University of Wollongong

Research Online

Faculty of Social Sciences - Papers Faculty of Arts, Social Sciences & Humanities

1-1-2016

Powerful and playful literacy learning with digital technologies

Lisa K. Kervin
University of Wollongong, [email protected]

Follow this and additional works at: https://ro.uow.edu.au/sspapers

Part of the Education Commons, and the Social and Behavioral Sciences Commons

Recommended Citation
Kervin, Lisa K., "Powerful and playful literacy learning with digital technologies" (2016). Faculty of Social
Sciences - Papers. 2879.
https://ro.uow.edu.au/sspapers/2879

Research Online is the open access institutional repository for the University of Wollongong. For further information
contact the UOW Library: [email protected]
Powerful and playful literacy learning with digital technologies

Abstract
The increased availability of tablet technologies in many homes and early childhood educational settings
has transformed play-time and the subsequent opportunities that emerge for literacy learning. What
children do with the digital applications (apps) on these technologies demands our attention, particularly
as we consider the ever-increasing market of apps marketed to enhance the basic literacy skills. While
there are varying degrees of quality amongst available apps, some apps have potential to foster children's
play and language development in unexpected and interesting ways. As educators, we need to
acknowledge the role 'digital play' can play in our pedagogical interactions and the possibilities these
offer for literacy learning. To do this, we need to examine ways that children engage with technology as
they learn to read, write, listen, and communicate. This paper argues children's digital play offers teachers
new opportunities to support, inform, reform, or transform the literacy with experiences we encourage
children to participate.

Keywords
literacy, playful, technologies, powerful, digital, learning

Disciplines
Education | Social and Behavioral Sciences

Publication Details
Kervin, L. (2016). Powerful and playful literacy learning with digital technologies. Australian Journal of
Language and Literacy, 39 (1), 64-73.

This journal article is available at Research Online: https://ro.uow.edu.au/sspapers/2879

kervin • Powerful and playful literacy learning with digital technologies

Powerful and playful literacy learning

with digital technologies
Lisa Kervin
University of Wollongong

Abstract

The increased availability of tablet technologies in many homes and early childhood educational
settings has transformed play-time and the subsequent opportunities that emerge for literacy
learning. What children do with the digital applications (apps) on these technologies demands our
attention, particularly as we consider the ever-increasing market of apps marketed to enhance the
basic literacy skills. While there are varying degrees of quality amongst available apps, some apps
have potential to foster children’s play and language development in unexpected and interesting
ways. As educators, we need to acknowledge the role ‘digital play’ can play in our pedagogical
interactions and the possibilities these offer for literacy learning. To do this, we need to examine
ways that children engage with technology as they learn to read, write, listen, and communicate.
This paper argues children’s digital play offers teachers new opportunities to support, inform,
reform, or transform the literacy with experiences we encourage children to participate.

The theme of the 2014 ALEA/AATE conference – through the positioning of play as a ‘right of the child’
aNTicipating new territories – is appropriate as we (article 3 in the United Nations Conventions of the
contemplate the changes to childhood activities as we Rights of the Child, UNICEF, 2009).
know them, and consider the potential technology Play has been characterised as a spontaneous, self-
brings to children’s play and language and literacy initiated and self-regulated activity for young children,
development. In doing so, we are challenged to think which is relatively risk free and not necessarily goal-
about building strong minds, places and futures – this oriented (Verenikina & Kervin, 2011; Verenikina,
is imperative as we consider the enormous contribution Harris & Lysaght, 2003). Play is intrinsically motivated
technology has made to what it means to be literate and as children demonstrate an internal desire and interest
the ways in which children engage with their surround- to engage in play. Children actively seek opportunities
ings through play. for play, as they create their play scenarios and take
Vygotsky wrote, ‘The child moves forward essen- control, making play ‘the very serious business of child-
tially through play activity’, further stating, ‘In play hood’ (Grieshaber, 2008, p. 30). As children play, they
the child is always behaving beyond his age, above his take control of their actions, which are meaningful in
usual everyday behaviour; in play he is, as it were, a the context of their play.
head above himself’ (Vygotsky, 1978, p. 74). There is need to examine what actually transpires
Play is time-honoured in early childhood education. for young children in play contexts. While play is
Indeed, discussion of play and its advantages features acknowledged as ‘a leading context for the child’s
heavily in texts focused on the early years of a child’s acquisition of communication and collaborative skills’
life. While there is no one definition for play, play is (Siraj-Blatchford, 2009, p. 80), it is this notion of the
acknowledged as a major developmental influence for context for play that provides an avenue to explore the
children with the understanding that play may advance ways that young children engage with language and
children’s cognitive and socio-emotional development literacy for a range of purposes. There are potential
(Verenikina, Herrington, Peterson & Mantei, 2010) links between the opportunity to engage with play
and language and literacy development (Edwards, 2013; contexts and the development of other cognitive or
Heath, 1983). The benefits of play are acknowledged social skills (Edwards, 2013; Lillard, Lerner, Hopkins,

