“It’s Everyone’s iPad”: Tablet use in a play-based preschool classroom

Abstract

Although existing literature has established that technologies are utilized in play and can be supportive of learning, utilization of technologies in play-based classrooms is not commonplace. This study is an holistic examination of a successful 2-year process of integrating an iPad into a play-based preschool setting. Each year the use of the iPad increased, demonstrating its applicability in a play-based environment. This study adds to the existing research base by examining the confluence of actors in a play-based setting. As the iPad became a part of the classroom, new practices began to emerge as the children, teachers, and families began using it for their own purposes.

Keywords

digital literacy preschool play-based learning teacher action research technology

Mobile technology has become a part of the daily life of young children in industrialized nations across the globe. A survey of families in the United States found that 98% of children under age 8 have a smartphone in their home. Further, 78% of families also have a tablet in the home, and 42% of families report that they have a tablet that belongs to the child. In addition, the amount of time children spent with a mobile device has increased dramatically from an average reported 5 minutes a day in 2011 to 48 minutes a day in 2017 (Rideout, 2017). In Australia, 67% of primary aged children and 36% of preschool aged children have their own mobile device, with average weekly screen time reported as 14.2 hours for those younger than 2 years and 25.9 hours for those 2-–5 years (Rhodes, 2017). French parents reported that by 2 years of age, 90% of children were using a mobile touch-screen device (Cristia and Siedl, 2015). Emergent digital literacy is scaffolded by early home experiences; as young children watch and participate in communicating and information seeking via devices in daily life, it becomes a part of their literate lives (Harrison and McTavish, 2018; Marsh et al., 2017).

As the use of mobile technology in our daily lives has risen, so have concerns about what it is replacing. Early childhood teachers worry about the inclusion of technology to the exclusion of play. Although existing literature has established digital technologies as supportive of developing literacies (Fantozzi et al., 2018a; Kucirkova et al., 2019; Lynch and Redpath, 2014; Petersen, 2015) and utilized in play (Edwards et al., 2017; Fantozzi et al., 2018b; Lawrence, 2018), the inclusion of technology in play-based settings is not commonplace. This may be because, until recently (Jack and Higgins, 2019), many of these teachers have relegated technology to free play rather than the teacher child interaction seen in play-based instruction (Mertala, 2017). This study is holistic examination of a successful 2-year process of integrating an iPad into a play-based classroom. In the following section, I review the play-based approach to examine whether its underpinnings are antithetical to integration of technology, as well as examine existing research on integration of technology into early childhood settings.

Play-based approach

Rooted in the child centered pedagogy of the early 20th century and, significantly, by Vygotskian understandings of play as medium for children to construct understanding, play-based education has a been a significant part of early childhood education (Van Oers and Duijkers, 2013). Play has been recognized as a critical part of developing foundational skills such as executive functioning, social behaviors, and motor control (Copple and Bredekamp, 2009). Although acknowledged as important in the early childhood community writ large, there is a subset of preschool classrooms that follow a curriculum with a particular focus on play. “The play-based curriculum is not a prescriptive syllabus to be followed by the teacher on a day-to-day basis. Rather, the teacher constructs the curriculum in close interaction with the children in the classroom” (Van Oers and Duijkers, 2013: 517).

Even though it is labeled critical to child development, play is not always easy to define. In general, in a play-based classroom, constructive and creative play is valued over competitive play as it gives opportunities for role-play and for teacher scaffolding of ideas (Van Oers and Duijkers, 2013). Although there is an emerging research base on digital play (see Edwards et al., 2017; Lawrence, 2018), digital play as a part of play-based learning is not commonplace. This may be because, although researchers note imaginative and collaborative prosocial behaviors with digital play in creative apps, they also observe competitive and agitated behaviors with other apps (Lawrence, 2018). This construction of technology as realm of competitive play puts it at odds with the play-based classroom, even as technology is a part of child interest and everyday life that a play-based model would normally capitalize on.

Technology in early childhood education

Early childhood education settings have not been quick to capitalize on the increase of technology in daily life. The presence of technology does not guarantee effective use, or use at all (Blackwell et al., 2016; Jack and Higgins, 2019). Surveys of early childhood teachers have noted that, while access to technology is a factor in effective technology use, support (such as professional development) and teacher attitudes toward technology are more likely to lead to effective use (Nikolopoulou and Gialamas, 2015). Indeed Lu et al. (2017) suggest that attitudes toward technology may be a particular challenge in early childhood education because teachers may be concerned that technology does not align with Developmentally Appropriate Practice (Copple & Brendakamp, 2009), which is an approach that values play and is endorsed by the National Association for the Education of Young Children and popular with early childhood educators in the US. Similarly, Mertala (2017) found that, although teachers valued preschool as a place for social-emotional development and child centered learning, they positioned technology in the classroom as a tool for gamified skill practice, a reward, or as support for teacher directed learning. Furthermore, Edwards et al. (2017) suggest that early childhood teachers may not have an understanding of digital play, and that even when children use imaginative play while referencing technologies, they lamented that this play was not like play in earlier decades.

