edu690 weston

Engagement and complexity of thinking � 1

!!!!!

What is the effect of digital technologies on engagement and complexity of thinking

of the explorations of 5-‐6 year old children in a Reggio inspired setting?

!!!!

Action Research

!Clair Weston

!!!!!

Buffalo State, SUNY

Dr Hank Nicols

!!

December 2013

!


Abstract

Twenty four Kindergarten students attending Jakarta International School participated

in an action research study exploring the question, “What is the effect of digital

technologies on engagement and complexity of thinking of the explorations of 5-‐6 year

old children in a Reggio inspired setting?” A two-‐group pre-‐test and post-‐test design

measured student engagement and student complexity of thinking after a seven week

intervention. The experimental group consisted of one class of Kindergarten students

who were exposed to opportunities for using iPads as a language of expression, as a

device for creation. The control group consisted of a second Kindergarten class who

were exposed to opportunities for using iPads in the traditional way, as a device for

consumption. Results indicated that after the intervention period, although the scores of

both groups increased, the level of engagement and the depth of thinking of the

experimental group was higher.


Introduction

In today’s context it is difMicult to ignore the role of digital technologies in the lives

of young children. However, I am often in a state of tension as to an effective way for

children to use digital technologies and still be true to my pedagogical beliefs about early

childhood education. I would like to think about how digital technologies could be

interwoven into our approach to learning and our beliefs about young children to

enhance what we do and so improve the experience for our children. This study

researched into ways to enhance relationships and understanding and consider

possibilities to evocatively interweave the digital, poetic and symbolic languages.

Although there are a variety of different digital technologies that could be considered the

study focussed on the application and use of one device, the iPad. Using an iPad appears

to be natural to the children. I have observed how skillful they are in commanding the

touch screen and navigating the controls. Somehow to these children it is intuitive. There

is much current discussion about the use of iPads with young children and we have

recently received two in each Kindergarten class and are anticipating a class set for next

year. This study explored some of the possibilities of using the iPads, which are open to

creativity, imagination and to deepen learning and relationships.

I am reminded by Vea Vecchi,

“We have to give closer attention to the process of learning through the digital

media. The digital experience is much too often exhausted simply in its

function and technical form. In addition to this technical aspect, if it is also

used in creative and imaginative ways, it reveals a high level of expressive,

cognitive and social potential as well as great possibilities for evolution. It is

necessary to reMlect on and better comprehend the changes that the digital


language introduces in the processes of understanding. We have to be aware

of what this adds, takes away, or modiMies in today’s learning. “

(Gandini et al, 2005, p. x )

Based on my observations of children using iPads they can be passive users, looking at a

screen, consuming, rather than using the device as a language of expression and

communication. This implies to me a low level of engagement, in that the activity level is

simple, repetitive and passive, there is an absence of cognitive demand. Lower order

thinking skills are utilized. No other ‘languages’ are used. By languages I am referring to

my understanding of the term ‘Hundred Languages’ used by the Reggio educators. The

Hundred languages of children is a metaphor for the many ways of making meaning and

connections and supporting concept development and understanding. The hundred

languages is a declaration that gives value to all the symbolic and poetic languages that

children possess (Malaguzzi, cited in Edwards et al, 2012, p.2). As a result of the

intervention, I hoped to see the children displaying sustained intense engagement. There

would be creativity, energy and persistence. Higher order thinking skills would be

displayed. Several languages of expression would be intertwined. By transferring

between languages there exists a deeper understanding in the child’s thinking and

explorations. The quality of the exploration would be higher if the child is highly

engaged and there is a richness of languages, that the exploration would be more

complex if multiple languages of expression are used. I proposed that in using the iPad

as an expressive language we move beyond the common use of iPads. Merely giving the

children somewhat narrowly focused Apps, which are not open to imaginative use or

Apps, which have little meaning or substance and take away from an actual experience

with clay or building with wooden blocks. I am suggesting that it is possible that digital

technologies can add to the level of engagement and the complexity of thinking of a


child’s explorations when the other languages of expression are not forgotten. My

thinking has been inMluenced by George Foreman, who proposes that,

“Children learn about the world by creating relationships between different languages.”

