Children’s symbolic understanding of a digital,three-dimensional,interactive image ( La comprensión simbólica infantil de una imagen digital,tridimensional e interactiva )

Abstract

Spanish

Young children increasingly interact with technological devices, either as a form of entertainment or for educational purposes. This research sought to investigate the early symbolic understanding of an interactive, three-dimensional digital image presented on a tablet. Two studies were designed in which the children had to use the image as a source of information to solve a search task. The first study investigated the performance of children aged 30 and 36 months. We found that the children symbolically understood the image at 36 months, but not at 30. The second study investigated the impact of manipulation and instruction on the performance of 36-month-old children. The results showed that the manipulation of the image negatively impacted the understanding of it as a symbol, regardless of the instruction received. The results are interpreted in terms of the impact of manipulation, instruction and the three-dimensionality of the object on understanding it as a symbol. Possible implications in education are also discussed.

Get full access to this article

View all access options for this article.

References

Agius

M. M.

Vance

(2016). A comparison of PECS and iPad to teach requesting to pre-schoolers with autistic spectrum disorders. Augmentative and Alternative Communication, 32(1), 58–68. https://doi.org/10.3109/07434618.2015.1108363

Allen

M. L.

Hartley

Cain

. (2015). Do iPads promote symbolic understanding and word learning in children with autism? Frontiers in Psychology, 6(1), 138–142. https://doi.org/10.3389/fpsyg.2015.00138

Allen

M. L.

Hartley

Cain

. (2016). iPads and the use of “apps” by children with autism spectrum disorder: Do they promote learning? Frontiers in Psychology, 7, 1305. https://doi.org/10.3389/fpsyg.2016.01305

American Academy of Pediatrics . (2016). Media and young minds. Pediatrics, 138(5), 1–12. https://doi.org/10.1542/peds.2016-2591

Blades, M., & Spencer, C . (1994). The development of children’s ability to use spatial representations. Advances in Child Development and Behavior, 25, 157–99. https://doi.org/10.1016/S0065-2407(08)60052-X

Callaghan

. (2005). Developing an intention to communicate through drawing. Enface, 57(1), 45–56. https://doi.org/10.3917/enf.571.0045

Chiong

DeLoache

J. S

. (2013). Learning the ABCs: What kinds of picture books facilitate young children’s learning? Journal of Early Childhood Literacy, 13(2), 225–241. https://doi.org/10.1177/1468798411430091

Choi

Kirkorian

H. L

. (2016). Touch or watch to learn? Toddlers’ object retrieval using contingent and noncontingent video. Psychological Science, 27(5), 726–736. https://doi.org/10.1177/0956797616636110

DeLoache

J. S.

Burns

N. M

. (1994). Early understanding of the representational function of pictures. Cognition, 52(2), 83–110. https://doi.org/10.1016/0010-0277(94)90063-9

10.

DeLoache

J. S.

Marzolf

D. P

. (1992). When a picture is not worth a thousand words: Young children’s understanding of pictures and models. Cognitive Development, 7(3), 317–329. https://doi.org/10.1016/0885-2014(92)90019-N

11.

DeLoache

J. S.

Miller

K. F.

Rosengren

K. S

. (1997). The credible shrinking room: Very young children’s performance with symbolic and nonsymbolic relations. Psychological Science, 8(4), 308–313. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1467-9280.1997.tb00443.x

12.

DeLoache

J. S.

Peralta

Anderson

K. N

. (1999). Multiple factors in early symbol use: Instructions, similarity, and age in understanding a symbol-referent relation. Cognitive Development, 14(2), 299–312. https://doi.org/10.1016/S0885-2014(99)00006-4

13.

DeLoache

J. S

. (1987). Rapid change in the symbolic functioning of very young children. Science, 238(4833), 1556–1557. https://doi.org/10.1126/science.2446392

14.

DeLoache

J. S

. (1989). Young children’s understanding of the correspondence between a scale model and a larger space. Cognitive Development, 4(2), 121–139. https://doi.org/10.1016/0885-2014(89)90012-9

15.

