Zeit: Donnerstag, 03.07.2025: 10:00 - 11:45 Chair der Sitzung: Gabriel Kappeler Chair der Sitzung: Jérémie Passeraub |
Ort: Seminarraum 2.A26 |
Let's pretend digitally: exploring children's learning in a connected world
This symposium aims to discuss the current challenges of digital learning in early childhood education (HarmoS-Cycle 1), a crucial period for young children's development. In Switzerland, the PER and LearnPlan21 promote the integration of digital education from the earliest stages of schooling, raising questions about the balance between connected and non-connected approaches and their impact on children's learning.
As noted by Edwards et al. (2020) and Thorpe et al. (2015), schools often lag behind children's digital experiences outside the classroom. From a young age, children acquire digital skills in their home environment, where they often have access to smartphones, tablets, computers and various online resources (Chaudron et al., 2015; Plowman et al., 2012; Vaiopoulou et al., 2021). This familiarity with digital tools poses a challenge for schools: how can educational practices effectively respond to the digital experiences that children already bring with them?
In early childhood education, the debate on digital inclusion remains polarised. Some educators favour traditional materials, while others, less numerous, support the introduction of digital tools in early childhood. A key issue is the implementation of play-based pedagogies that allow learning opportunities to emerge from children's interests. Practitioners are encouraged to promote play experiences that draw on children's everyday environments, but the educational opportunities associated with digital media often remain unclear in these emerging contexts (Edwards et al., 2020). Nevertheless, digital technology is omnipresent in contemporary society and forms part of the cultural references that children spontaneously bring to their play.
In this context, the symposium proposes to explore how pretend play can support children's creative acquisition of digital literacies. Recent studies show that pretend play, as a spontaneous, child-initiated activity, provides a favourable framework for learning, allowing children to explore digital roles such as producers, users and maintainers (Turja et al., 2009; Vogt and Hollenstein, 2021). This allows them to integrate digital skills in a playful way, increasing their understanding and familiarity with digital tools. Furthermore, the role of the teacher is crucial in this process. Rather than adopting a directive instructional stance, the teacher can take on the role of 'co-player' or guide, adapting their support to encourage children's autonomy in digital exploration. This approach, defined by Samuelsson & Carlsson (2008) and further developed by Hollenstein and Vogt (2024), allows teachers to actively engage in play without imposing their direction, creating a safe and conducive environment for learning through play.
In response to these challenges, this symposium aims to explore pedagogical practices that allow for a balanced integration of digital learning, respecting children's initiative and the teacher's structuring role, promoting sustainable learning practices adapted to the needs and realities of the 21st century.
The symposium will include three presentations:
- The first paper presents the DECLIC Sequence, a didactic model inspired by the double diamond framework of design thinking and adapted to STEM learning in early childhood. This paper examines how design thinking methods support the transition from pupil- to teacher-initiated activities and promote the integration of digital resources into play.
- The second paper explores teachers' expectations of guided pretend play and its implications for equitable digital education. Drawing on the exploratory intervention study entitled "We play the future", it examines differences in teachers'behaviour towards boys and girls, and highlights strategies for promoting inclusive practices.
- The third presentation explores the concept of media literacy for children aged zero to ten through the lens of children's rights. Using the KiMe model, it discusses the interplay between protection, provision and participation rights, and provides a framework for defining and promoting media literacy in a way that respects the developmental needs and rights of young children in the digital age.
Beiträge des Symposiums
Didactic adaptation of a design thinking model for teaching MINT in cycle 1 with a view to convergent play
This paper presents the didactic adaptation of a model inspired by the double diamond (British Design Council, 2005) with a focus on STEM learning. The double diamond is a model derived from design thinking and is an effective design tool for the discovery, definition, development and implementation of design projects. This adaptation was carried out as part of a research-development-training process with six teachers from the first cycle of HarmoS, funded by SEFRI as part of the National MINT Training Network 2021-2024.
Teachers' concerns were directed towards learning about and through digital technology using pupil-initiated activities (Pyle & Danniels, 2016). Pupil-initiated activities often take the form of play, which is an important activity for children aged three to seven and is conducive to developmental gains (Bodrova & Leong, 2012; Leontiev, 1981/2009). Play is ideal for conducting diagnostic assessments of children's knowledge (Fleer & Quiñones, 2013). Unplugged digital objects were provided to the pupils for use in the play they created.
