ExchangeEveryDay Past Issues

Dear Child care exchange.

I co edit a small non profit early childhood journal in South Africa. - Please would you grant us permission to reprint the small article by David Elkind on Technology and Young Children July 22, 2011.
I look forward to hearing from.

Kind Regards
Mary-G

Based on our small study of family child care providers and center-based providers, technology can be thoughtfully used. It seems that providers adjust their rules and involvement in developmentally appropriate ways across the two setting types.

For more information see the article below:
Young children’s access and use of computers in family child care and child care centers
http://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S0747563208001477

we basically all experienced that feeling i did not know how the radio worked or the refregerator or toilet or anything else that i used as a child chidren still have the ability to figure what they can understand and what they cannot and they follow that lead

There are many things in my life I do not understand and yet I have been using them all my life - electricity, for example is a big one, the telephone, my car.
I tend to agree with Debra Riek - appropriate exposure. A child's curiosity is instantly engaged if we as adults spend the time to expose the child to experiences other than the computer, the television, the mobile phone. I feel the teacher/educator needs to think deeply on how much they expose the child to technology during their day at school/childcare as they may already be overexposed at home. It would be wonderful to think that the school/childcare setting for children could be a very healing and nurturing experience for the child instead of a stressful one.

recently the national association for the education of young children released a draft of a new position paper on the use of technology for young children for members to comment on... the draft had the disturbing new language that expanded the conversation from preschool-aged to now include 0-2... a number of ece professionals in our community have expressed our concerns about this new draft, and the Board our affiliate, Beach Cities Association for the Education of Young Children has already submitted a letter of concern along with our intent to oppose any position paper that includes children less than two years of age... we hope that everyone will take a closer look at the position paper.
gregory uba

I agree with Elkind- there is a danger- not because of the technology by itself but the proportion- no play, no opportunity to invent and create except with tools that are adult dependent
Children already have magical thinking at this age and to reinforce this by overwhelming technology with little time or opportunity to verify through exploration and experimentation one's concept of reality is a danger. Please let us be soo careful with these children from 2-8yrs- when they are with us-let us be sure we are not in a rush to be modern that we have forgotten the value of drawing a line or squeezing a all of clay .

I am so glad you presented this alternate point of view. Much research has been done by people who DON'T have a financial interest in children's technological usage and this is less biased. Thank you!

Technology's effect on children's development has long been a concern of mine. I am worried about technology coming between children and real-life experience, and about the actual content of screen media....but now I understand that another real and dangerous threat is "intellectual passivity." Consider how intellectual passivity effects future citizenship.

For me, encouraging children's curiosity and helping them learn ways to figure things out is one of the primary goals of early education. We all want curious learners who are excited to solve a problem and can create a plan to do just that. What it comes down to for me is how we USE technology in the classroom, not technology itself. I didn't always believe that but seeing technology integrated in appropriate ways that encourage curiosity in the classroom won me over. In our center, we used technology to help children explore topics more deeply and answer questions. Our world is technological and appropriate exposure assists children, not harms them.

If we want to point to issues that stifle children's curious nature, let's look at standardized testing and the pressure placed on children, teachers and administrations in school districts to get the right answers. Teaching children through example that we value those who "test well" is far more damaging than being able to see live time action inside a penquin exhibit at the zoo on the internet.

David Elkind is one of my professional heroes. But it's important to point out that Dr. Elkind and many people who aren't yet comfortable with (or are openly critical of) technology integration in early childhood settings have probably never spent time in classrooms in which technology is being used well-- great tools being used intentionally to extend learning in divergent and creative ways alongside crayons, playdough, water tables, and all of the other materials to which we have become accustomed. What is missing in the technology conversation is clear examples of what developmentally appropriate technology use looks like in a dynamic early childhood setting. If you are critical of technology use in early childhood, I encourage you to locate a program that uses interactive technology and take a look! If technology tools are being used well, I bet you will be surprised at what children understand and can do.

I have admired - and agreed with - David Elkind throughout my entire career. I don't believe his statements are wrong - but I do not think they reflect anything new. We drive cars - we don't know how they work and we don't walk enough - but that's been true for many years. We use toilets, can openers, furnaces, keyed locks, radios, lightbulbs, pacemakers, movies, cash registers, and many other kinds of technology that neither we nor our children understand. We can't stop technology. It's been growing steadily since before we were born. We are just going to have to stop complaining about it and find new and better ways to engage with it, explore it, and incorporate it into young children's learning.

