Supporting Whole Child Development in the Digital Age

  • Kate HighfieldEmail author
  • Katie A. Paciga
  • Chip Donohue
Part of the International Perspectives on Early Childhood Education and Development book series (CHILD, volume 22)


In this chapter the authors define a whole child approach as an approach to collaborative learning focused on children’s well-being, learning and growth. The whole child approach spans across the social, emotional, cognitive and language developmental domains and empowers young children as creative and collaborative learners in the digital age. The authors contextualise apps as part of a learning toolbox and present five vignettes from research and practice. Technology-enabled tools that afford cognitive, social and emotional development are highlighted. These illustrate how some digital tools—in certain contexts, supported by certain kinds of interactions—have potential for promoting sustained engagement, communication and collaboration, cognitive learning and social and emotional development.


  1. Bers, M.U. (2010). The tangibleK robotics program: Applied computational thinking for young children. Early Childhood Research and Practice, 12(2). Retrieved from
  2. Bers, M., & Ettinger, A. (2012). Programming robots in kindergarten to express identity: An ethnographic analysis. In B. Barker, G. Nugent, N. Grandgenett, & V. Adamchuk (Eds.), Robots in K-12 education: A new technology for learning (pp. 168–184). Hershey: IGI Global. Scholar
  3. Bers, M. U., Seddighin, S., & Sullivan, A. (2013). Ready for robotics: Bringing together the T and E of STEM in early childhood teacher education. Journal of Technology and Teacher Education, 21(3), 355–377.Google Scholar
  4. Butler, D., & Winne, P. (1995). Feedback and self-regulated learning: A theoretical synthesis. Review of Educational Research, 65(3), 245–281. Scholar
  5. Carson, V., Clark, M., Berry, T., Holt, N. L., & Latimer-Cheung, A. E. (2014). A qualitative examination of the perceptions of parents on the Canadian sedentary behaviour guidelines for the early years. International Journal of Behavioural Nutrition and Physical Activity, 11, 1–8. Scholar
  6. Cherner, T., Dix, J., & Lee, C. (2014). Cleaning up that mess: A framework for classifying educational apps. Contemporary Issues in Technology and Teacher Education, 14(2), 158–193. Retrieved from
  7. Clements, D. H., & Meredith, J. S. (1993). Research on logo: Effects and efficacy. Journal of Computing in Childhood Education, 4, 263–290. Retrieved from Scholar
  8. Collaborative for Academic, Social, and Emotional Learning [CASEL]. (2012). 2013 CASEL guide – Effective social and emotional learning programs: Preschool and elementary school edition. Retrieved from
  9. Danby, S., Davidson, C., Theobald, M., Scriven, B., Cobb-Moore, C., Houen, S, et al., (2013). Talk in activity during young children’s use of digital technologies at home. Australian Journal of Communication, 40(2), 83–99. Retrieved from
  10. Durlak, J. A., Weissberg, R. P., Dymnicki, A. B., Taylor, R. D., & Schellinger, K. B. (2011). The impact of enhancing students’ social and emotional learning: A meta-analysis of school-based universal interventions. Child Development, 82, 405–432. Scholar
  11. Ericsson, K. A., Krampe, R. T., & Tesch-Römer, C. (1993). The role of deliberate practice in the acquisition of expert performance. Psychological Review, 100(3), 363–406.
  12. Felt, L., & Robb, M. (2016). Technology addiction: Concern, controversy, and finding balance. San Francisco: Common Sense Media. Retrieved from
  13. Fleer, M. (2014). The demands and motives afforded through digital play in early childhood activity settings. Learning, Culture and Social Interaction, 3(3), 202–209. Scholar
  14. Goleman, D. (2005). Emotional intelligence: Why it can matter more than IQ. New York: Bantam.Google Scholar
