THE TRANSFER FROM PAPER-BASED systems to digital documentation portals is revolutionising how information is delivered to parents in early childhood education and care settings. This study used a mixed-method approach to document the implementation and use of a digital portal in a large early learning centre from the perspectives of parents. Findings revealed a number of concerns for parents such as privacy, ethical use of images, storage of data and documentation content. However, the significant uptake of the portal by parents, attributed to a desire for greater connections with their child and with other parents, and the facilitation of these connections via the digital portal, was a key finding of this study.
BoardmanM. (2007). ‘I know how much this child has learned. I have proof!’ Employing digital technologies for documentation processes in kindergarten. Australian Journal of Early Childhood, 32(3), 59–66.
3.
CarrM., LeeW., & JonesC. (2009). Kei Tua o te Pae/Assessment for learning: Early childhood exemplars.Wellington, New Zealand: Ministry of Education.
4.
CheungK., YipK., TownsendJ., & ScotchM. (2008). HCLS 2.0/3.0: Health care and life sciences data mashup using Web 2.0/3.0. Journal of Biomedical Informatics, 41(5), 694–705. doi: 10.1016/j.jbi.2008.04.001
5.
FontanaA., & FreyJ. (2003). The interview: From structured questions to negotiated risk. In DenzinN. & LincolnY. (Eds.), Collecting and interpreting qualitative materials (2nd ed., pp. 61–106). Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage Publications.
6.
GandiniL., & GoldhaberJ. (2001). Two reflections about documentation. In GandiniL. & EdwardsC.P. (Eds.), Bambini: The Italian approach to infant/toddler care (pp. 124–145). New York, NY: Teacher College Press.
7.
KroegerJ., & CardyT. (2006). Documentation: A hard to reach place. Early Childhood Education Journal, 33(6), 389–398. doi: 10.1007/s10643-006-0062-6
8.
KruegerR., & CaseyM. (2000). Focus groups: A practical guide for applied research (3rd ed.). Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage Publications.
9.
LincolnY., & GubaE. (2000). Paradigmatic controversies, contradictions and emerging confluences. In DenzinN. & LincolnY. (Eds.), Handbook of qualitative research (2nd ed., pp. 163–188). Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage Publications.
10.
LindgrenA. (2012). Ethical issues in pedagogical documentation: Representations of children through digital technology. International Journal of Early Childhood, 44, 327–340. doi: 10.1007/s13158-012-0074-x
11.
MerriamS. (1998). Qualitative research and case study applications in education.San Francisco, CA: John Wiley & Sons Inc.
12.
ParetteH., QuesenberryA., & BlumC. (2009). Missing the boat with technology usage in early childhood settings: A 21st century view of developmentally appropriate practice. Early Childhood Education Journal, 37, 335–343. doi: 10.1007/s10643-009-0352-x
13.
ParnellW., & BartlettJ. (2012). iDocument: How smartphones and tablets are changing documentation in preschool and primary classrooms. Young Children, 67(3), 50–59.
14.
PattonM. (2002). Qualitative research and evaluation methods (3rd ed.). Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage Publications.
15.
PiperA., D'AngeloS., & HollanJ. (2013). Going digital: Understanding paper and photo documentation practices in early childhood education. In Proceedings of the ACM Conference on Computer Supported Cooperative Work, CSCW (pp. 1319–1328), February 23–27, San Antonio, Texas, USA. doi: 10.1145/2441776.2441925
16.
SwaminathanS., & YellandN. (2003). Global perspectives on educational technology. Childhood Education, 79(5), 258–260. doi: 10.1080/00094056.2003.10521209
17.
SwickK. (2003). Communication concepts for strengthening family-school-community partnerships. Early Childhood Education Journal, 30(4), 275–280. doi: 1082-3301/03/0600-0275/0
18.
YostH., & FanS. (2014). Social media technologies for collaboration and communication: Perceptions of childcare professionals and families. Australasian Journal of Early Childhood, 39(2), 36–41.