(Edwards et al, 2012, p.349)

The following study was designed to explore this hypothesis.

!Review of the Literature

After identifying the need to validate the effect that iPads can have in the

engagement and complexity of thinking of the explorations of 5-‐6 year old children, I

reviewed the literature to ensure an in depth knowledge about the use of digital

technologies with young children and to learn about results obtained from prior

research. This literature review presents ideas from various research studies that have

suggested that digital technologies can be used to enhance learning in young children. I

have found it difMicult to locate reliable evidence to offer support on pedagogical ways to

maximise the learning potential of digital technologies.

There is an ongoing debate about how and whether digital technologies can Mit in

the lives of young children, although the use of computers and other digital devices are

rapidly becoming a reality in early childhood settings and in many children’s homes.

Arguments are repeatedly concerned with the quality of children’s experiences with

digital technologies and the value of such experiences for their physical, cognitive and

socio-‐emotional development (Verenikina and Kervin, 2011). Banister (2010) points to a

lack of research into iPads for education, as they are still very new to the market. Parette,

Queensbury and Blum (2010) believe early childhood educators are missing the boat in

terms of digital technology use in their classrooms. Drawing on ideas associated with the

digital disconnect they describe the huge divide between children’s digital technology


use at home and at the early childhood setting. They value the appropriate use of digital

technology within early childhood settings and encourage educators to develop their

technology skills to adequately teach their students. However, in my conversations with

the Kindergarten children taking part in this study, the children described their favourite

home activities on an iPad as predominately playing closed apps generally for the

development of maths and literacy skills or low level thinking games. Although the

children in the study often use iPads at home they are still not being used in a manner to

promote complex thought or modes of expression.

Plowman and Stephen (2007) suggest that early childhood educators already have

pedagogical knowledge but can lack the ability to transfer it to ICT use. Plowman and

Stephen’s (2007) Mindings would suggest that an additional aspect associated with

pedagogical guidelines that assist educators to create and extend leaning outcomes

related to ICT in their classrooms include exploring what constitutes ICT; reMlecting on

the value of ICT in early childhood classrooms; and exploring ideas to transfer current

pedagogical approaches to the use of ICT and that educators play an important role in

extending children’s learning on digital devices. There appears to be agreement that the

emergence of mobile touch devices, such as the iPhone, iPod touch and iPad, provide rich

opportunities for young learners. Teachers in the early years are seeing these as valid

pedagogical devices as they allow young children to easily manipulate and interact with

screen objects and create digital content. Touch-‐screen devices in particular encourage

intuitive participation in open-‐ended games and apps (Verenikina and Kervin, 2011).

There are hard-‐wired affordances of the iPad that make these devices particularly

attractive for early years learning: their portability, their ‘touch’ interface, their simple

navigation system. It is suggested that iPads can support independent use by very young

learners, as has been demonstrated by researchers such as Verenikina and Kervin


(2011) and O’Mara and Laidlaw (2011). As with technology and learning more generally,

particularly with ICT that affords Mlexibility of use, the impact depends largely on how

they are used (Lynch, 2006).