DeLoache

J. S

. (2004). Becoming symbol-minded. Trends in Cognitive Sciences, 8(2), 66–70. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.tics.2003.12.004

16.

Flores

Musgrove

Renner

Hinton

Strozier

Franklin

Hil

. (2012). A comparison of communication using the Apple iPad and a picture-based system. Augmentative and Alternative Communication, 28(2), 74–84. https://doi.org/10.3109/07434618.2011.644579

17.

Gelman

S. A.

Chesnick

R. J.

Waxman

S. R

. (2005). Mother–child conversations about pictures and objects: Referring to categories and individuals. Child Development, 76(6), 1129–1143. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1467-8624.2005.00876.x-i1

18.

Jauck

Peralta

. (2016). La comprensión simbólica temprana de una imagen digital como medio de comunicación y fuente de información. Anales de Psicología/Annals of Psychology, 32(3), 886–892. https://doi.org/10.6018/analesps.32.3.217751

19.

Jauck

Peralta

. (2019). Two-year-olds’ symbolic use of images provided by a tablet: A transfer study. Frontiers in Psychology, 10, 2891. https://doi.org/10.3389/fpsyg.2019.02891

20.

Kirkorian

H. L.

Choi

Pempek

T. A

. (2016). Toddlers’ word learning from contingent and noncontingent video on touch screens. Child Development, 87(2), 405–413. https://doi.org/10.1111/cdev.12508

21.

Kirkorian

H. L

. (2018). When and how do interactive digital media help children connect what they see on and off the screen? Child Development Perspectives, 12(3), 210–214. https://doi.org/10.1111/cdev.12508

22.

Lauricella

A. R.

Pempek

T. A.

Barr

Calvert

S. L

. (2010). Contingent computer interactions for young children’s object retrieval success. Journal of Applied Developmental Psychology, 31(5), 362–369. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.appdev.2010.06.002

23.

Lezcano-Brito

Mary-Benítez

Cuevas-Martínez

A. A

. (2017). Usando TIC para enseñar Matemática en preescolar: El circo matemático. Revista Cubana de Ciencias Informáticas, 11(1), 168–181. https://rcci.uci.cu/?journal=rcci&page=article&op=view&path%5B%5D=1419

24.

Lillard, A. S. (1993). Young children’s conceptualization of pretense: Action or mental representational state? Child Development, 64(2), 372–386. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1467-8624.1993.tb02915.x

25.

Lorah

E. R.

Parnell

Whitby

P. S.

Hantula

. (2015). A systematic review of tablet computers and portable media players as speech generating devices for individuals with autism spectrum disorder. Journal of Autism and Developmental Disorders, 45(12), 3792–3804. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10803-014-2314-4

26.

Maita

Peralta

. (2007). La comprensión infantil de objetos simbólicos: Un verdadero desafío cognitivo. Revista Intercontinental de Psicología y Educación, 9(2), 163–180. https://www.redalyc.org/pdf/802/80290210.pdf

27.

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), 1–15. https://doi.org/10.1111/desc.12430

28.

Organización Mundial de la Salud/Organización Panamericana de la Salud . (2019). Directrices sobre la actividad física, el comportamiento sedentario y el sueño para menores de 5 años. Organización Panamericana de la Salud. https://iris.paho.org/discover

29.

Peralta

DeLoache

. (2004). La comprensión y el uso de fotografías como representaciones simbólicas por parte de niños pequeños. Infancia y Aprendizaje, 27(1), 3–14. https://doi.org/10.1174/021037004772902060

30.

Peralta

Salsa

A. M

. (2003). Instruction in early comprehension and use of a symbol–referent relation. Cognitive Development, 18(2), 269–284. https://doi.org/10.1016/S0885-2014(03)00024-8

31.

Peralta

Salsa

Maita

Mareovich

. (2013). Scaffolding young children’s understanding of symbolic objects. Early Years: An International Research Journal, 33(3), 266–274. https://doi.org/10.1080/09575146.2012.732042

32.