One area in which teachers may need support is the choice of applications to use in the classroom. Choosing an educational app can be overwhelming; the educational label in app stores is ill defined and applied broadly. In their examination of apps labeled educational, Sari et al. (2017) found many of the apps labeled appropriate for young children were of poor quality and often mislabeled the age range for which they were appropriate. Lynch and Redpath’s (2014) definition of apps might be useful in choosing apps aligned with a play-based approach. Lynch and Redpath refer to apps in terms of openness and closedness. Closed apps use a behaviorist approach to teaching skills by awarding coins or points for correct answers; a closed app dictates the child’s choices. Open apps allow the child to direct the activity or create a product and tend to have more capabilities to connect to other apps to mix media or to share created works. Open apps serve as tools to support teaching rather than deliver instruction. Researchers find that use of open apps for composing multimodal texts supports literate identities and children’s agency in the classroom (Lynch and Redpath, 2014; Petersen, 2015). Lawrence (2018) found that open apps where more conducive to collaborative play, while children were more likely to be competitive when using closed apps. The use of open apps would seem to be more aligned with a play-based philosophy and, as such, these kinds of apps were utilized in this study of a play-based setting.

Conclusion

Edwards et al. (2017) argue that technologies are an integral part of the lives of children, and thus should be integrated into early childhood classrooms. However, they also assert that technologies and, in particular digital play, are not constructed the same way at home and at school, so we must consider setting and actors as we examine use of technology in early childhood. This study adds to the existing literature on young children’s technology use by taking a longitudinal look at the way an iPad was integrated into a play-based classroom and in particular the way the teachers, children, and families acted upon and with the addition of technology.

Methodology

This exploratory action research project took place over 2 years in a multi-age co-taught cooperative preschool classroom in the northeastern United States. Action research uses systematic, reflexive, and iterative data collection to enact a desired change in a specific community. This process is done in partnership with the participants with a reciprocal negotiation of meaning that necessarily involves the participants perspectives as a critical underpinning of the study (Robertson, 2000). In this case, I worked with two early childhood teachers, Christi and Annneliese. I knew Christi as a member of our local community, and, as fellow educators, we had engaged in a myriad of discussions around early childhood education. As the director of the school as well as a part time head teacher, Christi was interested in the possibility of technology integration into her classroom. After some initial talk, I was invited to visit the classroom to observe the daily classroom experience and meet Anneliese for further discussion about a possible research partnership. We each had noticed the pervasiveness of technology in the children’s daily lives, such as the use of closed apps in other school settings, and the perceived mis-match of technology and creative play. Christi and Anneliese were interested in possibility of using the iPad as a tool for storytelling and agreed to partner on this research project to explore how an iPad might become a part of play-based practices. Our research question was: How can an iPad be integrated into play-based classroom to support emergent literacies? This question arose from our shared interest in the iPad’s capabilities to capture oral language. As the project continued, we also explored broader implications of the iPad in the classroom, including child agency and family involvement.

Both teachers have over 10 years of experience in the classroom and each has a Master’s degree in Early Childhood Education. They view the classroom as a place for play-based learning, influenced by Vygotskian understandings of the importance of play and peer relationships. In addition, they are influenced by Paley’s (2009) research on play-based and story-filled classrooms. In fact, in accordance with Paley (2009), rather than using the term “center time” for the large block of time they devote to play, they call it “work time” because they firmly believe that play is a child’s work. The curriculum of the school is emergent, based on the children’s interests rather than set themes. This reflects an understanding of children influenced by the Reggio Emilia school of thought (see Edwards et al., 1998) as well as an understanding that children and families have important “funds of knowledge” the teachers can tap into to enrich the classroom (Moll et al., 1992). In particular, their cooperative model views families as partners in education. Parents make collaborative decisions with the teachers about curricular choices, such as the choice to include an iPad in the classroom. They are also asked to volunteer for the school in some capacity.

