Observing and assessing young children’s digital play in the early years: Using the Digital Play Framework

Abstract

Early childhood education settings are characterized by the use of play-based learning and the assessment of children’s play by teachers to promote further learning. A problem with technology use in early childhood settings is that little is known about how children learn to use technologies through play. This lack of knowledge makes it difficult for teachers to observe and assess how young children in their settings are learning to use technologies. In this article, we report on the use of a new framework we have previously developed to help educators observe and assess young children’s learning to use technologies through play. Known as the Digital Play Framework, the framework draws on Vygotsky’s ideas about tool mediation to position technologies as tools that children learn to master according to Hutt’s conceptualization of epistemic and ludic play. We suggest that the Digital Play Framework holds potential for supporting educators to identify children’s learning to use technologies through play and therefore opportunities for extending the provision of play-based technology education in the early years.

Keywords

assessment computers early childhood curriculum ICT play technology

Introduction

Digital technologies have a history of being difficult to implement in early childhood education settings (Parette et al., 2010). In the past, this difficulty has been associated with concerns regarding the impact of technologies on young children’s learning (Healy, 1998). While this concern has largely been allayed, and technologies are now considered a significant aspect of young children’s learning (National Association for the Education of Young Children (NAEYC) and Fred Rogers Centre for Early Learning and Children’s Media, 2012), the integration of technologies in the early years curriculum has still been difficult to achieve (Aubrey and Dahl, 2014). Contemporary research suggests that the struggle to effectively use technologies in early childhood education could be addressed by developing new ideas about children’s digital play that helps educators to recognize children’s activity with technologies in a play-based way (Edwards, 2013; Ruckenstein, 2010; Yelland, 2011). This is because early childhood education is traditionally play-based, and educators are used to observing and assessing young children’s play. However, not much is known about how young children learn to use technologies through play and therefore how educators could effectively observe and assess young children’s digital play in the early childhood classroom.

To address this problem, we developed the Digital Play Framework as a new assessment tool aimed at helping educators to understand how children learn to use technologies through play. The Digital Play Framework was initially developed following work we conducted with young children using video cameras in two Australian early childhood settings (Bird et al., 2014). We later refined the Digital Play Framework using data derived from an investigation into young children’s technology use in an early childhood educational setting in Victoria, Australia (Bird, 2012). These data helped us to identify some general ‘indicators’ to describe how children might be observed by educators to be learning to use technologies through play (Bird and Edwards, 2014).

This article builds directly on our previously published work regarding the Digital Play Framework (Bird and Edwards, 2014). It draws on data pertaining to a 5-year-old boy (Rithik) to illustrate the use of the framework as a new assessment tool for observing young children’s digital play in early childhood education. The Digital Play Framework integrates Vygotsky’s (1997) conceptualization of tool mediation in the achievement of an object of activity with Hutt’s (1971) categorization of epistemic and ludic play. First, we begin with a brief overview of the role of observation and assessment in early childhood education and then consider research regarding the concept of digital play in early childhood education. We then describe the methodology used in this article to illustrate the potential use of the Digital Play Framework as a new tool for observing and assessing young children’s digital play. Finally, we discuss how the tool might be used by educators in practice to support their observation and assessment of children’s digital play and the provision of play-based technology education in the early years.

Observation and assessment in early childhood education

Observations of young children’s play have historically informed the assessment of children’s learning in Western European approaches to early childhood education (McLachlan et al., 2013). Based on the traditional importance of play-based learning to curriculum provision, the idea has been that observing children’s play is likely to provide educators with insight into young children’s developmental levels and therefore enable their consequent planning for learning. Constructivist theory and developmental perspectives were foundational to both the provision of play-based learning in early childhood education and the idea that play could be observed to document development (Beaty, 2014). Such approaches were largely summative in nature and consisted of developmental checklists providing indicators of development that could be observed by educators as determining the extent of a child’s existing developmental trajectory. Development was largely viewed as occurring across different ‘domains’, such as cognitive, social, language and/or physical development. The educator’s role was to observe children’s play within each of the domains and consequently ‘facilitate’ learning by basing the provision of additional play experiences for each domain on the perceived developmental progress of a given child.

During the late 1900s and early 2000s, early childhood education underwent a significant period of re-theorization regarding the role of constructivist and developmental perspectives in the provision of early childhood curricula and approaches to observation and assessment (Langford, 2011). Feminist, postmodernist and post-structural theories were used to critique assumptions regarding the universality of children’s learning and development assumed by developmental approaches (Soto and Swadener, 2002). Contextual, gendered and cultural aspects of children’s life experiences were consequently argued to be missing from summative approaches towards assessment (Fleer and Richardson, 2004). Sociocultural theory had a particularly significant role in challenging developmental approaches towards observation and assessment (see, for example, Anning et al., 2009). The role of context and culture in young children’s learning and development was emphasized, and the need for approaches to observation and assessment that catered for children’s social interactions and cultural knowledge was brought to the fore.

