Abstract
This article presents findings from a 4-month qualitative intrinsic case study that examined 25 preschool children’s early multiliteracy experiences and technology uses within the context of their homes and classroom. First, to find out about the different forms of technology and literacy practices the children participated in within their homes and classroom, we surveyed 13 parents and the two classroom teachers. Next, we conducted regular in-class observations, interviewed seven children about their digital experiences, and analyzed digital artifacts created on the iPads. Vygotsky’s sociocultural theory of learning grounded our interpretation of the classroom events and artifacts regarding multiliteracy practices. We gave special attention to the role of adult and peer scaffolding. This article briefly outlines the process of teacher scaffolding and discusses in detail the instances of peer scaffolding that emerged. Of importance were two video series that demonstrated a more capable peer using various strategies and approaches to scaffold her peers in creating digital literacy texts. Based on the data, we argue that more capable peers can be important sources for scaffolding young children’s multiliteracy experiences in preschool classroom contexts. The findings from this study offer teachers and educational researchers insights into how young children may be engaged in and scaffolded by both teachers and peers in their multiliteracy practices prior to formal schooling.
Introduction
Today, many young children possess skills to navigate various forms of technology as it has become embedded in the home and community environments (Davidson, 2009; Marsh, 2011). They are found to be extremely capable and comfortable communicating and making meaning with digital technology (Yelland et al., 2008). These digital practices have also changed the nature of early literacy learning and practices (Burnett, 2009; O’Mara and Laidlaw, 2011). Contemporary literacy or “multiliteracy” is now defined as reading, writing, creating, deconstructing, and understanding diverse texts from sources of print media and digital texts (Pahl and Rowsell, 2012; Yelland et al., 2008). Although technology has shifted concepts of literacy, the need to use and produce multimodal and digital texts is still largely unrecognized in early childhood literacy curricula (Carrington, 2008; Levy, 2009; Marsh, 2010, 2011; Merchant, 2005; O’Hara, 2011). Many early childhood educators struggle to understand these digital modes of literacy and provide limited opportunities, time, and space to develop and extend such experiences (Jones and Beecher, 2000). Early literacy instruction remains focused on print-based skills of reading and writing (Burnett, 2009; Davidson, 2009; Marsh et al., 2005). This approach is inadequate and insufficient for young children in the 21st century (Lankshear and Knobel, 2006; Marsh, 2010; Organization for Economic Co-operation and Development, 2010) as they require skills to create, deconstruct, and understand “diverse textual products of the new times” (Rowan and Honan, 2005: 198). If early years settings are to effectively build upon children’s home experiences with technology (Beecher, 2010) and incorporate multiliteracy practices, then a better understanding of both the home and classroom approaches to developing multiliteracies supported by technology is needed (Alberta Education, 2013). The 4-month qualitative intrinsic case study reported here was guided by the following research questions: How are preschool children’s home multiliteracy practices related to their classroom multiliteracy practices? What is children’s use of iPads in the inquiry projects they undertake in preschool? However, after the lead teacher introduced iPads to the children as a tool for creating multiliteracy texts within inquiry projects on puppets and dinosaurs, the following new research questions emerged: What are the specific techniques and approaches used by the teachers in scaffolding children’s meaningful use of iPads in the creation of multiliteracy texts within their zone of proximal development? What is the role of more capable peers in supporting children’s use of iPads in creating these texts?
Theoretical grounding: zone of proximal development and scaffolding
The case study reported here is grounded in Vygotsky’s (1978) sociocultural theory of learning, where knowledge is perceived as being actively constructed by learners through their social interactions with others, objects, and the environment through meaningful activities. For the preschool children who participated in the study, learning took place through interactions with others, with digital devices (in particular an iPad), and the various activities they participated in, both at home and at school. Vygotsky’s concept of ZPD emphasizes the role of “experts” using interpersonal interactions to guide a learner to achieve more than they could alone and is of importance in the study. ZPD reveals, “(a) skills on the edge of emergence, and (b) the limits of the child’s development at this specific time” (Bodrova and Leong, 2007: 43). Wood et al. (1976) propose that an expert provides support and assistance within the ZPD to enable the novice/learner to perform or solve a problem at a higher level. “As the learner takes more responsibility for the performance of the task, less assistance is provided” (Bodrova and Leong, 2007: 212). Assistance gradually decreases as the learner becomes more skilled in performing the task and is eventually able to perform it independently on his or her own. This assistance is best known in instructional applications as scaffolding (Wood et al., 1976). In this case study, the emerging tasks focused on using the iPad for taking photographs, recording videos, and creating digital literacy texts. For these tasks, scaffolding was provided by the experts—the teachers and more capable peers.
