digital positioning for inclusive practice in early ... · young children experience and play...

Fleer, M. (2013). Digital Positioning for Inclusive Practice in Early Childhood: The Cultural Practices Surrounding Digital Tablets in Family Homes. Computers in New Zealand Schools: Learning, teaching, technology, 25(1–3), 56–76.

Computers in New Zealand Schools: Learning, teaching, technology, 25(1–3), 56–76. 56

Digital positioning for inclusive practice in early childhood: The

cultural practices surrounding digital tablets in family homes

Prof Marilyn Fleer

Faculty of Education,

Monash University,

Victoria, Australia

Abstract

Digital tablets are now commonplace among families, in many schools and in a

growing number of early childhood centres. Digital tablets have become normalised as

part of everyday family life in many homes. But what do they afford for preschool-aged

children, especially children who are visually impaired? This paper examines how

iPads provide a conceptually inclusive tool for learning about the world. In the case

study of one child with albinism, the conditions for supporting development through the

use of an iPad were digitally documented and analysed. It was found that the social

practices in the home afforded a level of digital positioning that demonstrated the

significance of a dialectical reading of child and environment. In drawing upon

cultural-historical concepts, this paper presents an inclusive framework for

understanding the use of iPads in everyday family practices, and a better reading of

digitally oriented social practices that arise as part of the pedagogy of families who use

iPads.

Keywords: Early childhood, tablet technology, cultural-historical, iPad, inclusion.

Digital technologies have been deemed a ‘significant tool’ for supporting student

learning (Nash, 2012), especially in the area of inclusion (Jowett, Moore, & Anderson,

2012). Field research on the use of iPads has ‘showed extensive affordances [of iPads]

as a learning tool’, where ‘portability and fit-for-task suitability’ were most evident

(Nash, 2012). However, technologies in the area of inclusion has had a shaky history,

Fleer, M. 2013

Computers in New Zealand Schools: Learning, teaching, technology, Vol. 25, No. 1–3, pp. 56–76. 57

with Shamir and Margalit (2011) suggesting that children’s abilities are positioned in

deficit and accentuated and made more visible when children use digital tools. They

state, “in our technology-saturated environments, given children’s vast involvement

with various aspects of technology, educational research cannot ignore the presence and

potential impacts” of these technologies (p. 281). Vygotsky (1993) argued that

traditionally “We dwell on the ‘nuggets’ of ill health rather than the ‘mountains’ of

health” (p. 68). In line with this, this paper reports on the social and pedagogical

practices associated with using digital tools within the context of a study of one child

with visual impairment living in Australia where an iPad was being used at home. This

paper begins with a brief review of the literature focused on the use of digital tablets in

early childhood, followed by a theoretical discussion of inclusion, the study design and

the findings. Terms specific to the studies reviewed (e.g. iPad or digital tablets) are used

in in this paper. It is argued that an iPad, as mediated through family, affords a high

level of inclusion for the case study child reported in this paper.

Digital tablets for early childhood

One of the unique pedagogical features of preschools is the use of play for framing the

learning experiences of young children. In this context it has been argued by Edwards

(2013) that studies into digital play have shown that research is predominantly focused

on describing play with digital tools (see Kafai, 2006; Verenikina & Kervin, 2011), how

technological toys are used (see Bergen, 2012; Silvern, 2006), and the nature of the

unique play-based situation in which digital play takes place, but in the context of the

historical and cultural needs of communities (see Fleer, 2011; Stephen, McPake,

Plowman, & Berch-Heyman, 2008).

The research into the use of digital tablets in early childhood has traditionally been

positioned as a dualism where problems and benefits are pitched against each other (see,

Melhuish & Falloon, 2010; Plowman, McPake, & Stephen, 2010; Yelland, 2011),

suggesting that there might be long-term problems for children, despite the fact that

very little longitudinal research has been done (Bittman, Rutherford, Brown, &

Unsworth, 2011). This research also puts forward a case for a strong link between

digital learning objects and learning outcomes of children (see Falloon, 2012; 2013).

Fleer, M. 2013


Unfortunately, much of the research that is presented in these dualistic arguments tends

to focus on the software, software that is usually out of date by the time the article is

published (Fleer, 2013).

