1 Introduction
Digital technologies, such as tablets and PCs, and various apps and platforms accommodated by these, influence young children’s everyday lives, directly and indirectly, both at home and in early childhood education and care (ECEC) settings (Pettersen et al., 2022; Säljö, 2022). Children growing up in Western societies have access to various technologies from an early age and they experience everyday use of technology by their parents and siblings (Dardanou et al., 2020; Palaiologou et al., 2021). In Norway, which is the context for this study, a recent survey showed that 65% of 4–5-year-olds have access to tablets at home, and many of these children started using tablets before the age of three (Medietilsynet, 2022, p. 11). Children’s experiences with digital technologies can be gauged from various sources of data and we were interested in literature concerned with educators’ views.
1.1 Digital Technology in ECEC
In the past twenty years, the definition of digital technology has evolved to include multimedia devices such as tablets, mobile phones, mobile toys or digital books, content of which is designed to support a variety of children’s skills, in many subject areas, including literacy (e.g. Hoel & Tønnessen, 2019), math, science or citizenship (e.g. Gardner-McTaggart & Palmer, 2018), both at primary, secondary and university levels. In the case of early use of digital technology by young children aged 1–5 years, the importance of analogue, non-digital interactions continue to be emphasized for children’s holistic development (Palaiologou et al., 2021). The international consensus is that for children under the age of two, digital technology adds little value to their learning (Lawrence & Choe, 2021). However, for children aged two and older, digital technology can add value as long as it is used together with the caregiver (parent or educator) and as long as the design of the digital technology is developmentally appropriate (Radesky & Hiniker, 2021).
Advertisement
Building on the rich literature on children’s everyday play experiences with diverse technologies, both at home and in ECEC (e.g. Alvestad et al., 2017; Arnott et al., 2020; Kewalramani et al., 2020; Kewalramani et al., 2023; Lafton, 2019), the affordances of specific technologies for pedagogy have been highlighted by studies of ECEC pre-service and in-service educators (e.g. McKenney & Voogt, 2017; Zipke et al., 2019). Spiteri and Rundgren’s (2020) review of 27 articles on the status quo of technology use in ECEC established the importance of educators’ professional development in digital technology use, as well as its further development during classroom practices. Their findings replicated earlier studies that established the need for educators’ training in digital technology use and the importance of capitalizing on educators’ interest in using digital technology for information management, communication, content creation and problem solving (Spiteri & Rundgren, 2020). In particular, children’s everyday experiences with technology at home need to be bridged with effective pedagogical use of technology in ECEC (e.g. Alvestad et al., 2017; Edwards et al., 2020).
These findings have been echoed in several other studies. For example, in Austria, Pölzl-Stefanec (2021) showed that early childhood educators require effective instruction in using online professional development program to address compelling topics in early childhood education relevant to the educators’ practices (Pölzl-Stefanec, 2021). The barriers for effective professional development have been traced back to a disconnect between the educational contexts and educators’ knowledge and beliefs (Undheim, 2022). Educators’ knowledge is often recognized as an important ingredient in technology integration into a play-based pedagogy such as in ECEC, however, according to Edwards et al. (2020) and Vidal-Hall et al. (2020), the educators’ pedagogical beliefs and practices are as important as their knowledge.
Various policy documents show that there is a notable absence of guidance on effective pedagogy concerning technology use and ECEC professionals’ digital competence development and related professional learning opportunities (Dardanou et al., 2023; Erstad et al., 2021; Thorpe et al., 2015). And yet, ECEC educators are the primary gatekeepers when it comes to providing access to children’s use of resources, including digital media. Their attitudes towards digital technology use and their facilitation of children’s learning and play with digital technology are therefore crucial (Fotakopoulou et al., 2020).