The setting

The teachers co-taught a age class of 3 and 4-year-olds; sharing the teaching responsibilities by splitting the days in a 2/3 day split. Anneliese taught 3 days a week, and Christi taught 2 days because she was the Director of the school. In year one, there was one teacher aide present each day, but because of the class size changes, in year two, there were two aides. In addition, a parent volunteer was present on most days. The school did not require that the children attend a full week of school, so while it did not vary widely, the number of children in the classroom varied from day to day. The project took place over 2 years and the class size changed from year one to year two. The first year the class was small with 9-11 students per day, while the next year the number had doubled to 20–23 students per day. The majority of the children’s first language was English, and there were several emergent bilingual students, including two children who spoke no English before entering school. These children’s home languages included Greek, Gujarati, Macedonian, Russian, and Turkish.

The classroom we worked in was bright and cheerful. Walls were covered with pictures of the children’s families and displays of the children’s work. There were three large tables for communal meals as well as tabletop activities like sorting beads, playing with play dough, puzzles, cooking and art projects. There were also open spaces for block play with ample wooden and hollow blocks, a dramatic play center, a sensory table, art easel and book nook filled with pillows. The children often started their day on the playground as the teachers valued outdoor play and would be outside on most days, including rainy and cold days. They then gathered on the carpet for a welcome and large group time, followed by an extended “work time” in the various centers, clean up, another large group time in which they would often share or reflect on their work and then lunch, some but not all, children stayed for rest and more play in the afternoon. Before “work time” the teachers would tell the children what centers were available and the children were permitted to choose from the centers and change centers as they pleased. If the teachers had a specific project the children were working on (i.e. drawing a self portrait, making a gingerbread man after reading a book) they called small groups of children over to a table during work time. In addition, they often observed and supported the children’s play, asking questions, and joining in on play to extend stories and model vocabulary.

Prior to the study, the classroom had no technology available. The teachers did not believe that skills-based closed apps often associated with educational technology aligned well with a play-based approach and thus put school funds toward other means of multimodal communication (paint, playdough, music, costume and more). Once we had agreed to go forward with the project, we applied for a small grant to purchase one iPad mini for the classroom. In addition, in the first year of the study the school had no Wi-Fi available. The second year, the school decided to get Wi-Fi because work with the iPad had become such a valued part of the curriculum.

Data collection

In year one, I was in the school twice a week in as the project was being established and then once a week in year two. In order to be seen as a classroom teacher rather than one that was exclusively associated with the iPad, I participated in the entire morning arriving before the children and leaving at lunch time. I participated in all activities in the same way the teachers did, joining in play, singing songs, reading books and occasionally leading a small group on a particular project. While on the site, I took field notes by hand, observing and recording use of the iPad by the teacher or students. The children are used to the teachers taking anecdotal notes, so they rarely noticed my writing. I shared a lunch period with the teachers in which we would discuss the project, and they would share notes and observations from that day and the days I was not present. I also participated in monthly staff meetings. I took notes at the meetings, sharing summaries and quotes with participants for member checking. As Robertson (2000) notes in action research, there is a risk that the participants do not feel a part of the research. In the early weeks of the research, Anneliese would often report to me with chagrin that she had not done a project with the iPad. Goodnough (2008) notes that teachers’ preconceived notions of what research entails can cause stress during a project, when “messiness and uncertainty are inherent, often necessary, elements of action research” (p. 452). We had several discussions reiterating that our goal was to find out how and if an iPad could be useful in her classroom so use or nonuse was all just data to be examined. As the weeks progressed and she became more comfortable with me, the project, and the iPad, this discussion was no longer necessary, and she began to assert her own observations about how the children were using the iPad and potential for future use.

The use of the iPad created many artifacts, including whole class books, individual student projects, and photos of daily life in the classroom. Most of this was collected through the digital portfolio app called Seesaw. This app allows for the creation of password protected digital portfolios for each student which can be accessed by parents and by teachers. The teachers allowed me teacher access, so I was able to upload to and access all student portfolios; I also could see work samples on days I was not present. Seesaw contained most of the iPad created material, but did not contain material that was duplicate, or accidental (i.e. a child talking a picture with a finger over the lens, a video that was stopped accidently and restarted). In the case of the non-share, the work sample is noted in the field notes. Finally, Seesaw allows parents to ‘like’ or comment on apps, those interactions also informed classroom practice and became data in the study.

