Healthy Parenting Guide

How to Raise Healthy, Happy Children

Learn the basic principles of healthy parenting, avoid mealtime battles, and encourage physical fitness.

• Introduction to healthy parenting
• 10 principles of good parenting
• Avoiding the dinnertime battle
• Fitting in family fitness

Parenting with Love and Logic™

There are many effective parenting styles. Training children to develop responsibility while putting the fun back into parenting are the goals of a parenting method known as Love and Logic™ parenting. The Love and Logic™ system has been described and advanced by Jim Fay, a former school principal and renowned educational consultant, Charles Fay, PhD, a child psychologist, and child psychiatrist Foster Cline, MD.

The idea behind the Love and Logic™ theory is this: Parents should provide an atmosphere of love, acceptance, and empathy while allowing the natural consequences of a child’s behavior and actions to do the teaching. This should happen in the early years, when the consequences of the inevitable less-than-perfect choices are not too severe or damaging. By the time the child reaches adulthood, he or she is equipped with the decision-making skills needed for adult life. The method also teaches insight into parenting styles and how our own parenting styles can, inadvertently, sometimes rob a child of the ability to grow up making good decisions for him- or herself. It’s applicable to all children from toddlers to teens.

The Love and Logic™ method advocates offering choices that are acceptable to the parent, so it isn’t about letting 3-year-olds choose whether they want to play in the street or the fenced yard and letting them suffer the dire consequences of a poor decision. Instead, the parent is encouraged to offer children a range of age-appropriate and acceptable choices in order to experience the teaching value of their decisions.

Learn what effects parenting has on children »

Top Searched Parenting Terms

children, single parenting, teenagers, step parenting, parenting classes, positive parenting, surrogate parenting, potty training, bullying

Introduction to healthy parenting

Raising a happy, healthy child is one of the most challenging jobs a parent can have — and one of the most rewarding. Yet many of us don’t approach parenting with the same focus we would use for a job. We may act on our gut reactions or just use the same parenting techniques our own parents used, whether or not these were effective parenting skills.

Parenting is one of the most researched areas in the field of social science. No matter what your parenting style or what your parenting questions or concerns may be, from helping your child avoid becoming part of America’s child obesity epidemic to dealing with behavior problems, experts can help.

In his book The Ten Basic Principles of Good Parenting, Laurence Steinberg, PhD, provides tips and guidelines based on some 75 years of social science research. Follow them and you can avert all sorts of child behavior problems, he says.

Good parenting helps foster empathy, honesty, self-reliance, self-control, kindness, cooperation, and cheerfulness, says Steinberg, a distinguished professor of psychology at Temple University in Philadelphia. It also promotes intellectual curiosity, motivation, and encourages a desire to achieve. Good parenting also helps protect children from developing anxiety, depression, eating disorders, antisocial behavior, and alcohol and drug abuse.

Here are Dr. Steinberg’s 10 principles of good parenting:

1. What you do matters. Whether it’s your own health behaviors or the way you treat other people, your children are learning from what you do. “This is one of the most important principles,” Steinberg explains. “What you do makes a difference…Don’t just react on the spur of the moment. Ask yourself, What do I want to accomplish, and is this likely to produce that result?”

2. You cannot be too loving. “It is simply not possible to spoil a child with love,” Steinberg writes. “What we often think of as the product of spoiling a child is never the result of showing a child too much love. It is usually the consequence of giving a child things in place of love — things like leniency, lowered expectations, or material possessions.”

3. Be involved in your child’s life. “Being an involved parent takes time and is hard work, and it often means rethinking and rearranging your priorities. It frequently means sacrificing what you want to do for what your child needs to do. Be there mentally as well as physically.”

Being involved does not mean doing a child’s homework — or correcting it. “Homework is a tool for teachers to know whether the child is learning or not,” Steinberg says. “If you do the homework, you’re not letting the teacher know what the child is learning.”

4. Adapt your parenting to fit your child. Keep pace with your child’s development. Your child is growing up. Consider how age is affecting the child’s behavior.

“The same drive for independence that is making your 3-year-old say ‘no’ all the time is what’s motivating him to be toilet trained,” writes Steinberg. “The same intellectual growth spurt that is making your 13-year-old curious and inquisitive in the classroom also is making her argumentative at the dinner table.”

