Graduate Studies Reports Access

Graduate Course Proposal Form Submission Detail - EEC7317
Tracking Number - 2549

Edit function not enabled for this course.

Current Status: Approved, Permanent Archive - 2011-08-01
Campus: Tampa
Submission Type: New
Course Change Information (for course changes only):
Comments: to GC 5/10/11; GC approved 6/6/11; to USF System for concurrence 6/23/11; to SCNS 7/1/11. Approved Effect 8/1/11. Nmbr (7307); assigned as 7317

Detail Information

  1. Date & Time Submitted: 2011-04-08
  2. Department: Childhood Education & Literacy Studies
  3. College: ED
  4. Budget Account Number: 172100
  5. Contact Person: Ilene Berson
  6. Phone: 8139747698
  7. Email:
  8. Prefix: EEC
  9. Number: 7317
  10. Full Title: ICT in the Early Years
  11. Credit Hours: 3
  12. Section Type: D - Discussion (Primarily)
  13. Is the course title variable?: N
  14. Is a permit required for registration?: N
  15. Are the credit hours variable?: N
  16. Is this course repeatable?:
  17. If repeatable, how many times?: 0
  18. Abbreviated Title (30 characters maximum): ICT in the Early Years
  19. Course Online?: C - Face-to-face (0% online)
  20. Percentage Online: 0
  21. Grading Option: R - Regular
  22. Prerequisites: Doctoral Standing
  23. Corequisites: Doctoral Standing
  24. Course Description: Explores the interface between young children and information and communication technology (ICT) from a developmental perspective.

  25. Please briefly explain why it is necessary and/or desirable to add this course: Needed for program/concentration/certificate change
  26. What is the need or demand for this course? (Indicate if this course is part of a required sequence in the major.) What other programs would this course service? Young children are coming of age surrounded by information and communication technology (ICT). ICT is a prominent force in their lives, and working with ICT can stimulate students intellectualy, incite their creativity, and challenge them to apply developmentally appropriate inquiry approaches that enhance their learning experienes. Digital technologies also allow children to expand their physical space and access many online social environments that transcend time and space. However, any focus on the efficiency and effectiveness of technology applications in the early childhood years cannot overlook the potential consequences of technological development on children with regard to their social functioning, interpersonal interactions, and global understanding. In addition to evaluating technolgy as a tool of instruction, doctoral students must focus on educational implications and ethical issues associated with their use. Understanding the physical and social contexts as well as the developmental issues, is critical to scholars aiming to optimize the full potential of digital tools that support and enhance the experiences of young children.
  27. Has this course been offered as Selected Topics/Experimental Topics course? If yes, how many times? Yes, 1 time
  28. What qualifications for training and/or experience are necessary to teach this course? (List minimum qualifications for the instructor.) Faculty for the course must have advanced education and/or engaged in scholarly inquiry in the ICT in the Early Years.
  29. Objectives: Following completion of the course students will demonstrate the ability to:

    1.Articulate the historical antecedents and theoretical basis for integration of digital technology into early

    childhood instruction;

    2. Examine current trends, conceptual frameworks, and professional standards for using technology in Prek-3rd grade (e.g., ISTE, NAEYC, APA, Sunshine State Standards, Florida Accomplished Teaching Practices);

    3.Critique policies and practices for the use of ICT in the early years;

    4.Discuss critical perspectives on ICT in the early years;

    5.Plan and design learning environments that effectively incorporate ICT;

    6.Develop competencies in the use of a variety of technology and media to foster children’s critical thinking skills, cognitive development, and/or socio-emotional functioning;

    7.Describe technology-related ethical dilemmas/safety concerns and practice solutions to promote socio-emotional/physical well being;

    8.Identify how technology relates to various developmental levels and learning needs;

    9.Evaluate and select applications and technological tools that are educational, developmentally appropriate, and sensitive to diverse populations;

    10.Work collaboratively with teachers and children to incorporate and integrate technology;

    11.Identify potential sources of funding to promote effective and innovative uses of technology in the early years.

