Ivan. 2012. Policy brief: ICTs in early childhood care and education. Moscow: UNESCO Institute for Information Technologies in Education. Accessed 18 March 2015: iite.unesco.org/pics/publications/en/files/3214720.pdf.
  16. Lapierre, Matthew A., Jessica T. Piotrowski, and Deborah L. Linebarger. 2012. “Background television in the homes of US children.” Pediatrics 130 5: 839–46. doi:10.1542/peds.2011-2581.
  17. Manches, Andrew. 2013. “Keep it creative to get kids into coding.” The Conversation, 13th July. Accessed 20 July 2014: https://theconversation.com/keep-it-creative-to-get-kids-into-coding-15968.
  18. Marsh, Jackie. 2010. “Young Children’s Play in Online virtual Worlds.” Journal of Early Childhood Research 8 1: 23–39. doi:10.1177/1476718X09345406.
  19. Miller, Elizabeth B. and Mark Warschauer. 2014. “Young children and e-reading: research to date and questions for the future.” Learning, Media and Technology 39 3: 283–305. doi:10.1080/17439884.2013.867868.
  20. Morgan, Alex. 2010. “Interactive whiteboards, interactivity and play in the classroom with children aged three to seven years.” European Early Childhood Education Research Journal 18 I: 93–104. doi:10.1080/13502930903520082.
  21. NAEYC. 2012. “Technology and Interactive Media as Tools in Early Childhood Programs Serving Children from Birth through Age 8.” Washington DC: NAEYC. Accessed 18 March 2015: www.naeyc.org/files/naeyc/file/positions/PS_technology_WEB2.pdf.
  22. Neumann, Michelle M. and David L. Neumann. 2014. “Touch Screen tablets and emergent literacy.” Early Childhood Education Journal 42 4: 231–39. doi:10.1007/s10643-013-0608-3.
  23. Nikken, Peter and Jeroen Jansz. 2013. “Developing scales to measure parental mediation of young children’s internet use.” Learning, Media and Technology 39 2: 250–66. doi:10.1080/17439884.2013.782038.
  24. Nolan, Jason and Melanie McBride. 2014. “Beyond gamification: reconceptualizing game-based learning in early childhood environments.” Information Communication and Society 17 5: 594–608. doi:10.1080/1369118X.2013.808365.
  25. Oakes, J. Michael. 2009. “The effect of media on children: a methodological assessment from a social epidemiologist.” American Behavioral Scientist 52 8: 1136–51. doi:10.1177/0002764209331538.
  26. Ofcom. 2013a. Children and parents: Media use literacy tracker for April to June 2013. Accessed 18 March 2015: http://stakeholders.ofcom.org.uk/binaries/research/statistics/2014apr/Ofcom_Media_Tracker_Survey_2013_data_tables.pdf.
  27. Ofcom. 2013b. Communications Market Report. Accessed 18 March 2015: http://stakeholders.ofcom.org.uk/market-data-research/market-data/communications-market-reports/cmr13/.
  28. Parker-Rees, Rod. 2010. “Editorial.” Early Years 30 3: 201–03. doi:10.1080/09575146.2010.513487.
  29. Plowman, Lydia, Joanna McPake, and Christine Stephen. 2010. “The technologisation of childhood? Young children and technologies at home.” Children & Society 24 1: 63–74. doi:10.1111/j.1099-0860.2008.00180.x.
  30. Plowman, Lydia and Christine Stephen. 2007. “Guided interaction in preschool settings.” Journal of Computer Assisted Learning 23 1: 14–21. doi:10.1111/j.1365-2729.2007.00194.x.
  31. Plowman, Lydia, Christine Stephen, and Joanna McPake. 2010. Growing Up with Technology: Young children learning in a digital world. London: Routledge. ISBN-10: 0415468922.
  32. Plowman, L., Olivia Stevenson, Christine Stephen, and Joanna McPake. 2012. “Preschool children’s learning with technology at home.” Computers & Education 59 1: 30–37. doi:10.1016/j.compedu.2011.11.014.
  33. Prensky, Marc. 2001. “Digital natives, digital immigrants.” On the Horizon 9 5: 1–6. doi:10.1108/10748120110424816.
  34. Rideout, Victoria. 2011. Zero to Eight: Children’s Media Use in America. San Francisco: Common Sense Media. Accessed 18 March 2015: https://www.commonsensemedia.org/file/zerotoeightfinal2011pdf-0/download.