Examples of scaffolding techniques and approaches in the literature
Various scaffolding techniques and approaches in education have been used for decades (e.g. Bruner, 1986; Hogan and Pressley, 1997; Roehler and Cantlon, 1997; Wood et al., 1976). Wood et al. (1976) originally described scaffolding as the process of the adult or expert in tutoring or assisting the developing child in problem solving tasks. Strategies can include directing attention, modeling, or reducing/simplifying the number of steps. Other scholars have added to the definition of scaffolding and its application in education. Roehler and Cantlon (1997) identify strategies of scaffolding as offering explanations, inviting student participation, verifying and clarifying student understandings, modeling desired behaviors, and inviting students to contribute clues. Berk and Winsler (1995) characterize effective scaffolding as including joint problem solving, intersubjectivity (shared understanding), and warmth and responsiveness. Wood and Attfield (2005) identify scaffolding techniques teachers can draw on as identifying possible solutions, intervening, demonstrating, or modeling, questioning to check for understanding, or even using motivational strategies. This is similar to strategies identified by De Vries (2005) and Smith (2008): questioning, prompting, praising and confirming, providing feedback, expanding, repeating back, joint problem solving, physical gesture, demonstration, and modeling.
While scaffolding is typically understood to occur during teacher–child/student interactions, effective scaffolding can also occur through peer interactions. One common approach is for the peer to act as the knowledgeable other and provide peer tutoring by giving hints and clues, or rephrasing questions (Bodrova and Leong, 2007). Peer tutoring has been found to be successful in a variety of learning environments with older students (e.g. Donato, 1994; Storch, 2007; Winstone and Millward, 2012) and often takes place when learners work in smaller groups or pairs (Aschermann, 2001; Storch, 2007). Similarly, Galeano (2011) observed that scaffolded play sessions with bilingual peers in Spanish were successful in increasing a young Spanish bilingual girl’s oral language skills over 5 weeks. These peers acted as tutors by cuing her participation, providing direct translations, asking leading questions, explicitly correcting mistakes, and collaboratively constructing Spanish utterances.
Another approach is for peers to cooperate or collaborate to successfully complete a task. In her doctoral research on musical play with preschool children, Smith (2008) found that scaffolding from more capable peers through shared activities, cooperation, and joint problem solving was significant for children’s growth of musical understanding. Aschermann’s (2001) study on peer teaching and collaborative interactions among small groups of preschool children found peer scaffolding took place in many free-play activities—art, block building, and pretend play. In her analysis, she found that the more capable peer would successfully modify a task, offer assistance to help the peer complete the task, or modify their behavior for others to imitate. Dixon-Krauss (1996) also noted that collaborative literature groups in a Grade 1 classroom resulted in more social talk, complex vocabulary, creative thinking, and critical thought. These types of shared activities tend “to motivate children, encourages them to coordinate roles, and provides the missing components in an individual child’s skills” (Bodrova and Leong, 2007: 118).
There are a few studies specifically focused on peer scaffolding in the context of young children’s use of digital technology in preschool settings. Freeman and Somerindyke (2001) and Lee (2009) observed instances of peer scaffolding during the use of specific computer programs in preschools. Scaffolding or assistance from more capable peers involved modeling and giving directions for mouse and keyboard manipulation, and following the game. Aschermann (2001) noted that peer scaffolding also occurred at the computer; however, she did not focus on these instances in her analysis. Research on teacher and peer scaffolding and the specific strategies and techniques utilized within the context of using digital technology—like an iPad—to support multiliteracy development with young children is scarce. The case study presented here contributes to this much-needed area of research.
