etec 500 final assignment

7/29/2019 ETEC 500 Final Assignment

1/22

Final Assignment:

Literature Review and Research Proposal for

Computer Use in an Early Childhood Education Setting


2/22

ETEC 500 Final Assignment Svetlana Gibson

1

By Svetlana Gibson

ETEC 500

Section 65A

Dr. Stephen Carey

April 11, 2010

The implications of using computers in schools are wide and far reaching. Those of us who

work with students in educational setting know and understand the benefits and the pit falls of

introducing computers into our classrooms. Computers have become ubiquitous in our lives

and even more so in the lives of our children. They are very comfortable with using the latest

technology and adapt quickly to anything new the market has to throw at them. It is up to us to

steer them in the right direction and provide them with skills to navigate the World Wide Web

and everything it has to offer. Computer technology has penetrated every aspect of our lives

and it is slowly encroaching into the lives of our very young children. Any educational setting

which does not provide access to computers is considered backward and limiting to student

progress. Preschools and kindergarten classrooms do not escape this criticism. At what cost is


3/22


2

this progress? Should we be introducing computers to preschoolers and if so what are the

benefits and the drawbacks? After all, many young children are exposed to computers at

home. Of what benefit is it to expose preschoolers and kindergarteners to computers in a

formal educational setting?

A lot of research has been done on this topic. Christina Davidson looked at how interaction

resources produced socially recognizable actions, how social activity mutually accomplished

knowledge and how children shifted seamlessly between various technologies and texts.

(Davidson, 2009. p. 36)

The article, Young Childrens Engagement With Digital Texts And Literacies In the Home, is well

organized and easy to read. It provides a lengthy introduction and draws on a wide variety of

recent research on the topic presented and related areas. In the Theoretical Perspective and

Methods, the author provides a good explanation of what ethnomethodology is for this is the

type of research used for this study. Ethnomethodology attempts to understand peoples

ordinary actions. According to ethnomethodology, members of society bring about an

ordered existence as an everyday and local accomplishment. Members orient to sense-making

in ways that provide for order, seek to find it, and account for its absence in orderly ways.

(Davidson, p.40) Ethnomethodologists seek to find, describe and explicate the methods by

which members do this as an ordinary and everyday way ofdoing life (Davidson, p. 40) One of

the most effective ways to do this is to examine social interactions. Davidson uses

Conversational Analysis in this study, which focuses on sequential analysis of talk. (Davidson,

p.40) Central to the approach is the repeated reviewing of recordings of naturally occurring


4/22


3

activity, detailed transcription of recordings and reporting of analysis that provides transcripts

as evidence. (Davidson, p.40)

Data collection for this research consisted of recordings of children under the age of eight from

four families, although only small excerpts of recordings from one family were provided with

detailed annotations and analysis. I found this helpful. All three excerpts were of a father and

two boys using the internet to find information about lizards. The older boy was 6 years and 6

months and his younger brother was 2 years and 11 months. The mother was also present and

engaged in the activity. The intent of the activity is to show the mutual accomplishment of

what was meaningful during computer use, how interactional resources produce socially

recognizable actions and activities, and how childrens social actions shifted seamlessly

between technologies and text as they oriented to doing things about lizards as an aspect of

their primary Discourse or everyday activity in this family (Davidson, p.48) The article

highlights the importance of pursuing information which often entails the seeking of

knowledge of others in order to know more (Davidson, p.49) It also points out, based on the

lizard activity, that the adult is not always the one with all the information. The benefits of

working with one adult and a small group of children have been known for a long time but I

question how feasible it is in a classroom setting, especially in a public school. This is where I

take issue with the authors conclusion that understanding social interaction that constitutes

digital practices in the home may be a powerful tool in attempts to transform literacy practices

in the early years. (Davidson, p.50) I do not take issue with the fact that we can learn from

how children interact at home but from the point of view of feasibility. How practical is this in a

real-life classroom setting?


5/22


4

In a technology-based environment, the competitive ability will come from the ability to learn.

No longer are we able to teach our young to remember information and therefore, get ahead.

We must teach them how to learn and adapt their learning styles to everything new that comes

their way. Papert views schools and teachers as major obstacles to new way of learning.