Bird (2012) suggests that, educators need to consider and provide apps that

encourage imaginative play. Her studies identiMied the necessity for further research

around children’s need for time to explore digital devices to assist them in moving from

explorative to imaginative behaviours. This is supported by the research of Goodwin and

HighMiled (2012) who discovered that, despite the plethora of apps currently available

for young children in the iTunes Store, there has been limited systematic analysis of

educational apps and those designed speciMically for young children. Researchers have

failed to keep pace with the exponential growth in this technology. With over 15 billion

apps downloaded since the inception of Apple’s App Store, there is a preponderance of

apps marketed as ‘educational’ and designed for young children. Both teachers and

parents seek educational apps to use on touch devices like the iPhone, iPad and iPod

touch. Many of these apps offer self-‐contained already-‐formed content, such as gamiMied

literacy apps and are relatively closed. They direct the learner through the content,

positioning the learner as a consumer. The level of interactivity and the level of user-‐

choice varies from app to app, but the geography of the app is closed and the learner

practises particular skills and is rewarded with tokens of accomplishment and progress

(O’Mara and Laidlaw 2011).

Children are growing up in a world full of digital devices and an understanding is

needed of the potential of these devices in children’s play and learning. However the use

of digital technology within early childhood education continues to be an emerging area

of research. Marsh, like many other authors call for further research into the children’s

use of digital technology stating,


“Academics and educators need to examine their affordances more

closely in order to identify what children gain from their playful

engagements in these worlds and how their experiences can be built

upon in early years settings”

(Marsh, 2010, p36)

In conclusion there is research that delves into the need for digital

technologies in early childhood settings and supports the use of iPads. There are

also some indications of the disconnect between teachers conMidence in their

understanding of early childhood pedagogy and the integration of digital

devices in keeping with this pedagogy. Digital technologies are evident in the

everyday lives of children and researchers are beginning to explore and promote

their place in early childhood. There appears to be little current research,

although plenty of anecdotal accounts on personal blogs, connecting digital

technologies with engagement and complexity of thinking, to provide further

support for teachers in their facilitation of technology use with early childhood

settings.

!Method

Research Design

To answer my research question I designed and implemented an action research

and intervention study with a two group pre-‐test and post-‐test design. As the grade level

consists of four kindergarten classes, one class, KA was the control group and class KB

was the experimental group.

!


!The dependent variables were level of engagement and complexity of thinking. The

independent variable was the opportunities provided to use the iPad in order to open up

possibilities for iPad exploration as an expressive language, for example, the apps

available, the placement of the iPads in the learning environment. The extraneous

variables were sensitive and timely teacher intervention, the learning environment and

conversations between the children themselves. My hypothesis was that in a supportive

learning environment with carefully chosen apps, iPads could be used to improve the

level of engagement and complexity of thought in the explorations of 5-‐6 year children

within a Reggio inspired setting.

Intervention

Before the treatment, the iPads were placed next to the desktop computer in the

classroom with all of the apps the IT department put on school iPads as standard.

Appendix C lists the apps which were initially installed on the devices. For the treatment,

I removed the apps that only allowed for simple, passive, repetitive explorations, which

lacked possibilities for ways of expression. I selected the apps for the iPads using criteria

Pretest Treatment Posttest Gain or change score

Traditional iPad group

Likert Scale for Engagement Rubric for Complexity of Thinking

No treatment Likert Scale for Engagement Rubric for Complexity of Thinking

Subtract pre from post

Intervention iPad group


Removal of most apps, careful consideration of placement of iPads within learning environment


Subtract pre from post


that I have developed to help me evaluate the qualities of any material that I might offer

the children. I asked myself,

!Will the app be used in many ways, or does it dictate a particular purpose?

Will it be used by many children?

Does it lend itself to a variety of explorations?

What affordances does it offer?

How might the app be best introduced to the children?

!The selection of apps also payed attention to the SAMR (Substitution Augmentation

ModiMication RedeMinition) model proposed by Puentedura (2013). Appendix E shows a

diagram of the SAMR model. This model offers a method of seeing how computer

technology might impact teaching and learning. Moving along the continuum, computer

technology becomes more important in the classroom but at the same time becomes

more invisibly woven into the demands of good teaching and learning. Appendix D lists

the apps used for the Experimental Group. The iPads were placed in different locations

within the setting to promote transferring between languages. The iPads were located in

the vicinity of other modes of expression, such as on the light table, in the Atelier or near

the wooden blocks. The children were supported in their explorations and encouraged

to share discoveries and ways of expression with each other. There were discussions

with the intervention group that the iPad could be taken to different places to work on.

