The Digital Literacy and Multimodal
Practices of Young Children: Engaging
with Emergent Research
Proceedings of the first Training School of COST Action IS1410,
University of Minho, Braga, Portugal, 6th - 8th June, 2016
Edited by Íris Pereira, Altina Ramos and Jackie Marsh
http://digilitey.eu
TÍTULO / TITLE
The Digital Literacy and Multimodal Practices of Young Children: Engaging with Emergent Research
Proceedings of the first Training School of COST Action IS1410, University of Minho, Braga, Portugal, 6th
- 8th June, 2016
ORGANIZADORES / EDITORS
Íris Pereira, Altina Ramos & Jackie Marsh
EDIÇÃO / EDITION
Centro de Investigação em Educação (CIEd) /Research Centre on Education
Instituto de Educação, Universidade do Minho,
Braga, PORTUGAL
ISBN
978-989-8525-48-2
DATA / DATE
2016
NOTA EDITORIAL/EDITORIAL NOTE
Este ebook resulta da 1.ª Training School da Ação COST IS1410 - The Digital Literacy and Multimodal
Practices of Young Children (DigiLitEY), realizada no Instituto da Educação da Universidade do Minho, em
Braga, de 6 a 8 de junho de 2016.
This ebook came out of the 1st Training School (TS) of the COST Action IS1410 - The Digital Literacy and
Multimodal Practices of Young Children (DigiLitEY), which was held at the Institute of Education of
University of Minho, Braga, Portugal, in June, 6th-8th 2016.
APOIOS/SUPPORT
-
-
CIEd - Centro de Investigação em Educação, UID/CED/01661/, Instituto de Educação,
Universidade do Minho, através de fundos nacionais da FCT/MCTES-PT.
Cost Action IS1410 (DigiLitEY), apoiada pelo COST (European Cooperation in Science and
Technology).
This book is funded by CIEd – Research Centre on Education, UID/CED/01661/, Institute of
Education, University of Minho, through national funds of FCT/MCTES-PT.
This eBook is based upon work from Cost Action IS1410 (DigiLitEY), supported by COST
(European Cooperation in Science and Technology).
PARA CITAR ESTA PUBLICAÇÃO / TO CITE THIS PUBLICATION
Pereira, I., Ramos, A. & Marsh J. (Eds) (2016). The Digital Literacy and Multimodal Practices of Young
Children: Engaging with Emergent Research. Proceedings of the first Training School of COST Action IS1410,
University of Minho, Braga, Portugal, 6th - 8th June, 2016. Braga:
Centro de Investigação em Educação (CIEd) [Accessed: http://digilitey.eu]
!2
!3
Contents
Page
Introduction
8
Íris Pereira and Altina Ramos
Part 1 - Trainees' papers
Paper 1: The acquisition of media competences in the Poland by preschool
13
children at home
Paulina Barańska
Paper 2:
The use of mobile devices in the development of reading
comprehension skills
24
Marco Bento, José Alberto Lencastre and Íris Pereira
Paper 3: ‘The tablet is my BFF’: Practices and perceptions of Portuguese
35
children under 8 years old and their families
Rita Brito and Patricia Dias
Paper 4: Online practices of children under 6: a grounded theory study Rita
43
Brito and Altina Ramos
Paper 5: Teachers supporting transmedia play with classes of young
51
children in the UK: Exploring new literacies through Alternate Reality Game
design
Angela Colvert
Paper 6: What happens when multimodality comes into the classroom? A study
of Swedish children ́s use of multiple modes while creating narrative text.
Helene Dahlström
!4
60
Paper 7: Language socialization, digital technology and new multimodal
67
practices in early childhood in middle-class families in Madrid
Nieves Galera
Paper 8: ‘Turkish children’ and media in Germany: A culturally sensitive
73
study of media-use practices in early education
Habib Güneşli
Paper 9: Children’s play with digital media in a Danish pre-primary school:
82
Media literacy between a play-cultural child perspective and a school-cultural
adult perspective
Helle Hovgaard Jørgensen
Paper 10: Creative and playful learning with Biophilia in preschool, after-
90
school classes and primary schools in Iceland
Skúlína Hlíf Kjartansdóttir
Paper 11: Kids Project: Portuguese children's perceptions and participation
103
in the design of a literacy-learning interface
Ana Medeiros
Paper 12: Beneficial effects of digital early literacy interventions in
112
kindergarten children born late preterm
I. Merkelbach, R.D., Plak & A.G. Bus
Paper 13: Unicorn in Rainbow Park: A glance at young children’s game
design ideas
Pekka Mertala
!5
120
Paper 14: Collaborative learning through film production on iPad: Touch
127
creates conflicts
Thilde Emilie Møller
Paper 15: Digital childhood, risks and opportunities: Why is it so important
135
to listen to children?
Ana Francisca Monteiro and António José Osório
Paper 16: New Literacy Practices and Teacher Agency
152
Sari Räisänen
Paper 17: Aspects of Educational Consciousness in Early Childhood Media
159
Education
Saara Salomaa
Paper 18: Using Electronic Storybooks to Foster Word-learning in Turkish
166
Children
Burcu Sarı, Handan Asûde Başal, Zsofia K. Takacs and Adriana G. Bus
Paper 19: Young children’s digital literacy practices at home: social,
173
physical and classed
Fiona Louise Scott
Paper 20: Design and Evaluation of Digital Manipulatives for Literacy
Learning in Early Education
Cristina Sylla
!6
185
Paper 21: From Digital Literacy to Capability: Developing Digital Literacies
193
through Family Engagement
Phil Wilkinson
Part 2 - Trainers' essays
Essay1 Childhood, digital culture and parental mediation
205
Lucia Amante
Essay 2: Transforming pedagogy for the early years in digital learning
212
contexts (why we have to play with toy cars before we can get a driving
license)
António Moreira
Essay 3:
Reading to learn on screens. Challenges for research
225
Íris Susana Pires Pereira
Essay 4: Contextualising digital practices at home – Whose contexts?
Whose homes?
238
Cristina Ponte
Afterword
245
Jackie Marsh
!7
Introduction
Digital Literacy and Multimodal Practices of Young
Children: Engaging with emergent research
Íris Pereira and Altina Ramos
This ebook came out of a Training School
(TS) that was held as part of COST Action
IS1410 - The Digital Literacy and
Multimodal Practices of Young Children
(DigiLitEY).
c. digital meaning making;
d. the increasing integration of the
online and offline domains for young
children’s digital literacy practices and
worlds .
3. To create a knowledge base on
research methodologies and ethical issues.
DigiLitEY is a multidisciplinary European
research network aiming to examine how
0-8 year-old children’s literacy experience
and learning are being shaped by changes
brought about by the digitisation of
communication. It pursues a many-fold
research agenda, which, for the purposes
of this introduction, can be summarised as
follows (cf. Sefton-Green, Marsh, Erstad &
Flewitt, 2016):
By targeting these aims and producing
scientific research, DigiLitEY intends to
contribute to the enhancement of the very
social circumstances that first stirred its
emergence. Particularly relevant are the
intentions to influence the enactment of
safe and effective playful and creative digital
meaning making among young children
either in formal or informal settings; prompt
government policies that impact on the
development of school socially responsive
and all-inclusive curricula; and to inform
and inspire theories that look into childhood
from sociological and cultural perspectives.
1. To acknowledge and develop relevant
theories in understanding change and
continuity in children’s digital literacies;
2. To systematise (and envisage) research
on:
a. digital literacy practices of young
children in homes and communities;
When we proposed to host the
1st DigiLitEY TS at the Institute of
Education of University of Minho, in
Portugal, we were aware of the complexity
of what was at stake. We knew that training
schools intend to be spaces in which PhD
students and Early Career Investigators are
b. the definition and assessment of
literacy and/or literacies in early-years
settings, primary schools and informal
learning settings as well as the
characterisation of the pedagogy of
digital literacy;
!8
Finally, we also welcomed several
Portuguese trainers, some closely related to
DigiLitEY (Lúcia Amante, Isabel Alexandre,
Maria Manuel Borges, Ádila Faria, António
Osório, Cristina Ponte), others less so but
still having knowledge and experiences
worthwhile sharing (Pedro Branco, Carlos
Moreira, José Moura de Carvalho and
Fernando Franco).
acquainted with established experts in the
field, and also provide space for networking
and sharing and discussion of ongoing
research which is, or has been, carried out
by young researchers. Besides, we also
realised that the 1st TS had already been
projected as a specific contribution to the
systematisation (and envisaging) of
research on digital literacy and multimodal
practices of young children (aim 2, above).
This ebook presents trainees’ research
papers as well as essays authored by
keynotes and trainers. It was thought of as
the final part of the TS, indeed a necessary
one, so that current trends in emergent
The 1st DigiLitEY TS took place from 6th 8th June, 2016. We welcomed 21 selected
trainees from 12 different COST countries:
Paulina Barańska (Poland), Marco Bento,
Rita Brito (Portugal), Angela Colvert (United
Kingdom), Helene Dahlström (Sweden),
Patrícia Dias (Portugal), Nieves Galera
(Spain), Habib Güneşli (Germany), Helle
Hovgaard Jørgensen (Denmark), Skúlína
Hlíf Kjartansdóttir (Iceland), Maria Ana
Medeiros (Portugal), Inge Merkelbach (The
Netherlands), Pekka Mertala (Finland),
Thilde Emilie Møller (Denmark), Ana
Francisca Monteiro (Portugal), Sari
Räisänen (Finland), Saara Salomaa
(Finkand), Burcu Sari (Turkey), Fiona Louise
Scott (United Kingdom), Cristina Sylla
(Portugal) & Phil W ilkinson (United
Kingdom). Some trainees were PhD
students, while others had already
completed their PhDs and were Early
Career Investigators. We invited four
keynotes, two from the UK, Jackie Marsh
and Gunther Kress, and two from Portugal,
António Moreira and Nelson Zagalo, who
shared their theoretical insights on digital
literacy practices in families, multimodal
communication and meaning making,
transformed pedagogies and videogames.
research on the digital literacy and
multimodal practices of young children are
widely shared and the whole DigiLitEY
network is able to engage with them. As
such we believe that this ebook is of
potential interest for new as well as senior
researchers.
Part 1 includes all the 21 papers presented
during the TS. Our brief analysis of the
abstracts supported by NVivo clearly
shows the overall strong relevance of the
research presented during the TS as well as
the richness that each paper brought to the
DigiLitEY’s agenda. Words represented in
larger font in Figure 1, below, point into
central themes traversing the on-going
investigations presented, whereas smaller
ones, featuring as less recurrent among the
whole set of words in the abstracts (and,
therefore, more atomised among papers),
identify the fine points of research which
each of the researchers are digging into (or
have recently done so).
Some interesting conclusions can be
!9
Figure 1: Word frequency in the abstracts (trainees´ papers)
reached when looking into the papers with
reference to the four issues assumed as
central in DigiLitEY’s research. One of the
most evident is that in many cases research
crosses at least two of the four central
research domains, namely families,
pedagogy/education, digital meaning
making and online-offline integration.
such as museums or libraries). Some look
into digital educational resources, focusing
either on their use to promote formal
literacy (and cross curricular) learning
(Kjartansdóttir) or formal literacy learning by
children with special needs (Merkelbach et
al.) as well as on participatory design and
development (or envisaging) of such
learning resources (Colvert, Medeiros,
Mertala, Sylla); others investigate teachers’
professional development in the context of
new literacy practices (Bento et al.,
Räisänen, Saloma). A common concern
among these investigations is the need to
update pedagogies by fostering the
integrating of the learning affordances of
Another conclusion concerns the nonbalanced weight among research objects
and interests. A slight majority of papers
a ddre sse s edu cat io n al-pedag o gical
matters, either in pre-school or primary
school settings (though none explicitly and
directly involving informal learning spaces
!10
digital resources. In Colvert’s and
Salomaa’s cases, there is a clear intention
in contributing to the development of
relevant theoretical models.
domains for young children’s digital literacy
practices and worlds is at issue in several
papers. There is research on how play is
being impacted by children’s digital
experiences, either at pre-school
(Dahlström) or at home (Scott), how formal
learning practices are being
reconceptualised and transformed by the
integration of digital features (Colvert,
Medeiros, Mertala), and the role of online
spaces in the construction of children’s
identities and cultures (Monteiro et al.).
Family digital literacy practices are the
object of study of a considerable number of
investigations. Some intend to depict the
role of digital media in children’s lives
(Barańska), with a look into children’s digital
devices and competences (Brito & Dias).
Other research focuses on children’s online
activities, highlighting children’s perceptions
about opportunities and risks (Brito,
Monteiro et al.). Some research further
expands these concerns by developing
sociological approaches to the study of
family digital practices. In such cases
researchers want to understand how digital
literacy practices have impacted on
routines and forms of socialisation of
families with young children (Galera), how
the living and educational media
environment of children from diverse
cultural and linguistic backgrounds are
shaped by digital experiences (Güneşli),
and the effects of social class upon
children’s home practices with TV and
related media (Scott). In one case, there is
research on an intervention into the
promotion of digital capabilities among
disadvantaged families (Wilkinson). In these
later cases, there is a concern with
surfacing social inequities concerning
children’s digital experience at home as well
as the necessity and possibility to
overcome such inequalities in children’s
(and families’) own interests.
The impact of multimodality upon young
children’s meaning making process is the
clear focus of three papers, revealing
research on children’s writing of narrative
texts (Dahlström), collaborative film making
(Møller) and the learning of vocabulary (Sari
et al.).
In Part two, the ebook offers four essays
authored by Keynotes and trainers. Amante
and Ponte address issues related to family
literacy practices. Amante centres her
attention on parental mediation, pinpointing
different forms of mediation and highlighting
the role that further research on emergent
media habits may play in fostering parents’
roles as an educational opportunity for
children. Ponte, on the other hand, points
out how the so-called “weird” families label
prevails in research “to catalogue the
disadvantages faced by particular social
groups at the expense of considering their
strengths” (Ponte, this volume) and invites
research to embrace a more holistic
approach, more aware of the social
diversity of the families and how contents
and contexts interact.
The integration of online and offline
!11
Moreira addresses pedagogical issues in
his essay. He offers a reflective overview of
the pros and cons of (mis)using digital toys
in early stages of learning, arguing about
the role of non-intrusive digital toys and
playing in forging engaging opportunities
that set the foundations for the
development of digital literacies. He also
identifies a set of principles sustaining
pedagogical uses of ICT’s in children’s
learning contexts from an early age.
diversity in the epistemological frameworks
that are used to make meaning out of
empirical data, ranging from sociocultural
understandings of early literacy learning,
theories of multimodality and work in the
field of media literacy but also notably
including New Literacy Studies, cognitivist
theories of digital meaning making, play
theories as well as sociological theories and
cultural theories on childhood and child
cultures.
Pereira focuses on reading on screens. She
identifies multimodality, interconnectivity
and interaction as three central features of
digital texts and discusses the possibilities
and requirements they pose on digital
meaning making, which she highlights by
comparing to reading ‘on paper’. She also
identifies relevant research questions about
young children’s digital reading.
Organising this TS was a big challenge for
both of us and it received a globally positive
assessment. The help we got from COST,
CIEd (Research Centre on Education) and
IE (Institute of Education of University of
Minho) was essential in making it possible.
We would, however, like to underline that
without Jackie Marsh’s active and enduring
support it would not have happened. She
well deserves our biggest Thank you!
The professional significance of organising
this TS will be enduring for both of us. The
most outstanding revelation was the
surfacing of the complexity that is intrinsic
to DigiLitEY’s research object. There is
great diversity of circumstances in which
children experience, learn and develop
digital literacy and multimodal
communication in COST countries that
have joined in this Action. Countries are far
from being alike in what concerns to the
political, pedagogical, cultural, linguistic,
social or in economic terms that frame the
digital literacy practices of young citizens.
The TS has also put in evidence a great
Íris Susana Pires Pereira & Altina Ramos
Braga, Portugal, October 2016
Reference
Sefton-Green, J., Marsh, J., Erstad, O. &
Flewitt, R. (2 Establishing a Research
Agenda for the Digital Literacy Practices of
Yong Children: a White Paper for COST
Action IS1410 [accessed: http://digiliey.eu].
!12
Paper 1
The acquisition of media competences in Poland by
preschool children at home
Paulina Barańska1
Jan Kochanowski University in Kielce, Poland
Abstract
The work includes theoretical and empirical
considerations regarding media
competences amongst children aged 3–5
years old. These competences affect the
role the media are beginning to play in the
life of a small child. They enter unnoticed
into their world and domesticate it very
quickly, luring with its attractiveness,
volatility and quickness. The main aim of
this work is an attempt to answer the
question: What is the role of the media in
the life of the modern child? Both
methodological preparation as well as a
survey conducted among parents of
preschool children allowed interpretation of
the results, which show that children from
an early age are surrounded by the media,
which are mainly used by children for
entertainment and education. The whole
process is supervised by parents who are
aware that media can positively affect the
development of the intellectual, emotional
and social spheres of their children, but
only if they are used rationally. The media
literacy of preschool children is conditioned
1
paulina.baranska.02.01@gmail.com
by the nursery’s and parents’ combined
work and can certainly protect children in
the future against threats, which number as
large as the number of opportunities.
Key words: New media, child of preschool
age, media competences, family
Introduction
For many people, the Internet and new
media are things without which we cannot
imagine functioning. They are used both to
study and work but also for fun; and what
is more, their role is increasing. In academic
settings, it begins to take on scientific
importance to describe the so-called digital
generation, by which is meant children and
young people who are being constantly
connected to a network from the earliest
years of their lives. Digital generation is to
be the future of the electronic cobweb.
Working in a nursery and an interest in
media space in a child's life led me to
conduct research on the use of new media
technologies for preschool children at
home.
adopt promoted patterns of behavior,
opinions, views, different lifestyles. The
virtual world is very often unreal, faked, and
frequently competitive to the real world. It is
full of success, prosperity, uniqueness, new
opportunities and possibilities, but also
wars, discrimination, cruelty, poverty and
lack of tolerance. That's the world that
entered very strongly into the child's life
through constant, permanent contact with
him on the TV, computer and phone
(Izdebka, 2009a).
Modern childhood
The childhoods of today's children are
shaped by the influence of changes related
to system transformations and
globalization. They grow up in a global
civilization, they witness ongoing changes,
suffer from the effects of domestic changes
and experience various events (Małyska,
2011). Changes refer to the scope, nature
and size of child’s relationships, feelings
and experiences. There are new stimuli
building the childhoods of contemporary
children, among them a dominant influence
belongs to the media. Daily space in their
lives is filled with all sorts of electronic
media, such as TV, CD, computer, laptop,
tablet, Internet, mobile phone and iPhone.
Using media begins very early, almost from
the beginning of life, and it takes the form of
regular, daily contact which increases over
time (Izdebska, 2009). The start of culture
begins with contact with television and
other electronic media. They are immersed
very intensively in a child's life,
subordinating its organization and filling it
with their media content. And the child
delves into the virtual world with great
interest, it is a world with intrinsic properties
(Róziewicz, 2011).
Children and new media
Imagining a preschooler, we see him or her
on a bike, with building blocks, dolls or
cars. Rarely would we mention the use of a
computer as a form of leisure activity for
children of this age. However, more and
more often there appear such terms as
digital-native children, children of the
network, preschoolers in the network.
Constant, daily contact with media causes
their childhood to be referred to as a
television, media, computer or network
period (Izdebska, 2009). New digital
technologies are perceived on the one hand
as a powerful support for the child's
cognitive and emotional development, but
accused of causing anxiety, danger and
fear.
An analysis of contemporary literature
shows that children treat media as an
integral and perfectly natural part of their
life. Not without reason, in the market keep
appearing DVDs for babies, computer
games for slightly older children, television
The reality presented in the form of
syntheses, copies and models becomes for
a given child a very attractive, but
possessive factor, forcing him or her to
!14
programmes aimed at children under six
months of age. In addition, more and more
often appear sites and portals where the
target customers are small children. Many
parents appreciate such actions, indicating
their educational value. They argue that,
thanks to computers, children learn letters,
learn to read. From TV flow English sounds
that promote language learning and
education to teach social behaviour.
may
constitute a serious threat to the
socio-emotional functioning of children.
A media childhood is unfortunately marked
by destructive changes. The threats posed
by new media are largely caused by the
irrational use of the competence of children
in this area. Incorrect media relations cause
negative changes in various spheres of a
child's personality – cognitive, emotional
and motivational, as well as social. Many
hours each day of uncritical and passive
submission to the impact of electronic
media has an impact on the organization of
child and family life. This may lead to
The correct use of new technology by the
child determines to a very large extent what
he or she learns from the media, what the
benefits are, whom he or she becomes as
a result of these relationships (Noga, 2012).
In this context, a media childhood means
multimedia which are valuable from the
point of view of the development and
education of the child; then, it really
becomes a childhood: cheerful, attractive,
interactive and community-filled, thanks to
the possibilities of communication, being
active in the world of media, compensating
for the deficiencies of family and the local
environment, providing new opportunities
to participate in culture, also performing
also in the media – it becomes a childhood
with modern educational and didactic
opportunities.
neglecting responsibilities at school, work
or home, outdoor activities, participation in
readership culture and also higher culture
(ibid). the area of extracurricular and
outdoor activities is shrinking, everything is
slowly being transferred to the amenity of
four walls of a child’s room. Very often,
information published in media results,
especially among the youngest recipients,
in unwanted states and emotional
experiences. Scenes filled with violence
often cause aggressive behaviour.
New media are definitely changing the type
and scope of interpersonal communication
into a clear, progressive dominating
relationship of intermediate character. It is
communication with a keyboard, and
increasingly only a screen, that becomes a
kind of language. The frequent presence of
children in the world of electronic media is
changing the formula for making contacts.
Increasingly, these contacts will become –
by choice – short, rapid, shallower, taskaimed and simplistic in their form of
On the other hand, there are accusations
and information about threats. Many
professionals see that spending too much
time in front of the TV results in a lack of
control over the programmes being
watched, reduced activity, social and
emotional disorders. However, going to
extremes – from the total elimination of
media to unrestricted access to them –
!15
language (ibid.).
have contact with in their homes?
Very large benefits of new technologies, but
also risks, are waiting in this space for the
child; media education is encouraged,
above all in the family and in school. Its
main objective is the creation of favourable
conditions at an early age and in
2. How do they use new media?
3. How much time each day is devoted to
the use of media?
4. How do parents care about the safety of
their children online?
educational situations, so that the child,
supported by parents, teachers and
educators, learns the use of electronic
media, assimilating important skills involving
the selective choice of media content.
5. At what age does a nursery-aged child
have the greatest contact with media?
6. Do boys and girls use media for the
same purposes?
The solutions to these problems allow us to
draw correct conclusions concerning the
impact of media on a small child.
Methodology
Working in a nursery and having an interest
in media space in a child's life led me to
conduct research on the use of new media
technologies for preschool children at
home.
An analysis of contemporary literature as
well as my own experiences and
observations can be extended to propose
the following main hypothesis: It is
assumed that new media play a large role
in the life of a child of preschool age,
affecting his or her cognitive development.
The focus of my research is children of
preschool age and new media. The aim of
this theoretical research is to determine the
role played by media in the life of a child
aged 3–5 years. At the same time, the
purpose of practical concerns is to put
forward appropriate proposals to educate
With regard to the specific research
problems formulated, one can assume the
following specific hypotheses:
the child in the rational use of new media.
1. It is assumed that preschool children
Determining the object and purpose of the
study allows us to formulate relevant
research problems. The main problem is
the working question: What is the role of
new media in the life of a child in
preschool? Due to the general nature of the
problem, it can be divided into the following
main problems:
generally have access to smartphones,
tablets, laptops, and, of course, television.
2. It is presumed that they use them mainly
for various adventure and educational
games for children, music, watching
cartoons, learning letters, numbers and
reading, and also learning a foreign
language.
1. What are the new media that children
!16
3. It is claimed that children spend more
and more time using media, at the expense
of time spent in the playground, or active
play at home.
the group the greater the media
competence of children.
6. It is supposed that boys and girls use
new media for similar purposes, but with
varying frequency.
4. It is believed that children's parents care
about the security of the network. They
control the contents of what their children
The following table shows the variables
defined in the study and their indicators.
use, they enjoy the use of media together.
5. It is argued that children, as soon as they
are in the youngest preschool group (2.5–3
years) have contact with media, and the
older
Table 1: Variables and their indicators
Independent variable:
- age
- Child of preschool age
- gender
Dependent variables:
- types of new-media devices: tablets,
laptops, smartphones, TV
- New media
- Objectives of the use of new media
- watching cartoons
- educational games
- other games
- listening to music
- learning letters
- the science of numbers
- learning to read
- English language learning
- Time spent using media
- al all
- less than half-hour
- 0,5 - 2 hours
- more than 2 hours
- parental control
- Security online
!17
The method of diagnostic survey was
selected, while the tool was a survey
concerning the use of new media by
children of preschool age. An adjunct
method was the observation of children
and discussions about media.
The parents completed a questionnaire.
Questions were closed and multiple choice.
Results
The study was conducted among parent
regarding the competence of their children.
Figure 1 shows the age and gender of the
children studied.
The research was carried out at a private
kindergarten AQQ. Seventy parents of
children aged 3, 4 and 5 years participated
in the research.
Figure 1. Age and gender of children
!18
Figure 2. Types of media enjoyed by children
Figure 3. Time spent using media
Figure 4. Use of media
The graph in Figure 1 shows that among
the children, there were 21 aged 3 years,
26 aged 4 years, and 23 children aged 5
years.
In the first age groups, there were more
girls, while among the older group the
majority were boys. The results in Figure 2
show that their children have access to
media, they use them with great ease and
are happy to reach out and use them. Most
of the children (over 50%) primarily use
tablets, which they own (having received
them as gifts).
Less frequently they use laptops, the lowest
number use mobile phones, but they are
also efficient users of those lesser-used
media devices. Of course, television is
present in their lives (95%). Only 2 per cent
of parents responded that their child has no
media access at all.
Fifty-six per cent of the youngest children
(aged 3 years) spend less than half an hour
in front of a television or computer screen
each day; for a significant proportion (27%).
(See Figure 3).
it is half an hour to an hour; for only 3 per
cent is it over two hours. For the four-yearolds, the duration of the use of new media
increases. Many still spend less than half an
hour, but almost as many children spend at
least half an hour a day. The situation
changes totally amongst the oldest
children, where 30 per cent spend more
than half an hour. Interestingly, 13 per cent
use media for more than two hours.
Therefore, it is proposed that the older the
child, the more time is spent on the use of
media. (See Figure 3).
What should also be examined is the
purpose of the use of new media.The
results are shown in Figure 4. What are new
media used for by children? The results
show that it is mainly for viewing fairy tales.
That answer was indicated by 80 per cent
of parents. In second place are different
kinds of games, including educational and
adventure (76%). In addition, using a tablet
helps children to learn English by listening
to different songs, games in which English
language is the main one used.
More than half of the children learn
numbers and letters. Fewer listen to music
(28%) or learn to read (18%). Children aged
3–5 years use media mainly for
entertainment and education. The next
graph shows that the percentages are the
same amongst boys and girls (see Figure
5).
Figure 5. Use of media by boys and girls
Figure 6. Parental control
!21
Boys and girls use media for the same
purposes. It is worth noting that boys often
use tablets or laptops to play strategy and
adventure games (56%), while girls prefer
educational games (42%), they also listen
to music more often (17%). In addition, they
are more interested in learning a foreign
language (29%), only 17 per cent of boys
show such an interest. It can be
understood that boys are more focused on
entertainment, which is guaranteed by
strategy games and adventure. The girls, in
addition to being entertainment-oriented,
are also keen on education.
react by crying or screaming when parents
do not want to give them their phone or
tablet.
Conclusion
From an early age, media play a significant
role in a child’s life. At home they have
continuous access to them. Children,
especially the youngest ones, need
direction to show them the right way to
proceed at each stage. Adults teach them
to walk, talk, ride a bike, build sandcastles,
dress and eat. Their task is also to show a
child how to use a phone or a computer.
They should not use media as a “sitter” for
their child, due to the fact that neither
computer nor TV teaches dialogue.
Children spending their free time only in
front of a computer or TV reduces their
physical and social activity (increases body
weight, reduces the number of friends). In
today’s world, children’s access to media
seems inevitable; therefore, familiarizing
oneself with the prevention of cyber-bullying
is the responsibility of parents. Media can
offer many benefits associated with the
education of the youngest generation, one
only needs to use them rationally.
Fortunately, virtually all parents care about
their child’s safety online (see Figure 6).
Only 4 per cent of respondents did not take
any action. They install locks designed to
restrict access to undesirable sites or
television programmes. Together with the
child, they benefit from the new technology,
they teach them how to use it rationally and
they control the time spent ‘with media’.
From observations in kindergarten, one can
see that children also use smartphones
efficiently, they can unlock them by
themselves, take pictures, browse the
photo gallery, turn off the alarm. They also
often say what they are doing on their
tablets, mainly share their impressions of
cartoons they have watched, or music they
have listened to. It sometimes happens that
on entering kindergarten they have a
parent’s phone in their hand and like to play
their favourite game. Also, frequently,
parents download a new game for their
child and experience with them the events
of ‘achieved’ levels. Preschoolers often
Analysis of the results shows that a child at
nursery stage can cope efficiently with
electronic devices. New media are mainly
used to watch cartoons, learn English and
have fun, whether provided by computer
games or the Internet. Boys are more
entertainment-oriented, but girls want to
learn something. The time they spend in
front of a computer increases with their
!22
młodzież w sieci. Remedium, 7/8, 6–7.
age, so less and less time is spent on
movement and in the open air. It is very
important that children at that age are not
left alone in the world of media, there
should be parents present who control their
actions in this new world of images and
animation.
Levinson P. (2010). Nowe nowe media.
Kraków.
Łobocki M. (2000). Metody i techniki badań
pedagogicznych. Kraków.
Łobocki M. (2010). Wprowadzenie do
metodologii badań pedagogicznych.
Kraków.
Therefore, nursery children acquire a lot of
media competence that can make their
lives fun and educational. They cope well
with new technology features and learn
faster than their parents and teachers.
Małyska A. (2011). Przedszkolak w sieci.
Wychowanie w Przedszkolu, 10, 24–30.
Morbitzer J. & Musiał, E. (Eds). (2013).
Człowiek – Media – Edukacja. Kraków.
References
Noga. H. (2012). Wychowawcza funkcja
internetu. Wychowawca, 6, 5–9.
Danowski B. & Krupińska A. (2007).
Dziecko w sieci. Gliwice.
Róziewicz, G. (2013). Dzieci sieci –
specyfika
czopokolenia. Problemy Opiekuń
Wychowawcze, 1, 13–24.
Delmanowicz, G. (2009). Rodzina w
społeczeństwie informacyjnym.
Wychowawca, 9, 16–24.
Dobosz M. (2009). Media w edukacji
p r z e d s z k o l a k ó w. W y c h o w a n i e w
Przedszkolu, 2, 28–31.
Izdebska J. (2009). Dzieciństwo medialne
współczesnych dzieci. Wychowanie w
Przedszkolu, 2, 5–9.
Izdebska J. (2009a). Dziecko i świat
mediów elektronicznych. Wychowanie w
Przedszkolu, 3, 5–8.
Izdebska J. (2009b). Współczesna rodzina
wobec eksplozji mediów elektronicznych –
wyzwaniem dla edukacji medialnej.
Edukacja, 3, 27–34.
Kaliszewska-Czeremska K. (2012). Dzieci i
!23
Paper 2
The use of mobile devices in the development of
reading comprehension skills
Marco Bento1, José Alberto Lencastre and Íris Pereira
University of Minho, Braga, Portugal
Abstract
We propose to investigate the role of
mobile devices in the development of
reading comprehension skills in the primary
education. To carry out this research we will
use a development research methodology,
because it provide practical input and at the
same time, scientific contributions, always
with the aim of finding solutions to our
educational problems. Through flipped
learning and gamification pedagogies we
try to build a new model in the teaching and
learning of reading, in different teacher
training modules. We try also to include
mobile devices in an educational context to
improve the reading comprehension skills of
learning.
We intend with this investigative process
that there is an effective improvement of
learning outcomes in the Portuguese
language, in the specific with reading
comprehension.
Keywords: Mobile learning, pedagogical
innovation, teacher training, gamification,
flipped learning, reading skills
1
macbento@hotmail.com
Introduction and theoretical framework
We live in a society that has developed in
almost all areas, yet it is slow to update in
education. Generally, students live in the
twenty-first century, with teachers who run
after them with pedagogies from the
twentieth century in classrooms that remain
frozen in time and comparable, in all too
many cases, to classrooms from the
nineteenth century.
Portuguese language education reveals
three dominant problems. The first is that
our primary-education students continue to
have weak results in the area of Portuguese
(IAVE, 2014; 2013; 2012; 2011; ProjAvi,
2012).
The second problem is that mobile devices
are popular among students and they have
educational potential, but teachers do not
use them to learn. So, most students prefer
and do use new technologies, mostly
mobile devices such as tablets or
smartphones, to communicate and learn
anywhere and at any time (Attewell et al.,
2014; Kukulska-Hulme, 2012), which is still
not allowed in the language classroom. We
see that students are using their phones
and tablets to search for information on the
Internet, to read information, to play games,
and many other activities. The educational
process must avail itself of this behaviour.
The third problem is related to the previous
one, in that teachers do not change their
teaching practices, in spite of
acknowledging the existence of problems
related to the non-acquisition of language
and literacy skills (Mascheroni & Ólafsson,
2014; Simões et al., 2014; Yoon et al.,
2007). We also see that teachers do not
innovate in their teaching practices,
choice for Internet access. We know that
students have these devices, and it is
therefore urgent to use them in educational
contexts (formal, informal and non-formal)
and take advantage of their potential to
help students acquire skills.
We also that students master the
technological aspect of their equipment,
which they use them in various activities,
thus facilitating the task of the teacher, who
does not need to know about the
technology, just explore it from a
pedagogical point of view.
Students do not have any trouble searching
for and finding information, but they have
many difficulties in selecting the right
information and analysing it properly,
resulting in the teacher having a new role of
regulator and companion throughout this
new process.
particularly in reading learning contexts,
and they do not use the mobile devices that
students use in informal spaces that could
be a solution to promote innovative
pedagogy and try to take advantage of this
technology for learning.
The inclusion of these devices in the
classroom, building a new paradigm in the
process of teaching and learning, has been
assumed to be a possible way to transform
teaching practices and improve learning
outcomes, and we assume this is also
possible for language and literacy
education. In particular, we think that the
integration of mobile technologies into
schoolwork and teaching methods could
take advantage of their full potential to
support the learning and development of
reading skills in Portuguese.
On the one hand, we are faced with a new
type of student due to the use of a new
type of technology (mobile); on the other,
we find teachers struggling to adapt to this
new reality, not knowing what to do with
the equipment in terms of educational use
in the classroom. There is a real need for
teacher training to help teachers adapt to
this new type of student, and provide
teachers with innovative teaching skills.
A major contribution of mobile devices is to
give students the opportunity to experience
the excitement of engaging in pursuing the
knowledge they really want to find. An
introduction to the potential of multimedia
applications, tailored and appropriate to the
context of learning, serves as an important
Today, opportunities to access information
happen anytime and anywhere, as stated
previously. Mobile devices are increasingly
popular among students and the first
!25
tool in the dynamics of the classroom,
supporting students being in a state of
having a predisposition to learning.
formats (text, image, sound, video),
attributes that are increasingly referred to as
enhancers of use (Attewell et al., 2014;
Carvalho, 2012; Kukulska-Hulme, 2012).
Authors such as Djajadiningrat, Frens and
Overbeeke (2004) or Hornecker and Buur
(2006) defend the added value of mobile
devices because they are tangible systems
For Moraes and Torre (2004), teaching
strategies should promote learning that
integrates several senses: imagination,
intuition, collaboration and emotional
impact. Aesthetic aspects, such as image,
video and music (multimedia) add a degree
of sophistication in relation to the
educational process, as they offer
e x p e r i e n c e a n d i n t e r a c t i v i t y, t h u s
connecting senses, feelings and reason.
which put emphasis on the interaction
between user and task, making the
manipulation of content look much more
natural, avoiding forcing her to deal with the
accuracy of using a computer mouse,
avoiding additional cognitive load and
allowing him to interact with the content.
When we get students involved in this
process, and it becomes an active part of
the learning process, we know that the
educational chances of success also
increase exponentially. The greater is the
involvement of the students in creative
manipulation, research and interaction with
their own knowledge, and the discovery of
new forms of knowledge expression, the
greater is the didactic effectiveness of this
process.
Today, then, teachers have at their disposal
various mobile devices and digital
resources that allow them to improve their
teaching skills. These mobile devices along
with pedagogical innovation processes are
revolutionizing the way we teach and learn,
but also transforming the perceptions of
what is really important to learn in today's
society.
When used properly and conscientiously,
mobile devices relate closely to and
interdepend on our daily lives, and they give
teachers a new set of skills to enrich their
Thus, there is school transformation
through use of the Internet and mobile
devices (Attewell et al., 2014; Moura,
2012), the mobility of students, contexts
and content. This moment becomes an
opportunity for teachers to improve and
transform their educational practices, and
how we connect and interact with our
students.
teaching practice and teaching-learning
processes (Carvalho, 2012; KukulskaHulme, 2012).
We note that there is a great familiarity
among students with these mobile devices,
being a multimedia technology that is used
every day, is portable and mobile (Pachler
et al., 2010), and it facilitates and expands
access to information and new forms of
communication that feature in various
Furthermore, we also find that reading is a
mental process of interaction with a written
text during which the active player uses
specific mental processes which are
!26
effective for the construction of meanings
with different levels of complexity (decoded,
inferred and elaborate), assuming a critical
and desirably controlled position. Teaching
reading is synonymous with explicit
teaching and practice in these cognitive
processes (Irwin, 1990).
a digital context facilitates the process of
constructing meanings of texts with
different natures (literary, non-literary) and
this does not seem to radically change the
essence of reading: reading remains a
meaning-construction process.
Building a new paradigm for the process of
teaching and learning needs to begin with
the teachers, since they are the designers
and facilitators of the learning processes
that take place in classrooms. However,
only if teachers have the necessary
knowledge can they implement such a
pedagogical transformation. This means
that teachers themselves need to become
proficient users of these media as a first
step so that the integration of smartphones
and tablets in the classroom can be
achieved, with gains for all parties
(Kukulska-Hulme, 2012).
But reading in a digital communication
context is very different today from what it
looked like in the past due to its
overwhelmingly multimodal, inherently
social, constantly monitored and immensely
playful character (Kress & Van Leuwwen,
2001). In the context of the digital age,
reading means the construction of
meanings that integrate information
represented in different semiotic modes,
such as verbal language (oral and written),
visual (colour and images), sound, space/
layout, gesture and touch. Also, to read
today implies immediate (and ubiquitous)
access to other texts (through networking,
accessing texts designed by others) that
are related or relatable to the text one
wants to understand. Digital reading
requires close management and immediate
c o n t ro l o f a l l p h a s e s o f s u c h a n
unpredictable meaning-making process.
This is a playful approach to reading, which
manifests itself in action and strong
involvement by the reader, especially
(though ) not
in exclusively
gamification
contexts.
Methodology
The main aim of this research project is to
study the introduction of mobile devices in
the educational context in order to develop
reading comprehension skills in primaryschool students.
Our research question is:
How can reading pedagogy be transformed
in primary education through the use of
mobile devices?
This is also our general objective, to
transform reading pedagogy in primary
education through the use of mobile
devices. The specific objectives are:
Reading is made semiotically richer by
making immediately available relevant
cultural knowledge to understand a text
and promote deep emotional involvement
of the reader in a digital context. Reading in
a) To promote the accumulation of
professional knowledge about the
!27
gamification component, whereby teachers
pedagogical uses of mobile devices;
b) To promote the accumulation of
professional knowledge about reading
pedagogy supported by mobile devices;
c ) To p ro m o t e t h e d e s i g n a n d
implementation of teaching reading
practices supported by the use of
mobile devices.
collaborate, construct resources, design
their interventions and reflect on the
teaching of reading practises. This platform
will also be a place where the students can
collaborate, like a virtual classroom, and it
is because of that that we can talk about
mobile learning and not situated learning.
This study follows a Development Research
methodology (van den Akker & Plomp,
1993; Richey, 1994; van den Akker, 1999;
Coutinho, 2008; Richey, Klein & Nelson,
2004; Lencastre, 2012). This is a multimethodological or mixed investigation
The intervention will be carried out with a
group of primary-education teachers (n=22)
working in schools in the north of Portugal,
and it will be structured as two main
stages. First, teachers will participate in
accredited training designed to familiarize
them with a variety of innovative
pedagogical scenarios, such as flipped
learning and gamification, and these will
always be combined with reading activities.
This first stage will also provide teachers
with technical and pedagogical skills to use
mobile-learning pedagogy (Attewell et al.,
2014; Kukulska-Hulme, 2012; Shum &
Crick, 2012), using different mobile devices
and apps. In the first module we will explore
with teachers some pedagogical models,
such as mobile learning in project-based
learning, problem-based learning, enquirybased learning, flipped learning and
gamification.
model that combines quantitative and
qualitative methods, e.g. document
analysis, case studies, surveys and
interviews, observation and softwarelogging.
This applied research aims to solve a
specific problem found in everyday practice
by proposing a prototype solution based on
a theoretical framework (Coutinho, 2008). In
our case, we are developing a digital
platform to support the educational process
beyond the classroom by facilitating the
implementation of cyclical and spiral
processes (action-research logic). This
methodology has the advantage of being a
cyclical and spiral process, with
intervention, feedback evaluation and
reflection, that allows us to return to
intervention in order to improve the digital
platform and transform pedagogical
practices.
The training will, furthermore, provide
teachers with knowledge about how the
digital reading comprehension process may
be enhanced and integrated with the
pedagogical model of mobile learning.
Mobile devices (and different apps) will be
explored as tools that afford multimodality,
networking, monitoring and playfulness,
thus allowing new reading processes. This
The platform was created to support
trainee teachers and the implementation of
new teaching practices. It also has a
!28
will be the second module of the trainee
teachers’ process.
CLIC’, two applications of ERASMUS+
on mobile-learning projects in the
classroom
10. Implementation of Module I of
teacher training (mobile learning in
scenarios of flipped learning and
gamification).
11. Designing one innovative classroom
lab (at AEGMMaia school) and the
learning models: project-based learning,
problem-based learning and enquirybased learning, that provide six learning
zones.
Secondly, we will supervise and monitor the
implementation of an educational
intervention intend to apply the imparted
knowledge in reading comprehension with
8-years students. We will follow two of the
teachers (that have done the training
module) in the intervention of their classes –
about Reading comprehension practices.
We will do 2 case studies with this two
teachers of the 3rd grade of the Primary
Education.
Our innovative classroom lab comprises six
different learning spaces. Each space
highlights specific areas of learning and
teaching and helps to rethink different
points: physical space, resources, changing
roles of student and teacher, and how to
support different learning styles.
To date, we have taken these steps:
1. Document analysis.
2. Survey of all training activities for
"Mobile Lear ning" accredited in
Portugal.
3 . L i t e r a t u re re v i e w o n m o b i l e
pedagogy, digital reading, teacher
development.
4. Design, validation and accreditation
of Module I of a teacher-training
programme (CCPFC/ACC-84797/15
‘Aprender com dispositivos móveis –
Mobile Learning em cenários de Flipped
Learning
). e Gamification’
a) Create zone – allows students to plan,
design and produce their own work, e.g. a
multimedia production or presentation. In
the create zone, the simple repetition of
information is not enough: students work
with real knowledge-building activities.
Interpretation, analysis, teamwork and
evaluation are important parts of the
creative process.
b) Interact zone – the teacher can use
technology to enhance interactivity and
student participation in traditional learning
spaces. One challenge of the traditional
classroom setting is getting all students
actively involved; technology enables each
and every pupil to contribute. Solutions vary
from individual devices, like tablets and
smartphones, to interactive whiteboards
5. Construction of the SUPERTABi
platform (training and monitoring).
6. Platform usability test (technical and
content experts).
7. Testing and validation of the training
model during a process of highereducation mobile learning at the
University of Porto.
8. Testing and validation of the training
model with primary-education teachers.
9. Participation in ‘CLAN’ and ‘BLIC &
!29
and interactive learning content. In the
interact zone, learning involves both
teachers' and students' active
engagement.
c) Present zone – students will need a
different set of tools and skills to present,
deliver and obtain feedback on their work.
The presentation and delivery of students’
work has to be factored into the planning of
lessons, allowing students to add a
communicative dimension to their work.
Sharing results can be supported by a
dedicated area for interactive presentations
which, through its design and layout,
encourages interaction and feedback.
Collaboration in the 21st-century classroom
is not limited to face-to-face and
synchronous communication, it can also
take place online and asynchronously.
f) Develop zone – a space for informal
learning and self-reflection. Students can
carry out schoolwork independently and at
their own pace, but they can also learn
informally while concentrating on their own
interests outside the formal classroom
setting, both at school and at home. By
providing ways to foster self-directed
learning, the school supports learners' selfreflection and meta-cognition skills. The
school encourages its students to engage
in true lifelong learning by acknowledging
and validating informal learning.
This research project also has some formal
agreements with diverse entities, such as
schools, a teacher-training centre and a
technology/educational company that will
equip schools, which had to be established
to make this study feasible. In addition, we
have established a partnership with the
University of Wolverhampton (UK), so that
our study can have close connections with
a leader in educational innovation using
mobile technologies 1:1 in the classroom,
with the governmental Team of Resources
and Educational Technology Education
(ERTE) (in Portugal) in order to have their
formal support and with European
Schoolnet Academy that supports us in this
model for an innovative classroom lab with
six learning zones. All formal agreements
and partnerships have been successfully
concluded well succeeded and all implied
ethical concerns implied have been
considered.
Online publication and sharing are also
encouraged, allowing students to become
accustomed to using online resources.
d) Investigate zone – students are
encouraged to discover for themselves;
they are given the opportunity to be active
participants rather than passive listeners. In
the investigate zone, teachers can promote
enquiry- and project-based learning to
enhance students’ critical thinking skills.
Flexible furniture supports this concept, and
the physical zone can be reconfigured
quickly to enable working in groups, pairs
or individually. New technology gives added
value to research by providing rich, versatile
and real-life data, and also by providing
tools to examine and analyse.
e) Exchange zone – teamwork takes place
while investigating, creating and presenting.
The quality of collaboration is composed of
ownership, shared responsibility and
decision-making processes within groups.
ICT can help to create a richer way of
communicating and collaborating.
!30
Figure 1 – Six-learning-zones environment
Figure 2 – 3D future classroom lab – six learning zones
!31
become knowing and experienced digital
learners.
Expected Results
Through this research, we expect to better
know how to use mobile devices in the
classroom in order to improve the readingcomprehension skills and motivation of
primary-school students.
However they also think there are some
weaknesses, e.g. there is not enough time
to know all the affordances of each
application and also not enough time to
actually learn new knowledge. They feel
that 22 teachers was too big a working
group and the end of school year was not
the best time to implement this with trainee
teachers. A very problematic issue was
Internet accessibility in the school, because
they have many connection problems and it
became difficult to implement the new
practices with students. We also detected
some preconceptions about the ‘informal’
technology used by students and strong
preconceptions about the new, playful
pedagogy to teach language and literacy
(seriously) in formal classrooms.
Thus far we have finished the first teachertraining module. This programme has
completed
22fifty
teachers
hours with of
primary education.
After this first module, we drew some
conclusions about the implementation of
the training programme. Some of the
strengths from the teachers’ viewpoint are
their confidence in the affordances of new
digital resources (platform, tablets and
apps). Also, they have confidence in the
new pedagogy of flipped lear ning,
gamification and collaborative work, due to
its enactment in their own training
programme. Teachers have gained
experience themselves as learners in every
dimension of the new pedagogy using
tablets to do learning tasks, and that was
very important for them. Another strength
of the training programme was their
understanding the ubiquitous nature of
The next step is implementation of the
second module of the training programme
in September of this year. But we will have
to rethink the programme, as our
development methodology advocates. All
of these aspects are to be taken into
consideration in the design and
implementation of future steps of the
development programme in our research.
mobile learning. They also think that
expansion of the concept of ‘classroom’,
going beyond four walls and into attractive
spaces, is an advantage, and they
recognise having greater ability to focus on
students by making them more active and
autonomous in their learning processes.
There is recognition of the facility to assume
the role of moderator in the teaching
process, and they feel engaged, motivated
and more reflective because of having
References
Attewell, J. & Savill-Smith,
). (2014).
C. (Eds
Learning with mobile devices: research and
development. London: Learning and Skills
Development Agency.
Boland, A., Cherry, G., & Dickson, R.
(2014). Doing a systematic review: a
!32
student’s guide. London: SAGE.
f (accessed 29 March 2015)
Carvalho, A. (2012). Mobile Learning:
rentabilizar os dispositivos móveis dos
alunos para aprender. In: Carvalho, Ana
Amélia (Ed.), Aprender na Era Digital: Jogos
e mobile learning. Santo Tirso: DeFacto
Editora, pp.149–163.
IAVE. (2013). Relatório Exame Nacional de
Português, 1.º Available at: http://
w w w. g a v e . m i n - e d u . p t / n p 3 c o n t e n t / ?
newsId=24&fileName=PrelimReport_Exams
_2013_PDFCon.pdf (accessed 29 March
2015).
Coutinho, C. (2008). Aspectos
Metodológicos da Investigação em
Tecnologia Educativa em Portugal (1985–
2000). Actas do XIV Colóquio AFIRSE: Para
um balanço da Investigação em Tecnologia
em Portugal de 1960 a 2007: teorias e
práticas. Lisboa: FPCE-UL, pp.1–13
IAVE. (2014). Relatório Exame Nacional de
Português, 1. Available at: http://
www.dge.mec.pt/sites/default/files/JNE/
2014.pdf
relatorio_anual_do_jne_
(accessed
29 March 2015).
Irwin, J.W. (1990).Teaching Reading
comprehension processes. Allyn & Bacon.
Djajadiningrat, W., Frens, J., & Overbeeke,
K. (2004). Tangible Products: Redressing
the Balance Between Appearance and
Action. Personal and Ubiquitous
Computing, 8(5), 294–309.
Kress, G. & Van Leuwwen, T. (2001).
Multimodal Discourse: the modes and
media of contemporary communication.
London: Arnold; New York: Oxford
University Press.
Dybå, T. & Dingsøyr, T. (2008). Empirical
studies of agile software development: A
systematic review. Information and software
technology, 50(9), 833–859.
Kukulska-Hulme, A. (2012). Mobile Usability
in Educational contexts: What have we
learnt? International Review of Research
in Open and Distance Learning, 8(2).
http://www.irrodl.org/index.php/irrodl/
article/view/356.
Gough, D., Thomas, J., & Oliver, S. (2012).
Clarifying differences between review
designs and methods. Systematic Reviews,
1(1), 28.
Lencastre, J. [2012]. Metodologia para o
desenvolvimento de ambientes virtuais de
aprendizagem: development research. In:
Angélica Monteiro, J., António Moreira, &
Ana Cristina Almeida (Eds), Educação
Online: Pedagogia e aprendizagem em
plataformas digitais (pp.45–54). Santo
Tirso: DeFacto Editores.
Hornecker, E. & Buur, J. (2006). Getting a
Grip on Tangible Interaction: A Framework
on Physical Space and Social Interaction.
In: Proceedings of CHI'2006, Conference
on Human Factors in Computing Systems.
New York: ACM Press.
IAVE. (2011). Relatório Provas de Aferição
de Língua Portuguesa, 1. Available at:
http://www.slideshare.net/ddazevedo/
relatrio-nacional-lngua-portuguesa-1-ciclo
(accessed 29 March 2015).
Mascheroni, G. & Ólafsson, K. (2014). Net
Children Go Mobile. Risks and
Opportunities. (2nd ed.). Milano: Educatt.
Moraes, M. & Torre, S. (2004). Sentipensar:
fundamentos e práticas para reencantar a
educação. Vozes. Petrópolis.
IAVE. (2012). Relatório Provas de Aferição
de Língua Portuguesa, 1. Available at:
http://www.gave.min-edu.pt/np3content/?
newsId=
24&fileName=Rel_PA_LP_
2012.pd
Moura, A. (2012). Mobile lear ning:
Tendências tecnológicas emergentes. In:
!33
Canada: ACM Press.
Carvalho, A.A. (Ed.), Aprender na era
digital: Jogos e mobile-learning (pp.127–
147). Santo Tirso: De Facto Editores.
Simões, J., Ponte, C., Ferreira, E., Doretto,
J., & Azevedo, C. (2014). Crianças e Meios
Digitais Móveis em Portugal: Resultados
Nacionais do Projeto Net Children Go
Mobile. Lisboa: CESNOVA.
Norris, C. & Soloway, E. (2011). Learning
and schooling in the age of mobilism.
Educational Technology, 51(6), 3–10.
Wang, F. & Hannafin,
2005).M. Design(
based research and technology-enhanced
lear ning environments. Educational
Technology Research and Development,
53(4), 5–23.
Pachler, N., Bachmair, B., & Cook, J.
(2010). Mobile learning: Structures, agency,
practices. London: Springer.
ProjAvi (2012). PIRLS 2011. Desempenho
em Leitura. Lisboa: MEC-IAVE. http://
iave.pt/np4/home (accessed 30 April 2015).
Yoon, K., Duncan, T., Lee, S., Scarloss, B.,
& Sharpley, K. (2007). Reviewing the
evidence on how teacher professional
development affects student achievement.
Institute of Education Sciences, US:
Department of Education.
Shum, S. & Crick, R. (2012). Learning
dispositions and transferable
competencies: Pedagogy, modelling and
learning analytics. In: Proceedings of
LAK’12 (pp.92–101). Vancouver, BC,
!34
Paper 3
’The tablet is my BFF’: Practices and perceptions of
children under 8 years old and their families
Rita Brito 1
Universidade de Lisboa, Portugal
Patrícia Dias
Universidade Católica Portuguesa, Lisboa, Portugal
Abstract
This article explores the practices of
children under 8 years old with a tablet,
focusing particularly on the home setting
and on learning activities. Previous research
has shown that children are being born in
digital homes and coming into contact with
digital media at increasingly younger ages.
Also, the tablet is young children’s favourite
device. Our approach is qualitative, using
interviews with families, articulated with
activities suitable for children of this age
range, and also participant observation.
Our results show that the tablet is the
children’s favourite, due to the variety of
activities it facilitates and also its portability,
and children frequently have their own
personal device. Their preferred activities
are games, usually related to cartoon
characters or toys that they already like,
and these are significantly gendered.
Children reveal developed digital skills,
about which parents are frequently
unaware. Both for parents and children, the
1
britoarita@gmail.com
tablet is regarded as a “toy”, and thus its
pedagogical potential is under-explored.
However, children learn other types of skills,
such as problem solving, and
independence. Most parents believe that
children are not yet, at such a young age,
exposed to many online dangers, mostly
because they do not interact in social
networks. Hence, parents monitor time of
use, but not content. Yet children are
actually exposed to risks, mostly on
YouTube.
Keywords: Children under 8, young
children, tablet, use practices, learning,
digital technologies.
Introduction
Due to the fast pace of technological
development over the last few decades,
children are being born in digital homes and
coming into contact with online media at
increasingly younger ages (Hague &
Payton, 2010; Kucirkova, 2011; Plowman,
Stevenson, Stephen & McPake, 2012).
Younger parents, aged from 25 to 45 years
old, are themselves savvy digital users, and
they allow their children access to a great
variety of Internet-connected digital media
(Findahl, 2013; Xiaoming & Atkins, 2004;
Barr et al., 2005; Rideout & Hamel, 2006;
Aidman, Heintz, Mazzarella & Wartella,
1990).
gender differences in the digital practices of
children: boys predominantly play games,
while girls engage in more diversified
activities and multi-task more frequently.
Parents wish to share digital activities that
they can enjoy with their children and also
recognize that mobile devices are very
efficient in keeping children entertained
while they are busy with work or house
chores. Thus, they allow children to use
their devices from an early age, and
eventually acquire personal devices for
them (Plowman et al., 2008; Kucirnova,
2011; Genc, 2014).
Most research on children’s digital practices
has, however, studied children over 8 years
old (Arroz, Figueiredo & Sousa, 2009;
Mawson, 2013; Given et al., 2014; Vatavu
et al., 2014; Plowman, 2015), and thus our
research addresses this gap.
1.2. Role of parents
Previous research points to the tablet as
the preferred device for this age range
(Chaudron et al., 2015; Plowman, 2015),
one of the favourite “toys”, a must-have for
young children.
Several studies agree that, at such an early
age, although they are largely able to
explore digital media independently,
children often need guidance and support.
Parents play a pivotal role, as they are the
first mediators, it is with them that children
share their first digital experiences. Children
tend to look up to them as role models, and
to mimic their practices and preferences
(Warren, 2003; Livingstone, 2007; Plowman
et al., 2008; Bittman et al., 2011; Craft,
2013; Kucirnova & Sakr, 2015; Lauricella,
Wartella & Rideout, 2015).
1. Children and tablets
1.1. Favourite activities
A report by OFCOM (2013) reveals that the
use of tablets by young children is
increasing rapidly among children from five
to seven years old, and the most common
practices are watching videos, playing
games and browsing the Internet. Another
study by CommonSense (2013)
corroborates that three out of four children
have access to mobile devices (smartphone
and/or tablet) in the home. About practices,
this report highlights games, watching
videos or films and reading books.
The concept of parental mediation refers to
the role played by parents as mediators of
children’s engagement with media, thus
shaping their practices and perceptions
(Dorr et al., 1989; Sang et al., 1993;
Valkenburg et al., 2009).
More recent research on parental mediation
has focused on digital media (Morentin et
Cotten, Shank & Anderson (2014) report
!36
al., 2014; Nikken & Jansz, 2013). There are
several proposals that may be summed up
as two trends: a) on the one hand, there are
parents who control how their children use
digital media (with younger children parents
are more worried about time of use than
content); b) on the other hand, there are
parents who find engagement with digital
technologies beneficial, and thus they
support, help and teach (Barkin et al.,
2006; Eastin et al., 2006; Rosen, 2008;
Valcke et al., 2010).
the risks to which young children are
exposed.
Barreto & Adams (2011) studied parents’
perceptions of online dangers. Parents of
children over 12 identify several risks,
namely addiction, excessive digital
immersion, disclosure of private
information, plagiarism and cyberbullying.
But parents of younger children do not
perceive so many dangers, especially if
children are not yet active in social
networks. Parents of preschoolers (from 3
to 5 years) fear most for their children’s
health, as they may get too excited or tired
if they play for too long.
1.3. Perceptions and attitudes; benefits
and risks
The perceptions and attitudes of children
concerning tablets are positive. McKenney
& Voogt (2010) found that attitudes become
increasingly positive as children grow up, as
they become more frequent and diversified
users. Also, girls usually have more positive
attitudes than boys. This may be explained
by the diversity of their uses, while boys
mainly play games.
2. Methodology
2.1. Research questions
This article explores the following themes:
a) the integration of a tablet into a home
and the family dynamics associated with
this device; b) children’s practices of use,
their competencies, difficulties and
preferences; c) the perceptions of parents
and children concerning tablet use,
focusing particularly on benefits versus
risks.
Concerning parents, Plowman, McPake &
Stephen (2008) discuss the
“technologization” of childhood, claiming
that most parents do not regard this
process as negative. In fact, most parents
believe that digital technologies are
important tools for their children’s
professional future. Others add that they
are a source of learning (mostly informal,
because at such a young age children do
not engage in many pedagogical activities
on a tablet, neither at school nor at home).
More negative perspectives are usually
found among experts who tend to highlight
2.2. Research design and sample
Our approach is exploratory and qualitative,
and our main method is semi-structured
interviews. These are supported by other
techniques in order to facilitate data
collection and encourage the participation
of young children (e.g. board games, ‘digital
tour’, activity with stickers), and also by
participant observation.
We interviewed a sample of 25 families,
!37
with children from 3 to 8 years old, who
used at least one digital technology, as
least once a week. The sample was
selected theoretically according to Strauss
& Corbin (1998), in order to obtain variety of
variables such as gender of the child, family
composition (both parents vs monoparental; without vs with siblings; older vs
younger siblings) and socioeconomical
level. The visits took place between June
and November 2015 and involved a group
activity and different interviews with parents
and children. The data were gathered as
audio recordings and photographs, as well
as participant observation notes made by
children. Another common activity is taking
photographs, including selfies. Some of the
children know how to edit them on apps,
adding props and words. They also like
making videos.
Children rarely perform any educational or
pedagogical activity on a tablet. Very few
use them to support them in doing
homework.
The only cases of the use of educational
apps were mentioned by girls. One of them
had apps for learning English and Maths,
but they are far from being her favourites: “I
don’t really like maths.” These apps were
installed by parents or suggested by
teachers.
the researchers and subsequently coded
using thematic analysis, following Boyatzis
(1998) and Braun & Clarke (2006).
3.2. Family dynamics
Most of the time, children use a tablet on
their own. When parents are busy, allowing
them to play with a tablet is the perfect
strategy to keep them entertained and
happy. The tablet is the new ‘babysitter’.
Thus, this device is more often a
‘companion’ for children than a source of
family interaction. This lonely use exposes
children to risks.
3. Findings and discussion
3.1. Table practices
The tablet is children’s favourite device, as it
is interactive, attractive and portable. As
one mother noted, it is their “new
BFF” (best friend forever). Children usually
engage with one between finishing their
homework and having their evening meal,
or a little bit before bedtime. At the
weekend, their use is more frequent. Most
children have their own personal tablet.
They mainly use it to play games, in many
cases replacing a console, or even
television, as they can watch similar content
on YouTube. Children’s tablets are loaded
with games apps. Preferences concerning
games are strongly gendered.
Concerning rules, although Goh et al.
(2015) report that parents are often
permissive when it comes to digital media,
parents describe frequent ‘negotiations’
with their children, while children perceive
rules as being imposed.
Most parents set restrictions after observing
negative consequences of using a tablet for
too long. One mother claimed she cannot
spend quality time with her son anymore.
Watching videos on YouTube is the second
most frequent activity mentioned by
!38
Others justify this rule with the fact that
children have trouble falling asleep if they
use a tablet just before bedtime. PT7m and
PT7f told us how their oldest son, 7 years
old, modifies his behaviour when playing
with a tablet, leading them to restrict its
time of use.
a source of entertainment for children, in
many ways a “toy” that extends other types
of offline activities and preferences
(Chaudron et al., 2014; Merchant, 2015).
There was another rule mentioned by all
families: children may not install bought
apps. Parents believe it is not worth
‘spending money’ on apps related to
games, but most do not discard the
possibility of buying educational content.
Arroz, A.M., Figueiredo, M.P., & Sousa, D.
(2009). “Aprender é estar quietinho e fazer
coisas a sério!” – Perspectivas de crianças
em idade pré-escolar sobre a
aprendizagem. Revista Iberoamericana de
Educación, 48, 1–18.
References
Xiaoming, L. & Atkins, M. (2004). Early
Childhood Computer Experience and
Cognitive and Motor Development.
Pediatrics, 113(6), 172–175.
3.3. Perceptions of benefits versus
risks
YouTube is one of the most frequently used
apps. Children search for videos they like,
using different strategies to overcome their
lack of proficiency in reading and writing.
They follow suggestions from the app in the
search box, or they choose suggested
videos. Other children know how to identify
letters and ask their parents or older
siblings how to write the words desired for
their search, memorizing their shape to
reproduce them later. Children also know
whether or not they are connected to the
Internet. They know where in the home to
get the best connection, they acknowledge
that their parents’ devices are usually faster
than theirs and they complain about not
having Wi-Fi at their grandparents’ houses.
