For More InformationVisit RAND at www.rand.org

Explore the RAND Corporation

View document details

Support RANDBrowse Reports & Bookstore

Make a charitable contribution

Limited Electronic Distribution RightsThis document and trademark(s) contained herein are protected by law as indicated in a notice appearing later in this work. This electronic representation of RAND intellectual property is provided for non-commercial use only. Unauthorized posting of RAND electronic documents to a non-RAND website is prohibited. RAND electronic documents are protected under copyright law. Permission is required from RAND to reproduce, or reuse in another form, any of our research documents for commercial use. For information on reprint and linking permissions, please see RAND Permissions.

Skip all front matter: Jump to Page 16

The RAND Corporation is a nonprofit institution that helps improve policy and decisionmaking through research and analysis.

This electronic document was made available from www.rand.org as a public service of the RAND Corporation.

CHILDREN AND FAMILIES

EDUCATION AND THE ARTS

ENERGY AND ENVIRONMENT

HEALTH AND HEALTH CARE

INFRASTRUCTURE AND TRANSPORTATION

INTERNATIONAL AFFAIRS

LAW AND BUSINESS

NATIONAL SECURITY

POPULATION AND AGING

PUBLIC SAFETY

SCIENCE AND TECHNOLOGY

TERRORISM AND HOMELAND SECURITY

C O R P O R A T I O N

Using Early Childhood Education to

the Digital DivideBridge

Lindsay Daugherty, Rafiq Dossani, Erin-Elizabeth Johnson, Mustafa Oguz

C O R P O R A T I O N

PE119_FNLCompiled_CC_dw.indd 1 2/19/14 4:36 PM

The RAND Corporation gratefully acknowledges the PNC Foundation, the sponsor of this research. Among other initiatives, PNC supports early education through PNC Grow Up Great, a $350 million, multi-year, bilingual initiative that began in 2004 to help prepare children from birth to age fi ve for success in school and life.

PE119_FNLCompiled_CC_dw.indd 2 2/19/14 4:36 PM

Technology literacy plays an important role in a child’s ability to succeed in school and later life.

Yet, despite rapid growth in society’s use of digital technology, many children in low-income families in the United States are not able to access and use technology in the same ways as their more-advantaged peers. This means they have fewer opportunities to learn, explore, and communicate digitally, and fewer chances to develop the workforce skills they will need to succeed in later life. Early childhood education can play a valuable role in ensuring that low-income children can access technology and learn how to use it. This Perspective frames a discussion on these subjects by exploring the role of early childhood education in bridging the digital divide.

Using Early Childhood Education to Bridge the Digital Divide 3

PE119_FNLCompiled_CC_dw.indd 3 2/19/14 4:36 PM

for School and Provides anOpportunity to Address Disparities

E arly childhood education (ECE) is a well-established step in the education pathway for young children. As of 2012, approximately 80 percent of 4-year-olds received regular

care from someone other than their parents, and three-quarters of these children attended a public or private preschool center.1 A substantial portion of a young child’s time is spent in ECE. Pre-school programs generally last 3–6 hours, and family child-care providers oft en care for children all day long. Th e potential for ECE providers to play an important role in a child’s development can, therefore, be signifi cant.

ECE provides an important opportunity to address disparities in skills and abilities among children.2 On average, children

who come from disadvantaged families have lower levels of academic achievement than their more-advantaged peers.3 Th ese achievement gaps can appear as early as 18 months of age and persist to later ages.4 High-quality ECE experiences have been shown to substantially reduce gaps in math and reading skills as well as motivation and socialization.5 Chil-dren who participate in ECE perform better in kindergarten and attain higher levels of achievement throughout their K–12 schooling. Th e eff ects of ECE are particularly strong for children from low-income families.6 ECE is also related to increased high school graduation rates, higher employment and income levels, and lower rates of crime.7

PreparesEarly

Childhood Education

Children

4 Using Early Childhood Education to Bridge the Digital Divide

PE119_FNLCompiled_CC_dw.indd 4 2/19/14 4:36 PM

for School and Provides an Opportunity to Address Disparities

Recognizing the importance of ECE, federal and state govern-ments have invested substantially in its public provision. Funding for the Head Start program, which provides educational, health, nutritional, and other social services, was nearly $8 billion in 2012. Several states have developed universal prekindergarten programs to ensure that all students have access to high-quality ECE. Public investments have led to significant growth in State Preschool Pro-gram attendance, which doubled from just 14 percent of 4-year-olds in 2002 to 28 percent in 2012.8 State Preschool and Head Start—the two largest publicly funded programs—accounted for 41 percent of 4-year-olds enrolled in preschool in 2012.

We know that ECE can provide valuable opportunities to address disparities in foundational skills, and we know that a majority of children receive some form of ECE. So the question is, can ECE also address disparities in other areas? Over the past two decades, the integration of information and commu-nication technology (ICT) into educational settings has raised concerns that disadvantaged students are behind peers in information and communication technology access and use. The disparity in access to and use of technology is commonly referred to as the digital divide. This Perspective discusses ECE’s potential to address this digital divide. We also discuss ICT’s potential to address early disparities in academic achievement and “soft skills,” such as motivation and socialization.

PreparesChildren

Using Early Childhood Education to Bridge the Digital Divide 5

PE119_FNLCompiled_CC_dw.indd 5 2/19/14 4:36 PM

Technology Literacy

Opens the Door to Many of Life’s Opportunities

F or a growing number of Americans, ICT has become a “general-purpose technology”—one that, like the railroad and electric power in their eras, is indispensable to daily

life. Computers, other computer-based devices (such as smart-phones), and the Internet play an important role in many aspects of life, including education, work, social interaction, and civic participation. Some believe that ICT may even have the power to alter preexisting economic and social structures.9 However, histo-ry shows that it usually takes time for general-purpose technolo-gies to work their way through a social structure, and, during that

time, gaps in access can grow and create social divides. Bridging these divides sometimes requires that the government and civil society step in.10

Th e use of ICT in the workplace is on the rise. By 2003, more than 56 percent of employed Americans were already reporting computer in the workplace, and 40 percent were reporting In-ternet use as well.11 A 2008 study showed that those with higher-paying jobs, including managers and professionals, are particu-larly likely to use computers in the workplace, and that those who

6 Using Early Childhood Education to Bridge the Digital Divide

PE119_FNLCompiled_CC_dw.indd 6 2/19/14 4:36 PM

report using technology in the workplace earn 14–27 percent more than those who do not.12 Projections in the U.S. labor mar-ket indicate that much of the country’s future job growth will be concentrated in areas that require use of ICT on the job.13

ICT is increasingly being integrated into education, both to prepare students for the workplace and to enhance the learning environment. As early as 2003, more than 80 percent of K–12 students reported using a computer in school;14 in 2009, 74 per-cent of elementary school teachers and 69 percent of secondary school teachers reported using a computer “sometimes” or “oft en” in classroom instruction.15 College-age students use computers at high rates, with 83 percent of fi rst-year college students reporting in 2012 that they used a computer “quite a bit” or “very much” in academic work.16 A growing body of research shows a positive relationship between the use of computers at home or in school and academic achievement.17

Th e ability to use ICT eff ectively for education and work requires technology literacy, or the ability to use computer-based devices, soft ware, and networks. Just as basic text literacy opens the door to a world of information and provides opportunities for learn-ing, technology literacy grants access to the digital world and all of the learning opportunities it aff ords. According to the Interna-tional Society for Technology in Education’s National Educational Technology Standards, technology literacy includes both the basic knowledge and skills needed to use ICT and the more-advanced ability to use ICT “to analyze, learn, and explore.”18 Early childhood education plays a critical role in building basic text literacy, and it may be able to do the same for technology literacy.