  30. Learning Outcomes: The goal of the course is to build both technical expertise through hands-on exploration as well as theoretical knowledge to be able to choose adequate technology, seamlessly integrate it into the learning environment, and design research studies to evaluate its impact on young children’s learning and socio-emotional functioning. Students will engage in observational research of children learning through playful and creative use of digital technologies, and they will explore the use of technological tools to document the learning experience. The course is project-based with extensive discourse on the scholarship in the field and applied experiences leading to publication and grant writing in this interdisciplinary area.
  31. Major Topics: I.Theoretical Foundations to Learning with Technology: Constructionism, Connectivism, and Technocentrism

    II.Research on Technology and Children

    III. Critical Views on ICT in the Early Years

    IV.Technology Standards and Position Statements

    V.Technology and Young Children's Cognitive Development

    VI.Technology and Children's Social Development

    VII.Safe and Ethical Uses of Technology: Cybercitizenship

    VIII.Technology in ECE Teacher Education

  32. Textbooks: None
  33. Course Readings, Online Resources, and Other Purchases: •Brown, A. (1992). Design experiments: Theoretical and methodological challenges in creating complex interventions in classroom settings. The Journal of the Learning Sciences, 2(2), 141-178

    •Piaget’s Constructivism, Papert’s Constructionism: What’s the difference?

    •Papert, S. (1999, March 29). Papert on Piaget. Time Magazine, special issue on "The Century's Greatest Minds," 105.

    •Papert, S (1991) 'Situating Constructionism', Constructionism, Ablex Publishing Corporation.

    •A Critique of Technocentrism

    •Million Dollar Babies: Why Infants Can’t Be Hardwired for Success

    •The Effects of Electronic Media on Children Ages Zero to Six: A History of Research

    •Zero to Six: Electronic Media in the Lives of Infants, Toddlers and Preschoolers

    Introduction, Key Findings, and Conclusion (pp. 2-13)

    •Like Taking Candy From a Baby: How Young Children Interact with Online Environments

    •Kirkorian, H. L., Wartella, E. A., & Anderson, D. R. (2008). Media and Young Children's Learning.

    DeLoache, J. S. et al. (2010). Do babies learn from baby media? Psychological Science.

    •Shuler, C. (2009). Pockets of Potential: Using Mobile Technologies to Promote Children’s Learning. New York, NY: The Joan Ganz Cooney Center at Sesame Workshop.

    •Shuler, C. (2007). D is for Digital: An Analysis of the Children’s Interactive Media Environment With a Focus on Mass Marketed Products that Promote Learning. New York, NY: The Joan Ganz Cooney Center at Sesame Workshop.

    Learning: Is there an app for that?

    •Cordes, C., & Miller, E. (2000). Fool's gold: A critical look at computers in childhood. College Park, MD: Alliance for Childhood. (Introduction and Executive summary only)

    •Alliance for Childhood. (2004). Tech Tonic: Towards a New Literacy of Technology, Alliance for Childhood. College Park, MD

    •Clements, D. & Sarama, J. (2003). Strip Mining for Gold: Research and Policy in Educational Technology: A Response to "Fool's Gold (in PDF)" AACE Journal. 11(1), 7-69.

    •Parette, H. P., & Quesenberry, A. C. (2010). Missing the boat with technology usage in early childhood settings: A 21st century view of developmentally appropriate practices. Early Childhood Education Journal, 37(5), 335-343.

    •NAEYC Position Statement•APA Policy Statement

    •The National Educational Technology Standards (NETS, 2009)

    •The Horizon Report Preview (2011)

    •Bers, M. (2008). Engineers and storytellers: Using robotic manipulatives to develop technological fluency in early childhood. In O. Saracho & B. Spodek (Eds). Contemporary Perspectives on Science and Technology in Early Childhood Education.(pp. 105-125). Charlotte, NC: Information Age Publishing

    •Hirsh-Pasek, K., & Golinkoff, R. M. (2009). Brains in a box: Do new age toys deliver on the promise? In R. Harwood (Ed.), Child development in a changing society. Hoboken, NJ: Wiley Press.

