[SOLVED] Research Methods for Early Childhood – Humanities

Things to note:- APA style- Article given for you to analyze- Please only bid if you are familiar with Research Methods!!- Study guide attached for referenceHow to cite this Study Guide (APA):Lim, C. I. (2019). ECE306 Early childhood research methods (Study Guide). Singapore: Singapore University of Social Sciences————Question 1 (1750 words)Answer this question based on the following research report:• Sullivan, A., & Bers, M. U. (2018). Dancing robots: integrating art, music, and robotics in Singapore’s early childhood centers. International Journal of Technology and Design Education, 28(2), 325-346.Write an original, critical analysis of Sullivan and Bers’s (2018) research report.a) Assuming that the references used in the literature review are accurately cited, examine how well the literature review aligns with the research topic, research questions and the study’s theoretical framework.b) Examine the appropriateness of the sampling, data collection and data analysis methods for addressing the research questions.c) Discuss the extent to which the findings address the study’s research questions.d) Discuss the limitations of this study and the kinds of questions that you still have about early technology and engineering education that have not been answered by this study.Question 2 (1750 words)Based on your thorough critique of Sullivan and Bers’s (2018) report and relevant literature in early technology and engineering education, design an early childhood research project to address RELATED research questions within the SINGAPORE EARLY CHILDHOOD context. You could choose to modify or refine the study’s questions or extend the study’s findings. Your project plan should include the following:i) Titleii) Purpose Statement and Research Questioniii) Participants (include ethic issues as well — eg consent etc)iv) Data Collection Methodsv) Data Analysis PlanJustifications and explanations for each of the above from ii) to v) must be provided. Utilise course readings where applicable.Int J Technol Des Educ
DOI 10.1007/s10798-017-9397-0
Dancing robots: integrating art, music, and robotics
in Singapore’s early childhood centers
Amanda Sullivan1 • Marina Umaschi Bers1
Accepted: 11 January 2017
Springer Science+Business Media Dordrecht 2017
Abstract In recent years, Singapore has increased its national emphasis on technology and
engineering in early childhood education. Their newest initiative, the Playmaker Programme,
has focused on teaching robotics and coding in preschool settings. Robotics offers a playful and
collaborative way for children to engage with foundational technology and engineering concepts
during their formative early childhood years. This study looks at a sample of preschool children
(N = 98) from five early childhood centers in Singapore who completed a 7-week STEAM
(Science, Technology, Engineering, Arts, and Mathematics) KIBO robotics curriculum in their
classrooms called, ‘‘Dances from Around the World.’’ KIBO is a newly developed robotics kit
that teaches both engineering and programming. KIBO’s actions are programmed using tangible
programming blocks—no screen-time required. Children’s knowledge of programming concepts were assessed upon completion of the curriculum using the Solve-Its assessment. Results
indicate that children were highly successful at mastering foundational programming concepts.
Additionally, teachers were successful at promoting a collaborative and creative environment,
but less successful at finding ways to engage with the greater school community through
robotics. This research study was part of a large country-wide initiative to increase the use of
developmentally appropriate engineering tools in early childhood settings. Implications for the
design of technology, curriculum, and other resources are addressed.
Keywords Robotics Early childhood STEAM Programming
Introduction
Around the world children are growing up with digital devices and innovative technologies
that are influencing the culture they are immersed in as well as their own personal
development (Berson and Berson 2010; Buckleitner 2009; Calvert et al. 2005; Chiong and
& Amanda Sullivan
Amanda.sullivan@tufts.edu
1
The DevTech Research Group at Tufts University, 105 College Ave, Medford, MA 02155, USA
123
A. Sullivan, M. U. Bers
Shuler 2010; Couse and Chen 2010; Kerawalla and Crook 2002; Lisenbee 2009; Lonigan
& Shanahan 2009; Rideout et al. 2011). As technologies are becoming increasingly present
in home settings (Common Sense Media 2013), the use of educational technology in school
settings has also expanded accordingly in recent years. In the United States, new federal
initiatives have been making computer science and technological literacy a priority for
young children (e.g. U.S. Department of Education 2010). In 2014, U.S. President Barack
Obama brought public attention to coding and technology when he wrote his first line of
Javascript and became one of over 100 million people worldwide to have participated in
Code.org’s ‘‘Hour of Code’’ event. In 2016, President Obama unveiled a plan to give
students all across the U.S. a chance to learn computer science (White House 2016).
During this time there has also been a rise in interest among non-profits and other organizations bringing computer science to elementary schools across the U.S. through institutions like Code.org and the Code-to-Learn Foundation (Portelance et al. 2015).
Outside of the U.S., a growing number of other countries and regions, such as the
United Kingdom, have established clear policies and frameworks for introducing technology and computer programming to young children (Siu and Lam 2003; UK Department
of Education 2013). The United Kingdom released a national curriculum framework in
2013 that included computing as an educational domain that needed to be addressed in
school beginning in early childhood. In other countries, such as Finland, beginning in 2016
all primary school students will be required to learn programming (Pretz 2014). Some
schools in Estonia are teaching programming to children as young as six, and other
countries, such as Italy, Australia, and New Zealand are working on changing their curricula to include computer science and digital technologies (Jones 2016; Pretz 2014;
Trevallion 2014).
International nonprofits such as One Laptop Per Child have focused on providing
children as young as six living in developing nations and poorer countries with access to
technology in schools and homes. One Laptop Per Child has reached 36 countries since its
launch in 2005 including Peru, Argentina, Mexico, and Rwanda (one.laptop.org; Cristia
et al. 2012). In Uruguay, One Laptop Per Child has uniquely focused on very young
children in preschool and first grade as part of a plan to get educational technology into the
hands of young children six and under (see one.laptop.org).
Singapore has been working to update their early childhood curricula in order to keep
up with this international trend and address the growing need for engineering programs in
early childhood school (Pretz 2014; Digital News Asia 2015). Singapore’s government
recently launched the ‘‘PlayMaker Programme’’ initiative to introduce younger children to
technology (Digital News Asia 2015). The goal of the Playmaker Programme is to provide
young children (ages 4–7) with digital tools to have fun, practice problem solving, and
build confidence and creativity in a developmentally appropriate way (Digital News Asia
2015).
This newly emerging international focus on early childhood may be due to new work
demonstrating that from an economic and a developmental standpoint, educational interventions that begin in early childhood are associated with lower costs and more durable
effects than interventions that begin later on (Cunha and Heckman 2007). When it comes
to technology interventions, research suggests that children who are exposed to STEM
(Science, Technology, Engineering, and Mathematics) curriculum and programming at an
early age demonstrate fewer gender-based stereotypes regarding STEM careers (Metz
2007; Steele 1997) and fewer obstacles entering these fields (Madill et al. 2007; Markert
1996). These studies have led to the many new programs, initiatives, and mandates
teaching computer science in preschool and early elementary school.
123
Dancing robots: integrating art, music, and robotics in…
This paper presents the Playmaker Programme in Singapore as an individual example of
the global trend in education focusing on STEM in the early years. This study examines
young children’s knowledge and experiences programming using the KIBO robotics kit,
one of the tools implemented as part of Singapore’s Playmaker Programme initiative. The
research presented here examines a sample of preschool children’s mastery of foundational
programming concepts after having completed a 7-week KIBO robotics curriculum called
Dances from Around the World. Because the goal of the Playmaker Programme is not only
to instill technical knowledge, but also to promote a playful and collaborative environment,
this study also measures the frequency of children’s positive behaviors and interactions
(such as collaboration and creativity) by using Bers’ (2012) Positive Technological
Development (PTD) framework as a guide. Specifically, this study asks the following
research questions: (1) What programming concepts do preschool children master after
being exposed to KIBO? (2) How engaged were children with the different aspects of Bers’
(2012) Positive Technological Development framework while participating in the KIBO
robotics curriculum? and (3) What was this experience like for the participating teachers?
Implications for designing country-wide initiatives and evaluations for early childhood
technology education are addressed.
Literature review
STEM and STEAM education in early childhood
For decades early childhood education has focused on an exploration of numeracy and the
natural sciences when it came to STEM (Science, Technology, Engineering, Mathematics)
education in the early years (Bers 2008; Bers et al. 2013). With the advent of new technologies, curricula, and country-wide initiatives, parents and educators have recently
begun to focus on the missing ‘‘T’’ of technology and ‘‘E’’ of engineering in early
childhood STEM programs (Bers et al. 2013). Amidst this focus on technology, the United
States has seen a fivefold increase in ownership of tablet devices such as iPads, from 8% of
all families in 2011 to 40% in 2013 (Common Sense Media 2013). State curriculum
frameworks in the United States have shifted and now include requirements for gaining
exposure to engineering beginning in early childhood. For example, in Massachusetts,
children need to be exposed to the Engineering Design Process and practice designing
solutions to problems beginning in first grade (MA Curriculum Frameworks 2016).
As technology becomes increasingly present, many researchers and educators have also
expressed concern that excessive usage of computers and digital technologies may actually
stifle children’s learning and creativity through passive consumption (e.g. Cordes and
Miller 2000; Oppenheimer 2003). In order to address these concerns, researchers and
educators have begun to focus on the ways new technologies can be used to foster positive
behaviors and to engage children as creators rather than passive consumers of their digital
experience (Bers 2012; Resnick 2006). For example, Resnick (2006) likens the computer to
a paintbrush and describes it as a medium for self-expression and creative design. Bers
(2012) likens technology to a playground that has the potential to engage children socially,
physically, and creatively just as traditional toys and play structures do.
In Singapore, focusing on the positive potential of technology is a major cornerstone of
the country’s educational technology in early childhood movement. According to the
Director of Education at Singapore’s Infocomm Development Authority (IDA), Singapore
123
A. Sullivan, M. U. Bers
is trying to change the idea of what technology in preschool settings would look like, from
a screen-based approach to a maker-centered approach (Chambers 2015). But when it
comes to creating the ‘‘playground’’ environment through digital technology described by
Bers (2012), traditional STEM (Science, Technology, Engineering, and Mathematics)
curricula and tools do not always successfully foster the open-ended imaginative, playful,
and creative behaviors that technology education has the power to cultivate.
Integrating with other disciplines, such as the arts, can help teachers more easily think
about using technology to encourage creativity in young children. In order to do this, a
newer acronym called ‘‘STEAM’’ (Science, Technology, Engineering, Arts, Mathematics)
has expanded on STEM and is growing in popularity (Yakman 2008). The ‘‘A’’ of ‘‘arts’’
in STEAM goes beyond just the visual arts and crafts to represent a broad spectrum of the
arts including the liberal arts, language arts, social studies, music, culture, and more.