Education, as he sees it "remains largely committed to the educational philosophy of the late

nineteenth and early twentieth centuries and attempts to impose a single way of knowing on

everyone. Tests, segregation by age, teachers as technicians who mould passive minds, and an

emphasis on reading as the essential route to knowledge are the prime characteristics of

today's education system (Papert, 1993)

Research into reading disabilities shows that training in early reading skills improved those

learners reading performance and even produced long-range effect over several schooling

years as reported in longitudinal studies. Based on findings by Mioduser, Tur-Kaspa & Leitner

in The Learning Value Of Computer-Based Instruction Of Early Reading Skills the results clearly

indicated that children at high risk for RD who received reading intervention program with

computer materials, had made by the end of the year (at the end of the intervention) a

significant improvement in their phonological awareness, word recognition, and letter naming

skills in comparison to their peers who received a reading intervention program with printed-

only materials (without computer) and those who received no formal reading intervention

program at all. (Mioduser, et al, 2000, p.8)

The study consisted of forty-six students aged 5-6 and attending six special education

kindergartens in central region of Israel. Students came from average social-economic status


6/22


5

families. All students were assessed through a comprehensive psycho-educational assessments

and had been identified as children at high risk for learning disabilities by the regional

Psychological Services. The same children were also identified as being at high risk for reading

disabilities on the Phonological Awareness Test because they scored 55 points or lower out of

122 possible points.

The results clearly indicated that children at high risk for RD who received reading intervention

program with computer materials, had made by the end of the year (at the end of the

intervention) a significant improvement in their phonological awareness, word recognition, and

letter naming skills in

comparison to their peers who received a reading intervention program with printed-only

materials (without computer) and those who received no formal reading intervention program

at all. (Mioduser, et al, p.7)

These finding are consistent with previous other results on the subject of benefits of use of

computer-based materials in reading instruction for average students

and for students with reading learning disabilities.

Mioduser et al strongly believed that children seem to benefit from computer-based work not

only at the specific skills level but also, as a result of their

improvement in academic achievement, in terms of motivational and self confidence levels.


7/22


6

Based on his study, Mioduser concluded that the presence of technology in early childhood

education is becoming more and more a hardware reality, but subsequent work is needed to

transform it into technology-based learning reality. (Mioduser et al, p. 8)

The article is well organized and provides detailed description of methodology, results and

findings. The researchers took into account numerous sundry details, which made for more

authentic results. For example, using the same teachers students are familiar with on a day to

day basis and training them to conduct the computer based intervention. Having teachers who

are well trained in early reading intervention and computer based reading intervention allowed

for a consistency across the two groups instead of having different adults be involved. The

article also provided detailed numerical findings and easy to read statistical analysis. The

researchers make their conclusions reflect their numerical and observational data. The findings

were based on three groups:

Group 1 (n = 16) received instruction in reading with a special reading

program which included both printed and computer-based materials;

Group 2 (n = 15) learned only with the printed materials of the special

reading program;

Group 3 (n = 15) served as control group and was given only the regular

special education program without specific reading training.

The researchers found that the extent of improvement on the tests was significantly higher in

the computer group than in the printed-only and in the control groups. The researchers went


8/22


7

further to discuss how these finding and methods could be applied to children speaking other

languages than Hebrew.

Computer use by young children is not solely limited to reading remediation and games.

Douglas H. Clements questions old assumptions that young children can only learn from

concrete things as well as what is developmentally appropriate and points out that the

construct of developmentally appropriate is being constantly revised. He also takes issue with

some brain research that indicates that young children should not be using computers and

states that few neuroscientists believe that direct educational implications can be drawn from

their field (Clements, 2002, p. 2) and goes on further to say that the implications are

unwarranted and spurious. This article does not contain concrete research data from the

author but rather draws on an extensive research by other researchers as well as previous

research by the author. In particular, Clements reviewed research on computer medicated

practice, computer manipulatives, turtle geometry and computer approaches to developing

higher-order thinking skills.

Clements points to research in computer mediated practice which concludes that dramatic

results may be gained with minimal (10 minutes a day) drills on computer to gain 100%

improvement in correctly answered basic math questions.