This movement aligned with the emergence of formative approaches towards assessment in other sectors of education in which the concept of assessment ‘as, for and of’ learning (Black and Wiliam, 1998) was increasingly prominent. In early childhood education, formative assessment was expressed via the concept of documentation emerging from the project work being conducted in Reggio Emilia (Buldu, 2010) and in the emergence of Learning Stories in New Zealand (Carr, 2001; Carr and Lee, 2012). In Australia, Fleer (2002) pioneered some early approaches to sociocultural assessment that acknowledged children’s existing knowledge base and the role of adults and peers in co-constructing knowledge. Drummond (2012) was also pivotal in arguing that assessment should help educators to ‘appreciate and understand what children learn’ (p. 12) and not only what children could be observed to do.

Theoretical advances in understanding children’s development and learning as contextually informed mean that formative approaches towards observation and assessment are now more commonly used than summative approaches. For example, in Australia, the Early Years Learning Framework (EYLF) argues that ‘educators use a variety of strategies to collect, document, organise, synthesise and interpret the information that they gather to assess children’s learning’ (Department of Education Employment and Workplace Relations (DEEWR), 2009: 17). These strategies include anecdotal observations, running records, photographs of children, recorded conversations with children and increasingly the use of video footage to focus on key moments in children’s play-based learning. Likewise, the Statutory Framework for the Early Years Foundation Stage states that

ongoing assessment (also known as formative assessment) is an integral part of the learning and development process. It involves practitioners observing children to understand their level of achievement, interests and learning styles, and to then shape learning experiences for each child reflecting those observations. (Department for Education, 2014: 13)

In Hong Kong, educators are encouraged to maintain ‘portfolios’ of children’s learning using observations, record keeping and ‘analysis of children’s daily learning performance’ (Curriculum Development Council, 2006: 41). These frameworks suggest that early childhood educators commonly use formative approaches to assessment to identify individual strengths and weaknesses in children’s learning and development, to understand children so as to guide their behaviour, to inform their discussions and collaborations with parents and allied professionals, to extend shared play-based learning interests within a group of children, to reflect on the pedagogical flow of a day spent working with children and to evaluate their own teaching (Hatch and Grieshaber, 2002). Such strategies are now well established in early childhood education, particularly with respect to children’s traditional play-based learning, in areas such as pretend play, gross motor play or construction play.

However, a recent problem for educators is how to use formative approaches to assessment when considering children’s learning to use technologies through play. This is a problem for educators because formative approaches to assessment were developed in response to concerns regarding summative approaches in which developmental understandings of play and learning were already evident. While challenged from post-modern, post-structural and sociocultural perspectives, these developmental understandings nonetheless provided many educators with a basis from which to conduct formative assessments in the first instance. This is because educators were able to draw on a knowledge base that helped them to recognize what children were learning through play in particular developmental domains. For example, educators could establish that playing with blocks would contribute to the symbolic knowledge associated with children’s early mathematical thinking. Although educators do not necessarily assess a child’s block play for mathematical knowledge using a developmental checklist anymore, they are likely to evidence this relationship in any formative approaches, such as observations or photography. This means that although the form and focus of assessment may have changed, educator understandings of children’s learning through play are still likely to be evident in what they record about how children are learning. However, the increased use of technologies in early childhood education has not necessarily kept pace with research regarding how children learn to use technologies through play in early childhood education settings. This means that it can be difficult for early childhood educators to know ‘what’ they are assessing when observing young children’s digital play activities in early childhood classrooms.

Digital technologies in early childhood education

A significant body of literature regarding young children’s use of technologies in early childhood education now exists. While early discussion in the field centred on whether or not children should use technologies (e.g. Clements and Samara, 2003), more contemporary research focuses on how to increase the uptake of technologies in early childhood settings (Lindhal and Folkesson, 2012). Despite research showing that technologies benefit children’s problem solving capacities and literacy skills (Black, 2010; Siraj-Blatchford and Siraj-Blatchford, 2003), the early childhood sector has been slow to integrate technologies into the curriculum. Several scholars argue that technologies should be more fully integrated into the early childhood curriculum and cite common technological practices in the home, such as using online games, playing with gaming consoles and using mobile phones, as practices that should be articulated to early childhood settings (Barron et al., 2011; Parette et al., 2010; Zevenbergen, 2007). Yelland (2011) has noted that a significant problem with the use of technologies in the early years is that the field has failed to generate a workable play-based pedagogy that connects with young children’s use of technologies in their homes and communities. Marsh et al. (2005) also identified this issue a number of years ago, suggesting that educators were interested in using technologies with young children but lacked access to an appropriate pedagogical framework for understanding children’s digital play.