We therefore draw on research from a convergent play perspective (Edwards et al., 2020). Children's play in the digital age is strongly characterised by multimodality, socio-cultural influences from both the globalised and local worlds, and the combined use of traditional and digital resources and materials. In other words, the digital nature of play, sometimes distinct from so-called traditional play, is considered here in an interconnected relationship between the digital and physical worlds (Arnott, 2016). The ways in which young pupils appropriate digital materials (Hutt et al., 1989), the roles and uses attributed to the materials (Bird & Edwards, 2015; Kappeler et al., 2024), the roles of teachers (Wallerstedt et al., 2019; Gaviria-Loaiza et al, 2017; Hakkarainen et al., 2019; Devi et al., 2021; Vellopoulou & Papandrou, 2019), as well as their diagnostic and scaffolding actions (Pramling et al., 2019; Loizou et al., 2019), were taken into account to develop this didactic model.
In an iterative process, the teachers therefore used design thinking methods to develop what we call the 'DECLIC Sequence', which facilitates the transfer of STEM knowledge as closely as possible to the needs and interests of the pupils. In total, two cohorts of teachers, 11 meetings, 32 participant observations and further tests carried out in class without the presence of the researchers led to the development of the sequence.
Moreover, as the play necessarily requires pupils to apply knowledge other than that specific to the STEM field, we postulate that the DECLIC model can be applied more generally to fundamental learning specific to the first cycles of schooling. The didactic applicability of the DECLIC model offers teachers the possibility of better planning their work. However, the main difficulty observed is the transition from pupil-initiated to teacher-initiated activities. This point will be the main focus of our presentation, highlighting the didactic and developmental issues associated with it.
Arnott, L. (2016). An ecological exploration of young children’s digital play: framing children’s social experiences with technologies in early childhood. Early Years, 36(3), 271-288.
Bird, J., et Edwards, S. (2015). Children learning to use technologies through play: A Digital Play Framework. British Journal of Educational Technology, 46(6), 1149-1160.
Bodrova, H & Leong, D. (2012). Les outils de la pensée : l’approche vygotskienne dans l’éducation de la petite enfance. Presses de l’Université du Québec, Collection Education à la petite enfance.
Council, B. D. (2005). The Design Process: The ‘double diamond’design process model. http://www. designcouncil. org. uk/about-design/how-designers-work/the-design-process/. Acesso em, 11(12), 2013.
Devi, A., Fleer, M. et Li, L. (2021). Preschool teachers’ pedagogical positioning in relation to children’s imaginative play. Early Child Development and Care, 191(16), 2471-2483. https://doi.org/10.1080/03004430.2020.1717479
Edwards, S., Mantilla, A., Grieshaber, S., Nuttall, J., & Wood, E. (2020). Converged play characteristics for early childhood education: multi-modal, global-local, and traditional-digital. Oxford Review of Education, 46(5), 637-660.
Fleer, M., et Quiñones, G. (2013). An assessment perezhivanie: building an assessment pedagogy for, with and of early childhood science learning. In Valuing assessment in science education: Pedagogy, curriculum, policy (pp. 231-247). Dordrecht: Springer Netherlands.
Gaviria-Loaiza, J., Han, M., Vu, J. A., & Hustedt, J. (2017). Children’s responses to different types of teacher involvement during free play. Journal of Childhood Studies, 4-19.
Hakkarainen, P., Bredikyte, M., Jakkula, K., et Munter, H. (2013). Adult play guidance and children's play development in a narrative play-world. European Early Childhood Education Research Journal, 21(2), 213-225.
Hutt, S., Tyler, C., Hutt, C. et Christopherson, H. (1989). Play, exploration and learning. A natural history of the preschool. Routledge.
Kappeler, G., Bolli, L., Passeraub, J. (2024). Le jeu de faire semblant à l’ère numérique : comment les enfants utilisent-ils le matériel débranché ?. Multimodalité(s), 19. 170-183.
Leontiev, A. A. (1981/2009). The development of mind: Problems in the development of mind. Erythrós Press and Media.
Loizou, E., Michaelides, A., & Georgiou, A. (2019). Early childhood teacher involvement in children’s socio-dramatic play: creative drama as a scaffolding tool. Early Child Development and Care, 189(4), 600-612.
