Technology in Early Learning:

A preliminary look at program technology integration and

home accessAnita Larson, DPA

Debbykay Peterson, MAEarly Learning Services, Minnesota Department of Education

Hamline University

July 30. 2014eLearning Summit

Technology to MN EL Settings

• In 2012 Minnesota was awarded a Race to the Top Early Learning Challenge Grant

• IBM offered RTT states grants to support work• Variety of project mgmt services, and• Young Explorer™ (YE) computers to select

communities

Technology to MN EL Settings

•Key Objectives were to• Compliment state strategies and build on RTT

momentum, and• Support MN’s efforts to improve educational

outcomes for high needs children through access to age-appropriate technologies

Young Explorer™ Computers

•Distributed Over 2 years• Computers were installed in• 40 locations; 50 computers (Year 1)• 15 locations; 90 computers (Year 2)

• High needs communities were targeted• Transformation Zones • Seed communities

• Mixture of programs including libraries, school-based preschool programs, Head Starts, family child care sites, etc.

Areas of FocusYear 1

Transformation ZonesYear 2

Seed Communities

Technology in Early Learning

Technology in Early Learning•Application of technology in EL has been

slow, delayed• Controversy regarding appropriateness of

technology use for young children (including “screen time”)• American Academy of Pediatrics (2001)• National Association for the Education of Young Children

(NAEYC)

•Research on technology in EL has been lagged as a result

Evolving Perspectives•Changing views acknowledge• The increasing availability of technology• Technology’s natural appeal to a child’s curiosity• Home technology access today is like print media

access was to children’s learning in the 1960s (NAEYC, 2012)

•Recommendations now require that use is very intentional-technology has value for young learners if it is “used intentionally by early childhood educations, within the framework of developmentally appropriate practice” (NAEYC, 2012)

Literature• Emerging knowledge base on the

application of technology in learning and EL in particular• Integration• Defined here as the inclusion of computers in lessons, or technology

intentionally to engage young children and enhance learning.

• Teacher role• Must be facilitative (more active than with older children) (Wang,

Kinzie, McGuire, & Pan, 2010)• Must have attitude towards technology that supports integration in

learning (Blackwell et al., 2013Wang et al., 2010; Wolfe & Flewitt, 2010).

Literature

• Training & time• Must have sufficient training and time for lesson planning

(Mouza, 2005)• Must have administrative and technical support (Keengwe &

Onchwari, 2009)

• Content areas & Attributes• Software selection is important (Lee & O’Rourke, 2006)• Dominance of animation, sound, pictures, and story-line

features (Nikolopoulou, 2007)

Literature

• Student benefits• Small motor skill support (e.g. mouse use)• Enhanced social interaction (Lee & O’Rourke, 2006; Mouza, 2005)

• Trends in home Internet/technology access• Smartphone use is narrowing the Digital Divide – 88% of American

adults now own Internet-accessible devices (Zickuhr & Smith, 2012)• Now no significant differences in smart phone use between white

and minorities (Pew, 2012).

Literature

• International Society for Technology in Education (ISTE) Net-S standards (2007) recommend children develop technology skills by age 8 and basic skills by age 5 to avoid learning disadvantage.

• Differences in access to technology between school and the home creates a “separation in the ...literate lives” of children (Levy, in Burnett, 2010).

Objectives & Approach

Objectives•What we hoped to learn• Satisfy IBM reporting requirements on integration• Inform future initiatives related to EL and

technology use• Are program leads able to integrate technology?• Does that integration increase over time?• What is the status of technology in children’s homes?• Do parents with technology in the home allow their

young children to use it, and under what circumstances?

Methods Used by Others• Qualitative methods collecting data from multiple

program perspectives (Mouza, 2005; Mitchell & Dunbar, 2006) and portfolio review (McPherson, 2009)• Action case study methods (Lee & O’Rourke, 2006)• Quantitative assessment data (Tracey & Young,

2007).

