Emergent technological literacy: what do children bringto school?
W. B. Mawson
Published online: 30 November 2011� Springer Science+Business Media B.V. 2011
Abstract There has been very little research into children’s technological practice in
early childhood settings. This article describes four typical examples of the technological
activity that occurs on a daily basis in New Zealand early childhood settings. It is sug-
gested that children come to compulsory schooling with well-developed technological
knowledge and competence in instigating and carrying out technological tasks that is not
recognized and taken advantage of by the majority of primary early years programme
developers and teachers. A number of ways by which early years school technology
programmes could benefit by recognizing the extent of children’s emergent technological
literacy and amending programme delivery and teaching strategies are detailed.
Keywords Technological literacy � Curriculum development � Teaching �Early childhood
Introduction
Although there is an increasing amount of knowledge of technological practice in the early
primary school years (Anning 1992; Gustafson and Rowell 1998; Hope 2001; Mawson
2007; Milne 2004; Milne and Edwards 2011; Roden 1999; Rogers and Wallace 2000) little
research has focused on young children’s prior to school technological experiences. This
article is based on two research projects in early childhood settings. The first was a 2-year
investigation into the nature of children’s independent collaborative play. This was fol-
lowed by a year-long investigation of long term projects. An area of particular interest of
mine (e.g. Mawson 2002, 2003, 2011) is to understand and encourage children’s techno-
logical experiences in early childhood settings and it is this aspect of the research that is the
focus of this article. A greater knowledge of the emergent technological practice and
knowledge that children bring to school may allow teachers to use the children’s interests
W. B. Mawson (&)Faculty of Education, The University of Auckland, Private Bag 92601, Symonds Street,Auckland 1150, New Zealande-mail: [email protected]
123
Int J Technol Des Educ (2013) 23:443–453DOI 10.1007/s10798-011-9188-y
and skills to create more relevant and authentic programmes in the first year of school. This
would have a positive flow on effect on the school technology programme.
Much of the early childhood literature focuses on descriptions of longer-term projects,
based on children’s interests but with a high degree of teacher direction (e.g. Alkon 2004;
Carr 2000; Floerchinger 2005). Marilyn Fleer explored children’s technological practice in
some depth in the 1990s (Fleer 1996, 1997, 1999, 2000) and Beverley Jane and Jill
Robbins (Jane 2004; Jane and Robbins 2004) have continued this in the first decade of this
century. The general place of technology in early childhood has also been addressed (Fleer
et al. 2004; Napper 1991; Smorti 1999) but little of it is research-based. This article offers
another perspective as it provides evidence of children’s technological practice in col-
laborative play with no adult intervention, as well as more teacher-directed experiences.
This wider focus may offer greater insight into the technological knowledge and capability
that children bring to compulsory schooling.
Technologically oriented play in early childhood settings has a number of facets (Mawson
2002). One aspect involves children setting and achieving a clear goal in their socio-dramatic
play such as preparing and having a picnic or constructing animal enclosures for animals. A
technological process begins with the identification of a purpose or aim and ends when a final
outcome is developed and evaluated. In early childhood settings the purpose is invariably
identified by the child and is focused on satisfying a personal desire.
Early childhood curriculum and pedagogy are holistic in nature and the development of
mathematical and scientific literacy are closely related and intertwined with children’s
emerging technological literacy. Metz (1993, 1997, 2004, 2011a, b) has done much to
show that young children’s scientific knowledge and understanding has been undervalued
and disregarded by Science curriculum developers. Mertz’s work clearly shows that when
the focus is on tasks that are contextually related to the children and their prior experiences
young children clearly demonstrate well-developed scientific competence. Young chil-
dren’s capable use of scientific process to explore the natural and physical world is also
well documented (De Boo 2006; French 2004; Van Hoorn et al. 1999; Howitt et al. 2007;
Johnston 2005). Young children’s mathematical competency in early education setting has
also been investigated. Children under the age of five have demonstrated strong emergent
knowledge and understanding of numeric, algebraic, statistical and geometric concepts
(Anthony and Walshaw 2009; Austin et al. 2011; Dehaene 1999; Geist 2001; Park et al.