Studying these fields through STEM projects can have a powerful impact on how children
grow and develop. For example, Maguth (2012) proposes that social studies content should
also be integrated into a STEM-focused curriculum in order to promote the development of
well-rounded citizens prepared for voting on ethical and social issues related to STEM.
Moreover, adding the arts to STEM-based subjects may enhance student learning by
infusing opportunities for creativity and innovation (Robelen 2011). New technologies,
such as programmable robotics kits (described in the following section), offer unique ways
to integrate the arts and creative design with traditional STEM content.
Coding and robotics for young children
Robotics and programming provide a fun and hands-on way to introduce young children to
all aspects of STEM, but especially to core components of the ‘‘T’’ of technology and ‘‘E’’
of engineering that is often missing from preschool curricula in a hands-on and creative
way (Bers 2008). While engaging children with the engineering design process and
technology, programming robots also provides opportunities for supporting the ‘‘M’’ of
mathematics through sequencing, estimation, and counting and the ‘‘S’’ of science through
an exploration of sensing, cause and effect, and conducting observations (Bers 2008;
Kazakoff et al. 2013).
Research suggests that children as young as 4 years old can successfully build and
program simple robots while learning foundational of engineering and robotics concepts in
the process (Bers et al. 2002; Cejka et al. 2006; Perlman 1976; Sullivan et al. 2013;
Sullivan and Bers 2015; Wyeth 2008). Robotics can also serve to foster numerous other
developmental benefits. For example, robotic manipulatives allow children to develop fine
motor skills and hand-eye coordination while also engaging in collaboration and teamwork
(Lee et al. 2013; Bers et al. 2013). Additionally, robotics and programming allows children
to exercise meta-cognitive, problem-solving, and reasoning skills (e.g. Clements and Gullo
1984; Clements and Meredith 1992).
New robotics kits have evolved to become the modern generation of learning manipulatives that help children develop a stronger understanding of mathematical concepts such
as number, sequencing, size, and shape in much the same way that traditional materials like
pattern blocks, beads, and balls once did (Brosterman 1997; Highfield et al. 2008; Kazakoff
et al. 2013; Resnick et al. 1998). Unlike many digital games developed for children,
building with robotics does not typically involve sitting alone, in front of a screen (Sullivan
and Bers 2015). Similar to like traditional wooden building blocks and toys like Lego,
robotic manipulatives allow children to develop fine motor skills and hand-eye coordination (Resnick et al. 1998).
123
Dancing robots: integrating art, music, and robotics in…
While many educational robotics programs focus on high intensity tasks and competition, robotics also offers the possibility of engaging children in collaboration and peer
discussions (Lee et al. 2013). Some newer STEAM initiatives that tie robotics in with the
arts have taken a different approach that focuses on creativity and fostering an inclusive
environment (Hamner and Cross 2013). When developing the robotics initiative described
in the following section, activities were selectively chosen to promote this type of creative
and collaborative learning through robotics, as opposed to the competitions characteristic
of many other robotics initiatives. However, tools were also chosen so that they would
provide the right level of difficulty to inspire problem-solving and perseverance amongst
the students.
The playmaker programme in Singapore
In order to address the growing need for new educational technology programs in early
childhood classrooms, Singapore’s newly launched PlayMaker Programme was released in
line with a master-plan to introduce younger children to technology (Chambers 2015;
Digital News Asia 2015). According to Steve Leonard the Deputy Chair of Singapore’s
Infocomm Development Authority (IDA), ‘‘As Singapore becomes a Smart Nation, our
children will need to be comfortable creating with technology’’ (IDA Singapore 2015).
Capitalizing on the growing STEAM movement, the goal of the Playmaker Programme is
not only to promote technical knowledge but also to give children tools to have fun,
practice problem solving, and build confidence and creativity (Chambers 2015; Digital
News Asia 2015).
As part of the PlayMaker Programme, 160 preschool centers across Singapore were
given a variety of technological toys that engage children with robotics, programming,
building, and engineering including: BeeBot, Circuit Stickers, and KIBO robotics
(Chambers 2015). In addition to the release of new tools, early childhood educators also
received training at a 1-day symposium on how to use and teach with each of these tools
(Chambers 2015). These pilot schools also receive ongoing tech support and assistance
with curricular integration as part of this holistic approach (IDA Singapore 2015).
This study focuses on evaluating the learning and engagement outcomes of one of the
Playmaker tools implemented: the KIBO robotics kit. KIBO is a robotics construction kit
designed specifically for children ages 4–7 to learn foundational engineering and programming skills (Sullivan and Bers 2015). The features of the KIBO kit and how it was used is
described in detail in the ‘‘Methods’’ section. In addition to evaluating what technical
concepts children master with KIBO, this study also examines the potential of KIBO robotics
to promote positive personal and social behaviors in young children. Finally, it describes the
experience from the teachers’ perspective and provides examples of successes and areas to
improve upon in future work. These are being offered as ‘‘lessons learned’’ from this pilot
year of Singapore’s Playmaker Programme that may be useful not only for future work in
Singapore, but in other countries developing new programs for early childhood education.
Methods
This study uses a mixed-method design that includes data collected from a sample of
preschool students and their teachers living in Singapore. It analyzes quantitative data (i.e.
student’s scores on programming assessments and frequency of behaviors observed) as
123
A. Sullivan, M. U. Bers
well as qualitative data (i.e. teacher interviews and journals) in order to present a full
picture of the robotics experience. It is important to include qualitative measures in order to
capture teacher opinions, feedback, and experiences that are more nuanced and cannot be
captured through solely quantitative measures.
Research overview
This study asks the following research questions:
1.
2.
3.
What programming concepts do preschool children master after being introduced to
KIBO?
How engaged were children with the different aspects of Bers’ (2012) Positive
Technological Development framework while participating in the KIBO robotics
curriculum?
What was this experience like for the participating teachers? What areas of this
initiative did they feel were successful and what areas need improvement?
Sample
A total sample of N = 98 young children from five preschool centers in Singapore participated in this research. Children ranged between 3 and 6 years of age at the start of this
study, with a mean age of 4.9 years. The centers included a representation of public,
private, and religious school settings. Five teachers (one from each of the participating
schools) were also active participants in this research. Additionally, their co-teachers,
assistant teachers, principals, and other staff contributed to informal interviews and
feedback whenever possible in order to gain a fuller picture of what this experience was
like for the schools.
Procedure
Teachers from the five preschool centers participated in a 1-day training on using the KIBO
robotics. During this training, the teachers were also introduced to the Dances from Around
the World Curriculum, developed by the DevTech Research Group, and all assessment
measures and activities they would need to implement. Dances from Around the World is a
KIBO robotics and programming curriculum that promotes an integration of technology
and engineering concepts with an exploration of music and culture. Upon completing this
training, teachers came up with their own adaptation of the curriculum and a calendar plan
for their classes. Teachers generally taught the robotics curriculum approximately once a
week for 1 hour. All schools completed a minimum of five lessons and a final project,
while some schools completed eight or more sessions with KIBO. One of the goals of this
project was to allow teachers to gain confidence adapting and teaching robotics in their
own way to meet the needs of their students, therefore they were encouraged to make
changes rather than adhere to a strict implementation plan.
Data was collected on students’ programming knowledge at the midpoint and endpoint
of curriculum implementation. Data was collected on students’ engagement with PTD
behaviors during each robotics session. These measures, including scoring and analysis, are
described in the ‘‘Assessments’’ section of this paper.
123
Dancing robots: integrating art, music, and robotics in…
Robotic technology
This project utilizes the KIBO robotics kit, created by the DevTech Research Group
through funding from the National Science Foundation. Through KinderLab Robotics,
KIBO was made commercially available through a successful Kickstarter campaign in
2014. KIBO is a robotics construction kit that involves hardware (the robot itself) and
software (tangible programming blocks) used to make the robot move (Sullivan and Bers
2015). KIBO is unique because it is explicitly designed to meet the developmental needs of
young children. The kit contains easy to connect construction materials including: wheels,
motors, light output, and a variety of sensors (see Fig. 1).
KIBO is programmed to move using interlocking wooden programming blocks (see
Fig. 2). These wooden blocks contain no embedded electronics or digital components.
Instead, KIBO has an embedded scanner in the robot. This scanner allows users to scan the
Fig. 1 KIBO robot with sensors and light output attached
Fig. 2 Sample KIBO program. This program tells the robot to spin, turn a blue light on, and shake
123
A. Sullivan, M. U. Bers
barcodes on the programming blocks and send a program to their robot instantaneously. No
computer, tablet, or other form of ‘‘screen-time’’ is required to learn programming with
KIBO. This is aligned with the American Academy of Pediatrics’ recommendation that
young children have a limited amount of screen time per day per day (American Academy
of Pediatrics 2016). KIBO’s block language contains a total of 18 different individual
programming blocks for children to learn, with many increasingly complex programming
concepts that can be introduced including repeat loops, conditional statements, and nesting
statements. Recent research KIBO has shown that beginning in pre-kindergarten children
are able to master foundational sequencing concepts using KIBO’s programming language
(Sullivan and Bers 2015). This study also found that as children got older, they were able to
master more complex concepts such as repeat loops and conditional statements (Sullivan
and Bers 2015).
In addition to these robotic and programming components, the KIBO kit also contains
art platforms that can be used for children to personalize their projects with crafts materials
and foster STEAM integration (see Fig. 3).
Curriculum
Overview
Exploration of the KIBO robot was situated within a curricular unit called ‘‘Dances from
Around the World.’’ The Dances from Around the World unit is designed to engage
children with STEAM content through an integration of music, dance, and culture using
engineering and programming tools. This unit was chosen specifically to appeal to the
multicultural nature of the Singaporean community. Singapore has a bilingual education
policy where all students in government schools are taught English as their primary language. In addition to English, students also learn another language called their ‘‘Mother
Tongue,’’ which might be Mandarin, Malay, or Tamil. Because the students in Singapore
speak different languages and have different cultural backgrounds, the Dances from
Around curriculum easily integrated into cultural appreciation and awareness units already
typically taught in the preschool classes.
Fig. 3 KIBO’s customizable art platforms
123
Dancing robots: integrating art, music, and robotics in…
Over the course of approximately 7 weeks, teachers introduced their students to a new
robotics or programming concept through weekly lessons. Each of the lessons connected to
the theme of music, culture, or dance in some way. For example, in one lesson, children
learned how to sing and dance the Hokey-Pokey and then programmed their robots to
dance the Hokey-Pokey with them. Lessons took place for approximately 1 h once a week,
leading up to a final project. Concepts from basic sequencing through conditional statements were covered.
