Post by Maggie on Mar 10, 2012 13:35:41 GMT -7
An Analysis and Response to a Position Statement from N.A.E.Y.C. and the Fred Rogers Center for Early Learning and Children’s Media on Technology in Early Childhood Programs Serving Children from Birth through Age 8, with particular reference to the Preschool Classroom.
My goal in studying this topic was to find a respected organization or expert to support my belief that, in general, technology does not belong in the early childhood classroom. I worry that many teachers and parents seem to be brain-washed into thinking that we absolutely must introduce computers and other modern technology into children’s lives at an earlier and earlier age, in order that they will not fall behind or miss out. This is the same false reasoning that proponents of phonics and early reading have been using for many years to get us to stop playing and exploring, and teach with worksheets and rote memorization. The position statement by the National Association for the Education of Young Children (aka NAEYC) in conjunction with the Fred Rogers Center for Early Learning, published in 2011, seemed the best possibility in which I might find some knowledgeable support. It is comprehensive in its research, using 84 separate works-cited references, and 67 other cited resources, with written contributions and research by 35 early childhood experts..
One might believe that because of the age group to which I belong, and my resistance to computers and TVs in the early childhood environment, that I am a technophobe, but that is far from the truth. In the 60s I worked with some of the early computers, the size of small houses, feeding them with punch cards that I made myself in Fortran language. These days I use my laptop to run my business and communicate with friend and family thousands of miles away on a daily basis, and regard it as essential to life. Why then does my enthusiasm for technology not translate into wanting my preschoolers to use computers or watch TV in their classrooms? I see little difference between the use of worksheets, which I detest as being absolutely not developmentally appropriate, and computer games and, with children who are not yet literate, the instant access to information that I love is not something in which they can readily participate. I chose NAEYC’s position statement on the use of technology in the ECE classroom because I hoped it would support and explain my views.
We are surrounded by technology. Routinely we use devices which would, only a few years ago, have been regarded as science fiction. In fact, if you read science fiction from the fifties, many of today’s machines were not predicted at all, because they were literally unthinkable. Even the people who made it their business to imagine the future were blindsided. We now have access to instant information and tools which can produce amazing things, and of course we want to share this with our children. We must, we are told, bring this wonderful new world into the classroom in order to prepare them for their place in it. It is important though to stop and reflect. Is every new widget really school appropriate, or necessary, or desirable? It can help to remember that we have been down this road before. In the late fifties in America there was a sudden panic that we were not sufficiently preparing students for the future. A satellite had just been put into orbit, and we weren’t the ones who did it. One of the suggestions was that we bring the world into the classroom with the new technology, television. It wasn’t a completely wrong-headed idea. There were some very fine science programs made at the time, and current events could be watched as they unfolded. Americans of a certain age remember watching the Kennedy assassinations and the moon landings almost in real time. TV was, of course, not a panacea, and an ‘educational’ program which consisted of watching a teacher lecture on TV was not a very different experience from watching one live.
Now, there is a great push to get computers, smart-boards and software into elementary schools and even preschools. Some educators may feel that it is the responsible thing to do, some may feel pressured to do so, and of course there are very large corporate entities which see a vast potential market. Hence NAEYC felt there was a need to produce its position statement of 18 pages. However, at first glance, I was a little disappointed, in that NAEYC, being the political entity that it is, did not make any bold statements to support my view. The article did state that, “technology and interactive media are learning tools that, when used in intentional and developmentally appropriate ways and in conjunction with other traditional tools and materials, can support the development and learning of young children” (NAEYC, Fred Rogers Center, Technology Position Statement, p.1). This is, of course, open to interpretation and represents somewhat an equivocation, and for me as a coach in the early childhood classroom, leaves the issue on the table, with no clear way forward. My interpretation, because of my already formed view, is that they are saying that if you can find a better way of teaching something by not using technology, which one almost always can, then technology should not be used. It is usually understood that in the good ECE classroom, realia is ideal, and play and exploration is the way; we, as teachers, are the facilitators. Young children do not understand abstract concepts, so therefore we do not use worksheets or other similar methods to teach them. We use, whenever possible, real things and real situations. Preschoolers are also generally not literate, so the most important function that computers have to offer, access to instant information, is not something the young child can readily use alone. Almost all children in our society have access to T.V. screens and programs at home. We have more important things to do in our limited time in the classroom than give them more screen time.
