Keeping Research on Digital Learning and Children's Digital Literature Alive

Back in the summer, dotMomming featured a series of interviews with Patrick Cox of the Childhood Studies Program at Rutgers University. Patrick was teaching classes on learning to read in the digital age, and we believe the work he and his colleagues are doing is important to understanding how digital books impact early literacy development for today's generation of children. But that research might be coming to a halt, and what follows is a special guest post from Patrick about how you can help keep programs like his alive.

From "Merry Conceits and Whimsical Rhymes."
Published by Routledge & Sons, New York, 1883. 

Awhile back, I did an interview on dot.Momming about an undergraduate course I teach at Rutgers on Children’s Digital Literacies. Since that time I’ve been including this blog in my course as a resource students can use to learn about still more digital texts for children beyond what we can cover in class. Kate has been kind enough to let me come back to tell you about a threat that has befallen this course.

My course is part of the Department of Childhood Studies, a one-of-a-kind program on the Camden campus of Rutgers University, offering the only Childhood Studies Ph.D. in North America. Recently, a plan has emerged in New Jersey to shut down the Rutgers-Camden campus and absorb it into a much smaller and less prepared college that lacks both the research focus and the child focus of the Camden campus of Rutgers.

This Rutgers campus is home to leading research and instruction in children’s digital literature. Students and faculty here study and teach digital texts created for children, stories written by children using new digital media, children using online virtual spaces, and how “the digital age” impacts literacy, learning, family interactions, and children’s daily lives. In my course students, many of whom are aspiring teachers, learn about digital literature and its potential for enriching use in classrooms and in homes. This campus is also home to the Center for Children and Childhood Studies that provides much needed assistance, programming, tutoring, and more to the children of the city of Camden.

All of this has been possible with the support and recognition that comes with being a first-rate university like Rutgers. If these programs are moved to a smaller, lesser known facility 20 miles outside of the city, they will most likely wither and die -- faculty and students will leave, and the work we have done will come to an end.

Students, faculty, alumni, and community members have been fighting hard to protect what we have. Kate has kindly allowed me to ask you to help maintain the work we are doing with and for children, and our field-leading work on the developing area of children’s digital literature. Here is a link to a petition started by a Rutgers undergraduate student to Stop the Merger. The petition has collected over 8,000 signatures in just two weeks, and I hope you’ll add yours. I won’t deluge you with links here but will point out that the student behind the webpage has loaded it with links to more information, news articles, etc., as well as other ways you can help if you so desire.

Thanks,
Patrick Cox
Department of Childhood Studies
Rutgers University-Camden

Happy Digital Learning Day!

Today marks the first ever national celebration of Digital Learning Day, which is an orchestrated effort to promote the innovative use of technology in America's classrooms. What does that mean and who is behind it?

Digital Learning Day is meant to encourage teachers, parents, and students to try something new using technology. This means showcasing success such as students' Scratch programs, kicking off project-based learning by letting students present video book reports, or simply sitting down with digital books and observing how young readers interact with the stories. The New York Times blogs about its 40-odd years covering technology and education, and encourages everyone to try three new things involving digital learning today.

There will be webcasts. There will be virtual town hall meetings. There will be Facebook-ing and Twitter-ing and all sorts of conversations going on about engaging technology for learning. And there will be heavy hitters, as the Alliance for Excellent Education has partnered with Google, USA Today, Intel, and other major players like Kaplan, Scholastic, and Houghton Mifflin Harcourt. Parents and teachers can make good use of toolkits and contests to motivate and engage their kids.

So why all the hoopla? Because so many questions surrounding the good use of technology remain:  how schools can first of all access digital technology and then harness it. How we can move our kids from the addictive fun of Plants vs Zombies and into engaged online learning that taps their creativity and opens the doors to real mastery and student success.

Because technology, while influencing our lives on a day-to-day basis at home and work, too often stops short of the classroom door.

