developing digital literacy in early years settings: professional development needs...

Developing Digital Literacy in Early Years Settings Professional Development Needs for Practitioners A White Paper for COST Action IS1410

Jackie Marsh Stavroula Kontovourki Eufimia Tafa and Saara Salomaa httpdigiliteyeu

Contents Page

1 Introduction 3

2 Barriers to Digital Literacy Practice in Early Years Settings 4

3 Digital Literacy CPD for Early Years Practitioners 11

4 Conclusion 16

References 17

2

To cite this paper

Marsh J Kontovourki S Tafa E and Salomaa S (2017) Developing Digital Literacy in Early Years Settings Professional Development Needs for Practitioners A White Paper for COST Action IS1410 [Accessed httpdigiliteyeu]

Images on cover and page 9 from httpspixabaycomenworkplace-team-business-meeting-1245776 and httpspixabaycomencoffee-break-conference-women-1177540 CC0 Public Domain

Image on page 15 From httpspixabaycomenworkplace-team-business-meeting-1245776 CDC Dawn Arlotta CC0 Public Domain

1

Introduction

Technological developments over the last 30 years have led to significant changes in

young childrens communicative practices Traditional literacy practices are still

prevalent but now children have access to multiple modes and media in order to

convey their messages In this multimedia world they read on-screen and

communicate with both known and unknown others in online environments These

developments have important implications for the early years curriculum not only on

literacy but also in other learning areas as mathematics (Papadakis Kalogiannakis amp

Zaranis 2016) There is a need to develop childrens skills and knowledge so that

they can operate effectively being able to create and express themselves within a

digital environment

There has been much debate in the early childhood education field with regard to the

use of technology in the curriculum but there is now general consensus that children

need some access in order to become familiar with a range of hardware and software

(NAEYC 2012) Nevertheless there is still a general lack of progress with regard to

early years practitionersrsquo use of technology in the curriculum (Lui 2016 Thorpe

Hansen Danby et al 2015) The reasons for this are complex but relate to a number

of barriers that are presented by technological personal or other reasons These

barriers are discussed in the next section before a review of issues relating to the

Continuing Professional Development (CPD) needs of early years practitioners are

outlined

3

2

Barriers to Digital Literacy Practice in Early Years Settings

There have been few studies that have looked specifically at barriers in relation to

digital literacy practice therefore this review focuses on barriers to the use of

technology in early childhood settings given that this is a closely related topic Ertmer

(1999) identified the barriers to practitionersrsquo use of technology being of an extrinsic or

intrinsic nature Extrinsic or first-order barriers as Ertmer (1999) identifies them

include lack of resources limited time lack of technical support or not having access

to appropriate training whilst intrinsic second-order barriers are related to the beliefs

and value-systems of individuals Similar extrinsic and intrinsic barriers have been also

identified by Blackwell Lauricella amp Wartella (2014) Plumb and Kautz (2015)

undertook a review of research on the barriers to the integration of information

technology within early childhood education and care institutions They drew on

Nikolopoulou and Gialamasrsquos (20133) observation that there is no lsquosingle accepted

classification of barriersrsquo and they therefore developed their own set of barriers

based on a careful review of 19 articles The barriers they identified are discussed

separately below

Educator beliefs and attitudes These were one of the most frequently cited

barriers in the papers reviewed by Plumb and Kautz (2015) Concerns have been

expressed by early years educators about the perceived negative impact of children

on learning and socials skills (Li 2006) Some feel that young children are too young

to access technologies (Wood et al 2008) Others draw on traditional theories of

early childhood practice which emphasise non-digital activities including the need to

focus on basic numeracy and literacy (Lindahl and Folkesson 2012 McDougall

4

2010) Research has indicated previously that beliefs and attitudes are two of the

strongest internal factors on teachersrsquo practice (Clandinin 1986 Nespor 1987

Pajares 1992) and this is also the case in relation to their use of technology (Inan and

Lowther 2010) In addition teachersrsquo own life-history experiences impact on their

practice (Britzman 1989 Grossman 1990 Lortie 1975) Friedrichs-Liesenkoumltter

(2011-2012) theorises the persistence of teachersrsquo beliefs and attitudes through the

notion of habitus and uses it to explain that even young future educators with

extensive experience with digital media in their daily lives share the same negative

attitudes of practising teachers towards the use of digital media in early childhood

educational settings Given that some practitioners may well have had little

experience of meaningful use of technology in their own schooling this could impact

on their beliefs and attitudes Early childhood teacher education programmes can

play a crucial role in formulating student teachersrsquo views and intentions and also in

providing pedagogical learning experiences so that future teachers will be able to

judge when it is appropriate to integrate ICT in their classes and how (Nikolopoulou amp

Gialamas 2009) Teachers can also be encouraged to pedagogically experiment and

explore digital practices together with children with all participants being involved in

the process of teaching and learning (Lafton 2012)

Lack of knowledge and skills Plumb and Kautz (2015) identify that many of the

studies they reviewed outlined early years practitionersrsquo lack of IT knowledge and

related skills as being a key barrier to enhancing practice (eg Ihmeideh 2010

Plowman and Stephen 2005) Mishra and Koehler (2006) drawing on Lee Shulmanrsquos

work on Pedagogical Content Knowledge (the knowledge required to teach a

particular subject) introduced the concept of lsquoTechnological Pedagogical Content

Knowledgersquo (TPACK) This refers specifically to the knowledge required to embed the

use of technology in subject teaching or as Kildan and Incikabi (2015) put it

knowledge that centres on the triple intersection of technology pedagogy and

content It is not sufficient to be able to use technology practitioners need to be able

to understand how technology can be used pedagogically in ways that are

appropriate to the subject(s) being taught (Koehler Mishra Kereluik et al 2014)

There is therefore an identified need to enhance early yearsrsquo practitionersrsquo TPACK

5

(Voogt and McKenney 2016) as well as expand it to include their understanding of

the ways particular technology tools are important to young children (Parette

Quesenberry amp Blum 2010) There is also a need for teachers to be knowledgable

about digital media cultures that are important for children (Edwards 2013 Mertala

