Content uploaded by Robin Holding Kay
Author content
All content in this area was uploaded by Robin Holding Kay on Mar 28, 2016
Content may be subject to copyright.
Journal of Educational Informatics (2016), 1, 1-25
Technology Use in Early Childhood Education:
A Review of Literature
NANCY R. ZOMER AND ROBIN H. KAY
University of Ontario Institute of Technology
Canada
robin.kay@uoit.ca
ruth.zomer@uoit.ca
This paper provides a review of the literature from 2009 to 2014
on student use of technology in early childhood education. Previous
efforts to synthesize the literature are somewhat dated, non-specific
about age range, and focus almost exclusively on literacy. Thirty
peer-reviewed articles from 11 countries, selected from a
comprehensive search of the literature, were organized under five
main categories: literacy, engagement, social interactions,
mathematics, and miscellaneous topics. The overall effect size, based
on only 12 studies and 33 measures was moderately high (d= 0.71,
SD=0.60). Considerable qualitative and quantitative evidence
indicated that technology had a significant impact on literacy
development. Fewer studies, mostly qualitative in design and small
in sample size, reported that technology had a positive impact on
engagement, social interactions, and mathematics skills. A handful of
studies provided qualitative evidence that technology had a positive
impact on sequencing, visual perception, creative thinking, and fine
motor capability. Methodological concerns included limited sample
sizes and descriptions, not documenting the consistency and
accuracy data of collection tools, the extent of adult intervention, and
the limited range of technology tools used.
2 Zomer and Kay
INTRODUCTION
For the purpose of this review, the term technology refers to digital technologies in the
form of hardware (e.g., interactive whiteboards, tablets), stand-alone software (e.g., CD-
ROMs, e-books), and online learning tools (e.g., Monster Exchange, ABRACADABRA).
Historically, theorists and researchers have debated whether young children should use
technology at school (Alper, 2011; Blackwell, 2013; Cordes & Miller, 2000; Kirkorian,
Wartella, & Anderson, 2008; House, 2012; Lindahl & Folkesson, 2012; Morgan, 2010, Parett,
Quesenberry & Blum 2010, Plowman & McPake, 2013). One side argues that using
technology is developmentally inappropriate because young children need to consolidate
their knowledge using concrete materials (Cordes & Miller, 2000; Healy, 2004; House, 2012;
Plowman & Stephen, 2003). In addition, too much screen time can overload a young child’s
senses (House, 2012) resulting in attention difficulties and poor concentration (Cordes &
Miller, 2000; House, 2012). Furthermore, overuse of technology could put young children at
risk of developing muscular-skeletal injuries (Cordes & Miller, 2000; Plowman & Stephen,
2003) and visual difficulties (Cordes & Miller, 2000). Other possible detrimental effects of
technology use at a young age include impaired literacy skills, loss of imagination (Cordes &
Miller, 2000) and a lack of social skills, resulting in social isolation (Cordes & Miller, 2000;
Healy, 2004).
The other side of the debate argues that developmentally appropriate use of technology
can enhance young children’s learning (Blackwell, 2013; Blackwell, Lauricella, & Wartella,
2014; Hillman & Marshall, 2009; Lindahl & Folkesson, 2010; Plowman & Stephen, 2003;
Vernadakis, Avgerinos, Tsitskari, & Zachopoulou, 2005), particularly in the area of emergent
literacy skills (Cassell, 2004; Parette, Quesenberry, & Blum, 2010; Plowman, Stevenson,
McPake, Stephen, & Adey, 2011). Technology use for younger children has been associated
with increased motivation (Lindahl & Folkesson, 2010; Plowman & Stephen, 2003;
Vernadakis et al., 2005), student-centered learning practices (Blackwell, 2013), the
development of social skills through collaboration (Alper, 2011; Cassell, 2004; Cicconi, 2014;
Lieberman, 2009; Shifflet, Toledo, & Mattoon, 2012), and supporting children with
disabilities and special needs (Cordes & Miller, 2000; Hutinger & Johanson, 2000; Muligan,
2003).
More recently, the debate has shifted from whether technology should be used in early
childhood settings, to how it should be used and whether it makes a difference in children’s
learning and development (Ko & Chou, 2014; Parette et al., 2010; Rosen & Jaruszewicz,
2009). The question for educators and policy-makers has become how to best integrate
technology into pedagogical practice and curriculum design in early childhood settings
(Plowman, McPake, & Stephen, 2012). Several researchers have recommended that
practitioners take a thoughtful approach to the use of technology by carefully considering
the design of the technology to determine if it supports creativity, curiosity, and play,
promotes interaction among children, and provides an authentic learning experience
(McManis & Gennewig, 2012; National Association for the Education of Young Children &
The Fred Rogers Center, 2012; Plowman et al., 2012; Rosen & Jaruszewicz, 2009). Rosen and
Jaruszewicz (2009) introduced the term developmentally appropriate technology use
(DATU) which includes preparing a technology environment in early childhood settings that
3 Zomer and Kay
supports child-initiated learning, encourages collaborative problem solving, and takes a
play-based, inquiry orientation.
The purpose of this study was to conduct a current review of the literature (2009-2014)
to explore the impact of digital technologies in early childhood education environments for
children aged 3 to 6 years.
Previous Literature Reviews
Four previous literature reviews have been conducted focusing on early childhood
education and technology (Burnett, 2010; Lankshear & Knobel, 2003; McCarrick & Li, 2007;
Yelland, 2005). A fifth review, conducted by Chantry & Dunford (2010), was excluded
because the age range of the children was not specified and the primary focus was on
assistive technology, an area outside the scope of our paper. Each of these reviews will be
discussed in turn.
The first review (Lankshear & Knobel, 2003), focused on the use of technology and
literacy development by young students (0 to 8 years old). Lankshear & Knobel (2003)
examined 22 articles, six reviews, and nine research reports from 1996 to 2002. Overall, the
results indicated either a positive relationship or no relationship between technology use
and literacy skills. The authors noted the importance of key mitigating variables such as the
use of non-interactive vs. interactive software, and the diversity of learners. They suggested
that their review not only affirmed that technology use in early childhood and literacy was
under-researched, but that the research that did exist was one-sided in that it focused on
areas of reading/receiving rather than writing/generating. Lankshear and Knobel (2003)
strongly recommended further research into new technologies in early childhood education
which focus on the higher level literacy skills.
The second review (Yelland, 2005) examined research on young children, up to eight-
years old, from 1994 to 2004, and provided a conceptual perspective (as opposed to a
detailed, evidence-based analysis) on four domains (literacy, numeracy, creativity, and
critical thinking) and the creation of knowledge building communities. Yelland (2005) began
by outlining the arguments against the use of technology in early childhood settings (such as
poor quality software, minimized role of teachers, social isolation, concepts being too
abstract). She suggested that the research revealed that innovation is possible when
technology use is embedded in new curricula and that young children can use technology to
experience concepts that were previously well beyond them. She recommended that future
research should focus on innovative uses of technology, rather than a replication of previous
studies. She argued that simply comparing computer to non-computer contexts does not
help to stimulate new understandings or add to knowledge of innovative uses of technology.
The third review, conducted by McCarrick and Li (2007) looked at research (1984-
2004) on the impact of technology on four domains of development (social, cognitive,
language development, and motivation) in children, three to five years old. Their findings
indicated that social interactions among children are higher when computers are used. They
also cited support for using computers to help scaffold children’s learning (either with an
adult, peer, or computer assisted scaffolding). McCarrick and Li (2007) also noted
4 Zomer and Kay
computers are highly motivating for preschoolers. Finally, they reported that the research
does not show an improvement in language skills with computer use, nor was it found to be
a hindrance. They suggested that further research be conducted using larger sample sizes,
well-defined learning environments, and multiple developmental domains.
