What are practitioners’ and parents’ perspectives on the influence of digital technology on children’s development and learning in early years?

Libby Smith

BA (Hons) Professional Studies (Early Childhood)

Abstract

Children today are exposed to and surrounded by digital technology in their everyday lives. Research has demonstrated that the debate has shifted from whether children should use technology to how it can best benefit them due to their immersion in the digital world. Therefore, children need to be supported in learning appropriate skills to prepare them for their future living and working environments. However, there appears to be a dichotomy between children’s experiences at home and those in educational settings. This is a small-scale qualitative study in which 14 practitioners and 16 parents completed an online questionnaire centred on key questions that would allow an insight into children’s use of digital technology. A thematic method to analyse and evaluate data collection was used. The key findings demonstrated a strong correlation between; a balanced curriculum, mediation of digital technology use, effective collaboration between practitioners and parent, with influencing children’s development and learning. If these issues are not managed successfully, barriers to successfully integrating digital technology into the classroom will be created. It is recommended that more research is undertaken, leading to a clarification of the impact of screen time on young children, and practitioners are given appropriate training and support for more effective integration of digital technology use in the classroom.

Introduction

Children today are introduced to digital technology (DT), starting their first digital encounters from as early as birth (O’Connor, 2017; Chaudron et al., 2015). Their parents are ‘digital natives’, defined as parents who have mostly grown up with DT themselves (Prensky, 2001, p. 1) and who are largely permissive and proficient digital participants, comfortable interacting with DT (Brito et al., 2017). Research argues that because children have access to DT at an early age, practitioners and parents have to help children learn appropriate skills to prepare them for the world they will live and work in (Aldhafeeri et al., 2016). However, there appears to be a dichotomy between what children are experiencing at home and their experience in early childhood education (ECE) (Plowman, 2015; UNICEF, 2020).

For this research project, DT (alternatively digital devices) refers to the following; internet, learning apps, mobile phones, tablets, iPads and computers.

The following report will take account of available literature relating to the research question. This will include a history of DT in education and factors, including; screen time, mediation, home and school collaboration, and practitioners’ views, aptitudes, and attitudes, all of which appear integral to the successful integration of DT into children’s everyday lives. The second section of the report will be about the methods used to help collect the data and the ethical considerations that guided the data collection process. The report will finalise the discussion by analysing and evaluating the findings to attempt to answer the research question; what are practitioners’ and parents’ perspectives on the influence of digital technology on children’s development and learning in the early years?

Literature Review

Children engage with technology and develop the necessary skills to access emerging DT due to being absorbed in the digital world (Arnott et al., 2019). The debate about using DT in education has shifted away from whether children should access it toward how it can enhance their learning (Palaiologou, 2016). Therefore, instead of having distinct methods for digital and non-digital devices, they need to be understood as one and the same, as most children see them today. Childhoods should be thought about as multimodal (Yelland, 2018). However, pedagogy and practice must consider the multimodal context created by agentic beings, such as practitioners, parents, and children, whose attitudes and inclination toward DT shape its inclusion into early childhood education (ECE) (Arnott, 2017).

History of digital technology in education

The digital age, which started to develop between 1950 and 1970, is a phase in human history during which interactive means of communication and mass storage, distribution, processing, and exploitation of information became available due to the evolution of technology (Stephen & Edwards, 2017). According to Passey (2014), in the 1970s and early 1980s, an increasing concern emerged in the United Kingdom (UK) for increased understanding of and alignment between education and industry. Education was motivated by the perception that job skills and expertise were evolving. There was a decline in the demand for unskilled manual labour and an increase in the demand for employees who could think critically and problem solve in this evolving technological world (Passey, 2014).

Although computers were more readily accessible in schools during the 1980s, 1990s, and early 2000s, their adoption and usage in teaching and learning remained minimal (Howard & Mozejko, 2015). As Gibbons (1986) points out, computers were often inefficient. They were not easy to navigate and negotiate with wider groups of students, and much of the material was not built with educational outcomes in mind. Practitioners lacked confidence in their ability to use technology.

The late 1980s saw an increase in software products to meet subject curriculum demands (Passey, 2014). According to Smith (2015), by 2000, due to increased government funding, schools in the UK had many computers and whiteboards, several of them in dedicated computer suites, and Information and Communication Technology (ICT) was a feature of the National Curriculum (Department for Education and Employment, 1999).

The internet became dynamic in the early 2000s, allowing online interaction and the creation of online content, followed by the laptop, which could be tailored to an individual student’s needs or working styles (Howard & Mozejko, 2015). Since 2007, the strength and portability of smartphones and tablet computers have fundamentally altered how web services and information are viewed and experienced (Howard & Mozejko, 2015). According to Stephen and Edwards (2017), research often discusses the introduction of the Apple iPad and associated applications in 2010 as the critical point for increasing young children’s DT participation. Today, technology comes under the ‘Understanding the World’ specific areas of learning in the Early Years Foundation Stage (EYFS) framework (Department for Education, 2021).

Screen time

The time spent looking at a screen, such as; televisions, mobile phones, tablets, or computers, is defined as screen time, and one of the most often asked questions is whether screen time is beneficial or harmful to children’s health and well-being (The Open University, 2020). However, there appears to be very little information relating to whether a certain amount of screen time results in or is associated with negative impacts on children’s health and well-being (Viner et al., 2019; Davies et al., 2019).

According to research mainly undertaken in home environments, children devote a significant amount of time to DT. For example, pre-schoolers in the UK and the United States spend more than two hours per day with digital devices (Ofcom, 2021; Rideout, 2017), and in China, more than 40% of three-to six-year-olds spend greater than two hours per day on screens (Wu et al., 2017).