Ballano, S., Uribe, A.C., & Munté-Ramos,
R.A. (2014). Young users and the digital
divide: readers, participants or creators on
internet? Communication & Society, 27(4),
147–155.
Barr, R., Zack, E., Garcia A., & Muentener,
P. ( 2 0 0 5 ) . I n f a n t s ’ a t t e n t i o n a n d
responsiveness to television increases with
prior exposure and parental interaction.
Infancy, 13(1), 30–56.
Barreto, S. & Adams, S.K. (2011). Digital
technology and youth: A developmental
approach. The Brown University Child and
Adolescent Behavior Letter. Retrieved from:
http://www.commonsensemedia.org [1
March 2016].
In spite of children developing all these
skills and resourcefulness to play with
tablets, most parents undervalue both their
children’s digital literacy and tablets’
potential for learning. So, the tablet remains
Bittman, M., Rutherford, L., Brown, J., &
Unsworth, L. (2011). Digital natives? New
and old media and children’s outcomes.
!39
Australian Journal of Education, 55(2), 161–
175.
futures. International Journal of Educational
Research, 61, 126–134.
Boyatzis, R.E. (1998). Transforming
qualitative information: Thematic analysis
and code development. Thousand Oaks,
London & New Delhi: SAGE Publications.
Dorr, A., Kovaric, P., & Doubleday, C.
(1989). Parent-child coviewing of television.
Journal of Broadcasting & Electronic Media,
33(1), 35–51.
Braun, V. and Clarke, V. (2006) Using
thematic analysis in psychology. Qualitative
Research in Psychology, 3(2), pp. 77–101.
ISSN 1478-0887
Eastin, M., Greenberg, B., & Hofschire, L.
(2006). Parenting the Internet. Journal of
Communication, 56, 486–504.
Fallon, G. (2013). Young students using
iPads: App design and content influences
on their learning pathways. Computers &
Education, 68, 505–521.
Chaudron, S., Beutel, M.E., ernikova, M.,
Donoso Navarette, V., Dreier, M., FletcherWatson, B., Heikkilä, A.-S., Kontríková, V.,
Korkeamäki, R.-L., Livingstone, S., Marsh,
J., Mascheroni, G., Micheli, M., Milesi, D.,
Müller, K.W., Myllylä-Nygård, T., Niska, M.,
Olkina, O., Ottovordemgentschenfelde, S.,
Plowman, L., Ribbens, W., Richardson, J.,
Schaack, C., Shlyapnikov, V., Šmahel, D.,
Soldatova, G. and2015).
Wölfling, K. (
Young children (0–8) and digital technology:
A qualitative exploratory study across seven
countries. JRC 93239/EUR 27052.
Findahl O. (2013). Swedes and the Internet
2013. The Inter net Infrastructure
Foundation,
SE,
ISBN:
978-91-87437-02-1. Retrieved from: http://
www.internetstatistik.se/rapporter/swedesand-the-internet-2013/ [11 February 2016].
Genc, Z. (2014). Parents’ perceptions
about the mobile technology use of
preschool aged children. Procedia – Social
and Behavioral Sciences, 146, 55–60.
CommonSense Media (2013). Zero to
Eight: Children's Media Use in America
2013. Retrieved from: http://
Given, L. M., Winkler, D. C., Willson, R.,
Davidson, C., Danby, S., & Thorpe, K.
(2014). Watching young children ‘play’ with
information technology: Everyday life
information seeking (ELIS) in the home.
Manuscript in preparation.
www.commonsensemedia.org/research/
zero-to-eight-childrens-media-use-inamerica-2013 [3 March 2016].
Cotten, S.R., Shank, D.B., , Anderson,
W.A. (2014). Gender, technology use and
ownership, and media-based multi-tasking
among middle school students. Computers
in Human Behavior, 35, 99–106.
Goh, W., Bay, S., & Chen, V. (2015). Young
school children’s use of digital devices and
parental rules. Telematics & Informatics, 32,
787–795.
Craft, A. (2013). Childhood, possibility
thinking and wise, humanising educational
Hague, C. & Payton, S. (2010). Digital
literacy across the curriculum: A Futurelab
!40
computers. Computers in Human Behavior,
26, 656–664.
Handbook. National Foundation for
Education Research. Retrieved from: http://
a rc h i v e . f u t u re l a b . o r g . u k / re s o u rc e s /
publications-reports-articles/handbooks/
Handbook170 [17 February 2016]
Merchant, G. (2015). Keep taking the
tablets: iPads, storyapps and early literacy.
Australian Journal of Language and
Literacy, 38(1), 3–10.
Kucirkova, N. (2011). Digitalised early years
– Where next? New Voices, 24(12), 938–
940.
Morentin, J., Cortés, A., Medrano, C., &
Apodaca, P. (2014). Internet use and
parental mediation: a cross-cultural study.
Computers & Education, 70, 212–221.
Kucirnova, N. & Sakr, M. (2015). Childfather creative text-making at home with
crayons, iPad collage and PC. Thinking
Nikken, P. & Janzs, J. (2014). Developing
scales to measure parental mediation of
young children’s internet use. Learning,
Media & Technology, 39(2), 250–266.
Skills and Creativity, 17, 59–63.
Lauricella, A., Wartella, E., & Rideout, V.
(2015). Young children’s screen time: The
complex role of parent and child factors.
Journal of Applied Developmental
Psychology, 36, 11–17.
OFCOM (2013). Children and Parents:
Media Use and Attitudes Report. Retrieved
from: http://stakeholders.ofcom.org.uk/
binaries/research/media-literacy/
october-2013/research07Oct2013.pdf [3
February 2016].
Livingstone, S. (2007). Strategies of
parental regulation in the media-rich home.
Computers in Human Behavior, 23, 920–
941.
Plowman, L., McPake, J., & Stephen, C.
(2008). Just picking it up? Young children
lear ning with technology at home.
Cambridge Journal of Education, 38, 303–
319.
Livingstone, S., Cagiltay, K., & Olafsson, K.
(2015). EU Kids Online II Dataset: A crossnational study of children's use of the
Internet and its associated opportunities
and risks. British Journal of Educational
Technology, 46(5), 988–992.
Plowman, L., Stevenson, O., Stephen, C.,
& McPake, J. (2012). Preschool children’s
lear ning with technology at home.
Computers & Education, 59, 30–37.
M a w s o n , W. ( 2 0 1 3 ) . E m e r g e n t
technological literacy: what do children
bring to school? International Journal of
Plowman, L. (2015). Researching young
children’s everyday uses of technology in
the family home. Interacting with
Computers, 27(1), 36–46.
Technology & Design Education, 23(2),
443–453.
McKenney, S. & Voogt, J. (2010).
Technology and young children: How 4-7
year olds perceive their own use of
Rideout, V.J. & Hamel, E. (2006). The media
family: Electronic media in the lives of
!41
infants, toddlers, preschoolers and their
parents. Menlo Park, CA: Kaiser Family
Foundation.
Valkenburg, P., Krcmar, M., Peeters, A., &
Marseille. N. (1999). Developing a scale to
assess three styles of television mediation:
“instr uctive med iation”, “restr ic tive
mediation” and “social coviewing”. Journal
of Broadcasting and Electronic Media,
43(1), 52–66.
Rosen, L. (2008). The association of
parenting style and child age with parental
limit setting and adolescent MySpace
b e h a v i o u r. J o u r n a l o f A p p l i e d
Developmental Psychology, 29, 459–471.
Warren, R. (2003). Parental mediation of
preschool children’s television viewing.
Journal of Broadcasting & Electronic Media,
47(3), 394–417.
Sang, F., Schmitz, B., & Tasche, K. (1993).
Developmental trends in television
coviewing of parent-child dyads. Journal of
Youth and Adolescence, 22(5), 531–542.
Wartella, E., Heintz, K. E., Aidman, A., &
Mazzarella, S.
(1990).
Television and
Beyond: Children’s Video Media in One
Community.
Communication Research,
17(1), 45–64.
Strauss, A. & Corbin, J. (1998). Basics of
qualitative research: Techniques and
procedures for developing grounded theory.
Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage.
Yusuf, S., Osman, N., Hassan, S.H., &
Teimoury,
2014).
M. ( Parents’ influence on
children’s online usage. Procedia – Social
and Behavioral Sciences, 155, 81–86.
Valke, M., Bonte, S., De Wever, B., & Rots,
I. (2010). Internet parenting styles and the
impact on internet use in primary school
children. Computers & Education, 55, 454–
464.
!42
Paper 4
Online practices of children under 6: a grounded
theory study
Rita Brito 1
University of Minho, Braga, Portugal
Altina Ramos2
University of Minho, Braga, Portugal
Abstract
With this research we intended to know the
practices of children with technologies in
home environment. We opted for Grounded
Theory, because we do not intend to base
ourselves on existing theories, but to create
new one. Semi-structured interviews and
observations to 15 families were carried out
in their homes. Families would have to
have, at least, one child under 6 and
(preferably) an older brother. Through the
collect data we verified that children are
surrounded by technologies and use it
when they want, including children with 1
year old. They prefer the mobile ones, such
as the tablet and the smartphone, but also
use the computer, the television and game
consoles. Gender is decisive in the chosen
activities on the devices, which are used
mainly alone and independently, leading to
children mastering devices better than
parents think.
1
britoarita@gmail.com
2
altina@ie.uminho.pt
K e y w o r d s : Te c h n o l o g i e s , h o m e
environment, family digital media, digital
practices in informal spaces, Children under
6, Grounded Theory
Introduction
As a consequence of rapid technological
and scientific development in today's
society, a digital society, children grow up
with and live immersed in technology. If we
listen carefully to the dialogues of 6-yearold children we can hear words like
computer, Internet, email, iPad, mouse,
smartphone, Facebook or YouTube, which
suggests that children have access to
digital technologies, using them with ease
and familiarity.
Through several research studies (Gutnick,
Bernstein & Levine, 2011; Hamel &
Rideout, 2006; Holloway, Green &
Livingstone, 2013; Livingstone & Haddon,
2009; Plowman, Stevenson, Stephen &
McPake, 2012; Plowman, McPake &
Stephen, 2008, 2010) we can see there is
an emergent trend of children under 6 years
old increasingly accessing the web, mostly
in mobile devices such as tablets and
smartphones This can result in
progressively young people accessing the
Web.
access the Web (Ofcom, 2013).
Children using the Web may bring benefits,
but along with this exposure are some
risks, such as explicit images or
inappropriate language (Livingstone &
Helsper, 2010; Ólafsson, Livingstone &
Haddon, 2014). Therefore, the activities
that children perform online and the risks
they are exposed are an important issue to
be studied, as it is increasingly important to
promote online safety and training for
parents of young children.
In Sweden, and most likely in other
Western European countries, parents
between the ages of 25 and 45 and
experienced in technology (from a user
point of view) are providing their children
with access to a wide variety of digital
media with Web connections (Findahl,
2013).
There is limited research on the role of the
family regarding the use of technology by
children under 6 years of age, most
research puts emphasis on surveys that
calculate the number of hours children use
new technology each day (Plowman et al.,
2012). This is because it becomes a
challenge to involve children under 6 as
active participants in research and gain
access to families in their typical
environment (i.e. at home) for interviews
(Plowman et al., 2012).
According to European research by EU
Kids Online (Holloway, Green & Livingstone,
2013), most children up to 6 years old are
accessing the Web and the majority of
infants under 2 years in developed
countries already have an online presence,
i.e. a digital footprint.
In the last decade, several studies have
found that young children are regularly
accessing the Web. For example, in
Although young children are active Web
users, policies usually target older children,
especially teenagers. Consequently, little
attention has been paid to the subject of
online protection for young children, so the
purpose of this research is to examine the
perceptions of parents and family members
with regard to use of the Web by children
aged 6 and younger, in order to have a
more in-depth perspective and also to get
to know more about the digital activities
that these children get involved with (via
Web access) at home.
Sweden, in 2011, half of all 3-year-old
children accessed the Web; in 2013, that
was true for 2-year-olds (Findahl, 2013). In
the UK, 33% of children aged 3 and 4
access the Web via a desktop or laptop,
6% access the Web on a tablet and 3% on
a mobile phone; the number of children
between 5 and 7 years who accessed the
Web had increased by 68% compared to
2007; 9% of children between the ages of 3
and 4 used a tablet and 6% used it to
!44
Methodology
Findings
The methodological approach is qualitative,
this being considered most appropriate,
because the main objective is to describe
and develop an understanding of a
particular situation (Burns, 2000; Creswell,
1998). In particular, we rely on grounded
The tablet is the most popular device
amongst families, especially for children
because ‘it´s big and you can see better’, ‘it
has more games’ and it´s a touch-device,
allowing children to use it with their hands
and fingers.
theory, because we do not intend to base
ourselves on existing theories, but rather to
create a new one (Glaser & Strauss, 1967)
by searching and conceptualising social
patterns. This new theory "will emerge from
the data collection and analysis, inductively
emerging from the study of the studied
phenomenon" (Corbin & Strauss, 2008, p.
23).
Jb6: The tablet is bigger than the
smartphone. We cannot use our fingers
on the computer, we must use the
mouse. But now the tablet is all about
pressing with your fingers on the
screen!
The second favourite device is the
smartphone, especially for children under
the age of 3 years, because it is lighter and
smaller, making it easier to handle.
We intend to have an in-depth look at a
limited number of cases, in order to get as
much information on the use of technology
by children and families. We want to focus
on their online activities, as well as the
benefits and risks associated with these
activities using technologies. A total of 15
Portuguese families were interviewed, each
with at least one child of 6 years of age or
younger. The families were selected taking
into account criteria such as being at
different socioeconomic levels (low, medium
and high), having an older brother, their
urban and suburban environment, being
immigrants or in stepfamilies.
Most children use a ‘family tablet’ (one for
everyone’s use) while one third have their
own tablet. Families at a low
socioeconomic level tend to give children
their own tablet. Families with more than
one child but a tablet for each one to avoid
quarrels amongst themselves, revealing
difficulty in sharing.
Smartphones are seen as personal devices
by parents and therefore it is mainly the
father who places restrictions on their use
by children. Nevertheless, children end up
using the smartphones of both their
parents, who, regardless of their economic
level, own at least one. Tablets are primarily
used at home, because parents are afraid a
device might get broken if taken outdoors.
A smartphone is used outdoors as an
alternative device, especially in restaurants,
‘for entertainment’ [Hm].
Semi-structured interviews were conducted
in their homes, supported by appropriate
techniques to facilitate data collection and
motivate the participation of young children
(e.g. board games, ‘digital tour’, activity
with cards), and also by participant
observation.
!45
smartphone and to select content randomly
by following suggestions presented by the
app.
Mf: While we are waiting for something,
usually they use the smartphones, I’ll
hand them the smartphone so as to
quiet them down. Also, when there are
two or three of them they start annoying
each other and so [it is ]to keep them
quiet... .
Gm: She [Gg5] knows how to access
YouTube … I’ll select a clip and she’ll
watch it, she’s acquainted with the
characters she likes the most, and so
from there on she’ll select those videos
that include those characters in the
suggested thumbnails. Even with Gb1, if
I leave him watching cartoons on
Youtube, as soon as the video is over
he’ll look at the suggestions and choose
a new video to watch on his own. It’s
like kids are born taught already.
Both types of device are used whenever
children wish to, and they use them mainly
alone, most parents assume they do not
have time to monitor their activities. A tablet
is generally used in the evening, when
children arrive home from school, up to
evening-meal time, while a smartphone is
used more sporadically.
Due to unaccompanied use, most children
end up watching violent videos on
YouTube, especially on a tablet. Hb5 uses
his father's YouTube account settings and
usually watches mixed martial arts (MMA)5
videos.
3,
Girls prefer casual games where you can
adopt a virtual pet or dress up dolls, while
boys prefer action/ adventure games or
role-playing games (RPG)4, such as ‘Grand
Theft Auto’ (GTA), games with their
favourite characters from movies and
cartoons, e.g. Spider-Man or Batman, or
sports such as ‘FIFA’.
Hf: I have caught him watching most
violent videos or that sort of stuff. The
tablet is configured with my email
settings and whatever I watch stays
preselected, and suggestions are given
according to the content I have
previously watched. Sometimes I watch
MMA videos.
YouTube is a very popular app, it is used to
watch cartoons and movies and to listen to
pop music and children’s music. Girls prefer
‘My Little Pony’ movies. while boys like to
watch ‘Spider-Man’ or ‘Hulk’. Children
under 3 years old also like to listen to music
and watch cartoons on YouTube on a
Rules set by parents and hardware
challenges inadvertently play an important
3
Casual games are games that are directed at players who do not want to devote much time and effort to the game. To
progress in a game, the requirements are very low; nevertheless, they present the player with a challenge, performing tasks
faster brings rewards. Usually these games are characterized by being colourful, with attractive graphics and sounds, and
without negative connotations, such as violence or clashes; they reward the player with small, frequent bonuses, thus giving
constant motivation. It is possible for the player to quit the game at any time.
4
Role-playing games are action games involving eye-motor coordination and motor skills. They focus on the player, who is in
control of most of the action.
5
Mixed martial arts is a full contact sport between two people, including striking and grappling techniques.
!46
role in self-taught learning experience.
Witness the following examples:
friends.
Since consoles are mostly used by boys,
games end up being more related to sports
or action/ adventure, like FIFA, where boys
play with friends and family. Most games
are violent and inappropriate for their age,
such as GTA with a PEGI (pan-European
game information) rating of 18+ (i.e.
recommended for ages 18 and above),
while games like ‘Batman’ and ‘Spiderman’
have a PEGI rating of 12+ (i.e.
recommended for ages 12 and above).
Case 1. Parents limit devices so that only
allow free apps can be installed. Gradually,
children will learn how to browse an app
store, and even without knowing how to
read or write, they can distinguish which
apps are free or to buy.
Case2. A device will have a specific
amount of storage capability, which means
that, eventually, a child will be challenged
with that reality when installing a new app.
What we witnessed were children operating
During the interview, Fm shared that
sometimes Fb3 shares some activities
devices to understand which apps were
occupying the most storage, deleting them
and then installing new apps and moving
them to labelled folders.
carried out in the ‘GTA’ game with his
cousins.
Fm: He came home telling [what he had
been up to in the game], “I went to a
club, I saw a lot of guns and I had a
car,” “it had girls, it had girls mum.”
E: Do you encourage her to explore any
kind of didactic games?
Jm: I know of no game that would
interest her. Books are didactic.
The personal computer is becoming
neglected at home, especially by children.
They will fall back to a personal computer
when they don’t have access to a tablet, a
smartphone or an Internet Wi-Fi
connection, or when tablet or smartphone
games do not load properly; this is an event
that usually occurs in grandparents' homes.
Most families have a personal computer at
home but prefer mobile devices because
they seem to be easier to use and work
faster.
Gradually consoles are becoming less
popular, though children still enjoy them,
especially boys. The most popular consoles
are the PlayStation, the PlayStation
Portable and the Wii. They have different
roles in the family: the PlayStation already
belonged to parents before children were
born, i.e. it was an adult technology which
was later passed on to children. The Wii
console is seen as a family device,
purchased for family entertainment.
A personal computer is more complex for
children to operate and will require the
assistance of an adult, be it for typing or
how to interact with the operating system
Children who use portable consoles play
individually, while children using nonportable consoles play with family members
!47
by using the mouse.
for entertainment and playing games that
relate to real-life games they might already
play. The important thing is the activity
itself, technology is only a means to achieve
it.
Boys are more enthusiastic about using
computers, mostly because they want to
play online games like ‘Batman’ or platform
themed games. They play on their own,
without any adult supervision.
The knowledge held by children about
using digital devices originates mainly from
the home, where several digital media are
always available. They learn to use them
initially through observing close relatives,
including older siblings and parents,
deepening their knowledge through
practice and the use of various devices,
until they become independent.
Television was a digital device less
indicated by children and parents; however,
it was the only digital device that was
always on during the interviews, thus
proving to be transversal to all the others.
When they arrive home after school, after
putting away their backpacks the first thing
they do is turn the TV on to a children's
channel. They sit on the couch and with the
set-top box remote start searching for
automatic scheduled recordings to see
cartoons they missed during the day. The
whole family (parents and grandparents) will
end up watching cartoon channels.
There are gender differences in the games
chosen: girls prefer more relaxed games
while boys prefer sport or action/ adventure
games. Most of the games preferred by
boys are recommended for children older
than 12 or 18, but that does not stop
parents buying them for gaming consoles
Mf: I almost stopped watching TV
because cartoons are always on.
In addition to games, watching videos on
YouTube it is also a favourite activity, though
this is an activity that a child will perform on
their own. Parents are a little naive in this
area, leaving children on their own with a
tablet or smartphone to watch whatever
they wish. In the case of the YouTube app,
next to a video that is being shown it will
present several related suggestions, this is
where children are most exposed to
potentially inappropriate content for their
age. Parents are unaware of their own
children's skills, children can search
autonomously for videos and games and
discover how to play them. They even
acquire operating skills, such as installing
and uninstalling applications and managing
Discussion
Children from a very young age live
surrounded by digital technologies in their
homes (Marsh et al., 2005; Plowman,
2014), even children under 12 months of
age are exposed to monitors and screens,
living in a ‘digitally fluent
environment’ (Palaiologou, 2014). They are
very fond of using technology, especially
mobile devices, such as tablets and
smartphones.
Children view technology with one goal: to
have fun. These devices are used as toys
!48
a device’s storage.
methods (4th ed.). Frenchs Forest:
Longman.
Children are consumers, not content
producers; older brothers are also mostly
consumers. Perhaps this is due perhaps to
the lack of monitoring and experience in
creating content, although most children
have access to new technologies that are
Corbin, J. & Strauss, A. (2008). Basics Of
Qualitative Research: Techniques And
Procedures For Developing Grounded
Theory. (3rd ed.). Thousand Oaks CA: Sage
Publications.
suitable for this intention.
Creswell, J.W. (2007). Qualitative Inquiry
and Research Design: Choosing among
Five Traditions. (2nd ed.). Thousand Oaks,
CA: Sage.
Although children are proficient in the use of
technology, schools do not capitalize on
these skills and parents also do not
recognize the educational gains from this
use, restricting its use to entertainment
purposes only. Educational opportunities
are embedded in these digital devices or
can be arranged by parents, siblings or
other family members. As McManis and
Guennewig (2012) report, ‘experiences with
technologies can open the way for
unprecedented learning opportunities’ (p.
14).
Findahl, O. (2013). Swedes and the Internet
2013. Stockholm: The Internet
Infrastructure Foundation.
Given, L., Winkler, D., Willson, R.,
Davidson, C., Danby, S., & Thorpe, K.
(2014). Documenting Young Children’s
Technology Use: Observations in the
Home. Paper presented at the 77th AIS&T
Annual Meeting, Seattle, WA, USA, pp.1–9.
Retrieved from: https://www.asis.org/
asist2014/proceedings/submissions/
papers/36paper.pdf.
Information sessions for parents could
explore the various applications and online
platforms for younger children, focusing on
various kinds of educational programs,
informative and focused on entertainment,
as well as online safety issues. If we provide
Glaser, B. G. & Strauss, A. L. (1967). The
discovery of grounded theory: Strategies for
qualitative research. Piscataway, NJ: Aldine
Transaction.
children with more opportunities to get
involved with several types of technologies
and experiences, not only they will improve
their operational skills, they will also engage
in imaginative play in new and innovative
ways.
References
Gutnick, A. L., Bernstein, L., & Levine, M.
H. (2011). Always connected: The new
digital media habits of young children. Joan
Ganz Cooney Center at Sesame
Wo r k s h o p . R e t r i e v e d f ro m : h t t p : / /
w w w . j o a n g a n z c o o n e y c e n t e r. o r g /
publication/always-connected-the-newdigital-media- habits-of-young-children.
Burns, R. (2000). Introduction to research
Hamel, E. & Rideout, V. (2006). The Media
!49
from: http://eprints.lse.ac.uk/60
221/1/
EU_Kids_Online_Children’sUseofOnlineTech
nologiesinEurope_ReviewofEuropeanEviden
c e B a s e2_ 0R e1v i4s .e pd _d f . h t t p : / /
e p r i n t s . l s e . a c .2u 2k /16/ 01 /
EU_Kids_Online_Children%27sUseofOnline
TechnologiesinEurope_ReviewofEuropeanE
videnceBase_Revised_2014.pdf
Family: Electronic Media in the Lives of
Infants, Toddlers, Preschoolers and their
Parents. Menlo Park, CA: Kaiser Family
Foundation
Holloway, D., Green, L., & Livingstone, S.
(2013). Zero to eight. Young children and
their internet use. London: LSE, EU Kids
Online.
Palaiologou,
2014).
I. (Children under five
Livingstone, S. M. & Haddon, L. (2009).
Kids online: opportunities and risks for
children. Eds. Livingstone, S.M. and
Haddon, L. Portland: Policy Press.
and digital technologies: Implications for
early years pedagogy. European Early
Childhood Education Research Journal, 1–
20. doi:10.1080/1350293X.2014.929876.
Livingstone, S. & Helsper, E. J. (2010).
Balancing opportunities and risks in
teenagers’ use of the internet: The role of
online skills and internet self-efficacy.
New
Media & Society, 12(2), 309–329.
Plowman, L. (2014). Researching Young
Children's Everyday Uses of Technology in
the Family Home. Interacting with
Computers, 27(1), 36–46. DOI: 10.1093/
iwc/iwu0
31.
Marsh, J., Brooks, G., Hughes, J., Ritchie,
L., & Roberts, S. (2005). Digital beginnings:
Young children’s use of popular culture,
media and new technologies. Sheffield,
U.K.: University of Sheffield. http://
www.digitalbeginings.shef.ac.uk.
Plowman, L., McPake, J., & Stephen, C.
(2008). Just picking it up? Young children
lear ning with technology at home.
Cambridge Journal of Education, 38(3),
303–319.
doi:
10.1080/03057640802287564.
McManis, L. D. & Gunnewig, S. B. (2012).
Finding the education in educational
technology with early learners. Young
Plowman, L., McPake, J., & Stephen, C.
(2010). The Technologisation of Childhood?
Young Children and Technology in the
home. Children and Society, 24. Retrieved
from: http://onlinelibrary.wiley.com. doi/
10.1111/j.1099-0860.2008.00180.x/full.
Children, 67(3), 14–24.
Ofcom. (2013). Children and parents:
media use and attitudes report. Retrieved
from: http://stakeholders.ofcom.org.uk/
binaries/research/media2012/
literacy/oct
main.pdf.
Plowman, L., Stevenson, O., Stephen, C.,
& McPake, J. (2012). Preschool children's
lear ning with technology at home.
Computers & Education, 59(1), 30–37. DOI:
10.1016/j.compedu.
2011.11.01.
Ólafsson, K., Livingstone, S., & Haddon, L.
(2014). Children's use of online
technologies in Europe: A review of the
European evidence database. Retrieved
!50
Paper 5
Teachers supporting transmedia play with classes of
young children in the UK: Exploring new literacies
through Alternate Reality Game design
Angela Colvert1
University of Roehampton, UK
Abstract
Introduction
In this paper I share the findings of my PhD
study2015)
(Colvert,in which a class of 10and 11-year-old designers created an
Alternate Reality Game (ARG) for their peers
as part of their school curriculum (The
Mighty Fizz Chilla ARG). I also discuss a
current study in which I am supporting
trainee teachers to work collaboratively to
design and play ARGs with and for classes
of 8- and 9-year-olds (The Stolen Salt Cellar
ARG) and 6- and 7-year-olds (The Mission
to Marzipan ARG) as part of the final year of
their degree studies. Drawing on both of
these studies, I outline a pedagogical
proposal for the teaching of new literacies
in formal primary education and propose a
new conceptualisation of transmedia play
and associated literacies.
Although ARGs have been played in
secondary classrooms (Bonsignore et al.
2012; Connolly et al., 2011; Niemeyer et
al., 2009) and designed by university
students (Chess and Booth, 2013), I argue
that more opportunities should be given to
primary-school children and their teachers
to develop ARGs in class. ARGs utilise
everyday online and offline technologies,
such as books, websites, letters, emails,
phone calls, films and photographs, to
shape narratives which need to be pieced
together. The quest structure of these
games requires players to search for clues
a c ro s s m o d e s a n d m e d i a a n d t o
collaborate with each other in order to solve
mysteries and problems and compete
games successfully. These games are
therefore, in effect, a fictionally framed
microcosm of the media landscape
requiring players and designers to engage
in the ontologically new literacy practices
(Lankshear and Knobel, 2003) and
principles of ‘participatory culture’,
Keywords: Ludic authorship, game
design, pedagogy, transmedia, converged
play
1
angela.colvert@roehampton.ac.uk
‘convergence’ and ‘collective intelligence’
that shape it (Jenkins, 2006). In designing
and playing these games, children are given
opportunities to master ‘powerful
literacies’ (Cope and Kalantzis, 1996) that
may support their civic engagements and
personal endeavours both now and in the
future.
13). She suggests that what is needed is ‘a
conceptualisation of play that
acknowledges the meaning-making
processes associated with children’s play
experiences in relation to both traditional
and converged play’ (2013: 13). The model
of transmedia play presented here offers
one such conceptualisation.
The genre of ARG ‘is not just a new
direction in gaming but part of the more
general evolution of media and creative
narrative, and a reaction to our increasing
ability and willingness as consumers to
accept and explore many media in parallel,
simultaneously’ (Martin et al., 2006: 6).
Although children are increasingly engaging
w i t h t r a n s m e d i a n a r r a t i v e s ( H e r rStephenson et al., 2013) few are being
given the opportunity to create them
themselves. My PhD research represents
the first academic study to investigate the
literacy practices of children as they design
and play ARGs with and for their peers in a
primary-school setting. Burke and Marsh
have suggested that ‘innovative practice
challenges educators to find a delicate
balance between the digital and concrete
worlds of play […] and provide contextually
situated learning experiences that foster the
participation of all children’ (2013: 3). My
research provides a pedagogical model of
how this might be achieved through ARG
authorship. Furthermore, Edwards has
argued that, in examining the play of
children in the early years of schooling,
‘what matters is how play is understood to
support children’s meaning-making
processes within the given temporal,
cultural and technological context’ (2013:
Theoretical framework
In this study, ARG authorship is viewed
from a socio-semiotic perspective as a
literacy practice and communicative
process which shapes and is shaped by
the textual functions of the ARG and the
discourses of the social context. In
investigating literacies I draw on Green’s
model of 3D literacy (Green, 2012), with its
focus on the cultural, critical and
operational aspects of literacy practices, in
combination with Kress and van Leeuwen’s
concept of communicational strata (2001),
as well as the work of Burn and Durran
(2007) which highlights the socio-semiotic
processes involved in shaping discourse
through multimodal design, production,
distribution and interpretation. In order to
research ARG authorship I needed to
devise a hybrid conceptual framework,
hence I constructed a Venn diagram to
represent the ways that literacies and the
processes of authorship intersect (Fig. 1):
!52
Figure 1: A conceptual model of ARG authorship (Colvert, 2015)
In this model, the processes of design,
production, distribution and interpretation
impact on the discourses (such as play and
literacies) and social context (such as the
classroom), as well as the literacy practices,
of designers. The communicative process
also shapes texts that form a part of the
ARG; the solid circle represents the ARG
as product, with its associated textual
functions: orientational, textual and
ideational (Halliday, 1989). In an ARG it is
the textual artefacts which give rise to the
feedback loop between players and
designers. This feedback loop, and the
broader game system (including
representations), informs the processes of
design, production, distribution and
interpretation and shapes the discourse of
play. Although this hybrid conceptual
framework of authorship informed my PhD
study of ARG authorship practices in the
classroom, in my current study I am
appropriating the model of literacies which
has been developed from mine by SeftonGreen et al. (2015) in Establishing a
Research Agenda for the Digital Literacy
Practices of Young Children: A White Paper
for COST Action IS1410. Their model
usefully builds on and extends the scope of
my model, and better highlights and
foregrounds the range of social contexts
which frame children’s engagement in
digital literacy practices and within which
the processes of meaning making take
place (see Fig. 2):
Figure 2: Processes of, and contexts for, children’s digital literacy (Sefton Green et al 2015: adapted from
Colvert, 2015) Practices (Sefton Green et al. 2015, adapted from Colvert, 2015)
This new model will be very useful when
framing my current research, which will
involve a broader investigation into the
impact of the macro, meso and micro
contexts on ARG design and play in a
range of schools.
Methodology
My PhD research was undertaken as a
teacher-researcher in a large London
primary school. I ran a year-long project in
which a class of 10- and 11- year-olds
designed an ARG for 9- and 10-year-olds in
the same school. Data were collected
throughout the planning, making and
playing stages and included field notes and
observations, texts created by the players
and designers, and interviews with the
designers. When analysing the interviews,
thematic coding was used to research the
designers’ design intentions and authorial
concerns. In order to discover more about
the extent to which the texts the designers
produced reflected the key authorial
concerns expressed in the interviews, I
undertook a socio-semiotic, multimodal
analysis of the websites, films and
artefacts. In doing this, I examined the ways
in which designers combined modes and
media to shape meanings within the social
context of play.
In my current research project, as a senior
lecturer-researcher, I am supporting trainee
designed and played ARGs with and for
teachers to undertake ARG design with
their classes and investigating their
experiences. The aim of this new research
is to explore the efficacy of the pedagogical
model of ARG authorship, developed
during my PhD, in a range of new primaryschool contexts. I have been collecting data
throughout the planning, making and
playing stages of each ARG we have
created. I have also collected the trainee
teachers’ written reflections on the design
process. I am currently in the process of
contacting all the trainees who have taken
part in the ARG design course, who will
now be in their early years of teaching, to
their peers. These three dimensions of
literacies could be mapped onto their three
key authorial concerns: fictionality, agency
and authenticity. When creating an ARG the
designers shaped the fictionality of the
game, and in doing so they demonstrated
the operational dimensions of their literacies
when distributing narratives across modes
and media. They also considered how to
manage the agency and power of players
and in this process drew on the critical
dimensions of their literacies when
designing and managing rule systems. As
they selected the modes and media
needed to communicate messages and
shape meanings, they drew on the cultural
dimensions of their literacies, considering
what the players would consider authentic
and believable within the context of play.
Intersecting these three themes were
c o n c e r n s re l a t i n g t o c o n s t r u c t i n g
coherence, directing action and managing
modality during transmedia play. The
relationship between these key authorial
concerns is presented in the model of ludic
authorship (Fig. 3) shown below:
find out whether they feel that the course
has had any impact on their teaching
practice. In the coming year, by analysing
data from questionnaires and interviews, I
hope to begin to identify the challenges that
teachers face when exploring new literacies
with their classes and, if they have
undertaken transmedia play with their
classes, discover more about the learning
opportunities this has afforded and the
pedagogical conditions and approaches
which made these possible. This new
research focus is important if we are to
understand how personal experiences of
teachers, school contexts and
developments in UK educational policy
support or exclude opportunities for ludic
authorship in the classroom.
Findings
My PhD 10research
and
found that young
11-year-old designers demonstrated and
drew on the operational, cultural and critical
dimensions of their literacies as they
!55
Figure 3: A model of ludic authorship: key authorial concerns, and associated literacies, demonstrated
during ARG authorship (Colvert, 2015)
When ‘managing modality’ the designers
w e re c o n c e r n e d w i t h s h a p i n g t h e
‘believability’ of the game and drew on their
understanding of the genre conventions of
fantasy, and of the affordances of modes
and media, when communicating with
players. During play, the designers shaped
the modality cues in a dialogue with the
players and negotiated the truth claims
made by the texts in order to perpetuate
play. When ‘constructing coherence’ the
designers were concerned with supporting
and guiding players’ interpretations of the
narrative. During play, designers and
players shaped
)
the fiction (and meanings
collaboratively. When ‘directing action’
during play the designers prompted and
encouraged the players to act in order to
complete the quest successfully. The
designers rewarded player actions by
revealing more information and making new
again to investigate the extent to which
they have engaged in transmedia play in
their first few years of teaching. Through
interviewing alumni who participated in the
ARG design course, I hope to identify the
acts possible, and they negotiated the
significance of actions proposed by players.
In my current research I am investigating
the efficacy of this model of ludic
authorship, in new primary-school contexts,
with younger children. In the ARG projects I
have undertaken with trainee teachers, I
have observed them addressing and
engaging with these authorial concerns
and, in doing so, demonstrating all three
dimensions of their literacies. When
‘directing actions’ and ‘constructing
coherence’ with young children in these
projects, these trainee teachers provided a
range of opportunities for the young players
factors that influence a teacher’s willingness
and ability to engage in ARG design. I sent
out a pilot survey to a class of 24 trainee
teachers who undertook ARG design at the
University of Roehampton in 2013 and have
received ten responses to date: two
respondents had not taught since leaving
Roehampton, two were in their first year of
teaching, two were in their second year and
four were in their third year of teaching. The
year groups taught by this sample spanned
the complete age range from nursery (three
years) to the end of primary schooling (11
years). Ten out of ten respondents had
enjoyed the ARG design module and seven
out of ten felt the module had influenced
their teaching practice: two had designed
and played ARGs with their classes and five
had used elements of ARG design. Eight
out of ten respondents would like to design
an ARG with their class in the future. Of the
three out of ten who felt that the ARG
design course had not influenced their
practice, two were not teaching. Perceived
challenges to designing and playing ARGs
in school, noted in the survey, included:
curricular time, resources, teacher
knowledge and ideas, professional control
and power, perceived value of the
approach, accessibility, budgets and child
protection. In the coming months I will
interview the teachers who responded to
investigate their experiences and views
further. After analysing the themes that
to communicate their understandings and
contribute to the games’ narrative and rule
structures; these included designing,
producing and distributing short films,
photos, written comments or audio files.
During these projects, children and
teachers also drew on their understandings
of the conventions of play when ‘managing
modality’ in order that the truth claims, and
the reality status, of the ARG were
presented and negotiated effectively.
Further work does, however, need to be
undertaken to understand the playful
interactions between teachers and children
during ARG design, and the pedagogical
conditions which support them. Central to
these interactions is the way in which an
effective feedback loop between players
(class
) and
of children
designers (teachers)
is established, both online and offline,
within the fictional frame of the game and
outside it.
Having supported trainee teachers in
creating ARGs, I am now contacting them
!57
emerge from the interviews I will then
broaden my study to include more teachers
who took part in the ARG design course.
References
Bonsignore, E., Kraus, K., Fraistat, A.,
Druin, A., Visconti, A., & Hansen, D. (2012).
Game design for promoting counterfactual
thinking.
ACM Conference on Human
Factors in Computing Systems, pp.2079–
2082.
Conclusion
The model of ludic authorship presented in
this paper (Fig. 3) not only reframes
literacies, it also reframes play as a literacy
practice which has cultural, operational and
critical dimensions. Wohlwend argues that
we should ‘redefine play as a literacy, a key
component of ‘new basics’ (Dyson 2006)
[…] in 21st century literacies’ (2011:127)
and suggests that this might go some way
to ‘empowering teachers to reclaim
curricular space in their classrooms’ (2011:
127). I agree and argue that a 3D approach
to conceptualising play as literacy, as
presented in this paper, might also go some
way towards supporting teachers to plan
opportunities for play in their classrooms
and also articulate the rationale for such a
move. Some pedagogical challenges do,
however, remain in relation to the way
policies shape practice in UK classrooms,
which may prevent an easy uptake of ARG
authorship and transmedia play in formal
educational settings. It is these challenges
that my current research seeks to explore.
Burke, A. & Marsh, J. (2013). Children's
Virtual Play Worlds: Culture, Learning, and
Participation. New York: Peter Lang.
Burn, A. & Durran, J. (2007). Media Literacy
in Schools: Practice, Production and
Progression. London: P. Chapman.
Chess, S. & Booth, P. (2014). Lessons
down a rabbit hole: alternate reality
gaming in the classroom. New Media and
Society, 16(6): 1002–1017.
Colvert, A. (2015). Ludic Authorship:
Reframing Literacies through Peer-toPeer Alternate Reality Game Design in the
Primary Classroom. Unpublished PhD
thesis. Institute of Education: University
College London. https://roehamptononline.acad emia.ed u/ AngelaC olv e r t/
Thesis-Chapters.
Connolly, T., Stansfield, M., & Hainey, T.
(2011). An alternate reality game for
language learning: Arguing for multilingual
motivation. Computers and Education,
57(1):1389–1415.
For more information about alternate reality
gaming in education, or indeed to play
some sample challenges from The Mighty
Fizz Chilla ARG, The Stolen Salt Cellar ARG
or The Mission to Marzipan ARG, please
visit www.argle.net.
Cope, B. & Kalantzis, M. (2000).
Multiliteracies: Literacy Learning and the
Design of Social Futures, London, New
York: Routledge.
Edwards, S. (2013). Post-industrial play:
!58
York: New York University Press.
understanding the relationship between
traditional and converged forms of play in
the early years. In: Burke, A. & Marsh, J.
(Eds), Children's Virtual Play Worlds:
Culture, Learning, and Participation. New
York: Peter Lang.
Kress, G. & Van Leeuwen, T. (2001).
Multimodal Discourse: The Modes and
Media of Contemporary Communication.
London: Arnold.
Lankshear, C. & Knobel, M. (2003). New
Literacies: Changing Knowledge and
Classroom Learning. Buckingham, U.K.:
Open University Press.
Gamesetwatch. (2006). GameSetInterview:
Henry Jenkins on the responsibility of
games Available at: http://
w w w. g a m e s e t w a t c h . c o m / 2 0 0 6 / 0 6 /
gamesetinterview_henry_jenkins.php
[accessed 1 July 2015].
Martin, A. et al. (2006). DiGRA Alternate
Reality Games White Paper. http://
w w w. c h r i s t y d e n a . c o m / w p - c o n t e n t /
u p l o a d s / 2 0 0 7 / 1 1 / i g d a -
Green, 1988).
B. (
Subject-specific literacy
and school learning: a focus on writing.
Australian Journal of Education, 32(2): 156–
179.
alternaterealitygames-whitepaper-2006.pdf.
Niemeyer, G., Garcia, A., & Naima, R.
(2009). Black cloud: patterns towards da
future. Proceedings of the 17th ACM
International Conference on Multimedia, pp.
1073–1082.
Green, B. & Beavis, C. (1998). Researching
New Literacies, New Technologies, New
Kids, New Times. Australian Educational
Researcher, 25, i–vii.
G re e n , B . ( 2 0 1 2 ) . I n t o t h e f o u r t h
dimension? Literacy, pedagogy and the
future. In: Green, B. & Beavis, C. (Eds),
Literacy in 3D: An integrated perspective in
theory and practice. Camberwell, Victoria:
ACER Press.
Sefton-Green, J., Marsh, J., Erstad, O., &
Flewitt, R. (2015). Establishing a Research
Agenda for the Digital Literacy Practices of
Young Children: A White Paper for COST
Action IS1410. http://digilitey.eu/wpcontent/uploads/2015/09/DigiLitEYWP.pdf.
Halliday, M. & Hasan, R. (1989). Language
Context and Text: Aspects of Language in a
Social-Semiotic Perspective. Oxford:
Oxford University Press.
Wohlwend, K. (2011). Playing Their Way
into Literacies: Reading, Writing, and
Belonging in the Early Childhood
Classroom. London and New York:
Teachers College Press.
Herr-Stephenson, B., Alper, M., & Reilly, E.
(2013). T is for Transmedia: Learning
through Transmedia Play. USC Annenberg
Innovation Lab.
Jenkins, H. (2006). Convergence Culture:
Where Old and New Media Collide. New
!59
Paper 6
What happens when multimodality comes into the
classroom? A study of Swedish children’s use of
multiple modes while creating narrative text
Helene Dahlström1
Mid-Sweden University, Sweden
Abstract
The aim of this study is to analyse and
describe the impact of digital devices with a
multimodal character on children's
creations of narrative texts. The focus will
be on the process of creating texts, the
conditions for creating texts and the results,
the texts. Text is seen as multimodal and
the theoretical approach is social semiotics.
The method will involve a multimodal
didactic design approach. Data sources will
include observations, interviews and text
analysis. The analyses will comprise
content analysis, writing discourse analysis
and multimodal text analysis. The study is
still in progress so some expected
outcomes are presented in the text.
Keywords: Digital devices, multimodality,
narrative texts, semiotic resources, writing
Introduction
Our terms of communication have changed
with the digitization of society. With the
availability of multiple ways to
1helene.dahlstrom@miun.se
communicate, the ways in which we
express ourselves have increased. These
different means of communication also
mean that we use more sign systems and
semiotic resources for communication than
we have ever done before. With digital
tools, we have smooth access to different
semiotic resources in the same unit, via
tablets, computers and smartphones.
When using different semiotic resources,
e.g. letters, in a systematic way, it becomes
a mode. A mode is a socially and culturally
shaped resource used to create meaning.
Pictures, writing, layout, speech, movement
and images are examples of different
modes (Björkvall, 2009; Kress, 2010). Many
children learn to read and write at an early
age with the help of digital tools, which
have a multimodal character. Children
switch easily between different modes
based on their interests and what is
available in their situation. How these
abilities are utilized still varies considerably
in Swedish schools. The impact of digital
tools in schools, considering the process of
creating narrative texts and how children
use different modes to make and represent
meaning, is an area that is yet to be
explored in depth. The focus in this study is
on children's writing process, the
conditions for writing and narrative texts.
The overall research question concerns
what impact digital tools with a multimodal
character have on students' creation of
narrative text. This will be studied at various
levels in two studies. The first focuses on
seeing differences in handwriting and
writing with digital tools and the other on
text creation with digital tools, which
include multiple modes such as verbal text,
sound, video and images. The second
2012). The methodological tools focus on a
broader concept of text and give the
opportunity to understand learning and
representation by going beyond written and
spoken verbal language. Other modes,
such as images, sound or video, are seen
as part of children's' ability to create
meaning and express themselves and thus
included in the analysis. The method will
use a multimodal didactic design approach.
Several data collection methods will be
used: text analysis, qualitative interviews,
observations and a survey. The study is still
in progress so rather than results I will
present some expected outcomes.
study is based on and developed from
some of the experiments in the first study.
An example of this is that, in the first study,
teachers chose to decide that children
should be using only writing and sound
(speech synthesizer) while creating narrative
texts. As my interest lies in analysing how
children use different modes and what work
the different modes do in texts, I, together
with the teachers, developed a design for
writing that includes images, sound, writing
and video. This became the condition for
the second study. It will also be the same
children creating narrative texts in the two
studies. In the proposed study, I will
examine how the writing process is shaped
by children's use of various resources and
how they present their narratives on the
basis of given resources in particular
situations. A design-oriented multimodal
approach will be used, based on theoretical
perspectives: social semiotics (Kress &
Hodge, 1998; Kress, 2010), and a
multilayered view of language (Ivani, 2004,
Theoretical framework
The social semiotic perspective will be used
as a theoretical overall framework. In
addition to that, other more local theories
will be used in order to analyse the
empirical data. The multidimensional theory
of language, developed by Ivanic (2004,
2012) has some basic assumptions in
common with the social semiotic theory.
That is, texts are multimodal and their form
and content have equal importance,
forming a whole together. The creation of
texts happens through interaction with
others and should be seen in a social
context. Together, these theories give me
the tools and ability to analyze and describe
the impact of digital tools with a multimodal
character on children's' creation of narrative
text. Ivanič's theory complements social
semiotic theory, offering an opportunity to
analyze empirical material comprising
students' writing and their text production
!61
in terms of both form and content. To
understand the whole complex process of
something, West (2007) explains that it may
be necessary to have a multi-dimensional
theoretical framework in which each part is
first analysed, and then the whole is
considered.
been written with accompanying
illustrations for a long time. But the concept
of multimodal text is new and was first used
when it became easier to produce
composite texts consisting of writing,
pictures, sound and video. Multimodal texts
are texts that are composed using several
different semiotic resources. A semiotic
resource is material which can be used for
communication (Danielsson & Selander,
2015). There is also a meaningful
relationship between the text parts. When
semiotic resources are used in a systematic
manner they can be called semiotic modes.
Two of the most well-developed modes
Social semiotics
The basic assumption of a social semiotic
perspective is that everything created is
made through social creation with others
and/or for others. Explanations for why our
communication is as it is can be retrieved
from the social context we find ourselves in
(Björkvall, 2009; Kress, 2010). Another
assumption is that meaning is created
using character-building in several different
s i g n s y s t e m s . R e p re s e n t a t i o n a n d
communication are social practices
whereby representation focuses its interest
on and involvement in how we understand
and form meanings of things and events in
the world. It has to do with how we
materialize our view of the world as we
perceive it. Communication is more the
desire we have to share this representation
when it comes to communicating are
writing and speech. They are important for
children if they are to learn and develop, but
considering the media-based environment
that children are a natural part of, they are
not sufficient. Images, sound, animations
and other modes that play important roles
in children's everyday meaning-making
should also be common modes in the
education environment. It is also important
to take into consideration that each mode
has its limitations and opportunities,
meaning that images do what they do and
writing do what it does, and in combination
they can do a different thing (Björkvall,
2009; Kress et al, 2008).
with others (Kress, 2010). This perspective
also provides tools to analyse how we, with
our different ways of communicating,
participate in the creation of the social
world; it can simultaneously be described
as a communication theory, a theory of
representation and meaning and a social
theory (Hodge & Kress, 1988). Texts are
regarded as multimodal, created with
multiple modes such as there is no news;
however; texts are multimodal, they have
Here one can think of the possibilities and
limitations of the various semiotic resources
to create the meaning one wants to
express. One can explain the choices made
in a multimodal text, discuss why these
choices have been made, how these
choices relate to the social context and
what information value the different semiotic
!62
modalities have. An ethical aspect of this,
according to Kress (2010) and Björkvall
(2009), is that one can also say something
about a text's availability and the right of
children to create meaning and express
themselves using different sign systems
according to their interests and abilities.
form of narrative text created in different
sign systems. The multimodal perspective
will also be visible in parts of the analysis.
This combination of methods will generate
different types of data. A short presentation
of the two studies and the methods which
are to be used is given in the following.
Study 1
An intervention involving digital devices
which means changed conditions for
creating texts. I had access to a class
where before they had only used paper and
pen when creating narrative texts. The data
collection was done in two steps, using the
same methods, before and after the
intervention of digital devices (tablets). The
data-collection methods were: observations
to see what is going on during writing
activities; interviews with 17 children to
study the writing process – listening to
children's thoughts about how they find it
easiest to write and what impact digital
devices have on their text creations;
narrative texts, created with both pen and
paper and tablets by the same children.
The aim here was to see if the texts change
with respect to content and form.
A multilayered view of language
Based on the theory and assumption that
language and writing are done in layers that
are interdependent and of equal
importance, Ivanič (2004, 2012) has
developed an analytical model for six
different writing discourse attributes that
can be helpful to understand the writing
process, both by seeing how and what an
individual writes, as well as having an
opportunity to understand what children do
when creating text. She explains writing on
the basis of these writing discourses:
discourse skill, creativity in discourse, the
discourse process, genre discourse, the
discourse of social practices and finally
socio-political discourse. All these
discourse elements are to be seen as
building blocks in writing and should
include the writer's teaching, according to
the author.
To analyse this material, different methods
will be used: the discourse analysis of
Ivanič (2004) and content text analyses.
The teacher of this class decided that the
children could only use writing and sound
on the tablets. Given this proviso and
considering my interest in creating
multimodal texts relying on the children's
interests and abilities, there was a need to
develop other conditions for creating
Methodology
In a multimodal approach, this study design
is based on several different technologies
from a multimodal perspective. The study is
intended to capture children's' writing
processes as well as representations in the
!63
narrative texts. Study two was designed by
me and the class teacher in order to be
able to study how children create texts
using different modes.
as Study 1, although a year later. When
study is carried out, the class will design
stories using an app (application) that is
designed to do ‘multimodal books.’
Children will become familiar with the
opportunities available within the app by
practising beforehand. It is important that
the children are aware of the different
opportunities within the app. The
instructions from the teacher will be to
create a narrative text using the modes they
prefer. The children will then be free to write
or ‘design’ their own stories. The data
collected will comprise the students’
finished narrative texts along with
observations.
Study 2
Using multimodal analysis, the purpose of
this study is to examine and understand
children's' creation of multimodal stories
with sound, images, video and text. Such
texts are created by children in informal
settings and such texts take on more of the
character of design. According to Kress
and Van Leeuven (2001), technology allows
the integration of many different modes,
such as text, images, video, voice, music
and sound effects, causing text to look
more like a design. Danielsson and
Selander (2014) describe the tradition
found in Swedish schools in lower grades
where it is common for children to receive
instruction in how to combine text and
images, usually pictures carry the main
message here. Verbal text acts as an
accompaniment to the pictures. Later, as
children get older, the focus shifts and
pictures become more of a clarification of
verbal text that children have produced.
Access to digital media in schools provides
children with the opportunity to do more, to
be able to create their own multimodal
books, when writing is replaced by
composing texts.
It is to this study that I think that the
multimodal analysis contributes most. I
think that the analysis model that
Danielsson and Selander (2014) developed
can be considered in this study. The
headers used in multimodal analysis then
become:
Conditions for writing: what can be
explained is the teacher’s design of textcreation events, what resources are
available in the text-creating situation.
Overall structure and staging: an
analysis of how children design their
work. An analysis of structure can be
performed and the semiotic resources
used and themes covered.
The focus in this study will be to examine
which semiotic modes children use, and
what work the different modes do in their
texts. There will also be a focus on the textcreating process, as in the first study. This
study will be conducted on the same class
Selection of semiotic modes: how
children use different modes can be
analyzed, and what the different modes
do in the narrative can be explained.
Interaction between text parts: an
!64
explanation of text parts can be given, what
is foregrounded and what is backgrounded.
Do the different modes complement each
other or do children mostly use example
images.
Regarding students who showed better
results when they wrote digitally, it seems
that it was the speech synthesis function
that was crucial.
Taking into account the preliminary results
concerning the length and the spelling in
the texts, next step is to analyse if it is
possible to see any differences in text
structure and how the students uses the
language when writing in different
conditions.
These parts will first be analyzed individually
and then together in order to understand
whole texts and the process of creating
them.
Some preliminary results and expected
outcomes
Others seem to be annoyed by sound, and
so they do not use it. The writing process
will change when using digital devices with
a multimodal character. Some preliminary
results indicate that when students write by
hand it becomes an individual process
whereas when writing with digital devices,
the process becomes more a process in
interaction. Another result indicates that
when students’ texts were influenced by
others, they became similar. If children are
allowed to use all the modes in the unit,
they can design text in a different way from
those created using pen and a paper; it will
be more like a design process. This will also
vary among the children according to their
interests and abilities. Narrative texts do
change when children use digital devices, in
both form and content.
As this study is still in progress there are no
actual results to present, but it is pertinent
to write about preliminary results and
expected outcomes. Some previous
outcomes indicate that the impact of using
digital devices differs greatly among
children. To be able to add a speechsynthesiser as you write seems to be very
helpful for children who need a lot of
support from the teacher with their spelling
and for children that have Swedish as a
second language.
For students who find it easy to write there
was apparently no significant difference if
they wrote by hand or on tablet. Most of
these students wrote shorter texts using
digital devices. These students found it
most disturbing with the speech synthesis.
The greatest differences were seen among
pupils with Swedish as a second language
as well as among students with Swedish
as their first language that had difficulties
with keeping the structure of the text.
These differences were seen in the ability to
spell and in the length of texts.
References
Björkvall, A. (2009). Den visuella texten –
multimodal analys i praktiken. (Multimodal
Text – multimodal analyse in practice).
Stockholm: Hallgren & Fallgren.
!65
Danielsson, K. & Selander, S. (2014). Se
texten! Multimodala texter i ämnesdidaktiskt
arbete. (See the text! Multimodal texts in
the didactic work. Stockholm: Natur och
Kultur.
Hodge, R. & Kress, G. (1988). Social
Semiotics. Ithaca, New York: Cornell
Univer- City Press.
Ivanič, R. (2004). Discourses of Writing and
Learning to Write: I. Language and
Education 18(3): S. 220–245.
Ivanič, R. (2012). Writing the self: the
discoursal construction of identity on
intersecting timescales (pp.17–32). In: I S.
Matre, R. Solheim & K. D. Sjøhelle (Eds),
Teorier om tekst i møte med skolens leseo g sk r i v e p raks is er. O s lo : Un iv er sitetsforlaget.
Kress, G. (2010). Multimodality. A social
semiotic approach to contemporary
communication. London: Routledge.
Kress, G. & van Leeuwen, T. (1996/2006).
Reading images: The grammar of visual
design. London & New York: Routledge.
Selander, S. & Kress, G. (2010). Design för
lärande – ett multimodalt perspektiv
[Designs for learning – a multimodal
perspective]. Stockholm: Norstedts.
West, T. (2007) Multi-layered Analysis of
Teacher-student interactions: Concepts and
perspectives guiding video analysis with
Tattoo. The Analytic Transcription Tool.
!66
Paper 7
Language socialization, digital technology and new
multimodal practices in early childhood in middleclass families in Madrid
Nieves Galera1
Department of Educational and Developmental Psychology, Faculty of
Psychology, Universidad Autónoma de Madrid (UAM), Spain
Abstract
In this paper I present the research design
and fieldwork plan for my doctoral
dissertation project. The project, in overall
terms, seeks to obtain a deeper
understanding of the routines and forms of
socialization of families with young children
in urban areas in Madrid. Among other
fundamental issues, I seek to examine how
digital technologies are included in family
dynamics and forms of engagement, in
response to their social circumstances, the
families’ ideologies around childhood and
education or the influence and pedagogical
intentions of nursery school when such a
context is present in the organization of
family life (all these aspects are in some
way tied to the meaning of digital
technologies in children’s and parents’ lives,
as mentioned by Sefton-Green et al.
(2015)). The proposal was presented at the
first Digilitey Training School in order to
obtain some feedback and refine the
research design and fieldwork plan of the
project.
1
nieves.galera@uam.es
Keywords: Young children, language
socialization, digital practices, multimodality
and situated action, children's daily routines
Introduction: Empirical background
and status of the current issue
The study of childhood has seen renewed
interest as an area of social research in
recent decades as a result of the changes
that have taken place in post-industrial
societies (Corsaro, 2005; Frønes, 2005;
James & James, 2004). Factors such as
the diversification of family models and
organization structures, the introduction of
different educational projects in schools or
the presence and use of new technologies
by increasingly younger children (Marsh et
al., 2015) have opened up the possible
existence of different paths of socialization
in childhood and prompted a
reinterpretation of the aspects that make up
its construction and its role in society.
In the context noted above, there is a need
to explore the changes affecting the
organization of childhood through children’s
daily routines and activities. In this area,
there are many empirical studies that focus
on specific activities, but as Ben-Arieh and
Ofir 2002)
(
point out in their review of
literature on this topic, there are few studies
that consider all the activities that make up
children’s daily lives. This lack of research is
especially noticeable in preschool children
segments, especially children under three
years of age. These authors call for further
studies to examine the full scope of the
daily activities of this age group, using
"larger samples
239)
of children"
and (p.
recreational activities from the privacy of
their home, instead of having to perform
them in places like parks or other public
spaces (Morgade, Poveda & GonzálezPatiño,
2014). This kind of evidence is
drawing attention to the importance and
implications of digital technology when it
comes to conceptualizing and reconfiguring
the notion of "context" in relation to
children's active engagement in their daily
activities, and it is also challenging the
methodological approaches to these new
forms of interaction (Plowman, 2015). I
think that it would be interesting to examine
these issues with families with children
between 0 and 3 years old, since research
about digital engagement with media and
digital technologies for this age group is still
scarce (Marsh et al., 2015).
quantitative techniques. I think, however,
that there is also a critical need for studies
using other research methods which are
more sensitive to children’s daily routines
and cultural aspects that influence their
development (Weisner, 1996). In this sense,
the introduction of an ethnographic
perspective will make it possible to explore
the range of social scenarios in which
young children participate by including the
meanings and actions of the participants
involved and integrating, into the analysis,
among other fundamental issues, the role
that digital technology plays as one of the
c o n t e x t u a l f a c t o r s t h a t a ff e c t t h e
configuration of these scenarios and
children's experiences. As some authors
have argued, the incorporation of digital
technology into children's routines is
reconfiguring the ways they produce and
maintain their interactions with the settings,
actors and everyday things present in their
lives, e.g. allowing interaction with friends or
family relatives or the realization of other
In this text I present a proposal for a project
that aims to examine in depth the living
conditions and forms of socialization of
young middle-class families in the Spanish
context, in which digital technology is
integrated as an essential part of the object
of study and analysis. By presenting this
work plan and participating in the Digilitey
Training School, it was hoped to obtain
feedback on the research design and
fieldwork plan, and to discuss issues that
could be relevant to further development of
the study and analysis.
Aims
The project, in overall terms, seeks to
obtain a deeper understanding of the
routines and forms of socialization of
!68
stay at home, and (b) structurally
distinct families.
families with young children in urban areas
in Madrid. This can be broken down into
the following specific objectives:
1.Explore the diversity of routines,
scenarios and paths of socialization that
shape the daily lives of young children,
and the changes experienced in the
Theoretical framework
This project takes on board the theoretical
and methodological approaches of
linguistic ethnography (Copland & Creese,
2015), language socialization (Duranti &
O c h s S c h i2e f0f e1l 2i n), a n d t h e
ethnographic microanalysis of interaction
(Erickson, 1992). These approaches share
two fundamental assumptions about social
interaction. On the one hand, they favour
interactional and communicative aspects
when it comes to conceptualizing and
analyzing the actions/ activities in which
individuals take part. On the other hand,
both approaches conceive communication
as a process of meaning creation by
subjects and situated "in context", including
institutional and sociocultural aspects. In
order to "capture" these meanings and
contextual aspects that make up
communicative events, they make use of
ethnographic methods of analysis and the
collection/ production of data.
organization of their family life.
Regarding this scenarios, it is intended
to explore the evolution of such aspects
as: the organization of attention
between children and caretakers; the
“micro-habitats" and "macrohabitats" (Ochs, Solomon & Sterponi,
2005) that configure their activities;
frames of participation (de Leon, 2012);
how some semiotic artefacts are
incorporated, including books, and
especially digital technologies, and
exploring how they affect the forms of
communication and interaction
established between children and their
caregivers (Sefton-Green et al., 2016).
2.Explore the factors involved in the
participation of children in the settings
and routines identified and how such
routines are managed – this includes
exploring how these factors affect the
ways in which communication is
organized. This requires such analyzing
aspects as the ideologies and decisions
of parents and other caretakers, or
institutional practices in scenarios like
nursery school.
T h e s e t h e o re t i c a l a p p ro a c h e s a re
compatible with other frameworks that
allow the incorporation of digital technology
into the analysis of situations of interaction
between children and their caregivers, such
as Goodwin's
2007)( p rop osal for
interactive organization communication,
and other proposals for multimodal analysis
(e.g. Jewitt, 2013). From these models,
digital technology can be understood as
one of the elements of "contextual settings"
3.Compare routines, ideologies,
practices and ways of organizing
communication among (a) children
attending kindergarten and those who
!69
(Goodwin, 2007, p. 60), in which individuals
jointly build action, alongside other modes
of communication such as language,
gestures or body posture or position. As
Jewitt (2013) points out, "digital
technologies are of particular interest [...]
because they make a wide range of modes
available, often in new inter-semiotic
relationships with one another, and unsettle
and re-make genres, in ways that reshapes
practices and interaction" (p. 2). Multimodal
interactions around digital technology have
been analyzed to explore changes in the
forms of literacy in specific contexts such
as school and family (e.g. Wolfe & Flewitt,
technologies are included in family
dynamics and forms of engagement, in
response to social circumstances, families’
ideologies around childhood and education,
and the influence and pedagogical
intentions of nursery school when such a
context is present in the organization of
family life. Families and children from the
middle class and living in metropolitan
areas in Madrid will be sought.
