2.2: Literature review
According to Laurillard (1993): ‘There is a
persistent discrepancy between the questions asked of evaluation studies in new
technology, and the conclusions they come to.’ (p.46.) In her research into ICT
and attainment, she has repeatedly shown that the context determines any
effects which ICT may have on attainment, and that it is extremely difficult to
separate the impact that the context has on attainment from the specific uses
of new technologies.
Apple Classrooms of Tomorrow (ACOT) was
the first large-scale initiative to provide one-to-one computer access to
students and teachers. The program operated in 13 schools from 1985 to 1998.
Evaluations of ACOT concluded that participating students developed
collaborative, problem-solving, and communication skills, became more
independent learners, and had increased levels of self-confidence (Marshall,
2002; Cooley, 2001; Apple Computer, 1995).
There are trade-offs when deciding
whether students should use technology collaboratively or individually.
Students who work in groups at the computer have been found to interact more
with their peers, use more appropriate learning strategies, and persevere more
on instructional tasks. Students who work individually at the computer have
been found to spend more time actually engaged with the software and complete
their assignments more quickly, but require more help from the teacher
(Sivin-Kachala & Bialo, 2000).
Technology appears to be most
effective when it is used to access information and when that information is
used to communicate findings using graphs, illustrations, and animations.
Researchers have suggested that technology serves different purposes, depending
on the subject area. For example, to develop vocabulary, reading comprehension,
writing, and spelling skills in language arts; to simulate and solve problems
in math and science; and to simulate events and use multimedia to demonstrate
work in social studies (Valdez, 2004; Sivin-Kachala & Bialo, 2000).
A Scottish study (Condie et al, 2002) sought
to discover the extent to which ICT resources contributed to learning for
almost 3,000 students in 80 secondary schools. Questionnaires and test booklets
were used, but the only gains recorded were in ICT knowledge and skills.
The first
review (Lankshear & Knobel, 2003), focused
on the use of
technology and literacy development
by young students (0
to 8 years old). Lankshear
& Knobel (2003) examined 22 articles, six reviews, and
nine research reports from 1996 to 2002.
Overall, the results indicated either
a positive relationship or no
relationship between technology
use and literacy skills. The authors
noted the importance of key mitigating variables such as the use of
non-interactive vs. interactive
software, and the diversity of learners.
They suggested that their review not only affirmed that technology use
in early childhood and literacy was under-researched, but that the research that did
exist was one-sided in that it focused on areas of reading/receiving rather than
writing/generating. Lankshear
and Knobel (2003) strongly recommended further research
into new technologies in early childhood education which focus on the higher
level literacy skills.
The second review
(Yelland, 2005) examined research on young children, up to
eight-years old, from
1994 to 2004,
and provided a
conceptual perspective (as
opposed to a detailed,
evidence-based analysis) on
four domains (literacy,
numeracy, creativity, and critical thinking) and the creation of
knowledge building communities. Yelland
(2005) began by outlining the arguments against the use of technology in early
childhood settings (such as poor quality software,
minimized role of
teachers, social isolation,
concepts being too abstract). She
suggested that the
research revealed that
innovation is possible
when technology use is embedded in new curricula and that young children
can use technology to experience concepts that were previously well beyond
them. She recommended that future
research should focus on innovative uses of technology, rather than a
replication of previous studies. She
argued that simply comparing computer to
non-computer contexts does not
help to stimulate new understandings or add to knowledge of innovative uses of
technology.
The third review,
conducted by McCarrick and Li (2007) looked at research (1984-2004) on the
impact of technology on four domains of
development (social, cognitive, language development, and
motivation) in children, three to five years old. Their findings indicated that social
interactions among children are higher when computers are used. They also cited support for using computers to help scaffold children’s learning (either with
an adult, peer, or
computer assisted scaffolding). McCarrick
and Li (2007)
also noted computers are highly motivating for
preschoolers. Finally, they reported
that the research does not show an improvement in language skills with computer
use, nor was it found to be a hindrance.
They suggested that further research be conducted using larger sample
sizes, well-defined learning environments, and multiple developmental
domains.