2016) This does not mean that teachers should know everything that children do and

use in the digital world as that would not be possible Rather having some familiarity

with the landscape is useful as teachers can then let pupils be the experts about their

own digital practices and inform teachers about these (Parry 2013)

Lack of equipment resources Plumb and Kautz (2015) report that numerous

studies identified that early years settings often lacked ICT equipment and or access

to broadband or wireless (eg Fenty and McKendry Anderson 2014 Nikolopoulou

and Gialamas 2013) This is particularly important given that teachers are found to

report the availability of resources or lack thereof as the precondition for considering

further issues relating to technology integration in teaching (Hesterman 2011 Thorpe

et al 2015) Alongside having sufficient resources practitioners should be

encouraged to develop such educational understanding that allows them to

pedagogically examine digital cultures together with children drawing from childrenrsquos

everyday experiences even without using concrete digital equipment (eg Mertala

2016)

Lack of training Studies reviewed by Plumb and Kautz (2015) indicated that many

early years practitioners identified that they had insufficient training on technologies to

be able to use them effectively in their settings (Blackwell et al 2013 Parette et al

2013) This is a point that holds across practices and sectors in relation to early years

practitionersrsquo development given that there are studies on both teacher education

(eg Gruszczynska Merchant amp Pountney 2013) and teachersrsquo in-service training

(eg Ihmeideh 2009) Problems included early years settings having insufficient

resources to pay for staff to attend training (Ihmeideh 2009) and training being of

questionable quality (Plowman and Stephen 2005)

6

Classroom condition constraints Plumb and Kautz (2015) outline a number of

challenges which impact on the use of technology in settings including large class

sizes (Nikolopoulou and Gialamas 2013) and technology being located in places

external to the classroom such as an office (Fenty and McKendry Anderson 2014)

Educator lack of confidence The studies drawn upon by Plumb and Kautz (2015)

such as Blackwell et al (2014) and Nikolopoulou and Gialamas (2013) point to the

way in which early years practitioners sometimes lack confidence in their own abilities

to use technologies Such an attitude has been found to be directly linked to skill and

classroom practice and to be shaped by varied factors including the practitionersrsquo

number of years teaching (Inan and Lowther 2010) their role in an educational

setting their home computer access and their training (Chen amp Chang 2006)

Research also indicates that early years teachersrsquo capabilities of using ICT for

personal purposes or their positive attitudes towards personal ICT use do not

automatically transfer into professional confidence or relevant ECE practices

(Palailogou 2016) This implies that it is essential to focus on ECE pedagogical use of

ICT in professional training not only on general ICT competences

Lack of appropriate educational software Plumb and Kautz (2015) identify a

range of studies that indicate that many teachers feel they do not have sufficient

access to appropriate software (eg Ihmeideh 2009)

Lack of support In a review of the barriers to effective use of ICT Becta (2004)

identified the presence of high-level support as being important in enabling teachers

to overcome issues relating to lack of confidence Blackwell et al (2014) identify

support as key to utilising technology even in educational settings where

technological resources are available Plumb and Kautz (2015) in their review of

literature point to the way in which a lack of support limits early yearsrsquo practitionersrsquo

practice in the use of technology For example Nikolopoulou and Gialamasrsquo (2013)

study identified a lack of technical support as a key problem whilst a lack of support

from administrators and parents is also an important barrier to use (Fenty and

McKendry Anderson 2014 Li 2006) Lack of support might also refer to the lack of

7

follow-up sessions to validate and assess teachersrsquo efforts to integrate technology in

their teaching (Keengwe amp Onchwari 2009)

IT technical problems Plumb and Kautz (2015) note that outdated equipment is a

key barrier to extending use of technology in early years settings (Fenty and

McKendry Andersonrsquos 2014) In addition breakdowns of equipment frustrate

practitioners and children alike (Blackwell et al 2013)

Lack of funding In Plumb and Kautzrsquos (20156) review they note that a number of

studies lsquoexplicitly identified funding or budget limitations as a barrier to IT integration in

ECEC organisationsrsquo such as Ihmeidehrsquos (2009) study of Jordanian pre-schools This

of course links to the previous points with regards to the barriers created by lack of

access to equipment and software Goktas Gedik and Baydas (2013) argue that the

provision of funding should ameloriate this problem but their study was conducted in

Turkey which points to the uneven distribution of technology-related funding in

schools across Europe

Physical environment constraints Plumb and Kautz (2015) identify studies that

have reported such issues as a lack of physical space (Ihmeideh 2009) and too few

electrical sockets (Wood et al 2008) which prevented some practitioners using

technology However physical barriers were only reported in some countries (eg

Greece and Turkey) and not others

Lack of time Time is recurrent trope in the literature on the barriers to the use of

technology in education as eductators report a lack of time to develop their own

expertise or a lack of time available in the curriculum (Goktas et al 2013 Hew and

Brush 2006) As Plumb and Kautz (2015 7) point out early childhood educators

have additional responsibilities such as lsquotoileting and assisting at meal times

supervising play-time liaising with parents and undertaking administrative dutiesrsquo

and these time constrains have been found to mitigate against the use of technology

(Li 2006 Wood et al 2008)

8

Early childhood curriculum and guidelines Plumb and Kautz (2015) suggest that

whilst some countries do recognise the place of technology in their early years

curriculum others do not which offers a key barrier to progress in this area As the

DigiLitEY report by Kontovourki and Tafa (2015) suggests whilst many countries in

Europe do attend to issues related to the use of technology there is less consistency

with regard to references to digital literacy in early years curricula Edwards (2013)

also points out that regardless of the importance of digital play in childrenrsquos lives

curricula tend to neglect digital technologies when attending to play and playful

learning

Nature of the early childhood educational sector The final barrier identified by

Plumb and Kautz (2015) relates to the cultural issues There is a lack of a tradition of

research and development in relation to new literacies particular within early years

settings with an emphasis on natural first-hand experiential learning which

sometimes creates attitudinal barriers (Parette et al 2013) This is also implied in

early years practitionersrsquo concerns about their competing responsibilities and their

technology integration efforts (Keengwe amp Onchwari 2009) Such assertions reveal

the conceptualisation of early years pedagogy as distinct from technology use or

conversely of technology as irrelevant to what would be considered as early

childhood education Research indicates that whilst early years teachers value

promoting childrenrsquos socio-emotional skills more than academic skills they also

consider ICT as a tool for learning academic skills not socio-emotional skills (Mertala