Methodology
We used a qualitative intrinsic case study (Merriam, 1998, 2009; Stake, 2000) as our methodology to examine the relationship between preschool children’s multiliteracy practices at home and in classroom environments. We considered the 4-month study an intrinsic case because “in all its particularity and ordinariness, this case is of interest” (Stake, 2000: 437, italics in original). It is considered ordinary and of interest because the use of iPads in early childhood classrooms in North America is increasingly common. However, our case is also particular. It was conducted in a half-day preschool program at a laboratory school affiliated with a research-intensive university in western Canada; it focused on two teachers who co-taught as they introduced a particular digital technology device (i.e. iPads) to both the morning and afternoon classes to enrich the children’s multiliteracy practices in the context of their whole class inquiry projects (i.e. puppets and dinosaurs). By focusing on the use of iPads as part of multiliteracy practices, we could “see the case as a thing, a single entity, a unit around which there are boundaries” (Merriam, 1998: 27). As a “bounded entity,” we could “fence in” the case (Merriam, 2009) and examine the particular scaffolding techniques and approaches the teachers, and subsequently more capable peers, were using to support the children in using an iPad to create multiliteracy texts in class.
Participants and ethical considerations
The case study examined preschool children’s multiliteracy practices at home and school and included three participant groups from the laboratory school: the preschool children attending the morning and the afternoon classes, their teachers, and their parents. Any research involving young children requires thoughtful considerations regarding informed consent for participation, understanding the research process, and building trust and rapport (Smith, 2008). The research plan and supporting documents (i.e. consent forms, interview questions, and questionnaires) were first reviewed and approved by the university’s Research Ethics Board. After approval, as researchers we invited the two teachers to participate and met to discuss the proposed study and consent. Before information letters and consent forms for families were sent home, the teachers included a small write-up in their monthly newsletter describing the project’s focus on preschool children’s multiliteracy practices at home and school. To facilitate the children’s understanding of the research process, the teachers also discussed the upcoming project with them at circle time. After these introductions, information letters, consent forms and permission forms were sent home with every child. Families were informed of the types of data collected (i.e. audio and video recorded observations of and conversations in the classroom, parent and teacher questionnaires on technology, and focus group conversations with the teachers), the number of planned classroom visits, the data sources considered, as well as specific information regarding the storage of data and the dissemination of results in professional or academic conference presentations or publications. Special attention was given to the right to refuse to participate or withdraw from the study until data analysis begins and reassurance was given that children’s learning in the classroom would not be affected if parents chose to exercise these rights. At home, the parents and the child determined the extent of participation (i.e. number of observation sessions and participation in interviews). Parents gave written consent indicating children’s verbal assent to participate. There were 25 out of 28 children who participated in the study. Prior to classroom observations, 13 parents and the two teachers completed the multiliteracy practices questionnaires. Seven children also participated in one-on-one semi-structured interviews with one member of the research team. After a few weeks, those children who were comfortable talking with the researchers were approached for the interviews during their play time. Each interview started by asking the child whether he or she would like to answer some questions and ended when the child decided he or she was finished answering questions or had moved onto other activities.