The children were able to access the iPads just as they would the other materials and

ways of expression within the setting. During class meetings the intervention group

were invited to share with each other projects that they were proud of. In the control

group, the full list of apps remained on the iPads and the iPads remained next to the desk


top computer for the duration of the study. The control group continued to use the iPads

in the traditional way, mainly for skills practice, rather than as a language of expression.

The teachers observed how the iPads were used and shared observations with each

other. This discussion and shared interpretation of what has been observed offered

different points of view. Observing carefully and listening to the children helped us to

understand the ways of learning with materials that the children develop so that we, in

turn, can support them.

Sample

The sample used in this study was a convenience sample of twenty four

Kindergarten students from two of four kindergarten classes. The Kindergarten classes

are inspired by the principles of the Reggio Emilia Educational Project. These

pedagogical principles include:

!• The pedagogy of relationships;

• The pedagogy of listening;

• Communication and collaboration;

• Pedagogical documentation;

• The image of the children as being strong, curious, competent and capable;

• Social constructivism;

• The ‘Hundred Languages of Children’, a metaphor that refers to the many

ways of making meaning and connections, and supporting concept

development and understanding;

• The environment as the third teacher;

• The teacher as researcher.

!


These pedagogical beliefs inMluence the everyday experience of the children and teachers

and thus inMluence the sample and the context of the study. One class, KA, formed the

control group and the second class, KB, formed the experimental group. All of the 24

students were tested with the attitude Likert Scale to Measure the Level of Engagement.

Five students from each class were part of a randomly generated sample to be tested

with the Complexity of Thinking Rubric. The random sample was generated by assigning

consecutive numbers to all the members of KA and then KB and a random number

generator (www.mathsgoodies.com) was used to identify students. A random sample

was used so that all members of the classes would have an equal and independent

chance of being selected and providing a representative sample.The Kindergarten

classes are of equal size and consist of students of mixed gender, ability, mother tongue

language and nationality. All students were between 5 and 6 years old. All students in

this study attend Jakarta International School in Jakarta, Indonesia. Jakarta International

School serves the educational needs of the international community in Jakarta. The

school is non-‐sectarian and admits students of all races, cultures and religions.

!Instrumentation and Data Collection

Each child’s exploration with the iPad was observed before the intervention. The

level of engagement was measured with a Likert Scale Survey developed for the

purposes of this study, entitled, The Weston Scale of Engagement. The Weston Scale of

Engagement is listed in Appendix A. A Likert scale is designed to measure the attitude

about something. All the items together constitute an attitude, not any one. Thus each

student needs to get a total score across items. The items for the Weston Scale of

Engagement were chosen to cover all the signals for engagement except for complexity

and creativity, which would be measured through a rubric to grade the exploration for


it’s depth of thinking. I believe that the items are an important part of high level of

engagement. This would be when the child is showing the most competence they can,

that they are at their ‘best’, they are at the edge of their capabilities, at the Zone of

Proximal Development. This instrument has no center or neutral point so the

respondent has to declare whether he/she is in agreement or disagreement with the

item. The items help the observer to consider the level of engagement of a child’s

explorations, which involve an iPad. The items are channels for observer awareness, a

means of making an overall judgment of the child’s engagement.

!1. The child is not easily distracted from his/ her deep concentration.

