Children, Technology and Play

Research report Children, technology and play Marsh, J., Murris, K., Ng’ambi, D., Parry, R., Scott, F., Thomsen, B.S., Bishop, J., Bannister, C., Dixon, K., Giorza, T., Peers, J., Titus, S., Da Silva, H., Doyle, G., Driscoll, A., Hall, L., Hetherington, A., Krönke, M., Margary, T., Morris, A., Nutbrown, B., Rashid, S., Santos, J., Scholey, E., Souza, L., and Woodgate, A. (2020) Children, Technology and Play. Billund, Denmark: The LEGO Foundation. June 2020 ISBN: 978-87-999589-7-9 Table of contents Table of contents Section 1: Background to the study • 4 1.1 Introduction • 4 1.2 Aims, objectives and research questions • 4 1.3 Methodology • 5 Section 2: South African and UK survey findings • 8 2.1 Children, technology and play: South African survey data analysis • 8 2.2 Children, technology and play: UK survey data analysis • 35 2.3 Summary • 54 Section 3: Pen portraits of case study families and children • 56 3.1 South African case study family profiles • 57 3.2 UK case study family profiles • 72 3.3 Summary • 85 Section 4: Children’s digital play ecologies • 88 4.1 Digital play ecologies • 88 4.2 Relationality and children’s digital ecologies • 100 4.3 Children’s reflections on digital play • 104 4.4 Summary • 115 Section 5: Digital play and learning • 116 5.1 Subject knowledge and understanding • 116 5.2 Digital skills • 119 5.3 Holistic skills • 120 5.4 Digital play in the classroom • 139 5.5 Summary • 142 2 Table of contents Section 6: The five characteristics of learning through play • 144 6.1 Joy • 144 6.2 Actively engaging • 148 6.3 Iteration • 150 6.4 Meaningful • 152 6.5 Socially interactive • 155 6.6 Summary • 156 Section 7: Adult mediation of digital play • 158 7.1 Introduction • 158 7.2 Adult views about children’s use of technologies • 159 7.3 Adult mediation in family contexts: parents • 162 7.4 Adult mediation in family contexts: adults beyond parents • 165 7.5 Adult mediation in school and community contexts • 166 7.6 Summary • 167 Section 8: Conclusion • 168 8.1 Summary of key findings • 168 8.2 Implications of the study • 175 8.3 Concluding comments • 179 References • 180 Appendix 1: Methodological approaches in the UK and South Africa • 186 Endnotes • 198 3 Section 1: Background to the study Section 1: Background to the study 1.1 Introduction This report outlines the key findings of a co-produced optimal learning through play happens study, developed in collaboration between academics when the activity (1) is experienced as from the University of Sheffield, UK, University of Cape Town, South Africa, LEGO Foundation and Dubit. The joyful, (2) helps children find meaning project was co-produced in that all project partners in what they are doing or learning, (3) contributed to the development of the project aims and involves active, engaged, minds-on objectives and were involved in data collection, analysis and dissemination. The aim of the study was to identify thinking (4) iterative thinking (e.g., the relationship between children’s uses of technology, experimentation, hypothesis testing), play and learning. and (5) social interaction. Children have increasing access to a range of digital technologies in homes, schools and communities from These five characteristics of learning through play were birth and this is inevitably impacting upon the play explored in this project in relation to children’s uses landscape of children (Marsh, Plowman, Yamada-Rice of technology. The role of adults in the facilitation of et al., 2015). There is a need to investigate in depth the playful learning (Jensen, Pyle, Zosh et al., 2019) through relationship between play and technology to identify technology use was also explored. ways in which technology might facilitate or hinder play, and the opportunities it offers to enable children to 1.2 Aims, Objectives and Research Questions develop and learn. The aims of the study were to explore the contemporary play environments of children in order to identify the Play is a complex activity that has been theorised ways in which children’s play is shaped by technology, to from a variety of disciplinary perspectives, meaning examine the relationship between digital play, learning that there is not one unifying definition; rather, we and creativity, and to explore the role of adults in need to acknowledge its ambiguous nature (Sutton- mediating digital play. Smith, 1997). In this context, nonetheless, it is useful to consider the qualities of play that are agreed The research objectives were as follows: upon consistently in the literature, namely that ‘play • To explore how children engage with digital is apparently purposeless, voluntary, outside the experiences across different contexts of their daily ordinary, fun, and focused by rules’ (Eberle, 2014: 215). lives and to identify how far these experiences relate The purpose is within the activity and not outside of to the LEGO Foundation’s Five Characteristics of it. Play is a child’s work or practice and inspires adults Learning Through Play. to also see play as their work (Paley, 2004: 3), thereby • To explore the dynamics operating across the identifying play as lifelong (Haynes & Murris, 2019). digital ecology of children’s play (in homes, There is extensive evidence that play supports learning, communities and schools) in terms of synergies, and Zosh, Hopkins, Jensen et al. (2017: 16), based on a dissonance and transfer, and to identify the review of relevant literature, suggest that: implications for learning. 