2008; Pound 1999). Children in early childhood settings use their developing scientific and
mathematical knowledge as an integral part of their technological play.
Young children come into compulsory primary schooling with rich prior experiences from
home and early childhood education (Bruce 2004; Dockett and Fleer 1999). In their inde-
pendent and teacher-assisted play children incorporate a wide range of technological
knowledge and understandings. The technological experiences described in this article
provide an insight into the technological competency and capability that young children bring
to school, and offer some possible avenues of interest that might be explored. An initial
primary school technology programme based around children’s interests and competencies
could provide greater relevance, authenticity and motivation in the early years of schooling.
Methods
The data for this article comes from two separate research projects that took place in
Auckland, New Zealand early childhood centres. First, an investigation into the nature of
children’s collaborative play was carried out in an education and care centre (2007) and a
444 W. B. Mawson
123
kindergarten (2008). Second, an investigation into teacher roles in developing long-term
projects was carried out in a different kindergarten (2009). In each setting the children
were 3 and 4 years of age and the teachers were fully trained and registered. I spent one
morning a week from the beginning of February to the end of November in each early
childhood setting.
Although the focus of the research was different both research projects were interpretivist
ethnographic case studies. A case study is an in-depth exploration of a bounded system based
on extensive data collection (Creswell 2007). An interpretivist approach is ‘‘the systematic
analysis of socially meaningful action through the direct, detailed observation of people in
natural settings in order to arrive at understandings and interpretations of how people create
and maintain their social worlds’’ (Neuman 2000, p. 76). The interpretation of children’s play
was underpinned by sociocultural theory. From a sociocultural perspective ‘‘effective
learning takes place within ‘learning communities’ where participants co-construct learning
encounters through a process of reciprocal exchanges of meaning’’ (Rogers and Evans 2008
p. 18). Rogoff’s concept of guided participation provided a focus for the study, particularly
her belief that ‘‘participation requires a description or an explanation of how people partic-
ipate in sociocultural activities that are not formed by individuals alone, but by individuals
with other people in cultural communities’’ (Rogoff 1997, p. 266).
For a play episode to be considered technological in nature required a clearly identified
intention on the children’s part, evidence of planning and resource collection, a recog-
nizable coherent process to achieve an fitting solution, and some appropriate evaluation of
the success of the outcome. Confirmation of my identification of technologically oriented
play episodes was sought through discussions on my initial data with the children’s
teachers and my technology education colleagues in the Faculty of Education. The children
involved were also shown photographs of their play and invited to talk to me about what
they were doing in the photograph. I used this conversation to tease out their understanding
of the process they had been through. The feedback from the three groups was incorporated
in the illustrative episodes in this article. I was seeking to provide an authentic narrative
that captured the essence of the play episode and was true to the holistic nature of early
childhood education programmes.
Ethical considerations
Research with young children poses a number of important ethical issues that need to be
addressed. Although the children, aged 3 and 4-years-old, were not able to give fully
informed consent, which was gained from the parent/care giver, care was taken to explain
to the children, in terms that they could understand, what was being observed and to make
clear that at any time they could ask not to be observed. I also looked for non-verbal
indications that children were withdrawing their consent.
The research had ethical approval from the University of Auckland Human Participants
Ethics Committee and the Auckland Kindergarten Association Ethics Committee. Pseud-
onyms are used for all children in this paper.
Findings
Children’s technological experiences occurred in one of three contexts. First, they were
totally child initiated and carried out with no adult interaction. Second, they were initiated
Emergent technological literacy 445
123
by the child and carried out with adult assistance. Third, they were based on children’s
interests but involved adult planned and directed activities. Two examples of the first
context, and one of each of the other two contexts that are representative of early childhood
technological practice and knowledge are described in this section. The nature of the
technological literacy encapsulated within the play, and the implications for programme
planning in the early compulsory schooling will be addressed in the discussion that
follows.