2. The child’s facial expression reveals ‘hard’ thinking.

3. The child shows prolonged motivation.

4. The child shows special care for their work and are attentive to detail.

5. The child displays a feeling of satisfaction with their achievements.

!After a lengthy observation, notably 30mins-‐45mins, of a random sample of Mive children

from the control group and Mive children from the experimental group, a rubric grade

was assigned to the explorations to ascertain the complexity of thinking of the

explorations. The rubric was created for the purposes of this study, entitled, The Weston

Rubric to Assess Depth of Thinking. The Weston Rubric to Assess Depth of Thinking is listed

in Appendix B. In order for an exploration to have great depth multiple languages would

be used, moving between digital and analogue languages. This is important in our

setting, because we believe that children learn about the world by creating relationships

between different languages. In order for an exploration to be of a high quality the child

would display a high level of engagement and the child would be utilizing higher order


thinking skills. Over seven weeks, the intervention was carried out. After seven weeks,

each child’s explorations were again observed, measuring the level of engagement with

The Weston Scale of Engagement and the complexity thinking of exploration with The

Weston Rubric to Assess Depth of Thinking. The children were interviewed to discover

their point of view about iPads and how they use them in their explorations. This did not

provide quantitative data but provided information to enhance my understanding of

how children view their learning. I value the children’s perspective and wanted to

provide an opportunity for their voices to be heard as this study concerns them.

!Threats to Validity

The greatest threat to validity in this study was researcher bias. I was responsible

for writing, administering and scoring the tools of instrumentation and data collection. I

may have been looking for particular traits in my observations of the control group and

the experimental group in order to prove my hypothesis correct. There was the

possibility of a history threat as the children have other experiences outside of the

school context that could affect the study. It was the case that all of the children had

access to iPads at home. Maybe this could have been taken into consideration by asking

the parents whether their children had access to iPads at home, if any restrictions are

placed on their use, any particular activity that is encouraged more than others, what the

parents notice their children most commonly doing on the iPad. There was also the

threat of maturation as the study involved young children. The length of the study could

have inMluenced this. I wanted to spend enough time on the intervention for it to be

possible to make a difference, but not so long that the children’s natural maturation

would be a massive threat.

!


Results

To answer my research question I conducted a number of t-‐test analyses to

examine group differences. The one-‐tailed P value was calculated to determine whether

the results had statistical signiMicance by conventional criteria.

Student Attitude

The gain in pre and post test scores was compared between the control group and the

experimental group. An unpaired t-‐test, showed a signiMicant change in student

engagement after the iPad intervention was implemented. A one-‐tailed P value showed

that the results were statistically signiMicant by conventional means. (t= 3.1161, df= 22 ,

p=0.0025). Table 1 shows the means and standard deviations for each group.

!Table 1

Means and Standard Deviations of Group Mean Pre and Post Test Gains in Student

Engagement

Figure 1 below provides a visual representation of the mean gain in score for student

engagement for the control group and the experimental group.

!

Group Control Group gain between pretest score

and post test scores

Experimental Group gain between pretest score


Mean 2.83 5.5

Standard Deviation 2.52 1.57

N 12 12


Figure 1

Visual representation of the control group and experimental group gain in engagement

scores

!Student Complexity of Thinking

The results of the analysis of complexity of thinking between the control group and the

experimental group showed that the experimental group signiMicantly increased the

complexity of their thinking during explorations involving an iPad. A one-‐tailed P value

showed that that the results were statistically signiMicant by conventional means

(t=4.9058, df= 8, p=0.0006). Table 2 shows the means and standard deviations for each

group.

!Table 2

Means and Standard Deviations of Group Gains between pre and post tests for complexity

of thought

0

1.5

3

4.5

6

Mean gain in engagement score

Control Group Experimental Group


!Figure 2 below illustrates student’s mean scores after receiving the iPad intervention

compared to the control group.

Figure 2

Control group vs. experimental group mean gain in scores for complexity of thinking of

explorations

Generalisations

A t-‐test result showed a signiHicant difference when comparing student attitude and

complexity of though between the control group and the experimental group. The

results suggested that children can demonstrate a higher level of engagement and

Group Control Group gain between pretest score


Experimental Group gain between pretest score


Mean 4.6 12.2

Standard Deviation 3.21 1.3

N 5 5

0

3.25

6.5

9.75

13

Mean gain in score of complexity of thinking

Control Group Experimental Group


complexity of thinking when using the iPads as a language of expression rather than as a

means of consuming.