Data collection
Questionnaire data were gathered at the beginning of the study from the parents and teachers on their perceptions of children’s abilities and skills that they already possessed in using technology. The summary of the findings from both questionnaires were shared with the teachers before they formally introduced the two iPads, provided by the researchers, into the classroom. Knowing the scope of children’s home experiences with technology was the basis for teachers’ initial understanding of children’s independent level of use of digital technology in general, and for making decisions regarding scaffolding the use of iPads as a tool within their whole class inquiry projects (i.e. puppets and dinosaurs) in particular. Classroom data were formally collected over 10 half-day classes—5 half-day observations for each preschool class—in the 4 months of the study. On the observation days, the researchers gathered detailed observations and field notes and assumed the role of participant observers. We joined in with games and play activities when invited, but tried not interfere or disrupt the activities of the classroom. One-on-one interview data were gathered from seven children and focused on these children’s understanding of the types of technology they had access to and their experiences using it in their homes. After the formal introduction of the iPads as a multiliteracy tool, they were placed on low tables, allowing easy access throughout the day. Because they were readily available to the children, photographs and videos of events that were naturally occurring throughout their inquiry projects were easily captured, even on days when the research team was not present (Jamison and Kirova, 2016). The two teachers also recorded videos and made anecdotal notes on an ongoing basis regarding the multiliteracy events and practices. We regularly reviewed the photographs and videos and the corresponding notes. We transcribed the digital recordings for on-going analysis and interpretation as the study progressed. At the end of data collection, the teachers also participated in a focus group discussion on the preliminary findings and to plan the next steps in scaffolding the children’s multiliteracy development.
Data analysis
The data collected were analyzed in an ongoing, recursive, and nonlinear process. Close reading of the questionnaires, transcripts, and field notes, and reviewing digital artifacts helped distinguish strong, significant big ideas from less significant ones (Vaughn et al., 1996). Data were reviewed multiple times to identify preliminary themes or emerging patterns (i.e. interim analysis), categorize the emerged patterns, and note relationships among them (Jamison and Kirova, 2016). For the purposes of this article, we will highlight the scaffolding strategies and techniques that were explicitly used by the teachers and those that emerged with the children in the creation of multiliteracy texts with iPads (for a more detailed account of teacher scaffolding, see Jamison and Kirova, 2016).
Findings
Teacher scaffolding techniques and approaches
Although many children had rich home experiences with digital technology—as indicated in the parent surveys—they had no independent access to the iPads in the classroom. At the beginning of this multiliteracy practices study, the lead teacher brought out the iPads at circle time and introduced to the children the new use of the iPads: to record their puppet shows and create puppet information videos as part of their inquiry. She used several scaffolding techniques and approaches to determine the children’s initial understandings and independent skills for using an iPad. First, she presented the iPads as a “problem” for the children to help solve (de Vries, 2005; Smith, 2008). The children contributed clues when she asked how they could turn them on. The children knew where the start button was, so the lead teacher presented a more complex problem and asked what button she should press if she wanted to take a picture. Children in both classes knew where to find the camera icon, how to take a picture, and where to view the photographs. The next focused problem was finding out children’s knowledge of the recording function: how to turn from a picture to a video. A few children knew, however, most of them did not know how to do that. The teacher offered an “external mediator” (Bodrova and Leong, 2007): a red circle needed to appear on the iPad that “has to look just like the red carpet [pointing to the red carpet they were sitting on for circle time]” (Field Notes, November, 2014) (p. 55). The teacher then modeled for the students how to set up the iPad and to flip the camera image for recording. She also introduced a new literacy concept to the children: creating a digital information video about a sock puppet.
A week after introducing how to record videos, the researchers and teachers observed that many children still required help setting up the video function. They were not paying attention if the videos were initially recording or if they were taking photographs instead of videos. However, once the video was started by the teacher, the children could independently stop the recordings and find their videos to watch. Over the next 3 months, the teachers worked with the children and provided ongoing demonstrations and modeling, and used praising, confirming, and feedback (De Vries, 2005; Smith, 2008) so they could master the task of independently recording informational videos about their puppets. The teachers also intentionally used descriptive language as an external mediator during these sessions to make the process of recording videos explicit. To further support the children’s multiliteracy practices, the teachers prompted the children by reminding them that they could use the iPads as a documentation tool to record their puppet shows. They asked the children to think in advance about the kinds of things they would talk about in their videos. After a child or group of children made a video, one of the teachers made a point of watching the video and checking for understanding by questioning the children about how and what they had recorded. These teacher scaffolding strategies led to greater recognition among the children that the iPads could be used for recording and documenting their inquiry and for storytelling.