Research also tends to concentrate upon how technological tools and software are

supportive of specific curriculum outcomes (Gonzalez & Fryer, 2013; Nash, 2012),

such as literacy (see Black, 2010; Wohlwend, 2010), numeracy (Jowett, Moore, &

Anderson, 2012) or the arts (Terrini, 2011). Some research has also focused on the use

of iPads specifically for children with special needs (Jowett, Moore, & Anderson, 2012;

Shamir & Margalit, 2011), particularly as video modelling tools for carers (e.g., Moore,

Anderson, Freccase, Deppeler, Furlonger, & Didden, 2013), and explorations of how

young children experience and play online (Black, 2010; Marsh, 2010).

Melhuish and Falloon (2010) have concluded that there appears to be enough overall

evidence to support the view that digital tools can effectively support young children’s

learning, and that an iPad “may offer an exciting platform for consuming and creating

content in a collaborative, interactive way” (p. 1). It is the latter which is of interest to

the focus of this paper.

Whilst these studies are important for gaining insights into the affordances of software

and digital tablets for curriculum learning in early childhood education, what has been

missing from this research are insights into the social practices in families which create

the conditions for these outcomes. What we know about digital tool use in homes is that

parents believe their children pick up technological skills by themselves and

“underestimate their own role in supporting learning”. They miss “the extent to which

learning with technology is culturally transmitted within the family” (Plowman,

McPake, & Stephen, 2008, p. 303). The expansive longitudinal national study of

Plowman, McPake and Stephen (2008), with their focused small-scale analyses, have

shown that young children are discerning users of digital tools and “that there was no

evidence that ICT dominated the preferences of children” (p. 111), despite “evidence of

some parental disquiet about the role of technology in children’s lives” (p. 63).

Plowman, McPake and Stephen (2010) noted that although there is an increasing

number of technological devices available to children as found in their survey of 346

Fleer, M. 2013


families and 24 case study research, there was no increased use of technologies over

time in the home. However, more needs to be understood about the pedagogical and

social practices surrounding the use of digital tablets in the home for children generally,

but specifically for children with visual impairment.

The term pedagogy is used in this paper to refer to the specific family practices

surrounding the introduction and effective use of iPads for supporting learning. This

mirrors how one might use this term in the context of education in settings such as

preschools and schools.

Conceptualising inclusion in the context of the use of iPads

Even though technologies have been used in inclusive education for a long time (Maor,

Currie, & Drewry, 2011), there are relatively few studies that have focused on the use of

iPads for preschool-aged children with visual impairment. Shamir and Margalit (2011)

argue that in the context of special educational needs there is a blossoming amount of

activity in the use of technologies, but a “dearth in the theoretical knowledge and

empirical databases required to assess the significance of these innovations in terms of

learners’ unique characteristics and educators’ specific teaching goals” (p. 279). It is

suggested by them that “new technologies and their software as tools for enhancing the

performance of special educational needs students” play an important mediating role

during learning. Whilst the effectiveness of technologies for enhancing learning in

inclusive education settings is noted (van Dijken, Bus, & de Jong, 2011), particularly in

kindergarten settings (Shamir, Korat, & Shlafer, 2011), iPads have also provided virtual

environments for meal preparation for children with cerebral palsy (Kirshner, Weiss, &

Tirosh, 2011), for children with autism spectrum disorder working in virtual

environments generally (Parson & Cobb, 2011), and specifically in the teaching of

numeracy (Jowett, Moore, & Anderson, 2012), in learning to write one’s own name

(Moore, Anderson, Treccase, Deppeler, Furlonger, & Didden, 2013), self-help skills

(Shrestha, Anderson and Moore, 2013) and toilet training (Yun Qi Lee, Anderson, &

Moore, 2013). Eden and Bezer (2011) have examined three-dimensional and two-

dimensional intervention programmes in a virtual reality context for mediating the

needs of children with an intellectual disability.

Fleer, M. 2013


Taken together these studies provide some evidence for the use of iPads, for supporting

inclusive practices in homes. What is known is that iPads act as valuable tools, but more

needs to be understood about the social practices surrounding the use of iPads to

support everyday life at home.

An cultural-historical perspective of inclusion

In examining the general literature on inclusive practices, it is noted that a cultural-

historical reading of inclusion sees all children with abilities, rather than disabilities

(Underwood, Valeo, & Wood, 2012). In this conceptualisation, all children bring to

their activities their particular social situation of development and unique characteristics

(Bozhovich, 2009), shaped by biological and social situations (Daniels & Hedegaard,

2011). That is, a cultural-historical view of development does not focus on the idea of

predicted ages and stages of development (maturational perspective), but rather

examines the relationship of the child to his or her social and material environment.