!Discussion and Action Plan

The results of this study implied that iPads can deepen engagement and complexity

of explorations in young children when informed choices are made in selecting apps

which provide possibilities for the interweaving of languages or combining apps and

thought is given to the placement of the iPads within the learning environment. Although

this resonates with my beliefs about early childhood pedagogy and the complexity of

thinking utilised by children when they use multiple languages of expression, I was

surprised by the signiHicance of the results and the size of the impact on engagement and

complexity of thought that more open apps can have. This leads me to believe that only

constructive apps should be installed on the iPads along with the standard productivity

suite (camera, video, Photo Booth).

My data and observations of the children in the control group showed them to be

overall, more passive consumers and less engaged. The dialogues amongst the children

as they were exploring the iPads were less rich than the experimental group and often

resulted in more arguments over turn taking and sharing. The iPads were generally used

by one child at a time. The story app, ‘Go Away Big Green Monster’ proved to be very

popular and led to the book version of this story being loaned from the library. At the

beginning of the study the simplistic apps were the most popular, but toward the end the

more creative apps were beginning to be used more frequently. The instructive apps had

elements of a ‘drill-‐and-‐practice’ design and required minimal cognitive investment on

behalf of the child. The children are positioned as consumers of the content, just listening


and looking, rather than producers of their own knowledge who actually produce

something. I wonder if these simple apps advertised as educational games, did not

capture the young children's attention and they quickly worked out the process and the

solutions and lost the interest in them. Maybe after the initial enthusiasm for the closed

apps, the children changed and began to show a preference for the games which allowed

them to engage their imagination and develop their own play that extended beyond the

screen as digital play blended in the variety of children's other play contexts.

My data and observations of the children in the experimental group showed them

to be overall more creative and more collaborative. They often worked together, helped

each other and shared ideas. Often other children would stand behind and watch and

offer words of encouragement. They shared their knowledge and taught their peers how

to use the devices or how to use a particular app. The children were able to use these

more constructive apps to create their own content or digital artifact and led to the

interweaving of multiple languages or transference from one language of expression to

another.

As a result of the study I had hoped to understand more about the transferability of

digital and analogue languages to enhance learning in young children and this would

improve my work with the children. Bird suggests that educators need to consider and

provide apps that encourage imaginative play (Bird, p.90, 2012.). I think that this is not

enough, the apps need to allow for creativity and interweaving of languages, not just

imaginative play. I found that there were times that the children needed help to learn the

functions of the devices despite every child having had experience using an iPad or their

parents iPhone. At times children sought help to explain how to use a particular app,

from an adult or another child or discovered things for themselves through trial and

error. The touch screen affordance of the device allowed the children to easily manipulate


and interact with screen objects and create digital content. It seemed that the children's

level of engagement in digital play depended on the characteristics of the digital game at

hand. The study showed that young children are interested in, and are capable of,

engaging in such a sophisticated digital play as creating their own puppet show or

movie, with their own characters and their own story. However, this is not all that

surprising, if we think of the level of sophistication of children's traditional, spontaneous

make believe play, which is largely created by the children themselves. Puppet Pals and

Puppet Pals 2 proved to be an extremely popular app where the children can create a

puppet show as they select backgrounds and characters and manipulate these on the

stage as they record oral annotations which can be saved to a library that can be viewed

again. This app allowed the participants to engage in a complex make-‐believe play which

was supported by the technical features such as voice recording facilities, choice of the

characters and recording an individually created story and using the camera function of

the iPad to import images to create characters and scenery. The ability to be able to

retrieve previous creations appeared to be a strong affordance of the device.

