8082 MD4 Dis2

To Prepare-
Consider the ways technology is infused into every aspect of daily life. Think about your experience and perspective regarding the following statement: It is no longer a question of whether or not technology should be a part of early childhood settings but instead, which technology tools are appropriate and truly enhance development and learning.

8082 Module 4 Discussion 2:

Evaluating Technology in Early Childhood Settings

Professionals in many fields are required to incorporate the use of technology on a regular basis. In some learning environments, early childhood professionals are required to incorporate technology as part of children’s learning experience. Technology can be used to engage children or spark their interest. Technology can also help prepare children for the future. With that being said, not all technology provides equitable benefits for children.

Don't use plagiarized sources. Get Your Custom Essay on
8082 MD4 Dis2
Just from $13/Page
Order Essay

For this Discussion, you will explore a variety of technological tools to determine which are appropriate and enhance development and learning.

Assignment Task Part 1

To Prepare-

Consider the ways technology is infused into every aspect of daily life. Think about your experience and perspective regarding the following statement: It is no longer a question of whether or not technology should be a part of early childhood settings but instead, which technology tools are appropriate and truly enhance development and learning.

To Do:

Write a 1 ½ page explanation based on scholarly resources from the last 5 years, share examples of at least two technology tools and how they could be incorporated into early childhood settings in ways that enhance children’s development and learning. Provide rationales for why you selected these tools, the ages for which they are appropriate, and how they may enhance children’s development and learning experiences.

Assignment Task Part 2

Read a selection of your colleagues’ postings.

Respond to two of your colleagues’ postings of 125 words each in one or more of the following prompts:

· Read through the posts on the Discussion forum. Explain how the technology suggested by your peers might be differentiated to build on the strengths and meet the needs of children’s varying ages and abilities.

· As you envision the setting and examples your colleagues describe, offer several suggestions to ensure equitable access for all children in this early childhood setting.

· Using one of the technological tools suggested by your peers, explain how this tool might be used incorrectly or ineffectively. Provide a suggestion for overcoming this challenge and assist them in avoiding the misuse of this technology.

Cite appropriate references in APA format to substantiate your thinking.

4

Module 4 Discussion 2 Learning Resources

https://web.p.ebscohost.com/ehost/detail/detail?vid=0&sid=d228e6e9-7fff-4986-9b35-b3911e208ed6%40redis&bdata=JkF1dGhUeXBlPXNoaWImc2l0ZT1laG9zdC1saXZlJnNjb3BlPXNpdGU%3d#AN=96652134&db=eue

https://ijemst.net/index.php/ijemst/article/view/32/32

1

media. When the inte-
gration of technology
and interactive media
in early childhood
programs is built
upon solid develop-
mental foundations,
and early childhood
professionals are
aware of both the
challenges and the
opportunities, educa-
tors are positioned
to improve program
quality by intention-
ally leveraging the potential of technology and media for
the benefit of every child.

Technology and Interactive Media
as Tools in Early Childhood Programs
Serving Children from Birth through Age

8

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

T
elevision was once the newest technology
in our homes, and then came videos and
computers. Today’s children are growing
up in a rapidly changing digital age that is

far different from that of their parents and grandpar-
ents. A variety of technologies are all around us in
our homes, offices, and schools. When used wisely,
technology and media can support learning and
relationships. Enjoyable and engaging shared expe-
riences that optimize the potential for children’s
learning and development can support children’s
relationships both with adults and their peers.
Thanks to a rich body of research, we know much
about how young children grow, learn, play, and
develop. There has never been a more important time to
apply principles of development and learning when con-
sidering the use of cutting-edge technologies and new

This statement is intended primarily to provide guidance to
those working in early childhood education programs serving
children from birth through age 8. Although not developed as
a guide for families in the selection and use of technology and
interactive media in their homes, the information here may be
helpful to inform such decisions.

NAEYC and the Fred Rogers Center do not endorse or recom-
mend software, hardware, curricula, or other materials.

P O S I T I O N S T A T E M E N T
A D O P T E D J A N U A R Y 2 0 1

2

Interactive media refers to digital
and analog materials, including soft-
ware programs, applications (apps),
broadcast and streaming media, some
children’s television programming,
e-books, the Internet, and other forms
of content designed to facilitate active
and creative use by young children and
to encourage social engagement with
other children and adults.

http://www.fredrogerscenter.org/

http://www.naeyc.org

http://www.fredrogerscenter.org/

http://www.naeyc.org

2

This 2012 position statement reflects the ever-changing
digital age and provides guidance for early childhood
educators about the use of technology and interactive
media in ways that can optimize opportunities for young
children’s cognitive, social, emotional, physical, and
linguistic development. In this position statement, the
definition of technology tools encompasses a broad range
of digital devices such as computers, tablets, multitouch
screens, interactive whiteboards, mobile devices, cam-
eras, DVD and music players, audio recorders, electronic
toys, games, e-book readers, and older analog devices
still being used such as tape recorders, VCRs, VHS tapes,
record and cassette players, light tables, projectors, and
microscopes.
Throughout the process of researching and writing this
position statement, we have been guided by the legacy of
Fred Rogers. By appropriately and intentionally using the
technology of his day—broadcast television—to connect
with each individual child and with parents and families,
Fred Rogers demonstrated the positive potential of using
technology and media in ways that are grounded in prin-
ciples of child development.

Statement of the Issues

Technology and interactive media are here to stay.
Young children live in a world of interactive media.
They are growing up at ease with digital devices that
are rapidly becoming the tools of the culture at home,
at school, at work, and in the community (Kerawalla
& Crook 2002; Calvert et al. 2005; National Institute for
Literacy 2008; Buckleitner 2009; Lisenbee 2009; Berson
& Berson 2010; Chiong & Shuler 2010; Couse & Chen
2010; Rideout, Lauricella, & Wartella 2011). Technology
tools for communication, collaboration, social network-
ing, and user-generated content have transformed
mainstream culture. In particular, these tools have
transformed how parents and families manage their
daily lives and seek out entertainment, how teachers use
materials in the classroom with young children and com-
municate with parents and families, and how we deliver
teacher education and professional development (Ride-
out, Vandewater, & Wartella 2003; Roberts & Foehr 2004;
Rideout & Hamel 2006; Rideout 2007; Foundation for
Excellence in Education 2010; Gutnick et al. 2010; Barron
et al. 2011; Jackson 2011a, 2011b; Wahi et al. 2011). The
pace of change is so rapid that society is experiencing
a disruption almost as significant as when there was a
shift from oral language to print literacy, and again when
the printing press expanded access to books and the

printed word. The shift
to new media literacies
and the need for digital
literacy that encom-
passes both technology
and media literacy will
continue to shape the
world in which young
children are developing
and learning (Linebarger & Piotrowski 2009; Flewitt 2011;
Alper n.d.).
The prevalence of electronic media in the lives of young
children means that they are spending an increasing number
of hours per week in front of and engaged with screens of all
kinds, including televisions, computers, smartphones, tablets,
handheld game devices, and game consoles (Common Sense
Media 2011). The distinction among the devices, the content,
and the user experience has been blurred by multitouch
screens and movement-activated technologies that detect and
respond to the child’s movements. With guidance, these vari-
ous technology tools can be harnessed for learning and devel-
opment; without guidance, usage can be inappropriate and/or
interfere with learning and development.

There are concerns
about whether young
children should have
access to technology and
screen media in early
childhood programs.
Several professional and
public health organiza-
tions and child advocacy
groups concerned with
child development and
health issues such as
obesity have recom-
mended that passive, non-
interactive technology and
screen media not be used
in early childhood pro-
grams and that there be
no screen time for infants
and toddlers. NAEYC and
the Fred Rogers Center
are also concerned about
child development and
child health issues and
have considered them
carefully when developing
this position statement.

Non-interactive media include
certain television programs,
videos, DVDs, and streaming
media now available on a vari-
ety of screens. Noninteractive
technology tools and media
are not included in the definition
and description of effective and
appropriate use in this state-
ment unless they are used
in ways that promote active
engagement and interactions.
Noninteractive media can lead
to passive viewing and over-
exposure to screen time for
young children and are not
substitutes for interactive and
engaging uses of digital media
or for interactions with adults
and other children.

The term digital literacy is
used throughout this statement
to encompass both technology
and media literacy.

3

The American Academy of Pediatrics (2009, 2010, 2011a,
2011b) and the White House Task Force on Childhood
Obesity (2010) discourage any amount or type of screen
media and screen time for children under 2 years of age
and recommend no more than one to two hours of total
screen time per day for children older than 2 (Funk et al.
2009; Campaign for a Commercial-Free Childhood 2010).
The Early Childhood Obesity Prevention Policies (Birch,
Parker, & Burns 2011; Institute of Medicine of the National
Academies 2011) recommend that child care settings limit
screen time (including television, videos, digital media,
video games, mobile media, cell phones, and the Internet)
for preschoolers (age 2 through 5) to fewer than 30 minutes
per day for children in half-day programs or less than one
hour per day for those in full-day programs. The report
further encourages professionals to work with parents
to limit screen time to fewer than two hours per day for
children age 2 through 5. These recommendations to limit
children’s exposure to screen time are related to two fac-
tors potentially contributing to early childhood obesity: the
food and beverage marketing that children may experience
when they are watching television or interacting with other
media and the amount of overall screen time to which
they are exposed (Birch, Parker, & Burns 2011; Institute of
Medicine of the National Academies 2011). The Let’s Move!
Child Care initiative recommends that caregivers allow no
screen time for children under 2 years of age. For children
2 and older, caregivers are encouraged to limit screen time
to no more than 30 minutes per week during child care,
and parents and caregivers are advised to work together
to limit children to one to two hours of quality screen time
per day (Schepper 2011; White House 2011). Early child-
hood educators need to be aware of all these concerns and
understand the critical role that they as educators play in
mediating technology and media use and screen time for
young children.

All screens are not created equal. The proliferation of
digital devices with screens means that the precise meaning
of “screen time” is elusive and no longer just a matter of how
long a young child watches television, videos, or DVDs. Time
spent in front of a television screen is just one aspect of how
screen time needs to be understood and measured. Children
and adults now have access to an ever-expanding selection of
screens on computers, tablets, smartphones, handheld gaming
devices, portable video players, digital cameras, video record-
ers, and more. Screen time is the total amount of time spent
in front of any and all of these screens (Common Sense Media
2011; Guernsey 2011c). As digital technology has expanded in
scope beyond linear, non-interactive media to include interac-
tive options, it is evident that each unique screen demands its

own criteria for best usage (Kleeman 2010). The challenge for
early childhood educators is to make informed choices that
maximize learning opportunities for children while managing
screen time and mediating the potential for misuse and over-
use of screen media, even as these devices offer new interfaces
that increase their appeal and use to young children.

There is conflicting evidence on the value of technol-
ogy in children’s development. Educators and parents
have been cautioned about the negative impact of back-
ground television (Kirkorian et al. 2009; AAP 2011b), pas-
sive use of screen media (AAP 2011b), and the relationship
between media use and child obesity (White House Task
Force on Childhood Obesity 2010; Birch, Parker, & Burns
2011; Schepper 2011). Possible negative outcomes have
been identified, such as irregular sleep patterns, behavioral
issues, focus and attention problems, decreased academic
performance, negative impact on socialization and lan-
guage development, and the increase in the amount of time
young children are spending in front of screens (Cordes
& Miller 2000; Appel & O’Gara 2001; Christakis et al. 2004;
Anderson & Pempek 2005; Rogow 2007; Vandewater et al.
2007; Brooks-Gunn & Donahue 2008; Common Sense Media
2008, 2011; Lee, Bartolic, & Vandewater 2009; Campaign for
a Commercial-Free Childhood 2010; DeLoache et al. 2010;
Tomopoulos et al. 2010; AAP 2011a, 2011b).
However, research findings remain divided and therefore
can be confusing to educators and parents. Some children’s
media researchers have found no evidence to support
the belief that screen media are inherently harmful. The
evidence from public broadcasting’s Ready To Learn initia-
tive suggests that when television shows and electronic
resources have been carefully designed to incorporate what
is known about effective reading instruction, they serve as
positive and powerful tools for teaching and learning (Pas-
nik et al. 2007; Neuman, Newman, & Dwyer 2010; Corpora-
tion for Public Broadcasting 2011). Similarly, Wainwright
and Linebarger (2006) concluded that while critics have
issued many warnings against television and computers
and their negative effects on children’s learning, the most
logical conclusion to be drawn from the existing scholarly
literature is that it is the educational content that mat-
ters—not the format in which it is presented (Wainwright
& Linebarger 2006). In short, there are some education-
ally valuable television shows, websites, and other digital
media, and there are some that are less valuable or even
educationally worthless.
The amount of time children spend with technology and
media is important (Christakis & Garrison 2009; Vandewa-
ter & Lee 2009; Tandon et al. 2011), but how children spend
time with technology must also be taken into account when

4

determining what is effective and appropriate (Christakis &
Garrison 2009; Tandon et al. 2011). The impact of technol-
ogy is mediated by teachers’ use of the same developmen-
tally appropriate principles and practices that guide the
use of print materials and all other learning tools and con-
tent for young children (Van Scoter, Ellis, & Railsback 2001;
Clements & Sarama 2003a; Plowman & Stephen 2005, 2007).

The appeal of technology can lead to inappropriate
uses in early childhood settings. Technology and media
are tools that are effective only when used appropriately.
The appeal of technology and the steady stream of new
devices may lead some educators to use technology for
technology’s sake, rather than as a means to an end.
Technology should not be used for activities that are not
educationally sound, not developmentally appropriate,
or not effective (electronic worksheets for preschoolers,
for example). Passive use of technology and any type of
screen media is an inappropriate replacement for active
play, engagement with other children, and interactions with
adults. Digitally literate educators who are grounded in
child development theory and developmentally appropri-
ate practices have the knowledge, skills, and experience to
select and use technology tools and interactive media that
suit the ages and developmental levels of the children in
their care, and they know when and how to integrate tech-
nology into the program effectively. Educators who lack
technology skills and digital literacy are at risk of making
inappropriate choices and using technology with young
children in ways that can negatively impact learning and
development.

Issues of equity and access remain unresolved. The poten-
tial of technology and interactive media to positively influence
healthy growth and development makes it important for early
childhood educators to carefully consider issues of equity and
access when they select, use, integrate, and evaluate technol-
ogy and media. Early childhood educators have an opportunity
to provide leadership in assuring equitable access to technol-
ogy tools and interactive media experiences for the children,
parents, and families in their care.
In the early 1960s, Head Start and other early childhood
programs targeted the differences in access to print media
for children from differing economic backgrounds. Today,
educators face similar challenges with regard to technology
tools, media, and broadband access to the Internet. Chil-
dren growing up in affluent families more often have access

to technology tools and broadband connections to the
Internet in their homes, begin using the Internet at an early
age, and have highly developed technology skills and begin-
ning digital literacy when they enter school. Children in
families with fewer resources may have little or no access
to the latest technologies in their homes, early childhood
settings, schools, or communities (Becker 2000; Burdette
& Whitaker 2005; Calvert et al. 2005; National Institute for
Literacy 2008; Cross, Woods, & Schweingruber 2009; Com-
mon Sense Media 2011).
Young children need opportunities to develop the early
“technology-handling” skills associated with early digital
literacy that are akin to the “book-handling” skills associ-
ated with early literacy development (National Institute for
Literacy 2008). The International Society for Technology in
Education (2007) recommends basic skills in technology
operations and concepts by age 5. Early childhood settings
can provide opportunities for exploring digital cameras,
audio and video recorders, printers, and other technolo-
gies to children who otherwise might not have access to
these tools. Educators should also consider the learning
and creative advantage that high-quality interactive media
can bring to children, especially when combined with skill-
ful teaching and complementary curriculum resources
that work together to accelerate learning and narrow the
achievement gap between children from low-income fami-
lies and their more affluent peers.
When educators appropriately integrate technology and
interactive media into their classrooms, equity and access
are addressed by providing opportunities for all children to
participate and learn (Judge, Puckett, & Cabuk 2004; Cross,
Woods, & Schweingruber 2009). In such an environment,
accommodations are made for children with special needs
to use technology independently (Hasselbring & Glaser
2000), and technology strategies to support dual language
learners are in place.
Issues of equity and access also have implications for
early childhood professionals and policymakers. Some
early childhood educators face the same challenges in their
own access to technology tools and Internet broadband at
work or home as do the families of children in their care.
Research and awareness of the value of technology tools
and interactive media in early childhood education need to
be shared with policy makers who are interested in issues
of access and equity for children, parents, families, and
teachers.