Final robotics projects
For the final project, students worked in pairs or small groups to design, build, and program
a cultural dance from around the world (see Fig. 4). This activity drew on the cumulation
of students’ knowledge throughout the curriculum. By the culmination of the final project,
all groups had a functional KIBO robotics project that they were able to demonstrate
during the final presentations.
All groups used at least two motors and were successful at integrating arts, crafts, and
recycled materials to represent the dance of their choosing. Many groups also used sensors
and advanced programming concepts such as repeat loops and conditional statements.
Students and teachers were also successful at integrating the arts in other ways through
music, dance, costumes, and performances (see Table 1 for examples).
Fig. 4 Sample decorated Dances from Around the World final project. This project is designed to represent
Indian dancers
123
A. Sullivan, M. U. Bers
Table 1 Dances from around the world sample final projects
Themes
Examples
Robots were decorated to represent different
ethnicities in Singapore
Some children dressed up in clothing to
represent the same cultures their robots
were representing. They performed along
with the robots
Dances from all over not just Singapore, were
represented. Some students programmed
their robots to dance to music from pop
culture and movies, like Disney’s Frozen
Theoretical framework
Development and implementation of the Dances From Around curriculum was rooted in
the Positive Technological Development Framework (PTD) developed by Bers (2012).
PTD is an extension of the computer literacy and the technological fluency movements that
have influenced the world of education but adds psychosocial and ethical components to
the cognitive ones. From a theoretical perspective, PTD is an interdisciplinary approach
that integrates ideas from the fields of computer-mediated communication, computersupported collaborative learning, and the Constructionist theory of learning developed by
Seymour Papert (1993), and views them in light of research in applied development
science and positive youth development. As a theoretical framework, PTD proposes six
positive behaviors (six C’s) that should be supported by educational programs that use new
educational technologies, such as KIBO robotics. These are: communication, collaboration, community building, content creation, creativity, and choices of conduct (i.e. making
decisions and positive behavioral choices). The Dances from Around the World curriculum
was designed to foster each of these six C’s. For example, in order to foster collaboration
and communication, the activities were set up for children to work in pairs or small groups.
In order to foster community building, the curriculum culminated with an Open House
presentation that was open to the larger school community.
123
Dancing robots: integrating art, music, and robotics in…
Assessments
Solve-Its
The ‘‘Solve It’’ assessment was administered to measure students’ understanding of the
programming concepts taught with KIBO at the end of the curriculum implementation. The
Solve-Its were developed to examine young children’s knowledge of foundational programming concepts (Strawhacker et al. 2013; Strawhacker and Bers 2015). This assessment is intended to test students’ mastery of programming concepts, from basic sequencing
through conditional statements. The Solve-It tasks require children to listen to stories (that
are read aloud by a researcher) about a robot and then spend 3–5 min attempting to create
the robot’s program using programming icons on paper, For example, one story is about
the bus from the children’s song ‘‘Wheels on the Bus’’ (Strawhacker et al. 2013; Strawhacker and Bers 2015) (see Fig. 5). For each Solve-It task, children were provided with
all of the paper programming blocks they needed to solve the task. Solve-Its were scored
using a 0–6 point scoring rubric that assigns points based on how close to correct the
child’s answer was. For example, a score of 6 would indicate a Solve-It that is both
syntactically correct and correctly matches the order of events in the story.
This study analyzes Solve-It tasks that were administered to address different foundational concepts. These include the following: (1) Easy Sequencing, (2) Hard Sequencing,
(3) Easy Repeat with Numbers, (4) Hard Repeats with Numbers, and (5) Using the WaitFor Clap block. Tasks were labeled ‘‘easy’’ or ‘‘hard’’ based on how many blocks children
were required to use to complete the task (i.e. more blocks = harder task). Solve-Its were
collected at the mid-point of curriculum implementation (Mid-Test) as well as at the end of
implementation (Post-Test). While some of the same concepts were assessed at the mid and
post test, different stories and blocks were used. A pre-test was not implemented because
none of the children were introduced to KIBO or KIBO’s programming blocks prior to the
start of this study and the Solve-Its require basic KIBO knowledge to complete.
All tasks were tested out with the teachers as well as some accompanying principals and
other school staff to determine the cultural appropriateness of these stories and songs for
use in Singapore. The teachers themselves were also trained on implementing each of the
Solve-Its so that it could be administered as a class curricular activity rather than a task
administered by a researcher. This method of implementation was chosen to continue
fostering the natural class environment, as opposed to having an unfamiliar researcher
implement the Solve-Its, which may have distracted the children or made them unusually
nervous.
Fig. 5 Sample child-completed wheels on the bus Solve-It
123
A. Sullivan, M. U. Bers
PTD Engagement Checklists
The ‘‘PTD Engagement Checklist’’ is a classroom assessment based on the theoretical
foundation of Bers’ (2012) Positive Technological Development (or ‘‘PTD’’) which served
as the guiding framework for the Dances from Around the World curriculum implemented
in this study. This checklist was used by researchers to document the frequency of six
positive behaviors (or ‘‘six C’s’’) set forth in the PTD Framework including: (1) communication, (2) collaboration, (3) community building, (4) content creation, (5) creativity,
and (6) choice of conduct.
For each of the Six C’s, researchers looked for specific behaviors and marked the
frequency this behavior was observed during the robotics lesson using a 1–5 scale
(1 = Never and 5 = Always). For example, for Collaboration, researchers marked the
frequency that they observed behaviors such as, students lending materials to one another
and students receiving help from one another. The checklist was completed by a trained
researcher at the end of each lesson of the KIBO curriculum. The 1–5 scores were averaged
into a total score for each of the Six C’s for each lesson. Finally, the scores were also
averaged across all lessons for a total composite score for each of the Six C’s at the end of
the curriculum.
Teacher interviews and journals
After each robotics session, teachers completed a short journaling exercise that consisted of
five reflection questions that prompted teachers to think about the successful and/or
challenging moments during the day’s class and to describe the ways they adapted and
personalized the Dances from Around the World curriculum to meet their students’ needs.
Finally, it gave them a space to write down anything else they wanted to share that was not
captured by the structured questions.
In addition to this journal, teachers were also interviewed at the mid-point of their
curriculum implementation by a researcher. These interviews were open-ended and
unstructured with the goal of hearing the teachers’ perspective on the KIBO robotics
program thus far and to determine if they needed any additional supports for the remainder
of the study.
Results
Solve-Its programming assessment
Students’ Solve-Its were analyzed in order to determine their level of mastery of the
programming concepts taught throughout the Dances from Around the World curriculum.
Solve-Its were implemented in two waves: midtest and posttest and these results are
described here.
Solve-Its mid-test
Children’s knowledge of basic programming concepts were tested during the middle of
curriculum implementation using the Solve-Its Programming Assessment developed by the
DevTech Research Group. Students were only tested on the basic programming concepts
123
Dancing robots: integrating art, music, and robotics in…
that they had already covered up to that point (sequencing, repeats with numbers, and wait
for clap). Tasks were called ‘‘easy’’ or ‘‘hard’’ based on how many programming blocks
they utilized (i.e. ‘‘hard’’ solve its required more programming commands than ‘‘easy’’
ones that target the same concept). The Solve-Its were scored on a scale of 0–6 based on
how close they were to the correct answer.
On average, students scored extremely high on all five concepts that were implemented
at the mid-test, with mean scores of 5 or higher (out of a possible 6) on all tasks (see
Table 2). This demonstrates a high level of mastery at the midpoint of the curriculum even
before having extensive time to practice concepts during the final project.
Solve-Its post-test
At the post-test children were administered Solve-Its again to determine what concepts
they mastered by the end of curriculum implementation. Once again, results demonstrate a
very high level of mastery on all concepts taught, including advanced concepts such as
Repeats with Sensors and Conditional If Statements (see Table 3). On all tasks, students
had a mean score of 5 or higher, out of 6 possible points. For example, on the easy
sequencing task, students scored extremely high with an average close to perfect
(mean = 5.96). Students scored the lowest on the most complex topic (If Statements)
which they had the least practice with because it was the last lesson taught. However, even
their lowest mean score (5.05 on Ifs) still demonstrated a high level of mastery.
Table 2 Mid-test Solve-Its descriptive statistics
N
Minimum
Maximum
Mean
SD
Easy sequencing
78
2
6
5.13
1.408
Hard sequencing
76
3
6
5.67
.929
Easy repeat numbers
76
0
6
5.18
1.251
Hard repeat numbers
76
0
6
5.00
1.200
Wait for clap
77
0
6
5.61
1.205
N varies from task to task to account for children whose tasks were removed from analysis for reasons such
as: they had missing blocks, they provided the wrong the blocks, issues with legibility, issues with
implementation, etc
Table 3 Post-test Solve-Its
descriptive statistics
N varies from task to task to
account for children whose tasks
were removed from analysis for
reasons such as: they had missing
blocks, they provided the wrong
the blocks, issues with legibility,
issues with implementation, etc
N
Minimum
Maximum
Mean
SD
Easy sequencing
82
3
6
5.96
.331
Hard sequencing
29
2
6
5.69
.891
Easy repeat numbers
78
2
6
5.36
1.032
Hard repeat numbers
82
1
6
5.49
.933
Wait for clap
82
3
6
5.94
.396
Easy repeat sensors
77
2
6
5.22
1.119
Hard repeat sensors
78
2
6
5.27
.989
Ifs
76
2
6
5.05
1.188
123
A. Sullivan, M. U. Bers
Table 4 Paired samples statistics for Solve-Its from mid to post
Mean
N
SD
SE mean
Easy sequencing MID
5.11
76
1.420
.163
Easy sequencing POST
5.96
76
.344
.039
Pair 1
Pair 2
Hard sequencing MID
5.74
27
.813
.156
Hard sequencing POST
5.67
27
.920
.177
Pair 3
Easy repeat numbers MID
5.23
73
1.219
.143
Hard repeat numbers POST
5.49
73
.959
.112
Wait for clap MID
5.59
74
1.227
.143
Wait for clap POST
5.93
74
.416
.048
Pair 4
Changes from mid to post
Mean scores improved slightly when it came to easy sequencing, easy and hard repeats
with numbers, and the wait-for clap command (see Table 4). The more advanced concepts
(repeats with sensors and conditional statements) were only assessed at the post-test and
therefore could not be compared for change from mid to post.