64 Australian Journal of Language and Literacy, Vol. 39, No. 1, 2016

 Powerful and playful literacy learning with digital technologies • kervin

Dore, Smith and Palmquist, 2013) begging the ques- least several hundred years,’ and, ‘it merits an especially
tion, ‘What aspects of play might promote language careful examination of its role in the lives of children’
and literacy development?’ Play contains many of the (p. 6).
ingredients necessary for optimal language develop- The need to focus on children’s digital play has come
ment (even though there may be no single element of to the forefront with young children’s fast increasing
play that does the majority of the work). access to digital tablet technologies (such as iPads). The
Play fosters language and literacy skills. Language is integration of digital technologies into reading, writing,
the currency of social interaction and school achieve- and communicating experiences is already a priority
ment. Marsh and Hallett (2008) remind us of the for many educators (see for example, Hutchison &
importance of play for the development of language Reinking, 2011; Saine, 2012), yet there is still need
and literacy through ‘the opportunities presented for to examine the role of such experiences within the
creative use and practice; social interactions for real complex interplay between children’s play activities,
purposes; and, identifying and solving problems in educator knowledge and opportunities within learning
the lives of young children’ (p. 15). Imaginative play environments. Tablet technologies are useful, portable
encourages language development as children negotiate and more affordable than other forms of technology
roles, set up structures, and interact in their respective (Leoni, 2010). Children’s access to mobile media
roles (Garvey, 1990). Adults support language develop- devices (such as tablet technologies) is dramatically
ment by engaging with, and commenting on, children’s higher now than it was two years ago. Among families
play to provide a language-rich environment that natu- with children aged 8 and under, there has been a five-
rally reinforces concepts and builds on the play context. fold increase in ownership of tablet devices – from
It is these play contexts that provide opportunities for 8% of families in 2011 to 40% in 2013. At the same
children to practice using language but to also learn time, 79% of Australian children with 5–8-year-olds
language from each other. had access to the Internet. The average amount of time
Vygotsky (1978) asserted that children learn children spend using tablet devices has tripled. In 2011
through socially meaningful interactions and that it was reported that children used these devices for 5
language is both social and an important facilitator minutes each day, in 2013 this was reported to have
of learning. The Early Years Learning Framework increased to 15 minutes each day. Expanded access
(2009) explains literacy through our ability to express to devices and the Internet and greater range of app
feelings, exchange thoughts, and connect with others experiences have been cited as reasons for this. (ABS,
through gestures, sounds and language. The definition 2012; Common Sense Media, 2013).
of literacy promoted by ACARA (2015) agrees with Staggering numbers of apps, self-contained programs
the social nature of literacy and describes the impor- or pieces of software, are available for tablet devices.
tance of the student being literate to enable their use Available apps grow exponentially each month as
of language for ‘learning and communicating in and new products and revised versions enter the market.
out of school’. Children’s experiences are organised and At the time of writing, the iTunes apps store featured
shaped by society, but rather than merely absorbing 240 ‘popular’ educational games, with more than half
these experiences, children negotiate and transform of those targeted at children aged eight and below
them based on what they learn from personal, cultural (https://itunes.apple.com /au /genre/ios-education /
or school contexts. They learn to talk through social id6017?mt=8). Parents and educators access educa-
interactions and to read and write through interactions tional apps with the intention of engaging children with
with literate children and adults (Dyson, 1993; Harste, technology and in the process supporting them with
1990). Play is a powerful way for children to represent their learning (Chiong & Shuler, 2010).
their understandings of experiences and contexts. While we know the importance of play in the early
Over the past decade, there has been an increasing years, we need to ask, why is it then that when it comes
body of research into digital interactions (mostly to using technology (such as apps on an iPad) to support
games) and play across a range of age groups, however, literacy learning that we move into drill and practise
very little research ‘focuses specifically on digital games type experiences? The emerging phenomenon of ‘digital
and young children’ (Lieberman, Fisk & Biely, 2009, play’ largely depends on (and is often restricted by) the
p. 300). This is significant when we consider the devel- actual design of the software (in the case of iPads, the
opmental importance of play in the lives of young chil- apps). Why is it that apps focused on the constrained
dren. Salonius-Pasternak and Gelfond (2005) argue skills of language, following drill and practise type
that digital play is, perhaps, ‘the first qualitatively design models, dominate the educational market for
different form of play that has been introduced in at young children? While literacy was once defined as the

Australian Journal of Language and Literacy, Vol. 39, No. 1, 2016 65

kervin • Powerful and playful literacy learning with digital technologies

ability to read and write, a set of neutral and objec- Table 1. Participant demographics*
tive skills independent of social context or ideology Parents’ names Parents’ Children’s Children’s
that one was to obtain, we now understand it to be so ages names ages /gender
much more. Literacy extends beyond the acquisition of
Jane and 38, 36 Ronan 3 (male)
reading and writing skills and entails the ability to use
Andrew
these skills in a socially appropriate context. Literacy is Edwards
also evolving to include the skills required to function
in a technological society. With this in mind, the apps Lilian and Ben 42, 43 Richard 8 (male)
Brown Kenneth 7 (male)
that we choose to support young children’s language
learning need to be considered within an expanded Reese 5 (male)
definition of literacy in all its complexity and our Julie and George 41, 40 Zack 7 (male)
knowledge of the power and characteristics of play. Houghton Frances 5 (female)

Jarrod and Lucy 36, 35 Adrian 5 (male)

