"Using Electronic Storybooks to Foster Word-learning in Turkish Children" The Digital Literacy and Multimodal Practices of Young Children: Engaging with Emergent Research

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