The concept of digital play is emerging in response to this problem. Digital play is variously understood as the range of activities children undertake with technologies (Marsh, 2010; Stephen and Plowman, 2014), using technologies in a play-based way (Verenikina and Kervin, 2011) or the emergence of a new contemporary form of play that involves children in contemporary digitally mediated contexts (Bergen, 2012; Edwards, 2013; Goldstein, 2011). Work associated with the concept of digital play has been significant for early childhood education because it helps educators understand technology use in the early years in terms of children’s play and therefore play-based learning (see, for example, Nuttall et al., 2013). This means that descriptions of children’s digital play are useful for educators because they can use these to inform the provision of technologies in early childhood settings in much the same way that the provision of experiences such as role or construction play is informed by descriptions of children’s pretend or exploratory play. However, a limitation in the existing literature regarding digital play is that it does not provide a clear description of how children learn to use technologies through play. Without a basis for understanding how children learn to use technologies through play, it is difficult for educators to observe and assess young children’s technological learning. In response to this problem, we created the Digital Play Framework as an assessment tool aimed at helping educators to understand how children learn to use technologies through play (Bird and Edwards, 2014).

Theoretical orientation to the Digital Play Framework

The Digital Play Framework theorizes digital technologies as cultural tools (Vygotsky, 1997). According to the Digital Play Framework, technologies are tools that children master through what Hutt (1966) defined as ‘epistemic’ or exploratory play prior to moving into ‘ludic’ or symbolic play. Vygotsky (1997) argues that using a tool helps people achieve an object of activity. In early childhood education settings, play often forms the object of children’s activity (Wood, 2013). Hutt (1966) argued that children play with artefacts in an exploratory way (epistemic play) until they have mastered what the object does. Their activity then moves into being ‘ludic’ or symbolic play because instead of trying to understand the functions of an artefact, children use the artefact in innovative ways to realize their own goals. Because Vygotsky argued that mastery of a tool changes the object of activity, we have argued in our construction of the Digital Play Framework (Bird and Edwards, 2014) that children learn to use technologies through play by moving from epistemic to ludic play. They use technologies as a ‘tool’ when the object of their activity is epistemic play until such time that they have mastered the functions of the technology-as-tool and so shift into using the technology as a tool for realizing ludic play. The Digital Play Framework therefore incorporates behaviours associated with Hutt et al.’s (1989) descriptions of epistemic and ludic activity, including exploration, problem solving and skill acquisition as potential indicators for children learning to use technologies through play (see Table 1).

Table 1.

The Digital Play Framework.

Digital technologies-as-tool
Object of activity	Behaviours (from Hutt et al., 1989)	Indicators	Description
Epistemic play	Exploration	Seemingly random use of the device	Seemingly random footage, images, pressing the iPad, moving or clicking the mouse
		Locating the operating functions of the device	Locating the on/off button (video camera), shutter button (still camera), home button (iPad), keyboard (computer) or mouse (computer)
		Exploring the operating functions of the device	Exploring the on/off button (video camera), shutter button (still camera), home button (iPad), keyboard (computer) or mouse (computer)
		Following directions of the device or other people	Following the directions of the device or other people
		Seeking assistance for desired outcome	Asking adults or peers for assistance to use the device
	Problem solving	Relating actions to the response/function	Pressing the on/off button, relating turning the camera to what is in the viewfinder (video camera), pressing the shutter button, relating turning the camera to what is in the viewfinder, pressing the Home button to change Apps, scrolling through Apps (iPad), relating mouse and keyboard to actions on the screen (computer)
		Trying different actions to solve an issue	Returning to the menu button; asking peers or adults for advice/help
		Intentional use of the operating functions	Selecting record functions to create footage
	Skill acquisition	Intentional and deliberate use of functions for desired outcome	Being able to view taken footage (video camera) or images (still camera), scrolling and tilting (iPad), using mouse to move cursor, click and double click program icons (computer)
		Sharing learned actions with others	Being able to share knowledge of functions of the device with others for the purpose of teaching others (ZPD)
		Intentional and controlled footage of observable people, events and situations or manipulating the App or program for own purpose	Creating and filming deliberate play scenarios
Ludic play	Symbolic	Deliberate use of device for pretend play	Using the device to record already established pretend play or to record re-enacted play (video and still cameras), selecting an App specifically for pretend play (iPad), selecting a program specifically for pretend play (computer)
	Innovation	Creating pretend play deliberately for use of the device	Creating a pretend play to record (video or still cameras), selecting an App specifically for pretend play (iPad), selecting a program specifically for pretend play (computer)

Source: From Bird and Edwards, 2014: 9. Reprinted with permission.