The final review, conducted
by Burnett (2010), examined 34
peer-reviewed articles from 2003-2009
focusing on the use technology to promote print-based literacy for children
within the 0-8 age group. These articles
were divided into three categories: technology as deliverer of literacy,
technology as a site for interactions involving texts, and technology as a
medium for meaning-making. Technology as a deliverer of literacy (n=22 studies)
had either a positive impact on various language skills, motivation, and
engagement, or no impact at all.
Technology as a site for interactions (n=4 studies), suggested that children
interact positively with each other when they work together using digital texts
or literacy software. Finally,
technology as a medium for meaning-making (n=10 studies) is particularly
successful when connected with the real world.
Burnett (2010) highlighted the need for more extensive research into the
area of children’s engagement with digital texts. She acknowledged that most
studies in her literature review were small-scale in terms of sample sizes, and
narrowly focused. She suggested that a
broader perspective should be taken when conducting research with young
children to allow for the potential of identifying new possibilities and connections.
The first review, conducted by McCarrick & Li (2007)
focused on research from 1984- 2004 with subjects in the age range of three to
five years old. They concentrated on research relating technology to four
domains of development: social, cognitive, language development and motivation.
Their findings indicated that social interactions among children are higher
when computers are used. They also cited support for using computers to help
scaffold children’s learning (either with an adult, peer or computer assisted
scaffolding) and related this to the Zone of Proximal Development or the
“difference between what a child can learn by himself and what he can learn
with a skilled partner” (p. 84, McCarrick & Li, 2007). McCarrick & Li
(2007) also noted computers are highly motivating for preschoolers. Finally,
they reported that the research does not show an improvement in language skills
with computer use, nor was it found to be a hindrance. They suggested that
further research be conducted using larger sample sizes, welldefined learning
environments, and multiple developmental domains.
The second review by Lankshear & Knobel (2003) focused on
research from 1996-2002, and students up to eight years old. Their literature
review concentrated on technology in relation to literacy. The methodology used
to find and select articles was clearly explained and uncovered 22 articles,
six reviews and nine research reports. They organized the research into three
categories: CD-ROM story books and language development, teacher/teaching
aspect of using new technology, and new technology in relation to literacy
education. The general findings indicated either a positive relationship or no
relationship between technology use and literacy skills. However, Lankshear
& Knobel categorized the types of studies looking at trends in the type of
research.
The third review (Yelland, 2005) examined research with
children up to eight-years old, from 1994 to 2004, with a focus on four
domains; literacy, numeracy, creativity and critical thinking, and the creation
of knowledge building communities. Yelland began by outlining the arguments
against the use of technology in early childhood settings (such as poor quality
software, minimized role of teachers, social isolation, concepts being too
abstract) and then cited research to disprove each of these arguments. She
followed with a summary of Lankshear’s & Knoble’s (2003) review, while
integrating other research which she organized into the four categories.
Yelland (2005) suggested that the research revealed that innovation is possible
when technology use is embedded in new curricula and that young children can
use technology to experience concepts that were previously well beyond them.
She recommended that future 12 research should focus on innovative uses of
technology, rather than a replication of previous studies. She argued that
simply compared computer to non-computer contexts does not help to stimulate
new understandings or add to knowledge of innovative uses of technology.
Jackson, von Eye, Biocca, Barbatsis, Zhao, and Fitzgerald
(2006) studied the home Internet usage of predominantly Black and low-income
children. Results of their analyses indicated that children who used the
Internet at home more often received higher grade point averages (GPA) and
higher scores on the Michigan Educational Assessment Program (MEAP) test of
reading achievement. Internet use had no effect on MEAP mathematics scores. The
researchers suggested that, since Web pages tend to be heavily text-based,
children who spent more time online also spent more time reading.
By the same token, students considered specific technological
applications, including word processing and Web-based searching, as enhancing
their academic productivity in all academic areas (Spires et al., 2008).