The increase in DT use has risen even though numerous health authorities have issued warnings about the potential negative consequences of increased screen time (American Academy of Paediatrics, 2016; Viner et al., 2019; World Health Organisation, 2019). Many guidelines recommend that children’s recreational screen time be limited to less than two hours per day. In the UK, there have been no statutory guidelines until recently. The main recommendation being that families determine screen time limits for their children depending on the child’s interests, the contexts in which screens are used, and the extent to which screen usage continues to substitute (or not) for physical and social interactions and sleep (Lawler, 2019).

There appears to be a gap in the literature, and further research should be done on understanding the use and amount of time children spend on DT within educational settings.

Mediation

Parents employ various strategies to mediate their child’s access to and use of online information and resources (Ofcom, 2021). Mediation is defined by Warren (2001) as ‘any strategy parents use to control, supervise, or interpret media content’ (p. 212). Some studies have been presented to explain this. Chaudron et al.’s (2018a) study findings showed that, with varying degrees of effectiveness, parents seek to protect their children regarding their digital interactions by building their own mediation techniques, ranging from restricting and monitoring access to providing assistance and collaboration. Similarly, according to Brito et al.’s (2017) research on ‘parental mediation in young children’s digital practices around 14 European Countries’ (p. 271), parents play a critical role in their children’s introduction to and the use of DT, not just as mentors but as facilitators of access to devices and information.

Furthermore, research has found that parents with positive views and attitudes toward DT facilitate supportive digital participation. In contrast, parents with a more negative attitude to the digital world tend to enact a more constraining approach to supervision and mediation (Brito et al., 2018). Additionally, Dias et al.’s (2016) study focusing on the parent-child relationship within the home, found that parents with a higher degree of education and income who are avid DT users often offer a more optimistic outlook regarding their children using digital devices.

However, not all research shows methods of mediation are consistent, which was evident in Chaudron et al.’s (2018a) qualitative study of young children and DT use across Europe; findings in the UK showed that parents’ methods for mediating their children’s internet usage inconsistent. The majority of parents within the study appeared to rely on informal observation or the need only to become involved due to a child’s lack of ability. Notably, many parents involved in the study felt that involvement and planning are not required until a child is older. However, this can be misleading, as according to Chaudron et al. (2018b), young children can exhibit a broad range of technical skills, some being in a position to access the internet without their parents’ close oversight. The consequence of this is that children are possibly accessing the internet without appropriate mediation.

There appears to be a gap in the current literature; in how children used DT at home during the COVID-19 pandemic, and for what reason, which applications (apps) they used, and whether a parent was involved in helping scaffold the activity. Closing this gap would enable better practices and experiences to be developed.

Home/school collaboration

Digital devices used at home and school can seem to be identical, but they can have widely varied uses between both environments (Gillen & Kucirkova, 2018). One of the issues seen in ECE is what Edwards et al. (2017) define as ‘digital disconnect’; the two distinct experiences children have of DT at home; flexible, explorative, experimental and within a school; organised, planned, or even non-existent (p. 1).

The importance of having an understanding of the two experiences is demonstrated in Gillen and Kucirkova’s (2018) case study, which observed how children’s home lives, along with their experiences with DT, influence classroom practices and how the practitioner’s experience and comprehension of these influences make practices more effective (Gillen & Kucirkova’s, 2018). Similarly, according to Petersen (2015), children’s agency with DT, their constructive engagement and independent activities focused on their own preferences and familiarity, must be carefully regarded and taken into account at the EY stage, enabling better support and practices to be considered for each child.

Research has shown that when schools embrace DT effectively, children appear to broaden their digital capabilities and become more mindful of consequences, developing digital literacy (Chaudron et al., 2018a), a concept established by Ofcom (2004) to explain how children access, interpret and communicate with DT. According to Chaudron et al.’s (2018a) study of 234 family interviews in 21 countries, most parents agreed that integrating DT and learning digital skills are essential for their children’s education. Parents involved in the study anticipated that schools would play a critical role in children’s understanding and acceptance of a digital world.

However, not all parents appeared to have adequate DT capabilities requiring support from settings. This is evident in Kumpulainen and Gillen’s (2017) ‘review of research literature on young children’s (aged 0-8 years old) digital literacy practices in the home’ (p. 3). Parents involved in the research would like to have seen more profound and inclusive collaborations with settings, including knowledge sharing and the exchanging of best practices for using DT in the home to facilitate and improve development and learning. However, Edwards et al. (2017) argue that implying that ECE environments can replicate the child’s home environment assumes that all settings have equal access to training and development while also disregarding individual practitioners’ perspectives on using technology in ECE.

There appears to be a gap within the literature beyond the collaboration of practitioners and parents, in understanding better the practitioner/parent and child collaboration and what benefits to children’s development and learning this may have.