4 Section 1: Background to the study • To consider the relationship between the extent to build a toy they would like to be invented using LEGO and type of children’s use of technologies in their bricks. Children were invited to create concept maps everyday lives and specific skills, particularly on a number of questions relating to play, technology creativity, knowledge and dispositions, including and learning. In addition, the children were observed an assessment of the relationship between in schools using technology, and were also observed technology use and well-being. in a regular after-school club or community venue they • To examine the roles of adults in facilitating visited. In each case, the child’s class teacher and the children’s playful learning with technologies across community/ after-school club leader were interviewed. different contexts, with particular emphasis on the Finally, children in schools took part in focus group types of engagement and facilitation. interviews in which they were invited to create collages, • To identify the implications of the study for the toy/ complete concept maps and build a toy they would like children’s media industry, for policy on parenting to be invented using LEGO bricks. Table 1 outlines the advice and guidance, and for the development number of participants in each stage. of educational policy and practice, in particular identifying the balance and engagement children Table 1: Participants have with technologies. South UK Africa The study addressed six key research questions, as follows: Survey respondents 1,286 2,429 • What is the relationship between children’s use of technology and their play in everyday life? • What skills and knowledge do children develop in Case study families 9 10 their play with technology? • What is the relationship between play, technology Case study children 10 17 and creativity? • How far does children’s play with technology Number of early years 9 5 demonstrate the five characteristics of learning settings and primary through play? schools involved • How do parents and adults facilitate children’s play with technology, and what are their views on this Focus group children 49 71 issue? • To what extent is children’s play with technology Telephone interviews 30 30 shaped by socio-cultural contexts? with parents 1.3 Methodology Teachers and community 14 24 The study adopted a mixed-methods approach. members interviewed Parents of 3–11-year-olds were invited to complete a survey, and 30 parents in each country then took part in telephone interviews in order to follow up themes from the survey in greater detail. Case studies with families were undertaken (Section 3 provides detailed pen portraits of each family). In the case studies, parents and children were interviewed and videoed. Parents also filmed their children using technologies, and they and their children were asked questions about the videos. Parents were invited to share images and videos with researchers using WhatsApp. Children in the families were also given diaries to record their use of social media and television, and used GoPro cameras to record their digital play. Further, children were invited 5 Section 1: Background to the study The survey data were processed and analysed using the When children’s agency is facilitated, they are active IBM SPSS 22 statistical package, focusing on an analysis in making choices about their play, and have a sense of of differences in relation to age, race/ ethnicity, gender self-efficacy in relation to their play experiences. The and socio-economic status (SES). The qualitative data psychological scaffolding of the LTPET consists of the were analysed using a deductive coding framework six stages of agency: Non-Play, Passive, Responding, which drew on the LEGO Foundation Learning Through Exploring, Owning, Recognising, Transferring (see Play Experience Tool (LTPET). The tool begins with Figure 1). an analysis of how far a playful experience is agentic. Figure 1: Learning through play experience tool (v. Jan 2020) Actively Socially

Load more