What is prevalent in the literature is the notion of a “best fit curriculum” (Brown &

Moore 2011; Grace, Llewellyn, Wedgwood, Fenech, & McConnell 2008) for

supporting children’s social situation of development (Bozhovich, 2009). The concept

of the social situation of development specifically foregrounds how the same social and

material environment is experienced differently, because of what a specific child brings

to that situation. This concept is central for conceptualisng children’s development

where digital tablets are part of the social and material conditions for development. By

focusing on the broad range of developmental pathways, rather than by conceptualising

children to be with or without abilities, a more inclusive view of children is

foregrounded. Vygotsky (1993) argued that “we must not forget that, above all, it is

necessary to educate a child not as a blind child but as a child. Otherwise, to educate a

child as a blind or a deaf child means to nurture blindness and deafness; it means that

the pedagogy of children with [vision impairment] will become a defective pedagogy”

(p. 83; original emphasis).

Vygotsky (1993) suggested that “the task is not so much the education of … children

[with visual impairment] as it is the reeducation of the sighted” (p. 86), and hence there

is the need to put “an end to understandings of diversity dependent on medical,

Fleer, M. 2013


psychological and charity-based discourses” (Moss, 2003, p. 64, italics in original).

Bottcher (2010) conceptualises a cultural-historical view of inclusion as the “dynamic

understanding of the child and the environment as dialectically interdependent“ (p. 5).

Here the term dialectical suggests that it is not possible to think of a child in isolation of

the social and material environment, because the social and material environment

shapes the child, whilst at the same time the child is shaping the social and material

environment. Hence, it is not just the child or the iPad that should be studied, but rather

it should be the whole social and material environment in which the child and the iPad

are interacting. In this reading, it becomes possible to examine the mediating support

that is provided by adults to children in the full knowledge of the zone of proximal

development (Vygotsky, 1997) of the specific child. Children participate with the

support of other more capable peers or adults at levels above what they may do

independently with the iPad. This also means that children engage in a form of imitation

(Vygotsky, 1997) of what is representative of that which is within their zone of

proximal development already. Vygotsky had a specific definition for imitation, where a

level of supported understanding of the situation was possible in the act of imitation, but

only where the ideal forms are already present in the child’s environment. The relations

between the ideal form and the child’s real form of development become important

dimensions of understanding the social and material environment where the iPad is

being used by families (Vygotsky, 1994).

Understanding the social practices in families is central for knowing how iPads support,

or otherwise, inclusive learning and development in the early years.

Study design

The study reported in this paper sought to examine the social and material conditions

for learning that goes beyond the specific characteristics of the learner and what they

bring, and focuses on the social interactions with others within particular material

environments where iPads are used as part of family practices. The study sought to

specifically examine:

What kinds of family practices surround the use of iPads in the home to support

inclusive practices within everyday learning and development?

Fleer, M. 2013


In order to answer these research question a naturalistic study was designed in order to

capture the everyday practices at home. Observations were digitally recorded over a

three-week period. The details of the study design follow.

Participants

This paper concentrates upon one child, Li Lei, and his family. Li Lei is aged 4.1 years

and has a condition known as albinism. This is a congenital disorder characterised by a

lack of pigments in the skin, hair and eyes, which causes visual impairment. There is a

need for great care when exposed to the sun. Li Lei is of Chinese heritage. He was

adopted as a baby. An extraordinarily high level of mathematical competency was noted

in the everyday practices of Li Lei. It is beyond the scope of this paper to discuss his

exceptional mathematical skills and competence.

Procedure

Video observations: Li Lei was observed within a preschool and at home over a three-

week period constituting 74 hours of video observations made by a team of research

assistants. Of the 74 hours of video data, 19 hours of video observations were directly

related to Li Lei in the preschool setting, and 9.7 hours of video observations were made

of Li Lei in his home over seven separate visits. Two researchers, each with a digital

video camera gathered data. One camera followed Li Lei around the home, whilst a

second camera took stills of everyday family practices. Of the 9.7 hours of video

observations made in the family home, the family recorded 3.6 hours of video data over

three days when the researchers were not there. Only the data gathered in the family

home by the researchers and the family is presented in this paper.

Video interviews: Interviews were conducted with the parents of Li Lei in the family

home in the context of the general data gathering of everyday practices.