Example One—Education and Care Centre 1—The builders yard (Child initiated and
controlled)
Two boys had been playing a ‘‘Fireman’’ game using a small wooden ladder as a prop.
Tiring of the game and thinking about what else they could do with the ladder, they
decided to construct a builder’s yard. Having located a suitable place in the corner of the
centre, they entered into a discussion about what was found in a builder’s yard and what
builder’s did. Their first decision was that builder’s had ‘smoko’ (morning tea) so their first
action was to find a cup each and go to the water tank to get the cup of ‘tea’. The next
40 min were devoted to creating the builder’s yard. A discussion would identify what was
needed and this would be followed by a search round the centre to find a resource that
would serve the purpose. The ladder became the gate to the yard, and a stop sign was found
to control the entrance. The sandpit area was raided for spouting, guttering and drain coil
pipes to provide the builder’s supplies. Tree-trunk rings, used as stepping stones in the bark
area, became the builder’s seats and tables. The foam mats from the climbing boxes
provided the beds. By this time a fairly complex and accurate simulation of the boys’
understanding of builder work and premises had been created, and this served as the basis
for the socio-dramatic play that ensued (Videotape, field notes—27/5/2007).
Example Two—Kindergarten A—Motorcars (Child initiated and controlled)
Sarah and Patsy were involved ‘‘mother and daughter’’ socio-dramatic play in the
family corner. The developing scenario entailed a visit to the supermarket. Rather than go
to the supermarket in a pretend car the girls decided they needed to make cars that they
could drive. Some large cardboard cartons had been given to the kindergarten earlier in the
week and Sarah identified them as being suitable for their needs. They each got a cardboard
carton and after opening out the bottom, climbed inside and stood up, holding the cartons
under their arms. ‘‘We need a steering wheel and seat belt,’’ said Sarah and the two girls
got out of their cartons and went inside. They came back with paper plates, string, glue and
Sellotape. They glued the paper plates on to the front flap of the carton to act as the steering
wheel, and Sellotaped the string from one side of the carton to the other to act as the seat
belt. Patsy started to walk around the kindergarten ‘driving’ her car and Sarah called out to
her ‘‘You haven’t got your licence. Patsy, you need to come home and get your licence’’.They proceeded to use their cars to go from home to the library and the shops. Patsy’s
string came unstuck and she looked very sad and said, ‘‘I can’t get my seat belt on’’. Sarah
came up and looked at the problem and went and got some more Sellotape to re-secure it.
When that failed to achieve the desired outcome Sarah fetched a stapler and successfully
stapled the string securely to the cardboard box. The two girls played with their cars for
nearly an hour until tidy up time (Field notes, photographs—18/04/2008).
Example Three—Kindergarten A—Scuba gear (Child initiated with teacher assistance)
A teacher was engaged in a discussion with a 4-year-old boy about what the child had
done in the weekend. The child described in detail a diving trip that he had been on with
446 W. B. Mawson
123
his father on the Saturday. At the end of the conversation the child expressed a desire to
build his own scuba gear. A discussion then ensured about the nature of scuba gear, the
component parts, and how they were connected. Having clarified what was needed (tank,
air hose and straps) the teacher and the child then searched the kindergarten for appropriate
resources, selecting a three litre plastic bottle, a length of plastic hosing and strips of a
range of fabrics. The different fabrics were examined and assessed for suitability and a
choice was made. After the teacher and child had jointly constructed a plan of action, the
child, with minimal physical assistance from the teacher proceeded to construct the scuba
gear. Technical difficulties with making the hole in the plastic bottle and inserting and
fixing the plastic tubing, and securely attaching the fabric for the shoulder straps to the
plastic bottle were met and overcome. Four other children became interested in the process
and began to make their own scuba gear. Because of the children’s interest the teacher
contacted the father who came to the kindergarten to show and explain the use of real
scuba gear. As a result of this activity the children revisited their original creations and
added depth gauges, face masks and weight belts. The ongoing socio-dramatic play with
the scuba led on to a project to make a boat using a large ex-refrigerator cardboard
container. A high level of collaborative discussion among the children was evident in
planning and creating the outboard motor, anchor and steering wheel for the boat (Field
notes, photographs—12-26/8/2008).