As noted above, this project draws on
ethnographic and interpretative approaches
to human interaction and communication.
In order to examine the interactional events
that occur between children and their
caretakers, we will use video recordings as
the primary technique for the collection/
production of data. This will allow us to
construct a fine-grained record and
systematically explore the resources and
practices through which young children and
their caretakers construct their interactions
and activities, examining the ways in which
their talk, gaze, gestures, body position etc.
elaborate each other. Part of the analysis
will focus on exploring the interactions and
combination of resources around digital
technologies. We will also employ other
procedures for data collection in order to
contextualize and get a deeper
understanding of these issues; these
procedures include participant observation,
field notes, interviews and the collection of
documentary material.
2010), but this multimodal analysis of
interaction around digital technology with
"pre-literate" children is still scarce.
Methodology
In order to identify and analyze the
evolution of the routines and scenarios that
make up children’s daily lives – drawing
attention to the role played by digital
technology in the organization of
communicative encounters and the
configuration of activities between children
and their caretakers – a longitudinal study
will be conducted with families with children
aged 624to months old (although the final
ages may vary in order to explore their
routines beginning in earlier stages of life).
The sample will consist of four families, two
in which the focal child is attending
preschool and two in which the beginning
of their incorporation into formal education
is postponed. This will allow exploring,
among other issues, how digital
The main body of the data will be
generated by tracking an entire day of the
focal children who take part in the study
(either in school or inside/ outside the
!70
home). The documentation – by video
records – of children's activities across an
entire day was originally developed in a
previous research project, ‘Day in the Life’,
as result of an interest in developing a
reflexive methodological apparatus to allow
us to reflect on cultural constructions,
values and experiences regarding children's
care and opportunities for development,
and this was used one day with two-yearold children to reflect on these issues in
diverse cultural
2007;contexts (Gillen et. al,
Hancock & Gillen,
2007). In the research
plan presented in this communication, we
will follow children’s entire daily routines
participation of children and their caregivers
will be handled carefully (Flewitt, 2005).
The analysis of the data collected will be
done by following two approaches: (1) a
general examination of qualitative data, and
(2) a specific examination of the interactions
that occur between children and their
caregivers in the course of their daily
activities.
References
Ben-Arieh, A. & Ofir, A.2002).
(
Time for
(more) time-use studies: studying the daily
activities of children. Childhood, 9(2), 225–
248.
every month (this means a total of 18 major
moments while collecting data during a
total of 18 months’ fieldwork). The
researchers will monitor children’s routines
and interactions with their caretakers,
making combined use of some data
collection tools as follows. The first day of
the visit will be dedicated to participant
observation and taking field notes which,
methodologically, will allow to identify key
events for subsequent recording and make
some decisions regarding their production if
needed (although we will follow the
recommendations formulated by Erickson
(1992)). The second visit will be devoted to
making further video recordings, and in
subsequent sessions we will continue by
alternating between participant observation,
taking field notes (odd sessions) and videorecording (even sessions). This combination
will be utilised in order to refine the data
collection (specifically, video recordings),
which will be supported by constant cycles
of their analysis. The ethical aspects of the
Corsaro, W.A. (2005). The sociology of
childhood. Thousand Oaks: Pine Forge
Press.
Copland F. & Creese,2015).
A. (
ethnography. London: Sage.
Linguistic
De León, L. (2012). Language socialization
and multiparty participation framework. In
Duranti, A., Ochs, E. & Schieffelin, B.B.
(Eds), The handbook of language
socialization (pp. 81–111). Malden, MA:
Wiley-Backwell.
Duranti, A., Ochs, E. & Schieffelin, B.B.
(Eds). (2012). The handbook of language
socialization. Malden, MA: Wiley-Backwell.
E r i c k s o n , F. ( 1 9 9 2 ) . E t h n o g r a p h i c
microanalysis of interaction. In M.
LeCompte, W. Millroy, & J. Preissle
(Coords
),
The handbook of qualitative
research in education (pp. 201º225). San
Diego: Academic Press.
!71
Flewitt, R. (2005). Conducting research with
young children: some ethical
considerations. Early Child Development
and Care, 175(6), 553–565.
como camino de ida y vuelta en el
desarrollo de la identidad: el caso de las
rutinas de la infancia urbana de clase
media/alta en Madrid. Educação &
Sociedade, 35(128), 761–780.
Frønes, I. (2005). Structuration of
childhood: An essay on the structuring of
childhood and anticipatory socialization. In:
J. Qvortrup (Ed.), Studies in modern
childhood: Society, agency, culture (pp.
267–282). Basingstoke: Palgrave
Macmillan.
Ochs, E., Solomon, E., & Serponi, L.
(2005). Limitations and transformations of
habitus in child-directed communication.
Discourse Studies, 7(4–5), 547–583.
Plowman, L. (2015). Rethinking context:
digital technologies and children’s everyday
lives. Children’s Geographies, 1–13.
Goodwin, C. (2007). Participation, stance
and affect in the organization of activities.
Discourse & Society, 18(1), 53–73.
Sefton-Green, J., Marsh, J., Erstad, O., &
Flewitt, R. (2016). Establishing a research
agenda for the digital literacy practices of
young children: a white paper for COST
Action IS1410. Available at: http://
digilitey.eu.
James, A. & James, A.L. (2004).
Constructing childhood: Theory, policy and
social practice. London: Palgrave
Macmillan.
Tudge, J.R.H., Doucet, F., Odero, D.,
Sperb, T.M., Piccinini, C.A., & Lopes, R.S.
(2006). A window into different cultural
worlds: Young children's everyday activities
in the United States, Brazil, and Kenya.
Child Development, 77(5), 1446–1469.
Jewitt, C. (2013). Multimodal methods for
researching digital technologies. In: S.
Price, C. Jewitt, & B. Brown (Eds), The
SAGE Handbook of Digital Technology
Research. Pre-print version, available at:
http://eprints.ncrm.ac.uk/
2886/1/17_Jewitt_SAGE_Handbook_.pdf.
Weisner, T.S. (1996). Why ethnography
should be the most important method in
human development. In: R. Jessor, A.
Colby, & R. A. Shweder (Eds), Ethnography
and human development. Context and
meaning in social inquiry. Chicago: The
University of Chicago Press.
Marsh, J., Plowman, L., Yamada-Rice, D.,
Bishop, J.C., Lahmar, J., Scott, F.,
Davenport, A., Davis, S., French, K., Piras,
M., Thornhill, S., Robinson, P. and Winter,
P. (2015). Exploring Play and Creativity in
Pre-Schoolers’ Use of Apps: Final Project
Report. Retrieved from: http://
w w w. t e c h a n d p l a y. o r g / r e p o r t s /
TAP_Final_Report.pdf.
Wolfe, S. & Flewitt, R. (2010). New
technologies, new multimodal literacy
p r a c t i c e s a n d y o u n g c h i l d r e n ’s
metacognitive development. Cambridge
Journal of Education, 40(4), 387–399.
Morgade, M., Poveda, D., & GonzálezPatiño, J. (2014). Del hogar a la ciudad
!72
Paper 8
‘Turkish children’ and media in Germany: A culturally
sensitive study of media-use practices in early
education
Habib Güneli1
Technical University of Dortmund, Germany
Abstract
education (Marci-Boehncke & Rath, 2014).
Children from immigrant families and a nonacademic environment find themselves
Keywords: Early education, media use
disadvantaged even before entering school
(Baumert et al., 2001; Valtin, 2008;
Neumann & Schneider, 2011; Ramsauer,
2011). Within the migrant community in
Germany, both ‘Turkish pupils’ and pupils
from ex-recruitment countries have
significantly lower education-participation
rates (Bundesministerium für Bildung und
Forschung, 2012, pp.7, 40; Diefenbach,
2010). These affect and strongly influence
their development throughout their
education, starting in kindergarten. In fact,
educational institutions do not succeed in
compensating for these educational
deficits. These results can also found in the
development of media literacy (Six &
Gimmler, 2007; Marci-Boehncke & Rath,
2013). In order to reduce unequal
conditions and educational opportunities,
including in the context of media education,
it is important to research children’s living
and media environment vis-à-vis their
culture-specific media use in early
1
habib.guenesli@tu-dortmund.de
practices, media education, equal
conditions of opportunities, cultural diversity
Introduction
Since the publication of the first PISA
studies in 2001 (Baumert et al., 2001), the
aspects of educational inequality and
fairness of chances have been discussed
more intensively by the society with regard
to education policies in Germany. The code
number 100-77-23 refers to the topic
equality of opportunity in Germany. This is
often associated with unequal conditions
and opportunities (Maurer, 2015; WEST
ART Talk, 2015). In fact, the code makes
the constitution of opportunities visible and
equality appears as an illusion, as Bourdieu
and Passeron (1971) mentioned with regard
to the education system in France.
Looking at international comparative
studies, it can be pointed out that
educational opportunities in Germany are
determined by the phenomenon of
migration and one’s social background
(Neumann & Schneider, 2011; Ramsauer,
2011). The risk of failing for boys and girls
with an immigrant background is higher
than those without in the education system
in Germany (Bundesministerium für Bildung
und Forschung, 2008, 11f., 70, 90;
Segeritz et al., 2010; Siegert & Roth, 2013).
The risk of repeating a school year in
primary school is four times higher for
children with an immigrant background
(Bellenberg, 2005, 3f.).
As a result, the focus has been put on early
education in Germany. In no other era of
social development have daycare facilities
for children had such high importance in
Germany as they have had in recent years
(Diller et al., 2004, p.7 cit. a. Fried, 2013). In
this sense, many questions concerning the
education system have arisen, especially
from the 2000s onwards (Fried & Roux,
2013, p.17). Childhood has been
rediscovered as an independent stage of
life (Baacke 1999, p.400). This stage in
education is now recognized by society so
that children’s educational biography starts
in kindergarten (Fried, 2010, p.935f).
The results of a German study about
computer and information-related
competences of pupils the 8th grade in an
international comparison (called ICILS)
show that there is indeed a significantly
higher percentage of pupils with an
immigrant background who have a lower
level in computer and information-related
competences. For instance, it has been
detected that almost every tenth teenager
with an immigrant background only
acquires very simple skills in using digital
media in a competent way (which is
competence level number one). More than
40 per cent of these pupils do not reach
competence level number two (Eickelmann
et al.,2013, p.323). Certainly, to define
unequal educational opportunities, it is not
enough to focus on immigrant background
as the central characteristic of inequality.
Nevertheless, in the opinion of
Rauschenbach (2013), without the
characteristic of migration some social
disparities cannot be explained
(Rauschenbach 2013, p.10).
There is a consensus that childhood can no
longer be viewed without considering the
influences of globalization, individualization
and mediatization (Krotz, 2001; Neuß,
2013). These factors are also relevant in the
living environment of children (MarciBoehncke & Weise 2013). Media devices
and content play an essential role in
children’s primary experiences. For this
reason, children need to be accompanied
and supported from the beginning – in
familial as well as institutional contexts – by
including in their living and media
environment culture-specific media use in
early education.
Until now there has been little empirical
research in Germany and German-speaking
countries. German studies of media use
have collected data on teenagers, aged 12
to 19 (FIM Survey). They have also
collected data on children aged 6 to 13
(KIM Survey), but not much in the field of
early education (miniKIM Survey). And in
!74
this work they do not even consider the
cultural context or the context of the origin
of culture (Marci-Boehncke & Rath ,2014).
Consequently, children’s living and media
environments have not been researched
with regard to their culture-specific use of
media in Germany, and both educators and
teachers have knowledge gaps concerning
children’s living and media environments
regarding their culture-specific media use in
early education. There is insufficient
information for educators and teachers.
This is because educators and teachers
seem to be scarcely sensitized to
multicultural media socialization (ibid.;
• Evaluation of educators regarding
children’s media-use practices in
kindergarten
Finally, the author wants to address the
research question: What kinds of patterns
of media use can be detected by
preschoolers with and without a
multicultural background (with a special
focus on ‘Turkish’ and ‘non-Turkish
children’) – referring to their culture of origin
and mediatised social context. What kind of
educational and social relevance does the
topic have in connection with the education
system in Germany?
Theunert, 2008; Goetz et al., 2015).
In this context he is also interested in the
following questions: What should a survey
of early media education consider in order
to pursue equal of educational resources
and participation opportunities from the
beginning, also to overcome sociocultural
barriers? Moreover, how can a survey of
early education, including media education,
push against the effects of social inequality
right from the start?
The research interest of this research paper
is located exactly at this point: The author
wants to make a contribution to the
following aspects:
• Equal educational resources right from
the beginning
• Improvements in starting conditions, also
w i t h re g a rd t o m e d i a e d u c a t i o n
(especially to overcome sociocultural
barriers)
• Recognizing cultural differences and
heterogeneity with regard to the
socialization of media
• Promoting and developing potential
• Establishment of (intercultural) media
education within early education
In this context he is examining:
• Expectations of parents
• Pedagogical attitudes
• Educational action in families
• Evaluation of parents (also single parents)
regarding children’s media-use practices
at home
Theoretical framework
The research is part of KidSmart – Media
competence in school transition, an
intervention-based study in the field of
early-media education (Marci-Boehncke &
Rath 2013). The research draws on
Bourdieu’s theory of habitus and forms of
capital (Bourdieu, 1983, 1986). The focus is
on the habitus of media education of
different agents which directly or indirectly
socialize children and hence their
participation and access to participation.
!75
The concept of educational governance
(Heimbach-Steins & Kruip 2011) is applied
in order to distribute the responsibility
broadly so that access to education is not
dependent on a single agent. The process
of media education is designed as a metacognitive process for students and teachers
(Lai, 2011). The actual acquisition of
competence is conceived from the principle
of media apprenticeship as an interactive
process for all participants. Children’s
media-usage habits are observed in a
natural space by participant observation
during the intervention (Krainer et al., 2012).
In order to reduce unequal educational
& Strauss 1998; Strübing, 2004).
Results
About 70 per cent of children in the
kindergartens of KidSmart have an
immigrant background (‘Turkish children’
and ‘other children’). The majority of them
(29.9 %) are growing up in a ‘Turkish’
cultural context. Children with an ‘Arabic’
background should be mentioned too (14.3
%). Russian (6.8 %) and African children
(5.5 %) also belong to larger groups. In
contrast to this finding, the cultural
background of the educators is primarily
German (81.8 %). Less than one out of ten
of them describe themselves as
multicultural (9.7 %). More or less the same
percentage (9.1 %) do not specify their
identity. They prefer a plural affiliation or a
hybrid identity (Bonz & Struve, 2006;
Foroutan, 2013).
conditions, the institutions were located in
socially disadvantaged areas in Dortmund.
In this way, it was possible to connect with
such institutions that needed support.
Methodology
The main goal of this research paper is to
capture the media habits of four- to sixy e a r- o l d s f ro m a c u l t u re - s e n s i t i v e
perspective empirically both qualitatively
and quantitatively (in order to connect with
existing studies). Based on the principles of
heuristic social studies, a complex
triangulated research design (Flick 2004)
was employed on the level of methods and
data. The project models itself after Lewin’s
action research (Lück 1996). With a variety
of methods, different perspectives were
worked out and contextualized. Data were
gathered with semi-standardized
questionnaires, qualitative (puppet)
interviews and observation. These data will
be evaluated with grounded theory (Glaser
This cultural imbalance seems to influence
the communication between children and
educators with regard to children’s mediause practices. Despite the good to very
good German language skills of the children
(evaluation by the educators) more than half
(52.8 %) of educators do not discuss with
‘Turkish children’ their living and media
environment. About ten per cent of the
educators do not know anything about their
medial use. In the ‘non-Turkish’ context,
quite the opposite is the case: more than
half (54.4 %) of educators do discuss ‘nonTurkish children’s’ media-use practices.
With ‘Other children’ (‘non-Turkish children’
and ‘non-German children’) the interaction
!76
is the highest (55.1 %). This begs the
question of the reasons for the weak
interaction between the educators and,
especially, ‘Turkish children’, as well as the
repercussions of the weak knowledge
about the media everyday life of these
children. Moreover, the question ‘What
does this portend regarding educational
opportunities, as well as in the context of
media education?’ arises.
(18.2 %) of ‘Other parents’ and just a tenth
(10.6 %) of ‘German parents’ are relaxed
vis-à-vis their children’s media-use
practices.
In the first place, ‘German parents’ want
their children to learn critical-reflexive,
selective, creative and sober usage of
media. The critical-reflexive usage of media
is only observed in rare cases in ‘Turkish’
households. According to about one in two
‘Turkish parents’ (49.1%), their children
should be able to differentiate between
useful and less useful offerings. The
majority of ‘Turkish parents’ (52.6 %), as
well as a majority of ‘Other families’ (62.9
%), tend to familiarize their children with
content that could be helpful for school,
presumably educational software in
particular.
Furthermore, evaluation of the quantitative
data shows differences in the educational
measures for media between ‘Turkish
families’ and ‘non-Turkish families’. In
contrast to other parents, ‘non-Turkish
parents’, especially ‘German parents’,
seem not to leave the media education of
their children to chance. About 60 per cent
of ‘German parents’ and more than half of
‘Other parents’ look after the media
education of their children. Limitations and
prohibitions are often used as educational
methods in these families. Opposed to this,
just a third (35.6 %) of ‘Turkish parents’ give
their children support in media-use
practices at home. Prohibitions are the
exception rather than the rule. Just under
ten per cent of them prefer prohibiting the
media use of their children. Talking about
media seems not to be relevant in the
‘Turkish’ context. In addition to these
results, it can be pointed out that in more
than 30 per cent of ‘Turkish families’
laissez-faire behaviour is observable. This
means that, in the ‘Turkish context’, nearly
every third child is allowed to use any
media whenever they feel like it. This should
be a reason why, in ‘Turkish families’, higher
media use is observable. Less than a fifth
By looking at the media skills of children it
seems that there are differences in the
perceptions of parents and educators
depending on sociocultural, familial and
gender-related factors. With regard to these
discriminatory factors, in the sense of
“intersectionality“ (Collins 1998) their
interdependence is of interest in the context
of educational policy (Goetz et al., 2015). In
general, parents seem to evaluate
increments in the media skills of their
children less than educators do. ‘German
parents’ seem to perceive fewer increments
in the media skills of their children than
educators do. ‘Parents with an immigrant
background’ seem to uprate the media
skills of their children more than ‘German
parents’ do. Overall, parents seem to
perceive more favourable changes by girls
!77
Stanat, P., Tillmann,).K.-J., & Weiß, M. (Eds
(2001). PISA 2000: Basiskompetenzen von
Schülerinnen und Schülern im
internationalen Vergleich. Opladen: Leske +
Budrich.
rather than boys as regards media skills
(the opposite of educators). ‘German
parents’ foreground the progress of their
daughters and ‘parents with an immigrant
background’ the progress of their sons.
Educators mostly seem to observe
progress by ‘German boys’ (ibid., p.86f.).
Bellenberg, G. (2005) Wege durch die
Schule – Zum Zusammenhang zwischen
institutionalisierten Bildungswegen und
individuellen Bildungsbiographien. In:
Bildungsforschung, 2.
http://
bildungsforschung.org/index.php/
bildungsforschung/article/view/15/13.
The main objective of this research paper is
not at first to contrast ‘Turkish’ and ‘nonTurkish’ living and media environments.
Moreover, it is not to be understood as an
evaluation of the stances of parents and
educators relating to their view of early
media education and the usage of media
devices in general. Primarily, it is about
representing, describing and shedding light
on the living and media environments of
children, especially of professionals, whilst
taking into account their culture-specific,
familial contexts with respect to
multicultural media socialization. At the
same time, the existing situation in the field
of early education in the domain of cultural
diversity should be figured out. Against the
backdrop of this approach, unequal
educational opportunities including in the
context of media education should be
reduced or even removed right from the
b e g i n n i n g , e s p e c i a l l y t o o v e rc o m e
sociocultural barriers.
Bonz, J. & Struve, 2006).
K. ( Homi K.
Bhabha: Auf der Innenseite kultureller
Differenz: “in the middle of differences”. In:
Moebius, S. & Quadflieg,
), Kultur.
D. (Eds
Theorie der Gegenwart. Wiesbaden: VS,
pp.140–153.
Bourdieu, P. & Passeron,1971).
J. (
Die
Illusion der Chancengleichheit.
Untersuchungen zur Soziologie des
Bildungswesens am Beispiel Frankreichs.
Stuttgart: Klett.
B o u r d i e u , P. ( 1 9 8 2 ) . D i e f e i n e n
Unterschiede. Kritik der gesellschaftlichen
Urteilskraft. Frankfurt am Main: Suhrkamp.
Bourdieu, P. (1986). Habitus, code et
codification. In: Actes de la recherche en
sciences sociales. Vol. 64. De quel droit?,
p p . 4 0 – 4 4 . h t t p : / / w w w. p e r s e e . f r /
d
o
c
A
s
P
D
F
/
arss_0335-5322_1986_num_64_1_2335.p
df.
References
Baacke, D. (Ed.). (1999). Die 0 – bis 5
jährigen. Einführung in die Probleme der
frühen Kindheit. Weinheim: Beltz.
Bundesministerium für Bildung und
Forschung (ed) (2008) Bildung in
Deutschland. Ein Indikatoren gestützter
Baumert, J., Klieme, E., Neubrand, M.,
Prenzel, M., Schiefele, U., Schneider, W.,
!78
Bericht mit einer Analyse zu Übergängen im
Anschluss an den Sekundarbereich I.
B i e l e f e l d : W. B e r t e l s m a n n ( h t t p : / /
www.bildungsbericht.de/daten2008/
bb_2008.pdf)
Flick, U. (Ed.). (2004). Triangulation. Eine
Einführung. Wiesbaden: VS Verlag.
Foroutan, N. (2013). Hybride Identitäten.
Normalisierung, Konfliktfaktor und
Ressource in postmigrantischen
Gesellschaften. In: Brinkmann, H.U. &
Uslucan, H.-H. (Eds), Dabeisein und
Dazugehören. Integration Deutschland.
Wiesbaden: Springer, pp.85–99.
Bundesministerium für Bildung und
Forschung (ed) (2012) Bildung in
Deutschland
2012.
Ein
indikatorengestützter Bericht mit einer
Analyse zur kulturellen Bildung im
Lebenslauf. (https://www.destatis.de/DE/
Publikationen/Thematisch/
BildungForschungKultur/Bildungsstand/
BildungDeutschland5210001129004.pdf?
__blob=publicationFile)
Fried, L. (2010) Vorschulerziehung. In: Rost,
D.H. (Ed.), Handwörterbuch Pädagogische
Psychologie, 4. übearb. und erw. Aufl.
Weinheim: Beltz, pp.935–941.
Fried, L. (2013). Frühkindliche Bildung – Wo
stehen wir heute? In: 36. Stuttgarter Tage
der Medienpädagogik – Frühkindliche
Medienbildung. 06. März 2013.
Rottenburg, Stuttgart: Akademie der
Diözese.
Collins, P.H. (1998). It’s All In the Family:
Intersections of Gender, Race, and Nation.
Hypatia, 13(3), S. 62–82.
Diefenbach, H. (Ed). (2010). Kinder und
Jugendliche aus Migrantenfamilien im
deutschen Bildungssystem. Erklärungen
und empirische Befunde. 3. Aufl.
Wiesbaden: VS.
http://www.stuttgarter-tage.de/fileadmin/
Archiv13/Fried_Stuttgart_060313.pdf.
Fried, L. & Roux, S. (2013). Zwischen
Wissenschaft und Ausbildung. In: Fried, L.
& Roux, S. (Eds), Handbuch Pädagogik der
frühen Kindheit. Berlin: Cornelsen, pp.13–
21.
Eickelmann, B., Schaumburg, H., Senkbeil,
M., Schwippert, K., & Vennemann, M.
(2014).
Computer
–
und
informationsbezogene Kompetenzen von
Jugendlichen mit Migrationshintergrund. In:
Bos, W., Eickelmann, B., Gerick, J.,
G o l d h a m m e r, F. , S c h a u m b u r g , H . ,
Schwippert, K., Senkbeil, M., SchulzZander, R., & Wendt, H. (Eds). ICLS. (2013),
Computer – und informationsbezogene
Kompetenzen von Schülerinnen und
Schülern in der 8. Jahrgangsstufe im
internationalen Vergleich. Münster, New
York: Waxmann, pp.297–331.
Glaser, B.G. & Strauss, A. (Eds). (1998).
Grounded Theory. Strategien qualitativer
Forschung. Göttingen: H. Huber.
Goetz, I., Güneşli, H., & Marci-Boehncke,
G. (2015). Migration und Gender:
Medienaneignung in der frühen Bildung in
intersektionaler Perspektive. In:
medien+erziehung: Medienaneignung und
Aufwachsen im ersten Lebensjahrzehnt.
Heft 6, Jg. 59. München: Kopaed, pp.81–
!79
90.
Marci-Boehncke, G. & Rath, M. (2014).
Medienkompetenzwahrnehmung im
Migrationskontext: Empirische Ergebnisse
aus der Frühen Bildung bei türkischen und
deutschen Kindern. In: Frühe Bildung. Heft
4. (Ed. Neuß, N.). Göttingen: Hogrefe, pp.
203–213.
Heimbach-Steins, M. & Kruip, G. (Eds).
(2011).Kooperative Bildungsverantwortung.
Sozialethische und pädagogische
Perspektive auf “Educational Governance”.
Bielefeld: W. Bertelsmann.
Krainer, L., Lechster, R., & Goldmann, H.
(2012). Interventionsforschung in der
Praxis. In: Krainer, L. & Lechster, R. (Eds),
Inverventionsforschung. Bd. 1. Wiesbaden:
VS, pp.175–243.
Maurer, M. (Ed.). (2015). Du bleibst, was du
bist. Warum bei uns immer noch die soziale
Herkunft entscheidet. München: Droemer.
Neumann, U. & Schneider, J. (Eds). (2011).
Schule und Migrationshintergrund.
Münster: Waxmann.
Krotz, F. (Ed.). (2001). Die Mediatisierung
kommunikativen Handelns. Der Wandel von
Alltag und soziale Beziehungen, Kultur und
Gesellschaft durch Medien. Wiesbaden:
Westdeutscher Verlag.
Neuß, N. (2013). Medienbildung. In. Fried,
L. & Roux, S. (Eds), Handbuch. Pädagogik
der Frühen Kindheit. 3. überarb. Aufl.
Berlin: Cornelson, pp.235–240.
Lai, E.R. (2011). Metacognition: A Literature
Review. Research Report. Pearson’s
Research Report Series. http://
images.pearsonassessments.com/images/
t
m
r
s
/
metacognition_literature_review_final.pdf.
Ramsauer, K. (2011). Bildungserfolge von
Migrantenkinder n. Der Einfluss der
Herkunftsfamilie. Expertise. München: DJI.
http://d-nb.info/1019101393/34.
Rauschenbach, T. (2013). Vorwort. In:
Cinar, M., Otremba, K., Stürzer, M., &
Bruhns, K. (Eds), Kinder-Migrationsreport.
Ein Daten- und Forschungsüberblick zu
Lebenslagen und Lebenswelten von
Kinder n mit Migrationshintergrund.
München: DJI, S. 9-10. http://www.dji.de/
fi l e a d m i n / u s e r _ u p l o a d / b i b s / K i n d e rMigrationsreport.pdf.
Lück, H. (Ed.). (1996). Die Feldtheorie und
Kurt Lewin. Eine Einführung. Weinheim:
Beltz
Marci-Boehncke, G. & Rath, M. (Eds).
(2013). Kinder – Medien – Bildung. Eine
Studie zu Medienkompetenz und vernetzter
Educational Governance in der Frühen
Bildung. München: kopaed.
Segeritz, M., Stanat, P., & Walter, O. (2010).
Muster des schulischen Erfolgs von
Mädchen und Jungen mit
Migrationshintergrund. In: AllemannGhionda, C., Stanat, P., Göbel, K., &
Röhner, C. (Eds), Migration, Identität,
Marci-Boehncke, G. & Weise, M. (2013).
Frühe Kindheit. In: Meister, D., Gross, F., &
S a n d e r, U . ( E d s ) , E n z y k l o p ä d i e
Erziehungswissenschaft. Online. Fachgebiet
Medienpädagogik.
!80
Sprache und Bildungserfolg (Zeitschrift für
Pädagogik. 55. Beiheft). Weinheim: Beltz,
pp.165–186.
www.youtube.com/watch?v=G7Zjvw3bZiE.
Siegert, M. & Roth, T. (2013). Söhne
bevorzugt? Geschlechtsspezifische
Unterschiede beim Gymnasialbesuch
türkischstämmiger Schülerinnen und
Schülern. Kölner Zeitschrift für Soziologie
und Sozialpsychologie, 65, 49–72.
Six, U. & Gimmler, R. (Eds). (2007). Die
Förderung von Medienkompetenz im
Kindergarten. Eine empirische Studie zu
Bedingungen und Handlungsformen der
Medienerziehung (Schriftenreihe
Medienforschung der LfM. Band 57). Berlin:
Vistas.
Strübing, J. (Ed.). (2004). Grounded Theory.
Zur sozialtheoretischen und
epistemologischen Fundierung des
Verfahrens der empirisch begründeten
Theoriebildung. Wiesbaden: VS.
Theunert, H. (Ed.). (2008). Interkulturell mit
Medien. Die Rolle der Medien für die
Integration und interkulturelle
Verständigung. München: Kopaed.
Valtin, R. (2008). Soziale Ungleichheit in
Deutschland – Zentrale Ergebnisse aus
IGLU 2006 und PISA 2006. In: Wernstedt,
R. & John-Ohnesorg, M. (Eds), Soziale
Herkunft entscheidet über Bildungserfolg.
Konsequenzen aus IGLU 2006 und PISA III.
Dokumentation der Sitzung des Netzwerks
Bildung vom 24. Januar 2008. FriedrichEbert-Stiftung. http://library.fes.de/pdf-files/
stabsabteilung/05314.pdf.
WEST ART Talk (2015). 'Du bleibst, was du
bist - Sozialer Aufstieg'. https://
!81
Paper 9
Children’s play with digital media in a Danish preprimary school: Media literacy between a playcultural child perspective and a school-cultural adult
perspective
Helle Hovgaard Jørgensen 1
Syddansk Universitet & University College Lillebælt, Odense, Denmark
Abstract
Danish schools are obliged to work ‘in a
playful way’ with digital media according to
the demands in the descriptions of the
curricula for pre-primary education
(Undervisningsministeriet, 2015). Much
money has been spent on digital
infrastructure, but still professionals in preprimary education say that they are short of
time, experience and knowledge when it
comes to actual implementation of new
media in everyday school life. On the other
hand, most children come from media-rich
homes. This article addresses the gap
between in and out of school from a child’s
perspective. The key concepts are play and
media literacy, and the project’s take on
play is inspired by the paradigmatic change
towards a participatory and child-oriented
scientific position. The understanding of
media literacy is narrowed down to a
trichotomy that implies having access to
media, understanding media and creating/
1
hhj@sdu.dk
expressing oneself using media. A
qualitative study within the sociocultural
scientific field was carried out in order to
gain a fuller understanding of a child’s
perspective of media literacy.
K e y w o r d s : P l a y, m e d i a l i t e r a c y,
participation, Spielraum, pre-primary
education
Introduction
As I began
2014,
my fieldwork
the February
professionals made it clear that technology,
digital media and the like did not have first
priority. On the other hand, pre-primary
children from media-rich homes know
about the ‘Net’, YouTube and Skype, use
different devices, mainly for gaming, and
are aware of specific apps, films and
television. Recent research supports my
findings (Chaudron, 2015; Johansen &
Larsen, 2016). Certainly, children do have
some skills, knowledge and know-how
concerning digital media when they enter
school. In other words, I have noticed a
(digital) gap between ‘in and out of school’
that corresponds to a gap that is also
theoretically addressed (Drotner & Erstad,
2012; Erstad & Amdam, 2013; Gee, 2010;
Sefton-Green, 2012). The possible
connections between children’s play culture
and media literacy need therefore to be
investigated in order to rethink the preprimary school setting. Much research and
policymaking that deal with media literacy
have focused on parents and professionals
(Buckingham, 2003; Jenkins, 2009;
Livingstone, 2009). We need to gain a fuller
progress’ or ‘play as learning’ rhetoric
(Sutton-Smith, 1997). If looked upon from a
child’s perspective, children do not play in
order to learn (or educate/ develop)
themselves, but they might need to learn
something in order to master a special part
of play (Mouritsen, 1996). Moreover, play is
a framed activity that differs from ‘not
play’ (Bateson, 1972).
There is a variety of understandings and
definitions of media literacy (Erstad &
Amdam, 2013), but it is often narrowed
down to a trichotomy that implies having
access to media, understanding media and
creating/ expressing oneself using media
(Carlsson, 2013; Erstad & Amdam, 2013;
UNESCO,
2013). In order to find out how
children’s cultural play ‘doings’ and ‘knowhow’ can inform media literacy, I have
looked into three levels of both play and
media literacy. Important dimensions are
therefore: access, understanding and
create/ express, but also participation,
activity/ performance and skills. Access to
media must be a precondition for
participating in play with media. At the
same time, children do something with
media (act, perform, create, communicate)
and demonstrate some skills while playing
with media (understanding, levels of
reflection). Though it seems that the
understandings of media literacy and of
play correspond, there is a need for further
investigation.
understanding of a perspective whereby
children’s play culture is investigated in
order to make that perspective work in
media education.
The central question of the article is: How
can knowledge about children’s play with
digital media inform our understanding of
media literacy and be part of a school’s
formal work with media literacy?
Theoretical framework
Play and media literacy are key concepts in
my investigation. The project’s take on play
is inspired by the paradigmatic change
towards a participatory and child-oriented
scientific position. Play depends on
participation (being in, being part of),
activity (doing something) and skills (knowhow), according to play studies (Karoff,
2013; Mouritsen, 1996; Sutton-Smith,
1997). Speaking of play in a school context
it is very often understood as ‘play as
Methodological framing
This article is based on long-term fieldwork
!83
among children in two different schools.
The children were all part of pre-primary
education (5–6 years old). Approximately
120 children were involved, and a
qualitative study was conducted by using
participatory methods including fieldwork,
participatory observations, interviews and
interventions
2014;
(Andrew
Clark,
Burn,
Flewitt, Hammersley & Robb, 2014; Gulløv
& Højlund, 2006; Marsh, 2012).
focused on the playful ‘interaction, creative
and communicative’ dimension of media
literacy, and with children as central
informants.
I want to demonstrate children’s ‘playful
approach’ to digital media with two
interviews: One about the game Hayday
(one of twenty ‘short’ interviews about
‘digital media: two children outside during a
break), another about inventing a game
(one of three final ‘in-depth’ interviews: two
children in a classroom).
Practice theory frames the paper (Couldry,
2004; Reckwitz, 2002; Schatzki, 2001;
Swidler, 2001), because the main focus is
directed towards what children do when
using digital media in various ways while
being engaged in playful activities. It
includes both discursive and interactive
practices in play. The analytic strategies are
based on grounded theory methods
(Charmaz, 2014; Guvå & Hyllander,
2003).
The examples are situated as interviews,
given how I ask some questions the
children are supposed to answer. But, as
we shall see, the interviews are indeed
‘active’ in the sense that all participants in
them (and others) are implicated in
meaning-making
(Holstein & Gubrium,
1995). The interviews are semi-structured,
but at the same time spontaneous. The
situation hinges on the interaction between
interview participants, and it processes and
produces narratives structured by both
experience and artfulness (Holstein &
Gubrium, 1995, p. 18). It is framed as an
interview, but artfulness, spontaneity and
interaction reframe it as a playful event for
children. Artfulness is interesting because it
conveys or mediates children’s media
literacy in a way that involves play. Play is
“fundamentally dependent on the children’s
participation and activity and is predicated
on their acquisition of skills in terms of
expressive forms, aesthetic techniques,
forms of organization, mise en scène and
performance”
2002,(Mouritsen,
p. 23). In
other words, the interview creates room for
Analysis and results
Grounded on my initial fieldwork’s interest in
‘what’s going on’ in school vis-à-vis
children and digital media, I found that three
defining levels of media literacy were
addressed by practitioners. The access
level was practised as regulation, and the
youngest children most often had no
access to digital media. The level of
understanding was expressed as a
concern, whether young children were able
to ‘see through the media’. Levels of
creating and expressing were vaguely
present. Since my issue concerns what is
going on when children play with digital
media in pre-primary classes, I have
!84
The two girls have agreed on their roles as
informants. The situation is a framed activity
play (Spielraum) and tells us something
about children’s media literacy. Both
interview and play are situational and
organized as social communities of
cooperation by participants. The interview
is framed by an adult researcher. In a
grounded approach, the first and most
important question is: ‘What’s going on?’.
This is not play, and it is play. It is not an
interview, and it is an interview. There is a
double framing to take into consideration
when analyzing the data. I will leave the
methodological frame for a while and
continue within the theoretical frame of play
and media literacy.
(Bateson, 1972; Goffman, 1974). The
positions are clear, I am the adult who is in
charge of the situation, and they are
children. Moreover, we have implicitly
agreed on our roles in this specific situation.
I ask the questions and they answer them
(Goffman, 1959). We present ourselves,
respectively, as interviewer and informants.
But then the boy breaks into a framed
activity, a well-established interview. In
order to succeed, and to become part of
the situation, he needs to reframe it. He
uses two basic principles of play, a formula
(implicitly he makes it clear: this is play) and
improvisation (make-believe, mise en
scène, performance) (Mouritsen, 2002). He
changes his voice to a dramatic intonation,
speaks nonsense (there has never been a
Rhino in Hayday, and the animals cannot
die) and uses the symbolic and
metaphorical power of language in order to
convince the listener to listen to his story,
and implicitly he reflects on the fact that
‘this is play’. He uses the rhetoric of
exaggeration, and ‘the world’s greatest
animal’ is suddenly the main figure in
Hayday. We are convinced; he takes over
the scene, and sets a new order. The
dramatic and situational character of the
interruption works to subvert the order of
both the interview and the game.
He
knows the code of play, and since he is
familiar with the game he knows how to
improvise in order to become a participant
of the interview situation, so he reframes it
as play. He has play skills in term of
expressions, aesthetic techniques, how to
A play analysis of a framed activity,
interview about Hayday
The interview is conducted outside, during
a break. Other children come and go and
gather around the interview situation. Many
comments are given from ‘outside’ children.
The two interviewed girls have just told me
they play Hayday on iPads. They say it is
important to feed the animals:
Ego: What happens if you don’t?
Girl: Then ermm… . (a boy interrupts)
Boy: Me and N has tried not to feed an
animal, then it died! (shouts)
Ego: Oh, what kind of game was that?
B: It was the world’s greatest animal.
(speaks slower and changes his voice)
Ego: Was it also in Hayday?
Boy: It was a rhino. (the intonation is
dramatic)
(03.43–4.05)
!85
perform and set the scene (Mouritsen,
2002).
transformed for the purpose of play.
In other words, play is the main thing, it
embeds digital media culture both as
references and as possibilities for enriching
interactions. The boy is well aware of the
framed interview activity, and he knows
what it takes to reframe it. The interview is
artfully interrupted, and the interviewer’s
role is subverted and replaced by the
‘world’s greatest animal’. It takes some
force to replace adult power, but aesthetic
techniques and implicit knowledge-sharing
do the trick.
The instant he ‘enters’, he crosses a
threshold between in and out of the framed
activity. Moreover, he subverts the order by
turning the normativeness of Hayday
upside down. Hayday is about keeping the
animals alive, but he declares their death!
He knows the formula of the game, and
therefore he is able to transgress the
formula of a beloved ‘construction game’
and turn it into a ‘destruction game’, and
his skills are acknowledged/ applauded by
the girls’ giggling. Because of his game
knowledge and his knowledge of the
game’s mechanics, he plays with norms
and rules. He knows right from wrong and
understands the morals of the game. He
demonstrates that by parodying Hayday.
His shift of intonation, use of nonsense and
conscious change of animal categories
signify levels of reflexivity and an ability to
activate the play formula and improvise.
His aesthetic skills (subverting language)
evoke the Bakhtinian chronotope, the
threshold (Bakhtin, 1981, p. 248). Time and
place are important in the framing of the
situation. It happens in a moment, time is
here and now. Place is the schoolyard, on
the stairs to the building with the
classrooms, a physical threshold between
in and out; and mentally the children are
‘out’ of school for a moment.
The
chronotope evokes both centripetal end
centrifugal forces. All kinds of language and
text are potentially involved in the dynamics
of play culture, including media texts, of
course, if they are useful. They are set in
motion in activities, remixed and
But what has this to do with media literacy?
First, the level of understanding media
seems quite advanced here. The boy uses
his knowledge of the game Hayday to
demonstrate the Batesonian metacommuncative paradox of play: this is
about both animals dying and animals not
dying. The theme of the ‘play’ (the lustful:
‘then it died’) differs ‘from the practice’ of
the play which is to participate, keep it
going, have fun, impress the audience,
perform, create new games, experiment
etc. Second, no moral panic is needed. He
understands the levels of representation in
both play and the game. Third, he obviously
brings his play culture to school. His
reservoir of knowledge, skills and actions is
part of his practice in school as well as out
of school.
In the other interview example, one of the
questions was meant to inform the
creating/ expressing dimension of media
literacy: “What if you were supposed to
invent a game, what would it be like, if it
should be really good, in your opinion?” The
!86
question was not answered by talking
about it, but by showing/ acting out ‘the
game’.
perspective. One practice is embedded in
the other, and it seems learning is acted
out.
One girl (A) was interviewed together with a
boy (J). When I asked a question she
immediately set up a scene with two chairs
and a table and initiated the artful plot of a
My empirical data point to the importance
of looking into contexts of play, selfexpression and communication in order to
understand the engagement of ‘media
practices’ among children in pre-primary
education. Moreover, the data suggest
quite advanced skills, knowledge and
know-how, and complex levels of reflexivity
that are exchanged in ‘knowledge-sharing
communities’ and involve both play and
l e a r n i n g ( J e n k i n s , 2 0 0 6 ) . C re a t i n g
‘Spielraum’ (Ackerberg, 2013) seems to be
i m p o r t a n t , a n d t h e re i s a d o u b l e
understanding of the word. It is literally
understood as room for play, both
physically and temporally in school, and
metaphorically as elbow room or room for
manoeuvre, in order to mentally create
room for playful ways with digital media.
The concept of ‘Spielraum’ needs to be
elaborated as a key to transformation,
remixing, co-operation, co-creation,
innovation etc.
game she called ‘Restaurant’. The boy (J)
seated himself without being asked to do
so. The set-up implicitly invited J to play the
part of guest in the ‘game’. A’s action, the
set-up of the chairs and a table, was
followed by Jonas’s reaction. A social
community of co-operation (and
communication) was established. Through
chains of associations, A moved in and out
of two dimensions, inventing the game and
playing the game, and J co-operated and
co-created.
The collective aspect of the communication
was obvious. The children needed to cooperate with and without words in order to
keep the ‘game’ going. They demonstrated
a solid understanding of ‘the game’ by
referring to levels, rewards, actions,
conflicts, monsters and killing. Moreover,
narrative aesthetic techniques were
demonstrated, scenes set and performed.
In this Spielraum, digital and physical rooms
intervened and new ideas, modes, sounds
and words came up. It was both an
experimenting room and a room for
innovation.
Both empirical examples demonstrate
levels of spontaneous creativity and
innovation, but also levels of ‘understanding
media’, room for meaning-making and
learning, and the potential for developing
competencies.
Media literacy is already embedded in
children’s digital play practices. In other
words, media literacy is ‘out of school’ as a
part of children’s non-formal play practices.
But it does not seem as if children’s digital
play practices are embedded in a schooled
Results: What then is the gap about?
It seems that there is no gap between
media literacy practices and play practices
in an approach constructed from a child’s
!87
understanding of media literacy. How to
embed play in a more formal understanding
of media literacy involves more knowledge
about what ‘playful’ means from the
perspective of children.
Clark, A., Flewitt, R., Hammersley, M., &
Robb, M. (2014). Understanding Research
with Children and Young People. London:
Sage Publications Ltd.
Couldry, N. (2004). Theorising Media as
Practice. Social Semiotics, 14(2), 115–132.
doi:10.1080/1035033042000238295.
References
Drotner, K. & Erstad, O. (2012). Inclusive
Media Literacies: Interlacing Media Studies
and Education Studies. International
Journal of Learning and Media, 4(2), 19–31.
doi:10.1162/IJLM_a_00092.
Ackerberg, E.K. (2013). Growing up in the
digital age: Areas of change. tecnologias,
sociedade e conhecimento, 1(1).
Burn, A., Richards, C. (eds) (2014).
Children's Games in the New Media Age.
Childlore, Media and Playground. Surrey,
Erstad, O. & Amdam, S. (2013). From
Protection to Public Participation. Javnost The Public. 20(2), 83–98.
UK: Ashgate.
Bakhtin, M. (1981). The Dialogic
Imagination. Four Essays. Austin, Texas:
University of Texas Press.
Gee, J.P. (2010). New Digital Media and
Learning as an Emerging Area and “Worked
E x a m p l e s ” a s O n e Wa y F o r w a r d .
Massachusetts Institute of Technology: MIT
Press.
Bateson, G. (1972). A Theory of Play and
Fantasy Steps to an Ecology of Mind. New
York: Ballantine Books.
Goffman, E. (1959). The Presentation of
Self in Everyday Life. New York: Harper &
Row.
Buckingham, D. (2003). Media education.
literacy, learning and comtemporary culture.
Cambridge: Polity Press.
Goffman, E. (1974). Frame Analysis. New
York: Harper & Row.
Carlsson, U. (2013). What is Media Literacy.
Retrieved
from:
http://
nordicom.statsbiblioteket.dk/mld/en/
medialiteracy.html.
Gulløv, E., & Højlund, S. (2006). Feltarbejde
blandt bør n. Metodologi og etik i
etnografisk børneforskning.
København:
Gyldendal.
Charmaz, K. (2014). Constructing
Grounded Theory. London: Sage.
Guvå, G. & Hyllander, I. (2003). Grounded
Theory – et teorigenererende
forskningsperspektiv. København: Hans
Reitzels Forlag.
Chaudron, S. et al. (2015). Young Children
(0-8) and Digital Technology, a qualitative
e x p l o r a t o r y s t u d y. R e t r i e v e d f ro m :
Luxembourg: Publications Office of the
European Union.
Holstein, J.A. & Gubrium, J.F. (1995). The
Active Interview. Thousand Oaks, California:
!88
Advocacy for Education in Non-Fromal
Settings. Cambridge, MA, USA: MIT Press.
Sage Publications.
Jenkins, H. (2009). Confronting the
Challenges of Participatory Culture: Media
Education for the 21st Century: MIT Press.
Sutton-Smith, B. (1997). The Ambiguity of
Play. Cambridge Massachusetts: Harvard
University Press.
Johansen, S.L., & Larsen, M.C. (2016).
Digitale medier i småbørnshøjde. Om 0-8åriges brug af digitale medier i hjemmet.
Swidler, A. (2001). What anchors cultural
practices. In K.K.C. Theodore Schatzki &
Eike von Savigny (Eds), The Practice Turn in
Contemporary Theory. London: Routledge.
Retrieved from: København.
Karoff, H.S. (2013). Om leg. Legens medier,
praktikker og stemninger. København:
Akademisk forlag.
Undervisningsministeriet. (2015). Læseplan
for børnehaveklasse. Retrieved from: http://
w w w. e m u . d k / s i t e s / d e f a u l t / fi l e s /
L%C3%A6seplan%20for%20b%C3%B8rn
Livingstone, S. (2009). Children and the
Internet. Cambridge, UK: Polity.
ehaveklassen_0.pdf.
Marsh, J. (2012). Children as knowledge
brokers of playground games and rhymes
in the new media age. Childhood, 19(4),
508–522.
doi:
10.1177/0907568212437190.
UNESCO. (2013). Framework and plan of
action for the global alliance for
partnerships on media and information
literacy. http://www.unesco.org/new/en/
gapmil/
Mouritsen, F. (1996). Legekultur. Odense:
Syddansk Universitetsforlag.
Mouritsen, F. (2002). Child Culture – play
culture. In: F. Mouritsen & J. Qvortrup (Eds),
Childhood and Children’s Culture. Odense:
University Press of Southern Denmark.
Reckwitz, A. (2002). Toward a Theory of
Social Practices. A development in
culturalist theorizing. European Journal of
Social Theory, 5(2), 245–265.
Schatzki, T. (2001). Introduction: practice
theory. In: K.K.C. Theodore Schatzki & Eike
von Savigny (Eds), The Practice Turn in
Contemporary Theory. London: Routledge.
Sefton-Green, J. (2012). Learning at NotSchool: A review of Study, Theory, and
!89
Paper 10
Creative and playful learning with Biophilia in
preschool, after-school classes and primary schools in
Iceland
Skúlína Hlíf Kjartansdóttir 1
University of Iceland / School of Education
Abstract
Introduction to Biophilia
In this research the activities of students
and teachers participating in the Biophilia
Educational Program in schools in
Reykjavík are studied. Empirical data were
collected at Dalskóli within a preschool/
primary school setting in the context of the
national core curriculum guide and
developing multimodal digital literacy within
Icelandic schools and the global ecology of
learning resources. The study is grounded
in sociocultural theories of learning that
stress children’s active role in their
development and participation in the adult
world. It applies a theory of multimodal
mediation to study the learning processes
and learning outcomes of students. The
results shed light on how digital literacy can
develop in an interdisciplinary and playful
learning context and on the potential of
Biophilia as a learning resource.
The multidisciplinary multimedia project
Biophilia (björk, 2016) was published in
2011 by the internationally known artist
Björk Guðmundsdóttir, and it was received
as the birth of a new music format (Dibben,
2013), being the world’s first app album
(Webby Awards, 2012). It consists of ten
songs and apps with which children can
interact. It defies traditional definitions, as it
sits amidst various phenomena: app,
album, song, music video, instrument,
video game and even academic writing
(Korsgaard, 2013). All the apps have a
similar structure, having a menu with five
selections: “Play”, “Animation”, “Score”,
“Lyrics” and “Credits”. Each app is
accompanied by a musicological essay and
the in-app experiences explore the
relationship between musical structures
and natural phenomena through new
technologies. The topics range from a
micro-world of viruses and symbiotic
relationships (biology) to a macro-world of
cosmology and Big Bang theory, with
opportunities to explore elements in music,
Keywords: Biophilia, digital learning
resources (DLR), digital literacy, creativity,
peer learning and meaning-making
1
shk10@hi.is
development. Each child should be able
to take home their own musical
creations/ compositions. (Víðsjá, 2011)
such as generative music, notation or
arpeggios. Teaching guidelines offer
suggestions for learning topics on music,
nature, relevant sciences and human
aspects for each of the ten songs (Biophilia
Educational Program, 2016).
Biophilia was introduced by Björk on a
world tour, with educational workshops for
children through Web tutorials for the apps
(Snibbe, 2012), some presented by Björk
h e r s e l f o n Yo u Tu b e . T h e B i o p h i l i a
Educational Program (2015) was
established through an interagency
collaboration (Warmington et al., 2004), like
the one set up between the University of
Iceland, the City of Reykjavík and Björk.
Pedagogical ideas were co-developed by
scientists and teachers in Iceland and those
participating in the world tour and are
available at the project’s website and forum.
Through the site, teachers can participate,
collaborate and contribute ideas about
learning. It has been suggested that Björk,
by embracing the Web and its democratic
nature, has changed the way fans and
Internet users experience music (Webby
Awards, 2012). It is suggested here that
Björk also created a bridge, from music to
education and learners, by gathering
teachers’ experiences from Biophilia
residencies and encouraging the creation of
a programme for learning about nature, art,
science and technology (björk volumen,
2014). Biophilia has a broad scope with a
variety of resources, perspectives and
levels of complexity. Its implementation was
supported by the Nordic Council of
Ministers and carried out in all the
Scandinavian countries during 2014–2016.
The data collected in this research provide
a rich source for exploring many different
aspects of education with Biophilia, such as
The precursors to Biophilia were the
introduction of the iPad in 2010, Björk’s
fascination with touch-screen musical
instruments and her desire to celebrate
natural phenomena (Dibben, 2011). It has
been stated that Biophilia’s use of touchpad devices activates the sense of touch in
a way that ordinary music videos do not, as
both the images and sounds of “music
video” apps can be touched and altered
(Korsgaard, 2013), allowing for a more
tactile way of experiencing music and
images. Dibben (2013) points out that the
relationship between images and sound is a
key point in the project’s conception,
relating directly to musical structures and
processes, and that Björk’s idea was to use
touch screens as intuitive tools for musicmaking and as a means for interactive,
educational experiences.
In offering Biophilia Björk was laying the
foundations of a digital-learning resource
(DLR) for children that would foster a
creative, interdisciplinary approach in
learning about nature, art, science and
technology in an interdisciplinary fashion.
She also invited all-inclusive participation by
students. In an interview, Björk stated that
her intentions for Biophilia were for it to be:
…an open, intuitive musical
environment, where creativity is invited
for the purpose of learning and personal
!91
children’s understanding of nature and
activities of all curriculum guides developed
natural phenomena, teachers’ collaboration
at all school levels and are to be reflected
and communities of practice, interaction in
and evident in all educational activities and
t h e c l a s s ro o m , p e e r- l e a r n i n g ,
in the content of school subjects (Ministry
interdisciplinary learning, playful and gameof Education, 2014). The fundamental
based learning, learning through the arts,
pillars “are based on the idea that active
mobile and connected learning, digital
democracy is unobtainable without literacy
literacy and creative meaning-making. A
of the diverse symbolism and
discussion of these aspects of Biophilia is
communication systems of society” and
beyond this short article. Here, the aim is to
that democracy “can only flourish if
present the first results concerning
simultaneously every form of equality
perceived digital literacy, playful learning
between individuals and groups is
and creative practices observed in
supported” (2014, p. 15). The main
students’ meaning-making while studying
objective of literacy is for students to
with Biophilia.
become “active participants in transforming
and rewriting the world by creating their
own meaning and responding in a personal
and creative manner to what they read with
the aid of the media and technology that is
available” (2014, p. 17).
The core
curriculum refers to media literacy and
digital literacy as: “knowledge that people
have to acquire to be able to use computer
and web technology for various forms of
communication and creation of material. It
involves photographs, printed text as well
as music, and relates to the whole
spectrum of material management, that is,
resources, processing and communication”
(2014, p. 17).
Background and theoretical framework
The scientific term
biophilia refers to
research that suggests an instinctive
biological bond between humans and other
living systems (Kellert, 1996; Wilson, 1984).
The title gives Björk’s Biophilia an entrance
level that, coupled with her activism to
protect Icelandic nature (Náttúra campaign)
and the Icelandic nation’s ownership of
natural resources, can have relevance to
critical education concerning our
relationship with nature. It can therefore
contribute to a curriculum that encourages
The Icelandic core curriculum guide
reflection and critical discussions in learning
,reflects
to a degree, evolving ideas on
across disciplines.
multimodal literacy, creates a context for
The Icelandic core curriculum guide invites
teachers who wish to use new mobile
such an approach. It rests on six
technologies and encourages students’
fundamental pillars: literacy, sustainability,
exploration with digital media. This shows
health and welfare, democracy and human
the need to look beyond language in a
rights, equality and creativity. They are
rapidly changing social and technical
considered to be an intrinsic part of school
landscape.
!92
The multimodal facilities of digital
working with students’ experiences and
technologies enable images, sound and
feelings and using teaching methods that
movement to enter learning in new and
promote their creativity and agency. It also
significant ways. Locating
Biophilia in the
encourages peer-learning.
educational landscape can be useful in this
Theories such as Kress and Jewitt’s theory
context. Applying Kirriemuir & McFarlane’s
of multimodal
,
mediation (Jewitt & Kress
reference frame on learning theories (2004),
2003) are, useful for analyzing digital literacy
Biophilia can be positioned on the
the different modes of multimodality and
humanist, social and situational side of its
different sides to the interpretation of
spectrum (see Table 1).
meaning 2009).
(Jewitt, Multimodality is
Biophilia invites pedagogies that emphasise
defined as “the use of several semiotic
the personalization of learning. It suggests
modes in the design of a semiotic product
Table 1: Kirriemuir
, adapted
and McFarlane’s reference frame on learning theories (2004)
from1999).
Smith (
!93
or event” (Kress and Van Leeuwen as cited
in Jewitt, 2009, p. 1). Mode is used to refer
to a “regularized organized set of resources
for meaning-making, including, image,
gaze, gesture, movement, music, speech
and sound-effect” (Jewitt & Kress, 2003, p.
1). Other instances of commonly used
modes are writing, the moving image, 3D
models, action and colour. Mode is
meaningful and a socially and culturally
shaped resource (Kress, 2010). Modes are
shaped by both the intrinsic characteristics
and potentialities of the medium and by the
requirements, histories and values of
societies and their cultures (Kress &
multimodal learning. Assuming that all
modes are equal for creating meaning,
rather than starting from language, is
another important aspect to be considered.
In Before writing (1997), Kress describes
young children’s engagement with texts
and how they interpret, transform and
redesign the semiotic resources and signs
available to them. Jewitt and Kress (2003)
introduced four aspects to the
representation of meaning: materiality,
framing, design and production, which offer
ways to research and analyse the different
stages of meaning-making (Albers &
Sanders, 2010). Furthermore, the mapping
Leeuwen, 1996). The medium is the
substance through which meaning is
realized and mediated to others. Every
mode also has a different modal resource,
which is historically and culturally situated.
Context shapes the resources available for
making meaning, as well as how these are
selected and designed (Jewitt, 2013).
Modes are often used together in modal
, like in films
assemblages
2010).
(Kress,
These assemblages are based on design,
selections or arrangements of semiotic
resources which convey the message,
meaning or signs that the designer chooses
to deliver. Production is the implementation
of design with the resources available; it
has, simultaneously, semiotic, conceptual
and affective features. The agency of the
sign maker impacts on knowledge
production, which is a part of social
semiotic processes and the organization of
participation. Kress emphasizes that
knowledge is always produced, rather than
acquired. This is of central importance for
of meta-functions (Jewitt, 2006), funds of
knowledge or meaning potential (ideational,
interpersonal and textual) provides a way to
understand and evaluate the construction
o f k n o w l e d g e a n d i d e n t i t y, w i t h i n
multimodal mediation and meaning-making
with new media, in the classroom.
This research makes references to
sociocultural theories of learning that stress
children’s active role in their development
and participation in the adult world. It is
guided by an interpretive reproduction view
about children’s evolving existence in their
cultures, whereby children do not simply
imitate or internalize the world around them
but strive to interpret and participate in it,
thus collectively producing their own peer
worlds and cultures (Corsaro, 1985). The
research adheres to the view that children
act on and can bring about changes in
society (Corsaro, 1997). With respect to
children’s internalization, appropriation and
interpretation of culture, tools, such as
language, and other tools for meaning!94
learning outcomes.
making, affordances are important (Gibson,
1977), because they both encode culture
and are essential for participating in it.
Results
Biophilia can contribute to a curriculum that
e n c o u r a g e s re fl e c t i o n a n d c r i t i c In
a l the early stages of the research, the
discussions. It can be positioned on the
researcher followed in-service teacher
human, social and situational side of the
training undertaken by all teachers from
several different settings: five elementary
schools, two preschools and two afterschool class centres, all of which were
taking part in the City of Reykjavík Biophilia
project. The training was given by scientists
and experienced teachers from an earlier
phase of the Biophilia project in Reykjavik.
This enabled the teachers to learn about
the different educational aspects of
Biophilia, train themselves in app use,
discuss pedagogical approaches and
organize themselves as a group for the
exchange of ideas and planning. Social
media (Facebook) were harnessed for
communication and organization, for the
whole group as well as individual school
groups. This proved invaluable for
disseminating ideas and coordination of the
large group that met only intermittently
during the project period, as well as for
smaller groups within each school.
spectrum of learning theories. It has the
potential to encourage the development of
multimodal literacy and personal meaningmaking.
Methodology
In this research the activities of students
and teachers participating in the Biophilia
Educational Program in schools in
Reykjavík during 2016 are investigated. The
focus is on the Dalskóli school and
collaborative ways of working. The research
at Dalskóli forms a case study within a
preschool/ primary school setting and is
built on a grounded theory approach.
Participants were 11 teachers, one
manager and around 70 students (28
preschool students, 27 5th graders and 15
students from after-school classes).
Participatory research methods
(Groundwater-Smith, Dockett & Bottrell,
2015) were employed, encouraging
participants to take part in the research,
provide their own data and suggest
avenues of research. The researcher
developed a collaborative approach,
supporting participants in efforts aiming for
school development and change. This
could entail advice on technical matters
and discussions of learning processes and
Smaller groups of teachers in the schools
then started to figure out the relevance of
Biophilia to the national core curriculum
guide and their school curriculum, as well
as to develop interdisciplinary aspects of
their teaching plans. Some technical
affordances needed improving, especially
the reliability of wireless connections. The
schools did not normally own an iPad for
each student, but they could borrow a set
!95
of iPads from the City of Reykjavík, as well
materials and various learning apps to offer
as a travelling tool chest for Biophilia that
students a wide-ranging learning
contained various resources for scientific
experiences, along with the Biophilia app
experimentation and creative activities.
album.
At Dalskóli, teachers chose to work on
different topics with each age group. The
preschool teachers decided to concentrate
on learning about the body, a popular topic,
and to work with the Biophilia app Virus.
The after-school class teachers chose to
target Crystalline, a game-like app, and
explored the scientific structure of crystals
with their students. The 5th graders were
studying the materials, units, sizes,
contexts and activities of the body, genetics
and the universe, as well as philosophy in
the context of man versus universe,
creation myths and mythology. For this, the
Virus and Cosmogony apps were mainly
explored. The Biophilia apps generally
served as an inspiration for students when
starting the workshops, acting as an
introduction to scientific and musical topics
relating to different apps. They also served
to increase digital literacy and learn more
about navigation, play and interactivity.
Many students had experience of tablets or
computers at home, but some students in
preschool had little or no experience of
using tablets for anything but gaming or
Internet-surfing. The older students, in
after-school classes and 5th grade, usually
had some computer experience, but did
not generally use them for specific learning
tasks and working with creative
applications for design and production.
Figure 1: Biophilia travel chest / iPads –
an affordance supplied by the City of
Reykjavík School Division.
The shortage of iPads meant that
implementing 1:1 pedagogy and highly
personalized learning was not possible and
so teachers resorted to strategies of
collaboration, whereby students shared
iPads for study and project work. The
school could also invite scientists and
digital
, discuss artists
scientific
to give a talk
problems with students and assist with
workshops. This possibility brought
expertise to the project where needed.
Teachers have autonomy to choose
learning materials and teaching aids. They
used books on science topics, Internet
resources, physical objects, models,
science equipment (microscopes), art
The preschool children were quite excited
about Biophilia app use and expressed
!96
enjoyment about their experiences and
order to stimulate personal development.
playful activities if offered. Their teachers
The after-school classes were studying
and a visiting scientist introduced the main
crystals. They examined different kinds of
scientific and artistic concepts and initiated
rocks, that the teacher brought to class,
projects, which were then developed
directly and through a microscope. They
through discussion, play, hands-on
grew their own crystals and the group, in
activities, musical performances and visual
collaboration, made a playful video out in
art production. An exploration of the body
nature about their experiences with the
included making instruments to enable
crystals (see Fig.5).
students to experience heartbeats and
other body sounds (see Fig. 2).