He also points to a 1982 study by Hungate and 1986 study by McCollister of kindergarteners

scoring higher on numerical recognition tasks after computer instructions compared to being

taught by a teacher. There was some


9/22


8

indication, however, that instruction by a teacher was more effective for

children just beginning to recognize numerals, but the opposite was true for

more able children. (Clements p. 3)

In Computer Manipulatives the author provides examples of how children use various

computer programs to learn to understand and apply concepts such as symmetry, patterns and

spatial order. An example of base-ten blocks where he states that in real life a student would

have to trade one block for 10 singles is inferior to just being able to break a block into 10

pieces on the computer. He goes further to point out that the number represented by the

base-ten blocks is dynamically linked to the students actions on the blocks, so that when the

student changes the blocks the number displayed is automatically changed as well. (Clements,

p. 8) Clements concludes that this can help students make sense of their activity and the

numbers. I would have to strongly question this theory. It seems to me that we would want

the young student to come to this conclusion on their own rather than having it done for them.

The benefit of a student having to extend herself to figuring out the number of blocks and

actually trading a one 10 base block for 10 singles would have a greater benefit on student

learning. After all, young children learn by doing and having a computer doing it for them

seems to be passive learning in a virtual world where they cannot touch of feel the object they

are manipulating on screen.

The author concedes that drill software alone is not enough to provide a well rounded

computer based math education. He suggests the use of turtle geometry to increase childrens


10/22


9

awareness of properties of shapes and the meaning of measurements. Both of these concepts

have improved in children after they used the Logo turtle to direct it through mazes and draw

shapes. He found that children were able to apply skills learned in Logo to pen and paper

activities. Clements point out that Logo is especially helpful in developing spatial concepts

because they are allowed to construct initial spatial notions not from passive viewing, but

from actions, both perceptual and imagined and from reflections on these actions. (Clements

p. 5) In this section, the author provided many examples of studies which conclude the benefits

of Logo however; he fails to provide a good detail of what Logo is exactly.

In the Higher-Order Thinking Skills section, Clements points to a 1996 study by Fletcher-Flinn

and Suddendorf which concluded that preschoolers who used computers scored higher on

measures of metacognition as well as were more able to keep in mind a number of different

mental states simultaneously and had more sophisticated theories of mind than those who did

not use computers. (Clements p.7)

Although well written, this article lacks specific data to support some of the far flung theories.

The author, for instance, states that children can extend their experiences and their creative

activities in learning to draw but goes on further to conclude in the next sentence that the

above is the reason for them to use computers to learn math. What this article lacks in

concrete data examples, it makes up for in practical applications. The section on professional

development provides viable arguments for teacher training in computer instruction at all


11/22


10

levels. The author also provides practical advice on arranging the computers in the classroom

to maximize their use and allow for more social interaction.

When is it best to introduce computers to children? Many researchers do not recommend

introducing computers to children younger than 3 because their learning styles do not mesh

well with what the computer can provide. Children younger than 3 learn through their bodies

and computer do not provide the necessary skills that these youngsters need: walking, talking,

sensory exploration and making friends. It is also important that computers be

developmentally appropriate no matter what age group they are introduced to. Papert stresses

that computers have an impact on children when the computer provides concrete experience,

children have free access and control the learning experience, children and teachers learn

together, teachers encourage peer tutoring, and teachers use computers to teach powerful

ideas. Susan W. Haugland, in Computers and Young Children, states that 3 and 4 year olds are

ready to be introduced to computers but timing, she believes, is crucial. She goes on further to

state that children should be given plenty of time to experiment and explore. Because young

children are comfortable clicking buttons to see what will happen, she suggests that teachers

intervene when children appear frustrated or when nothing seems to be happening

(Haugland, S.p.1 )


12/22


11

We can report that the research seen here all supports children learning with computers at an

early age. I would like to design research to test this hypothesis.


13/22


12

Research Proposal

Introduction

A large body of work exists which exalts the benefits of computers for educations purposes

with preschoolers and kindergarteners. Every single article I read pointed to the great benefits

new technology can have on the minds of the young. What I found interesting was the fact that

the articles set out to prove how beneficial computers are. None of them set out to look solely

at the detriments of computers on young minds and only some glossed over superficially at

some drawbacks.