Example Four—Kindergarten B (Children’s interests, teacher controlled)
The project
The project began when a child brought a red money packet from the Chinese New Year
celebration for the Year of the Ox. Interest in cows emerged as the Indian children made a
connection with the place of the cow in their own culture. The teachers used a video of
Sarah’s father’s cows to check the children’s interest. The children’s positive response and
the surprise of many children that milk came from cows was used to establish some initial
areas of inquiry.
During the next 4 months the project developed from the initial interest in cows. The
children began by painting cows and making cow sculptures which included udders and ear
tags. A model farm was set up inside as well as a farm area in the playground, and the painting
table also was focused on cowhide paintings using sponges and black paint. Some examples
were available for the children to model. Sarah brought some cartoon pictures of cows and the
children used these as models for drawing and making wall plaques using a decoupage
technique. This drawing activity was a consistent feature of the whole project and at times was
widened into a literacy activity as children wrote animal words using flash cards onto their
painting, the teacher helping the children form their letters and write the words.
Teacher-led discussion looked at where milk comes from, and its different forms using a
yoghurt pot, milk carton, cream bottle, and stuffed animals to illustrate the place of milk in
their daily lives. There was also reference to the production route from farm to tanker to
factory to shop. The book Old MacDonald had a farm (Daniel and Daniel 1992) was read
and the stuffed animals were used to illustrate the animals in the book. Some children were
uncertain about wool coming from sheep so some wool was found to give them a visual
and tactile experience of wool.
The teachers and parents provided a lot of stimulus material around the centre related to
cows and farms. The role of the parents was quite significant in providing resources for this
Emergent technological literacy 447
123
project (DVD, file cards, books and pictures, test tubes, headwear, badges etc.). One parent
brought in a sheep dog for the children to see, ask questions about, and pat.
Sally obtained a DVD from Fonterra (the largest dairy company in New Zealand)
showing the process from the farm to the carton and this led to Mary setting up a ‘dairy
factory’ with the children. It consisted of a funnel and a number of cardboard tubes, and the
children were involved in making and testing the ‘milk’ produced by their factory. The
next week Sally’s nephew who worked for Fonterra came into the kindergarten and talked
about the milk factory DVD and showed them how they test the milk. After his talk Mary
set up a reasonably complex water channel system outside which mirrored the imaginary
cardboard tube factory she had set up inside the week before. The children used a variety of
test tubes, funnels, measuring cups and buckets to move the water around the channel
system and into bottles. They ‘tested’ the milk and wrote the results up. The water trough
based factory became a daily activity for the next 2 weeks.
A farm visit was organized. This was a novel experience for the children and the parents
as most of them had never been on a farm before. The visit provided a raft of hands-on
experiences for the children. They were able to milk a cow, watch a cow being machine
milked, feed the calves, watch a sheep being shorn and bring the fleece back to the
kindergarten, and also hold rabbits and bantam hens. The children had done a brainstorm
before the visit about what they expected to see on the farm and were able to identify many
of these things as they walked up the long drive to the farm buildings. On their return there
was an interest in drawing the animals and writing their names. The feeding system for the
calves had been a particular interest so the teachers and children made one of their own in
the farm area. The children would pretend to milk the wooden model of the cow that had a
rubber glove for teats in the outdoor farm, and then carry the bucket of milk over to the
feeding system.
Mary found an article about the Learnz Virtual Field Trips. LEARNZ (http://www.
learnz.org.nz) is an online education programme for students in New Zealand state, private
and integrated schools that offers virtual field trip experiences. Students’ participation is
supported by online background materials and activities, and is enabled using live audio
conferencing, web board and diaries, images and videos uploaded daily. The resources
supporting over 140 field trips are freely available to all registered New Zealand teachers.
When Mary visited the LEARNZ site she found and downloaded onto laptops for the
children to access four 1-min clips from a past farm virtual field trip. The website was also
accessed for the children and in Mary’s words ‘‘it actually showed what they did in a
processing plant so the children had more of an idea then that sort of evolved their play.
