Early childhood education and care in the app generation: Digital documentation,assessment for learning and parent communication

Increased communication between services and families

In the research literature, many parents and educators report that ECEC apps fulfil their function of facilitating communication between services and families. Educators report that apps are fast and easy to use (Higgins, 2015; Hooker, 2016; Penman, 2014; Plumb & Kautz, 2014), quickly producing professional-looking posts including photos and videos to share with families (Beaumont-Bates, 2017). Parents also find apps easy to use and convenient, engaging with documentation at a time and location that suits them and easily sharing with extended family (Beaumont-Bates, 2017; Higgins & Cherrington, 2017; Lim & Cho, 2019; McFadden & Thomas, 2016; Penman, 2014). Parents enjoy receiving notifications of posts and immediate access to information about their child’s experiences (Higgins & Cherrington, 2017; Penman, 2014). The reported ease of communication has contributed to increased frequency of two-way communication between parents and educators (Beaumont-Bates, 2017; Higgins & Cherrington, 2017; Hooker, 2017; Penman, 2014). Some educators reported that the immediacy and frequency of the communication with families motivated them to post more stories about children (Beaumont-Bates, 2017; Hooker, 2017; Penman, 2014). Reported flow-on effects include educators reporting a better understanding of children’s family and home context (Beaumont-Bates, 2017; Penman, 2014), families reporting better understandings about children’s experiences in the centre (Beaumont-Bates, 2017; Lim & Cho, 2019; Penman, 2014), increased face-to-face communication between educators and parents (Beaumont-Bates, 2017; Higgins & Cherrington, 2017), and parents enjoying increased communication with their child about their experiences in the centre (Beaumont-Bates, 2017; Higgins, 2015; Lim & Cho, 2019; McFadden & Thomas, 2016; Penman, 2014).

Pedagogical benefits

While increased communication is an identified benefit of app usage, the pedagogical purpose of that communication is an important consideration. The literature provides examples of apps being used in ways that support children’s learning and development, thereby highlighting their pedagogical benefit. In services where app content has a pedagogical focus, parents report feeling well informed and extending on their child’s learning at home (Beaumont-Bates, 2017; Higgins & Cherrington, 2017; Hooker, 2016; McFadden & Thomas, 2016; Penman, 2014). Educators engage in more responsive planning for individual children as a result of a better understanding of children’s home and family context (Beaumont-Bates, 2017). In addition, educators report producing more observations using a consistent format, leading to increased confidence, richer documentation of more complex moments with deeper links to research, theory and curriculum (Hooker, 2017). Some educators also involve children as active contributors to documentation, including watching and reflecting on videos of themselves, writing learning stories collaboratively with children, and allowing them to choose or even take their own photos (Hooker, 2019). Further research that builds on these findings to build a stronger evidence-base on ways apps can be pedagogically used to extend children’s learning and development would be beneficial, given that these collective findings are drawn from a small sample of studies.

Notably, increased communication and pedagogical benefits emerged as commonly reported affordances across the retrieved studies. Clearly then, apps can serve as a useful medium for families, educators and ultimately service providers. Notwithstanding these affordances, app usage can involve potential difficulties, as illustrated through discussion in the following section of five challenges to emerge from the reviewed research.

Equity of access

The literature cautions that app usage does not always result in improved or increased educator-family communication, with possible equity issues arising for families who choose not to use, or rarely use, apps. McFadden and Thomas (2016) caution that not all parents want to use apps; thus they should not be considered a sole method of communication but rather, part of a suite of possibilities to support partnerships with diverse families. Some families express confidentiality and security concerns (McFadden & Thomas, 2016), while Lim and Cho (2019) found that Korean fathers demonstrate lower levels of engagement with ECEC apps than mothers. Access to the necessary technology required to engage with apps should not be assumed for all families.

