Musings with a Manitoba ECE

Month: September 2019

Settling into my Inquiry

Photo by Kevin Ku on Unsplash

I have narrowed down my inquiry for this blog (and this course) into an exploration of the effects of digital technology use on young childrenā€™s development. I know that there are some strong feelings from both sides: those who see technology as a barrier to healthy child development, and those who feel that by providing children with these tools we are giving them an edge in this technologically driven word. My goal is to sift through the studies and explore the academic and professional literature to come up with an evidence-informed guide for practice. As I work with infants, my focus will be for very young children, but I expect there will be more literature for school-aged children, and this will likely take some sifting.

The task Iā€™ve been set this week was to explore some of the existing projects submitted by UVic students in partial fulfillment of their MEd degrees. I selected Pina Hendryā€™s project entitled What is the Impact of Digital Technology on Young Students? , which seemed an obvious fit for my inquiry.

Right away I could tell that the author approached the topic with a fair amount of caution. As a kindergarten teacher practicing for over 20 years, she had noted the decline in fine motor skills of entering students, among other changes to things like attention, and language skills. The literature she reviewed seemed to provide evidence to support her opinion that digital technology has detrimental effects on cognitive, social, emotional, and physical development. As a practitioner, I have shared this opinion and abide by the Canadian Paediatric Societyā€™s screen time guidelines for young children (found here). However, as with everything else in life, I find that the more I examine a topic, the more nuanced it proves to be. When one refers to digital technology there are so many possible candidates that lumping them all together under the umbrella of ā€˜digital technologyā€™ and making sweeping proclamations seems disingenuous. Indeed, the literature reviewed looked at samples as varied as television, violent video games, pornography, and social media. I did not see any reference to the apps, programs, games or sites designed to educate or encourage healthy development, of which even I know there are at least some out in the world.

My impression of the project was that by focusing on the dangers of digital tech use for children, we can really see how dangerous they are. I agree that unfettered and unsupervised access to these technologies can be detrimental to each aspect of development. However, while engaging my inner skeptic, I did not see that the opposing argument was adequately accounted for.

 

In order to balance my view on the topic, I wanted to hear an argument from the other side, and came across the TED talk by Sara DeWitt called 3 Fears About Screen Time for Kids ā€“ and Why Theyā€™re Not True. Now, my inner skeptic was engaged for this too, and this whole experience is supporting my hypothesis of learning: the more you learn about something, the less able you are to give a definitive answer to a simple question about it.

DeWitt addressed the 3 fears (a. screens are passive; b. playing games on screens is a waste of time; and c. screens isolate parents from their children) and responded to each one with an example. The problem I found was that for each fear, she provided an example of a single app or program that addresses that fear. She did not say that the fears are unfounded, or that they were not true, despite the title of the talk.

So, in reflecting on both the masterā€™s project and the TED talk, I found that neither Hendry nor DeWitt support unfettered, unsupervised access to digital technology for young children. They also both advocate for thoughtful planning and supervision by parents to ensure that the digital tools children are accessing are appropriate, and if not support, at least not hinder healthy development. Despite seeming to come at the issue from opposite sides, Hendry and DeWitt come to the same conclusions: caution is necessary.

Research on Digital Documentation Technologies

“Pause Festival Document – Layout” by Chris Wood is licensed under CC BY-NC-ND 4.0

My initial strategy for my inquiry into technology and children was, admittedly, not very sophisticated. I started with becoming aware of the technological environment of my workplace and ended with whatever fell into my lap. The upside of this strategy was that it was easy and almost passive, and the downside was that I didnā€™t have any real focus. Case in point: the webinar I viewed at Early Childhood Investigations called What the Research Says About Documentation Systems & Outcome for Families, Teachers & Children, by M.E. Picher, Ph.D.. As it related to technology use in an ECE classroom, I thought it would be a good way to get my feet wet, so to speak, and possibly to refine my inquiry.

Picher conducted original research on the use of Digital Documentation Technology (DDT) in Ontario kindergarten classrooms for her Ph.D. studies at the University of Toronto. Specifically, she looked at what the impact of teachersā€™ use of StoryparkĀ® was on the home-school connection. She was particularly interested in family engagement in childrenā€™s learning as this has been shown to be a marker of an ā€œexcellentā€ ECE setting (EPEY Project, 2002) and allows for crossover between the school and home environments. She cited the Effective Provision of Pre-school Education (EPPE) Project (1999) when she reported that the home learning environment is twice as significant in influencing cognitive and social development than the preschool environment and was the most powerful influence on self-regulation. In the early interviews with parents, she discovered that they did not feel connected to their childrenā€™s educators, nor did they have much understanding of their childrenā€™s learning at school. The unstated objective seemed to be that by connecting families and educators through DDT, family engagement and understanding would increase, and this would influence the home learning environment in some way to ostensibly enhance social and cognitive development and self-regulation among students.