2017) Strategies need to be developed that will enable educators to address some of

the challenges faced in this area In training it could be beneficial to highlight the

pedagogical implications of ICT for developing childrenrsquos social skills participation

creativity (eg Leinonen amp Sintonen 2015 Onnismaa Rintakorpi amp Rusanen 2014)

and other aspects valued within the early childhood education sector at the same

time as it develops early literacy thus helping practitioners to meaningfully include

digital media in early years pedagogies This way ICT pedagogical competence

becomes an extension of educatorsrsquo existing proficiency rather than being a new and

peripheral area of expertise (Mertala 2017)

9

The enablers that promote the use of technology are directly related to the barriers in

that addressing some of the issues above ensures that they no longer prevent

technology integration but foster it So for example Gotkas Yildirim and Yildirim

(2009) identify the following as enablers (i) having clear plans and policies (ii) having

access to training (iii) finance (iv) support (v) providing educators with time (vi) having

appropriate curricula

One of the key ways in which early years practitionersrsquo greater use of digital literacy in

early years classrooms might be promoted is through the use of effective continuing

development professional development (CPD) as in point (ii) of Gotkas et alrsquos

recommendations As Blackwell et al (2013) noted in a study of 1329 teachers of 0-4

year olds the level of frequency of engagement in CPD predicted increased use of

computers and tablet computers In the next section the key aspects of CPD that

need to be considered in the development of any such programme are considered

10

3

Digital literacy CPD for early years practitioners

As noted above one of the key barriers to furthering practice is early years

practitionersrsquo knowledge specifically TPACK In a systematic review of interventions

aimed at developing teachersrsquo knowledge in this area Evens Elen and Depaepe

(2015) identified that there were certain elements of programmes that were important

if they were to be effective The first is reflection reflection that fosters higher-order

thinking in particular is essential There should also be opportunities for practitioners

to try out approaches that they have been introduced to through an intervention (Van

Driel and Berry 2012) and to have opportunities to reflect critically on these

experiences This kind of risk-taking and experimentation is important and needs to

take place in a supportive environment Second the development of relevant

knowledge is also key but it is important to link content knowledge to pedagogical

knowledge That is understanding what digital literacies are and how they develop is

important but practitioners need also to be introduced to how those concepts and

processes can be embedded in classroom practice (Gruszczynska Merchant amp

Pountney 2013) Third practitioners should be introduced to the TPACK model at the

beginning of any programme so that they are clear about its nature and how the

programme addresses their related needs Finally having contact with other

educators in the programme so they can learn together is important This point

relates to literature that emphasises the need to develop communities of practice

(CoP) in CPD programmes

The CoP concept was developed by Lave and Wenger (1991) to describe the

process of learning that operates within groups Lave and Wenger originally

11

developed the term to refer to the learning that operates between members of a

particular profession or people who share a craft In this context people who are

experienced and have long-established knowledge of the craft or profession share

their knowledge and experience with others They suggest that the process of

lsquolegitimate peripheral participationrsquo occurs in which apprentices learn from the edges

of a professional space by observing and learning from the more experienced

members of the group at the centre of the practice Through a process of learning

from being involved in this participatory action situated learning takes place Wenger

(1998) developed the concept further in his later publications He suggested that a

CoP involved three inter-related aspects mutual engagement joint enterprise and

shared repertoire (Wenger 1998 pp72-3) When members of the community are

mutually engaged in an activity strong relationships amongst members of the group

are formed The members of the group are mutually engaged in a joint enterprise

which binds the group together This aspect of learning appears to be important in

relation to educatorsrsquo CPD (Evens Elen and Depaepe 2015)

Having the opportunity to engage in action research is also a significant factor in

successful CPD programmes (Grace Reitdijk Garrett and Griffiths 2015) Action

research can enable practitioners to learn from looking at their practice carefully and

helps them to relate theory to practice (Cordingley 2015) It can impact on affect

enabling practitioners to feel proud and excited about their work and enhance their

sense of agency (Leat Reid and Lofthouse 2015) In terms of agency opportunities

to co-design professional development programmes is important so that they meet

the needs of individuals (Greany and Brown 2015) Whilst individual research is

valuable it is also helpful to offer opportunities for collaborative research Kennedy

(2014) developed a whole-school collaborative approach to practitioner researcher in

which teachers in a single school worked together to identify key challenges and

evaluate approaches to addressing these Her work provides a powerful model of

collaborative practice in relation to research

From a head teachersrsquo perspective Bates and Watt suggest that effective CPD

should include seven strategies as follows (i) offering CPD for all staff not just those

12

involved in teaching (ii) ensuring CPD is linked to school priorities (iii) staff mentoring

and peer-coaching (iv) the development of inter-school networks and partnerships

(which links to the concept of CoP) (v) team-teaching (vi) peer-review (viii) ongoing

assessment of the impact of CPD Other factors have also been identified as

important in relation to effective CPD Duration is important ndash more successful CPD is

sustained and long-term and programmes should also be coherent in relation to

educatorsrsquo beliefs and practices (Desimone 2009) Chen and Changrsquos (2006) also

summarise the following three issues as having key implications for early childhood

teacher training the support for teachers to make classroom implementation a

priority the provision of training that expands beyond the length of one week and

the need for training to match teachersrsquo varying degrees of confidence skill and

practice The possibility to personalise content is also key and it is also crucial to be

able to localise programmes which is of particular interest when considering a cross-

European approach (Lipowski Jorde Prenze and Seidel 2014)