Students take individual ownership of their learning when
technology is utilized in the classroom. Data indicated that the students want
to be engaged and stimulated in school. Students have clear perspectives about
academic engagement through the use of technologies in project-based learning
(Grant & Branch, 2005, as cited in Spires, et al., 2008). Furthermore, for
these learners, listening to stories recorded at a slower-than-usual pace
reduces much of the stress involved in reading and has been found to increase
fluency and comprehension (Carbo, 1996, as cited in Montgomery, 2009). A
student can make learning happen at a certain internal level, but he/she can do
it better with external assistance and stimuli (Gareau & Guo, 2009). For
instance, the evidence is relatively consistent in showing that efficacy
beliefs contribute significantly to level of motivation and performance. These
students perform better when there is a higher self-efficacy of the student
(Solhaug, 2009). For example, students that use technology are more likely to
maintain a focus on learning, show higher levels of class enjoyment, read
carefully in preparation for class and participate more than those who do not
use 49 technology (Dorow & Boyle, 1998, as cited in Harper, 2009).
The other side of the debate argues that developmentally
appropriate use of technology can enhance young children’s learning
(Blackwell, 2013; Blackwell, Lauricella,
& Wartella, 2014; Hillman
& Marshall, 2009; Lindahl &
Folkesson, 2010; Plowman &
Stephen, 2003; Vernadakis,
Avgerinos, Tsitskari, & Zachopoulou, 2005), particularly in the area of
emergent literacy skills (Cassell,
2004; Parette, Quesenberry,
& Blum, 2010;
Plowman, Stevenson, McPake,
Stephen, & Adey, 2011). Technology use
for younger children has been associated with
increased motivation (Lindahl
& Folkesson, 2010;
Plowman & Stephen,
2003; Vernadakis et al.,
2005), student-centered learning
practices (Blackwell, 2013),
the development of social skills through collaboration (Alper, 2011;
Cassell, 2004; Cicconi, 2014; Lieberman,
2009; Shifflet, Toledo,
& Mattoon, 2012),
and supporting children
with disabilities and special needs (Cordes & Miller, 2000; Hutinger
& Johanson, 2000; Muligan, 2003)
More recently, the debate has shifted from whether technology
should be used in early childhood settings, to how it should be used and
whether it makes a difference in children’s learning and development (Ko &
Chou, 2014; Parette et al., 2010;
Rosen & Jaruszewicz,
2009). The question for educators and
policy-makers has become how to best integrate technology into pedagogical
practice and curriculum design in early childhood settings (Plowman, McPake,
& Stephen, 2012). Several researchers
have recommended that practitioners take a thoughtful
approach to the use of technology
by carefully considering the design
of the technology
to determine if
it supports creativity,
curiosity, and play, promotes interaction
among children, and
provides an authentic
learning experience (McManis
& Gennewig, 2012; National Association for the Education of
Young Children & The Fred Rogers Center, 2012; Plowman et al., 2012;
Rosen & Jaruszewicz, 2009). Rosen
and Jaruszewicz (2009) introduced the term
developmentally appropriate technology
use (DATU) which includes preparing a technology environment in early
childhood settings that supports
child-initiated learning, encourages
collaborative problem solving,
and takes a play-based, inquiry orientation.
The purpose of this study was to conduct a current review of
the literature (2009-2014) to explore the impact of digital technologies in
early childhood education environments for children aged 3 to 6 years.
Technology promotes cross-curricular usage. It can be used
through the various grade levels and subject matter (Brunvand & Byrd,
2011). Likewise, computers provide unlimited access to information as well as
interactive communication, which has proven to provide student empowerment over
their own education (Solhaug, 2009).
As a matter of fact, this may be an
irreversible and ever-worst problem if, as claimed by Shirky (2014), digital devices and applications
continue to be designed for competing for our attention. In the past years, we
witnessed the emergence of very creative forms of notifications in digital
environments, beginning in pop-ups and banners, to the most recent badges,
roll-ups, and push notifications. These kinds of effects have been suggested in
some studies as a possible cause to a negative correlation between electronic
media use (including mobile devices) and academic performance as Lepp et al. (2015) suggest in a thorough review on this
issue. Some of these studies also suggest that these effects are not only
visible in classrooms but also in homeworking tasks and in the overall quality
of time spent studying.