The 5 th grade students followed a
continuous study programme throughout
the term, based on Biophilia, and managed
to do scientific
,
studies with bacteria
discover genetics through play, act out
musical performances, experiment with
digital technologies and more. They had full
Internet access and could search the Web,
choose their tools and technologies (see
Fig. 6). They collaboratively created
sculptures and 2-dimensional artwork,
where their thematic studies were
interpreted in various ways, with digital or
traditional art materials (see Fig.7) 3-D
artwork was made collectively on a big
scale and used for performance art (see
Fig. 8).
Preschoolers did not use the iPads for
creative project work and were restricted in
using tablets to go on the Internet. The
preschool children worked collaboratively
on making one big body to which they
gradually added internal organs and a vein
system (see Fig.3).
Visual artwork included drawings of cells,
various internal organs and the skeleton of
the body. The children also made musical
instruments that were used in music
lessons, for practising rhythms and beats
(see Figure 4).
The teachers made notes on children’s
individual learning and noted how learning
topics developed in playful activities, in
Figure 2: Making instruments to listen to the sounds of the body. Testing the instruments.
!97
Figure 3: Collaborative body/ art project, working with colours and textures – reconstructing the body.
Figure 4: Drawings of people and their organs, musical instruments made from balloons and
papier mâché. Text on image to the right, a student’s comment reads: “This is a cell dividing itself.
It is making a little baby. And this is a nerve cell.”
Figure 5: Growing crystals and studying their structure – and beauty.
!98
Figure
, green-screen
6: Experimenting
filming and hologram creations
with music software
Figure 7: Body-inspired paintings were printed with stencils. Lunar cycles were interpreted playing
with semi-transparent shapes and light – creating digital shorts.
Figure 8: Collaborative creation of a giant heart. Presented at the harvest festival in Reykjavík.
The 5th grade students had to frame
subject matter and plan, design
produce a variety of outcomes of
studies. This work culminated in their
their
and
their
own
creation myths, written as short stories,
designed as storyboards and produced
with stop-motion apps or as shorts with
iMovie (see Fig.9).
!99
Figure 9: ,Script
storyboard, prop-making
5th grade
and filming
project.
of a creation story – a
Various scholars have pointed out that
education today has become obsessed
with a particular type of academic ability,
while ignoring or de-emphasising other
ways of thinking and acting, even
preventing or destroying children´s creative
abilities (Robinson, 2001). Our daily
existence builds on the use of all our
senses and our thinking is affected by all of
them too. Much seems to depend on the
context, affordances and pedagogies that
enable students to connect with their
creative potential. In a fast-changing world
with rapidly changing demands, the
concepts “creativity” and “collaboration”
have come into focus as being central, not
peripheral, to society at large. Biophilia can
be seen as a conscious attempt to address
this balance and to pioneer new ways of
learning.
literacies: Introduction. In: P. Albers & J.
Sanders (Eds), Literacies, the Arts, and
Multimodality. Urbana: National Council of
Teachers of English.
Biophilia Educational Program. (2015).
Biophilia educational program – An
introduction.
Retrieved from: http://
biophiliaeducational.org/about/.
Biophilia Educational Program. (2016).
LearnTeach: Table of elements. Retrieved
from http://biophiliaeducational.org/- tableof-elements.
björk. (2016). discography: biophilia. Björk.
Retrieved from: http://bjork.com/- /past/
discography/biophilia.
björk volumen. (2014). Björk's Biophilia @
Miraikan, Tokyo, Japan, (2013). Retrieved
from: https://www.youtube.com/watch?
v=RmyllSVF_6s.
Corsaro, W. A. (1985). Friendship and peer
cuiture in the early years. Westport: Ablex
Publishing.
References
Albers, P. & Sanders, J. (2010). Multimodal
!100
Corsaro, W. A. (1997). The sociology of
childhood. Thousand Oaks: Pine Forge
Press.
Kellert, S.R. (1996). The value of life:
Biological diversity and human society:
Island Press.
Dibben, N. (2011). An introduction to
Biophilia. Paris: Wellhart Ltd.
Kirriemuir, J. & McFarlane, A. (2004).
Literature review in games and learning. A
NESTA Futurelab research report 8.
Retrieved from Slough: https://
telearn.archives-ouvertes.fr/hal-00190453/
document.
Dibben, N. (2013). Visualizing the app
album with Björk's Biophilia. In: C. Vernallis,
A. Herzog, & J. Richardson (Eds), The
Oxford handbook of sound and image in
digital media. Oxford: Oxford University
Press.
Korsgaard, M.B. (2013). Music video
transformed. In: J. Richardson, C.
Gorbman, & C. Vernallis (Eds), The Oxford
handbook of new audiovisual aestethics.
Oxford: Oxford University Press.
Gibson, J. J. (1977). The theory of
affordances. Hillsdale: Lawrence Erlbaum
Associates.
Kress, G. (1997). Before writing – rethinking
the paths to literacy. London, New York:
Routledge.
Groundwater-Smith, S., Dockett, S., &
Bottrell, D. (2015). Participatory research
with children and young people. Los
Angeles, London, New Dehli, Singapore,
Washington DC: Sage.
Kress, G. (2010). Multimodality: A social
semiotic approach to contemporary
communication. Abingdon: Routledge.
Jewitt, C. (2006). Technology, literacy and
learning: A multimodal approach. London,
New York: Routledge.
Kress, G. & Leeuwen, T.v. (1996). Reading
images: The grammar of visual design.
London, New York: Routledge.
Jewitt, C. (2009). An introduction to
multimodality: The Routledge Handbook of
Multimodal Analysis. London, New York:
Routledge.
Ministry of Education, S.a.C. (2014). The
Icelandic national curriculum guide for
compulsory school – with subject areas.
Reykjavik: Ministry of Education, Science
and Culture Retrieved from: http://
brunnur.stjr.is/mrn/utgafuskra/utgafa.nsf/
xsp/.ibmmodres/domino/OpenAttachment/
mrn/utgafuskra/utgafa.nsf/
E7DE015E63AA2F2C00257CA2005296F7/
A t t a c h m e n t /
adalnrsk_greinask_ens_2014.pdf.
Jewitt, C. (2013). Multimodal methods for
researching digital technologies. In: S.
Price, C. Jewill, & B. Brown (Eds), The Sage
handbook of digital technology research.
Los Angeles, London, New Dehli: Sage.
Jewitt, C. & Kress, G.R. (2003). Multimodal
Literacy (New literacies and digital
epistomologies). New York: Peter Lang.
Robinson, K. (2001). Out of our Minds –
Learning to be Creative. Oxford: Capstone.
!101
10.11.2011. Retrieved from: https://
w w w. f a c e b o o k . c o m / v i d s j a 1 / p o s t s /
133912840044313.
Snibbe, S. (2012). björk: biophilia: tour app
tutorial.
R e t r i e v e d f ro m : h t t p : / /
www.youtube.com/watch?
v=n8c0x6dO2bg.
Warmington, P., Daniels, H., Edwards, A.,
Brown, S., Leadbetter, J., Martin, D., &
Middleton, D. (2004). Interagency
collaboration: a review of the literature.
Retrieved from Bath: https://goo.gl/jWDyzc
The Webby Awards. (2012). 2012 Webby
Award Winner: BJÖRK: Special
Achievement: Artist of the Year. Retrieved
from: http://webbyawards.com/winners/
2012/special-achievement/specialachievement/artist-of-the-year/bjork/.
Wilson, E.O. (1984). Biophilia. Cambridge:
Harvard University Press.
Víðsjá. (2011). Viðtal við Björk
Guðmundsdóttur um Biophilia –
!102
Paper 11
Kids Project: Portuguese children's perceptions and
participation in the design of a literacy-learning
interface
Ana Medeiros1
CIEC, engageLab, Portugal
Abstract
Digital learning resources intend to be
engaging and able to promote effective
learning.
, their final users,
Still
learners, feel
that there is more to do and further support
is needed. Researchers are seeking new
opportunities to expand children’s learning
using new digital contexts and forms, such
as multi-literacy practices, multimodal
forms and immersive worlds to act on and
simultaneously learn, leading to several
challenges. This work aims to understand
and examine the integration of children’s
point of view on the design process of
digital learning tools for literacy-learning. To
this end, a longitudinal and
intergenerational co-design study was
carried out to develop a literacy-learning
interface for primary-school students,
aiming to support initial stages of the
reading process in a meaning-making and
pleasurable way. This investigation seeks to
make a contribution to today’s discussion
of young children's digital literacy practices.
Keywords: Multi-literacies, literacy-learning
interface, co-design, children, games.
Introduction
-Technologies are smart and can
support learning in classroom. (M., 7year-old boy)
-Yeah, but still they don’t answer all our
doubts. They have to be improved! (S.,
7-year-old boy) (16/05/13)
The development of technologies and
digital media has changed communication
and therefore literacy practices have also
changed, given that these practices have
become digital. This digital turn supported
by electronic reading and new text formats,
such as e-books, e-mail, websites,
podcasts, videos and videogames, has
changed ordinary literacy practices [Cope &
Kalantzis,2009; Gee, 2007; Mills, 2010;
New London Group, 1996].
New Literacies Studies have been showing
that reading and writing, as conceived in
traditional terms (e.g. decoding and
1medeiros@engagelab.org,
understanding
, no longer suffice as words)
have included major investments over
literacy skills for meaning-making in the
decades by equipping schools with
digital era. They argue that literacy
Information and Communication
practices involve an active and conscious
Technologies
), e.g. (ICT
the Magalhães
role for the child, or their agency, for the
laptop (a low-cost computer, part of a
mobilization of a complex set of skills [Cope
Portuguese initiative similar to One Laptop
& Kalantzis,
2009]. This involves a daily and
Per), Child
reforming the curricula and
broad usage of multimodal sources ofeducating
2008].
teachers
, However
[MoE,
meaning
, sound, (written
images,
code
little actual effort has been made in the
construction of digital educational
movement
) that go beyond language
resources for hardware (especially learning
,[Kress
2010; 2011]
, in conscious and
games )to and
engage teacher
children
critical ways, which have been turning
, making its implementation limited
training
readers and writers into actual designers of
and the results far below expectations.
meaning [Cope2009;
& ,Kalantzis,
Gee
Also, after the aforementioned initiatives,
2007]. Literacy has been redefined. Literacy
new a
educational policies drastically
is now regarded as multiple literacies with
changed the educational panorama, which
new learning approach. Learning in the
became very regulated, focused on
digital
, explicit,age should occur in situated
evaluation and guided by the metric of
transformed and collaborative contexts –
good results in maths and the mother
this approach is also known as a multitongue, Portuguese. Consequently, ICT
literacies
2009;
approach [Cope & Kalantzis,
practices almost faded away from primary
Gee
, 2007; , Mills
2010; New London
schools.
Group
, 1996]. , Schools
however,
have
e n c o u n t e re d s e r i o u s d i f fi c u l t i e s i n
implementing this approach [Cope &
Kalantzis,
2009].
In this context of transformation and the
st century
technological
21 demands of the
fits the Kids Project study. By the time this
study
, few digital
began
resources favoured
By ,reviewing
Gee2007]
[
strategy games
a multi-literacies approach for Portuguese
found that they have a transferable model
students. In a way, the study sought to deal
for education in order to implement a multiliteracies
, many
learning approach. In fact with frequently asked questions concerning
the design process for digital tools for
argue that the game approach is playful,
literacy-learning: What does literacyintegrated and has more sense of
st century? Why do
learning
21mean in the
belonging for children, and it can also bring
ITC
, especially
resources
games, get
innovation to learning experiences [Freitas,
children so interested and stuck? What do
2006;, 2007;
Gee , 2001].
Prensky
learners think about current literacy-learning
In, where
Portugal
this study is taking
tools? Would they like to redesign them?
place, policies aiming to address the new
What do they value? What should they be
literacy and technological requirements
like and what are the real challenges that
!104
must be considered, in order to design a
literacy-learning interface?
private primary school in Braga, north
Portugal, and took place during 2013 and
2015. In 2013, the children were 1st and 2nd
graders; and in 2015, the same participants
were 3rd and 4th graders (Fig. 1).
Methodology
The investigation was developed based
upon interactive and iterative design
models, i.e. as user-centred design
[Courage and Baxter, 2005], a creative
thinking spiral [Resnick, 2007], design
thinking [Riverdale & IDEO, 2011],
participatory design [Druin,, 2002; Foss,
Guha, Papadatos, Clegg, Yip & Walsh,
2012] and cooperative enquiry [Druin,
Figure 1: Kids project Timeline and Goals
2002; Foss et al., 2012; Guha, Druin &
Selection of the children was determined by
Fails, 2011]. In cooperative enquiry, children
their ability to express themselves and by
intervene in all iterative cycles of interface
parents’ availability to take them to the
design, and they are design partners in an
research lab, engagelab, in Guimarães
intergenerational research team along with
(where the first part of the study took
older researchers. All design processes are
place).
negotiated from the early stages to the final
ones. Ideas Elaboration is a major focus of
The workshop sessions combined
the research. It is iterative and continuously
cooperative enquiry with high engagement
worked on by all team members, who
strategies [Druin, 2002], group animations
contribute to the best of their abilities to
[Medeiros, 2013], technological immersion
development of the interface. The youngest
[Druin, 2002], wants, needs and
produce low-cost prototypes, the oldest
prototyping [Courage & Baxter, 2005],
high-tech ones, thereby bringing fairness to
game-based learning [Freitas, 2006], game
the process. The literature does not
design [Fullerton, 2010] and problemrecommend large teams of younger
solving [Jonassen, 2011].
participants, they should not exceed eight
elements. Debriefings are also important In
to 2013, during the concept phase, eight
perceive all the needs and new orientations
design partners participated in workshop
for new elaborations of the team [Druin
sessions, once a month for four months, in
2002; Foss et al, 2012; Guha et al, 2011;
after-school workshop sessions lasting 1h
Medeiros, 2013].
30m. The goals of Kids Project 1 were
Longitudinal data collection involved eight
assessing priority areas, the motivations
children, four boys and four girls, from a
and interests of co-designers, interface
!105
features and ideation of a low-cost
prototype.
documentation process (script, posters,
drawings, drafts). All ethical concerns
concerning co-design studies with children
were addressed; for more details visit the
website at: http://www.engagelab.org/
projects/kids
https://
kidsproject2.wordpress.com/
In 2015, the same group restarted its
activities at a two-week, morning summer
camp at their school, divided into four
design partners in each workshop. First,
data collection focused on comprehending
students’ literacy and digital practices in
and out of primary school through an initial
focus group. Secondly, based on children’s
insights into ideas elaboration in 2013, a
medium-fidelity
, and a
prototype was made
world in MinecraftEdu was used to
prototype the game. Children carried out its
development via game-designing activities
for the prototyped game in creative mode.
T h i s s o l u t i o n , w i t h i n o u r re s o u rc e
constraints, was allowed, except for audio
and voice-recording options. Thirdly, the
study’s final-assessment focus group was
held.
Results and discussion
The analysis of the set of data collected in
2013 and 2015 has led us to some
preliminary results: ideas elaboration (Fig.1)
(prototypes and activities to improve
literacy-learning); their literacy (and digital)
learning experiences (Fig.2).
1. Ideas elaboration:
In 2013, the children started from scratch.
They were able to innovate literacy-learning
as they intended and most wanted. By the
end of Kids Project 1 they had designed a
new form of literacy-learning through a
micro-world videogame to learn, act in and
play (a world, similar to real life, but instead
Research data, of a dominant qualitative
nature, were collected by direct observation
of interactions generated, note-taking by
researchers, video and audio recordings,
prototype generation and a debriefing
Figure
2. (Re) design and activities for the school in the middle-fidelity prototype
!106
Figure
3. (Re) design and activities for the library in the middle-fidelity prototype
of humans players were animals, where
questions. In children’s conceptions:
trivial things that include literacy tasks can
specialized language is often used, along
be done: go to school, visit a zoo, search
with learning and training in technical
for a book in a library, go to a concert hall).
language skills, mostly grammar. In a way,
It consists of a multimodal representation
their proposals do not diverge from the
framed in a multi-literacies learning
standard way they presently learn in school,
experience with several new text formats
except for the digital support. In contrast,
for learning in a situated, explicit, critical
some elements tend to be disruptive of
and transferable way. They also reflected on
school redesign, e.g. multimodal guidance
some other game features, but differences
(e.g. still images, audio feedback, usage of
space in a broader way and a less teacherbetween the genders started to be noticed
oriented way, a teacher being many times
early on.
not necessarily present).
In 2015, the children redesigned literacylearning activities for the same game with a
The second idea is a library (Fig. 3), and it
hands-on game-design experience. As this
too has continuity elements, such as texts
involved a higher set of skills, creativity and
presented in traditional formats and with
reflection
, this was clearly one of the
written representation code (this
hardest activities for the children to
implementation may have been biased by
implement.
MinecraftEdu’s own features). However, the
children mentioned several disruptive
Here are two examples, school (Fig. 2) and
elements: constant agency, play and
library
3).(Fig.
In ,the
the school
first idea
meaning-making features; players
itself is a game, and gamers are 6–7-yearincreasingly acting out complex roles; the
old children. In each classroom, there are
ability to know deeply (being able to consult
posters and information blocks, with three
bookshelf books on their new interests,
other authors, different themes, crafting);
difficulty levels, each corresponding to
multimodal guidance (Spatial – e.g. using
questions or forms. They had also created
mini-maps to find everybody’s location,
books with concepts, definitions and
location pins, to know who has been in a
activities to support players – much like
certain place; Audio – e.g. voice audio help,
their schoolbooks. Players can activate
and ability to record and play; Visual – e.g.
buttons to audio-read texts and ask
!107
using decorative elements to be able to
coherently distinguish different activity
areas; Realism and interaction — e.g. in
choosing materials, colours and textures,
and also to be able to create and
manipulate different objects).
and videogames in schools for literacy
learning: In 2013, the answer was “totally
yes”; in 2015, before the intervention plan
of hands-on game-design, it was “totally
no”; and after the intervention plan, “yes
with reservations”).
2.4.
We should not take for granted that
digital natives are always avid technology
consumers. Consider the following three
examples:
2. Their literacy (and digital) learning
experiences:
2.1. The literacy tools used in their school
are out of (digital) context and unrelated to
current literacy practices. They need to be
redesigned. the children’s feedback on the
current “traditional” learning system,
methodologies and tools is that it is
“repetitive” and “boring”, and so learning by
playing should occur more often.
2.4.1. T h e e m b o d i m e n t a n d
manipulation of traditional writing
objects, in the opinion of children,
continue to be valued. Consensually, the
group says handwriting is an exercise
for writing various genres of texts and
still widely used.
2.2. There is a huge contrast between
digital experiences in and out of school.
Children’s literacy learning experience is
mostly “traditional-like” and “exam-like”, not
making use of ICT at school (even with
available resources), in contrast with its
frequent use after school. In 2013, these
children were having full unguided access
to ICT at home (e.g. videogames, music
and video), but in 2015, their parents
limited their access to digital practices, only
to support school learning activities,
allowing videogames only at weekends
(because final exams in primary school
were coming soon).
2.3. The analysis revealed that children’s
opinions about ICT use for literacy learning
at school were variable and uncertain,
along with its frequency of use at primary
school (e.g. regarding the presence of ICT
2.4.2. Do not just simply include digital,
new learning materials should not be
too educative and look like school, or
common educational SW; they must be
lots of fun, as entertaining games, if not
they "are boring”.
2.4.3. Multimodality is important, but
not always. It is not a ubiquitous
condition. They considered that it is
important and facilitates learning,
particularly
,
in the first years. However
some experienced students/ readers
say that "sometimes book illustrations
affect the imagination (and their mental
representations)"
This is a limited and circumscribed study,
and every participant is conditioned by their
past, personal experience. It may not truly
portray, in its entirety, the Portuguese
educational reality, but it certainly gives
!108
some hints and important leads. Who
should pay attention: policy-makers,
researchers, schools, teachers, bookeditors and SW developers, parents and
children.
literacy-learning practices by making a
determined effort.
The highlight was a clear step backwards in
the design proposals of these children
In the current context of the redefinition of
educational policies and literacy practices,
which are a priori more participant-led and
critical than in the past, it is fundamental to
perceive children's perceptions and
participation in the design of a literacylearning interface. This participatory and
hands-on study “voiced” children about
their literacy experience and their
contribution to innovate in literacy learning
in primary schools. The children, within the
limits of their experience, skills and maturity,
were quite advanced in their
representations. The results are a
breakthrough in the current educational
context but also allow discussion of some
interface features, models, and activities in
order to implement an innovative approach
based on multimodal meanings and multiliteracy practices.
Final remarks
compared to what they proposed in 2013,
especially in terms of digital practices and
perceptions. The reason behind these
revelations is probably the negative impact
on changing educative policies, and also a
school, one
very devoted to final results
that does not favour learning with digital
tools nor promote design-meaning, creative
and critical thinking and other sets of skills
for the 21st century.
The research model is extensive and timeconsuming, it is also known as being
innovative, challenging and rich, which
benefits scientific knowledge, products and
children via the co-design experience
[Druin, 2002]. Kids Project allowed children
agency skills as design partners in the
design of literacy (and digital) innovative
practices, with new “ways” and “modes” of
learning [[Cope & Kalantzis, 2009; Druin,
2002; Freitas, 2006; Gee, 2007; Kress,
2010; 2011]. On a positive note,
Acknowledgements
We are grateful for the committed way
Colégio Teresiano de Braga, all the codesigners and their parents received this
project. This work was funded by National
Funds through FCT (Foundation for Science
and) and
Technology
co-financed by the
Fundo Europeu de Desenvolvimento
Regional (FEDER) through COMPETE 2020
with PhD reference SFRH/BD/84029/2012
Engaging Kids.
experiencing hands-on game design has
proven to be an effective focal point. It
turned out that the chosen methodological
process was one that allowed the inclusion
of children (and gender) in the design of
spaces. The tools and time provided
allowed them to engage in opportunities to
create, play, build, have hands-on
experiences, reflect, share and question
!109
the Future (pp.559–569). Orlando, USA:
Elsevier.
References
Cope, B. & Kalantzis, M. (2009).
Multiliteracies: New Literacies, New
Learning. Pedagogies, 4(3), 164–195.
Jonassen, D. (2011). Learning to solve
problems. A handbook for Designing
Problem Solving Learning Environments.
New York: Routledge.
C o u r a g e , C . & B a x t e r. K . ( 2 0 0 5 ) .
Understanding Your Users: A Practical
Guide to User Requirements Methods.
M e t h o d s , To o l s & Te c h i q u e s . S a n
Francisco, CA: Morgan Kaufmann
Publishers.
Kress, G. (2011). Multimodality: A Social
Semiotic Approach to Contemporary
Communication. Abingdon, Oxon: Taylor &
Francis.
Druin, A. (2002). The role of Children in the
Design of New Technology. Behaviour and
Information Technology, 21(1), 1–25.
Kress, G. (2010). Multimodality: a social
semiotic approach to contemporary
communication. Cornwall: Routledge.
Foss, E., Guha, M., Papadatos, P., Clegg,
T., Yip, J., & Walsh, G. (2012). Cooperative
Inquiry Design Techniques in a Classroom
of Children with Special Learning Needs.
Tech Report HCIL-2012-35. Maryland:
HCIL.
Medeiros, M.A., (2013). Animação e
Recursos Digitais: Potencialidades
Educativas do Flanelógrafo Digital. Master’s
thesis, University of Minho, Portugal. May,
2013.
Mills, K. (2010). A Review of the "Digital
Turn" in the New Literacy Studies. Review
of Educational Research, 80,(2), 246–271.
DOI: 10.3102/003465431036440.
Freitas, S. (2006). Learning in Immersive
Worlds: a review of game based learning.
Available at: http://www.jisc.ac.uk/media/
documents/programmes/
elearninginnovation/gamingreport_v3.pdf.
Ministry of Education. (2008). Technological
Plan for Education: The Portuguese
initiative for ICT in education. Lisbon:
Department of Basic Education.
F u l l e r t o n , T. ( 2 0 1 0 ) . G a m e d e s i g n
workshop: a playcentric approach to
creating innovative games. Burlington, MA:
Morgan Kaufmann Publishers.
Moss, P. (2006). From children’s services to
Children’s spaces. In: K.T.J. Davis (Ed.),
Children, Young People and Social
Inclusion: Participation for What? (pp.177–
197). Bristol: Policy Press.
Gee, J. (2007). What videogames have to
teach us about digital literacy. New York:
Palgrave.
Prensky, M. (2001). Digital Game-Based
Learning. Minnesota: McGraw-Hill.
Guha, M., Druin, A., & Fails, J. (2011).
Human-Computer Interaction. Users and
Applications. In: J.A. Jacko & S.B.
Heidelberg (Éds), How Children Can Design
Resnick, M. (2007). All I Really Need to
Know (About Creative Thinking) I Learned
!110
(By Studying How Children Learn) in
Kindergarten. In: Proceedings of the 6th
Creativity & Cognition Conference. New
York: ACM Press, pp.1–6.
Riverdale & IDEO. (2011). Design Thinking
for Educators. New York: IDEO.
Shaw, C., Brady, L.-M., & Davey, C. (2011).
Guidelines for Research with Children and
Young People. NCB Research Centre.
National Children’s Bureau.
The New London Group. (1996). A
pedagogy of multiliteracies: Designing
social futures. Harvard Educational Review,
66(1), 60–92.
!111
Paper 12
Beneficial Effects of Digital Early Literacy
Interventions in Kindergarten Children Born Late
Preterm
I. Merkelbach, R.D., Plak & A.G. Bus1
Leiden University, Netherlands
Abstract
Introduction
D i g i t a l i n t e r v e n t i o n s c a n b e m o re
stimulating for early literacy skills than
business as usual. The current study
targeted a vulnerable group, children born
late preterm. These children, prone to
experiencing increased levels of stress
,reactivity
benefit strongly from working with
‘Living Letters’, a digital intervention
program stimulating alphabetic knowledge
and phonemic awareness. The program is
probably so beneficial to these children
because it offers contingent verbal input,
sequential to and dependent on the child’s
behaviour. Such programs may have a
soothing effect on easily stressed children,
enabling them to utilize their full learning
potential. It is therefore important that such
programs become a solid part of the
kindergarten curriculum.
Computers may play new roles in assisting
and supporting good literacy teaching for
emerging readers and writers. But do they
do so in current practice? Since it is easier
to tailor the format and content of Webbased programs to individual differences
and needs than to ensure that classroom
instruction meets the needs of each and
every pupil, computer programs may be an
attractive tool for providing additional
home-like experiences with literacy in
kindergarten classrooms to advance the
early literacy skills of young children,
especially those at risk. While there is
increasing interest in using computer
programs in support of instruction in the
early stages of becoming literate, there is a
dearth of evidence regarding the efficiency
of such computer programs as tools to
provide young children with relevant
practice. The target program in our study,
Living Letters, aims at familiarizing children
with the alphabetic principle, i.e.
understanding that letters represent sounds
in spoken words and can be used to create
Keywords: Emergent literacy, late preterm,
digital interventions, kindergarten,
differential effects
1
i.merkelbach@fsw.leidenuniv.nl
letters, and identifying pictures that start
an infinite number of words. Understanding
the same sound as their first name.
the alphabetic
,
principle is not a naturalwithskill
as is clearly demonstrated by the reaction
The program offers responsive replies to
of a three-year-old boy
to a picture
each reaction of the child. The reaction of
storybook entitled “O van Opa [G of
the computer is not only prompt and
granddad]”. A recurring theme in this
dependent on the child’s focus of attention,
booklet is the first letter /o/ of opa. For
it also has a positive, supportive tone and
instance, the main character in the booklet
adds constructive, instructive information.
notices that when granddad smokes his
For instance, a first error in an assignment
cigar he produces circles like his first letter:
is followed by a repetition of the question, a
the letter O. After having heard the
second error by a hint and a third by a
storybook several times, the three-year-old
demonstration of the correct solution.
boy wondered what the letter of his opa
Figure
1 flowcharts the questions and
[granddad] would be now that ‘O’ had been
replies in solving the assignments in this
taken by the granddad of the boy in the
educational computer program.
booklet.
In this manuscript we present experiences
with Living Letters. The program was
created for children delayed in acquiring
alphabetic and phonetic skills. Do children
benefit from this program and improve their
basic literacy skills when they have a
chance to play with this program in the
classroom? Or does the program provide
stimulation similar to that already offered in
the classroom, thereby not adding anything
to an abundance of daily experiences with
letters and words.
Theoretical framework
From a previous experiment in which
delayed five-year-olds played with the
program
, it appearedLiving
that not Letters
all children benefit from the program. The
research so far reveals results in line with
the idea that only a minority of
kindergartners benefit from the program
(Van der Kooy-Hofland, Van der Kooy, Bus,
Van IJzendoorn
2012).
& Bonsel,
Exploring the effects of Living Letters we
found evidence supporting the theory that
groups at risk benefited most from the
program
, Wolke,(e.g.
Soehne,Gutbord
Ohrt & 1999;Van
Riegel,
, Vermaas, Baar
Living Letters is a digital program for threeto five-year-old children, designed to
promote phonological awareness and letter
knowledge. The program consists of a
range of short games in which children
learn to recognize the shape and sound of
the first letter of their name. They practise
recognizing their own name between a
series of scribbles, recognizing the first
letter of their own name between other
Knots, De Kleine2009).
& Soons,
In
particular children with mild perinatal
, i.e children who are small for
adversities
their gestational age at birth or children
th and
born late 34
preterm (between the
38th weeks of pregnancy) were found to
!113
Figure
1: Feedback circle for Living Letters
benefit
, while their
from
peersLiving Letters
neuroendocrine system – resulting in
without these adversities did not benefit
lifelong vulnerability to stress (Buskefrom working with the program (Van der
, Krieger, Wilkes, Rauh, Weiss
Kirschbaum
&
Kooy-Hofland
2012).
et al.,We designed
Hellhammer,
2009;
, 2002).
Matthews
The
new experiments to test this finding in other
HPA axis is central in coping with stress
samples
, and to come to understand why (Aisa
, Tordera, Lasheras, Del Río& Ramírez,
especially, children with perinatal adversities
2006), since it controls the secretion of
benefited.
cortisol – the most important human-stress
hormone (Kolb &
2009).
Whishaw,
We argued that, in particular children in
Dysfunctionality along the HPA axis can
need of sensitive, contingent verbal input,
result
, and thusin increased stress reactivity
i.e. responses that are sequential to, and
in increased levels of stress in daily life
dependent on, children’s behaviour, may
situations. These elevated stress levels can
benefit from Living Letters. From the
cause children to cut themselves off from
literature comes evidence that late preterm
learning experiences (Gotlib, Joormann,
children may have such needs. These
Minor, &2008).
Hallmayer,,Consequently
children typically show increased levels of
these children may not optimally benefit
stress reactivity. In those cases intra-uterine
from their regular learning environment and
changes (e.g. fewer nutrients, high levels of
may therefore be at increased risk of falling
) can
cortisol
, via early programming, induce
behind when compared to their full-terma hyper-reactive HPA (hypothalamic
born peers.
pituitary
) axisadrenal
– a major part of the
!114
Figure 2: An exemplary assignment in the CLT for Kindergarten Pupils. Question: ‘In which
picture do you see picking up? Underline picking up.’ (Cito, 1996)
A learning environment like Living Letters
might be helpful for these stress-reactive
pupils. Living Letters offers sensitive,
contingent verbal input sequential to, and
dependent on, the child’s behaviour. These
features might have a reassuring and
soothing effect on children who experience
high levels of stress, enabling them to open
up to the learning environment and utilize
their full potential.
the child, the teachers automatically started
the intervention, or the control program, for
the participating child. The post-test was a
digital literacy test designed by the
researchers. This test was administered
individually by the teacher. Reliable perinatal
i n f o r m a t i o n w a s c o l l e c t e d f ro m a
nationwide register(Stichting Perinatale
Registratie Nederland, 2011).
Participants
Methodology
The
, forfinal
which complete
sample
data
on predictive variables and on the post-test
directly after completing the intervention
were available, consisted of 423 children
with a mean
7 age
months.
of 6 The final
sample included data from 144 different
schools. A small majority of participants
were male (54.9%).
Design
Our study took place in a large number of
Dutch kindergarten classrooms, spread
across the entire country. Participating
schools showed particular interest in
utilizing digital material to support pupils
with early literacy delays. Thanks to the
computerized treatment, it was possible to
randomly assign children from the same
c l a s s ro o m s t o d i ff e re n t t re a t m e n t
conditions, since the actions the teachers
had to take were the same for children in
both conditions: by clicking on the name of
Procedure From August to February
schools were recruited by sending out
flyers and letters containing information
about the content and purpose of the study
via both email and the post (http://
www.watwerktvoorwie.nl). We offered
!115
participating schools three months of free
Target program
access to educational computer programs,
In the target program, Living Letters,
this normally requires a paid subscription
designed to promote alphabetic knowledge
(http://www.bereslim.nl). When teachers
and phonemic awareness in young
agreed to participate they were asked to
children, an online tutor provided the
select pupils from their classroom achieving
children with adaptive feedback, as is
poorly in literacy. Those eligible were, for
common practice in Intelligent Tutoring
instance, pupils who were not yet able to
Systems (ITSs). In the first 22 games of
write their name properly, to rhyme, to
L i v i n g L e t t e r, s c h i l d r e n p r a c t i s e d
name a few letters or to identify sounds in
recognizing their own written name (or
words. Preferably, these children scored in
‘mamma’ when their own name was not
the lowest ranges (below the 40 th
available in the program) between other
percentile) on the standardized literacy test
symbol strings or scribbles, or they had to
CLT administered in January (Lansink &
recognize the first letter of their own name
Hemker, 2010). If there were not enough
between other letters. The next six games
eligible children scoring below the 40th
focused on the sound of the first letter of
percentile, teachers also included other
the child’s name. In the last twelve games,
children who they believed were in need of
children had to select pictures of words
additional guidance in the field of early
starting or ending with the first letter of thei
literacy. Parents were asked to provide
own name. The digital tutor, a teddy bear,
informed written consent.
provided responses sequential to, and
We focused on the contrast between Living
dependent on, the child’s behaviour. The
Letters and a digital control condition that
bear not only provided feedback as to the
did not stimulate alphabetic knowledge or
accuracy of the answers but also offered
phonemic awareness. Per classroom,
hints and explanations, which were
slightly less than two children participated
intended to focus the student on target
in this study (Mean = 1.65 children per
problems and aid them in solving them.
classroom, SD = .89). Children were
Control children worked with a storybook
randomly assigned to conditions by one of
reading program for the same period of
the researchers. The sessions took place
time. This program included eight digital,
once a week over the course of 15 weeks.
animated, age-appropriate stories based
Except for logging in, which had to be done
on popular children’s books. Books were
by the teacher, children worked on their
read to the children by a computerized
own, without adult assistance. During
voice while children watched animations
playtime, children wore headphones in
and listened to background sounds and
order to prevent disturbing other children.
music. Text was not presented as print on
Children worked with a mouse and did not
screen, only orally.
have to use a keyboard.
!116
Pre- and post-test
Figure 3: Example of items used in the Word
Picture Task in the post-test measuring early
literacy
As a pretest, the Cito Literacy Test (CLT) for
Kindergarten Pupils in January/ February
was used. The CLT is a group-administered
test applied in January/ February and May/
June of each school year that tracks
children’s progress in different learning
domains. The literacy test administered in
kindergarten consisted of 60 paper-pencil,
multiple-choice questions measuring a
range of language and literacy skills, e.g.
,vocabulary
rhyming, hearing the first or last
word in a sentence, sound-blending, writing
conventions and listening comprehension
(Lansink & Hemker, 2010). See Figure 2 for
an example of an item. The pretest was
coded as either below average (0, score of
59 or below) or average and above (1,
score of 59 and beyond).
Perinatal data
The coverage of the PRN is about 96 per
cent of all deliveries in the Netherlands. The
data are annually sent to the national
registry office, where a number of range
and consistency checks are conducted.
The perinatal register can be accessed by
researchers, provided that they have written
permission from the mother.
After children finished working with the
program, teachers administered three tests
individually: a Phonemic Awareness Task
which included five items in which children
had to identify the first sound of five
different words (e.g. ‘What sound do you
hear at the beginning of ‘bike’?’), a Letter
Results
We carried out a multilevel analysis,
regressing alphabetic knowledge and
phonemic awareness on gender, age,
educational level of the father (assessed on
a 7-point scale), condition (Living Letters vs
control condition), small for gestational age,
being born late preterm and the two twoway interactions between conditions and
mild perinatal adversities. There were no
main effects for condition (t(368.42)=-1.05
p=.294), being small for gestational age
(t(404.176)= -.59, p=.556) or being born
late preterm (t(406.48)= -1.35, p=.156). An
Knowledge Task in which children identified
letters (e.g. ‘What is the name of the letter
you see here?) and a Word Picture Task in
which children were asked to match the
correct printed word with a picture (e.g.
‘Where do you see the word that spells
‘roof’?’ – Fig 3). Scores were, with the use
of principal component analysis (PCA),
combined into an aggregate measure of
alphabetic knowledge and phonemic
awareness, explaining 67.33% of the
variance.
!117
the program. The efficacy of Living Letters
for children born late preterm might be
explained by the theory that these children,
who are prone to experiencing higher levels
of stress reactivity, are soothed by the
central features of the program, thus
allowing them to benefit optimally from their
learning environment.
interaction between being born late preterm
and condition was, however, found
(t(398.40)= 1.98, p=.048). This interaction is
depicted in Figure 4.
Children born late preterm fell behind when
assigned to the control program, but
outperformed their peers born full term
when assigned to the target program Living
Letters. This program with sensitive
Children who experience high levels of
contingent verbal input thus seems to be
tension or stress in daily life situations, such
highly effective for children born late
as in
, canthebenefitclassroom
from
preterm, while the group as a whole and
programs that offer sensitive, contingent
children born full term did not benefit. verbal
The input sequential to, and dependent
interaction between small for gestational
on, the child’s behaviour. These programs,
age and condition was not significant
which probably have a soothing effect on
(t(407.19) =.36, p = .720).
stressed children, can help them to develop
their full potential. Such programs may be
The results corroborate the theory that
an important contribution to kindergarten
Living Letters is especially effective for
since they give a unique stand-alone boost
children born late preterm, while these
to the literacy performance of a subgroup
children fall behind when assigned to a
of children who have problems with
control program. Their full-term born peers
benefiting from the common curriculum.
did not benefit from Living Letters and did
Digital programs should not therefore be
not outperform children who did not receive
Figure 4:) benefited
Late preterm children
from
(darkLiving
bars
Letters but lagged behind with the
control program. The non-preterm group did not benefit more from Living Letters than from the
control program.
!118
regarded as a nice ‘bonus’, but should
rather become a solid part of the
kindergarten curriculum.
Lansink, N. & Hemker, B. (2010).
Wetenschappelijke verantwoording van de
toetsen Taal voor kleuters voor groep 1 en
2 uit het Cito volgsysteem primair
onderwijs. Arnhem: Cito.
References
Matthews, S. (2002). Early programming of
the hypothalamo-pituitary-adrenal axis.
Trends in Endocrinology & Metabolism,
373–380.
Aisa, B., Tordera, R., Lasheras, B., Del Río,
J., & Ramírez, M. (2006). Cognitive
impairment associated to HPA-axis
hyperactivity after maternal seperation in
rats. Psychoneuroendocrinology, 256–266.
Stichting Perinatale Registratie Nederland.
(2011). Grote lijnen 10 jaar perinatale
registratie Nederland. Utrecht: Stichting
Perinatale Registratie Nederland.
Buske-Kirschbaum, A., Krieger, S., Wilkes,
C., Rauh, W., Weiss, S., & Hellhammer, D.
(2009). Hypothalamic-pituitary-adrenal axis
function and the cellular immune response
in former preterm children. The Journal of
Clinical Endocrinology & Metabolism,
3429–3435.
Van Baar, A., Vermaas, J., Knots, E., De
Kleine, M., & Soons, P. (2009). Functioning
at school age of moderately preterm
children born at 32 and 36 weeks’
gestational age. Pediatrics, 251–257.
Cito. (1996). Taal voor kleuters – groep 1 en
2 . Arnhem: Cito.
Van
, V.,der
Van deKooy-Hofland
Kooy, J.,
Bus, A., Van IJzendoorn, M., & Bonsel, G.
(2012). Differential susceptibility to early
literacy intervention in children with mild
perinatal adversities: Short- and long-term
effects of a randomized controlled trial.
Journal of Educational Psychology, 337–
349.
Gotlib, I., Joormann, J., Minor, K., &
Hallmayer, J. (2008). HPA axis reactivity: A
mechanism underlying the associations
among 5-HTTLPR, stress, and depression.
Biological Psychiatry, 847–851.
Gutbord, T., Wolke, D., Soehne, B., Ohrt,
B., & Riegel, K. (1999). Effects of gestation
and birth weight on the growth and
development of very low birthweight small
for gestational age infants: a matched
group comparison. Archives of Disease in
Childhood – Fetal Neonatal Edition, 208–
214.
K o l b , B . & W h i s h a w, I . ( 2 0 0 9 ) .
Fundamentals of human neuropsychology.
New York: Worth Publishers.
!119
Paper 13
Unicorn in Rainbow Park: A glance at young
children’s game design ideas
Pekka Mertala1
University of Oulu, Finland
Abstract
In this study, 5-to7-year-old Finnish children
were asked to show, by drawing a design,
what would be “the best game in the world”
for them. Data were analyzed through a
framework of game design elements.
Children were found to be keen to modify
existing games by adding new things to
them. Often these additions had their roots
in other meaningful media texts. Thus,
children’s game ideas became collage-like
representations of their lifeworld, which
highlights the importance of the aesthetic
element of game design (i.e. the emotional
aspects of a gaming experience).
Keywords: Digital games, game literacy,
game design, preschool, drawing
Introduction
Due the fast-paced digitization of (Western)
societies, the question of how to integrate
digital media into early childhood education
(ECE) has become a topical subject in
academic and practical discussions. Based
1pekka.mertala@gmail.com
on previous research (e.g. Blackwell,
Lauricella & Wartella, 2016; Falloon, 2013;
Kjällander & Moinian, 2014; Vangsnes,
Økland & Krumsvik, 2012), playing
educational games to support different
curriculum areas, i.e. literacy and
mathematics, appears to be the most
common scenario. Nonetheless, their
successful integration is a tricky business.
Kjällander and Moinian (2014) observed
that when children do not find a game
design interesting enough, they may rapidly
discard the didactic designs of the gamemaker and teacher and transform the game
into a more playful and exploratory form of
action. In a study by Falloon (2013), only
four out of 18 children were able to largely
ignore potentially distracting content (such
as responsive animations) and keep their
focus on learning goals. It also seems that
teacher mediation is not always enough to
overcome these obstacles. In their study,
Vangsnes et al. (2012) found that when a
teacher tries to start a dialogue by asking
questions in order to make children go
more thoroughly into a matter, the children
are concentrating too much on gameplay to
pay attention to a teacher’s meta-didactic
intentions. The authors’ conclusion was
that children and teacher in a gaming
situation have different agendas: the playing
child has a perspective of playing the
game, while the teacher has an educational
perspective.
Theoretical framework
According to Buckingham and Burn (2007),
learning about games can be understood
as a development of functional and critical
game literacy. Functional literacy includes
basic hardware skills (i.e. the ability to load
and save a game) and software skills (i.e.
the ability to navigate around a game
space). Critical literacy, in turn, refers to the
ability to
, reflect critically on games
gameplay and game culture. One potential
framework for (critical) game literacy
education is to analyze their design
elements which, based on Zichermann and
To sum up, in my interpretation, these
examples reveal a mismatch between how
children experience games and how games
are integrated into ECE. The teachers in the
aforementioned studies understood games
as a medium to teach children something.
However, for the children, the gameplay
was meaningful for its own sake and
according to their own rules; thus, they
Cunningham’s (2011) description, consist of
were not committed to the didactic designs
mechanics, dynamics and aesthetics.
of teachers or games. This disparity
Mechanics is the functioning components
becomes more evident when attention is
of a game and these are controlled by the
paid to the games children play at home:
designer. The primary elements of
most games played by Finnish 0- to 8-yearmechanics are points, levels, leader boards,
old children in 2013 were Angry Birds and
badges, challenges/ quests, on-boarding
the games at LEGO.com (Suoninen, 2014).
and engagement loops. Dynamics is the
None of these games (there are dozens of
interaction between player and
games on Lego.com) are ‘just a game’, as
mechanisms, and aesthetics is the quality
they also exist as cartoons and movies.
of the experiences and feelings the
Besides playing games, children often talk
i n t e r a c t i o n c re a t e s ( 2 0 1 1 , 3 5 – 7 6 ) .
about games and engage in game-related
Buckingham and Burn (2007) emphasize
role plays (Aarsand, 2010). From this
the importance of also exploring games
perspective, the idea of using games
and gaming as a social phenomenon.
merely to deliver information is an
According to Aarsand (2010), digital games
insufficient starting point for pedagogical
that are good and cool have become
planning, and Buckingham and Burn (2007)
objects of negotiation and, on the basis of
have argued that teaching children about
their knowledge, children are sorted into
different categories by their peers.
games as a cultural form is a necessary
prerequisite for using games in order to
teach other curriculum areas.
Mertala and Salomaa (2016) have
suggested that these aspects could be
addressed in ECE by asking children why
they like certain games and when playing
!121
games is fun and when it is not via visual
mediums, i.e. drawing and crafting. In this
way, early childhood teachers can help
children begin to recognize the connection
between game structure (mechanics and
dynamics) and its effect on children’s
emotions during and after gameplay
(aesthetics). Grounding in the principles of
contemporary childhood studies, visual
methods, such as drawing, are understood
to be both a form of narration and a
supportive medium for spoken narration
(Einarsdottir, Dockett & Perry, 2009).
game in the world” (see Mertala & Salomaa,
2016). During and after drawing, the
children were asked about the games they
had designed (what the rules are, what
needs to be done to play it, why it is a good
game etc.). Questions about the games
they play at home, and if they engage in
role-plays with game-related themes, were
asked in order to gather information about
what types of gaming and game-related
activities children find important and
meaningful. Also, to get more information
about the social nature of games, the
children were asked if they could think of
some other children who would like playing
Methodology
such games. These informal interviews
were done by either the teacher or me.
Children’s narration and the spontaneous
comments they made while drawing were
written down on observation sheets
containing interview themes (see
Einarsdottir et al., 2009). The data consist
of 27 drawings (one of the girls made two)
and 26 interview sheets. Two (research)
questions were asked regarding the data:
Data for this study were collected from “The
Best Game in the World” project carried out
in collaboration with one preschool class
consisting of 26 5- to 7-year-old children
(17 boys, nine girls) in spring 2016.
Teachers of the class had noticed that
digital games were a frequent theme in
what the children play, discuss and draw
(see Aarsand, 2010) and had begun to
think how they could take games (as a
cultural form) into account within their
teaching. I, as an “honorary preschooler” (I
have regular collaborated with the teachers
since 2013 and was familiar with the
children as well), was invited to take part in
the planning and implementation of the
project.
1 . H o w a re g a m e d e s i g n e l e m e n t s
represented in the children’s game-design
ideas?
2. Why are these elements meaningful for
the children?
The analysis process consists of two
stages: first, theory-driven analysis was
used to examine how different design
elements – mechanics, dynamics and
aesthetics (Zichermann & Cunningham,
2011) – were represented in the pictures
and narratives. Second, applying a more
data-driven approach, the author tried to
As a, wefirst
thoughtstep
it would be
important to find out what things children
find meaningful in games. To get this
information, the children were asked, via
drawing to design, what would be “the best
!122
power stones. The girl is called
Alexandra. She runs with a cat and a
dog. The cat is called Miisa and the dog
Mikko. The cat has the same name as
my cat, because it looks a bit like her. If
they find a rainbow, they can use it as a
slide if they want. The unicorn is a fast
runner, and if they want, they can ride
with it. When they have reached the
goal, they get ice cream cones. After
they have eaten it, they fall asleep.”
understand the origins of and motives for
the children’s game-design ideas. Extracts
from the data are presented in the “Results”
section to improve the reliability and clarity
of the research.
Results
In order to represent the complexity of the
narratives and ideas of individual children,
the results section concentrates on the
data produced by one of the girls, 6-yearold Alina2 . She is what Patton (2002)
describes as an informant-rich case: she
was not only talkative, but her narration
(both drawn and spoken) was rich in detail
and included many of the themes and
phenomena expressed by the other
children too.
In these words, Alina described her “best
game in the world”, also in a drawing (Fig.
1). During the discussion, it became
apparent that, while Alina plays digital
games at home (i.e. Singstar with her
father), Alina’s game idea was inspired by a
children’s TV show, ‘The Game Challenge’,
aired by the Finnish national broadcasting
company, YLE. In Game Challenge, primary
school-aged children design and
programme games in small groups. During
the discussion, Alina said that:
“This is called the Rainbow Park. One
must find ice cream cones to keep
moving. When they eat the cone, they
can run really fast. They are like a kind of
”I have watched the Game Challenge
Figure 1. Alina’s drawing and a screenshot from Game Challenge.
Alina is a pseudonym used to protect the identity of the participant. The name of the character, Alexandra, is also changed to
correspond to the phonetics of real names. The cat’s name has also been changed.
2
!123
many times. The one in which they
game. This is a bit funnier.”
collect the rainbow stones is a nice
look for ice cream cones, which also helped
Nonetheless, the similarities between the
her to move faster. Alina referred to them as
game ideas of Alina and Team Creepers
‘kind of power stones’. Power-ups, which
were not straight reproductions but rather
give players extra strength and power, are
selected influences. Alina expressed being
common elements in several games, e.g. in
aware of this, as she found her own game
Super Mario game players can make Mario
idea to be “bit funnier” than the (at the time
unfinished) game by Team Creepers. Alina bigger and get extra lives by collecting
magical mushrooms. Analysis of the
gave the
,
girl character a name (Alexandra)
dynamics represented in Alina’s game idea
which had some resemblance to her own
revealed them to be quite open; while the
name. She also drew the girl as having
ice cream cones were needed to stay in
blond hair, like hers. She also gave the cat
motion, nothing in Alina’s narration implies
the same name as her own cat, and she
that riding the unicorn or sliding down the
gave a name to the dog, too. The quest in
rainbow would require, for example, that
Alina’s game was to collect ice cream
the player collect a certain amount of ice
instead of rainbows. A rainbow was
cream. In other words, in Alina’s game idea,
included in the game as an artefact that
all the appealing elements were not only
Alexandra and her cat and dog could use
responsive but also easily accessible.
as a slide. The most significant difference,
Further, the mechanics Alina designed in
however, is the unicorn. It was not present
Rainbow Park give the player a high degree
in Team Creepers’ game, but in Alina’s
of freedom. One could argue that, rather
drawing it is the largest figure. The reason
than an intentional choice, the openness of
for this became clear when Alina said:
the dynamics is due to
lack of competence
“Unicorns are just my favourite things in
in designing mechanics. I find this argument
the world! Sometimes, we play them
overly simplistic for two reasons: First, it is
with Iina [sister] [for] so long that Iina
not that Alina’s game idea had no
says, ‘This is boring.’ We have one
mechanics, as there were, among others,
unicorn, which has diamonds on it, and
rules (the need to collect cones to stay in
when it is pressed, its horn starts to
) and rewards (the ability to move
motion
glow.”
faster after
, I
eating a cone). Second
Alina’s interest in and affection for unicorns
understand Alina’s comment ‘This is a bit
seems to have
) cultural
(at least partially
funnier’ as referring to intentional
media
, as the origins
toy unicorn she told
modification.
me about is probably a unicorn called
Rarity from My Little Pony.
Nonetheless, the importance of open
dynamics in Rainbow Park is best
explained when its meaning explored
through the lens of aesthetics. The
Examples of mechanics in Alina’s game
were characters, challenges and rewards.
In order to keep moving, Alexandra had to
!124
similarities between Alina’s and Alexandra’s
culture (i.e. game-related role plays). For
names and hair colour imply that she
example one of the boys had been sick on
identifies
,
herself with the character (Mertala
the first three data-collection days. When I
Karikoski,2016)
Tähtinen ,and
& Sarenius,
researcher
, the
arrived on the fourth day
as discussed earlier, Alina enjoys unicorns,
first thing the boy did was to make sure
which are a common theme in her plays. As
that that day it would be his turn. This study
one of the most important aspects of
focused on the data produced by a 6-yeargames for children is the imaginary worlds
old girl called Alina. Her game idea was a
fascinating and complex tapestry of old and
that allow children to do things that are not
new, everyday life and fantasy, experiences
convincing in their everyday lives (Ermi &
and dreams. Also, the convergent nature of
M ä y r ä2, 0 0 7 ) , f r o m a n a e s t h e t i c
contemporary media culture, as discussed
perspective, the key element in Alina’s
in the introduction, was apparent in Alina’s
game idea is that it allows her to do things
game design: the idea was influenced by
she would otherwise not be able to do:
another game, yet Alina had not played that
riding a unicorn is not possible when
game, she had only seen it (and its design
playing with a small plastic figure, but the
)process
on television. And the appearance
game is built around her (i.e. her physical
of the
, in part,
unicorn
cultural had at least
) and her favourite things; and
appearance
media roots, as Alina noted that she likes to
the dynamics are designed in a way that
causes, byno frustration. In other words play with a My Little Pony unicorn. It is
evident that the complexity of games as a
understanding the engaging nature of
cultural form cannot be covered by the
digital games
2012),
(Vangsnestheet al.,
prevailing practice of using educational
aesthetic experience reflected in the game
games as boosters for children’s learning in
idea can be understood as pleasurable.
other curriculum areas (e.g. Blackwell et al.,
Alina also named her sister and three
2016;, Falloon
2013; Kjällander
,
& Moinian
friends (one
) aswas the
from preschool
2014).
ones who
, whichwould like such a game
implies that Alina would not be the only
one.
From the perspective of game-design
elements
, (Zichermann & Cunningham
2011), Alina’s case suggests that, in terms
of research and pedagogy, more could be
done to consider the relationship between
young children and the aesthetic dimension
of games, gameplay and game culture.
Even though Alina played commercial
digital games, she was most impressed by
an unfinished game made by children not
much older than herself. This notion raises
several questions for future studies to
Conclusion
While not generalizable, this small-scale
study suggests that when young children
are given a supportive and good-spirited
forum to discuss digital games, they have a
lot to say. All the participating children were
willing to draw and design games as well as
talk about )themgame
and (their own
!125
Jenson (Eds), Worlds in play: International
consider, including: what does it mean for
perspectives on digital games research. NY:
children to observe how games are made,
Peter Lang Publishing Inc., 37–53.
and what is added by the fact that the
game designers observed are children?
Falloon, G. (2013). What's going on behind
the screens? Journal of Computer Assisted
Nonetheless, if children’s (own) culture and
Learning, 30(4), 318–336.
meaning-making with games (Aarsand,
2010) are taken as the viewpoint, the most
Kjällander, S. & Moinian, F. (2014). Digital
tablets and applications in preschool –
interesting question (in my opinion) is if
Preschoolers’ creative transformation of
there are children who would find Alina’s
didactic design. Designs for learning, 7(1),
game as appealing as Alina found the one
10–33.
by Team Creepers. Alina herself thought so,
Mertala, P., Karikoski, H., Tähtinen, L., &
and she named four other children that she
Sarenius, V.-M. The Value of Toys: 6–8believes would like to play such a game. As
year-old children’s toy preferences and
a father of a 4-year-old girl, who is really
functional analysis of popular toys.
into unicorns (and definitely not againstInternational
ice
Journal of Play, 5(1), 11–27.
cream and rainbows, either), I could add
one more to the list.
Mertala, P. & Salomaa, S. (2016).
Kasvatuskeskeinen näkökulma
varhaisvuosien mediakasvatukseen. In: L.
Pekkala, S. Salomaa & S. Spišák (Eds),
Monimuotoinen mediakasvatus. Kansallisen
audiovisuaalisen instituutin julkaisuja
1/2016, 154–155.
Reference
Aarsand, P. (2010). Young Boys Playing
Digital Games. Nordic Journal of Digital
Literacy, 5(1), 38–54
Patton, M.Q. (2002). Qualitative Research &
Evaluation Methods (3rd ed.). Beverly Hills,
CA: Sage.
Blackwell, C. K., Lauricella, A. R., &
,Wartella
E. 2
( 016). The influence of TPACK
contextual factors on early childhood
educators’ tablet computer use.
Computers & Education, 98, 57–69
Suoninen, A. (2014). Mediabarometri 2014.
0-8-vuotiaiden mediankäyttö ja sen
muutokset vuodesta 2010.
Nuorisotutkimusverkosto /
nuorisotutkimusseura julkaisuja 149.
Helsinki: Unigrafia.
Buckingham, D. & Burn, A. (2007). Game
literacy in theory and practice. Journal of
Educational Multimedia and Hypermedia,
16(3), 323.
Vangsnes, V., Økland, N.T.G., & Krumsvik,
R. (2012). Computer games in pre-school
settings: Didactical challenges when
commercial educational computer games
are imp lem ented in kind er gar te n s.
Computers & Education, 58(4), 1138–1148.
Einarsdottir, J., Dockett, S., & Perry, B.
(2009). Making meaning: Children’s
perspectives expressed through drawings.
Early child development and care, 179(2),
217–232.
Zichermann, G. & Cunningham, C. (2011).
Gamification by design: Implementing game
mechanics in web and mobile apps.
O'Reilly Media, Inc.
Ermi, L. & Mäyrä, F. (2007). Fundamental
components of the gameplay experience:
Analysing immersion. In: S. De Castell & J.
!126
Paper 14
Collaborative learning through
film production on iPad: Touch creates conflicts
Thilde Emilie Møller1
Department of Media, Cognition and Communication, University of Copenhagen,
Denmark
today media literacy is seen as a crosscutting issue in Danish schools
This paper considers how new media
( w w w. e)m.u . dWk h e n i t c o n c e r n s
technology and its affordances challenge
multimodality, it plays a central role in the
young children’s collaborative learning
curriculum in Danish state schools and film
through film production in school. By
production has its own section located
conducting a multimodal interactional
under, multimodality (www.emu.dk). Today
analysis of children’s interaction when
it is possible to film, edit and export material
making
, this paper
film sheds light on
within the same device when producing
children’s acting and meaning-making
audio-visual material, which means we do
together in a multimodal composing
not need a separate camera, cable and
practice. I will highlight this with one
computer. What does this technological
illustrative example from one group’s filming
d e v e l o p m e n t m e a n f o r c h i l d r e n ’s
to show how the communicative mode of
collaborative learning when working on film
touch is essential for collaboration in the
production in schools? Research into this
group and for their final film, and how the
can contribute to our understanding of the
mode of touch can create conflict in a
affordances of touch-pad technologies in a
group.
collaborative multimodal composing
practice in schools and to our
understanding of children’s film literacy,
Keywords: Collaboration, film production,
including their digital literacy. This paper
affordances, embodied interaction, touch.
only presents findings that contribute to the
first notion.
Abstract
Introduction
Unlike other mobile devices, iPads have
been widely admitted into educational
settings in Denmark (Meyer, 2015) and
1mlk
185@hum.ku.dk
Theoretical framework
My theoretical framework is a multimodal
Simpson, Maureen and Rowsell (2013: 123)
one and positions itself among research
examined the integration of tablet
studies that combine new literacy studies
technologies such as iPad into literacy
and multimodality. I am inspired by other
lessons to see how reading and meaningstudies that draw on this theoretical
making occur within this digital medium in
framework. To mention a few, these are
primary and secondary school classrooms.
studies investigating children’s literacy
Their findings show that the affordances of
practices and text-making (Moss, 2003;
touch technologies allow for multimodal,
Kenner, 2004; Gilje, 2010; Gilje, 2009;
multidirectional reading paths (Simpson,
Frølunde, 2009). The bringing together of
Maureen and Rowsell, 2013: 123). They
multimodality and new literacy studies was
suggest that the current awareness of the
mode of gesture needs to be expanded.
first achieved through a number of edited
collections, whereby researchers explored
intersection in their work (Street et al.,
2009). Jewitt and Kress place literacy within
In my study I draw on Norris’s approach to
multimodality, which operates with the
concepts of communicative mode,
the wider field of multimodality (Jewitt and
mediated action, higher-level action, lowerKress, 2003). Kress argues in his book,
level action, frozen action and modal
Literacy in the new media age (2003), that it
density (Norris, 2014). In contrast to Kress
is no longer possible to think about literacy
and Van Leuwen (2001), for example,
in isolation from a vast array of social,
Norris does not distinguish between mode
technological and economic factors. Kress
(gesture for example) and media (hand for
further elaborates on what literacy means
example), but uses communicative mode
today. He sees a broad move from the
as a term that encompasses both aspects
dominance of writing and the medium of
(Norris, 2014:88). Norris is interested in
the book to a new dominance of the image
investigating social interaction and she calls
and the medium of the screen (Kress,
her unit of analysis mediated action (Norris,
2003). In new literacy studies, new media
20014: 88). “When using the mediated
play an important role because they make it
action as our unit of analysis, the action can
easy to apply a multiplicity of modes, such
neither be analysed without analysing the
as images (still or moving), music and
social actor(s) who is(are) performing the
sound effects. What Kress stresses is that
action, nor can it be analysed without the
no single linguistic theory can provide a full
meditational means that the social actor(s)
account of what literacy actually is (Kress,
draw(s) on when performing the
2003). To do this we need to adopt a
action” (Norris, 2014: 89). Norris uses the
multimodal approach to understand texts
terms higher-level action, lower-level action
and communication. Also, studies on touch
and frozen action to structure her mediated
technologies and literacy with young
actions (unit of analysis). A higher-level
children are beginning to be conducted
action has a beginning and an ending. She
even though this is still in its infancy.
uses the example of a family dinner as a
!128
higher-level action (Norris, 2014: 89). In this
higher-level action are embedded other
higher-level actions, e.g. a starter, a main
course and a dessert. But a conversation
during dinner is also a higher-level action.
These higher-level actions are constructed
via many chains of lower-level actions, such
as spoken language, gestures and posture.
But as Norris writes “meaning is not only
constructed through actions, but also
through objects in the world” (Norris, 2014:
90). These are represented by buildings,
furniture and paintings, for example, and
are described as frozen actions, since
objects also entail actions (Norris, 2014:
This study is placed within visual
ethnography where video is used as an
ethnographic method. I did video
observation of five 4th grade classes (10–
11 years old) working with film production
for a period of three weeks in each class. In
all I have
, field notes
66 hours of video data
and informal interviews with pupils and
teachers. I draw on the approach of
multimodal interactional analysis, which
places considerable emphasis on the
notion of context and situated interaction.