Matched-Pairs t tests were calculated to determine if there were any statistically significant changes from mid to post on these Solve-Its. Results from the tests showed that
there was a statistically significant increase in students’ scores from mid to post on the easy
sequencing task [t(75) = -5.430, p 0.0005] and the wait for clap command
[t(73) = -2.261, p 0.05].
PTD Engagement Checklist
The PTD Checklists were used to allow researchers to keep track of the frequency with
which they observed behaviors relating to the following ‘‘Six C’s’’ described by Bers
(2012): Communication, Collaboration, Community Building, Content Creation, Creativity, and Choices of Conduct (see Table 5). For example, researchers observed behaviors
such as children exchanging ideas (Communication), helping each other understand how to
use materials (Collaboration), sharing work with family (Community Building), using
technology to make a project (Content Creation), using technology in an unexpected way
(Creativity), and showing respectful behavior to peers and teachers (Choices of Conduct).
Each individual behavior was scored on a scale of 1–5, with 5 representing behaviors
observed most frequently and 1 representing behaviors observed with the least frequency.
This was calculated for each session.
A final cumulative average score for each of the Six C’s of the PTD framework was
calculated at the end of the curriculum implementation. The cumulative averages
demonstrate that the curriculum was most successful at fostering content creation (score of
4.1), communication (score of 4.02), and collaboration (score of 3.55). Creativity also had
a relatively high score of 3.03 (see Fig. 6).
123
Dancing robots: integrating art, music, and robotics in…
Table 5 Sample observed behaviors exemplifying the Six C’s
Six C’s
Sample behaviors observed on checklist
Communication
Students are exchanging ideas with others
Students seek help and ask questions
Collaboration
Students borrow or lend materials
Students are helping each other understand materials
Community
Building
Students are volunteering to share work with others during Circle Time
Students create projects to solve a social, community, or classroom problem
Content Creation
Students create a functional program for their robot
Students debug problems in their program
Creativity
Students use a variety of materials for their projects (arts, crafts, technical materials
such as sensors, etc.)
Students use technology in unexpected or unconventional ways
Choices of
Conduct
Students are following classroom rules
Students are using materials responsibly
Fig. 6 Cumulative PTD scores
Teachers’ experience
According to the teachers’ activity reflection journals, they were generally successful at
reaching their lesson goals and objectives each week of the robotics implementation. They
chose to use a variety of strategies when introducing complex engineering concepts to their
students. Some strategies were taken directly from the Dances from Around the World
123
A. Sullivan, M. U. Bers
curriculum while others were the teachers’ own creation. The following strategies came up
frequently in the activity journals:
•
•
•
•
Introducing a new concept in KIBO by showing off a song, dance, game, or story.
Use of group discussions (full class work) mixed with small group/partner work.
When first constructing robots, parts of robots were likened to cars and vehicles.
Teaching sensors by relating the aesthetic design of each sensor to what the sensor’s
function is (e.g. Ear design = sound).
Teachers (sometimes with the assistance of other school staff) were also actively
involved in adapting and modifying the Dances Around the World curriculum to meet the
needs of their students (see Table 6). This was encouraged by the research team during the
initial training, and it was suggested that teachers use the curricular activities as a
‘‘jumping off point’’ for the concepts to be taught. Teachers generally adapted the curriculum by doing one of the following: skipping activities, adding in new activities,
adapting/changing the structure of activities, changing the schedule of when/how long
activities were led, and making changes for cultural reasons.
Finally, in interviews and reflection journals, teachers shared what the robotics experience was like for them, including some of the positive moments and the challenging
moments they encountered throughout the launch year of this (see Table 7). These
reflections indicate that, from the teachers’ perspective the experience was successful and
promoting hard work and perseverance, while also allowing students to practice Bers’
(2012) PTD behaviors such as collaboration and communication amongst peers. While
teachers were generally novices when it came to teaching with technology, many of them
commented that they were self-motivated to learn to use the technology and gain hands-on
experience with it.
Despite the general feeling of success, many teachers did say they would have benefitted from longer or more training and professional development during this initiative.
Table 6 Examples of curriculum modification
Types of changes
Examples/quotes
Omitting lessons/activities
Only a few activities were hand-picked
Additions to Curriculum
Added a Fashion Parade Show which each representative to a
catwalk with their KIBO dressed in traditional costume from the
four races of Singapore
Adapting games/activities
For the [KIBO] Bingo game, instead of getting 3 in a row to win
the game, children had to place all counters in all the icons to
win the game. This was done so that children would have the
opportunity to re-cap on all the icons while being engaged at the
same time
Adapting the time/days spent on each
aspect of the curriculum
Instead of decorating and programming on the same day, children
focused only on decorating their KIBO. They will program their
KIBO to dance to the cultural song during the last session next
week
Cultural adaptations
The dances were more to Singaporean context e.g. lion dance
[I] showed the traditional costume of the four races of Singapore
(Chinese, Malay, Indian and Eurasian)—more familiar to the
children as compared to the suggestion listed in the curricula
123
Dancing robots: integrating art, music, and robotics in…
Table 7 Significant quotes from teachers
Themes
Illustrative quotes
Children showed hard work and
perseverance
I liked the way some groups discussed and tried again and
again when things do not work, it demonstrated perseverance
and determination, boosted their confidence when the
scanning or the analyzing worked on the KIBO
Teachers felt eagerness to learn even
when feeling in-experienced
Even though we don’t know, we’re still very interested in it.
We just touch it and learn and see how it works
Teachers tried to test out robotics projects
before demonstrating to kids
Before actually showing it [to the kids], I would actually try it
[the lesson] out first
Children showed excitement and
eagerness to use KIBO
They were also eager to try and put the blocks together to
create different dances
Children practiced collaborating and
communicating
They participated actively on large group discussions
The children collaborate with each other
This was especially true when it came to the more complex concepts such as repeat loops
and conditional statements, which some teachers admitted they did not remember after
completing the training. Although teachers were provided with many ongoing online
resources, they expressed that with the hands-on nature of KIBO, these were not as useful
as in-person practice and training.
Discussion
Summary of findings
Children’s learning outcomes
The Solve-It scores demonstrate that participating students from Singapore’s preschool
centers had a high level of understanding of foundational programming concepts. The
Solve-Its implemented assessed the following concepts taught in the Dances from Around
the World curriculum: Sequencing, the Wait-For Clap block, Repeat Loops with Number
Parameters, Repeat Loops with Sensor Parameters, and Conditional Statements. Solve-Its
were scored on a 0–6 scale, and the sample had a mean score of 5 or higher on all of the
tasks implemented at both the mid and post test. The high scores during the mid test also
indicate that students were able to master new programming concepts quickly, even
without extended periods of time for practice.
These scores contrast Solve-Its findings in the United States using an earlier version of
the KIBO robotics kit. In findings by Sullivan and Bers (2015) preschool children scored a
mean of 3 or higher on the sequencing tasks, but could not be administered the more
complex repeat loop and conditional tasks because this was not covered in their curriculum
because it was not deemed developmentally appropriate. The Solve-It mean scores from
Singaporean preschool in this study are more aligned with the mean scores from children in
first and second grade in the United States, and was generally higher than U.S. children in
Kindergarten (Sullivan and Bers 2015). This could be attributed to a variety of cultural
factors including classroom management and how accustomed young children are to
receiving formal assessments and tasks in Singapore and the United States. Future research
123
A. Sullivan, M. U. Bers
should further examine cultural differences in programming performance in early
childhood.
The students’ final robotics projects also demonstrated a high level of mastery of the
building, construction, and engineering concepts introduced throughout the curriculum.
Students were able to use motors, platforms, sensors, in their projects. Additionally, they
were able to successfully integrate arts, crafts, and recycled materials into their final robot
constructions. All students in the sample had a sturdy-built, decorated, and functional robot
by the end of the curriculum implementation. In addition to including art in their designs,
the final projects also promoted STEAM content integration with music and dance influencing the students’ programming. Many students were engaged as choreographers for
their robots as well as themselves. The nature of the final projects demonstrated a successful STEAM integration that involved several aspects of the arts including music,
dancing, and fashion. It provides preliminary evidence that robotics and programming can
be used as a tool to support learning of music and dance.
Finally, the PTD scores indicate that this curriculum was most successful at fostering
content creation. This is not a surprise given that each lesson of the curriculum was focused
on building and programming a new project. The intervention was also fairly successful at
promoting collaboration and creativity, which were goals for IDA’s Playmaker Programme. Future work should focus on more effective ways to use technology to promote
community building and choices of conduct. In this intervention, community building was
most pronounced by the end of the curriculum, when parents and other classes were invited
to see the final showcases. Future interventions may look for ways to successfully integrate
community building throughout the robotics lessons.
Teachers’ experience
Results from the teachers’ interviews and reflection journals indicate that this initiative was
not only a positive experience for the students but for them as well. Teachers showed
independence and confidence as they modified the Dances from Around the World curriculum to meet the needs of their students and to adapt to the Singaporean cultural context.
The teachers’ comments also often related back to two of the six PTD C’s: collaboration
and communication. Many of their comments had to do with watching their students work
well together and persist when faced with challenges. One of the goals of the Playmaker
Programme was to foster the ‘‘can-do spirit needed in innovation’’ through digital technology initiatives (Digital News Asia 2015). This observation that students were able to
persevere through challenges provides initial evidence that robotics helped students and
teachers work toward this goal in an organic way.
Limitations
One of the major limitations of this study was the implementation of the Solve-Its programming assessments. These assessments were implemented by the classroom teacher as
a class activity, rather than a ‘‘formal’’ assessment implemented by the research team.
Although the teachers were trained by the research team on how to implement the SolveIts, it is possible that their implementation was biased based on knowing the data would be
collected and they may have provided more help and scaffolding than intended with the
Solve-Its.
There were also a large number of Solve-Its that had to be removed because students
were either provided with the wrong blocks to sequence or extra blocks to sequence.
123
Dancing robots: integrating art, music, and robotics in…
Additionally, there were a large number of Solve-Its that had to be removed from analysis
because it was apparent that the teacher in that classroom may have read the stories aloud
incorrectly. For example, on the Hard Sequencing Solve-It, an entire class was removed
from analysis because nearly every student made the same mistake that had to do with the
order of the commands (not programming syntax). Removing these students from analysis
of certain Solve-Its (along with students who may have missed testing due to absences)
resulted in an uneven n across the tasks and may have influenced the results that were
produced.