NAEYC believes that the new technologies are tools which have a place in education, but their statement is qualified in some important ways. “With a focus on technology as a tool not an end in and of itself, teachers can avoid the mindless use of screen and audio media that is often so objectionable in early childhood settings. One must consider whether the goals can be more easily achieved using non digital materials or whether the technology actually extends learning and development in ways not possible otherwise.” (NAEYC et al, p. 7). All of us probably know the teacher in preschool who loves her ‘Movie Day’, mainly because she may believe that is an easy option for her. If you have ever observed young children in these situations you would see mostly blank faces indicating tuned-out minds, not something desirous of in our classrooms. The article addresses conflicting views of tech in the classroom, and observes that “the push to integrate technology into early childhood settings can lead to inappropriate use” (NAEYC. et al, p.3).
Technology is very expensive and the money spent on computers and smart-boards could be used to pay better wages to our teachers or buy far more worth in art supplies, manipulatives, or wonderful large sets of wooden blocks. The fact remains that no matter how advanced and innovative the new technology is, it does not hold its value well because of constant innovation and improvements. A recent article in the Technology Review, by Kate Greene (01/06/2009) charges that Apple is intentionally planning in obsolescence by including a battery in one of its laptops which cannot be replaced at the end of its life, about five years. It’s an unfortunate design feature, but in any case a laptop older than three years or so is considered obsolete anyway. The question must always be, is this new thing really doing something which could not be done before? In the context of a classroom, is a whiteboard really better than a blackboard? Is a story on a computer better than one in a book? And are either better than an engaged adult telling a story? The NAEYC article is very general, giving qualified support for the increased use of IT in school settings, but there are some specifics which any school district, particularly in cash-tight times, needs to consider. The new tech is expensive, and it’s not just the cost of the item which needs to be considered. If installing a whiteboard, for example, a school would also have to include the costs of retrofitting and additional hardware, staff training, software, upgrades and technical support. Those families and schools which are affluent have many chances to use technology and it is yet another way that poverty in our communities can influence our lives. Many schools may not be able to compete in a tech arms race and it probably would be more beneficial for them to spend the money in other ways, especially when finances are limited.
In order to make the technology more developmentally appropriate, one suggestion made in the article was that teachers should take a greater role in the design process. Many educational toys and tools do what they do because it became technically possible, not necessarily because it was required or desirable. NAEYC warns that one of the problems that concerns technology in the classroom is that, “technology requires an understanding viewed through the lens of known child development theories” (NAEYC at al, p.2) and many teachers in our preschools lack this in depth knowledge and also struggle with the technological knowledge to use the equipment well. There are also “concerns about the lack of empirical research that demonstrates positive benefits” (and) “screen-time can have a “negative impact on socialization and language development” (NAEYC at al, p. 2) and may reduce the time spent in play and other developmentally appropriate activities. This can result in “reduced time interacting with peers” (NAEYC et al, p. 2). Teaching decisions in using tech need to be intentional and teachers must make “informed choices that maximize learning opportunities” (NAEYC et al, p.3). Educators lacking “technological and media literacy” (NAEYC et al, p.3) may make wrong decisions and use technology inappropriately “negatively impacting children’s learning and development” (NAEYC et al, p.3).
There is also the question of childhood obesity and the contribution technology has made to this problem. The article refers to medical research when it states “The American Academy of Pediatrics and the White House Task Force on Childhood Obesity discourage screen media and screen time for children under 2 years of age and recommend limited screen time for older children” (Funk, Brouwer, Curtiss and McBroom, “Campaign for a Commercial Free Childhood”, 2009/ 10).
The article offers four principles for ‘Appropriate Use’. These are: selection, use, integration and evaluation. NAEYC states that an efficient use of technology should be “active, hands-on, engaging and empowering (NAEYC et al, p.4) and should enhance children’s cognitive and social abilities, which is what the non-tech developmentally appropriate classroom already does so well. I do believe there is a place for technology in the use of adaptive technology for special need students. If technology enables and enhances those children’s lives in a way that allows them to learn and do things they could not do otherwise, then “technology is proven to have many potential benefits” (NAEYC et al, p. 6).