Using a qualitative research design, Picher collected data through interviews, classroom observations, document review, and through the StoryparkĀ® platform itself. She found that the use of StoryparkĀ® had a positive impact on the following key aspects of the home-school connection:

  • Educator-parent communication
  • The educator-parent relationship
  • Parentsā€™ understanding of their childrenā€™s classroom learning
  • Educatorsā€™ and parentsā€™ understanding of the (new at the time) Kindergarten Program Curriculum
  • Parent-child conversations about childrenā€™s learning
  • Student learning
  • Parentsā€™ engagement in their childrenā€™s learning

While engaging with the webinar, I reflected on how all this may pertain to my teaching situation. I work with infants, but there are lots of DDTs out there and I could find one that meets my particular program needs. As it stands, my program uses a hodgepodge system of documentation and parent communication including email, text messaging, InstagramĀ®, hand-written daily reports, and formal learning stories, among others. Picher did talk about privacy and security, which are particular concerns of mine (as well as many parentsā€™), and obviously social media like InstagramĀ® is neither private nor secure. DDTs seem to address some of those concerns but in order to satisfy myself on the topic, I would have to do more research.

In my last post I expressed reservations about this webinar as it was sponsored by StoryparkĀ® and I had concerns about bias. However, this study was interventionist in design. The aim was to improve the home-school connection and the StoryparkĀ® platform was used as the tool to do so. The study itself assessed the effectiveness of the intervention, and found it be a useful tool in the specific circumstances it was tested in. Understanding the design of the research alleviated my concerns somewhat about bias.

Am I going to advocate for the use of digital documentation technologies at my centre? Iā€™m not sure. They do seem to engender the kind of parent engagement that we want, but there are other factors to consider. Cost being among the first that come to mind. As a non-profit centre in a province with capped parent-fees, we rely heavily on our annual operating grant. Budgeting the smooth operation of any centre is an art, and with funding for childcare remaining stagnant for the last 2 Ā½ years, there is very little room to add new and ongoing expenses. In a perfect world it wouldnā€™t all come down to money, would it?

Bringing it to Work

“Copeful: Get Through Grief Together” by Megan Daley is licensed under CC BY-NC 4.0

Over the past week I have been making informal inquiries at work about our technology policies and how they are formed. My director informed me that we do have a technology policy, but it was related to staff use of tech, rather than how we implement tech use with the children. In a search of our policy manuals available to the parents, I found no mention of it. I suggested that through the resources available to me through the EDCI 567 class, I may soon be in a position to provided advice on appropriate guidelines to inform future policy with regard to technology use with children. My director was supportive, and this feels like it may be a start to my research for this course. However, there is so much to learn, Iā€™m not quite ready to pigeon-hole myself just yet.

Another interesting development that came out of one of those conversations with the management team was that our program coordinator pointed me in the direction of a free webinar at Early Childhood Investigations called What the Research Says About Documentation Systems & Outcome for Families, Teachers & Children, by M.E. Picher, Ph.D.. Since itā€™s a free webinar, and based on research in Canada, I will check it out. My only hesitation is that it is sponsored by Storypark. Iā€™ll look a little deeper into whether the research was funded by Storypark or whether after its completion they merely funded the production of the webinar. Itā€™ll give me a little more insight into the integrity. Iā€™m a somewhat suspicious person, and I donā€™t like to take things at face value. I guess that is one of my core media literacy skills.

The webinar isn’t until September 18th, and I’ll likely watch it asynchronously as it falls during work hours, but look for a mini review in the weeks to come.

Beginning Thoughts

Children in the 21st century are avid users of technology – more so than generations past. This rise in use has led to much attention on the consequences of technology use, and how this impacts childrenā€™s brains and their socio-emotional, cognitive and physical development.Ā  – Gottschalk, OECD, 2019

As new technologies arrive and make themselves at home in our lives, I am not alone in wondering about the impact they have on children’s development. How should we negotiate a place for these technologies in early childhood, particularly infancy?

I am interested in exploring how digital technologies impact very young children’s development and finding a balance between gaining important digital and media literacy skills and potential negative developmental outcomes. The focus of my inquiry is the age range from birth through two years.

Through the master’s of education program in Early Childhood Education at the University of Victoria, and more specifically through the Interactive and Multimedia Learning Theories course, I expect to begin my journey toward answering some of my questions about young children and technology, and most likely, finding new questions I hadn’t considered.

© 2024 Ruth's Reflections

Theme by Anders NorenUp ↑