In 2009, 74 percent of elementary school teachers reported using a computer “sometimes” or “often” in instruction.

Using Early Childhood Education to Bridge the Digital Divide 7

PE119_FNLCompiled_CC_dw.indd 7 2/19/14 4:36 PM

Without technology literacy upon entry into kindergarten, stu-dents may begin to fall behind in the classroom, as standards for K–12 education in the United States place considerable impor-tance on ICT. The Common Core State Standards—an initiative that aims to bring diverse state and local curricula into alignment with each other—mentions technology more than 100 times in 66 pages of national standards for English and language arts. Standards for both basic and advanced technology literacy are in-cluded. For instance, the standards state that sixth-grade students should be able to “use technology, including the Internet, to pro-duce and publish writing and present the relationships between information and ideas clearly and efficiently.”19 In addition to the integration of technology into Common Core State Standards, a number of states set separate standards for technology use and technology literacy.

Given the growing role that ICT is playing in education and the workplace, it is important to ensure that all Americans can access computers and the Internet and learn to use them effectively. However, a digital divide has long existed, with income and educa-tion being strongly tied to computer access and use. We next dis-cuss the digital divide and the possibility of addressing it through the integration of ICT into early childhood education settings.

8 Using Early Childhood Education to Bridge the Digital Divide

PE119_FNLCompiled_CC_dw.indd 8 2/19/14 4:36 PM

DivideThe Digital

But Other Divides Persist

in Access Is

Narrowing,A mericans’ access to computers and the Internet has

increased dramatically since the late 1990s.21 Howev-er, low-income families continue to lag behind when

it comes to gaining access to ICT. A 2011 Census Bureau survey found that 86 percent of households with annual incomes of $100,000 or more had at least one computer and Internet access in the home, compared with just 50 percent of households with incomes below $25,000.22

Th e good news is that the divide in access to devices is substan-tially narrower among younger generations. A 2012 Nielsen

study looking at diff erences in smartphone ownership between those earning less than $30,000 and those earning more than $75,000 found a gap of 50 percentage points among those ages 30 and above. But the gap among those ages 18–29 was only 13 percentage points.23 Th is trend suggests that the gap in ownership of sophisticated, Internet-connected devices is likely to narrow.

During the past few decades, schools have played a critical role in narrowing the digital divide in access to ICT. By 2009, access at school was nearly universal: 93 percent of teachers reported the daily presence of at least one computer with Internet access

Using Early Childhood Education to Bridge the Digital Divide 9

PE119_FNLCompiled_CC_dw.indd 9 2/19/14 4:36 PM

in their classrooms. Th e ratio of students to computers in the classroom was re-ported to be 5.3 to 1.24

Providing universal access to ICT in schools is a priority for the federal and state governments. According to one consulting fi rm, annual federal and state spending on computers and other ICT in schools was $334 million in 2012, up 150 percent from 2010.25 Th e American Reinvestment and Recovery Act of 2009 allocated more than $7 billion to ensure nationwide access to high-speed Internet for libraries, schools, community centers, and other settings. A number of cities off er free broadband Internet service.26 Such corporations as Micro-soft , Target, and Google have donated signifi cant numbers of free computers and interactive whiteboards to schools.27 As the popularity of tablets has increased, several school districts have announced plans to make these devices widely available.28

Th e advantage of greater access to ICT in schools, however, is limited by disparities in access at home. Th e divide in access is apparent across a range of devices (Figure 1). Evidence suggests that low-income families own fewer devices, and these devices tend to be older and less portable.29 In addition, a 2011 govern-ment report shows that high-speed Internet connections are less prevalent in low-income neighborhoods and rural areas.30

Th e above discussion suggests that access for disadvantaged populations through school-based policy and public initia-tives has succeeded in partly off setting the gaps that persist

in home access. As access to ICT among disadvantaged populations has improved, the focus has shift ed to how ICT is used. By use, we mean both basic technology literacy, such as turning on the device and accessing the Internet, and advanced abili-ties to “learn, analyze, and explore.” Some describe the digital divide in ICT use as an “opportunity gap” or a “participation gap,” in which low-income individuals are not able to take advantage of the opportunities ICT provides.31 Disparities in advanced

technology literacy skills by income and family characteris-tics result in diff erences in the way technology is used, and diff erent types of use may lead to greater or lesser benefi ts from technology.

A number of studies illustrate a digital divide in ICT use. For example, studies show that, in many cases, disadvantaged youth use the Internet more oft en than their more-advantaged peers.32 However, such individuals largely use ICT for entertainment and social networking.33 Lower-income households are also less likely than higher-income households to use ICT for educational purposes. For example, one study reports that 35 percent of lower-income parents have downloaded educational applications for their child, whereas 75 percent of higher-income parents have done so.34 In addition, studies from 2010 show that teach-ers at schools in wealthier areas are more likely to use computers in innovative ways and to support development of higher-order reasoning skills.35 Children from poorer areas, however, are more likely to be taught to use computers for drill and practice.

Low-income families continue to lag behind when it

comes to gaining access to ICT.

10 Using Early Childhood Education to Bridge the Digital Divide

PE119_FNLCompiled_CC_dw.indd 10 2/19/14 4:36 PM

Evidence of disparities in access to and use of ICT suggests that the approach to addressing the digital divide must be double-pronged. It is important to continue to support access to devices in schools and households in lower-income areas, and to ensure that the devices are complemented with access

to adequate bandwidth and appropriate software. Yet efforts must also focus on ensuring that social resources are put in place to help children develop the knowledge, skills, and abili-ties necessary to reap the full benefits of technology as a tool for learning and growth.

SOURCE: Data from The Pew Internet & American Life Project, “Spring Tracking Survey 2012: Data for March 15– April 3, 2012,” 2012. Icons via WonderfulPixel/Fotolia.

Figure 1. In 2012, the digital divide at home was apparent across a range of devices

Laptop computer

0%

20%

40%

60%

80%

100%

Desktop computer

Smart-phone

Tablet e-Reader

Annual household income

n Less than $30,000

n $30,000–$49,999

n $50,000–$74,999

n $75,000 or more

Aa

Using Early Childhood Education to Bridge the Digital Divide 11

PE119_FNLCompiled_CC_dw.indd 11 2/19/14 4:36 PM

Address the Digital DivideIntroducing Technology During Early Childhood Can Help

E vidence indicates that the digital divide in access to ICT begins at very early ages. In families earning less than $25,000 annually, fewer than 30 percent of

children under the age of fi ve were using a computer at home in 2012. In families earning $75,000 or more, the rate of use among young children was 66 percent.36 Th e integration of computer-based technology in the early childhood classroom has the potential to address the digital divide in both access and use. Children without access in the home can start to build familiarity with technology, and its eff ective use can be modeled and guided by educators.