Data analysis

Action research is an iterative process with analysis as a part of the research cycle. We met regularly to discuss the project including any sharing anecdotes of child use (initiation of storytelling, wanting to tag a friend), evaluating use in the classroom (How did the children participate in given project? How is/isn’t the iPad enhancing a project?) and general troubleshooting (how an app worked for a project, storage issues etc.). After year one, we examined the data to reflect on integration. Successful integration was determined by the teachers’ philosophies of education. A key notion in their classroom was that children should have agency in the classroom, meaning that children be active participants in the classroom who not only join in learning, but have the opportunity to direct it. In addition to children’s agency in using the apps, the teachers were interested in using the iPad to tell child-led stories, and using technologies to connecting with families. We also discussed changes that needed to be made and the key concepts that we could take forward into the next the first year, the teachers and I wrote about how the iPad could be integrated into a play-based classroom (Fantozzi et al., 2018a) and the affordances of an iPad in emergent literacy development (Fantozzi et al., 2018b).

For this paper I engage in an analysis of 2 years of data, looking at the project holistically for patterns and implications for technology use in a play-based setting. I analysed of field notes, and work samples (543 samples in year one, 1667 in year two), as well as parent responses in the Seesaw app. Using a method of constant comparative analysis (Corbin and Straus, 2008), I engaged in open coding to label features of the data and then refine those labels to inductively develop conceptual categories for the data set. In this play-based classroom, child agency as well as collaboration during learning and play are highly valued. I kept this framework in mind as I examined the ways technology was used in the classroom. I used emic codes to examine type of use (single child, teacher-child, multiple children), initiator of the project (child or teacher), app used, and parent responses. In addition, through a process of constant comparison I found that the etic codes of communication, creation, and collaboration (Partnership for 21st Century Learning, 2011) were useful in identifying categories of technology use.

To support the trustworthiness of the data interpretation I talked with the teachers as we co-constructed understandings of the happenings in the class, reviewing work samples to understand the ways the children were using the iPad. I used member checking, sending them written notes for feedback, discussing patterns that seemed to emerge and changes in codes as a result of constant comparison. I also spend considerable time in the class to develop my understanding of the classroom, child use, and teachers’ goals.

I recognize the limitations of this study as a case situated in a particular place and time. It is not generalizable, but transferrable as the rich detail and thickness of the data may allow others to relate their own understandings into a new situation (Lincoln and Guba, 2000). Further, as a participant and researcher, I cannot extrapolate myself from the data. As action research aims to enact educational change, my participation in this study means that the teachers had, at the very least, a critical friend as they engaged in the project, if not a coach, and that my participation is part of the data. Cobb et al. (2003) suggest that this kind of support is, necessary when the situation is unlikely to arise without the support of researchers and furthers knowledge in the field.

Findings

Play-based teaching involves the teacher’s belief in play as an important medium for learning, but also centers the child and family as important contributors to the curriculum. In order to reflect on the process of integrating the iPad into a playbased classroom, I describe iPad use over 2 years, and then examine the ways technologies were integrated into the community and how, children, and families interacted with the tools.

Use of the iPad over 2 years

From the beginning of the study the teachers decided to only use open apps because they did not believe closed apps aligned with their play-based philosophy. In addition, because of the constraints of the first year (no Wi-Fi), it was necessary that the apps did not need a connection to the internet to function. This became one of the criteria for app use and several apps were discarded because of this criterion. The teachers also wanted to be able to collect child work and share it on Seesaw so the app had to allow either direct sharing to Seesaw or save to the camera roll, this criterion also lead to the exclusion of a few apps. The apps most used were Shadow Puppet Edu (which allows the user(s) to voice over, add text, or draw on one or more photos), Toontastic (which allows users to choose or create backgrounds and puppets to create a digitally recorded puppet show), Seesaw (a digital class portfolio), the camera app (allowing for photos and videos to be made, standard on all iPads,). The apps selected during the first year remained the apps in use in the second, their uses and purposes evolved as the teachers and children became more adept with the tablets, and as the community itself changed from year to year.

During the first year the teachers engaged in cycles of data collection and reflection, figuring out how the iPad fitted into their teaching. By the second year the iPad was an integral part of the classroom as reflected in the regular use demonstrated in Table 1.

Table 1.

Number of seesaw posts monthly from year 1 to year 2.

	Year 1	Year 2
September	36	215
October	92	198
November	56	197
December	28	229
January	45	324
February	49	154
March	86	157
April	64	72
May	57	102
Total average monthly use	54	179

June is excluded from the Table 1 as the school only met for 10 days that month.