5. Establish and set rules. “If you don’t manage your child’s behavior when he is young, he will have a hard time learning how to manage himself when he is older and you aren’t around. Any time of the day or night, you should always be able to answer these three questions: Where is my child? Who is with my child? What is my child doing? The rules your child has learned from you are going to shape the rules he applies to himself.

“But you can’t micromanage your child,” Steinberg notes. “Once they’re in middle school, you need to let the child do their own homework, make their own choices and not intervene.”

6. Foster your child’s independence. “Setting limits helps your child develop a sense of self-control. Encouraging independence helps her develop a sense of self-direction. To be successful in life, she’s going to need both.”

It’s normal for children to push for autonomy, says Steinberg. “Many parents mistakenly equate their child’s independence with rebelliousness or disobedience. Children push for independence because it is part of human nature to want to feel in control rather than to feel controlled by someone else.”

7. Be consistent. “If your rules vary from day to day in an unpredictable fashion or if you enforce them only intermittently, your child’s misbehavior is your fault, not his. Your most important disciplinary tool is consistency. Identify your non-negotiables. The more your authority is based on wisdom and not on power, the less your child will challenge it.”

8. Avoid harsh discipline. Parents should never hit a child, under any circumstances, Steinberg says. “Children who are spanked, hit, or slapped are more prone to fighting with other children,” he writes. “They are more likely to be bullies and more likely to use aggression to solve disputes with others.”

“There are many other ways to discipline a child — including ‘time out’ — which work better and do not involve aggression.”

9. Explain your rules and decisions. “Good parents have expectations they want their child to live up to,” he writes. “Generally, parents overexplain to young children and underexplain to adolescents. What is obvious to you may not be evident to a 12-year-old. He doesn’t have the priorities, judgment, or experience that you have.”

10. Treat your child with respect. “The best way to get respectful treatment from your child is to treat him respectfully,” Steinberg writes. “You should give your child the same courtesies you would give to anyone else. Speak to him politely. Respect his opinion. Pay attention when he is speaking to you. Treat him kindly. Try to please him when you can. Children treat others the way their parents treat them. Your relationship with your child is the foundation for her relationships with others.”

For example, if your child is a picky eater: “I personally don’t think parents should make a big deal about eating,” Steinberg says. “Children develop food preferences. They often go through them in stages. You don’t want to turn mealtimes into unpleasant occasions. Just don’t make the mistake of substituting unhealthy foods. If you don’t keep junk food in the house, they won’t eat it.”

لا تعليقات

Introduction

Over the past decade, many schools have investigated the educational possibilities of mobile computing. More recently, an increasing number of K-12 schools are implementing the use of laptop computers. Improvements in portable computing technology and examples of successful pilot programs using laptops and other portables have inspired many K-12 schools to consider laptops for their students.

Emergence of Laptops in Schools

Organized laptop programs in higher education date as far back as 1988 when Drew University in Madison, New Jersey, began providing notebook computers (paid for from tuition) to all incoming freshman. Now more than 50 postsecondary institutions worldwide require at least some of their students to use laptops (Brown, 1999). Throughout the 1990s, a number of private schools in the United States and abroad began requiring ownership of laptops. In 1996, inspired by the successful use of laptops in Australian schools, the Microsoft Corporation and Toshiba began one of the most high-profile programs now underway, currently known as Microsoft’s Anytime Anywhere Learning (AAL) Program (Healey, 1999). Technology corporations, such as NetSchools (http://www.studypro.com/), NoteSys Inc. (http://www.notesys.com/), Apple (http://www.apple.com/education/), and others are promoting the use of laptops in K-12 education, providing hardware packages for schools, and in some cases, software and technical support as well.

Transitions to Laptops

How are schools integrating laptops into their technology infrastructure? Microsoft commissioned an ongoing study of Anytime Anywhere Learning, published as the Rockman Report. In their study, Rockman (1998) identified five models of laptop use currently in place at the K-12 level:

• Concentrated-each student has his or her own laptop for use at home or in school
• Class set-a school-purchased classroom set is shared among teachers
• Dispersed-in any given classroom, there are students with and without laptops
• Desktop-each classroom is permanently assigned a few laptops for students to share
• Mixed-some combination of the above models.