While common in K–12 and postsecondary education set-tings, ICT has played a relatively small role in ECE settings. In a search of preschool education standards in 23 states, we found that six states made no mention of computers or technology. Only two states supplied detailed standards for what is ex-

12 Using Early Childhood Education to Bridge the Digital Divide

PE119_FNLCompiled_CC_dw.indd 12 2/19/14 4:36 PM

ing focus. Various studies show ICT’s potential to improve basic skills in such academic areas as mathematics, reading, and science,39 and provide a “print rich” environment that offers a range of opportunities for language development.40 Other stud-ies show a strong positive relationship between computer use and intelligence, creativity, and self esteem.41 Children actually engage in a wide range of social interactions with peers and teachers when they are working with computers,42 suggest-ing that ICT can play an important role in socio-emotional development. Finally, ICT use among young children has been shown to improve motor skills through the use of a mouse and engagement in motor skills–focused activities.43

Although the body of evidence on ICT and early skill develop-ment is growing, it is important to note that the evidence is not always positive. For example, a 2002 study indicates that there is no relationship between computer use and skill development

pected with regard to technology literacy, and the remaining 15 provided only general guidelines or brief mentions of technol-ogy (e.g., “use age-appropriate software,” “books or other tech-nologies”).37 The actual use of computer-based technology in ECE instruction may be even less prevalent than state standards suggest. In a 2010 study, 45 percent of ECE providers reported having Internet-connected computers in the classroom. And, while 38 percent of classroom-based ECE providers and 20 per-cent of family child-care providers reported using computers daily, more than one-third reported never using computers.38

In addition to building basic familiarity with technology, technology literacy can open up new opportunities to develop foundational skills—motor skills, socio-emotional skills, and cognitive skills—that are central to ECE (see sidebar, p. 15). The potential for ICT—and educational games, in particular—to support skill growth in this range of skills is an area of increas-

Address the Digital DivideIntroducing Technology During Early Childhood Can Help

Using Early Childhood Education to Bridge the Digital Divide 13

PE119_FNLCompiled_CC_dw.indd 13 2/19/14 4:36 PM

or academic achievement.44 Another study finds no relationship between computer use and visual or gross motor–skill devel-opment.45 A meta-analysis conducted by the U.S. Department of Education concluded that evidence of the effects of K–12 education technology is very weak, with few rigorous controlled studies that enabled computing-effect sizes.46 Additional re-search is needed to better understand how ICT can be integrat-ed into ECE to ensure that positive benefits are realized.

Additionally, although ICT may help students develop new skills in technology literacy and provide additional learning op-portunities in math and reading, there are also concerns about skills that will be neglected. For example, the sedentary activity associated with computer use raises concerns about such gross motor skills as running and jumping.47 Critics also argue that an important aspect of ECE is play with concrete materials that can be manipulated.48 These activities may not translate well to ICT. With regard to socio-emotional development, some studies indicate that individual use of computers, rather than collabora-tive play, is more prevalent in ECE settings.49 It is important to explore the role of ICT in expanding learning opportunities, but it is also important to understand the ways in which increased integration of ICT may lead to diminished opportunities for skill development in other areas.

Indeed, not everyone agrees that digital technology use should be encouraged among young children; it has been a subject of considerable debate. Due to concerns about the mental and physical side effects of “screen time,” the American Academy

of Pediatrics (AAP) has recommended that children under the age of two should have no screen time and that screen time for children of all ages should be limited to two hours a day.50 Although early AAP statements did not distinguish between different types of screen time, the most recent policy statement specifies that these limitations should be placed on “entertain-ment screen time.” A series of studies over the past ten years have found that many ECE providers are hesitant to integrate technology into care settings.51 According to a 2013 article in Time, only half of parents feel that ICT should play a larger role in education.52

However, in recent years, consensus has grown around support of some technology use among children ages 3–5. The expand-ing use of technology in K–12 education makes it more impor-tant for students to enter the classroom with some familiarity with technology. The discussion has evolved from “Should computers be used in ECE?” to “How might computers be used effectively?”53 Along with other organizations, the National Association for the Education of Young Children (NAEYC) has acknowledged that technology use among preschool-aged children is inevitable, and it argues that how technology is used is critical to determining whether its benefits can be realized. In this vision of the role for technology, computer-based devices are viewed as another set of important tools for communication and learning: Used properly, they can be useful for education and work; used improperly, they can deliver a number of poten-tially negative side effects.

14 Using Early Childhood Education to Bridge the Digital Divide

PE119_FNLCompiled_CC_dw.indd 14 2/19/14 4:36 PM

Cognitive skills Improved academic achievement through develop-ing abilities in reading, writing, and mathematics has long been viewed as one of the primary purposes of ECE. The introduction of computers into regular ECE instruction may grant access to software that could be used to engage students in developing these abilities. As software has evolved from the early point-and-click software to student-led software that encourages children to represent ideas through several media, the poten-tial for cognitive growth through computer-based devices has grown.60 There may also be a role for computers in delivering instruction in literacy and mathematics.

Technology literacy may afford new opportunities to develop three foundational skillsMotor skills

The development of fine motor skills is a critical aspect of ECE, as young children must develop these skills (such as holding a pencil and manipulating basic materials) in order to later engage in basic educational activities throughout their time in school. Computer use requires a different set of motor skills, so technology exposure can help ensure that young children develop these additional skills.54 For example, the hand-eye coordi-nation required to use a mouse is very different from the hand-eye coordination required for drawing or writing, and the use of touch screens may offer additional op-portunities. The NAEYC identifies “use of a mouse” as one way of developing fine motor skills among young children. Others argue that computer-based technology can improve motor skills through increased motivation and focus on activities, such as drawing.55

Socio-emotional skills Socialization and the development of emotional skills are key goals of ECE.56 Early childhood classroom activities include games and other pursuits that require students to work together and make decisions—activities that help them develop socio-emotional skills. Software designed to lead young children through storytelling or to structure decisionmaking processes may further nurture their socio- emotional development.57 However, because computer use is often a solitary task, there is concern that too much computer time may diminish social interaction.58 Although studies have demon-strated that software can engage students in collab-orative play, not all early childhood software is designed for this purpose.59

Using Early Childhood Education to Bridge the Digital Divide 15

PE119_FNLCompiled_CC_dw.indd 15 2/19/14 4:36 PM

S upporters of technology in ECE argue that issues as-sociated with implementation largely drive the mixed evidence on technology and skill growth.61 Certainly,

the range of potential positive eff ects on the development and learning of young children will not be realized simply by plac-ing Internet-connected devices in ECE settings. We identify fi ve key supports that are required to ensure the successful adoption and use of ICT as a tool for ECE (Figure 2).

High-quality Internet connectivity, developmentally appropriate soft ware, and smart and portable devices are helpful in sup-porting educational technology eff orts. However, policymakers should avoid assuming that these are suffi cient for the successful integration of technology into education. In practice, these sup-ports may not even be necessary, since much may be achieved with older computers and older soft ware that sit on a desktop with a large enough screen to be shared among children. And, even if the most up-to-date soft ware-device-connection combi-nation is present, it may not be usable if there is no one to guide

the child. Th e key point is that the real value is derived from the presence of a high-quality knowledge facilitator.

A facilitator can be a teacher, parent, older sibling, or any individual who can work with children to actively explore the computer, model eff ective behaviors, and steer children toward appropriate technology use. Studies have shown that a well-trained facilitator is one of the most important determinants of whether technology use will result in skill growth.62 As ICT

is integrated into ECE settings, teachers will play the impor-tant role of knowledge facilitators in the classroom. However, in 2010, more than one-quarter of K–12 schools reported that teachers are not suffi ciently trained to successfully integrate ICT into the classroom, and training defi ciencies are likely to be even greater among ECE providers.63 Th is raises concerns about the ability of ECE teachers to act as eff ective knowledge facilita-tors without receiving additional training.