“Social actors always co-construct their
actions with the environment and/or with
other social actors so that we can never
90). I am also inspired by Norris’s concept
extricate a social actor’s actions from the
of modal density. Using this concept she
environment and/or from the other social
tries to make visible the communicative
actors involved” (Norris, 2014: 88). By
modes that play a central role in an action
applying this approach to the case of my
and which are relevant in a specific action.
unit, I seek to understand how pupils act
In addition, these concepts help us to
and make meaning together in a group
understand the interaction between various
when working with film production on
communicative modes, as they are located
iPads. As Jewitt writes about this
in relation to each other within the specific
approach: “This serves to shift the
action that social actors perform (Norris,
emphasis from mapping the modal
2014: 92). Modal density consists of what
resources used in a general sense to
Norris calls either modal intensity or modal
understanding modes in action, and the
complexity (Norris, 2014: 90). Modal
hierarchical and non-hierarchical structures
intensity is a term for what happens when a
that can be found among the modes used
in specific2014:
social interaction” (Jewitt,
specific mode plays a central role in an
38). Talk is not sufficient when these young
action, such as spoken language when
c h i l d re n a re l e a r n i n g t h ro u g h fi l m
making a telephone call. Modal complexity
production because they are not familiar
is a term relating to using many different
with ,film terms or film grammar. Therefore
communicative modes of action (Norris,
the often use body language to express
2014: 90).
new ideas to other group members.
Embodied interaction is central to children’s
c o l l a b o r a t i v e l e a r n i n g t h ro u g h fi l m
production, which is why we need the
Methodology
!129
approach of multimodal interactional
analysis to understand this multimodal
composing practice.
on the approach of multimodal interactional
analyses it became clear that the children’s
filmmaking is a collaborative composing
practice, where the communicative mode
of touch is essential to collaborative
learning practice and the final film product.
Modal density is represented by modal
intensity, which consists of touch. This tells
us that touching is an indispensable part of
children’s collaborative learning through film
production when it concerns new media
technology. Gesture and touch must be
considered as important communicative
tools for students working with digital
technology
2014:96).
(Walsh and Simpson,
Now let us look closer at lower-level actions
through multimodal transcription to see
how touch is represented in a chain of
actions in the group’s collaboration to
reflect on a scene.
I have done multimodal transcription using
the program ELAN. First, I transcribed their
talk and then I transcribed each child’s
lower-level actions, focusing on the
communicative modes of head movement,
gaze and gesture with a focus on arm
movement and hand movement. This
approach is quite comprehensive and is
even more complete in this study because
there are multiple people in the video data,
which are collected with a handheld video
camera. This was necessary because the
children were moving around in a big area.
Results
Modal intensity: Touch
It became obvious when viewing my video
Multimodal transcription
data that there is a common movement
This mediated action is chosen because it
pattern when the children are making films
represents a general way of making a film
on iPads. Immediately after a group has
when it concerns this specific group. This
completed one recording, the entire group
example consists of a higher-level action in
moves behind the screen to watch the
which the group is reflecting on a scene
, reflect on the scene and possibly
footage
they just have recorded and watched. The
do some editing. Their eyes are on the
scene they have recorded challenges them
screen and, when the recording stops, the
and they have tried several times to record
children look up and discuss whether or not
it without being satisfied. Figure 1 illustrates
they will keep the recording or make a new
key frames from the multimodal
one. They touch the screen to tap and drag
transcription as highlighted below.
in the app iMovie, and sometimes they get
into a fight about who will hold the iPad. We
see children pulling on the iPad and turning
their backs to other group members in
order to gain control of the iPad
(1) 00:23:01.950
(2) 00:23:03.050
themselves. Through micro-analyses based
!130
Figure 1: Excerpts from the multimodal transcription
(3) 00:23:09.000
(4) 00:23:09.041
This higher-level action begins with a
comment from girl 1: “It’s impossible to
hear it and it’s really bad. We cut it
off” (00:22:57.062). This comment starts a
chain of actions. Boy 1 moves backwards
and out of the frame. This can be
interpreted as a response to girl 1’s
comment. He accepts that she finds the
filming, which
bad isand wants to edit it
to the iPad. She leans forward to look at
the screen and says: “No just cut it
off” (00:23:02.090).
, girl
2, The other girl
takes back her right arm and says ”No”
again, adding the boy’s name in a resigned
tone. Also,
1 tries
girl to save the footage
by, tapping
but realises it“Use
is too video”
late because1,the boy has deleted it (Fig
picture 3). Boy 2 reacts to the girls’
discontent by bowing his head and staring
why he gets ready to film the next scene.
down at a piece of a toy he is playing with
Girl 2 turns her head to the left and looks at
on the table. He says: “What! It’s much
girl
1 as ,she
then she
makes her comment
better” (00:23:03.920). Then he looks up at
looks back at the iPad again. Maintaining
the screen, but quickly turn his gaze down
his gaze at2 the
stretches
iPad, boy
his
again.2Meanwhile,
says:girl
”No we don’t
right arm forward to touch the screen with
want to
, allfilm the same scene all the time
his
, as forefinger
he says: “One more
these ‘food
23:05.507)
scenes’” (00:
, while
time” 23:00.560).
(00:
His right forefinger
turning her head away from the boy. Girl 1
just reaches to touch the screen in the
also turns away from the boy, waving her
lower-left corner on which there is written:
2
right hand making a statement of irritation
“Record again” . Girl 2 reacts to this action
by saying out loud
,
“NO” (00:23:01.672) (Fig.1, picture
). She
4, outwalks
of
away
and with her left hand she grabs his right
the frame (00:23:06.880). Now it is only boy
wrist and pulls his hand away from the
2 whom we can see in this picture. He
screen1,(Fig.
picture
1). Meanwhile she
looks at the iPad and says: “Let’s just take
stretches her right arm forward to touch the
it one more time” (00:23:09.041) and
lower-right corner of the screen on which is
moves both arms toward the iPad to keep
3
hold of it.2Outmake
of shotawe hear girl
written: “Use video” (Fig
, picture
2).
1 Her
attempt to keep the footage does not
comment in a stressed tone: ”We have 40
succeed.
, girl
1 steps
In the
into
meantime
minutes” (00:23:11.680)
, which 2boy
the picture again from the right and rushes
reacts to by saying ”No” and looking at her
2
Translated from the Danish version of iMovie on which there is written ”Tag igen”.
3
Translated from the Danish version of iMovie on which there is written ”Brug video”.
!131
(00:23:14.681). There seems to be an
intense atmosphere and girl 1 (out of the
picture) says: ”Come on.
Fine” (00:23:14.684), which is overlapped
by girl 2’s response to the boy: ”Yes we
have”, referring to their discussion about
the time they have left. Straight away, boy 2
turns his head to the iPad again and starts
counting: ” OKAY. THREE, TWO, ONE.”
This last comment marks the end of this
higher-level action.
and dragging) the screen they experiment
with editing (in this example deleting) the
film in-between filming scenes. For
teachers, this knowledge is of great
importance as a basis for planning their
teaching with and about film production
using new media technologies. In the
bigger picture, it is useful knowledge when
planning multimodal teaching of new media
technologies.
References
Conclusion: One single touch creates a
conflict
Making new media:
Burn, A.2009):
(
Creative production and digital literacies.
New York: Peter Lang.
This higher-level action shows that touch as
a communicative mode is essential for the
Burn
, A. & Parker,
2001).
D. ( Making Your
children’s collaborative learning through film
Mark:
, Animation,
Digital
and a Inscription
production. A single touch creates a conflict
New Visual Semiotic. Education,
in the group and tapping on the screen
Communication and Information 1(2): 149–
makes it possible to make radical changes
154.
to
, which
thehasfilm
big consequences for
the film’s outcome. By not arriving at a
, J., Green, J., Jenkins, H., &
Burgess
consensus within the group to delete the
Hartley,2009).
J. (
YouTube: online video
filming, it also has big consequences for the
and participatory culture. Cambridge, UK:
group’s collaboration. These findings
Polity.
indicate that the affordances of iMovie and
, L. 2
Frølunde
( 009).
Animated Symbols. A
iPad make available new or newly
Study of How Young People Design
configured multimodal resources, which
Animated Films and Transform Meanings.
affect how pupils collaborate and produce
PhD thesis. Copenhagen: Arhus University.
meaning in film-production practice. Today,
it is possible, through the collaborative
, Ø. 2
Gilje
( 010).
Multimodal Redesign in
mode of touch, to film, watch and edit a
Filmmaking Practices: An Inquiry of Young
Filmmakers’ Deployment of Semiotic Tools
film on the same device. The timeline in
in Their Filmmaking Practice. Sage.
iMovie whereby film clips are imported gives
children the opportunity to see their film
clips stored as one long film. This is I
believe essential for a child’s way of thinking
about film production. By touching (tapping
Gilje
, Ø. 2
( 009).
Mode, mediation and
moving images. An inquiry of digital editing
practices in media education. PhD thesis.
!132
Oslo: University of Oslo.
Moss, G. (2003). Putting the text back into
practice: junior-age non-fiction as objects of
design. In: Jewitt, C. & Kress, G. (Eds),
Multimodal Literacy. New York: Peter Lang.
Jewitt, C. (2006). Technology, Literacy.
Learning. A Multimodal Approach. London:
Routledge.
Norris, S. (2004): Analyzing Multimodal
Interaction. A methodological framework.
New York: Routledge.
Jewitt, C. (2009). Different approaches to
multimodality. In: Jewitt, C. (Ed.), The
Routledge Handbook of Multimodal
Analysis. London: Routledge.
Norris, S. (2009). Modal density and modal
configurations: multimodal actions. In:
Norris, S. (Ed.), Multimodality in Practice.
Investigating Theory-in-practice-throughmethodology. New York: Routledge.
Jewitt, C. (2012). Technology and
Reception as Multimodal Remaking. In:
Norris, S. (Ed.), Multimodality in Practice.
Investigating Theory-in-practice-throughmethodology. New York: Routledge.
Norris, S. (2012a). Primary Focus – Social
Actors and Their Actions. In: Norris, S.
(Ed.), Multimodality in Practice. Investigating
Theory-in-practice-through-methodology.
New York: Routledge.
Jewitt, C. & Kress, G. (2003). Multimodal
Literacies. New York: Peter Lang.
Kenner, C. (2004). Becoming Biliterate:
Young Children Learning Different Writing
Systems. Stoke-on-Trent: Trentham Books.
Norris, S. (2012b). Teaching Touch/
Response-Feel. A first Step to an Analysis
of Touch from an (Inter)active Perspective.
In: Norris, S. (Ed.), Multimodality in Practice.
Investigating Theory-in-practice-throughmethodology. New York: Routledge.
Kress, G. (2003): Literacy in the New Media
Age. London: Routledge.
Kress, G. & Van Leuween, T. (2001):
Multimodal Discourse: The Modes and
Media of Contemporary Communication.
London: Edward Arnold.
Norris, S. (2012c). Multimodality in Practice.
Investigating Theory-in-practice-throughm e t h o d o l o g y. I n : N o r r i s , S . ( E d . ) ,
Multimodality in Practice. Investigating
Theory-in-practice-through-methodology.
New York: Routledge.
Kress, G., Jewitt, C., Bourne, J., Franks,
A., Hardcastle, J., Jones, K., & Reid, E.
(2004). Urban Classrooms Subject English:
Multimodal Perspectives on Teaching and
Learning. London: Routledge Falmer.
Norris, S. & Rodney H. J. (2005).
Introducing mediational means/cultural
tools. In: Norris, S. & Rodney, H.J. (Eds),
Discourse in Action. Introducing mediated
discourse analysis. London: Routledge.
Meyer, B (2015). iPads in Inclusive
Classrooms: Ecologies of Learning. In:
Isaias, P. et al. (Eds), E-learning Systems
Environments and Approaches. New York:
Springer Publishing Company.
!133
Ranker, J. (2008). Composing across
multiple media: A case study of digital video
production in a fifth grade classroom.
Written Communication, 25:196–234.
Ranker, J. (2009). Redesigning and
transforming: A case study of the role of
semiotic import in early composing
processes. Journal of Early Childhood
Literacy, 9: 319–347.
Scollon, R. & Scollon, S. (2003). Discourses
in Place: Language in the Material World.
New York: Routledge.
,Simpson
M. & Rowsell,2013).
J. ( The
digital reading path: researching modes and
multidirectionality with Literacy,
iPads.
47(3): 123–130.
Street, B. et al. (2009). Multimodality and
New Literacy Studies. In: Jewitt, C. (Ed.),
The Routledge Handbook of Multimodal
Analysis. London: Routledge.
Van Leuween, T. (2005): Introducing Social
Semiotics. London: Routledge.
!134
Paper 15
Digital childhood, risks and opportunities: Why is it
so important to listen to children?
Ana Francisca Monteiro1, António José Osório2
Research Centre on Education, University of Minho, Braga, Portugal
Abstract
This article explores how children construct
their own cultures through the use of digital
technologies
, based on these specific
and
sociocultural codes, how they reflect and
position themselves with respect to risk and
opportunity discourses. It addresses the
crucial challenge of listening to children’s
voices and understanding their interests
and needs, with regard to the apparent
problems and benefits associated with
digital practices. This approach exposes
the limits and paradoxes these discourses
may hold for children, thus highlighting the
need for them to be actively involved in
research and decision-making. In contrast
to the narrow focus on essentialist,
sensationalist and adult-driven
perspectives, this work offers a broader
and more contextualised approach. This
analysis is based on an ethnographic study
with fourteen girls and eight boys. They
were aged between nine and fourteen
years and were engaged in three different
settings: after-school centres, family homes
and digital inclusion centres. Data were
submitted to thematic analysis.
1
amonteiro@ie.uminho.pt
2ajosorio@ie.uminho.pt
Keywords: Digital cultures, children’s
perspectives, children’s voices, risks,
opportunities
Introduction
Thunder is a 12-year-old girl who loves
socialising and is constantly communicating
with her friends. After school, tools such as
Facebook, Messenger, Skype and a mobile
phone enable her to keep in touch with her
friends. Each of these tools serves different
purposes: Messenger is ‘small and cozy’,
ideal for a private conversations with close
girlfriends; ‘anyone can listen to a Skype
call’, making it suitable for group hangouts; with Facebook’s sharing features
come chatting, small talk and peeking at
friends’ lives; text messages permit
constant interaction with her closest
friends. Despite the enthusiasm
surrounding these possibilities, they are not
referenced without certain worries. Thunder
likes checking and commenting on her
friends’ photos, as well as sharing her own;
she also savours the popularity and social
acceptance underpinning these
interactions. But she does not want her life
to be exposed, her time absorbed or her
safety compromised. Thus, she endeavours
to follow safety rules and she reassures her
parents that she continues to focus on
school duties and relevant leisure activities,
such as reading.
emphasis arising from sensationalist
accounts of risk and opportunity. Adopting
a broader, less adult-driven perspective, it
focuses on how digital practices operate in
children’s
, where specificeveryday lives
sociocultural codes, demands and
meanings emerge. The results of this
analysis express a more nuanced and
contextualised approach, emphasising the
need to respect children’s own perceptions
of the apparent problems and opportunities
brought about by digital technologies, and
the need for children to be more involved in
the decision-making process.
Drawing on the voices of young girls and
boys like Thunder, this paper argues that
children, in this case 9 to 14-year-olds,
construct their own cultures through the
use of digital technologies and reinterpret
discourses of risk and opportunity in
accordance with their knowledge, values
and perception of norms developed within
peer groups. This work explores these
Research context
specific sociocultural codes and how they
are constructed in the context of children’s
Research about children’s digital media
digital practices. It further considers how
uses has greatly increased in recent years,
children reflect and position themselves
generally portraying them as highly
with respect to the risk and opportunity
motivated cyber nauts who rely on
discourses surrounding these experiences.
technology at ever younger ages and for a
This analysis points to the need to
significant if not major part of their play,
reconsider the dichotomy between ‘risk’
learning and social connections (Holloway,
and ‘opportunity’ that has come to
Green & Livingstone, 2013; Ito et al., 2010;
dominate many of the debate and
Livingstone, Haddon & Gorzig, 2012;
awareness approaches. It concludes by
Livingstone & Haddon, 2009). Moreover,
arguing that these concepts are not very
children’s own perspectives gain visibility,
helpful if we want to understand children’s
through approaches considering them as
own perspectives and how they choose to
active, competent social agents and media
deal with the many challenges of being
audiences (Buckingham, 1993b, 2007a;
active online.
Livingstone, 2002). Notwithstanding, in the
case of opportunity and risk agendas,
research focusing on how these uses
operate on the ground, in specific
sociocultural settings and circumstances
(Buckingham, 2008a; Ito et al., 2010), is still
re l a t i v e l y s c a rc e . G ro w i n g a ro u n d
discourses that proclaim digital
Based on sociological approaches to
childhood studies (Prout, 2005, 2011), as
well as social constructionist perspectives
on technological development (Lievrouw &
Livingstone, 2006), this study offers an
alternative perspective to the narrow
!136
technologies’ wonders and pitfalls
(Postman, 1994; Tapscott, 1999), research
more or less disregards how these topdown, dichotomised perspectives are at
odds with children’s everyday practices and
challenges (Davies, Bhullar & Dowty, 2011;
Withers & Sheldon, 2008). As child-centred
approaches to these issues suggest (Barra,
2004; Bragg, Buckingham, Russell &
Willett, 2011; Buckingham & Bragg, 2004;
Buckingham & Sefton-Green, 2003;
Buckingham, 1993a; Burn & Willett, 2004;
Sefton-Green & Willett, 2003), children’s
experiences hardly convene such
structured approaches.
might be considered positive and risky.
This approach further considers the
emergence of a bedroom culture and the
role new media play in this context (Bovill &
Livingstone, 2001; Livingstone, 2007b). As
outside spaces are perceived as risky and
media are becoming cheaper and more
portable, are children’s leisure and social
activities retreating to the home, especially
the bedroom, by means of the private and
connected adoption of digital spaces?
Boyd’s notion of networked public spaces,
to which common practices such as
c h, a t
g ots sii pnign g o r fl i r t i n g a re
transferred, reflects this connectivity from
Against this background, this article
within the bedroom. Authors further
focuses on children’s lived experiences of
highlight the opportunities, as well as risks,
using digital media and the reinterpretations
afforded by networked publics, considering,
of opportunity, risk and safety that emerge
among other characteristics, their
within specific sociocultural contexts.
persistence, search ability, replicability,
Drawing on a cultural-sociological
invisible audiences (Boyd, 2007) and global
perspective, it looks beyond the binary
reach (Livingstone & Haddon, 2009),
among others.
opposition between opportunity and risk as
well as the sensationalist and overThis research also reflects on how
generalised views of children’s digital
childhood has come to be recognised as a
practices. It considers how extending our
social construct and children as active
knowledge of how digital experiences
social actors, who construct their own
operate in specific contexts and cultural
cultures. Notwithstanding, it echoes the
backgrounds demystifies the deterministic
calls for an interdisciplinary (Prout, 2005,
and generalised notions of a digital
2011) and relational (Tisdall & Punch, 2012)
generation or a corrupted childhood
approach to the study of children and
(Buckingham, 2000), as well as the dualistic
childhood. Like Prout (2005, 2011), this
representations of opportunity and risk,
study highlights childhood, and adulthood
portraying them as independent concepts
or society for that matter, as a complex
and practices. Hence, it offers a more
hybrid of nature and culture. It also explores
nuanced and deeper understanding of
theories of the social construction of
children’s digital cultures and the challenges
technology to reflect on how technology
that emerge from this alternative research
and social practices co-construct each
perspective, namely, in relation to what
!137
other (Lievrouw & Livingstone, 2006).
Recognising technologies as socially
meaningful phenomena, research must
explore the complex relationship between
agency and structure, avoiding essentialist
pitfalls. As Hutchby (2001) proposes,
recalling Gibson’s (1979) concept of
affordances, understanding technologies as
artefacts evidences how they both shape
and are shaped by social practices. This
approach refutes the media effects model
(Livingstone, 1996, 2007a), focusing rather
on the social, cultural and historic
circumstances in which a medium is
adopted in a particular way.
stages, intersected each other throughout
its course. The concept of child prevailed,
taking into account the project’s academic
field, Childhood Studies, as well as the
ages of the majority of participants.
Notwithstanding, in considering how
identities are built in or through media uses,
this is also a study of how children or young
people come to consider themselves as
such through their digital practices.
Methods
This research involved 14 girls and eight
boys, from nine to 14 years old. Fieldwork
took place in three phases, each in a
distinct setting. Held in two after-school
centres, the first phase (February to
November, 2009) comprised group
sessions, games, debates around graphic
and audio-visual materials, role-playing
exercises and participant observation.
These were used to debate and participate
in children’s digital uses and considerations
about opportunity and risk. Considering
how much easier it was for participants to
express points of view and to describe their
experiences during unstructured online
sessions, used mainly to play games and to
access the avatar-based chatroom Habbo
Hotel, the second phase (February to
November, 2011) relied almost exclusively
on participant observation. The same
children participated in individual and group
encounters, these taking place in family
homes and one of the after-school centres.
These were complemented by three openended interviews. The third phase (October,
2011 to March, 2012) focused on children
Considering these approaches, both
childhood and technology are considered
complex and hybrid concepts and
phenomena
, rather than fixed entities,
despite their structural dimensions. This
explains why media and technology were
used within this research without clear
conceptual distinctions. While one more
often pertains to media studies, the other
appears more in educational research,
these are two academic areas that mingle
when studying the subject of children’s
digital cultures. Nonetheless, as applied
here, both generally refer to the media
c h i l d re n u s e o r t h e t e c h n o l o g i c a l
environments they inhabit, emphasising
that what matters most, in this type of
analysis, is how children represent and
adopt them. A similar premise applies to
the concept of child, it is used even though
some participants are up to 14 years of
age. Considering the length of the study,
childhood and youth, understood as
specific age intervals and developmental
!138
involved in social and digital inclusion
projects, based in three digital inclusion
centres. Six new participants joined the
project, being involved in participant
observation sessions, four multimedia
projects and two open-ended interviews.
gained wide visibility (Alderson, 1995).
Registered in field notes and fully
transcribed audio and video recordings,
data were submitted to thematic analysis.
Following Braun and Clarke’s (2006)
understanding, this was considered to be a
This methodological approach was
method in its own right, rather than a mere
informed by what is described in the
tool, despite its similarities to other
literature as working with children
approaches, such as grounded theory and
(Alderson, 1995; Christensen & James,
discourse analysis. Using qualitative
2000; Lewis & Lindsay, 2000; Lobe,
analysis software, NVivo, data were
Simões & Zaman, 2009). Developed within
reduced and organised as three main
the theoretical framework of new sociology
themes: contexts, uses/ objectives and
of childhood (James & Prout, 1997), it aims
problems, 13 categories and 15 subto include children in the research design.
codes. Nevertheless, as Eglington (2013)
This works as a means to access and
mentions, coding remained open, as
understand their own social and cultural
analysis continued through representation,
worlds, as well as offering opportunities for
i.e while writing up the research. Hence,
their active participation in research and
meanings were explored mostly at the
policy that affect their lives. Its basic
writing stage, with new connections and
premises can be defined as follows:‘interpretative possibilities’ (ibid., 202)
children’s capability to perform and share
e m e r g i n g , m i r r o r i n g W o l c o t t ’s
their own cultural expression requires a
understanding of interpretation as both the
child-friendly methodological approach
start and end point of ethnographic
which, taking into account their singularities
research. Therefore, this project offers a
as a social group with specific backgrounds
situated and relational perspective of
and
, isliving
only definable
conditions
by
children's use of new technologies and
children themselves; children’s active
processes for constructing meaning. This
participation brings their own agendas and
emphasises the socially constructed nature
concerns through to research, thus
of identities, relationships and beliefs and
including them in how their lives are
how these are performed in relation to the
represented and dealt with institutionally
specific cultural, social and linguistic
backgrounds in which they are lived.
(Kirby, 2004). In spite of the inevitable
differences between them, one of the main
goals is for the researcher to find a way or a
place to experience children’s cultures. In
this respect, notwithstanding the centrality
of ethnographic methods (James & Prout,
1997), participative methodologies have
This methodological design is also
motivated by strong ethical concerns. It
aims to promote children’s participation in
knowledge production and use, thus
counterbalancing the tendency to
!139
underestimate
,
their capacity to reflect
how children and youths represent
decide and contribute to society, as well as
themselves through their use of new media,
the importance of their involvement. In this
generate and manage relationships,
sense, it explores the idea that participation
establish social hierarchies, negotiate
issues are ‘keystones’ for the promotion of
norms and social expectations (Almeida,
children’s rights, namely with regard to the
Delicado2010;
& Alves,
, Almeida
Delicado,
process of interpreting and putting them
Alves & 2011;
Carvalho, , Boyd
2014;
i n t o p r a c t i c2e 0(0W 2
i l)l.o w,T h i s
Buckingham
, 2008b; S. Holloway &
,Valentine
2003; Ito
, 2010).
et al.These
perspective
,
steers clear of adult-centric
techno-social arenas become what Ito and
decontextualised principles, in order to
Bittanti
, referring
(2010)
to games, describe
concentrate on children’s own cultural
as a lingua franca for digital participation.
expressions and concurrent ethical
Lollipop14)
(girl,
conveys
,aged
this when
reinterpretations. In practice, this entails
understanding that one of the younger girls
going beyond predefined protocols to
does not have a Facebook account, says:
reflect continuously on how methods do in
‘Oh, you poor thing.’
fact address children’s concerns and
perspectives, with regard to the topic under
study, specific ethical issues emerging and
how they intertwine with each other. This
reflexivity posture further assumes that
social research, particularly with children, is
a shifting process, subject to a vast array of
contextual contingencies. When
established a priori, ethical commitments
may fall short of contending with the everchanging nature of social-research sets.
In this study, these dimensions emerged in
gaming, social networking and text
messaging. Despite its important role as a
leisure activity, gaming is also a social
practice through which identity, reputation
and social status are defined within the
peer group. This is akin to a high level of
competitiveness, achieved not only in terms
of winning but also through the
competences and strategic choices one is
able to use and make. On the other hand,
competitiveness does not stand for rivalry, it
overlaps with co-operation. It is important
to win but only if there is fair play. These
uses were typical in groups of boys and
their use of the social games that Facebook
hosts, but not exclusively so. Some of the
girls participating in this study entered into
this type of competition. On the other hand,
this was also performed through games
that do not have social features. The
following excerpt exemplifies these
meanings:
Results
Identity and sociability
From a sociological perspective, this study
seeks to understand how children build
their own sociocultural worlds through the
use of digital technologies. In this sense,
technologies are not only entertainment
tools but also social spaces in which
identity and a sense of belonging develop.
Among other aspects, the research notes
!140
I always have something, even if it is
only one comment (…) I like Hi5
because I like to know what people
think about me.
Researcher: When we talked last year I
heard you say that you like games
because they cheer you up.
Frize (boy, aged 12): Ah!
Debating the idea that it is safer to have
pictures from celebrities or animals in your
online
, she continues:
profile
Researcher: Ah, now I think you enjoy
competing, seeing who is the best
player or who wins!
Lol: Imagine I have a photo from a
famous singer in my profile and
someone says you are beautiful. It
means nothing! It has to be about me,
with images and statements that say
something about me.
Xerife (boy, aged 12): I only play for
distraction. Sometimes.
Researcher: Is it? I heard you say, for
several times, I have this monster and
you don’t!
Frize: Right Xerife?
Boys take part in these interactions but
mostly by posting comments, not photos.
Researcher [similing]: Or, let’s make a
race to see who wins.
Considering the specific norms created,
participants highlight, with regard to social
networking, the importance of: i) having an
updated profile, not necessarily containing
a great number of portraits but recent ones,
where the person
)
is easily identifiable; ii
making positive comments about friends’
pictures; iii) thanking others and replying to
those left about one’s own portraits.
Different expressions allude to these rules:
Xerife: I did [won].
The majority of girls preferred using
Facebook, investing a lot of time in sharing
photos and ‘talking’ through online
comments. Posting a photo often initiates
what some participants referred to as ‘talk’,
meaning the continuous exchange of
comments about what a photo portrays,
made through Facebook’s comment
button. A person’s physical attributes or
personality traits, peer relations and
recollections of past events are the main
themes. These interactions underpin a
series of social norms and commitments,
through which social relationships and
hierarchies emerge. Having a great number
of comments and compliments represents
a competitive edge. As one of the girls
mentioned:
Thunder (girl, aged 12): I hate it when
someone sends you a friend request
with no picture.
Lol (girl, aged 12): We have to reply. If
someone leaves you a comment you
have to comment back.
In the gaming context, collaboration and
fair play prevail. It could also be deemed
transgressive to share and comment on
photos. As one of the boys asserts:
Lol (girl, aged 12): Whenever I open Hi5
Xerife (boy, aged 12): Comments! Are
!141
you kidding me? I have more important
things to do.
decided to change the password, qualifying
this as a close-friend privilege. Types and
levels of friendship are expressed and coconstructed online:
Digital participation also requires intense
use of digital media. If one is to remain
competitive in games or participate in
Facebook talk, time spent online is of the
essence. Moreover, more time represents a
competitive edge, standing for training in
g a m e s a n d p ro m p t re s p o n s e s o n
Facebook. In this regard, it is important to
join in a conversation but also to do so
while it remains up-to-date. Although little
explored in this study, the use of mobile
phones
, allowing
fits this type of interaction
Lol (girl,
12):
aged
You can´t say that
[friendly nickname], that’s just something
we use between each other.
The link between digital and school culture
reflects how digital participation is actuall
closely
, and related to offline experiences
vice versa. Children’s experiences are
continuously and mutually reconstructed
from face-to-face and online interactions.
Although occurring offline, events such as a
sports championship, a quarrel between
friends or a field trip continue to be matters
for discussion relating to photographs and
comments shared through social networks.
On the other hand, a new music clip
appearing on YouTube, a game strategy, a
profile picture or comment are topics of
conversation during school breaks, as Lol
describes:
the continuous sharing of experiences or
novelties about what is going on with each
other and in the group. Text messaging
about new photos published on Facebook
exemplifies this practice:
Thunder (girl,
12): aged
They keep
telling [texting] me, you have to leave
me a comment! But I keep forgetting.
The interactions described so far sustain
children’s close social relationships.
Children relish how communication
technologies allow them to meet new
people who share common interests. These
,were
in this study, related to specific
games. Nevertheless, it is in the context of
their close social connections, established
together with the school culture, that media
use becomes more intense and significant.
These social ties are defined, weakened or
strengthened by interactions mediated by
new technologies. Lol exemplifies this as
she recalls sharing a password with a friend
in order for her to update her profile’s visual
appearance. Later, after a quarrel, she
Lol (girls,
12):aged
They [boys] talk
about it all the time. They leave the
classroom and immediately start
discussing Facebook, Friville, Farmville
or whatever.
In this sense, concepts such as digital and
online do not express the interrelationship
between virtual and non-virtual contexts,
thus these frequently appear, in this project,
in parentheses.
Online problems
In its attempt to understand the problems
!142
children encounter through their digital
practices
, this study identifies three
thematic areas: identity and sociability; risk
and safety; access and use conditions. Of
these, issues related to social belonging,
reputation and relationships are of greater
concern. Given the social commitments
and norms established in the context of
digital participation, children worry about
meeting social expectations, namely, what
it entails in terms of time spent online. As
mentioned, actual participation requires
intense use, a sine qua non condition for
those who wish to succeed in games or
build a solid Facebook presence. This is
fashion game]: Don´t tell anyone I’m
your friend.
Tip (boy, 14): They [younger boys] don´t
do anything else besides gaming. I don´t
use computers to play games.
On a distinct level, adults’ expectations are
redirected to formal education, health and
safety issues. In effect, children specifically
try to distance themselves from a
pathological representation of the Internet
addict, seen as someone who neglects
school work, friendships and meals to
spend time online. Participants
endeavoured to ensure they were using or
would start to use the computer for less
and less time and for school work
exclusively. This was also the case for
children whose commitment and
enthusiasm towards online social and
entertainment experiences were visible and
corroborated by peers and educators.
Contacting strangers and sexting were also
considered typical addict practices and
equally denied. In short, children resent this
Internet addict stereotype:
not always easy to manage or, when not
accessible, to justify, as Astérix debates:
Astérix (boy, aged 11): I can´t pass to
the next level.
Frize (boy, aged 11): So weak.
Astérix: It’s not my fault that my hands
are small.
Frize: Come on, you’re weak.
Astérix: It’s not my fault that you’re older
than me.
Thunder (girl, aged 12): My parents’ and
sister’s theory is that there were no
computers when they were young, they
did nothing of this sort, as I do nothing
else. But that’s not true, sometimes I
just don´t feel like going out, it’s not
because of the computer itself.
Moreover, age and gender comprise
specific social expectations. Participants
expressed how older boys and girls are
expected to prefer social networking and
younger boys gaming:
Regarding new time restrictions being
imposed, she warned her peers:
Thunder (girl, aged 12): They [boys] like
gaming as well as social networking, but
dedicate more time to games.
Xerife (boy, aged 12) [after one of the
boys disclosed having played Stardoll, a
Thunder: I already told my friends I won
´t be ‘skyping’ so often. I will start to go
!143
Xerife
, aged
12): (boy
I just ask for game
stuff, I don´t talk with him. In fact, he
only speaks English.
out more.
,Therefore
peer and family arenas conflict
with each other, as one demands intense
Finally
, personal data refers to name,
participation and the other detachment.
address and mobile number, rather than the
Furthermore, peer culture is exercised
living experiences shared through social
through social networks and gaming
networks.
platforms, tools that, from an adult-centric
perspective, lack educational value. In this
context, identity performance (Buckingham,
2008b) emerges
,
as a coping strategy Risk and opportunity
making it possible to adhere to both
Children worry about safety issues but
standards. Notwithstanding, being one the
awareness strategies are challenged by the
most enthusiastic Facebook users of this
c o n c e p t u a l a m b i g u i t y re f e r re d t o ,
group, Thunder stresses:
specifically who is considered a stranger or
Thunder 12):
(girl, aged
All you do in
what is deemed addictive behaviour. On the
Facebook is pry into other people’s
other hand, stereotyped images of risk and
lives. I normally say, I just want
online-offline interconnectedness prevail.
Facebook to be in touch with distant
‘Stranger danger’ specifically relates to girls
family. Well, also because I like it,
who accept older men as friends, engaging
although it’s boring sometimes and I
in dangerous relationships and, eventually,
prefer doing something else.
arranging face-to-face encounters.
Deceived by a friend about the identity of
Mirroring the distinct identities and cultural
an alleged cousin that she was supposed
values
, specific concepts
assumed
take on
to introduce, Thunder demonstrates how
distinct meanings. Children frequently
this representation differs from children’s
mentioned being addicted to specific digital
daily experiences:
technologies, referring to their preferred
activities, in a cultural, non-pathologic
conceptualisation:
Thunder12):
(girl, aged
We didn´t know
if it was true [really a cousin], we
believed her, we thought we could trust
him because he was her friend.
Bubbles12):
(girl, aged
I was addicted
to that game. When I had to stop I
stopped, but I enjoyed it very much.
Risk was also considered a boring concept
that children would rather not talk about.
A similar approach is adopted to the
For
, whenexample
I raised this theme,
concept
, which of
does anotstranger
Bubbles grumbled:
include one’s ‘friends’ friends’ or one’s
partners in social games:
Bubbles12):
(girl, aged
What can I say
about risk, the same all over again?
Keys (girl,
12):aged
He is not my friend,
he is my friend in the game.
!144
Based on this stereotypical representation,
children see themselves as informed and
competent with regard to online risk. For
example, when debating the hypothesis of
being at risk, participants replied:
cultures (or just living), rather than
opportunities. In fact, this stands as a
meaningless concept, on the one hand
considering how it never comes about
spontaneously in children’s discourses, on
the other the way in which it is
superimposed by the concept of risk.
Stressing educational benefits rather than
children´s rights to leisure and identity
(Buckingham
, 2007b
, 2008b)
, opportunity
might more properly be considered an
adult-centric construct, distant from
children’s agendas and status as social
actors in their own right. Thus, opportunity
relates best to the tendency to consider
children as ‘becomings’, i.e. immature
beings who exist with the purpose of
preparing themselves for a better future. In
contrast, conceiving children as ‘beings’
emphasises their present lives as part of
the family, school or, more widely, the world
they 2011).
inhabit (Prout,
Keys (girl, aged 12): Only if I accept
strangers as friends and start talking to
them.
Sir X (boy, aged 14): Well, you only go
there [porn websites] if you want.
Thunder (girl, aged 12): You choose
who to add as a friend.
Thus, engaging in risky experiences
becomes a matter of free and moral will,
with consequences for which one has only
oneself to blame. Despite encouraging a
sense of responsibility, this also creates
barriers for support and learning,
emphasising a culture of blame and
stigmatisation of children involved in
experiences
, specific
of risk. Furthermore
uses have to be concealed, as Safira
demonstrates when discussing a chat she
had, in the presence of the researcher, with
an older man through Facebook:
Discussion and recommendations
Based on children’s accounts and daily
digital practices, this project deepens our
understanding of the central role new
technologies play in their lives. Adding to
other child-based approaches, it depicts
technological spaces as important social
arenas, where peer group integration takes
place
, 2014;
(Boyd
Ito
, 2010).
et al.It
further illustrates specific personal and
social identity negotiations, exposing how
these relate to the amount of time children
dedicate to the use of technologies. This
study also witnesses how ‘real’ and ‘virtual’
mingle in the course of social interactions
Safira10):
(girl,
I know all my Facebook
friends. Well, almost all. But I don´t talk
to strangers that much, I’m not one of
those [girls]. Look, this here is my
cousin.
In short, moral judgements about risk
experiences block children from generalised
access to support and learning networks.
Finally, in stressing
relationships, social
entertainment, children
practices as modes of
issues related to
commitments and
consider their digital
participation in peer
!145
and friendship-building, hence
not part of the participants’ ‘digital’ lexicon,
corroborating the idea that online and
rather it corresponded to parents’ concerns
offline interconnect in complex and even
about cognitive development and schoolundistinguishable ways. Against this
related achievements.
,background
it is to be expected that we
It is important to highlight how this creates
might identify problems related to identity
artificial conditions for children to consider
and sociability as children’s greatest
themselves informed and competent with
concerns. The examples this study
regard to their digital practices. Indeed,
provides show the extent to which children
despite polysemic meanings, participants’
worry about responding to specific social
projected a self-image of capability, worthy
commitments and expectations that
of adults’ trust. Adopting this viewpoint
emerge within their own ‘digital’ cultures,
allowed participants to feel both
including gendered and maturity related
safeguarded from potential parental punitive
standards.
measures as well as more able to meet
With regard to perspectives of risk, the
their peers’ demands. Nonetheless, in
findings raise concerns at several levels.
addition to diminishing awareness of other,
Risk-related experiences and concepts
more complex and subtle experiences, this
assumed polysemic meanings, with
viewpoint stimulates a culture of blame and
semantic adaptations emerging with the
stigmatisation of children involved in
purpose of maintaining harmony between
experiences of risk. If one knows what
the family’s and peers’ conflictive agendas.
danger looks like and what to do to avoid it,
With one praising detachment from
engaging in such experiences becomes a
practices not related to formal education
matter of free and moral will. While possibly
encouraging a sense of responsibility, this
and the other pushing towards intensive
also inhibits children’s access to support.
online presence, striking a balance is
difficult, with children often resorting to
identity-performance strategies.
Simultaneously, an overall simplified and
even stereotyped image of risk prevailed in
participants’ discourses, based primarily on
sensationalist stories. In light of moral
judgements addressed towards children
involved in experiences such as arranging
encounters with strangers, sexting,
addiction and accessing pornography,
participants’ restricted danger to a set of
particular scenarios. The concept of
opportunity seems similarly at odds with
children’s cultures and perspectives. It was
Overall, these results provide insightful
examples of what goes on in children’s
worlds, from the point of view of contexts of
practice that only they know. In spite of the
inevitable epistemological and
methodological challenges of trying to
participate in and understand children’s
worlds from the inside (Christensen &
James,
2000), these constitute an
extensive and thoughtful depiction of the
knowledge and awareness that may result
from listening to children and empathetically
trying to comprehend their ‘side of the
!146
story’. As such, this study highlights the
accept that, although not exclusively,
importance of recognizing the validity and
children live and grow up through digital
significance of children’s differentiatedpractices,
ways
thus needing space, time and
of seeing, interpreting and co-creating the
support to )learn how to perform them; ii
everyday
, namely their
worlds they inhabit
technology plays a key role in personal and
cultures, expectations and compromises.
social-identity
, namely through
building
Moreover, this research illustrates and
friendship relationships, with relevant
discusses what a child-centred research
commitments established between peers
approach may look like, through a
depending on the use of technology to be
fulfilled; in practice, this points to the
naturalistic and interpretative lens. In short,
relevance of allowing children to participate
this constitutes an important contribution
in the definition of access and use rules, in
towards integrating this differentiated
family and school environments, thus
approach in the way we deal with these
promoting balance between peer and
issues.
family
) a agendas;
division
iii
between ‘real’
In light of these results, it seems to be
and
, as‘virtual’
they continuously is artificial
urgent to highlight and reflect on the myriad
interweave and reframe each other –
forms and meanings that digital practices
‘virtual’ is ‘real’,
)
and vice versa; iv
assume, from the point of view of children
assuming that opportunities go beyond
and the everyday settings, possibilities and
formal education brings us closer to
contingencies they live and grow up in. This
children’s worlds and to acknowledging the
analytical angle is crucial if we are to
merit of their digital practices; vi) univers
comprehend and address these issues in a
restrictions are not effective (Livingstone et
manner that makes sense to children and
al.
, 2012); vii) it is preferable and more
considers their own concerns. It is,
effective to take an interest in and
furthermore, essential to provide children
eventually set rules with regard to what
with space, time and personalised support
children do and like rather than the time
to freely explore, make sense of and take
they dedicate to technology, in terms of
decisions regarding the specific
safety
, seizing potential benefits and
technologies present in their day-to-day
diminishing conflicts.
lives and how this connects with peer
cultures and wider sociocultural
backgrounds. As such, it emphasises the
Conclusion
need to and advantages of considering
children’s own perceptions and involving
The child-centred approach this project
them in the decision-making process.
adopted offers challenging insights into the
participation and safety issues children face
when online. By not considering children´s
digital cultures, measures aiming to benefit
and protect them are at risk of being over-
In brief, this project gives some in-depth
details and consistency about the following
central ideas: i) it is of utmost importance to
!147
prescriptive and stigmatising. These
demand responses that may contradict
children´s agendas and how digital
practices occur in their daily lives, where
specific
, demands andsociocultural codes
meanings emerge. Overall, awareness of
these limits constitutes a warning about the
dangers and ineffectiveness of impersonal
and decontextualised strategies, supported
by adult-driven agendas. Thus, this
research calls for more contextualised
approaches that are respectful of children’s
viewpoints and everyday lives, social and
cultural contexts. The challenge is to
uphold research and practice strategies
21st century (pp. 143–157). Newcastle:
Cambridge Scholars.
Almeida, A.N., Delicado, A., Alves, N.A., &
Carvalho, T. (2011). Crianças e internet:
Usos e representação, a família e a escola:
Relatório da 2a fase do trabalho: Entrevistas
a crianças, pais e professores. Lisbon.
Barra, M. (2004). Infância e internet:
Interacções na rede. Azeitão: Autonomia:
27.
Bovill, M., & Livingstone, S. (2001).
Bedroom culture and the privatization of
media use. In: S. Livingstone & M. Bovill
(Eds), Children and their changing media
environment: A European comparative
study (pp. 179–200). New Jersey:
Lawrence Erlbaum Associates.
capable of actually including children, their
view and social and digital participation
modes, as well as social and cultural
contexts in which digital experiences gain
meaning. Future research should explore
how such a contextualised focus could be
manageable, namely, how to promote
children´s active participation in decisions
affecting their digital environments, as well
as parents’ and caregivers’ understanding
and capacity to provide support when
necessary.
Boyd, D. (2007). Why youth (love) social
network sites: The role of networked
publics in teenage social life. In: D.
Buckingham (Ed.), Youth, identity, and
digital media (pp. 119–142). Cambridge:
MIT Press.
Boyd, D. (2014). It’s complicated: The
social lives of networked teens. New
Haven: Yale University Press.
Bragg, S., Buckingham, D., Russell, R., &
Willett, R. (2011). Too much, too soon?
Children, “sexualization” and consumer
culture. Sex Education, 11(3), 279–292.
References
Alderson, P. (1995). Listening to children:
Children, ethics and social research. Essex:
Barnardos.
Braun, V. & Clarke, V. (2006). Using
thematic analysis in psychology. Qualitative
Research in Psychology, 3(2), 77–101.
Almeida, A.N., Delicado, A., & Alves, N.A.
(2010). Children and the internet in
Portugal: A diversified portrait. In: J.
Muscha & K. Leszczynska (Eds), Society,
culture and technology at the dawn of the
Buckingham, D. (1993a). Children talking
television: The making of television literacy.
!148
London: Falmer.
Cardoso, G., Espanha, R., & Lapa, T.
(2009). Do quarto de dormir para o mundo:
Jovens e media em Portugal. Lisbon:
Âncora Editora.
Buckingham, D. (1993b). Reading
audiences: Young people and the media.
Manchester: Manchester University Press.
Christensen, P. & James, A. (2000).
Research with children: Perspectives and
practices. London: Falmer Press.
Buckingham, D. (2000). After the death of
childhood: Growing up in the age of
electronic media. Cambridge: Polity Press.
Buckingham, D. (2007a). Childhood in the
a g e o f g l o b a l m e d i a . C h i l d r e n ’s
Geographies, 5(1), 43–54.
Davies, T., Bhullar, S., & Dowty, T. (2011).
Rethinking responses to children and young
people’s online lives. In: EU Kids Online 2
Final Conference. London: EU Kids Online.
Buckingham, D. (2007b). The impact of the
media on children and young people with a
particular focus on computer games and
the internet. London: Centre for the Study
of Children, Youth and Media.
Eglinton, K.A. (2013). Youth identities,
localities, and visual material culture:
Making selves, making worlds. New York:
Springer.
Gibson, J. (1979). The ecological approach
to perception. New Jersey: Lawrence
Erlbaum Associates.
Buckingham, D. (2008a). Children and
media: A cultural studies approach. In: K.
Drotner & S. Livingstone (Eds), Handbook
of children, media and culture (Vol. 5).
London: Sage.
Holloway, D., Green, L., & Livingstone, S.
(2013). Zero to eight: Young children and
their internet use. London.
Buckingham, D. (Ed.) (2008b). Youth,
identity, and digital media. Cambridge, MA:
MIT Press.
Holloway, S. & Valentine, G. (2003).
Cyberkids: Children in the information age.
London: Routledge Falmer.
Buckingham, D. & Bragg, S. (2004). Young
people, sex and the media: The facts of
life? New York: Palgrave Macmillan.
Hutchby, I. (2001). Children, technology
and culture: The impacts of technologies in
children’s everyday lives. London, New
York: Routledge.
Buckingham, D. & Sefton-Green, J. (2003).
Gotta catch ’em all: Structure, agency and
pedagogy in children’s media culture.
Media, Culture & Society, 25, 379–399.
Ito, M., Baumer, S., Bittanti, M., Boyd, D.,
Cody, R., Herr-Stephenson, B., … & Tripp,
L. (2010). Hanging out, messing around,
and geeking out: Kids living and learning
with new media. Annals of Physics.
Cambridge, London: MIT Press.
Burn, A. & Willett, R. (2004). “What exactly
is a paedophile?”: Children talking about
internet risk. Recherches En
Communication, 22.
Ito, M., & Bittanti, M. (2010). Gaming. In M.
!149
Ito, S. Baumer, M. Bittanti, D. Boyd, R.
Cody, B. Herr-Stephenson, … & L. Tripp
(Eds), Hanging out, messing around, and
geeking out: Kids living and learning with
new media (pp. 195–242). Cambridge,
London: MIT Press.
Livingstone, S. & Haddon, L. (2009). Kids
online: Opportunities and risks for children.
Bristol: The Policy Press.
Livingstone, S., Haddon, L., & Gorzig, A.
(2012). Children, risk and safety online:
Research and policy challenges in
comparative perspective. Bristol: Policy
Press.
James, A. & Prout, A. (1997). Constructing
and reconstructing childhood:
Contemporary issues in the sociological
study of childhood. London: Falmer Press.
Lobe, B., Simões, J. A., & Zaman, B.
(2009). Research with children. In: S.
Livingstone & L. Haddon (Eds), Kids online:
Opportunities and risks for children. Bristol:
Policy Press.
Kirby, P. (2004). A guide to actively involving
young people in research. Hampshire.
Lewis, A. & Lindsay, G. (Eds). (2000).
Researching children’s perspectives.
Buckingham: Open University Press.
Postman, N. (1994). The disappearance of
childhood. New York: Vintage Books.
Lievrouw, L. A. & Livingstone, S. (2006).
Handbook of new media: Social shaping
and social consequences. London: Sage.
Prout, A. (2005). The future of childhood:
Towards the interdisciplinary study of
children. London: Routledge.
Livingstone, S. (1996). On the continuing
problems of media effects research. In: J.
Curran & M. Gurevitch (Eds), Mass media
and society (pp. 305–324). London:
Edward Arnold.
Prout, A. (2011). Taking a step away from
m od er nity : Reconsid er ing the n ew
sociology of childhood. Childhood: A Global
Journal of Child Research, 1(1).
Livingstone, S. (2002). Young people and
new media: Childhood and changing media
environment. London: Sage.
Sefton-Green, J. & Willett, R. (2003). Living
and learning in chatrooms (or does informal
learning have anything to teach us?).
Education et Sociétiés, 2.
Livingstone, S. (2007a). Do the media harm
Tapscott, D. (1999). Growing up digital: The
children? Reflections on new approaches torise of the net generation. New York:
an old problem. Journal of Children and
McGraw-Hill.
Media, 1(1), 5–14.
Tisdall, E.K.M. & Punch, S. (2012). Not so “
Livingstone, S. (2007b). From family
new ”? Looking critically at childhood
television to bedroom culture: Young
studies. Children’s Geographies, 10(3), 37–
people’s media at home. In: E. Devereux
41.
(Ed.), Media studies: Key issues and
Willow, C. (2002). Participation in practice:
debates (pp. 302–321). London: Sage.
Children and young people as partners in
!150
change. London: The Children’s Society.
Withers, K. & Sheldon, R. (2008). Behind
the screen: The hidden life of youth online.
London.
!151
Paper 16
New literacy practices and teacher agency
Sari Räisänen1
University of Oulu, Finland
Introduction
Abstract
This research in its entirety is reported in a
doctoral thesis dissertation: Räisänen, S.
The research in its entirety is reported in a
(2015). Changing Literacy Practices: A
doctoral thesis: Räisänen, S. (2015).
Becoming of a New Teacher Agency. Acta
Changing Literacy Practices: A Becoming
Universitatis Ouluensis, E, 153. Oulu,
of a New Teacher Agency. The aim of the
Finland: University of Oulu. The aim of the
research was to clarify what kind of a
research was to clarify what kind of a
process ‘doing things differently’ in the
process ‘doing things differently’ in the
context of new literacies is from the
context of new literacies (Leu et al., 2004) is
perspective of teacher agency. It seems
from the perspective of teacher agency.
that the change from traditional practices
The affordances (Gibson, 1977) of new
focusing on paper/ pencil activities and
literacies to learning have been topical in
teacher-directed instruction to new kinds of
many literacy studies (e.g. Marsh, 2004,
social spaces is hard and requires
2007; Merchant, 2005, 2008, 2012). These
investment in the professional learning of
affordances should influence the
teachers. The research offers such an
development of learning opportunities and
example of a professional lear ning
practices for pupils in schools (Kress, 2003;
experience. The findings of the research
Marsh, 2007; Selander & Kress, 2010; see
show that the change in literacy practices
also Hakkarainen et al., 2004; New London
was based on the choices the teacherGroup, 1996). That is, educators should
researcher made, creating in this way ‘a
strive for change concerning not only the
style’ for it. There were three main elements
modes or contents of literacies, but also the
which characterized the change process:
structures of education in classroom
relativity, becoming and need for support.
communities. It seems though, that the
change from traditional practices focusing
Keywords: Literacy practices, new
on paper/ pencil activities and teacherliteracies, change, teacher agency,
directed instruction to new kinds of social
professional learning
spaces is hard (Kist, 2005) and requires
1sari.raisanen74@pp.inet.fi
investment in the professional learning of
teachers (Merchant, 2010). Thus, the
teacher-agency perspective is essential in
clarifying change. Educational changes, as
well as the values according to which pupils
work, much depend on teachers’ actions
(Fullan, 2007; Grenfell, 1998).
have discussed within the context of and in
different phases of or throughout the
research. The concepts offered the tools
needed for understanding the development
process. The most important tool was
Pierre Bourdieu’s (1930–2002) concept of
habitus as a ‘structured and structuring
structure’ of principles generating and
This research offers an example of a
organizing practices, which constitute
professional learning experience from a
expectations for social practices, for
teacher-agency perspective. I, as a teacherindividuals and their actions in a particular
researcher, conducted development work
society (Bourdieu, 1977, 1990). When
on literacy practices in a Finnish first-grade
traditional, expected practices and new
classroom during one school year. The
ones meet, tension and confusion are likely
period involved new literacies-based
to occur. Therefore, making changes to
practices with diversified texts and
practices, e.g. to a classroom community,
collaborative learning. My purpose was not
involves tension and is hard for a teacher.
only to challenge practices content and
Change may even drift and turn into the
mode wise, but also to change the social
confusion of not knowing how to be or act
structures of the classroom community
(Hardy, 2012). Thus tension affects not only
towards more pupil-centred practices.
the practical level of teaching, because
These practices are highlighted in the
changes to practices always also influence
Finnish Core Curriculums (National Board of
the subjective level of personal processes
Education, 2004, 2016). During the
(Lanas & Kiilakoski, 2013).
research process I learned though that my
This research focused on studying the
actions as a teacher considered not only
habitus of literacy practices in the social
change to practices in the classroom
s t r u c t u re s o f a F i n n i s h c l a s s ro o m
community, but also my inner, subjective
community, where I as a teacher had the
experiences as a teacher. In the research I
essential agency for change. The
asked: What kinds of elements are
expectations, values, actions and beliefs
embedded in the change process of
produced by traditional Finnish school
literacy practices a) in the classroom
culture and society were expected to shape
community and b) in being a teacher?
my agency and influence the way the
development work progressed in the
classroom community and in my own
Theoretical Framework
being. Everything that a teacher does or
In a poststructural manner the theoretical
experiences speaks about teacher agency
concepts of the research were, in a way,
and positioning in that particular society. It
‘thinking companions’, which I discuss and
was therefore important in this research to
!153
investigate how I responded to ‘doing
things differently’ within the social structure,
both in classroom social actions and at my
subjective level of being a teacher. Without
processing both these levels, change to
practices would not be completed
(Kitchenham, 2008; Lanas & Kiilakoski,
2013; Larrivee, 2000; Mezirow, 1991).
constituted the units of analysis.
The data production and the development
work did not, however, end simultaneously.
The analysis of literacy practices in the
classroom influenced my subjective
experiences. When my doctoral-thesis
supervisor and I were viewing the video
data, I experienced the situation emotionally
and became confused about my thoughts
on literacy practices and being a teacher.
Methodology
The tension between new and the old
practices became clearer. Thus, to make
In the research I used Nexus Analysis (NA)
sense of my inner experience, I wrote a
(Scollon, 2001; Scollon & Scollon, 2004),
self-reflective text. This text works as data
an ethnographic methodological strategy,
to answer the research question at the level
to study social actions in the classroom
of being a teacher. But the self-reflection
c o m m u n i t y f ro m a t e a c h e r- a g e n c y
perspective. NA aims to find ways to does not only reach the subjective level of
my emotions and thoughts, it also links the
influence and change the nexus of practice
social structures, actions and relationships
– in the group being studied (Norris &
of the classroom community, and therefore
Jones, 2005; Scollon & Scollon, 2004).
mirrors the macro-level of the society. This
That is, in this research, the nexus involved
the community of a first-grade classroomself-reflection reflected even further in
academic collaboration, by focusing on text
with 18 pupils (ten boys and eight girls) and
units, which mirror my habitus as well as
me as their teacher. The pupils and I
units
, and
which reflect literacy practices
produced the data. During development
the interrelations between these two units.
work in the classroom, I video-recorded
Two different ways of being a teacher,
literacy events throughout the school year,
produced either by old or new practices,
targeting different kinds of literacy activities
became the nexus (Scollon & Scollon,
in different places in the classroom (total 26
2004) of the analysis at that point.
h 18 m). I also kept a diary, which consists
of my notes about my experiences and
observations of pupils’ learning, activities
and expressions (74 handwritten pages and
a 45-page Word document). The video
recordings and diary are the main data for
investigating the research question at the
level of the classroom community. Those
instances, which involved tension between
traditional practices and new ones,
Findings
The process of ‘doing things differently’
became a reflective learning process for
me. The teacher-dominated instruction was
not changeable overnight to a pupil-centred
learning space. My teacher agency during
!154
the process was a balancing act between
rather as a passionate possibility, a chance
traditional practices and more creative
to make decisions for better education.
learning. The research findings show that
Enduring passion, an element of teacher
change to literacy practices was based on
agency, comprises forces for creating
the choices I made as a teacher during this
emancipatory possibilities in learning and
process, creating in this way ‘a
teaching. Passion is always heading for
style’ (Bourdieu, 1977) for it. I found my
something better – ‘becoming’ something
own way during the process, and therefore
that was not before.
it is not possible to describe fully how to
Indeed, the ‘becoming’ characterized the
take a turn away from traditional literacy
whole change process. Fitting new
p r a c t i c e s t o w a rd s n e w o n e s ( s e e
practices into the habitus of a classroom
Lankshear & Knobel, 2012). However, there
community and being a teacher is a long,
are three main elements, which
multi-layered and continuous process of
characterized the process: relativity,
‘becoming’ (e.g. Kelchtermans & Hamilton,
becoming and need for support.
2004). I was, during the research, in a state
of continuous ‘becoming’ (Kelchtermans &
The change process related to actions and
Hamilton, 2004), both at the classroom
relationships in the classroom community,
community level and being a teacher
connected
, to the field
to inresources
aiming passionately for change. This
question, to the pupils, to learning
process moved between ‘inside and
processes, to ‘beings’. One cannot really
outside’. Change started on the inside,
separate the subjective and the objective
from my own interest in investing in change,
from each other; for example, my actions
and it continued on the outside, in
cannot be understood without the
organizing the classroom environment and
classroom community and the classroom
implementing new practices. Then, the
community cannot be understood without
process returned to inside, to my subjective
understanding my agency. The relation
experiences of being a teacher. This
between the transformation in that agency
learning process does not reach its end.
and positioning can also be understood as
‘Becoming’ will always be part of
a limitation. I acted according to the habitus
educational change. And it is not only
of the moment and one cannot ever know
teacher agency which is ‘becoming’ and in
what one’s actions might lead to in the
a state of change –literacy concepts and
future. Thus, there is no point in asking
practices develop perpetually. New
whether my style is right or wrong, as one
evidence is produced for literacy practices
cannot really know about the reproduction
and ways of working involving new
of habitus. That is, changing practices is
possibilities for education. Thus practices
filled with uncertainty about actions and
transform and change shape, not to
their influence, thus causing tension within
mention that literacies are not only in a
teacher agency. This tension should,
process of transformation but also
however, not be understood negatively but
!155
transformative (e.g. Martin & Grudziecki,
achieve success in that field? Perhaps as a
2006). Literacies definitely transform us teacher
and I had the illusion of struggling for
create new choices for ‘becoming’.
important things in that field, but as a
researcher I wanted to see improvements in
But it has to be understood that seeing
the area of literacy education. Or perhaps I
passionate ‘becoming’ within a tensionsimply reached a different kind of power
filled change process is not easy. To
position in the classroom.
challenge oneself as a teacher and to see
change as a possibility for both professional
It is therefore important to understand that
and subjective learning is thus essential.
change A and implementing new literacy
research-based approach to teaching
practices can only be a step towards a new
supported me in reflecting on my learning
kind of dominative relations. It may divide
process. Without support the change
pupils 2005;
(see Kist, Leu
, 2009).
et al.
process could have been different from
New literacies may contribute to
what, it
teachers
was.
shouldIndeed
be
strengthening social inequality and
provided with support and safe spaces to
increasing the gap between rich and poor.
learn from their experiences. Educational
There
, cultural
is no
or equality in economic
decision-makers should be aware of the
social factors and these factors are
struggle that teachers go through in
embedded in people’s practices (Marsh,
changing practices to form new ones. This
2005). Not all people have access to
s u p p o r t s h o u l d b e o ff e re d a t t h e
technologies or to (any kind of) education –
professional-classroom community level, in
some struggle with basic needs and the
teachers’ own working places and as more
rights of a human being.
personal support by offering teachers
chances to reflect on their own being as a
teacher. In addition, support has to be longReferences
term, because the change process takes
,Bourdieu
P. 1
( 977).
Outline of a theory of
time. It perpetually raises questions about
practice. Cambridge: Cambridge University
teacher-agency and the influence of
Press.
actions. I have even questioned my
motivation in implementing new practices
,Bourdieu
P. 1
( 990).
The logic of practice.
and giving up my dominant position within
Stanford: Stanford University Press.
the classroom community. Perhaps dividing
Bourdieu
, P. 1
( 998).
Practical reason.
up one’s power in one field strengthens
Stanford: Stanford University Press.
one’s
)position
(dis
in another? I may have
had a double interest in the field of literacy
, M. 2
Fullan
( 007).
The new meaning of
education (Bourdieu, 1998). Did giving up
educational change. New York: Teachers
my power in the classroom community College Press.
improve my position as an academic and a
Gibson
, J.J. 1977).
(
The theory of
literacy
, someone who researcher
tries to
!156
affordances. In R. Shaw & J. Bransford
(Eds), Perceiving, acting, and knowing (pp.
67–82). New York: Wiley.
agent. Pedagogy, Culture & Society, 21, 3,
343-360.. Retrieved from: http://dx.doi.org/
10.1080/14681366.2012.759134.
Grenfell, M. (1998). Language and the
classroom. In M. Grenfell & D. James (Eds),
Lankshear, C. & Knobel, M. (2012). ‘New’
literacies: Technologies and values. Revista
Bourdieu and education: Acts of practical
theory (pp. 72–88). London: Falmer Press.
Teknokultura, 9, 45–69.
Leu, D.J., Kinzer, C.K., Coiro, J.L., &
Cammack, D.W. (2004). Toward a theory of
new literacies emerging from the Internet
and other information and communication
technologies. The International Reading
Association. Retrieved from: http://
www.readingonline.org/newliteracies/leu/.
Hakkarainen, K., Lonka, K., & Lipponen, L.
(2004). Tutkiva oppiminen – järki, tunteet ja
kulttuuri oppimisen sytyttäjinä. Helsinki,
Finland: WSOY.
Hardy, C. (2012). Hysteresis. In M. Grenfell
(Ed.), Pierre Bourdieu: Key concepts
Leu, D.J., O’Byrne, W.I., Zawilinski, L.,
McVerry, J.G., & Everett-Cacopardo, H.
(2009). Comments on Greenhow, Robelia,
and Hughes: Expanding the new literacies
conversation. Educational Researcher, 38,
264–269.
(pp.126–145). Bristol, CT: Acumen.
Kelchtermans, G. & Hamilton, M.L. (2004).
The dialectics of passion and theory:
Exploring the relation between self-study
and emotion. In International handbook of
self-study of teaching and teacher
education practices (Vol. 12, pp. 785‒810).
International Handbooks of Education:
Springer.
Marsh, J. (2004). The techno-literacy
practices of young children. Journal of Early
Childhood Research, 2, 51–66.
Kist, W. (2005). New literacies in action:
Teaching and learning in multiple media.
New York: Teachers College Press.
Marsh, J. (2005). Afterword. In J. Marsh
(Ed.), Popular culture, new media and
digital literacy in early childhood (pp.237–
239). New York: Routledge.