These issues in Solve-Its implementation may be rooted in cultural differences in
interpretation of the assessment materials and training. This is the first study in which
Solve-Its were administered outside of the United States and one of the first studies in
which the classroom teachers themselves implemented them as an activity (rather than a
research team). Future work may need to be done to further train teachers and appropriately adapt some of the Solve-Its for use in Singapore.
Future work
This study looks at results from all of the children from the five preschool centers combined. However, teachers did not implement identical curricula in their classrooms. One of
the goals of this intervention was to empower teachers to create their own versions of the
Dances from Around the World curriculum and implement their own games and activities
to teach KIBO. Results from observations and the interviews and reflection journals show
that teachers were generally successful at reaching this goal. However, this means that each
teachers’ unique teaching style, interpretation of the curriculum, and pedagogical
approaches may have had an impact on children’s learning and experience with the
robotics activities. Future work should look more specifically at the impact of these
pedagogical choices on the experience of children. This study also focused on evaluating
learning outcomes with one of the Playmaker tools (KIBO). Future work may consider
comparing learning outcomes across the variety of digital tools being introduced in Singapore to determine which technologies are most successful at promoting specific domains
of knowledge.
Finally, this study was conducted in Singapore in collaboration between the DevTech
Research Group in the United States and the Infocomm Development Authority in Singapore. Although this study took place in Singapore, the curriculum, robotics set, and
research instruments were originally developed in the United States and adapted for use in
Singapore. As robotics such as KIBO are becoming increasingly popular around the world,
cross cultural comparison studies may be useful to determine which concepts, tools, and
pedagogical approaches have universal appeal and which are culturally specific.
Conclusion
Singapore’s Playmaker Programme offers an innovative example of how one country is
addressing the growing need to increase their national focus on technology and engineering
initiatives during the foundational early childhood years. This study demonstrates that
beginning in preschool, children can use technologies like robotics to learn fundamental
engineering and programming skills that will set the stage for more complex projects and
exploration in later schooling years. At the same time, the children’s Dances from Around
123
A. Sullivan, M. U. Bers
the World projects also demonstrate that the increased focus on technology in the early
years does not need to involve passive screentime consumption. Just the opposite, it
showcases the ease with which the arts, music, social studies, and other traditional early
childhood content can be fostered through the use of new technologies. It is important to
note that these gains were made possible not only through providing funding for technologies to the preschools, but through providing training and support throughout the
process. Even with the level of support provided, teachers indicated that more training
would have been beneficial. Future initiatives, within or outside of Singapore, should
consider the need to provide not only quality technological tools and curriculum, but also
quality professional development and teacher support in order to make an impact.
Acknowledgements This work was made possible by Singapore’s Infocomm Development Authority and
through the U.S. National Science Foundation Grant (DRL: 1118897). We would also like to acknowledge
and thank the teachers and students from the participating schools in Singapore.
References
American Academy of Pediatrics. (2016). Media and young minds. Pediatrics, 138(5). doi:10.1542/peds.
2016-2591.
Bers, M. U. (2008). Blocks, robots and computers: Learning about technology in early childhood. New
York: Teacher’s College Press.
Bers, M. U. (2012). Designing digital experiences for positive youth development: From playpen to playground. Cary, NC: Oxford.
Bers, M., Ponte, I., Juelich, K., Viera, A., & Schenker, J. (2002). Teachers as designers: Integrating robotics
in early childhood education. Information Technology in Childhood Education AACE, 2002(1),
123–145.
Bers, M. U., Seddighin, S., & Sullivan, A. (2013). Ready for robotics: Bringing together the T and E of
STEM in early childhood teacher education. Journal of Technology and Teacher Education, 21(3),
355–377.
Berson, I. R., & Berson, M. J. (Eds.). (2010). High-tech tots: Childhood in a digital world. Charlotte, NC:
Information Age Publishing.
Brosterman, N. (1997). Inventing kindergarten. New York: H.N. Abrams.
Buckleitner, W. (2009). What should a preschooler know about technology? Early Childhood Today.
www2.scholastic.com/browse/article.jsp?id=3751484.
Calvert, S. L., Rideout, V. J., Woolard, J. L., Barr, R. F., & Strouse, G. A. (2005). Age, ethnicity, and
socioeconomic patterns in early computer use: A national survey. American Behavioral Scientist,
48(5), 590–607.
Cejka, E., Rogers, C., & Portsmore, M. (2006). Kindergarten robotics: Using robotics to motivate math,
science, and engineering literacy in elementary school. International Journal of Engineering Education, 22(4), 711–722.
Chambers, J. (2015). Inside Singapore’s plans for robots in pre-schools. GovInsider. Retrieved from: https://
govinsider.asia/smart-gov/exclusive-singapore-puts-robots-in-pre-schools/.
Chiong, C., & Shuler, C. (2010). Learning: Is there an app for that? Investigations of young children’s
usage and learning with mobile devices and apps. New York: The Joan Ganz Cooney Center at Sesame
Workshop. http://pbskids.org/read/files/cooney_learning_apps.pdf.
Clements, D. H., & Gullo, D. F. (1984). Effects of computer programming on young children’s cognition.
Journal of Educational Psychology, 76(6), 1051–1058. doi:10.1037/0022-0663.76.6.1051.
Clements, D. H., & Meredith, J. S. (1992). Research on logo: Effects and efficacy. Retrieved from: http://el.
media.mit.edu/logo-foundation/pubs/papers/research_logo.html.
Common Sense Media. (2013). Zero to eight: Children’s media use in American 2013. San Francisco:
Common Sense Media.
Cordes, C., & Miller, E. (2000). Fool’s gold: A critical look at computers in childhood. College Park, MD:
Alliance for Childhood.
Couse, L. J., & Chen, D. W. (2010). A tablet computer for young children? Exploring its viability for early
childhood education. Journal of Research on Technology in Education, 43(1), 75–98.
123
Dancing robots: integrating art, music, and robotics in…
Cristia, J., Ibarraran, P., Cueto, S., Santiago, A., & Severin, E. (2012). Technology and child development:
Evidence from the one laptop per child program IDB working paper no. IDB-WP-304. Retrived from
SSRN: https://ssrn.com/abstract=2032444.
Cunha, F., & Heckman, J. (2007). The technology of skill formation. American Economic Review, 97(2),
31–47.
Digital News Asia. (2015). IDA launches $1.5m pilot to roll out tech toys for preschoolers. Retrieved from:
https://www.digitalnewsasia.com/digital-economy/ida-launches-pilot-to-roll-out-tech-toys-forpreschoolers.
Hamner, E., & Cross, J. (2013). Arts & Bots: Techniques for distributing a STEAM robotics program
through K-12 classrooms. In Proceedings of the third IEEE integrated STEM education conference,
Princeton, NJ, USA.
Highfield, K., Mulligan, J., & Hedberg, J. (2008). Early mathematics learning through exploration with
programmable toys. In Proceedings of the joint meeting of PME 32 and PME-NA (pp. 169–176).
IDA Singapore. (2015). IDA supports preschool centres with technology-enabled toys to build creativity and
confidence in learning. Retrieved from: https://www.ida.gov.sg/About-Us/Newsroom/Media-Releases/
2015/IDA-supports-preschool-centres-with-technology-enabled-toys-to-build-creativity-andconfidence-in-learning.
Jones, N. (2016). Digital technology to be added to education curriculum. New Zealand Herald. Retrieved
from: http://www.nzherald.co.nz/nz/news/article.cfm?c_id=1&objectid=11668961.
Kazakoff, E. R., Sullivan, A., & Bers, M. U. (2013). The effect of a classroom-based intensive robotics and
programming workshop on sequencing ability in early childhood. Early Childhood Education Journal,
41(4), 245–255.
Kerawalla, L., & Crook, C. (2002). Children’s computer use at home and at school: Context and continuity.
British Educational Research Journal, 28(6), 751–771.
Lee, K., Sullivan, A., & Bers, M. U. (2013). Collaboration by design: Using robotics to foster social
interaction in Kindergarten. Computers in the Schools, 30(3), 271–281.
Lisenbee, P. (2009). Whiteboards and websites: Digital tools for the early childhood curriculum. Young
Children, 64(6), 92–95.
Madill, H., Campbell, R. G., Cullen, D. M., Armour, M. A., Einsiedel, A. A., Ciccocioppo, A. L., et al.
(2007). Developing career commitment in STEM-related fields: Myth versus reality. In R. J. Burke, M.
C. Mattis, & E. Elgar (Eds.), Women and minorities in science, technology, engineering and mathematics: Upping the numbers (pp. 210–244). Northhampton, MA: Edward Elgar Publishing.
Maguth, B. (2012). In defense of the social studies: Social studies programs in STEM education. Social
Studies Research and Practice, 7(2), 84.
Markert, L. R. (1996). Gender related to success in science and technology. The Journal of Technology
Studies, 22(2), 21–29.
Massachusetts Department of Elementary and Secondary Education. (2016). 2016 Massachusetts Science
and Technology/Engineering Curriculum Framework. Retrieved from: http://www.doe.mass.edu/
frameworks/scitech/2016-04.pdf.
Metz, S. S. (2007). Attracting the engineering of 2020 today. In R. Burke & M. Mattis (Eds.), Women and
minorities in science, technology, engineering and mathematics: Upping the numbers (pp. 184–209).
Northampton, MA: Edward Elgar Publishing.
Lonigan, C. J., & Shanahan, T. (2009). Developing early literacy: Report of the national early literacy
panel. Executive summary. A scientific synthesis of early literacy development and implications for
intervention. National Institute for Literacy.
Oppenheimer, T. (2003). The flickering mind: Saving education from the false promise of technology. New
York: Random House.
Papert, S. (1993). The children’s machine: Rethinking school in the age of the computer. New York: Basic
Books.
Perlman, R. (1976). Using computer technology to provide a creative learning environment for preschool
children. Retrieved from: http://hdl.handle.net/1721.1/5784.
Portelance, D. J., Strawhacker, A., & Bers, M. U. (2015). Constructing the ScratchJr programming language
in the early childhood classroom. International Journal of Technology and Design Education, 1–16.
doi:10.1007/s10798-015-9325-0.
Pretz, K. (2014). Computer science classes for kids becoming mandatory. The Institute: The IEEE News
Source.
Resnick, M. (2006). Computer as paintbrush: Technology, play, and the creative society. In D. Singer, R.
Golikoff & K. Hirsh-Pasek (Eds.), Play = Learning: How play motivates and enhances children’s
cognitive and social-emotional growth. Oxford University Press.