Research design
McKenzie Oliver 3 (male)
It is not the intention of this paper to offer critique of
apps that exist within the field of education, and more Luke newborn
(male)
specifically language and literacy and in early child-
hood. Rather, the paper aims to draw upon captured Sean and 36, 35 Natalie 7 (female)
instances of children choosing to use apps to show Deanna Torrens Bianca 6 (female)
how they have playfully engaged with apps and in Laura 3 (female)
the process have demonstrated language and literacy
Carla and 38, 35 Elvira 10 (female)
learning. These examples have come from observation
Matthew Anita 8 (female)
and interview data. The paper recognises that out-of-
Williamson Iris 3 (female)
school digital literacy practices have relevance to chil-
dren and young people’s lifeworlds (Comber & Hill, Gary newborn
(male)
2000; Comber & Kamler, 2004; Livingston, 2002).
As such, the following research questions are * Pseudonyms are used
examined:
• How do young children use applications on an iPad? can effectively and appropriately support this phenom-
• How can play with applications provide opportunities enon as the children move across contexts as literacy
for language and literacy development? learners.
I draw upon case study research that includes a The methods of data collection included observation
convenient sample of six families who have one or of the children using applications on tablets (captured
more children at pre-school age who were invited, and by observation and video-recording by both researcher
consented, to participate in the study. Children and and families) and semi-structured interviews with the
families selected were readily available and convenient, parents that were audio-recorded. The interviews were
in that: the family contained at least one preschooler analysed for emerging theses using thematic analysis
(ie a child aged 3–5 years), they were geographically (Braun & Clarke, 2006). The analysis of video record-
within an hour to the researcher’s institution; and they ings was based on the traditional techniques of child’s
were willing to participate in the research project. play observation: the children’s speech samples and
All parents were in their mid-thirties to early forties, behavioural episodes were noted, in particular those
and families ranged in size from one to four siblings. that indicated their engagement in play (e.g., under-
The siblings (ranging from newborn to 10 years) were taking the roles of others, variations in labelling situ-
also included in data collection. Demographics of the ations and objects, interactions with peers and adults
participating families are summarised in Table 1. about situations of pretend) and evidence of language
I acknowledge these participants may not be repre- and literacy learning.
sentative of the entire population of young people who Through these data collection methods, it is under-
are using tablet technologies. It is my intention to use stood that the parent(s), the educator(s), peer(s) and
these participants and the research design as an entry the learner mediate digital play and literacy learning
point into examining digital play and literacy learning in their context. Engaging in this context activates a
with future intention to take this research into a child’s linguistic and socio-cultural toolkit. This, in
broader context with a greater emphasis on what ‘digi- connection with rich learning contexts provides oppor-
tally mediated play’ is, and how educators and families tunity for dynamic participation structures and the

66 Australian Journal of Language and Literacy, Vol. 39, No. 1, 2016

 Powerful and playful literacy learning with digital technologies • kervin

strategic use of meditational tools (Gutierrez, 2002). investigate what networks can look like for children
Using data collected from these six families, five in the complex digital environment. Marsh (2010)
instances of digital play for language and literacy has been groundbreaking in her exploration of virtual
learning are identified and explicated in this paper. connections children make through virtual worlds
(such as ClubPenguin), but more needs to be done in
1. Identifying and interacting with Networks through
this area of constant change. New social media (such
YouTube
as YouTube) has expanded opportunities for social
2. Exploring artifacts with Digital photographs and
participation through the thousands of user-generated
iMovie
movies are uploaded daily and millions are shared and
3. Setting own goals using Pocket Pond
viewed daily.
4. Creating and negotiating scenarios with Minecraft
Ronan, a three year old boy who lived in the suburbs
5. Telling Stories using PuppetPals
of Sydney, enjoyed playing with his train set. Having
In each instance of digital play, discussion will be been invited into his home to watch his play, I was
offered about the material artifacts (Fenwick, Edwards mesmerised by the time he took to set up and orches-
& Sawchuk, 2011) that emerged through moments of trate some complex train manoeuvres. As I watched
language learning and development. In doing so, there him play, he talked with me about the trains and he also
is acknowledgement that these instances of learning talked with me about what his friends liked to do with
were mediated (by a parent, sibling or peer) and are their train sets. Later, when talking with his parents I
characterised by ‘dynamics of real action’ (p. 63) as shared my observations about Ronan and his comments
the relationship between the play activity and the task about his friends. At the mention of his friends, his
led the way to realisation. Such an approach acknowl- dad began to laugh. Ronan’s dad shared with me how
edges that the mind is not just an internal phenomenon when they had first got the train set he was a little
but an externalised one that is dependent on media- unsure about how to put it together. He ‘googled’ the
tions by external symbols and material artifacts. Each name of the train set and was able to access a range
instance of digital play will be connected with develop- of YouTube videos that showed what other enthusiasts
mental phases for play and in the process identify some had done. Ronan viewed these clips with his father. In
of the major features of the pedagogic progression for the time that followed, Ronan asked to rewatch those
language and literacy learning. While I am connecting clips. Seeing how much Ronan enjoyed viewing these,
these instances to examples from particular children, his dad subscribed to Really Simple Syndication (RSS)
I’m not suggesting these are age specific and would feeds so they were alerted when that person had added
prefer you to think about the possibilities these exam- a new clip. It turned out the ‘friends’ that Ronan had
ples offer for children at different ages and language talked with me about were indeed his virtual network
ability levels. that he had connected with through a shared artifact
and interest.
Identifying and interacting with While there is significant caution around the quality
Networks: YouTube of online materials, young people and networking
Social networks and social supports are seen to be crit- through digital technologies (for example O’Keeffe &
ical in the lives of all people. For children, it is impor- Clarke-Pearson, 2011), Ronan’s example shows a posi-
tant that they develop understanding of the key players tive connection established through a shared artifact
in their social world, the interrelationships between and and the talk that surrounds this. Through YouTube,
among these people, and to the connections between Ronan was able to transcend physical boundaries to
these people and the larger societal structure (Belle, connect with people that may very well have been
1989). While the social needs of children have been impossible in more traditional networks. The increas-
at the forefront of thinking (particularly the relation- ingly interwoven role of social media in our everyday
ship between mother and child and more recently father lives has also entered the lives of many children, making
and child), there is need to look too at the more distal it increasingly complicated to disentangle ‘offline’ from
connections (including siblings, peers and friends) and ‘online’ friendships and networks (Meek, 2012) as
a range of contexts to more fully understand the notion demonstrated by Ronan.
of children’s social networks and support providers.
Technology has certainly changed the opportuni- Exploring artifacts: Digital photographs
ties for social networks for many adults (for example, and iMovie
through social networking spaces such as FaceBook Vygotsky (1978) argued that in the child’s real life, action
and Twitter). There is need though to more fully always dominates over meaning. The substitution of a