Practitioners’ views, aptitudes and attitudes

Research suggests that practitioners’ ability to use DT for personal use does not immediately translate into professional confidence or appropriate ECE methods; their attitudes and aptitudes can influence how children’s experiences with DT are interpreted (Palaiologou, 2016). Several studies have been presented to explain this. Aldhafeeri et al.’s (2016) study of 195 practitioners’ views, attitudes, and aptitudes revealed a disconnect in practitioners’ digital aptitudes and attitudes between their personal lives and setting practices. Similarly, Hatzigianni and Kalaitzidis’ (2018) study findings around practitioners’ attitudes and beliefs indicated that practitioners’ perspectives are changing. Practitioners involved in the study were more positive in their use of technology for personal reasons but less confident in using technology with very young children. However, it was found that the overall confidence and time spent using technology by practitioners within the study correlated with a more positive perception toward technology integration. Notably, Hatzigianni and Kalaitzidis’ (2018) study was based on children under three years of age, which may explain why practitioners were less confident as perhaps they did not have the confidence to support DT use with very young children. This is supported by Dunn and Sweeney (2018), who argue that although many practitioners know the possible advantages of technology use with young children, they lack the necessary pedagogical and technological skills.

Furthermore, Palaiologou’s (2016) study of practitioners’ attitudes and aptitudes toward digital devices in five countries, including England, found that practitioners raised concerns about whether DT promotes active or passive learning. Practitioners involved in the study perceived DT as a secondary practice in which children spend most of their time seeing the world through a screen rather than experiencing actual objects, limiting physical experience and actions (Palaiologou’s, 2016).

These findings are recognised in ECE practices today and highlight the need for practitioners to receive adequate training and support to improve the integration of DT into teaching and learning. This is supported by research which argues that central to all of these issues is the degree to which practitioners are trained, confident, and knowledgeable to incorporate DT into their everyday work with children (Aldhafeeri et al., 2016; Chaudron et al., 2018a). However, Spiteri and Rundgren (2020) argue that to do this, practitioners must recognise the value of DT to make effective use of it in their everyday practices.

To conclude, the literature presented has shown that the role of both practitioners and parents appears to influence children’s use of DT. Parents play a significant part in their children’s use of DT; their parenting attitudes toward technology determine techniques and strategies for effective mediation and support when using DT. However, as seen, parents’ attitudes toward DT appear to usually be contingent upon their own digital competencies and confidence level in DT use.

Practitioners’ attitudes and aptitudes towards DT use are essential to children’s engagement with DT in the classroom (Palaiologou, 2016). Practitioners’ views and attitudes may significantly impact how young children use DT effectively; merely incorporating DT into the classroom does not guarantee improved learning outcomes (The Open University, 2020). However, training and support of DT are required in order for it to be effective. It can also be seen that practitioners and parents working collaboratively could improve the digital disconnect between the consistency of home and school.

Therefore, as DT has become the way of the world and part of ECE, I would like to focus my research on understanding both practitioners’ and parents’ perspectives on the influence of digital technology on children’s development and learning in early years.

Research methods

Study design

This project took place in a primary school with a nursery attached, situated in a town. Given the current situation with the COVID-19 pandemic, collecting qualitative data supported by an interpretivist paradigm was the most appropriate way of obtaining data to address the research question, allowing exploration of participants’ viewpoints (Bell & Waters, 2018) and gaining different opinions and depth from participants (Aubrey et al., 2000; Walker & Solvason, 2014). However, researchers must be mindful when conducting qualitative research of how people portray their perceptions and how their experiences affect them (Merriam & Tisdell, 2016). Kivunja and Kuyini (2017) define it as ‘the subjective world of human experience’ (p. 33). Interpretivist researchers should aim to grasp the many ways of seeing and interpreting the world through various contexts and practices and minimise biases in their observations of events and individuals interpreted personally (Pham, 2018).

Although there are alternative methods of accessing data, such as observations, this approach could not be relied upon because of the risk the country might have gone into a further national lockdown. Therefore, a questionnaire was used with open-ended questions for the sample group to complete. According to Gillham (2007), there are advantages and disadvantages when using questionnaires to gather data. For example, advantages of using online questionnaires include enabling researchers to access thousands of people who share similar characteristics in a limited period, despite being separated by large geographical distances (Taylor, 2000). Questionnaires can also save time by encouraging researchers to gather data while working on other parts of the project (Ilieva et al., 2002). However, there are disadvantages, such as; potentially being hastily completed, participants’ misinterpretations cannot be explained, and poor response rates (Pattern, 2017). Before sending out the questionnaire, a pilot test to a sample group was conducted to ensure questions were understood and relevant to the research question (Bell & Waters, 2018). Any misinterpretation was adapted and made more suitable, relating specifically to either practitioners or parents. The questionnaire was sent to 40 participants, giving them two weeks to complete. 14 responses were received from practitioners and 16 responses from parents, an overall 75% return rate.

There are several methods of interpreting qualitative data, such as; grounded theory, ethnography, discourse analysis and thematic analysis (Bell & Waters, 2018). However, the thematic analysis method was used for this research project, using open coding, allowing themes to be identified, resulting in alternative conclusions (Maguire & Delahunt, 2017). However, though thematic analysis is adaptable, it can result in uncertainty and a lack of clarity when constructing themes from collected data (Holloway & Todres, 2003).

Participant sample

Participants were selected using a convenience sample as it is one of the most realistic and accessible ways to gather data and information for research (Etikan et al., 2016). Convenience sampling is a group of ‘convenient’ research participants that meet criteria that make them more accessible, such as; being in the general location, willing to participate, or available at a particular time (Dornyei, 2007). According to Jager et al. (2017), advantages of convenience sampling include performance and ease of implementation with very few rules. Conversely, there are negatives when using convenience samples, such as; high levels of sampling error, subject to bias, and other factors over which the researcher has little control (Vehovar et al., 2016). The sample group included 20 EY practitioners from my setting, with a range of qualifications, experience, and abilities in the field, and 20 parents of children aged one-to-six years of age. Parents were recruited by putting a post on social media to target the sample group.