Even among parents who used apps, two-way engagement was not always evident. Among parents who regularly accessed the app, over half never discussed this information with educators (Lim & Cho, 2019; McFadden & Thomas, 2016; Penman, 2014). Higgins (2015) reported that 45% of 29 parent participants only commented seldomly or occasionally, while Penman (2014) found 39% of 49 participant parents never commented. These findings highlight that even in services that experienced overall increased communication with families through apps, utilisation was uneven. Higgins (2015) cautions that educators could post more frequently about children whose parents are highly responsive to app posts, and families may engage in less face-to-face interaction with educators who post less frequently about their child. Moreover, educators’ perceptions of families may be negatively influenced by parental non-engagement in app communication (Gallagher, 2018). Thus, inequalities in partnerships and information sharing may arise. Indeed, Gallagher (2018, p. 39) questions ‘whether there is space for parental and teacher non-participation’ given that apps have been developed to be so user-friendly, have become so ubiquitous in ECEC settings, and may be used to monitor educator and parent participation. Crucially, perspectives of parents who choose not to use, or rarely use apps are currently absent in the literature (Beaumont-Bates, 2017; Higgins & Cherrington, 2017), as are those of ECEC services and educators who choose not to use them. Targeting these to-date silent perspectives presents as an important direction for future research.

Workload burden

Although educators reported that apps were fast and easy to use, the literature suggests an associated risk of increasing workload. As noted earlier, the fast and reciprocal nature of apps has contributed to higher frequency of communication with families, potentially increasing the time involved. A slight increase in workload was reported by 67% of educators during a four-month trial of ePortfolios (Penman, 2014). In another study, directors and educators described having to negotiate norms for practice regarding post length and frequency following the compulsory introduction of an app (Plumb & Kautz, 2014). Educators may feel held to account by other educators and families for the quantity and quality of their posts due to the wide audience (Hooker, 2016). Indeed, some apps include functions for management to monitor the number of posts created by each educator (Gallagher, 2018), and some services implement processes whereby educators monitor the quality of each other’s posts (Plumb & Kautz, 2014). In addition, while 24-hour access to ePortfolios was a benefit for families, such access may have detrimental effects for educators.

Potential challenges to work-life balance were identified in studies where educators reported using apps in their personal time (Beaumont-Bates, 2017; Hooker, 2017). This impact may be related to firstly, parents’ concerns that the time taken by educators documenting and communicating via apps may compromise time teaching and interacting with children (McFadden & Thomas, 2016), and secondly, to parents’ expressed desire for increased individualised communication through apps, particularly photos of their own child, more immediate responses from educators (Lim & Cho, 2019), more detail about the child’s day including eating and sleeping (McFadden & Thomas, 2016), and disappointment at receiving notifications for group posts that do not include their child (Higgins, 2015).

Contrary to the risk of workload burden are claims that apps enable improved efficiencies. The CEO of one not-for-profit ECEC provider, for example, stated that a motivating factor for adopting apps was so that educators could ‘far more readily, and cost-effectively, deliver on their obligations’ (Plumb & Kautz, 2014, p. 38). Notions of apps increasing efficiency are similarly echoed in submissions to the recent Fair Work Commission review of the award under which many Australian educators are employed. Australian Childcare Alliance, which represents privately owned ECEC providers, argued that educators do not require improved working conditions to support programming because technology ‘has made the job easier’, ‘using iPad applications has reduced the time and effort required to produce…reports’ and ‘technological aides…simplify and expedite some tasks’ (Australian Childcare Alliance, 2019, p. 18). App developers have also expressed a desire to make educators’ work ‘easier’ and less ‘burdensome’ (Gallagher, 2018, p. 31). There is little in the research literature, however, to support the claim that apps decrease the overall time educators spend documenting children’s learning or communicating with families. Thus a tension emerges in the literature between parents’ expectations of content, frequency and mode of communication, providers’ desires for a workforce that efficiently meets regulatory obligations, and educators’ use of paid and unpaid time that warrants further research attention.

Potential deleterious impact on educator-child interactions

Perhaps in an attempt to reduce workload burden, the literature suggests that some educators use apps while ‘on the floor’ with children. One educator described typical practice as ‘I’ll walk around the room with [the iPad] throughout the day, and basically just snap moments that are appealing to me, or that I think parents might like to see’ before typing a few sentences to accompany the photo and posting to the app (Plumb & Kautz, 2014, p. 42). It is argued that such usage is beneficial for children because educators spend less time ‘off the floor’ (Plumb & Kautz, 2014). Early Childhood Australia (2018), however, advises educators to moderate their use of digital technologies around young children to avoid negative impacts on communication, interactions and relationship-building, and to model self-regulation of technology use. Given that relationships and responsive interactions between educators and children are crucial to young children’s development, the possible negative implications of educators’ app usage while ‘on the floor’ with children would benefit from a stronger research focus.