5

The Position

It is the position of NAEYC and the Fred Rogers Center that:

Technology and interactive media are tools that can pro-
mote effective learning and development when they are
used intentionally by early childhood educators, within
the framework of developmentally appropriate practice
(NAEYC 2009a), to support learning goals established for
individual children. The framework of developmentally
appropriate practice begins with knowledge about what
children of the age and developmental status represented
in a particular group are typically like. This knowledge
provides a general idea of the activities, routines, interac-
tions, and curriculum that should be effective. Each child
in the particular group is then considered both as an indi-
vidual and within the context of that child’s specific family,
community, culture, linguistic norms, social group, past
experience (including learning and behavior), and current
circumstances (www.naeyc.org/dap/core; retrieved Febru-
ary 2, 2012).
Children’s experiences with technology and interactive
media are increasingly part of the context of their lives,
which must be considered as part of the developmentally
appropriate framework.
To make informed decisions regarding the intentional
use of technology and interactive media in ways that sup-
port children’s learning and development, early childhood
teachers and staff need information and resources on the
nature of these tools and the implications of their use with
children.
NAEYC and the Fred Rogers Center offer the following
principles to guide the use of technology and interactive
media in early childhood programs.

Principles to Guide the Appropriate Use of
Technology and Interactive Media as Tools in
Early Childhood Programs Serving Children
from Birth through Age 8

Above all, the use of technology tools and interactive
media should not harm children. The healthy cognitive,
social, emotional, physical, and linguistic development of the
whole child is as important in the digital age as ever. Access
to technology tools and interactive media should not exclude,
diminish, or interfere with children’s healthy communication,
social interactions, play, and other developmentally appro-
priate activities with peers, family members, and teachers.
Technology and media should never be used in ways that
are emotionally damaging, physically harmful, disrespectful,

degrading, dangerous, exploitative, or intimidating to children.
This includes undue exposure to violence or highly sexualized
images (NAEYC 1994; AAP 2009).
Just as early childhood educators always have been encour-
aged and advised to monitor and apply the latest research
findings in areas such as health and child development, so too
should they continually monitor and assess research findings
on emerging issues related to technology, including 3D vision
and eye health, exposure to electromagnetic fields and radia-
tion from cellular phones (EMR Policy Institute 2011), toxins
from lead paint or batteries, choking hazards involving small
parts, child obesity, screen time, or any other potentially
harmful, physiological, or developmental effects or side effects
related to the use of technology.

Developmentally appropriate practices must guide
decisions about whether and when to integrate technol-
ogy and interactive media into early childhood pro-
grams. Appropriate technology and media use balances
and enhances the use of essential materials, activities, and
interactions in the early childhood setting, becoming part
of the daily routine (Anderson 2000; Van Scoter, Ellis, &
Railsback 2001; Copple & Bredekamp 2009; NAEYC 2009a).
Technology and media should not replace activities such
as creative play, real-life exploration, physical activity,
outdoor experiences, conversation, and social interactions
that are important for children’s development. Technol-
ogy and media should be used to support learning, not an
isolated activity, and to expand young children’s access to
new content (Guernsey 2010a, 2011b).
For infants and toddlers, responsive interactions
between adults and children are essential to early brain
development and to cognitive, social, emotional, physical,
and linguistic development. NAEYC and the Fred Rogers
Center join the public health community in discouraging
the use of screen media for children under the age of 2 in
early childhood programs. Recognizing that there may be
appropriate uses of technology for infants and toddlers in
some contexts (for example, viewing digital photos, par-
ticipating in Skype interactions with loved ones, co-viewing
e-books, and engaging with some interactive apps), educa-
tors should limit the amount of screen time and, as with all
other experiences and activities with infants and toddlers,
ensure that any use of technology and media serves as a
way to strengthen adult-child relationships. Early child-
hood educators always should use their knowledge of child
development and effective practices to carefully and inten-
tionally select and use technology and media if and when
it serves healthy development, learning, creativity, interac-
tions with others, and relationships. This is especially true
for those working with infants and toddlers.

http://www.naeyc.org/dap/core

6

Professional judgment is required to determine if
and when a specific use of technology or media is age
appropriate, individually appropriate, and culturally and
linguistically appropriate. Early childhood educators are
the decision makers in whether, how, what, when, and why
technology and media are implemented through applying
their expertise and knowledge of child development and
learning, individual children’s interests and readiness, and
the social and cultural contexts in which children live. The
adult’s role is critical in making certain that thoughtful
planning, careful implementation, reflection, and evaluation
all guide decision making about how to introduce and inte-
grate any form of technology or media into the classroom
experience. Selecting appropriate technology and media
for the classroom is similar to choosing any other learn-
ing material. Teachers must constantly make reflective,
responsive, and intentional judgments to promote positive
outcomes for each child (NAEYC 2009a).

Developmentally appropriate teaching practices must
always guide the selection of any classroom materials,
including technology and interactive media. Teachers
must take the time to evaluate and select technology and
media for the classroom, carefully observe children’s use of
the materials to identify opportunities and problems, and
then make appropriate adaptations. They must be willing to
learn about and become familiar with new technologies as
they are introduced and be intentional in the choices they
make, including ensuring that content is developmentally
appropriate and that it communicates anti-bias messages.
When selecting technology and media for children,
teachers should not depend on unverifiable claims
included in a product’s marketing material. In the selec-
tion process, program directors and teachers should
consider the allocation of limited resources and cost
effectiveness, including initial cost, the ongoing costs
of updating and upgrading hardware and software,
and other nonspecified costs such as additional items
needed to use the product. Other considerations
include durability for active use by young children and
replacement costs if the device is dropped or dam-
aged. Incentives for children to use the product or buy
more products from the vendor should be reviewed and
considered carefully. If developers and publishers of
technology and media commit to using research-based
information in the development, marketing, and pro-
motion of their products, the selection of technology
and interactive media tools will be less driven by com-
mercial concerns and will become less mysterious and
easier to choose for teachers and parents (Buckleitner
2011a; Fred Rogers Center n.d.).

Appropriate use of technology and media depends on
the age, developmental level, needs, interests, linguistic
background, and abilities of each child. There is a devel-
opmental progression in children’s use of tools and materi-
als, typically moving from exploration to mastery and then
to functional subordination (using the tools to accomplish
other tasks). Anecdotal evidence suggests this same pro-
gression is evident in the ways that children interact with
technology tools. Children need time to explore the func-
tionality of technology before they can be expected to use
these tools to communicate. Just as we encourage children
to use crayons and paper well before we expect them to
write their names, it seems reasonable to provide access to
technology tools for exploration and experimentation.
Certainly, most technology and media are inappropriate
for children from birth to age 2 (at the time of this writing),
and there has been no documented association between
passive viewing of screen media and specific learning out-
comes in infants and toddlers (Schmidt et al. 2009). Infants
and toddlers need responsive interactions with adults.
Yet mobile, multitouch screens and newer technologies
have changed the way our youngest children interact with
images, sounds, and ideas (Buckleitner 2011b). Infant care-
givers must be sure that any exposure to technology and
media is very limited; that it is used for exploration and
includes shared joint attention and language-rich interac-
tions; and that it does not reduce the opportunities for
tuned-in and attentive interactions between the child and
the caregiver. Preschoolers have varying levels of ability
to control technology and media, but with adult mediation
they can demonstrate mastery of simple digital devices
and are often seen using the tools as part of their pretend
play. School-age children who are more proficient in using
technology can harness these tools to communicate ideas
and feelings, investigate the environment, and locate infor-
mation. As devices and apps become more user-friendly,
younger children are becoming increasingly proficient in
using technological tools to accomplish a task—making a
picture, playing a game, recording a story, taking a photo,
making a book, or engaging in other age-appropriate learn-
ing activities. Technology tools and interactive media are
one more source of exploration and mastery.

Effective uses of technology and media are active,
hands-on, engaging, and empowering; give the child
control; provide adaptive scaffolds to ease the accom-
plishment of tasks; and are used as one of many options
to support children’s learning. To align and integrate tech-
nology and media with other core experiences and oppor-
tunities, young children need tools that help them explore,
create, problem solve, consider, think, listen and view criti-

7

cally, make decisions, observe, document, research, investi-
gate ideas, demonstrate learning, take turns, and learn with
and from one another.
Effective technology tools connect on-screen and off-
screen activities with an emphasis on co-viewing and co-
participation between adults and children and children and
their peers (Takeuchi 2011). These tools have the potential
to bring adults and children together for a shared experi-
ence, rather than keeping them apart. For example, a care-
giver may choose to read a story in traditional print form,
as an interactive e-book on an electronic device, or both.
When experienced in the context of human interaction,
these different types of engagements with media become
very similar. Early book reading and other joint adult-child
exploration can include co-viewing and co-media engage-
ment. Growing concerns that television viewing and com-
puter games are taking time away from physical activities
and outdoor play can be offset by the use of technology
and interactive media that encourage outdoor exploration
and documentation of nature or that integrate physical
activity and encourage children to get up and be mobile
rather than sit passively in front of a screen.
Technology and media are just two of the many types of
tools that can be used effectively and appropriately with
young children in the classroom. As with many things,
technology and media should be used in moderation and to
enhance and be integrated into classroom experiences, not
to replace essential activities, experiences, and materials.

When used appropriately, technology and media can
enhance children’s cognitive and social abilities. Tech-
nology and media offer opportunities to extend learning
in early childhood settings in much the same way as other
materials, such as blocks, manipulatives, art materials, play
materials, books, and writing materials. Screen media can
expose children to animals, objects, people, landscapes,
activities, and places that they cannot experience in per-
son. Technology can also help children save, document,
revisit, and share their real-life experiences through images,
stories, and sounds.
The active, appropriate use of technology and media
can support and extend traditional materials in valuable
ways. Research points to the positive effects of technol-
ogy in children’s learning and development, both cognitive
and social (Haugland 1999, 2000; Freeman & Somerindyke
2001; Heft & Swaminathan 2002; Clements & Sarama 2003a,
2003b; Fischer & Gillespie 2003; Rideout, Vandewater, &
Wartella 2003; Greenfield 2004; Kirkorian, Wartella, & Ander-
son 2008; Linebarger, Piotrowski, & Lapierre 2009; Adams
2011). Additional research is needed to confirm the positive
outcomes of technology tools on children’s language and

vocabulary development, logical-mathematical understand-
ing, problem-solving skills, self-regulation, and social skills
development.

Interactions with technology and media should be
playful and support creativity, exploration, pretend
play, active play, and outdoor activities. Play is central
to children’s development and learning. Children’s inter-
actions with technology and media mirror their interac-
tions with other play materials and include sensorimo-
tor or practice play, make-believe play, and games with
rules. Therefore, young children need opportunities to
explore technology and interactive media in playful and
creative ways. Appropriate experiences with technology
and media allow children to control the medium and the
outcome of the experience, to explore the functionality
of these tools, and to pretend how they might be used in
real life. Increasingly, educational media producers are
exploring the learning power of interactive games and
collaborative play involving children and their family
members or teachers. Digital games fall into a similar
category as board games and other self-correcting learn-
ing activities, with the same opportunities and cautions
related to children’s developmental stages.

Technology tools can help educators make and
strengthen home–school connections. With technol-
ogy becoming more prevalent as a means of sharing
information and communicating with one another, early
childhood educators have an opportunity to build
stronger relationships with parents and enhance family
engagement. Early childhood educators always have had
a responsibility to support parents and families by shar-
ing knowledge about child development and learning.
Technology tools offer new opportunities for educators
to build relationships, maintain ongoing communication,
and exchange information and share online resources
with parents and families. Likewise, parents and families
can use technology to ask questions, seek advice, share
information about their child, and feel more engaged in
the program and their child’s experiences there.
Technology tools such as smartphones, mobile devices,
and apps offer new and more affordable ways for busy fam-
ily members to communicate, connect to the Internet, and
access information and social media tools to stay in touch
with their families and their child’s teachers and caregivers.
Internet-based communication tools offer new opportuni-
ties for video calling and conferencing when face-to-face
meetings are not possible; these same technology tools
can connect children to other family members who live at
a distance. As they do for young children, educators have a

8

responsibility to parents and families to model appropriate,
effective, and positive uses of technology, media, methods
of communication, and social media that are safe, secure,
healthy, acceptable, responsible, and ethical.
Technology tools can support the ways educators mea-
sure and record development, document growth, plan
activities, and share information with parents, families,
and communities. Teachers can use digital portfolios that
include photographs as well as audio and video recordings
to document, archive, and share a child’s accomplishments
and developmental progression with families in face-to-face
conferences or through communication and social media
tools. Displaying photos in the classroom of children’s
drawings or block buildings, along with narratives dictated
by the children or explanations of why these types of play
are important, can help families understand the critical role
of play in early childhood development. Sending weekly,
monthly, or even daily updates through social media or
e-mail can help families feel more connected to their chil-
dren and their activities away from home. Inviting children
to take a picture of something they have done and helping
them upload the photo to a file that can be e-mailed pro-
mote children’s understanding of ways to communicate
with others while also contributing to their learning more
about the functions of reading and writing.
Most educators understand the value of writing down or
recording notes that a child may want to give to parents.
Using e-mail, educational texting, or other communication
tools demonstrates the same concept about communica-
tion and helps to build digital literacy skills at the same
time. If information is stored on a computer, the photos and
notes can be printed and given to families who do not use
technology to send or receive messages (Edutopia 2010).
Modeling the effective use of technology and interactive
media for parent communication and family engagement
also creates opportunities to help parents themselves
become better informed, empowers them to make responsi-
ble choices about technology use and screen time at home,
engages them as teachers who can extend classroom learn-
ing activities into the home, and encourages co-viewing, co-
participation, and joint media engagement between parents
and their children (Stevens & Penuel 2010; Takeuchi 2011).

Technology and media can enhance early childhood
practice when integrated into the environment, curricu-
lum, and daily routines. Successful integration of technol-
ogy and media into early childhood programs involves
the use of resources such as computers, digital cameras,
software applications, and the Internet in daily classroom
practices (Edutopia 2007; Technology and Young Children
Interest Forum 2008; Hertz 2011). True integration occurs

when the use of technology and media becomes routine
and transparent—when the focus of a child or educator is
on the activity or exploration itself and not on the technol-
ogy or media being used. Technology integration has been
successful when the use of technology and media supports
the goals of educators and programs for children, provides
children with digital tools for learning and communicating,
and helps improve child outcomes (Edutopia 2007).
Careful evaluation and selection of materials are essential
in early childhood settings. For example, one of the earliest
and most familiar technologies in early childhood settings
is Froebel’s use of blocks. Montessori materials are another
example of what we consider to be traditional early child-
hood supplies. Felt-tipped markers brought a new way for
children to explore graphic representation that fell some-
where between paintbrushes and crayons.
As the lives of children, parents, families, and educators
are infused with technology and media, early childhood
classrooms can benefit from the possibilities of extending
children’s learning through judicious use of these tools. As
part of the overall classroom plan, technology and interac-
tive media should be used in ways that support existing
classroom developmental and educational goals rather
than in ways that distort or replace them. For example,
drawing on a touch screen can add to children’s graphic
representational experiences; manipulating colorful acetate
shapes on a light table allows children to explore color
and shape. These opportunities should not replace paints,
markers, crayons, and other graphic art materials but
should provide additional options for self-expression.
With a focus on technology and interactive media as
tools—not as ends in and of themselves—teachers can
avoid the passive and potentially harmful use of non-inter-
active, linear screen media that is inappropriate in early
childhood settings. Intentionality is key to developmentally
appropriate use. One must consider whether the goals can
be more easily achieved using traditional classroom materi-
als or whether the use of particular technology and interac-
tive media tools actually extends learning and development
in ways not possible otherwise.
Exciting new resources in today’s technology-rich world,
such as 3D-rendered collaborative games and immersive
world environments, represent the next frontier in digital
learning for our youngest citizens, leaving it to talented
educators and caring adults to determine how best to lever-
age each new technology as an opportunity for children’s
learning in ways that are developmentally appropriate.
Careful evaluation and selection of materials is essential
for the appropriate integration of technology and media in
early childhood settings.