Methodology

In this article, we use observational data from a previous study investigating children’s use of technologies in an early childhood setting as a way of applying the Digital Play Framework in ‘practice’. This is to illustrate how the Digital Play Framework may be used by educators to observe and assess young children’s digital activity in early childhood settings. The data presented in this article were taken from a case study that explored children’s activities on digital devices within a kindergarten classroom (Bird, 2012). A case can be defined as ‘an intensive description and analysis of a phenomenon or social unit such as an individual, group, institution, or community’ (Merriam, 2002: 8). In this project, the case was represented by the children’s use of the digital devices during the course of their normal kindergarten activity over a period of 5 weeks. The devices used by the children included digital still and video cameras, iPads and a computer. The project was conducted with ethical approval from a University Human Ethics Committee and the Department of Education and Early Childhood Development. A total of 27 children aged 4 and 5 years were invited to participate. Both parent and child consent for the children’s participation in the project were sought. In all, 20 children received parental consent to participate in the project. Children from whom parental consent was obtained were then invited to provide their assent for project participation. This involved explaining the project to children and asking children to complete child-centred assent forms (Dockett and Perry, 2007). Child assent was regularly sought for the duration of the project. All children were invited to either provide a pseudonym or to have only their first name used in the reporting of data.

The kindergarten served a low-to-middle class suburb of Melbourne, Australia, with families from a range of cultures including from African, Asian and Western European descent. The educators included a qualified teacher and two assistants. The digital technologies were available to the children during the three classes each week, with each class running for approximately 5 hours. Data were collected by both the children, through photographs and video recordings they made of their own technology use and through photographs, video recordings and written observations recorded by the educator (Marshall and Rossman, 2011). The digital technologies were introduced to the children during a group time by the educator, with the names of the devices, explanations for how to use each technology and safety rules such as using the wrist strap explained to the children.

In this article, we draw on data relating to one child to illustrate the use of the Digital Play Framework in practice. Rithik was a 5-year-old male who participated in the main case study. Rithik provided assent for project participation and indicated that his first name should be used in any reporting of the findings. We selected Rithik as a focus child for illustrating the use of the Digital Play Framework because of the frequency of observations regarding his interactions with the digital devices collected during the main case study. In all, 37 observations, sets of video footage and notes pertaining to Rithik’s technology use over a 5-week period were collected. This also included up to 10 photographs and sets of video footage generated by Rithik himself.

Data analysis

We used a deductive approach to analyse the data. Deductive analysis relies on the use of pre-existing analytical categories to examine data (LeCompte, 2012). A total of 37 sets of data pertaining specifically to Rithik’s use of digital technologies in the classroom were abstracted from the larger data set associated with the main case study (Marshall and Rossman, 2011). The data sets comprised video footage of Rithik using technologies, photographs of Rithik using technologies, anecdotal records/written notes about Rithik’s technology and photographic and video footage generated by Rithik using the variously available technologies. From these data sets, data were identified as comprising examples of Rithik engaged in either (a) epistemic or (b) ludic activity with the technologies. To identify his activity as either epistemic or ludic, we used the indicators for learning to use technologies through play previously established in our Digital Play Framework (see Figure 1: Bird and Edwards, 2014). These indicators were articulated from Hutt’s characteristics for both epistemic and ludic play (see, for example, Bird et al., 2014). Our focus of analysis was therefore to see whether the existing data we had about Rithik’s engagement with technologies could be used to illustrate the use of the previously published Digital Play Framework (Bird and Edwards, 2014) as a new tool for assessing young children’s digital play in early childhood education.

Findings

Analysis of the data showed the Digital Play Framework could be used to observe and assess how Rithik was learning to use technologies through play. Table 2 summarizes Rithik’s activity across all the devices made available in the setting, including an iPad, a desktop computer and a digital still and video camera.

Table 2.

Rithik’s play moving from epistemic to ludic illustrating the capacity of the ‘Digital Play Framework’ to be used as a pedagogical tool for observing and assessing young children’s digital activity.

