What  is  the  effect  of  digital  technologies  on  engagement  and  complexity  of  thinking  of  the  explora4ons  of  5-­‐6  year  old  children  in  a  Reggio  inspired  se:ng?

Ac#on  Research  by  Clair  Weston    December  2013  

Hypotheses  

In  using  the  iPad  as  an  expressive  language  we  move  beyond  the  common  use  of  iPads.  In  a  suppor#ve  learning  environment  with  carefully  chosen  Apps  ,  iPads  can  add  to  the  level  of  engagement  and  the  complexity  of  thinking  of  a  child’s  explora#ons  when  the  other  languages  of  expression  are  not  forgoIen.  

Research  Ques#on  !What  is  the  effect  of  digital  technologies  on  engagement  and  complexity  of  thinking  of  the  explora4ons  of  5-­‐6  year  old  children  in  a  Reggio  inspired  se:ng?

Children  can  be  passive  users    Looking  at  a  screen  Consuming    Low  level  of  engagement  Ac#vity  level  is  simple  Repe##ve  Absence  of  cogni#ve  demand  Lower  order  thinking  skills  are  u#lized

My  Concern

Intension

Children  displaying  sustained  intense  engagement  Crea#vity  Energy    Persistence  Higher  order  thinking  skills  would  be  displayed  Several  languages  of  expression  would  be  intertwined    

This  is  the  one  I  like  the  best  on  the  iPad.  I  didn’t  know  how  to  do  it  before  and  then  Amon  showed  me  how  to  do  it.  I  like  making  all  of  the  sounds.  It  reminded  me  about  when  we  did  buIerfly  dancing  outside.That  makes  me  feel  happy  because  I  like  to  hear  the  sounds.  !

Variables  Dependent:  level  of  engagement  and  complexity  of  thinking  Independent:  opportuni#es  to  open  up  possibili#es  for  iPad  explora#on  as  an  expressive  language  Extraneous:  sensi#ve  and  #mely  teacher  interven#on,  the  learning  environment  and  conversa#ons  between  the  children  themselves

!!“We  have  to  give  closer  aIen#on  to  the  process  of  learning  through  the  digital  media.  The  digital  experience  is  much  too  oTen  exhausted  simply  in  its  func#on  and  technical  form.  In  addi#on  to  this  technical  aspect,  if  it  is  also  used  in  crea#ve  and  imagina#ve  ways,  it  reveals  a  high  level  of  expressive,  cogni#ve  and  social  poten#al  as  well  as  great  possibili#es  for  evolu#on.  It  is  necessary  to  reflect  on  and  beIer  comprehend  the  changes  that  the  digital  language  introduces  in  the  processes  of  understanding.  We  have  to  be  aware  of  what  this  adds,  takes  away,  or  modifies  in  today’s  learning.”    

!

!

(Vea  Vecchi  in  Gandini  et  al,  2005,  p.  x)

Review  of  the  Literature

Review  of  the  Literature

!!There  appears  to  be  agreement  that  the  emergence  of  mobile  touch  devices,  such  as  the  iPhone,  iPod  touch  and  iPad,  provide  rich  opportuni#es  for  young  learners.  Teachers  in  the  early  years  are  seeing  these  as  valid  pedagogical  devices  as  they  allow  young  children  to  easily  manipulate  and  interact  with  screen  objects  and  create  digital  content.  Touch-­‐screen  devices  in  par#cular  encourage  intui#ve  par#cipa#on  in  open-­‐ended  games  and  apps.  !!!

 (Verenikina  and  Kervin,  2011)

Review  of  the  Literature

!Marsh,  like  many  other  authors  call  for  further  research  into  the  children’s  use  of  digital  technology  sta#ng,    !!

“Academics  and  educators  need  to  examine  their  affordances  more  closely  in  order  to  iden#fy  what  children  gain  from  their  playful  engagements  in  these  worlds  and  how  their  experiences  can  be  built  upon  in  early  years  se_ngs”    !!!