Each model has potential advantages, either in terms of instructional benefits, ease of implementation, or savings. In the concentrated model, teachers are free to integrate technology fully into instruction as well as assignments, since all students have access to a computer for homework, study, and projects. In the class set and dispersed models, teachers are free to integrate laptops during the school day; however, there may still be students within the same class who lack access to a computer in the home, so integration options are more limited. In the desktop model, although the computers are owned and maintained by the school, a student working on a computer-based project during the school day might be allowed to take the laptop home to complete their work. Also, teachers are better able to reconfigure their classroom setup to suit their technology integration needs. Laptops can also take the place of desktops in a traditional lab setting. For example, the Cuba-Rushford School District in Allegheny County, New York, created a 70-computer laptop lab. These computers are available for checkout to their middle and high school students. For many schools, the primary advantage of laptops over desktops is in creating opportunities for all students to have access to a computer both during and outside of the school day.

Portable Alternatives

Traditional laptops are not the only portable computers appearing in elementary and secondary institutions. Some schools uncomfortable with the high cost of laptops have explored the advantages of lower-priced portables designed for K-12 students. The AlphaSmart and DreamWriter, for example, make it possible to provide each student with a rechargeable portable that can be used for word processing or keyboarding instruction at a fraction of the cost of a traditional laptop. Some mini-portables do more than word processing. Casio’s Cassiopeia Computer Extender, for example, includes the graphing program Maple as well as Geometer’s Sketchpad, a dynamic geometry program. This mini-portable can therefore be used in math and science instruction at the high school level. In addition to scaled-down portables, manufacturers are also designing full-scale laptops with younger students in mind. The StudyPro, for example, is a durable infrared wireless laptop with few moving parts marketed specifically for K-12 use. Also, Apple’s AirPort wireless network hub is another wireless technology designed to meet the needs of laptop schools. With wireless networks, schools can allow multiple users to share a single network connection, as well as avoid some of the hassle and expense of physical cabling.

Classroom Experiences

Educators who work with laptops have begun to explore their unique advantages. The 1999 Laptop Learning Challenge sponsored by Toshiba and the National Science Teacher’s Association (http://www.nsta.org/programs/laptop/index.htm) recently recognized innovative uses of laptops in K-12 mathematics and science education. Some award-winning ideas showed students using laptops to facilitate group work, to analyze data immediately during a lab exercise, or to conduct scientific investigations in the field rather than in the classroom. Evaluators of the Copernicus Project, a multi-district laptop pilot program in Seattle, Washington, found laptops to be especially suited for writing activities, student projects, and presentations (Fouts & Stuen, 1997). Other uses for laptops include creating spreadsheets to solve math homework problems; creating book reports that inspire student creativity with presentation software such as PowerPoint or HyperStudio; or having students routinely hand in assignments via floppy disk or connect to the school network and save their work to a central file server for the teacher to review, add comments, and leave for the student to retrieve.

Does Research Support The Use of Laptops?

Several studies suggest educational benefits related to laptop use. Specific benefits noted include increased student motivation (Gardner 1994, Rockman, 1998), a shift toward more student-centered classroom environments (Stevenson, 1998; Rockman, 1998), and better school attendance than students not using laptops (Stevenson, 1998). In his study of a laptop pilot program in Beaufort, South Carolina, Stevenson (1998) also reported that students with laptops demonstrated a “sustained level of academic achievement” during their middle school years, as opposed to students not using laptops who tended to decline during this same period. He also noted that these academic benefits were most significant in at-risk student populations.

In their study of laptop use in middle school science classrooms, Fisher and Stolarchuk (1998) found that those laptop classrooms in which skills and the process of inquiry were emphasized had the most positive impact on student learning and attitudes. According to Rockman, a majority of teachers in laptop schools reported an increase in both cooperative learning and project-based instruction. Other research has not supported the educational benefits of laptop use.

Gardner (1993) found that the impact of laptops after one year was “at best marginal” on achievement in mathematics, science, and writing. Also, Fisher and Stolarchuk reported a more positive relationship between laptops and student attitudes than between laptops and academic achievement. Research into the educational use of laptops has only begun; relatively few K-12 schools have had laptops in place long enough to generate longitudinal studies of their impact on student achievement. It remains to be seen what additional research will reveal about the long-term impact of laptops on student achievement and outcomes.

Equity Controversy

With growing concern over equity in access to technology, laptop programs have become increasingly attractive. Whether through leasing programs, purchasing refurbished hardware, or obtaining technology grants, many schools hope to reduce their student-to-computer ratio by considering some form of laptop program. Critics point out the possibilities of theft, vandalism, and accidental damage. Newer “student-friendly” laptop models address some of these issues; not only are they more durable, but some have included theft-deterrent technology as well.