We brought out the old printer and that became like the machine that tested the milk…they’d push the buttons on the side, wait a while and then they’d say yes, they had two
tables set up, one was the office and the other was the laboratory and they’d call out to the
girls what the readings were and which colour milk it was’’ (interview 19/6/09).
Literacy and arts related activities continued to be an integral part of the project. Books
such as Cows in the kitchen (Crebbin 1998) and The cow that went oink (Most 2003) were
purchased and read at group time and a song from one of the books used as a stimulus for
the children to dance and drum to.
The children’s interest continued into the second term when it commenced at the end of
April despite the 2-week break in the project work but new directions were now being
taken. The children were now more interested in the farm rather than cows as such. One
child looking at the picture of a cow underneath a palm tree on a cartoon print brought into
the centre made a connection with his own Pacific Island culture. He brought a coconut that
had recently arrived from Tonga for his family to the kindergarten and the children all had
448 W. B. Mawson
123
a chance to taste the coconut milk and eat the white flesh. This created a new interest in
what farms grow, and wider uses of milk. The children made their own butter and used the
butter by-product (buttermilk) to make scones that they shared for lunch. Interest in the
milk factory continued and in the middle of June the children were still asking for the
teachers to set it up for them. As the third term began at the end of July the project took a
new direction. While involved in a group reading of the book Cows (Doyle and Rinaldi
2002) one of the children pointed out the stars in the picture and linked it to Matariki, the
Maori New Year celebration. A search for books on Matariki led to a visit from the local
Public Librarian and a new focus on libraries and bookmaking.
Although not part of the case studies detailed above, there were two other significant
areas of children’s interest and knowledge documented in the research data. The impact of
medicines and medical technologies on the health and daily lives of people was an area in
which the children’s developing understanding of the social effects was evident. As fre-
quent consumers, the children had a wide-ranging knowledge of medical practice and
procedures (Mawson 2011). The children also naturally incorporated a wide range of
information and communication technologies and references to popular media into their
play.
Discussion
Technological practice involves identifying a need or opportunity, defining the attributes of
the required outcome, developing a plan of action, making the product, and evaluating how
well the finished product fits the original purpose (Ministry of Education 2007). The
children in all four case studies showed a quite sophisticated awareness and use of a
technological process. They can be seen to establishing a purpose, planning and collecting
appropriate resources and competently using tools and materials to achieve their desired
outcome. The length of time spent playing with their products would seem to indicate a
clearly achieved fitness of purpose. The well-developed ability of children in their play to
establish and solve technological tasks is probably not appreciated by most primary school
teachers.
A feature of all four settings of the research was the wide range of tools and materials
available to the children that they could utilize in their technological process. All centres
had a carpentry table that was available on a daily basis. The tables were equipped with
sharp saws, hammers, vice, screwdrivers, electric and hand drills, and a range of appro-
priately-sized timber, nails and screws. Hot glue guns, sewing equipment and a range of
fabrics were also available inside the centre. Children were involved in baking activities on
a regular basis and used a variety of kitchen equipment.
Technological knowledge relates to understanding how and why things work (Ministry
of Education 2007). The 3 and 4-year-old children in the research projects reported in this
article had wide-ranging, and reasonably accurate understanding of adult work practices.
This was most evident in those children whose parents were involved in occupations such
as carpenters, electricians, plumbers etc. These children, both girls and boys tended to
frequently work with their parent in hands-on situations.
As well as the world of work, as shown in the builder’s yard case study, children also
had a good knowledge of leisure-time technological artifacts. The children involved in the
scuba gear and boatbuilding case study had greater knowledge of the equipment and
components than the two female teachers and the teacher-learner roles were often reversed.
The motorcar case study is typical of the reference to the vehicles and components of the
Emergent technological literacy 449
123
transport system as a consistent subject in their play. Interestingly, over the 3 years of data
collection every time a girl pretended to be in a car they put on the seatbelt, but I did not
record any boy doing this.
