Got Technology? Engaging Young Children in the 21st Century

Elizabeth ParkChaminade University of Honolulu

[email protected]

GOT TECHNOLOGY? ENGAGING YOUNG CHILDREN IN

THE 21ST CENTURY

Saturday, October 19, 2013

[Alo] [hā]


A magazine is an iPad that does not work: http://youtu.be/aXV-yaFmQNk


http://youtu.be/aXV-yaFmQNk

http://youtu.be/aXV-yaFmQNk

Shuler, C. (2012). iLearn II: An analysis of the education category of Apple’s app store. The Joan Ganz Cooney Center at Sesame Workshop: The Joan Ganz Cooney Center.


Additional Facts

Shuler, C. (2012). iLearn II: An analysis of the education category of Apple’s app store. The Joan Ganz Cooney Center at Sesame Workshop: The Joan Ganz Cooney Center.

Here are some additional facts:

•Mobile app revenue is expected to generate $38 billion by 2015

•There are over 500,000 apps available on iTunes and over 300,000 apps on Android

•The App Store has paid out over $2.3 billion to developers

•Two out of the four top holiday trends according to Toys R Us require children to have an iPad• Mobile app revenue by 2015: $38 billion

• Over 500,000 apps available on iTunes and over 300,000 apps on Android

• The App Store paid out over $2.3 billion to developers

• Two out of the four top holiday trends require children to have an iPad


Wartella, E., Rideout, V., Lauricella, A. R., & Connell, S. L. (2013). Parenting in the age of digital technology: A national survey (pp. 1–46).


Wartella, E., Schomburg, R. L., Lauricella, A. R., Robb, M., & Flynn, R. (2010). Technology in the lives of teachers and classrooms: Survey of classroom teachers and family child care providers: Fred Rogers Center.


Clements, D. H., & Sarama, J. (2002). The role of technology in early childhood learning. Teaching Children Mathematics, 8(6), 340-343.

DeCurtis, L. L., & Ferrer, D. (2011). Toddlers and technology: Teaching the techniques. The ASHA Leader. Retrieved October 1, 2012 from http://www.asha.org/Publications/leader/2011/110920/

Patten, K. B., & Craig, D. V. (2007). iPods and English-Language Learners: A great combination. Red Orbit, 150, 30-33. Retrieved October 1, 2012 from http://www.redorbit.com/news/education/959547/

Verenikina, I., & Kervin, L. (2011). iPads, digital play and pre-schoolers. He Kupu, 2(5), 4-19.

Vincent, J. (2007). The interactive whiteboard in an early years classroom: A case study in the impact of a new technology on pedagogy. Australian Educational Computing, 22(1), 20-25.

Wood, C. 2001. “Interactive Whiteboards: A Luxury Too Far?” Teaching ICT 1(2), 52–62.

They build new in the friendships computer' psresence. They show increased collaborative

work,includingand discuss spontaneouhselping teaching, theyandbuildon one another'isdeas(Clements1994

Verenikina and Kervin (2011) find that iPads can serve as a vehicle to facilitate early education environments. Their study finds that children often preferred games that allowed them to engage their imagination and develop their own play beyond the screen itself and into other contexts.

DeCurtis and Ferrer (2011) discuss how the use of tablets or the iPad fit well within Piaget’s first two stages of cognitive development, the sensorimotor stage (birth to age 2) and preoperational stage (ages 2 to 7). Tablets, especially applications or apps on a device like the iPad, help children learn through their senses, gross and fine motor skills, learn to use symbols for objects, and think beyond the immediate present.

Public school experiments with iPad or tablet technology also offer affordances such as helping special needs students develop self-directed, personalized learning and facilitating English language learner students (Patten & Craig, 2007).

Vincent (2007) notes that use of technology (in this case, a SMART board) can enhance teaching young children when the teacher gets used to her practices

Researchers observe greater collaboration among preschoolers when they use interactive whiteboards (IWBs) than when they use traditional desktop computers (nontouch screen, with mouse and keyboard) (Wood 2001).

Research


http://www.asha.org/Publications/leader/2011/110920/




Healy, J. (1999). Failure to connect. New York: Simon & Schuster.

Healy, J. (2005). Technology and the preschool child. Rethinking Schools Online, 19.

Kuhl, P. K., Tsao. F.-M., & Liu, H.-M. (2003). Foreign-language experience in infancy: Effects of short-term exposure and social interaction on phonetic learning. Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences, 100, 9096-9101.