Figure 2 also shows that support at home can play a critical role in facilitating skill growth among young children. ECE

Supports Areto Realize the Benefits of

Technology in ECE Needed

16 Using Early Childhood Education to Bridge the Digital Divide

PE119_FNLCompiled_CC_dw.indd 16 2/19/14 4:36 PM

classroom time is limited, and engagement with ICT in the home can help build skills through practice. Studies show that building parental skills and encouraging parental involvement in ECE can be an eff ective means of improving student achieve-ment, and a number of early programs specifi cally aim to get parents involved or build parental skills.64 However, limited access to ICT in low-income homes, combined with family members’ limited knowledge about educational computer use, may present obstacles to eff ective home support. In addition to acting as knowledge facilitators in the classroom, if properly trained, ECE teachers may be able to support parents and sib-lings in their role as facilitators in the home.

It is important to note that ECE providers are a diverse group working in diverse settings. Th ese include state preschools, Head Start centers and other center-based care, and family child care. According to a 2012 report, approximately 57 percent of children age four are in center-based care, 21 percent are in family child-care settings, and 22 percent do not receive any type of formal ECE.65 Th e goals for ICT integration may be dif-ferent for diff erent types of providers, and eff ective implementa-tion may also look quite diff erent in these various settings. Th e fi ve key supports we identify are likely to play somewhat diff er-ent roles in diff erent settings, and they may be needed to greater or lesser degrees. In developing a plan to integrate ICT into early childhood settings, it is therefore critical to consider the diff erent provider types and to adapt policies to integrate tech-nology into all of the care settings. It will also be important to fi nd ways of reaching children who are not enrolled in ECE, as these children—who are more likely to come from low-income families—could benefi t substantially from exposure to ICT.

Figure 2. Five key supports are required to ensure the achievement of basic technology literacy and foundational skills

Knowledgefacilitator

ConnectivityDevicesSoftware Home support

Basic technology literacy

Socio-emotional skills

Cognitiveskills

Motor skills

Using Early Childhood Education to Bridge the Digital Divide 17

PE119_FNLCompiled_CC_dw.indd 17 2/19/14 4:36 PM

Defining the

The integration of technology into ECE off ers substan-tial possibilities for addressing the digital divide, as well as disparities in other areas. But questions remain.

For example, how can we support integration that both benefi ts children and helps us better understand still-unresolved issues, such as optimum exposure time? Suc-cessful integration will require careful thought and plan-ning, and a broad group of stakeholders must be invited

to the discussion. Parents, ECE providers, policymakers, and researchers will have unique perspectives and com-

peting priorities that should be understood and addressed in the planning process. We believe that the road ahead

should focus on achieving a better understanding of the goals of ICT and its use in the ECE curriculum and on identifying how the fi ve supports discussed earlier should be structured to enable eff ective implementation. Th is leads to fi ve key ques-tions that must be answered in order to support the successful integration of computer-based technology into ECE.

18 Using Early Childhood Education to Bridge the Digital Divide

PE119_FNLCompiled_CC_dw.indd 18 2/19/14 4:36 PM

Defining the

Question 1: What is the goal for information and communication technology in early child-hood education?

One of the primary purposes of ECE is to ensure that all students enter kindergarten on an equal footing in the areas of academic and nonacademic preparation. We have concluded that eliminating the digital divide by ensuring basic technol-ogy literacy for all students regardless of diff erences in income, family structure, and parents’ educational attainment should be seriously considered as a fi rst-stage goal for ICT. Another goal, which may be pursued at the same time or as a second stage, is to use ICT to build skills in math and reading, as well as social skills and motivation.

In addition to student-focused goals, there may be secondary goals for technology in ECE. For example, some public ECE pro-

Road Ahead

Using Early Childhood Education to Bridge the Digital Divide 19

PE119_FNLCompiled_CC_dw.indd 19 2/19/14 4:36 PM

grams target parents and families in an effort to transform home environments and improve learning opportunities elsewhere outside of the classroom. Given the digital divide that persists in homes, one goal of using ICT in ECE may be to improve access to and support the effective use of ICT in the home.

Determining, prioritizing, and sequencing the goals for ICT in ECE should be carried out collaboratively by a broad group of stakeholders. Findings from research, policy priorities, and conditions within early childhood education settings should be considered in deciding how to define these goals.

Question 2: How do we define appropriate use of technology in ECE?

An important message from the literature on ECE and tech-nology is that the way computers and the Internet are used is a primary determinant of the effectiveness of technology in promoting skill development and minimizing any potential negative consequences. However, the literature is not as clear in defining what developmentally appropriate use looks like. Standards must be developed to inform policymakers and practitioners about what constitutes developmentally appro-priate use among young children. The NAEYC has developed guidelines about what it considers developmentally appropri-ate technology use for young children. It argues, for instance, that technology use must be active, meaning that the student must be interacting with the computer regularly. Develop-

mentally appropriate technology use for young children must be scaffolded by an adult. And, as noted earlier, the potential negative consequences of excessive screen time should be avoided by exposing young children to less than two hours a day of screen time.66

However, a number of aspects of developmentally appropriate use of ICT in ECE have not yet been resolved. Despite guide-lines to avoid more than two hours of screen time, the NAEYC, in its 2012 position statement, questions whether all screen time should be considered equal.67 For example, two hours of active engagement with developmentally appropriate software and facilitation from a well-trained adult may have very differ-ent effects on children compared with two hours of watching entertainment-focused television. It is unclear what develop-mentally appropriate software looks like, and standards for ECE software have yet to be decided. Questions about Internet use among young children have not been directly addressed. Addi-tional research on the effects of using different types of technol-ogy could also be helpful in determining whether the intuitive notions of developmentally appropriate use are supported by evi-dence. These facets of use include time, interactions between the student and the software, different approaches to technology use employed by ECE environments in lower-income versus upper-income areas (perhaps to account for lower parental involvement in the former group), interactions between the student and adult facilitators, interactions between the student and peers, the types of software provided, and the types of devices used.

20 Using Early Childhood Education to Bridge the Digital Divide

PE119_FNLCompiled_CC_dw.indd 20 2/19/14 4:36 PM

Question 3: Once defi ned, how do we sup-port effective use through devices, connec-tivity, software, and other components of ICT infrastructure?

Earlier, we explored whether technology will be used primar-ily to build basic ICT literacy, or whether it will be used as a tool to develop skills in other foundational areas. Related to this question is where to focus resources. Th e government, indus-try, and nonprofi ts have tradition-ally focused primarily on access, but it is important to consider whether resources should instead be devoted to supporting eff ective use. It may be that the United States has made such great strides in basic access that hardware and the Internet will soon fi lter down to access-free households without additional government eff ort. In this case, attention might be better focused on supporting appropriate use. Or, it may be that access remains a critical issue as devices age and as new, more highly functioning or portable devices are introduced.

Th e rapid pace of soft ware and device evolution suggests that we need to better understand the locus and scope of decision-making. Among the questions that need to be addressed are whether the federal government should set minimum access

standards for disadvantaged families and ECE environments, or whether such decisions are best made by state and local governments. Another question arising from the rapid pace of soft ware evolution concerns the role of commercial soft ware providers. At present, commercial soft ware makers are largely left out of formalized ECE initiatives because ECE programs and providers do not usually have the budget to buy education-al games and other soft ware on commercial terms. Should they

be part of the decisionmaking process, for example, through state support for public-private partnerships on soft ware development?

Question 4: How do we ensure that ECE providers are prepared to address the digital divide?