9

Assistive technology must be available as needed to
provide equitable access for children with special needs.
For children with special needs, technology has proven to
have many potential benefits. Technology can be a tool to
augment sensory input or reduce distractions. It can pro-
vide support for cognitive processing or enhancing mem-
ory and recall. The variety of adaptive and assistive tech-
nologies ranges from low-tech toys with simple switches to
expansive high-tech systems capable of managing complex
environments. When used thoughtfully, these technologies
can empower young children, increasing their indepen-
dence and supporting their inclusion in classes with their
peers. With adapted materials, young children with disabili-
ties can be included in activities in which they once would
have been unable to participate. By using assistive technol-
ogy, educators can increase the likelihood that children will
have the ability to learn, move, communicate, and create.
Technology has supported inclusive practices in early
childhood settings by providing adaptations that allow
children with disabilities to participate more fully. Augmen-
tative communication devices, switches, and other assis-
tive devices have become staples in classrooms that serve
children with special needs. Yet, with all of these enhanced
capabilities, these technologies require thoughtful inte-
gration into the early childhood curriculum. Educators
must match the technology to each child’s unique needs,
learning styles, and individual preferences (Behrmann
1998; Muligan 2003; Sadao & Robinson 2010). It is critically
important that all early childhood teachers understand and
are able to use any assistive technologies that are available
to children with special needs in their classrooms and to
extend similar or comparable technology and media-based
opportunities to other children in their classrooms.

Technology tools can be effective for dual language
learners by providing access to a family’s home language
and culture while supporting English language learning.
Research has shown that access to information in the home
language contributes to young children’s progress both in
their home language and in English (Espinosa 2008). Digital
technologies allow teachers to find culturally and linguisti-
cally appropriate stories, games, music, and activities for
every child when there may be no other way to obtain
those resources (Uchikoshi 2006; Nemeth 2009). Because
every child needs active practice in the four domains of
language and literacy (speaking, listening, writing, and read-
ing), technology resources should support active learning,
conversation, exploration, and self-expression. Technology
should be used as a tool to enhance language and literacy,
but it should not be used to replace personal interactions.
The role of language in developing self-esteem and social

skills must also be considered in making technology plans
for diverse classrooms.
Digital technologies can be used to support home lan-
guages by creating stories and activities when programs
lack the funds to purchase them or when languages are
hard to find. Technology can be used to explore the cul-
tures and environments that each child has experienced,
and it allows children to communicate with people in their
different countries of origin. Technology may be needed
to adapt existing materials; for example, by adding new
languages to classroom labels, translating key words in
books and games, or providing models for the writing area.
With technology, adults and children can hear and practice
accurate pronunciations so they can learn one another’s
languages. If teachers do not speak a child’s language, they
may use technology to record the child’s speech for later
translation and documentation of the child’s progress. As
linguistic and cultural diversity continues to increase, early
childhood educators encounter a frequently changing array
of languages. Appropriate, sensitive use of technology can
provide the flexibility and responsiveness required to meet
the needs of each new child and ensure equitable access
for children who are dual language learners (Nemeth 2009).

Digital literacy is essential to guiding early childhood
educators and parents in the selection, use, integration,
and evaluation of technology and interactive media.
Technology and media literacy are essential for the adults
who work with young children. The prevalence of technol-
ogy and media in the daily lives of young children and their
families—in their learning and in their work—will continue
to increase and expand in more ways than we can predict.
Early childhood educators need to understand that tech-
nology and media-based materials can vary widely in qual-
ity, and they must be able to effectively identify products
that help rather than hinder early learning (NAEYC 2009a).
For the adults who work with young children, digital
literacy includes both knowledge and competence. Edu-
cators need the understanding, skills, and ability to use
technology and interactive media to access information,
communicate with other professionals, and participate in
professional development to improve learning and prepare
young children for a lifetime of technology use. Digital
and media literacy for educators means that they have
the knowledge and experience to think critically about the
selection, analysis, use, and evaluation of technology and
media for young children in order to evaluate their impact
on learning and development. Digital and media literacy for
children means having critical viewing, listening, and Web-
browsing skills. Children learn to filter the messages they
receive to make wise choices and gain skills in effectively

10

using technology and technology- and media-based infor-
mation (NAMLE 2007; Rogow & Scheibe 2007; ISTE 2008a,
2008b; Center for Media Literacy 2010; Hobbs 2010). These
habits of inquiry transfer to all areas of the curriculum and
to lifelong learning.
Using technology to support practice and enhance
learning requires professional judgment about what is
developmentally and culturally appropriate (Hobbs 2010).
Early childhood educators who are informed, intentional,
and reflective use technology and interactive media as
additional tools for enriching the learning environment.
They choose technology, technology-supported activities,
and media that serve their teaching and learning goals
and needs. They align their use of technology and media
with curriculum goals, a child-centered and play-oriented
approach, hands-on exploration, active meaning making,
and relationship building (Technology and Young Children
Interest Forum 2008). They ensure equitable access so that
all children can participate. They use technology as a tool
in child assessment, and they recognize the value of these
tools for parent communication and family engagement.
They model the use of technology and interactive media as
professional resources to connect with colleagues and con-
tinue their own educational and professional development.

Digital citizenship
is an important part of
digital literacy for young
children. Digital citizen-
ship in the context of
early childhood programs
refers to the need for
adults to help children
develop an emerging
understanding of the use,
misuse, and abuse of tech-
nology and the norms of
appropriate, responsible,
and ethical behaviors
related to online rights,
roles, identity, safety,
security, and communication. Adults have a responsibility
to protect and empower children—to protect them in a way
that helps them develop the skills they need to ultimately
protect themselves as they grow—and to help children
learn to ask questions and think critically about the tech-
nologies and media they use. Adults have a responsibil-
ity to expose children to, and to model, developmentally
appropriate and active uses of digital tools, media, and
methods of communication and learning in safe, healthy,
acceptable, responsible, and socially positive ways.

Young children need to develop knowledge of and experi-
ences with technology and media as tools, to differentiate
between appropriate and inappropriate uses, and to begin
to understand the consequences of inappropriate uses.
Issues of cyber safety—the need to protect and not share
personal information on the Internet, and to have a trusted
adult to turn to—are all aspects of a child’s emerging digital
citizenship that can begin with technology and media expe-
riences in the early years. Children need to be protected by
educators and parents against exploitation for commercial
purposes. A child’s image should never be used online with-
out parental consent (ISTE 2007). Digital citizenship also
includes developing judgment regarding appropriate use
of digital media; children and adults need to be able to find
and choose appropriate and valid sources, resources, tools,
and applications for completing a task, seeking information,
learning, and entertainment.

Early childhood educators need training, profes-
sional development opportunities, and examples of
successful practice to develop the technology and
media knowledge, skills, and experience needed to
meet the expectations set forth in this statement. In
recent years, smartphones, tablets, apps, game con-
soles and handheld game devices, streaming media, and
social media have found their way into the personal
and professional lives of early childhood educators;
into early childhood programs serving young children,
parents, and families; and into the homes of young chil-
dren (Donohue 2010a, 2010b; Simon & Donohue 2011).
Early childhood educators, parents, and families need
guidance to make informed decisions about how to sup-
port learning through technology and interactive media,
which technology and media tools are appropriate,
when to integrate technology and media into an early
childhood setting and at home, how to use these tools to
enhance communication with parents and families, and
how to support digital and media literacy for parents
and children.
To realize the principles and recommendations of
this statement, early childhood educators must be
supported with quality preparation and professional
development. Early childhood educators need available,
affordable, and accessible professional development
opportunities that include in-depth, hands-on technol-
ogy training, ongoing support, and access to the latest
technology tools and interactive media (Appel & O’Gara
2001; Guernsey 2010b, 2011a; Barron et al. 2011). Edu-
cators must be knowledgeable and prepared to make
informed decisions about how and when to appropri-
ately select, use, integrate, and evaluate technology and

The term digital citizenship
refers to the need for adults and
children to be responsible digital
citizens through an understanding
of the use, abuse, and misuse of
technology as well as the norms
of appropriate, responsible, and
ethical behaviors related to online
rights, roles, identity, safety, secu-
rity, and communication.

11

media to meet the cognitive, social, emotional, physical,
and linguistic needs of young children. Educators also
need to be knowledgeable enough to answer parents’
questions and steer children to technology and media
experiences that have the potential to exert a positive
influence on their development (Barron et al. 2011;
Guernsey 2011b, 2011c; Takeuchi 2011).
Teaching in the age of digital learning also has implica-
tions for early childhood teacher educators in how they
integrate technology tools and interactive media in the
on-campus and online courses they teach, how well they
prepare future early childhood teachers to use technology
and media intentionally and appropriately in the classroom
with young children and how well future teachers under-
stand and embrace their role with parents and families
(NAEYC 2009b; Rosen & Jaruszewicz 2009; Barron et al.
2011). Teacher educators need to provide technology-
mediated and online learning experiences that are effective,
engaging, and empowering and that lead to better out-
comes for young children in the classroom. This requires
knowledge of how adults learn and of how technology can
be used effectively to teach teachers (NAEYC 2009b; Barron
et al. 2011).
Current and future early childhood educators also need
positive examples of how technology has been selected,
used, integrated, and evaluated successfully in early
childhood classrooms and programs. To implement the
principles and recommended practices contained in this
statement, educators need access to resources and online
links, videos, and a professional community of practice in
which promising examples and applications of emerging
technologies and new media can be demonstrated, shared,
and discussed.

Research is needed to better understand how young
children use and learn with technology and interactive
media and also to better understand any short- and long-
term effects. The established body of research and literature
on the effects of television viewing and screen time on young
children, while foundational, does not adequately inform
educators and parents about the effects of multiple digital
devices, each with its own screen. As multitouch technolo-
gies and other emerging user interface possibilities become
more affordable and available, new research is needed on
what young children are able to do and how these tools and
media can be integrated in a classroom. Research-based evi-
dence about what constitutes quality technology and interac-
tive media for young children is needed to guide policy and
inform practice and to ensure that technology and media
tools are used in effective, engaging, and appropriate ways in
early childhood programs.

Recommendations

NAEYC and the Fred Rogers Center recommend
that early childhood educators

1. Select, use, integrate, and evaluate technology and
interactive media tools in intentional and develop-
mentally appropriate ways, giving careful attention to
the appropriateness and the quality of the content,
the child’s experience, and the opportunities for
co-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 child-
hood 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.

Summary

This statement provides general guidance to educators
on developmentally appropriate practices with technology
and interactive media. It is the role and responsibility of the
educator to make informed, intentional, and appropriate
choices about if, how, and when technology and media are
used in early childhood classrooms for children from birth
through age 8. Technology and interactive media should

12

not replace other beneficial educational activities such as
creative play, outdoor experiences, and social interactions
with peers and adults in early childhood settings. Educa-
tors should provide a balance of activities in programs for
young children, and technology and media should be rec-
ognized as tools that are valuable when used intentionally
with children to extend and support active, hands-on, cre-
ative, and authentic engagement with those around them
and with their world.
Educators should use professional judgment in evaluat-
ing and using technology and media, just as they would
with any other learning tool or experience, and they must
emphasize active engagement rather than passive, non-
interactive uses. To achieve balance in their programs and
classrooms, they should weigh the costs of technology,
media, and other learning materials against their program’s
resources, and they also should weigh the use of digital and
electronic materials against the use of natural and tradi-
tional materials and objects.
Support for early childhood professionals is critically
important. Educators need available, affordable, and acces-
sible technology and media resources as well as access to
research findings, online resources and links, and a profes-
sional community of practice. Preservice and professional
development opportunities should include in-depth, hands-
on technology experiences, ongoing support, and access
to the latest technology tools and interactive media. To
improve and enhance the use of technology and interactive
media in early childhood programs, educators also need
positive examples of how technology has been selected,
used, integrated, and evaluated successfully in early child-
hood classrooms and programs.
Further research is needed to better understand how
young children use and learn with technology and interac-
tive media and also to better understand any short- and
long-term effects. Research also is needed to support evi-
dence-based practice for the effective and appropriate uses
of technology and interactive media as tools for learning
and development in early childhood settings.

References
AAP (American Academy of Pediatrics). 2009. “Policy Statement—

Media Violence.” Pediatrics 124 (5): 1495–503. www.pediatrics.org/cgi/
doi/10.1542/peds.2009-2146.

AAP (American Academy of Pediatrics). 2010. “Policy Statement—Media
Education.” Pediatrics 126 (5): 1012–17. www.pediatrics.org/cgi/
doi/10.1542/peds.2010-1636

AAP (American Academy of Pediatrics). 2011a, June 13. Council on
Communications and Media letter to the National Association for the
Education of Young Children.

AAP (American Academy of Pediatrics). 2011b. “Policy Statement—
Media Use by Children Younger Than 2 Years.” Pediatrics 128 (5):
1–7. http://pediatrics.aappublications.org/content/early/2011/10/12/
peds.2011-1753

Adams, M.J. 2011. Technology for Developing Children’s Language
and Literacy: Bringing Speech Recognition to the Classroom. New
York: The Joan Ganz Cooney Center at Sesame Workshop. http://
joanganzcooneycenter.org/Reports-30.html

Alper, M. “Developmentally Appropriate New Media Literacies:
Supporting Cultural Competencies and Social Skills in Early Childhood
Education.” Journal of Early Childhood Literacy (forthcoming).

Anderson, D.R., & T.A. Pempek. 2005. “Television and Very Young
Children.” American Behavioral Scientist 48 (5): 505–22.

Anderson, G.T. 2000. “Computers in a Developmentally Appropriate
Curriculum.” Young Children 55 (2): 90–93.

Appel, A.E., & C. O’Gara. 2001. “Technology and Young Children: A
Review of Literature.” TechKnowLogia 3 (5): 35–36. http://ict.aed.org/
infocenter/pdfs/technologyandyoung

Barron, B., G. Cayton-Hodges, L. Bofferding, C. Copple, L. Darling-
Hammond, & M.H. Levine. 2011. Take a Giant Step: A Blueprint for
Teaching Young Children in a Digital Age. New York: Joan Ganz Cooney
Center at Sesame Workshop. www.joanganzcooneycenter.org/
Reports-31.html

Becker, H.J. 2000. “Who’s Wired and Who’s Not: Children’s Access to
and Use of Computer Technology.” The Future of Children 10 (2):
44–75. www.crito.uci.edu/tlc/FINDINGS/WhosWiredWhosNot

Behrmann, M. 1998. Assistive Technology for Young Children in
Special Education: It Makes a Difference. San Rafael, CA: The
George Lucas Educational Foundation. www.edutopia.org/
assistive-technology-young-children-special-education

Berson, I.R., & M.J. Berson, eds. 2010. High-Tech Tots: Childhood in a
Digital World. Charlotte, NC: Information Age Publishing.

Birch, L.L, L. Parker, & A. Burns, eds. 2011. Early Childhood Obesity
Prevention Policies. Washington, DC: National Academies Press. www.
iom.edu/Reports/2011/Early-Childhood-Obesity-Prevention-Policies.
aspx

Brooks-Gunn, J., & E.H. Donahue. 2008. “Introducing the Issue.” The
Future of Children 18 (1): 3–10. www.princeton.edu/futureofchildren/
publications/docs/18_01_01

Buckleitner, W. 2009. “What Should a Preschooler Know about
Technology?” Early Childhood Today. www2.scholastic.com/browse/
article.jsp?id=3751484

Buckleitner, W. 2011a. A Code of Ethics for the Publishers of Interactive
Media for Children. http://bit.ly/eo9cui

Buckleitner, W. 2011b. “Setting Up a Multi-Touch Preschool.” Children’s
Technology Review 19 (3): 5–9. www.childrenssoftware.com/pdf/g3

Burdette, H.L., & R.C. Whitaker. 2005. “A National Study of
Neighborhood Safety, Outdoor Play, Television Viewing, and Obesity
in Preschool Children.” Pediatrics 116 (3): 657–62. http://pediatrics.
aappublications.org/content/116/3/657.full

Calvert, S.L., V.J. Rideout, J.L. Woolard, R.F. Barr, & G.A. Strouse. 2005.
“Age, Ethnicity, and Socioeconomic Patterns in Early Computer Use: A
National Survey.” American Behavioral Scientist 48 (5): 590–607.