Analysis

The central concepts used in the study were the social situation of development

(Bozhovich, 2009; Vygotsky, 1998), the zone of proximal development (Vygotsky,

1997), imitation (Vygotsky, 1997), and the relations between the ideal and the real

(Vygotsky, 1994) as discussed previously (see also Table 1). Raw video data and

Fleer, M. 2013


interview files were put into iMovie as projects. All projects were examined in relation

to these concepts, and these categories were used to edit the data into clips. A three-

level approach to analysis was undertaken (Hedegaard & Fleer, 2008) where clips were:

1) examined as individual everyday representations of the concept in action, 2)

categorised as situated practices and what that afforded for inclusion, and 3) examined

for themes across video clips.

Findings

This section begins with examples of the family practices that were commonly noted in

the home that featured the use of iPads. Specifically, the family practices were studied

in relation to how tablet technology was framed to take account of Li Lei’s unique

characteristic and to support and advance his overall development.

Li Lei at home

Introduced below is an example taken from a series of 10 single visit video recordings

where the iPad was featured.

Li Lei is at home with his mother and father. He is seated at a child-

sized table, writing in a notebook as he listens to his sound machine

(name used by the family to refer to a digital recorder). His mother

suggests to Li Lei “Li Lei, you may wish to record from the sound

machine and put it on your iPad”. Li Lei takes the iPad and goes to sit

on the sofa to begin creating. His mother moves a selection of cushions

so that they comfortably support Li Lei’s neck when studying closely

the screen of the iPad (see Figure 1 below). As the mother guides Li Lei

onto the cushions, she explains to the researchers: “We always try and

make sure that his neck is not completely compromised because of his

vision” (Video Observation Day 10).

Fleer, M. 2013


Figure 1. Li Lei records and creates musical compositions on the iPad

Li Lei has on the iPad GarageBand app which allows him to record and

create musical compositions. Li Lei is examining the tracks that have

already been recorded. The father points to a track on the iPad and

suggests he play that. Li Lei responds by saying “I have to hear this

track first”. Li Lei switches off all the instruments on the iPad and just

highlights one track so that he can listen to that. After listening to the

single track, Li Lei continually moves between tracks, listening to each

for short bursts. His father asks him to play the guitar track. Li Lei says,

“That track doesn’t begin until the 19th bar”. The father says “Can you

move the cursor” pointing to the 19th bar “so you can now play it”. As it

plays, the father explains to the researcher that the guitar tracks were

created by Li Lei. The father and Li Lei continue to work together with

the iPad, but with the father only makings suggestions, and Li Lei either

accepting or rejecting these. Li Lei skilfully records his own voice, his

mother’s voice, creates new tracks, retrieves saved tracks, and creates

repeats and loops with multiple tracks playing concurrently. Li Lei

continues to do this, with his father seated behind him (see Figure 2), so

he can view the screen. Although it is the father who makes suggestions,

it is Li Lei who uses the iPad to create his own musical recordings

(Video Observation Day 10).

Fleer, M. 2013


Distal guided interactions were noted by Plowman, McPake and Stephen’s (2008) in

their research. This is consistent with what can be seen in Figure 1, where the father

distally supports Li Lei as he engages with the digital tablet technology. Plowman,

McPake and Stephen (2008) state that distal guided interaction in the form of peripheral

vision was used by most families “for overseeing safety and ensuring that the children

were not getting stuck” (p. 311), but also was noted when children themselves sought

help.

Figure 2 Father–child interactions and positioning

Interviews with the father and video observations of interactions in the home indicated

that Li Lei had worked together with his father on his computer to learn to use

GarageBand (recording studio). Consistent with a series of papers by Plowman, McPake

and Stephen (2008) from their multiple analyses of a national study of the use of

technology in the home, the father noted that Li Lei had independently transferred his

knowledge of this software directly to using it on the iPad, despite the different

configuration on the iPad to the father’s computer, as is noted below:

Li Lei says: “I want it to keep on repeating”. The father explains to the

researcher that Li Lei just extended the line on the iPad in order to

repeat the track. Li Lei says “So now I am making the whole song

repeat. I am making it repeat. Repeat!”. The father stresses to the

Fleer, M. 2013


researchers that “He’s worked out how to do that by himself. I have not

shown him how to use that. He has used the application on the desktop

computer. But it does not work the same way. It does the same things as

mine, but he has seen me working on the desktop, and I have shown him

how to use it, and when he got it for the iPad, everything is formatted

differently, even though it does all of the same things. What he is doing

there I can’t actually do. I have to sit down and work it out. He has

worked out how to copy and paste, he has worked out how to find all the

samples, how to record, there are things that he can do that I can’t do on

my desktop. He has worked it out for himself. He has virtually taught

himself.” (Video Observation Day 10).