However, despite the creative educational possibilities of laptops and promise of equitable access for all students, added costs in the form of hardware, network costs, technical support considerations, and faculty training remain the greatest obstacles. The presence of laptops in a school does not necessarily imply student ownership; however, some schools are advocating or requiring student purchase or rental. Partnerships between schools, nonprofit organizations, and corporations can defray costs, but ultimately parents share the expense with schools that hope to put a laptop in the hands of every child (Wishengrad, 1999). For this reason, there is concern among some that laptop programs may worsen technology inequities among students for families who are unable to assume these costs (Jameson, 1999). The controversy over laptops is not limited to issues of equity and cost, however; the Texas Board of Education recently made headlines by suggesting the state replace all textbooks with CD-ROMS and fund a laptop leasing program for all 3.9 million students with the estimated $1.8 billion in savings over six years (Mendels, 1998). Despite these issues, many educators hoping to bring the benefits of educational technology to more students continue to look for creative ways to overcome these obstacles.

Summary

The future of mobile computing in K-12 education is still uncertain. Laptops may never become as common in classrooms as hand-held calculators. Solutions for issues of cost, technical support needs, security, and equitable access are challenging for many schools. Many schools with laptops, however, remain positive and enthusiastic about the changes observed and benefits their students derive from access to portable computers. Although many laptop programs are young and studies are still in progress, research has shown educational benefits from the use of laptops, particularly with respect to increasing student motivation and creating more student-centered classrooms. Continuing improvements in student portable computing technology as well as models of successful programs may make laptops an increasingly attractive option for K-12 educators and technology planners

لا تعليقات

Lifelong Learning

A myth, in one sense, is a vision or story describing an ideal or utopian state (Wain 2000). The concept of lifelong learning is surrounded by competing myths or visions that represent very different perspectives about the purposes and goals of education. “As is the case of other desirable social objectives, there is often a perceived gap between the ideal and the reality, the theory and the practice, the promise and the performance” (Holford, Jarvis, and Griffin 1998, p. 22). This publication examines some of these myths.

Lifelong Learning: Your Money or Your Life?

The idea that learning takes place throughout life has long been espoused by the adult education field (Martin 2000). In the 1990s, policymakers around the globe seized on the concept. The European Union declared 1996 the European Year of Lifelong Learning, and a flood of policy documents has been produced by government agencies in the United Kingdom and United States (Oliver 1999; 21st Century Skills 1999; U.S. Department of Labor 1999). The vision depicted in these documents is of a world transformed by a global economy and technological change, increasing access to information and altering traditional forms of knowledge production (Hake 1999). Individuals, organizations, and nations must adapt flexibly and continuously in order to compete and survive. The key to survival, it is stressed, is lifelong learning, the foundation of learning organizations, a learning society, a learning culture (Fryer et al. 1999; Hake 1999).

These influential policy statements and the initiatives resulting from them are based on a predominantly economic rationale. They argue that globalization and technological change are widespread and permanent, and they suggest that shortages of high-level skills and inadequate education and training systems put the economic competitiveness of nations at risk. New work systems that require flexible, autonomous workers make human capital the most important resource in learning organizations. Continuous upgrading of skills is viewed as an investment in human capital (Coffield 1997). Lifelong skill development is considered primarily an individual responsibility. The role of the state, in partnership with employers, is to provide access to learning opportunities among which individuals are free to choose (ibid.).

However, the human capital/economic perspective has been the subject of intensive critique, primarily in the United Kingdom and other European nations. Wain (2000) describes how “actively propagated myths can be very persuasively represented as reality to the extent that people behave toward them as though they were real” (p. 39). As Wain and others (Bagnall 2000; Baptiste 1999; Oliver 1999) observe, the human capital perspective assumes that the new global economic order is inevitable and that desirable changes are driven by market and technological forces. In this view, lifelong learning is “an inherently good thing and as such requires little, or no further justification” (Atkin 2000, p. 258). Many publications begin with these assumptions, which are criticized on the one hand for being based on values and ideology (Oliver 1999) and on the other for being accepted uncritically and without examination (Coffield 1997).