Campaign for a Commercial-Free Childhood. 2010, July 26. CCFC letter
to Jerlean Daniel, Executive Director, National Association for the

http://www.pediatrics.org/cgi/doi/10.1542/peds.2009-2146

http://www.pediatrics.org/cgi/doi/10.1542/peds.2009-2146

http://www.pediatrics.org/cgi/doi/10.1542/peds.2010-1636

http://www.pediatrics.org/cgi/doi/10.1542/peds.2010-1636

http://pediatrics.aappublications.org/content/early/2011/10/12/peds.2011-1753

http://pediatrics.aappublications.org/content/early/2011/10/12/peds.2011-1753

http://joanganzcooneycenter.org/Reports-30.html

http://joanganzcooneycenter.org/Reports-30.html

http://ict.aed.org/infocenter/pdfs/technologyandyoung

http://ict.aed.org/infocenter/pdfs/technologyandyoung

www.joanganzcooneycenter.org/Reports-31.html

www.joanganzcooneycenter.org/Reports-31.html

www.crito.uci.edu/tlc/FINDINGS/WhosWiredWhosNot

http://www.edutopia.org/assistive-technology-young-children-special-education

http://www.edutopia.org/assistive-technology-young-children-special-education

http://www.iom.edu/Reports/2011/Early-Childhood-Obesity-Prevention-Policies.aspx

http://www.iom.edu/Reports/2011/Early-Childhood-Obesity-Prevention-Policies.aspx

http://www.iom.edu/Reports/2011/Early-Childhood-Obesity-Prevention-Policies.aspx

www.princeton.edu/futureofchildren/publications/docs/18_01_01

www.princeton.edu/futureofchildren/publications/docs/18_01_01

http://www2.scholastic.com/browse/article.jsp?id=3751484

http://www2.scholastic.com/browse/article.jsp?id=3751484

http://bit.ly/eo9cui

http://www.childrenssoftware.com/pdf/g3

http://pediatrics.aappublications.org/content/116/3/657.full

http://pediatrics.aappublications.org/content/116/3/657.full

13

Education of Young Children. www.commercialfreechildhood.org/pdf/
naeycletter

Center for Media Literacy. 2010. MediaLit Kit. Malibu, CA: Author. www.
medialit.org/cml-medialit-kit

Chiong, C., & C. Shuler. 2010. Learning: Is There an App for That?
Investigations of Young Children’s Usage and Learning with Mobile
Devices and Apps. New York: The Joan Ganz Cooney Center at Sesame
Workshop. http://pbskids.org/read/files/cooney_learning_apps

Christakis, D.A., F.J. Zimmerman, D.L. DiGiuseppe, & C.A. McCarty. 2004.
“Early Television Exposure and Subsequent Attentional Problems in
Children.” Pediatrics 113 (4): 708–13. http://pediatrics.aappublications.
org/content/113/4/708.full.html

Christakis, D.A., & M.M. Garrison. 2009. “Preschool-Aged Children’s
Television Viewing in Child Care Settings.” Pediatrics 124 (6): 1627–32.
http://pediatrics.aappublications.org/content/124/6/1627.full

Clements, D.H., & J. Sarama. 2003a. “Strip Mining for Gold: Research and
Policy in Educational Technology—A Response to ‘Fool’s Gold.’” AACE
Journal 11 (1): 7–69.

Clements, D.H., & J. Sarama. 2003b. “Young Children and Technology:
What Does the Research Say?” Young Children 58 (6): 34–40.

Common Sense Media. 2008. Media + Child and Adolescent Health: A
Systematic Review. San Francisco: Author. http://ipsdweb.ipsd.org/
uploads/IPPC/CSM%20Media%20Health%20Report

Common Sense Media. 2011. Zero to Eight: Children’s Media Use in
America. San Francisco: Author. www.commonsensemedia.org/
research/zero-eight-childrens-media-use-america

Copple, C., & S. Bredekamp, eds. 2009. Developmentally Appropriate
Practice in Early Childhood Programs Serving Children from Birth
through Age 8. 3rd ed. Washington, DC: NAEYC.

Cordes, C., & E. Miller, eds. 2000. Fool’s Gold: A Critical Look at
Computers in Childhood. College Park, MD: Alliance for Childhood.
http://drupal6.allianceforchildhood.org/fools_gold

Corporation for Public Broadcasting. 2011. Findings from Ready
to Learn 2005–2010. Washington, DC: Author. www.cpb.org/rtl/
FindingsFromReadyToLearn2005-2010

Couse, L.J., & D.W. Chen. 2010. “A Tablet Computer for Young Children?
Exploring Its Viability for Early Childhood Education.” Journal of
Research on Technology in Education 43 (1): 75–98.

Cross, C.T., T.A. Woods, & H.A. Schweingruber, eds. 2009. Mathematics
Learning in Early Childhood: Paths toward Excellence and Equity.
Washington, DC: National Academies Press.

DeLoache, J.S., C. Chiong, K. Sherman, N. Islam, M. Vanderborght, G.L.
Troseth, G.A. Strouse, & K. O’Doherty. 2010. “Do Babies Learn from
Baby Media?” Psychological Science 21 (11): 1570–74. http://pss.
sagepub.com/content/21/11/1570

Donohue, C. 2010a. “There’s an App for (Almost) Everything: New
Technology Tools for EC Professionals—Part 2.” Exchange 195: 40–44.
https://secure.ccie.com/library/5019540

Donohue, C. 2010b. “What’s in Your Toolbox? New Technology Tools for
EC Professionals—Part 1.” Exchange 193: 82–87. https://secure.ccie.
com/library/5019382

Edutopia. 2007. What Is Successful Technology Integration? Well-
Integrated Use of Technology Resources by Thoroughly Trained Teachers
Makes Twenty-First-Century Learning Possible. www.edutopia.org/
technology-integration-guide-description

Edutopia. 2011. Home-to-School Connections Guide: Tips, Tech Tools,
and Strategies for Improving Family-to-School Communication. Rafael,
CA: The George Lucas Educational Foundation. www.edutopia.org/
home-to-school-connections-guide

EMR Policy Institute. 2011, May 31. Letter to Jerlean Daniel, Executive
Director, National Association for the Education of Young Children.

Espinosa, L.M. 2008. Challenging Common Myths about Young English
Language Learners. FCD Policy Brief: Advancing PK–3, No. 8. New York:
Foundation for Child Development. http://fcd-us.org/sites/default/
files/MythsOfTeachingELLsEspinosa

Fischer, M.A., & C.W. Gillespie. 2003. “Computers and Young Children’s
Development: One Head Start Classroom’s Experience.” Young
Children 58 (4): 85–91.

Flewitt, R.S. 2011. “Bringing Ethnography to a Multimodal Investigation
of Early Literacy in a Digital Age.” Qualitative Research 11 (3): 293–310.

Foundation for Excellence in Education. 2010. Digital Learning Now!
Tallahassee, FL: Author. www.excelined.org/Docs/Digital%20
Learning%20Now%20Report%20FINAL

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).

Freeman, N.K., & J. Somerindyke. 2001. “Social Play at the Computer:
Preschoolers Scaffold and Support Peers’ Computer Competence.”
Information Technology in Childhood Education Annual 1: 203–13.

Funk, J.B., J. Brouwer, K. Curtiss, & E. McBroom. 2009. “Parents
of Preschoolers: Expert Media Recommendations and Ratings
Knowledge, Media-Effects Beliefs, and Monitoring Practices.”
Pediatrics 123 (3): 981–88. http://pediatrics.aappublications.org/
content/123/3/981.short

Greenfield, P.M. 2004. “Developmental Considerations for Determining
Appropriate Internet Use Guidelines for Children and Adolescents.”
Applied Developmental Psychology 25 (2004): 751–62. www.cdmc.ucla.
edu/Published_Research_files/Developmental_considerations

Guernsey, L. 2010a. “Screens, Kids, and the NAEYC Position Statement.”
Early Ed Watch (blog), August 2. Washington, DC: New America
Foundation. http://earlyed.newamerica.net/blogposts/2010/
screens_kids_and_the_naeyc_position_statement-35103

Guernsey, L. 2010b. “When Young Children Use Technology.”
Early Ed Watch (blog), July 13. Washington, DC: New America
Foundation. http://earlyed.newamerica.net/blogposts/2010/
when_young_children_use_technology-34279

Guernsey, L. 2011a. “EdTech for the Younger Ones? Not Without Trained
Teachers.” Huffington Post (blog), November 17. www.huffingtonpost.
com/lisa-guernsey/edtech-for-the-playdough-_b_1097277.html

Guernsey, L. 2011b. “A Modest Proposal for Digital Media in
Early Childhood.” Early Ed Watch (blog), June 24. Washington,
DC: New America Foundation. http://earlyed.newamerica.net/
blogposts/2011/a_modest_proposal_for_digital_media_in_early_
childhood-53669

Guernsey, L. 2011c. “Young Kids and the Popularity of Digital
‘Portability.’” Early Ed Watch (blog), March 24. Washington, DC: New
America Foundation. http://earlyed.newamerica.net/blogposts/2011/
young_kids_and_the_popularity_of_digital_portability-47124

Gutnick, A.L., M. Robb, L. Takeuchi, & J. Kotler. 2011. Always
Connected: The New Digital Media Habits of Young Children. New
York: The Joan Ganz Cooney Center at Sesame Workshop. http://
joanganzcooneycenter.org/Reports-28.html

Hasselbring, T.S., & C.H.W. Glaser. 2000. “Use of Computer Technology
to Help Students with Special Needs.” The Future of Children 10 (2):
102–22. http://familiestogetherinc.com/wp-content/uploads/2011/08/
COMPUTERTECHNEEDS

Haugland, S.W. 1999. “What Role Should Technology Play in Young
Children’s Learning? Part 1.” Young Children 54 (6): 26–31.

Haugland, S.W. 2000. “What Role Should Technology Play in Young
Children’s Learning? Part 2.” Young Children 55 (1): 12–18.

Heft, T.M., & S. Swaminathan. 2002. “The Effects of Computers on the
Social Behavior of Preschoolers.” Journal of Research in Childhood
Education 16 (2): 162–74.

Hertz, M.B. 2011. “What Does ‘Technology Integration’ Mean?”
Edutopia (blog), March 16. San Rafael, CA: The George
Lucas Educational Foundation. www.edutopia.org/blog/
meaning-tech-integration-elementary-mary-beth-hertz

Hobbs, R. 2010. Digital and Media Literacy: A Plan of Action. Washington,
DC: The Aspen Institute. http://www.knightcomm.org/wp-content/
uploads/2010/12/Digital_and_Media_Literacy_A_Plan_of_Action

http://www.commercialfreechildhood.org/pdf/naeycletter

http://www.commercialfreechildhood.org/pdf/naeycletter

www.medialit.org/cml-medialit-kit

www.medialit.org/cml-medialit-kit

http://pbskids.org/read/files/cooney_learning_apps

http://pediatrics.aappublications.org/content/113/4/708.full.html

http://pediatrics.aappublications.org/content/113/4/708.full.html

http://pediatrics.aappublications.org/content/124/6/1627.full

http://ipsdweb.ipsd.org/uploads/IPPC/CSM%20Media%20Health%20Report

http://ipsdweb.ipsd.org/uploads/IPPC/CSM%20Media%20Health%20Report

www.commonsensemedia.org/research/zero-eight-childrens-media-use-america

www.commonsensemedia.org/research/zero-eight-childrens-media-use-america

http://drupal6.allianceforchildhood.org/fools_gold

www.cpb.org/rtl/FindingsFromReadyToLearn2005-2010

www.cpb.org/rtl/FindingsFromReadyToLearn2005-2010

http://pss.sagepub.com/content/21/11/1570

http://pss.sagepub.com/content/21/11/1570

https://secure.ccie.com/library/5019540

https://secure.ccie.com/library/5019382

https://secure.ccie.com/library/5019382

http://www.edutopia.org/technology-integration-guide-description

http://www.edutopia.org/technology-integration-guide-description

http://www.edutopia.org/home-to-school-connections-guide

http://www.edutopia.org/home-to-school-connections-guide

http://fcd-us.org/sites/default/files/MythsOfTeachingELLsEspinosa

http://fcd-us.org/sites/default/files/MythsOfTeachingELLsEspinosa

http://www.excelined.org/Docs/Digital%20Learning%20Now%20Report%20FINAL

http://www.excelined.org/Docs/Digital%20Learning%20Now%20Report%20FINAL

http://pediatrics.aappublications.org/content/123/3/981.short

http://pediatrics.aappublications.org/content/123/3/981.short

www.cdmc.ucla.edu/Published_Research_files/Developmental_considerations

www.cdmc.ucla.edu/Published_Research_files/Developmental_considerations

http://earlyed.newamerica.net/blogposts/2010/screens_kids_and_the_naeyc_position_statement-35103

http://earlyed.newamerica.net/blogposts/2010/screens_kids_and_the_naeyc_position_statement-35103

http://earlyed.newamerica.net/blogposts/2010/when_young_children_use_technology-34279

http://earlyed.newamerica.net/blogposts/2010/when_young_children_use_technology-34279

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/lisa-guernsey/edtech-for-the-playdough-_b_1097277.html

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/lisa-guernsey/edtech-for-the-playdough-_b_1097277.html

http://earlyed.newamerica.net/blogposts/2011/a_modest_proposal_for_digital_media_in_early_childhood-53669

http://earlyed.newamerica.net/blogposts/2011/a_modest_proposal_for_digital_media_in_early_childhood-53669

http://earlyed.newamerica.net/blogposts/2011/a_modest_proposal_for_digital_media_in_early_childhood-53669

http://earlyed.newamerica.net/blogposts/2011/young_kids_and_the_popularity_of_digital_portability-47124

http://earlyed.newamerica.net/blogposts/2011/young_kids_and_the_popularity_of_digital_portability-47124

http://joanganzcooneycenter.org/Reports-28.html

http://joanganzcooneycenter.org/Reports-28.html

http://familiestogetherinc.com/wp-content/uploads/2011/08/COMPUTERTECHNEEDS

http://familiestogetherinc.com/wp-content/uploads/2011/08/COMPUTERTECHNEEDS

http://www.edutopia.org/blog/meaning-tech-integration-elementary-mary-beth-hertz

http://www.edutopia.org/blog/meaning-tech-integration-elementary-mary-beth-hertz

http://www.knightcomm.org/wp-content/uploads/2010/12/Digital_and_Media_Literacy_A_Plan_of_Action

http://www.knightcomm.org/wp-content/uploads/2010/12/Digital_and_Media_Literacy_A_Plan_of_Action

14

Institute of Medicine of the National Academies. 2011. Early Childhood
Obesity Prevention Policies: Goals, Recommendations, and Potential
Actions. Washington, DC: Author. http://www.iom.edu/~/media/Files/
Report%20Files/2011/Early-Childhood-Obesity-Prevention-Policies/
Young%20Child%20Obesity%202011%20Recommendations

ISTE (International Society for Technology in Education). 2007. NETS
for Students 2007 Profiles. Washington, DC: Author. www.iste.org/
standards/nets-for-students/nets-for-students-2007-profiles.aspx#PK-2

ISTE (International Society for Technology in Education). 2008a.
The ISTE NETS and Performance Indicators for Teachers (NETS-T).
Washington, DC: Author. www.iste.org/Libraries/PDFs/NETS_for_
Teachers_2008_EN.sflb.ashx

ISTE (International Society for Technology in Education). 2008b. NETS
for Teachers. 2nd ed. Washington, DC: Author. www.iste.org/standards/
nets-for-teachers.aspx

Jackson, S. 2011a. “Learning, Digital Media, and Creative Play
in Early Childhood.” Spotlight on Digital Media and Learnng
(blog), March 24. Chicago, IL: MacArthur Foundation.
http://spotlight.macfound.org/featured-stories/entry/
learning-digital-media-and-creative-play-in-early-childhood

Jackson, S. 2011b. “Quality Matters: Defining Developmentally
Appropriate Media Use for Young Children.” Spotlight on Digital Media
and Learning (blog), March 16. Chicago, IL: MacArthur Foundation.
http://spotlight.macfound.org/blog/entry/quality-matters-defining-
developmentally-appropriate-media-use-for-young-ch

Judge, S., K. Puckett, & B. Cabuk. 2004. “Digital Equity: New Findings
from the Early Childhood Longitudinal Study.” Journal of Research
on Technology in Education 36 (4): 383–96. http://edinsanity.com/
wp-content/uploads/2008/02/digital-equity_ecls

Kerawalla, L., & C. Crook. 2002. “Children’s Computer Use at Home
and at School: Context and Continuity.” British Educational Research
Journal 28 (6): 751–71.