Object of activity	Behaviours (from Hutt et al., 1989)	All devices	Descriptions of activities	Observations of Rithik’s activities using an iPad, desktop computer, digital still camera and/or video camera
Epistemic play	Exploration	Seemingly random use of the device	Seemingly random footage, images, pressing the iPad, moving or clicking the mouse	17 October 2011 – Rithik filming the ground and someone’s legs17 October 2011 – Rithik filming randomly outside17 October 2011 – Rithik filming randomly outside, Joyen and Shaheen run past17 October 2011 – Rithik filming randomly outside, Shamone and Shaheen run past17 October 2011 – Rithik filming tanbark and shadows17 October 2011 – Rithik films a group of children running past17 October 2011 – Rithik filming Shaheen turning around17 October 2011 – Rithik filming random children
		Locating the operating functions of the device	Locating the on/off button (video camera), shutter button (still camera), home button (iPad), keyboard (computer) or mouse (computer)	17 October 2011 – Rithik learns to zoom in and out on the Flip camera and practices
		Exploring the operating functions of the device	Exploring the on/off button (video camera), shutter button (still camera), home button (iPad), keyboard (computer) or mouse (computer)	8 November 2011 – Rithik filming and asking an adult questions8 November 2011 – Rithik films Mr Potatohead and zooms in and out
		Following directions of the device or other people	Following the directions of the device or other people
		Seeking assistance for desired outcome	Asking adults or peers for assistance to use the device	17 October 2011 – Rithik asking why the numbers on the Flip camera are changing8 November 2011 – Adult explaining to Rithik how to stop and start the Flip camera8 November 2011 – Rithik asking an adult how to watch his movie8 November 2011 – Rithik asking an adult how to know if the Flip camera is working
	Problem solving	Relating actions to the response/function	Pressing the on/off button, relating turning the camera to what is in the viewfinder (video camera), pressing the shutter button, relating turning the camera to what is in the viewfinder, pressing the Home button to change Apps, scrolling through Apps (iPad), relating mouse and keyboard to actions on the screen (computer).	17 October 2011 – Rithik asks his educator to show him the letters he needs for his name on the keyboard20 October 2011 – Rithik playing on the iPad pressing the Home button to change Apps
		Trying different actions to solve an issue		20 October 2011 – Rithik playing Talking Gina on the iPad and he tries different actions to complete the activity
		Intentional use of the operating functions		17 October 2011 – Rithik zooms in and out at children playing
	Skill acquisition	Intentional and deliberate use of functions for desired outcome	Being able to view taken footage (video camera) or images (still camera), scrolling and tilting (iPad), using mouse to move cursor, click and double click program icons (computer)	17 October 2011 – Rithik films children eating their snack17 October 2011 – Rithik filming himself telling a story17 October 2011 – Rithik filming an adult filming him20 October 2011 – Rithik playing Ant Smasher on the iPad20 October 2011 – Rithik is playing RF Alphabet on the iPad and manipulates the puzzle pieces25 October 2011 – Rithik playing FaceGoo on the iPad and distorting the image8 November 2011 – Rithik filming Mr Potatohead
		Sharing learned actions with others	Being able to share knowledge of functions of the device with others for the purpose of teaching others (ZPD)	8 November 2011 – Rithik showing Shaheen the Mr Potatohead movie he made14 November 2011 – Rithik explains to other children how he is making a video
		Intentional and controlled footage of observable people, events and situations or manipulating the App or program for own purpose	Intentional and deliberate use of functions for desired outcome, intentional and controlled footage of observable people, events and situations or manipulating the App or program for own purpose	25 October 2011 – Rithik playing Reader Rabbit on the computer and deliberately doing the wrong action for the computer’s response, laughing each time
Ludic play	Symbolic	Deliberate use of device for pretend play	Using the device to record already established pretend play or to record re-enacted play (video and still cameras), selecting an App specifically for pretend play (iPad), selecting a program specifically for pretend play (computer)	8 November 2011 – Rithik filming the children packing up the blocks on the mat14 November 2011 – Rithik films two adults packing up the shed15 November 2011 – Rithik filming an adult reading a book15 November 2011 – Rithik filming himself singing a song
	Innovation	Creating pretend play deliberately for use of the device	Creating a pretend play to record (video or still cameras), selecting an App specifically for pretend play (iPad), selecting a program specifically for pretend play (computer)	8 November 2011 – Rithik films Lara’s spaceman movie8 November 2011 – Rithik films as he asks Tiffany questions about her favourite things at kindergarten8 November 2011 – Rithik creates a spaceman story so that an adult can film it

ZPD: Zone of Proximal Development.

Here, Rithik’s activity could be understood in terms of epistemic and ludic play according to the indicators described in the Digital Play Framework. These included behaviours in exploration, problem solving and skill acquisition when using technologies, such as learning the different functions of each technology (e.g. learning to master the ‘tool’), for example, locating the viewfinder of the digital camera, learning to zoom in and out on the video camera and using the Home button on the iPad™ for the selection of a new App. As these functions were acquired by Rithik, his digital activity moved towards ludic play, indicating that mastery of the technology as a tool had changed his object of activity away from exploring ‘what does this technology do’ towards more symbolic play. Symbolic play emerged as Rithik used the technologies to create his own content or to deliberately record his own play activity, for example, Rithik filming two adults packing up the shed, Rithik filming an adult reading a book and Rithik filming himself singing a song.