In particular, it is important to understand the factors that support educators’ focus on an active and creative use of digital technology, and follow an age-appropriate educational approach, which positions children as active participants in their own knowledge development (Dardanou et al., 2023; Palaiologou et al., 2021; Radesky & Hiniker, 2021). Research also shows that effective early childhood educators use the concept digital resilience, which can be developed through an active use of digital technology together with vulnerable populations (see OECD, 2023). Indeed, the latest OECD report highlights both the opportunities and risks associated with digital technology and acknowledges that while it is not possible to eliminate risk completely, it can be reduced with appropriate support for developing digital competence and providing children with varied experiences, in a social community (OECD, 2023). These ideas informed our initial understanding of possible ontological beliefs among the Norwegian ECEC educators, which we probed in an empirical study.
Advertisement
1.2 Study Aims
While the links between young children’s use of technology and learning effects are relatively well-established in the international literature, less is known about educators’ perceptions and beliefs regarding young children’s technology use in specific contexts. We aimed to explore the perceptions of educators working in ECEC in Norway, guided by the following research questions:
-
Which ontological beliefs do educators hold about using technology in ECEC?
-
What are the possible reasons for these ontological beliefs?
By ontological beliefs we mean attitudes, perceptions and views that are bound by a knowledge-based stance on understanding a phenomenon (Chandrasekaran et al., 1999). We focused on ontological beliefs because they provide valuable knowledge that can contribute to a more comprehensive understanding of the professionals’ perspectives and practices in ECEC. Ontologies offer concepts for describing knowledge and enable knowledge-sharing (Chandrasekaran et al., 1999, p. 20). As such, ontological beliefs are different from epistemology, which is concerned with legitimate knowledge and how knowledge is created (Bartlett & Burton, 2016, p. 37). By understanding the ontological beliefs of a group of professionals in a specific context, we can derive broader understandings of perceptions present in the ECEC field.
Even though most Norwegian ECEC have implemented a variety of technological tools for their practice, the actual digital practice varies from setting to setting (Naper et al., 2022). Furthermore, there is a need for greater pedagogical competence concerning technology integration amongst Norwegian educators (Naper et al., 2021). Our research aims were thus driven by the need to support existing practice as well as to develop insights that could be used for future professional development training for educators.
1.3 The Norwegian ECEC Context
Norwegian ECEC settings (kindergartens) cater for children from birth to age five. Norwegian kindergartens are characterized by a socio-cultural perspective on learning and play and child-centred pedagogy (Directorate for Education and Training, 2017). The attendance of kindergartens is not compulsory for Norwegian children but has since 2006 been described as the first step in the educational process (Kunnskapsdepartementet, 2008)1. Approximately 88% of children in Norway attend an ECEC setting before the age of two (Statistics Norway, 2024). Most children are therefore influenced by the pedagogy and practices they encounter in ECEC settings, and this includes practices linked to technology use. The current government strategy for ECEC quality emphasizes high-quality educational digital practice (Kunnskapsdepartementet, 2023), although it does not, as yet, specify how such a high-quality practice should be achieved.
Norwegian ECEC position the unique worth of childhood, children’s active participation in society, group activity, and democracy as its core values (Directorate for Education and Training, 2017). The Framework plan for the content and tasks of kindergartens (Directorate for Education and Training, 2017) outlines various ways in which educators can support children’s development and promote learning through play and everyday group activities, based on the children’s interests and previous experiences. The Framework Plan does not have specific learning goals or outcomes for the children and purposefully avoids the use of words teach or educate. Learning is understood as something that happens in everyday situations, through communication, interactions, and play: ‘Care, formative development, play, learning, social skills and communication and language processes shall be seen in context, and together they shall contribute to the children’s all-round development’ (Directorate for Education and Training, 2017, p. 19). The use of digital technology is described as an active engagement with the tools aligned with the playful pedagogy where emphasis is placed on children’s choices and play rather than a didactic management of learning (Løndal & Greve, 2015): ‘Digital practices in kindergarten shall encourage the children to play, be creative and learn’ (Directorate for Education and Training, 2017, p. 44). The approach requires educators to be able to use digital technologies with children actively and based on children’s premises, while contributing to children’s holistic development. It is against this backdrop that we explored what educators working in Norwegian ECEC believe about the value of using technology with young children.