Ethical considerations

Over the past 25 years, ethical research recommendations and laws applied in several countries were significant in establishing a modern, more ethically aware community within research (Mustajoki & Mustajoki, 2017). Therefore, assuring that the research project is ethical is a critical part of the process and requires ultimate care and consideration throughout (Walker & Solvason, 2014). All documents provided by Bishop Grosseteste University (BGU) (2019) on ethical frameworks were read and understood, along with the EECERA ethical code, which ‘sets out the expectations of ethical conduct expected of early childhood researchers’ (EECERA, 2021). Ethical consent from BGU was given to complete the project.

Prior to data collection, the research supervisor at BGU approved all questions, aligned with BGU ethics clearance processes (BGU, 2019). Consent was then given by my setting, allowing approved questionnaires to be sent out to practitioners. Informed consent was requested from all participants by making the first question about consent. Additionally, the start of the questionnaire explained what was required when taking part in the research. This included; the aims and objectives of the research and how participants would be involved, enabling comprehension of the research’s meaning and the researcher’s duties, and ethical considerations (EECERA, 2015; Birmingham & Wilkinson, 2003). As EECERA (2015) states, researchers must guide all of those involved, giving complete and honest information about the research material, intent and methods, giving the option to agree or disagree to participate in light of this information.

According to the Data Protection Act (2018), strict requirements known as ‘data protection principles’ must be adhered to when using personal data. Therefore, participants were informed that their anonymity, such as their names or contact information, and confidentiality would always be respected, and they had the right to withhold consent (Denscombe, 2012). However, participants were informed that once the questionnaire was submitted, they could not withdraw their data from that point (Smith et al., 2009). To ensure confidentiality, the researcher would not know which participants had completed the questionnaire (Bell & Waters, 2018).

Participants would be known as either practitioner one to fourteen, or parent one to sixteen. In addition, participants were informed that BGU, the module leader and supervisor would have access to the final report. The participants’ data from the questionnaire were saved in different locations so that they were not identified and were located in my BGU one drive cloud and personal iCloud. Additionally, upon receipt of the final result, all data collected was destroyed.

Research outcomes, analysis and evaluation

The research question asks: What are practitioners’ and parents’ perspectives on the influence of digital technology on children’s development and learning in early years?

Questionnaires were returned from fourteen practitioners and sixteen parents. Pseudonyms were allocated to each participant to protect their anonymity. Practitioners were known as practitioner one to fourteen and parents will be known as parent one to sixteen. The questionnaire consisted of ten questions, and practitioners’ and parents’ responses were analysed and interpreted initially on a question-by-question basis, with open coding applied, allowing themes to be created. Following this, the number of times the theme reoccurred was counted to understand the most common theme. Each theme was cross-analysed between participant groups.

Balance between digital and non-digital activities

The data suggest that participants within this study viewed the balance between digital and non-digital activities as influential to children’s learning and development. Overall, this was the theme most mentioned throughout the questionnaire, a total of forty-two times, with twenty-two parents’ and twenty practitioners’ responses incorporating ‘balance’ in some form.

When asked whether children should be using DT in school, all sixteen parents agreed; however, eight believed that there should be a balance between digital and non-digital activity. Parent seven said, “…with the right balance of different styles of teaching to work alongside digital technology. Also children should be allowed to be children and learn through play, outside learning etc”. Ten out of fourteen practitioners believed it should be included in the EY curriculum but did not suggest having a balance. Practitioner thirteen said, “Yes I believe it should but think it should be thought about deeply on how it’s included”. These findings could suggest practitioners may not have mentioned balance because the question was ambiguous, as practitioners were asked specifically whether DT should be included in the EY curriculum. Practitioners may have recognised that the curriculum is a balance of areas of learning, so they would not need to think about this as it is already something they do.

When asked about the disadvantages to children’s learning and development when using DT, only six practitioners commented on having a balance. Practitioner six said, “Some children have lots of time on devices at home and need time to expand their learning through other means”. It is important to remember that not all children’s experiences at home are the same. According to Chaudron et al. (2018a), the environments that promote digital skills development in young children differ significantly between families, as does the form and extent of digital abilities acquired. Therefore, on reflection, practitioner six’ response appears to be a little presumptuous, since they may be unaware of the circumstances surrounding the child’s time spent on devices at home. Some parents may not have enough time on their hands to ensure their children are getting a balance of activities; for example, they may be single-parent families or having to work unsociable hours. Furthermore, it could be possible that practitioner six’ response correlates to a small percentage of parents in Chaudron et al.’s (2018a) study who opt for a ‘laissez-faire’ attitude; allowing their children to do what they want due to lack of time, or skills, freeing up time for jobs, household chores, or more personal time (p. 14).

When participants were asked about children’s physical activity levels when using DT, five practitioners and six parents said that there should be a balance between digital and non-digital activities. Practitioner two said, “There needs to be a balance of physical activity and digital technology to enable the child to keep physically fit”. With parent seven commenting, “I feel that it limits them physically – boundaries have to be set that you get the balance right between both digital technology and being active”. Although a small number of participants in this study, it still shows that practitioners and parents are concerned about getting the balance right between digital and non-digital practices, particularly where physical activity is concerned. The responses from this study appear to correlate with practitioners included in Palaiologou’s (2016) research, that had concerns on whether DT had an active or passive impact on children’s learning. Practitioners within the study believed that children were using DT to view the world as it is from a screen rather than interact with it. This highlights the importance of practitioner training, which should equip them with confidence and skills necessary to deliver effective pedagogical and technological practices that can be used across all areas of learning (Dunn & Sweeney, 2018; Chaudron et al., 2018a; Spiteri & Rundgren, 2020). Furthermore, perhaps if DT had more emphasis in the EYFS curriculum, practitioners would see this as part of everyday life in the classroom and incorporate it effectively throughout the curriculum.