(Marsh,  2010,  p36)  

Research  Design

A  two  group  pre-­‐test  and  post-­‐test  design.  !To  measure  student  engagement  and  complexity  of  thinking  before  and  aTer  the  interven#on.  !To  compare  the  gain  in  mean  score  for  a_tude  and  complexity  of  thinking  of  the  control  group  and  the  experimental    group.

Interven#on

Removal  of  the  apps  that  only  allowed  for  simple,  passive,  repe##ve  explora#ons,  which  lacked  possibili#es  for  ways  of  expression.  !iPads  placed  in  different  loca#ons  within  the  se_ng  to  promote  transferring  between  languages.  !Children  were  supported  in  their  explora#ons  and  encouraged  to  share  discoveries  and  ways  of  expression  with  each  other.    !

The  children  were  able  to  access  the  iPads  just  as  they  would  the  other  materials  and  ways  of  expression  within  the  se_ng.    !iPads  could  be  taken  to  different  places  to  work  on.  !During  class  mee#ngs  the  interven#on  group  were  invited  to  share  with  each  other  projects  that  they  were  proud  of.  !!!

Sample

Convenience  sample  of  26  Kindergarten  students  from  two  of  four  kindergarten  classes  at  Jakarta  Interna#onal  School,  Indonesia  !One  class,  KA,  formed  the  control  group  and  the  second  class,  KB,  formed  the  experimental  group  !Age  range  is  5-­‐6  years  !The  kindergarten  classes  are  inspired  by  the  principles  of  the  Reggio  Emilia  Educa#onal  Project

Instrumenta#on  and  Data  Collec#on

Each  child’s  explora#on  with  the  iPad  was  observed  before  and  aTer  the  interven#on.    

Level  of  engagement  was  measured  with  a  Likert  Scale  Survey    

ATer  a  lengthy  observa#on  of  a  random  sample  of  five  children  from  the  control  group  and  five  children  from  the  experimental  group,  a  rubric  grade  was  assigned  to  the  explora#ons  to  ascertain  the  complexity  of  thinking  of  the  explora#ons.  

Threats  to  Validity

Researcher  bias  

History  

Maturity

Results:  Engagement

Control  group  mean  gain  in  score  vs  experimental  mean  gain  in  score.    

!!!!!!!!!!!!

!!!!An  unpaired  t-­‐test,  showed  a  significant  change  in  student  engagement  aTer  the  iPad  interven#on  was  implemented.  A  one-­‐tailed  P  value  showed  that  the  results  were  sta#s#cally  significant  by  conven#onal  means.    !t=  3.1161  df=  22        P=0.0025)

Group Control  Group    

gain  between  pretest  score  and  post  test  scores

Experimental  Group  

gain  between  pretest  score  and  post  test  scores

Mean 2.83 5.5

Standard  Devia4on

2.52 1.57

N 12 12

Visual  representa#on  of  the  control  group  and  experimental  group  gain  in  engagement  scores

0

1.5

3

4.5

6

Mean  gain  in  engagement  score

Control Group Experimental Group

Results:  Complexity  of  Thinking

Control  group  mean  gain  in  score  vs  experimental  mean  gain  in  score.    !!!!!!!!!!!!!!

!!!!The  results  of  the  analysis  of  complexity  of  thinking  between  the  control  group  and  the  experimental  group  showed  that  the  experimental  group  significantly  increased  the  complexity  of  their  thinking  during  explora#ons  involving  an  iPad.  A  one-­‐tailed  P  value  showed  that  that  the  results  were  sta#s#cally  significant  by  conven#onal  means.  t=4.9058  df=  8  P=0.0006.