Previous research showed that Norwegian ECEC educators describe children’s learning as a complex process, which should stimulate the children’s individual development during different activities so that the children continuously develop new knowledge and master various challenges (Alvestad, 2012). This child-centred ‘here-and-now’ perspective exposed by the ECEC educators stands in contrast to a more future-oriented perspective on early learning that emphasizes academic progress and is pursued in many non-Scandinavian countries (see e.g. Berge, 2012; Säljö, 2022). The ‘here-and-now’ and future-oriented perspectives are not mutually exclusive and can be combined through a focus on lifelong learning, where both present and future horizons are central (Berge, 2012). We consider children’s experiences with well-designed technologies (Radesky & Hiniker, 2021) to be important ‘here-and-now’, as they are embedded in everyday contexts now, and are also crucial for children’s future interactions and meaning-making in the world.
1.4 Socio-cultural Perspectives
Nested in socio-cultural perspectives (Vygotsky, 1987) and the related concepts of dialogue in thinking (Mercer & Littleton, 2007) and dialogic teaching in classrooms (Mercer & Howe, 2012), we understand knowledge construction as a dynamic process of meaning-making in dialogue with others. This relates to individual meaning-making and collective learning and the development of ideas through collective as well as individual efforts (Mercer & Littleton, 2007).
Drawing on socio-cultural perspectives, interaction with other people serves as a key resource to support development and learning (Dysthe, 2001; Säljö, 2016). What is learned and the knowledge constructed depend on the context in which the learning takes place. Language and communication play a pivotal role in the cognitive development of learners, transforming them into critical problem-solvers as they actively engage in various forms of communication within their communities (Dysthe, 2001; Säljö, 2016). It is this theoretical understanding of learning that guided the conceptualisation of our study and its implementation in the Norwegian ECEC context.
2 Methodology
2.1 Research Design
Based on the socio-cultural theory (Vygotsky, 1987) and dialogical learning frameworks (Mercer & Howe, 2012; Mercer & Littleton, 2007), we understand knowledge as a dynamic process of meaning-making in dialogue with others. Applied to our context of ECEC educators and their beliefs concerning technology use, socio-cultural dialogic theories foreground the principle of a learning network (Mercer & Howe, 2012), where individual professionals draw on collective knowledge and expertise-sharing in building their ontological beliefs. Inspired by previous investigations of learning networks that draw on a dialogic knowledge exchange (e.g. Comeaux, 1995), we initiated a workshop-based qualitative workforce development network. This network connected researchers, educators and future classroom labs in the south and north of Norway for two years. The participants were recruited through established regional workforce-development networks, in line with the focus of the Norwegian Ministry of Education and Research (Kunnskapsdepartementet, 2017, 2022) on ECEC-based collective competence development. So that the educators’ professional development in digital technology use remains sustainable, there needs to be communication and collaboration at several levels of the ECEC system. We therefore adopted a holistic approach to the workshop-based qualitative workforce development network and in addition to ECEC educators, invited administrators, leaders, coordinators and policy-makers. This inclusive strategy recognizes the collaborative effort required from all stakeholders for successful integrated technology implementation in early childhood settings (Howard, 2019).
We conceptualized the workshops as encompassing tasks to be carried out by the educators alone, as well as in conversation with their colleagues and leadership teams. The program centred around four workshops, supplemented by continuous communication with educators in between each session. The workshops followed the enquiry-oriented model originally put forward by Siegel (1995) as a means of involving learners in perceiving themselves as knowledge makers and problem solvers. In this model, the learners’ active role is driven by an enquiry approach and is supported with multiple and multimedia ways of knowledge representation. Our focus was on understanding what the ECEC educators in their settings currently do and what they could do with digital technology. We aimed to inspire them with innovative approaches, both in theory and by providing access to cutting-edge technologies available through our future classroom labs at universities. The content for the workshops was based on our understanding of latest research but was supplemented with the educators’ own requests for specific content. Unlike previous research (e.g. Kaliisa & Dolonen, 2022), we did not follow a co-design process or observation of use of a specific technology but instead focused on a variety of possible technologies that the educators had, or wished to have, experience with.
