Computers and iPads for Children

Everyone has seen a child using a smart phone or an iPad. If you see a child in public, it is not uncommon he or she is playing with an electronic device. Parents seem to give these devices to their children to prevent them from being bored when they are required to wait. Not having the ability to be patient and just wait, or just do nothing for a few minutes could have a negative effect on these children in the future. It is difficult to predict how this will actually effect children in the future. As with anything, technology should not be used too often, and the right type of technology could be beneficial. If parents choose educational games based on what they would like their child to be learning at that time, or what they are working on at school, it could be very beneficial. Teachers can use iPads or other tablets in the same way. Teachers can help students practice skills if they are carefully choosing the skills in which a skill is focused. Teachers and parents also need to carefully teach how to play the games, and should limit the child’s time spent playing on electronic devices. Although a child’s work on electronic devices can be beneficial, they should not be used with children under the age of two. 

The American Academy of Pediatrics recently wrote that children under the age of two should not be exposed to screens of any kind, even a television in the background. This does not include Skype, as many young children can use programs like Skype to keep in touch with family members who they do not often see. Children under the age of two should not be learning through electronic devices, because the bulk of their learning should come from social interactions and unstructured play. After the age of two, children should balance social interactions, play, and work on electronic devices. At some point, children will need to be introduced to iPads and computers. The jobs of the future will, without a doubt, revolve around some type of electronic devices. If children are not exposed to tablets and computers now, they will not be able to build the skills that they will need for their future. At some schools computers are reserved for older grades. I think that children need to be exposed to computers at a very young age. Although devices may contain touch screens in the future, students need to learn to use a mouse and especially a keyboard. If students are introduced to computers and typing while they are learning to write and spell, it may make things easier for them in the future. I was typing on computers in the computer lab at school when I was in kindergarten. I remember being very interested in the computer and practicing on my computer at home. My ability to use computers and type at a fast rate helped me to focus on the content I was supposed to be learning in later years. If I was asked to find a way to share information with my class in school, I was able to focus on content and not how to use Microsoft Powerpoint. Using computers and iPads is a fundamental skill just like learning to read and write and should be treated accordingly. Although children should not be exposed to screens under the age of two, and content should be closely monitored, children should become comfortable using technology in a meaningful way at a young age. 

The Impact of the 30 Million Word Gap on Teachers

The Early Catastrophe: The 30 Million Word Gap is an article examining the influence of families and specifically family income on children’s vocabulary growth. The results of the study were alarming. The researchers found that the vocabulary of the parents had a great deal of impact on the vocabulary of the children. Children from low-income families were shown to be far behind the children of higher-income families in vocabulary, thus the 30 million word gap. The study also showed that the more wealthy families were using more encouraging language with their children while the more disadvantaged families were using more discouraging language with their children.

The average family income in the community where I teach is below $30,000 per year. This article makes me wonder what this means for teachers. How can teachers try to make this gap smaller? If this disparity continues, the children we are teaching now will grow up to have families of their own and raise them with the same lack of vocabulary and encouragement. Although teachers teach vocabulary in the classroom, how much of this is sinking in and becoming permanent vocabulary in a child’s mind? There are many ways that teachers can help increase vocabulary development in young children, but there is no one solution. It seems that the most logical solution would be to create a better partnership between the parents and the classroom teacher. Helping to fill homes with reading materials would be a good first step. Teachers could encourage students to read at home with their parents, and teachers could even send home possible questions to ask students related to the stories. Creating a book bag filled with books, questions, and activities to circulate around to families would be very beneficial to families. The assumption is often that the parents in disadvantaged families do not care as much about their child’s learning, but this is not the case. In most cases it seems that parents who did not receive a good education or did not grow up in a vocabulary-rich environment just need help. Any parent who was not specifically trained in early childhood education will not know how to effectively teach their child at home. It is the teachers job to help support interactions at home that will encourage literacy learning. Parents should be given specific topics to bring up in conversations and specific games to play with their children at home. This gap will only become larger without a partnership between parents and teachers.

Source:

Hart, B., & Risley, T. R. (2003). The early catastrophe: the 30 million word gap. American Educator, 27(1), 4-9.

Letter of the week?

The manner in which we expose children to phonics and reading in early years is a very debated topic. I have been in many different early childhood classrooms, and I have witnessed many different methods of exposing children to literacy. Waldorf schools are known for introducing children to letters at a later age than most schools. They generally spend early years engaging students in conversations and different forms of storytelling to strengthen their comprehension skills. Students are introduced to letters as they become interested in letters and words. I have also been in preschool classrooms where 3- and 4-year olds are introduced to a weekly letter, and everything revolves around that letter in all subjects. Some teachers refer to this as cross-curricular instruction, but how is the study of one letter of the alphabet strengthening a child’s knowledge in other subject areas?

Susan B. Neuman wrote an article titled, N is for Nonsensical, where she describes her experience observing an “exemplary” preschool classroom in an inner-city public school. She describes the instruction of the letter N in this classroom. The students learn the letter, and do many small activities with the letter N. They are seen reciting the schedule and the days of the week, and answering questions in unison. Neuman explains that the students’ minds are not properly engaged during this type of instruction. Although a classroom like this one may look good from a behavioral standpoint, when are the students able to generate their own knowledge based on their experiences? They are not being given the opportunity to discover information for themselves. When students are genuinely interested in what they are learning, they are more likely to retain the information. At the end of the article, Neuman describes a classroom in which the students are thoroughly engaged in their learning. The classroom that she describes shows many qualities of the project-based learning approach. In this approach, the teacher assists the students in identifying a topic to explore, and he or she facilitates this exploration. Through this type of instruction, students can gain knowledge based on real-life experiences. Their exposure to letters and letter sounds will be much more authentic, and therefore will make a more lasting impact.

In previous years in my classroom, I have tried to use mostly project-based instruction, but have used flash cards for letter recognition at times. This year, I have not explicitly taught letters in isolation without a specific context. I discuss letters and letter sounds in the morning message on a daily basis, and the students complete writing activities during science and math time where they are encouraged to use their knowledge of letter sounds to create words, but are given assistance when appropriate. Students with very little knowledge of letter-sound correspondence are able to dictate their thoughts to me, and I am able to write them as I discuss each word, letter, and letter sound. In small groups of four students during literacy instruction, students are introduced to phonics while writing as well, but they are given much more assistance. The progress my students have made this year in phonics has been extraordinary without any isolated letter recalling. I can see that students are remembering letters and words because of their interest in a previous project or assignment. This type of instruction allows for more flexibility, and ultimately less preparation for teachers. More teachers need to learn the dangers of having children only recite and recall information for understanding. Susan B. Neuman explains that in order to reduce the knowledge gap of low-income students, “we need to encourage children to question, discover, evaluate, and use higher order thinking skills” (Neuman, 2006.)

Also read this very informative blog post on the topic here: http://www.pre-kpages.com/lotw/.

Neuman, Susan B., (2006). N is for Nonsensical. Educational Leadership. http://www-personal.umich.edu/~sbneuman/pdf/nisfornonsense.pdf