However, from my perspective, not all children in my setting are motivated to spend time doing physical activity. Therefore, an assumption should not automatically be made that there would be an increase in children’s physical activity by reducing DT. Alternatively, practitioners could use children’s love of DT to promote and increase their physical activity using apps and YouTube that promote fitness.

Screen time

Overall, this was the second most reoccurring theme mentioned throughout the questionnaire; a total of thirty-seven times, with nineteen parents’ and eighteen practitioners’ responses incorporating ‘screen time’. This appears to demonstrate that both practitioners and parents were concerned about the amount of time children spent on screens. Notably, participant responses seemed to crossover between screen time and mediation which possibly meant that questions were perhaps ambiguous and needed more precise explanation. In addition, by using thematic analysis, it can be difficult to categorise some complex responses into themes. In future, this could be done through interviews as I could have asked more searching questions and received fuller responses.

When asking participants what they thought were the disadvantages to children’s development and learning when using DT, seven practitioners and seven parents responded with too much screen time. Practitioner two commented, “Excess screen time has been scientifically proven to over stimulate the brains of young children”, and practitioner nine said, “…lead to prolonged screen time and may lose time exploring the world”. Whereas parent eleven said, “screen time can impact on a child’s mental and physical health. It is important to limit this time at a young age”. As highlighted in the literature (Viner et al., 2019; Davies et al., 2019), there appears to be no proven evidence that screen time can negatively impact children’s health and well-being. However, parents appear to be continually advised, with varying recommendations on managing screen time at home, which can cause uncertainty and unnecessary views and concerns toward screen time. Therefore, in future, I would like to understand better what participants’ views and understandings are on the guidelines and how they manage them at home. If interviews had been used as a method, I could add a further question by asking how long children are allowed to use DT at home and school to understand if this is a problem or not.

Mediation

When cross-analysing practitioners’ and parents’ and responses, the findings suggested that parents within this study viewed mediating, the monitoring, managing, or viewing techniques of children’s digital use, differently from those of practitioners. Parents mentioned mediating in some form seventeen times, with practitioners only mentioning it five times across all questions. These findings may reflect practitioners’ use of DT in the classroom, which is restricted as they adhere to structured and planned routines; therefore, mediating may not need to be considered as much. From a personal perspective, I support this view as in my setting weekly planning outlines how children can use DT and for how long. Similarly, previous research carried out by Chaudron et al. (2018a), Brito et al. (2017) and Dias et al. (2016) tended to primarily focus on parents’ mediation of children’s DT use rather than that of practitioners. It might be assumed that in a setting, there would be safeguarding measures already in place as schools have strict safeguard rules; therefore, practitioners would not have to think about it as it is already in place. In comparison, it may be more important to understand how parents safeguard their children at home.

When participants in this study were asked how they would support children’s activities and learning during DT use, three practitioners suggested that this could be supported by mediating their use, pointing out how adult support and parental guidance could be considered. Practitioner four stated, “parental guidance should be a big thing and also parental locks on devices so children can’t access things they shouldn’t”. Whereas for the same question, seven out of the sixteen parents suggested they would mediate children’s use. Parent eight commented, “I think the key is to know what your child is doing on a screen”. This response aligns with Chaudron et al.’s (2018a) study’s findings that parents attempt to safeguard their children’s digital experiences by developing mediation methods and techniques. Furthermore, whether they are more participating and cooperative or more conservative and controlling is determined by their own opinions and behaviours toward DT. Similar research carried out on practitioners (Palaiologou, 2016; Hatzigianni & Kalaitzidis, 2018) also showed positive aptitudes and attitudes towards DT could influence children’s experiences.

When participants were asked about children’s physical activity levels when using DT, four parents commented that it needed to be mediated to allow physical activity to happen. However, only two practitioners mentioned it, with practitioner four commenting, “I feel a lot of parents encourage it because they find it easier for their child to sit quietly with different digital technology rather than take them somewhere to be physical or even for them to be physical at home as it takes the parents to monitor them more”. Although reflecting on this response, this appears to be a little judgemental on behalf of the practitioner. It could be a practitioner of an older generation who may struggle with the idea of using DT. However, within the study, participants ages were not asked. In future, I might ask this, which may provide more scope for analysis.

Collaboration

When the participants in this study were asked how practitioners and parents can work together to help children continue their digital experiences, consistent with home and school environments, ten out of fourteen practitioners responded with varying points, consistency between home and school coming up four times. Practitioner six commented, “I believe that practitioners and parents working together is really important. Being consistent with what children are allowed to use/play on will help their learning”. In addition, two practitioners commented that parents should be educated on how best to use DT with young children. Practitioner eleven said, “… I think that schools and parents could work together through workshops that assist in how to access appropriate sites and how to submit and check on their child’s progress”. Similarly, this aligns with Kumpulainen and Gillen’s (2017) findings that parents in the study wanted more collaborative partnerships between settings and the home. These findings, along with those from this study, appear to suggest that parent/practitioner collaboration ensuring consistent use of DT between the home and setting can influence children’s learning and development. However, when reflecting on the responses, it could be possible that because practitioners included in my study come from one setting, they may already have a good system in place with effective collaboration between practitioners and parents, so have a positive view on this. In future, I might distribute questionnaires to a more diverse group of practitioners working in a variety of settings and geographical locations, which may give a little more opportunity for analysis.