The application of the data from Rithik’s participation in the larger case study to the Digital Play Framework suggests potential for using the Digital Play Framework to observe and assess young children’s learning to use technologies through play more widely. This is because the data pertaining to Rithik’s use of the technologies in the classroom could be effectively plotted against the Digital Play Framework indicators comprising epistemic and ludic play with respect to young children’s technology use in early childhood settings. This is useful for educators because although the Digital Play Framework has a somewhat summative function (e.g. by identifying ‘indicators’), it nonetheless helps educators to identify how a child is learning to use technologies through epistemic and ludic play. Currently, how children learn to use technologies through play is not well known or documented in the literature. Pedagogically, there is also little guidance in contemporary early childhood curriculum frameworks for helping educators understand how to observe and assess young children learning to use technologies through play. This is evident in the range of curriculum frameworks cited earlier (e.g. Curriculum Development Council, 2006; DEEWR, 2009; Department for Education, 2014), which while they are clear on what constitutes formative assessment do not necessarily articulate how children’s technological learning may be assessed under this approach (although the EYLF does list descriptions of the types of activities in which children might be digitally engaged). However, despite the indicators in the Digital Play Framework suggesting that it is a summative form of digital assessment, the Digital Play Framework may also be understood as a more formative form of assessment because the indicators are aligned with space for educators to complete observational descriptions of children’s activity and/or provide photographic evidence of children’s play focused on explaining the object of activity. This means, according to our focus in this article, that the Digital Play Framework may be of use in providing educators with a series of baseline indicators for children learning to use technologies through play in combination with opportunities for more formative observational and photographic types of assessment.

Discussion

Existing approaches to observing and assessing children’s play-based learning in early childhood education are largely formative. Formative approaches to assessment highlight the need to determine contextual aspects of activity (McLachlan et al., 2010). A problem for early childhood educators seeking to observe and assess for children’s learning to use technologies through play is that it is not always clear ‘what’ they are looking for in children’s digital activity in terms of how children are learning to use technologies through play. Using the data associated with Rithik’s digital activity in an early childhood classroom suggests that the Digital Play Framework may prove useful in this respect. This is because the Digital Play Framework understands children’s learning to use technologies as tools associated with two forms of play as their object of activity. In the first form of play, children’s activity is oriented towards working out or exploring the functions of the technologies as tool. In the second form of play, mastery of the tool means that the object of their activity becomes ludic play and there is increased capacity for children to use technologies in more symbolic or content generative ways. In this way, the Digital Play Framework draws on the behaviours associated with each play-type generated by Hutt (1971), such as exploration, problem solving and skill acquisition, to provide educators with ‘indicators’ of children’s digital play that they can also align with documentation, photographic evidence and/or observational notes of children’s activity when using technologies. In addition, the Digital Play Framework recognizes aspects of formative assessment valued in early childhood education by providing space for educators to record and document examples associated with any given indicator. The indicators therefore provide a ‘guide’ for seeing how a child may be learning to use technologies through play, while the formative aspect captures the contextual detail necessary for understanding how to extend the play to realize further learning.

This can be illustrated by considering the observation of Rithik as he evidenced exploratory and problem solving behaviours with the technologies (e.g. the zoom function on the video camera). When he is engaged in such epistemic play, it would be counterproductive for an educator to plan experiences for him focused on the generation of digital content. This is because while he is engaged in epistemic play with the technology, his focus is on learning what the tool does. Mastery of the tool will later enable him to use it in more symbolic way, such as content creation (e.g. zooming in and out on peers participating in a role-play scenario). Instead of an educator planning to immediately support Rithik in filming content with the camera, using the Digital Play Framework would suggest that he may require more time and opportunity for continued exploration of the different functions of the video camera (or any other technology). Here, an educator might engage in intentional teaching on how to use a given technology, or even pair the child with a more capable peer in using the technology so that there is continued opportunity for exploratory learning via social interaction. At the same time, wanting to stretch the child towards a greater understanding of the potential usage of the technology, an educator might provide Rithik with examples of differently generated forms of digital content so that he can become aware of what the functions he is exploring are able to achieve. In this way, the educator could simultaneously plan for Rithik’s current learning while promoting awareness of how the technology could be used once the epistemic activity is mastered. Such practices would be oriented towards existing approaches to play-based learning, observation and assessment in which assessment is oriented towards extending learning (Carr, 2014) while also fostering a deliberate focus on the use of technologies in early childhood education (McLachlan et al., 2013).

It should be noted that several limitations pertain to this article. These include (a) the application of the framework using previously generated data about Rithik’s use of technologies in the early childhood education setting, (b) the application of the framework to only one child and (c) not having yet deployed the framework in practice with other educators. These limitations suggests that further work should now be conducted using the Digital Play Framework in practice with educators and a larger number of children to determine its efficacy informing the provision of technologies to young children in early childhood settings. Despite these limitations, our goal in this article was to consider the potential of the previously published Digital Play Framework to operate as a new tool for observing and assessing young children’s digital play in early childhood settings.