Group Control  Group    

gain  between  pretest  score  and  post  test  scores

Experimental  Group  

gain  between  pretest  score  and  post  test  scores

Mean 4.6 12.2

Standard  Devia4on

3.21 1.3

N 5 5

Visual  representa#on  of  the  control  group  and  experimental  group  gain  in  complexity  of  thinking  scores

0

3.25

6.5

9.75

13

Mean  gain  in  score  of  complexity  of  thinking

Control  Group Experimental  Group

Discussion

Data  and  observa#ons  of  the  children  in  the  control  group  showed  them  to  be  overall,  more  passive  consumers  and  less  engaged.    !Data  and  observa#ons  of  the  children  in  the  experimental  group  showed  them  to  be  overall  more  crea#ve  and  more  collabora#ve  with  a  higher  level  of  engagement  and  a  higher  level  of  complexity  of  thought.  !

Ac#on

Share  results  with  colleagues  within  the  Kindergarten  grade  level  and  in  other  sec#ons  of  the  school.    !More  thoughjul  selec#on  of  apps  installed  on  the  class  iPads  to  allow  more  expression,  rather  than  passive  consump#on.    !More  thoughjul  considera#on  of  placement  of  iPads  within  learning  development.  !Further  reflec#on  on  possible  uses  of  iPads  as  another  of  the  children’s  hundred  languages.

Examples  of  the  iPad  used  as  a  language  of  expression  with  a  high  level  of  engagement  and  complexity  of  thinking

References

Banister,  S.  (2010).  Integra)ng  the  iPod  Touch  in  K-­‐12  educa)on:  Visions  and  vices.  Computers  in  the  Schools,  27(2),  121-­‐131.  !Bird,  J.  (2012)  The  rabbit  ate  the  grass!  Exploring  children’s  ac)vi)es  on  digital  technologies  in  an  early  childhood  classroom.    hIp://dlibrary.acu.edu.au/digitaltheses/public/adt-­‐acuvp391.25062013/02whole.pdf  !Edwards,  C.,  Gandini,  L.  and  Foreman,  G.  (Ed.)  (2012)  The  Hundred  Languages  of  Children:The  Reggio  Experience  in  Transforma)on  Praeger:  California  !Gandini,  L.,  Hill,  L.,    Cadwell,  L.  and  Schall,  C.  (Ed.)(2005)  In  the  Spirit  of  the  Studio,  Learning  from  the  Atelier  of  Reggio  Emilia  Teachers  College  Press:  New  York  !Goodwin,  K.  &  Highfield,  K.  (2012)  iTouch  and  iLearn:  An  examina#on  of  ‘educa#onal’  Apps.  Paper  presented  at  the  Early  Educa)on  and  Technology  for  Children  conference,  March  14-­‐16,  2012,  Salt  Lake  City,  Utah.  accessed  on  academa.edu  !Lynch  J.  (2006)  Assessing  Effects  of  Technology  Usage  on  Mathema#cs  Learning.  Mathema)cs  Educa)on  Research  Journal  18(3):  29–43.  !Marsh,  J.  (2010)  Young  children’s  play  in  online  virtual  worlds.  Journal  of  early  childhood  research,  8  (1),  23-­‐39.  !O’Mara  J.  and  Laidlaw  L.  (2011)  Living  in  the  iWorld:  Two  Literacy  Researchers  Reflect  on  the  Changing  Texts  and  Literacy  Prac#ces  of  Childhood.  English  Teaching:  Prac)ce  and  Cri)que  10(4):  149–159.  !PareIe,  H.P,  Quesenbury  A.C.  and  Blum  C.  (2010)  Missing  the  boat  with  technology  usage  in  early  childhood  se_ngs:  A  21st  century  of  developmentally  appropriate  prac#se.  Early  childhood  Educa)on  Journal,  37,  335-­‐343  !Plowman,  L  and  Stephen,  C.  (2007)  Guided  interac#on  in  pre-­‐school  se_ngs.  Journal  of  computer  assisted  learning,  23(1)  14-­‐26  !Verenikina,  I.  and  Kervin,  L.  (2011)  iPads  digital  play  and  preschoolers.  (volume  2,  number  5,  october  2011)  He  Kupu  accessed  through  hekupu.ac.nz