The final review, conducted by Burnett (2010), examined 34 peer-reviewed articles
from 2003-2009 focusing on the use technology to promote print-based literacy for children
within the 0-8 age group. These articles were divided into three categories: technology as
deliverer of literacy, technology as a site for interactions involving texts, and technology as
a medium for meaning-making. Technology as a deliverer of literacy (n=22 studies) had
either a positive impact on various language skills, motivation, and engagement, or no impact
at all. Technology as a site for interactions (n=4 studies), suggested that children interact
positively with each other when they work together using digital texts or literacy software.
Finally, technology as a medium for meaning-making (n=10 studies) is particularly
successful when connected with the real world. Burnett (2010) highlighted the need for
more extensive research into the area of children’s engagement with digital texts. She
acknowledged that most studies in her literature review were small-scale in terms of sample
sizes, and narrowly focused. She suggested that a broader perspective should be taken when
conducting research with young children to allow for the potential of identifying new
possibilities and connections.
Limitations of Previous Literature Reviews
There are at least four issues with the four previous literature reviews which indicate
the need for an updated review. First, three of the four literature reviews (Lankshear &
Knobel, 2003; McCarrick & Li, 2007; Yelland, 2005) examined studies conducted ten or more
years ago, while one review (Burnett, 2010) investigated studies conducted more than five
years ago. In the field of technology, the landscape changes rapidly and it is important to
consider new technological tools.
Second, three of the four reviews (Burnett, 2010; Lankshear & Knobel, 2003; Yelland,
2005) focused on the 0 to 8 age group which represents children at very different stages of
development. According to Piaget’s Theory of Cognitive Development, children aged 0-2
years are at the sensorimotor stage, children aged 2-7 years are in the preoperational stage,
and children aged 7-11 years are concrete operational (Piaget & Inhelder, 1969). There is
evidence that children think and behave differently at each of these stages and therefore may
behave differently with technology. Piaget noted that children in the preoperational stage
think intuitively and conceptually, but not logically. They also have difficulty seeing different
points of view. On the other hand, children in the concrete operational stage are able to think
more logically and they begin to recognize varying perspectives (Piaget & Inhelder, 1969).
Limiting the current study to the 3-6 age group might help reduce the variability in reported
research findings and provide more reliable conclusions.
Third, two of the reviews (Burnett, 2010; Lankshear & Knobel, 2003) had a singular
focus in the domain of literacy. Broadening the scope to include research on a wider range
of subject areas would provide a more holistic view of technology in early childhood
education.
5 Zomer and Kay
Finally, all four reviews of the literature (Burnett, 2010, Lankshear & Knobel, 2003;
McCarrick & Li, 2007; Yelland, 2005), while detailed and highly informative, had some issues
with methodology, including not reporting strategies for locating and selecting articles
(Yelland, 2005), omitting the number of articles assessed (McCarrick & Li, 2007; Yelland,
2005), reviewing articles that were not peer-reviewed (Lankshear & Knobel, 2003;
McCarrick & Li, 2007; Yelland, 2005), and failing to consistently provide summary details for
sample size and description (Burnett, 2010; Lankshear & Knobel, 2003; McCarrick & Li,
2007; Yelland, 2005).
Purpose
The purpose of the following literature review was to analyze peer-reviewed studies on
the use of technology by students in early childhood education settings from 2009-2014,
with a focus on children aged 3-6 years.
METHOD
Procedure
This review focused on studies of technology use in early childhood educational settings
published from 2009 to 2014. Only peer-reviewed articles that collected and analyzed data
(not project descriptions, analyses of programs, guidelines for practice, reports, or
conference papers), were included in this review. Well-known educational databases
including EBSCOhost, Scholar’s Portal, EdiTLibrary, and ERIC were searched based on the
following age group keywords: “kindergarten,” “early childhood,” “preschool,” “early years,”
and “young children,” combined with the following technology-based keywords:
“technology,” “computers,” “information communication technology,” “ICT,” “multimedia,”
and “digital.” It is important to note that early childhood settings included the age group 3-
6 years in preschool as well as Kindergarten classes. Kindergarten starts at various ages in
different countries, and limiting the review to “kindergarten” would miss relevant research
papers. This is why “preschool” was also included as a search term.
Titles and abstracts of articles found were screened for relevance. Specifically, formal
research papers that directly assessed the use and impact of technology for the 3-6 age group
were selected. The next step was to scrutinize the references of each article selected for
further relevant articles. The search uncovered 30 peer-reviewed articles published from
2009 to 2014.
Description of Studies Examined
Year of study. Over 80% of the studies examining student use of technology occurred
in 2009 (n=6), 2010 (n=4), 2001 (n=8), and 2012 (n=7). Research in student use of
technology in early childhood settings appears to drop off after 2012, with four studies in
2013 and only one study in 2014.
Sample population. Descriptions of sample data collected in this literature review were
rated as limited, partial, or complete. “Limited” meant that little to no description was given
of the sample. “Partial” meant that the size and some general characteristics were given (e.g.,
age, gender), while a “Complete” description meant that this information, in addition to
6 Zomer and Kay
further details, was given (e.g., socio-economic status, information about income and
education level of parents, neighborhood). Seven studies gave a complete sample
description (24%), 19 gave a partial description (63%), and four gave a limited description
(13%).
Eleven countries were represented in the literature review, including Australia (n=1),
Canada (n=1), Greece (n=4), Israel (n=5), Jordan (n=1), Korea (n=1), Netherlands (n=2),
Norway (n=1), Taiwan (n=1), UK (n=5), and USA (n=8).
The majority of studies focused on kindergarten students (n=29, 97%) with five studies
(17%) looking at preschool and four studies (13%) targeting Grade 1. Twelve studies (40%)
examined students who were at risk in some way, including low socioeconomic status,
learning disability or developmental delay, at risk for learning disability, low performers,
and disadvantaged (n=1, 3%).
Method. In terms of methodological approach, eight studies (27%) collected qualitative
or descriptive data, 13 studies (43%) used quantitative methods, and nine studies (30%)
used a mixed data collection approach. Sample sizes varied from three to 396, with almost
50% of the studies examining fewer than 30 children, and an average of 62 (SD=82)
participants per study.
With respect to the quality of data collection, even studies (23%) offered validity
estimates, and three studies (10%) presented both reliability and validity metrics (Couse &
Chen, 2010; Shamir, Korat, & Shlafe, 2011; Shamir, Korat, & Fellah, 2012).
Technology used. The studies in this review examined stand-alone software (n=9,
30%), e-books (n=6, 20%), hands-on technology devices such as interactive whiteboards or
robotics (n=6, 20%), and online resources (n=5, 17%). Four studies (13%) did not clearly
specify the type of technology used. Two-thirds of the studies provided precise details about
how the specific software or technology was used, whereas one third of the studies were
more noticeably vague.
Focus of study. The studies in this review focused on literacy (n=16, 53%), engagement
(n=8, 27%), social interactions (n=7, 23%), and mathematics (n=3, 10%). In addition, a set
miscellaneous topics (n=5, 17%) included sequencing, visual perception, creative thinking,
and fine motor capability. Ten studies (33%) had multiple foci.
Data Analysis
Each study in this paper was coded and analyzed based on the following factors: year of
study, country, sample population, subject area, sample size, sample description, type of data
collection used, reliability, validity, focus on learning, and focus on engagement. See
Appendix A for a list of the coded articles.
An abbreviated meta-analysis of effect size was conducted, but should be interpreted
with caution for at least three reasons. First, the focus of the studies, method of data analysis,
and subject area varied considerably, making it difficult to compare studies on a common
metric in a meaningful way. Second, the reliability and validity of data collection tools were
reported infrequently and inconsistently, thereby reducing confidence in quantitative
7 Zomer and Kay
results reported. Third, only 12 studies (40%) provided enough data to calculate effect size
for a total of 33 measures. A majority of studies provided insights into the use of technology
in early childhood education using a qualitative (n=8, 27%) or mixed methods design (n=9,
30%).