Technologies are simply tools. The plusses or minuses in all cases relate to the ways in which technology is used and the length of time it is used. Technology is neither good, nor bad.

I have to take issue a bit with David Elkind here in what I see as an oversimplification of children needing to know how things work. At this moment I look around my kitchen and see a water faucet, an oven, a coffee pot, a toaster, and a whistling tea kettle. My dog Angus is lying on the cold linoleum floor with his back stretched between the dishwasher and oven.

I know absolutely nothing about how any of these machines work, but they absolutely enhance my life. When my children were in their early childhood years, we used a number of these “technologies” together. I could easily argue that each one of these comes with a drawback or two.
Looking back over a century ago, I doubt most people clearly knew how coal stoves, iceboxes, printing presses, or foot-powered sewing machines worked. But they were technologies; in their time they produced something or enhanced the quality of Life.

I absolutely believe there is nothing more important in all lives than the connections we make between and among ourselves and other living things. And yes, this is particularly crucial during early childhood. A child’s use of a cell phone or computer or radio controlled plane or boat is not intrinsically harmful. These technologies also have the capacity to be fascinating to a young child and can actually enrich understanding and support curiosity and questions depending upon how each is used. The cell phone or a computer can connect to a grandparent’s voice and image, actually bringing families closer together. The radio-controlled vehicles can help to extend and support a young child’s question about why and how things fly. For some reason I have an image of a children and adults on a beach with kites and feathers and, yes, the radio-controlled plane. Why do they float? Are they the same? How are they different? Why does the plane not float like the feather?

Children’s EXPERIENCES with all of these CAN help to form hypotheses, create exploration and experimentation and actually broaden curiosity.
When use of technology slips from having a contextual and meaningful purpose to becoming used chronically in isolation without meaningful connection or purpose, then technology’s USE becomes a problem.

Why does this make me think of Vygotsky’s Zone of Proximal Development? Who is it that puts that piece of technology in the child’s hand?

This morning's Exchange is a breath of fresh air. Not a criticism of technology itself, but of the impact it may have on learning. I am all for technology - but I am also all for putting it in an appropriate perspective and role in family life. Thank you for laying this out on the table for reflection.

David, thank you so much for providing this important insight. He does not put a negative spin on all technology - just reminds us that change should be monitored. any

OK, I want to read the full article! But based on these clips, I wonder and worry that David Elkind might be taken out of perspective. They make me ask -- aren't there too many technology-based examples like MIT's Scratch that use technology to enhance creative play, to merit such a sweeping and general condemnation of all things tech? Shouldn't this issue be approached with a developmental perspective? From what I know about Elkind, I'm certain he'd agree. For example, you'd never expect a preschooler to understand an abstract concept like how radio controlled boat (Elkind's example here) works. So why not wait instead until they're in high school and let them build one, when they are formal operational and can conceptualize electromagnetic waves, electrons, lithium ion batteries and the like. Then, they're ready and hungry for such concepts. But don't throw away remote control toys. Instead, we can use them in early childhood settings in a developmentally appropriate way. How? They are are extremely fun to drive -- so set up a maze, and use them to teach spatial awareness, fast, slow, near, far -- and watch how the remote controls can give children a chance to practice and refine fine motor abilities; and the language as they play. As EC educators, we need to match the experience with the developmental level, and always ask "does this enhance, or take away from the learning potential." This is not a new issue, and this is not a new challenge. The only thing that is new are the materials.

Thank you for posting David Elkind's important point of view. There is much research that indicates that the reasonable limits on young children's screen media exposure (no exposure before age 2, limited exposure until age 5) recommended by the American Academy of Pediatrics and the White House need to be observed for the future growth and welfare of the children and the communities we share. One recent finding is that screen time increasingly is becoming a substitute for face-to-face time with other people. Young children especially need that face-to-face time.

I disagree with this viewpoint. I believe ADULTS are the ones who do not understand technology or have the ambition to investigate how it works. Children growing up with these new systems have an innate sense of "knowing" and remain curious to uncover the whys and hows. With just the right exposure and freedom to investigate, children will expect and BELIEVE they can "take the bicycle apart" to improve on the old way of doing things just to create better technology for us!....the stubborn ones who are overwhelmed and refuse to use it.