In addition, four parents responded in support of parent and practitioner collaboration, with parent seven commenting, “schools to understand what the child would have access to at home in comparison to school”. This response appears to correlate with Petersen’s (2015) view, which emphasised the need for practitioners to take account of children’s agency with DT. Similarly, some researchers (Edwards et al., 2017; Gillen & Kucirkova, 2018) argued that recognising the digital disconnect between children’s use and abilities at home and at school allows practitioners to consider particular children’s needs and experiences when planning DT use in the classroom. The response from parent seven could possibly be related to the COVID-19 pandemic where both practitioners and parents found themselves embracing new ways of working. Not all households had adequate DT to support home schooling, so practitioners needed to be aware of what every child had, to ensure their rights to education were not impacted. In future, I could possibly ask parents, what DT they had at home during the lockdown and how practitioners effectively (or not) communicated best practices to see if that would give scope for more analysis.

Conclusion and Recommendations

Conclusion

By exploring the different perceptions of participants, this study established a strong correlation between the balance of digital and non-digital activities, amount of screen time, mediation of DT use, and effective collaboration between practitioners and parents with children’s development and learning.

Findings from this study demonstrated that although at times views from participants and parents were similar or the same, there was also divided opinion between them, supporting existing literature that shows an apparent dichotomy between home and school environments (Plowman, 2015; UNICEF, 2020; Gillen & Kucirkova’s, 2018; Chaudron et al., 2018a).

It was evident from findings that achieving the right balance and range of digital and non-digital activities resonated with participants in the study. Findings showed the importance in understanding what is going on in each child’s home. Through active collaboration, practitioners and parents can work together to ensure children’s needs are considered in the classroom. In addition, findings highlighted the need for training so that all practitioners have the ability and skills to deliver a balanced curriculum, incorporating DT throughout.

Findings also demonstrated that participants in the study were concerned about the amount of time children spent looking at screens, along with mediation of DT use.

Considering both screen time and mediation, parents found this important, which demonstrated that their concerns might be exacerbated by ambiguous guidelines and recommendations leading to individual interpretations, which can cause uncertainty (Viner et al., 2019; Davies et al., 2019). In contrast, mediation did not come up as much of a concern with practitioners, as adequate systems appear to already be in place. However, findings demonstrated that the digital disconnect between the two environments (Edwards et al., 2017) could be improved through effective collaboration of practitioners and parents, including information sharing and communication of best practices for using DT in the home to facilitate and improve development and learning (Kumpulainen & Gillen’s, 2017).

Overall, if not managed effectively, these study findings could create barriers, preventing effective integration of DT into the classroom, which may influence children’s development and learning. Therefore, as DT becomes more widespread and integrated into the lives of young children (O’Connor, 2017; Chaudron et al., 2015), it is essential to rethink learning and teaching in the digital age and better consider the influences that DT can have on children’s development and learning.

Recommendations

In light of the study findings, I would make the following three recommendations:

• Practitioners get sufficient training and support. Better understanding, knowledge and training on how to integrate DT into the classroom and home will benefit children’s lives now and in the future.

• The government and health organisations need to clarify their understanding of exactly what (if any) impact screen time has on children’s health and well-being. That way, guidelines and regulations can be reinforced and clearly communicated, giving added confidence to practitioners and parents.

A recommendation for personal practice would be:

• To find effective ways to incorporate DT into all areas of learning within the EYFS curriculum.

Although the data provided insight, it did not fully address the research question in the way that I had hoped. Therefore, if I was going to do a follow-on study, I would like to explore the influence (if any) of time spent using DT on children’s physical activity. I would look at doing interviews, as in that way, I would be able to better understand participants’ perceptions by asking further questions.

References

Aldhafeeri, F., Palaiologou, I., & Folorunsho, A. (2016). Integration of digital technologies into play-based pedagogy in Kuwaiti early childhood education: Teachers’ views, attitudes and aptitudes. International Journal of Early Years Education, 24(3), 342-360.

American Academy of Paediatrics. (2016). Media and Young Minds. Council on communications and media, 138(5), 1-8.

Arnott, L. (2017). Framing technological experiences in the early years. In L. Arnott (Ed.), Digital Technologies and Learning in the Early Years (pp. 7-19). SAGE Publications Ltd.

Arnott, L., Palaiologou, I., & Gray, C. (2019). Digital and multimodal childhoods: Exploration of spaces and places from pedagogy and practice. Global Studies of Childhood, 9(4), 271–274.

Aubrey, C., David, T., Godfrey, R., & Thompson, L. (2000). Early childhood educational research issues in methodology and ethics. Routledge.

Bell, J., & Waters, S. (2018). Doing Your Research Project: A Guide for First-time Researchers (7th ed.). Open University Press.

Birmingham, P., & Wilkinson, D. (2003). Using Research Instruments: A Guide for Researchers. Routledge.

Bishop Grosseteste University (BGU). (2019). BGU Ethics code of practice. https://www.bishopg.ac.uk/download-document/62976

Brito, R., Dias, P., & Oliveira, G. (2018). Young children, digital media and smart toys: How perceptions shape adoption and domestication. British Journal of Educational Technology, 49(5), 807-820.

Brito, R., Francisco, R., Dias, P., & Chaudron, S. (2017). Family dynamics in digital homes: the role played by parental mediation in young children’s digital practices around 14 european countries. Contemporary Family Therapy: An International Journal, 39(4), 271–280.