According to NAEYC, “Digital Citizenship is essential in the 21st century” (NAEYC et al,
p. 4) with which most of us adults would agree. However before the age of seven, I would see this as an unnecessary obligation. There are much more important aspects of life to work on, and technology should “not exclude, diminish, or interfere with children’s healthy communication, social interaction, play, and developmentally appropriate activities.”(NAEYC et al, p.4). Technology should never replace the things that are “important for children’s development” (NAEYC et al, p. 4) which is in evidence in many of classrooms, where children have access to the ubiquitous computer game or even TVs which include disengaging from the real world. “Appropriate use of technology depends on age, developmental level, needs, interests, and abilities of each child” (NAEYC et al, p.5) and tech should generally not be appropriate for infants and toddlers, especially TV and passive technology. “Children under two are very likely to chew on technology tools” (NAEYC et al, p.10) and toys where young children merely press buttons are not enhancing their imagination or power of exploration. The article talks a great deal about using computers and smart boards to teach reading through age appropriate learning activities. which quite honestly are often just another form of work sheet. Why not just read a book or play real interactive, non-digital games with each other? “One must consider whether the goals can be more easily achieved using non digital material” (NAEYC et al, p. 7).
One use I do agree with in the article is that tech can make sharing information with parents easier, make report writing, documentation and portfolio keeping so much better, and allow us to easily keep a digital record of classroom activities. However that is an entirely different use of technology in the classroom. NAEYC states the educators who are “informed, intentional, and reflective”, (NAEYC et al, p. 8) can use technology in their curricula and align it with a “child centered and play oriented approach, hands on exploration, active meaning, making, and relationship building (Tech and Young Children Interest Forum 2008, NAEYC et al, p. 8).
I contend that the two approaches are incompatible in Early Childhood Education. NAEYC believes that “a balance between the use of digital and electronic materials must also be weighed against the use of natural and three dimensional materials” (NAEYC et al, p. 9), but to me there can be no balance or need to do this until about age 8, when other avenues of learning have been explored and concepts developed and mastered, through play. For very young children, screens will not teach them anything which they cannot get from real experiences. Most screen-time is mostly about watching and that is not a substitute for experiencing a rich classroom and real world environment. Interaction is not just pressing a key. It is feeling weight, texture, resistance, gravity, inertia. It is learning cause and effect. It is forming relationships with other children and adults. It is dancing, singing, dramatic play, building with real blocks, feeling textures, and pouring and sifting in the sensory tub, it is enjoying a story with your community of friends, riding a tricycle or swinging from the monkey bars, sharing your feelings and skinning your knees.
The argument that we must have technology in the schools to prepare the children for the future isn’t really realistic. We cannot ‘prepare’ the children because the tools and devices they will be using in ten or fifteen years will bear no relation to what exists now. They haven’t been invented yet. Only in the broadest sense can we prepare them by teaching them to be curious, imaginative, courageous and life-long learners.
In conclusion, this extensive article from NAEYC does indeed support my beliefs that technology does not really belong in the early childhood classroom. I would concede that technology can be an excellent tool in middle elementary grades and beyond. However, it is conceivable that someone with a contrary point of view could also find many points of support within the same article. It is really just a comprehensive set of guidelines for technological use and outlines the possible pitfalls, while explaining the many uses of different technologies, at varying stages in a child’s development. As it states, it “is intended to provide support and guidance for early childhood educators about how technology tools and practices can promote young children’s optimal social, linguistic and cognitive learning” (NAEYC at al, p. 2)
Works cited:
Funk, Brouwer, Curtiss and McBroom, “Campaign for a Commercial Free Childhood”,
The American Academy of Pediatrics and the White House Task Force on Childhood Obesity , 2009/ 10).
Greene, K. “Apple ensures Laptop Obsolescence” Published by “Technology Review”, MIT, Jan. 2006
The National Association for the Education of Young Children and the Fred Rogers Center for Early Learning and Children’s Media at St Vincent College. A joint position statement on “Technology in Early Childhood Programs Serving Children from Birth through Age 8”. (Appel and O’Gara, 2001; Clements and Sarama, 2003, 2005, Copple and Bredekamp, 2009; Couse and Chen, 2010; EDC and SRI, 2010; Gee and Levine, 2009; Greenfield, 2004; Kirkorian, Wartellsa and Anderson, 2009; Linebarger and Piotrowski, 2009; NAEYC, 2009; Neuman, Newman and Dwyer, 2011; Plowman and Stephen, 2005; Rosen and Jaruszewicz, 2009; Schmidt, Rich, Rigas-Shiman, Oaken, and Travers, 2009; Vanderwater and Lee, 2009; Vanderwater et al, 2007, Wood, Specht, Willoughby, and Mueller, 2008) Publication NAEYC, 2011.
