CCO Creative Commons
The introduction of technology into society brought many concerns about media use in early childhood classrooms. Wartella and Jennings (2000) propose concerns about the introduction of media in years past, mirror concerns resurfacing today. In their article the authors create an interesting connection between old and new media, children’s use of that media and common concerns arising because of it. Shade and Watson (1990) systematically examine similar leading beliefs for the exclusion of technology from preschool classrooms. Additionally, McCarrick and Li (2007) offer empirical evidence from studies between 1985 – 2004 to examine the debate of computer use on a child’s development. All three articles share a focus of technology use and its impact on the developmental areas of social interaction and cognitive learning in children; furthermore, Swigger and Swigger (1984) provide a new perspective through the results of a small, time limited, quantitative research study of two groups of preschool children using one computer station in the classroom. Clements (1998) adds his perspective when he provides a review on research about children’s computer use and how it affects social interactions. All articles except McCarrick and Li’s, address the importance of content as a leading factor for social interaction and cognitive learning. This essay will use articles from all above introduced authors to examine early concerns, as well as supporting factors pertaining to the inclusion of computers in early childhood settings, expressly in connection to social and cognitive development and content.
As early as the 1980’s the developmental appropriateness of computer use in preschool settings was a leading early criticism; early arguments included concerns about the loss of social interactions due to a perceived reduction in human interaction (Shade & Watson, 1990, p. 376; Cordes & Miller, 2000 as cited in McCarrick & Li, 2007, p.75). Following a study in 1984, Swigger and Swigger challenge this early perception of computer use in relation to social development, after observing 44 children using one computer over a three-week period. Their study results show the computer in the classroom initiated and supported social development, as no solitary use of the computer was recorded; children insisted to use the computer in groups, creating new bonds. Additionally, new social locations were developed as children gained new leadership roles while using the computer and pre-existing groupings of children were not affected (p. 37). Even though the study was time limited and small in size, McCarrick and Li (2007) support these findings, by identifying studies revealing computer use by young children supports cooperation, turn taking and social behaviour. They point out that anti-social behaviour was caused through adult “one child per computer only” rules (p. 79). To demonstrate this social behaviour, they introduce a study by Muller & Perlmutter (1985), comparing social interactions during computer use with the activity of doing puzzles. Interestingly, the children interacted socially 63% of the time while on the computer, compared to 7% when engaged in completing puzzles (p. 80). The identified positive social interactions highlight confidence in children, as they collaborated and cooperated with each other, developing emotional skills such as an increase in independence, self-esteem and motivation (Ainsa, 1989; Burg, 1984; Clements & Swaminathan, 1995; Lee & Houston, 1987 as cited in McCarrick & Li, 2007, p. 76). Recognizing the computer as a learning tool in preschool classrooms opens a discussion about its impact on cognitive learning.
Since the 1980’s criticisms pointed towards the lack of concrete learning, as computer symbols were viewed too abstract for a child to be able to grasp, compared to real life hands-on learning experiences (Fein, Campbell & Schwartz, 1987; Goodwin, Goodwin, Nansel, & Helm, 1986; Lee & Houston, 1986; Simon, 1985 as cited in McCarrick & Li, 2007, p. 75). Piaget’s theory of the pre-operational stage of cognitive development supports this early concern, but is challenged by Shade and Watson (1990). They explain that based on new cognitive research, children can indeed problem solve and form concrete operational thinking during the pre-operational stage, thus providing evidence for computer use before the age of seven (p. 377). McCarrick and Li (2007) further reason that concrete learning means more than hands-on learning experiences, identifying concrete with what is “meaningful and manipulatable” rather than just physical materials. They refer to a study by Clements and Nastasi (1992) where children’s use of a traditional felt board was compared with the use of a digital felt board; the results indicated that the digital version offered greater and more diverse options (p. 76), thus scaffolding learning. Computers are described as “objects-to-think-with” (p. 381) by Shade and Watson, further supporting the idea of the computer as another learning material in a child’s environment. When the computer is established as another learning tool in preschool classrooms, we need to examine the quality of this tool as we would any other material added into the child’s learning environment.