Pramling, N., Wallerstedt, C., Lagerlof, P., Bjorklund, C., Kultti, A., Palmer, H., Magnusson, M.,Thulin, M., Jonsson A, et Pramling Samuelsson, I. (2019). Play-responsive teaching in early childhood education. Springer. https://link.springer.com/book/10.1007%2F978-3-030-15958-0
Pyle, A. & Danniels, E. (2017). A continuum of play-based learning: The role of the teacher in play-based pedagogy and the fear of hijacking play. Early Education and Development, 28(3), 274-289.
Vellopoulou, A., et Papandreou, M. (2019). Investigating the teacher’s roles for the integration of science learning and play in the kindergarten. Educational Journal of the University of Patras UNESCO Chair, 6(1), 186-196.
Wallerstedt, C., Pramling, N., et Lagerlöf, P. (2021). Triggering in play: Opening up dimensions of imagination in adult-child play. Learning, Culture and Social Interaction, 29, 100497.
Equity in digital education – kindergarten teachers high expectation behaviour during guided pretend play
A growing body of research suggests that teacher expectations can indeed strongly influence the learning opportunities provided to children, leading to equal or unequal learning environments (Timmons et al., 2022). Teacher expectations are beliefs about children’s actual or current behaviour or achievement (Good & Brophy, 1997). As shown in the school context, teacher expectations become evident in teacher-child interaction (Denessen et al., 2022). Expectations help to reduce complexity (Fiske & Taylor, 2017) and influence a person’s perception, decision and behaviour. Expected events are perceived more strongly, while unexpected events tend to go unnoticed (Good & Nichols, 2001; Weinstein, 2018). For instance, a teacher might interpret a delayed response to a question of a girl on digital technology as a sign of difficulties of understanding, whereas the same delayed response of a boy might be interpreted as an indication that the student is formulating a thoughtful answer. Differences in interactions based on gender lead to differences in learning opportunities and thus to inequalities in education (Wang et al., 2018). In digital education, the risk of different interactions between boys and girls is high: The accuracy of teachers’ judgments of technical skills is low, gender bias and underestimation are common (Wammes et al., 2022).
High quality and effective guidance within play can be considered a situation in which expectations become evident. Teachers’ guidance aims at integrating or extending children’s contributions while the teacher is part of the play of the children (Hollenstein & Vogt, 2024; Zosh et al., 2018). Guiding within play is highly complex. While joining in the play, teachers are faced with much complexity as they have to process information quickly. Therefore, it can be assumed that expectations guide and regulate their perception, decision and behaviour during guided pretend play.
The aim of the present paper is to investigate differences in teachers’ play behaviour towards boys and girls during guided pretend play within the area of digital education. The research questions are as follows: (1) in what ways are teachers showing high expectation behaviour during guided pretend play, and (2) is there a difference in teachers play behaviour shown in play depending on the gender of the child.
The data is based on the exploratory intervention study “We play the future” (Vogt & Hollenstein, 2021). The analyses focus on 2,5h of interactions between teachers and a group of boys and girls during guided pretend play and follow a qualitative approach with content analysis (Mayring, 2021). The categories were developed deductively. Categories for teacher behaviour regarding expectations included feedback, question and support (Rubie-Davies et al., 2015). Whereas feedback on content, open questions and support provided only on request mediate high expectations, Feedback on behaviour, closed questions and support provided even when not requested indicate low expectations. The interrater reliability is very high with a cohens kappa of k = .84 (Brennan & Prediger, 1981). A χ2-test is used to examine differences in educators’ play behaviour between boys and girls.
The results show that high expectation play behaviours (NCodeHighExpect = 397) are found during guided pretend play sequences, but less comparing to low expectation play behaviours (NCodeLowExpect = 834). High expectation play behaviour do not differ between interactions with girls comparing to boys. However, low expectation play behaviours, such as closed questions (χ2 = 3.89; p = .05) or unrequested support (χ2 = 3.05; p = .08), are significantly more common in interactions with girls than with boys.
The focus of the discussion is on implications for further research into high expectation play behaviours in guided pretend play, taking into account the overall aim, that all children can benefit from equitable digital education.
Brennan, R. L., & Prediger, D. J. (1981). Coefficient kappa: Some uses, misuses, and alternatives. Educational and Psychological Measurement, 41, 687–699.