After talking with the children about their previous experiences I discovered that

the children were all familiar with iPads and had access to devices at home. When asked

about what they preferred, or were encouraged by parents, to use the iPad for at home,

most responses were literacy or numeracy based gamiHied Apps, a few reported that

they loved to play Mine Craft. The observational and interview data suggested that the

children demonstrated a high level of motivation towards using iPads and were

consistently enthusiastic. The children showed themselves to be highly competent and

conHident users of these technologies in terms of locating, launching and operating the

apps and caring for the devices. After the intervention, when interviewed many of the

children from the control group explained that they would like to have the same games


at school, that they have at home, such as ‘Plants vs. Zombies’ and ‘Angry Birds’. In

comparison the children from the experimental group stated that they liked using the

iPad with their friends now and that they would like to be able to put the content that

they made onto the class blog so that their families could see what they were doing.

Their favourite app was Puppet Pals and Puppet Pals 2 because: they liked to record

their own stories with their friends; see each others stories; could make characters from

their friends photographs and liked the way the characters moved.

The results were shared with my colleagues within the Kindergarten grade level

and in other sections of the school. I had an ongoing dialogue with my colleagues about

the study and presented the Hindings at a grade level meeting. As a result of our

dialogues I am hopeful that teachers in Kindergarten and other grade levels will become

more thoughtful in selecting the apps installed on the class iPads to allow more

expression, rather than passive consumption.

From an early childhood educator’s perspective there is a notable absence of

constructive apps, which offer open-‐ended, learning and representation, in the

‘Education’ classiHication on iTunes. I would suggest that the suite of productivity apps

and tools that are automatically loaded onto the device, such as Photo Booth and the

camera and video functions allow for far more engagement and complexity of thinking

than many of the apps sold as educational. This research highlights the need for further

research examining children’s use of apps and the impact of pedagogical design on

learning. IPads can potentially be used by young children as tools for representing their

own understandings, producing their own knowledge, communicating their school

learning to the broader community, and making connections between home literacies

and those developed at school. New technologies as an opportunity for innovation,

which can empower students by putting the technology into their hands in support of


more self-‐directed learning, and by positioning students as active stakeholders in their

learning and producers of their own culturally signiHicant artifacts. As suggested by

Lynch, with technology and learning more generally, the impact depends largely on how

they are used (Lynch, 2006).

!!!

!


References

!Banister, S. (2010). Integrating the iPod Touch in K-12 education: Visions and vices.

Computers in the Schools, 27(2), 121-131.

!Bird, J. (2012) The rabbit ate the grass! Exploring children’s activities on digital technologies

in an early childhood classroom. http://dlibrary.acu.edu.au/digitaltheses/public/adt-

acuvp391.25062013/02whole.pdf

!Edwards, C., Gandini, L. and Foreman, G. (Ed.) (2012) The Hundred Languages of

Children:The Reggio Experience in Transformation Praeger: California

!Gandini, L., Hill, L., Cadwell, L. and Schall, C. (Ed.)(2005) In the Spirit of the Studio,

Learning from the Atelier of Reggio Emilia Teachers College Press: New York

!Goodwin, K. & Highfield, K. (2012) iTouch and iLearn: An examination of ‘educational’

Apps. Paper presented at the Early Education and Technology for Children conference,

March 14-16, 2012, Salt Lake City, Utah. accessed on academa.edu

!Lynch J. (2006) Assessing Effects of Technology Usage on Mathematics Learning.

Mathematics Education Research Journal 18(3): 29–43.

!Marsh, J. (2010) Young children’s play in online virtual worlds. Journal of early childhood

research, 8 (1), 23-39.


!O’Mara J. and Laidlaw L. (2011) Living in the iWorld: Two Literacy Researchers

Reflect on the Changing Texts and Literacy Practices of Childhood. English Teaching:

Practice and Critique 10(4): 149–159.