Kirkorian, H.L., E.A. Wartella, & D.R. Anderson. 2008. “Media and Young
Children’s Learning.” The Future of Children 18 (1): 39–61. www.
princeton.edu/futureofchildren/publications/docs/18_01_03

Kirkorian, H.L, T.A. Pempek, L.A. Murphy, M.E. Schmidt, & D.R.
Anderson, 2009. “The Impact of Background Television on Parent-
Child Interaction.” Child Development 80 (5): 1350–59.

Kleeman, D. 2010. “‘A Screen Is a Screen Is a Screen’ Is a Meme.”
Huffington Post (blog), December 8. www.huffingtonpost.com/david-
kleeman/a-screen-is-a-screen-is-a_b_792742.html

Lee, S-J., S. Bartolic, & E.A. Vandewater. 2009. “Predicting Children’s
Media Use in the USA: Differences in Cross-Sectional and Longitudinal
Analysis.” British Journal of Developmental Psychology 27 (1): 123–43.

Linebarger, D.L., & J.T. Piotrowski. 2009. “TV as Storyteller: How
Exposure to Television Narratives Impacts At-Risk Preschoolers’ Story
Knowledge and Narrative Skills.” British Journal of Developmental
Psychology 27 (1): 47–69.

Linebarger, D.L., J.T. Piotrowski, & M. Lapierre. 2009. “The Relationship
between Media Use and the Language and Literacy Skills of Young
Children: Results from a National Parent Survey.” Paper presented at
the NAEYC Annual Conference, 18–21 November, Washington, DC.

Lisenbee, P. 2009. “Whiteboards and Websites: Digital Tools for the
Early Childhood Curriculum.” Young Children 64 (6): 92–95.

Muligan, S.A. 2003. “Assistive Technology: Supporting the Participation
of Children with Disabilities.” Young Children 58 (6): 50–51. www.
naeyc.org/files/yc/file/200311/AssistiveTechnology

NAEYC. 1994. “Media Violence in Children’s Lives.” Position statement.
Washington, DC: Author. http://www.naeyc.org/files/naeyc/file/
positions/PSMEVI98.PDF

NAEYC. 2009a. “Developmentally Appropriate Practice in Early
Childhood Programs Serving Children from Birth through Age 8.”
Position statement. Washington, DC: Author. www.naeyc.org/files/
naeyc/file/positions/position%20statement%20Web

NAEYC. 2009b. “NAEYC Standards for Early Childhood Professional
Preparation Programs.” Position statement. Washington, DC: Author.
www.naeyc.org/files/naeyc/file/positions/ProfPrepStandards09

NAMLE (National Association for Media Literacy Education). 2007. Core
Principles of Media Literacy Education in the United States. http://namle.
net/wp-content/uploads/2009/09/NAMLE-CPMLE-w-questions2

National Institute for Literacy. 2008. Developing Early Literacy: Report of
the National Early Literacy Panel. A Scientific Synthesis of Early Literacy
Development and Implications for Intervention. T. Shanahan, Chair.
Louisville, KY: National Center for Family Literacy.

Nemeth, K.N. 2009. Many Languages, One Classroom: Teaching Dual and
English Language Learners. Silver Spring, MD: Gryphon House.

Neuman, S.B., E.H. Newman, & J. Dwyer. 2010. Educational Effects of
an Embedded Multimedia Vocabulary Intervention for Economically
Disadvantaged Pre-K Children: A Randomized Trial. Ann Arbor, MI:
University of Michigan. www.umich.edu/~rdytolrn/pdf/RTL2021210.
pdf

Pasnik, S., S. Strother, J. Schindel, W.R. Penuel, & C. Llorente. 2007.
Report to the Ready To Learn Initiative: Review of Research on Media
and Young Children’s Literacy. New York; Menlo Park, CA: Education
Development Center; SRI International. http://ctl.sri.com/publications/
downloads/EDC_SRI_Literature_Review

Plowman, L., & C. Stephen. 2005. “Children, Play, and Computers in
Pre-school Education.” British Journal of Educational Technology 36
(2): 145–57.

Plowman, L., & C. Stephen. 2007. “Guided Interaction in Pre-school
Settings.” Journal of Computer Assisted Learning 23 (1): 14–26.

Rideout, V.J. 2007. Parents, Children, and Media: A Kaiser Family
Foundation Survey. Menlo Park, CA: The Henry J. Kaiser Family
Foundation. www.kff.org/entmedia/upload/7638

Rideout, V.J., & E. Hamel. 2006. The Media Family: Electronic Media in
the Lives of Infants, Toddlers, Preschoolers, and Their Parents. Menlo
Park, California: The Henry J. Kaiser Family Foundation. www.kff.org/
entmedia/upload/7500

Rideout, V.J., A. Lauricella, & E. Wartella. 2011. Children, Media, and
Race: Media Use among White, Black, Hispanic, and Asian American
Children. Evanston, IL: Center on Media and Human Development,
School of Communication, Northwestern University. http://
web5.soc.northwestern.edu/cmhd/wp-content/uploads/2011/06/
SOCconfReportSingleFinal-1

Rideout, V.J., E.A. Vandewater, & E.A. Wartella. 2003. Zero to Six:
Electronic Media in the Lives of Infants, Toddlers, and Preschoolers. The
Henry J. Kaiser Family Foundation. www.kff.org/entmedia/upload/
Zero-to-Six-Electronic-Media-in-the-Lives-of-Infants-Toddlers-and-
Preschoolers-PDF

Roberts, D.F., & U.G. Foehr. 2004. Kids and Media in America. Cambridge,
MA: Cambridge University Press.

Rogow, F. 2007. Two View or Not Two View: A Review of the Research
Literature on the Advisability of Television Viewing for Infants and
Toddlers. Ithaca, NY: Insighters Educational Consulting. www.kqed.
org/assets/pdf/education/earlylearning/media-symposium/tv-under-
two-rogow ?trackurl=true

Rogow, F., & C. Scheibe. 2007. Key Questions to Ask When Analyzing
Media Messages. http://namle.net/wp-content/uploads/2009/09/
NAMLEKeyQuestions0708

Rosen, D.B., & C. Jaruszewicz. 2009. “Developmentally Appropriate
Technology Use and Early Childhood Teacher Education.” Journal of
Early Childhood Teacher Education 30 (2): 162–71.

Sadao, K.C., & N.B. Robinson. 2010. Assistive Technology for Young
Children: Creating Inclusive Learning Environments. Baltimore, MD:
Brookes.

Schepper, R. 2011. “Introducing Let’s Move! Child Care: Tools for Child
and Day Care Centers and Family-Care Homes.” Let’s Move (blog), June
8. www.letsmove.gov/blog/2011/06/08/introducing-let%E2%80%99s-
move-child-care-tools-child-and-day-care-centers-and-family-care-h

Schmidt, M.E., M. Rich, S.L. Rifas-Shiman, E. Oken, & E.M. Taveras.
2009. “Television Viewing in Infancy and Child Cognition at 3 Years of
Age in a U.S. Cohort.” Pediatrics 123 (3): e370–e375. http://pediatrics.
aappublications.org/content/123/3/e370.full

http://www.iom.edu/~/media/Files/Report%20Files/2011/Early-Childhood-Obesity-Prevention-Policies/Young%20Child%20Obesity%202011%20Recommendations

http://www.iom.edu/~/media/Files/Report%20Files/2011/Early-Childhood-Obesity-Prevention-Policies/Young%20Child%20Obesity%202011%20Recommendations

http://www.iom.edu/~/media/Files/Report%20Files/2011/Early-Childhood-Obesity-Prevention-Policies/Young%20Child%20Obesity%202011%20Recommendations

http://www.iste.org/Libraries/PDFs/NETS_for_Teachers_2008_EN.sflb.ashx

http://www.iste.org/Libraries/PDFs/NETS_for_Teachers_2008_EN.sflb.ashx

http://www.iste.org/standards/nets-for-teachers.aspx

http://www.iste.org/standards/nets-for-teachers.aspx

http://spotlight.macfound.org/featured-stories/entry/learning-digital-media-and-creative-play-in-early-childhood

http://spotlight.macfound.org/featured-stories/entry/learning-digital-media-and-creative-play-in-early-childhood

http://spotlight.macfound.org/blog/entry/quality-matters-defining-developmentally-appropriate-media-use-for-young-ch/

http://spotlight.macfound.org/blog/entry/quality-matters-defining-developmentally-appropriate-media-use-for-young-ch/

http://edinsanity.com/wp-content/uploads/2008/02/digital-equity_ecls

http://edinsanity.com/wp-content/uploads/2008/02/digital-equity_ecls

http://www.princeton.edu/futureofchildren/publications/docs/18_01_03

http://www.princeton.edu/futureofchildren/publications/docs/18_01_03

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/david-kleeman/a-screen-is-a-screen-is-a_b_792742.html

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/david-kleeman/a-screen-is-a-screen-is-a_b_792742.html

http://www.naeyc.org/files/yc/file/200311/AssistiveTechnology

http://www.naeyc.org/files/yc/file/200311/AssistiveTechnology

http://www.naeyc.org/files/naeyc/file/positions/PSMEVI98.PDF

http://www.naeyc.org/files/naeyc/file/positions/PSMEVI98.PDF

http://www.naeyc.org/files/naeyc/file/positions/position%20statement%20Web

http://www.naeyc.org/files/naeyc/file/positions/position%20statement%20Web

http://www.naeyc.org/files/naeyc/file/positions/ProfPrepStandards09

http://namle.net/wp-content/uploads/2009/09/NAMLE-CPMLE-w-questions2

http://namle.net/wp-content/uploads/2009/09/NAMLE-CPMLE-w-questions2

http://www.umich.edu/~rdytolrn/pdf/RTL2021210

http://www.umich.edu/~rdytolrn/pdf/RTL2021210

http://ctl.sri.com/publications/downloads/EDC_SRI_Literature_Review

http://ctl.sri.com/publications/downloads/EDC_SRI_Literature_Review

http://www.kff.org/entmedia/upload/7638

http://www.kff.org/entmedia/upload/7500

http://www.kff.org/entmedia/upload/7500

http://web5.soc.northwestern.edu/cmhd/wp-content/uploads/2011/06/SOCconfReportSingleFinal-1

http://web5.soc.northwestern.edu/cmhd/wp-content/uploads/2011/06/SOCconfReportSingleFinal-1

http://web5.soc.northwestern.edu/cmhd/wp-content/uploads/2011/06/SOCconfReportSingleFinal-1

http://www.kff.org/entmedia/upload/Zero-to-Six-Electronic-Media-in-the-Lives-of-Infants-Toddlers-and-Preschoolers-PDF

http://www.kff.org/entmedia/upload/Zero-to-Six-Electronic-Media-in-the-Lives-of-Infants-Toddlers-and-Preschoolers-PDF

http://www.kff.org/entmedia/upload/Zero-to-Six-Electronic-Media-in-the-Lives-of-Infants-Toddlers-and-Preschoolers-PDF

http://www.kqed.org/assets/pdf/education/earlylearning/media-symposium/tv-under-two-rogow ?trackurl=true

http://www.kqed.org/assets/pdf/education/earlylearning/media-symposium/tv-under-two-rogow ?trackurl=true

http://www.kqed.org/assets/pdf/education/earlylearning/media-symposium/tv-under-two-rogow ?trackurl=true

http://namle.net/wp-content/uploads/2009/09/NAMLEKeyQuestions0708

http://namle.net/wp-content/uploads/2009/09/NAMLEKeyQuestions0708

http://www.letsmove.gov/blog/2011/06/08/introducing-let%E2%80%99s-move-child-care-tools-child-and-day-care-centers-and-family-care-h

http://www.letsmove.gov/blog/2011/06/08/introducing-let%E2%80%99s-move-child-care-tools-child-and-day-care-centers-and-family-care-h

http://pediatrics.aappublications.org/content/123/3/e370.full

http://pediatrics.aappublications.org/content/123/3/e370.full

15

Simon, F., & C. Donohue. 2011. “Tools of Engagement: Status Report on
Technology in Early Childhood Education.” Exchange 199: 16–22.

Stevens, R., & W.R. Penuel. 2010. “Studying and Fostering Learning
through Joint Media Engagement.” Paper presented at the Principal
Investigators Meeting of the National Science Foundation’s Science of
Learning Centers, October, Arlington, VA.

Takeuchi, L.M. 2011. Families Matter: Designing Media for a Digital Age.
New York: The Joan Ganz Cooney Center at Sesame Workshop. http://
joanganzcooneycenter.org/Reports-29.html

Tandon, P.S., C. Zhou, P. Lozano, & D.A. Christakis. 2011. “Preschoolers’
Total Daily Screen Time at Home and by Type of Child Care.” Journal
of Pediatrics 158 (2): 297–300.

Technology and Young Children Interest Forum. 2008. “On Our Minds:
Meaningful Technology Integration in Early Learning Environments.”
Young Children 63 (5): 48–50. www.naeyc.org/files/yc/file/200809/
OnOurMinds

Tomopoulos, S., B.P. Dreyer, S. Berkule, A.H. Fierman, C. Brockmeyer,
& A.L. Mendelsohn. 2010. “Infant Media Exposure and Toddler
Development.” Archives of Pediatrics & Adolescent Medicine 164 (12):
1105–11. http://archpedi.ama-assn.org/cgi/content/full/164/12/1105

Uchikoshi, Y. 2006. “Early Reading in Bilingual Kindergartners: Can
Educational Television Help?” Scientific Studies of Reading 10 (1):
89–120.

Vandewater, E.A., & S-J. Lee. 2009. “Measuring Children’s Media Use in
the Digital Age: Issues and Challenges.” American Behavioral Scientist
52 (8): 1152–76. www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC2745155/pdf/
nihms128628

This is a joint position statement of the National Associa-
tion for the Education of Young Children and the Fred
Rogers Center for Early Learning and Children’s Media
at Saint Vincent College.

Acknowledgments

NAEYC and the Fred Rogers Center (FRC) appreciate
the work of the Joint NAEYC-FRC Writing Team and
Working Group members who participated in the devel-
opment of this position statement: Roberta Schomburg,
Co-chair, Carlow University and Fred Rogers Center;
Chip Donohue, Co-chair, Erikson Institute and Fred
Rogers Center; Madhavi Parikh, NAEYC; Warren Buck-
leitner, Children’s Technology Review; Pamela Johnson,
Corporation for Public Broadcasting; Lynn Nolan, Inter-
national Society for Technology in Education; Christine
Wang, State University at Buffalo, SUNY; Ellen Wartella,
Northwestern University and Fred Rogers Center. Input
from members of the NAEYC Governing Board and the
Fred Rogers Center Advisory Council, as well as key staff
members in both organizations, also is acknowledged.