The difference in and over year use was affected by the increase of students. However, the average use in a given month is often double the number from year one to year two and the total average monthly use is more than three times the year prior. This would seem to indicate that although the increase in use was affected by the increase in total students, the additional increase would be caused by another factor such as the teachers comfort with iPad as a tool in the classroom or the addition of school Wi-Fi. In addition to increase in use the use of apps changed from year to year. (Figure 1).

Figure 1.

Comparison of app use from year 1 to year 2.

One of the biggest areas of growth in the second year was in the number of pictures that the teachers shared to document the daily life of the classroom from 198 pictures the first year to 1128 the next. The class in year two was larger, but the increase in use of the photo app is not proportional. Seesaw had become an expected part of school culture as many parents stayed in the school from year to year, and the school board supported the inclusion of Wi-Fi because of the app. The other noted difference is the use of the Shadow Puppet app which remained an app that the class used regularly, but the use of the app shifted from teacher-initiated creations to more child-initiated use. The use of video app also decreased in teacher-initiated use and increased in child-initiated use. The Toontastic app remained relatively proportional to the increase in students in the classroom year over year. Key to understanding of the use of the tablet in a play-based classroom is not only the frequency of use, but the ways in which the participants used the tablets for their own purposes.

Teacher use

Consistent with the initial research question, the teachers used the iPad for language building and storytelling activities. Anneliese drew on her interest in Paley’s practice of story acting to create story movies. Children would dictate a story to the teacher then, at large group time, children would volunteer for parts in the story including being the videographer. She noticed that children were more motivated to tell their stories after they realized that the stories would be filmed, and that some children who initially refused the to tell or act in a story began participating when she offered the role of videographer. Story acting became a weekly practice and the children began develop story vocabulary like characters, setting, beginning, ending, and videographer as well as positional vocabulary like first, next and then.

The teachers also began using it for purposes that would not have been possible in an analog way. In particular, they found sharing capabilities available in Seesaw as a powerful multimodal communication with parents. In the first year they frequently used the camera to document and share play-based learning in the classroom. In addition to pictures taken of play, they also added children’s voices to highlight learning in play. A teacher would notice the child engaging in a play and ask if the child would like to take a picture and use the Shadow Puppet app to “talk about it.” If a child agreed, they were handed the iPad and with teacher guidance (“can you see your whole block structure?” “press the white circle to take a picture”) take the picture and open the Shadow Puppet app. The recording was prompted by the teacher saying, “Tell me about (topic of the photo)” and asking follow up questions if the child was uncertain of what to say (“How did you make . . ., “I noticed. . . tell me about. . .”). This process highlighted their beliefs in the importance of the children’s work in play by allowing the children to voice all they had accomplished.

The teachers would also use Seesaw for communication with families for example taking a video or pictures of a child who was crying at drop off and posting it so a caregiver could see the happy transition that the child eventually made into the day. Christi began adding captions to the pictures to communicate the play-based philosophy guiding the activities.

Under a photo of a child sewing We read Corduroy by Don Freeman. As if he read my mind, Kris asked, how did Lisa sew the button onto Corduroy? Well, we sewed buttons onto fabric today. Sewing is a superb fine motor activity as well as an excellent eye-hand coordination skill builder, not to mention the amount of concentration it takes.

Under a photo of outside play. We love providing tools like rakes and shovels. They strengthen gross motor skills. They aid in creative problem-solving. Here, James is trying to make the ice less slick by piling on snow and leaves - it worked!

The captions allowed the teachers to connect the educational ideas key to their teaching philosophies with photos of the children in action. In reflecting on the effect of the inclusion on the iPad Anneliese said, “I have been working on play-based teaching my whole career, and I finally feel like the parents really get what we do and get why play is important.” Play-based teaching does not often send products home for parents to see, sending photos and recordings of the children talking about their experiences allowed parents more access to the process-based learning taking place in play.

Child use

The iPad was introduced to the children as “everyone’s iPad” and an option open for use at “work time.” It was an idea central to the child-centered beliefs of the teachers and repeated throughout the first part of the school year as a reminder, in the same way that they would send them off to “work time” stage whispering “it’s really play time” they would repeat “remember it’s not my iPad its everyone’s iPad so it’s available at work time.” The teachers would often support iPad play by asking questions to elicit descriptions or story, or suggesting iPad use to capture story or work samples. However, the children became comfortable with the iPad quickly, often pushing aside an adult helping hand while composing a text, or saying “I know how.” Much like the environmental print in the classroom, the children learned to read the icons on iPad, and could navigate independently to create their texts. As they became comfortable with the class procedures around the iPad use, they began to initiate their own uses of the iPad during worktime.