The chief criticisms of the economic rationale include the following (Baptiste 1999; Coffield 1997; Hake 1999; Oliver 1999): (1) it turns education from a public good to a private commodity, reducing individuals to their worker/producer/consumer roles, including consumers of educational services; (2) it shifts responsibility to the individual and ignores the socially constructed nature of learning; (3) it overemphasizes the instrumental and vocational purposes of learning to the exclusion of others; and (4) it rewards primarily those learning activities that can show a visible and quick return.

It is true that levels of formal educational attainment and expenditures on employee training continue to increase (Livingstone 1999), some of which can be attributed directly or indirectly to policy initiatives. And the learning marketplace does increase flexibility and choice for some, but the experience of the learning organization and the opportunities it offers is quite different for workers in the new categories of “permanent core, contractual fringe, and flexible periphery” (Hake 1999, p. 84). These new forms of work have increased underemployment and job insecurity (Livingstone 1999; Oliver 1999). One in 10 workers is in a nontraditional arrangement, the majority not by choice (U.S. Department of Labor 1999). Even in companies that are considered model learning organizations, “efforts expended in learning, in being flexible.go unrewarded” (Holford, Jarvis, and Griffin 1999, p. 288).

Despite some examples to the contrary in some countries and industries, there is a gap between the demand for and supply of educated workers, between employers’ claims for skill needs and their actual hiring practices (Coffield 1997). Most job growth since 1970 has been in the services sector. Although jobs in high-tech areas and those requiring higher qualifications are among the fastest growing, occupational growth rates should not be confused with the actual numbers of new jobs (Rothstein 1999). In other words, individuals are encouraged to improve their skills continuously, yet they may be competing for a limited number of high-skill jobs. The lack of skilled workers is presented as the total explanation for a much more complex situation. A “let them eat skills” approach (Coffield 1997) suggests that workers must adapt to the “inevitable” system without questioning whether the system can or should be changed.

An alternative to the human capital approach is a vision of lifelong learning based on social capital theory (Schuller 1998). In human capital theory, individuals make economically rational choices to build their “capital” by developing skills and accumulating educational qualifications; outcomes are measured in terms of income, productivity, and other economic indicators of success. In contrast, individuals’ stock of social capital is built through relationships based on trust and acceptance of mutual obligations, social values and norms encourage working for the common good, and outcomes are measured in terms of social well-being (ibid.). In this view, lifelong learning is a public good with the goal of enriching individuals and society. Rather than worklong learning (Hunt 1999), which focuses on preparation for occupational goals, lifelong learning prepares individuals for a variety of life roles, including citizenship. However, strong social capital could actually hinder learning in close-knit societies where someone who acquires educational qualifications risks separation from the community (Schuller 1998).

The economic story (or myth) is not intrinsically wrong-of course there is value in developing knowledgeable workers and a healthy economy (Hunt 1999; Schuller 1998). But it is a highly selective story that limits the purposes and goals of lifelong learning. Adding social capital to the narrative, as well as recognizing individual learning goals that may have neither economic nor social benefits, makes for a broader perspective.

The Learning Divide

To complicate the picture further, not all of the policy discourse on lifelong learning focuses exclusively on an economic vision. Many policy documents express concern for social inclusion, for widening participation in learning, for equity and social justice issues (Martin 2000). Disparities in educational attainment and increased socioeconomic inequities are recognized, and the value of personal development, social learning, and active citizenship is acknowledged (Coffield 1997; Martin 2000). However, the discussion about widening access depicts a divide between participants and nonparticipants, learners and nonlearners. This issue may also be viewed in terms of competing myths.

The rhetoric about the learning society seems to be based on the belief that most adults do not participate in learning and the solution is to provide access and motivation (Tight 1998). However, there is conflicting evidence about participation. Much research consistently finds that those who have higher educational attainment participate more in lifelong learning; professional, managerial, and college-educated workers are more likely to receive employer-sponsored training (Coffield 1997; 21st Century Skills 1999). But other studies have contradictory findings that reflect differences in how learning and participation are defined (Tight 1998). Does participation mean formal study resulting in degree completion? Full time? Credit or noncredit? Does informal learning count and how is it measured? The divide may not be between learners and nonlearners but between what kinds of learning are recognized and legitimized or not (ibid.).