As noted earlier, the availability of a teacher who can properly facilitate the use of technology in ECE settings is important to ensuring that computer-based devices are used eff ectively to build technology literacy and improve skill growth. For example, in one study, children were separated into diff er-

ent groups, with preschool teachers for each group providing varying levels of guidance. Children who were actively guided through computer-based tasks showed more growth in abstract reading, vocabulary, and visual motor coordination compared

The way computers and the Internet are used is a primary determinant of the effectiveness of technology in promoting skill development and minimizing negative consequences.

Using Early Childhood Education to Bridge the Digital Divide 21

PE119_FNLCompiled_CC_dw.indd 21 2/19/14 4:36 PM

with children whose teachers only responded to questions and provided minimal student-initiated help.68 Another study shows that technology integration with support for teachers led to significant improvements in basic literacy outcomes.69 Ac-cording to the NAEYC, technology literacy for ECE providers is

the understanding, skills, and ability to use technology and interactive media to access information, communi-cate with other professionals, and participate in profes-sional development to improve learning and prepare young children for a lifetime of technology use. Digital and media literacy for educators means that they have the knowledge and experience to think critically about the selection, analysis, use, and evaluation of technology and media for young children in order to evaluate their impact on learning and development.70

However, there are significant deficits in both the technology literacy of ECE providers and their ability to provide scaffold-ing for others. A 2010 survey of ECE providers indicated that, although teachers reported frequently using the Internet for

business purposes and to search for classroom activity ideas, they used computers and the Internet less often in regular classroom activities.71 When computers were used in the class-room, they were often used for activities that are not consid-ered developmentally appropriate, according to standards set by the NAEYC.

We need to better understand the training needs of ECE providers. Evidence suggests that ECE providers receive little or no training on the use of computer-based technology in the classroom.72 For example, a 2010 survey of 23 ECE train-ing programs found that less than half involved coursework on the use of technology in the classroom. Several organizations, including the NAEYC and the Joan Ganz Cooney Center at Sesame Workshop, have argued that facilitator preparation is a priority.73 As providers integrate technology into early child-hood classrooms, it will be critical to think about how they can be supported to become effective facilitators. Without well-trained and technologically literate adults to scaffold early childhood computer use, access to computers and the Internet in ECE settings may have little effect on the technology lit-eracy of children and on their ability to use computers for skill development. The facilitators may also need training to adopt approaches that differ across the income groups from which children come. Further, research shows that receiving support from colleagues and sharing professional experiences in the classroom are essential to successfully using technology to en-hance children’s learning.74 How may networks of collaboration promote professional development?

Children who were actively guided through computer-based tasks showed more growth in abstract reading, vocabulary, and visual motor coordination compared with children whose teachers provided minimal help.

22 Using Early Childhood Education to Bridge the Digital Divide

PE119_FNLCompiled_CC_dw.indd 22 2/19/14 4:36 PM

Question 5: What relationship should parents and families have to the integration of technol-ogy into ECE?

Th ere has long been a close relationship between ECE pro-viders and families. Given the young age of children in ECE settings, parents are involved in most decisionmaking related to education and to all the other activities in which their child engages. In addition, because most children spend only 3–6 hours in ECE, parents also play an important role as “teachers” during time spent outside the classroom. For this reason, ECE programs and policies are oft en developed with the role of the family in mind.

Th e question is whether ECE should be used to support more eff ective use of ICT in the home. Early childhood is an important time for the development of basic math and reading skills, as well as motivation and socialization, and interactions with parents and other family members have been shown to be related to skill development in these areas.75 In the area of ICT, parental roles in technology use are shown to be important in building technology literacy.76 However, studies indicate that home environments look quite diff erent for disadvantaged children: While middle-class children typically have substantial amounts of

Using Early Childhood Education to Bridge the Digital Divide 23

PE119_FNLCompiled_CC_dw.indd 23 2/19/14 4:36 PM

structured time that often includes adult supervision and instruc-tion, their less-advantaged peers have fewer opportunities for out-of-school extracurricular activities and adult supervision.77 It is possible, therefore, that ECE providers could contribute to a child’s learning by developing parents’ confidence and capability to guide their children’s ICT use.

With regard to ICT access, the question is whether ECE resources should be used to provide greater access to ICT in the home. Access to computer-based devices in the home can afford young children additional time to explore and build lit-eracy. In addition, such policies have the potential to improve technology literacy among the entire family. Through loaner and free or reduced programs, ECE settings may help reduce barriers to access for low-income households. If the goal is to also improve the skills of the family, software and electronic content can also be made available for parents and siblings.

Yet another question is whether ICT could also be used with the families of young children to support parental involve-ment. Studies have demonstrated that parental involvement and engagement with what is being learned in the classroom can have positive effects on a child’s learning.78 By making in-formation on the students and the activities in the classroom available on electronic platforms, ICT may be able to reduce barriers to involvement in the case of parents with extended or inflexible work schedules. However, given limited access to computers in low-income homes, there may be barriers to accessing these resources. Providing opportunities for fami-lies to come into the classroom to use technology is another possible way of providing opportunities for parent and teacher communication and engagement.

Concluding ThoughtsDue to longstanding concerns about the role of electronic media on a child’s physical and mental development, the integration of technology into ECE settings has rightly been a marked, careful process. Recent academic studies are play-ing an important role in advancing our understanding of developmentally appropriate uses of ICT, and helping build a body of evidence that shows the importance of integrating ICT into the ECE curriculum in an appropriate way. As this evidence grows, the challenge for policymakers is to ensure that ICT can help bridge learning gaps that disadvantaged children face, rather than accentuate them. We identified five key arenas for policy action. Setting goals appropriately, defining suitable uses of ICT, and supporting access and use through devices, connectivity, and software constitute the infrastructural supports. To enable their effective use, preparing teachers and supporting parental involvement among disadvantaged families will be critical.

24 Using Early Childhood Education to Bridge the Digital Divide

PE119_FNLCompiled_CC_dw.indd 24 2/19/14 4:36 PM

Sources1 U.S. Department of Education, National Center for Education Statistics, Digest of Education Statistics,

2011, Washington, D.C.: U.S. Government Printing Office, NCES 2012-001, 2012.2 L. A. Karoly, M. R. Kilburn, and J. S. Cannon, Early Childhood Interventions: Proven Results, Future

Promise, Santa Monica, Calif.: RAND Corporation, MG-341-PNC, 2005. As of August 7, 2013: http://www.rand.org/pubs/monographs/MG341.html; K. A. Magnuson and J. Waldfogel, “Early Childhood Care and Education: Effects on Ethnic and Racial Gaps in School Readiness,” The Future of Children, Vol. 15, No. 1, 2005, pp. 169–196.

3 S. F. Reardon, “The Widening Academic Achievement Gap Between the Rich and the Poor: New Evi-dence and Possible Explanations,” in G. J. Duncan and R. J. Murnane, eds., Whither Opportunity? Rising Inequality, Schools, and Children’s Life Chances, Russell Sage Foundation, 2011, pp. 91–116.

4 B. A. Taylor, E. Dearing, and K. McCartney, “Incomes and Outcomes in Early Childhood,” The Journal of Human Resources, Vol. 39, No. 4, 2004, pp. 980–1007; A. Fernald, V. A. Marchman, and A. Weisleder, “SES Differences in Language Processing Skill and Vocabulary Are Evident at 18 Months,” Developmental Science, Vol. 16, No. 2, 2012.