During the last month of the study, more instances of children’s regular and independent use of the iPads were recorded. The teachers were not being called to problem solve how to record a video anymore. The children were observed taking their own photographs as well as changing the iPad from a photo to a video function, and recording and reviewing videos for their new dinosaur inquiry. The teachers continued to scaffold the children’s multiliteracy practices by demonstrating more advanced storytelling and adding dialogue or narration of events as part of the video. They also demonstrated and modeled how to hold the dinosaur toy, puppet, or information card so it could be seen in the video, and how to narrate the video or use different voices for characters.
Peer scaffolding techniques and approaches
In the last month of the study, two video series were observed that demonstrated how a more capable peer was using scaffolding strategies of modeling, cooperation and collaboration, physical gesturing, and questioning to support her peers in creating multiliteracy texts about dinosaurs.
Amie, 1 Jacob, and Calvin’s video series
This first video series involved two boys, Jacob and Calvin, and a girl, Amie, recording 12 successive videos ranging from 1 to 39 seconds in length. They start with Jacob standing silently and holding a dinosaur card up to the iPad. He independently recorded five of these videos. His actions were repetitious and consisted of turning on the recording and holding a dinosaur card to the screen and turning it off. Acting as a more capable peer, Amie stepped in on the sixth video and modeled the addition of dialogue and description to what Jacob was doing. Following is a transcript of the sequence of interactions in the sixth video between Amie and Jacob:
Starting the recording and moving behind Jacob
Holding a dinosaur card to the screen
“This is, this is Jacob and he found a picture of a Tyrannosaurus”
Moving his hand to check the recording button
“This is cool so please put it on TV” (moving Jacob’s hand away and pointing to Jacob’s dinosaur card)
Turning to look at Amie and then turning back to the screen while Amie shuts the recording off
In her interaction with Jacob, Amie demonstrated that she was aware of what he could do on his own from the first five videos (i.e. turning on the recording and holding a dinosaur card to the screen and turning it off), and that these actions would not produce the type of informational videos the teachers had modeled. As demonstrated in the recorded sequence of interactions, in the sixth video, Amie engaged in the following scaffolding techniques in her attempts to assist him in completing an information video about the dinosaur he was interested in by
Starting the recording and positioning herself close to Jacob;
Re-positioning Jacob’s hand so it was not in front of the camera;
Pointing to Jacob’s dinosaur card so it was visible;
Modeling how to narrate;
Modeling how to expand the storyline.
The seventh, eighth, and ninth videos were recorded by Jacob and also involved Calvin, who had been silently observing the interactions between Amie and Jacob during the previous six dinosaur card videos. Jacob started recording Calvin, who copied Jacob and stood silently holding the cards in front of the iPad for the viewer in these three videos. Amie was watching the recording of the seventh video with the clear purpose of checking its quality. Amie then rejoined the last three videos (#10, 11, and 12) and provided Calvin with similar supports she used with Jacob. In the 11th video, another child (Tyler) who wanted a turn to record a video briefly joined the three of them. Following is a transcript of the sequence of interactions between Amie, Calvin, Jacob, and Tyler in the 10th video:
“He found something discoverable” (starting the recording and moving beside Calvin)
Holding a dinosaur card to the screen
“This is a Tyrannosaurus … he found it by spike … and this is the zoo- osaurus” (bringing her own card into the screen)
Holding a dinosaur card to the screen
“This is a Tyrannosaurus … he found it by spike … and this is the zoo- osaurus”
Starting to turn the recording off
Moving towards Jacob hand and brushing it away
Putting her card down
“Okay sorry about that … he’s just a little mad” (Checking that the video is still recording)
Watching the screen and then holding his card up
“Don’t get rid of us … sorry” (Turning off the recording)
Eleventh video:
“Something that was discoverable … I really want to …”
“No not even you”
“And … and … and … Calvin found something discoverable, it was Tyrannosaurus” (staying in the background and talking to the screen)
Putting the dinosaur card back up to the screen
“This is all of them”
“But even I didn’t have a turn”
“But she, she found a crocodile …”
Holding the card up to the screen and then turning to Tyler and then turning back to the screen
Turning to Tyler and then turning back to the screen
“This is awesome so … say hello to the new original TV online … say hello and get this TV on … get this TV on and show this video to everyone in town … and tell them that’s real …”
Moving hand close by the recording button and then moving away and talking to the screen
Watching the screen
Twelfth video:
“Do you want to see it?” (Turning on the recording)
“No”
In this sequence, Amie’s exchanges with Calvin demonstrated that she was aware that he could do similar yet different aspects of the tasks involved in the production of the multiliteracy text (i.e. the video). Therefore, she used similar scaffolding techniques in her interactions with Calvin to the techniques she used with Jacob but she also modified them to help Calvin reach his goal. These included the following:
Checking whether the video function is still on;
Modeling narrating the video behind the scene;
Modeling being in and out of the scope of the video camera;
Modeling how to expand the storyline by introducing new materials;
Modeling how to expand the storyline by introducing a new participant in the video series/show;
Checking with Calvin whether he wanted to review the video they had just recorded.