!Parette, H.P, Quesenbury A.C. and Blum C. (2010) Missing the boat with technology usage in

early childhood settings: A 21st century of developmentally appropriate practise. Early

childhood Education Journal, 37, 335-343

!Plowman, L and Stephen, C. (2007) Guided interaction in pre-school settings. Journal of

computer assisted learning, 23(1) 14-26

!Verenikina, I. and Kervin, L. (2011) iPads digital play and preschoolers. (volume 2, number 5,

october 2011) He Kupu accessed through hekupu.ac.nz

!!!!


APPENDIX A

The Weston Scale of Engagement

Observer:

Date:

Name of child/ children:

Time and duration of observation:

When observing the child’s / children’s explorations of the iPad, please consider to what

level you agree with the statements below.

!Strongly Agree 4

Agree !3

Disagree !2

Strongly Disagree

1The child is not easily distracted from his/ her deep concentration.

The child’s facial expression reveals ‘hard’ thinking.

The child shows prolonged motivation.

The child shows special care for their work and are attentive to detail.

The child displays a feeling of satisfaction with their achievements.


APPENDIX B

The Weston Rubric to Assess Complexity of Thinking

Name:

Date:

Time:

Brief description of child’s exploration:

Complexity of thinking for understanding demonstrated

4 3 2 1

Observing closely and describing what’s there

Analysed features of App

Described features of App

Noticed features of App

Located desired App with support

Wondering and asking questions

Asked questions and tried to independently Hind solutions to own questions in investigations of what App can be used for

Explored App independently and asked questions about what can be done with App

Explored App independently

Asked adult how to use App, did not initiate own explorations

Making connections Drew on past explorations in application of new ways to use App

Compared and contrasted previous explorations with Apps

Independently remembered how to use an App

Responded to suggestions on how to use App

Interweaving of languages

Intentional transfer of idea from i-‐pad App to another language to further reHinement and transferring/ combining another language of expression. (e.g. using AuraHlux to create backdrop to a mermaid story setting diorama, video retelling of story)

Self directed transferring of idea from i-‐pad App to another language of expression

As a result of discussions with an adult (or another child) transferred idea from App to another language. (e.g. creating an image on Drawing Pad and then recreating with materials on the light table)

Used one App


Building explanations

Independently predicted what might happen when used an App to create a way of expression and explained what they did and what they wanted to achieve.

Independently explained what they did and what they wanted to achieve when created a way of expression with App

With prompting explained what they intended to do with the App when they created a way of expression

Not yet able to suggest what their intention was when they used the App

Capturing the essence of the exploration

Made decisions independently about which Apps to use for desired form of expression, reHined ideas as needed.

With support made decisions about how to combine Apps or expressive languages

Independently and with intent chose an App to explore

With support chose an App to use


Appendix C

Apps on iPads before the intervention and left on the iPads for the Control Group:

1. Camera/ video

1. Photo Booth

2. Aura Flux

3. Epic Drum Kit

4. Art of Glow

5. Puppet Pals

6. Puppet Pals 2

7. Drawing Pad

8. Hooked on Phonics

9. Leapfrog Maths

10.Princess School

11.Play Home

12.Type Drawing

13.Handwriting

14.Rhymes

15.Spelling

16.Tic-‐Tac-‐Toe

17. Kindergarten Maths

18.IXL maths

19.123 tracing

20.Lets Create Pottery

21.Jack and the Beanstalk

22.Big Green Monster


23.Space Numbers

!!!


Appendix D

Apps on iPads during intervention for the Experimental Group:

1. Camera/ video

2. Photo Booth

3. Aura Flux

4. Epic Drum Kit

5. Art of Glow

6. Puppet Pals

7. Puppet Pals 2

8. Drawing Pad

9. Book Creator

!


Appendix E

!http://www.hippasus.com/rrpweblog/archives/2013/10/02/

UnderstandingSAMR.pdf

!Ruben R. Puentedura, Ph.D.

!