Chaudron, S., Plowman, L., Beutel, M., Ernikova, M., Donoso-Navarette, V., Dreier, M., Fletcher-Watson, B., Heikkilä, A., Kontríková, V., Korkeamäki, R., Livingstone, S., Marsh, J., Mascheroni, G., Micheli, M., Milesi, D., Müller, K., Myllylä-Nygård, T., Niska, M., Olkina, O., … Wölfling, K. (2015). Young children (0-8) and digital technology. A qualitative exploratory study across seven countries. Joint Research Centre. European Commission. https://www.pure.ed.ac.uk/ws/ portalfiles/portal/18945050/Chaudron_et_al_2015_children_0_8_ and_digital_technology_europe_report_libre.pdf

Chaudron, S., Di Gioia, R., & Gemo, M. (2018a). Young children (0-8) and digital technology, a qualitative study across Europe. https:// publications.jrc.ec.europa.eu/repository/handle/JRC110359

Chaudron, S., Marsh, J., Navarette, V., Ribbens, W., Mascheroni, G., Smahel, D., Cernikova, M., Dreier, M., Korkeamäki, R., Livingstone, S., Ottovordemgentschenfelde, S., Plowman, L., Fletcher-Watson, B., Richardson, J., Shlyapnikov, V., & Soldatova, G. (2018b). Rules of engagement: Family rules on young children’s access to and use of technologies. In S. Danby., M. Fleer., C. Davidson., & M. Hatzigianni (Eds.), Digital Childhoods (pp. 131-145). Springer.

Data Protection Act. (2018). https://www.legislation.gov.uk/ ukpga/2018/12/contents/enacted

Davies, S., Atherton, F., Calderwood, C., & McBride, M. (2019). United Kingdom Chief Medical Officers’ commentary on Screen-based activities and children and young people’s mental health and psychosocial wellbeing: a systematic map of reviews. https://assets.publishing.service.gov.uk/government/uploads/system/uploads/attachment_data/file/777026/UK_CMO_commentary_on_ screentime_and_social_media_map_of_reviews.pdf

Denscombe, M. (2012). Research Proposals: A Practical Guide. Open University Press.

Department for Education and Employment. (1999). The National Curriculum: Handbook for Primary Teachers in England Key Stages 1 and 2. https://dera.ioe.ac.uk/18150/7/QCA-99-457_Redacted.pdf

Department for Education. (2021). Statutory framework for the early years foundation stage: Setting the standards for learning, development and care for children from birth to five. https://assets. publishing.service.gov.uk/government/uploads/system/uploads/ attachment_data/file/974907/EYFS_framework_-_March_2021.pdf

Dias, P., Brito, R., Ribbens, W., Daniela, L., Rubene, Z., Dreier, M., Gemo, M., Di Gioia, R., & Chaudron, S. (2016). The role of parents in the engagement of young children with digital technologies: Exploring tensions between rights of access and protection, from ‘Gatekeepers’ to ‘Scaffolders’. Global Studies of Childhood, 6(4), 414-427.

Dornyei, Z. (2007). Research Methods in Applied Linguistics: Quantitative, Qualitative, and Mixed Methodologies. Oxford University Press.

Dunn, J., & Sweeney, T. (2018). Writing and iPads in the early years: Perspectives from within the classroom. British Journal of Educational Technology, 49(5), 859-869.

Edwards, S., Henderson, M., Gronn, D., Scott, A., & Mirkhil, M. (2017). Digital disconnect or digital difference? A socio-ecological perspective on young children’s technology use in the home and the early childhood centre. Technology, Pedagogy and Education, 26(1), 1-17.

EECERA. (2015). EECERA Ethical Code for Early Childhood Researchers. https://www.eecera.org/wp-content/uploads/2016/07/ EECERA-Ethical-Code.pdf

EECERA. (2021). Ethical Code. https://www.eecera.org/about/ethical-code/

Etikan, I., Musa, S., & Alkassim, R. (2016). Comparison of convenience sampling and purposive sampling. American journal of theoretical and applied statistics, 5(1), 1-4.

Gibbons, L. (1986). Escape or Run. Journal of Computer Assisted Learning, 2(1), 22-27.

Gillen, J., & Kucirkova, N. (2018). Percolating spaces: Creative ways of using digital technologies to connect young children’s school and home lives. British Journal of Educational Technology, 49(5), 834-846.

Hatzigianni, M., & Kalaitzidis, I. (2018). Early childhood educators’ attitudes and beliefs around the use of touchscreen technologies by children under three years of age. British Journal of Educational Technology, 49(5), 883-895.

Holloway, I., & Todres, L. (2003). The status of method: flexibility, consistency and coherence. Qualitative research, 3(3), 345-357.

Howard, S., & Mozejko, A. (2015). Considering the history of digital technologies in education. In M. Henderson & G. Romero (Eds.), Teaching and Digital Technologies: Big Issues and Critical Questions (pp. 157-168). Cambridge University Press.

Ilieva, J., Baron, S., & Healey, N. (2002). Online surveys in marketing research: Pros and cons. International Journal of Market Research, 44(3), 361-376.

Lawler, R. (2019). First UK guidelines for screen time announced. https://www.eyalliance.org.uk/news/2019/01/first-uk-guidelines-screen-time-announced

Jager, J., Putnick, D., & Bornstein, M. (2017). More than just convenient: The scientific merits of homogeneous convenience samples. Monographs of the Society for Research in Child Development, 82(2), 13-30.