Australian Journal of Language and Literacy, Vol. 39, No. 1, 2016 67

kervin • Powerful and playful literacy learning with digital technologies

real object for a symbol may occur spontaneously in Table 2. Oliver making lemongrass tea
play but it is a crucial practice for development. Sharing
play symbols and signs in pretend play with partners is Annotation from 3-year-old
Image
Oliver
an important part of development.
Children’s interactions with technology and apps
have the potential to mirror their interactions with
other play materials and include sensorimotor and I brang some um lemon grass
practice play, make-believe play, and games with rules. home from my preschool and
Artifacts can serve as symbols for real objects. The showed my family how to make
relationship between a prop and the object it represents tea
resembles the relationship of a word to its referent.
Because both play and linguistic communication share
a representational character, play provides children
with opportunities to practise forming symbolic
relationships. Effective technology use connects
on-screen with off-screen activities with an emphasis And I cutted it and I asked my
on co-viewing and co-participation between children brother [name] to help me cut it in
and significant others. Digital photographs can help
children to save and document their experiences, and
with the support of Apps such as iMovie, they can
revisit and share their real-life experiences through
images, stories and sounds.
Three year old Oliver worked with his brother and
mother to enact information he had learned while at his And that’s all the lemon grass in
prior-to-school setting. Oliver had had discussions with the tea pot cutted up
an educator about how the lemongrass that was growing
in the centre’s garden could be used, including making
lemongrass tea. At the end of the day, Oliver brought
some lemongrass home with him. After sharing his new
knowledge of lemongrass tea with his family, Oliver
and his brother (Adrian) and mother (Lucy) worked
together to do this and enacted a process quite like
Mummy was pouring in the
that of Language Experience (Stauffer, 1970). At each boiling boiling boiling hot water
point of the tea-making process a digital photograph
was taken. At the end of the experience, Oliver used
the photographs to recall the steps taken and recorded
an oral annotation to go with each. Table 2 presents an
overview of Oliver’s creation.
It generally has been acknowledged that the avail-
ability of certain play objects and props will, to some
extent, determine the kinds of play in which children And now its … and me and
[brother] had a little little peek
engage. For example, Neuman and Roskos (1990)
examined the effects of literacy-enriched play opportu-
nities on children’s literacy demonstration and showed
that play in the place where literacy acts and artifacts
are made available and readily accessible to children is
dominated by literacy learning opportunities. Pahl and
Rowsell (2010) describe how the sharing of artifacts
invites participation in other spaces. It is interesting to And then we drinked it.
note that in this example the artifact came from school
and was examined in the home setting. Children’s
opportunities for literacy can be enriched through
play by providing sufficient, functional, relevant