My major interest in this topic comes from being a parent of two daughters, a 5 year old and a

15 month old. We were very vigilant in terms of keeping our oldest daughter away from TV and

computers. When she was 3, she was able to watch very little TV (1-2 hours a week) with an

adult sitting beside her. Now that she is 5, she is able to watch a bit more but she is rarely

allowed to watch TV alone. She is also able to use drawing programs on the laptop and the

desktop as well as playing age appropriate games once or twice a month. She is very familiar

with computers and sees her parents working on them very often. To put things in perspective,

we are a highly wired household, with four rooms with their own computers set up to function

as TVs or digital frames. We use a PVR to record TV shows and remove ads so she is not

exposed to ads. We were able to do this because for four years she was an only child. Even

though we sheltered her from TV and computer exposure, she could use a cell phone to dial


14/22


13

anyone on the list as well as figure out how to use the camera on it without any help. When

she was finally allowed to use the computer, she had no trouble figuring out how it worked and

happily explored all its functions. We were amazed at how she was able to use the mouse on

the laptop and the desktop with such accuracy. Since our second daughter was born, we have

often wondered what impact all the technology will have on her. Because we have two

children four years apart, we are unable to be as vigilant with the second child. She is allowed

to explore the laptop with her sister who eagerly shows her what she can do.

Literature Review

This proposal draws on previous research into early childhood education and the use of

information technology. Although there is a large body of study over many years, there seems

to be a lack of studies designed to test how computer based activities fare against directly

identical activities which do not use a computer. Davidson (2009) looked into how young

children use computers in their homes in order to understand the acquisition of new literacies.

She advocates, based on a study of children from four families that teachers employ in

classroom the same methods as parents do when they interact with their children when using

computers. To me, it seems unrealistic in this age of bare bones education system in British

Columbia schools. A 2004 study by Li and Atkins, concluded that children who had access to a

computerperformed better on school readiness (Boehm-3 Preschool) and

cognitive

development (WPPSI-R), suggesting that computer accessbefore or during the preschool years

is associated with thedevelopment of preschool concepts and cognition. Based on this

conclusion, children who do not have access to computers are at a significant disadvantage. I


15/22


14

wonder what other variables could be responsible for these results? I would also be curious to

find out how children 50 years ago would have scored on the same tests. Are the tests

somehow favouring computer exposure? However, the authors do concede that lack of

association of the frequency of use with cognitiveand motor development among children may

need to be interpretedwith caution.

Douglas Clements has conducted numerous studies into how computers aid young children in

learning and advocates for heavy use of computer technology in the classroom. I think we need

to approach this topic with caution and restraint and not see the computer as the magic bullet

as does D. Mioduser who sees computer as the answer to solving learning disability in reading.

There is no doubt that computers can help children all ages learn but at what price? There is

also research to support findings that children are less social, play less with friends outside and

are getting more and more obese. Leonard H. Epstein et all found that reducing television

viewing and computer usemay have an important role in preventing obesity and in lowering

BMI in young children, and these changes may be related moreto changes in energy intake

than to changes in physical activity (Epstine et al, 2008)

However, S. J. Marshall et al points out, in their 2004 study, that while the total amount of

time per day engaged in sedentary behavior is inevitably prohibitive of physical activity, media-

based inactivity may be unfairly implicated in recent epidemiologic trends of overweight and

obesity among children and youth.


16/22


15

He goes on further to point out that relationships between sedentary behavior and health are

unlikely to be explained using single markers of inactivity, such as TV viewing or

video/computer game use. Lin and Lepper concluded in their study that Videogame usage

showed significant positive correlations with teacher ratings of impulsivity, significant negative

correlations with ratings of academic achievement, and little relationship to rated sociability

(Lin & Lepper, 2006, p 78)

As always it would seem that more research, unbiased and balanced research, is needed.

However, when dealing with studying human behavior numerous variables come to play and

influence not only the results of the studies but the design itself. Many researchers and

educators are working towards providing a balanced approach to education. Migues, Santos

and Anido have designed a more holistic approach to ICT integration into early childhood

education in their article. They provide a practical outline on how to make the best use of

available technology.