Where the learning was led by the teachers but based on the children’s interests, the
children were able to come to a high level of understanding of the dairy process from the
farm to the supermarket shelf. The knowledge presented to the children through the farm
visit, the DVD’s of the dairy factory and the visitor showing milk-testing procedures were
always followed by repeated opportunities for the children to simulate what they had seen
and been told in their own dramatic play. This dramatic play, and the time given which
allowed children to revisit the scenario as many times as they wished seemed to be the
crucial component in the depth of understanding they were able to articulate in their
conversations with me.
Learning about the nature of technology is focused on developing the ability to ‘‘cri-
tique the impact of technology on societies and the environment and exploring how
developments and outcomes are valued by different peoples in different times’’ (Ministry
of Education 2007, p. 32). Understanding of the nature of technology was the one area
where the young children did not show a great awareness. Although the children were
constantly involved in exploring adult roles, they did not explore to any great extent the
wider ramifications of technology on their lives in their collaborative play. There was some
understanding of the way seatbelts had improved people’s safety in cars and of the need to
use them, even in pretend situations. The ‘doctor and nurses’ play revolved around the
introduction of medical procedures and practices they had experienced with little reference
to wider issues of health and well-being. Similarly the media play focused on the use of
modern information and communication technologies as props in the play without refer-
ence to the impact and influence of them on their lives.
In New Zealand 94.6% of children under the age of five were enrolled in an early
childhood education centre in 2010 (Ministry of Education 2011). The findings of my
research would seem to suggest that they bring to compulsory schooling a wealth of
technological knowledge and competencies. The same would be true internationally of
children who have experienced quality early childhood education. At present the strengths
children bring to school do not seem to be recognized by programme developers and
teachers in the first years of school (Martin and Hay 2008). A change of focus and planning
for early years technology programmes would appear to be required to take advantage of
young children’s emergent technological literacy.
The programme could be developed after the children enter the class, where teachers
take time to understand children’s interests and past experiences and use these as the basis
for the units of technology for the year. One of the important aspects of early childhood
education is the length of time children are able to take to revisit and refine their ideas and
outcomes. This is generally not the case in primary schools in New Zealand where tech-
nology units have a finite, and generally short time allocation in the programme. Fewer
units spread over a longer period of time that need not be concurrent, may provide better
learning and development of technological literacy in the early years at school.
Early years school classes would need to be better resourced. In my experience very few
early years classes in New Zealand have available to them the range of resources that
children can access in early childhood settings. This lack of resources constrains the
children’s technological practice and limits the range and complexity of their outcomes. I
believe a well-resourced carpentry table, a stove, and a sewing machine should be readily
available for all early years classes.
450 W. B. Mawson
123
A democratic pedagogy would be required of teachers to allow young children in the
early years of schooling greater input into and control of the technological tasks set for
them. Greater ownership of the context and the process would provide a more relevant and
authentic learning experience for the children and result in more in-depth technological
knowledge and practice. This would allow children to clearly demonstrate and use their
knowledge and skills and also engage in peer tutoring and greater collaborative problem
solving. A key role of teachers would be to be involved in episodes of shared sustained
thinking (Siraj-Blatchford 2009) to help children clarify ideas and plan the process, and to
reflect on the process and outcome. Teachers would need to constantly be aware to look for
opportunities to direct children’s attention to the wider social and environmental issues
associated with the child’s work. Children have not had sufficient experience of the world
to make these connections without the perceptive guidance of more knowledgeable adults.
In this article I have used four case studies of typical examples of the technological
activity that occurs on a daily basis in New Zealand early childhood settings. I have
suggested that children come to compulsory schooling with well-developed technological
knowledge and competence in instigating and carrying out technological tasks. I have also
suggested that this knowledge and competence is not recognized and taken advantage of by
the majority of primary early years programme developers and teachers. I have identified a
number of ways by which early years school technology programmes could benefit by
recognizing the extent of children’s emergent technological literacy and amending pro-
gramme delivery and teaching strategies. There is still a need for much more research into
the interface between early childhood and early primary technological experiences of
children. This might create greater understanding of each others practice and stimulate a
rich on-going dialogue between early childhood educators and early primary years’
teachers which would strengthen the subject of technology education and enhance chil-
dren’s learning.