Vandewater, E.A., V.J. Rideout, E.A. Wartella, X. Huang, J.H. Lee, & M.
Shim. 2007. “Digital Childhood: Electronic Media and Technology
Use among Infants, Toddlers, and Preschoolers.” Pediatrics 119 (5):
e1006-e1015. http://pediatrics.aappublications.org/cgi/content/
full/119/5/e1006

Van Scoter, J., D. Ellis, & J. Railsback. 2001. Technology in Early
Childhood Education: Finding the Balance. Portland, OR: Northwest
Regional Educational Laboratory. www.netc.org/earlyconnections/
byrequest

Wahi, G., P.C. Parkin, J. Beyene, E.M. Uleryk, & C.S. Birken. 2011. “Effectiveness
of Interventions Aimed at Reducing Screen Time in Children.” Archives of
Pediatrics & Adolescent Medicine 165 (11): 979–86.

Wainwright, D.K., & D.L. Linebarger. 2006. Ready To Learn: Literature
Review. Part 1: Elements of Effective Educational TV. Philadelphia, PA:
Annenberg School for Communication, University of Pennsylvania;
American Institutes for Research. http://pbskids.org/read/files/BOB-
PARTI-ElementsofSuccessfulEdTV.PDF

White House Task Force on Childhood Obesity. 2010. Solving the
Problem of Childhood Obesity within a Generation. Washington, DC:
Office of the President of the United States. www.letsmove.gov/sites/
letsmove.gov/files/TaskForce_on_Childhood_Obesity_May2010_
FullReport

White House. 2011. “First Lady Unveils Let’s Move! Child
Care to Ensure Healthy Start for Youngest Children,”
press release, June 8. Washington, DC: Office of the First
Lady. www.whitehouse.gov/the-press-office/2011/06/08/
first-lady-unveils-lets-move-child-care-ensure-healthy-start-youngest-ch

National Association for the Education of Young Children

NAEYC.org

Fred Rogers Center for Early Learning and Chidren’s Media
Saint Vincent College
300 Fraser Purchase Road
Latrobe, PA 15650-2690

Phone: 724- 805-2750
Fax: 724-805-2761

info@fredrogerscenter.org

Copyright © 2012 by 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. All rights reserved.

http://joanganzcooneycenter.org/Reports-29.html

http://joanganzcooneycenter.org/Reports-29.html

http://www.naeyc.org/files/yc/file/200809/OnOurMinds

http://www.naeyc.org/files/yc/file/200809/OnOurMinds

http://archpedi.ama-assn.org/cgi/content/full/164/12/1105

http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC2745155/pdf/nihms128628

http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC2745155/pdf/nihms128628

http://www.netc.org/earlyconnections/byrequest

http://www.netc.org/earlyconnections/byrequest

http://pbskids.org/read/files/BOB-PARTI-ElementsofSuccessfulEdTV.PDF

http://pbskids.org/read/files/BOB-PARTI-ElementsofSuccessfulEdTV.PDF

http://www.letsmove.gov/sites/letsmove.gov/files/TaskForce_on_Childhood_Obesity_May2010_FullReport

http://www.letsmove.gov/sites/letsmove.gov/files/TaskForce_on_Childhood_Obesity_May2010_FullReport

http://www.letsmove.gov/sites/letsmove.gov/files/TaskForce_on_Childhood_Obesity_May2010_FullReport

http://www.whitehouse.gov/the-press-office/2011/06/08/first-lady-unveils-lets-move-child-care-ensure-healthy-start-youngest-ch

http://www.whitehouse.gov/the-press-office/2011/06/08/first-lady-unveils-lets-move-child-care-ensure-healthy-start-youngest-ch

http://www.fredrogerscenter.org/

http://www.naeyc.org

INTRODUCTION
Today the ubiquity of mobile technology is apparent across all
ages. Some of the key findings by the Joan Ganz Cooney Cen-
ter indicate rapid growth in young children’s exposure to and
consumption of different types of digital media as well as use of
mobile devices (Gutnick, Robb, Takeuchi, & Kotler, 2011). Gut-
nick, et al. (2011) indicate that there is a drop in desktop com-
puter ownership by 18% but an increase in laptop ownership by
31% among 60% of the families surveyed since 2005. Additional
survey results indicate portability to be a popular feature in tech-
nology devices. According to Rideout (2014), the use of mobile
devices such as smartphones and tablets has grown in numbers
for adults as well as for children.

The affordances of these mobile devices have created op-
portunities for learning in some cases but also grave concern for
young children’s development in other cases (DeCurtis & Ferrer,
2011; Patten & Valcarcel, 2007; Verenikina & Kervin, 2011). While
there are studies to support positive outcomes for children us-
ing technology, McManis and Gunnewig (2012) explain that there
are some essential components to how the integration of the
technology into the learning environment should be framed.
They indicate that the technology needs to be developmentally
appropriate for young children, and be integrated into the class-
room. Also, tools need to be provided to help teachers imple-
ment technology successfully.

There is a growing global community facing the challenge of
how to integrate technology into educational settings. Although
there is much research looking at this general problem, early
childhood educators are faced with the additional challenge of
limited research within the context of the early learning environ-
ment (Guernsey, Levine, Chiong, & Severns, 2012). Early learning
environments are a unique context that is different from other
age levels (Guernsey, 2014). There is a need to explore what
developmentally appropriate technology integration means and
how to assist teachers to understand and implement technolo-
gy integration successfully (Clements & Sarama, 2002; NAEYC
& Fred Rogers Center for Early Learning and Children’s Media,
2012). One of the obstacles in assisting teachers to understand
and implement technology integration successfully is lack of time
for professional development (USDOE, 2010). McManis and
Gunnewig (2012) recommend providing built-in support and
creating effective learning communities as identified by Galinsky

(2012). In recognizing these challenges, it is imperative to pro-
vide insight through research on how to assist early childhood
educators to integrate technology within their pedagogical and
content knowledge.

According to a policy brief published by New America, “the
digital age brings a profusion of new challenges and opportunities
for the field of early education” (Guernsey, 2014, p. 2). Guernsey
(2014) proposed the need for redesigning the digital age archi-
tecture in order to reform the system working with the birth-
through-third grade continuum, thereby enhancing the benefits
and facing the challenges with deeper understanding. According
to Guernsey, five goals to promote this effort were to 1) set
high expectations for the use of technologies when working with
children of birth-through third grade, 2) boost the workforce
by preparing and supporting pre- and in-service early childhood
educators to appropriately integrate technology, 3) enhance
current assets by distributing critical information, 4) connecting
researchers, educators, and children’s media industries, and 5)
encourage evaluation and research in the area of digital-age in-
terventions and appropriate technology integration with this age
group (Guernsey, 2014).

The purpose of this exploratory single-case study was to
investigate how the affordances transpired within a technologi-
cal pedagogical and content knowledge (TPACK) framework by
four early childhood educators at a low-income family preschool.
Early childhood education (ECE) is defined as education for birth
to age eight although this study focused on the educators of
preschools covering ages three to five.

The goals of the research were to address the two spe-
cific needs: the need for evaluation and research in the area of
digital-age interventions including appropriate technology in-
tegration with this age group and the need to boost the ECE
workforce by preparing and supporting pre- and in-service early
childhood educators to appropriately integrate technology. The
research question for this study was how did the affordances of
iPad transpired within a TPACK framework for early childhood
educators?

CONCEPTUAL FRAMEWORK
The conceptual framework of this research is based on the
technological pedagogical content knowledge (TPACK) mod-
el. This conceptual framework originated from Shulman’s ped-

New Perspective on TPACK Framework in the Context of Early Childhood Education:
The “A” Stands for Affective

Elizabeth K. Park1 and Jace Hargis

2

1 Chaminade University of Honolulu, 2 Director, Center for Teaching and Learning, University of California, San Diego

(Received 6 October 2017; Accepted 18 January 2018)

The purpose of this exploratory single-case study is to investigate the affordances of iPad transpired within a tech-
nological pedagogical and content knowledge (TPACK) framework by four early childhood educators with varying
Technological Knowledge (TK) at a low-income preschool. Pre/post and follow-up survey, group and follow-up
interviews, classroom observations and document of iPad workshop data were analyzed using coding methods
in two cycles. The exploration in how teachers discovered the iPad affordances indicated parallel progression in
TK and change in their value system. The exploration in the progression of TK and change in their value system
suggest a relationship between progression of TK towards TPACK and of affective-valuing (AV) towards affec-
tive-characterization (AC).

1

IJ-SoTL, Vol. 12 [2018], No. 2, Art. 1

7

https://doi.org/10.20429/ijsotl.2018.120217

agogical content knowledge (PCK) framework (Shulman, 1987),
but added technological knowledge thereby providing a revised
framework that integrated technological pedagogical content
knowledge (TPACK). Mishra and Koehler (2006) introduced
this concept and soon numerous researchers started to use this
concept to frame their research. The intricacies of the different
knowledge components and their relationships are illustrated in
Figure 1. The desired knowledge for pre- and in-service teachers
to gain is at the center of this diagram where they can integrate
all three knowledge areas into practice.

It is timely to use an exploratory qualitative case study to
discover the depth of the TPACK framework within the context
of early childhood education since currently there is only one
quantitative study within this context.

TPACK is a framework where the relationships between
a teacher‘s knowledge of content (CK), pedagogy (PK), and
technology (TK) are well orchestrated to bring about effective
teaching. Mishra and Koehler (2006) and Koehler and Mishra
(2009) further added the combination and intersections of these
components as technological pedagogical knowledge (TPK), ped-
agogical content knowledge (PCK), and technological content
knowledge (TCK).

Koehler, Mishra, Kereluik, Shin, and Graham (2014) indicate
that numerous instruments were developed to assess pre- and
in-service teachers within the TPACK framework but only 66 re-
search publications met the inclusion criteria among 303 TPACK
related articles. From those research articles, 141 instruments of
various types were found. There were four categories to instru-
ment types which were “self-report, open-ended questionnaires,
performance assessments, interviews, and observations” (Koe-
hler, et al., 2014, p. 104-105).

TPACK for Early Childhood Educators
There were several studies that addressed content specific areas
using TPACK (Graham et al., 2009; Hammond & Manfra, 2009;
Niess, 2005) but to date, there is only one research study that
addressed early childhood teachers. Chuang and Ho (2011) in-
vestigated TPACK for early childhood teachers in Taiwan. They
used a sample of 335 in-service teachers using a TPACK sur-

vey adapted from Schmidt et al. (2009). Early childhood teachers
who were older had higher self-assessed PK and PCK than the
younger teachers but younger teachers had higher self-assessed
TK. Regardless of age, teachers who spent 20 hours or more
using technology a week had higher TK and TCK than those who
spend less than five hours a week.

This study indicated that technology was commonly in-
tegrated into the early childhood classroom globally (OECD,
2006). For example, early childhood centers in Australia received
more than 300 computer units through International KidSmart
Early Learning Program (O’Rourke & Harrison, 2004). In Taiwan,
there are more private preschools and those schools tend to
have abundant resources including technology. Thus, Chuang and
Ho (2011) concluded that early childhood teachers must devel-
op TPACK to be effective teachers of today.

In addition, developmentally appropriate integration of
technology in the early learning environment appears to be a
controversial issue yet currently there is a lack of in-depth re-
search on this topic (Parette, Quesenberry, & Blum, 2010). These
variables contribute to the research design and methodology for
this study.

METHODS
This case study was grant-funded by Samuel N. and Mary Cas-
tle Foundation with main purpose to explore the affordances of
iPad for preschool teachers. The participants were selected using
purposive sampling. The early childhood education context was
important to this study and the four preschool teachers were
carefully selected using two criteria. First, the preschool teachers
needed to have some teaching experience and second, they had
to be willing to learn and explore affordances of the iPad.

Instrumentation or sources of evidence (Yin, 2014) included
surveys, interviews, observations, and documentation. The three
types of surveys were pre-survey, post-survey, and a follow-up
survey that included five follow-up questions. The main inter-
view was a group interview with additional follow-up interviews.
Extensive observations were conducted in each teacher’s class-
room and documentations included transcription of the three
iPad workshops, field notes, and email correspondences with the
participants.

The data analysis used a two-stage coding method. Saldaña
(2009) described these two stages as “cycles of coding.” The first
cycle of coding established characteristics of different levels of
technological knowledge and changes that occurred over time
in relation to their technological knowledge. The second cycle
of coding provided in-depth analysis of the data (Saldaña, 2009).

The initial data were collected without the TPACK frame-
work in mind. However, when existing data were analyzed, some
preliminary themes emerged (Saldaña, 2009). These preliminary
themes provided general guidelines for the possible case study
proposition that the characteristics of early childhood educators,
the affective domain for learning, and developmentally appro-
priate practices play an important role in analyzing the TPACK
framework. Figure 2 provides the TPACK framework in ECE
context.

With the insights gained from the initial review of exist-
ing data, all data (both initial and follow-up) were re-coded with
the conceptual framework in mind. Further, follow-up interviews
were undertaken with the conceptual framework in mind to add
depth to understanding the teacher’s knowledge and skills.

Figure 1. “The TPACK framework and its knowledge components” (Koe-
hler & Mishra, 2009, p. 63)

2

New Perspective on TPACK Framework

https://doi.org/10.20429/ijsotl.2018.120217

Participants and Context
The selection process of the participants was a purposive sam-
pling since the four teachers were selected using specific criteria
for the purpose of exploring how they used iPads for assess-
ment, teaching, and learning. In addition to their willingness to
participate, the four participants needed to have differences in
technological knowledge. It was also important that the teachers
begin with established pedagogical and content knowledge. This
meant that the teachers needed to have some teaching experi-
ence rather than being brand new teachers. These variations in
composition of the teachers helped us explore the viability and
appropriateness of this approach and how different demographic
characteristics may impact the use and effectiveness of technol-
ogy-aided teaching in preschool setting.

Differences in characteristics among the participating pre-
school teachers included technology literacy level, technology
comfort level, and teaching experience. These variations in com-
position of the teachers helped us explore the viability and ap-
propriateness of this approach and how different demographic
characteristics may impact the use and integration of technology
in preschool setting.

The pre-survey from the existing data provided some gen-
eral characteristics of the participants and their initial self-rated
technological proficiencies as shown in Table 1. Pseudonyms for
the teachers and the schools are used throughout this report to
ensure participant anonymity.

DATA COLLECTION
In preparation for the data collection, two steps were taken at
the beginning of the grant project. To ensure the study was con-
ducted ethically, an Institutional Review Board (IRB) form was

submitted and approved. Stake (1995) indicates the need to tri-
angulate in order to validate the data collection and analysis pro-
cesses. Among four types of data source triangulation (Denzin,
1984), the existing data for this grant project was fortunate to
establish data source and investigator triangulation. This study
afforded multiple sources of evidence and three investigators to
collect and analyze the data.

The surveys consisted of three types: pre-survey, post-sur-
vey, and a follow-up survey. All surveys were administered on-
line and emails were sent to the participants reminding them to
complete the surveys by a due date. The primary purpose for
the pre-survey was to establish a baseline for their technological
knowledge (TK), their demographics, their understanding of the
project, and their concerns or desires for learning technology.
The post-survey documented change in the teachers’ techno-
logical knowledge (TK), technological content knowledge (TCK),
and technological pedagogical knowledge (TPK). Finally, the fol-
low-up survey provided information regarding sustainability and
applicability of their integration of technology in their current
and future practice.

The interviews consisted of two types. A group interview
was conducted at the end of the iPad workshops and follow-up
interviews were conducted at the end of May 2014. The group
interview was semi-structured and provided opportunity for the
participants to share their responses to the three questions. The
questions for the follow-up interviews were constructed after
initial coding of the existing data.

The observations in the classrooms were conducted over
two days. Two investigators observed four classrooms at differ-
ent times during those two days. This established validity and
reliability through investigator triangulation (Denzin, 1984).

The documentation was collected on different occa-
sions. The main documentation consisted of the three iPad
workshops conducted by three investigators. The recordings of
the workshops were transcribed and field notes were coded for
in-depth analysis.

Analysis of existing data using exploratory methods was the
basis of the follow-up interview questions. Exploratory and af-
fective coding methods were used to analyze the follow-up inter-
views and a second cycle of coding determined in-depth analysis
of all the data. Exploratory coding methods are exploratory in
nature usually for “preliminary assignments of codes to the data”
(Saldaña, 2009, p. 118). Affective coding methods “investigate sub-
jective qualities of human experience by directly acknowledging
and naming those experiences” (Saldaña, 2009, p. 86).