2.2 Data Collection and Analysis
In this article we draw on data collected in the southern region of the learning network during the first workshop in the network. During the first workshop, we conducted group-reflections with four to five participants in each group (see Table 1 for participants’ details). The group-reflections, which lasted approximately 40 min each, were recorded and transcribed. In these group-reflections, the educators discussed enabling and hindering factors in using digital technology in ECEC.
Table 1
Presentation of the participants in the group discussions
Group 1 | Group 2 | Group 3 |
|---|---|---|
Female teacher, ECEC2, municipality owned | Female teacher, ECEC1, municipality owned | Female teacher, ECEC2, municipality owned |
Male teacher, ECEC3, municipality owned | Female assistant, ECEC2, municipality owned | Female assistant, ECEC3, municipality owned |
Female teacher, ECEC5, private owned | Male teacher, ECEC5, private owned | Female teacher, ECEC4, municipality owned |
Female teacher, ECEC6, private owned | Female teacher, ECEC6, private owned | Male teacher, ECEC6, private owned |
Male digitization consultant |
We understand group discussions as a multidimensional construct in studying educators’ perspectives and actions (Moore-Russo & Wilsey, 2014). Inspired by Braun and Clarke (2022), we conducted a theory-driven thematic analysis of transcripts from the audio-recorded group discussions (Mercer & Howe, 2012; Mercer & Littleton, 2007). This consisted of paying attention to the values of individual meaning-making and collective learning in dialogic knowledge construction and the development of ideas through collective as well as individual efforts (Mercer & Littleton, 2007).
2.3 Ethics
The study was approved by the Norwegian Centre for Research Data (now Sikt) and was carried out in line with national guidelines for research ethics (NESH, 2022). All participants have given their informed consent to have their conversations recorded and analysed for publication purposes. Trust, loyalty and confidentiality are important for us; thus, all identifiers are anonymized, to ensure the participants’ confidentiality. We shared preliminary data with the educators to ensure that our interpretation was in line with their intended meanings. No changes were suggested by the educators, and they expressed a strong desire to continue the network upon the study completion.
3 Findings
Our thematic analysis of transcribed group reflections in ECEC highlighted diverse ontological beliefs that educators hold about technology use with children. We further explored the underlying reasons for these beliefs, considering facilitating and inhibiting factors, drawing on the socio-cultural knowledge construction framework (Dysthe, 2001; Säljö, 2016) and principles of dialogue (Mercer & Howe, 2012; Mercer & Littleton, 2007; Vygotsky, 1987). We critically examine these reasons, paying attention to the participants’ ontological backgrounds and assessing how these beliefs might have broader shared implications or be distinctive within the specific Norwegian child-centred curricular context.
3.1 Educators’ Ontological Beliefs about Technology use with Children
The educators recognized the need for diversity and individualization of learning by citing several examples of how they themselves facilitate technology use in their ECEC setting. For example, they provide individual technologies tailored to each child’s specific needs and interests. In Group 1, an educator commented that she uses various digital tools with various ages, as it is ‘not the same thing to use technology with a one-year-old and with a preschooler’ (teacher, ECEC6). In Group 2, a participant outlined how she uses Bee Bots2 and Kubo3 with the youngest ones, two-year-olds, but not with other children, as it would not suit their interests (teacher, ECEC1).