RESULTS AND DISCUSSION
Overview
A review of the literature, based on the 30 peer-reviewed articles was organized into
five main themes based on the primary focus of a study: literacy, engagement, social
interactions, mathematics, and miscellaneous topics. Each of these themes will be discussed
in turn. Next, an analysis of effect-size will be presented, based on 12 of the 30 articles
reviewed. Effect-size was used to quantify the magnitude of difference between pre- and
post-tests in these 12 studies. Finally an examination of methodology, and
recommendations for future research will be offered.
Impact of Technology on Literacy Learning (n=16)
This theme included 16 studies (53%) that described the use of technology to support
the development of a wide range of literacy skills, including phonological awareness (n=11),
vocabulary development (n=4), general literacy (n=3), concepts of print (n=2), and reading
comprehension (n=2). Of these 16 studies, several address multiple and overlapping literacy
skills which accounts for the total of 21 results reported.
Phonological awareness (n=10). Ten studies (33%) addressed phonological
awareness or the “ability to analyze the sound structure of language” (Macaruso & Rodman,
2011, p. 172). Specific sub-skills of phonological awareness include the ability to break
words into syllables and smaller units of sound, as well as the ability to blend the sounds
back together (Maracuso & Rodman, 2011). Five studies examined e-books (Korat, 2009;
Korat, Shamir, & Arbiv, 2011; Shamir, 2009; Shamir et al., 2012; Wood, Pillinger, & Jackson,
2010), three studies used computer-assisted instruction (Comaskey, Savage, & Abrami,
2009; Macaruso & Rodman, 2011; Volpe, Burns, DuBois, & Zaslofsky, 2011), one study
employed interactive whiteboards (Campbell & Mechling, 2009), and one study looked at
online resources (Penuel et al.,2012).
All five e-book studies reported significant gains in phonological awareness. Shamir
(2009), examining 96 children (5-6 years old) with low SES backgrounds, reported
significant gains in emergent literacy after using e-books. Specifically, frequent activation of
e-book hotspots (dictionary, phonological awareness, and pictures) was significantly
correlated with improvements in understanding word meanings, whereas collaborative talk
(among participants) was significantly correlated with increased phonological awareness.
Korat (2009) observed that the phonological awareness and reading ability of 107 children
(4 to 5 years old) significantly improved after five, 20-25 minute e-book sessions when
compared to the control group. Korat et al., (2001) added children (aged 5 to 6) who used
e-books with adult support over four, 20-minute sessions, performed significantly better
than the control group on measures of opening and closing sounds, as wells as word writing.
8 Zomer and Kay
Shamir et al. (2012) examined the use of e-books with children (5 to 7 years) and observed
significant improvements in sub-syllabic segmentation compared to control groups. Finally,
Wood et al. (2010), when investigating the use of e-books with kindergarten children, noted
that there were situations when e-books may be more effective (e.g., with early readers) and
situations when adult-led instruction is better (e.g., with more advanced readers).
All three studies using computer-aided instruction reported significant gains in
phonological development. Comaskey et al. (2009) noted that 53 disadvantaged
kindergarten students showed significant improvements in consonant-vowel word
blending, articulation of final consonants, and articulation of shared rime as a result of using
a program called ABRACADABRA. Macaruso & Rodman (2011) observed that pre-school
students, who experienced 200 minutes of the Early Reading computer program had
significantly greater gains in phonological awareness (sound matching and rhyming) than
the control group. They also reported, in a second study, that low-performing kindergarten
students (5 to 6 years old) who used the Early Reading and Primary Reading computer
programs, attained significantly higher scores on phonological awareness than the control
group. Finally, Volpe et al. (2001), in a small case study involving four at-risk kindergarten
children, noted gains of six to nine letter sounds after using a Tutoring Buddy three times
per week for a total of 25 sessions.
Campbell & Mechling (2009), in a case study involving three kindergarten children who
had learning disabilities, examined the effectiveness of a program used with an interactive
whiteboard (IWB) targeting phonological awareness. After experiencing 34 sessions of 10-
15 minutes each, all three students increased their letter-sound knowledge.
Finally, in a large-scale study involving 396 pre-school children from 80 different
classes, Penuel et al. (2012) reported that an intervention group who was exposed to PBS
online videos and games scored significantly higher than the control group on letter sound
awareness, letter name knowledge, and print concepts.
Six of the 10 studies examining the impact of technology on phonological awareness
provided 14 measures with an average effect size of 0.52 (SD=0.40). According to Hattie
(2012), effect sizes between 0.03 and 0.6 are considered medium. It is reasonable to
conclude, based on both quantitative and qualitative evidence, that the use of e-books, CAI
programs, interactive whiteboards, and online resources can result in statistically significant
moderate gains in the level of phonological awareness in young children, four to six years
old.
Vocabulary (n=4). The second literacy category, vocabulary development, included
four studies (13%) in the areas of e-books and robotics (Korat, 2009; Shamir et al, 2011;
Shamir et al., 2012; McDonald & Howell, 2012).
Korat (2009) reported kindergarten children from low SES backgrounds, exposed to
five, 20-25 minute e-book sessions progressed significantly more in vocabulary than the
control group. Shamir et al. (2012), studied 100 children who were at risk, and observed
that six, 20-35 minute e-book sessions produced significantly higher vocabulary scores than
printed-book or control groups. Finally, Shamir et al. (2011) compared the vocabulary
development of 60 typically developing kindergarten students with 76 kindergarten
9 Zomer and Kay
students at risk for a learning disability (aged 5-7) with the use of e-books. Both e-book
groups scored significantly higher than the control groups on vocabulary. In addition, the
at-risk group scored significantly higher than the typically developing group, which
suggested that e-books might be a way to help close the gap in vocabulary development
between these two groups.
Macdonald & Howell (2012) used a robotics program to investigate vocabulary
development in 16 children, ages 5.5 to 7 years, from low SES backgrounds. After completing
six, 60-90 minute sessions over six weeks, students showed improvement in the use of
vocabulary related to the use of robotics.
Based on results of three studies and five measures of vocabulary, the average effect size
on vocabulary scores after using e-books was 1.18 (SD= 0.73). This is considered a high
effect size according to Hattie (2012); however, the number of studies and the range of
technology used focused exclusively on vocabulary skill.
General literacy (n=3). Three studies examined the impact of technology on general
literacy, including emergent reading, writing, and/or oral language skills (Cviko, McKenney,
& Voogt, 2011; Huffstetter, King, Onwuegbuzie, Schneider, & Powell-Smith, 2010; McKenney
& Voogt, 2009). McKenney & Voogt (2009) examined the impact of PictoPal, a program that
combines the use of pictures and words to enable students to express themselves in print,
even before they are able to read. Students who used PictoPal for eight, 20-minute sessions
over five weeks with adult support experienced significantly higher gains in early literacy
skills than the control group. McKenney & Voogt (2009) noted that the type of adult support
had an effect of student learning, and that parent volunteers may need training to learn how
to best support students when using PictoPal. Cviko et al. (2011) observed that children
(age 3 to 5 years), working with the PictoPal program for 10-15 minutes per week for eight
weeks with the help of grade 6 children, showed significantly higher gains in emergent
literacy compared to the control group. Finally, Huffstetter et al. (2010), examining the
Headsprout Early Reading computer program with children (4 to 6 years old) from low SES
backgrounds, noted that reading ability, but not oral language skill, significantly increased
for the intervention group compared to the control group. There are too few studies
examining the impact of technology on general literacy skills to confirm whether there is a
significant impact; however, the preliminary evidence suggests that PictoPal, and to a lesser
extent, the Headsprout Early Reading, resulted in moderate improvements with an average
effect size of 0.39 (SD= 0.46)
Concept of print (n=2). Two studies (7%) focused on concepts of print, which Shamir
et al. (2012) describes as “A knowledge of book and text handling as well as the direction in
which reading proceeds” (p. 55). In the first study, Levy (2009) was interested in exploring
if children would develop concepts of print through a computer format just as well as with
an actual book. She followed 12 children (3 to 6 years old) over the course of a year in their
home and at their school. Levy (2009) found that exposing children to computer texts
allowed them to develop confidence in handling print. With paper text, these children did
not appear to have the same confidence, and believed they needed to be taught how to do it.