123
A. Sullivan, M. U. Bers
Resnick, M., Martin, F., Berg, R., Borovoy, R., Colella, V., Kramer, K., et al. (1998). Digital manipulatives.
In Proceedings of the CHI ‘98 conference, Los Angeles, April 1998.
Rideout, V. J., Lauricella, A., & Wartella, E. (2011). Children, media, and race: Media use among White,
Black, Hispanic, and Asian American Children. Evanston, IL: Center on Media and Human Development, School of Communication, Northwestern University. http://web5.soc.northwestern.edu/cmhd/
wp-content/uploads/2011/06/SOCconfReportSingleFinal-1.pdf.
Robelen, E. W. (2011). STEAM: Experts make case for adding arts to STEM. Education Week, 31(13), 8.
Siu, K., & Lam, M. (2003). Technology education in Hong Kong: International implications for implementing the ‘‘Eight Cs’’ in the early childhood curriculum. Early Childhood Education Journal, 31(2),
143–150.
Steele, C. M. (1997). A threat in the air: How stereotypes shape intellectual identity and performance.
American Psychologist, 52, 613–629.
Strawhacker, A. L., & Bers, M. U. (2015). ‘‘I want my robot to look for food’’: Comparing children’s
programming comprehension using tangible, graphical, and hybrid user interfaces. International
Journal of Technology and Design Education, 25(3), 293–319.
Strawhacker, A., Sullivan, A., & Bers, M. U. (2013). TUI, GUI, HUI: Is a bimodal interface truly worth the
sum of its parts? In Proceedings from IDC ‘13: The 12th international conference on interaction
design and children. New York, NY: ACM.
Sullivan, A., & Bers, M. U. (2015). Robotics in the early childhood classroom: Learning outcomes from an
8-week robotics curriculum in pre-kindergarten through second grade. International Journal of
Technology and Design Education. doi:10.1007/s10798-015-9304-5.
Sullivan, A., Kazakoff, E. R., & Bers, M. U. (2013). The wheels on the bot go round and round: Robotics
curriculum in pre-kindergarten. Journal of Information Technology Education: Innovations in Practice, 12, 203–219.
Trevallion, D. (2014). Connecting to Australia’s first digital technology curriculum. The Conversation.
Retrieved from: http://theconversation.com/connecting-to-australias-first-digital-technologycurriculum-23507.
U.K. Department for Education. (2013). The National Curriculum in England: Framework document.
London: The Stationery Office.
U.S. Department of Education, Office of Educational Technology. (2010). Transforming American education: Learning powered by technology. Washington, DC. Retrieved from http://www.ed.gov/
technology/netp-2010.
White House, Office of the Press Secretary. (2016). FACT SHEET: President Obama announces computer
science for all initiative [Press release]. Retrieved fromhttps://www.whitehouse.gov/the-press-office/
2016/01/30/fact-sheet-president-obama-announces-computer-science-all-initiative-0.
Yakman, G. (2008). STEAM education: An overview of creating a model of integrative education. In
Pupils’ attitudes towards technology (PATT-19) conference: Research on technology, innovation,
design & engineering teaching, Salt Lake City, Utah, USA.
123
Course Development Team
Head of Programme
: Assoc Prof Dora Chen
Academic Lead
: Assoc Prof Sirene Lim
Course Developer(s)
: Dr Lim Chih Ing
Technical Writer
: Gevin Leow, ETP
Video Production
: Samuel Goh, ETP
©
2019 Singapore University of Social Sciences. All rights reserved.
No part of this material may be reproduced in any form or by any means without
permission in writing from the Educational Technology & Production, Singapore
University of Social Sciences.
ISBN 978-981-47-8795-6
Educational Technology & Production
Singapore University of Social Sciences
463 Clementi Road
Singapore 599494
How to cite this Study Guide (APA):
Lim, C. I. (2019). ECE306 Early childhood research methods (Study Guide). Singapore:
Singapore University of Social Sciences.
Release V1.1
Build S1.0.5, T1.5.21
Table of Contents
Table of Contents
Course Guide
1. Welcome…………………………………………………………………………………………………… CG-2
2. Course Description and Aims…………………………………………………………………. CG-3
3. Learning Outcomes…………………………………………………………………………………. CG-6
4. Learning Materials…………………………………………………………………………………… CG-7
5. Assessment Overview……………………………………………………………………………… CG-8
6. Course Schedule…………………………………………………………………………………….. CG-11
7. Learning Mode………………………………………………………………………………………. CG-12
Study Unit 1: What Do We Mean by Research?
Learning Outcomes……………………………………………………………………………………. SU1-2
Overview……………………………………………………………………………………………………. SU1-3
Chapter 1: Paradigms in Educational Research and Theoretical
Frameworks……………………………………………………………………………………………….. SU1-4
Chapter 2: Ethics and Ethical Considerations…………………………………………….. SU1-8
Summary………………………………………………………………………………………………….. SU1-12
References………………………………………………………………………………………………… SU1-16
Study Unit 2: Reading Early Childhood Education Research
Learning Outcomes……………………………………………………………………………………. SU2-2
Overview……………………………………………………………………………………………………. SU2-3
i
Table of Contents
Chapter 1: Trends in Early Childhood Research…………………………………………. SU2-4
Chapter 2: Characteristics of High Quality Research………………………………… SU2-14
Chapter 3: Beginning Your Investigation………………………………………………….. SU2-18
Summary………………………………………………………………………………………………….. SU2-23
References………………………………………………………………………………………………… SU2-27
Study Unit 3: Quantitative Research
Learning Outcomes……………………………………………………………………………………. SU3-2
Overview……………………………………………………………………………………………………. SU3-3
Chapter 1: Survey Design…………………………………………………………………………… SU3-4
Chapter 2: Questionnaire Design……………………………………………………………….. SU3-8
Chapter 3: Quantitative Methods of Data Analysis and Presentation……….. SU3-13
Summary………………………………………………………………………………………………….. SU3-16
References………………………………………………………………………………………………… SU3-21
Study Unit 4: Qualitative Research
Learning Outcomes……………………………………………………………………………………. SU4-2
Overview……………………………………………………………………………………………………. SU4-3
Chapter 1: Ethnography and Case Study Designs……………………………………… SU4-4
Chapter 2: Observation and Interview Techniques…………………………………….. SU4-6
Chapter 3: Documents and Other Visual Texts…………………………………………… SU4-9
Chapter 4: Qualitative Methods of Data Analysis and Presentation…………. SU4-11
Summary………………………………………………………………………………………………….. SU4-14
References………………………………………………………………………………………………… SU4-19
ii
Table of Contents
Study Unit 5: Listening to Children in Research
Learning Outcomes……………………………………………………………………………………. SU5-2
Overview……………………………………………………………………………………………………. SU5-3
Chapter 1: Child-Centric Research……………………………………………………………… SU5-4
Chapter 2: Ethical Considerations…………………………………………………………….. SU5-10
Summary………………………………………………………………………………………………….. SU5-12
References………………………………………………………………………………………………… SU5-15
Study Unit 6: Planning a Research Project
Learning Outcomes……………………………………………………………………………………. SU6-2
Overview……………………………………………………………………………………………………. SU6-3
Chapter 1: Designing Your Research………………………………………………………….. SU6-4
Chapter 2: Writing Your Research Proposal……………………………………………….. SU6-8
Summary………………………………………………………………………………………………….. SU6-10
References………………………………………………………………………………………………… SU6-11
iii
Table of Contents
iv
List of Tables
List of Tables
Table 2.1 Examples of Longitudinal Studies…………………………………………………… SU2-8
v
List of Tables
vi
List of Lesson Recordings
List of Lesson Recordings
What Science Tells Us about Using Research to Improve Practice…………………. SU1-11
How Early Childhood Research Has Shaped Policy and Practice in the
U.S…………………………………………………………………………………………………………………. SU2-13
vii
List of Lesson Recordings
viii
Course
Guide
Early Childhood Research Methods
ECE306
Course Guide
1. Welcome
Presenter: Dr Lim Chih Ing
This streaming video requires Internet connection.
Access it via Wi-Fi to avoid incurring data charges on your personal mobile plan.
Click here to watch the video. i
Welcome to the course ECE306 Early Childhood Research Methods, a 5 credit unit (CU)
course.
This Study Guide will be your personal learning resource to take you through the course
learning journey. The guide is divided into two main sections – the Course Guide and
Study Units.
The Course Guide describes the structure for the entire course and provides you with an
overview of the Study Units. It serves as a roadmap of the different learning components
within the course. This Course Guide contains important information regarding the
course learning outcomes, learning materials and resources, assessment breakdown and
additional course information.
i

CG-2
ECE306
Course Guide
2. Course Description and Aims
ECE306 Early Childhood Research Methods introduce the most common qualitative
and quantitative methods in the early childhood context that are suited to investigating
research questions that go beyond informing practitioner decisions in the classroom.
Emphasis is on generating different kinds of research questions that are related to
more macro early childhood programme and policy-related issues, and also children’s
voices. Students enhance their research reading skills while identifying the possibilities
and limitations of different research methodologies. They read published research and
examine the strengths and limitations of research designs and begin to develop a research
proposal, focusing on the logic of the design.
Course Structure
This course is a 5-credit unit course presented over 6 weeks.
There are six Study Units in this course. The following provides an overview of each Study
Unit.
Study Unit 1 – What Do We Mean By Research?
This unit helps you understand the multiple ways of finding out about the world around
us, and the importance of ethical considerations when conducting research. In Chapter
1, we will examine the positivist approach as well as beyond positivist approaches to
research. In Chapter 2, we will discuss the importance of ethics in human subjects research
and ethical guidelines in Singapore.
Study Unit 2 – Reading Early Childhood Education Research
This unit will equip you with skills, tools, and resources to be informed consumers of high
quality research and to begin to learn how you can make evidence-based decisions. The
unit focuses on trends in early childhood education research and helps you develop the
CG-3
ECE306
Course Guide
skills to search, review, and critically analyse published research. You will also learn how
to develop an area of investigation, research question or hypothesis.
Study Unit 3 – Quantitative Research
The aim of this unit is to provide an introduction to quantitative research, when and how
you can use it. Quantitative research lies within the positivist paradigm as discussed in
Study Unit 1. This unit also examines possibilities and limitations of quantitative method
of research and provides you with the opportunity to learn about survey design. You will
be introduced to what are surveys, how to design surveys, including considerations for
how surveys have been used in the field of early childhood education in Chapter 1. We
will then examine questionnaire design and consider cognitive interviewing to improve
questionnaire design in Chapter 2. In Chapter 3, we will discuss basic descriptive data
analysis and ways to present quantitative data.