Plowman, McPake and Stephen (2008) found in their extensive research of technologies

used in the homes of UK families that “parents saw children’s developing competencies

as a natural, unmediated process in which learning happened without teaching” (p. 303)

and that “the ways in which children’s learning with technology is supported at home are

not necessarily visible and that parents frequently underestimate their role” (p. 304).

Their cultural-historical study went beyond simply noting the operational use of

technologies to determining the intergenerational nature of informal practices that

suffuse family activities that go unnoticed in family homes. The capacity of Li Lei to

transfer his skills from the desktop to the iPad is indicative of the backdrop of

experience he has had in his family with digital technologies. In such a technology rich

context where the father has introduced Li Lei to the intricacies of digitally recording,

something that is clearly valued in the family, the father’s role has been de-emphasised.

There was a widespread belief that the children were self-taught and that

learning happened, in the words of one mother, ‘by default’. A key

characteristic of this natural process of ‘just picking it up’ was speed.

When provided, tutoring was not a protracted activity in the same way

as teaching a child to read, write, complete a jigsaw or ride a bike. Many

parents commented on how quickly their children could grasp what they

needed to do when confronted with a new family purchase or a present

and that it required just a one-off demonstration (‘she took to it straight

Fleer, M. 2013


away’, ‘they learn really quickly’, ‘you only have to show him once’)

(p. 341).

Like Li Lei’s father who indicated that Li Lei worked it out for himself, that he had

virtually taught himself, Plowman, McPake and Stephen’s (2008) noted four kinds of

beliefs about how children “picked up” learning with technologies:

1. self-taught,

2. trial and error,

3. copying,

4. demonstration.

In Li Lei’s rich technological landscape, and in the example given above, culturally

learned ways of interacting with the iPad are noted. In these contexts, the environmental

technology provides a shared context, shared talk and terminology, and the creation of

“a link between family culture and children’s learning” (Plowman, McPake, & Stephen,

2008, p. 315). Yet what is most evident to families, as was noted in this study and in

that of Plowman, McPake and Stephen (2008), was the tendency to focus on, and only

recognise, the operational learning of children, even though parents provide many

opportunities for learning to take place, which are supervised through “guided

interaction in the distal dimension” (p. 315). Not surprisingly, most of the relevant

literature in the context of inclusion focuses on the technical operations of using iPads

for the life support tasks (Jowett, Moore, & Anderson, 2012; Shamir & Margalit, 2011)

or in relation to online experiences of young children (Black, 2010; Marsh, 2010).

The computer specific language gained through using the iPad also featured in Li Lei’s

everyday interactions at home. For example, during interviews with the mother and Li

Lei, they shared the following:

Mother: What did you say to us the other day? You said you had a fantastic

day and you said to me: “Mummy I want to [deliberate pause]…”

Fleer, M. 2013


Li Lei: Copy and paste this day [they both smile].

Mother: He wanted to copy and paste the day. (Video

observation.)

Plowman, McPake and Stephen (2008) also noted that some “parents commented on

their children’s use of terminology and reported children using words such as ‘pause’,

‘desktop’ and ‘load’, demonstrating awareness of web addresses on television

programmes or asking for a site to be saved in ‘Favourites’” (p. 309). As might be

expected, this was a feature of video modelling tools for carers (Moore, Anderson,

Treccase, Deppeler, Furlonger, & Didden, 2013) but not necessarily featured in relation

to young children with additional needs generally.

Discussion

The idea of a cultural-historical reading of Li Lei’s development is captured in Table 1

through the presentation of examples of the data in relation to the concepts of social

situation of development, the concept of imitation, the relations between the real and

ideal forms of development, and the concept of the zone of proximal development.

Together these constitute an inclusive framework for the cultural development of Li Lei,

where the use of the iPad is not a biologically determined feature of Li Lei’s

development, but rather a cultural practice that is featured within the social and material

environment of Li Lei’s family. Column 1 summarises these concepts, whilst Column 2

shows the everyday practices of the cultural forms of development (Column 3), such as

when Li Lei says “I had such a great day, I want to copy and paste the day”. As was

discussed in the findings section, the technological way of speaking is a valued family

practice, which in this table is shown to be part of the family pedagogy (Column 4).