Theoretical Perspective and Method

This research will be conducted in a Montessori preschool in a middle class suburban setting.

The preschool has 4 classes each comprised of 20 students. There are 30 boys and 50 girls.

Some younger students attend 2 days a week and the older students usually attend 3 days a

week. There are 4 teachers involved who work at the school, three are there every day and a

music teacher who comes once a week. The general population of the school is made up of

middle class well educated parents with at least one parent with post secondary education.


17/22


16

The teachers all have Early Childhood Education certificates as well as some post secondary

schooling.

The research will consist of each of the four classes participating in the activity. The parents will

all be contacted and asked to sign a permission form for their child to participate in the activity.

The activity will be conducted by the regular preschool teachers so as not to cause too much

disruption and no outsiders will be present. Prior to the activity, the teachers will be instructed

as to how to conduct the activity.

Since there has been a lot of research which supports the educational benefits computers can

provide to young children I have design an activity to test to see what environment help

preschooler acquire information. The activity will consist of a computer based component and

a teacher led component.

In this activity I will try to determine whether there is a difference if students learn from a

computer or from a real object by teaching students names for objects they already know in a

made up language.

Computer Component

Students will be divided into four groups of five students and will have one teacher and one

laptop per group. The following items will appear on the computer: dog, cat, house, book,

teddy bear, and a computer voice and then the teacher will say what those items are in a made

up language. Students will be told that they are learning new names for the objects in a

different language. Each group will be given 15 minutes a day for the activity for two weeks.


18/22


17

Teacher Led Component

For this part of the activity students will continue to be in the same group as they were for the

computer component and will remain with the same teacher. Students will attempt to learn

the following words: dog, cat, house, book, teddy bear. The teacher will place the above items

in front of the students and will name each item in another made up language. The students

will be encouraged to play with the items and use the made up words for them. Students will

also have 15 minutes a day for this activity for two weeks.

At the end of each two week period each student will be tested individually by the teacher to

see how many words they have remembered. The computer based test will consist of a picture

of the object appearing on the screen and the teacher asking the student to name it in the

language they have been learning. To test the non computer learning, the teacher will place

the item in front of the student and ask the student to name it.

I am eager to see the results, especially if the students will remember the computer based

learning even after they spend two week learning from a live person. I am also eager to see

what the anecdotal reaction will be from the students in terms of what they found more

enjoyable. I struggled with the idea of allowing the students to play a game which contains the

words they were required to learn because they are able to play with the objects in the teacher

led activity.


19/22


18

The results will be recorded in a log containing each students name and a number of correctly

remembered words written beside the name.

As I am writing this I see all the variables which can influence the results, and they are many.

The children themselves and the way they are grouped would be the biggest variable as we did

not pretest to see how each child learns a language. How children interact with each other and

the teacher will be another variable in both the computer component and the teacher led

component. How many languages each child speaks will also influence the results because

studies have shown that children who speak more than one language learn another one quicker

than children who are monolingual.

I am hoping that allowing two weeks for each activity will be sufficient to make up for someone

feeling out of sorts or being absent. The absences will be recorded for each child. The objects

chosen will also be a major variable since I do not know how each child feels about the given

objects.

Another major variable is the fact that I have not observed for each childs natural learning

style. This, more than anything will have a greater influence on how they learn.

Conclusion

In conclusion, I feel the results of this experiment will skew towards the real life classroom

situation. While I absolutely and emphatically appreciate the use of computers as a teaching

tool, I advocate for moderation because a teacher will always be able to connect with a child on

a level that a machine cannot. My experience in the classroom has shown that while children


20/22


19

do enjoy using a computer, the real learning happens when they are interacting with one

another.

I am very interested in this subject, both as a teacher and as a parent. I hope to make use of

this research proposal and perhaps make it the basis of my final MET project.


21/22


20

Bibliography

Clements, D. H., (2002). Computers in Early Childhood MathematicsContemporary Issues in

Early Childhood, 3, 160-181.