Study Unit 4 – Qualitative Research
This unit will cover the foundations of qualitative research, when and how you use it. It
includes a review of different qualitative approaches and methods including ethnography,
case study, observation and interview techniques, and reviewing documents and other
visual texts. You will also identify the limitations and possibilities of qualitative methods.
Study Unit 5 – Listening to Children in Research
This unit describes creative methods for listening to children including drawings,
photography, and narrative approaches. It also introduces the UN Convention on the
Rights of the Child as the context for working with and considering children’s voices in
in research. You will also learn about the possibilities and limitations of these methods as
well as extend your knowledge of ethical considerations specific to involving children in
research.
CG-4
ECE306
Course Guide
Study Unit 6 – Planning a Research Project
This unit helps you integrate as well as extend your knowledge and skills that you have
acquired from the first five study units. It covers the stages of planning a research project,
choosing a research design and appropriate methods, and choosing a sample.
CG-5
ECE306
Course Guide
3. Learning Outcomes
Knowledge & Understanding (Theory Component)
By the end of this course, you should be able to:
• Discuss the possibilities and limitations of various research methodologies (survey,
ethnography and case study).
• Differentiate between the different paradigms and principles of research.
• Examine characteristics of high quality research.
Key Skills (Practical Component)
By the end of this course, you should be able to:
• Compare research methods used to investigate a selected early childhood issue.
• Use a data-gathering technique, analyse the data and interpret the results.
• Design a research proposal and assess its potential strengths and limitations.
CG-6
ECE306
Course Guide
4. Learning Materials
The following is a list of the required learning materials to complete this course.
Required Textbook(s)
Mukherji, P., & Albon, D. (2018). Research methods in early childhood: An introductory guide
(2nd ed.). London, UK: Sage.
Other recommended study material
Other learning materials will be provided by the instructor nearer the time of your course.
CG-7
ECE306
Course Guide
5. Assessment Overview
The overall assessment weighting for this course
Assessment
Description
Weight Allocation
Assignment 1
Pre-Course Quiz
5%
Assignment 2
Discussion Board (DB)
5%
Assignment 3
Tutor-Marked Assessment (TMA)
40%
Assignment 4
End-of-Course Assignment (ECA)
50%
TOTAL
100%
The following section provides important information regarding Assessments.
Continuous Assessment:
Items 1 to 3 constitute the continuous assessment in this course. In total, this continuous
assessment will constitute 50 percent of overall student assessment for this course.
All assignments are compulsory and are non-substitutable. These assignments will
test conceptual understanding of both the fundamental and more advanced concepts
and applications that underlie the topics within this course. Read through your
Assignment questions and submission instructions very carefully before embarking on
your Assignment.
In this course, you are awarded marks for active participation in Discussion Board
activities both online and in class. These activities are based on the weekly readings
assigned to prepare you for the seminars. You are expected to share your insights
(interpretations, reactions, questions, suggestions) and to respond to your classmates’
CG-8
ECE306
Course Guide
entries online and/or in class. You will also be involved in group work. Details of due
dates will be posted on Canvas (Learning Management System).
We expect students to be engaged and reflective, and the success of the course depends
on your thoughtful participation. Attend all seminars, be punctual and contribute to your
peers’ learning by listening respectfully and sharing ideas and resources.
Examination:
The End-of-Course Assignment (ECA) constitutes the other 50 percent of overall student
assessment, which you must also pass. This is an individual assignment in which you will
be required to demonstrate a synthesis of what you have learned in this course. Originality
and depth of thinking are required. At least half of the course’s learning outcomes will be
assessed in this assignment.
Passing Mark:
To successfully pass the course, please note the passing marks for each of the components:
• Continuous Assessment (TMA, GBA) = 40%
• Examination (ECA or EQP) = 40%
• Pre-Course Quiz = 60%
Please note that students must pass:
• The Pre-Course Quiz before they are able to attend the course.
• Both the Continuous Assessment and Examination components of this course to
pass the course.
For detailed information on the Course grading policy, please refer to The Student
Handbook (‘Award of Grades’ section under Assessment and Examination Regulations).
The Student Handbook is available from the Student Portal.
CG-9
ECE306
Course Guide
Non-graded Learning Activities:
Activities for the purpose of self-learning are present in each study unit. These learning
activities are meant to enable you to assess your understanding and achievement of the
learning outcomes. They range from formative quizzes to read-and-reflect activities. You
are expected to complete the suggested activities either independently and/or in groups.
CG-10
ECE306
Course Guide
6. Course Schedule
To help monitor your study progress, you should pay special attention to your
Course Schedule. It contains Study Unit-related activities including Assignments, Selfassessments and Examinations. Please refer to the Course Timetable in the Student Portal
for the updated Course Schedule.
Note: You should always make it a point to check the Student Portal for any
announcements and latest updates.
CG-11
ECE306
Course Guide
7. Learning Mode
The learning process for this course is structured along the following lines of learning:
a.
Self-study guided by the study guide units. Independent study will require at
least 6 hours per week .
b.
Working on assignments, either individually or in groups.
c.
Classroom Seminar sessions (3 hours each session, 6 sessions in total).
iStudyGuide
You may be viewing the iStudyGuide version, which is the mobile version of the
Study Guide. The iStudyGuide is developed to enhance your learning experience with
interactive learning activities and engaging multimedia. Depending on the reader you are
using to view the iStudyGuide, you will be able to personalise your learning with digital
bookmarks, note-taking and highlight sections of the guide.
Interaction with Instructor and Fellow Students
Although flexible learning – learning at your own pace, space and time – is a hallmark
at SUSS, you are encouraged to engage your instructor and fellow students in online
discussion forums. Sharing of ideas through meaningful debates will help broaden your
learning and crystallise your thinking.
Academic Integrity
As a student of SUSS, it is expected that you adhere to the academic standards stipulated
in The Student Handbook, which contains important information regarding academic
policies, academic integrity and course administration. It is necessary that you read and
understand the information stipulated in the Student Handbook, prior to embarking on
the course.
CG-12
Study
Unit
What Do We Mean by Research?
1
ECE306
What Do We Mean by Research?
Learning Outcomes
By the end of this unit, you should be able to:
1.
identify and describe positivist paradigm in research
2.
identify and describe other paradigms in research (e.g., interpretative, etc.)
3.
describe the importance of ethics in human subjects research
4.
identify ethical guidelines in Singapore
SU1-2
ECE306
What Do We Mean by Research?
Overview
T
his unit helps you understand the multiple ways of finding out about the
world around us, and the importance of ethical considerations when conducting
research. In Chapter 1, we will examine the positivist approach as well as beyond positivist
approaches to research. In Chapter 2, we will discuss the importance of ethics in human
subjects research and ethical guidelines in Singapore.
SU1-3
ECE306
What Do We Mean by Research?
Chapter 1: Paradigms in Educational Research and
Theoretical Frameworks
In this chapter, we will examine different paradigms in educational research and the
importance of ethics in research. As a first activity, participate in an online discussion with
your peers about your current ideas on research and why you think it is important.
Activity 1
In the online discussion board, provide your responses to the following questions.
Note: Ensure that you also reply to at least one comment from your peer.
1.
What do you think is ‘research’?
2.
Why do you think it is important?
Reflect
Thinking back to your definition of ‘research,’ were you leaning towards a more
positivist or naturalist paradigm? What do you think might have affected how you
view research? Jot down your thoughts.
1.1 Positivist Approach to Research
A positivist approach to research typically involves the use of quantitative methods to
examine the research questions. Read Chapter 1 of your textbook to learn more about this
paradigm of research as well as the limitations and strengths of positivist research.
SU1-4
ECE306
What Do We Mean by Research?
Read
Pages 9-23 in the Mukherji & Albon (2015) text.
Activity 2
Review the following example of positivist research:
Schroeder, M., McKeough, A., Graham, S. A., Stock, H., & Palmer, J. (2007). Teaching
preschoolers about inheritance. Journal of Early Childhood Research, 5(1): 64-82.
Retrieved from http://live-sagecompanion.pantheonsite.io/sites/default/
files/CH1_Schroeder.pdf
Create a summary of the article by answering the following:
1.
What was the overall aim of the study?
2.
Who were the participants?
3.
What was the overall design of the research?
a.
What features of the research would indicate that the researchers
were using the positivist paradigm?
4.
What were the main findings of the research?
Be prepared to discuss in class.
Activity adapted from Mukherji & Albon (2015). Activity 2: Study an example
of positivist research. Retrieved from https://study.sagepub.com/mukherjialbon2e/
student-resources/positivist-research
SU1-5
ECE306
What Do We Mean by Research?
1.2 Beyond the Positivist Approach to Research
Beyond positivism, other paradigms have emerged which contend that there is more
than just one way of understanding the world. Particularly in early childhood research,
a positivist approach to research is limited in that it does not provide a holistic view;
nor does it take into consideration the cultural context of the child. Read Chapter 2 of
your textbook to learn alternative paradigms such as interpretivism, critical theories and
post-structuralism in research and how they can contribute to our understanding of early
childhood care and education.
Read
Pages 24-39 of the Mukherji & Albon (2015) text.
Activity 3
Review the following example of an interpretivism approach to research:
Yeo, L. S., Neihart, M., Tang, H. N., Chong, W. H., & Huan, V. S. (2011). An inclusion
initiative in Singapore for preschool children with special needs. Asia Pacific
Journal of Education, 31(2): 143-158.
Create a summary of the article by answering the following:
1.
What was the overall aim of the study?
2.
Who were the participants?
3.
What was the overall design of the research?
a.
What features of the research would indicate that the researchers
were using the interpretivism paradigm?
SU1-6
ECE306
What Do We Mean by Research?
4.
What were the main findings of the research?
Be prepared to discuss in class.
As discussed throughout the chapter, qualitative and quantitative research methods each
have their respective strengths and limitations. Review the following article that discusses
the merits of using a mixed methods approach to research.
Read
MacKenzie, N., & Snipe, S. (2006). Research dilemmas: Paradigms, methods and
Methodology. Issues in Educational Research, 16(2): 193–200. Retrieved from
http://www.iier.org.au/iier16/mackenzie.html
SU1-7
ECE306
What Do We Mean by Research?
Chapter 2: Ethics and Ethical Considerations
It is important to ensure that research is always guided by ethics to protect the participants
who are part of our study. Ethical considerations are critical no matter what method or
paradigm we select for our research.