Finally in considering the needs of any CPD programme that focuses on digital

literacy Rosaen and Terpstra (2012) argue that practitioners should have

opportunities to engage in reflecting on epistemological perspectives on literacy so

that they can consider how literacy is changing due to technological developments In

this way changes in beliefs and values can influence practice In addition they

promote the need to engage practitioners in hands-on design activities in which they

themselves are creating digital multimodal texts The teachers involved in their

intervention did this and Rosaen and Terpstra argue that as a result

hellipthe teacher candidates seemed to gain knowledge skill and

understanding of their new technology by designing a product for a real

audience (their peers) and blogging about their learning processes As they

learned about their new literacy they had to make strategic decisions about

how to represent ideas about topics such as visual or environmental literacy

and try to take advantage of the affordances of that technology as a medium

of communication

Rosaen and Terpstra (2012 46)

13

In addition some CPD programmes enable practitioners to collaboratively design

curriculum materials which has a positive impact on outcomes (Landerholm Gehrie

amp Hao 2004 Voogt Laferriegravere Breuleux et al 2015)

Therefore a review of the literature indicates that a successful approach to the CPD

of early years practitioners with regard to furthering their understanding of and

practice in the teaching and learning of digital literacy should contain the elements

outlined in Table 1

14

Table 1 Elements to be embedded in a digital literacy CPD programme

Practitioners have input into the design of the programme

Programme sustained over time

Practitioners are clear about the aims and objectives of the programme from the beginning the programme has coherence and it is clearly contributing to comprehensive goals of early education

Programme embeds opportunities for critical reflection

Programme embeds opportunities to explore the different epistemological understandings of literacy and consider how literacy is being transformed through technological developments

Risk-taking and experimentation are embedded

Designing and disseminating digital multimodal texts and artefacts are enabled

Technical content and pedagogical knowledge are developed in tandem

Practitioners are encouraged to observe discuss and pedagogically utilise those childrenrsquos media cultural interests that integrate both digital and non-digital practices

Practitioners are able to personalise content also create content together with children

Practitioners are able to localise content

Programme promotes the construction and maintenance of communities of practice networks

There are opportunities to relate theory to practice throughout the programme

Programme embeds opportunities to undertake (independent and or collaborative) action research

Opportunities for coaching peer-mentoring and team teaching are embedded

Practitioners are encouraged to assess the impact of the programme on a continuous basis to feed into its development

15

3

Conclusion

There is sustained evidence that there is a lack of opportunity for early years

practitioners to engage in professional development in relation to digital literacy to any

meaningful extent as outlined in this report A range of barriers exists in relation to the

furthering of practice (Plumb and Kautz 2015) A number of barriers relate to the early

years practitioners themselves such as their beliefs and attitudes their level of

confidence in using technologies and their level of technological and pedagogical

content knowledge Research reviewed in this report suggests that many of these

barriers emerge from or connect to teachersrsquo established understandings of the early

childhood sector and the curriculum therein Two binaries may identified there as key

in shaping teachersrsquo practices and beliefs the binary between ldquoconventionalrdquo and

new early childhood literacies and the binary between teachersrsquo own use and

integration of technology in the classroom To deconstruct such binaries one needs

to consider how CPD may offer early years practitioners opportunities to engage with

their own and othersrsquo epistemological understandings of literacy as well as

realisations of new literacies in (childrenrsquos and their own) everyday lives This would

ultimately necessitate and link to a shift in practitionersrsquo professional identities

There is also a recognised lack of training and support therefore the development of

a CPD programme that might impact positively on these elements is important It is of

course not in itself sufficient ndash there also needs to be a focus on other barriers to

progress such as a lack of resources and effective policies at a national level

Nevertheless the development of a CPD programme that embeds the effective

elements of such activities as outlined in Table 1 is required if young children are to

be offered early years education that is appropriate for twenty-first century demands

16

References Bates S and Watt L (2015) Staff development for raising attainment a

practitioners view of what works Education 3-13 Vol 44 (1) Published online

ahead of print 31st Dec 2015 httpdxdoiorg

1010800300427920151122317

Becta (2004) A Review of the Research Literature on Barriers to the Uptake

of ICT by Teachers HMSO Becta

Blackwell CK Lauricella AR and Wartella E (2014) Factors influencing digital

technology use in early childhood education Computers amp Education 77 (0) pp

82-90

Blackwell CK Lauricella AR Wartella E Robb M and Schomburg R

(2013) Adoption and use of technology in early education The interplay of

extrinsic barriers and teacher attitudes Computers amp Education 69 (0) pp

310-319

Britzman DP (1989) Who Has the Floor Curriculum Teaching and the English

Student Teachers Struggle for Voice Curriculum Inquiry 19 ( 2) pp 143-162

httpwwwjstororgstable1179406

Chen J-Q amp Chang C (2006) Using computers in early childhood classrooms

Teachersrsquo attitudes skills and practices Journal of Early Childhood Research

4(2) 169-188

Clandinin DJ (1986) Classroom Practice Teacher Images in Action London

Falmer Press

17

Cordingley P (2015) The contribution of research to teachersrsquo professional

learning and development Oxford Review of Education 41 (2) 234-252 DOI

1010800305498520151020105

Desimone LM (2009) Improving Impact Studies of Teachersrsquo Professional

Development Toward Better Conceptualizations and Measures Educational

Researcher Vol 38 (3) pp181-199

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 Vol 21 (2) 199ndash

212

Ertmer P (1999) Addressing first- and second-order barriers to change

Strategies for technology integration Educational Technology Research and

Development 47(4) 47-61 doi 101007bf02299597

Evens M Elen J amp Depaepe F (2015) Developing pedagogical content

knowledge Lessons learned from intervention studies Education Research

International doi1011552015790417

Fenty NS and McKendry Anderson EM (2014) Examining Educatorsrsquo

Knowledge Beliefs and Practices About Using Technology With Young Children

Journal of Early Childhood Teacher Education 35 (2) pp 114-134

Friedrichs-Liesenkoumltter H (2015) Media-educational Habitus of Future Educators