In particular, the app Toontastic was almost solely used in child-initiated work samples. This app allowed the children many choices of background and characters and control of the story. The children spent time huddled over the iPad carefully choosing the background and particular puppets either fantasy based or puppets with classmate’s faces. Much of the story making and imagining happened in the creation of the story where they chose the characters and plots. The children narrated their choices as they chose (all child names are psuedonyms)

Eleni:

I want to make a story! Talking to Ayla

Ayla:

leaning over choosing that, that a wand, it’s going to do magic!

Eleni:

Do a bad guy! Selecting characters

Ayla:

I don’t want ummm I did those characters, He is going to do a fire pressing to show what the digital puppet can do I do a mermaid

Eleni:

I’ll do a mermaid too, they can be best friends!

They start the app and begin moving the characters and vocalizing

Many of the Toontastics created were much like the storytelling in non-digital play; the children coauthored and negotiated the storyline, and the language related to moving the action forward.

As is also common in play, children also began to remix classroom practices to develop new uses of the iPad. For example, Alex enacted the practice of reflection on play by using Shadow Puppet. Rather than reflect on her creation, she used Shadow Puppet to walk around and record others asking her questions about what she had made in a mobile version of ‘show and tell’. After she made a playdough pizza and took a picture, she recorded this

Parent

“How did you make it?”

Alex

“I just cutted pizza shapes and then um put on cheese and oh! I forgot to make the sauce!” Goes back to the playdough and makes sauce movements

Child

“What flavor is it?”

Alex

“I didn’t add any flavor to it, I just be right back!” goes back to the playdough table makes some sprinkle movements and comes back “It’s vanilla”

The recording and the talk about the play became such a part of play that Alex makes sure to add flavor to her “pizza” even in the midst of recording.

The children also developed an understanding of Seesaw and began wanting to utilize that as well. For example, Delpine spent “work time” building a tower and then at clean up turned to me and said “I want you to send it to my mom.” Initially the children saw the Seesaw application as a way to show their family something, but they began requesting to post to Seesaw to share with peers. For example, one child told Christi, “I have a joke for on Seesaw and I want it to be for everyone,” meaning he wanted make a video of himself telling a joke, post it on Seesaw and tag the whole class. The children were comfortable with the tablet as a multimodal tool for communication, and with these open apps they were able take this new tool and use it for their own playful purposes.

Community use

The parents also influenced the ways the teachers used the technology. In the first year, the teachers began using Seesaw to share pictures of the class and child work samples with all families regardless of the children in the picture because they wanted to share a wholistic picture of the classroom. They quickly stopped this practice because a parent who had expressed concerns about the inclusion of the iPad in the classroom, commented “(My child) is not in this class or picture” on any picture taken without her child or on a day her child was not present. This caused the teachers to tag only students who had created the product or where visible on Seesaw. As the parents became more comfortable with the use of the iPad the teachers began using Seesaw to build community. For example, they created a class e-book of advice for a child becoming big sister, and pictures of cards sent to a child who had a medical procedure. The mother of the child who received the cards wrote:

I cannot express how thrilled Jack was to see how much his friends love him. Sending cards for his speedy recovery was really above and beyond. We are so very blessed to be a part of this wonderful community. Thank you, teachers, for organizing & delivering such a fabulous surprise to my kiddo!!

The second year began with the teachers taking pictures of class routines with captions. They also more frequently tagged the whole class in media that captured an event in the day, like finding bugs on the playground or story acting, that all children were present for, but not visible in the text. The parents began to comment more, in addition to “I love this!” and hearts on posts, parents also began responding about what they learned from the community. For example:

Under a picture of children peeling an orange Most children are able to peel their own clementines. Often they just need an adult to start it for them. A great fine motor skill for them and a delicious reward at the end.

Parent 1

Good to know! I have been peeling them not realizing what the kids are capable of. I will bring them next Co-Op day.

Parent 2

I appreciate so much how you always help reframe learning experiences like these for our family. I have a different perspective now on how to encourage different skills thanks to the Co-Op’s instructors! Thank you!

The parents commenting on these Seesaw posts had an opportunity to be in the classroom, and had likely seen the daily activities of the class and the teacher’s philosophies in action, but it seemed that the photos with captions gave them another way to process the information. Rather than disrupt the community at the school, Seesaw seemed to be a community builder as it provided a shared space for the community and another way for the parent to experience the classroom.

