Parental Strategies in Technology Activities with Children with Special Needs

Author(s):

Kaisa Pihlainen(presenting / submitting)

Conference:

ECER 2017

Network:

06. Open Learning: Media, Environments and Cultures

Format:

Paper

Session Information

06 SES 04, Media Education: Parental strategies

Paper Session

Time:

2017-08-23

09:00-10:30

Room:

K6.15

Chair:

Stefan Iske

Contribution

The sudden changes in children´s developmental environments and technology use raise concerns, excitement and hope for many parents. It appears that parents worry how to support a balanced growth of their children, including preventing them from improper technology contents (Plowman et al., 2010) or preventing children´s technology use to expose them other activities (e.g. social interaction, play and outdoor activities) (Plowman et al., 2010; Takeuchi 2011). Simultaneously parents are enthusiastic and satisfied with their children´s skills to use technology that is considered to be a necessary skill currently and in the future (Plowman et al., 2010). One way for parents to provide a safe and stimulating environment to support their children´s balanced growth and learning is to use technologies together. Regardless of this prominent aspect in children´s lives, studies in information and communication technologies (ICT) are rarely focused on children and families (Stevenson 2011). The emphasis has also been in studying the amount of technology use in families while the family practices have been less studied. In this study the term ´technology´ refers to the wide spectrum of technical tools and software, yet emphasizing digital technology and media, such as ICT.

Studies concerning parental strategies in shared technology-based situations are traditionally based on studies about television use (e.g. Eastin et al., 2006; Takeuchi 2011). For example, Valkenburg and her colleagues (1999) described three parental strategies where a parent acts in instructive mediation including discussions of parents and children concerning the TV contents; restrictive mediation where parents regulate and limit the television watching of children; or socialco-viewing where parents watch on TV with children. Technology development challenged the traditional parental strategies that focused on TV watching and, therefore, Clark (2011) suggested fourth parental strategy, participatory learning. Central to this strategy are learner centered activities, free experiments and play.

There appears to be a shortage of studies investigating parental actions and strategies in technology-based activities regarding families with children with special needs. Among the few studies, Bourke-Taylor et al. (2013) described that the most children with Cerebral Palsy need parental support in using technology. For example, some of these children are not able to watch TV or listen to music without support and, therefore, parents face challenges not only how to use technology together with their child but also how to enable technology use for their child per se.

The purpose of this research was to examine how parents act in technology-based activities with their children with special needs. The current study was conducted in technology clubs where children with special needs utilized various technologies, mostly do-it-yourself software for Kinect for Xbox 360, LEGO NXT robots, large touch screens or large tiles with changeable symbol cards (Kärnä et al. 2010). Currently, technology clubs for children with special needs and their parents are rare globally and their participation in long-term technology design makes the study unique. The actual importance of the technology clubs is connected with the goal to provide children and parents with opportunities to influence in their environment and development of technology that they use themselves. Promoting participation of all children is based on the Convention on the rights of the child (United Nations 1989) and national laws.

Method

This research was based on socioconstructivistic view where people are seen to construct the reality and develop the practices through reflection and actions (e.g. Weinberg 2014). This orientation directed to employ action research that was combined with participatory design approach (Pihlainen et al. 2016). In this study the main focus was to study parents´ views so research data was collected in interviewing them. Qualitative research interviews were implemented to investigate the views and experiences of parents in technology-based activities (cf. Gaskell 2000). Parents (N = 15, 10 mothers, 4 fathers and one grandmother) participated in technology clubs with their children with special needs. These children (N=18, 4–11 years old) had diverse special needs, including attention and hyperactivity disorder (ADHD), autism spectrum disorder, Cerebral Palsy, developmental disability and/or learning disabilities. These special needs affected e.g. in children´s verbal communication, concentration, attention and/or sensory integration. Although the special needs of children had been taken into account, the activities in the technology clubs emphasized the strengths and interests of the children (Kärnä et al. 2010). Parents educational level, socioeconomic status and age have been shown to affect to their participation when children use technologies (e.g. Valkenburg et al., 1999). However, they were not the focus of this study and, thus, they were not examined. Instead, the purpose in this study was to scrutinize the activities of parents in a general level. During a five-year period (2009-2013), parents were interviewed annually a total of 31 times, average being in two interviews per family. In the interviews, parents ́ views of technology use, their participation in technology design and their observations of these activities were examined. Interviews followed the same formula that was slightly modified during the years (cf. Rapley 2004) to pay attention to the changes between and highlights of the various years. Interview data was qualitatively analyzed employing theory-driven analysis to semantically classify (Bauer 2000) the interview data to describe the parental strategies. The longitudinal data (cf. Bauer 2000) enabled also to analyze changes in parental strategies during the five years of technology clubs. The whole action research and participatory design processes were based on strong ethical considerations (see e.g. Savenye & Robinson 2004) as well as investigating trustworthiness of the research (Lincoln & Guba 1985).