Our Approach•3 rounds of surveys each year,

program leads and parents• Capture status and change• Supported descriptive research objectives

• Surveys were an available method• System use statistics not available• Observation was not possible because of data

privacy concerns (and staff limitations)

Our Approach• Study protocols approved by Hamline University

Institutional Review Board 12/7/2012.• Some supports provided in Year 2 that Year 1 did

not receive• Curriculum alignment with Early Childhood Indicators of Progress

provided• Parent letter with technology guides

• Limitations• Surveys subject to recall error• Surveys may also allow for bias of respondents (e.g. intent of

inquiry is obvious to participants)• Representativeness of final study group unknown

Results

Respondents• Return/response rates are difficult to calculate• Average of 16-20 program leads responded in each round (approx. rate of

41-70%)• Average of 11 parent surveys received during Year 1; average of 27 each

round received in Year 2

• Program leads were typically between ages 31 and 44, most commonly describing their orientation to technology as • “I am learning new ways to use technology almost every day and I have

started to see that young children have an interest in and can use technology appropriately to learn” or

• “Technology is a part of my everyday life and it is just one of the many ways that children learn about their world and communicate.”

• Parents were generally between the ages of 25 and 44 with children in the home that were on average, 5 years of age.

Program Types

School-a

ged ca

re cla

ssroom

Family

child

care

provider

Early C

hildhood Fa

mily Ed

ucation (E

CFE) cl

assroom

Preschool cl

assro

om

Kindergart

en cla

ssroom

Early

Childhood Sp

ecial

Educati

on (ECSE)

classr

oom

Child ca

re cen

ter/p

rogram

School re

adiness

classr

oom

Public lib

rary

0%

10%20%

30%40%

50%60%

14%5%

41%

23%18%22%

33%

11%

33%

6%

56%

22%17%

Round1Round2Round3

School-A

ged Care

Classro

om

Family

Child Care

Provider

Early C

hildhood Fa

mily Ed

ucation (E

CFE)

Preschool C

lassro

om

Kindergart

en Clas

sroom

Early

Childhood Sp

ecial

Educati

on (ECSE)

Child Care

Center

School R

eadiness

Classro

omLib

rary

Other (H

ead St

art)