Wartella and Jennings (2000) provide a systematical examination of historical developments on the use of technology, uncovering remarkable commonalities and concerns that arose with the use of different mediums. A shift from use to content was seen repeatedly; and with an increasing demand about quality of content, mirrors the shift seen in present views about computer use today. Wartella & Jennings emphasize interactivity as an important element for developmentally appropriate software (p. 39). This is reiterated by Swigger and Swigger (1990) when indicating that software needs to be designed for the use of groups of children, to address their need for socialization, instead of aiming to educate one user at a time (p. 40). This directional design for educational software is further supported by Clements (1998), who adds that investigations of software uncovered informative research about the use of computers during free exploration versus open-ended projects, revealing that children showed prolonged interest when presented with open ended projects (pp. 5 & 6). Perhaps the most persuasive argument is offered by Shade and Watson (1990), as their use of the ‘Instrumental Competency Model’ creates the image of a competent child and offers a unique perspective on how we perceive a child when making decisions about their education. Based on this image of the child, they insist well developed software should be introduced as an important element for the effective enrichment of learning environments and a well-developed and sophisticated software offers a child autonomy over their own learning (pp. 383 – 385).
The articles presented address early criticisms of technology use with thoughtfulness and valuable research findings. Even though they provide a convincing argument for the inclusion of computers in the early years, to conclude, I would like to use McCarrick and Li’s (2007) perspective and recognize children’s development as broad and varied, and admit the argument for use of computers with young children is not easily settled (p. 91). As we adopt Shade and Watson’s (1990) image of the child as competent, seeking control over their own learning, we have a great responsibility to pursue partnerships between stakeholders to create educational and cultural content, promoting children’s development (Wartella & Jennings, 2000, p. 40). By generating “the very best content possible, perhaps we can move closer to harnessing the potential of new media to enhance children’s emotional and cognitive lives in wonderful ways” (Wartella & Jennings, 2000, p. 41). Most of all we must not be persuaded by opponents to technology use in preschool settings and use children as examples to investigate, without fear but with curiosity, the opportunities technology may have to offer.
References
Clements, D. H. (1998). Young Children and Technology. Journal of Applied Developmental Psychology, 6(800), 173-186.
McCarrick, K., & Li, X. (2007). Buried Treasure: The Impact of Computer Use on Young Children’s Social, Cognitive, Language Development and Motivation. AACE Journal, 15(1), 73–95.
Shade, D. D., & Watson, J. A. (1990). Computers in Early Education: Issues Put to Rest, Theoretical Links to Sound Practice, and the Potential Contribution of Microworlds. Journal of Educational Computing Research, 6(4), 375–392.
Swigger, K. M., & Swigger, B. K. (1984). Social Patterns and Computer Use among Preschool Children. AEDS Journal, 17(3), 35–41.
Wartella, E. A., & Jennings, N. (2000). Children and computers: New technology – Old concerns. Future of Children, 10(2), 31–43.
Hi Anita,
Thank you for this post, as it tied into my research on Seymour Papert and his theory of Constructionism quite nicely. I found it very interesting that anti-social behavior by children using computers was induced by the rules of adults for using the learning tools rather than in the nature of the use of the tool itself by the children. The discussion of greater options being available for creativity through the use of computers is also consistent with Papert’s concepts of using computers as objects to think with.
I did find it interesting though, that your summation included author’s ideas of finding the very best content available to best harness the potential of new media in our children’s cognitive and emotional learning. The focus on content appears to be out of synch with Papert’s concept of the creation being done by the children – designing and creating through the use of the computer – with less focus on content as the learning occurs through the making process itself. The process of making/creating is as important as the end result made and the child’s own reflection on what they have made as it exists in the world. Did you find any other readings on Papert’s theory of Constructionism in your work?
Best regards, Christy
Hi Christy, I did not come across any other readings on Papert’s theory of constructionism. I agree with the concept that for children’s learning the process is essential and that the process takes on more importance than the end result. My discoveries while doing research were focused on computer programs and educational media and here the content was identified as important. The way I understand this, the content is important to provide the child with the best environment to engage in creating and discovering. I don’t see it in opposition to Papert’s views, but possibly as an added element to support children’s learning.
I appreciate how your well-crafted blogpost reminds us, regardless of our roles, of our responsibility to consider the social interactions and cognitive development of pre-school age children from the perspectives of content consumers and competence. Specifically, you state:
As we adopt Shade and Watson’s (1990) image of the child as competent, seeking control over their own learning, we have a great responsibility to pursue partnerships between stakeholders to create educational and cultural content, promoting children’s development (Wartella & Jennings, 2000, p. 40).
From my own practice, I am not familiar with Shade and Watson’s research and how they situate the Instrumental Competence Model in 21st C. Competency, competence, and competencies have many definitions and conceptual frameworks. I look forward to learning more from you about how these debates and concepts may be impacting your work, practices, and research.