    •Li, X., Atkins, M. S., & Stanton, B. (2006). Effects of home and school computer use on school readiness and cognitive development among Head Start children: A randomized controlled pilot trial. Merrill-Palmer Quarterly, 52, 239-263.

    •On Our Minds: Meaningful Technology Integration in Early Learning Envrionments. Technology and Young Children Interest Forum Members, Young Children, September 2008, Vol. 63, No. 5.

    •Wang, X. C., Berson, I. R., et al. (2010). Children’s experiences with technology in multiple contexts: Re-conceptualizing the ecology of learning and development. In I. R. Berson & M. J. Berson (Eds.), High-tech tots: Childhood in a digital world. Charlotte, NC: Information Age Publishing.

    •Yelland, N. (2010). New technologies, playful experiences and multi-modal learning. In I. R. Berson & M. J. Berson (Eds.), High-tech tots: Childhood in a digital world. Charlotte, NC: Information Age Publishing.

    •Berson, I. R. (2009). Here’s what we have to say! Podcasting in the early childhood classroom. Social Studies and the Young Learner, 21(4), 8-11.

    •Berson, I. R., & Berson, M. J. (2009). Panwapa: Global kids, global connections. Social Studies and the Young Learner, 21(4), 28-31.

    •Berson, I. R., & Berson, M. J. (2006). Children and their digital dossiers: Lessons in privacy rights in the digital age. Enhancing Democracy with Technology in the Social Studies [Special Issue]. International Journal of Social Education, 21(1), 135-147.

    •Berson, M. J., & Berson, I. R. (2004). Developing thoughtful “cybercitizens.” Social Studies and the Young Learner, 16(4), 5-8.

    •Beisser, S.R. & Gillespie, C.W. (2003). Kindergartners can do it, ¬so can you: A case study of a constructionist technology-rich first year seminar for undergraduate college students. Information Technology in Childhood Education Annual, 243-260.

    •Technological Pedagogical Content Knowledge (TPCK, 2009)

  34. Student Expectations/Requirements and Grading Policy: Grades in the class will be a result of completion of the couse requirements listed below:

    15% Attendance/Participation

    30% Grant Pre-proposal

    25% Professional Development Presentation

    30% ICT Manuscript

    Class Participation

    Students are expected to attend, actively participate, and demonstrate a positive attitude and professional disposition during all class sessions. Students may earn a specified number of points per class, for a possible total 100 points for the semester.

    Grant Pre-proposal

    Students will develop an idea for a grant and write a pre-proposal for a technology-based research project (maximum 6 pages).

    Professional Development Presentation

    Students will submit a brief abstract (50 words) and a copy of a 20-30 minute presentation using the format of their choice (PPT, Keynote, Prezio, Voicethread, etc.) which is focused on the identified ICT in their grant and manuscript. The presentation will be geared for a practitioner audience to introduce the ICT and substantiate implementation in early childhood contexts.

    ICT Manuscript

    Each student will develop a manuscript for practitioners based on the ICT focused on in the grant pre-proposal. The manuscript should be 10-12 pages in length, including references and graphics, and adhere to APA guidelines (6th edition).

    Grading Scale: Plus/Minus grading system will be used, A+, A, A-, B+, B, B-, ...F

    An “I” grade will only be considered by the instructor for students with otherwise excellent attendance and only for documented circumstances of the greatest magnitude that are unavoidable (usually hospitalization or immediate family tragedy). Students who find themselves in such a circumstance, should petition by e-mail – within 2 days of the precipitating event - explaining the circumstance. At that time a judgment will be made as to the merits of the petition, the kind of documentation to be submitted for verification will be explained, if necessary, and then the student will be informed of the required remedy. Judgments also take into account the overall quality of work and professional disposition.