in the Context of Education in Day-Care Centers Journal of Media Literacy

Education 7(1) 18-34

18

Goktas Y Gedik N amp Baydas O (2013) Enablers and barriers to the use of ICT

in primary schools in Turkey A comparative study of 2005ndash2011 Computers amp

Education 68 211-222 doi 101016jcompedu201305002

Goktas Y Yildirim S amp Yildirim Z (2009) Main Barriers and Possible Enablers

of ICTs Integration into Pre-service Teacher Education Programs Educational

Technology amp Society 12 (1) 193ndash204

Grace M Rietdijk W Garrett C amp Griffiths J (2015) Improving physics teaching

through action research the impact of a nationwide professional development

programme Teacher Development 194 496-519 DOI

1010801366453020151073612

Greany T and Brown C (2015) Partnerships between teaching schools and

universities Research report London Institute of Education Accessed http

researchrichschoolsorgukuploadsresources14293009901Teaching-schools-

and-universities-research-reportpdf

Grossman P (1990) The Making of a Teacher Teacher Knowledge and Teacher

Education New York Teachers College Press

Gruszczynska A Merchant G amp Pountney R (2013) Digital Futures in Teacher

Education Exploring Open Approaches towards Digital Literacy Electronic

Journal of E-Learning 11(3) 193-206

Hesterman S (2011) A Contested Space the dialogic intersection of ICT

multiliteracies and early childhood Contemporary Issues in Early Childhood12(4)

349-361

Hew K F amp Brush T (2006) Integrating technology into K-12 teaching and

learning current knowledge gaps and recommendations for future research

19

Educational Technology Research and Development 55(3) 223-252 doi

101007s11423-006-9022-5

Ihmeideh F M (2009) Barriers to the use of technology in Jordanian pre-school

settings Technology Pedagogy and Education 18(3) 325-341

Ihmeideh FM (2010) The role of computer technology in teaching reading and

writing preschool teachersrsquo beliefs and practices Journal of Research in

Childhood Education 24 (1) pp 60-79

Inan F A amp Lowther D L (2010) Laptops in the K-12 classrooms exploring

factors impacting instructional use Computers amp Education 55 (3) 937ndash944

Keengwe J amp Onchwari G (2009) Technology and early childhood education A

technology integration professional development model for practicing teachers

Early Childhood Education Journal 37 209-218

Kennedy E (2014) Raising Literacy Achievement in High-Poverty Schools An

Evidence-Based Approach Abingdon Oxon New York Routledge

Kildan A O amp Incikabi L (2015) Effects on the technological pedagogical

content knowledge of early childhood teacher candidates using digital storytelling

to teach mathematics Education 3-13 43(3) 238-248

Koehler MJ Mishra P Kereluik K Shin T and Graham CR (2014) lsquoThe

Technological Pedagogical Content Knowledge Frameworkrsquo in JM Spector et al

(eds) Handbook of Research on Educational Communications and Technology

Springer

Kontovourki S and Tafa E (2015) Draft Summary Report for Second DigiLitEY

Project Meeting 19th-20th October Tallinn Estonia Accessed at httpdigiliteyeu

wp-contentuploads201509WG2_Objective2_DraftReport_October2015pdf

20

Lafton T (2012) How Early Childhood Practitioners build shape and construct their

digital practices the Search for an Analytical Space Nordic Journal of Digital Literacy

Vol 7 ( 3) 172-185

Leinonen J amp Sintonen S (2014) Productive participation ndash Children as active media

producers in kindergarten Nordic Journal of Digital Literacy Vol 9 (3) 216-236

Landerholm E Gehrie C amp Hao Y (2004) Educating early childhood teachers

for the global world Early Child Development and Care 174(7-8) 593-606

Lave J and Wenger E (1991) Situated Learning Legitimate Peripheral

Participation Cambridge Cambridge University Press

Leat D Reid A amp Lofthouse R (2015) Teachersrsquo experiences of engagement

with and in educational research what can be learned from teachersrsquo views

Oxford Review of Education 41 (2) 270-286 DOI

1010800305498520151021193

Li H (2006) Integrating Information and Communication Technologies Into the

Early Childhood Curriculum Chinese Principalsrsquo Views of the Challenges and

Opportunities Early Education and Development17 (3) pp 467-487

Lindahl MG and Folkesson A-M (2012) Can we let computers change

practice Educatorsrsquo interpretations of preschool tradition Computers in Human

Behavior 28 (5) pp 1728-1737

Lipowski K Jorde D Prenze M and Seidel T (2014) Expert views on the

implementation of teacher professional development in European countries

(pp41-56) In K Jones and J OrsquoBrien (eds) European Perspectives on Professional

Development in Teacher Education London Routledge

21

Liu P (2016) Technology Integration in Elementary Classrooms Teaching

Practices of Student Teachers Australian Journal of Teacher Education 41(3)

Published online March 11th 2016 at httpdxdoiorg1014221ajte

2016v41n36

Lortie D (1975) Schoolteacher A Sociological Study Chicago IL University of

Chicago Press

McDougall J (2010) A crisis of professional identity How primary teachers are

coming to terms with changing views of literacy Teaching and Teacher Education

26(3) 679-687

Mertala P (2016) Fun and Games ndash Finnish childrenrsquos ideas for the use of digital

media in preschool Nordic Journal of Digital Literacy Vol11(4) pp 207-226

Mertala P (2017) Wag the dog - The nature and foundations of preschool educators

positive ICT pedagogical beliefs Computers in Human Behavior Vol 69 197-206

Mishra P amp Koehler MJ (2006) Technological pedagogical content knowledge

A framework for integrating technology in teacher knowledge Teachers College

Record 108(6) 1017-1054

NAEYC (2012) Technology and Interactive Media as Tools in Early Childhood

Programs Serving Children from Birth through Age 8 NAEYC Joint Position

Statement with the Fred Rogers Center Accessed at httpwwwnaeycorgfiles

naeycPS_technology_WEBpdf

Nespor J (1987) The role of beliefs in the practice of teaching Journal of

Curriculum Studies (19) 4 317ndash28

22

Nikolopoulou K and Gialamas V (2013) Barriers to the integration of computers

in early childhood settings Teachersrsquo perceptions Education and Information

Technologies pp 1-17

Onnismaa E-L Rintakorpi K amp Rusanen S (2014) ldquoTake a picturerdquo Children as

photographers and co-constructors of culture in an early childhood education

environment In H Ruismaumlki amp I Ruokonen (eds) Voices for Tomorrow Sixth

International Journal of Intercultural Arts Education University of Helsinki Research