This practice was set in contrast with the educators’ reflection around the need to accommodate all children’s experiences with digital technology and how educators should facilitate it. An educator from Group 1 offered that there should be some standards, so that all children get equal experiences with digital technology:
Some standards so that, what is being offered to the children will not be very different depending on who you have your children with. So if they [the children] end up in that group, they get a load of challenges on the digital front but if they end up in another group, they get almost nothing. This is in a way something that is very challenging. (Group 1, teacher, ECEC3)
The educators clearly felt the responsibility of being a facilitator of shared and equal experiences for all children, particularly because not all children have equal access to technology at home. As one educator articulated it:
We can be a provider of healthy digital use and to something that is more productive than what often happens at home for the children. (…) In addition, we can be an equalization factor in the society, as it is stated in the ECEC’s mandate. (Group 3, teacher, ECEC6)
This desire for equal experiences and the educators’ perceived responsibility for facilitating it through their pedagogy, was somewhat challenged when technology had been introduced into the setting. The educators highlighted the individual learning possibilities, but at the same time they recognized that technology could increase differences between children.
The clear hindering factor were the daily routines in ECEC that had been designed to accommodate all children.
I think that in ECEC we are concerned with rhythm in a way and routines. At least I think like that, where in the daily rhythm could I put in the digital activity? (Group 2, teacher, ECEC6)
These hindering factors were contrasted with the unique way in which ECEC could incorporate digital technology to support all children, particularly in light of ECEC settings’ focus on free play and the playful character of digital technology.
We should not be afraid of it, we must learn and wonder together with the children, we do not need to master everything at once… we are not superheroes… we can be a little open with the children, and tell them that this we will find out together. (Group 2, teacher, ECEC5)
3.2 Possible Reasons for the Educators’ Ontological Beliefs
Our thematic analysis of group reflections unveiled various enabling and hindering factors related to technology use in ECEC. The educators expressed a clear understanding of the necessity for young children to be exposed to pedagogical experiences with digital technology. There was an agreement among the groups on multiple factors influencing both the facilitation and hindrance of technology use, including access to technology, material and resources, rapid technology development, financial aspects, infrastructure of support, competence, motivation to learn, confidence and system that is necessary for all to use the same technology. These factors were then grouped into two subthemes – individual and collective reasons – that subsume nine meaning units, as summarized in Table 2. We illustrate each theme with representative quotes from the participants.
Table 2
Educators’ perceptions of enabling and hindering factors for technology use in ECEC
Individual reasons | Collective reasons |
|---|---|
Age and flexibility | System – infrastructure of support |
Competence | Access |
Motivation | Time |
Confidence | Rapid technology development |
Financial aspects |
3.2.1 Individual Reasons
Competence, confidence and motivation were highlighted as important individual factors by the educators and were described as both hindering and enabling factors connected to the educators’ facilitation of digital technology use. There was consensus among the three groups that children and educators need to build competence and confidence by using digital technology, but that it can be hard to know what to do and how to do it at the beginning.
Not everyone knows digital stuff. (Group 1, teacher, ECEC6)
Knowledge, I think that is often what is needed, that you acquire some knowledge, and that you take the initiative for it on your own. (Group 1, teacher, ECEC3)
But it is clear that as time progresses, it really requires that everyone keeps up with the technological development, it is not just one person who has to keep up with it. (Group 1, teacher, ECEC3)
Most of the participants in this study commented positively on the use of digital technology and were interested and eager to learn more about it. Several of the participants talked about how they had used their private time to seek out information on how to use, for example, a robot or an app and learnt to do it by themselves. However, they also named age and lack of personal interest to learn something new as individual hindering factors for some of their colleagues’ lack of engagement with technology in the setting.
It varies a lot and depends in a way on which ECEC setting and which group and who the staff are… you can work with someone who wants to try, and then you can meet someone who has worked there for 30–40 years and who does not want to learn something new. (Group 2, teacher, ECEC2)
That inner motivation, if that is not in place then it is hard. (Group 1, teacher, ECEC3)
Not everyone would have bothered to seek it out either. (Group 2, teacher, ECEC6)
Some participants also saw digital technology as a possibility to get access to greater choice of content, such as a larger variety of children’s digital books.
