Katie Paciga
Dr. Katie Paciga is an Associate Professor of Education at Columbia College Chicago and was an Early Career Research Fellow of the TEC Center at the Erikson Institute and the Fred Rogers Center for Early Learning and Media at Saint Vincent College (funded by The Grable Foundation of Pittsburgh). She holds a PhD in Literacy, Language, and Culture (University of Illinois at Chicago, 2011) and is a licensed elementary school educator as well. Her teaching and research interests focus on the social, emotional, cultural, and cognitive bases for language and literacy development, with a focus on the ways in which educational policies, human interaction, individual interests, printed media (i.e., children's literature) and interactive media (i.e., web- and app-based games and tools) contribute to language and literacy teaching and learning.
less
InterestsView All (20)
Uploads
Papers by Katie Paciga
Download a copy of the open source article here: https://scholarworks.wmich.edu/reading_horizons/vol61/iss1/4
Results indicate there were fewer examples from research and practice related to infants and toddlers (0-3 years) than other age groups (3-8 years). Less than one-quarter of the entries addressed children with special rights and needs, linguistic diversity, or from homes with low socio-economic status. The majority of the research and practice indicated technology or digital media were being unitized or studied in home or school/child care contexts and that parents/guardians and teachers/child care providers were frequently identified as involved in children’s interactions with technology and digital media. Adults were more supportive of younger children’s interactions with technology and digital media than they were of older children’s interactions. For older children, support was often provided as an orientation to the task, rather than as continuous mediation of the child’s experiences. Few examples of research and practice situated technology or media use across contexts (home, school/child care, within a community, on-the-go). The majorty of the entries oriented to literacy goals or objectives (n=80) with fewer examples of science (n=36), math (n=46), or non-cognitive (n=15) oriented goals.
The data provides a substantial amount of indirect evidence that children’s interactions with technology and digital media are supportive of whole child development, especially when the content itself or something in the context did any of the following: helped children deal with frustration and/or mistakes; encouraged children to take positive risks; utilized digital media to facilitate empathy and awareness; encouraged children’s sense of trust; promoted children’s sense of self-worth; engaged children’s curiosities; encourages children to look and listen carefully; provided opportunities for children to play; and provided opportunities for children to quietly reflect—alone or near a trusted adult or peer.
Additional analyses suggest there may have been biases in the entries synthesized as a function of whether an entry was open access or behind an academic paywall. There was a greater likelihood to encounter negative or cautious messaging about young children’s interactions with technology and digital media in the open access entries. In addition, the foci of the pay-for-access entries tended to orient more around the child and specific learning outcomes, whereas the open access entries tended to orient more toward the content and use of technologies and media.
The report concludes with suggestions for future research and practice addressing the question: How does a child’s interactions with media and technology strengthen relationships? The following are among the list of actionable steps: simultaneously focus on the child, the content, and the context; look longitudinally; broaden how educators and parents identify and define technology tools for learning; plan for nimble research designs that can build theory; work to translate, demonstrate, and “show me” how to apply research; strive to be socially just with the policies surrounding technologies and media in children’s lives; and remember that every child needs a media mentor.
Download a copy of the open source article here: https://scholarworks.wmich.edu/reading_horizons/vol61/iss1/4
Results indicate there were fewer examples from research and practice related to infants and toddlers (0-3 years) than other age groups (3-8 years). Less than one-quarter of the entries addressed children with special rights and needs, linguistic diversity, or from homes with low socio-economic status. The majority of the research and practice indicated technology or digital media were being unitized or studied in home or school/child care contexts and that parents/guardians and teachers/child care providers were frequently identified as involved in children’s interactions with technology and digital media. Adults were more supportive of younger children’s interactions with technology and digital media than they were of older children’s interactions. For older children, support was often provided as an orientation to the task, rather than as continuous mediation of the child’s experiences. Few examples of research and practice situated technology or media use across contexts (home, school/child care, within a community, on-the-go). The majorty of the entries oriented to literacy goals or objectives (n=80) with fewer examples of science (n=36), math (n=46), or non-cognitive (n=15) oriented goals.
The data provides a substantial amount of indirect evidence that children’s interactions with technology and digital media are supportive of whole child development, especially when the content itself or something in the context did any of the following: helped children deal with frustration and/or mistakes; encouraged children to take positive risks; utilized digital media to facilitate empathy and awareness; encouraged children’s sense of trust; promoted children’s sense of self-worth; engaged children’s curiosities; encourages children to look and listen carefully; provided opportunities for children to play; and provided opportunities for children to quietly reflect—alone or near a trusted adult or peer.
Additional analyses suggest there may have been biases in the entries synthesized as a function of whether an entry was open access or behind an academic paywall. There was a greater likelihood to encounter negative or cautious messaging about young children’s interactions with technology and digital media in the open access entries. In addition, the foci of the pay-for-access entries tended to orient more around the child and specific learning outcomes, whereas the open access entries tended to orient more toward the content and use of technologies and media.
The report concludes with suggestions for future research and practice addressing the question: How does a child’s interactions with media and technology strengthen relationships? The following are among the list of actionable steps: simultaneously focus on the child, the content, and the context; look longitudinally; broaden how educators and parents identify and define technology tools for learning; plan for nimble research designs that can build theory; work to translate, demonstrate, and “show me” how to apply research; strive to be socially just with the policies surrounding technologies and media in children’s lives; and remember that every child needs a media mentor.