My goal in studying this topic was to find a respected organization or expert to support my belief that, in general, technology does not belong in the early childhood classroom. I worry that many teachers and parents seem to be brain-washed into thinking that we absolutely must introduce computers and other modern technology into children’s lives at an earlier and earlier age, in order that they will not fall behind or miss out. This is the same false reasoning that proponents of phonics and early reading have been using for many years to get us to stop playing and exploring, and teach with worksheets and rote memorization. The position statement by the National Association for the Education of Young Children (aka NAEYC) in conjunction with the Fred Rogers Center for Early Learning, published in 2011, seemed the best possibility in which I might find some knowledgeable support. It is comprehensive in its research, using 84 separate works-cited references, and 67 other cited resources, with written contributions and research by 35 early childhood experts..
One might believe that because of the age group to which I belong, and my resistance to computers and TVs in the early childhood environment, that I am a technophobe, but that is far from the truth. In the 60s I worked with some of the early computers, the size of small houses, feeding them with punch cards that I made myself in Fortran language. These days I use my laptop to run my business and communicate with friend and family thousands of miles away on a daily basis, and regard it as essential to life. Why then does my enthusiasm for technology not translate into wanting my preschoolers to use computers or watch TV in their classrooms? I see little difference between the use of worksheets, which I detest as being absolutely not developmentally appropriate, and computer games and, with children who are not yet literate, the instant access to information that I love is not something in which they can readily participate. I chose NAEYC’s position statement on the use of technology in the ECE classroom because I hoped it would support and explain my views.
We are surrounded by technology. Routinely we use devices which would, only a few years ago, have been regarded as science fiction. In fact, if you read science fiction from the fifties, many of today’s machines were not predicted at all, because they were literally unthinkable. Even the people who made it their business to imagine the future were blindsided. We now have access to instant information and tools which can produce amazing things, and of course we want to share this with our children. We must, we are told, bring this wonderful new world into the classroom in order to prepare them for their place in it. It is important though to stop and reflect. Is every new widget really school appropriate, or necessary, or desirable? It can help to remember that we have been down this road before. In the late fifties in America there was a sudden panic that we were not sufficiently preparing students for the future. A satellite had just been put into orbit, and we weren’t the ones who did it. One of the suggestions was that we bring the world into the classroom with the new technology, television. It wasn’t a completely wrong-headed idea. There were some very fine science programs made at the time, and current events could be watched as they unfolded. Americans of a certain age remember watching the Kennedy assassinations and the moon landings almost in real time. TV was, of course, not a panacea, and an ‘educational’ program which consisted of watching a teacher lecture on TV was not a very different experience from watching one live.
Now, there is a great push to get computers, smart-boards and software into elementary schools and even preschools. Some educators may feel that it is the responsible thing to do, some may feel pressured to do so, and of course there are very large corporate entities which see a vast potential market. Hence NAEYC felt there was a need to produce its position statement of 18 pages. However, at first glance, I was a little disappointed, in that NAEYC, being the political entity that it is, did not make any bold statements to support my view. The article did state that, “technology and interactive media are learning tools that, when used in intentional and developmentally appropriate ways and in conjunction with other traditional tools and materials, can support the development and learning of young children” (NAEYC, Fred Rogers Center, Technology Position Statement, p.1). This is, of course, open to interpretation and represents somewhat an equivocation, and for me as a coach in the early childhood classroom, leaves the issue on the table, with no clear way forward. My interpretation, because of my already formed view, is that they are saying that if you can find a better way of teaching something by not using technology, which one almost always can, then technology should not be used. It is usually understood that in the good ECE classroom, realia is ideal, and play and exploration is the way; we, as teachers, are the facilitators. Young children do not understand abstract concepts, so therefore we do not use worksheets or other similar methods to teach them. We use, whenever possible, real things and real situations. Preschoolers are also generally not literate, so the most important function that computers have to offer, access to instant information, is not something the young child can readily use alone. Almost all children in our society have access to T.V. screens and programs at home. We have more important things to do in our limited time in the classroom than give them more screen time.