68 Australian Journal of Language and Literacy, Vol. 39, No. 1, 2016

 Powerful and playful literacy learning with digital technologies • kervin

literacy-promoting play objects and props. Digital Marsh, 2010). Her response to the digital play was self-
technologies (in this case digital photographs and the motivated and demonstrated some important learning
iMovie app on the iPad) provided opportunity to docu- gains she had made about this ecosystem. The language
ment the play which in turn created an artifact (the that she used to describe her actions was grounded in
iMovie) to share and reflect upon the play experience. field knowledge of the app and the technical language
she had picked up within this. There was a clear under-
Setting own goals: Pocket Pond standing of cause and effect in her play and discussion
Imaginative play encourages problem solving and open of this.
ended experiences. Johnson and Christie (2009) identi-
fied the power of software that provided ‘micro worlds’ Creating and negotiating scenarios:
where children had choices to make and explore, and Minecraft
opportunities to follow their curiosity, which resulted During imaginative play, children take on a range of
in action. Digital experiences that foster these qualities roles and use many cognitive processes. These include
lead to creative play, curiosity and a desire to ask ques- making plans and finding ways to carry these out to
tions in a quest for new information. transform activities from their real objective and objects
Pocket Pond simulates a pond for koi fish (for visual from their real counterparts to imagined scenarios
overview see iFish Pond HD, 2010). As soon as the app (Farver, 1992). Children take the initiative and make
is launched the user hears soothing sounds akin to a choices and decisions about the activities in which they
natural water environment. As the user interacts with will engage, which in turn, foster learning. Whenever
the iPad screen (by touching and swiping the screen) the children communicate during play, they do so from
water reacts. The fish can be fed by tapping the screen their own personal context – from their understanding
and the user can add and size lily pads, dragonflies of themselves constructed from their participation in
and additional fish to the ecosystem. Thunderstorms the play. Cazden (2003) tells us that children’s problem
can be simulated and the user is able to engage with solving improves in collaboration, as the partners scaf-
some fishing activity. There is opportunity to network fold each other to move into new possibilities.
to and visit ponds created by friends. The game has no Verbal communication is focused on children’s ability
strict aim, rules or objectives apart from building and to use speech to communicate meaning (Smilansky,
changing a pond for koi fish to live in. 1968) and also the collaborative skills that are devel-
Five-year-old Frances was particularly engaged with oped as the children reciprocally negotiate roles. While
the Pocket Pond app. Her mother (Julie) described how there might be some modelling from adults or peers,
Frances regularly interacted with the app over weeks as children attempt to communicate and integrate their
she played with the water, established and moved lily everyday conventional or reconstructed knowledge of
pads around and introduced and looked after an assort- the social world with that of their play partners (Farver,
ment of fish. One afternoon as Frances was playing in 1992; Garvey, 1990). This then begs the question, what
their back garden, Julie noticed that she had collected does roleplaying look like when digital mediums enter
an unused fish tank from under the house and was the scenario? What are the opportunities for role play
carefully arranging other objects (including dirt, rocks and verbal communication?
and greenery from the garden) inside the tank. Julie Natalie, a seven-year-old girl invited her friend Zack
recalled talking to Frances about this, to which she was (also seven years old) to her house for a Lego playdate.
informed that Frances was creating her own ‘pond’ in Natalie’s mother (Deanna) shares that the children
the garden. Their conversation continued to include were set up with the Lego in a room in the house where
the details of the environment Frances was creating, they could spread out, undisturbed from other siblings.
supported by understandings of the experience she had Later, when she went to check on them she found Zack
gained while in Pocket Pond (for example, what fish playing with the Lego and Natalie playing Minecraft
liked to eat, how many was an optimal number for on the iPad. Expressing her disappointment that they
the pond, responses to different weather patterns and didn’t seem to be playing together, Zack clarified the
design features to support this). situation by explaining that while he was building
Frances showed that her digital play was a stimulus to with Lego, Natalie was creating that structure using
‘real’ play as she enacted open-ended context through Minecraft and later they would compare and contrast
play and creative problem solving. This provides an the two representations to look for similarities and
example of how young children increasingly merge differences. And then they would switch. This role
online and offline play as they take their digitally play enabled them to explore a similar task from two
informed experience into their reality (Edwards, 2013; different contexts.

Australian Journal of Language and Literacy, Vol. 39, No. 1, 2016 69

kervin • Powerful and playful literacy learning with digital technologies

Minecraft is a game app that allows players to build lends itself to the creation of narratives, through which
constructions out of textured cubes in a 3D procedur- the characters can experience complication/s that the
ally generated world. This example shows how play narrator may work to create and resolve.
can look different when digital mediums are included. While the elements of the puppet show (selecting
There is reciprocity in sharing peer relations, manipu- backgrounds and characters) are quite controlled, the
lating artifacts and being an (object) other to oneself user is able to explore these through their manipula-
and increasingly acknowledging other perspectives. tion and oral annotations. The user has control over
Each presents valuable opportunities for learning for the selection, timing and pace as they manipulate the
each participant. Within the complex structure created characters and backgrounds to fit with the story they
by these children, they were each able to correct each develop. While one user best controls this manipulation,
other if they made errors in the ‘game’. there is scope for collaborative decision making around
The children demonstrated their understanding of the characters, backdrops and skill development.
the scenarios they set for each other through their Five year old Adrian was given a homework task to
actions and their use of vocabulary and set phrases complete a check-list (given to him by his teacher) about
associated with the ‘game’ they used. Through these the living creatures that he could find at his house.
interactions, they were able to draw upon their own Adrian responded to this task by using the Puppet Pals
experiences with the Minecraft app to introduce and app to create a three minute and twenty six second
consolidate the language of the game as they brought presentation about creatures in his backyard which he
meaning to their physical and digital play artifacts. As entitled ‘[name] backyard safari’. Table 3 captures the
such, these peers become a resource for new learning as script he created and still shots from the presentation to
their experiences and expertise enabled them to enrich profile the key movements within the visual component.
the play experience for each other. The presentation Adrian created demonstrates his
awareness of information needed to respond to the task.
Telling Stories: PuppetPals His deviation away from completing the checklist he
The stories children choose to tell can cross sites and was provided, demonstrates his ability to transform the
modalities – they can come about through draw- task in quite a playful way using technology to support
ings, models, paintings, gestures and film. Stories are this. His story is a representation of how he recon-
captured moments of meaning making as children textualises his home context and he moves between
share details of their lives, tell their own and other’s informative and narrative structures as he gives infor-
stories, and recontextualise the experiences they have mation while also connecting it to his personal experi-
had (Pahl & Rowsell, 2010). Through storytelling chil- ences. Adrian has created a product with a likeness to a
dren organise their experiences and express what they house and garden television program demonstrating his
know about themselves, other people and their roles awareness of and experience with popular culture, and
within the contexts they interact with (Bruner 1986, his ability to include narrative structures other than his
Schank 1990). Storytelling for young children begins own in his story (Shuman, 2007).
with conversation and a strong conversational partner
to construct stories, often with the manipulation of an Digital play to foster literacy learning
object that the story is made up around. As children get Digital play (in the case of this paper, using apps on an
older they recount stories on their own as they begin to iPad), has the potential to enrich play and offer oppor-
explore memories or future dreams as they talk about tunity for language and literacy learning. Apps – and
their worlds and contexts as they understand them. children’s playful interactions with these – can help
The PuppetPals application is designed to engage the to enact expanded definitions of literacy as children
child in the art of puppetry – selecting characters, back- use their developing repertoire of language resources
drops (or create their own) and creating scenarios to be for meaningful purposes. Digital play with carefully
acted out. This process can be conceptualised differ- selected apps, can provide active, hands-on, engaging
ently by different children – there is no expectation as and empowering learning opportunities. Apps can
to how long the play should be, nor is there any specific facilitate versatility in children’s literacy experiences by
motivational feedback built into the application. The providing opportunities for reading and writing, and to
ability to record, playback and archive puppet shows listen and communicate, through a range of scenarios
could be seen as a motivator. The application provides and activities. As such, it can be argued that purposeful
opportunity for the user to engage in imaginative play and meaningful literacy learning can be enriched
as they move between backdrops (up to 3) with the through digital play when it is nested within authentic
characters, as they develop their stories. The application contexts and characteristics of play are activated.