2.1 Importance of Ethics in Human Subjects Research
Review Chapter 3 of your textbook to learn more about ethics and why it is important
when we are conducting a research study. Then watch two videos to learn about the
history of how ethical guidelines have become such a critical piece in human subject
research – not just in biomedical studies but also in social sciences research in the United
States – and how they have also shaped research ethics in other parts of the world.
Read
Pages 40-54 of the Mukherji & Albon (2015) text.
SU1-8
ECE306
What Do We Mean by Research?
Watch
HRSAtube. (2012, March 8). Human subjects research training: “Protecting
human subjects” – Module 1. [Video file]. Retrieved from https://
youtu.be/174SkSszRVg
HRSAtube. (2012, March 8). Human subjects research training: “Protecting human
subjects” – Module 2. [Video file]. Retrieved from https://youtu.be/
Up09dioFdEU
HRSAtube. (2012, March 8). Human subjects research training: “Protecting human
subjects” – Module 3. [Video file]. Retrieved from https://youtu.be/Crxd7hQhHo
Reflect
List two things you learned about “informed consent.” What was the one thing that
struck you most about the need to protect participants of research from risks? Jot down
your thoughts.
2.2 Ethical Guidelines in Singapore
Ethical guidelines have been established in different countries and universities typically
have an institutional review board (IRB) to support researchers in making making
ethical considerations from the start to the end of their studies. In the United States,
researchers also have to complete a Collaborative Institutional Training Initiative (CITI)
online training before they can conduct a study or be part of a research team. In Singapore,
SU1-9
ECE306
What Do We Mean by Research?
there is guidance from the Ministry of Health on biomedical research. You may learn about
it in the link below.
Read
Ministry of Health Biomedical Research Regulation (2007). Operational
guidelines for Institutional Review Boards. Retrieved from https://
www.moh.gov.sg/content/dam/moh_web/Publications/Guidelines/
Human%20Biomedical%20Research/2007/IRB%20Operational
%20Guidelines_14-12-07_formatted.pdf
The European Early Childhood Education Research Association (EECERA) has created an
ethical code for early childhood education researchers. It has more specific requirements
about what it means to “do no harm” in research involving human participants (EECERA,
2014).
Read
European Early Childhood Education Research Association (EECERA/2014). Ethical
Code for Early Childhood Researchers. Retrieved from https://www.eecera.org/
about/ethical-code/
SU1-10
ECE306
What Do We Mean by Research?
Activity 4
What ethical considerations would you have for the following scenarios?
1.
Imagine that you are going to carry out a piece of qualitative research which
aims to explore the views of six expectant, first-time mothers on the quality
of pre-natal care they are receiving. The research will involve interviewing
these mothers with the aim that the data collected will help evaluate and
improve the service offered to first-time mothers.
2.
Imagine that you are embarking on a piece of research which aims to explore
the experiences of children with additional needs in K2 (kindergarten). The
children are in their second term of K2. In order to examine this issue,
you will be collecting observations; interviewing staff and parents for their
perspectives; and also eliciting the children’s perspectives through asking
them to draw what happens in school and to talk about their pictures.
Be prepared to discuss in class.
Activity adapted from Mukherji & Albon (2015). Activity 3: Think through ethical
considerations in relation to some examples of hypothetical early childhood research. Retrieved
from https://study.sagepub.com/mukherjialbon2e/student-resources/ethics
Lesson Recording
What Science Tells Us about Using Research to Improve Practice
SU1-11
ECE306
What Do We Mean by Research?
Summary
In this unit, you learned about the multiple ways of learning about the world around us.
We discussed the positivist approach and other approaches to research, the importance of
ethics in human subjects research, and ethical guidelines in Singapore.
SU1-12
ECE306
What Do We Mean by Research?
Solutions or Suggested Answers
SU1-Chapter 1 Activity 1
Note: Answers are based on students’ perception on what is research and why they think
it is important, so no solutions / suggested answers needed.
SU1-Chapter 1 Activity 2
1.
The overall aim of the study is to examine if pre-schoolers’ (4- to 5-yearolds) have the ability to understand the biology of inheritance without being
introduced to the concept of genes, and if an instructional programme was able
to advance children’s understanding of inheritance.
2.
A total of 78 pre-schoolers were included in the study. 40 were in the
experimental group and 38 were in the comparison group.
3.
The overall design of the research included the use of 2 tests: the modified
Springer-Keil task and the Wish fulfilment task. Both tests elicited quantitative
scores which indicate that the researchers held a positivist paradigm when
designing and conducting the study.
4.
The study suggests that pre-schoolers can be supported to develop an advanced
understanding of biological inheritance through the use of an instructional
programme. For example, based on the results from the Modified SpringerKeil task, children in the experimental group were more likely to indicate that
offsprings would resemble their parents on features that were genetically passed
on.
SU1-13
ECE306
What Do We Mean by Research?
SU1-Chapter 1 Activity 3
1.
The aim of the study was to explore the perspectives of various stakeholders
towards the inclusion of pre-school children with additional needs in
mainstream schools.
2.
The participants included parents (n=9), teachers (n=12), principals (n=3), and
therapists (n=3), who were adults significantly related to the nine children who
were receiving therapy in two childcare programmes.
3.
The design of the research is qualitative in nature (i.e., interviews are used). The
researchers held an interpretivism paradigm as they hoped to “derive a rich
description of the factors perceived to be instrumental in sustaining or hindering
an inclusive educational initiative at the community level” (p. 149) from their
study.
4.
The research identified how the stakeholders defined inclusion, four facilitators
of inclusion (namely communication, collaboration, training and resources,
and readiness for inclusion), and four barriers to inclusion (i.e., personrelated hindrances, structural obstacles, gaps in the TOP services, and limited
specialized training and resources).
SU1-Chapter 2 Activity 4
1.
Some considerations may include location and time of interviews, gender
of interviewee, ensuring that the interviewee remained emotionally neutral,
considering member check (i.e., checking with the participant if you have
interpreted / transcribed the interview accurately), etc. Refer to pages 50-51 of
textbook for additional considerations.
2.
Some considerations may include sharing observations or insights with the
teachers and parents, and ensuring ‘gatekeepers’ (e.g., parents, legal guardians)
have provided their informed consent. Also, it is important to ensure that parents
SU1-14
ECE306
What Do We Mean by Research?
are fully aware of what they are consenting to, too. This is particularly critical
especially for parents with lower educational qualifications or who may have
developmental disabilities themselves. Refer to pages 50-51 of textbook for
additional considerations.
SU1-15
ECE306
What Do We Mean by Research?
References
Ministry of Health Biomedical Research Regulation (2007). Operational guidelines
for Institutional Review Boards. Retrieved from https://www.moh.gov.sg/
content/dam/moh_web/Publications/Guidelines/Human%20Biomedical
%20Research/2007/IRB%20Operational%20Guidelines_14-12-07_formatted.pdf
HRSAtube. (2012, March 8). Human subjects research training: “Protecting human subjects”
– Module 1. [Video file]. Retrieved from https://youtu.be/174SkSszRVg
HRSAtube. (2012, March 8). Human subjects research training: “Protecting human subjects”
– Module 2. [Video file]. Retrieved from https://youtu.be/Up09dioFdEU
HRSAtube. (2012, March 8). Human subjects research training: “Protecting human subjects”
– Module 3. [Video file]. Retrieved from https://youtu.be/Cr-xd7hQhHo
MacKenzie, N., & Snipe, S. (2006). Research dilemmas: Paradigms, methods and
Methodology. Issues in Educational Research, 16(2): 193–200. Retrieved from
http://www.iier.org.au/iier16/mackenzie.html
Mukherji, P. & Albon, D. (2015). Activity 2: Study an example of positivist research.
Retrieved from https://study.sagepub.com/mukherjialbon2e/studentresources/positivist-research
Mukherji, P. & Albon, D. (2015). Activity 3: Think through ethical considerations in relation
to some examples of hypothetical early childhood research. Retrieved from https://
study.sagepub.com/mukherjialbon2e/student-resources/ethics
Schroeder, M., McKeough, A., Graham, S. A., Stock, H., & Palmer, J. (2007). Teaching
preschoolers about inheritance. Journal of Early Childhood Research, 5(1): 64-82.
Retrieved from http://live-sagecompanion.pantheonsite.io/sites/default/files/
CH1_Schroeder.pdf
Yeo, L. S., Neihart, M., Tang, H. N., Chong, W. H., & Huan, V. S.
(2011). An inclusion initiative in Singapore for preschool
SU1-16
ECE306
What Do We Mean by Research?
children with special needs. Asia Pacific Journal of Education,
31(2): 143-158. Retrieved from: https://www.researchgate.net/
publication/233144509_An_inclusion_initiative_in_Singapore_for_preschool_
children_with_special_needs
SU1-17
ECE306
What Do We Mean by Research?
SU1-18
Study
Unit
2
Reading Early Childhood Education
Research
ECE306
Reading Early Childhood Education Research
Learning Outcomes
By the end of this unit, you should be able to:
1.
identify trends in early childhood education research
2.
describe characteristics of high quality research study
3.
begin to develop skills to find reliable sources of information
4.
describe an evidence-based decision-making process
5.
develop a draft research question
SU2-2
ECE306
Reading Early Childhood Education Research
Overview
T
his unit will equip you with skills, tools, and resources to be informed consumers
of high quality research and to begin learning how you can make evidence-based
decisions. The unit focuses on trends in early childhood education research and helps you
develop the skills to search, review, and critically analyse published research. You will
also learn how to develop an area of investigation, research question, or hypothes…
Purchase answer to see full
attachment

---

Why Choose Us

• 100% non-plagiarized Papers
• 24/7 /365 Service Available
• Affordable Prices
• Any Paper, Urgency, and Subject
• Will complete your papers in 6 hours
• On-time Delivery
• Money-back and Privacy guarantees
• Unlimited Amendments upon request
• Satisfaction guarantee

How it Works

• Click on the “Place Order” tab at the top menu or “Order Now” icon at the bottom and a new page will appear with an order form to be filled.
• Fill in your paper’s requirements in the "PAPER DETAILS" section.
• Fill in your paper’s academic level, deadline, and the required number of pages from the drop-down menus.
• Click “CREATE ACCOUNT & SIGN IN” to enter your registration details and get an account with us for record-keeping and then, click on “PROCEED TO CHECKOUT” at the bottom of the page.
• From there, the payment sections will show, follow the guided payment process and your order will be available for our writing team to work on it.