Perner

(1991). Understanding the Representational Mind. MIT Press.

33.

Rodríguez-Sánchez

. (2012). Los niños menores de tres años y la televisión: Perspectivas de investigación y debate (1999-2010). Revista Luciérnaga-Comunicación, 4(7), 12–22. https://doi.org/10.33571/revistaluciernaga.v4n7a2

34.

Roseberry

Hirsh‐Pasek

Golinkoff

R. M

. (2014). Skype me! Socially contingent interactions help toddlers learn language. Child Development, 85(3), 956–970. https://doi.org/10.1111/cdev.12166

35.

Salsa

A. M.

Peralta

. (2007). Routes to symbolization: Intentionality and correspondence in early understanding of pictures. Journal of Cognition and Development, 8(1), 79–92. https://doi.org/10.1080/15248370709336994

36.

Sartori

Raynaudo

Peralta

. (unpublished). Tecnologías en los hogares ysu uso por parte de niños yniñas de 0 a8 años [Manuscrito en preparación]. Instituto Rosario de Investigaciones en Ciencias de la Educación, Consejo Nacional de Investigaciones Científicas y Técnicas.

37.

Sheehan

K. J.

Uttal

D. H

. (2016). Children’s learning from touch screens: A dual representation perspective. Frontiers in Psychology, 7(1220), 1–12. https://doi.org/10.3389/fpsyg.2016.01220

38.

Sociedad Argentina de Pediatría. Subcomisión de Tecnologías de Información y Comunicación . (2017). Bebés, niños, adolescentes y pantallas: ¿Qué hay de nuevo? Archivos Argentinos De Pediatría, 115(4), 404–408. https://scp.com.co/wp-content/uploads/2014/13/bnap.pdf

39.

Tare

Chiong

Ganea

DeLoache

. (2010). Less is more: How manipulative features affect children’s learning from picture books. Journal of Applied Developmental Psychology, 31(5), 395–400. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.appdev.2010.06.005

40.

Tomasello

. (1999). The cultural origins of human cognition. Harvard University Press.

41.

Troseth

G. L.

DeLoache

J. S

. (1998). The medium can obscure the message: Young children’s understanding of video. Child Development, 69(4), 950–965. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1467-8624.1998.tb06153.x

42.

Troseth

G. L.

Russo

C. E.

Strouse

G. A

. (2016). What’s next for research on young children’s interactive media? Journal of Children and Media, 10(1), 54–62. https://doi.org/10.1080/17482798.2015.1123166

43.

Uttal

D. H.

Cohen

C. A

. (2012). Spatial thinking and STEM education: When, why, and how? In Ross

(Ed.), Psychology of learning and motivation (Vol. 57, pp. 147–181). Academic Press. https://doi.org/10.1016/B978-0-12-394293-7.00004-2

44.

Uttal

D. H.

Liu

L. L.

DeLoache

J. S

. (2006). Concreteness and symbolic development. In Balter

Tamis-LeMonda

C. S.

(Eds.), Child psychology: A handbook of contemporary issues (2nd ed., pp. 167–184). Psychology Press.

45.

Uttal

D. H.

O’Doherty

Newland

Hand

L. L.

DeLoache

. (2009). Dual representation and the linking of concrete and symbolic representations. Child Development Perspectives, 3(3), 156–159. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1750-8606.2009.00097.x

46.

Vygotsky

. (1978). Mind in society: The development of higher psychological processes (M. Cole, S. John-Steiner, & E. Souberman, Comps. & Translators.). Harvard University Press.

47.

Wainwright

B. R.

Allen

M. L.

Cain

. (2020). Narrative comprehension and engagement with e-books vs. paper-books in autism spectrum condition. Autism & Developmental Language Impairments, 5, 1–18. https://doi.org/10.1177/2396941520917943

48.

Yuan

Uttal

D. H

. (2017). Analogy lays the foundation for two crucial aspects of symbolic development: Intention and correspondence. Topics in Cognitive Science, 9(3), 738–757. https://doi.org/10.1111/tops.12273