Amie and Emily’s video series
The second video series involved Amie and another girl, Emily, recording two videos. In this series, Emily held a book up and let Amie direct and narrate the activity. Following is a transcript of the sequence of interactions:
“Okay soooo this is Emily’s thing”
Holding up the dinosaur picture book to the screen
“Soooo this Emily’s, she discovered something about dinosaurs”
Starting the recording, moving the book back into the screen
Holding up the dinosaur picture book to the screen
“She discovered something about dinosaurs and she wants to record it … on an iPad
Comes in behind Emily to narrate
Nodding her head yes
“Hi it’s Amie”
Looks into the screen while she says hi and then she turns the video off
Watching Amie turn off the iPad recording
In her interactions with Emily, Amie also used similar scaffolding techniques:
Modeling narrating the video behind the scene;
Modeling being in and out of the scope of the video camera;
Re-positioning Emily’s book so it is in view.
Commentary and discussion
In each of these videos series, Amie was acting as a more capable peer through cooperation, collaboration, and partially assisting her peers’ performances within their zones of proximal development to create multiliteracy texts they desired. In reviewing Amie’s exchanges with her peers, it could appear that she was “bossing them around” instead of “scaffolding” their learning. However, what makes Amie’s interactions scaffolding is the fact that she was very aware what the level of her peers’ independent performance of the task was and had a very clear picture in her mind what their level of performance should be to achieve the desire outcome: the video. She also demonstrated high competence in the task of recording an informational video, including an understanding of its purpose and audience. She followed up with her teachers’ suggestion that the videos would be watched again online as evidenced by her comments and her prompting for Tyler who was the “audience” to “say hello to the new original TV online, “say hello and get this TV on,” and “get this video on and take this video and show it to everyone in town” (video #11). As Fleer (2017) points out, digital recording of play introduces an additional layer of play complexity as “what is captured on the digital recording can act as a digital placeholder of the role play” (p. 10). In this sense, therefore, iPads can act as a “cultural device that changes the meaning of play and serve as a virtual pivot to support the new play practice” (Fleer, 2017: 10).
During these events, Amie was using scaffolding approaches she had seen modeled by her teachers. She was asking prompting questions to Calvin like “do you want to see it?” (video #12) similar to what was modeled during the teachers’ reviewing of the children’s videos. The physical redirections Amie gave (i.e. re-positioning and pointing to the cards) were like what she had seen modeled by her teachers. She also mirrored her teachers’ example by providing the audience with a narration of what the videos were about and expanding the storyline in each consequent video episode. While she clearly imitated her teachers in following the general sequence of steps in the production and presentation of the videos, she also used different approaches with the peers with whom she was working to guide them within their individual ZPD. For example, she worked collaboratively with her peers as the more knowledgeable other to complete a task. She coordinated the children’s roles in the video and provided the missing storytelling components (Bodrova and Leong, 2007) to create a “finished” multiliteracy text. Her scaffolding techniques helped a few of her peers learn the skills required to produce these types of online information videos. A few weeks after this playful learning episode with Amie, one teacher observed Jacob independently use the iPad to record an answer to his dinosaur inquiry question that would be shared with the class. He created his own narrative and together with a friend they acted out the answers while another child video recorded their performance.