References
Alkon, I. (2004). The chicken and egg project. Early Childhood Research & Practice [Electronic Journal],6(2).
Anning, A. (1992). Factors effecting design and technology capability at Key Stages 1 and 2. DATA, 24,10–15.
Anthony, G., & Walshaw, M. (2009). Mathematics education in the early years: Building bridges. Con-temporary Issues in Early Childhood, 10(2), 107–121.
Austin, A. M. B., Blevins-Knabe, B., Ota, C., Rowe, T., & Knudsen Lindauer, S. L. (2011). Mediators ofpreschoolers’ early mathematics concepts. Early Child Development and Care, 181(9), 1181–1198.
Bruce, T. (2004). Developing learning in early childhood. London: Paul Chapman Publishing.Carr, M. (2000). Technological affordance, social practice and learning narratives in an early childhood
setting. International Journal of Technology and Design Education, 10(1), 61–79.Crebbin, J. (1998). Cows in the kitchen. Somerville: Candlewick Press.Creswell, J. W. (2007). Qualitative inquiry and research design: Choosing among five traditions. Thousand
Oaks, CA: Sage Publications.Daniel, A., & Daniel, L. (1992). Old McDonald had a farm. Bothel, WA: Wright Group.De Boo, M. (2006). Science in the early years. In W. Harlen (Ed.), ASE Guide to primary science education
(pp. 124–132). Herts: The Association for Science Education.Dehaene, S. (1999). The number sense: How the mind creates mathematics. London: Penguin.Dockett, S., & Fleer, M. (1999). Play and pedagogy in early childhood: Bending the rules. Melbourne:
Thomson.Doyle, M., & Rinaldi, A. (2002). Cows. London: Simon & Shuster.Fleer, M. (1996). Talking technologically in preschool and school: Three case examples. Australian Journal
of Early Childhood, 21(2), 1–6.
Emergent technological literacy 451
123
Fleer, M. (1997). The technical language children use at home. Early Childhood Folio A Collection ofRecent Research, 3, 23–28.
Fleer, M. (1999). The science of technology: Young children working technologically. The InternationalJournal of Technology and Design Education, 9(3), 269–291.
Fleer, M. (2000). Working technologically: Investigations into how young children design and make duringtechnology education. International Journal of Technology and Design Education, 10(1), 43–59.
Fleer, M., Jane, B., & Robbins, J. (2004). Designerly thinking: Locating technology education within theearly childhood curriculum. Early Childhood Folio: A Collection of recent research, NZCER, 8,29–33.
Floerchinger, J. (2005). The lunch project. Early Childhood Research and Practice [Electronic Journal],7(1).
French, L. (2004). Science as the center of a coherent, integrated early childhood curriculum. EarlyChildhood Research Quarterly, 19, 138–149.
Geist, E. (2001). Children are born mathematicians: Promoting the construction of early mathematicalconcepts in children under five. Young Children, 56(3), 12–19.
Gustafson, B., & Rowell, P. (1998). Elementary children’s technological problem solving: Selecting aninitial course of action. Research in Science & Technology Education, 16(2), 151–163.
Hope, G. (2001). Taking ideas on a journey called designing: A model for explaining design drawing toyoung children. Journal of Design and Technology Education, 6(3), 197–200.
Howitt, C., Morris, M., & Colvill, M. (2007). Science teaching and learning in the early childhood years. InV. Dawson & G. Venville (Eds.), The art of teaching primary science (pp. 233–247). Crows Nest,NSW: Allen & Unwin.
Jane, B. (2004). What are the effects of tinkering experiences in early childhood? Paper presented at theAustralian Research in Early Childhood Education, Frankston, Victoria.
Jane, B., & Robbins, J. (2004). Grandparents supporting children’s thinking in technology. Paper presentedat the Australian Association for Research in Education, Melbourn.