5 M. Nores and W. S. Barnett, “Benefits of Early Childhood Interventions Across the World: (Under) Investing in the Very Young,” Economics of Education Review, Vol. 29, No. 2, 2010, pp. 271–282; J. J. Heckman, “Policies to Foster Human Capital,” Research in Economics, Vol. 54, No. 1, 2000, pp. 3–56; Karoly, Kilburn, and Cannon, 2005.

6 L. M. Anderson et al., “The Effectiveness of Early Childhood Development Programs: A Systematic Review,” American Journal of Preventive Medicine, Vol. 24, No. 3, 2003, pp. 32–46; Karoly, Kilburn, and Cannon, 2005; W. Gormley, T. Gayer, D. Phillips, and B. Dawson, “The Effects of Universal Pre-K on Cognitive Development,” Developmental Psychology, Vol. 41, No. 6, 2005, pp. 872–884.

7 A. J. Reynolds, J. A. Temple, D. L. Robertson, and E. A. Mann, “Long-Term Effects of an Early Child-hood Intervention on Educational Achievement and Juvenile Arrest,” Journal of the American Medical Association, Vol. 285, No. 18, 2001, pp. 2339–2346; J. J. Heckman, S. H. Moon, R. Pinto, P. A. Savelyev, and A. Q. Yavitz, “The Rate of Return to the HighScope Perry Preschool Program,” Journal of Public Economics, Vol. 94, No. 1–2, 2010, pp. 114–128.

8 W. S. Barnett, M. E. Carolan, J. Fitzgerald, and J. H. Squires, The State of Preschool 2012: State Pre-school Yearbook, New Brunswick, N.J.: National Institute for Early Education Research, 2012.

9 T. Breshnahan and S. Greenstein, “The Economic Contribution of Information Technology: Towards Comparative and User Studies,” Journal of Evolutionary Economics, Vol. 11, No. 1, January 2001, pp. 95–118.

10 For instance, fewer than one-third of American households used electricity in 1930, which was more than three decades after the first power lines to homes were laid. It was only after the federal government invested substantially in rural and semi-urban electricity access and subsidized access to basic devices that a majority of American households were able to access electric power.

11 Bureau of Labor Statistics, “Computer and Internet Use at Work in 2003,” supplement to the October 2003 Current Population Survey, 2003.

12 A. P. Carnevale, N. Smith, and J. Strohl, Help Wanted: Projections of Job and Education Require-ments Through 2018, Washington, D.C.: Center on Education and the Workforce, Georgetown University, 2010.

13 R. Dobbs et al. “The World at Work: Jobs, Pay, and Skills for 3.5 Billion People,” McKinsey Global Institute, 2012.

14 U.S. Department of Commerce, Census Bureau, Current Population Survey, October 1993, October 1997, and October 2003, unpublished tabulations prepared in May 2005.

15 L. Gray, N. Thomas, L. Lewis, and P. Tice, Teachers’ Use of Educational Technology in U.S. Public Schools: 2009, Washington, D.C.: U.S. Department of Education, National Center for Education Statistics, NCES 2010-040, May 2010.

16 National Survey of Student Engagement, “Summary Tables,” web page, undated. As of July 28, 2013: http://nsse.iub.edu/html/summary_tables.cfm

17 V. Spiezia, ”Does Computer Use Increase Educational Achievements? Student-Level Evidence from PISA,” OECD Journal: Economic Studies, Vol. 2010/1, 2010; J. Schacter, The Impact of Education Technology on Student Achievement: What the Most Current Research Has to Say, Santa Monica, Calif.: Milken Family Foundation, 1999.

18 International Society for Technology in Education, “Digital Age Learning,” web page, undated. As of July 15, 2013: http://www.iste.org/standards/nets-for-students

19 Common Core, “English Language Arts Standards: Writing—Grade 6,” web page, undated. As of August 9, 2013: http://www.corestandards.org/ELA-Literacy/W/6

20 See, for example, Texas Administrative Code, Title 19, Part II, Chapter 126, Texas Essential Knowl-edge and Skills for Technology Applications, Subchapter A. Elementary, effective September 1, 1998. As of July 15, 2013: http://ritter.tea.state.tx.us/rules/tac/ch126.html

21 T. File, “Computer and Internet Use in the United States: Population Characteristics,” U.S. Census Bureau, 2013.

22 File, 2013.23 Nielsen, “Survey: New U.S. Smartphone Growth by Age and Income,” web page, February 20, 2012.

As of July 15, 2013: http://www.nielsen.com/us/en/newswire/2012/survey-new-u-s-smartphone-growth-by-age-and-income.html

24 U.S. Department of Education, Institute of Education Sciences, National Center for Education Statis-tics, “Fast Facts: Educational Technology,” web page, undated. As of July 15, 2013: http://nces.ed.gov/fastfacts/display.asp?id=46

25 U. Boser, “Are Schools Getting a Big Enough Bang for Their Education Technology Buck?” Center for American Progress, June 14, 2013. As of August 20, 2013: http://www.americanprogress.org/issues/education/report/2013/06/14/66485/are-schools-getting-a-big-enough-bang-for-their-education-technology-buck/

26 The White House, “Technology,” web page, undated. As of July 15, 2013: http://www.whitehouse.gov/issues/technology; OpenWiFiSpots.com, “Cities, Downtowns, Metro Zones with Free WiFi,” web page, undated. As of July 15, 2013: http://www.openwifispots.com/guide_free_wifi_wireless_hotspot-zones.aspx; The White House, “Vice President Biden Announces Recovery Act Invest-ments in Broadband Projects to Bring Jobs, Economic Opportunity to Communities Nationwide,” press release, August 18, 2010. As of August 26, 2013: http://www.whitehouse.gov/the-press-office/2010/08/18/vice-president-biden-announces-recovery-act-investments-broadband-projec

27 “Microsoft Makes Its Largest Technology Donation Ever to a Single Los Angeles School to Help Prepare Students for Their Future,” Microsoft.com News Center, October 20, 2010. As of August 25, 2013: http://www.microsoft.com/en-us/news/press/2010/oct10/10-20mendezpr.aspx; “Target Plans to Make Over 25 School Libraries in 2013,” Target.com, April 24, 2013. As of August 25, 2013: http://pressroom.target.com/news/target-plans-to-make-over-25-school-libraries-in-2013; T. Bertram, “Free Raspberry Pi’s for Aspiring Young UK programmers,” Google Europe Blog, January 29, 2013. As of August 25, 2013: http://googlepolicyeurope.blogspot.co.uk/2013/01/free-raspberry-pis-for-aspiring-young.html

28 W. Hu, “Math That Moves: Schools Embrace the iPad,” NYTimes.com, January 4, 2011. As of July 15, 2013: http://www.nytimes.com/2011/01/05/education/05tablets.html?pagewanted=all&_r=1&

29 Pew Internet & American Life Project, “Spring Tracking Survey 2012: Data for March 15– April 3, 2012,” 2012; L. Gray, N. Thomas, and L. Lewis, and P. Tice, Educational Technology in U.S. Public Schools: Fall 2008, Washington, D.C.: U.S. Department of Education, National Center for Education Statistics, NCES 2010-034, April 2010; M. Robb, L. Takeuchi, and J. Kotler. “Always Connected: The New Digital Media Habits of Young Children,” The Joan Ganz Cooney Center at Sesame Workshop, 2011; Common Sense Media, Zero to Eight: Children’s Media Use in America 2013, Fall 2013.