NAEYC believes that the new technologies are tools which have a place in education, but their statement is qualified in some important ways. “With a focus on technology as a tool not an end in and of itself, teachers can avoid the mindless use of screen and audio media that is often so objectionable in early childhood settings. One must consider whether the goals can be more easily achieved using non digital materials or whether the technology actually extends learning and development in ways not possible otherwise.” (NAEYC et al, p. 7). All of us probably know the teacher in preschool who loves her ‘Movie Day’, mainly because she may believe that is an easy option for her. If you have ever observed young children in these situations you would see mostly blank faces indicating tuned-out minds, not something desirous of in our classrooms. The article addresses conflicting views of tech in the classroom, and observes that “the push to integrate technology into early childhood settings can lead to inappropriate use” (NAEYC. et al, p.3).
Technology is very expensive and the money spent on computers and smart-boards could be used to pay better wages to our teachers or buy far more worth in art supplies, manipulatives, or wonderful large sets of wooden blocks. The fact remains that no matter how advanced and innovative the new technology is, it does not hold its value well because of constant innovation and improvements. A recent article in the Technology Review, by Kate Greene (01/06/2009) charges that Apple is intentionally planning in obsolescence by including a battery in one of its laptops which cannot be replaced at the end of its life, about five years. It’s an unfortunate design feature, but in any case a laptop older than three years or so is considered obsolete anyway. The question must always be, is this new thing really doing something which could not be done before? In the context of a classroom, is a whiteboard really better than a blackboard? Is a story on a computer better than one in a book? And are either better than an engaged adult telling a story? The NAEYC article is very general, giving qualified support for the increased use of IT in school settings, but there are some specifics which any school district, particularly in cash-tight times, needs to consider. The new tech is expensive, and it’s not just the cost of the item which needs to be considered. If installing a whiteboard, for example, a school would also have to include the costs of retrofitting and additional hardware, staff training, software, upgrades and technical support. Those families and schools which are affluent have many chances to use technology and it is yet another way that poverty in our communities can influence our lives. Many schools may not be able to compete in a tech arms race and it probably would be more beneficial for them to spend the money in other ways, especially when finances are limited.
In order to make the technology more developmentally appropriate, one suggestion made in the article was that teachers should take a greater role in the design process. Many educational toys and tools do what they do because it became technically possible, not necessarily because it was required or desirable. NAEYC warns that one of the problems that concerns technology in the classroom is that, “technology requires an understanding viewed through the lens of known child development theories” (NAEYC at al, p.2) and many teachers in our preschools lack this in depth knowledge and also struggle with the technological knowledge to use the equipment well. There are also “concerns about the lack of empirical research that demonstrates positive benefits” (and) “screen-time can have a “negative impact on socialization and language development” (NAEYC at al, p. 2) and may reduce the time spent in play and other developmentally appropriate activities. This can result in “reduced time interacting with peers” (NAEYC et al, p. 2). Teaching decisions in using tech need to be intentional and teachers must make “informed choices that maximize learning opportunities” (NAEYC et al, p.3). Educators lacking “technological and media literacy” (NAEYC et al, p.3) may make wrong decisions and use technology inappropriately “negatively impacting children’s learning and development” (NAEYC et al, p.3).
There is also the question of childhood obesity and the contribution technology has made to this problem. The article refers to medical research when it states “The American Academy of Pediatrics and the White House Task Force on Childhood Obesity discourage screen media and screen time for children under 2 years of age and recommend limited screen time for older children” (Funk, Brouwer, Curtiss and McBroom, “Campaign for a Commercial Free Childhood”, 2009/ 10).
The article offers four principles for ‘Appropriate Use’. These are: selection, use, integration and evaluation. NAEYC states that an efficient use of technology should be “active, hands-on, engaging and empowering (NAEYC et al, p.4) and should enhance children’s cognitive and social abilities, which is what the non-tech developmentally appropriate classroom already does so well. I do believe there is a place for technology in the use of adaptive technology for special need students. If technology enables and enhances those children’s lives in a way that allows them to learn and do things they could not do otherwise, then “technology is proven to have many potential benefits” (NAEYC et al, p. 6).