Rideout, V., & Hamel, R. (2006). The media family: Electronic media in the lives of infants, toddlers, preschoolers, and their parents. Menlo Park, CA: Henry J. Kaiser Family Foundation.

Haugland, S. (2000). Early childhood classrooms in the 21st century: Using computers to maximize learning.Young Children, 55(1), 12-18.

Research


Position Statement on Technology for

Early Childhood Education(Adopted January 2012)

A joint position statement of the National Association for the Education of Young Children and the Fred Rogers Center for Early Learning and Children’s Media at Saint Vincent College

Fred Rogers Center for Early Learning and Children’s Media. A Statement on the Development of a Framework for Quality Digital Media for Young Children. Latrobe, PA: Fred Rogers Center for Early Learning and Children’s Media at Saint Vincent College, (forthcoming).


4


• Technology and interactive media are here to stay.

• There are concerns about whether young children should have access to technology and screen media in early childhood programs. All screens are not created equal.

• There is conflicting evidence on the value of technology in children’s development.

• The appeal of technology can lead to inappropriate uses in early childhood settings.

• Issues of equity and access remain unresolved.

Statement of Issues


4

1. Select, use, integrate, and evaluate technology andinteractive media tools in intentional and developmentally appropriate ways, giving careful attention to the appropriateness and the quality of the content, the child’s experience, and the opportunities forco-engagement.

2. Provide a balance of activities in programs for young children, recognizing that technology and interactive media 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.

3. Prohibit the passive use of television, videos, DVDs,and other non-interactive technologies and media in early childhood programs for children younger than 2, and discourage passive and non-interactive uses with children ages 2 through 5.

4. Limit any use of technology and interactive media in programs for children younger than 2 to those that appropriately support responsive interactions between caregivers and children and that strengthen adult child relationships.

5. Carefully consider the screen time recommendations from public health organizations for children from birth through age 5 when determining appropriate limits on technology and media use in early childhood settings. Screen time estimates should include time spent in front of a screen at the early childhood program and, with input from parents and families, at home and elsewhere.

6. Provide leadership in ensuring equitable access to technology and interactive media experiences for the children in their care and for parents and families.

• Intentional and Developmentally Appropriate

• Balance

• Passive use of media and technology: Prohibit for younger than age 2 and discourage for ages 2-5

• Appropriately support responsive interaction (Younger than age 2)

• Carefully consider screen time

• Leadership in equitable access to technology

Recommendations



Technology as a Tool


105 AD

1761 1925

1976

2007/2009

1805

Technology


TECHNOLOGY INTEGRATION

MODEL


DIGITAL MEDIALITERACY


Resource from http://www.fredrogerscenter.org/


http://www.fredrogerscenter.org/

http://www.fredrogerscenter.org/

Interactivity happens WITHIN media and OUTSIDE of media


Early Childhood Context•Integrated Curriculum (Holistic)

•Place-based Education (Culturally Appropriate)

•Spirit of the Child (Supports Learning)

Key Words:

IntentionalAppropriate Limits on Use Supports LearningEquitable Access


HEAD STARTKALIHI UKA ELEMENTARY


TEACHERS


Roll Call Easy Portfolio


iTranslate Teaching Strategies GOLD


OUTSIDE OF CLASSROOM


Concluding Thoughts So in conclusion,

1. The research in this area is still scant and we need to learn more about how children learn, how children are effected and affected by technology use.

2. Have a broader perspective of what technology means and how throughout history it played its role (for better or worse)

3. It has to be in the context of Cosmic Curriculum, Place-based Education, and in the Spirit of the Child.-Determine student interest & need-Envision what will be learned-Recognize what is appropriate-Be intentional and deliberate

4. And lastly, think in terms of support not supplant essential activities

• More research

• Broader perspective on technology

• In the context of integrated curriculum, place-based education, and the spirit of the child

• Support not supplant essential activities


• Children’s Technology Review

• Common Sense Media

• The Joan Ganz Cooney Center

• The Fred Rogers Center Early Learning Environment

• Technology in Early Childhood at Erikson Institute

Resources


Questions?

Email: [email protected]

Subject: SOTF Conference-Got Technology?


mailto:[email protected]

mailto:[email protected]

Got Technology? Engaging Young Children in the 21st Century

Documents

Transcript of Got Technology? Engaging Young Children in the 21st Century