70 Australian Journal of Language and Literacy, Vol. 39, No. 1, 2016

 Powerful and playful literacy learning with digital technologies • kervin

Table 3. Adrian’s backyard safari

This is Adrian. I’m going to Hi it’s me again. Now I’m

tell you some creatures that talking about things that live
live down on the ground in in the air. Now you’re going
my backyard. Some of the to see some things.
cutest, creepiest, scariest
animals in my backyard.

We’ve got bluey over here. Now you’ve got this bird.
He’s a blue tongue lizard. This is a Rosella. It’s a bad
He’s very shy. So, make sure boy and it’s cheeky.
you don’t run at him. I think this is its cousin, a
Rainbow Lorikeet. They’re
both cheeky because they eat
And now here we’ve got a up all our plants. So we’ll
cricket. Now we often find leave them over here. So we
them in our cubby house so can keep them over there so
we’ll put him over here. it’s like they’re eating the our
plants.

So we’ve got this cockatoo

And we’ve got a frog. Now the black ones and the white
we find them when we’re one. They’re very rare –
mowing the lawn in the wet these black ones and the
grass. And they’re usually white ones are very noisy.
on the grass, that’s where we So we have to close the door
find them. when they come past. I think
they come past at half past
Now I’ve got a huntsman. five.
Here’s a huntsman. Let’s put
him over here cause they live So, now we’ve just got the
under the house. butterfly. Now I’ve got a
butterfly net and I try to
And a cricket. We’ve got
catch some but these are
Christmas beetles. Let’s put
really hard to catch.
them over where the spider
lives.
And bye bye and thank
Also we’ve got caterpillars
you for listening about my
eating all our cauliflowers.
afternoon in my back yard. I
They’re very cheeky. And
hope you were interested.
they always every single day
and night we always find
them. Watch out for them in
your garden!

These are everything that

live in my back yard on the
ground.

Apps have the power to provide challenging yet that are supported within the contexts they are oper-
authentic experiences, sophisticated and abstract arti- ating within. This is a reminder that literacy extends
facts for the child to use and manipulate, all with scaf- beyond the acquisition of reading and writing skills.
folded support to achieve success. What is interesting Engagement with technology through digital play
in this paper, is that none of the apps I have profiled in provides opportunity for children to activate literacy
these five examples have been specifically designed to processes in socially appropriate contexts.
focus on language and literacy learning and develop- As educators we routinely differentiate between
ment. Instead, the examples show how children play- home, prior to school, school and community contexts.
fully seek self-initiated, self-regulated opportunities We need to think about the digital environment as yet

