Entry Four

I evaluated one child using digital literacy on the computer we have in my centre. She enticed me because I was unsure whether she could explain what she was doing on the game we have at the centre. She helped me understand that it depends on what exposure to digital technology they were allowed to at home with her parents. At my centre we have a computer that has an alphabetic game (O'Rourke & Harrison, 2004). *Selena recognised the letter Z and she started filling in the alphabet backwards starting from Z, I would have thought she would have started from the letter A. The chickens in the game have four rows of letters and a chick is allocated to one letter in each of the rows. She explained to me “when you put the right letter in, the chick can sleep”.  I found this quiet interesting and I questioned her more on what else she understood about how the game worked. She explained that she had the game at home on her tablet and her mum showed her how to recognise which letter is what (Stephen & Plowman, 2011). She explained that there is a time limit and if she does not get all the chicks in the right bed then the chicks will not be able to sleep.

I quite enjoyed the activity the child because I learned new things about *Selena and could understand that she was critically thinking about what alphabet to use. I also liked that I learned that her family spends time with teaching her basic recognition of letters. They do not let her go on her own tangent with her tablet. It also helped me understand that when children work with alongside a knowledgeable other they tend to pick up things faster (Ministry of Education, 1996). The only thing I would have done differently would be the amount of children I did the activity with. When doing a learning experience with one child gave me one perspective whereas if I had done it with a group it would have somewhat displayed the levels of exposure each child would have with digital technology in their homes (Fleer & Jane, 2011). It would have given me an indication of what the parents do to help digital technology have a good influence on children. Additionally, the experience lasted for twenty minutes which I think was quite a good amount of time considering Selena had done each letter of the alphabet herself and she could explain to me what she was doing when I prompted her with questions (Talay-Ongan, 2005).

Another thing I found interesting was that when *Selena explained that the chicks needed to be placed with the correct letters else they couldn’t sleep suggested she felt responsible for the well-being of a virtual character. She took her job really seriously and displayed an emotional attachment to her getting the correct letters matched up with each other seemed vital for her. I realised how quickly she became enthralled in the game. It illustrated me how quickly she connected her emotional state with digital technology. That is why it is important that children have a limit of one game per child because else they will sit at the computer desk all day in our centre. She told me she liked using the mouse of the computer because it allowed her to move it around to her left-hand (Stephen & Plowman, 2013).The outcome of the evaluation for me was thought-provoking and it showed me her perseverance of completing the task she had at hand.

References:

Fleer, M., & Jane, B. (2011). Design and technology for children. Frenchs Forest, Australia: Pearson Australia.  

Ministry of Education. (1996). Te Whāriki: He whāriki mātauranga mō ngā mokopuna o Aotearoa: Early childhood curriculum. Wellington, New Zealand: Learning Media.  

O’Rourke, M., & Harrison, C. (2004). The introduction of new technologies: New possibilities for early childhood pedagogy. Australian Journal of Early Childhood, 29(2).

Stephen, C. & Plowman, L. (2013). Digital technologies, play, and learning. Early Childhood Folio, 17(2), 3-8.  

Talay-Ongan, A., & Ap, E. A. (Eds.). (2005). Child development and teaching young children. Southbank, Australia: Thomson Social Science Press.  

*No real names used.