Part 4: Glowing Screens As Zombie-Makers, and Other Digital Media Fears

In this fourth and final installment of our conversation with Patrick Cox, who teaches Children's Literacies, a Rutgers University course about learning to read in the digital age, we address attitudes about digital books and their utility. A recent Christian Science Monitor article dismissed narrated picture book apps as an annoying diversion to keep kids occupied at restaurants. While I like to rope off family talking time from screen time, I don't have a problem with a book in whatever form it might take. But there are many, like the Christian Science Monitor writer, who disagree. Giving a child an e-reader "walls them off from the social connections that are part of why we go to restaurants in the first place."

DotMomming: Picture book apps have come under recent criticism as just another toy to divert impatient kids.  I think that is completely overlooking their value: How can picture book apps best be used in early literacy development? I like to see my six-year-old work his way through them on his own, as he deciphers the words solo and experiences the interactive surprises nestled into the book for himself. There is also a school of thought devoted to shared engagement between adult teacher and child learner. What is your take?

Patrick Cox: The author makes one of many assumptions people make about picture book apps and other forms of digital literature: once a child gets their hands on an electronic device, he or she will cease to engage with other human beings. This is another age-old argument. Similar moral panics have erupted in the past around books – that too much reading is bad for children, is somehow unnatural, cuts them off from “real” communication, and makes them lazy or “soft.” 

The truth is, and I think most people know it, sometimes kids engage with books in interaction with parents, and sometimes kids engage with books on their own. What seems to be a difficult leap to make is that the same holds true for digital reading. The current “new thing” is digital reading in many different forms (many of which are enjoyed by adults), so the current moral panic is that the dreaded glowing screen is turning our children into zombies who don’t know how to communicate. It’s an easy, breezy topic for a magazine column or discussion board post.

But the question isn’t, “What are we to do in the face of this debilitating technology?” but rather, “How can we use it to enable our children (and us!) to communicate better?” Apps, like books, are merely tools, and we have more control over how we use them than they have power to control us. A recorded narrator’s voice needn’t eliminate parent interaction with a child while reading. Parent and child can enjoy together, can still talk about the text and images, a child can ask questions about the content of the app, a child can later relive the story through imaginative play. . . Indeed, a child can engage with an app alone, and an app can keep a child busy or quiet at a restaurant. . . which is also just like a book.

I think shared engagement is absolutely essential, not only for learning to read but for parent-child bonding! These technologies and formats are as new to me as they are to my four-year-old-son: we both saw a picture book app for the first time together! And we figured it out together – how to use it, what we like about it, what we don’t like about it, what we’ll use again. The new platform hasn’t kept us from engaging with one another while reading. It’s given us something else to utilize as we engage with one another.

Part 2: Digital Literacy and Learning to Read

This is the second in a series of posts in which we'll hear from Patrick Cox, a Ph.D. candidate in the childhood studies program at Rutgers University. Patrick taught a summer course on learning to read in the digital age, and he will repeat it in the fall and spring. In exploring how digital readers are impacting early literacy development, Patrick is engaging his students in better understanding technology and how young children are learning about it and with it.

DotMomming: The digital natives born into the iPad world are experiencing reading and learning in a whole new way. I don't mean this as a plug for Apple, just in the sense that books are a fluid thing now. Kids can toddle over to the bookshelf to sit down with a paper book, or they can tap their fingers on a reading tablet and read a digital one. Is one experience better than the other?

Patrick Cox: Of course not! Certainly the experiences are different from each other, but it gets a bit sticky to ascribe words like “better” or “worse” to one experience over another. Apart from whatever text is being read in each medium, both media also teach valuable skills to young readers. “Book awareness” starts very young, and the book is itself a technology anyone in the United States really needs to learn how to use.

We don’t really think of it, but at some point we had to learn the difference between the cover of a book and the back of a book, or which direction to turn the pages, or that we read from left to right. These are all skills that are developed from a very young age and will serve us throughout our lives . . . unless books completely disappear, which I don’t think is likely at all.

Similarly, reading tablets and other hi-tech manifestations of books teach other useful skills we might call “tech awareness.” As unromantic as it sounds, these days we need to learn a connection between pushing buttons and things happening on a screen, or “swyping” a screen to move an image. In my state of Pennsylvania, naming and having some understanding of how to use computer parts like keyboards, a mouse, a touchpad, and a cell phone is part of the pre-kindergarten education standards. The fact is, like it or not, it behooves us all to learn how to use these new devices.