Discussion

This study demonstrates that technologies can be successfully integrated into a play-based classroom. The technology use over the 2 years was influenced by variety of factors including setting, teacher goals, child use, and community response. In this case, the setting changed notably in the 2 year study including the number of children and access to Wi-Fi. The data show an increase in use technology over time, even while considering the increase in children. This may reflect the ease of use due to the addition of Wi-Fi and the confidence the teachers developed with the tools. When integrating new technologies into a school community, it is important to consider ease of use as well as time to gain familiarity with tools.

Researchers suggest that a teacher’s attitudes are one of the keys to successful technology integration (Blackwell et al, 2016; Nikolopoulou and Gialamas, 2015). This assertion did seem to hold true for the teachers in the study. The very nature of the action research project meant that they started from a place of curiosity about technology integration. In addition, the changes over time demonstrate that the teachers were also able to envision the iPad as a tool that they could adapt to their curriculum goals. The teachers valued storytelling, play as an important learning space for children and community and their use of the open apps reflects these ideals. My presence or contributions to the conversations may have influenced their conception of the iPad; it is important to consider how technologies are presented to teachers and that their training and support aligns with their pedagogical beliefs. If teachers can see technologies as flexible tools, then they can utilize technologies to reach their goals.

In a play-based model, the teachers’ goals and teaching practices are inextricably linked to the actions and reactions of children and family, so it is important to consider the ways children and families acted with the iPad. The iPad was presented to the children as something they could include in their play. In these play spaces, the children had more power as they directed the content of their stories and the ways that they shared them with friends or family. Indeed, the collaborative, co-constructive nature of digital literacy (Knobel and Lankshear, 2007) aligns well with the literacy practices in play where children co-author, revise and reconstruct their roles and the rules of the play regularly. Digital play is not always recognized by teachers as play (Edwards et al., 2017). However, in this classroom the use of open apps allowed for the iPad to be a part of play rather than a separate kind of play. Because children are at the center of play-based teaching, the children’s responses and initiative with the iPad was a critical part of the integration as it spurred the teachers to continue to incorporate the iPad into their teaching practices. In addition, families’ responses influenced teachers’ practices. An initial response caused the teachers to pull back in the initial phase, but over time the biggest influence was the positive response to sharing via technology that affected both the teachers and the children’s use of the iPad. Children and teachers where motivated to use the tool as a way to connect and communicate with families.

“Historically, it has been those technologies that are a good fit with existing practices that are most easily implemented in classrooms, while those that afford different types of roles and relations are adapted to institutionalized ways of doing teaching and learning” (Lynch and Redpath, 2014: 169). Contrary to current conceptions of technology, the tablet can align with a play-based, child-centered approach to schooling. Nevertheless, there is a confluence of factors that influence any classroom and the roles of setting, teachers, children and families must be considered for successful integration.

Footnotes

Acknowledgements

The author would like to thank Christi Johnson and Anneliese Scherfen who gave feedback on this paper, and whose dedication to teaching and to young children made this paper possible.

Funding

The author disclosed receipt of the following financial support for the research, authorship, and/or publication of this article: The author received funding for the purchase of the iPad from Manhattanville College’s Summer Research Grant initiative.

ORCID iD

Victoria B Fantozzi

References

Blackwell

Lauricella

Wartella

(2016) The influence of TPACK contextual factors on early childhood educators’ tablet computer use. Computers & Education 98: 57–69.

Copple

Bredekamp

(2009) Developmentally Appropriate Practice in Early Childhood Programs Serving Children From Birth Through Age 8. Washington, DC: National Association for the Education of Young Children.

Cobb

Confrey

DiSessa

, et al. (2003) Design experiments in educational research. Educational Researcher 32(1): 9–13.

Corbin

Strauss

(2008) Basics of Qualitative Research, 3rd ed. Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage Publishing.

Cristia

Seidl

(2015) Parental reports on touch screen use in early childhood. PLoS One 10(6). Epub ahead of print. DOI: 10.1371/journal.pone.0128338.

Edwards

Gandini

Forman

(eds.) (1998) The Hundred Languages of Children: The Reggio Emilia Approach—Advanced Reflections. Westport, CT: Greenwood Publishing Group.

Edwards

Henderson

Gronn

, et al. (2017). Digital disconnect or digital difference? A socio-ecological perspective on young children’s technology use in the home and the early childhood centre. Technology, Pedagogy and Education 26(1): 1–17.

Fantozzi

Johnson

Scherfen

(2018a) Play and technology: An important intersection for developing literacy. YC Young Children 73(2): 88–93.