So it is much easier for an ECEC setting that, for example, does not have room for a large library of books that you can have them on an iPad. You save space, and, yes, if you send digital drawings home, you save a few piles of paper. (Group 1, teacher, ECEC5)
The ease of documentation was emphasized, particularly in digital formats, facilitating tasks such as digitally sharing children’s artwork with parents. Both digital communication with parents and internal digital communication within the ECEC settings were underscored as enabling factors, recognized for their associated benefits. All these reasons can be thematically summarized as centring on the individual and individual learning. In contrast, when discussing time and system related to technology use, the educators saw them as hindering factors that can be traced back to collective learning.
3.2.2 Collective Reasons
The educators acknowledged the time-consuming nature of facilitating sufficient learning activities with digital technology. Recognizing that learning and knowledge construction require time, individual educators interested in digital technology can and should allocate the necessary time for learning. Additionally, the process of transferring knowledge from an individual to a group also demands considerable time.
It’s about time again, but then we sat for an hour and a half and kept on practicing [with digital technology]. (Group 2, assistant, ECEC2)
I can’t show how the technology works to the others [colleagues] because it is that time again. (Group 2, teacher, ECEC1)
To have someone who sets focus and sets an agenda, setting aside enough time [is important]. (Group 2, teacher, ECEC1)
Some of the educators indicated that they were able to practice and learn to use technology during working hours, while others explained that they had spent time at home. This illustrates that there was a mixed view of how to prioritize time to facilitate both individual and collective learning about technology use.
But I still think it illustrates the point, that you have decided to dedicate some hours [of your private time] to learn this, and if you had not done so, you probably would not have been able to use digital technology the way you do with the children in ECEC. (Group 3, teacher, ECEC6)
Some of the participants explained that they had used staff meetings to provide a playful learning experience with digital technology and thus develop the staff’s own digital competence and confidence: ‘We had a staff meeting, in which we set aside time to play with the technology’ (Group 3, teacher, ECEC4). There was consensus among the groups that it is important also for the educators to play with the technology, to learn how it works and how it can be used.
Some of the educators saw the solution to limited time in appointing one person responsible for technology in each setting. However, this idea was also problematized, as highlighted in this extract:
But he alone who is in charge then, he is engaged and busy with his group, he does not necessarily have the capacity to walk around the whole ECEC and help another group. (Group 3, teacher, ECEC6)
A support team was seen as a systemic solution to building each staff member’s competence and confidence but also to being able to maintain the administration tasks connected to technology use in ECEC settings.
Administrative tasks related to technology, yes, that is demanding, either to create a structure that everyone in the ECEC setting can use, and also, who is responsible for it. (Group 3, teacher, ECEC6)
The groups also highlighted hindering factors related to charging the equipment and making sure it was ready to use for the next activity. Several participants highlighted the need for the development of a rigorous support system that would rely on collective expertise to manage, maintain and use the technology.
Another collective factor was the financial aspect: most of the participants described access to technology as a factor constrained by limited funds in ECEC. According to some of the participants, they hardly have access to any digital technology in their setting and this was a clear hindrance.
I kind of feel already the first challenge is that we have nothing. We have an iPhone for my group [of children] to use. And we have an iPad, but it has not been used. (Group 2, teacher, ECEC6)
It is that… that things cost, technology is not free. (Group 1, teacher, ECEC5)
The dilemma about what equipment you should have, how often you should buy new, and how much you should have. And then you have the challenge of whether it is charged, whether it will be prepared for the next activity and stuff like that. (Group 3, teacher, ECEC6)
In one municipality, however, the educators mentioned having access to various digital technologies in their settings as well as a functioning infrastructure of support from pedagogical IT personnel. They described the infrastructure of support as helpful, both technological and pedagogical, for example, when deciding what equipment to buy.