A longitudinal study by Gorard et al. (1998) found evidence of a “learning trajectory”-a stable learning identity or pattern over the lifespan, as well as a strong correlation between socioeconomic status and participation in formal learning. They concluded that nonparticipants may not see education as appropriate or beneficial. It may be an issue of such barriers as unwillingness to incur debt, lack of time, or family responsibilities, or it may be the nature of the opportunities themselves, not a deficiency in attitude or motivation.

Often, the use of the word “learning” in policy documents narrowly means “planned, purposeful, and intended learning,” not the type of learning people do all the time-the ongoing process of change and adaptation to life circumstances (Coffield 1997; Tight 1999). There are no “nonlearners,” though there may be nonparticipants in formal learning activities. Learning is not merely the acquisition of information or skills but a significant change in capability or understanding (Coffield 1997).

Related to participation myths is the idea that adult learning is a voluntary activity. Learning society rhetoric, financial incentives, and employer and social pressures are resulting in a new form of compulsory learning, learning as a “life sentence,” a new form of social control (Coffield 1997; Tight 1999). The implication is that “lifelong learning is a duty, a moral obligation for any responsible member of society” (Atkin 2000, p. 255).

Conclusion

Neither the human capital nor the social capital perspective tells the whole story about lifelong learning. The competing visions differ in their beliefs about the purposes of learning and they depend on one’s position: educational provider, employer, policymaker, individual (Oliver 1999). There is value on both sides, but the human capital approach has predominated in practice, benefitting only some groups and restricting the vision of a learning society to one aspect of human experience-work. A more inclusive vision of lifelong learning would define it more broadly as “the capacity to learn to live a life in changing times” (Hake 1999, p. 87). In this view, learning involves the extension of human potential and is an intrinsically worthwhile endeavor (Atkin 2000). In practice this must include learning for citizenship and democratic participation as well as work and leisure (Oliver 1999). The Learning Society should be rooted in the culture of learning in families and communities as well as workplaces and marketplaces.

لا تعليقات

Computers and Young Children

whether we use technology with young children-and if so, how-are critical issues facing

early childhood educators and parents. This Digest discusses questions about when children should start using computers; developmentally ap-propriate computer activities in preschool, kindergarten, and early primary classrooms; benefits of computer use; integration of computers into classrooms; and teacher training.

When to Introduce Children to Computers

Many researchers do not recommend that children under 3 years old use computers (e.g., Hohmann, 1998). Computers simply do not match their learning style. Children younger than 3 learn through their bodies: their eyes, ears, mouths, hands, and legs. Although they may return over and over again to an activity, they are full of movement, changing focus frequently. Computers are not a good choice for the developmental skills these children are learning to master: crawling, walking, talking, and making friends.

Developmentally Appropriate Computer Activities

Unfortunately, computers are used all too often in ways that are developmentally inappropriate. One study (U.S. Congress, 1995) found that while “schools are steadily increasing their access to new technologies . . . most teachers use these technologies in traditional ways, including drills in basic skills and instructional games” (p. 103). Clements (1994) makes a similar point, noting, “What we as early childhood educators are presently doing most often with computers is what research and NAEYC guidelines say we should be doing least often” (p. 33).

Papert (1998) stresses that computers have an impact on children when the computer provides concrete experiences, children have free access and control the learning experience, children and teachers learn together, teachers encourage peer tutoring, and teachers use computers to teach powerful ideas.

Developmentally appropriate ways to use computers with 3- and 4-year-olds are different from the ways we use computers in kindergarten and the primary grades.

Computers and Preschoolers. Children 3 and 4 years of age are developmentally ready to explore computers, and most early childhood educators see the computer center as a valuable activity center for learning. Timing is crucial. Chil-dren need plenty of time to experiment and explore. Young children are comfortable clicking various options to see what is going to happen next. Teachers may want to intervene when children appear frustrated or when nothing seems to be happening. Frequently, just a quick word or two, even from across the room, reminds children what they need to do next to reach their desired goal. Providing children with minimal help teaches them they can operate the computer successfully. In addition, by observing what children are do-ing, the teacher can ask probing questions or propose prob-lems to enhance and expand children’s computer experiences.

Computers for Kindergartners and Early Primary Children. As children enter kindergarten and the primary grades, it is important that they continue to have access to a computer center with a library of developmentally appropriate software. Children need opportunities to make choices about some of their computer experiences. In addition, kindergarten or primary-grade teachers will want to use the computer for more directed activities that match their learning objectives. For example, to enhance language skills, children can compose a letter to a friend or relative using the template provided in ClarisWorks for Kids or similar software.