Kivunja, C. & Kuyini, A. (2017). Understanding and Applying Research Paradigms in Educational Contexts. International Journal of Higher Education, 6(5), 26-41.

Kumpulainen, K., & Gillen, J. (2017). Young Children’s Digital Literacy Practices in the Home: A Review of the Literature. http://digilitey.eu/ wp-content/uploads/2018/02/WG-1-Lit-Review-04-12-17.pdf

Maguire, M., & Delahunt, B. (2017). Doing a Thematic Analysis: A Practical, Step-by-Step Guide for Learning and Teaching Scholars. Dundalk Institute of Technology, 8(3), 1-14.

Merriam, S., & Tisdell, E. (2016). Qualitative research: A guide to design and implementation (4th ed.). John Wiley & Sons.

Mustajoki & Mustajoki. (2017). A New Approach to Research Ethics: Using Guided Dialogue to Strengthen Research Communities. Routledge.

O’Connor, J. (2017). Under 3s and Technology. In L. Arnott (Ed.), Digital technologies and learning in the early years (pp. 87- 98). SAGE Publications Ltd.

Ofcom. (2021). Children and parents: Media use and attitudes report. https://www.ofcom.org.uk/__data/assets/pdf_file/0025/217825/ children-and-parents-media-use-and-attitudes-report-2020-21.pdf

Ofcom. (2004). Ofcom’s Strategy and Priorities for the Promotion of Media Literacy A statement. https://www.ofcom.org.uk/__data/ assets/pdf_file/0021/72255/strat_prior_statement.pdf

Palaiologou, I. (2016). Children under five and digital technologies: Implications for early years pedagogy. European Early Childhood Education Research Journal, 24(1), 5-24.

Passey, D. (2014). Early uses of computers in schools in the United Kingdom: shaping factors and influencing directions. In A. Tatnall & B. Davey (Eds.), Reflections on the History of Computers in Education (pp. 131-149). Springer.

Pattern, M. (2017). Questionnaire Research: A Practical Guide (4th ed.). Routledge.

Petersen, P. (2015). That’s how much I can do! Children’s Agency in Digital Tablet activities in a Swedish Preschool Environment. Nordic Journal of Digital Literacy, 10(3), 145-169.

Pham, L. (2018). Qualitative approach to research a review of advantages and disadvantages of three paradigms: Positivism, interpretivism and critical inquiry. https://www.researchgate. net/profile/Lan-Pham-3/publication/324486854_A_Review_of_ key_paradigms_positivism_interpretivism_and_critical_inquiry/ links/5acffa880f7e9b18965cd52f/A-Review-of-key-paradigms-positivism-interpretivism-and-critical-inquiry.pdf

Plowman, L. (2015). Researching young children’s everyday uses of technology in the family home. Interacting with Computers, 27(1), 36-46.

Prensky, M. (2001). Digital natives, digital immigrants part 1. On the horizon, 9(5), 1-6.

Rideout, V. (2017). The Common sense census: Media use by kids age zero to eight. https://www.commonsensemedia.org/sites/default/ files/uploads/research/csm_zerotoeight_fullreport_release_2.pdf

Smith, B. (2015). Computing. https://briansmithonline.com/ computing/

Smith, J., Flowers, P., & Larkin, M. (2009). Interpretative phenomenological analysis: theory, method and research. SAGE Publication Ltd.

Spiteri, M., & Rundgren, S. (2020). Literature review on the factors affecting primary teachers’ use of digital technology. Technology, Knowledge and Learning, 25(1), 115-128.

Stephen, C., & Edwards, S. (2017). Young children playing and learning in a digital age: A cultural and critical perspective. Routledge.

Taylor, H. (2000). Does Internet research work? Comparing electronic survey results with telephone survey. International Journal of Market Research, 42(1), 51–63.

The Open University. (2020). Children’s experiences with digital technologies. https://www.open.edu/openlearn/education-development/childrens-experiences-digital-technologies/content-section-0?intro=1

UNICEF. (2020). Two thirds of the world’s school-age children have no internet access at home, new UNICEF-ITU report says. https://www.unicef.org/press-releases/two-thirds-worlds-school-age-children-have-no-internet-access-home-new-unicef-itu

Vehovar, V., Toepoel, V., & Steinmetz, S. (2016). Non-probability sampling. In C. Wolf., D. Joye., T. Smith., T. Smith., & Y. Fu, The Sage handbook of survey methods (pp. 329-345). SAGE Publications Ltd.

Viner, R., Davie, M., & Firth, A. (2019). The health impacts of screen time: a guide for clinicians and parents. https://www.rcpch.ac.uk/sites/default/files/2018-12/rcpch_screen_time_guide_-_final.pdf

Walker, R., & Solvason, C. (2014). Success with your early years research project. Sage Publications Ltd.

Warren, R. (2001). In words and deeds: Parental involvement and mediation of children’s television viewing. The Journal of Family Communication, 1(4), 211-231.

Wu, X., Tao, S., Rutayisire, E., Chen, Y., Huang, K., & Tao, F. (2017). The relationship between screen time, nighttime sleep duration, and behavioural problems in preschool children in China. European child & adolescent psychiatry, 26(5), 541-548.

World Health Organization. (2019). To grow up healthy, children need to sit less and play more: New WHO guidelines on physical activity, sedentary behaviour and sleep for children under 5 years of age https://www.who.int/news/item/24-04-2019-to-grow-up-healthy-children-need-to-sit-less-and-play-more

Yelland, N. (2018). A pedagogy of multiliteracies: Young children and multimodal learning tablets. British Journal of Educational Technology, 49(5), 847-858.