I’m very interested in this phrase “digital native.” I’ve heard it before and understand what is meant. But there’s an implication about it, it seems, that there’s something natural about kids’ connection to technology that people who aren’t “natives” can’t ever fully learn or become a part of. “Native” means some people are “not native,” so there’s a separation being made in the phrase between children and adults. “You grow up with it or you don’t; you’re a part of it, or you aren’t.” Children and adolescents have been classed as “separate” in different realms before. (There’s actually a book about teenagers called “A Tribe Apart,” another term that both primitivizes children and separates “them” from “us” – the presumably less primitive adults.)

I’ve heard children’s picture book apps on iPads described as perfect for young children because “kids these days are wired differently.” I think there’s a growing belief that children “just know this tech stuff” as if it’s not learned but natural to them, as if children are somehow at one with technology and its accompanying gadgets; “wired differently” as if part of the computer’s circuitry.

What’s troubling in all this is the perception that using reading tablets and other techie gadgets is somehow not reading. And that the gadgets – the digital books and apps and so forth – are cutting us off from “the natives.” We often hear a critique of e-readers along the lines of, “Yes, but it’s just not the same as curling up with a book and turning the pages.” People talk about the feel of paper, the smell of books. Indeed, a Kindle is not the same. But I’m not sure the difference is such as to affect a young reader’s comprehension or engagement with the story being read or their connection with the characters. In other words, reading hasn’t changed; just the device has changed. But that seems to be fraught with a lot of other meanings for people.

Rutgers Scholar on Reading in the Digital Age

As we explore the role technology plays in early literacy development, we’re always on the lookout for cool happenings in the realm of kids books. Imagine our surprise when dotMomming stumbled across an undergraduate course being taught this summer at Rutgers University in Camden, New Jersey, about learning to read in the digital age.

Titled simply Children’s Literacies, the coursework examines how literacy has expanded beyond the basics of reading and writing to include technological literacy as well. We reached out to Patrick Cox, who taught the summer course, is a Ph.D. candidate in the childhood studies program at Rutgers, and is clearly passionate about digital books and their effect on early literacy.

We'll devote the next many posts to exploring digital books and learning with Patrick.

DotMomming: Can you talk about the Rutgers course? Who was your audience? What were your topics? What did you hope to accomplish with the program?

Patrick Cox: The course is taught in the Department of Childhood Studies at Rutgers. Previously, the only children’s literature courses taught on this campus were offered through the English department, a discipline that takes a particular approach to literature. My department wanted some sort of children’s literature course that approached the literature in a Childhood Studies sort of way, which meant, first, it had to be a multi-disciplinary course, and second, it had to keep “the child” at the center of the study in some way.

So in a very important way this course is a children’s literature course that deliberately includes media other than books: e-readers, toys, CD-ROMs, websites, transmedia texts, cell phone novels, vooks [combination of books and videos] – we even looked into stories told through clues on T-shirts! People are really doing some amazing things with how they tell stories. And children’s and young adult literature is leading the way.

I wanted students to end the course with a greater awareness of and appreciation for some of these other forms. But we also read novels, short stories, picture books, comic books, graphic novels, because none of these things have been replaced; they’re part of children’s literacies too.

On another level, the course is about literacy itself: how it has developed, why it’s been taught, what has the spread of literacy meant for our culture, how has it been used as a “gatekeeper,” and what has it meant for those who have been left out. So my students also read about cognitive development as children learn to read, pedagogical approaches in classrooms, educational theory, ethnographies conducted in schools, scholarly work on incorporating popular culture into literacy instruction, and popular writing from newspapers and magazines to get a feel for the general cultural discourse and controversies around these new forms of literature. We also spent a good deal of time discussing the role of the marketplace in new literacies.

The course is open to any undergraduate student at Rutgers, and I hope those majoring in Childhood Studies find it fits with the rest of their courses: a one-of-a-kind course in a one-of-a-kind department. That to me is very important: it should be a course people can’t find anywhere but here.