Levy (2009) concluded that using computer texts allowed children to develop a sense of
print in a holistic context better than paper texts. In the second study, Shamir et al. (2012),
10 Zomer and Kay
examined 100 children who were at risk, and reported that students experiencing six, 20-35
minute e-book sessions on their own, did not differ significantly from students who read
print books with an adult on their concepts of print. The researcher notes that the use of e-
books to develop concepts of print could be particularly valuable when there is a lack of adult
availability to read books. Overall, based on just two studies, there is limited evidence to
suggest that technology can help improve concepts of print.
Reading compression (n=2). Two studies examined reading comprehension. Shamir
et al. (2011) compared the use of e-books of 76 at-risk kindergarteners with 60 typical
kindergarteners. E-books were used for six sessions of 20-35 minutes in length. The
typically developing kindergarteners scored significantly higher than the at-risk group in
terms of reading comprehension. However, both groups scored quite low, which led the
researchers to suggest that comprehension might be taught more effectively with some adult
support. Korat’s (2009) study focused on the use of e-books with 107 pre-kindergartners
and 108 kindergarteners of low SES. Children received either three or five sessions with the
e-books (20-25 minutes each). No difference between the groups was found in terms of
reading comprehension. However, age differences were found. Kindergarten aged children
did better than the pre-kindergarten aged children, suggesting a developmental aspect to
reading comprehension and the use of e-books. More research is needed with respect the
use of technology and reading comprehension in order to make reliable and valid
conclusions.
Impact of Technology on Engagement (n=8)
Eight studies (27%) focused on the impact of technology on student engagement in early
childhood education. Although many definitions exist for the term engagement; for the
purposes of this paper, engagement refers to sustained involvement in learning activities,
accompanied by interest and enjoyment (Parsons & Taylor, 2012).
Six studies indicated that technology appears to increase engagement. Howard et al.
(2012) reported that use of Smartboards and a computer lab by young children, over 39
sessions, resulted in moderate to high Leuven engagement scores. McDonald & Howell
(2012) noted that students from low SES backgrounds had higher levels of motivation and
engagement after participating in a robotics program for six weeks (6.5 hours). Fesakis et
al. (2011, 2013) observed in two small case studies, anecdotally, that students (5 to 6 years)
using an online program called Monster Exchange or basic programming skills appeared
highly engaged and motivated. Papadimitriou et al. (2013) explored digital storytelling over
a period of three weeks with 19 children (5-6 years old) and reported that children were
engaged and motivated throughout all of the activities. Roberts-Holmes (2014) added that
preschoolers engaged in the collaborative creation of mini-movies were highly engaged.
Two studies noted that the level of engagement increased with the age of the student (Couse
& Chen, 2010; Cviko et al., 2011).
Although all eight studies reported a positive relationship between engagement and
technology use, each study was somewhat vague about precisely defining and measuring
behaviors that indicate engagement. Of the eight studies reported, four studies used a
quantitative tool to measure engagement (rating scale, length of time, checklist, and student
11 Zomer and Kay
survey); however, the reliability and validity for these measures were not reported. The
remaining four studies used anecdotal evidence and observations with relatively small
sample sizes to report engagement and none of the studies incorporated a control group.
Therefore, the evidence that technology increases engagement for young children needs to
be treated with caution.
Impact of Technology on Social Interaction (n=8)
Eight studies (27%) focused on social interactions of children involving the use of
technology. Two studies concentrated on social interactions and robotics programming
(McDonald & Howell, 2012; Lee, Sullivan, & Bers, 2010), three studies examined social
interactions occurring around the computer in the classroom (Lim, 2012; Roberts-Holmes,
2014; Wild, 2011), and the remaining three studies looked at social interactions when
specific technology or software programs were used (Sandvik, Smordal, & Osterun , 2012;
Papadimitriou, Kapaniaris, Zisiadis, & Kalogirou, 2013; Fesakis, et al., 2011).
Two studies indicated that the use of robotics programming appeared to increase social
interaction. McDonald & Howell (2012) used a robotics program with 16 children of low SES
over the course of six weeks (6.5 hours) and found that social skills of students improved
regarding students’ ability to interact socially with their peers in the form of turn-taking,
sharing ideas, and comfort level working in groups. Lee et al. (2010) examined the use of
the Creative Hybrid Environment for Robotic Programming (CHERP) by children in a five-
day summer program (5 to 6 years), and reported that unstructured groups engaged in
significantly more social interactions and peer collaborations than children in the structured
group.
Three studies suggested that interactions around the computer increased social
interaction. In the first study, Roberts-Holmes (2014) tracked sustained shared attention
(SSA) and sustained shared thinking (SST) in 15 preschoolers (4 to 6 years). Qualitative
observations indicated that when “playing” together on the computer, children tended to
have a higher level of SSA. However, when engaged in a more constructive activity, such as
making mini-movies, children engaged in a higher level of SST. In the second study, Wild
(2011) observed that children (5 to 6 years) who participated in computer tasks over a one
week session had a greater number of SSA and SST incidents than children who engaged in
paper and pencil interactions during the same time period. Finally, Lim (2012) noted that
in the computer area, collaborative learning occurred 68% of the time whereas in the other
activity areas in the classroom, children (5 to 6 years) worked collaboratively for 54 % of the
time.
The remaining three studies examined the use of specific types of technology or
programs and social interactions. Sandivik et al. (2012) anecdotally observed that five
children using iPads© (See and Say & Puppet Pals) helped each other in both partner and full
group activities, by cooperating, sharing, and participating. Papadimitriou et al. (2013)
found that digital storytelling increased the number of both child-to-child and child-to-
teacher social interactions over the course of a three-week intervention using a digital
camera, webcam, and computer. Finally, Fesakis, et al. (2011) noted an improvement in
12 Zomer and Kay
collaboration skills among the children (5 to 6 years) over the course of working with an
online program called Monster Exchange (creating and giving directions to build a monster).
All eight studies reported that technology had a positive impact on social interaction
among young children in the classroom; however, the results should be treated with caution
for at least two reasons. First, reliability or validity measures used to assess social
interaction were not provided for six of the eight studies. Second, six of the eight studies had
a sample size less than 20. More research is needed to explore the specific details of social
interactions and confirm whether the results are generalizable.
Impact of Technology on Learning Mathematics (n=3)
In contrast to the number of studies focusing on literacy (n=16, 53%), only three studies
(10%) focused on mathematics related concepts. One study was based on robotics
(McDonald & Howell, 2012), while the other two examined specific online programs
(Fesakis, Sofroniou, & Mavroudi, 2011; Fessakis, Gouli, & Mavroudi, 2013). McDonald &
Howell (2012), anecdotally observed that a robotics program improved numeracy skills for
16 children, age 5 to 7 years, with low SES backgrounds (e.g., ability to count, identify colors
and shapes, and use of positional language). Fesakis et al. (2011), based on qualitative
analysis, noted that an online program called Monster Exchange improved geometry skills
for four children (5 to 6 years). Finally, Fessakis et al. (2013), through qualitative analysis
of video recordings, reported that basic programing software, designed to move a digital
ladybug through a maze, supported development of mathematical skills (one-to-one
correspondence, counting, number comparison, orientation skills, and angle turn concepts)
for 10 kindergarten students. In summary, all three studies indicated that technology, in
various forms, helped improve mathematical skills. The exclusive use of qualitative evidence
and small samples reduces the import of the findings. More research on a wider range of
technologies and mathematical skills, combined with larger sample sizes is needed to
confirm existing results.
Impact of Technology – Miscellaneous Topics (n=5)
Five studies (17%) did not clearly fit into any distinct categories. These studies
examined sequencing (Kazakoff & Bers, 2012), visual perception (Chen, Lin, Wei, Liu, &
Wuang, 2013), creative thinking (Shawareb, 2011), and the fine motor capability of children
to physically navigate a specific technological tool (Panagiotakou & Pange, 2010; Couse &
Chen, 2010).