  35. Rideout, Victoria. 2013. Zero to Eight: Children’s Media Use in America 2013. San Francisco: Common Sense Media. Accessed 18 March 2015: https://www.commonsensemedia.org/file/zero-to-eight-2013pdf-0/download.
  36. Stephen, Christine and Lydia Plowman. 2008. “Enhancing learning with ICT in preschool.” Early Child Development and Care 178 6: 637–54. doi:10.1080/03004430600869571.
  37. Stephen, Christine and Lydia Plowman. 2014. “Digital play.” In Sage Handbook of Play and Learning in Early Childhood, edited by Liz Brooker, Mindy Blaise and Susan Edwards: 330–41. London: Sage.
  38. Stephen, Christine, Olivia Stevenson, and Claire Adey. 2013. “Young children engaging with technologies at home: the influence of family context.” Journal of Early Childhood Research 11 2: 149–64. doi:10.1177/1476718X12466215.
  39. Takeuchi, Lori and Reed Stevens. 2011. The New Co-viewing: Designing for Learning Through Joint Media Engagement. New York: The Joan Ganz Cooney Center. Accessed 18 March 2015: http://www.joanganzcooneycenter.org/wp-content/uploads/2011/12/jgc_coviewing_desktop.pdf.
  40. Tandon, Pooja S., Chuan Zhou, Paula Lozano, and Dimitri Christakis. 2011. “Preschoolers’ total daily screen time at home and by type of child care.” Journal of Pediatrics 158 2: 297–300. doi:10.1016/j.jpeds.2010.08.005.
  41. Vandewater, Elizabeth A. and Sook-Jung Lee. 2009. “Measuring children’s media use in the digital age: Issues and challenges.” American Behavioral Scientist 52 8: 1152–76. doi:10.1177/0002764209331539.
  42. Vandewater, Elizabeth A., Victoria J. Rideout, Ellen A. Wartella, Xuan Huang, June H. Lee, and Mi-suk Shim. 2007. “Digital Childhood: Electronic Media and Technology Use Among Infants, Toddlers, and Preschoolers.” Pediatrics 119 5: 1006–15. doi:10.1542/peds.2006-1804.
  43. Vangsnes, Vigdis and Nils T. G. Økland. 2013. “Didactic dissonance: teacher roles in computer gaming situations in kindergartens.” Technology, Pedagogy and Education. doi:10.1080/1475939X.2013.853686.
  44. Verenikina, Irina and Lisa Kervin. 2011. “iPads, Digital Play and Pre-schoolers.” He Kupu 2 5: 4–19.
  45. Wartella, Ellen, Vicky Rideout, Alexis R. Lauricella, and Sabrina L. Connell. 2013a. Parenting in the Age of Digital Technology: A National Survey. Evanston, IL: Center on Media and Human development, Northwestern University. Accessed 18 March 2015: http://web5.soc.northwestern.edu/cmhd/wp-content/uploads/2014/03/ParentingAgeDigitalTechnology.REVISED.FINAL_.2014.pdf.
  46. Wartella, Ellen, Courtney K. Blackwell, Alexis R. Lauricella, and Michael B. Robb. 2013b. Technology in the Lives of Educators and Early Childhood programs. Latrobe, PA: Fred Rogers Center.
  47. Wolfe, Sylvia and Rosie Flewitt. 2010. “New technologies, new multimodal literacy practices and young children’s metacognitive development.” Cambridge Journal of Education 40 4: 387–99. doi:10.1080/0305764X.2010.526589.
  48. World Bank. 2013. “Primary school starting age (years).” Accessed 18 March 2015: http://data.worldbank.org/indicator/SE.PRM.AGES.
  49. Yamada-Rice, Dylan. 2014. “The semiotic landscape and 3-year-olds’ emerging understanding of multimodal communication practices.” Journal of Early Childhood Research 12 2: 154–84. doi:10.1177/1476718X12463913.
  50. Yelland, Nicola. 2007. Shift to the Future: Rethinking learning with new technologies in Education. New York: Routledge. ISBN-10: 0415953197.
  51. Yelland, Nicola and Gilbert, Caja. 2013. “iPossibilities: Tablets in Early Childhood Contexts.” Hong Kong Journal of Early Childhood. 12 1: 5–14.
..................Content has been hidden....................

You can't read the all page of ebook, please click here login for view all page.
Reset
18.118.226.66