Fleer, M. 2013


Table1. An inclusive framework for understanding the use of iPads in everyday family

practices

Cultural development Everyday practice Cultural activity Family pedagogy

iPad functions to capture features of everyday life (Bozovich, 2009; Vygotsky, 1998)

Supporting technological language to capture everyday practice: “I had such a great day, I want to copy and paste the day.”

Using iPad features in everyday speech

Valued technological language: Copy and paste metaphor

Working within the zone of proximal development – adult-child collaboration (Vygotsky, 1997).

Using iPad to download applications. Using cut, paste, copy features. Creating folders.

Functional use of the features of the iPad to perform activities in collaboration with adults or independently

Family cultural practices include distal guidance

Imitation – within the child’s zone of proximal development (Vygotsky, 1997).

Using Garage Band on the iPad without instruction

Transferring knowledge of Garage Band to iPad

Family cultural practices include having access to and observing applications being used for a real purpose.

Using real tools. Ideal form in the child’s environment (Vygotsky, 1994).

Recording singing and music, creating own musical production

Using iPad as a tool

Family cultural practices include purposefully using applications

What we learn from the case study summarised in Table 1 as an inclusive framework, is

that Li Lei’s visual impairment is no impediment for his use of the iPad. The iPad

affords many things for Li Lei, but it is the specific family practices that create the

conditions which see Li Lei acting competently with the iPad, and which contribute to

his cultural development. For instance, Li Lei’s father’s use of Garage Band on his

desktop is also used by Li Lei in an exploratory and purposeful way on his iPad.

Vygotsky argued that children imitate those social practices that are valued, but also

perform these activities with growing competence when they are supported by others

within their zone of proximal development. The family pedagogy provided the ideal

Fleer, M. 2013


context in which real digital tools could be used for creative and purposeful activity that

was valued by the family, and which contributed positively to Li Lei’s overall cultural

development.

What we also learn from this case study of one child is that when the focus of attention

is on the cultural development of the child, rather than looking at the child’s biology

(e.g. visual impairment), it becomes possible to see the significance of iPads for the

overall development of children with visual impairment. What Vygotsky (1993) draws

to our attention is that difference is often conceived as a disability when in a social

situation, where a particular difference, such as visual impairment “leads to a

restructuring of the social relationships and to a displacement of all the systems of

behavior” that are in existence for children, families and preschool environments

(Vygotsky, 1993, p. 63). It is not the actual physical ability of the child that is restricting

possibilities, but rather it is how the child is conceptualised within social relations and

the material conditions of the environment in which the child is living and learning.

This was evident through the distal positioning of the father (Figure 2) who knew that

his son could operationally and conceptually work with the iPad and mobile recording

studio software. In this study, the positioning of the adults in relation to Li Lei was in

relation to a “fit for purpose” approach, but in ways that worked with Li Lei’s visual

needs.

Taken together, the digitally oriented social practices of the family demonstrated new

forms of family pedagogy that supported the development of Li Lei. The iPad in the

context of this family pedagogy contributes immensely to the overall cultural

development of Li Lei, and therefore it can be argued that iPads can act as an inclusive

tool for the development of children with visual impairment.

Conclusion

What this study has shown is that inclusion was framed through conceptualising social

practices in relation to the unique characteristics of Li Lei. The family practices worked

directly with Li Lei’s visual needs, but in ways that demonstrated a dynamic

understanding of the child and the environmental conditions as dialectically

interdependent. In this case example of Li Lei, the digital tablet was introduced and

Fleer, M. 2013


used by Li Lei in ways that positively afforded his learning and development. The iPad

acted as both a platform for learning and creativity, and as an object of social relations

within the family. Consequently, it can be argued that the iPad in this case study became

an instrument for social practice and for affirming Li Lei’s agency as a child with many

abilities.

References

Bergen, D. (2012). Play, technology toy affordances and brain development: Research

needs and policy issues. In L. Cohen & S. Waite-Stupiansky (Eds.), Play: A

polyphony of research, theories, and issues. pp. 164–173. Maryland: University

Press of America.

Bittman, M., Rutherford, L. Brown, B., & Unsworth. L. (2011). Digital natives? New

and old media and children’s outcomes. Australian Journal of Education, 55(2),

161–175.