Denessen, E., Hornstra, L., van den Bergh, L., & Bijlstra, G. (2022). Implicit measures of teachers' attitudes and stereotypes, and their effects on teacher practice and student outcomes: A review. Learning and Instruction, 78, 101437. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.learninstruc.2022.101437
Weinstein, R. S. (2018). Pygmalion at 50: Harnessing its power and application in schooling. Educational Research and Evaluation, 24(365), 346–365. https://doi.org/10.1080/13803611.2018.1550842
Fiske, S., & Taylor, S. (2017). Social cognition: From brains to culture. Sage.
Good, T. L., & Brophy, J. E. (1997). Looking in classrooms. Longman.
Good, T. L., & Nichols, S. L. (2001). Expectancy effects in the classroom: A special focus on improving the reading performance of minority students in first-grade classrooms. Educational Psychologist, 36(2), 113–126. https://doi.org/10.1207/S15326985EP3602_6
Hollenstein, L., & Vogt, F. (2024). Digital education through guided pretend play. Learning and Instruction, 101945. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.learninstruc.2024.101945
Mayring, P. (2021). Qualitative content analysis: A step-by-step guide. SAGE.
Rubie-Davies, C. M., Peterson, E. R., Sibley, C. G., & Rosenthal, R. (2015). A teacher expectation intervention: Modelling the practices of high expectation teachers. Contemporary Educational Psychology, 40, 72–85. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.cedpsych.2014.03.003
Timmons, K., Pyle, A., Danniels, E., Cowan, E., & McCann, A. (2022). Teacher expectations in the early primary grades: A scoping review. Review of Education, 10(3), e3375. https://doi.org/10.1002/rev3.3375
Vogt, F., & Hollenstein, L. (2021). Exploring digital transformation through pretend play in kindergarten. British Journal of Educational Technology. https://doi.org/10.1111/bjet.13142
Wang, S., Rubie-Davies, C. M., & Meissel, K. (2018). A systematic review of the teacher expectation literature over the past 30 years. Educational Research and Evaluation, 124–179. https://doi.org/10.1080/13803611.2018.1548798
Wammes, D., Slof, B., Schot, W., & Kester, L. (2022). Teacher judgement accuracy of technical abilities in primary education. International Journal of Technology and Design Education, 33, 415–438. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10798-022-09734-5
Zosh, J. M., Hirsh-Pasek, K., Hopkins, E. J., Jensen, H., Liu, C., Neale, D., Solis, S. L., & Whitebread, D. (2018). Accessing the inaccessible: Redefining play as a spectrum. Frontiers in Psychology, 9, 1124. https://doi.org/10.3389/fpsyg.2018.01124
The interplay between children's rights and digital education: Theoretical derivation of a children's rights-based model of media literacy for children aged zero to ten
Digital technologies and media permeate both the public and private spheres. They are an integral part of everyday life including children's lives. This is confirmed by studies on young children's media use, such as the Adele+ study in Switzerland (Bernath, Waller & Meidert, 2020), the Saferinternet.at study in Austria (Saferinternet.at, 2020) and the miniKIM study in Germany (Medienpädagogischer Forschungsverbund, 2024). Children learn about the world through analogue and digital media. The opportunities as well as the risks of digital media use for children are manifold, partly due to the ongoing development of mobile and convergent devices with touchscreens or voice assistants (e.g., smartphones, tablets, etc.). Media literacy has gained immense importance in the digital world and has become a key skill similar to reading and writing. Life in today's societies requires digital education.
Regarding young children, the aim is to accompany them with special care and attention as they grow up, to gradually strengthen their skills in dealing with media in a development-oriented manner and at the same time to ensure the necessary protection during use. Educational institutions in particular have this responsibility (Deutschschweizer Erziehungsdirektoren Konferenz, 2016). The UN Convention on the Rights of the Child (UNCRC) provides a general framework concerning this matter, which has been concretized in recent years by current interpretations of the United Nations Children's Fund (UNICEF, 2017) and the Council of Europe (2018) for the digital world. In 2021, the United Nations Committee on the Rights of the Child published ‘General Comment No. 25’ on the rights of the child in relation to the digital world (Kinderrechteausschuss der Vereinten Nationen, 2021). This contribution explains the guidelines contained therein and clarifies the interplay between the three areas of children's rights - (1) provision, (2) protection and (3) participation - and the rights associated with each. While protection rights ensure that children are protected from harm and participation rights ensure that children are involved in decision-making processes, provision rights, in particular the right to (digital) education (UNCRC, Art. 28), support children in realizing their full potential and actively participating in society. This requires a definition of what is meant by digital education and media literacy.