Johnston, J. (2005). Early explorations in science (2nd ed., pp. 29–59). Maidenhead, England: Open Uni-versity Press, Read.
Martin, B., & Hay, G. (2008). Discovery time: Developing key competencies through activity-based, child-directed learning. Wellington: Page Break Ltd.
Mawson, B. (2002). Developing technology in early childhood settings. Early Education, 29, 11–16.Mawson, B. (2003). A question of values: Young children in a technological world. Early Education, 33,
13–18.Mawson, B. (2007). Factors affecting learning in technology in the early years at school. International
Journal of Technology and Design Education, 17(3), 253–269.Mawson, B. (2011). Technological funds of knowledge in children’s play: Implication for early childhood
educators. Australasian Journal of Early Childhood, 36(1), 30–35.Metz, K. E. (1993). Preschoolers’ developing knowledge of the pan balance: From new representation to
transformed problem solving. Cognition and Instruction, 11(1), 31–93.Metz, K. E. (1997). On the complex relation between cognitive developmental research and children’s
science curricula. Review of Educational Research, 67(1), 151–163.Metz, K. E. (2004). Children’s understanding of scientific inquiry: Their conceptualization of uncertainty in
investigations of their own design. Cognition and Instruction, 22(2), 219–290.Metz, K. E. (2011a). Disentangling robust developmental constraints from the instructionally mutable:
Young children’s epistemic reasoning about a study of their own design. The Journal of the LearningSciences, 20, 50–110.
Metz, K. E. (2011b). Young children can be sophisticated scientists. Kappan, 92(8), 68–71.Milne, L. (2004). Put your finger on your nose if you are proud of your technology!: Technology in the new
entrant classroom. Set: Research Information for Teachers, No. 1, 31–46.Milne, L., & Edwards, R. (2011). Young children’s views of the technological process: an exploratory study.
International Journal of Technology and Design Education [Online First].Ministry of Education. (2007). The New Zealand curriculum. Wellington: Learning Media.Ministry of Education. (2011). Education counts Electronic source. Available at http://www.educationcounts.
govt.nz/statistics/ece/prior-participation-in-ece.Most, B. (2003). The cow that went oink. Boston: Houghton Mifflin Harcourt.Napper, I. (1991). The development of technological capability in young children. Australian Journal of
Early Childhood, 16(3), 23–27.Neuman, W. L. (2000). Social research methods: Qualitative and quantitative approaches (4th ed.). Boston:
Allyn and Bacon.
452 W. B. Mawson
123
Park, B., Chae, J.-L., & Boyd, B. F. (2008). Young children’s block play and mathematical learning. Journalof Research in Childhood Education, 23(2), 157–162.
Pound, L. (1999). Supporting mathematical development in the early years. Buckingham: Open UniversityPress.
Roden, C. (1999). How children’s problem solving strategies develop at key stage 1. The Journal of Designand Technology Education, 4(1), 21–27.
Rogers, S., & Evans, J. (2008). Inside role-play in early childhood education: Researching young children’sperspectives. London: Routledge.
Rogers, G., & Wallace, J. (2000). The wheels of the bus: children designing in an early years classroom.Research in Science and technology Education, 18(1), 127–136.
Rogoff, B. (1997). Evaluating development in the process of participation: Theory, methods, and practicebuilding on each other. In E. Amsel & K. A. Renninger (Eds.), Change and development: Issues oftheory, method and application (pp. 265–286). Mahwah, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates.
Siraj-Blatchford, I. (2009). Conceptualising progression in the pedagogy of play and sustained sharedthinking in early childhood education: A Vygotskian perspective. Educational & Child Psychology,26(2), 77–89.
Smorti, S. (1999). Technology in early childhood. Early Education, 19, 1–5.Van Hoorn, J., Scales, B., Nourot, P., & Alward, K. (1999). Science in the play centred curriculum. In J. van
Hoorn, B. Scales, P. Nourot, & K. Alward (Eds.), Play at the centre of the curriculum (pp. 135–156).Upper Saddle River, NJ: Prentice Hall.
Emergent technological literacy 453
123
Recommended