Kazakoff & Bers (2012) explored the use of a robotics program and sequencing skills, an
important component in the development of early math and early literacy learning. The
results showed that the intervention group, which received 20 hours of lessons from the
TangibleK robotics program, showed significant improvement in sequencing skills
compared to the control group. Chen et al. (2013) studied the use of multimedia training for
children with developmental delays, and reported significant gains for the intervention
group in visual perception skills when compared to the control group. They also found that
group multimedia training had a greater effect than individual multimedia training.
Shawareb (2011) reported that children exposed to a wide array of computer standalone
13 Zomer and Kay
programs (Millie’s Math House, Bailey’s Book House, Sammy’s Science House, KidPix, Dr.
Seuss’s ABC, Thinking’ Things I) for 12 weeks scored significantly higher on a creative
thinking test than the control group. Panagiotakou & Pange (2010) reported that four to six
year old students performed significantly better on a music activity using a camera mouse
as opposed to a regular mouse, even though the former was more challenging to use. They
speculated that the extra challenge and novelty of using the camera mouse resulted in a
higher level of interest and concentration. Finally, Couse & Chen (2010) examined the
viability of using tablets with young children (3 to 6 years) to draw self-portraits, and
observed that 64% of children preferred using technology over traditional materials. Some
of the reasons children gave for this preference was that it was easier to draw on; the colors
were brighter; and it was easier to erase and change things.
Previous research reviews (Burnett, 2010; Lankshear & Knobel, 2003) and most of the
studies in the current review suggest that the vast majority of research in technology and
early childhood education focusses on literacy skills. However, the eclectic, yet positive use
of technology in the above five studies suggests that there may be a much broader range of
potential benefits for using technology with younger children.
Effect Size
Twelve studies (40%) from this review provided enough data to calculate effect size for
33 measures. While the sample is small, several patterns emerged. First, the average effect
size for all measures range from 0 to 2.38, with an average of 0.71 (SD=0.60). According to
Hattie (2012) who has conducted over 900 meta-analyses in the field of education, effect
sizes over 0.60 should be considered seriously when selecting meaningful interventions for
younger children. Therefore, the use of technology in the 12 quantitative studies reported
in this review appear to have an educationally meaningful impact. Second, effect size for this
small group of studies was higher when technology was used with students in the traditional
stream (n=11, 0.89, SD =0.65) than with students who were at-risk (n=22, 0.63, SD =0.57).
However, the magnitude of both effect sizes is meaningful according to Hattie (2012). Third,
the type of technology used produced different effect sizes, with stand-alone tools producing
the highest effect size (n=13, 1.02, SD= 0.69), e-books, the second highest effect size (n=14,
0.60, SD= 0.49), and online resources, the smallest effect size (n=6, 0.30, SD= 0.15). Again,
the sample effect size was small, and more research is needed to determine why this
difference might occur, and whether it is consistent. Fourth, not enough effect sizes were
available to compare age groups or skill type targeted (e.g., literacy, mathematics, social
interaction, engagement).
Methodological Challenges
The 30 papers from 2009-2014 that have been reviewed present some interesting and
useful findings. However, it is important to address several key methodological concerns,
including sample size and description, reliability and validity of data collection tools, and
pedagogy and design issues, that may affect the credibility of the results.
Sample size. Sample size varied according to the intended purpose of a particular study.
In the current literature review, 12 studies (40%) had sample sizes over 50, which permits
14 Zomer and Kay
a certain degree of generalization when reporting results. On the other hand, seven studies
(23%) had samples sizes between 20 and 50, and 12 studies (20%) had sample sizes of less
than 20 students. Sample sizes of less than 30 are generally considered small (Onwuegbuzie
& Leech, 2010), although there is some disagreement about the potential impact.
Nikolopoulou (2010), argued that even though sample sizes may be small, when research
involves young children, the results, in general, are not easily generalizable, regardless of
sample size. Furthermore, small sample qualitative studies can offer valuable detailed
information about the behaviours, processes, and phenomena observed in early childhood
education settings. Regardless, it is important when considering the results of this literature
review to note that over half of the studies had relatively small sample sizes.
Sample descriptions. Over three quarters of the studies examined in this review
provided partial or incomplete descriptions of the sample participants. However, factors
such as gender, cognitive ability, socio-economic status, education level of parents, type of
disadvantage, or educational risk can have a significant impact on the influence that
technology has on learning and engagement. In addition, providing complete, detailed
information, makes it easier to systematically compare studies.
Reliability and validity. Reporting of reliability and validity metrics in review of
literature was inconsistent and limited. Only three quantitative/mixed methods studies
provided estimates of both reliability and validity of data collections tools. Three of the eight
qualitative studies (38%) explained how they achieved aspects of reliability in their studies.
They addressed inter-rater reliability by having more than one person independently
rate/code/organize observations, video recordings, and/or transcripts. Of the remaining
five qualitative studies, three did not mention reliability or validity, while two acknowledged
and explained the limitations and challenges of their study. Clearly, it is important to provide
some form of data collection quality, regardless of the design used, in order to have
confidence in the consistency and accuracy of the results.
Pedagogy. Overall, the studies assessed in this review were relatively rigorous about
reporting pedagogy used. In 23 studies (76%), the details of the technology and the basics
for how it was used were clear. Whether the technology was used independently, in
partners, small groups, or with an adult, was mentioned in 20 studies (67%). However, the
role of the adult was rarely explained clearly. It is important to understand how the adult
engaged with the child or children working with the technology, as the level of support could
affect the results. Explicit details about the teaching strategies used with technology are
critical for understanding the impact of a particular device in a specific environment. Key
factors such as interactivity, collaboration, problem solving, scaffolding provided, and
creativity, can markedly alter the impact of a specific technology.
Use of technology. The majority of studies in the current review used stand-alone
technology in the form of software, CD-ROMS, and e-books. This technology, while
potentially useful, is dated, costly, and neither scalable nor sustainable in a larger context.
Many school boards cannot afford to maintain technology solutions that required extensive
technology support, upgrades, and dedicated hardware. Online technology, examined in
only four studies, is a far more realistic and promising direction for technology use in early
15 Zomer and Kay
childhood education classes. There is an abundance of free, high quality online tools
available to educators that can be used on a variety of devices.
Area of focus. Over 50% of the studies in this review focused on literacy skills, which is
a key area of need in early childhood education (Lynch & Redpath, 2014; Wohlwend, 2010;
Yelland, 2011). However, the limited number of studies addressing mathematics skills is
concerning. One research report noted that minimal gains have been made in improving
mathematics skills for at-risk students over the past 40 years (Strong American School,
2008). Clearly, more research needs to focus on the use of technology to support
mathematics skills.
Limitations and Recommendations for Future Research
All studies, regardless of methodology, age group, or technological device used,
reported a positive effect of technology on learning or engagement. The impact of
technology use on literacy development appears to be reasonably well established in the
literature, particularly in the area of phonological awareness, and to a lesser extent,
vocabulary and general literacy. Other areas of study, including the impact of technology on
engagement, social interaction, and mathematical skills, showed a positive effect, but
evidence was based on relatively few studies, small sample sizes, and qualitative
observations. Clearly, researchers need to broaden the scope of technology interventions
beyond literacy. They should also consider larger scale experimental studies, like some of
those conducted in the domain of literacy, to see if the results in less studied areas are
generalizable.
Specialized, stand-alone technology, and e-books, were used most often (87% of the
time). The availability of free, easy to use, online software provides a promising interactive
environment and direction for future research on the use of technology in early childhood
education.
While a number of studies used well-designed, carefully constructed methodologies;
improvements could be made by providing clear, detailed descriptions of the participants;
articulating parameters for assessing the quality of data collected, such as reliability and/or
validity; and noting the role of an adult in offering support when the technology is used.