  35. Assignments, Exams and Tests: Week 1. Course Introduction and overview

    Week 2. Theoretical Foundations to Learning with

    Technology: Constructionism, Connectiveism, and


    Week 3. Research on Technology and Children I

    Week 4. Research on Technology and Children II

    Week 5. Reach on Technology and Children III

    Week 6. Critical Views on ICT in the Early Years

    Week 7. Technology Standards and Position Statements

    Week 8. Technology and Young Children's Cognitive


  36. Attendance Policy: Course Attendance at First Class Meeting – Policy for Graduate Students: For structured courses, 6000 and above, the College/Campus Dean will set the first-day class attendance requirement. Check with the College for specific information. This policy is not applicable to courses in the following categories: Educational Outreach, Open University (TV), FEEDS Program, Community Experiential Learning (CEL), Cooperative Education Training, and courses that do not have regularly scheduled meeting days/times (such as, directed reading/research or study, individual research, thesis, dissertation, internship, practica, etc.). Students are responsible for dropping undesired courses in these categories by the 5th day of classes to avoid fee liability and academic penalty. (See USF Regulation – Registration - 4.0101,

    Attendance Policy for the Observance of Religious Days by Students: In accordance with Sections 1006.53 and 1001.74(10)(g) Florida Statutes and Board of Governors Regulation 6C-6.0115, the University of South Florida (University/USF) has established the following policy regarding religious observances: (

    In the event of an emergency, it may be necessary for USF to suspend normal operations. During this time, USF may opt to continue delivery of instruction through methods that include but are not limited to: Blackboard, Elluminate, Skype, and email messaging and/or an alternate schedule. It’s the responsibility of the student to monitor Blackboard site for each class for course specific communication, and the main USF, College, and department websites, emails, and MoBull messages for important general information.

  37. Policy on Make-up Work: Assignments will be given a letter grade based on the University grading system and the scoring guidelines that accompany each assignment. Assignments may not be revised for resubmission after the due date so it is strongly recommended that students arrange to meet with the professor in advance to receive feedback and additional guidance regarding progress on submissions. There are not extra credit assignments.

    All assignments are due on the date specified on the course calendar. Assignments will be considered turned in on-time if they are submitted to the professor during class on the date due, emailed on the due date, or if the assingment is mailed to the professors's university address and is postmarked with the due date. If an assignment is mailed, you may want to consider sending it registered/certified mail so that you have a record that it was sent. Papers recieved one to two days late will automatically be droppped a letter grade after the assignment has been evaluated using the criteria in the syllabus. Any student who does not turn their work within two days of the due date will learn a grade of F on the respective assignment. This means that the highest grade you can earn is 59 points for the late submission.

    “Plagiarism is defined as "literary theft" and consists of the unattributed quotation of the exact words of a published text or the unattributed borrowing of original ideas by paraphrase from a published text. On written papers for which the student employs information gathered from books, articles, or oral sources, each direct quotation, as well as ideas and facts that are not generally known to the public-at-large, must be attributed to its author by means of the appropriate citation procedure. Citations may be made in footnotes or within the body of the text. Plagiarism also consists of passing off as one's own, segments or the total of another person's work.”

    “Punishment for academic dishonesty will depend on the seriousness of the offense and may include receipt of an "F" with a numerical value of zero on the item submitted, and the "F" shall be used to determine the final course grade. It is the option of the instructor to assign the student a grade of "F" of "FF" (the latter indicating dishonesty) in the course.”

  38. Program This Course Supports: Ph.D. in Curriculum & Instruction with a Concentration in Early Childhood Education
  39. Course Concurrence Information: Curriculum & Instruction Elementary PhD

    Other PhD students seeking a congnate in Early Childhood

- if you have questions about any of these fields, please contact or