  15. Goodwin, K., & Highfield, K. (2013). A framework for examining technologies and early mathematics learning. In L. D. English & J. T. Mulligan (Eds.), Reconceptualising early mathematics learning (pp. 205–226). New York: Springer.–94–007-6440-8_11.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  16. Greenberg, M. T., Weissberg, R. P., O’Brien, M. U., Zins, J. E., Fredericks, L., Resnik, H., & Elias, M. J. (2003). Enhancing school-based prevention and youth development through coordinated social, emotional, and academic learning. American Psychologist, 58(6 & 7), 466–474.
  17. Hattie, J., & Timperley, H. (2007). The power of feedback. Review of Educational Research, 77(1), 81–112. Scholar
  18. Highfield, K. (2010). Robotic toys as a catalyst for mathematical problem solving. Australian Primary Mathematics Classroom, 15, 22–27. Retrieved from Scholar
  19. Highfield, K., & Mulligan, J. T. (2009). Young children’s embodied action in problem-solving tasks using robotic toys. In M. Tzekaki, M. Kaldrimidou, & H. Sakonidis (Eds.), Paper presented at the 33rd Conference of the International Group for the Psychology of Mathematics Education (Vol. 2, pp. 273–280). Thessaloniki: PME. Retrieved from
  20. Hirsh-Pasek, K., Zosh, J. M., Golinkoff, R. M., Gray, J. H., Robb, M. B., & Kaufman, J. (2015). Putting education in “educational” apps: Lessons from the science of learning. Psychological Science in the Public Interest, 16(1), 3–34. doi:
  21. Horn, M., & Jacob, R. J. (2007). Designing tangible programming languages for classroom use. Paper presented at First International Conference on Tangible and Embedded Interaction, Baton Rouge, LA. Retrieved from
  22. Horn, M., Solovey, E., & Jacob, R. (2008). Tangible programming and informal science learning: Making TUIs work for museums. Proceedings of the 8th International Conference on Design. New York: ACM. Retrieved from
  23. Horn, M., Solovey, E., Crouser, R., & Jacob, R. (2009). Comparing the use of tangible and graphical programming languages for informal science education. Paper presented at the 27th International Conference on Human Factors in Computing Systems, Boston, MA. Retrieved from
  24. Isbister, K. (2016). How games move us: Emotion by design (Playful thinking series). Cambridge, MA: The MIT Press.Google Scholar
  25. Kabali, H. K., Irigoyen, M. M., Nunez-Davis, R., Budacki, J. G., Mohanty, S. H., Leister, K. P., & Bonner, R. L. (2015). Exposure and use of mobile media devices by young children. Pediatrics, 136(6), 1044–1050.
  26. Marsh, J., Plowman, L., Yamada-Rice, D., Bishop, J., & Scott, F. (2016). Digital play: A new classification. Early Years, 36, 242–253. Scholar
  27. Mascheroni, G. (2014). Parenting the mobile internet in Italian households: Parents’ and children’s discourses. Journal of Children and Media, 8, 440–456. Scholar
  28. Mayer, R. E. (2004). Should there be a three-strikes rule against pure discovery learning? The case for guided methods of instruction. The American Psychologist, 59, 14–19. Scholar
  29. Myers, L. J., LeWitt, R. B., Gallo, R. E., & Maselli, N. M. (2016). Baby FaceTime: Can toddlers learn from online video chat? Developmental Science, 20(4).
  30. National Association for the Education of Young Children, & Fred Rogers Center for Early Learning and Children’s Media at Saint Vincent College. (2012). Technology and interactive media as tools in early childhood programs serving children birth through age 8. Washington, DC: NAEYC. Retrieved from Scholar
  31. National Research Council. (2009). Preventing mental, emotional, and behavioral disorders among young people: Progress and possibilities. In M. E. O’Connell, T. Boat, & K. E. Warner (Eds.), Committee on prevention of mental disorders and substance abuse among children, youth and young adults: Research advances and promising interventions. Institute of medicine. Washington, DC: National Academies Press. Retrieved from. Scholar
  32. National Research Council. (2012). Education for life and work: Developing transferable knowledge and skills in the 21st century. In Committee on defining deeper learning and 21st century skills, Board on testing and assessment and Board on science education, Division of behavioral and social sciences and education. Washington, DC: The National Academies Press. Retrieved from Scholar