Australian Journal of Language and Literacy, Vol. 39, No. 1, 2016 71

kervin • Powerful and playful literacy learning with digital technologies

another context that can mediate across settings – Digital play sets a child up to engage with literacy
imagine if the apps we used in the classroom were the processes because the child is deeply involved in the
apps they used at home and vice versa! Many artifacts play situation. With understanding of developmental
move across contexts for children – a homework task, phases and key characteristics for play, we are able to
the objects children engage with, the story structures identify some of the major features of the pedagogic
they use – the use of apps to capture and mediate such progression for language and literacy learning through
experiences provides powerful literacy experiences. digital play. A good app can inspire, encourage and
Fostering literacy learning, then, depends heavily extend children’s literacy and language development.
on willingness to firstly acknowledge, then facilitate How children spend their time with the app is critical.
contexts for interacting and learning where the child is Passive use of technology and any app is an inappro-
able to take control. priate replacement for active play, engagement with
Digital play should be playful and support crea- other children, and interactions with adults. Examina-
tivity, encourage exploration and activate real-world tion of children’s digital play presents new opportuni-
connections. Mobile, multi-touch screens of tablet tech- ties for us as educators to support, inform, reform, or
nologies have changed the way the youngest children transform the literacy experiences we encourage chil-
interact with images, sounds and ideas (Buckleitner, dren to participate with.
2011). Shared joint attention, language rich interactions
with lots of opportunities for responsive and attentive Acknowledgement
interactions between the child and significant others, I would like to acknowledge Irina Verenikina and her
are imperative. Young children need opportunities to expertise in play and Jessica Mantei and her expertise
engage with these technologies where they control the in literacy. I collaborate with both colleagues regularly
app, direct the outcome of the experience, explore the and their expertise continually shapes my understand-
tools within the app, and make real life connection. ings. I would also like to acknowledge support from the
Such opportunities can be highly beneficial to chil- Australian Research Council under Discovery Grant
dren’s literacy development and provides a supportive DP140100328 (Conceptualising digital play: The role
context for language learning. What is critical though, of tablet technologies in the development of imagina-
is considered and judicious choice and use around tive play of young children).
the apps children use. All screen interactions are not
References
created equal. Digital technology has expanded in
Australian Bureau of Statistics (2012). Children’s Participa-
scope beyond linear, non-interactive media to include tion in Cultural and Leisure Activities: Internet and Mobile
interactive options. The selection of apps in recogni- Phones. Retrieved from http://www.abs.gov.au/ausstats/
tion of this, can provide powerful play and language [email protected]/Latestproducts/4901.0
Australian Curriculum, Assessment and Reporting Authority
learning opportunities for children. The five examples
(2015). F-10 Curriculum: General Capabilities, Literacy.
discussed in this paper show what children can do and Retrieved from http://www.australiancurriculum.edu.au/
initiate themselves in the name of play with the support generalcapabilities/literacy/introduction/introduction
of others (both adults and peers) and opportunity, Belle, D. (Ed.). (1989). Children’s social networks and social
supports (Vol. 136). New York: John Wiley & Sons.
as they mediate their own literacy learning contexts. Braun, V., & Clarke, V. (2006). Using thematic analysis
As educators we need to make informed choices that in psychology. Qualitative research in psychology, 3 (2),
maximise learning opportunities for children. 77–101.
Bruner, E.M. (Ed.). (1986). The anthropology of experience.
Play is important for literacy learning because
Chicago: University of Illinois Press.
when children are in control of an interaction, they Buckleitner, W. (2011). The children’s e-book revisited. Chil-
are engaged. Children speak about, and listen to, and dren’s Technology Review, 19 (1), 6–10.
engage with, what they are interested in. If they are Cazden, C.B. (2003). Sustaining indigenous languages in cyber-
space (pp 53–57) In J. Reyhner, O. Trujillo, R.L. Carrasco &
interested, they don’t need to shift their attention. A L. Lockhard (Eds.). Nurturing Native Languages, Flagstaff:
child is more likely to engage with literacy processes Northern Arizona University.
and learn language features when they are playing Chiong, C., & Shuler, C. (2010). Learning: Is there an app for
within their area of interest. For play to be powerful, that. In Investigations of young children’s usage and learning
with mobile devices and apps. New York: The Joan Ganz
the child needs to lead it. An app that moves children Cooney Center at Sesame Workshop.
through a script, asking them to perform actions within Comber, B., & Hill, S. (2000). Socio-economic disadvantage,
that script, does not count as play. Think about the literacy and social justice: Learning from longitudinal case
study research. The Australian Educational Researcher,
myriad of vocabulary building, spelling, phonics apps
27 (3), 79–97.
that exist. How playful are these? What opportunities Comber, B., & Kamler, B. (2004). Getting out of deficit: Peda-
for language and literacy learning are offered? gogies of reconnection. Teaching education, 15 (3), 293–310.