This contribution explores the research question: What can be understood by media literacy for children aged zero to ten? To address this, several models for defining media literacy (Baacke, 1996; Schorb, 2005; Theunert, 2015) were used and compared, while also incorporating the requirements of children's rights in the digital world. The children's rights-based media literacy model (KiMe model) for the digital world has emerged from this analysis. This model is characterised by the assignment of skills to selected dimensions and sub-dimensions of media literacy, while at the same time taking into account the interplay with children's rights. Media literacy for the digital space encompasses a broad spectrum of basic skills for children, ranging from the instrumental operation of digital devices, to knowledge of basic legal requirements, to analytical understanding and critical reflection of media content through to the creative and participatory use of digital media. These skills are essential to enable children to participate in the digital world in a self-determined and successful way and to be able to protect their rights in the digital space.
In this contribution, the KiMe model will be discussed in relation to growing up in a complex, digital world.
Baacke, D. (1996). Medienkompetenz—Begrifflichkeit und sozialer Wandel. In A. von Rein (Ed.), Medienkompetenz als Schlüsselbegriff (pp. 112–124). Klinkhardt.
Bernath, J., Waller, G., & Meidert, U. (2020). ADELE+. Der Medienumgang von Kindern im Vorschulalter (4-6 Jahre). Chancen und Risiken für die Gesundheit (Obsan Bericht 03/2020). Schweizerisches Gesundheitsobservatorium. https://doi.org/10.21256/zhaw-20447
Deutschschweizer Erziehungsdirektoren Konferenz (D-EDK). (2016). Medien und Informatik. In D-EDK-Geschäftsstelle (Ed.), Lehrplan 21 (pp. 475–493). D-EDK-Geschäftsstelle. https://v-ef.lehrplan.ch/container/V_EF_DE_Gesamtausgabe.pdf
Europarat. (2018). Leitlinien zur Achtung, zum Schutz und zur Verwirklichung der Rechte des Kindes im digitalen Umfeld. Stiftung digitale Chancen. https://rm.coe.int/168092dd25
Kinderrechteausschuss der Vereinten Nationen. (2021). Allgemeine Bemerkung Nr. 25 – Über die Rechte der Kinder im digitalen Umfeld. United Nations. https://kinderrechte.digital/hintergrund/index.cfm/topic.280/key.1738
Medienpädagogischer Forschungsverbund Südwest (mpfs). (2024). miniKIM-Studie 2023. Kleinkinder und Medien. Basisuntersuchung zum Medienumgang 2- bis 5-Jähriger in Deutschland. mpfs. https://www.mpfs.de/fileadmin/files/Studien/miniKIM/2023/miniKIM2023_web.pdf
Saferinternet.at. (2020). Neue Studie: 72 Prozent der 0- bis 6‑Jährigen im Internet. https://www.saferinternet.at/news-detail/neue-studie-72-prozent-der-0-bis-6-jaehrigen-im-internet/
Schorb, B. (2005). Medienkompetenz. In B. Schorb & J. Hüther (Ed.), Grundbegriffe Medienpädagogik (4. Aufl., pp. 257–262). kopaed.
Ständige Wissenschaftliche Kommission der Kultusministerkonferenz (SWK). (2022). Digitalisierung im Bildungssystem: Handlungsempfehlungen von der Kita bis zur Hochschule. https://www.swk-bildung.org/content/uploads/2024/02/SWK-2022-Gutachten_Digitalisierung.pdf
Theunert, H. (2015). Medienaneignung und Medienkompetenz in der Kindheit. In F. von Gross, D. Meister, & U. Sander (Ed.), Medienpädagogik – ein Überblick (pp. 136–163). Beltz.
United Nations Children’s Fund (UNICEF). (2017). The state of the world’s children: Children in a Digital World. UNICEF. https://www.unicef.org/media/48581/file/SOWC_2017_ENG.pdf