Davidson, C. (2009). Young Childrens Engagement With Digital Texts And Literacies In The

Home: Pressing Matters For The Teaching Of English In The Early Years Of Schooling. English

Teaching: Practice and Critique, 8 , 36-54. Retrieved March 12, 2010 from

http://education.waikato.ac.nz/research/files/etpc/files/2009v8n3art3.pdf

Epstein, H., Roemmich, J. N., Robinson, J. L., Paluch, R. A., Winiewicz, D. D., Fuerch, J. H.,

Robinson, T. N. (2008) A Randomized Trial of the Effects of Reducing Television Viewing and

Computer Use on Body Mass Index in Young Children. Archives of Pediatrics and Adolescent

Medicine, 162, 239-245. Retrieved April 4, 2010 from

http://ceep.crc.uiuc.edu/eecearchive/digests/2000/haugland00.pdf

Li, X., & Atkins, M., (2007) Early Childhood Computer Experience and Cognitive and Motor

Development. Pediatrics,113, 1715-1722.
http://education.waikato.ac.nz/research/files/etpc/files/2009v8n3art3.pdfhttp://education.waikato.ac.nz/research/files/etpc/files/2009v8n3art3.pdfhttp://ceep.crc.uiuc.edu/eecearchive/digests/2000/haugland00.pdfhttp://ceep.crc.uiuc.edu/eecearchive/digests/2000/haugland00.pdfhttp://ceep.crc.uiuc.edu/eecearchive/digests/2000/haugland00.pdfhttp://education.waikato.ac.nz/research/files/etpc/files/2009v8n3art3.pdf


22/22


21

Lin, S., & Lepper, M. R., (2006) Correlates of Children's Usage of Videogames and Computers.

Journal of Applied Social Psychology, 17, 72-93 Retrieved April 2, 2010 from

http://www3.interscience.wiley.com/journal/119469483/abstract?CRETRY=1&SRETRY=0

Marshall, S. J., Biddle, S. J. H., Gorely, T., Cameron, N., & Murdey, I. (2004) Relationships

Between Media Use, Body Fatness And Physical Activity In Children And Youth: A Meta-

Analysis. International Journal of Obesity, 28, 1238-1246. Retrieved March 26, 2010 from

http://www.nature.com/ijo/journal/v28/n10/abs/0802706a.html

Miguez, R., Santos, J. M., & Anido, L., A Holistic Framework to Support ICT-based Early

Childhood Education Processes. 1-6. Retrieved March 29, 2010 fromhttp://fie-

conference.org/fie2009/papers/1353.pdf

Mioduser, D., Tur-Kaspa, H., & Leitner, I.,(2000) The learning value of computer-based

instruction of early reading skills. Journal of Computer Assisted Learning, ) 16, 54-63

Papert, S. The childrens Machine Rethinking Schooling In The Age Of The Computer, 1993.

Retrieved March 29, 2010 from http://www.ucs.mun.ca/~emurphy/stemnet/papert.html)
http://www3.interscience.wiley.com/journal/119469483/abstract?CRETRY=1&SRETRY=0http://www3.interscience.wiley.com/journal/119469483/abstract?CRETRY=1&SRETRY=0http://www.nature.com/ijo/journal/v28/n10/abs/0802706a.htmlhttp://www.nature.com/ijo/journal/v28/n10/abs/0802706a.htmlhttp://fie-conference.org/fie2009/papers/1353.pdfhttp://fie-conference.org/fie2009/papers/1353.pdfhttp://fie-conference.org/fie2009/papers/1353.pdfhttp://fie-conference.org/fie2009/papers/1353.pdfhttp://www.ucs.mun.ca/~emurphy/stemnet/papert.htmlhttp://www.ucs.mun.ca/~emurphy/stemnet/papert.htmlhttp://www.ucs.mun.ca/~emurphy/stemnet/papert.htmlhttp://fie-conference.org/fie2009/papers/1353.pdfhttp://fie-conference.org/fie2009/papers/1353.pdfhttp://www.nature.com/ijo/journal/v28/n10/abs/0802706a.htmlhttp://www3.interscience.wiley.com/journal/119469483/abstract?CRETRY=1&SRETRY=0

etec 500 final assignment

Documents