30 National Telecommunications and Information Administration, Digital Nation: Expanding Internet Usage, Washington D.C.: U.S. Department of Commerce, 2011.

31 S. B. Neuman and D. C. Celano, Giving Our Children a Fighting Chance: Poverty, Literacy, and the Development of Information Capital. New York: Teachers College Press, 2012; S. C. Watkins, “Digital Divide: Navigating the Digital Edge.” International Journal of Learning, Vol. 3, No. 2, 2011, pp. 1–12.

32 Watkins, 2011.33 V. J. Rideout, U. G. Foehr, and D. Roberts. Generation M2: Media in the Lives of 8- to 18-Year-Olds.

Menlo Park, Calif.: Kaiser Family Foundation, 2010. As of January 7, 2014: http://www.kff.org/entmedia/mh012010pkg.cfm

34 T. D. Snyder and S. A. Dillow, Digest of Education Statistics, Washington, D.C.: National Center for Education Statistics, June 2012; M. Warschauer and T. Matuchniak, “New Technology and Digital Worlds: Analyzing Evidence of Equity in Access, Use, and Outcomes,” Review of Research in Education, Vol. 34, No. 1, 2010, pp. 179–225; Common Sense Media, 2013.

35 Gray et al., April 2010; Gray et al., May 2010; Warschauer and Matuchniak, 2010.36 Snyder and Dillow, 2012.37 We reviewed the state education websites of the following 23 states: Alaska, Arizona, California,

Colorado, Connecticut, Illinois, Indiana, Kansas, Louisiana, Maryland, Massachusetts, Mississippi, Missouri, Montana, New Jersey, New York, Oklahoma, Texas, Utah, Vermont, Virginia, Washing-ton, and Wisconsin.

38 E. Wartella, R. L. Schomburg, A. R. Lauricella, M. Robb, and R. Flynn, Survey of Classroom Teachers and Family Child Care Providers, Fred Rodgers Center, 2010.

Using Early Childhood Education to Bridge the Digital Divide 25

PE119_FNLCompiled_CC_dw.indd 25 2/19/14 4:36 PM

54 R. Zevenbergen and H. Logan, “Computer Use by Preschool Children: Rethinking Practice as Digital Natives Come to Preschool,” Australian Journal of Early Childhood, Vol. 33, No. 1, March 2008, p. 8.

55 Couse and Chen, 2010.56 J. P. Shonkoff and D. A. Phillips, eds., From Neurons to Neighborhoods: The Science of Early Childhood

Development, Washington, D.C.: National Academies Press, 2000; W. S. Barnett et al., Promoting Children’s Social and Emotional Development Through Preschool, New Brunswick, N.J.: NIEER, 2005.

57 A. Jones, “Affective Issues in Learning Technologies: Emotional Responses to Technology and Technol-ogy’s Role in Supporting Socio-Emotional Skills,” Journal of Interactive Media in Education, 2010.

58 K. L. Kelly and J. R. Schorger, “Let’s Play ‘Puters’: Expressive Language Use at the Computer Center,” Information Technology in Childhood Education Annual, Vol. 2001, No. 1, 2001, pp. 125–138.

59 McCarrick and Li, 2007.60 Couse and Chen, 2010.61 G. E. Hall, “Technology’s Achilles Heel: Achieving High-Quality Implementation,” Journal of Re-

search on Technology in Education, Vol. 42, No. 3, 2010, pp. 231–253; B. Means, “Technology and Education Change: Focus on Student Learning,” Journal of Research on Technology in Education, Vol. 42, No. 3, 2010, pp. 285–307.

62 McCarrick and Li, 2007; J. Chen and C. Chang, “Using Computers in Early Childhood Classrooms: Teachers’ Attitudes, Skills and Practices,” Journal of Early Childhood Research, Vol. 4, No. 2, 2006, pp. 169–188.

63 Gray et al., April 2010.64 M. Englund et al., “Children’s Achievement in Early Elementary School: Longitudinal Effects of

Parental Involvement, Expectations, and Quality of Assistance,” Journal of Educational Psychol-ogy, Vol. 96, No. 4, 2004, p. 723; B. M. Schlee, A. K. Mullis, and M. Shriner, “Parents Social and Resource Capital: Predictors of Academic Achievement During Early Childhood,” Children and Youth Services Review, Vol. 31, No. 2, 2009, pp. 227–234; R. A. Marcon, “Positive Relationships Between Parent School Involvement and Public School Inner-City Preschoolers’ Development and Academic Performance,” School Psychology Review, Vol. 28, No. 3, 1999.

65 U.S. Department of Education, National Center for Education Statistics, 2012, Chapter 2.66 The National Association for the Education of Young Children and the Fred Rogers Center for Early

Learning and Children’s Media at Saint Vincent College, 2012.67 The National Association for the Education of Young Children and the Fred Rogers Center for Early

Learning and Children’s Media at Saint Vincent College, 2012.68 McCarrick and Li, 2007.69 Penuel et al., 2009.70 The National Association for the Education of Young Children and the Fred Rogers Center for Early

Learning and Children’s Media at Saint Vincent College, 2012, p. 9.71 Wartella et al., 2010.72 C. Burnett, “Technology and Literacy in Early Childhood Educational Settings: A Review of Re-

search,” Journal of Early Childhood Literacy, Vol. 10, No. 3, 2010, pp. 247–270.73 The National Association for the Education of Young Children and the Fred Rogers Center for Early

Learning and Children’s Media at Saint Vincent College, 2012; B. Barron et al., “Take a Giant Step: A Blueprint for Teaching Young Children in a Digital Age,” The Joan Ganz Cooney Center at Sesame Workshop and Stanford University, 2011.

74 B. Gimbert and D. Cristol, “Teaching Curriculum with Technology: Enhancing Children’s Techno-logical Competence During Early Childhood,” Early Childhood Education Journal, Vol. 3, No. 3, 2004, pp. 207–216.

75 Shonkoff and Phillips, 2000.76 B. Barron, C. K. Martin, L. Takeuchi, and R. Fithian, Parents as Learning Partners in the Development

of Technological Fluency, International Journal of Learning and Media, Vol. 1, No. 2, 2009, pp. 55–77.

77 A. Lareau, Unequal Childhoods: Class, Race, And Family Life, Berkeley: University of California Press, 2009; Watkins, 2011.

78 X. Fan and M. Chen, “Parental Involvement and Students’ Academic Achievement: A Meta-Analysis,” Educational Psychology Review, Vol. 13, No. 1, 2001, pp. 1–22; W. H. Jeynes, “A Meta-Analysis: The Effects of Parental Involvement on Minority Children’s Academic Achievement,” Education and Urban Society, Vol. 35, No. 2, 2003, pp. 202–218.

39 S. Pasnik, and C. Llorente, Preschool Teachers Can Use a PBS KIDS Transmedia Curriculum Supple-ment to Support Young Children’s Mathematics Learning: Results of a Randomized Controlled Trial, Waltham, Mass., and Menlo Park, Calif.: CPB-PBS Ready To Learn Initiative, 2013. W. R. Penuel, S. Pasnik, L. Bates, E. Townsend, L. P. Gallagher, C. Llorente and N. Hupert, Preschool Teachers Can Use a Media-Rich Curriculum to Prepare Low-Income Children for School Success: Results of a Randomized Controlled Trial, Waltham, Mass., and Menlo Park, Calif.: EDC and SRI, 2009. W. R. Penuel, L. Bates, S. Pasnik, E. Townsend, L. P. Gallagher, C. Llorente, and N. Hupert, “The Impact of a Media-Rich Science Curriculum on Low-Income Preschoolers’ Science Talk at Home,” Paper presented at the 9th International Conference of the Learning Sciences, Chicago, 2010; X. Li and M. S. Atkins, “Early Childhood Computer Experience and Cognitive and Motor Development,” Pediatrics, Vol. 113, No. 6, June 1, 2004.