According to NAEYC, “Digital Citizenship is essential in the 21st century” (NAEYC et al,
p. 4) with which most of us adults would agree. However before the age of seven, I would see this as an unnecessary obligation. There are much more important aspects of life to work on, and technology should “not exclude, diminish, or interfere with children’s healthy communication, social interaction, play, and developmentally appropriate activities.”(NAEYC et al, p.4). Technology should never replace the things that are “important for children’s development” (NAEYC et al, p. 4) which is in evidence in many of classrooms, where children have access to the ubiquitous computer game or even TVs which include disengaging from the real world. “Appropriate use of technology depends on age, developmental level, needs, interests, and abilities of each child” (NAEYC et al, p.5) and tech should generally not be appropriate for infants and toddlers, especially TV and passive technology. “Children under two are very likely to chew on technology tools” (NAEYC et al, p.10) and toys where young children merely press buttons are not enhancing their imagination or power of exploration. The article talks a great deal about using computers and smart boards to teach reading through age appropriate learning activities. which quite honestly are often just another form of work sheet. Why not just read a book or play real interactive, non-digital games with each other? “One must consider whether the goals can be more easily achieved using non digital material” (NAEYC et al, p. 7).
One use I do agree with in the article is that tech can make sharing information with parents easier, make report writing, documentation and portfolio keeping so much better, and allow us to easily keep a digital record of classroom activities. However that is an entirely different use of technology in the classroom. NAEYC states the educators who are “informed, intentional, and reflective”, (NAEYC et al, p. 8) can use technology in their curricula and align it with a “child centered and play oriented approach, hands on exploration, active meaning, making, and relationship building (Tech and Young Children Interest Forum 2008, NAEYC et al, p. 8).
I contend that the two approaches are incompatible in Early Childhood Education. NAEYC believes that “a balance between the use of digital and electronic materials must also be weighed against the use of natural and three dimensional materials” (NAEYC et al, p. 9), but to me there can be no balance or need to do this until about age 8, when other avenues of learning have been explored and concepts developed and mastered, through play. For very young children, screens will not teach them anything which they cannot get from real experiences. Most screen-time is mostly about watching and that is not a substitute for experiencing a rich classroom and real world environment. Interaction is not just pressing a key. It is feeling weight, texture, resistance, gravity, inertia. It is learning cause and effect. It is forming relationships with other children and adults. It is dancing, singing, dramatic play, building with real blocks, feeling textures, and pouring and sifting in the sensory tub, it is enjoying a story with your community of friends, riding a tricycle or swinging from the monkey bars, sharing your feelings and skinning your knees.
The argument that we must have technology in the schools to prepare the children for the future isn’t really realistic. We cannot ‘prepare’ the children because the tools and devices they will be using in ten or fifteen years will bear no relation to what exists now. They haven’t been invented yet. Only in the broadest sense can we prepare them by teaching them to be curious, imaginative, courageous and life-long learners.
In conclusion, this extensive article from NAEYC does indeed support my beliefs that technology does not really belong in the early childhood classroom. I would concede that technology can be an excellent tool in middle elementary grades and beyond. However, it is conceivable that someone with a contrary point of view could also find many points of support within the same article. It is really just a comprehensive set of guidelines for technological use and outlines the possible pitfalls, while explaining the many uses of different technologies, at varying stages in a child’s development. As it states, it “is intended to provide support and guidance for early childhood educators about how technology tools and practices can promote young children’s optimal social, linguistic and cognitive learning” (NAEYC at al, p. 2)
Works cited:
Funk, Brouwer, Curtiss and McBroom, “Campaign for a Commercial Free Childhood”,
The American Academy of Pediatrics and the White House Task Force on Childhood Obesity , 2009/ 10).
Greene, K. “Apple ensures Laptop Obsolescence” Published by “Technology Review”, MIT, Jan. 2006
The National Association for the Education of Young Children and the Fred Rogers Center for Early Learning and Children’s Media at St Vincent College. A joint position statement on “Technology in Early Childhood Programs Serving Children from Birth through Age 8”. (Appel and O’Gara, 2001; Clements and Sarama, 2003, 2005, Copple and Bredekamp, 2009; Couse and Chen, 2010; EDC and SRI, 2010; Gee and Levine, 2009; Greenfield, 2004; Kirkorian, Wartellsa and Anderson, 2009; Linebarger and Piotrowski, 2009; NAEYC, 2009; Neuman, Newman and Dwyer, 2011; Plowman and Stephen, 2005; Rosen and Jaruszewicz, 2009; Schmidt, Rich, Rigas-Shiman, Oaken, and Travers, 2009; Vanderwater and Lee, 2009; Vanderwater et al, 2007, Wood, Specht, Willoughby, and Mueller, 2008) Publication NAEYC, 2011.