Anita Larson, DPA Debbykay Peterson, MA

1. Technology in Early Learning: A preliminary look at program technology integration and home access Anita Larson, DPA Debbykay Peterson, MA Early Learning Services, Minnesota Department of Education Hamline University July 30. 2014 eLearning Summit

2. 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

3. 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

4. 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.

5. Areas of Focus Year 2 Seed Communities Year 1 Transformation Zones

6. Technology in Early Learning

7. 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

8. 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)

9. 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).

10. 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)

11. 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).

12. 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).

13. Objectives & Approach

14. 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?

15. 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).

16. 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)

17. 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

18. Results

19. 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.

20. Program Types Year 1 Year 2

21. Programs: Frequency, Intentionality

22. Programs: Frequency, Intentionality

23. Programs: Lead Roles Year1 Year2

24. Programs: Subject Areas

25. Programs: Influence

26. Programs: Program Lead Supports

27. Parents: Devices at Home

28. Parents: Child Use, Supervision

29. 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.

30. 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.

31. 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.

32. Conclusions

33. 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

34. 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

35. 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

36. 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

37. Anita Larson, DPAEarly Learning Services, Minnesota Department of EducationPart-time Faculty, Hamline Universityanita.larson@state.mn.usalarson14@hamline.eduDebbykay Peterson, MAEarly Learning Services, Minnesota Department of Educationdebbykay.peterson@state.mn.us