40 J. Van Scoter, D. Ellis, and J. Railsback, Technology in Early Childhood Education: Finding the Balance, Northwest Regional Educational Laboratory, 2001.

41 S. W. Haugland, “The Effect of Computer Software on Preschool Children’s Developmental Gains,” Journal of Computing in Childhood Education, Vol. 3, 1992, pp. 15–30.

42 K. McCarrick and X. Li, “Buried Treasure: The Impact of Computer Use on Young Children’s Social, Cognitive, Language Development and Motivation,” AACE Journal, Vol. 15, No. 1, 2007, pp. 73–95; T. M. Heft and A. Swaminathan, “The Effects of Computers on the Social Behavior of Preschoolers,” Journal of Research in Childhood Education, Vol. 16, No. 2, 2002, pp. 162–174.

43 L. J. Couse and D. W. Chen, “A Tablet Computer for Young Children? Exploring Its Viability for Early Childhood Education,” Journal of Research on Technology in Education, Vol. 43, No. 1, 2010, pp. 75–98; P. Hutinger, J. Johanson, J. Bond, L. Clark, and L. Robinson, Replicating and Maintaining an Effective Early Childhood Comprehensive Technology System: A Final Report, Macomb, Ill.: United States Center for Best Practices in Early Childhood, Western Illinois University, February 2008.

44 L. Brooker and J. Siraj-Blatchford, “‘Click on Miaow!’: How Children of Three and Four Years Experi-ence the Nursery Computer,” Contemporary Issues in Early Childhood: Technology Special Issue, No. 3, Vol. 2, 2002, pp. 251–273.

45 Li and Atkins, 2004; X. Li, M. S. Atkins, and B. Stanton, “Effects of Home and School Computer Use on School Readiness and Cognitive Development Among Head Start Children: A Randomized Controlled Pilot Trial,” Merrill-Palmer Quarterly, Vol. 52, No. 2, 2006.

46 B. Means, Y. Toyama, R. Murphy, M. Bakia, and K. Jones, Evaluation of Evidence-Based Practices in Online Learning: A Meta-Analysis and Review of Online Learning Studies, Center for Technology in Learning, Washington, D.C.: U.S. Department of Education, Office of Planning, Evaluation, and Policy Development Policy and Program Studies Service, 2010. As of October 15, 2013: http://www2.ed.gov/rschstat/eval/tech/evidence-based-practices/finalreport.pdf

47 K. Patrick, B. Spear, K. Holt, and D. Sofka, eds., Bright Futures in Practice: Physical Activity, Arlington, Va.: National Center for Education in Maternal and Child Health, 2001. As of July 15, 2013: http://www.brightfutures.org/physicalactivity/pdf/EarlyChild.pdf

48 McCarrick and Li, 2007.49 G. T. Anderson, “Comparison of the Types of Cooperative Problem Solving Behaviors in Four Learn-

ing Centers: Computer, Dramatic Play, Block, and Manipulative,” paper presented at the National Head Start Research Conference in Washington, D.C., July 1998; L. Plowman and C. Stephen, “Children, Play, and Computers in Pre‐School Education,” British Journal of Educational Technol-ogy, Vol. 36, No. 2, 2005, pp. 145–157.

50 American Academy of Pediatrics, Council on Communications and Media, “Policy Statement: Children, Adolescents, and the Media,” Pediatrics, Vol. 132, 2013, pp. 958–961; American Academy of Pediatrics, Council on Communications and Media. “Policy Statement: Media Use by Children Younger Than 2 Years,” Pediatrics, Vol. 128, No. 5, 2011, pp. 1040–1045.

51 J. Laffey, “Appropriation, Mastery and Resistance to Technology in Early Childhood Preservice Teacher Education,” Journal of Research on Technology in Education, Vol. 36, 2004, pp. 361–382; K. Clinton et al., “Confronting the Challenges of Participatory Culture: Media Educa-tion for the 21st Century,” MacArthur Foundation, Publication No. 1, 2006, pp. 1–59; P. L. Hutinger et al., “Establishing and Maintaining an Early Childhood Emergent Lit-eracy Technology Curriculum,” Journal of Special Education Technology, Vol. 21, No. 4, 2006, p. 39.

52 E. Dockterman, “The Digital Parent Trap,” Time, August 19, 2013.53 C. Stephen and L. Plowman, “Enhancing Learning with Information and Communication Tech-

nologies in Pre-School,” Early Child Development and Care, Vol. 178, No. 6, 2008, pp. 637–654; The National Association for the Education of Young Children and the Fred Rogers Center for Early Learning and Children’s Media at Saint Vincent College, “Technology and Interactive Media as Tools in Early Childhood Programs Serving Children from Birth Through Age 8,” position statement, January 2012. As of July 28, 2013: http://www.naeyc.org/content/technology-and-young-children

26 Using Early Childhood Education to Bridge the Digital Divide

PE119_FNLCompiled_CC_dw.indd 26 2/19/14 4:36 PM

For more information and resources on technology in early childhood education, please visit: www.rand.org/education/projects/t-is-for-technology

PE119_FNLCompiled_CC_dw.indd 27 2/19/14 4:36 PM

C O R P O R A T I O N

Image credits: p.1: Samuel Borges/Fotolia; p. 2: diego cervo/Fotolia; p. 5: Vinicius Tupinamba/Fotolia; p. 6: ryanking999/Fotolia; p. 7: (keyboard) Franco Ejder/The Noun Project; (mouse) Jon Testa/The Noun Project; p. 8: Tom Wang/Fotolia; p. 12: (plug) Stirling Tschan/The Noun Project; p. 15: Anette Romanenko/iStock/Thinkstock; p. 17: (icon of person in house) Rutmer Zijlstra/The Noun Project; pp. 18–19: amorphis/Fotolia; p. 23: AVAVA/Fotolia; p. 27: monkeybusinessimages/iStock/Thinkstock

The RAND Corporation develops solutions to public policy challenges to help make communities throughout the world safer and more secure, healthier and more prosperous. RA® is a registered trademark.

www.rand.org © Copyright 2014 RAND Corporation PE-119-PNC (2014)

About This Perspective

This Perspective explores how early childhood education might help bridge the “digital divide”—the disparity in access to and use of technology that exists in the United States despite two decades of rapid growth in the use of digital technology. The authors also discuss technology’s potential to address early disparities in academic achievement and “soft skills,” such as motivation and socialization.

The authors wish to thank Jill Cannon and Lori Takeuchi for their very helpful reviews of a draft of this publication. We also wish to thank Eva Blum, Sally McCrady, and Julie Klasen of the PNC Foundation for their contributions and advice.

The RAND Corporation gratefully acknowledges the PNC Foundation, the sponsor of this research. The project was conducted within RAND Education, a division of the RAND Corporation. Its mission is to bring accurate data and careful, objective analysis to the national debate on education policy. For more information and resources on technology in early childhood education, please visit: www.rand.org/education/projects/ t-is-for-technology

PE119_FNLCompiled_CC_dw.indd 28 2/19/14 4:36 PM