Overall, the results summarized in this literature review suggest that technology can
have a positive influence on literacy development, engagement, social interactions,
mathematics skills, sequencing, visual perception, creative thinking, and fine motor
capability in young children. However, it is important to recognize that a wide variety of
factors can, and do, moderate the impact of technology on educational outcomes, including
who is using the technology (younger vs. older children, students at-risk); the type of
technology use (desktop computers with specific programs, e-books, tablets, video cameras,
interactive whiteboards, and robotics); how the technology is used (individually, partners,
small groups); where the technology is used (within the classroom or online); what support
is provided (independent use or with adult or older peer support); and whether
supplemental materials are used (introductory lessons and print-based materials).
Understanding the influence of multiple moderators, and employing a systems approach to
16 Zomer and Kay
the use of technology in education, is a challenging but a necessary step for conducting future
research in order to provide meaningful and effective guidance to teachers and students.
Conclusion
This study reviewed 30 papers, from 2009 to 2014, examining the impact of digital
technology used with children aged 3 to 6 years. Stand-alone software, CD-ROMS, and e-
books were used in the majority of studies. Four key content areas of focus emerged,
including literacy, engagement, social interactions, and mathematics. Sixteen papers
targeting the impact of technology on literacy skills revealed statically significant gains in
phonological awareness, vocabulary, general literacy, reading compression, and the concept
of print. Eight studies reported a positive relationship between the use of technology and
engagement. Eight studies suggested that technology had a positive impact on social
interactions like cooperating, sharing, and collaborating. Three studies indicated that
technology helped to improve mathematics skills and the impact of technology on
mathematics skills, such as numeracy skills, counting, and identifying shapes. The average
effect size, based on only 12 studies, was 0.71, indicating that the impact of technology for
younger children was meaningful. Methodological limitations noted for the studies reviewed
included small sample sizes; an absence of reliability and validity metrics for data collection
instruments; the use of technology that is dated, costly, and neither scalable nor sustainable;
and a disproportionate focus on literacy.
17 Zomer and Kay
REFERENCES
Alper, M. (2011). Developmentally appropriate new media literacies: Supporting cultural
competencies and social skills in early childhood education. Journal of Childhood
Literacy, 13(2), 175-196. doi: 10.1177/1468798411430101
Anderson, C. A., & Bushman, B. J. (2001). Effects of violent video games on aggressive
behavior, aggressive cognition, aggressive affect, physiological arousal, and prosocial
behavior: A meta-analytic review of the scientific literature. Psychological Science, 12(5),
353-359. doi:10.1111/1467-9280.00366
Aubrey, C., & Dahl, S. (2014). The confidence and competence in information and
communication technologies of practitioners, parents and young children in the early
years foundation stage. Early Years, 34(1), 94-108.
doi:10.1080/09575146.2013.792789
Blackwell, C. (2013). Teacher practices with mobile technology integrating tablet computers
into the early childhood classroom. Journal of Education Research, 7(4), 231-255.
Burnett, C. (2010). Technology and literacy in early childhood educational settings: A review
of research. Journal of Early Childhood Literacy, 10(3), 247-270. doi:
10.1177/1468798410372154
Campbell, M. L., & Mechling, L. C. (2009). Small group computer-assisted instruction with
SMART board technology. Remedial and Special Education, 30(1), 47-57. doi:
10.1177/0741932508315048
Cassell, J. (2004). Towards a model of technology and literacy development: Story listening
systems. Journal of Applied Developmental Psychology, 25(1), 75-105.
doi:10.1016/j.appdev.2003.11.003
Chantry, J., & Dunford, C. (2010). How do computer assistive technologies enhance
participation in childhood occupations for children with multiple and complex
disabilities? A review of the current literature. The British Journal of Occupational
Therapy, 73(8), 351-365. doi: 10.4276/030802210X12813483277107
Chen, Y., Lin, C., Wei, T., Liu, C., & Wuang, Y. (2013). The effectiveness of multimedia visual
perceptual training groups for the preschool children with developmental delay.
Research in Developmental Disabilities, 34(12), 4447-4454.
doi:10.1016/j.ridd.2013.09.023
Chera, P., & Wood, C. (2003). Animated multimedia ‘talking books’ can promote phonological
awareness in children beginning to read. Learning and Instruction, 13(1), 33-52. doi:
10.1016/S0959-4752(01)00035-4
Cicconi, M. (2014). Vygotsky meets technology: A reinvention of collaboration in the early
childhood mathematics classroom. Early Childhood Education Journal, 42(1), 57-65. doi:
10.1007/s10643-013-0582-9
Comaskey, E. M., Savage, R. S., & Abrami, P. (2009). A randomised efficacy study of web-based
synthetic and analytic programmes among disadvantaged urban kindergarten children.
Journal of Research in Reading, 32(1), 92-108. doi: 10.1111/j.1467-9817.2008.01383.x
Couse, L. J., & Chen, D. W. (2010). A tablet computer for young children? Exploring its viability
for early childhood education. Journal of Research on Technology in Education, 43(1), 75-
98. doi: 10.1080/15391523.2010.10782562
18 Zomer and Kay
Cordes, C. & Miller, E. (2000). Fool’s gold: A critical look at computers in childhood. College
Park, MD: Alliance for Childhood. Retrieved from
http://files.eric.ed.gov/fulltext/ED445803.pdf
Cviko, A., McKenney, S., & Voogt, J. (2012). Teachers enacting a technology-rich curriculum
for emergent literacy. Educational Technology Research and Development, 60(1), 31-54.
doi: 10.1007/x11423-011-9208-3
Edwards, S. (2013). Digital play in the early years: A contextual response to the problem of
integrating technologies and play-based pedagogies in the early childhood curriculum.
European Early Childhood Education Research Journal, 21(2), 199-212.
doi:10.1080/1350293X.2013.789190
Fesakis, G., Sofrouniou, C., & Mavroudi, E. (2011). Using the internet for communicative
learning activities in kindergarten: The case of the “Shapes Planet.” Early Childhood
Education Journal, 39(5), 385-392. doi: 10.1007/s10643-010-0422-0
Fessakis, G., Gouli, E., & Mavroudi, E. (2013). Problem solving by 5–6 years old kindergarten
children in a computer programming environment: A case study. Computers &
Education, 63(4), 87-97. doi:10.1016/j.compedu.2012.11.016
Hattie, J. (2012). Visible learning for teachers: Maximizing impact on learning. New York:
Routledge.
Healy, J. M. (2004). Young children don't need computers. Education Digest, 69(5), 57-58.
Hillman, M., & Marshall, J. (2009). Evaluation of digital media for emergent literacy.
Computers in the Schools, 26(4), 256-270. doi:10.1080/07380560903360186
Howard, J., Miles, G. E., & Rees-Davies, L. (2012). Computer use within a play-based early
years curriculum. International Journal of Early Years Education, 20(2), 175-189.
doi:10.1080/09669760.2012.715241
House, R. (2012). The inappropriateness of ICT in early childhood education: Arguments
from philosophy, pedagogy and developmental psychology. In S. Suggate & E. Reese
(Eds.), Contemporary debates in childhood education and development (pp. 105-121).
New York: Routledge.
Huffstetter, M., King, J. R., Onwuegbuzie, A. J., Schneider, J. J., & Powell-Smith, K. A. (2010).
Effects of a computer-based early reading program on the early reading and oral
language skills of at-risk preschool children. Journal of Education for Students Placed at
Risk, 15(4), 279-298. doi:10.1080/10824669.2010.532415
Hutinger, P. L., & Johanson, J. (2000). Implementing and maintaining an effective early
childhood comprehensive technology system. Topics in Early Childhood Special
Education, 20(3), 159-173. doi: 10.1177/027112140002000305
Kazakoff, E., & Bers, M. (2012). Programming in a robotics context in the kindergarten
classroom: The impact on sequencing skills. Journal of Educational Multimedia and
Hypermedia, 21(4), 371-391.
Kirkorian, H. L., Wartella, E. A., & Anderson, D. R. (2008). Media and young children's
learning. The Future of Children, 18(1), 39-61.