4 Discussion
The analysis of the participants’ group reflections highlights two tensions between individual and collective reasons for using digital technology in ECEC. We see a tension between the educators’ ontological beliefs of children’s individual use and collective experiences with digital technology. We also see a tension between the educators’ own individual and collective learning and knowledge construction. The theoretically-driven subthemes – the individual and collective reasons – are nested within broader socio-cultural themes or perspectives, which are the educators’ ontological understandings of how knowledge is made through learning with others (Mercer & Howe, 2012; Mercer & Littleton, 2007; Vygotsky, 1987). We propose that the reasons for these views can be traced back to the ontology of individualization/standardization and technology as a tool for play and learning. Here we see a direct link between the values embedded in the Norwegian Framework Plan (Directorate for Education and Training, 2017) and the special role of ECEC in supporting holistic learning, collective experiences and achievement of all children. We elaborate on these reasons below, together with some links on recently published literature on the topics of early childhood and use of technologies.
The educators acknowledged that technology enhances children’s learning and provides access to diverse experiences when used effectively, aligning with findings from other studies (Fotakopoulou et al., 2020; Radesky & Hiniker, 2021; Spiteri & Rundgren, 2020). The educators perceived technology use as most positive when they could identify special moments for individual children to use technology in small chunks of time (for example a bit of coding in the morning). They also saw it as being especially relevant for children above the age of two, which connects to international research on infants’ technology use (Kucirkova & Zuckerman, 2017). These benefits of technology use in early childhood are not always visible in the public debate about children and technology, especially not when considering the most recent national policies in Sweden and Denmark, which advocate for limited technology use by young children (Viner, 2023).
Yet, at the same time, the educators also saw the individualization as a potential threat to the way collective learning and experiences is promoted in the Norwegian Framework Plan (Directorate for Education and Training, 2017). The role of ECEC is to ensure there are equal opportunities and no big differences for individual children and offer a standardized experience of high-quality to all (Directorate for Education and Training, 2017; Kunnskapsdepartementet, 2023). This mission is difficult when the educators have varied levels of technological competence and when ECEC have varied access to technology – factors recognized also in previous international studies (e.g. Naper et al., 2022; Naper et al., 2021; Radesky & Hiniker, 2021; Thorpe et al., 2015), and in analyses looking at digital inequity globally (e.g. Murris et al., 2023).
The analysis of the group reflections also shows that there was a synergy across the groups in terms of the enabling and hindering factors they identified for technology use in early childhood, summarized as individual reasons (age and flexibility, competence, motivation, confidence) and collective reasons (systematic, access, time, technology development, financial aspects) (Table 2). However, the analysis shows that the enabling factors were to a great degree overshadowed by the hindering factors, and we identified time as the key reason for the individual-collective tensions. Developing high-quality pedagogical experiences for children takes time and the educators fear they do it wrong. It takes time to constantly learn new things with rapidly evolving technology and the time to learn is different for older and younger members of society. In an evaluation report of the implementation of the Norwegian Framework Plan, time was recognized as the most important factor that could limit implementation; 60% of Norwegian ECEC directors reported that time limited the possibilities for implementation to a large or very large extent (Lotsberg et al., 2020, p. 163). Moreover, for individualized learning to become collective it takes time to build relationships in various contexts. Educators who are early adopters need time to share their competence with others and they expect time to push others to adopt digital technology too. According to the participants, it is hard to find time to develop the knowledge among the educators so that they are competent and confident in using digital technology with the children, but it is also hard to find time to use digital technology directly with the children: ‘Where in the daily rhythm could I put in the digital activity?’ (Group 2, teacher, ECEC6).