72 Australian Journal of Language and Literacy, Vol. 39, No. 1, 2016

 Powerful and playful literacy learning with digital technologies • kervin

Common Sense Media (2013). Zero to Eight: Children’s Media Marsh, J. (2010). Young children’s play in online virtual worlds.
Use. Retreived from https://www.commonsensemedia.org/ Journal of Early Childhood Research, 8 (1), 23–39.
research/zero-to-eight-childrens-media-use-2013 Marsh, J., & Hallet, E. (Eds.). (2008). Desirable literacies:
Department of Education, Employment and Workplace Rela- Approaches to language and literacy in the early years.
tions. (2009). Belonging, being & becoming: The early years Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage.
learning framework for Australia. Retrieved from http://foi. Meek, D. (2012). YouTube and social movements: A phenom-
deewr.gov.au/node/2632 enological analysis of participation, events and cyberplace.
Dyson, A.H. (1993). Social worlds of children: Learning to Antipode, 44 (4), 1429–1448.
write in an urban primary school. New York: Teachers Neuman, S.B., & Roskos, K. (1990). Play, print, and purpose:
College Press. Enriching play environments for literacy development. The
Edwards, S. (2013). Digital play in the early years: a contextual Reading Teacher, 44, 214–221.
response to the problem of integrating technologies and play- O’Keeffe, G.S., & Clarke-Pearson, K. (2011). The impact of
based pedagogies in the early childhood curriculum. Euro- social media on children, adolescents, and families. Pediat-
pean Early Childhood Education Research Journal, 21 (2), rics, 127 (4), 800–804.
199–212. Pahl, K. & Rowsell, J. (20l0). Artifactual Literacies: Every
Farver, J.A.M. (1992). Communicating shared meaning in Object Tells a Story. New York: Teachers College Press.
social pretend play. Early Childhood Research Quarterly, Saine, P. (2012). iPods, iPads, and the SMARTBoard: Trans-
7 (4), 501–516. forming literacy instruction and student learning. New
Fenwick, T., Edwards, R., & Sawchuk, P. (2011). Emerging England Reading Association Journal, 47 (2), 74.
approaches to educational research: Tracing the socio-mate- Salonius-Pasternak, D.E., & Gelfond, H.S. (2005). The next
rial. London: Routledge. level of research on electronic play: Potential benefits and
Garvey, C. (1990). Play (Vol. 27). Cambridge, MA: Harvard contextual influences for children and adolescents. Human
University Press. Technology: An Interdisciplinary Journal on Humans in ICT
Grieshaber, S. (2008). Interrupting stereotypes: Teaching and Environments, 1 (1), 5–22.
the education of young children. Early Education and Devel- Schank, R.C. (1990). Tell me a story: A new look at real and
opment, 19 (3), 505–518. artificial memory. New York: Charles Scribner’s Sons.
Gutiérrez, K. (2002). Studying cultural practices in urban Shuman, A (2007). Entitlement and empathy in personal
learning communities. Human Development, 45 (4), narrative. In M. Bamberg (Ed.), Narrative: State of the art
312–321. (pp. 175–184). Amsterdam: John Benjamins.
Harste, J.C. (1990). Inquiry-based instruction. Primary Voices, Smilansky, S. (1968). The effects of sociodramatic play on
K–6, 1 (1), 3–8. disadvantaged preschool children. New York: John Wiley
Harste, J.C. (2003). What do we mean by literacy now. Voices and Sons, Inc.
from the Middle, 10 (3), 8–12. Siraj-Blatchford, I. (2009). Conceptualising progression in the
Hart, B., & Risley, T.R. (1995). Meaningful differences in the pedagogy of play and sustained shared thinking in early
everyday experience of young American children. Baltimore, childhood education: A Vygotskian perspective. Educational
MD: Paul H Brookes Publishing. and Child Psychology, 26 (2), 77–89.
Heath, S.B. (1983). Ways with words: Language, life and work Stauffer, R.G. (1970). The Language-Experience Approach
in communities and classrooms. Cambridge, UK: Cambridge to the Teaching of Reading. New York: Harper & Row,
University Press. Publishers Inc.
Hutchison, A., & Reinking, D. (2011). Teachers’ perceptions UNICEF (2009). New York: UNICEF; 2009. The State of the
of integrating information and communication technolo- world’s children. Retrieved from, http://www.unicef.org/
gies into literacy instruction: A National Survey in the U.S. sowc/
Reading Research Quarterly, 46 (4), 308–329. Verenikina, I., Harris, P. & Lysaght, P. (2003). Child’s Play:
Johnson, J.E., & Christie, J.F. (2009). Play and digital media. Computer Games, Theories of Play and Children’s Develop-
Computers in the Schools, 26 (4), 284–289. ment. In Wright, J., McDougall, A., Murnane, J. & Lowe,
Leoni, E. (2010). Apple’s announcement of the new iPad: How J. (Eds.). Young Children and Learning Technologies.
will it affect education? Retrieved from http://www.edutopia. (99–106). Retrieved from, crpit.com/confpapers/CRPITV-
org/apple-ipad-education?page=1 34Verenikina.pdf
Lieberman, D.A., Fisk, M.C., & Biely, E. (2009). Digital games Verenikina, I., Herrington, J., Peterson, R., & Mantei, J.
for young children ages three to six: From research to design. (2010). Computers and play in early childhood: Affordances
Computers in the Schools, 26 (4), 299–313. and limitations. Journal of Interactive Learning Research,
Lillard, A.S., Lerner, M.D., Hopkins, E.J., Dore, R.A., Smith, 21 (1), 139–159.
E.D., & Palmquist, C.M. (2013). The impact of pretend play Verenikina, I. & Kervin, L. (2011). ‘iPads, Digital Play and
on children’s development: A review of the evidence. Psycho- Pre-schoolers,’ He Kupu, 2, (5) Retreived from http://www.
logical Bulletin, 139 (1), 1. hekupu.ac.nz /index.php?type=journal&issue=15&jou
Livingstone, S. (2002). Young people and new media: Child- rnal=262
hood and the changing media environment. Thousand Oaks, Vygotsky, L.S. (1978). Mind and society: The development of
CA: Sage. higher mental processes. Cambridge MA, London: Harvard
University Press.

Lisa Kervin is an Associate Professor in Language and Literacy in the Faculty of Social Sciences at the University
of Wollongong. Lisa is an experienced primary school teacher (particularly in the early years of school) and has
held literacy consultancy roles. At UOW, Lisa is an active member of the Early Start Research Institute. Lisa’s
current research interests are focused on young children and how they engage with literate practices.

Australian Journal of Language and Literacy, Vol. 39, No. 1, 2016 73