The existing data were collected and analyzed during the
grant project that provided some pre-coding information. Al-
though Computer Assisted Qualitative Data Analysis Software
(CAQDAS) was not used for this purpose, the researchers in-
volved in the grant project noticed words, phrases, and concepts
that stood out. While exploring iPad affordances, the themes
emerged provided initial impression of the study. However, the
shift from initial impressionistic to more in-depth analysis of the
data required preliminary examination of the existing data. First,
a grand perspective on the “units of social organization” (Saldaña,
2009, p. 14) was examined. The “units of social organization” is
based on Lofland, Snow, Anderson, and Lofland (2006) notion
that “the intersection of one or more actors [participants] en-
gaging in one or more activities (behaviors) at a particular time
in a specific place” (p. 212). These units intersect with cognitive

Figure 2. TPACK framework in early childhood education (ECE) eontext

Table 1. Characteristics of Participants Related to Technology

Pseudonym
Years of
Teaching

iPad
Proficiency

Computer
Proficiency

Jennifer Park 32 Novice Novice

Nina Chang 9 Intermediate Intermediate

Kristina Nakamura 34 Novice Novice

Hannah Nystrom 35 Intermediate Proficient

3

IJ-SoTL, Vol. 12 [2018], No. 2, Art. 17

https://doi.org/10.20429/ijsotl.2018.120217

aspects or meaning, emotional aspects or feelings, and/or hier-
archical aspects or inequalities. Second, evaluating which data to
include and how much data to include were examined. Third, the
condition of the data was evaluated for accuracy, consistency, and
formatting in order to prepare for CAQDAS.

First Cycle Coding
The data consisted of collection of documents, interviews, sur-
veys, and observations. Data collected through recordings such
as group interviews, individual interviews, and workshops were
transcribed before the initial coding. The first cycle of coding in-
volved two steps. The first step involved holistic coding method
using only the existing data. From this coding, more focused in-
terview questions were developed for the follow-up interviews.
The second step involved a provisional coding method to create
the three major coding categories of affordances, affective, and
TPACK.

The first cycle of coding used affordances, affective, and
TPACK categories. The subcategories for affordances were as-
sessing, learning, teaching, and additional codings under “other”
subcategory. The subcategories for affective were the five levels
of affective domain taxonomy (Krathwohl et al., 1964; Krathwohl,
2002) and additional codings collectively clustered under “other”
subcategory. The subcategories for TPACK consisted of the sev-
en components in the TPACK framework (Koehler et al., 2014)
with additional attention to technology related components di-
vided up into iPad technology and general technology.

For reliability, three colleagues reviewed samples of the first
cycle codings. The feedback provided by the colleagues were
consistent with the initial codings but there was some confusion
with the code descriptions. Thus, the descriptions were updated
and other comments were incorporated into the coding process.

Second Cycle Coding
After several iterations of the first coding cycle, many codes
were consolidated, deleted, and revised. In the second cycle, the
assumptions regarding the participants were reviewed and sub-
categories were updated as indicated in Figure 3.

There were three assumptions made prior to data analysis.
The first assumption in regard to affective domain taxonomy is
that the participants had already surpassed the initial two levels

of the taxonomy, which are receiving and responding levels. The
simple fact that the teachers agreed to participate in the study
demonstrated that they were not only conscious of the challeng-
es of technology integration in the context of early childhood
but they were willing to respond to that awareness. The second
assumption is that the participating teachers in this study were
assumed to have high levels of pedagogy and content knowledge
in the context of early childhood education. This assumption was
made because all the teachers had extensive teaching experi-
ence. The third assumption is that the affective domain taxonomy
operates on a continuum. The nature of human affect is never in a
vacuum but rather in a continuum at various levels. The first two
assumptions were confirmed after first cycle of coding, there-
fore we eliminated the affective subcategories of receiving and
responding. For the same reason, the TPACK subcategories, PK,
CK, and PCK were eliminated so this study could focus primarily
on the technological knowledge and its relationship to content
and pedagogical knowledge.

RESULTS
In the second cycle of coding, the theming of data focused pri-
marily on Technological Knowledge (TK), Technological Content
Knowledge (TCK), Technological Pedagogical Knowledge (TPK),
and Technological Pedagogical and Content Knowledge (TPACK).

Technological Knowledge (TK)
The second cycle of coding for Technological Knowledge con-
sisted of technological knowledge related to the iPad (TK-iPad),
Technological Knowledge related to general technology/comput-
er skills (TK-technology), and Technological Knowledge related
to assessment (TK-assessment).

The pre-survey included six Likert-scale questions on com-
puter experience and based on self-ratings of overall computing
skills, Hannah indicated that she is proficient, Nina indicated she
is intermediate, Jennifer and Kristina reported to be novices. All
of them reported having some level of familiarity with mobile
devices and all have used Apple products such as iPhones, iPods,
and iPads. Hannah reported she has three years of iPad experi-
ence and Kristina reported having one year. Nina, Kristina, and
Hannah reported their self-rate on learning new technology as
average whereas Jennifer indicated learning new technology is
somewhat challenging.

Overall, the teachers had very diverse set of technolo-
gy skills and knowledge. The post-survey indicated increases in
technological skills and knowledge by teachers from the pre-sur-
vey. In response to the item, “confidence level in using technology
and digital media to plan activities with young children,” three
teachers agreed that they were confident and one teacher re-
mained neutral. Similarly, in response to the item, “confidence
level in using technology and digital media to teach digital liter-
acy concepts to young children,” one teacher indicated strongly
agree that she is confident, two teachers agreed that they were
confident, and one teacher remained neutral. In addition to
Likert-scale responses, open-ended responses were indications
of the increase in their technological skills along with their con-
fidence in using technology.

In regard to their self-rated iPad proficiency, all reported an
increase but Jennifer remained as novice. Jennifer’s self-rated iPad
proficiency remained the same as novice but coding indicated
that technological knowledge regarding the iPad (TK-iPad) did

Figure 3. Second cycle coding categories and subcategories.

4

New Perspective on TPACK Framework
https://doi.org/10.20429/ijsotl.2018.120217

increase for Jennifer. For example, when she first started this
project, she reported that she did not use iPad in the classroom
because “[She] might do something wrong to jeopardize the
function of the iPad.” However, during observation, she was com-
fortably using iPad in the classroom. Figure 4 provides photos of
her using the GOLD® app (first photo) and working on an app
with children (second photo).

Nina and Hannah both increased iPad proficiency from in-
termediate to proficient and Kristina increased from novice to
intermediate.

Technological Content Knowledge (TCK)
Technological Content Knowledge (TCK) refers to knowledge
of the reciprocal relationship between technology and content.
Again, the second cycle of coding subdivided TCK into Techno-
logical Content Knowledge related to iPad use (TCK-iPad), Tech-
nological Content Knowledge related to general technology/
computer skills (TCK-technology), and Technological Content
Knowledge related to assessment (TCK-assessment). All teach-
ers used iPads for teaching and learning in the classroom for
various curricular content. Hannah reported how she adjusted
the iPad app for math when she worked with a younger child.
Jennifer was observed to use iPad app to enhance children’s
learning by providing interactive four season song at circle time
and Kristina also used the iPad photos and videos to enhance
learning about butterflies, numbers, and shapes. Nina used iPad
apps that provided enhancement of vocabulary building and lan-
guage development. Figure 5 shows examples of how the iPad
was used to enhance content knowledge. The first photo is an
app Hannah used to enhance vocabulary building and letter for-
mation. The second photo shows a child using the iPad app to
practice her math skills.

There were some differences in how the iPad and technol-
ogy were used by each teacher. However, all the teachers used
the iPad similarly when assessing different content knowledge of
the children. Since all the teachers were trained in the GOLD®
Assessment System, they used the GOLD® Assessment System

app for assessment of the children’s progress. Although the fre-
quency in use of GOLD® app varied by teacher, overall use of
GOLD® app by all the teachers increased over time.

The general theme that emerged from the second cycle for
TCK indicated that technological knowledge pertaining to vari-
ous content increased over time and the majority of the teachers
used technological knowledge to enhance content knowledge
rather than as a main teaching method. One of the observation
note stated, “[Hannah] uses iPad more and more everyday. She
uses iPad for videotaping, photos, GOLD® app, literacy, math,
and geography apps. She also takes pictures with camera, iPad,
and iPhone.”

Technological Pedagogical Knowledge
(TPK)
Technological Pedagogical Knowledge (TPK) refers to an un-
derstanding of how technology can constrain and afford specif-
ic pedagogical practices. The subdivision of TPK also consisted
of Technological Pedagogical Knowledge related to iPad use
(TPK-iPad), Technological Pedagogical Knowledge related to gen-
eral technology/computer skills (TPK-technology), and Techno-
logical Pedagogical Knowledge related to assessment. The over-
arching pedagogy in early childhood education is in reference to
Developmentally Appropriate Practice (DAP). The pedagogy is to
use methods that are appropriate for the particular developmen-
tal level of the child. The general theme that emerged from TPK
was all the teachers’ DAP integration of technological knowledge
increased over time. Jennifer mentioned how her children used
the iPad to take photos for an interactive app called, “Alien As-
signment.” She said her three- and four-year-olds need handles
that provide better grip when holding and carrying the iPad. Thus,
she purchased an iPad case that was developmentally appropri-
ate for her children. The photograph on the left in Figure 6 illus-
trates how larger handles provided a secure grip for the child.

Nina expressed that she had to adjust how she worked with
the children when she was trying out the storytelling app called,
“Toontastic” during the observation visit. She realized that the
multi-steps involved in creating a story through this app were

Figure 4. Examples of Jennifer’s increase in iPad proficiency

Figure 5. Examples of TCK

5

IJ-SoTL, Vol. 12 [2018], No. 2, Art. 17
https://doi.org/10.20429/ijsotl.2018.120217

too complicated for the young four-year-olds but for the older
four-year-olds and five-year-olds, they were appropriate. In the
follow-up interview, she noted that she adjusted how she pre-
sented this app when she worked with different age groups. She
also experimented with the Educreations app to provide prac-
tice opportunities for her student to write his name as shown in
the lower photo in Figure 6.

During group interview, Kristina mentioned how she ad-
justed her presentation of YouTube videos to children to make
it appropriate. She said, “you kind of have to play them, because
some of them are longer than others, some of them are not clear,
some of them are too long. So I look for the time first, the short
ones, and then you look to see who uploaded it, and you look at
their things, so I figured out how to save those [to my] playlist.”
Kristina works with three-year-olds and developmentally the
children’s attention span at this age is limited, so she consciously
chose videos that were the right length.

Hannah was initially afraid to let the children carry the iPad
in the classroom. However, towards the end of the project, she
created an iPad station where children can choose the pre-load-
ed developmentally appropriate apps on her iPads.

Technological Pedagogical Content
Knowledge (TPACK)
Technological Pedagogical Content Knowledge refers to knowl-
edge about the complex relations among technology, pedagogy,
and content that enable teachers to develop appropriate and
context-specific teaching strategies. Evidence of this was provid-
ed in the follow-up interviews related to TPACK.

DISCUSSION
This study focused on understanding how early childhood educa-
tors use technology, and how to provide support to increase their
technological knowledge and integrate technological knowledge
to provide developmentally appropriate learning environments.

Many educators are initially apprehensive about integrating
technology in the classrooms mainly because of conflicting ideas
about appropriate use with young children (Beach & Stefanick,
2010; Hutinger et al., 1994; Kelley et al., 2003). However, teach-
ers’ attitudes and beliefs in technology impacting student learn-
ing affected their willingness to explore and gain technological
knowledge (Rivera et al., 2002; Wardle, 2000). In addition, the
affective dimension was influential for educators (Pierre & Ough-
ton, 2007; Saluja et al., 2002; Shephard, 2008) in making the shift
in their attitudes and beliefs and in increasing their technological
knowledge as it pertains to pedagogical and content knowledge.

Technological Knowledge and Change in
Value System
The participants of this single-case study included early child ed-
ucators with varying technological knowledge (TK). TK included
iPad skills and knowledge as well as general computer skills and
knowledge. Initial survey indicated that all had previous person-
al experience with mobile devices and two had previously used
an iPad although neither considered to be proficient with this
technology.

In post-survey, teachers self-rated an increase in technology
skill and confidence over those indicated in the initial survey. The
most novice and least confident of the four indicated improve-
ment but was still tentative in her abilities. Those who experi-
mented with personal uses in addition to classroom uses had
greater learning gains.

Overall, teachers gained skills and knowledge in mobile
technology as well as confidence and openness towards tech-
nology use for learning, new insights into more efficient use of
technology in assessment, and possible distinctions between age
appropriate uses of mobile technology for children. Perhaps the
most powerful evidence was obtained from Jennifer and Kristina
who indicated that they were novices in the iPad and technology
skills in the beginning of the study but gained enough confidence
to volunteer to present at a conference. All four teachers indi-
cated they were excited to continue to learn and explore new
uses of iPads and to complete assessments successfully with the
new tools.

The participating teachers improved skills and changed at-
titudes about what was possible in using technology with chil-
dren. The findings showed that there were intricate relationships
between their change in attitudes and beliefs with increased
technological skill integrated with their pedagogical and content
knowledge.

Attitudes and Beliefs Matter
The relationship between progression in affective taxonomy and
TPACK supported that attitudes and beliefs mattered in not only
gaining technological knowledge but also teachers moving from
having TK towards TPACK. When looking at the frequency of
coding in TK to TPACK and AV to AC, they both increased over
time but when examining data more closely, it revealed that the
progression from AV to AC was a necessary component to mak-
ing TK to TPACK and vice versa.

Most of the research focuses on cognitive domain but there
is a need to investigate cognitive objectives as a means to af-
fective goals (Asch, 1952; Festinger, 1957; Heider, 1958; Rhine,
1958; Rosenberg, 1956) as well as affective objectives as means
to cognitive goals (Bruner, 1960; Festinger & Carlsmith, 1959; Ja-

Figure 6. Examples of TPK

6

New Perspective on TPACK Framework
https://doi.org/10.20429/ijsotl.2018.120217

hoda, 1956; Kelman, 1958; White, 1959). This study found that
achievement of cognitive and affective goals happen simultane-
ously similar to what Suchman (1962) suggested. The affective
goal, in this case the varying affective taxonomy levels (AV, AO,
AC) pushed the cognitive goals, in this case technological knowl-
edge (TK, TCK, TPK, TPACK) but technological knowledge also
influenced their affective knowledge.

Some of the open-ended questions addressed how they felt
they learned to use their iPads, and the role that the professional
development (PD) played in that learning. There were distinct
differences in ways of learning among teachers: one preferred to
research herself but another teacher, the most novice, preferred
specific lessons and instructions. All appreciated opportunities
for discussion during the workshops with the other teachers and
wanted more of this as a focus of PD. In general, they said the
PD opportunities were insufficient. They also noted that one ad-
vantage was the chance to talk about the iPad uses and that this
would be difficult without release time. When asked about con-
tinuing issues, three indicated concerns about the fragility of the
iPads when used in the classroom. General issue comment was
not having enough time to learn everything they want to learn.

The teachers learned best when given the opportunity to
share with each other and explore independently. However, for
the most novice user more formal “how to” instruction was
needed as well. Time was important for learning, particularly re-
lease time for talking and PD.

This study adds additional insights to previous studies of
TPACK framework. The contribution this study makes to previ-
ous studies is adding another layer to the study of TPACK frame-
work in the context of early childhood education. The use of
mobile technology in educational setting less than a decade but
the rapid spread of use in formal and informal educational setting
is dramatic. Wu et al. (2012) reviewed trends from mobile learn-
ing studies from 2003 to 2010 by analyzing 164 carefully selected
publications. They provide distribution of mobile learning studies
by research purpose which indicates small percentage addressing
the affective domain during mobile learning and learner charac-
teristics in the learning process. This study investigated the obvi-
ous shortage in research which addressed the characteristics of
early childhood educators and how affective domain factors into
their technological skills and knowledge construct.

