The Results
Using the parent questionnaire, Johnson and Puplmapu (2008) discovered that there are four main indices of child home Internet use:
1) Learning: reported in 65 cases
2) Play: reported in 57 cases
3) Browsing: reported in 35 cases
4) Communicating: reported in 27 cases
Johnson and Puplampu (2008) also reported that indices of home Internet use accounted for 3% to 29% of the difference in the children's cognitive development scores assessed during the study (p. 182). In other words, as the middle class continues to expand research suggest "that indices of home Internet use (elements of the techno-subsystem), in general explained more of the variation in children's cognitive development than did family socioeconomic characteristics" (Johnson, 2010, p. 182). However, Johnson highlights that the elements in the techno-subsystem, specifically Internet access, does not simply facilitate child cognitive development (2010, p. 182). Rather, there must be purposeful emphasis placed on the effective use of those elements to help promote development.
In other words, we need to teach children how to use technology to its fullest potential by modeling how to use the Internet to promote higher level and critical thinking, problem solving, and self-directed learning. As educators of the Junior Level we must be aware of this question and consider how to include Internet driven activities, which increase stimulation and the further development of all our students, into our classroom. Johnson calls us to action and asks us to think about the quality and quantity of school-based Internet experiences. She urges us to consider rethinking the way in which we teach with and about this technology.
1) Learning: reported in 65 cases
2) Play: reported in 57 cases
3) Browsing: reported in 35 cases
4) Communicating: reported in 27 cases
Johnson and Puplampu (2008) also reported that indices of home Internet use accounted for 3% to 29% of the difference in the children's cognitive development scores assessed during the study (p. 182). In other words, as the middle class continues to expand research suggest "that indices of home Internet use (elements of the techno-subsystem), in general explained more of the variation in children's cognitive development than did family socioeconomic characteristics" (Johnson, 2010, p. 182). However, Johnson highlights that the elements in the techno-subsystem, specifically Internet access, does not simply facilitate child cognitive development (2010, p. 182). Rather, there must be purposeful emphasis placed on the effective use of those elements to help promote development.
In other words, we need to teach children how to use technology to its fullest potential by modeling how to use the Internet to promote higher level and critical thinking, problem solving, and self-directed learning. As educators of the Junior Level we must be aware of this question and consider how to include Internet driven activities, which increase stimulation and the further development of all our students, into our classroom. Johnson calls us to action and asks us to think about the quality and quantity of school-based Internet experiences. She urges us to consider rethinking the way in which we teach with and about this technology.
So What Does This All Mean...
Resources:
Johnson, G.M. (2010). Internet Use and Child Development: Validation of the Ecological Techno-Subsystem. Educational Technology & Society, 13 (1), 176-185.
Johnson, G.M. (2010). Internet Use and Child Development: Validation of the Ecological Techno-Subsystem. Educational Technology & Society, 13 (1), 176-185.