Report 352

Palaiologou I (2016) Teachersrsquo dispositions towards the role of digital devices in play-

based pedagogy in early childhood education Early Years Vol 36 (3) 305-321 DOI

1010800957514620161174816

Pajares M (1992) Teachersrsquo beliefs and educational research cleaning up a

messy construct Review of Educational Research (62)3 307ndash32

Papadakis S Kalogiannakis M amp Zaranis N (2016) Comparing tablets and

PCs in teaching mathematics An attempt to improve mathematics competence in

early childhood education Preschool amp Primary Education 4(2) 241-253

Parette HP Blum C and Quesenberry AC (2013) The role of technology for

young children in the 21st century in HP Parette and C Blum (eds)

Instructional technology in early childhood (pp 1-28) Brookes Publishing

Parette H P Quesenberry A C amp 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

Parry RL (2013) Children Film and Literacy Basingstoke Palgrave Macmillan

23

Plowman L and Stephen C (2005) Children play and computers in pre-school

education British Journal of Educational Technology 36 (2) pp 145-157

Plumb M and Kautz K (2015) Barriers to the Integration of Information

Technology within Early Childhood Education and Care Organisations A Review of

the Literature Presented at the Australasian Conference on Information Systems

2015

Rosaen C and Terpstra M (2012) Widening worlds understanding and teaching

new literaciesrsquo Studying Teacher Education A Journal of Self-study of Teacher

Education Practices 8(1) 35ndash49

Thorpe K Hansen J Danby S Davidson C Zaki F M Grant S and Given

L M (2015) Teachers teaching and digital technologies reports from the early

childhood classroom Early Childhood Research Quarterly 32 httpdxdoiorg

101016jecresq201504001

Van Driel JH and Berry A (2012) Teacher Professional Development Focusing

on Pedagogical Content Knowledge Educational Researcher Vol 41 (1) pp26

-28

Voogt J Laferriegravere T Breuleux A Itow R C Hickey DT and McKenney S

(2015) Collaborative design as a form of professional development Instructional

Science 43 259 doi101007s11251-014-9340-7

Voogt J and McKnney S (2016) TPACK in teacher education are we preparing

teachers to use technology for early literacy Technology Pedagogy and

Education Published online ahead of print 4th May 2016 httpdxdoiorg

1010801475939X20161174730

Wenger E (1998) Communities of Practice Learning Meaning and Identity

Cambridge Cambridge University Press

24

Wood E Specht J Willoughby T and Mueller J (2008) Integrating Computer

Technology in Early Childhood Education Environments Issues Raised by Early

Childhood Educators Alberta Journal of Educational Research 54 (2) pp

210-226

25

Contents Page

1 Introduction 3

2 Barriers to Digital Literacy Practice in Early Years Settings 4

3 Digital Literacy CPD for Early Years Practitioners 11

4 Conclusion 16

References 17

2

To cite this paper

Marsh J Kontovourki S Tafa E and Salomaa S (2017) Developing Digital Literacy in Early Years Settings Professional Development Needs for Practitioners A White Paper for COST Action IS1410 [Accessed httpdigiliteyeu]

Images on cover and page 9 from httpspixabaycomenworkplace-team-business-meeting-1245776 and httpspixabaycomencoffee-break-conference-women-1177540 CC0 Public Domain

Image on page 15 From httpspixabaycomenworkplace-team-business-meeting-1245776 CDC Dawn Arlotta CC0 Public Domain

1

Introduction










digital environment










outlined

3

2
















separately below








4
































5



















2016)










6






























7




























8









learning






















9














10

3
























11































12





























of communication


13







outlined in Table 1

14


















15

3

Conclusion
























16




1010800300427920151122317





82-90




310-319






4(2) 169-188


Falmer Press

17



1010800305498520151020105







212













18










1010801366453020151073612












349-361



19


101007s11423-006-9022-5



















Springer




20



Vol 7 ( 3) 172-185










1010800305498520151021193






Behavior 28 (5) pp 1728-1737





21




2016v41n36


Chicago Press



26(3) 679-687







Record 108(6) 1017-1054







22








Report 352



1010800957514620161174816












335-343


23






2015







101016jecresq201504001



-28



Science 43 259 doi101007s11251-014-9340-7




1010801475939X20161174730



24




210-226

25

1

Introduction










digital environment










outlined

3

2
















separately below








4
































5



















2016)










6






























7




























8









learning






















9














10

3
























11































12





























of communication


13







outlined in Table 1

14


















15

3

Conclusion
























16




1010800300427920151122317





82-90




310-319






4(2) 169-188


Falmer Press

17



1010800305498520151020105







212













18










1010801366453020151073612












349-361



19


101007s11423-006-9022-5



















Springer




20



Vol 7 ( 3) 172-185










1010800305498520151021193






Behavior 28 (5) pp 1728-1737





21




2016v41n36


Chicago Press



26(3) 679-687







Record 108(6) 1017-1054







22








Report 352



1010800957514620161174816












335-343


23






2015







101016jecresq201504001



-28



Science 43 259 doi101007s11251-014-9340-7




1010801475939X20161174730



24




210-226

25

2
















separately below








4
































5



















2016)










6






























7




























8









learning






















9














10

3
























11































12





























of communication


13







outlined in Table 1

14


















15

3

Conclusion
























16




1010800300427920151122317





82-90




310-319






4(2) 169-188


Falmer Press

17



1010800305498520151020105







212













18










1010801366453020151073612












349-361



19


101007s11423-006-9022-5



















Springer




20



Vol 7 ( 3) 172-185










1010800305498520151021193






Behavior 28 (5) pp 1728-1737





21




2016v41n36


Chicago Press



26(3) 679-687







Record 108(6) 1017-1054







22








Report 352



1010800957514620161174816












335-343


23






2015







101016jecresq201504001



-28



Science 43 259 doi101007s11251-014-9340-7




1010801475939X20161174730



24




210-226

25
































5



















2016)