“A” for Affective Knowledge in TPACK
The findings of this exploratory case study on how technology
integration occurred within the TPACK framework revealed that
affective knowledge was a key component in moving teachers
toward integration of technological knowledge with content and
pedagogical knowledge. Thus, this study suggests modifying the
framework to include affective knowledge for TPACK frame-
work. Mishra and Koehler (2008) explained that “A” in TPACK
was added to make the acronym easier to pronounce by adding
a vowel. However, this study suggests that “A” in TPACK could
represent affective knowledge. Figure 7 represents how a new
TPACK framework within the addition of an Affective compo-
nent would look.

The expansion of additional affective knowledge to the
TPACK framework now provides four foundation knowledge
components and eight components within the framework that
“address how these bodies of knowledge interact, constrain, and
afford each other” as defined by Mishra and Koehler (2008). This

revised framework needs future studies in terms of how this
knowledge will integrate but there are critical implications to
future practice for in-service PD or pre-service teacher training.

This study addressed a portion of needs to further our un-
derstanding of TPACK in the context of early childhood edu-
cation. Currently, only one TPACK study has been conducted
within the context of early childhood educators. The findings
regarding “Affective Knowledge” being important when viewing
from a TPACK framework can be also true in other educational
contexts. It will be interesting to see if affective knowledge plays
a larger role in further understanding the TPACK framework be-
yond early childhood educators.

ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS
This research project was funded by a grant from Samuel N. and
Mary Castle Foundation. Its contents are solely the responsibility
of the authors and do not necessarily represent the official views
of the foundation.

REFERENCES
Asch, S. E. (1952). Social psychology. NY, NY: Prentice-Hall.
Beach, M., & Stefanick, P. (2010). The use of digital media in Min-

nesota early childhood classrooms. In D. Gibson & B. Dodge
(Eds.), Proceedings of Society for Information Technology &
Teacher Education International Conference 2010 (pp. 1028–
1034). Chesapeake, VA: Association for the Advancement
of Computing in Education (AACE). Retrieved from http://
www.editlib.org/p/33489.

Bruner, J. (1960). The process of education. Cambridge, MA: Har-
vard University Press.

Chuang, H., & Ho, C. (2011). An investigation of early childhood
teachers’ technological pedagogical content knowledge
(TPACK) in Taiwan. Journal of Kirsehir Education Faculty, 12(2),
99–117.

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

Figure 7. Technological Pedagogical Affective and Content Knowledge
(TPACK)

7
IJ-SoTL, Vol. 12 [2018], No. 2, Art. 17
https://doi.org/10.20429/ijsotl.2018.120217

340–343.
DeCurtis, L. L., & Ferrer, D. (2011). Toddlers and technology:

Teaching the techniques. The ASHA Leader. Retrieved from
http://www.asha.org/Publications/leader/2011/110920.

Denzin, N. K. (1984). The research act. Englewood Cliffs, NJ: Pren-
tice Hall.

Festinger, L. (1957). A theory of cognitive dissonance. Evanston, IL:
Row, Peterson.

Festinger, L., & Carlsmith, J. M. (1959). Cognitive consequences of
forced compliance. Journal of Abnormal and Social Psychology,
58, 203–210.

Galinsky, E. (2012). Learning communities: An emerging phenom-
enon. Young Children, 67(1), 20–27.

Graham, C. R., Burgoyne, N., Cantrell, P., Smith, L., St. Clair, L.,
Harris, R., … Clair, L. S. (2009). Measuring the TPACK
confidence of inservice science teachers. Techtrends, 53
(5), 70–79. Retrieved from http://web.a.ebscohost.com.
eres.library.manoa.hawaii.edu/ehost/pdfviewer/pdfview-
er?vid=3&sid=90613bc0-579c-4891-afe5-1bd816dc8ab4@
sessionmgr4003&hid=4204.

Guernsey, L. (2014). Policy brief: Envisioning a digital age architecture
for early education. Washington, D.C: New America. Retrieved
from http://earlyed.newamerica.net/publications/policy/en-
visioning_a_digital_age_architecture_for_early_education.

Guernsey, L., Levine, M., Chiong, C., & Severns, M. (2012). Pio-
neering literacy in the digital wild west: Empowering parents and
educators. Retrieved from www.gradelevelreading.net.

Gutnick, A. L., Robb, M., Takeuchi, L., & Kotler., J. (2011). Always
Connected: The new digital media habits of young children. NY,
NY: The Joan Ganz Cooney Center at Sesame Workshop.

Hammond, T. C., & Manfra, M. M. (2009). Giving, prompting, mak-
ing: Aligning technology and pedagogy within TPACK for
social studies instruction. Contemporary Issues in Technology
and Teacher Education, 9(2), 160–185. Retrieved from http://
www.citejournal.org/vol9/iss2/socialstudies/article1.cfm.

Heider, F. (1958). The psychology of interpersonal relations. NY, NY:
Wiley.

Hutinger, P., Hall, S., Johanson, J., Robinson, L., Stoneburner, R., &
Wisslead, K. (1994). State of practice: How assistive technolo-
gies are used in educational programs of children with multiple
disabilities. Macomb, IL.

Jahoda, M. (1956). Psychological issues in civil liberties. American
Psychologist, 11, 234–240.

Kelley, M., Wetzel, K., Padgett, H., Kim, M., & Odom, M. (2003).
Early childhood teacher preparation and technology inte-
gration : The Arizona State University West experience.
Contemporary Issues in Technology and Teacher Education, 3(1),
71–87.

Kelman, H. C. (1958). Compliance, identification, and internaliza-
tion, three processes of attitude change. Journal of Conflict
Resolution, 2, 51–60.

Koehler, M. J., & Mishra, P. (2009). What is technological peda-
gogical content knowledge ? Contemporary Issues in Technol-
ogy and Teacher Education, 9(1), 60–70. doi:10.1016/j.compe-
du.2010.07.00

9

Koehler, M. J., Mishra, P., Kereluik, K., Shin, T. S., & Graham, C. R.
(2014). The technological pedagogical content knowledge
framework. In J. M. Spector, M. D. Merrill, J. Elen, & M. J. Bish-
op (Eds.), Handbook of Research on Educational Communica-
tions and Technology (4th ed., pp. 101–111). NY, NY: Springer

doi:10.1007/978-1-4614-3185-5
Krathwohl, D. R. (2002). A revision of Bloom’s taxonomy: An

overview. Theory Into Practice, 41(4), 212–219.
Krathwohl, D. R., Bloom, B. S., & Masia, B. B. (1964). Taxonomy

of educational objectives: The classification of educational goals.
Handbook II: The affective domain. NY, NY: David McKay.

Lofland, J., Snow, D., Anderson, L., & Lofland L. H. (2006). Analyz-
ing social settings: A guide to qualitative observation and analysis
(4th ed.). Belmont, CA: Thomson Wadsworth.

McManis, L. D., & Gunnewig, S. B. (2012). Finding the education in
educational technology with early learners. Young Children,
May, 14–24.

Mishra, P., & Koehler, M. J. (2006). Technological Pedagogical Con-
tent Knowledge: A Framework for Teacher Knowledge.
Teachers College Record, 108(6), 1017–1054. doi:10.1111/
j.1467-9620.2006.00684.x

Mishra, P., & Koehler, M. J. (2008). Introducing Technological Ped-
agogical Content Knowledge. Paper presented at the 2008
annual meeting of the American Educational Research As-
sociation (AERA), New York City, March 24–28, 2008. Re-
trieved from http://punya.educ.msu.edu/presentations/
AERA2008/MishraKoehler_AERA2008 .

NAEYC & Fred Rogers Center for Early Learning and Children’s
Media. (2012). Technology and interactive media as tools in early
childhood programs serving children from birth through age 8.
Joint position statement.

Niess, M. L. (2005). Preparing teachers to teach science and
mathematics with technology: Developing a technology ped-
agogical content knowledge. Teaching and Teacher Education,
21(5), 509–523.

OECD. (2006). Are students ready for a technology-rich world? What
PISA studies tell us. Paris.

O’Rourke, M., & Harrison, C. (2004). The introduction of new
technologies: New possibilities for early childhood pedago-
gy Australian Journal of Early Childhood, 29(2), 11-18.

Parette, H. P., Quesenberry, A. C., & Blum, C. (2010). Missing the
boat with technology usage in early childhood settings: A 21st
century view of developmentally appropriate practice. Ear-
ly Childhood Education Journal, 37(5), 335–343. doi:10.1007/
s10643-009-0352-x

Patten, K. B., & Valcarcel, D. (2007). iPods and English language
learners : A great combination. RedOrbit. Ken Haycock & As-
sociates.

Pierre, E., & Oughton, J. (2007). The affective domain: Undiscov-
ered country. College Quarterly, 10(4), 1–7.

Rhine, R. J. (1958). A concept formation approach to attitude ac-
quisition. Psychological Review, 65, 363–370.

Rideout, V. (2014). Learning at home: Families’ educational media use
in America. A report of the Families and Media Project. NY, NY:
The Joan Ganz Cooney Center at Sesame Workshop.

Rivera, H., Galarza, S. L., Entz, S., & Tharp, R. G. (2002). Technol-
ogy and pedagogy in Early childhood education : Guidance
from cultural-historical-activity theory and developmentally
appropriate instruction. Information Technology in Childhood
Education, 173–196.

Rosenberg, M. J. (1956). Cognitive structure and attitudinal affect.
Journal of Abnormal and Social Psychology, 53, 637–672.

Saldaña, J. (2009). The coding manual for qualitative researchers. (p.
223). Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage Publications.

Saluja, G., Early, D. M., & Clifford, R. M. (2002). Demographic char-

8

New Perspective on TPACK Framework
https://doi.org/10.20429/ijsotl.2018.120217

acteristics of early childhood teachers and structural ele-
ments of early care and education in the US. Early Childhood
Research and Practice.

Schmidt, D. A., Baran, E., Thompson, A. D., Mishra, P., Koehler, M.
J., & Shin, T. S. (2009). Technological Pedagogical Content
Knowledge (TPACK): The development and validation of
an assessment instrument for preservice teachers. Jour-
nal of Research on Technology in Education, 42(2), 123–149.
doi:10.1007/978-1-60761-303-9

Shephard, K. (2008). Higher education for sustainabili-
ty: Seeking affective learning outcomes. International
Journal of Sustainability in Higher Education, 9(1), 87–98.
doi:10.1108/14676370810842201

Shulman, L. S. (1987). Knowledge and teaching: Foundations of
the new reform. Harvard Educational Review, 57(1), 1–22.

Stake, R. E. (1995). Data Gathering. In The art of case study research
(pp. 49–68). Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage Publications, Inc.

Suchman, J. R. (1962). The elementary school training program in
scientific inquiry. Urbana, IL: University of Illinois.

USDOE. (2010). Teaching: Prepare and connect. U.S. Department
of Education. Retrieved from http://www.ed.gov/technolo-
gy/netp-2010/teaching-prepare-and-connect.

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

Wardle, F. (2000). The role of Technology in Early Childhood Pro-
grams. Early Childhood News, 13–15.

White, R. (1959). Motivation reconsidered – The concept of com-
petence. Psychological Review, 66, 297–333.

Wu, W.-H., Wu, Y.-C. J., Chen, C.-Y., Kao, H.-Y., Lin, C.-H., & Huang,
S.-H. (2012). Review of trends from mobile learning stud-
ies: A meta-analysis. Computers & Education, 59(2), 817–827.
doi:10.1016/j.compedu.2012.03.016

Yin, R. K. (2014). Case study research: Design and methods (5th ed.).
Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage Publications, Inc.

9
IJ-SoTL, Vol. 12 [2018], No. 2, Art. 17
https://doi.org/10.20429/ijsotl.2018.120217

Assignment Task Part 2

Read

 

a selection of your colleagues’ postings.

Respond to two of your colleagues’ postings of 125 words each in one or more of the following prompts:

· Read through the posts on the Discussion forum. Explain how the technology suggested by your peers might be differentiated to build on the strengths and meet the needs of children’s varying ages and abilities.

· As you envision the setting and examples your colleagues describe, offer several suggestions to ensure equitable access for all children in this early childhood setting.

· Using one of the technological tools suggested by your peers, explain how this tool might be used incorrectly or ineffectively. Provide a suggestion for overcoming this challenge and assist them in avoiding the misuse of this technology.

Cite appropriate references in APA format to substantiate your thinking

Colleague#1

Katheryn Gonzales 

Top of Form

Tablets:

Research indicates that young children who use iPads or tablets will do so with a high level of engagement. Teachers should capitalize off this and bring in student technology funds of knowledge (Oakley et al, 2020).  Young students like to play games. There are a wide variety of apps that can be downloaded onto a tablet that engage students in both literacy and math. My school for one uses a reading application from Kids A-Z called Headsprout. This is a great tool that takes kids on an adventure as they learn how to decode words and begin reading text. This is an app that levels kids up as they gain more knowledge and understanding. As they pass levels, they earn stickers on the app that they can turn in to build parts of a robot. Students love to earn stickers because the reward of building their robot is engaging. For math, my students use an app called Dreambox. This is another application where teachers can determine student level through a pretest. Students play games and level up. Both applications allow teachers to assign work and students can receive feedback from the teacher.

Coding:

Coding is the new digital literacy that schools are introducing students to in the classroom. Early childhood educators are finding that interactive media, including programing are common in children’s lives. Children learn though play and the interaction of their environment. Learning to code allows students to interact with the technological environment much like they would on the playground. Students can solve problems, discuss, make choices, and follow rules while coding (Lee & Junoh, 2019). At my school my kindergarten students are taught how to code on Bee-Bots. The students use a large graph which tells them how many spaces the Bee-Bot needs to go up and how many spaces it needs to move to the left or right. The Bee-Bot can be programed to turn around and go backwards as well. We create games where they must get to different objects on the graph. Students are highly engaged in this activity.

 
References:

Lee, J., & Junoh, J. (2019). Implementing Unplugged Coding Activities in Early Childhood

Classrooms. Early Childhood Education Journal, 47(6), 709–716. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10643-019-00967-z

 

Oakley, G., Wildy, H., & Berman, Y. (2020). Multimodal Digital Text Creation Using Tablets

and Open-Ended Creative Apps to Improve the Literacy Learning of Children in Early Childhood Classrooms. Journal of Early Childhood Literacy, 20(4), 655–679.

Colleague#2

Marcia Phillips 

Top of Form

Based on scholarly resources from the last 5 years, share examples of at least two technology tools and how they could be incorporated into early childhood settings in ways that enhance children’s development and learning. 

Provide rationales for why you selected these tools, the ages for which they are appropriate, and how they may enhance children’s development and learning experiences.

One technology tool that would be good for emergent bilingual children that are learning English is word prediction software. Word prediction software teaches extended written responses, basic spelling support, and additional opportunities to practice reading. This software can be accessed through a computer. According to (Brown, 2021), “this digital tool enhanced the meaning-making process of emergent bilingual writers” a success. This technology thus far has seen positive results in the classroom. This technology is developmentally appropriate for children in first grade ages 6-7. 

Another technology tool is the AT-Assistive Technology for children with difficulties with communicating through language. Children with developmental delays can have the AT to help with language to engage in social play, respond and initiate to social stimuli and negotiate conflict (Lohmann, 2019). AT can increase receptive and expressive language development to comprehend or understand what others say. This technology is developmentally appropriate for preschoolers age 3-5. Through language there is no technology (e.g., gestures, and sign language), low technology (e.g., picture boards, images, pencils and paper, drawings) or high technology (e.g., tablets, smartphones, speech generating devices, and apps). 

Provide rationales for why you selected these tools, the ages for which they are appropriate, and how they may enhance children’s development and learning experiences.

References :

Brown, S., & Almond, A. (2021). Emergent Bilinguals’ Use of Word Prediction software amid Digital Composing. Reading Teacher, 74(5), 607-616.

Lohmann, M. J., Hofe, K. A., Gauvreau, A. N., & Higgins, J. P. (2019). Using Assistive Technology Tools to Support Learning in the Inclusive Preschool Classroom. Journal of Special Education Apprenticeship, 8(2).

Calculator

Calculate the price of your paper

Total price:$26
Our features

We've got everything to become your favourite writing service

Need a better grade?
We've got you covered.

Order your paper