Kitchenham, A. (2008). The evolution of
John Mezirow’s transformative learning
theory. Journal of Transformative Education,
6, 104–123.
Marsh, J. (2007). New literacies and old
pedagogies: Recontextualizing rules and
practices. International Journal of Inclusive
Education, 11, 267–281.
Kress, G. (2003). Literacy in the new media
age. London: Routledge.
Martin, A. & Grudziecki, J. (2006). DigEuLit:
Concepts and tools for digital literacy
Lanas, M. & Kiilakoski, T. (2013). Growing
pains: Teacher becoming a transformative
development. Innovation in Teaching and
Learning in Information and Computer
Sciences, 5, 249–267. Retrieved from:
!157
http://journals.heacademy.ac.uk/doi/full/
10.11120/ital.2006.05040249.
A_Pedagogy_of_Multiliteracies_Designing_
Social_Futures.htm.
Merchant, G. (2005). Digikids: Cool dudes
and the new writing. E-learning, 2, 50–60.
Norris, S. & Jones, H.J. (Eds) (2005).
Discourse in action: Introducing mediated
discourse analysis. New York: Routledge.
Merchant, G. (2008). Digital writing in the
early years. In J. Coiro, M. Knobel, C.
Räisänen, S. (2015). Changing literacy
practices: A becoming of a new teacher
agency. Acta Universitatis Ouluensis, E,
153. Oulu, Finland: University of Oulu.
Lankshear, & D.J. Leu (Eds), Handbook of
research on new literacies (pp. 751–773).
London: Routledge.
Scollon, R. (2001). Mediated discourse:
The nexus of practice. London: Routledge.
Merchant, G. (2010). 3D virtual worlds as
e n v i ro n m e n t s f o r l i t e r a c y l e a r n i n g .
Educational Research, 52, 135–150.
Scollon, R. & Scollon, S.W. (2004). Nexus
analysis: Discourse and the emerging
Internet. London: Routledge.
Merchant, G. (2012). Mobile practices in
everyday life: Popular digital technologies
and schooling revisited. British Journal of
Educational Technology, 43, 770–782.
Selander, S. & Kress, G. (2010). Design för
lärande – ett multimodalt perspektiv [Design
for learning – a multimodal perspective].
Stockholm, Sweden: Norstedt.
Mezirow, J. (1991). Transformative
dimensions of adult lear ning . San
Francisco:
Jossey-Bass.
Zembylas, M. (2007). A politics of passion
in education: The Foucauldian legacy.
Educational Philosophy and Theory, 135–
149.
National Board of Education. (2004). Core
curriculum for basic education. Helsinki:
Board of Education.
National Board of Education. (2014).
Established draft for core curriculum for
basic education 2016. Helsinki: Board of
E d u c a t i o n . R e t r i e v e d f ro m : h t t p : / /
www.oph.fi/ops2016/perusteluonnokset
.
New London Group. (1996). Pedagogy of
multiliteracies: Designing social futures.
Harvard Educational Review, 66. Retrieved
from: http://wwwstatic.kern.org/filer/
blogWrite44
ManilaWebsite/paul/articles/
!158
Paper 17
Aspects of educational consciousness in early
childhood media education
Saara Salomaa 1
University of Tampere, National Audiovisual Institute, Finland
Abstract
Various media are part of children’s
everyday lives in Finland. However, media
care and follow the principles of ECEC
pedagogies. The model presented should
be further examined in empirical studies. It
could be utilised, for example, to explore
how ECEC professionals express their
educational consciousness regarding media
education or how professional texts, such
as training materials or curricular guidance
documents, promote media educational
consciousness.
education promoting media literacy has not
been systematically included in early
childhood education and care (ECEC). The
need to enhance ECEC professionals’
media education competencies has been
acknowledged both nationally and
internationally. This paper discusses media
education from the viewpoint of ECEC
g o a l s a n d p e d a g o g y. E d u c a t i o n a l
Keywords: Media Education, Early
consciousness is often considered to be an
Childhood Education and Care, educational
important variable steering educators’
c o n s c i o u s n e s s , m e d i a l i t e r a c y,
professional actions. Hence, this article
professionalism
scrutinises media education, drawing from
aspects of educational consciousness
constructed by Finnish educationist
Introduction
Hirsjärvi (1981). I present a model for media
educational consciousness in institutional
Various media are part of children’s
ECEC that has been constructed from
everyday lives in the mediatised culture in
research in the fields of media education
which we live (Chaudron, 2015). In Finland,
and ECEC and complements Hirsjärvi’s
the need to promote media education (i.e.
general model of educational
the pedagogical promotion of media
consciousness. The underlying idea for the
literacy) has been brought up in the early
model is that early years media education
childhood education and care (ECEC)
should respect ECEC’s elemental nature as
context for more than ten years and has
a combination of education, pedagogy and
been supported by a variety of projects,
1saara.salomaa@kavi.fi
publications and in-service training
(Rantala, 2011; Ministry of Education and
Culture [MoEC], 2013). Regardless of these
efforts, surveys suggest that media
education has not been systematically
integrated into daily work in ECEC (MoEC,
2013). Also, the Finnish Higher Education
Evaluation Council (Karila et al., 2013) has
suggested that more research-based
teaching of media education is necessary in
university-level early childhood education
degree programmes.
goals, such as in ethical and arts education
(Finnish National Board of Education
[FNBE], 2014). Currently, the FNBE is also
forming the first normative core curriculum
for early childhood education (for 0 to 6
year-olds), which will be introduced in
August 2017. Based on the latest drafts,
this document will be closely linked to the
pre-primary education curriculum, and
‘multi-literacy’ will also be included in the
core curriculum of ECEC as a competence
area that should be promoted through all
pedagogical activities. Media literacy and
ICT are included in multi-literacy. This
guideline will be a major challenge for early
My PhD research aims to study what the
gateways and barriers are for systematic
media education in ECEC and how
childhood education providers, since only 8
professionals’ competencies are built in
per cent of leading municipal ECEC officers
degree programmes, in-service training and
estimate that a majority (>80%) of their
everyday, practical work. Research on early
personnel are ‘familiar’ with media
childhood professionals’ media education
education (MoEC, 2013).
competencies is especially intriguing at
present, with the Finnish core curriculum for
Now, it is essential to ask whether ECEC
pre-primary education being renewed and
professionals’ competencies in media
introduced in August 2016. For the first
education have kept pace with society’s
time, the core curriculum is normative in
development in this area. Little academic
nature, and pre-primary education has only
research has been conducted regarding
been mandatory for all six-years-olds since
Finnish ECEC professionals’ media
2015, which means that all Finnish six year
educational competency development
olds will be served by this curriculum and all
(Suoninen, 2008; Karila, et al., 2013). Thus,
pre-primary educational communities must
such knowledge is vital in meaningfully
promoting early-years media literacy.
have sufficient competencies to provide the
education described in the curricular texts.
The curriculum for pre-primary education
includes transversal competency areas of
Theoretical framework
‘multi-literacy’ and ‘information and
Defining
, and ‘media’ has long been difficult
communications technology’ (ICT), clearly
accelerating media convergence is making
connected to media competencies and
it harder still (Masterman, 1987; Seppänen
literacy. Producing and analysing media
& Väliverronen, 2012). In this research
texts is also mentioned several times as a
study, media are discussed in a broad
methodology for more general educational
!160
sense, not only covering concrete
equipment and content but also mediatised
environments of communication
(Meyrowizt, 1999; Seppänen &
Väliverronen, 2012). All of these different
aspects of media form media culture, the
lifeworld of today’s citizens.
Media education can be carried out in
various ways. No special skills are required
by professionals in order to master media
education. In our rapidly changing media
culture, media education does not have, or
even need to have, established
pedagogical or didactic traditions or status
as an independent subject. Thus,
Media education can be defined as ‘goalprofessionals’ reasoning appears to be the
oriented interaction [...] involving the
key element affecting whether media
educator, the learner and media culture’, as
education is included in ECEC pedagogies.
stated by Kupiainen and Sintonen (2009,
Previous Finnish (school context) research
31). The goal of this interactive process is
(Vesterinen, 2011) implies that teachers’
media literacy. While the extent and
reasoning regarding media education does
definitions of media literacy are ambiguous
not fall easily into the common categories
and continuously under debate (Palsa &
of (teacher) professionalism (e.g. subject or
Ruokamo, 2015; Potter, 2013; Martens,
pedagogical knowledge). ECEC also differs
2010), here the term covers not only the
notably from school pedagogies; it is a
abilities to access, analyse, evaluate and
holistic combination of care, education and
communicate messages, but also
pedagogy.
, only about one-third
Additionally
, social abilities, self-expression
participation
of Finnish ECEC professionals are teachers
and ethics (Kupiainen & Sintonen, 2009;
(Karila 2008). Therefore, this paper utilises
Buckingham, 2007). Media literacy
the concept of ‘media educational
subsequently becomes a vast concept, but
consciousness’.
as Palsa and Ruokamo (2015) remind, the
The concept of educational consciousness,
definition of media literacy should relate
as examined by Finnish educationist
both to relevant theoretical discussion and
Hirsjärvi (1981), and followed by e.g.
the context in which research takes place,
Poikolainen (2002) and Tahvanainen (2002),
including its social and cultural
refers to educators’ awareness of playing
characteristics. Contextualisation allows
the role of an educator and the rights and
media literacy to be utilised in practice by
responsibilities involved in that role. In the
clarifying its meaning. Hence, Kupiainen
field of media education, previous research
and2009
Sintonen’s
, 31)( definition can be
and projects imply that confusion about the
further contextualised for ECEC as follows:
of media education and its highly
‘media education in institutional ECECconcept
is
connotations have been barriers
g o a l - o r i e n t e d i n t e r a c t i o n i n v o l vtechnical
ing
to successfully including it in pedagogies
educators, learners and media culture. The
(Kupiainen, Niinistö, Pohjola & Kotilainen,
aim is to promote ECEC’s general
2006; Mertala & Salomaa, 2016).
educational goals by enhancing media
literacy’ (Mertala & Salomaa, 2016).
!161
contextualising it to (Finnish) ECEC and to
the promotion of media literacy within a
mediatised culture. The model suggests
that media educational consciousness in
ECEC includes four categories of
conceptions, framed as follows (Table 1).
Methodology
This suggestion for a model of educational
consciousness in early childhood media
education (Salomaa, 2016) comprises
studies in educational consciousness
(Hirsjärvi, 1981), media education (e.g.
Buckingham, 2007; Kupiainen & Sintonen,
2009), and media culture (Meyrowizt, 1999;
Seppänen & Väliverronen, 2012). These
theoretical cornerstones are scrutinised
from the viewpoints of ECEC’s values and
general educational goals and based on
both ECEC research (Broström 2006, Karila
2008) and the normative guidelines framing
Finnish ECEC (FNBoE 2014,
Va r h a i s k a s v a t u s l a k i , 2 0 1 5 ) . T h e
methodology and theoretical framework are
intertwined, since the suggested model
builds the theoretical core for my PhD
research and will later be tested with
empirical data.
This model for media educational
consciousness has multiple implications,
not only for future research but also for
practical educators and professionals
working with ECEC degree programmes,
in-service training and policies. It could be
utilised, for example, to explore how ECEC
professionals express their educational
consciousness regarding media education
or how professional texts, such as training
materials or curricular guidance
documents, promote media educational
consciousness.
The next phase in the research is to study
university-level kindergarten teacher-training
programmes’ curricula in order to learn how
they are constructing pre-service teachers’
media educational consciousness. What
topics are covered in the courses and
literature that should be enhancing preservice early childhood education teachers’
competencies in media education?
Second, data will also be collected from
practical educators, pre-service and inservice ECEC professionals, during the
spring of 2017. This data set will include
interviews and learning diaries from media
education courses.
Preliminary findings and the next phase
of the research
The underlying idea of the model is that
early-years media education should respect
ECEC’s elemental nature as a combination
of education, pedagogy and care and
follow the principles of ECEC pedagogies.
This would presumably make it easier to
include media education in goal-oriented
everyday ECEC pedagogies and practices
and clarify the meaning of the concept
within the field of early-years education.
Hence, Hirsjärvi’s (1981) general model of
educational consciousness has evolved by
!162
Table 1. Model for Media Educational Consciousness in ECEC (drawn
from Hirsjärvi, 1981)
1. Conceptions of ECEC goals and values in relation to media literacy
a. that are personal
b. that are shared or at least negotiated with colleagues
c. that are shared or at least negotiated with parents
d. within the normative framework of professional ECEC
2. Conceptions of adults’ and children’s growth and development
a. of individuals attending ECEC
i. including the groups they form
b. of the basic principles of human growth, development and learning
i. as individuals and members of communities
c. of human beings, especially children
3. Conceptions of media
a. as a vessel
b. as language
c. as environment
as media culture, a combination of all of the above; a lifeworld
4. Conceptions of oneself as a media educator and the importance of ECEC for human
growth in media culture
a. of oneself as a media educator and potential for development
b. of the importance of educators’ and children’s interaction in the media cultural context:
negotiation, control techniques, emotional aspects
c. of the quality and importance of environmental factors and the interaction between different
environments (material, social and cultural media environments)
This area includes conceptions of how different environments, actions, situations, contents
and materials affect growth and development
References
Broström, S. (2006). Care and Education:
Towards a New Paradigm in Early
Childhood Education. Child Youth Care
Forum 35, 391–409.
Brotherus, A., Hytönen, J., & Krokfors, L.
(2002). Esi- ja alkuopetuksen didaktiikka
[Didactics for pre-primary and primary
education]. Juva: WSOY.
Buckingham, D. (2007). Beyond
Technology. Children’s Learning in the Age
of Digital Culture. Cambridge: Polity Press.
education, European Early Childhood
Education Research Journal, 16(2), 210–
223.
Karila, K., Harju-Luukkainen, H., Juntunen,
A., Kainulainen, S., Kaulio-Kuikka, K.,
Mattila, V., Rantala, K., Ropponen, M.,
Rouhiainen-Valo, T., Sirén-Aura, M.,
Goman, J., Mustonen, K., & SmedsNylund, A.-S. (2013). Varhaiskasvatuksen
koulutus Suomessa. Arviointi koulutuksen
tilasta ja kehittämistarpeista [Early
Childhood Education Training in Finland.
Evaluation of the State of Training and
Development Needs]. Korkeakoulujen
arviointineuvoston julkaisuja 7:2013.
Chaudron, S. (2015). Young Children (0-8)
and Digital Technology. A qualitative
exploratory study across seven countries.
Kupiainen, R., Niinistö, H., Pohjola, K., &
Joint Research Centre, Luxembourg:
Kotilainen, S. (2006). Mediakasvatusta alle
Publications Office of the European Union.8-vuotiaille. Keväällä 2006 toteutetun
Mediamuffinssi-kokeilun arviointia. Raportti
Finnish National Board of Education (2014).
[Media Education for under 8-year-olds.
Esiopetuksen opetussuunnitelman
Evaluation report of the Media Muffin –
perusteet. [The Core Curriculum for Pre
project conducted spring 2006]. Tampere:
Primary Education] Opetushallitus:
Tampereen yliopisto.
Määräykset ja ohjeet 2014: 94.
Kupiainen, R. & Sintonen, S. (2009).
Happo, I. (2006). Varhaiskasvattajan
Medialukutaidot, osallisuus, mediakasvatus
asiantuntijuus. Asiantuntijaksi kehittyminen
[Media Literacies, Participation, Media
Lapin läänissä [Early childhood education
Education]. Helsinki: Helsinki University
teachers’ expertise. Perceiving expertise in
Press.
Finnish Lapland]. Acta Universitatis
Martens, H. (2010). Evaluating media
Lapponiensis 98. Lapin yliopisto.
literacy education: Concepts, theories and
Hirsjärvi, S. (1981) Aspects of
future directions. Journal of Media Literacy
consciousness in child rearing. Doctoral
Education, 2(1), 1–22.
dissertation. University of Jyväskylä.
Masterman, L. (1989). Medioita oppimassa
Jyväskylä studies in education, psychology,
– mediakasvatuksen perusteet [English
and social research, 43.
original: Teaching the Media, 1985.].
Karila, K. (2008). A Finnish viewpoint on
Helsinki: Kansansivistystyön liitto.
p ro f e s s i o n a l i s m i n e a r l y c h i l d h o o d
Suoninen, A. (2008). Mediakasvatus
päiväkodissa ja esiopetuksessa.
Mediakasvatuksen tilan ja Mediamuffinssioppimateriaalien käyttöönoton arviointi
syksyllä 2007 [Media Education in Day Care
and Pre-Primary School. Evaluation of the
State of Media Education and Use of
” M e d i a M u f fi n ” P ro j e c t M a t e r i a l s ] .
Mediamuffinssi-hanke ja Jyväskylän
yliopiston nykykulttuurin tutkimuskeskus.
Mertala, P. & Salomaa, S. (2016).
Kasvatuskeskeinen näkökulma
varhaisvuosien mediakasvatukseen
[Education-centred Perspective on Early
Years Media Education]. In: Pekkala, L.,
Salomaa, S., & Spisak, S. (Eds),
Monimuotoinen mediakasvatus (s. 154–
174). Kansallisen audiovisuaalisen
instituutin julkaisuja 1/2016.
Meyrowitz, J. (1999). Understanding of
Media. ETC: A Review of General
Semantics 56:1, 44–53.
Varhaiskasvatuslaki [Act on Early Childhood
Education]. (33/1973).
Ministry of Education and Culture. (2013).
Mediakasvatus
kuntien
varhaiskasvatuksessa. [Media Education in
Municipal Early Childhood Education]
Opetus-ja Kulttuuriministeriön julkaisuja
2013:10.
Potter, W.J. (2013). Review of literature on
media literacy. Sociology Compass, 7(6),
417–435.
Rantala, L. (2011) Finnish Media Literacy
Education Policies and Best Practices in
Early Childhood Education and Care Since
2004. Journal of Media Literacy Education,
3(2).
Salomaa,
S.
(2016)
Mediakasvatustietoisuuden jäsentäminen
varhaiskasvatuksessa [Construing Media
Educational Consciousness in Early
Childhood Education and Care]. Journal of
Early Childhood Education Research, 5(1),
136–161.
Seppänen, J. & Väliverronen, E. (2012).
Mediayhteiskunta [Media Society].
Tampere: Vastapaino.
!165
Paper 18
Using Electronic Storybooks to Foster Word learning
in Turkish Children1
2, Uludag University, Bursa, Turkey
Burcu Sarı
Handan Asûde Başal, Uludag University, Bursa, Turkey
Zsofia
, University,
K. Takacs
Budapest, Hungary
Adriana G. Bus, Leiden University, Leiden, Holland
Abstract
A growing body of electronic storybooks,
sounds and (5) a control group who did not
listen to the stories. In the intervention
conditions, two electronic storybooks were
with different multimedia additions such as
each presented twice. Preliminary results
animation, background music and sound
show cognitive overload from the electronic
effects, has become available in online
books. In
, contrast to previous studies
stores for an international community. The
animated illustrations were not helpful in
current study was designed to disentangle
acquiring new word meanings and children
the effects of multimedia features that are
gained more vocabulary in the conditions
rather common: animation on the one
without music or sound. In particular,
hand, music and sound effects on the
background music and sounds seem to
other. Furthermore, we aimed to assess
interfere with Turkish children’s learning.
whether multimedia-enhanced stories that
Possible explanations are discussed.
have been shown to facilitate word learning
in other samples (Takacs, Swart & Bus,
2015) are similarly effective for Turkish
K e y w o rd s : E l e c t ro n i c s t o r y b o o k s ,
children. A sample
5-year-old
of 99 4- and
multimedia learning, vocabulary
kindergarten children were randomly
development, language development,
assigned to one of five conditions: (1)
cognitive overload
animated stories with background music
and sounds, (2) animated stories without
background music and sounds, (3) stories
with static illustrations and background
music
, (4) and
stories
sounds
with static
illustrations without background music and
This PhD thesis is being conducted under Uludag University Scientific Research Projects. The first author has visited Leiden
University as a “Visiting Researcher" under the Erasmus Programme and made a contribution to her thesis, together with
Professor Adriana G. Bus and Dr Zsofia Takacs.
1
287@gmail.com
burcusari
music and sound effects on the one hand,
and animated illustrations on the other,
Storybook reading is an important incentive
which are common features in electronic
for the cognitive development of young
storybooks. I hypothesize that storybooks,
children. Each time children are exposed to
including animations, background music
a new storybook, they come across
and sounds effects as additional
complex vocabulary and sentence
information sources in electronic books,
structures which enhance their language
may enhance young Turkish children’s
ability and foster their vocabulary
learning from them, just as these features
knowledge (Mol & Bus, 2011). Since we
help Dutch children (Verhallen et al., 2006).
entered a new era of technology,
More
, music specifically
and sound effects
storybooks have been going digital and
were expected to help children understand
online stores offer electronic storybooks.
emotions in stories, such as happiness,
Just as in some Western European
excitement and sadness, and thus support
countries, such as Denmark, Sweden, the
story comprehension. Preliminary results of
Netherlands and Belgium, which are
the experiment regarding receptive worddefined as the most advanced digital
learning are reported in the present study.
economies in the EU (96% of households
have Internet access; EU, 2015), there is a
high proportion of households (70%) with
Theoretical framework
Internet access in Turkey as well (TÜİK,
2015). We conducted a study to test the
Based on the ‘Cognitive Theory of
potential of digital storybooks for young
Multimedia Learning’ (Mayer, 2001) stories
Turkish children. While too much time on
presented with additional visual and aural
devices might mean problems for children
information that matches the story text may
(Christakis, Zimmerman, DiGiuseppe &
facilitate learning by providing nonverbal
McCarty, 2004), especially for those in
information about it, in addition to the
countries like Turkey where parents are less
language. Multimedia learning is based on
aware of the benefits of early literacy
Paivio’s Dual Coding Theory (1986). Paivio
activities such as shared storybook reading
(1986) found that it is easier to memorize
(Park, 2008) and reading performance is
words when they are matched with a
below the OECD average (OECD, 2012),
nonverbal representation. The multimedia
electronic storybook exposure may become
features in the present experiment were
the most important mechanism for
designed to support Dual Coding as they
supporting emergent literacy skills. It is.
provide animations, music and sound
however, unknown whether books available
effects simultaneously and corresponding
on the Internet are appropriately designed
to verbal narration.
f o r c h i l d re n ’s c o m p re h e n s i o n a n d
In a review, Bus, Takacs and Kegel (2015)
vocabulary development. In my dissertation
found positive effects for animated books
project, I am experimenting with the role of
Introduction
!167
with background music and sounds when
and
, )c animated
sound illustrations without
compared to static books on language
background
, )d animated
music or sound
development and story recall. This finding
illustrations with background music and
was confirmed
,
in a meta-analysis (Takacs sound
, and) ea control group in which
Swart &2015).
Bus, In ,the
we same vein
children only participated in pre- and postexpected that music and sound effects
test sessions. About 20 children were
might highlight and concretize emotions
assigned to each of the five conditions in
and thus facilitate emotional word learning
, apart from the control group, they
which
from animated storybooks. For example, in
encountered the two stories, twice, in the
format corresponding to the condition. Only
the story “Little Kangaroo”, Mother
when parents had given informed written
Kangaroo is too tired to carry her baby all
consent for their child’s participation were
day long and when she stops to sit down
they included in the present study. Children
the background music stops, and a sound
were taken from the classroom to a quiet
effect is added to show that Mother
place in the school for testing and the story
Kangaroo is exhausted parallel to the
s e s s i o n s . F i r s t , c h i l d re n ’s g e n e r a l
narration. We hypothesized that children
vocabulary and Theory of Mind skills were
would learn more words when listening to
assessed in individual sessions. Following
animated storybooks with background
the pre-testing phase, readings were done
music as compared to animated
in small groups of two or three children. The
storybooks without music. Additionally, the
order in which the target books were
same was expected for stories presenting
presented was counterbalanced, meaning
static illustrations instead of animation, i.e.
that half of the children started with the
music would enhance the learning of
story “Bear is in Love with Butterfly”, while
emotional words.
the other half started with the story “Little
Kangaroo”. Thus, an order effect was
avoided. After the intervention sessions, the
Methodology
children’s story comprehension was
Ninety-nine
1 typically developing children (4
assessed by asking them to retell the story
boys and 58 girls) aged 4 to 6 years (before
in individual sessions. In further sessions,
starting formal schooling) from middle
the children’s word learning skills were
socio-economic
,
status families in Bursa
assessed. The present study reports the
Turkey, participated in the research. A
results for word learning.
between-subject design was applied in
which children were matched based on
gender
) and
(boy ,orage
5girl
or(46 years
Materials
old) before being randomly assigned to one
Storybooks: Two storybooks (Little
of five conditions: a) static illustrations
Kangaroo) and Bear is in Love with Butterfly
without
, )b background music or sound
with a strong focus on emotions were
static illustrations with background music
!168
chosen as target books. The story of Little
variables, the distribution of the scores
Kangaroo concerns a little kangaroo
were normal (standardized skewness and
learning to be independent from her
kurtosis did not exceed +/- 3.29 in all
mother. The story of Bear is in Love with
cases). A one-way ANOVA was conducted
Butterfly focuses on their feelings of love
on for
target vocabulary knowledge with
and loving each other, despite their
condition as a between-subject factor. The
d i ff e re n c e s a n d c o n s e q u e n t h u g e
effects of different features in the electronic
misunderstandings.
books were examined by testing three a
priori contrasts: (1) intervention conditions
Target vocabulary: Twelve less common
versus control, (2) conditions with music
words were chosen from each story. Six of
versus conditions with no music, and (3)
them were emotional words and well
conditions with static versus conditions
illustrated in the background music (e.g.
with animated illustrations.
proud, in love, broken); the other six were
neutral words that were not highlighted in
Animated storybooks with music and
the, music
bitter,
). firm(e.g. wide
sounds were expected to facilitate
children’s word-learning more than the
animated storybook condition without
music or sound. In the same vein, the static
Measurement instrument
condition with music and sounds was
Two vocabulary tests were developed by
expected to outperform the static condition
the researchers, to assess receptive and
without music. In addition, it was expected
expressive knowledge of the 12 target
that music and sound effects would play a
words. The results regarding the receptive
specific role in illustrating emotions in
test are reported here. Children completed
stories, hence animated storybooks
the receptive test in which they were shown
enriched with music and sound effects that
four different pictures from the story and
emphasize emotions such as happiness,
they were asked to select the one that
excitement and sadness would be
corresponded to the target word that the
particularly supportive of understanding
experimenter spoke. Total scores were
emotional state words when compared to
calculated for the six emotional and six
animated stories with no music or sound
neutral words for each child.
effects.
The experimental groups outperformed the
control group on word learning (F (1, 92) =
7.41 p < .001). This indicates that children
learned new words due to the book
readings. There were no significant
differences between the animated and
static versions of the electronic storybooks
Results
Because two children were missing from
the kindergarten, they could not complete
the vocabulary tests, hence analyses were
done on the data of 97 children. For all the
!169
(F (1, 92) = 0.00, p = .972), indicating that
representation of the text, and if such a
animations were not helpful than static
representation is lacking it is not possible to
illustrations in acquiring new word
connect a verbal representation to
meanings. When books included music,
nonverbal
, music and information (images
children learned significantly fewer words
). It
sounds
as is also possible that it is difficult
compared to conditions with no music (F
for children to interpret music and how it
(1, 92) = 11.78, p < .001, d = .80, 95% CI
represents emotions, thus contributing to
= .35 – 1.25).
the nonverbal representation of events. As
a result
, children mayofnotthat
be able to
There were no differences between
figure out the meaning of unknown words
emotional and neutral words or any
in the text.
interaction between word type and
condition. Background music and sounds
This is the first study, to our knowledge, to
were
, especially
expected
for to be helpful
separate the effects of different multimedia
understanding and learning emotional
elements, such as background music and
words. The findings did not, however,
sound effects, in electronic stories for
corroborate this hypothesis. On the
typically developing children. The present
contrary, the results show that music and
study’s results suggest that animation does
sounds interfered with learning new words.
not facilitate word learning. This finding is in
To explain this there are two possibilities
contrast to previous results showing the
within the theory of Multimedia Learning
benefits of such multimedia elements for
(Mayer,
2001) The first is that children
children's story comprehension and wordphysically might not be able to hear the
learning (Bus et al., 2015; Takacs et al.,
2015). Even
, musicmore
had a surprising
narration because of the loud music. Due to
negative effect on learning new vocabulary.
background sounds and music, children
may be unable to create a verbal This result is in line with the results of a
Figure
1. Children’s word learning in conditions with music and sound effects and in conditions
without music and sounds” Note: Maximum score is equaled 24
!170
previous experiment with children with
severe language Impairments (Smeets, Van
Dijken & Bus, 2014). Children with language
impairments have difficulties
understanding new vocabulary when there
is music and sound effects and the
presentation of music and sounds interferes
with learning new vocabulary (Smeets et al,
2014). In the same vein, the present study
demonstrates the negative effects of music
on vocabulary gain, at least in this sample.
be that in countries where reading
performance is below average (OECD,
2012) parents are less aware of the benefits
i
ofn sharing storybooks with children and
might read to them less (Park, 2008). If that
is true, Turkish children might be less
familiar with the storybook reading
paradigm and might find the situation of
listening to multimedia storybooks
confusing. According to this explanation,
what works in countries with a rich literacy
tradition does not necessarily work in
countries where book reading is not an
obvious element of early childhood
education.
The aim of the current study was to
differentiate between the effects of
animated pictures on the one hand, and of
background music and sound effects on
the other. Storybooks with multimedia
additions, such as animation, background
References
music and sound effects, have positive
effects on children’s story comprehension
Bus, A.G., Takacs, Z.K., & Kegel, C.A.T.
and word learning (Bus et al., 2015; Takacs
(2015). Affordances and limitations of
et al., 2015; Verllen, Bus & de Jong, 2006).
electronic storybooks for young children’s
The most surprising finding is that music
literacy: Consequences for engineering
was distracting and interfered with the
apps. Developmental Review, 35:79–97.
comprehension of narration. Music might
doi:10.1016/j.dr.2014.12.004.
have interfered because the language was
Christakis, D.A., Zimmerman, F.J.,
rather complicated for the participants in
DiGiuseppe, D.L., & McCarty, C.A. (2004).
the current study who were not familiar with
Early television exposure and subsequent
storybook reading (Park, 2008).
attentional problems in children. Pediatrics,
These findings provide evidence for
113, 708–713.
cognitive overload from multimedia stories
EU. (2015). Information society statisticsfor a sample of Turkish children. Thus there
households and individuals.
Retrieved
is compelling evidence that, with the
f ro m : h t t p : / / e c . e u ro p a . e u / e u ro s t a t /
addition of music and sound effects,
s t new
atistics-explained/index.php/
Turkish children find it difficult to learn
Information_society_statistics_vocabulary from electronic book reading
_households_and_individuals [4 February
experiences. This illustrates that the
2016).
internalization of apps, including electronic
books, is not helpful for all children. It may
!171
Mayer, R.E. (2001). Multimedia learning.
New York: Cambridge University Press.
h t t p : / / w w w. t u i k . g o v. t r /
P re H a b e r B u l t e n l e r i . d o ? i d = 1 8 6 6 0 [ 4
February 2016].
Mol, S.E. & Bus, A.G. (2011). To read or not
to read: A meta-analysis of print exposure
from infancy to early adulthood.
Psychological Bulletin, 137. doi:10.1037/
a0021890.
OECD. (2012). PISA 2012 Results in Focus
What 15-year-olds know and what they can
do with what they know. Retrieved from:
http://www.oecd.org/pisa/keyfindings/
pisa-2012-results-overview.pdf [9 February
2016].
Verhallen, M.J.A.J., Bus, A.G., & de Jong,
M.T. (2006). The promise of multimedia
stories for kindergarten children at-risk.
Journal of Educational Psychology, 98,
410–419.
Paivio, A. (1986). Mental representations.
New York: Oxford University Press.
Park, H. (2008). Home literacy
environments and children's reading
performance: a comparative study of 25
countries. Educational Research and
Evaluation, 14, 489–505. doi:
10.1080/13803610802576734.
Smeets, D.J.H., van Dijken, M.J., & Bus,
A.G. (2014). Using electronic storybooks to
support word learning in children with
severe language impairments Journal of
Learning Disabilities, 47, 435–449. doi:
10.1177/0022219412467069.
Takacs, Z.K., Swart, E.K., & Bus, A.G.
(2015). Benefits and pitfalls of multimedia
and interactive features in technologyenhanced storybooks. Review of
Educational Research, 85, 698–739. doi:
10.3102/0034654314566989.
TÜİK. (2015). Hanehalkı Bilişim Teknolojileri
Kullanım Araştırması. Retrieved from:
!172
Paper 19
Young children’s digital literacy practices at home:
social, physical and classed
Fiona Louise Scott1
School
, Universityof
of Sheffield,
Education
UK
Abstract
This paper presents some initial findings
from a mixed methods study looking at
preschool children’s home practices with
television and related media in the United
Kingdom. In contrast with many existing
studies, the study suggests that preschool
children in particular are likely to engage
with television and related media at home in
physical and social ways. Whilst every
family is unique, the examples presented in
this study suggest that digital practices are
broadly different in households mapping
onto different social classes.
Keywords: Television; home; social class;
multimodality; child development
Introduction
It is often taken for granted that children’s
home practices with television and related
media are both solitary and sedentary.
Given the inattention paid to the social, it is
perhaps unsurprising that existing studies
1flscott
1@sheffield.ac.uk
examining very young children's
relationships with television tend to be
quantitative, light-touch and arguably rather
reductive in relation to social class (with a
focus on what and how much children
). Social class is most often inserted
watch
as 'another variable' into existing debates
about the negative aspects of television
and related media.
This study investigates preschool children’s
home practices with television and related
media by paying close attention to the
totality of their physical, emotional and
literate responses, as well as the social
context of the family and wider community.
It consciously engages with a socioeconomically diverse range of participants.
Drawing on a broad range of social and
physical practices around television and
related media in a diverse range of UK
, it asks the question: 'How is social
homes
class implicated in these practices?'
Theoretical framework
In this study, the topic of preschool
children’s engagement with television and
related media in the home is explored in
relation to three interrelated theoretical
resources:
(1) Critical developmental psychology: This
study adopts a critical developmental
lens that both incorporates and moves
beyond the biological. It draws on
Vygotskian (1978) notions of scaffolding,
imagination and mediation as central to
understanding young children’s early
explorative learning, whilst arguing that
new materialism (Miller, 1987; Miller,
2008; Miller, 2009) and Deleuze &
Guattari’s notion of assemblages (1988)
can help us to understand the child in
relation to the broader material and
social, bringing together entities that are
organic and non-organic, material and
abstract, technological and ‘natural’.
human cues to make judgements about
meaning in everyday life.
(3) Social class: Finally, and perhaps most
importantly of all, the study foregrounds
social class, drawing on Bourdieu’s
notions of habitus (1990) and social
capital (1992) and Gonzalez, Moll &
Amanti’s Funds of Knowledge approach
(2006). The Bourdieusian notion of
‘habitus’ sees power as culturally and
symbolically created and constantly relegitimised through the interplay of both
practice and structure. This notion is
useful in understanding how family and
community norms around television and
related media might work – both in
terms of channel and programme
choices and the nature of the activities
that take place around them. The Funds
of Knowledge approach, meanwhile,
helps with understanding the possible
gulf between routine practices at home
and school. Though Gonzalez, Moll &
related
Amanti’s original work focused on nondigital Funds of Knowledge, the
approach creates a space to value a
wide range of home practices (including
the digital) and defend the need for
these practices to be recognised as
potentially valuable.
(2) Multimodal meaning-making: The study
is situated within an understanding that
communication is multimodal. It draws
its definition of ‘multimodal’ from
but distinct approaches, including the
multimodal aspects of human
communication (e.g. Kress, 2009) and
its usage by cultural and media scholars
(e.g. Hodge & Tripp, 1986; MessengerDavies, 2013) who point to children’s
abilities to interpret the formal features
and codes of specifically on-screen
communication and make ‘modal
Methodology
judgements’ based on something more
than language. The relevance and
application of multimodality is
complicated within this study, as very
young children switch almost
interchangeably between on-screen and
The research adopted a mixed-methods
approach informed by a multi-paradigmatic
epistemological
,a
stance. In the first phase
large-scale quantitative survey consulted
!174
1,200 UK parents of children aged 0–6
identified
their
work
as
years. The survey was targeted at schools
‘professional’ (categories 1 and 2).
across a range of communities in Sheffield
(UK). Additionally, the survey was opened
up to national completion via the CBeebies
Findings
website, meaning that families from both
The initial findings contest certain
ends of the socioeconomic spectrum were
longstanding assumptions about preschool
included in the sample. The survey
children’s engagement with television and
provided an opportunity to identify up-torelated media at home. Analysis of the
date viewing patterns of 3–6-year-olds.
quantitative and qualitative is currently
Unlike some existing large-scale studies
, but headline findings from both
ongoing
that do include 3- and 4-year-olds (e.g.
data sets are reported. The data suggest
Ofcom, 2015), this quantitative
that preschool children’s practices with
questionnaire was also designed to
television and related media at home are:
account for the social contexts of
physical, social and classed. The three
engagement and active responses to
themes are interrelated. Two brief vignettes
television and other media (whom does the
from the qualitative data are described
child watch with, what else are they doing?)
below. These three themes are then
The second phase of the project comprised
explored in detail, below.
more than 6–9 months of ethnographic
fieldwork at home with eight UK families
(including a focus child aged 3 or 4). The
Vignette One: John, James and Fiona
deliberately flexible methods included:
John (4) and James (7) are brothers. I am
semi-structured interviews with parents;
visiting them for the fifth time and we have
ongoing participant observation; and visual
gone upstairs to the boys’ shared
methods including child-led tours of the
bedroom. The boys have been telling me
home, videoing and parent smartphone
about their new favourite videogame, which
photo diaries. Participants came from the
is called Castle Crashers. Several physical
Sheffield area and were recruited via the
artefacts around the room attest to this new
earlier questionnaire. Social class and
interest. The boys have a Castle Crashers
socio-economic status are difficult and
poster on the wall and are showing me
problematic to categorise. Families were,
cardboard cut-out figures of characters and
however, recruited on the basis of their
responses to a modified Hope-Goldthorpe cardboard masks they have made:
scale included in the original quantitative
This one here, is supposed to
James:
survey. Five families self-identified their work
be orange, but it’s pink.
as ‘manual’ according to this scale
(categories 5, 6 and 7), whilst three
Fiona:
How did you know that?
!175
John: There are little pieces on the piece
of paper, and you had to cut them out
and make that.
Castle Crashers characters. Both boys are
also demonstrating knowledge about the
characters in the original digital game, using
the poster and cardboard figures to help
them identify characters by their colours.
Fiona: Where did you find it?
John: The computer. We printed it out.
Fiona: Did you guys find it, or did mum
and dad?
Vignette Two: Harry, Keaton, Johnny
and Fiona
John: I found it with my granddad.
Harry (3) and Keaton (5) are brothers. I am
visiting them for the fourth time. The boys
have been watching television and we are
James: I wasn’t there. I was at school.
playing in the living room with other
members of the extended family, including
Johnny (5). Other adults, including Johnny’s
mum, are in the kitchen. They have been
telling me about a television show they like,
The Powerpuff Girls. As they tell me about
it, the conversation erupts into
spontaneous and clearly previously
rehearsed role play. The boys have also
been playing with bats and balls.
Fiona: Was it when you were ill?
John: Yes. I didn’t make it all. My
granddad made most of it.
Fiona: It’s cool.
John: You can cut it out and stick it.
James: Stick it.
A member of John and James’ family (in
this case their granddad) has engaged with,
and built on, their interest in playing with a
digital game (Castle Crashers) and used it
to engage them in other forms of both
traditional and digital play. John and his
granddad have gone onto the home
computer together to find free Castle
Crashers character templates, which they
have printed out onto card, cut out and
stuck together. Granddad has been able to
assist in improving John’s physical skills in
making the characters as well as his ability
to search for relevant content online. The
boys are now, in their room, together,
creating original play with the physical
!176
Keaton: Blue! Green!
Fiona: What, are those the different
colours of The Powerpuff Girls?
Johnny: I’m pink.
Keaton: No, I am!
Johnny: No, I am!
Johnny’s mum: (shouts from the
kitchen) Stop it, you’re showing off now.
Johnny: Harry’s Bubbles, Keaton’s
leader…
Keaton: Yeahhhh! I get to be the leader!
(jumps up onto a chair, dancing as he
sings) I lead, you follow, a-ha-ha-ha!
Preschool children’s engagements with
television are social
In, recent
researchers have
years
become
increasingly interested in the social contexts
of preschool children’s engagement with
Fiona: So, is this in Powerpuff Girls?
technology and digital media at home.
Many studies have, however, been limited
Keaton: (jumps energetically onto the
in the way the ‘social’ is conceptualized.
,floor
from
) the chair
Historically, many television studies drew on
P i a g e t1i 9
a n6 2( ) m o d e l s o f s o c i a l
Harry: (comes running in from the
development
, 1981
, (e.g. Singer & Singer
, role-playing flying as one of The
kitchen
1983). Such models will often fail to
Powerpuff
)
Girls
consider broader contextual social factors –
the other roles parents may play or the
Keaton: You need to follow me. You two
place
, other of
familypeers
members and
need to follow me. I know, ’cos I’ve got
broader communities in situ. At the other
two bats. (suddenly
, as
holds up hands
end of the spectrum, developments in the
if to) punch
I’m Johnny
a baddie, you
study of the
1987;
material
, Miller
(Miller,
crime! (runs and jumps onto the sofa)
2008; , Miller
2009) the post-structural
Harry:, (runs and jumps onto the sofa (Deleuze
, 1988)
& and
Guattari
the postfollowing
)
Keaton
I’m a baddie, you
human
, 2003)
(Barad
offer new possibilities
crime!
for conceptualizing physical objects and
spaces as playing a social role in children’s
Keaton: We. Always. Win this.
lives (e.g.
, 2013,
Carrington & Dowdall
Chimirri,
2014).
Fiona: You always win?
Johnny: And I’m, I’m Buttercup.
Figure 1 shows parents’ responses to the
question: “For how much time per day do
you (or another parent or carer) watch
children’s TV with your child?” The
quantitative data in the present study show
that parents spend a significant amount of
time watching children’s television with their
,children
thus confirming the importance of
parents ) (and
in carers
understanding
children’s relationships with television
Figure 2 shows parents’ responses to the
question: “Whom does your child normally
watch live TV with?”
Led by
, theKeaton
three boys (the oldest)
are co-constructing a physical play scene
based on mutual enjoyment of a television
show, The Powerpuff Girls. Their shared
knowledge of the characters’ names and
colours suggest they know the show well.
Their discussions about the role each of
them will play suggest prior instances of
this play being created as a group. The
boys’ knowledge of the show is
demonstrated in a physical, bodily
recreation of the characters’ movements
(running,
). flying, jumping, fighting
!177
These data illustrate the complexity of
preschool children’s social worlds in relation
to engagement with television. Half or more
of the youngest preschoolers normally
watch with an adult (e.g. 2½–3 years =
52%; 3–3½ years = 50%). For older
preschoolers, other children start to have
more of an influence
–5
(e.g. 40% of 4½
year olds watch with another child).
model, early studies characterized
children’s TV viewing as a ‘passive’ activity
(Riley
, 1949)
&, in
Ruttiger
contrast to the
‘active’ participation children have in play
and its ‘consequent development of motor
and social skills’ (p. 231). Meanwhile,
c o n c e p t u a l i z a t i o n s o f c h i l d r e n ’s
engagement with television as physically
inactive have been unquestioningly adopted
by many studies up to the present day
(Rey-Lopez et al., 2008; Robinson, 2001).
The qualitative data offer many examples of
this complicated social engagement with
television and related media, highlighting
The quantitative data in the present study
the importance of framing this social
contest several persistent myths about
engagement in the context of the whole
preschool children’s engagement with
family and community. In vignette one, a
television, showing that watching television
grandparent is encouraging the brothers’
is neither passive nor sedentary. Figure 3
interest in a digital videogame. His role is
shows parents’ responses to the question:
not confined to straightforward
“What else does your child do when they
interventionist or mediator – he is using
watch live television?” Though children
their interest to construct opportunities for
aged 0–6 do sit and watch quietly,
other traditional forms of learning. In
concentrating on the television sometimes
vignette two, the boys in one family
(72%), they also talk to others about what
demonstrate complex inter-individual
they are watching (82%), dance (76%) and
knowledge of, and engagement with, the
sing75%).
(
Figure 4 shows parents’
narrative content of The Powerpuff Girls.
responses to the question: “Which of the
following does your child do after watching
live television?” Activities relating to
television extend far beyond viewing times –
Preschool children’s engagements with
parents reported that 82 per cent of 0–6television are physical
year-olds sing songs from a show after
Many existing studies still take it for granted
watching, 72 per cent talk about the
that all children’s engagements with
programme and 68 per cent use dialogue
television and related media are ‘passive’
from the programme.
and ‘sedentary’ activities, both cognitively
Vignette one complicates what is meant by
and physically. The cognitively passive
physical and social play, as interconceptualization of television viewing has
generational members of a family team up
its origins in early models of social learning
to build together – physical objects,
(see Bandura et al., 1961; Bandura et al.,
inspired by a digital game, designed by
1963). Taking their cues from this imitative
!178
someone else and uploaded to the Internet,
to be downloaded, printed, cut out and
reassembled into physical representations
of characters in the game. Vignette two
offers an example of members of one family
acting out embodied knowledge of
television characters in their co-constructed
play.
children’s home practices with television
and related media very differently.
Many of the ingredients of vignettes one
and two are similar. In both cases, young
boys are drawing on an interest in a popular
media text to inform play. In both cases, the
youngest boy (aged 3 or 4) is interacting
socially with another family member or
members to construct this play. In both
cases, the children engage in imaginative,
literate and useful practices with television
and related media at home.
Preschool children’s engagements with
television are classed
Existing studies examining very young
children's relationships with television tend
In vignette one, boys from a family who
self-identified their class as ‘professional’
are being encouraged by their grandfather
to engage in traditional play, based on their
pre-existing interest in a digital game. The
grandfather’s intervention has enabled the
boys to extend their media literacy and
physical skills. The younger boy has
searched online for an activity based on his
interests. He has also physically crafted
cardboard figures from templates with his
grandfather. In vignette two, boys from a
family who self-identified their class as
‘manual’ are exhibiting their knowledge
about the characters in The Powerpuff Girls
using their bodies. Their play is very
physical and, at times, comes across as
loud and argumentative. Both instances of
play can be understood as valuable in
relation to existing play typologies (e.g.
Hughes, 2002). It is, however, important to
consider which of these forms of play might
be applauded and built upon in a
classroom, and which might be considered
‘inappropriate’.
to be quantitative, light-touch and arguably
rather reductive in relation to social class.
Social class is most often inserted as a
variable into existing debates about the
negative aspects of television and related
media (Dominick & Greenberg, 1970;
Lindquist et al., 1999, Tangney & Feshbach,
1988). In other cases, writing about young
children, television and social class tends to
become
, arguablyreflective
imposing a
theoretical framework onto families’ lives
rather than trying to understand them (e.g.
Walkerdine, 1986).
Although each family is unique, the
examples presented in this study suggest
that digital practices are broadly different in
households mapping onto different social
classes. These differences relate to:
differences in the programmes and other
source texts the children are drawing on;
their playful and literate responses; and the
social contexts in which they take place. In
particular, parents (and other family
members) interact with and ‘frame’
!179
Figure 1: Time spent by parents and carers watching children’s TV with their child per day
N = 1198
Question: For how much time per day do you (or another parent or carer) watch
children’s TV with your child? Put a tick in ONE box: Less than 1 hour; 1–2 hours; 3–4
hours; 4+ hours; Never.
Figure 2: Whom are preschool children watching television with?
N = 1115
Question: Whom does your child do the following WITH, most of the time? Put a tick in ONE
box. Watching live TV: Usually on own; Usually on own, but has help occasionally; Usually with
another child, e.g. sibling or friend; Usually with an adult; Rarely or never does this.
!180
Figure 3: Activities of 0–6-year-olds while watching television
N = 1190
Question: Which of the following does your child do AFTER they watch TV? Tick ALL that apply: Talks about
the programme/ film; Uses catchphrase or dialogue; Role-plays a character; Dresses up as a character;
out the story; Sings songs from it; Plays with related toys; Searches for related videos; Searches for related
games.character; Sits quietly and concentrates on TV; Plays with toys; Uses another device to play games;
Figure 4: Activities of 0–6-year-olds after watching television
N = 1190
Question: Which of the following does your child do when they watch TV? Tick ALL that apply: Sings; Eats; Dances;
Reads; Writes/ draws; Talks about programme/ film; Talks about other things; Talks to the characters on
out the story; Role-plays a character; Sits quietly and concentrates on TV; Plays with toys; Uses another device to
play games; Uses another device to watch clips/ video; Uses another device for something else.
!181
Summary
References
The qualitative data suggest that children’s
home practices with television and related
media are both physically embodied and
enmeshed within a complex web of coconstructed meaning-making at home.
Preschoolers’ practices with television and
Anderson, D.R. & Levin, S.R. (1976). Young
Children’s Attention to “Sesame Street”.
Child Development 47(3), 806–811.
Bandura, A., Ross, D., & Ross, S.A. (1961).
Transmission of aggression through
imitation of aggressive models. Journal of
Abnormal and Social Psychology, 63, 575–
582.
new media take place as part of a complex
web of objects, spaces, familial interactions
and affect, as well as new and inter-media
texts accessed across a growing range of
Bandura, A., Ross, D., & Ross, S.A. (1963).
devices. As such, the boundaries between
Imitation of film-mediated aggressive
body, media, technology and affectivity are
models. The Journal of Abnormal and
becoming increasingly blurred. However,
Social Psychology, 66(1), 3.
one of the implications of this study is that
Barad, K. (2003). Posthumanist
the gap between home and school
performativity: Toward an understanding of
literacies with regard to children’s play
how matter comes to matter. Signs, 28(3),
around television and related media may be
more pronounced and significant in the801–831.
case of children from lower socio-economic
Bourdieu, P. (1990). The logic of practice.
status communities, should teachers fail to
Stanford University Press.
recognise their everyday practices as
Bourdieu, P. & Wacquant, L.J. (1992). An
potentially valuable (Gonzalez et al., 2006).
invitation to reflexive sociology. University of
Chicago Press.
Acknowledgements
Carrington, V. & Dowdall, C. (2013). ‘This is
a Job for Hazmat Guy!’: Global Media
Cultures and Children's Everyday Lives.
International handbook of research on
children's literacy, learning, and culture, 96–
107.
I wish to thank the Economic and Social
Research Council for funding the research
project ‘Young Children’s Engagement with
Television and Related Media in the Digital
Age’ (award number 129585079) which
made possible the research on which this
article is based.
Chimirri, N.A. (2014). Investigating media
artifacts with children: Conceptualizing a
collaborative exploration of the
sociomaterial conduct of everyday life.
Roskilde Universitet.
!182
Davies, M.M. (2013). Fake, fact, and
fantasy: Children's interpretations of
television reality. Routledge.
Miller, D. (2008) The Comfort of Things.
, UK: Polity Press.
Cambridge
Miller, D. (2009) Stuff. London: Polity Press.
Deleuze, G. & Guattari, F. (1988). A
thousand plateaus: Capitalism and
schizophrenia. Bloomsbury Publishing.
Ofcom
2015).
(
Children and Parents: Media
Use and Attitudes Report. London: Ofcom.
http://stakeholders.ofcom.org.uk/marketdata-research/other/research-publications/
childrens/children-parents- nov-15/.
Dominick, J.R. & Greenberg, B.S. (1970).
Attitudes Towards Violence: The Interaction
of TV Exposure, Family Attitudes and Social
Piaget, J. (1962). Play, dreams, and
Class. Michigan State University. Available
in childhood (G. Gattegno & F.M.
a t : h t t p : / / fi l e s . e r i c . e d . g o v / f u l l t imitation
ext/
, Trans.
). New
, NY: Norton.
York
ED058748.pdf [accessed 7 February Hodgson
2014].
Rey-Lopez, J.P., Vicente-Rodríguez, G.,
Biosca, M., & Moreno, L.A. (2008).
Gonzalez, N., Moll, L.C. and Amanti, C.
(2006). Funds of Knowledge: Theorizing
practices in households, communities, and
classrooms. Routledge.
Sedentary behaviour and obesity
development in children and adolescents.
Nutrition, Metabolism and Cardiovascular
Diseases, 18(3), 242–251.
Hodge, R.I.V.,& Tripp, D. (1986). Children
and television: A semiotic approach.
Stanford University Press.
Riley, J., Cantwell, F. and Ruttiger, K.
(1949). Some observations on the social
effects of TV.
Public Opinion Quarterly,
13(2), 223–234.
Hughes, B. (2002). A Playworker’s
Taxonomy of Play Types. (2nd ed.). London:
PlayLink.
Robinson,2001).
T. N. ( Television viewing
and childhood obesity. Pediatric Clinics of
North America, 48(4), 1017–1025.
Kress, G. (2009). Multimodality: A social
semiotic approach to contemporary
communication. Routledge.
Singer, D.G., & Singer, J.L. (1981).
Television and the developing imagination of
Lindquist, C.H., Reynolds, K.D., & Goran,
the child. Journal of Broadcasting, Vol. 25,
M.I. (1999). Sociocultural determinants of
4. 373-387.
physical activity among children. Preventive
Singer, J.L., & Singer, D.G. (1983).
medicine, 29(4), 305–312.
Psychologists look at television: Cognitive,
Maccoby, E.E. (1951). Television: Its impact
developmental, personality, and social
on school children. Public Opinion
policy implications. American Psychologist,
Quarterly, 15(3), 421–444.
38(7), 826.
Miller, D. (1987) Material Culture and Mass
Consumption. Oxford: Blackwell
!183
Tangney, J.P. & Feshbach, S. (1988).
Children’s Television – Viewing Frequency:
Individual Differences and Demographic
C o r re l a t e s . P e r s o n a l i t y a n d S o c i a l
Psychology Bulletin, 14(1), 145–158.
Vygotsky, L. (1978). Interaction between
learning and development. Readings on the
development of children, 23(3), 34–41.
Walkerdine, V. (1986). Video Replay:
Families, Films and Fantasy. In: Burgin, V.,
Donald, J., and Kaplan, C. (Eds),
Formations of Fantasy. London: Methuen.
!184
Paper 20
Design and evaluation of digital manipulatives for
literacy learning in early education
Cristina Sylla1
CIEC, engageLab, University of Minho, Braga, Portugal
Abstract
This work investigates how Digital
Manipulatives can be introduced and used
in pre- and primary school to promote the
development of children´s oral language
skills and literacy. Oral language plays a
major role in the learning of reading and
writing in the elementary grades, being
crucial for the development of children's
personal, social and academic skills. Digital
manipulatives employ physical artefacts to
manipulate digital content, thus
encouraging experimental, participatory
and active involvement, and being
especially appealing to young users.
M o re o v e r, t h e y s t ro n g l y s t i m u l a t e
collaboration and communication, greatly
promoting the development of children’s
oral language skills. The investigation
presented here reports previous work
regarding the development and evaluation
of a digital manipulative that was used in a
preschool for an extended period of time,
as well as ongoing and future work, which
involves various pre- and primary schools.
In addition, we report the creation of a
1cristina.sylla@gmail.com
Computer Clubhouse where children can
explore this technology on their own.
Keywords: Language development,
literacy, storytelling, digital manipulatives,
playful learning.
Introduction
Technology that fosters open-ended and
active exploration, while offering
opportunities for peer collaboration and
social interaction, may play an important
role in children’s learning (Bickhard, 1992;
Eagle, 2012). Collaborative rich digital
environments have the potential to create
meaningful learning contexts that motivate
young users, favouring knowledge
construction while providing new
experiences and interactions (Van Scoter et
al., 2001:8; Shamir, 2009). Despite
c o n s i d e r a b l e a d v a n c e s , h o w e v e r,
technology often fails to ‘exploit the
affordances of the medium’ (Plowman et
al., 2012: 5), merely transposing traditional
content into a digital format.
Literature review
New technological developments in the
field of interactive technology and tangible
interfaces have resulted in the creation of
v a r i o u s s y s t e m s t h a t a d d re s s t h e
development of oral language skills and
early literacy through storytelling. Some
relevant examples include StoryMat (Cassell
& Ryokai, 2001), a soft play mat with sewn
objects where children can play using
stuffed toys. Gestures and the story told by
a child on the mat are recorded and then
compared with stories from children who
have previously played on the mat. A story
Given this, and in order to create
educationally relevant products that meet
children’s and teacher’s needs, it is
important to involve them in the design,
development and evaluation of new
technology. This is particularly important in
pre- and primary school education, as
stimulating rich environments plays a
central role in the acquisition of early
literacy skills (Whitehurst & Lonigan, 1998),
while poor opportunities may have a
negative impact on children’s subsequent
learning (MacGregor, 2004). According to
Fletcher and Lyon, ‘Success in literacy
learning during the primary grades is even
more indicative of later literacy
achievement' (1998: xiv).
with a similar pattern is than recalled and
played, acting as inspiration for the creation
of new stories.
TellTale (Ananny, 2001) is a caterpillar with a
body, which
in five
gives pieces and a head
children control over the structure and
content of their verbalizations. Children can
record audio into each part of the body,
and hear it by pressing a button. The
pieces are independent of each other, can
be randomly sorted and rearranged, and a
new story can be created at any time.
Digital manipulatives (Resnick et al., 1998;
also called Tangible Interfaces –TUIs (Ishii &
Ullmer, 1997)), are particularly interesting
interfaces for young users, as they use
objects and surfaces to manipulate digital
content, thus supporting exploratory and
expressive activities (Marshall, 2007). Due
to its multiple access points, users can
manipulate digital content simultaneously,
which in turn promotes communication and
negotiation (Hornecker, 2005).
Jabberstamp 2007)
(Raffle etallows
al.,
children to add sounds and voices to their
drawings. Drawings, collages or paintings
are created on a layer of paper placed on a
Wacom tablet; by pressing a special rubber
stamp on the paper, children can record
sounds into their drawings. The system
promotes the exploration of different
discourses, allowing integrating direct
speech (the speech of characters), with the
presentation of characters and contextual
information, done by the narrator.
This paper reports on the design and
evaluation of two digital manipulatives, TOK
(Sylla, 2014; Sylla et al., 2015a) and twords (Sylla et al., 2012), and presents
ongoing and future work.
!186
Make a Riddle and TeleStory (Hunter et al.,
2010) are educational language-learning
applications developed for the Siftables
platform. Make a Riddle teaches children
spatial concepts and basic sentenceconstruction skills; TeleStory teaches
vocabulary and reading, through the
manipulation and combination of story
elements.
two workshops that took place in
Kathmandu, involving children from two
schools (Chisik et al., 2014). During the
workshops children used the interface
playfully, exploring sounds, words and
sentences while engaging in collaborative
work.
TOK (Touch, Organize, Create) employs
physical blocks to manipulate digital
content, comprising an electronic platform
that connects to a computer or tablet and a
set of physical blocks (Fig. 1, left). The
blocks were inspired by classical narratives
for children and represent characters –
heroes and opponents (Propp, 1928/1968)
– objects and nature elements. Placing a
block on the platform displays
corresponding digital content on the
screen. The sequence of blocks placed on
the TOK platform creates a visual narrative,
which unfolds according to the sequence of
blocks placed on the platform; as such,
there are no predefined stories, leaving
space for children’s own creativity. When a
block is removed from the platform it also
disappears from the screen.
Previous work
Within the scope of previous work, we have
designed and developed two digital
manipulatives – TOK and t-words – that
target the development of children’s early
literacy. t-words (Fig. 1, right) consists of a
set of rectangular blocks in which users can
record and play audio. The blocks can then
be snapped together, to play recorded
audio in a sequence; by reordering the
blocks in different ways, the audio
sequence changes according to the order
of the blocks. As the interface does not
need
, it ais computer
flexible for use in
various contexts. t-words was introduced in
Figure 1. TOK platform (left), t-words interface (right)
!187
Methodology
The work followed a Design Based
Research methodology (Anderson &
Shattuck, 2012), a methodology that is
practice-driven
, pragmatic, flexible and
iterative, involving an engineering
component.
incorporating the feedback provided by
users in new iterations.
Evaluation of the digital manipulative mostly
followed a quasi-experimental approach in
which various methods for data collection
were used, such as participants’ direct and
indirect observation, field notes and semistructured interviews, as well as video
recordings, transcription and analyses.
Context of the research
TOK was developed in collaboration with a
Portuguese preschool involving six classes
of preschoolers, five years of age, and six
preschool teachers, spanning a period of
around three years. Following TOK’s
implementation, three interventions were
carried out in preschool for a period of
around one year, involving two preschool
classes and two teachers. Although the
teachers remained the same, each year the
researcher worked with two new groups of
children, specifically two classes
completing their last preschool year, just
before entering primary school.
Methods for data collection
During the design and development stages
of the digital manipulative, various methods
for data collection were used, such as
participants’ direct and indirect observation,
field notes, video recordings, transcription
and analyses, semi-structured interviews,
Wizard of Oz techniques and low-tech
prototyping. The emphasis was on an
iterative cyclical process of designing,
testing and redesigning, always
Interventions carried out at preschool
Following the development of TOK, three
interventions were carried out at preschool.
The first
24 involved
pairs of children who
interacted with TOK during free play over a
period, 2015b).
of four months (Sylla et al.
This intervention investigated how children
used the system and the activities in which
they were involved. The results show that
the children mostly engaged in literacy
related activities, creating stories and
playing language games. Also, TOK
encouraged
, motivating peer collaboration
children to get involved in collaborative
language-related activities. The second
intervention was carried out in collaboration
with the preschool teacher and her class of
20 preschoolers for a period of three
months. This intervention investigated
whether the use of TOK promoted the
development of language abilities that are
relevant for formal literacy learning,
specifically lexical knowledge and
phonological awareness. The third
intervention studied the narratives created
with the digital manipulative during free
play, spanning a period of six months and
involving 27 pairs of children (Sylla et al.,
2014). This study focused on children’s
embodiment of narratives, and how
embodiment shaped the creation of their
stories.
performance and orchestration of the story,
while promoting and supporting peer
collaboration. We called children’s creations
‘embodied stage narratives’.
Ongoing and future work
Results
Following the development and evaluation
The results from the first investigation show
of TOK, ongoing and future work does and
that while using TOK, children were mostly
will involve several pre- and primary
involved in literacy-related activities,
schools. As previously, the research team
creating stories and playing language
involves children, teachers and
games. The digital manipulative promoted a
investigators from education and
high degree of engagement, encouraging
engineering. Following the establishment of
peer collaboration, and motivating children
a collaboration protocol with the schools,
to participate in a creative process of
the researchers and teachers will discuss
, reflecting and expressing their
planning
strategies and plan the integration of digital
ideas. During the second intervention, the
manipulatives in class. Specifically, the
groups will discuss and define which areas
construction of multiple fictional worlds
they want to target, outline the
motivated children's continuous verbal
competencies they wish to stimulate, and
interactions with the lear ning tool,
accordingly draw up a set of activities to
contextualizing the learning of an extensive
carry out in the classroom. Further, the
collection of vocabulary and the playing of
groups will discuss and develop evaluation
language games (Sylla et al., 2016).
metrics in order to assess children’s
Throughout the third intervention, we
progression.
observed that by using the digital
m a n i p u l a t i v e , c h i l d r e n ’s n a r r a t i v e
Along with interventions at school, the team
construction occurred on three levels as
will create a Computer Clubhouse, which
they became directors, actors and
will provide an informal setting where
spectators of their narratives. Namely, by
children can explore the technology on their
choosing the characters, location, props
own. This, in turn, will allow the researchers
and nature elements, children acted as
to gather information on how children use
‘directors’ of their stories, simultaneously
the technology in a natural way, and the
performing as ‘actors’ by embodying
kind of activities they engage in.
different story characters, and finally by
Additionally, the Clubhouse will be a space
observing the stories they were creating the
where researchers and children can
children became spectators of their own
explore, design and test new educational
narratives. The sharing of input devices
materials.