Conclusion and implications

Digital technologies have been historically difficult to implement in early childhood settings. This is because new knowledge about what constitutes children’s digital play and therefore how educators can use technologies in play-based settings is still developing. A further problem for early childhood educators is how to observe and assess young children learning to use technologies through play. In this article, we have used the example of one child learning to use technologies through play to illustrate how the Digital Play Framework can be used by educators to observe and assess young children’s digital activity in early childhood settings. Here, we have previously argued that combining Vygotsky’s (1997) ideas regarding tool-mediated activity with Hutt’s (1966) theorization about epistemic and ludic play provides a basis for identifying indicators that characterize children learning to use technologies through play (Bird and Edwards, 2014). The findings from this article suggest that while the indicators are slightly summative in orientation, they can nonetheless be paired with formative descriptions, observations and photography to help educators understand children’s learning to use technologies through play, and consequently plan for further learning. This work has implications for the field in terms of supporting educators to better understand how children are learning to use technologies through play, and as consequence to plan for more effective play-based technology education in the early years.

Footnotes

Funding

This research received no specific grant from any funding agency in the public, commercial or not-for-profit sectors.

References

Anning

Cullen

Fleer

(eds) (2009) Early Childhood Education: Society and Culture. 2nd ed. London: SAGE.

Aubrey

Dahl

(2014) The confidence and competence in information and communication technologies of practitioners, parents and young children in the Early Years Foundation Stage. Early Years 34(1): 94–108.

Barron

Cayton-Hodges

Bofferding

. (2011) Take a Giant Step: A Blueprint for Teaching Children in a Digital Age. Stanford, CA: The Joan Ganz Cooney Centre at Sesame Workshop and Stanford University.

Beaty

(2014) Observing Development of the Young Child. 8th ed. London: Pearson.

Bergen

(2012) Play, technology toy affordances and brain development – research needs and policy issues. In: Cohen

Waite-Stupiansky

(eds) Play. A Polyphony of Research, Theories and Issues. Play and Culture Studies, vol. 12. Lanham, MD: University Press of America, pp. 163–173.

Bird

(2012) The rabbit ate the grass! Exploring children’s activities on digital technologies in an early childhood classroom. Master of Philosophy, Australian Catholic University, Melbourne, VIC, Australia.

Bird

Edwards

(2014) Children learning to use technologies through play: a Digital Play Framework. British Journal of Educational Technology. Epub ahead of print 1 August. DOI: 10.1111/bjet.12191.

Bird

Colliver

Edwards

(2014) The camera is not a methodology: towards a framework for understanding young children’s use of video cameras. Early Childhood Development and Care 184(11–12): 1741–1757.

Black

Wiliam

(1998) Inside the black box: raising standards through classroom assessment. Phi Delta Kappan 80(2): 139–148.

10.

Black

(2010) The language of Webkinz: early childhood literacy in an online virtual world. Digital Culture and Education 2(1): 7–24.

11.

Buldu

(2010) Making learning visible in kindergarten classrooms: pedagogical documentation as a formative assessment technique. Teaching and Teacher Education 26(7): 1439–1449.

12.

Carr

(2001) Assessment in Early Childhood Settings: Learning Stories. London: Paul Chapman.

13.

Carr

(2014) Play and playfulness: issues of assessment. In: Brooker

Blaise

Edwards

(eds) SAGE International Handbook of Play and Learning in Early Childhood. London: SAGE, pp. 264–275.

14.

Carr

Lee

(2012) Learning Stories: Constructing Learner Identities in Early Education. London: SAGE.

15.

Clements

Samara

(2003) Strip mining for gold: research and policy in educational technology – response to Fool’s Gold. Association for the Advancement of Computing in Education Journal 11(1): 7–69.

16.

Curriculum Development Council (2006) Guide to the Pre-Primary Curriculum. Education Bureau: HKSAR.

17.

Department for Education (2014) Statutory framework for the early years. Setting the standards for learning, development and care for children from birth to five. DFE-00337-2014. Available at: https://www.gov.uk/government/uploads/system/uploads/attachment_data/file/335504/EYFS_framework_from_1_September_2014__with_clarification_note.pdf

18.

Department of Education Employment and Workplace Relations (DEEWR) (2009) Belonging, Being and Becoming. The Early Years Learning Framework for Australia. Canberra, ACT, Australia: DEEWR.

19.

Dockett

Perry

(2007) Trusting Children’s Accounts in Research. Journal of Early Childhood Research 5(1): 47–63.

20.

Drummond

(2012) Assessing Children’s Learning. Routledge Education Classic ed. London: Routledge.

21.

Edwards

(2013) Digital play in the early years: a contextual response to the problem of integrating digital technologies and play-based learning in the early childhood curriculum. European Early Childhood Education Research Journal 21(2): 199–212.

22.

Fleer

(2002) Sociocultural assessment in early years education: myth or reality. International Journal of Early Years Education 10(2): 105–120.

23.

Fleer

Richardson

(2004) Observing and Planning in Early Childhood Settings: Using a Sociocultural Approach. Canberra, ACT, Australia: Early Childhood Australia.