Expected Outcomes

In this study parents´ activities were classified into seven strategies: Parents were explorers when they were motivated to try out and explore the possibilities of the technologies; learners when parents gained new understanding from their child or technologies; observers when parents noticed skill development, interests and activities of their children when using technologies; developers when parents designed technologies, their use and guidance for their children; co-actors when parents collaborated with their children in technology activities; carers when parents paid attention to the well-being, safety and learning of the children as well as to resources to enable children to use technology; and restrictors when parents monitored or regulated the technology use of the children. The longitudinal data revealed that parents strategies as co-actors and restrictors increased during a five-year period in technology clubs. Parental strategies in this study confirmed the strategies found in previous studies (Valkenburg et al., 1999, Clark 2011). Compared to previous studies, the role of developers gained wider interpretations since parents participated in design processes of technologies. Thus, it was important to notice that parents of children with special needs are able and want to participate in technology design, as long as their needs were taken into account in organizing the environment and practices. The results reflect the importance of environment that enable the use of various parental strategies. It was also crucial to be aware of the activities and practices of oneself and the others, that is the ground base for action research (Carr & Kemmis 1986). The community close to children and parents should, therefore, create a supportive atmosphere for participation for all, as well as to support the development of technological skills and knowledge needed for the participation of all individuals actively in a digitalized society.

References

Bauer, M.W. 2000. Classical Content Analysis: A Review. In M.W. Bauer & G. Gaskell (Eds.). Qualitative Researching with Text, Image and Sound. London: Sage, 132-152. Bourke-Taylor, H., Cotter, C. & Stephan, R. 2013. Young Children with Cerebral Palsy: Families Self-Reported Equipment Needs and Out-of-pocket Expenditure. Child: Care, Health & Development 40(5), 654-662. Carr, W. & Kemmis, S. 1986. Becoming Critical: Education, Knowledge and Action Research. London: Falmer. Clark, L.S. 2011. Parental Mediation Theory for the Digital Age. Communication Theory 21(2011), 323–343. Eastin, M.S., Greenberg, B.S. & Hofschire. L. 2006. Parenting the Internet. Journal of Communication 56(3), 486-504. Gaskell, G. 2000. Qualitative Researching with Text, Image and Sound. A Practical Handbook for Social Research. London School of Economics, UK. Kärnä, E., Nuutinen, J., Pihlainen-Bednarik, K. & Vellonen, V. 2010. Designing Technologies with Children with Special Needs: Children in the Centre (CiC) Framework. In Proceedings of the International Conference on Interaction Design and Children, Barcelona, Spain: ACM Press, 218-221. Lincoln, Y.S. & Guba, E.G. 1985. Naturalistic Inquiry. Newbury Park, CA: Sage. Pihlainen, K., Suero Montero, C. & Kärnä, E. 2016. Fostering Parental Co-development of Technology for Children with Special Needs Informal Learning Activities. International Journal of Child-Computer Interaction. Doi: http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.ijcci.2016.10.010. Plowman, L., McPake, J. & Stephen, C. 2010. The Technologisation of Childhood? Young Children and Technology in the Home. Children & Society 24(1), 63–74. Rapley, T. 2004. Interviews. In B.S. Seale, G. Gobo, J.F. Gubrium & D. Silverman (toim.). Qualitative Research Practice. London, UK: Sage Publications, 15-33. Savenye, W.C. & Robinson, R.S. 2004. Qualitative Research Issues and Methods: An Introduction for Educational Technologists. In D.H. Jonassen (Ed.). Handbook of Research on Educational Communications and Technology. 2. Ed. Mahwah, NJ, USA: Erlbaum Associates, 1045-1071. Stevenson, O. 2011. From Public Policy to Family Practices: Researching the Everyday Realities of Families’ Technology Use at Home. Journal of Computer Assisted Learning 27, 336-346. Takeuchi, L. 2011. Families Matter: Designing Media for a Digital Age. http://www.joanganzcooneycenter.org/wp-content/uploads/2011/06/jgcc_familiesmatter.pdf. United Nations. 1989. The UN Convention on the Rights of the Child. https://www.crin.org/en/home/rights/convention/text-convention. Valkenburg, P. M., Krcmar, M., Peeters, A. L., & Marseille, N. M. 1999. Developing a Scale to Assess Three Styles of Television Mediation: Instructive Mediation, Restrictive Mediation, and Social Coviewing. Journal of Broadcasting and Electronic Media 43(1), 52–67. Weinberg, D. 2014. Contemporary Social Constructionism: Key Themes. Philadelphia, USA: Temple University Press.

Author Information

Kaisa Pihlainen (presenting / submitting)

University of Eastern Finland

Special Education

Joensuu

Search the ECER Programme

Search for keywords and phrases in "Text Search"
Restrict in which part of the abstracts to search in "Where to search"
Search for authors and in the respective field.
For planning your conference attendance you may want to use the conference app, which will be issued some weeks before the conference
If you are a session chair, best look up your chairing duties in the conference system (Conftool) or the app.