Black, R. (2010). The language of Webkinz: Early childhood literacy in an online

virtual world. Digital Culture and Education, 2(1), 7–24.

Bottcher, L. (2010). An eye for possibilities in the development of children with

cerebral palsy: Neurobiology and neuropsychology in a cultural-historical

dynamic understanding. Outlines – Critical Practice Studies, 1, 3–23.

Bozhovich, L. I. (2009). The social situation of child development. Journal of Russian

and East European Psychology, 47(4), 59–86.

Brown, D., & Moore, D. (2011). Reconceptualizing special education. In Christine M.,

& Rubie-Davies (Eds.), Educational psychology: Concepts, research and

challenges. pp. 184-199. Abingdon, UK: Routledge.

Daniels, D., & Hedegaard, M. (2011). Vygotsky and special needs education:

Rethinking support for children and schools. London: Continuum International.

Fleer, M. 2013


Eden, S., & Bezer, M. (2011). Three-dimensions vs. two-dimensions intervention

programs: The effect on the mediation level and behavioural aspects of children

with intellectual disability. European Journal of Special Needs Education, 26(3),

337–353.

Edwards, S. (2013). Digital play in the early years: A contextual response to the

problem of integrating technologies and play-based pedagogies in the early

childhood curriculum. European Early Childhood Education Research Journal,

21(2), 199–212.

Falloon, G. (2012). Key competency development and students’ use of digital learning

objects. Computers in New Zealand Schools, 24(2), 165–172.

Falloon, G. (2013). Young students using iPads: App design and content influences on

their learning pathways. Computers and Education, 68, 505–521.

Fleer, M. (2011). Technologically constructed childhoods: Moving beyond a

reproductive and critical view of curriculum development. Australasian Journal

of Early Childhood, 36(1), 16–24.

Fleer, M. (2013). Play in the Early Years. New York: Cambridge University Press.

Gonzalez, M., & Fryer, C. (2013). The effect of the iPad on the readiness skills of at-

risk preschoolers. In R. McBride, & M. Searson (Eds.), Proceedings of Society for

Information Technology & Teacher Education International Conference

2013 (pp. 4380–4383). Chesapeake, VA: AACE. Retrieved from

http://www.editlib.org/p/48814.

Grace, R., Llewellyn, G., Wedgwood, N., Fenech, M., & McConnell, D. (2008). Far

from ideal: Everyday experiences of mothers and early childhood professionals

negotiating an inclusive early childhood experience in the Australian context.

Topics in Early Childhood Special Education, 28(1), 18–30.

Hedegaard, M., & Fleer, M. (Eds.). (2008). Studying children: A cultural-historical

approach. Berkshire: Open University Press.

Fleer, M. 2013


Jowett, E. L., Moore, W., & Anderson, A. (2012). Using an iPad-based video modelling

package to teach numeracy skills to a child with an autism spectrum disorder.

Developmental Neurohabilitation, 15(4), 304–312.

Kafai, Y. (2006). Play and technology. In D. Fromberg (Ed), Play from birth to twelve:

Contexts, perspectives and meaning. pp. 207–213. Hoboken: Routledge.

Kirshner, S. Weiss, P. L., & Tirosh, E. (2011). Meal-maker: A virtual meal preparation

environment for children with cerebral palsy. European Journal of Special Needs

Education, 26(3), 323–336

Maor, D. Currie, J., & Drewry, R. (2011). The effectiveness of assistive technologies

for children with special needs: A review of research-based studies. European

Journal of Special Needs Education, 26(3), 283–298.

Marsh, J. (2010). Young children’s play in online virtual worlds. Journal of Early

Childhood Research, 8(1), 23–39.

Melhuish, K., & Falloon, G. (2010). Looking to the future: M-learning with the iPad.

Computers in New Zealand Schools: Learning, Leading, Technology, 22(30), 1–

15.

Moore, D. W., Anderson, A., Treccase, F., Deppeler, J., Furlonger, B., & Didden, R.

(2013). A video-based package to teach a child with autism spectrum disorder to

write her name. Journal of Developmental Physical Disabilities. DOI

10.1007/s10882-012-9325-x

Moss, J. (2003). Inclusive schooling policy: An educational detective story? The

Australian Educational Researcher, 30(1), 63–82.

Nash, L. (2012). Exploring iPads in learning. Learning and Teaching, 31, 7–13.

Parson, S., & Cobb, S. (2011). State-of-the-art of virtual reality technologies for

children on the autism spectrum. European Journal of Special Needs Education,

26(3), 355–366.