24.

Goldstein

(2011) Technology and play. In: Pellegrini

(ed.) The Oxford Handbook of The Development of Play. New York: Oxford University Press, pp. 322–340.

25.

Hatch

Grieshaber

(2002) Child observation and accountability in early childhood education: perspectives from Australia and the United States. Early Childhood Education Journal 29(4): 227–231.

26.

Healy

(1998) Failure to Connect: How Computers Affect Our Children’s Minds for Better or Worse. New York: Simon & Schuster.

27.

Hutt

(1966) Exploration and play in children. Paper presented at the Symposia of the Zoological Society of London, London.

28.

Hutt

(1971) Exploration and play in children. In: Herron

Sutton-Smith

(eds) Child’s Play. New York: John Wiley, pp. 61–81.

29.

Hutt

Tyler

Hutt

. (1989) Play, Exploration and Learning: A Natural History of the Preschool. London: Routledge.

30.

Langford

(2011) Critiquing child-centred pedagogy to bring children and early childhood educators into the centre of a democratic pedagogy. Contemporary Issues in Early Childhood 11: 113–127.

31.

LeCompte

(2012) Analysis and interpretation of ethnographic data: a mixed method approach. Available at: http://lib.myilibrary.com/Open.aspx?id=390687

32.

Lindhal

Folkesson

(2012) ICT in preschool: friend or foe? The significance of norms in a changing practice. International Journal of Early Years Education 20(4): 422–436.

33.

McLachlan

Edwards

Margrain

. (2013) Children’s Learning and Development: Contemporary Assessment in the Early Years. Melbourne, VIC, Australia: Palgrave McMillan.

34.

McLachlan

Fleer

Edwards

(2010) Early Childhood Curriculum. Planning, Assessment and Implementation. Port Melbourne, VIC, Australia: Cambridge University Press.

35.

Marsh

(2010) Young children’s play in online virtual worlds. Journal of Early Childhood Research 8(1): 23–39.

36.

Marsh

Brooks

Hughes

. (2005) Digital Beginnings: Young Children’s Use of Media, Technologies and Popular Culture. Sheffield: The University of Sheffield

37.

Marshall

Rossman

(2011) Designing Qualitative Research. 5th ed. London: SAGE.

38.

Merriam

(2002) Introduction to qualitative research. In: Merriam

(ed.) Qualitative Research in Practice: Examples for Discussion and Analysis. San Francisco, CA: Jossey-Bass, pp. 1–17.

39.

National Association for the Education of Young Children (NAEYC) and Fred Rogers Centre for Early Learning and Children’s Media (2012) Technology and interactive media as tools in early childhood programs serving children from birth through age 8 (Joint Position Statement). Available at: http://www.naeyc.org/files/naeyc/file/positions/PS_technology_WEB2.pdf

40.

Nuttall

Edwards

Lee

. (2013) Kindergarten teachers’ interpretations of young children’s play in digital-consumerist contexts. Journal of Cultural-Historical Psychology 2013(2): 54–62.

41.

Parette

Quesenberry

Blum

(2010) Missing the boat with technology usage in early childhood settings: a 21st century view of developmentally appropriate practice. Early Childhood Education Journal 37: 335–343.

42.

Ruckenstein

(2010) Toying with the world: children, virtual pets and the value of mobility. Childhood 17(4): 500–513.

43.

Siraj-Blatchford

(2003) More than Computers: Information and Communication Technology in the Early Years. Berkshire: Open University Press.

44.

Soto

Swadener

(2002) Toward liberatory early childhood theory, research and praxis: decolonizing a field. Contemporary Issues in Early Childhood 3(1): 38–66.

45.

Stephen

Plowman

(2014) Digital play. In: Brooker

Blaise

Edwards

(eds) SAGE International Handbook of Play and Learning in Early Childhood. London: SAGE, pp. 330–342.

46.

Verenikina

Kervin

(2011) iPads, digital play and preschoolers. He Kupu 2(5): 4–19. Available at: http://www.hekupu.ac.nz/index.php?type=ejournals

47.

Vygotsky

(1997) Research method. In: Rieber

(ed.) The Collected Works of L.S. Vygotsky, vol. 4. New York: Plenum Press, pp. 27–65.

48.

Wood

(2013) Play, Learning and the Early Childhood Curriculum. 3rd ed. Los Angeles, CA: SAGE.

49.

Wortham

(1998) Assessment in Early Childhood Education. 6th ed. Upper Saddle River, NJ: Pearson.

50.

Yelland

(2011) Reconceptualising play and learning in the lives of young children. Australasian Journal of Early Childhood 36(2): 4–12.

51.

Zevenbergen

(2007) Digital natives come to preschool: implications for early childhood practice. Contemporary Issues in Early Childhood 8(1): 19–29.