While the participants recognized and celebrated individualized use of technology with the children, they did not see that for themselves and expected systematic changes to ensure everyone was digitally competent. They talked about the need for systematic systems of modelling examples of pedagogical activities with digital technology; a finding also noticed by other researchers (e.g. Zipke et al., 2019). This might have to do with a longtime focus on ECEC-based collective competence development through national competence development strategies in Norway (Kunnskapsdepartementet, 2013, 2017, 2022). There has been some literature about the importance of introspection for ongoing digital competence development, but the focus has been on students (e.g. Perry et al., 2015) rather than educators. Our study adds some new insights into this literature as it suggests that ECEC educators perceive the system as an important support mechanism for their development of digital competence.
Following our theoretical framework, we propose that the ECEC context is subject to a tension between individual and collective reasons for using digital technology with children, because of the focus on children’s play and holistic view of children’s learning and development (Directorate for Education and Training, 2017), and the contrasting future-oriented view and more narrowly defined focus on skills, of digital technology (Williamson & Komljenovic, 2023). Many educators regard technology as a tool for play, emphasizing a hybrid or converged view of children’s contemporary play (Edwards et al., 2020; Vidal-Hall et al., 2020). However, the frequently routinized everyday activities in ECEC conflict with the time required for learning and experimenting with digital technology, particularly regarding the educators’ development of competence in using digital technology with children.
5 Conclusion
In this article we analysed the reflections of a group of Norwegian ECEC educators regarding: (1) the ontological beliefs they hold about using technology in ECEC and (2) the possible reasons for these ontological beliefs. Nested in the socio-cultural theory and the related concepts of dialogue in thinking (Mercer & Littleton, 2007) and dialogic teaching in classrooms (Mercer & Howe, 2012), this study positioned knowledge and technology as dynamic meaning-making processes in Norwegian ECEC settings.
The analysis showed that the educators highlighted the need for young children to be offered pedagogical experiences of high quality with digital technology, by drawing on both individual and collective reasons. Furthermore, the analysis showed that these subthemes intersect and are embedded into the educators’ ontological understandings of using digital technology at a young age. On the one hand, the educators recognized that technology enriches children’s learning and offers access to diverse experiences, when used well. On the other hand, the educators also saw individualization as a potential threat to collective experiences.
In this study, we contribute to current literature through a qualitative exploration of the ontological beliefs held by Norwegian early childhood educators engaged with technology and young children on a daily basis. By comprehending the ontological beliefs within this specific group of professionals, we aim to derive broader insights into perceptions prevalent in the ECEC field. Our study is limited by focusing on one context – the Norwegian ECEC – and the views of educators working within that context. While we tried to mitigate this limitation by involving educators from two regions in Norway and working at various levels within the kindergarten context, our findings are constrained to this specific group of participants. Future research could extend our study to include more diverse participants, encompassing perspectives from within Norway, the broader Scandinavian context, and internationally, where diverse approaches to early childhood education exist.
Considering the urgent need to bolster current practices and facilitate future professional development in the use of technology for young children (1–5-year-olds) in Norwegian ECEC, we highlight time as a critical factor contributing to the individual-collective tensions identified in participants’ accounts. Educators require time to create meaningful experiences with digital technology for all children, as well as time for their individual and collective learning. The constrained availability of time might jeopardise educators’ ability to perform these tasks effectively.
Acknowledgements
We thank the educators who participated in this study and so willingly shared their knowledge and thoughts with us.
Declarations
Competing interests
The authors have no competing interests to declare that are relevant to the content of this article.
Open Access This article is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution 4.0 International License, which permits use, sharing, adaptation, distribution and reproduction in any medium or format, as long as you give appropriate credit to the original author(s) and the source, provide a link to the Creative Commons licence, and indicate if changes were made. The images or other third party material in this article are included in the article’s Creative Commons licence, unless indicated otherwise in a credit line to the material. If material is not included in the article’s Creative Commons licence and your intended use is not permitted by statutory regulation or exceeds the permitted use, you will need to obtain permission directly from the copyright holder. To view a copy of this licence, visit http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/.
Publisher’s Note
Springer Nature remains neutral with regard to jurisdictional claims in published maps and institutional affiliations.