Ko, C.H., & Chou, M.J. (2014). Aesthetics in early childhood education: The combination of
technology instruments in children’s music, visual arts and pretend play. Journal of
Social Sciences, 10(1), 39-45. doi: 10.3844/jssp.2014.39.45
19 Zomer and Kay
Korat, O. (2009). The effects of CD-ROM storybook reading on Israeli children’s early literacy
as a function of age group and repeated reading. Education and Information
Technologies, 14(1), 39-53. doi: 10.1007/s10639-008-9063-y
Korat, O., Shamir, A., & Arbiv, L. (2011). E-books as support for emergent writing with and
without adult assistance. Education and Information Technologies, 16(3), 301-318. doi:
10.1007/x10639-010-9127-7
Lankshear, C., & Knobel, M. (2003). New technologies in early childhood literacy research: A
review of research. Journal of Early Childhood Literacy, 3(1), 59-82. doi:
10.1177/14687984030031003
Lieberman, D. A., Fisk, M. C., & Biely, E. (2009). Digital games for young children ages three
to six: From research to design. Computers in the Schools, 26(4), 299-313.
doi:10.1080/07380560903360178
Lee, K. T. H., Sullivan, A., & Bers, M. U. (2013). Collaboration by design: Using robotics to
foster social interaction in kindergarten. Computers in the Schools, 30(3), 271-281.
doi:10.1080/07380569.2013.805676
Levy, R. (2009). ‘You have to understand words … but not read them’: Young children
becoming readers in a digital age. Journal of Research in Reading, 32(1), 75-91. doi:
10.1111/j.1467-9817.2008.01382.x
Lim, E. M. (2012). Patterns of kindergarten children’s social interaction with peers in the
computer area. International Journal of Computer-Supported Collaborative Learning,
7(3), 399-421. doi: 10.1007/s11412-012-9152-1
Lindahl, M. G., & Folkesson, A. (2012). ICT in preschool: Friend or foe? The significance of
norms in a changing practice. International Journal of Early Years Education, 20(4), 422-
436. doi:10.1080/09669760.2012.743876
Lynch, J., & Redpath, T. (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
Macaruso, P., & Rodman, A. (2011). Efficacy of computer-assisted instruction for the
development of early literacy skills in young children. Reading Psychology, 32(2), 172-
196. doi:10.1080/02702711003608071
Mama, M., & Hennessey, S. (July 2010). Level of technology integration by primary teachers
in Cyprus and student engagement. Technology, Pedagogy and Education, 19(2), 269-
275. doi: 10.1080/1475939X.2010.491238
McCarrick, K., & Li, X. (2007). Buried treasure: The impact of computer use on young
children’s social, cognitive, language development and motivation. AACE Journal, 15(1),
73-95.
McDonald, S., & Howell, J. (2012). Watching, creating and achieving: Creative technologies as
a conduit for learning in the early years. British Journal of Educational Technology, 43(4),
641-651. doi:10.1111/j.1467-8535.2011.01231.x
McKenney, S., & Voogt, J. (2009). Designing technology for emergent literacy: The PictoPal
initiative. Computers & Education, 52(4), 719-729. doi:10.1016/j.compedu.2008.11.013
McManis, L., & Gunnewig, S. (2012). Finding the education in educational technology with
early learners. Young Children, 67(3), 14-24.
20 Zomer and Kay
Morgan, A. (2010). Interactive whiteboards, interactivity and play in the classroom with
children aged three to seven years. European Early Childhood Education Research
Journal, 18(1), 93-104. doi:10.1080/13502930903520082
Muligan, S.A. (2003). Assistive technology: Supporting the participation of children with
disabilities. Young Children, 58(6), 50-51. Retrieved from
www.naeyc.org/files/yc/file/200311/AssistiveTechnology.pdf
National Association for the Education of Young Children & The Fred Rogers Center. (2012).
Technology and interactive media as tools in early childhood programs serving children
from birth through age 8. Washington, DC: Authors.
Nikolopoulou, K. (2010). Methods for Investigating Young Children’s Learning and
Development with Information Technology. In A. McDougall, J. Murnane, A. Jones, & N.
Reynolds (Eds.), Researching IT in Education: Theory, Practice and Future Directions (pp.
183-191). London: Routledge.
Onwuegbuzie, A. J., & Leech, N. L. (2010). Generalization practices in qualitative research: A
mixed methods case study. Quality and Quantity, 44(5), 881-892.
doi:http://dx.doi.org/10.1007/s11135-009-9241-z
Panagiotakou, C., & Pange, J. (2010). The use of ICT in preschool music education. Procedia –
Social and Behavioral Sciences, 2(2), 3055-3059. doi: 10.1016/j.sbspro.2010.03.464
Papadimitriou, E., Kapaniaris, A., Zisiadis, D., & Kalogirou, E. (2013). Digital storytelling in
kindergarten: An alternative tool in children's way of expression. Mediterranean Journal
of Social Sciences, 4(11), 389-396. doi: 10.5901/mjss.2013.v4n11p389
Parette, H., Quensenberry, A., & Blum, C. (2010). Missing the boat with technology usage in
early childhood settings: A 21st century view of developmentally appropriate practice.
Early Childhood Education Journal, 37(5), 335-343. doi: 10.1007/s10643-009-0352-x
Parsons, J., & Taylor, L. (2012). Student engagement: What do we know and what should we
do? Edmonton, Alta: University of Alberta. Retrieved from
https://education.alberta.ca/media/6459431/student_engagement_literature_review_
2011.pdf
Penuel, W. R., Bates, L., Gallagher, L. P., Pasnik, S., Llorente, C., Townsend, E.., Hupert, N.,
Dominguez, X., & VanderBorght, M. (2012). Supplementing literacy instruction with a
media-rich intervention: Results of a randomized controlled trial. Early Childhood
Research Quarterly, 27(1), 115-127. doi: 10.1016/j.ecresq.2011.07.002
Plowman, L., & Stephen, C. (2003). A ‘benign addition’? Research on ICT and pre-school
children. Journal of Computer Assisted Learning, 19(2), 149-164. doi: 10.1046/j.0266-
4909.2003.00016.x
Plowman, L., & McPake, J. (2013). Seven myths about young children and technology.
Childhood Education, 89(1), 27-33. doi: 10.1080/00094056.2013.757490
Plowman, L., McPake, J., & Stephen, C. (2012). Extending opportunities for learning: the role
of digital media in early education. In S. Suggate & E. Reese (Eds.), Contemporary debates
in childhood education and development (pp 95-104). New York: Routledge.
Plowman, L., Stevenson, O., McPake, J., Stephen, C., & Adey, C. (2011). Parents, pre-schoolers
and learning with technology at home: Some implications for policy. Journal of Computer
Assisted Learning, 27(4), 361-371. doi:10.1111/j.1365-2729.2011.00432.x
21 Zomer and Kay
Roberts-Holmes, G. (2014). Playful and creative ICT pedagogical framing: A nursery school
case study. Early Child Development and Care, 184(1), 1-14.
doi:10.1080/03004430.2013.772991
Rosen, D. B., & Jaruszewicz, C. (2009). Developmentally appropriate technology use and early
childhood teacher education. Journal of Early Childhood Teacher Education, 30(2), 162-
171. doi: 10.1080/10901020902886511
Sandvik, M., Smordal, O., & Osterud, S. (2012). Exploring iPads in practitioners’ repertoires
for language learning and literacy practices in kindergarten. Nordic Journal of Digital
Literacy, 7(3), 204-220. Retrieved from
http://www.idunn.no/dk/2012/03/exploring_ipads_in_practitioners_repertoires_for_l
anguage_
Shamir, A. (2009). Processes and outcomes of joint activity with e-books for promoting
kindergarteners' emergent literacy. Educational Media International, 46(1), 81-96. doi:
10.1080/09523980902781295
Shamir, A., Korat, O., & Fellah, R. (2012). Promoting vocabulary, phonological awareness and
concept about print among children at risk for learning disability: can e-books help?