(blocks) gave children equal control of the
!189
(MCTES) with Postdoctoral Grant: SFRH/
BPD/111891/2015.
Expected results
Through this study we expect to collect
information about the use of digital
manipulatives in pre- and primary school
and their effect on children’s literacy
acquisition, as well as to create new
learning materials that promote literacy.
References
Anderson, T. & Shattuck, J. (2012). DesignBased Research: A decade of progress in
education research. Educational
Researcher, 41(1), 16–25.
Further, we expect to involve the
community in this project through the
creation of a Computer Clubhouse.
Ananny, M. (2001). Telling Tales: A new toy
for encouraging written literacy through oral
storytelling. In Proceedings of the Biennale
Conference Society for Research in Child
Development. Minneapolis.
Conclusion
In this paper we have reported previous
work which was carried with a digital
manipulative that involved various groups of
preschoolers and their teachers. The results
obtained show that digital manipulatives are
powerful tools that motivate children to
become involved in collaborative
exploratory language activities, such as
creating narratives or playing language
games. Further, we have described
ongoing and future work which aims to
extend the use of digital manipulatives to
primary school in order to investigate their
educational value.
Bickhard, M.A. (1992). Scaffolding and SelfScaffolding: Central Aspects of
development. In: W.T. Winegar and J.
Valsiner (Eds), Children’s Development
Within Social Context, II, Research and
Methodology, 155–180. Hillsdale, NJ:
Lawrence Erlbaum.
Cassell, J. & Ryokai, K. (2001). Making
Space for Voice: Technologies to Support
Children's Fantasy and Storytelling. Journal
Personal Technologies, 5(3), 203–224.
Chisik, Y., Antle, A., Birtles, B., Márquez, E.,
& Sylla, C. (2014). The Kathmandu Children
Entertainment Workshops. In: A. Cheok, A.
Nijholt, & T. Romão (Eds), Entertaining the
Whole World, pp.5–21. Human-Computer
Interaction Series 2014. Springer. DOI:
10.1007/978-1-4471-6446-3.
Acknowledgments
We thank all the children and teachers who
were involved in this study. This work is
supported by the HPOP – Human Potential
Operating Programme – of the European
Social Fund and the Portuguese Ministry for
Science, Technology and Higher Education
Eagle, S. (2012). Learning in the early
years: Social interactions around picture
!190
books, puzzles and digital technologies.
Computers & Education, 59, 38–49.
and Embedded Interaction (TEI’07), pp.
163–170. New York, NY: ACM Press.
Fletcher, J.M., & Lyon, G.R. (1998).
Reading: A research-based approach. In
W.M. Evers (Ed.), What’s gone wrong in
America’s classrooms, pp.49–90. Stanford,
CA: Hoover Institution Press.
Plowman, L., McPake, J., & Stephen, C.
(2012). Extending opportunities for learning:
the role of digital media in early education.
In S. Suggate & E. Reese (Eds),
Contemporary Debates in Child
Development and Education. London:
Routledge.
Hornecker, E.A. (2005). Design Theme for
Tangible Interaction: Embodied Facilitation.
H. Gellersen et al. (Eds), In Proceedings of
the Ninth European Conference on
Computer-Supported Cooperative Work
(ECCSCW’05). Springer.
Propp, V. (1928/1968). Morphology of the
Folktale. Trans., Laurence Scott. (2nd ed.).
AFigure 3: Activities of 0–6-year-olds while
watching televisionstin: University of Texas
Press.
Hunter, S., Kalanithi, J., & Merrill, D. (2010).
Make a Riddle and TeleStory: Designing
Children’s Applications for the Siftables
Platform. In Proceedings of the 9th
International Conference on Interaction
Design and Children (IDC’10), pp.206–209.
New York, NY: ACM Press.
,Raffle
H., Vaucelle, C., Wang, R., & Ishii, H.
(2007). Jabberstamp: embedding sound
and voice in traditional drawings. In
Proceedings of the International
Conference on Computer Graphics and
Interactive, pp.137–144. New York, NY:
ACM Press.
Ishii, H. & Ullmer, B. (1997). Tangible bits:
Towards seamless interfaces between
people, bits and atoms. In Proceedings of
the Conference on Human Factors in
Computing Systems (CHI’97), pp.234-241.
New York, NY: ACM Press.
Resnick, M., Martin, F., Berg, R., Borovoy,
R., Colella, V., Kramer, K., & Silverman, B.
(1998). Digital manipulatives: new toys to
t h i n k w i t h . I n P ro c e e d i n g s o f t h e
C o n f e re n c e o n H u m a n F a c t o r s i n
Computing Systems (CHI’98), pp.281–287.
New York, NY: ACM Press.
MacGregor, K.K. (2004). Developmental
Dependencies between Lexical Semantics
and Reading. In: C.A. Stone, E.R. Silliman,
B.J. Ehren, & K. Apel (Eds). Handbook of
Language and Literacy Development and
Disorders, pp.302–315. New York, NY:
Guilford Press.
S h a m i r, A . ( 2 0 0 9 ) . P ro c e s s e s a n d
outcomes of joint activity with ebooks for
promoting kindergarteners’ emergent
literacy. Educational Media International,
46(1), 81–96.
Sylla, C. (2014). Developing and Evaluating
Pedagogical Digital Manipulatives for
Preschool: the Case of TOK – Touch,
Marshall, P. (2007). Do tangible interfaces
enhance learning? In Proceedings of the
1st International Conference on Tangible
!191
Organize, Create (doctoral dissertation).
Retrieved
from:
http://
repositorium.sdum.uminho.pt/handle/
1822/35672.
Science,
S p r i n g e r.
10.1007/978-3-642-34292-9.
DOI:
Whitehurst, G.J. & Lonigan, C.J. (1998).
Child Development and Emergent Literacy.
Child Development, 69(3), 848–872.
Sylla, C., Pereira, I., Coutinho, C., &
Branco, P. (2016). Digital Manipulatives as
Scaffolds for Preschoolers’ Language
Development, IEEE Transactions on
Emerging Topics in Computing.
Van Scoter, J., Ellis, D., & Railsback, J.
(2001). Technology in early childhood
education: finding the balance. Portland,
OR: Northwest Regional Educational
Laboratory.
Sylla, C., Coutinho, C., & Branco,
P. (2015a). Play Platforms for Children's
Creativity. In N. Zagalo & P. Branco (Eds),
Creativity in the Digital Age. Springer Series
on Cultural Computing, pp.223–243. http://
l i n k . s p r i n g e r. c o m / c h a p t e r /
10.1007/978-1-4471-6681-8_12.
Sylla, C., Coutinho, C., Branco, P., & Müller,
W. (2015b). Investigating the use of digital
manipulatives for storytelling in pre-school.
International Journal of Child-Computer
Interaction, 6, 39–48. http://
www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/
S2212868915000197.
Sylla, C., Coutinho, C., & Branco, P. (2014).
A Digital Manipulative for Embodied "StageN a r r a t i v e " C re a t i o n . E n t e r t a i n m e n t
Computing, 5(4), 495–507. Elsevier. http://
www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/
S1875952114000329.
Sylla, C., Gonçalves, S., Branco, P., &
Coutinho, C. (2012). t-words: Playing with
Sounds and Creating Narratives. In: A.
Nijholt, T. Romão, & D. Reidsma (Eds),
Proceedings of the 9th International
Conference on Advances in Computer
Entertainment Technology, (ACE'12), pp.
565–568. Lecture Notes in Computer
!192
Paper 21
From Digital Literacy to Capability: Developing
Digital Literacies Through Family Engagement
Phil Wilkinson1
Centre for Excellence in Media Practice, Bournemouth University
Abstract
This article discusses the findings ofsociety
a
and their education. Moreover, this
research project evaluating the intervention
research presents the capability approach
of a multinational technology provider
as a socially situated, holistic and
(Samsung) in a school (‘The Academy’) in a humanistic framework for understanding
socio-economically deprived community.
digital literacy and digital interventions.
This intervention centred on the
development of digital literacy skills through
family learning and the co-production Keywords:
of
Digital literacy, capability,
digital media. As this research involved
engagement, family-learning
working with vulnerable participants –
targeting Academy learners with special
educational needs and their socially
Introduction and background
, disadvantaged families – Amartya
isolated
Currently, there is a societal movement
Sen’s capability approach was adopted
(Sen,2005) to both situate the research towards developing digital literacies in
and community settings. This
and meaningfully capture the voices educational
of
wasamanifested in the creation of what was
participants. This research identifies
a then ‘new’
computing national curriculum
shifting relationship with digital literacy
skills
and multiple, often commercially-backed,
for certain
, and the vulnerable groups
initiatives focusing on developing digital
complexity of developing these digital
skills. The justifications behind this push
literacies in a family-learning context. For
towards digital upskilling are twofold. First,
socially disadvantaged individuals and
when discussing the general population of
learners with additional learning needs,
Western societies, digital literacy is seen as
digital literacy skills have become a
serving an integral part in other
necessity for meaningful participation in
complementary
2011).literacies (UNESCO,
1pwilkinson@bournemouth.ac.uk
Secondly, digital literacy is frequently
elevated in relation to the schooling of
children.
general workforce (ECORYS, 2016). Finally,
the integration of digital literacies with
learning and training and the requirements
of a knowledge-based economy including
constant retraining of the workforce to meet
the skills needs of future jobs are in
themselves increasingly digital (Rantalla &
Suoranta, 2011).
Digital literacy as a socio-civic
necessity
According to a policy brief published by the
United Nations Educational Sciences and
Cultural Organisations, ‘Digital literacy is a
life skill because it targets all areas of
contemporary existence’ (UNESCO, 2011).
Indeed, this same policy brief argues that
digital literacy is key in the development of
Fitting with the capability approach that will
be discussed in more detail later, here we
can move beyond looking through an
economic lens and see a similar necessity
for digital-literacy skills. In the UK, there is a
movement towards the digitization of public
, which is predominantly justified as
services
a cost-saving measure, wrapped in futureorientated rhetoric (Office
, 2014).
Additionally, this movement towards
digitizing public services is part of a broader
European eGovernment strategy that is
currently scoped until 2020 (European
Commission, 2010). For the individual
citizen, then, there is therefore a need for
digital literacies in order to access public
services including, in the UK, applying for
social housing, job-seeking and accessing
state-supported income.
aspects of other literacies – which stands
to reason, given the pre-eminence of digital
representations of information and
knowledge. Additionally, as we are
witnessing the computerization of society
(Kling, 1991), the ‘softwarization’ of working
practices (Manovich, 2013) and the
digitization of governmental services
(Kazuya, 2014), digital literacy can be
viewed as a necessity for economic and
socio-civic engagement.
In the UK, with the rise of the information
society, and the movement towards a
knowledge-based economy, digital literacy
has been increasingly seen as an economic
necessity in three ways. First, the technical
ability to create, curate and manage
underlying information processing systems
has created a demand for technical
specialists. Secondly, the softwarization of
working practices (Manovich, 2013) – and
the processes by which people enter
employment – results in a greater
requirement for digital skills across the
Moving away from both the economic and
socio-civic necessities of digital literacy, we
can also see a sociocultural significance.
With notions of participatory culture that
elevate people’s capacity to participate in
culture using digital media (Jenkins, Ito &
Boyd, 2015; Jenkins, Purushotma, Weigel
& Clinton, 2008) comes an extension of
existing culture into online spaces, as
society and culture are increasingly
mediated through digital technologies
!194
technological determinism, essentialism
(Buckingham, 2008) and, of course, a call
for prioritising the development of digital
literacy. However, they differ in the specific
motivations underlying this perceived
importance.
(Livingstone, 2009). Therefore, digital
literacy becomes a requirement for
participating in this digitally embedded,
highly mediated culture. Moreover, through
the lens of New Literacy Studies, we can
see digital literacy as a situated practice
that is both reinforced by and necessary to
engage with sociocultural contexts (Mills,
2010; Street, 2003).
From a protectionist perspective, it is now
seen as a societal necessity to educate
children in the dangers of the Internet, and
how they can critically engage with the
digital media they consume (Livingstone,
Buckingham & Davies, 2009; 'Safer Internet
Day', 2016; Selwyn, 2009). Here, the notion
of the digital native becomes problematic
as it conflates children’s familiarity with
digital technology and the ability to critically,
and safely, engage with it (Livingstone et al.,
Digital literacy to protect and empower
children
Within this broader prioritisation of digital
,literacy
children have become a specific
focus. Currently, in the UK, there is
movement towards the development of
digital skills – particularly computer
programming – among children.
Discussions of the importance of digital
literacy for children reflect of course the
broader reasons outlined above. Children’s
digital literacies are frequently described in
relation to learning and development in
other subjects (Buckingham, 2011;
Livingstone, 2014; UNESCO, 2011), the
importance of digital skills when preparing
them for entering the workforce (ECORYS,
2016) and their ability to engage with a
participatory culture (Jenkins et al., 2015).
2009; Selwyn, 2009). From an
empowerment perspective, however, this
notion of the digital native provides a
foundation for intrinsic digital literacy that
can be built upon to form a generational
vanguard of civically engaged digital
makers and prosumers (Buckingham,
2010; Jenkins et al., 2008; Tapscott, 2009).
This increasing societal importance –
justified through functionalist, protectionist
and empowerment perspectives – given to
digital literacy is manifested through the
creation of a national computing curriculum
(DfE, 2013) and the plethora of commercial
and charitable initiatives that are emerging
(Barclays, 2015; Lynch, 2016). These digital
literacy learning opportunities, that operate
outside of the classroom, invoke notions of
third-space learning, i.e. learning that takes
place ‘across the home-school
divide’ (King, Kersh, Potter & Pitts, 2015).
When discussing children’s digital literacy,
however, the somewhat functionalist
position evident above is overshadowed by
protectionist and empowerment
perspectives (Buckingham, 2007; Hobbs,
1998, 2011; Mendoza, 2013). These
perspectives are difficult to decouple and
do indeed share common themes of
!195
2011). ,Additionally
given the importance of
This ,is significant as it is these third spaces
digital literacy for children, from protection,
especially those that are community-driven,
that provide a focal point for the
functionalist and empowerment
development of digital literacies for both
perspectives there is an obligation on
parents and their children. Indeed, it is in
parents to be able to curate safe digital
these spaces that both parents and
practices and promote learning about, and
children can engage through the identity of
through, technology (Livingstone, Haddon,
a learner.
Görzig & 2011;
Ólafsson, ,Sefton-green
Nixon & 2009).
Erstad, This
,
dynamic is
however, muddied by the notion of the
digital native and the suggestion that
T h e o re t i c a l f r a m e w o r k – f a m i l y
children teach their parents how to use
engagement and digital literacies
technology
2011;
(Ofcom,
, 2009).
Selwyn
As identified, there is an overlapping
This research exists at the intersection
discussion regarding the importance of
between the need for parents to be digitally
digital literacy for both parents and children
literate to support their children’s learnin
when observed through economic, socioand the necessity of digital literacy for
civic and cultural engagement, and learning
parents and children’s own socio-civic
engagement and learning. Here we explore
the development of digital literacies through
these individual and family lenses and family
co-production
, this
activities. In doing so
research contributes to the broader
discussion of digital literacy in relation to
adults’ and children’s learning. Furthermore,
it signposts the as yet unexplored area of
family digital-literacy learning.
l e n s e s ( E2C 0
O RY1S6, ; E u ro p e a n
, 2010; Jenkins
Commission
, 2008;et al.
Rantalla
, 2011).
& Suoranta
Given this
overlap
, therefore,itworth
isconsidering
the development of these digital literacies
through family learning, due to their
importance for parents and children. This
framing of digital literacy through a family
learning lens invites additional justifications
that elevate its importance.
For instance, the increasing role of digital
technology
2014;
in education (Livingstone,
Research position
Selwyn
, 2016) and lifelong learning
(Rantalla
, 2011)
& Suoranta
creates
Amartya Sen’s concept of capability was
individual significance for children used
andto create the methodological and
parents.
, the use of technology
However
in
ethical foundations for this work. The work
education specifically puts an onus on
of Sen stands in contrast to the
parents to become digitally literate, such
approaches and frameworks adopted by
that they can engage with their children’s
groups of people who, though welll e a r n i n g a t s c h2o0o l0 8( B;e c t a ,
meaning, prioritise traditional economic
Hollingworth
, Mansaray, Allen & Rose,
measures of wellbeing. Instead, the
!196
capability approach frames well-being in
terms of human agency. For Amartya Sen
(2008), it is based on an individual’s
socioculturally situated capacity to engage
with opportunities that are meaningful to
themselves:
technological determinism by
acknowledging that access to a resource
(in this case, digital technology) in itself is
not enough to create meaningful functions.
The capability approach to a person’s
Research setting
advantage is concerned with evaluating it in
terms of his or her actual ability to achieve
various valuable functionings as a part of
living … Some functionings are very
elementary, such as being adequately
nourished, being in good health, etc., and
these may be strongly valued by all, for
obvious reasons. Others may be more
complex, but still widely valued, such as
achieving self-respect or being socially
integrated. Individuals may, however, differ
a good deal from each other in the weights
they attach to these different functioning's –
valuable though they may all be – and the
assessment of individual and social
advantages must be alive to these
variations. (Sen, 2008: 271–272)
This research was undertaken at an allthrough academy catering for 1,200
students, from nursery to sixth form. The
Academy is split over four campuses in the
Isle of Portland, each of which was,
historically, a separate school. The island
itself has a population of 12,000 and can
be described as socio-economically
disadvantaged – 15.4 per cent of children
have a Child Protection Plan and the region
scores among the lowest 20 per cent
nationally on child wellbeing, education,
health and disability indexes. Additionally,
those who work do, in many cases, earn
below the standard living wage (taken as
below 60 per cent of national average
yearly income) and are classified as
‘working poor’. Moreover, a local housing
The significance of this approach for this
association proved to be a key stakeholder
research is threefold. First, it avoids a
in the project and the academy due to
prescriptive means of understanding the
providing housing for over a third of the
‘success’ of any digital intervention –
children attending the academy.
instead framing the effectiveness of the
project in terms of parents’ increased
Through the capability framework and
capacity for new ‘functionings’ that are
understanding
, five
of the island context
meaningful to them. Second, it avoids
key research questions emerged:
p u re l y e c o n o m i c m e a s u re s o f t h e
1. How do the school management,
importance of digital literacy, an approach
teachers, parents, community stakeholder
that is apparent in the majority of policy
groups and service users define capability?
discussions, therefore acknowledging the
sociocultural situated ness, and potential
impact, of digital literacy. Finally, it avoids
!197
2. In what ways can digital-learning
was conducted through a survey
technology develop capability with broader
administered by the school.
societal benefits outside of the school?
Invited families participated in pre- and
3. What are the required conditions for
post-programme semi-structured
digital-learning technology to foster
interviews, as ‘respondents are encouraged
capability and lead to empowerment,
to set the agenda, though the presence of
engagement and inclusion in communitythe interviewer and other forms of control
contexts?
exerted by them means that the
respondent never has full control of the
4. What is the current level of digital literacy
setting’1999:
(Scott and109).
Usher, The
within
, and the Isle of Portland community
workshops themselves focused on digital
how does this impact upon public use of
media co-production activities. These
community services?
workshops were designed and facilitated
by the researcher-in-residence who made
5. Can the provision of digital-technology
observations and kept a reflective journal
and digital-literacy training lead to greater
throughout.
educational engagement from learners and
their parents/ caregivers?
Findings
Methodology
As this research set out to address a
complex mixture of individual digital literac
In order to understand the various
development
, –through the highly
needs
stakeholders’ – including families’
situated capabilities approach, the findings
perceptions
, and what of ‘capability’
will first discussed first on their own terms,
meaningful opportunities can be created
then in relation to the specific ‘capabilities’
through access to digital technology, preof the family participants. Through the preintervention stakeholder semi-structured
and post-intervention semi-structured
interviews were undertaken. Following this,
interviews and the researcher-in-residence’s
specific families were invited to participate
observations and reflections, six themes
in a digital families programme. Two forms
were identified. Each of these themes
of pre-intervention profiling were
speaks to different expectations, parental
conducted. First, confidential data
perceptions, the learning environment itself
generated by the school provided profiles
and the role of digital technology
of families with a living-wage income, a
student with disclosed SEN attending the
school and meeting threshold criteria for
‘disengagement’. The sample was
generated from this group. Secondly,
technology access and perception profiling
Desire to support children with special
educational needs: The parents were very
forthcoming about the specific additional
learning needs of their children. Early in the
project – and during discussions with some
!198
special educational needs teachers – it was
would only have to watch them do
assumed that some parents might be
something once to be able to do it
unwilling to discuss these issues. Moreover,
themselves – which became an issue with
there was a tangible desire on the part of
regard to using passwords and childsome parents to take part in the
locking tablets. Perhaps due to the nature
programme as it would demonstrate how
of the interviews, when parents discussed
technology is currently used in the
their own digital literacy they would draw
classroom – especially in relation to
comparisons with their children and further
children’s special educational needs. For
elevate them, whilst dismissing their own in
one child with behavioural difficultiescomparison.
the
This perceived lack of digital
parents suggested that ‘[Using tablets] can
literacy was, however, a key motivator for
calm him down, his concentration can be
some parents to take part in the digital
there.’
families project. Additionally, following the
project, the capacity for children to share
Simultaneous perception of the ‘frivolity’
what they had learnt reinforced this digital
and ‘purposefulness’ of technology: There
native reverence:
is a perception of digital technology being
“And Hugo's passed on what he
both a hindrance to and a facilitator of
learned. For example, his cousin's got a
learning. This of course speaks directly to
tablet and sometimes Hugo takes a
the empowerment-protectionist dichotomy.
tablet over there and shows him how to
Additionally, discussions regarding the role
find certain things. He's actually taking
of technology in family life highlighted
his knowledge and given it to his
tensions surrounding how often it is used.
cousin." (Parent)
This dichotomy then began to emerge as a
paradox in how parents were reporting how
Additionally, some parents acknowledged
they ,manage
first
the use of technology
their inability to teach children how to use
suggesting that they allow their children to
technology, and the fact that they would in
use digital devices freely, as they reported
fact learn from them, though this was not
t h e i r c h i l d re n p re d o m i n a n t l y u s i n g
presented as a clear-cut reversal of
educational apps, but then going on to
‘power’:
discuss having to limit usage – in the
“I have a tablet, but haven’t got my
morning and evening especially.
head around it enough to use it with the
Reverence of the ‘digital natives’ and selfchildren.” (Parent)
dismissal of the ‘digital immigrants’: Parents
“…sometimes they teach me, it works
frequently discussed their children’s use of
both ways.” (Parent)
technology in reverential tones – specifically
referencing their speed at picking up new
Technology as a facilitator of learning
things. According to some parents though,
experiences: Parents frequently framed
this was slightly bemusing as their children
!199
“I see their blogs – some teachers are
very good at uploading things. You can
see what they did at school – they don’t
always tell you. All the teachers should
do it – I really like it.” (Parent)
technology as creating learning
opportunities that are often independent:
“Both daughters are really good at
maths now – as a parent you don’t have
to sit next to them to explain things –
this year it’s amazing [they use
technology] to do maths and get
awards. She loves it. Even when she
re a c h e s [ h e r t a r g e t ] s h e k e e p s
going.” (Parent)
As for children’s learning in itself, one parent
described it as a “leveller” for students with
special educational needs. Additionally,
technology, or specifically novel ‘fun’
technologies, became an effective way of
initial engagement with the school.
According to community outreach workers,
this same approach of using technology to
engage, but not necessarily with the
technology itself, was quite common.
This almost became the default measure by
w h i c h c h i l d re n ’s i n t e r a c t i o n s w i t h
technology became framed in relation to
what they are learning. For instance, when
discussing having school-connected
technology at home, one parent suggested
this meant “…they’ve got no excuses, have
they?”
Differing definitions of capability: There was
a mismatch between families and
stakeholders when discussing the desired
outcomes of the project. Families primarily
framed their desires in terms of confidence
– or self-reliance – in using technology, and
the capacity to understand and undertake
positive pedagogic practices at home. The
Academy and community stakeholders,
however, framed capability gaps in terms of
low aspiration, low employability and a lack
of engagement with the school and
community services.
From the perspective of the research
facilitating workshops, the co-production of
digital media created a positive learning
environment. Children’s ‘fearless’ approach
to engaging with technology when given a
task, combined with parents more ‘fearful’
or muted approach, created a dynamic in
which the children would, seemingly, play
with software whilst their parents asked
,reflective
critical questions.
Here it is probably worth explicitly revisiting
the capabilities approach. As well as
informing the philosophy of this research,
the digital capabilities approach has been
developed as a framework for projects.
There are multiple emerging projects at
local or national governmental level, in
charity or tertiary sector organisations, and
i n d e e d i n c o m m e rc i a l e n t i t i e s . A s
demonstrated in this and similar research,
Engagement with lear ning through
technology affordance and technology as
an incentive: Throughout the entire project
there were persistent references to notions
of engagement in relation to technology.
For some parents, technology was seen as
an enabler for engaging with their children’s
learning or, at the least, their experiences at
school:
!200
there is a trend towards a deficit model Throughout
of
the project, however, the
parental
, especially in engagement
areas of
majority of students, though rarely all,
socio-economic disadvantage (Barton,
demonstrated a new ‘capability’ in relation
Drake, Perez, 2004).
Louis & In
George,
to learning practices. For instance, the
addition to the specific findings relating
f a m to
ilies’ children demonstrated
digital literacy development through family
independent and peer-assisted learning in
learning
, this capabilities approach has
new digital contexts, and a capacity for
significance for future digital-intervention
transitioning between the two approaches
when appropriate. Children also
projects.
demonstrated an awareness of their own
learning strategies through curating suitable
applications for use in at-school learning.
From digital literacy to digital capability
Moreover, the children, and parents, began
Parent capabilities are subject to multiple
to demonstrate a confidence in a ‘flipped
impediments beyond simply digital access
learning’ family context and sharing a
or digital literacy – including financial trust in
leadership role.
institutions, time constraints and the
internalisation of anxiety around screen
time, and notions of the correct/ incorrect
References
use of technology. The single biggest factor
Barclays.
2015).
( Computing is the new
in levels of collaborative digital capability in
English as it becomes the nation’s favourite
family settings remains an economic one.
school subject. Retrieved 20 April 2016
As the recent ‘Opportunities for All?’ report
from: http://www.newsroom.barclays.com/
indicates, whilst Internet connection is ever
releases/ReleaseDetailPage.aspx?
increasingly ‘the leveller’, low-income/
releaseId=3099.
living-wage families are impeded by slower
connections and reduced to using single
mobile devices. Capability is undermined by
the need to plan ahead to access fast Wi-Fi
in a public space or hindered by
interruptions to connections in the home.
,Barton
A.C., Drake, C., Perez, J.G., Louis,
K.S., & George,
2004).
M. ( Ecologies of
Parental Engagement in Urban Education.
Educational Researcher, 33, 3–12. http://
doi.org/10.3102/0013189X033004003.
In addition to making explicit the link
between digital literacy and other impeding
factors, this research has identified a
complicated picture of digital capability for
learning. Of course, the capability approach
itself results in a highly situated and holistic
understanding of the role of digital literacy
in digital capability and learning.
Becta. (2008). Harnessing Technology:
Next Generation Learning. Retrieved 13
March 2016.
B u c, kDi. n (2
g h0 a0 m7 ) .
Beyond
Technology: Children’s Learning in the Age
of Digital Culture (1st ed.).
, UK: Cambridge
Polity Press, Wiley.
!201
Buckingham, D. (2008). After the Death of
Childhood. Blackwell.
Hobbs, R. (2011). The State of Media
Literacy: A Response to Potter. Journal of
Broadcasting & Electronic Media, 55(3),
419–430.
http://doi.org/
10.1080/08838151.2011.597594.
Buckingham, D. (2010). Do We Really Need
Media Education 2.0? Teaching Media in
the Age of Participatory Culture. In: Digital
Contnet Creation. http://doi.org/
10.1007/978-981-287-326-2.
Hollingworth, S., Mansaray, A., Allen, K., &
Rose, A. (2011). Parents’ perspectives on
technology and children's learning in the
home: Social class and the role of the
habitus. Journal of Computer Assisted
Learning, 27(4), 347–360. http://doi.org/
10.1111/j.1365-2729.2011.00431.x.
Buckingham
, D. 2
( 011). Defining Digital
Literacy: What do young people need to
know? In: C. Lankshear & M. Knobel (Eds),
Digital Literacies: Concepts, policies, and
practices (pp. 263–277).
Jenkins, H., Ito, M., & Boyd, D. (2015).
Participatory Culture in a Networked Era: A
C o n v e r s a t i o n o n Yo u t h , L e a r n i n g ,
Commerce, and Politics. New York: Polity
Press, Wiley.
Department for Education (2013). National
curriculum in England: computing
programmes of study. Department for
Education. Retrieved from: https://
www.gov.uk/government/publications/
national-curriculum-in-england-computingprogrammes-of-study/national-curriculumin-england-computing-programmes-ofstudy.
Jenkins, H., Purushotma, R., Weigel, M., &
Clinton, K. (2008). Confronting the
Challenges of Participatory Culture.
Cambridge, Massachusetts: MIT Press.
ECORYS. (2016). Digital skills for the UK
economy.
European Commission. (2010). The
European eGovernment Action Plan 2011–
2015 – Harnessing ICT to promote smart,
sustainable & innovative Government.
COM(2010) 743 final. Retrieved from:
http://eur-lex.europa.eu/LexUriServ/
LexUriServ.do?uri=COM:
2010:0743:FIN:EN:PDF.
Hobbs, R. (1998). The seven great debates
in the media literacy movement. Journal of
Communication, 48(1), 16–32. http://
doi.org/10.1093/joc/48.1.16.
Kazuya, J.-M. (2014). E-Government
Survey: e-Government for the Future We
Want. United Nations. Retrieved from:
h t t p : / / w w w. u n p a n . o r g / e g o v k b /
global_reports/08report.htm.
King, H., Kersh, N., Potter, J., & Pitts, S.
(2015). Learner-led and boundary free:
learning across contexts. In: Learning
Beyond the Classroom. British Journal of
Educational Psychology. Monograph Series
II (pp.39–49). Leicester: British
Psychological Society. http://doi.org/
10.1017/CBO9781107415324.004.
Kling, R. (1991). Computerization and
S o c i a l Tr a n s f o r m a t i o n s . S c i e n c e ,
!202
Technology & Human Values, 16(3), 342–
367.
Internet Mediation Strategies with Preteens.
Temple University.
Livingstone, S. (2009). On the mediation of
everything: ICA presidential address 2008.
Journal of Communication, 59, 1–18.
http://doi.org/10.1111/j.
1460-2466.2008.01401.x.
Mills, K. (2010). A Review of the “Digital
Turn” in the New Literacy Studies. Review
of Educational Research, 80(2), 246–271.
h t t p : / / d o i . o r g /
10.3102/0034654310364401.
Ofcom. (2011). Children and parents:
Livingstone, S. (2014). The mediatization of
media use and attitudes report. Children,
childhood and education: Reflections on
(October), 175. Retrieved from: http://
The Class. In: H. Kramp, L. Carpentier, N.
stakeholders.ofcom.org.uk/binaries/
Hepp, A. Tomanic-Trivundza, I. Nieminen,
research/media-literacy/oct2011/
R. Kunelius, R. Olsson, T. Sundin, & E.
Children_and_parents.pdf?
Kilborn (Eds), Media Practice and Everyday
utm_source=updates&utm_medium=email
Agency in Europe edited (pp.55–68).
&utm_campaign=children-parents-2011.
Lumière. Retrieved from: http://
eprints.lse.ac.uk/62120/.
Office
, C. (2 014).
New digital public
Livingstone, S., Buckingham, D., & Davies,
C. (2009). “ Digital natives”: a myth?
Technology, (November), 17. Retrieved
from: http://eprints.lse.ac.uk/35789/1/
digitalnatives.pdf.
services will help Britain win the global race.
Retrieved from: https://www.gov.uk/
government/news/new-digital-publicservices-will-help-britain-win-the-globalrace.
Livingstone, S., Haddon, L., Görzig, A., &
Ólafsson, K. (2011). EU Kids Online II: Final
Report 2011. Retrieved from: http://
www.lse.ac.uk/collections/EUKidsOnline/.
Rantalla, L. & Suoranta, J. (2011). Digital
Literacy Policies in the EU – Inclusive
Partnership as the Final Stage of
Governmentality? In: C. Lankshear & M.
Knobel (Eds), Digital Literacies: Concepts,
policies, and practices 2 (pp.91–117). New
York: Peter Lang.
Lynch, G. (2016). The Scouts’ New Digital
Manifesto Includes Badges for Coding.
Retrieved 13 February 2016, from: http://
www.gizmodo.co.uk/2016/01/the-scoutsnew-digital-manifesto-includes-badges-forcoding/.
Safer Internet Day. (2016). Retrieved 1
January 2016 from: https://
www.saferinternetday.org/.
Manovich, L. (2013). Software Takes
Command.
Sefton-Green, J., Nixon, H., & Erstad, O.
(2009). Reviewing Approaches and
Perspectives on “Digital Literacy”.
Pedagogies: An International Journal, 4(2),
Mendoza, K. (2013). Protection and
Empowerment: Exploring Parents’ Use of
!203
107–125.
http://doi.org/
10.1080/15544800902741556.
Selwyn, N. (2009). The digital native: myth
and reality. Aslib Proceedings, 6(4), 364–
379.
http://doi.org/
10.1108/00012530910973776.
Selwyn, N. (2016). Is Technology Good For
Education? (1st ed.). Cambridge, UK: Polity
Press, Wiley.
Sen, A. K, (2008), ‘Capability and WellBeing’ in Hausman, D. M. (Ed), The
Philosophy of Economics (3rd Edition),
270-293.
Street, B. (2003). What’s “new” in New
Literacy Studies?: Critical approaches to
literacy in theory and practice. Current
Issues in Comparative Education, 5(2), 77–
91. http://doi.org/10.1016/j.socscimed.
2011.02.026.
Tapscott, D. (2009). Grown Up Digital.
Focus. New York: McGraw-Hill.
UNESCO. (2011). Digital Literacy in
Education. Policy Brief. Retrieved from:
http://unesdoc.unesco.org/images/
0021/002144/214485e.pdf.
!204
Essay 1
Childhood, digital culture and parental mediation
Lucia Amante1
Laboratório de Educação a Distância e eLearning - Universidade Aberta, Portugal
Abstract
The new childhood
The media habits of young children have
changed over the years as new technology
emerges and becomes ever more ingrained
into the home and social contexts. As
professionals who work with young children
or/and with teachers of young children, it is
imperative that we understand the realities
of children’s lives with new media. In this
text our goal is to think the childhood in the
new familiar contexts, where the digital
media are an important role, and discuss
some aspects related with the parental
media guidance, or mediation, of young
children. Parental mediation is seen as a
key strategy in developing children’s skills
to use and interpret the media, foster
positive outcomes and prevent negative
It is now recognised that digital
technologies are ingrained in our life and
have changed our daily lives both in
professional contexts, whether social or
familial. Each time access to technologies is
done
, starting
early
right in the first years of
life, causing numerous changes in the
child's universe and their vision of the
world. So, we want to contextualise the
contemporary childhood and its relation to
the digital culture.
effects of the media.
In fact, new technology sometimes brings
change that is so swift and sweeping, that
the implications are hard to grasp. Such is
certainly the case with the rapid expansion
of digital media used by children and youth.
These changes are reflected in the concept
of childhood itself, as Edvaldo Couto
suggests:
We hope that this
debate will contribute to a greater
understanding of the parental roles today,
namely in relation to supporting children’s
digital literacy.
Key words: Childhood; Digital media;
Parental mediation.
1
lucia.amante@uab.pt
As we all know, the media habits of young
children have changed over the years as
new technology emerges and becomes
ever more ingrained into the home and
social contexts.
Childhood as we know it, is changing due
to numerous factors, as: the contact with
several multicultural manifestations; the
complexity of the transformations present
in the daily life of cities, families and ways
of interaction with mobile technologies; the
hybridism between traditional and new
ways of playing and having fun. The
fascination with the electronic games,
digital social networks, connectivity, etc.
Such factor modify ways of life and mark
changes in ways of understanding
childhood and the place that children take
in that scenery, in which the systems of
meaning and cultural representation
multiply. (E. Couto, 2013 p. 898)
home contexts where children use the
technology and how this use influences
modern household arrangements, familiar
dynamics and communication patterns.
We take the idea that there is a children’s
cyberculture in which kids participate
,actively
creating and redefining ways of
playing carried by the digital technologies.
Today, the social environment of children
isn’t only physical but also digital. As a
socio-cultural subject, the child lives and
promotes changes in their context of life in
which the digital media increasingly mediate
the social relationships. With effect, the
digital media aren’t just objects. They are
connectivity, share, interaction, relationship
with others and the world. They are also,
new and important pedagogic contexts
( A m a n t e , 2 0 1 1 ) . T h u s , c h i l d r e n ’s
cyberculture must be understood beyond
the gadgets and their uses. It is, mainly, a
vast set of behaviors and knowledge, of
interactions and created contents, also by
the children, with the digital technologies,
as cultural tools of our times.
We reviewed some studies and reports—
about young children and their ownership
and use of media (Hasebrink; Livingstone;
Haddon: & Ólafsson, 2009; Gutnick; Robb;
Takeuchi & Kotler, 2010; Formby, 2014).
The table 1 can give us an idea about the
children’s new media habits.
Surely a better understanding of the new
norms of behavior among younger children
will help to prepare educators, parents, and
policymakers to promote learning and a
healthy development.
It should be noted, however, that not all
children have access to newer digital
technologies, nor do all children use media
in the same ways once they do own them.
Family income continues to be a barrier to
some children owning technology (Gutnick,
2010).
Parental roles
Online
risks
opportunities
and
When we think about the part that parents
play towards the use of technologies, one
of the imperative questions in most studies
and reports is related to online safety
issues, whether regarding content or
contact and risky behaviors.
Children’s new media habits
As professionals who work with young
children or/and with teachers of young
children, it is imperative that we understand
the realities of children’s lives with new
media. This includes understanding the
Certainly this preoccupations exist and they
are legitimate, but also, in most cases, they
go beyond the use of the media. Vulnerable
!206
Schols , (2015)
parents apply various
routines in guiding children’s media use.
Studies have shown that these routines can
A vigorous national dialogue is taking place
be divided into distinct types of parental
over the right balance between media
consumption, the potential negative
mediation2005;
(Marsh etBöcking
al.
and
impact that inappropriate digital content
Böcking 2009;, Nikken and Jansz 2006
can have on vulnerable children, and the
worry that children are increasingly leading
2013; Sonck et al. 2013; Valkenburg et al.
physically inactive lives. These legitimate
1999).
concerns must be juxtaposed with
children online are, usually, vulnerable in
their offline lives.
emerging evidence from the learning
sciences and innovative practices showing
how well-deployed digital media can
promote new skills, raise achievement,
and bring children together across time
and space.
, p.2
(Gutnick
)
et al. 2010
Types of guidance
(1) posing
,
restrictions on time and content
usually referred to as restrictive mediation;
Parental guidance, parental
mediation
(2) discussing content and giving
explanations or instructions to the child to
enhance safety, raise critical awareness, or
stimulate learning outcomes (active
mediation);
Especially in the last decade a series of
studies undertaken by academic experts
has documented the use of media by
youth, with most of the studies focused on
(3) co-using the media intentionally together
children aged 8 and up. However
, relatively
with the child, mostly for entertainment or
little research has been done on children
educational purposes.
during the preschool and middle-childhood
periods. We can find several texts about(4) supervision
, i.e.,
as a form of mediation
parental guidance, but little empirical
staying nearby to keep an eye on the child
research on how and why parents mediate
when it is using an electronic screen on its
the digital media use. The influence of
own,;
parents on children’s media practices
(5) monitor the child’s online activities
determines their media induced learning,
afterwards
, e.g., checking the browser
,play
and social development.
histor y or logs from social m e dia
applications;
Some studies about the parental role on
media use point to several types of
guidance, largely described as ‘parental
mediation’,any
definedstrategy
as “
parents use to control, supervise or
interpret media content for
children” (Warren
2001,
, p.212).
(6) use , technical
such as
restrictions
‘parental controls’ provided by media
devices to regulate or block inappropriate
content.
Parents seem to prefer the first five social
strategies as compared to the use of these
According to the review of Nikken and
!207
technical applications (Livingstone and
Helsper 2008).
electronic devices from the perspective of
children’s development. They reveal
guidance of activities with media more
easily than the families less educated and
with a lower income (Ito et al. 2010). At the
same time the level of parents’
technological literacy also influences the
ease of guiding children in the use of media
(De Haan, 2010). Other studies also show
that the location of the devices at home,
particularly in children's rooms, makes the
parental supervision and guidance of
children
,
more difficult. (Nikken and Jansz
2013).
Va r i a b l e s o f P a re n t s ’ m e d i a
guidance
Parents vary widely in their mediation
practices. But, what determines this
variability in guidance of the children’s
media use?
Some studies have demonstrated that this
variability is related to demographic
variables, such as the parents’ age, gender,
and education or income level; other
Moreover, research about parental
mediation has shown that parents vary their
strategies according to their perception of
the effects of media content on children.
Thus parents who are very concerned
about the risks associated with the use of
the media adopt more restrictive behaviors,
monitor more closely and talk more with the
children about the activities and the media
content. When parents believe that the
media promotes educational opportunities,
they are less restrictive, and they use them
together with the children and discuss with
them their content in a more educational
perspective (Sonck et al. 2013). On the
factors as parents’ own media use and
skills, and family context variables, such as
family size, marital status, and the number
of media screens at home, are also
associated with the variability of mediation
practices (Böcking and Böcking, 2009).
The education of children within the family
is further divided according to gender
stereotypes. Craig (2006) states that
mothers exert more often mediation on
children’s media use practices. Also the
research shows that the families of high
socio-economic levels and higher
education level, invest in the purchase of
Table 1: Children´s new media habits
•
•
•
•
•
More access to all kinds of digital media;
More time accessing the media during the day;
Prevalence of the strong hold of television over the media habits of young
children;
Use of the internet as an educational resource, for entertainment (games
and fun), for researching information and also for social networking;
Mobile media appears to be a technology in expansion. Kids like to use
their media on the go.
!208
other hand, if parents perceive only the
entertainment role of technology, they pay
less attention to the activities that they
develop with the media.
children, promoting language development,
and promoting, also, a healthy attitude
about media and technology.
So, parental mediation is seen as a key
strategy in developing children’s skills to
use and interpret the media, foster positive
outcomes and prevent negative effects.
Parents must know about technology’s
educational value, to maximize their
mediation and adopt a guidance
developmentally appropriate. This means
providing a scaffold for the child’s
development. But, to better understand
these questions, we also need to better
Research has also shown that parents
adjust their orientation to the ages of the
children, demonstrating an increase in
restrictive mediation with older children. As
up to 8 years of age parents practice an
active supervision of mediation that
includes the co-use of media while the
development of some activities (Nikken and
Jansz, 2013).
T h e re l a t i o n s h i p b e t w e e n p a re n t a l
mediation and children’s media skills
development still needs more research, but
the early studies point to a positive
relationship (Nikken, 2015). When this
mediation values the use of media as an
educational opportunity, the children tend
to develop more appropriate attitudes in
their exploration.
understand the evolving patterns of
younger children’s media use. On this basis
it is possible to define and organize various
techniques to help parents use mediation in
ways that increase media literacy skills in
their children.
So
, we finished this text with some
research questions: How do parents see
technology? As an opportunity for learning,
as something merely functional, or as pure
entertainment? How does that perspective
relate to their attitudes as mediators in the
use of digital technologies with their
children? How do different parenting
practices and parents’ own levels of media
and technology use affect the use patterns
of children in the household?
Conclusions
In fact, because technology is so much a
part of our everyday lives, parents have to
work pretty hard to keep up with what's out
there. But, more than knowing the latest
news about applications or games, adults
may need to think about how they can
connect to their child during technology
use. Parents need to consider their role as
one of a "media mentor", a trusted adult
who engages with children in the use of
technology in creative and interesting ways.
This sharing can lead to interesting
conversations between parents and
We hope you can contribute to give
answers to this questions and promote the
knowledge in this area.
!209
New York: The Joan Ganz Cooney Center
at Sesame Workshop. https://
www.academia.edu/7683375/
Always_Connected_The_New_Digital_Medi
a_Habits_of_Young_Children
Accessed
September 2016.
References
Amante, L. (2011). As tecnologias digitais
na escola e na educação infantil. Pinhais:
Editora Melo.
Böcking, S., & Böcking, T. (2009). Parental
Hasebrink, U., Livingstone, S., Haddon, L.
mediation of television: Test of a Germanand Ólafsson, K. (2009). Comparing
speaking scale and findings on the impact
children’s online opportunities and risks
of parental attitudes, sociodemographic
across Europe: Cross-national comparisons
and family-factors in German-speaking
for EU Kids Online. LSE, London: EU Kids
Switzerland. Journal of Children and
Online (Deliverable D3.2, 2nd edition).
Media, 3, 286–302.
http://www.lse.ac.uk/media@lse/research/
E U K i d s O n l i n e /
EU%20Kids%20I%20(2006-9)/
EU%20Kids%20Online%20I%20Reports/
EUKidsOnlineFinalReport.pdf Accessed
September 2016
Couto, Edvaldo Souza (2013). A infância e
o brincar na cultura digital. Perspectiva, 31,
3, 897-916.
Craig, L. (2006). Does father care mean
fathers share? A comparison of how
mothers and fathers in intact families spend
time with children. Gender and Society, 20,
259–281.
Ito, M., Baumer, S., Bittanti, M., Boyd, D.,
Cody, R., HerrStephenson, B., et al. (2010).
Hanging out, messing around, and geeking
out: Kids living and learning with new
media. Cambridge: Massachusetts Institute
of Technology.
De Haan, J. (2010). Late on the curve;
causes and consequences of differences in
digital skills. In E. Ferro, Y. Kumar Dwivedi,
J. Ramon Gil-Garcia, & M. D. Williams
(Eds.), Handbook of research on
overcoming digital divides: Constructing an
equitable and competitive information
society (pp. 292–308). Hershey: Information
Science Reference
Livingstone, S., & Helsper, E. (2008).
Parental mediation and children’s internet
use. Journal of Broadcasting and Electronic
Media, 52, 581–599.
Marsh, J., Brooks, G., Hughes, J., Ritchie,
L., Roberts, S. & Wright, K. (2005). Digital
beginnings: Young children’s use of popular
culture,
media
and
new
technologies. Sheffield: University of
Sheffield.
http://
w w w. d i g i t a l b e g i n n i n g s . s h e f . a c . u k /
DigitalBeginningsReport.pdf. Accessed
september 2014.
F o r m b y, S . ( 2 0 1 4 ) . P r a c t i t i o n e r
Perspectives: Children's Use of Technology
in the Early Years London, National Literacy
Trust.
Gutnick, A. L., Robb, M., Takeuchi, L., &
Kotler, J. (2010). Always connected: The
new digital media habits of young children.
!210
Nikken, P., & Jansz, J. (2006). Parental
mediation of children’s videogame playing:
A comparison of the reports by parents and
children. Learning Media and
Technology, 31, 181–202.
Nikken, P., & Jansz, J. (2013). Developing
scales to measure parental mediation of
young children’s internet use. Learning
Media and Technology, 39, 250–266.
Nikken, P. & Schols, M. (2015). How and
why parents guide the media use of young
children. Journal of Child and Family
Studies. 24, 11, 3423–3435
Sonck, N., Nikken, P., & De Haan, J. (2013).
Determinants of internet mediation: A
comparison of the reports by parents and
children. Journal of Children and Media, 7,
96–113.
Warren, R. 2001. In words and deeds:
Parental involvement and mediation of
children’s television viewing. Journal of
Family Communication 1, 211-231.
!211
Essay 2
Transforming pedagogy for the early years in digital
learning contexts (why we have to play with toy cars
before we can get a driving license)
Antonio Moreira1
Department of Education, University of Aveiro
Abstract
The aim of this keynote address is to give
an overview of how pedagogy and teaching
approaches have been (mis)used in the
early stages of learning – pre and primary
school children – in formal and informal
digital learning contexts, and examine ways
of transforming these into adaptive/
productive strategies that foster motivation,
creativity and digital skills development in
learning, while adopting selected digital
tools that are not perceived as intrusive
and/or displaced from the contexts of
childhood education, with a view to foster
and set the foundations for the
development of digital literacies from an
early age.
Issues that have to do with advocating or
rejecting digital tools appropriation by
children will therefore be addressed, based
on, recent
allowing for research
the
findings
emergence of voices that are in favour or
against the introduction of ICT in the early
years of schooling, thus providing us with
the means to equate a balanced view of the
pros and cons of such introduction, be it in
1
moreira@ua.pt
the form of social and economic aspects,
cognitive development, parental
involvement, teachers’ attitudes,
institutional policies, and so forth.
A few principles will be equated towards
the use of the right tools for the right task at
the right time.
Key words: Pedagogy, children, pre and
primary school, formal and informal digital
learning contexts
Introduction
The aim of this keynote address is to give
an overview of how pedagogy and teaching
approaches have been (mis)used in the
early stages of learning – pre and primary
school children – in formal and informal
digital learning contexts, and examine ways
of transforming these into adaptive/
productive strategies that foster motivation,
creativity and digital skills development in
learning, while adopting selected digital
tools that are not perceived as intrusive
and/or displaced from the contexts of
childhood education, with a view to foster
and set the foundations for the
development of digital literacies from an
early age.
stuff, so that it becomes structured second
nature when the time is right. This means
that we are not against the introduction of
technologies in the early years of learning,
bur that we believe that such technologies
have to be the right ones for these children.
As with driving a real car, there is a long
process of maturing one’s brain as to
concepts, principles, structures, rules,
rights, responsibilities, liabilities, cautions,
etc. that only come with time and are the
object of evolution and change, even
throughout the span of our lives and
beyond.
Issues that have to do with advocating or
rejecting digital tools appropriation by
children will therefore be addressed, based
on, recent
allowing for research
the
findings
emergence of voices that are in favour or
against the introduction of ICT in the early
years of schooling, thus providing us with
the means to equate a balanced view of the
pros and cons of such introduction, be it in
the form of social and economic aspects,
cognitive development, parental
involvement, teachers’ attitudes,
institutional policies, and so forth.
As a child, I remember plying with toy cars,
manipulating them while fantasising about
manoeuvres, car crashes, doing slides, and
all this by moving them around with my
hands, building black cardboard aerial
views of streets, miniature traffic sign posts,
of which I knew the meaning of STOP, etc. I
also remember “driving” a small car with
pedals, and simulate the noises of the
engine starting, running, shifting gears,
breaking, sliding… Later, as a young
adolescent, I would control a race-car with
a wired track, and compete with playmates.
As an adolescent, I would pay attention to
what drivers did, make connections
between what they did and the traffic signs
they reacted to, and when something
wasn’t quite clear, I would ask why. Then I
took my motor trike driving license – I had
to study the traffic code, and one of my
brothers in law taught me how to use the
trike in an open safe space. After this, I
went, back in those days, to an official
municipal yard where a simulation of streets
and traffic signs where displayed. Then, in
A few principles will be equated towards
the use of the right tools for the right task at
the right time.
The tile we chose is twofold: the main part
– transforming pedagogy for the early years
in digital learning contexts – has to do with
a need to address the way we educate or
bring into our children’s early learning
contexts the benefits of technologies and
how we can make these children aware of
the perils they may face and render them
conscious, in due course, of how to stay
away form danger; the subtitle – why we
have to play with toy cars before we can
get a driving license – is used as a
metaphor for how children acquire skills
that, although not yet conceived by adults
as appropriate, require children to get hold
of children-adequate versions of the “real”
!213
the presence of an examiner, I had to follow
instructions as to where to go, where to
turn (some times with trick instructions, to
which one had to react according to the
signs and disobey the instruction, if that
was the case), and I got my permit. Then
came the experience of being on my own,
in real life situations, having to deal with real
, with breakdowns, and fortunately,
traffic
also with small accidents. After that came
the car driving license, with a bit more
complexity, but all the accumulated prior
knowledge played an important part in
doing it with ease.
all have to take these matters with a good
dose of sensibility and a pinch of salt.
How pedagogy and teaching
approaches have been (mis)used
in the early stages of learning: an
overview
Be it nationally or internationally, early years’
education has recently been recognised as
a stage of children’s lear ning and
development that should be supported by a
curriculum structured around the concept
that the child is a whole and complex being
and, therefore, requires teachers and
educators that address their needs in an
adequate manner. And this adequacy
means moving away from methods and
strategies that are sustained by the
concept that one size fits all. In fact, the
OECD, in 2001, makes such a
recommendation.
As a father, I watched my children, still while
babies, picking up toy cars, putting them in
their mouths, moving them about in their
little hands, dropping them, and grabbing
some other toy, and do the same all over
again. Later, when they became toddlers,
they would behave the same way I did,
usually with a car in one hand and, in all
fours, move about the floor making engine
noises and drooling a lot while at it. After
that, the same sort of behaviour, only this
time they started with street mats and toy
cars, remote control cars of all shapes and
sizes, electric powered scooters,
PlayStation driving simulators, etc. The rest
was pretty much the same, and as a
grandfather, I notice that there are no big
differences from my children, except for the
experiences in 3D. But I honestly believe
that when it comes to driving licences, and
especially in the case of my grandson, cars
will drive themselves… I feel like retaking,
on this issue, Shakespeare’s comedy title
“Much ado about nothing”, whose first folio
he published back in 1632. Therefore, we
As in most countries, when we talk about
early stages of learning, we mean any child
from that is in the naught to eight years of
age, although when referring to compulsory
or statutory education, some countries vary
in how they look at the starting age
(Northern Ireland with 4; England, Malta,
the Netherlands, Scotland and Wales with
5; Austria, Belgium, Cyprus, Czech
Republic, France, Germany, Greece,
Hungary, Iceland, Republic of Ireland, Italy,
Liechtenstein, Luxembourg, Norway,
Portugal, Romania, Slovakia, Slovenia,
Spain, and Turkey with 6; and Bulgaria,
Estonia, Denmark, Finland, Latvia,
Lithuania, Poland, and Sweden with 7). As
!214
it happens, the early stages of learning,
where the very beginnings in the past was
the responsibility of parents, nannies or
tutors, evolved to learning provided in preschool years by nurseries and
kindergartens, an issue that cannot be
dissociated from the need working parents
have to leave their children in trustworthy
hands, while they’re at work, either
because they actually think that this is the
best for their children’s development, or
because it is the law. For example, in the
UK, almost 100% of children in England
enter what is referred to as “reception
classes” in school contexts from the of age
proposed by the child, with large
investment in activities that foster discovery
(deduction by observation) and real life
situations problem-solving. The movement
from the first approach to the latter has
been observed in view of the criticisms
made
, andto
mostthe
countries
first
have
followed, or are following suit, with
variations that are socio-culturally based,
and that in the UK have adopted the
designation of Foundation Stages – at least
in England, Northern Ireland and Wales –,
all concerned with smoothing the transition
between informal and formal education.
As far back in time as 2002, Bertram and
Pascal, came up with a set of principles
that apparently were consensual as far as
the data obtained internationally from 20
different countries is concerned (Australia,
Canada, England, France, Germany,
Hungary, Republic of Ireland, Italy, Japan,
Korea, the Netherlands, New Zealand,
Northern Ireland, Singapore, Spain,
Sweden, Switzerland, USA, Wales, and
Hong Kong). These principles were, for 3 to
6 year-old children: “a child-centred, flexible
and individually responsive curriculum; the
importance of working in partnership with
parents; the need to offer broad and
relevant learning experiences in an
integrated manner; the importance of play
and active, exploratory learning; an
emphasis on social and emotional
development; and the need to empower
the child to be an autonomous,
independent learner” (Bertram and Pascal,
2002, p.21). The keywords are all there:
child-centeredness; flexibility; collaboration
with parents; broadness, relevance and
4 years and 4 months onwards, which is
about one year early that statutorily
demanded. In the Republic of Ireland, and
also in other countries like Portugal,
although the start of primary education is
not compulsory until the age of 6, most
children are placed in school environments
two years in advance, and follow a national
or locally prescribed curriculum. Although
there are differences in the approaches
adopted in these early stages of learning,
whether more formal subject-oriented and
teacher-led, emphasising numeracy and
literacy – i.e. basic maths and reading/
writing, already aiming at the development
of competence and mastery of the
“mechanics” of cognition through mimmem and repetition –, as opposed to a
more informal, play-oriented and childcentred approach, where children are seen
as beings that should develop autonomy,
initiative and creativity – through play,
responsible choice, and interactive activities
that are either led by the teacher or
!215
•
integration of experiences; play and active
exploration of the environment; socioemotional development, empowerment,
autonomy and independence for the child.
Early experiences have profound
effects on development and learning.
• Development proceeds toward
greater complexity, self-regulation, and
symbolic or representational capacities.
• Children develop best when they
have secure relationships.
Ways of transforming early
learning strategies into adaptive/
productive strategies
• Development and learning occur in
and are influenced by multiple social and
cultural contexts.
According to Bredekamp (1987) and
Bredekamp & Copple (1997), the NAEYC
guidelines for developmentally appropriate
practice (DAP) were originally based on
developmental theory, with a focus on
•
Children learn in a variety of ways.
• Play is an important vehicle for
developing self-regulation and promoting
language, cognition, and social
competence.
Piaget’s cognitive constructivist perspective
rather than on that of Vygotsky’s social and
• Development and learning advance
cultural contexts of development. The DAP
when children are challenged.
guidelines (NAYEC, 2009)2 now includes
• Children’s experiences shape their
both perspectives in the 12 principles of
motivation and approaches to learning.
learning and practice3 that derive from updated theoretical and empirical accounts of
These principles purport to how individual
developmental processes and sociocultural
variation in development and learning
influences.The 12 Principles of Child
should be linked to decisions about the
Development and Learning are:
curriculum, teaching and interactions, so as
to guarantee that educational decisions are
taken on the basis of the unique character
of each and every child, and also of group
differences such as nature, growth rate,
p e r s o n a l i t y a n d b a c k g ro u n d o f i t s
members. Of course, to balance things out,
other principles have to be called upon to
give weight on developing children in such a
way as to making them emotionally literate
and aware of safe and positive means and
attitudes towards how to interact and
• All areas of development and
learning are important.
• Learning and development follow
sequences.
• Development and learning proceed
at varying rates.
• Development and learning result
from an interaction of maturation and
experience.
2
The Developmentally Appropriate Practices (DAP) framework was developed by an USA professional body, the National
Association for the Education of Young Children (NAEYC), for professionals who dealt with children from 0 to 8 years of age.
3
Retrieved from http://www.naeyc.org/dap/12-principles-of-child-development, 12th May 2016.
!216
respond to adults, social interactions,
multicultural contexts.
and US nurseries showed that some play
activities were far more reaching and
enriching of children’ learning (especially as
Having in mind that play, as a concept, has
far as exploration, creativity and problemlong been the subject of observation,
solving) than others, particularly when such
register, description and research, Stephen
activities involved art, puzzles, games and
(2010) states that the role of reviewing the
materials for manipulation and construction
contribution of play to learning and teaching
of something, contrasting with some other
does not have the intention of rejecting it
more common activities like playing with
but, on the contrary,
dough or sand and dressing-up as a
different character. She observes that the
to strengthen its place as a medium for learning
when that is most appropriate, to ensure that
play partner is more important that the
the play opportunities offered to children are
materials they play with, with an emphasis
playful and engaging to them and to develop a
on the “sensitive adult” that takes the child
more nuanced and evidence-based rationale for
deeper into play by talking about and
play in the learning environment that is clear
about the benefits and can go beyond an appeal reflecting upon the activity at stake.
to consensus
and historic claims to
distinctiveness (Stephen, 2010, p. 4).
Free play — e.g., activities initiated and
freely chosen by the child and maintained
without the interference of an adult, be it a
relative or an educator —
was usually
privileged as the elected form of play, and
highly valued by early years’ educators. For
instance, Bruce, as early as in 1991,
suggested that play is a too broad a word
to be of any use and only ‘free-flow’
could actually render evident the nature and
boundaries of the concept. In her view,
play is a unique form of activity that cannot
be imposed: nobody can force children to
play. While observing children in nurseries
contexts, Meadows and Cashdan (1988)
observed that when children are busy and
happy playing without interference form
adults, conversation or play with adults,
high complexity play activities, or even play
leading to a purpose, were very scarce.
Earlier on, in 1984, Sylva observed that UK
Although there has been a decrease in
births in the last few years in Portugal, and
in spite of such figures being presently at a
turning point, the fact is that many more
children attend pre-school, a phenomenon
that is also happening elsewhere. And the
problem resides in an aspect that, with the
inception of this other lair of schooling, a
further transition issue is faced by children,
i.e. that of moving from unstructured (or illplay
structured) pre-school, to an ever increasing
number of structured schooling cycles
represented by compulsory education,
however play-driven the very first few years
of primary education may be. Studies have
isolated some important issues as far as
transition is concerned: (i) personality traits,
socio-economic background and prior
knowledge and how these may facilitate or
hinder transition; roles of parents and family,
of peers and of the school community; role
of the educators and the school itself. The
Dynamic Effects Model proposed Rimm!217
• Vocabulary:
– Parts of a car:
• Wheels
• Buckle
• Steering wheel
• Seat belt
• Door
Early Learning Concepts while playing
with cars:
– go/stop
– fast/slow
– on/off
– up/down
– smooth/bumpy
And Marissa Edwards, in reply to
Rachel’s post, adds a few more to
these: “there is so much that they can
learn that is inherent to the activity. I
also find that when kids crawl across
the floor while pushing a car, they are
also developing their arm strength and
stability, their shoulder strength and
stability, trunk control, and developing
the muscles in their wrists and hands
in preparation for higher level tasks as
they get older. I see a lot of creative
play, and ideation that comes out of
playing with cars, too. I have also used
different toy cars to work on matching
colors and identifying colors. Kids can
be so motivated by toy cars or trains
that they are very willing to engage in
new skills or challenging tasks when
their favorite car is involved in the
process!
Kaufmann and Pianta in 2000 supports the
principles of constant interplay between all
actors – child, educator, other children and
parents, accounting for the provision of
clues, namely to the educator, as to the
children that may have more or less trouble
adapting
, and finding
to the new context
support from the other interveners (parents,
family, friends, community members, etc.)
to get involved in the process.
Rachel Trost, an occupational therapist, is
very blunt and straight forward, when she
states that “Children learn about their world
through play and imitation of adults, and
play is much more motivating than sitting at
a table completing worksheets” (Trost,
2011)4 . And she lists a few skill areas that
are target by playing with cars:
Cognition while playing with cars:
• Experiencing cause and effect
relationships, such as when a car
drops down a ramp
• Labeling basic parts of a car
Fine Motor or Hand Skills while playing
with cars:
• Strength[en]ing hand-eye
coordination skills and improving hand
dexterity while building a toy car.