0%

10%

20%

30%

40%

50%

60%

3%8%

0%

36%

8%3%

14%

25%

3% 6%0%

17%

6%

56%

0%

11%6%

28%

0%

11%

Rnd 1Rnd 2Rnd3

Year 1

Year 2

Programs: Frequency, Intentionality

Not at all 1 time/wk 3 times/wk Daily0%

10%20%30%40%50%60%70%80%90%

Student Free Time (Least Directed), Year 1

Round 1Round 2Round 3

Not at all 1 time/wk 3 times/wk Daily0%

10%

20%

30%

40%

50%

60%

70%

80%

90%

Small Group Time, Year 1

Round 1Round 2Round 3

Not at all 1 time/wk 3 times/wk Daily0%

10%

20%

30%

40%

50%

60%

70%

80%

90%

During Theme Lessons, Year 1

Round 1Round 2Round 3

Not at all 1 time/wk 3 times/wk Daily0%

10%20%30%40%50%60%70%80%90%

During Lessons (Most Directed), Year 1

Round 1Round 2Round 3

Programs: Frequency, Intentionality

Not at all 1 time/wk 3 times/wk Daily0%

10%

20%

30%

40%

50%

60%

70%

80%

90%

Small Group Time, Year 2

Round 1Round 2Round 3

Not at all 1 time/wk 3 times/wk Daily0%

10%20%30%40%50%60%70%80%90%

Student Free Time (Least Directed), Year 2

Round 1Round 2Round 3

Not at all 1 time/wk 3 times/wk Daily0%

10%

20%

30%

40%

50%

60%

70%

80%

90%

During Theme Lessons, Year 2

Round 1Round 2Round 3

Not at all 1 time/wk 3 times/wk Daily0%

10%20%30%40%50%60%70%80%90%

During Lessons (Most Directed), Year 2

Round 1Round 2Round 3

Programs: Lead Roles

Directive-Rnd1

Directive-Rnd2

Directive-Rnd3

Facilitative-Rnd1

Facilitative-Rnd2

Facilitative-Rnd3

Neither-Rnd1

Neither-Rnd2

Neither-Rnd3

0% 50% 100% 150% 200% 250%

31%

0%

11%

38%

40%

28%

31%

60%

33%

15%

0%

11%

54%

40%

22%

31%

60%

28%

7%

0%

0%

67%

80%

44%

27%

20%

39%

15%

0%

11%

46%

60%

22%

38%

40%

28%

During lessons

Small group time

Student free time/choice

During theme lessons

Directive-Rnd 1

Directive-Rnd 2

Directive-Rnd 3

Facilitative-Rnd 1

Facilitative-Rnd 2

Facilitative-Rnd 3

Neither-Rnd 1

Neither-Rnd 2

Neither-Rnd 3

0% 50% 100% 150% 200% 250%

21%

22%

18%

16%

44%

29%

63%

33%

53%

14%

20%

12%

43%

40%

38%

43%

40%

50%

3%

6%

0%

66%

59%

60%

31%

35%

40%

16%

20%

12%

32%

28%

38%

53%

30%

50%

During lessons

Small group time

Student free time

During theme lessons

Year 1

Year 2

Programs: Subject Areas

Not at all-Rnd1Not at all-Rnd2Not at all-Rnd3

Seldom-Rnd1Seldom-Rnd2Seldom-Rnd3

Occasionally-Rnd1Occasionally-Rnd2Occasionally-Rnd3Fairly often-Rnd1Fairly often-Rnd2Fairly often-Rnd3

Often-Rnd1Often-Rnd2Often-Rnd3

0% 50% 100% 150% 200% 250% 300%

Math

Science

Literacy

General cog-nition

Social Studies

Year 1

Not at all-Rnd 1Not at all-Rnd 2Not at all-Rnd 3

Seldom-Rnd 1Seldom-Rnd 2Seldom-Rnd 3

Occasionally-Rnd 1Occasionally-Rnd 2Occasionally-Rnd 3Fairly Often-Rnd 1Fairly Often-Rnd 2Fairly Often-Rnd 3

Often-Rnd 1Often-Rnd 2Often-Rnd 3

0% 50% 100% 150% 200% 250% 300%

Math

Science

Literacy

General Cognition

Social Studies

Year 2

Programs: Influence

Yes-Rnd1 Yes-Rnd2 Yes-Rnd30%

10%

20%

30%

40%

50%

60%

70%

80%

90%

100%Children working together.

Children enthusiastic about learning.

Typically quiet children more engaged/active.

Interest from parents in technology use.

More options for instruction.

Decision-makings skill de-velopment.

Fine motor skill development.

Increased interest in certain subjects.

Year 1

Yes-Rnd 1 Yes-Rnd 2 Yes-Rnd 30%

10%

20%

30%

40%

50%

60%

70%

80%

90%

100%

Children working together.

Children enthusiastic about learning.

Typically quiet children more engaged/active.

Interest from parents in technology use.

More options for instruction.

Decision-making skill de-velopment.

Fine motor skill development.

Increased interest in certain subjects.

Year 2

Programs: Program Lead Supports

Round 1 Round 2 Round 30%

10%20%30%40%50%60%70%80%90%

In the last two weeks do you feel you have had enough time to prepare lessons or special ses-sions with children and their families that in-

tegrate the YE computers?

Yes (Year 1)Yes (Year 2)

Round 1 Round 2 Round 30%

10%

20%

30%

40%

50%

60%

70%

80%

90%

Since the start of the project, do you feel you have received enough training to begin to

use the YE computers with children?