Reading and Writing: An Interdisciplinary Journal, 25(1), 46-69. doi: 10.1007/s11145-
010-9247-x
Shamir, A., Korat, O., & Shlafer, I. (2011). The effect of activity with e-book on vocabulary and
story comprehension: A comparison between kindergarteners at risk of learning
disabilities and typically developing kindergarteners. European Journal of Special Needs
Education, 26(3), 311-322. doi:10.1080/08856257.2011.593824
Shawareb, A. (2011). The effects of computer use on creative thinking among kindergarten
children in Jordan. Journal of Instructional Psychology, 38(4), 213-220.
Shifflet, R., Toledo, C. & Mattoon, C. (2012). Touch tablet surprises. Young Children, 67(3), 36-
41. Retrieved from
http://www.naeyc.org/yc/files/yc/Touch%20Tablet%20Suprises.pdf
Strong American Schools (2008). A stagnant nation: Why American students are still at risk.
Retrieved from
http://cdm16064.contentdm.oclc.org/cdm/ref/collection/p266901coll4/id/190
Turja, L., Endepohls-Ulpe, M., & Chatoney, M. (2009). A conceptual framework for developing
the curriculum and delivery of technology education in early childhood. International
Journal of Technology and Design Education, 19(4), 353-365. doi:10.1007/s10798-009-
9093-9
Vernadakis, N., Avgerinos, A., Tsitskari, E. & Zachopoulou, E. (2005). The use of computer
assisted instruction in preschool education: Making teaching meaningful. Early
Childhood Education Journal, 33(2), p 99-104. doi: 10.1007/s10643-005-0026-2
Volpe, R. J., Burns, M. K., DuBois, M., & Zaslofsky, A. F. (2011). Computer-assisted tutoring:
Teaching letter sounds to kindergarten students using incremental rehearsal.
Psychology in the Schools, 48(4), 332-342. doi:10.1002/pits.20557
Wang, F., Kinzie, M., McGuire, P., & Pan, E. (2010). Applying technology to inquiry-based
learning in early childhood education. Early Childhood Education Journal, 37(5), 381-
389. doi: 10.1007/s10643-009-0364-6
22 Zomer and Kay
Wild, M. (2011). Thinking together: Exploring aspects of shared thinking between young
children during a computer-based literacy task. International Journal of Early Years
Education, 19(3-4), 219-231. doi:10.1080/09669760.2011.629490
Wohlwend, K. (2010). A is for avatar: Young children in literacy 2.0 worlds and literacy 1.0
schools. Language Arts, 88(2), 144-152.
Wood, C., Pillinger, C., & Jackson, E. (2010). Understanding the nature and impact of young
readers’ literacy interactions with talking books and during adult reading support.
Computers & Education, 54(1), 190-198. doi:10.1016/j.compedu.2009.08.003
Yelland, N. (2005). The future is now: A review of the literature on the use of computers in
early childhood education (1994-2004). AACE Journal, 13(3), 201-232.
Yelland, N. (2011). Reconceptualising play and learning in the lives of young children.
Australasian Journal of Early Childhood, 36(2), 4-12.
Youngquist, J., & Pataray-Ching, J. (2004). Revisiting “play”: Analyzing and articulating acts
of inquiry. Early Childhood Education Journal, 31(3), 171-178. doi:
10.1023/B:ECEJ.0000012135.73710.0c
23 Zomer and Kay
Appendix A – List of Coded Articles
Authors
Country
Pop
Theme(s)
Technology Used
Sample
Size
Sample
Desc.
Type of
Data
Scale
Reliable
Scale
Valid
Campbell &
Mechling, 2009
US
K
literacy, at-risk
Interactive
Whiteboard
3
Partial
Quant
Yes
No
Chen et al., 2013
Taiwan
K
new areas, at risk
Visual Perception
Training
(non-specific)
64
Complete
Quant
Yes
Yes
Comaskey et al.,
2009
Canada
K
literacy, at risk
ABRACADABRA
(online)
53
Partial
Quant
Yes
No
Couse & Chen,
2010
US
Pre, K
new areas, engagement
Drawing Software
(tablets and non-
specific)
41
Complete
Mixed
Yes
Yes
Cviko et al., 2011
Holland
K
literacy. engagement
PictoPal
Curriculum
(non-specific)
168
Complete
Mixed
Yes
No
Fesakis et al.,
2011
Greece
K
mathematics,
engagement
Monster Exchange
(online)
4
Partial
Qual
No
No
Fessakis, Gouli, &
Mavroudi, 2013
Greece
K
mathematics,
engagement
Lady Bug
Programming
(online)
10
Limited
Qual
No
No
Howard et al.,
2012
UK -
South
Wales
Pre, K,
Gr 1, T
engagement
Tech-Based
Classrooms
(non-specific)
12
schools
Partial
Mixed
No
No
Huffstetter et al.,
2010
US
K
Literacy, at risk (poverty)
Headsprout Early
Reading Program
(online)
62
Complete
Mixed
Yes
Yes
Kazakoff & Bers,
2012
US
K
new areas
TangibleK Robotics
program
(hands on)
54
Complete
Quant
No
No
24 Zomer and Kay
Korat, 2009
Israel
K
literacy, at-risk
e-books
214
Partial
Quant
Yes
No
Korat et al., 2011
Israel
K
literacy, at-risk
e-books
96
Complete
Quant
Yes
No
Lee et al., 2013
US
K
social interaction
LEGO Mindstorms
(hands on)
19
Partial
Quant
No
No
Levy, 2009
UK
Pre, K
Literacy
Computer texts
(non-specific)
12
Partial
Qual
Yes
Yes
Lim, 2012
Korea
K
social interaction
Computer
Classroom
(non-specific)
28
Partial
Qual
No
No
Macaruso &
Rodman, 2011
US
K
Literacy
Early Reading
(stand-alone)
38
Partial
Quant
No
Yes
McDonald &
Howell, 2012
Australia
K, Gr 1
literacy, mathematics,
social interaction,
engagement , at risk
LEGO Robotics
WeDo
(hands on)
16
Partial
Mixed
No
No
McKenney &
Voogt, 2009
Holland
K
Literacy
PictoPal
Curriculum
(non-specific)
14 to 79
Partial
Mixed
No
No
Panagiotakou &
Pange, 2010
Greece
K
new areas, engagement
Regular vs. Camera
Mouse
(hardware)
28
Partial
Mixed
No
No
Papadimitriou
Kapaniaris et al.
2013
Greece
K
social interactions,
engagement
Digital Story
Telling Video
(hands on)
19
Limited
Qual
No
No
Penuel et al.,2012
US
Pre, K
literacy, at-risk
PBS video & games
(non –specific)
396
Complete
Quant
No
No
Roberts-Holmes,
2014
UK
Pre
social interactions,
engagement
Computer
Classroom
(non-specific)
15
Partial
Qual
Yes
No
Sandvik et al.,
2012
Norway
K
social interaction
See and Say and
Puppet Pals
(iPad Apps)
5
Partial
Qual
No
No
25 Zomer and Kay
Shamir, 2009
Israel
K
literacy, at-risk
e-books
96
Partial
Mixed
Yes
No
Shamir et al.,
2012
Israel
K, Gr 1
literacy, at risk
e-books
11
Partial
Quant
Yes
Yes
Shamir et al.,
2011
Israel
K, Gr 1
literacy, at-risk
e-books
136
Partial
Quant
Yes
Yes
Shawareb, 2011
Jordan
K
new areas
Variety of Software
(stand alone and
non-specific)
76
Limited
Quant
No
No
Volpe et al., 2011
US
K
literacy, at-risk
Tutoring with
Adult on Computer
(non-specific)
4
Partial
Quant
Yes
No
Wild, 2011
UK
K
social interactions
Rhyme & Analogy
Programme
(stand-alone)
87
Limited
Qual
Yes
No
Wood et al., 2010
UK
K
Literacy
e-books
8
Partial
Mixed
No
No