6






























7




























8









learning






















9














10

3
























11































12





























of communication


13







outlined in Table 1

14


















15

3

Conclusion
























16




1010800300427920151122317





82-90




310-319






4(2) 169-188


Falmer Press

17



1010800305498520151020105







212













18










1010801366453020151073612












349-361



19


101007s11423-006-9022-5



















Springer




20



Vol 7 ( 3) 172-185










1010800305498520151021193






Behavior 28 (5) pp 1728-1737





21




2016v41n36


Chicago Press



26(3) 679-687







Record 108(6) 1017-1054







22








Report 352



1010800957514620161174816












335-343


23






2015







101016jecresq201504001



-28



Science 43 259 doi101007s11251-014-9340-7




1010801475939X20161174730



24




210-226

25



















2016)










6






























7




























8









learning






















9














10

3
























11































12





























of communication


13







outlined in Table 1

14


















15

3

Conclusion
























16




1010800300427920151122317





82-90




310-319






4(2) 169-188


Falmer Press

17



1010800305498520151020105







212













18










1010801366453020151073612












349-361



19


101007s11423-006-9022-5



















Springer




20



Vol 7 ( 3) 172-185










1010800305498520151021193






Behavior 28 (5) pp 1728-1737





21




2016v41n36


Chicago Press



26(3) 679-687







Record 108(6) 1017-1054







22








Report 352



1010800957514620161174816












335-343


23






2015







101016jecresq201504001



-28



Science 43 259 doi101007s11251-014-9340-7




1010801475939X20161174730



24




210-226

25






























7




























8









learning






















9














10

3
























11































12





























of communication


13







outlined in Table 1

14


















15

3

Conclusion
























16




1010800300427920151122317





82-90




310-319






4(2) 169-188


Falmer Press

17



1010800305498520151020105







212













18










1010801366453020151073612












349-361



19


101007s11423-006-9022-5



















Springer




20



Vol 7 ( 3) 172-185










1010800305498520151021193






Behavior 28 (5) pp 1728-1737





21




2016v41n36


Chicago Press



26(3) 679-687







Record 108(6) 1017-1054







22








Report 352



1010800957514620161174816












335-343


23






2015







101016jecresq201504001



-28



Science 43 259 doi101007s11251-014-9340-7




1010801475939X20161174730



24




210-226

25




























8









learning






















9














10

3
























11































12





























of communication


13







outlined in Table 1

14


















15

3

Conclusion
























16




1010800300427920151122317





82-90




310-319






4(2) 169-188


Falmer Press

17



1010800305498520151020105







212













18










1010801366453020151073612












349-361



19


101007s11423-006-9022-5



















Springer




20



Vol 7 ( 3) 172-185










1010800305498520151021193






Behavior 28 (5) pp 1728-1737





21




2016v41n36


Chicago Press



26(3) 679-687







Record 108(6) 1017-1054







22








Report 352



1010800957514620161174816












335-343


23






2015







101016jecresq201504001



-28



Science 43 259 doi101007s11251-014-9340-7




1010801475939X20161174730



24




210-226

25









learning






















9














10

3
























11































12





























of communication


13







outlined in Table 1

14


















15

3

Conclusion
























16




1010800300427920151122317





82-90




310-319






4(2) 169-188


Falmer Press

17



1010800305498520151020105







212













18










1010801366453020151073612












349-361



19


101007s11423-006-9022-5



















Springer




20



Vol 7 ( 3) 172-185










1010800305498520151021193






Behavior 28 (5) pp 1728-1737





21




2016v41n36


Chicago Press



26(3) 679-687







Record 108(6) 1017-1054







22








Report 352



1010800957514620161174816












335-343


23






2015







101016jecresq201504001



-28



Science 43 259 doi101007s11251-014-9340-7




1010801475939X20161174730



24




210-226

25














10

3
























11































12





























of communication


13







outlined in Table 1

14


















15

3

Conclusion
























16




1010800300427920151122317





82-90




310-319






4(2) 169-188


Falmer Press

17



1010800305498520151020105







212













18










1010801366453020151073612












349-361



19


101007s11423-006-9022-5



















Springer




20



Vol 7 ( 3) 172-185










1010800305498520151021193






Behavior 28 (5) pp 1728-1737





21




2016v41n36


Chicago Press



26(3) 679-687







Record 108(6) 1017-1054







22








Report 352



1010800957514620161174816












335-343


23






2015







101016jecresq201504001



-28



Science 43 259 doi101007s11251-014-9340-7




1010801475939X20161174730



24




210-226

25

3
























11































12





























of communication


13







outlined in Table 1

14


















15

3

Conclusion
























16




1010800300427920151122317





82-90




310-319






4(2) 169-188


Falmer Press

17



1010800305498520151020105







212













18










1010801366453020151073612












349-361



19


101007s11423-006-9022-5



















Springer




20



Vol 7 ( 3) 172-185










1010800305498520151021193






Behavior 28 (5) pp 1728-1737





21




2016v41n36


Chicago Press



26(3) 679-687







Record 108(6) 1017-1054







22








Report 352



1010800957514620161174816












335-343


23






2015







101016jecresq201504001



-28



Science 43 259 doi101007s11251-014-9340-7




1010801475939X20161174730



24




210-226

25































12





























of communication


13







outlined in Table 1

14


















15

3

Conclusion
























16




1010800300427920151122317





82-90




310-319






4(2) 169-188


Falmer Press

17



1010800305498520151020105