  33. Ravitch, D. (2010). The life and death of the great American school system: How testing and choice are undermining education. New York: Basic Books.Google Scholar
  34. Rideout, V. J. (2011). Zero to eight: Children’s media use in America. San Francisco, CA: Common Sense Media. Retrieved from
  35. Rideout, V. J. (2013). Zero to eight: Children’s media use in America 2013. San Francisco: Common Sense Media. Retrieved from
  36. Roskos, K., Burstein, K., & You, B.-K. (2012). A typology for observing children’s engagement with eBooks at preschool. Journal of Interactive Online Learning, 11(2), 47–66. Retrieved from Scholar
  37. Savard, A., & Highfield, K. (2015). Teachers’ talk about robotics: Where is the mathematics? In M. Marshman, V. Geiger, & A. Bennison (Eds.), Mathematics education in the margins: Proceedings of the 38th Annual Conference of the Mathematics Education Research Group of Australasia (pp. 540–546). Sunshine Coast: MERGA. Retrieved from
  38. Shute, V. (2008). Focus on formative feedback. Review of Educational Research, 78(1), 153–189.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  39. Strawhacker, A. L., & Bers, M. U. (2015). “I want my robot to look for food”: Comparing children’s programming comprehension using tangible, graphical, and hybrid user interfaces. International Journal of Technology and Design Education, 25(3), 293–319. Scholar
  40. Sullivan, A., & Bers, M. U. (2012). Gender differences in kindergarteners’ robotics and programming achievement. International Journal of Technology and Design Education.
  41. Sullivan, A., & Bers, M. U. (2016). Robotics in the early childhood classroom: Learning outcomes from an 8-week robotics curriculum in pre-kindergarten through second grade. International Journal of Technology and Design Education, 26, 3–20. Scholar
  42. Sylva, K., Melhuish, E., Sammons, P., Siraj-Blatchford, I., & Taggart, B. (2004). The effective provision of preschool education (EPPE) project: Final Report: A longitudinal study funded by the DfES 1997–2004. Institute of Education, University of London/Department for Education and Skills/Sure Start.Google Scholar
  43. Theobald, M., Danby, S., Davidson, C., Houen, S., Scriven, B., & Thorpe, K. (2016). How talk and interaction unfold in a digitally enabled preschool classroom. Australian Journal of Linguistics, 36(2), 189–204. Scholar
  44. Turkle, S. (2015). Reclaiming conversation: The power of talk in a digital age. New York: Penguin.Google Scholar
  45. Vatavu, R. D., Cramariuc, G., & Schipor, D. M. (2014). Touch interaction for children aged 3 to 6 years: Experimental findings and relationship to motor skills. International Journal of Human-Computer Studies.
  46. Verenikina, I., & Kervin, L. (2011). iPads, digital play and pre-schoolers. He Kupu, 2(5), 4–19. Retrieved from Scholar
  47. Verenikina, I., Kervin, L. & Rivera, C. (2016, May 13). Opinion: The best apps you can imagine. Early Learning Review, pp 1–2. Retrieved from
  48. Yelland, N. J. (1994). The strategies and interactions of young children in LOGO tasks. Journal of Computer Assisted Learning, 10, 33–49. Scholar

Technology Tools Referenced

  1. Fred Rogers Centre at Saint Vincent College. (2015). ChromaKids [software]. Available
  2. Red Frog Digital Limited & Carlton Books Limited. (2013) iDinosaurAR [software]. Available iOS Available Android
  3. Terrapin Software. (2016a). Bee-Bot [toy]. Available
  4. Terrapin Software. (2016b). Blue-Bot [toy]. Available

Copyright information

© Springer Nature Singapore Pte Ltd. 2018

Authors and Affiliations

  • Kate Highfield
    • 1
    Email author
  • Katie A. Paciga
    • 2
  • Chip Donohue
    • 3
  1. 1.Swinburne University of TechnologyMelbourneAustralia
  2. 2.Columbia College ChicagoChicagoUSA
  3. 3.Erikson InstituteChicagoUSA

Personalised recommendations