Children could also work in small groups. For example, one group might use software such as Scholastic’s Magic School Bus Explores the Rainforest to compare two of the seven ecozones in the program. Using software such as Edmark’s Kids’ Desk: Internet Safe, other small groups can investigate these two ecozones on Internet Web sites selected by the teacher. The groups might then merge to share their discoveries and write a report on the ecozones, illustrating each with pictures drawn by members of the group or downloaded from the Internet sites. Through exploring computer experiences, these children build memory skills, learn how to seek out information from multiple sources until they have a clear understanding of ecosystems, and integrate their knowledge of how each ecosystem functions. In the process, they learn to delegate responsibility, interact with others, solve problems, and cooperate to reach a goal.

Benefits of Computer Use

Research has shown that 3- and 4-year-old children who use computers with supporting activities that reinforce the major objectives of the programs have significantly greater developmental gains when compared to children without computer experiences in similar classrooms-gains in intelligence, nonverbal skills, structural knowledge, long-term memory, manual dexterity, verbal skills, problem solving, abstraction, and conceptual skills (Haugland, 1992).

The benefits of providing computers to kindergarten and primary-grade children vary depending upon the kind of computer experiences offered and how frequently children have access to computers. The potential gains for kindergarten and primary children are tremendous, including improved motor skills, enhanced mathematical thinking, increased creativity, higher scores on tests of critical thinking and problem solving, higher levels of what Nastasi and Clements (1994) term effectance motivation (the belief that they can change or affect their environment), and increased scores on standardized language assessments.

In addition, computer use enhances children’s self-concept, and children demonstrate increasing levels of spoken communication and cooperation. Children share leadership roles more frequently and develop positive attitudes toward learning (Clements, 1994; Cardelle-Elawar & Wetzel, 1995; Adams, 1996; Denning & Smith, 1997; Haugland & Wright, 1997; Matthew, 1997).

Integration of Computers into the Classroom

Early childhood programs serve diverse populations and have different schedules, curriculums, staffing patterns, re-sources, and so on. Goals for computer use and the steps that schools take to integrate computers into their class-rooms may be completely different but equally successful.

A viable beginning is for teachers, administrators, and parents to share magazine, journal, and newspaper articles they have seen regarding children using computers. A study group of all the individuals who have expressed interest in children using computers can then be organized. The next step is to summarize the benefits of using computers with young children and to discuss goals for the year, including the cost of computers and teacher training.

A first goal may be obtaining computers. The ratio of computers to young children is important-at most 1 to 7, preferably 1 to 5. If this ratio cannot be met with the resources available, it is far better to use a set of computers in a classroom for a month, quarter, or semester and then rotate them to another classroom. Equal access for children is essential; even the most talented teacher will have difficulty integrating computers into his or her classroom with only one computer.

To help in computer selection, the study group can seek out mentors who have expertise using computers. These mentors might be teachers currently using computers, a professor at a college, or leaders in business. The study group may also want to brainstorm possible fund-raising activities and explore the possibility of obtaining used computers from businesses-making sure the computers have the capacity to run software that is currently being marketed for young children.

Teacher Training

Teacher training is essential for computers to be an effective teaching tool. A recent report reveals that only a few teach-ers in a relatively small number of schools have been trained to maximize technology use in classrooms (Gatewood & Conrad, 1997). Training opportunities enable teachers to build skills and confidence and learn strategies to integrate computers into their curriculum. Epstein (1993) identified four critical components of training: practical experience, work-shops, models and mentors, and supervisory follow-up.

As a first step, teachers can explore software that is develop-mentally appropriate for their classrooms. Teachers can then discuss the potential learning objectives of the programs and activities they could use to integrate particular software into their classrooms. Teachers can also participate in workshops that integrate the developmental theory and research regarding computer use with hands-on experiences. Mentors can also provide teachers with affirmation, support, and suggestions for classroom use.

As teachers implement technology in the classroom, their vision of the role of technology in teaching and learning will undoubtedly change. Administrators need to continually support teachers in their quest to discover how technology can best enhance children’s learning.

لا تعليقات

مرحبا بكم موقعي Riyadhschools.net. هذه هي رسالتك الأولى تستطيع التعديل أو الحذف أو كتابة رسالة جديدة!

تعليق واحد