212













18










1010801366453020151073612












349-361



19


101007s11423-006-9022-5



















Springer




20



Vol 7 ( 3) 172-185










1010800305498520151021193






Behavior 28 (5) pp 1728-1737





21




2016v41n36


Chicago Press



26(3) 679-687







Record 108(6) 1017-1054







22








Report 352



1010800957514620161174816












335-343


23






2015







101016jecresq201504001



-28



Science 43 259 doi101007s11251-014-9340-7




1010801475939X20161174730



24




210-226

25





























of communication


13







outlined in Table 1

14


















15

3

Conclusion
























16




1010800300427920151122317





82-90




310-319






4(2) 169-188


Falmer Press

17



1010800305498520151020105







212













18










1010801366453020151073612












349-361



19


101007s11423-006-9022-5



















Springer




20



Vol 7 ( 3) 172-185










1010800305498520151021193






Behavior 28 (5) pp 1728-1737





21




2016v41n36


Chicago Press



26(3) 679-687







Record 108(6) 1017-1054







22








Report 352



1010800957514620161174816












335-343


23






2015







101016jecresq201504001



-28



Science 43 259 doi101007s11251-014-9340-7




1010801475939X20161174730



24




210-226

25







outlined in Table 1

14


















15

3

Conclusion
























16




1010800300427920151122317





82-90




310-319






4(2) 169-188


Falmer Press

17



1010800305498520151020105







212













18










1010801366453020151073612












349-361



19


101007s11423-006-9022-5



















Springer




20



Vol 7 ( 3) 172-185










1010800305498520151021193






Behavior 28 (5) pp 1728-1737





21




2016v41n36


Chicago Press



26(3) 679-687







Record 108(6) 1017-1054







22








Report 352



1010800957514620161174816












335-343


23






2015







101016jecresq201504001



-28



Science 43 259 doi101007s11251-014-9340-7




1010801475939X20161174730



24




210-226

25


















15

3

Conclusion
























16




1010800300427920151122317





82-90




310-319






4(2) 169-188


Falmer Press

17



1010800305498520151020105







212













18










1010801366453020151073612












349-361



19


101007s11423-006-9022-5



















Springer




20



Vol 7 ( 3) 172-185










1010800305498520151021193






Behavior 28 (5) pp 1728-1737





21




2016v41n36


Chicago Press



26(3) 679-687







Record 108(6) 1017-1054







22








Report 352



1010800957514620161174816












335-343


23






2015







101016jecresq201504001



-28



Science 43 259 doi101007s11251-014-9340-7




1010801475939X20161174730



24




210-226

25

3

Conclusion
























16




1010800300427920151122317





82-90




310-319






4(2) 169-188


Falmer Press

17



1010800305498520151020105







212













18










1010801366453020151073612












349-361



19


101007s11423-006-9022-5



















Springer




20



Vol 7 ( 3) 172-185










1010800305498520151021193






Behavior 28 (5) pp 1728-1737





21




2016v41n36


Chicago Press



26(3) 679-687







Record 108(6) 1017-1054







22








Report 352



1010800957514620161174816












335-343


23






2015







101016jecresq201504001



-28



Science 43 259 doi101007s11251-014-9340-7




1010801475939X20161174730



24




210-226

25




1010800300427920151122317





82-90




310-319






4(2) 169-188


Falmer Press

17



1010800305498520151020105







212













18










1010801366453020151073612












349-361



19


101007s11423-006-9022-5



















Springer




20



Vol 7 ( 3) 172-185










1010800305498520151021193






Behavior 28 (5) pp 1728-1737





21




2016v41n36


Chicago Press



26(3) 679-687







Record 108(6) 1017-1054







22








Report 352



1010800957514620161174816












335-343


23






2015







101016jecresq201504001



-28



Science 43 259 doi101007s11251-014-9340-7




1010801475939X20161174730



24




210-226

25



1010800305498520151020105







212













18










1010801366453020151073612












349-361



19


101007s11423-006-9022-5



















Springer




20



Vol 7 ( 3) 172-185










1010800305498520151021193






Behavior 28 (5) pp 1728-1737





21




2016v41n36


Chicago Press



26(3) 679-687







Record 108(6) 1017-1054







22








Report 352



1010800957514620161174816












335-343


23






2015







101016jecresq201504001



-28



Science 43 259 doi101007s11251-014-9340-7




1010801475939X20161174730



24




210-226

25










1010801366453020151073612












349-361



19


101007s11423-006-9022-5



















Springer




20



Vol 7 ( 3) 172-185










1010800305498520151021193






Behavior 28 (5) pp 1728-1737





21




2016v41n36


Chicago Press



26(3) 679-687







Record 108(6) 1017-1054







22








Report 352



1010800957514620161174816












335-343


23






2015







101016jecresq201504001



-28



Science 43 259 doi101007s11251-014-9340-7




1010801475939X20161174730



24




210-226

25


101007s11423-006-9022-5



















Springer




20



Vol 7 ( 3) 172-185










1010800305498520151021193






Behavior 28 (5) pp 1728-1737





21




2016v41n36


Chicago Press



26(3) 679-687







Record 108(6) 1017-1054







22








Report 352



1010800957514620161174816












335-343


23






2015







101016jecresq201504001



-28



Science 43 259 doi101007s11251-014-9340-7




1010801475939X20161174730



24




210-226

25



Vol 7 ( 3) 172-185










1010800305498520151021193






Behavior 28 (5) pp 1728-1737





21




2016v41n36


Chicago Press



26(3) 679-687







Record 108(6) 1017-1054







22








Report 352



1010800957514620161174816












335-343


23






2015







101016jecresq201504001



-28



Science 43 259 doi101007s11251-014-9340-7




1010801475939X20161174730



24




210-226

25




2016v41n36


Chicago Press



26(3) 679-687







Record 108(6) 1017-1054







22








Report 352



1010800957514620161174816












335-343


23






2015







101016jecresq201504001



-28



Science 43 259 doi101007s11251-014-9340-7




1010801475939X20161174730



24




210-226

25








Report 352



1010800957514620161174816












335-343


23






2015







101016jecresq201504001



-28



Science 43 259 doi101007s11251-014-9340-7




1010801475939X20161174730



24




210-226

25






2015







101016jecresq201504001



-28



Science 43 259 doi101007s11251-014-9340-7




1010801475939X20161174730



24




210-226

25




210-226

25

developing digital literacy in early years settings: professional development needs...

Documents