It is important to note that all these interactions might have not been possible if Amie did not step in the role of a “producer” of a TV show in the sixth video. By saying “this is cool so please put it on TV,” she created an imaginary situation in which all participants were involved in a production of a TV show. This allowed her as well as all other participants to perform “a head over” than themselves as Vygotsky (1978: 102) suggested. Amie’s actions also demonstrated that the ZPD is a “construction zone” (Newman et al., 1989) in which children who only have a partial understanding of the goal or the means to achieve the goal can practice under the guidance of a more capable peer, and appropriate various concepts—like the creation of digital informational videos. Through her own experiences and understandings, Amie could successfully guide her peers who appeared to be at a lower than her own stages of ability to use the iPad independently as a tool for creating multiliteracy texts. Assisted performance within the higher level of the ZPD is important as it provided practice of the new skills to reach an independent level of performance. This was observed when Jacob independently created his own video narrative about dinosaurs. In this classroom, Amie became an important source for supporting the work of her teachers in scaffolding some of the children’s digital technology skills and multiliteracy practices.
Conclusion and implications for practice
The classroom-based case study briefly described here offers teachers and educational researchers important insights into how young children may be engaged in scaffolding their peers’ digital technology skills and multiliteracy practices prior to formal schooling. The study’s findings stress the importance of first establishing the level of skills and knowledge the children already have so that the teachers can explicitly focus on scaffolding individual children to their higher level of independent performance. The children in this case study already had rich digital experiences at home, so the teachers could focus on assisting them with using an iPad to create multiliteracy texts. Through targeted verbalization, questioning, joint problem solving, demonstration, and modeling, the teachers built on these existing technological skills and provided directed and explicit support to achieve higher independent levels of performance within their ZPD. Using several scaffolding techniques that fall into the category of assisted performance under the Vygotskian framework, the teachers were focused on “tomorrow’s development” of their students (Vygotsky, 1998: 202). Knowing what scaffolding techniques are suitable for the tasks at hand as well as knowing each child’s level of independent performance of these tasks was the key to providing support to learning in children’s everyday life which in the 21st century includes the use of digital technology.
Because of the teachers’ one-on-one scaffolding with video recording, ongoing modeling, and discussions about how to record a video, instances of peer scaffolding were also able to emerge. One child, Amie, could apply her teacher’s scaffolding approaches regarding the elements of the individual tasks they stressed and act as a more capable peer. She provided peer tutoring and modeling, cooperation, collaboration, questioning, physical gestures, and prompting to her peers as they co-created multiliteracy texts using the classroom iPads. She was successful in doing that by creating an imaginary situation in which all involved were working toward a production of a TV show. “Play creates a zone of proximal development” (Vygotsky, 1978: 102) and in this case allowed for scaffolding choices specific to each learner’s level of ZPD. The social aspect of the production of the dinosaur’s videos as a TV series demonstrated how children could support each other’s skills development and knowledge of technology and its meaningful use for learning. The availability of the new technology (i.e. iPads) and the intersections with it daily, both independently and with teachers and other children, provided opportunities for learning new ways of using digital technology not known or experienced by the children in their homes. Through the support of both their teachers and peers, these preschool children could use their emerging literacy skills to make sense of and produce their own texts (Yelland et al., 2008). When young children are given daily opportunities to use, access technology, create information, and make meaning in a sociocultural relevant context (Freebody and Luke, 1990), like in this study, they are well on their way to becoming literate participants in the 21st century.
Footnotes
Acknowledgements
The authors wish to express their gratitude to the classroom teachers, the parents, and the children who participated in the study.
Declaration of conflicting interests
The author(s) declared no potential conflicts of interest with respect to the research, authorship and/or publication of this article.
Funding
The authors disclosed receipt of the following financial support for the research, authorship, and/or publication of this article: The authors received funding from the International Association of Laboratory Schools to purchase two iPads used in the study.