I always hope for a certain number of students to come from the Teacher Prep program as well, to bring their expertise to the classroom and, hopefully, think in a different way about their role and approach as literacy instructors. Also, the undergraduate population is not a bunch of 18-year-olds anymore. Most of them are older (some quite a bit older), and half of my students have kids of their own.

I love teaching parents, as a parent myself, exchanging new ideas and materials and hoping they leave the course with an understanding that there are multiple forms of literacy, multiple ways to teach children to read, that literacy instruction these days begins at home and at a very young age, and that it’s OK to have fun while doing it. Also that not having the latest technological device will not doom your child to a life of illiteracy.

I’ll be teaching [Children’s Literacies] again this fall and then again in the spring. Enrollment for the fall session is already at capacity!

Excessive Gaming and Depression

I'll be the first to admit that the Wii makes a great babysitter. Fun, peppy personality, reliable, and the kids are in love!

When I have to meet a work deadline and I have a house full of my short friends, eager to do something, I sometimes let them Wii. And oh, my, how the time flies!

Suddenly and hour, two hours, dare I admit THREE hours go by. Without a peep from my peeps for me to engage or intervene or entertain. No muss, no fuss, and my project gets done.

We don't always go on video game benders like that. I typically limit their screen time -- whether it's the TV, laptop, or a phone. But life gets busy, and we occasionally have days that are intense for Mom and Dad.

But once the deadlines have passed and I am no longer a crazed lunatic, I find it all a bit appalling. What do we have to show for all that time? Just thinking of those hours spent on Star Wars Legos for the Wii makes me queasy. Like the way I feel after consuming a whole pint of Ben & Jerry's Peanut Butter Cup.

Both instances (the excessive Wii and the ice-cream overload) require a bit more self-control on all our part. I own up to throwing out the rules now and then -- life isn't always tidy.

Balance. Moderation. We all strive for reasonable approaches to life in our day to day, and we want our kids to understand it too. But it's hard. And it takes discipline -- both internal and external.

As adults, we recognized that just about anything in massive doses is bad for us. Kids have to be taught this. And that's why the recent study by the American Academy of Pediatrics that found excessive gaming may lead to depression, anxiety, and poor grades in school comes as no surprise.

The researchers studied more than 3,000 elementary and middle-school children in Singapore. Their findings? Almost 9 percent of these kids were "addicted" to gaming, and similar percentages were found in other countries.

The kids where considered "pathological" gamers exhibited higher levels of depression and other mental health issues than their peers who played fewer video games. On the plus side was that students who stopped excessive gaming reportedly reduced their levels of depression, anxiety and social phobia.

As I read this, I immediately wanted to know where my kids fit in. According to the study:

• Pathological gamers clocked in an average of more than 31 hours a week
• Their less excessive peers tallied about 19 hours a week

What does 31 hours look like? Well, nearly a full-time job. Even the group playing fewer hours could still hold a part-time job.

If kids are gaming every day after they come home from school, they're putting in more than 6 hours daily. Say they get home at 3 p.m., -- does this mean they are gaming until 9 p.m.? What about homework, dinner, any sort of sports or other activities? To fit those it too, they're probably gaming until midnight.

If those 31 hours are distributed over the entire week, that's nearly 5 hours each day.

And with what are those hours filled? Just like the Wii benders we experience, and when I stare at that empty Ben & Jerry's carton, yuck. Regret.

What would these kids in the study be like if they were engaged in something productive? What if they were building a new game to share with friends? Or making a movie, creating a public service announcement for their school. Or moving offline, what if they were playing a sport? Singing in a choir? Would they be depressed if they were interacting with friends or friendly adults? Would their grades turn around if they found more purpose for their time?

Perhaps the kids in this study already had addictive behaviors, and gaming just happens to be the outlet. That is possible -- in any cross-section of the population, we will find a lot of folks with these issues.

But any way we count it, 31 hours is a lot of time to spend on endless, repetitive tasks each week. And the rewards seem less than satisfying. It would tax the mind and emotions of anyone, adult or child.