• Improving hand coordination and
hand dexterity while repairing a car
using toy tools.
• Practice using both hands
simultaneously while turning a steering
wheel
The examples above are clear and go along
the lines of my argumentation. Many more
can be found on the Web that offer not only
views on this issue but also thousands, if
not millions of guidelines and teaching ideas
for adapting, adopting or putting into
practice. And this goes without saying that
most software / web tool developers have
onsite instructions, examples and ideas on
how to use their tools. I am thinking, for
instance, about Jisk5, that has precisely that
sort of free service, and I find their definition
of digital literacies quite tempting, and
Gross Motor or Whole Body Skills
while playing with cars:
• Improving strength and coordination
while climbing in and out of child-sized
car
Speech and Language while playing
with cars:
4
Retrieved from http://nspt4kids.com/parenting/developmental-skills-while-playing-with-cars/, 26th May 2016.
5
https://www.jisc.ac.uk/guides/developing-students-digital-literacy, retrieved 16th May 2016
!218
Figure 1. Digital capabilities: the six elements.
therefore do not resist quoting: “We define
digital literacies as the capabilities which fit
someone for living, learning and working in
a digital society.6 ” And this is followed by a
self-explanatory diagram which I also take
the liberty of sharing in Figure 17.
social, brought about by the so-called new
technologies. I apologise for what I am
going to do, but I have not seen it as clearly
put as Jisc8 has done. So, here goes this
very long, but extremely rich quotation:
Advocating or rejecting digital
tools appropriation in early years
learning
Advocating
Many early childhood educationists are very
critical and fiercely fight the critical
approach come to be known as the Fool’s
Gold. Authors such as Linderoth, LantzAndersson & Lindstrom 2002 or even Luke
1999 express their uneasiness as to the
possible damages and dangers that can be
imparted on children at various levels, be
they cognitive, emotional, physical or even
6
Bold in the original.
7
See footnote 4.
8
See footnote 4.
!219
Computers can play a role in young
children’s early childhood education
experiences alongside many other kinds of
activities – ICT should not be seen as a
way of superseding or displacing these
kinds of experiences. For example, ICT
use should not be at the expense of
outdoor or indoor experiences which
promote development of gross motor skills
through running, climbing, jumping,
swinging, and using wheeled toys (SirajBlatchford & Siraj-Blatchford 2003).
Researchers caution that computer use
should not be seen as a stand-alone
activity, but should be integrated into other
planned and spontaneous learning and
play activities within the early childhood
education classroom. Liang & Johnson
(1999) described ways in which computers
can be used in activities they label as
investigative play, functional play, games
with rules, pretend play and constructive
play. Using ICT in the early years can foster
development of communication skills
among young children. Van Scoter & Boss
(2002) have illustrated many ways in which
ICT can make rich contributions to
children’s literacy development, in the four
interrelated areas of speaking, listening,
reading, and writing. For example they
have discussed how “talking” word
processors support young children’s
experimentation as they play with
language. They highlight that these tools
offer possibilities for children to compose
and write without needing to have
mastered the production of letters by
hand. They also suggest using computers
and printers to help children make signs,
banners, and other props for pretend play,
all of which will add interest and basic
literacy skills to children’s play and
decisions involved in making them will give
children opportunities to use language.
Moreover, this whole exercise of preparing
and displaying printed products will create
an atmosphere for children where print has
direct relevance to their lives. Technology
when used thoughtfully and innovatively
can help children express themselves,
verbally, visually, and emotionally. ICT
provides a variety of ways for children to
weave together words, pictures, and
sounds, thereby providing a range of ways
for children to communicate their ideas,
thoughts, and feelings. ICT can support
writing for young children as well as
reading or pre-reading skills. ICT can hone
children’s storytelling skills such as even
children who are not yet writing could
dictate words to go with their pictures, or
they could record their voices telling the
story, or be videotaped as they tell the
story and show the picture. Some studies
have shown that ICT use in the early years
do have the potential of fostering
development of social skills in young
children by providing a forum for
collaboration, co-operation, and positive
learning experiences between children, or
between children and adults. This however
requires that the practitioners must be
conscious of the kinds of learning
interactions they would like to induce in
the context of ICT use and adopt suitable
teaching methods to support these. Other
studies suggest that ICT use facilitates
social development also by encouraging
c o m m u n i c a t i o n b e t w e e n c h i l d re n ,
turntaking and collaborative problem
9
solving. However there are only a few
good, recent studies available to
substantiate this for pre-school children in
particular. Nevertheless, sitting with others
using a computer, talking and sometimes
enjoying an animation together are positive
social experiences for the children.
Regarding effects of ICT on learning,
Haugland (1992) offered evidence that
children who had experience of computer
use made developmental gains in nonverbal skills, structural knowledge, longterm memory, manual dexterity, verbal
skills, problem solving, abstraction and
conceptual skills. Also, some research
using case studies have shown that ICT
can be used to support aspects of
learning including language development
and mathematical thinking. Lewin (2000)
explored the effects of talking books
software in UK primary classrooms
(focusing on 5- and 6-year-olds) and
concluded that electronic books can
complement teaching in infant classrooms,
having a positive effect on cognitive and
affective outcomes.
And again, as to reasons for rejection
of digital tools appropriation9:
Rejecting
The increasing pervasiveness of ICT has
led some parents, teachers, and children’s
advocates to question its relationship to
the cognitive, emotional, social, and
developmental needs of young children.
More often than not, the argument is
focused on young children’s use of
computers and computer games and
questions are raised on two accounts.
Damaging effects of ICT tools on young
children are: *Harmful physical effects of
prolonged computer use by children;
*Negative effects on children’s social
development (such as promote anti-social
behaviour like isolation or aggressive
behaviour); and *Developmental concerns
(such as computer use can interfere with
children’s cognitive development). Specific
concerns about the potential harm ICT
tools can cause are: *Exposure to
unsuitable content (such as material of a
sexual or violent nature, or containing
inappropriate gender, cultural, or social
stereotypes); and *Computer use may
See footnote 4.
!220
displace other important learning and play
activities. Some researchers condemn
introduction of ICT in the early years on the
premise that it is damaging to the
development of children in all aspects –
physical, cognitive, social, and emotional.
Most research on ICT and its impact on
young children have focused on the use of
computers by them. An argument
opposing early introduction of ICT is that
as children learn through their bodies,
computers are not developmentally
appropriate (Haugland 2000). As a screenbased medium, activities at the computer
are not as effective as manipulatives in
developing understanding and skills in the
early years (Yelland 1999).
Hohmann (1998) stated that, except for
the coordination involved in using a
mouse, computers do not support the
development of motor activities or motor
skills development. He goes on to assert
that, although touch typing is a motor skill
that can be learned with the help of a
computer, it is inappropriate for most
children to begin this before they are about
7 or 8. Critical about computer-use in early
childhood years, Elkind (1996) stated that
computer proficiency does not mean
cognitive development, the latter requiring
evidence of the development of an
underlying concept. He points to the
difference between knowing how to use
the internet and learning something from it.
Healey (1998) cautioned that
use of computers is damaging to young
children’s development as well as their
learning. Stating that young children need
human support and verbal interaction, she
concluded that as computers fail to offer
intersensory experiences to enhance
learning, they are inappropriate as an
educational resource for children below the
age of about 7 years as using computers
before the age of 7 ‘subtracts from
important developmental tasks’.
Fomichova & Fomichov (2000) added
another dimension to this debate by
suggesting that children in economically
developed countries spend so many hours
alone in front of the computer that a new
non-nuclear family system of parents,
children and computer has emerged. They
refer to the computer as ‘intrusion’ into the
educational system, children’s cognition
and the family. Yet others believe that
computer use might foster learning in a
negative sense. For example, solitary
game play on computers could lead to
!221
children’s isolation from social interaction in
learning and play, or that violence in
computer games could encourage
aggressive behaviour. A common concern
expressed by most critics is that ICT might
displace other important learning and play
activities. In fact, Cordes & Miller (2000)
call for an immediate moratorium on the
further introduction of computers in early
childhood, except for special cases of
students with disabilities. They take the
view that children’s use of computers
should be sidelined in favour of other kinds
of learning and play activities. They argue
that computer use in early childhood
education should be abandoned in favour
of the essentials of a healthy childhood.
Other concerns surround the health and
safety issues of computer use for young
children, research-based evidence about
which is inadequate. For instance, there is
not enough information on whether or not
the radiation emitted by wireless ICT
technologies could have harmful health
effects for adults and children. There are
also concerns about the physical effects of
prolonged exposure to ICT, such as
repetitive strain injuries, addiction and
sedentary lifestyles. The BECTA (2001)
information leaflet on keyboard skills in
schools states that for children with years
of typing ahead of them, using the
keyboard with index fingers only is highly
risky, especially when there may be added
strain from playing games on home
computers. Moreover, little is known about
the possible addictive nature of the
internet and computer games on young
children, as available information so far is
limited to only older children.
A few principles for the use of
the right tools for the right task
at the right time
NAEYC (2009) propose a set of principles
(Principles of child development and
learning that inform practice) that, to my
mind, still make all the sense when thinking
of putting into practice our ideas of bringing
young children into touch with ICT, as far as
their education, in the full sense of the
promoting language, cognition, and social
competence.
• Development and learning advance
when children are challenged to achieve
• All the domains of development and
at a level just beyond their current
learning – physical, social and emotional,
mastery, and also when they have many
and cognitive – are important, and they
opportunities to practice newly acquired
are closely interrelated. Children’s
skills.
development and learning in one domain
• Children’s experiences shape their
influence and are influenced by what
motivation and approaches to learning,
takes place in other domains.
such as persistence, initiative, and
• Many aspects of children’s learning
and development follow well documented flexibility; in turn, these dispositions and
behaviors affect their learning and
, with later abilities, skills, and
sequences
development.
knowledge building on those already
acquired.
Given this set of principles, and to conclude
• Development and learning proceed
at varying rates from child to child, as well
this text, it is my honest belief that any well
as at uneven rates across different areas
prepared educator, willing to learn and
of a child’s individual functioning.
invest time and effort into finding the right
• Development and learning result
ways and partners to pursue and persist in
f ro m a d y n a m i c a n d c o n t i n u o u s
adopting and adapting technologies with
interaction of biological maturation and
experience.
the help – and especially answering the
• Early experiences have profound
requests, even the “disguised” ones – of the
effects, both cumulative and delayed, on
children they are in charge of bringing up as
a child’s development and learning; and
autonomous and critical learners, is an
optimal periods exist for certain types of
invaluable contribution for them as
development and learning to occur.
• Development proceeds toward
responsible citizens.
greater complexity, self-regulation, and
symbolic or representational capacities.
• Children develop best when they
References
have secure, consistent relationships with
responsive adults and opportunities for
BECTA
2001).
(
Keyboard Skills in Schools
positive relationships with peers.
(information
, www.becta.org.uk/
sheet)
• Development and learning occur in
and are influenced by multiple social and
technology/ infosheets/index.html, retrieved
cultural contexts.
and printed as .pdf, 14th January
2002.
• Always mentally active in seeking to
understand the world around them,
Bertram, T., & Pascal, C. (2002). Early years
children learn in a variety of ways; a wide
education: An international perspective. In
range of teaching strategies and
INCA –International Review of Curriculum
interactions are effective in supporting all
and Assessment Frameworks Internet
these kinds of learning.
Archive. National Foundation for
• Play is an important vehicle for
developing self-regulation as well as for
Educational Research in England and
word, is concerned. And these twelve
principles are (NAEYC 2009, pp.11-16):
!222
Wa l e s . L o n d o n : Q u a l i fi c a t i o n s a n dHaugland
, S. (2 000).
Early childhood
Curriculum Authority.
classrooms in the 21st century: using
computers to maximise learning.
Young
B r e ,d eS .k a( Emd)p. ( 1 9 8 7 ) .
Children 55, 1, 12-18.
Developmentally appropriate practice in
early childhood programs serving children
,Healey
J. 1
( 998).
ailure
F to Connect: How
from birth through age 8. ,Washington
DC:
Computers Affect Our Children’s Minds –
National Association for the Education of
for Better or Worse. New York: Simon and
Yo u n g C h i)l.d reLn o (nN d
A EoY Cn :
Schuster.
Qualifications and Curriculum Authority.
Hohmann
, C. (1 998). Evaluating and
Bredekamp
, S., & Copple, 1997).
C. (
selecting software for children.
Child Care
Developmentally appropriate practice in
Information Exchange ,98
9 , 60–62.
early childhood programs. (revised edition).
, P-H. &Johnson,
Liang
1999).
J. ( Using
,Washington
DC: National Association for
computers to enhance early literacy
the Education
). of Young Children (NAEYC
through play.
Computers in the Schools 15,
London: Qualifications and Curriculum
1, 55–63.
Authority.
Linderoth
, J., Lantz-Andersson, A. &
L i n d s t r o m ,2 0B .0 2( ) . E l e c t r o n i c
exaggerations and virtual worries: Mapping
research of computer games relevant to the
,Cordes
C. & Miller,) (2000).
E. (Eds. Fool’s
understanding of children’s game play.
Gold: A Critical Look at Computers in
Contemporary Issues in Early Childhood:
Childhood. Alliance
,
for Childhood Technology Special Issue 3, 2, 226-250.
Maryland: College Park.
, C. 2
Lewin
( 000). Exploring the effects of
Elkind, 1996).
D. (
Young children and
talking books software in UK primary
technology: A cautionary note. Young
classrooms. Journal of Research in
Children
, 6, 22-23.
51
Reading 23, 2, 149–157.
,Bruce
T. 1
( 991).
Time to play in early
childhood education. London: Hodder and
Stoughton.
Fomichova
, O. & Fomichov,
2000).
V. (
Luke
, C. 1
( 999). What next? Toddler
Computers and the thought-producing self
netizens
, playstation thumb, technoof the young child. British Journal ofliteracies.
Contemporary Issues in Early
Educational
, 3, 213-220.
Technology 31
Childhood 1, 1, 5
9 -100.
Haugland
, S. (1 992). The effect of
Meadows
, S., & Cashdan,1988).
A. (
computer software on preschool children’s
Helping children learn: Contributions to a
developmental gains.
Journal of Computing
cognitive curriculum. London: David Fulton.
in Childhood Education 3, 1, 15-30.
NAEYC (National Association for the
Education of Young Children) (2009).
!223
Developmentally Appropriate Practice in
and opportunities.
,
In N. Yelland (Ed.)
Early Childhood Programs Serving Children
Contemporary perspectives on early
from Birth through Age 8 (Adopted 2009).
childhood education (pp. 248-264).
National Association for the Education of
Maidenhead: Open University Press.
Young Children position statement.
, K. 1
Sylva
( 984). A hard-headed look at the
Retrieved from http://www.naeyc.org/files/
fruits of play. Early Child Development and
naeyc/
, 12file/positions/PSD AP.pdf th May
Care, 15, 2, 171-183.
2016.
OECD. (2001). Starting strong: Early
childhood education and care. Paris: OECD
Publications.
Rimm-Kaufmann
, S.E., & Pianta,
2000).
S. (
An ecological perspective on the transition
to kindergarten: A theoretical framework to
guide empirical research. Journal of Applied
Developmental Psychology, 21, 5,
491-511.
,Trost
R. 2
( 011).
Developmental Skills While
Playing with Cars. Retrieved from http://
nspt4 kids.com/parenting/developmentalskills-while-playing-with-cars/commentth May 2016.
page -1/#comment-1515
, 12
Van
, J. &Scoter
Boss,2002).
S. (
Learners,
Language, and Technology: Making
Connections that Support Literacy.
Northwest Regional Educational Laboratory.
Retrieved from http://files.eric.ed.gov/
th May 2016.
fulltext/ED467514.pdf
, 12
Siraj-Blatchford
, I., & Siraj-Blatchford, J.
(2003). o
Mre than Computers: Information
Yelland
, N. (1 999). Reconceptualising
and Communication Technology in the Early
Schooling with Technology for the 21st
Years. The British Association for Early
Century: Images and Reflections.
Childhood
, London.
Education
Information Technology in Childhood
Education Annual,(1), 39-59. Association
Stephen, 2010).
C. (
The early years
for the Advancement of Computing in
research-policy-practice nexus: challenges
Education (AACE).
!224
Essay 3
Reading to learn on screens. Challenges for research1
Íris Susana Pires Pereira2
Research Centre on Education (CIEd)
Institute of Education, University of Minho, Portugal
Erstad & Flewitt, 2016). Digital reading
carried out by these children
Reading on screen is the subject matter at
unambiguously comes up as the result of a
issue, focusing on online reading to build
complex surge of social and technological
knowledge and learn. I begin by defining
developments which define the modern
core features of digital reading, taking the
communicative context (Kress, 2010). The
essential characteristics of reading on
necessity to understand this facet of
paper as a reference point. I identify and
contemporary life, as assumed in DigiLitEY,
discuss some of the potentialities and
is
, indue
the first instance, to the creation
requirements established by digital reading
and sociocultural value of new means of
at the meaning-making process level.
communication and of dissemination of
Eventually, I examine the most relevant
information. Knowing and examining young
research questions that emerge from the
children’s digital reading becomes an
discussion for DigiLitEY.
imperative to better promote the
development of a required cultural
competence for the future of these children.
Key words: reading on screen, meaning
making, multimodality, interconnectivity,
At first glance, reading on screens is an
interactivity
easy and engaging activity (also) for small
Abstract
Introduction
Reading on screens is one of the objects of
study established by the DigiLitEY project,
aiming to research into literacy practices of
young children (Sefton-Green, Marsh,
1
children. In fact, observing how children,
literate or not, make sense of digital texts
available on computers, tablets or mobile
phones, makes one realize the ease of
engagement and pleasure taken by youthful
readers. Reading on screens seems, to that
extent, to have advantages over reading
This work was funded by CIEd – Research Centre in Education, Instituto de Educação, UMinho, UID/CED/
01661/2016, through national funds of FCT/MCTES-PT
2
iris@ie.uminho.pt
to be of great interest in the understanding
of the complexity of digital reading.
'on paper', which is developed relatively
, and then often difficult and painful,
late
particularly when one thinks of reading
written texts to build knowledge and learn.
However, digital reading is not free of
danger )andfor
requirements
small(also
children.
, reading on screens
Actually
can
easily become closely related to ‘random
TV watching', a fragmented, casual, and
careless meaning making process, and with
the construction of potentially fragmented
and transient learning.
I begin by synthesizing some of the key
notions about paper reading so that a basis
for understanding can be built for the
analysis of digital reading I do afterwards.
Then, I identify and define three major
features of digital texts and I discuss the
main potential they show for reading to
learn. Next, I discuss the risks the same
features pose to digital reading, which
impose great demands for digital readers.
The discussion is concluded with some
research questions, which I consider most
important in the context of the DigiLitEY
project.
Reading on screens to learn seems
therefore to be a complex experience, and
it is the matter for discussion in this paper.
My goal is to further contribute to building
an understanding of the subject at hand,
considering the main challenges posed to
the DigiLitEY project.
Reading on paper
Cognitive views of reading “on paper” tend
The perspective I share is indeed limited
to converge on the definition of reading as
since I only have in mind the activity of
a meaning-making interactive process,
reading digital texts available online, and
which takes place between a
reader and a
being read on different media to build some
text in a given
context (Irwin,
2007). Taking
type of knowledge, although some
this
, and ininto
generalaccount
terms, the
highlighted perspectives might probably be
context creates the conditions of reading,
relevant to other forms of digital reading
making it necessary,
hence bringing about
carried out in different digital media and
aims and objectives that are crucial in the
configured
) in(orthe
not context of Web
reader’s motivation and engagement; the
2.0. On ,the
my discussion
otherishand
written text is the object of the reader’s
conducted with close reference to a
meaning-making activity;
the reader is the
cognitivist perspective, which only accounts
meaning-making agent who mobilizes not
for one among distinct possible
only his language knowledge, and his
perspectives in the building of a full
emotional and background knowledge, but
understanding concerning the matter at
also, and essentially, a set of specific
issue (cf.2015;
Coiro, , Jewitt
2008; cf.
Cope & Kalantzis
,
(2000) for New Literaciesmental processes to construct a mental
representation
) of (that is, his understanding
Multiliteracies
).
and associated concepts
a text. The activated processes entail:
, I do consider this perspective
Nevertheless
!226
A cognitivist understanding of reading
. Comprehending written representation
assumes that these two types of making
meaning processes are inextricably called
These are basic operations in the meaningmaking of the written text: identifying
written words, parsing (that is, grouping
sequences of words into meaningful
syntagmatic units) and sentence
understanding; establishing meaningful
relationships between sentences and
inferring meanings; understanding the
meaning of the text as a whole, including
the ,identification
main ideas,
of the issue
the text structure, and the costruction of a
synthesis of textual information. These
processes are closely dependent upon the
linearity and unidirectionality of the written
language as well as upon the delimitation of
written texts and text genres.
up to the reader’s mind, making the reading
of any text into a literal, inferred, organized,
synthesized, and personally elaborated set
of meanings.
However, this process of
making meaning to oneself may also
activate a different type of mental
processes related to metacognition.
Monitoring the process of making
•
meaning
These processes are triggered in the
reader’s mind whenever he/she needs to
control the meaning – making process.
Contrariwise to the previous ones, these are
conscious processes involving the reader’s
attention and thinking over the reading
. Elaborating on personal meaning
activity. Such a control is due to different
In understanding the written text, the reader
reasons. One of the most common
processes of reading control is related to
actually goes beyond the text itself,
elaborating unforeseen and unpredictable
meanings, which are only attributed to one’s
solving comprehension problems. It has to
do with processes that are mobilized to find
out the unknown meaning of words, for
own individuality. Text reading involves, for
instance, the reader’s previous knowledge
and experiences, the reader’s emotions, the
example, or to overcome incorrect
processes of sentence parsing and word
chunking. Besides, another further set of
ability to visualize and to anticipate as well
the critical positioning to the text. This latter
process is called up when the reader, for
processes is also called up, allowing the
reader to control the reading process and
be able to learn from it. In this case, the
example, questions the source of the text
and the author’s purpose, so as to avoid
ideological bias, and /or prevent inaccuracy
reader focuses his attention and thinking on
the reading process so that he may identify,
select, (re)organize, and synthesize relevant
and partiality of accessed information.
Meanings thus construed are also part of
the mental representation every reader
information regarding his reading purposes,
which he/she consciously integrates in his/
builds of the text being read.
!227
her previous knowledge to build more
the represented meanings, especially when
meaningful knowledge and therefore learn
(Irwin, 2007).
learning is the purpose of reading. In the
following section I identify three detached
characteristics of the digital text, examining,
in each case, their implications in
supporting the meaning-making processes
Reading on screen
activated by the digital reader. This is
This more or less consensual model of
followed by the discussion on what may be
considered procedural requirements
reading “on paper” is currently unable to
fully explain digital reading, particularly the
triggered by those characteristics.
kind of digital reading related to learning. It
is clear to me that there are similarities
between print reading and on screen
Digital text: features and gains in
reading. In fact, the act of reading does not
the meaning-making process
seem radically different for both types of
communication contexts (on paper and
digital), since reading is in each case
Multimodality, interconnectedness and
interactivity are the most prominent features
synonymous with making meaning of the
available information. Moreover, I have no
alter the construction of the meaning-
of digital
, they significantly
text. Together
reason to think that the kinds of meanings
making process involved in reading texts
constructed is not similar for the two types
of communication contexts, as they are
thought and created by the same mind in
both contexts.
‘on paper’, offering auspicious possibilities
for meaning making.
Multimodality
However, the dissimilarities between paperbased reading and digital reading are
indisputable, and from my point of view
Modes comprise the material resources for
these are mostly based on the fact that, in
cultural development, and made available in
a given social context (Kress, 2003, 2010;
making meaning in texts, stemming from
the context of digital communication, a new
textual unit is implied: the digital text. As I
Bezemer & Kress, 2016). There are several
meaning-making modes: written language,
spoken language, still image (illustration,
see it, the understanding of digital reading
may therefore consider cognitivist tenets
but needs crucially to take a close
photography), moving picture (video),
consideration of this new object of meaning
colour, layout (arrangement of data in a
making. The digital text displays different
characteristics from text on paper, featuring
given space), sound, music, touch….
Though not exclusive to them, multimodality
significant impact on the meaning-making
is a fundamental characteristic of digital
processes required for the reader to build
!228
texts. According to Kress (2003, 2010), the
image) is used to display/show dynamic
simultaneous availability of this type of
resources, made possible by digital media,
processes throughout time and space, and
the actors involved; layout is used to
w a s re s p o n s i b l e f o r c a t a p u l t i n g a
distribute and arrange the elements on the
multimodal trend that has been observed
for decades in the communication field.
screen, thus conveying meaning (e.g.,
centrality or marginality), as well as the
meaning of relations between the elements
In digital text, the various modes are
that are simultaneously and discontinuously
represented on the screen (see Kress,
'meaningful', being used to represent
meaning. However, one of the great
2010:92).
principles of multimodal text composition
concerns the partiality and interdependence
of the modes that are used: all modes are
Among the numerous modes used in the
construction of digital texts, the screen
partial and all of them are complementary in
openly favours the exploration of those
the process of making meaning:
associated with image: still image, moving
image, and layout. In fact, it is
Different modes offer different potentials
acknowledged that, in digital contexts, the
for making meaning. These differing
potentials have a fundamental effect on
hegemony of the written language is set
the choice(s) of mode in specific instances
away in favour of visual modes, becoming
of communication. (Kress, 2010:79). “No
one among the many modes in the
one mode stands alone in the process of
making meaning; rather, each plays a
construction of meaning, and even being
discrete role in the whole” (Jewitt, 2008:
subdued by the prevalence of the latter
247).
modes (Kress, 2003, 2010; Jewitt, 2005,
2008).
This means that each mode is used
according to its specific potential for making
This reveals how multimodality redefines the
meaning, not aiming at duplicating,
text in the digital context, which is now
illustrating or embellishing meanings
represented as a multimodal symbolrepresented by other modes (Bezemer &
saturated environment (Jewitt, 2008: 259).
Kress, 2016; Jewitt, 2005, 2008; Kress,
Digital texts are multimodal ensembles (sets
2003, 2010). In general terms, speech and
of modes), orchestrated in the construction
writing, associated to the power of
of a meaningful set:
authority, are mainly used to name; images
Ensemble, in this context, names an
emphasis on modal multiplicity of the text,
while orchestration names an emphasis on
the aptness of the selection, the mutual
interdependence and the ‘semiotic
harmony’ of such elements (Kress,
2010:157, original italics).
and photographs (still images) to display/
show not only entities and facts, but also
processes in a static way (for example in
graphics), allowing for the illustration of
information of a more abstract nature (e.g.,
concepts);
, videos, animations
filsm
(moving
!229
Furthermore, the multimodality of digital
to make meaning are likely to be the reason
texts radically alters the linearity and the
unidirectionality of the organization of
behind its popularity.
information represented in the conventional
Interconnectivity
written text, setting up a novel,
discontinuous, and multidirectional text:
Interconnectivity is comprised in the
potentially infinite set of textual interfac
In image, meaning is made by the
positioning of elements in that space; but
also by size, colour, line and shape. Image
does not ‘have’ words; it uses ‘depictions’.
(…) Meaning relations are established by
the spatial arrangement of entities in a
framed space and the kinds of relation
between the depicted entities” (Kress,
2010:82, original italics).
“Writing is newly organized by the
demands of the spatial logic of the visual
mode which dominates the
‘screen’” (idem: 170). “The visual character
of writing comes to the fore on screen to
function as objects of literacy in
fundamentally different ways than it does
on page (Jewitt, 2008: 257).
associated with the digital text, as it is
virtually connected to other texts via the
hypertext. This broadness of digital texts,
established
, amplifies
by interconnectivity
the flexibility and fluidity of texts allowed by
multimodality, as opposed to texts on
paper, which are self-contained, closed,
and static within their limits. Additionally, the
immediate link to other digital texts, with
which the reader can immediately engage,
makes reading a deeply social act, thereby
permanently renewing the typical individual
reading process that is strictly maintained
between the reader and the paper-based
The multimodality of digital texts brings with
it a transformation reading processes.
text (Salmerón & García, 2011).
The interconnectivity of digital texts
provides the reader with access to a wide
Research has been showing that
multimodality has a potentially positive
effect on the mental process of making
range of potentially enriching information
concerning the quality of meanings it
enables to build (Coiro, 2011). Contrariwise,
meaning. Such effect is credited to the fact
that additional sensory modes are activated
in the comprehension of multimodal texts
when reading 'on paper', this possibility is
completely dependent on the reader's
current knowledge (Eco, 1987), while being
(Mayer, 2001; Moreno & Mayer, 2007),
especially visual and auditory modes, which
seem to recover basic pathways of input in
much slower (and sometimes remote). The
availability of other sources of information in
digital text interfaces allows readers to draw
the reader’s brain, biologically operational
long before the cultural development of
written language. The advantages that the
inferences (through the access to essential
information, previously unknown to the
reader), as well as integrate and elaborate
simultaneous activation of these sensory
modes offer to the reader in his/her efforts
!230
on information (Coiro, 2011; Salmerón &
ability to integrate the information
García, 2011).
distributed across different texts (Salmerón
& García, 2016). Such results seem to be in
line with findings regarding a well-
Interactivity
established relationship between navigation
and performance in online tasks coming
Digital texts incorporate the possibility of
from international student assessments
intervening upon
, more specifically
texts of
acting in the inside and towards the outside
of texts. Thus, the multimodal,
such as PISA:
There is clear evidence that students’
navigation, as indicated by their traces in
log files, play a major role in online
question-answering tasks (Organization of
Economic Co-Operation and Development
[OECD],
2011). ,Specifically
a large scale
study involving the adolescents
participating in the OECD Programme for
International Student Assessment (PISA)
2009 electronic reading assessment
revealed that students who displayed a
more task-oriented navigation behaviour,
as indicated by more visits to task-relevant
pages, correctly responded to a higher
number of questions (Naumann &
Salmerón, 2016: 43).
interconnected digital text promotes a kind
of understanding by doing (cf. Learn by
doing, Moreno & Mayer, 2007). This
understand-by-doing allows readers to find
their own reading path (as well as their own
pace) within the text. Readers choose that
path among multiple portals (Jewitt, 2008)
opened by the multimodal discontinuity on
the screen, they themselves determining
the order in which to proceed. As referred
by Kress,
Placement of the elements does not
determine the order of ‘reading-asengagement’. ‘Reading’ is now a matter of
the design of the ‘page’ or the ‘screen’ by
the reader” (2010: 175.16); “The ensemble
offers a choice of routes for making
meaning in interpretation” (Kress, 2010:
165)).
As such, interactivity makes of the reader
the actual composer of the digital text.
Besides, the interactivity of the digital text is
also materialized in its own effects upon the
reader. The digital text is able to “supervise”
In addition, readers can expand this path by
the activity of the readers by supporting/
following the multiple ‘outside doors’
provided by the interconnected text,
guiding/providing feedback on the decisions
and responses of readers (Moreno & Meyer,
seeking information, selecting and
2007).
controlling their reading pace on the
available textual interfaces (Jewitt, 2008;
Together, the whole template of possible
Moreno & Mayer, 2007; Kress, 2010).
actions provided to readers as well as all
Research has revealed a potential powerful
connection between being able to
the feedback configure a sort of
scaffolding
‘navigate’ proficiently using the navigation
place on screen. The dynamism thus set in
the process of digital reading is non-existent
to the meaning-making process that takes
map found in the hypertext and readers’
!231
in paper-based reading, thus completely
Digital text readers must understand
transforming the conventional process of
interaction between readers and printed
multimodal representations, "a broad range
of multimodal systems and their
texts.
design" (Jewitt, 2008: 261). This
requirement involves the need to make use
of semiotic codes associated with colours,
Digital text: requirements for
sounds, music, screen layout ... to make
meaning-making processes
meaning out of them. In digital text reading,
the reader must therefore know the
The same features that are responsible for
the meaning-making potential of digital
multimodal codes and conventions of
in order to be able to
texts pose a very significant set meaning-making
of
make literal meanings from such codes, as
requirements to digital readers. These
consist of new and renewed procedural
well as infer, relate and integrate the
requirements when compared to the
represented meanings into a coherent and
organized (mental) whole (Kress, 2010; The
requirements placed by printed reading.
Besides, should the required processes not
New London Group, 2000).
be activated, the digital text meaning-
This ability is critical to prevent cognitive
saturation, which occurs with the
making potential can eventually incur in
“losses” respecting the meaning-making
simultaneous convergence of excessive
process associated with reading on paper
information in a single input pathway in the
brain, as can happen when multiple modes
(Kress, 2003, 2010).
associated with image are used in the text
(Moreno & Mayer, 2007). From this point of
view, making meaning from multimodality is
New processes
Digital text readers need to know how to
a new ability in the context of cognitivist
deal with the abounding multimodal
reading theories, although being already
known in broader contexts, such as the
meanings available on screen. According to
Jewitt, "When using learning resources that
ones associated to socio-semiotic theories
demand the interpretation of movement,
of communication (Kress, 2010).
image, and colour, students are engaged in
a complex process of sense making" (2008:
258). This means that readers need to
Renewed processes
resort to processes such as:
In addition to the aforementioned ‘new’
capability, digital reading for learning brings
. Understanding multimodal
representations
about the need to activate in a radically new
robust manner reading processes already
!232
involved in paper-based reading. As
in their
, such as pre-set
self-imposed limits
Naumann & Salmerón point out,
templates2010:
(Kress, 193). Although
providing a kind of scaffolding to the
traditional or offline comprehension skills
, as discussedprocess
above, these
are needed to process the documents reading
accessed through the navigation processpre-set templates may also determine the
(e.g.
, Salmerón &2011).
García, This
limits of the knowledge
readers
means that in online learning scenarios as
construct. It is therefore essential that digital
, students need to decode words,
well
readers authenticate and question by
parse the syntax of sentences, and
execute local and global coherence
omission all the information available to
processes to finally understand a
them. Sourcing, analysing and evaluating
document’s 1998)
contents (e.g., Kintsch,
digital texts thus become essential in order
(Naumann
, 2016:&43).
Salmerón
can
t o c i rc u m v e n t a c r i t i c a l i n f o r m a t i o n
In , this
emphasis text
is however placed
both on the activation of elaborating
consumption and transform digital reading
into proficient meaning making (Coiro,
2015).
processes related to critical questioning of
the made-available texts, and on
metacognitive processes that sustain the
conscious process of learning.
. Self-determination on the meaningmaking process
By allowing the realization of multiple
. Critical questioning of texts
immediate
, the reading reading
of
actions
The ease of production, availability and
access to digital texts require that readers
multimodal and interconnected texts
promotes a sense of ‘control’ in readers:
take on a very inquisitive attitude towards
They themselves select the texts and
the quality of information and the author’s
purpose. The sheer amount of texts that
readers have at their disposal may
determine both the reading path to follow
and their reading pace. Yet, the array of
represent inaccurate or incomplete
information, while the intentions of the
readers, transforming reading into a
offered possibilities frequently dazzles
random, confusing, and unfocused activity,
author may not always be of "pure" sharing.
and resulting in an indiscriminate collection
Critical questioning ability is therefore
essential for the readers to avoid
of huge amounts of information, and/or in
an incoherent patchwork of excerpts. As
assumptions associated to these
referred by 2007),
Moreno & “By
Mayer (
limitations, or being subjugated to a
potentially biased and ‘dangerous’
virtual of their interactivity, [interactive
multimodal mixed-modality lear ning
perspective
2015).(Coiro,
The limitation and
can create excessive
manipulation digital texts covertly environments]
enact
extraneous load that disrupts deep
upon digital readers can also be recognized
learning”
313),
(p. which can hardly be
!233
integrated into the readers’ mental
(Coiro, 2015; Jewitt, 2008; Kress, 2010;
structures to build meaningful learning.
Despite the potential offered by digital
Naumann & Salmerón, 2016). Therefore,
digital text readers crucially need to develop
reading, it can thus become a rather trivial
the ability of self-determination, this is, to
and pointless endeavour. Therefore, digital
reading requires readers to learn to “move
learn how to (consciously) plan their digital
reading, to stick to it throughout the
beyond information consumption to
construction of their reading path,
knowledge generation” (Coiro, 2015:55) by
becoming consciously responsible for their
monitoring the process and the knowledge
they thereby construct. It seems to me also
reading (Moreno & Mayer, 2007; Coiro,
important to note the results, shown by
2015). This means that digital readers
crucially need to enact metacognitive
recent research carried out by Naumann &
Salmerón (2016), which shows the interplay
reading processes during their meaning
between such online and other print-based
making (Coiro, 2015; Winnie & Hadwin,
2013).
comprehension processes. Their studies
begin to reveal how the the performance of
On construction of such reading control, it
a self-regulated digital reader might be
seems paramount that digital readers learn
to set clear and stimulating reading
related to the reading ability that is
purposes (Coiro, 2015). In my opinion, it is
to read texts in paper. By researching the
independently
, by learning
developed offline
much more important for readers to defineconnection between decisions concerning
these intentions for themselves than to
online page selection and task completion,
depend on those casually found and
their results show that
established by others in digital texts.
Intentions established by the readers
relevant page selection on online
comprehension is enhanced by offline
comprehension skills, since without those
appropriate skills, students displaying
whatever navigation behaviour will not be
able to completely understand a digital text
(…). “They do also reveal that good offline
comprehension skills are not sufficient in
themselves to produce good digital
reading performance. Rather, if students
fail to comply with demands of relevant
page selection, the otherwise strong and
positive association of offline
comprehension skill and digital reading
performance is no longer significant
(Naumann & Salmerón, 2016: 51-52).
themselves are the most effective,
governing their attention and thought, and
therefore their reading activity. It is also
imperative that readers learn meaning
making strategies that are needed to
achieve their goals and generate
knowledge, that is, learn how to select the
relevant available pages (or sections) to
read, how to select relevant information,
and relate the selected information into a
On the whole, the requirements posed by
digital texts that have been discussed here
coherent whole, and actively integrate it
what they previously knew in order to build
point towards the activation of reading
new knowledge, and revise and evaluate
processes which allow readers to "impose"
their achievements in light of their purposes
!234
making process, clear definition of
themselves upon the chaos of alluring and
overflowing information and bring out ofobjectives
it
and strategies, monitoring the
the coherence that best suits their interests.
implementation of the plan. In this context,
the proficient digital reader is the user of
As Kress puts it, such meaning-making
capacity comprises a “disposition towards
different conventions with potential for
‘architecture’ and ‘building’ rather than
one a questioner, and an autonomous
meaning,
meaning-maker. He is, to that extent, an
of mere navigation and selection among
given options” (idem: 197). Contrariwise agentive
to
reader.
what would
, such appear
a
to be
In my opinion, agency is a particularly
disposition does not embody a restriction to
interesting open door to the studies, which,
the freedom and power allowed by the
under the DigiLitEY project, aim to know
digital text, instead representing a condition
and theorize about the practices of
for the achievement of that freedom and
onscreen reading of zero to eight-year-old
power of the reader (cf. 2010).
Kress,
children (Sefton-Green, Marsh, Erstad &
Flewitt,
2016). I believe this is due to three
reasons.
, these children
Firsthave a
Concluding remarks: envisaging
reading research in the early years
powerful social experience of digital reading
before school, in which they actually make
O n a c c o u n t o f m u l t i m o d a l i t y,
meanings from the information that is
interconnectivity and interactivity of digital
texts, agency comes up as one of the major
displayed on screen, under which they do
certainly set the basis for their own agency,
attributes (if not the main) of digital readers
in the same way that they can build other
(Kress
, 2010;, Jewitt
2008). Although being
much discussed as far as paper reading is
knowledge and social interaction skills.
Second, if these children learn at school the
concerned
, 1987)
, readers’
(Eco
needed agency to 'read on paper', they can
agency
gains a new breath in digital reading
contexts (cf. Bezemer
2016;
& Kress,
also learn at school the required agency to
read on screens, creating a possible
,Kress
2010). ,Actually
both the possibilities
symbiosis between both learnings. Third,
granted and the meaning-making demands
posed by digital texts make digital reading
from the moment they build this learning at
(in particular the one done to build
transform their personal agency in their
knowledge
) a andcomplex
, learn
task
which includes integrated understanding of
digital reading experiences outside of
school, these children can enhance and
school.
multimodality, understanding of the multiple
I believe that undertaking research on the
texts that interface with the original digital
text, critical and deep questioning of these
agency of zero-to-eight-year-old digital
readers, their characteristics and
texts, careful planning of the meaning-
development, is one of the main challenges
!235
under the DigiLitEY project. Taking into
meaning-making processes do they
account the discussion of this text, it seems
possible to assume that such challenge
activate to make meaning? Which are the
most striking features of digital texts that
may be faced by finding the answers to thechildren make use of in their meaning-
following research questions (and submaking processes? Which are the most
questions):
difficult characteristics of digital texts f
them?
- What is digital readers’ agency like
before coming to school?
- What is those readers’ agency like out of
school?
Which digital reading practices do children
do before coming to school? Which texts
Which practices of digital reading are
do they read? Which kinds of meanings do
informally done by school children out of
they make (what do they learn)? Which
school? Which texts do they read? What do
meaning-making processes do they
they learn from such reading? Which
activate to make meaning? Which are the
meaning-making processes do they
most striking features of digital texts that
activate to make such meanings? Which
children make use of in their meaningare the most striking features of digital texts
making processes? What do they learn
in their meaning-making process? How is
about digital reading in their attempts to
out-of-school reading articulated with its
build meaning from digital texts?
learning at school?
- What is digital readers’ agency like
throughout the early years of schooling?
References
B e, zJe. m e
&r K r e s s , 2
G .0 1( 6 ) .
M u l t i m o d a l i t y, L e a r n i n g a n d
Communication. A Social Semiotic Frame.
reader at school? Which specific processes
, New York: Routledge.
London
do they explicitly learn as regards digital
reading at school? How is learning of digital
Coiro, J.
2011).
(
Predicting Reading
reading articulated with learning of paperComprehension on the Internet:
based reading? How do students apply Contributions of Offline Comprehension
their learning about print and digital reading
Skills
, Online Reading Skills, and Prior
in school practices? Which digital reading
Knowledge.
Journal of Literacy Research
practices do children make at school? What
(43), 352-392.
kind of digital texts do they read? Which
,Coiro
J. 2
( 015). ,Purposeful
Critical, and
kinds of meanings do they make? Which
Flexible: Key Dimensions of Online Reading
Which pedagogical principles undergird the
teaching and learning of the agentive digital
!236
and Learning. In Spiro, R. J., DeSchryver,
M., Hagerman, M. S., Morsink, P. M. &
Thompson, P. (Eds.). Reading at a
Crossroads? Disjunctures and Continuities
in Current Conceptions and Practices (pp.
53-64). New York, London: Routledge.
Moreno, R. & Mayer, R. (2007). Interactive
multimodal learning environments. Educ
Psychol Rev (19), 309-326.
Naumann, J., & Salmerón, L. (2016). Does
navigation always predict performance?
Effects of relevant page selection on digital
reading performance are moderated by
o f fl i n e c o m p r e h e n s i o n s k i lTlhse.
International Review of Research in Open
and Distributed Learning (17), 42-59.
Cope, B. & Kalantzis, M. (Eds.) (2000).
Multiliteracies. London: Routledge
Eco, U. (1987). Lector in fabula : la
cooperacion interpretativa en el texto
narrativo, (2nd Edition). Barcelona: Editorial
Lumen.
Sefton-Green, J., Marsh, J., Erstad, O. &
Flewitt, R. (2016). Establishing a Research
Agenda for the Digital Literacy Practices of
Yong Children: a White Paper for COST
Action IS1410 [accessed: http://digiliey.eu].
Irwin, J. W. (2007). Teaching reading
comprehension processes (3rd Ed.).
Boston, MA: Allyn and Bacon.
The New London Group (2000). A
pedagogy of multiliteracies. In B. Cope & M.
Kalantzis (Eds.). Multiliteracies (pp. 19-37).
London: Routledge.
Jewitt, C. (2008). Multimodality and literacy
in school classrooms. Review of Research
in Education (32), 241-267.
Kress, G. (2003). Literacy in the New Media
Age. London, New York: Routledge.
Winne, P. H., & Hadwin, A. F. (2013).
nStudy: Tracing and supporting selfregulated learning in the Internet. In R.
Azevedo & V. Aleven (Eds.). International
handbook of metacognition and learning
technologies (pp. 293-308). New York:
Springer.
Kress, G. (2010). Multimodality. A Social
Semiotic Approach to Contemporary
Communication. London, New York:
Routledge.
Mayer, R.E. (2001). Multimedia Learning.
New York: Cambridge University Press.
!237
Essay 4
Contextualising digital practices at home – Whose
contexts? Whose homes?
Cristina Ponte 1
FCSH, Universidade Nova de Lisboa, Portugal
Abstract
This paper reviews background factors of
the research questions that guide this
network. From the White Paper I move on
to other methodological contributions
emerging from recent inter national
literature.
Key words: Research methods; Research
questions; Families; Parental Mediation;
Introduction
The I would like to start my notes for this
round table focused on digital practices in
homes and communities by sharing with
you the words of a mother about her 4years-old daughter’s media uses after
arriving from school:
... because she's been doing things all day
at school and she's been learning and
everything, I think it's her downtime, it´s
what she sees as her downtime. You
know when she's been hard at work at
school all day, as she sees, it's her relaxing
1
cristina.ponte@fcsh.unl.pt
time. When she's got her uniform off and
she's got changed into her normal clothes
and she´ll sit back on the settee and she'll
have CBeebies on she'll play on the tablet
to half an hour before she has her tea.
(Jade’s Mum)
The quotation above was taken from the
final report of the project Technology and
Play, led by Jackie Marsh (2015) in the UK.
This comprehensive research analyses the
digital experiences and contexts of British
pre-schoolers (0-5 years old) through four
phases: an online survey of parents and
caregivers; in-depth case studies of
preschool children’s use of tablet apps in
six families; observations of and interviews
with children using apps in a school
environment; and an analysis of these apps
in order to identify promotion of play and
creativity. The project thus constitutes a
remarkable background for the current
COST Action. The demographic profile of
Jade presents her as a white girl, from the
social class labelled as D and without
siblings (Marsh et al., 2015, p. 4). She was
one of the six children from different
backgrounds who were visited at home.
is oriented to social implications of growing
up in digital times, surrounded by devices
and forms of communication that did not
exist in the childhood times of previous
generations, the second question places
technological changes among other
changes that affect children’s development
of literacies. Thus, both research questions
contextualise the digital environment
instead of isolating it as an object of study:
“digital technology does not determine
social relationships: in reality it is the other
way round” (p. 3).
Jade’s mother describes her media use
after school in contrast with the structured
learning activities that the child faces at
school, reporting a regulated ‘downtime’
scheduled by the clock. References to the
school uniform or to ‘having tea’ activate in
my mind a sense of ‘Britishness’ expressed
by a white working class mother. In
Portugal such references tend to be
associated with upper class households,
with resources for affording private schools
where children use uniforms. Informed by
this cross-cultural impression, I organised
my notes with a focus on the background
factors of the research questions that guide
this network. From the White Paper I move
on to other methodological contributions
emerging from recent inter national
literature.
In the following pages of the White Paper,
four points provide food for thought on
these social relationships: 1) Families,
employment and housing; 2) Digital
transformations; 3) Changing childhoods:
consumption, risk and play; 4) The growth
of the ‘schooled society’ and changing
literacies. Let us briefly review these four
points.
DigiLItEY research questions:
contextualising digital practices
and literacies
Current families are living under conditions
that differ from the moder n family
representations or the welfare policies
consolidated in the 20 century in many
European countries. Changes in the “family
time” are related with factors such as the
growth in female employment, the impact
of globalisation on national economies and
the work organisation, the scarcity of
affordable housing for many couples, the
increasing growth of large metropolitan
areas or the rise of ethnic diversity in
several countries.
The White Paper for COST Action IS1410,
co-authored by Julian Sefton-Green, Jackie
Marsh, Ola Erstad and Rosie Flewit, recalls
the two research questions of the Action:
1) What does it mean growing up
immersed in and surrounded by digital
devices and forms of communication - for
the everyday life, for learning, for families
and for the future?
2) In what ways are the literacies of
young children being transformed by
wider social, technological and economic
changes across Europe?
Changes in the family time are also related
to changes in the domestic space and its
devices, such as the crescent number of
As, the
while the
authors
first questionnote
!239
screens. Among the digital transformations
accessible to younger children are the role
of tablets as devices for watching TV
programs or video clips, playing games and
using apps. The White Paper notes the lack
of knowledge on issues such as: noncommercial driven digital activities; the
extent and range of the digital usage in
these ages in terms of developing literacies;
children’s understanding of the world and of
social relationships; the implications of
these practices for children’s education as a
whole.
an expression coined by Buckingham and
Scanlon (2002), as part of a move towards
a standardisation of early assessment.
Therefore, it is not a surprise that
‘schooled’ societies are marked by an
exploration of educational products. The
beliefs that out-of-school educational media
are important to prepare their young
children for school success have helped to
fuel the explosion of these educational
products, particularly among middle and
upper class parents. In the United States,
an analysis of Apple Store contents
revealed that nearly 80% of the top-selling
On the changing childhoods in terms of
consumption, risk and play, the White
Paper points to factors such as: the
growing commercialisation of childhood
and the child-related marketing in relation
to products crossing media platforms and
shops; the renovation of media panics
aside with the rhetoric of the media
opportunities for self-expression and
creativity. As the authors note on these
creative activities, “very little is known about
their day-to-day occurrence, particularly for
the youngest age group” (p. 10).
apps in the education category targeted
children, with the “general early learning”
category being the most popular subject
(Shuler, 2012). However, and as pointed
above, while these apps are presented as
educational, there has been a lack of
published research evaluating whether
children do learn from these app game
experiences (Wartella and Lauricella, 2014).
The current COST network aims precisely
to contribute to this knowledge.
Recalling these broad frames introduced in
In relation to the growth of the ‘schooled
the White Paper of the current COST Action
society’ and the related ‘pedagogicisation
certainly makes us more attentive to the
of everyday life’ – expressions coined by
diversity of parents’ social positions and
Basil Bernstein and other authors in the expectations
first
in relation to their children’s
decade of the 21 century – the White Book
digital uses, which are frequently expressed
shows its connection to factors such as the
in contradictory views. For the purpose of
decline in the rates of middle-class
our research, instead of considering
employment, the competitive value of forms
‘parents’ as if they constitute a
of assessment and accreditation, or the
homogenous group, it seems more
challenges faced by the public school
productive to consider the diversity of
system. Effects of these pressures on
contexts they experience and the dynamics
children are the ‘curricularisation of leisure”,
of parental mediation practices. My next
!240
notes go to recent literature that stresses
these points.
recent years, children and media scholars
have increasingly challenged both the
essentialist categories and the deficit
frameworks pointed above, in favour of
examining the social and cultural conditions
Questioning the focus on WEIRD
by which young people are differentiated.
families and conditions for
The authors identify two orientations that
transcendent parenting
have been particularly useful for this
purpose:
1) explorations of the intersections
Celebrating its 10th birthday in January
between social identities through a feminist
2016, the special issue of the Journal of
a p p ro a c h t h a t a f fi r m s t h e re l a t i v e
Children and Media contains a large
advantages and disadvantages of different
number of articles discussing the
social positions; 2) taking assert– rather
challenges experienced by children in
than deficit-based approaches – by
contemporary digital times and possible
identifying the abilities, agencies and
paths for future research considering their
aspirations individuals draw on in order to
rights. I selected two articles from
address life challenges and opportunities
researchers outside Europe, which are
(Alper
, 2016:
et al.
109). This is certainly a
particularly rich in methodological
stimulating perspective for the purpose of
suggestions for overcoming ethnocentric
understanding multimodal practices of
views.
young children in their use of screens and
Researching children, intersectionality, and
the conditions in which they achieve their
diversity in the digital age, by Meryl Alper
multi literacies. In fact, and as pointed out
Vikki Katz
, and Lynn Schofield Clark (2016)in the White Paper, children’s practices
from the US, focuses on methodological
cannot be isolated from the diversity of their
challenges in order to cover the multiple
social time, space and life conditions.
contexts in which children grow up. As the
Through the tablet glass: transcendent
authors call our attention, not only research
parenting in an era of mobile media and
on children and adolescents' experiences
cloud computing, by Sun Sun
, is Lim (2016)
with media and technology has largely
the second article I would like to share. The
echoed the concerns of the middle-class
author lives in Singapore, one of the urban
and majority cultures. Also the focus on the
societies most deeply penetrated by the
so-called WEIRD families – a label for those
digital, and the article makes us reflect on
Western, Educated, Industrialized, Rich and
the current conditions of parenting. The
Democratic families – has been aligned with
article explores how mobile media and
the trend to catalogue the disadvantages
cloud computing shape the communication
faced by particular social groups at the
practices and media consumption habits of
expense of considering their strengths.
families, influencing how parents guide
children's media use, and how parents and
Alper and colleagues underline that, in
!241
children connect with one another. This
growing prevalence of mobile media and
cloud computing has different implications
in each stage of young people's
, from the first years of life –
development
the focus of our attention – to young
adulthood. Lim argue that the advent of
pervasive, ubiquitous media has
engendered the practice of ‘transcendent
parenting’ which goes beyond traditional,
physical concepts of parenting, to
incorporate virtual and online parenting and
how these all intersect. This perspective is
also in line with the attention to the impact
of digital transformations on young
lower SES parents feel defeated by the time
and effort required to guide their children’s
mobile media use? (Lim, 2016: 27).
For a productive research program on
these demanding questions, Lim (2016, pp.
27-28) suggests orientations that may
inspire our networking: 1) innovative
research protocols that can make sense of
the mobile multi-screen, multi-app,
multimedia and multimodal environment
that surrounds family today; 2) the review of
current parental mediation frameworks that
were originated in a much less complex
era; 3) the adoption of an approach that
captures the high level of connectivity and
persistent media consumption environment
that families and children increasingly
inhabit; 4) the combination of attention to
media content and to media consumption research should explore how contents and
contexts interact, delving into the typical
settings in which children consume different
kinds of media content, on which devices
children’s life, the changing childhoods and
literacies, highlighted by the White Paper.
Concluding on the need of research
identifying the possible adverse effects of
this new forms of parenting on families and
its implications for children’s development,
Lim adds a set of research questions taking
into account the social diversity of the
families.
and in whose presence they do so, and the
online and offline interactions surrounding
such media use.
These questions are also in line with the
refusal of a digital determinism over social
relationships, expressed in the White Paper
and also reported above: How do parents
of different socio-economic profiles cope
with the demands of transcendent
parenting? Do higher SES parents have
more intellectual and financial wherewithal
to adopt tools and strategies that can help
ease the transcendent parenting burden?
Or are they conversely more oppressed by
the overwhelming amount of knowledge
about the normative standards they must
strive to meet as “responsible parents”? Do
I would like to conclude these brief notes
by calling your attention to another recent
article, A qualitative inquiry into the
contextualised parental mediation practices
of young children’s digital use at home, by
Bieke Zaman, Marije Nouwen, Jeroen
Vanattenhoven, Evelien de Ferrerre and Jan
Van Looy (2016), from Flanders, Belgium.
The study was designed in a qualitative and
mixed-method approach involving an active
interaction with 24 parents of 3-9-years-old
children, from different social backgrounds.
!242
The analysis provides rich evidence of
dynamics of parental mediation often
marked by contradictions and movements
from one type of mediation to another:
restrictive, active and distant mediation, couse, and participatory learning.
manifested among parents who wanted to
invest in their children and/or their own
knowledge and skills; the expression of this
mediation emerged in parents’ words
directed to operational learning; the latter
was seen as an investment in acquiring
digital literacy skills for both the child and
Restrictive and active mediation, the most
the parent.
identified kinds of mediation by parents
themselves, are analysed by taking into
As the authors conclude, the study
account parents’ decisions on time,
revealed the dynamic and often paradoxical
devices, contents, location and purchase.
nature of parental mediation, not only
Distant mediation covers those parental
providing examples of emergent practices
attitudes expressing deference and trust in
of parental mediation but also making
the child’s choices, and of supervision,
visible the need of a holistic approach and
when parents allow children to use digital
the importance of accounting for contextual
media with a certain autonomy but under
and social practices as part of a research
direct supervision. The authors link this kind
program.
of mediation to parents’ multitasking
Similar ideas have also been expressed in
housekeeping activities in line with the
other recent forums, namely the platform
White Paper’s call for attention to the
“Parenting for Digital Future”, led by Sonia
c o n t e m p o r a r y c o n t e x t s o f f a m i l y,
Livingstone and Alicia Blum-Ross. Here one
employment and housing. Co-use
can found accessible research notes by
mediation distinguishes two parental
academics and activists around the world,
attitudes and practices: the helper and the
several of them focused on questions
buddy, the latter sharing media activities for
related to our age group. Among the many
family pleasure and recreational purposes.
references, I would like to underline the
Participatory learning, a form of interactive
post by Livingstone and Blum-Ross,
mediation between parents and children
questioning and discussing the generic
favoured by the digital environment (Clark,
advices to parents on screen time2.
2011), was here visible in parents’ words
These brief notes moved from my
and observed parent-child practices in
impressions of ‘Britishness’ in the words of
ways that illustrated the pressure of the
a working class mother crossed with my
‘schooled society’ reported above. This
own national context to a brief review of
mediation identified by Zaman and
recent papers on environments and
colleagues combined characteristics of comethodologies. I hope that their evaluation
use and active mediation and was
of diversity and intersectionality of factors
2
See http://blogs.lse.ac.uk/parenting4digitalfuture/2016/07/06/what-and-how-should-parents-be-advised-about-screen-time/
(accessed on 24.08.2016).
!243
may be useful for research on the younger
digital users with which we are involved as
a network.
Schuler, C. (2012). iLearnII: An analysis of
the education category of the iTunes
AppStore. New York, NY: The Joan Ganz
Cooney Center at Sesame Workshop.
Wartella, E. & 2014).
Lauricella, Early
A. (
Learning, Academic Achievement and
Children's Digital Media Use. In A. Jordan &
D. Romer (Eds). Media and the well-being
of children and adolescents (pp. 173-186).
,Oxford
Oxford University Press.
References
Alper, M., Katz, V., & Clark, L.S. (2016).
Researching children, intersectionality, and
diversity in the digital age. Journal of
Children and Media 10(1), 107-114.
Zaman, B.,
Nouwen, M., Vanattenhoven,
J., de Ferrerre, E. & Van Looy, J. (2016). A
qualitative inquiry into the contextualized
parental mediation practices of young
children's digital media use at home.
Journal of Broadcasting & Electronic Media,
60(1), 1-22.
Bernstein, B. (2000). Pedagogy, Symbolic
Control and Identity. London: Rowman &
Littlefield Publishers.
Buckingham, D. & Scanlon, M. (2002).
Education, Entertainment and Learning in
the Home. Milton Keynes: Open University
Press.
Clark
, L. S. 2011).
(
Parental Mediation
Theory for the Digital Age. Communication
Theory 21, 323-343.
Lim, S. S. (2016). Through the tablet glass:
transcendent parenting in an era of mobile
media and cloud computing. Journal of
Children and Media 10(1), 21-29.
,Marsh
J., Plowman, L., Yamada-Rice, D.,
Bishop, J.C., Lahmar, J., Scott, F.,
Davenport, A., Davis, S., French, K., Piras,
M., Thornhill, S., Robinson, P. and Winter, P.
(2015). Exploring Play and Creativity in PreSchoolers’ Use of Apps: Final Project
Report. Accessed at: www.techandplay.org.
Sefton-Green, J., Marsh, J., Erstad, O., &
Flewitt, R. (2015). Establishing a Research
Agenda for the Digital Literacy Practices of
Young Children. A White Paper for COST
Action IS1410, http://digitiley.eu.
!244
Afterword
Jackie Marsh1
University
, UK
of Sheffield
literacy practice, but any practice may
The COST Action DigiLitEY was established
in 2015 in order to further research onembed one or more of the characteristics.
the papers shared in this e-book, we can
young children’s digital literacy Inand
e e n u m e ro u s e x a m p l e s o f t h e s e
multimodal practices. Such an initiatives was
characteristics of digital literacy, and each
urgently
, as the landscape
neededof
study offers rich insights into how they
contemporary childhoods is changing at a
inform children’s digital worlds. In addition,
pace previously unknown due to
it is vitally important that early years settings
technological developments. One of the key
embed these characteristics into their
aims of the COST Action was to bring
approaches to digital literacy learning and
together emergent research in this area,
teaching, if curricula and pedagogy are
given that little was known about the kinds
going to be appropriate for children’s
of related projects that were being
needs. The papers in this e-book that are
undertaken across Europe. This book
based on studies conducted in early years
clearly addresses that aim, as it provides a
settings and schools demonstrate strongly
rich snapshot of European children’s digital
that when the characteristics of digital
literacy lives in homes and schools, based
literacy practices in homes, outlined in
on a series of innovative research projects.
Figure
1, are rooted in formal approaches
In my own contribution to the Training
to learning and teaching, then children
School, I contended that, based on
become engaged and motivated learners.
research I have conducted in this area over
DigiLitEY’s first Training School was
many years (see, for example, two studies
important, therefore, in demonstrating the
that were conducted ten years apart in this
vitality of young children’s digital literacy
area, Marsh
2015;
et al.,2016)
, there are a
practices in homes, communities and early
number of key characteristics of young
years settings and in identifying the ways in
children’s digital literacy practices in the
which policy makers should be responding
to these developments. In addition, the
Training School offered a vital opportunity
This, list of characteristics is not exhaustive
for Early Career Investigators, whose
nor is it the case that all characteristics are
pioneering work in the area is moving the
present simultaneously in each digital
home. These characteristics are outlined in
Figure
1 (below).
1
j.a.marsh@sheffield.ac.uk
Figure 1: Key characteristics of young children’s digital literacy practices in the h
field, forward
to
in a variety of exciting ways
School demonstrated a diversity in
meet together and form networks that will
methodological approaches, appropriate for
surely be enduring for them in the years
projects that involve very young children,
ahead. I was deeply impressed by the work
which are undertaken in a range of formal
undertaken by the presenters throughout
and informal contexts. The Training
the Training School and came away highly
School’s focus was not on methodologies,
optimistic for future research in this area.
but instead this will be the emphasis of the
Already, as you can see from the papers in
Action’s second Training School, to be held
this e-book, these PhD students and Early
in the2017.
summer of The COST Action
Career Investigators are offering a range of
congratulates
,
Dr Íris Susana Pires Pereira
original and significant findings that expand
Dr Altina Ramos and their team on
organising such a successful Training
our knowledge of young children’s digital
School, which provided such rich learning
literacy and multimodal practices. The field
experiences for all involved. We look
is attracting very talented and reflective
forward to the next Training School, and are
researchers whose work is going to shape
confident that it will build very well on the
our understanding of this area further in the
strong outcomes of the first event that took
years ahead.
place in2016.
Portugal in the summer of
The presentations throughout the Training
!246
References
Marsh, J., G. Brooks, J. Hughes, L. Ritchie,
and S. Roberts. (2005). Digital Beginnings:
Young Children’s Use of Popular Culture,
Media and New Technologies. Sheffield:
University
of
Sheffield.
w w w. d i g i t a l b e g i n n i n g s . s h e f . a c . u k /
DigitalBeginningsReport.pdf.
,Marsh
J., L. Plowman, D. Yamada-Rice, J.
C. Bishop, J. Lahmar, F. Scott, A.
Davenport,
2015).
et al. (
Exploring Play and
Creativity in Pre-Schoolers’ Use of Apps:
Final Project Report. www.techandplay.org.
!247