Fleer, M. 2013


Plowman, L., McPake, J., & Stephen, C. (2008). Just picking it up? Young children

learning with technology at home. Cambridge Journal of Education, 38(3), 303–

319.

Plowman, L., McPake, J., & Stephen., C. (2010). The technologisation of childhood?

Young children and technology in the home. Children and Society, 24(1), 63–74.

Shamir, A., & Margalit, M. (2011). Technology and students with special educational

needs: New opportunities and future directions. European Journal of Special

Needs Education, 26(3), 279–282.

Shamir, A., Korat, O., & Shlafer, I. (2011). The effect of activity with e-book on

vocabulary and story comprehension: A comparison between kindergarteners at

risk of learning disabilities and typically developing kindergarteners. European

Journal of Special Needs Education, 26(3), 311–322.

Shrestha, A., Anderson, A., & Moore, D. W. (2013). Using point-of-view video

modelling and forward chaining to teach a functional self-help skill to a child with

autism. Journal of Physical Disability, 22, 157–167.

Silvern, D. (2006). Educational implications of play with computers. In D. Fromberg

(Ed.), Play from Birth to Twelve: Contexts, perspectives and meaning (pp. 215–

221). Hoboken: Routledge.

Stephen, C., McPake, J., Plowman, L., & Berch-Heyman, S. (2008). Learning from the

children: Exploring preschool children’s encounters with ICT at home. Journal of

Early Childhood Research, 6(2), 99–117.

Terreni, L. (2011). Interactive whiteboards, art and young children. Computers in New

Zealand Schools: Learning, teaching, technology, 23(1), 78–100.

Underwood, L., Valeo, A., & Wood, R. (2012). Understanding inclusive early

childhood education: A capability approach. Contemporary Issues in Early

Childhood, 13(4), 290–299.

Fleer, M. 2013


van Dijken, M. J., Bus, A. G., & de Jong, M. T. (2011). Open access to living books on

the internet: A new chance to bridge the linguistic gap for at-risk preschoolers?

European Journal of Special Needs Education, 26(3), 299–310.

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

2(5), 4–19.

Vygotsky, L.S. (1993). The fundamentals of defectology. (J. E. Knox and C. B.

Stevens, Trans). R. W. In Riever and A. S. Carton (Eds.), The Collected Works of

L. S. Vygotsky (vol. 2). New York: Plenum Press.

Vygotsky, L. S. (1994). The problem of the environment. In R. van der Veer, & J.

Valsiner (Eds.), The Vygotsky Reader (pp. 338–354). Oxford: Blackwell.

Vygotsky, L. S. (1997). The history of the development of higher mental functions (M.

J. Hall, Trans.). In R. W. Rieber (Ed.), The Collected Works of L. S. Vygotsky

(Vol. 4). New York: Plenum Press.

Vygotsky, L. S. (1998). Early childhood. (M. J. Hall, Trans.). In R. W. Rieber (Ed.),

The Collected Works of L. S. Vygotsky. Vol. 5, Child Psychology, pp. 261–282. New

York and London: Plenum Press.

Wohlwend, K. (2010.) A is for Avatar: Young children in literacy 2.0 worlds and

literacy 1.0 schools. Language Arts, 88(2), 144–152.

Yelland, N. (2011). Reconceptualising play and learning in the lives of young children.

Australasian Journal of Early Childhood, 36(2), 4–12.

Yun Qi Lee, C., Anderson, A., & Moore, D. W. (2013). Using video modelling to toilet

train a child with autism. Journal of Physical Disability. DOI 10.1007/s10882-

013-9348-y.

Fleer, M. 2013


Acknowledgment

The Australian Research Council Discovery Grant scheme funded the research

discussed in this paper. Research assistance was provided by Feiyan Chen, Yijun Hao,

Hasnat Jahan, Judith Gomes, Shuhuan Pang, Shukla Sikder, and Pui Ling Wong.

Support from Madeleine Holland and Rowan Fleer-Stout with data organisation is

appreciated. Special acknowledgment of the staff and families involved in the study is

made, as without their involvement new understandings would not be possible. Special

mention is also made of Sue March who acted as the senior field researcher and who

ensured that quality data were gathered at all times.

This work is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution-

NonCommercial-NoDerivs 3.0 New Zealand License.

digital positioning for inclusive practice in early ... · young children experience and play...

Documents