Fantozzi

Johnson

Scherfen

(2018b) One classroom, one iPad, many Stories. The Reading Teacher 71(6): 681–689.

10.

Goodnough

(2008) Dealing with messiness and uncertainty in practitioner research: The nature of participatory action research. Canadian Journal of Education 31(2): 431–458.

11.

Harrison

McTavish

(2018) “i”Babies: Infants’ and toddlers’ emergent language and literacy in a digital culture of iDevices. Journal of Early Childhood Literacy 18(2): 163–188.

12.

Jack

Higgins

(2019) Embedding educational technologies in early years education. Research in Learning Technology 27. Epub ahead of print. DOI: 10.25304/rlt.v27.2033.

13.

Knobel

Lankshear

(eds.) (2007) A New Literacies Sampler. New York, NY: Peter Lang.

14.

Kucirkova

Wells Rowe

Oliver

, et al. (2019) Systematic review of young children’s writing on screen: what do we know and what do we need to know. Literacy. Epub ahead of print 12 April 2019. DOI: 10.1111/lit.12173.

15.

Lawrence

(2018) Preschool children and iPads: Observations of social interactions during digital play. Early Education and Development 29(2): 207–228.

16.

Lincoln

Guba

(2000) Paradigmatic controversies, contradictions, and emerging confluences. In: Denzin

Lincoln

(eds.) Handbook of Qualitative Research. Thousand Oaks, CA: Sag, pp. 163–188.

17.

Ottenbreit-Leftwich

Ding

, et al. (2017) Experienced iPad-using early childhood teachers: Practices in the one-to-one iPad classroom. Computers in the Schools 34(1): 9–23. DOI: 10.1080/07380569.2017.1287543.

18.

Lynch

Redpath

(2014) ‘Smart’ technologies in early years literacy education: A meta-narrative of paradigmatic tensions in iPad use in an Australian preparatory classroom. Journal of Early Childhood Literacy 14(2): 147–174. DOI: 10.1177/1468798412453150.

19.

Marsh

Hannon

Lewis

, et al. (2017) Young children’s initiation into family literacy practices in the digital age. Journal of Early Childhood Research 15(1): 47–60. DOI: 10.1177/1476718X15582095.

20.

Mertala

(2017) Wag the dog—The nature and foundations of preschool educators’ positive ICT pedagogical beliefs. Computers in Human Behavior 67: 197–206. DOI: 10.1016/j.chb.2016.12.037.

21.

Moll

Amanti

Neff

, et al. (1992) Funds of knowledge for teaching: Using a qualitative approach to connect homes and classrooms. Theory Into Practice 31(2): 132–141.

22.

Nikolopoulou

Gialamas

(2015) ICT and play in preschool: Early childhood teachers’ beliefs and confidence. International Journal of Early Years Education 23(4): 409–425. DOI: 10.1080/09669760.2015.1078727.

23.

Paley

(2009) A Child’s Work: The Importance of Fantasy Play. Chicago, IL: University of Chicago Press.

24.

Partnership for 21st Century Learning (2011) Framework for 21st Century Learning. Washington, DC. Available at: www.p21.org/storage/documents/1.__p21_framework_2-pager.pdf (accessed 21 March 2019).

25.

Petersen

(2015) “That’s how much I can do!”—Children’s agency in digital tablet activities in a Swedish Preschool Environment. Nordic Journal of Digital Literacy 10(03): 45–169.

26.

Rhodes

(2017) Screen time and kids: What’s happening in our homes? Australian Child Health POLL 1–7. Available at: https://www.rchpoll.org.au/wp-content/uploads/2017/06/ACHP-Poll7_Detailed-Report-June21.pdf (accessed 16 December 2020).

27.

Rideout

(2017) The commonsense census: Media use by kids age zero to eight. Common Sense Media 263–283. Available at: https://www.commonsensemedia.org/research/the-common-sense-census-media-use-by-kids-age-zeroto-eight-2017 (accessed 16 December 2020).

28.

Robertson

(2000) The three Rs of action research methodology: Reciprocity, reflexivity and reflection-on-reality. Educational Action Research 8(2): 307–326.

29.

Sari

Takacs

Bus

(2017) What are we downloading for our children? Best-selling children’s apps in four European countries. Journal of Early Childhood Literacy 19(4): 1–18. DOI: 10.1177/1468798417744057.

30.

Van Oers

Duijkers

(2013) Teaching in a play-based curriculum: Theory, practice and evidence of developmental education for young children. Journal of Curriculum Studies 45(4): 511–534.