Yes (Year 1)Yes (Year 2)

Round 1 Round 2 Round 30%

10%

20%

30%

40%

50%

60%

70%

80%

90%

In general do you feel you have had enough in-formation to build lessons or special sessions to

take advantage of the YE computers?

Yes (Year 1)Yes (Year 2)

Parents: Devices at Home

Have device, Year 1 Allows use, Year 1 Have device, Year 2 Allows use, Year 20%

10%

20%

30%

40%

50%

60%

70%

80%

90%

100%

90%

76%

85%

61%58%

61%65% 67%

88%

72%

90%

61%

Availability of Devices at Home and Allowed Child Use (Avg. responses over all rounds, per year)

Mobile device with InternetTabletPC Computer

Parents: Child Use, Supervision

Anytime they want.

Sometimes under my supervision, other times on their own

Only under my supervision

Never

Not applicable: I do not have any of these devices

0% 10% 20% 30% 40% 50% 60%

5%

47%

46%

0%

3%

3%

53%

39%

3%

2%

Manner of Child's Allowed Technology Use (Avg responses over all rounds, per year)

Year 2, Avg over Rounds

Year 1, Avg over Rounds

Parents: Observations, Perspectives• Empowered, self-directed learning• That he is able to direct his own learning. That he has become

more proficient over time at accessing and doing what he wants on the computer. That he likes certain games/activities better.

• She gave me directions on how to use the game and the mouse.• How they make up their own stories.

• Problem-solving skill development• Using PCs or iPod helps my child learn to navigate through

different children's applications. In which I think that enhances his ability to problem solve.

• She was able to navigate the programming with ease. It was interesting to see how she was able to respond to each situation and problem solve.

Parents: Observations, Perspectives• Engagement• Usually it is ages 3 & up that come to the Library to use these

computers. They are so excited about the color and music that go along with these programs. When they come back they know just exactly where they want to go and are getting better and better with playing and completing these games.

• He really enjoyed that the keyboard/computer was fitted to his size, making his use of it alot easier than our computer at home. He gets really excited when he gets to use it, and tells me when he gets home.

• They have a lot of fun & to them they are just playing games but in actuality they are learning a variety of skills.

• How involved she was.

Parents: Technology Changes at Home

• Children's programs are installed on web browser to find educational programs for my child to play. By using PCs or YE at school has taught my child to problem solve, learn geography.

• We downloaded some new apps for the iPad that are similar to what she uses at school

• More time on educational sites for kids.• We've tried to incorporate similar games on our iPad.• More web sites for kids.

Conclusions

What We Learned• Technology can be successfully integrated in EL

settings in some circumstances• Technology integration may have limits that

may be dependent upon supports• Results suggest a threshold • Supports in place were not ideal• Additional supports might have enhanced integration• More time• Periodic training/reminders• Integration supports or tools that ease current curriculum with

technology

What We Learned

• Technology is increasingly available – even in low income homes• Parents (just like program leads) need

supports in helping young children use technology intentionally and appropriately• Easy (non-technical) tools for helping young

children use technology• Guides for parents to know limits

What It Means• Technology use in EL has potential benefits• Authoritative bodies (NAEYC) easing prior

restrictions on recommendations• Program leads can integrate technology• Supports for more complete integration require

additional discovery• Parents of young children have access to

technology• They are letting their children access technology• They intuitively understand benefits

Future Study• Explore what supports extend regular,

intentional integration beyond “free time” use in EL programs• Controlled studies that isolate causal factors

• Identify messages and accessible parent methods of supporting learning using technology in the home that extends classroom learning• Capture funding and administrative roles that

local governments can play to support this work

Anita Larson, DPAEarly Learning Services, Minnesota Department of EducationPart-time Faculty, Hamline Universityanita.larson@state.mn.usalarson14@hamline.edu

Debbykay Peterson, MAEarly Learning Services, Minnesota Department of Educationdebbykay.peterson@state.mn.us