Influence of parents as consumers

As the primary audience for app documentation, parents have the power to influence content. This point is illustrated by one provider’s adoption of apps being partly motivated by a desire to add value for the parent as consumer, and to differentiate the organisation’s service in a crowded market (Plumb & Kautz, 2014). The organisation’s CEO explained that it is important ‘to ensure that the parents have as much information as possible, so they can feel good about their purchase decision’ (Plumb & Kautz, 2014, p. 38). The literature also suggests parents’ enthusiastic embracing of apps may be related to their potential to assuage parental feelings of guilt that may result from being separated from their children to engage in the workforce (Gallagher, 2018; Plumb & Kautz, 2014).

Gallagher (2018) argues, however, that a focus on what parents want may place educators under pressure to only post happy moments which may not represent the totality of young children’s daily experiences in ECEC settings. Parents report predominantly looking for a photo of their child (88%) followed by information about sleeping and eating (67%), and enjoying a sense of connection with their child when they were physically apart (McFadden & Thomas, 2016). It is possible that parent perspectives may influence the reported variation in educators’ use of apps as a general communication tool about daily events, or to document and communicate pedagogical information about children’s learning and development (Higgins, 2015; Plumb & Kautz, 2014). One educator reported that based on parent feedback, the educational focus of documentation had been reduced, making communication with parents ‘really casual and more informal’ (Plumb & Kautz, 2014, p. 41). Examination of comments made by educators and parents on app posts found little evidence that they supported children’s learning in the centre (Higgins & Cherrington, 2017).

In a further response to parental desire, services may focus on producing higher quantities of posts. One director devised a guideline that posts should be no more than three sentences long (Plumb & Kautz, 2014). An educator working for the same organisation described an informal arrangement with a co-worker that together they would make around 30 posts each day, ensuring each child was in at least one post. These educators were documenting in real-time as events occurred while ‘on the floor’ with children. It is difficult to envisage that, given brevity and frequency, such posts could contain detailed and thoughtful information about children’s learning and development. However, this type of communication could be seen as fulfilling parental desire for photos of their child and detail about their daily activities (Lim & Cho, 2019; McFadden & Thomas, 2016). Importantly, if ECEC services are not using apps to share information that is pedagogical in nature, then they must have other means of doing so to meet regulatory requirements such as Quality Area 1 of the National Quality Standards (Australian Children’s Education & Care Quality Authority, 2020). Questions concerning the purpose and content of app communication from a range of stakeholder perspectives require further research focus.

Child as subject

As evidenced by the literature discussed thus far, apps predominantly serve the needs of the adults in children’s lives. There is a potential risk that when apps are used to communicate between educators and families, children are positioned as passive subjects to be observed, written about, viewed and shared, rather than as active participants in the construction and documentation of their learning. There is a distinct lack of research into the effects on, or benefits for, children. Children’s access to their paper-based portfolios − enabling them to contribute, revisit learning, and be involved in the assessment of their learning – becomes problematic when ePortfolios are used (Beaumont-Bates, 2017; Goodman & Cherrington, 2017; Hooker, 2017). This issue is considered so important that in one study, almost two-thirds of surveyed centres maintained paper-based portfolios alongside ePortfolios (Goodman & Cherrington, 2017). In contrast, other centres report apps have completely replaced paper-based documentation (Plumb & Kautz, 2014). Goodman and Cherrington (2017) found wide variation in children’s access to their ePortfolios in ECEC centres, from no access at all to free access on iPads. While it is possible to actively engage children with ePortfolios (Hooker, 2017), considerable planning and equipment is required (Goodman, 2015).

The impact of apps on children’s right to privacy and the ethical use of images are touched on in the literature. Parents and educators have voiced concerns about the more public nature of group posts and comments that are sent to all families (Higgins & Cherrington, 2017). Families have reported using such posts to compare their own child’s learning and development with that of their peers (McFadden & Thomas, 2016). The highly valued capacity of families to share posts with extended family and friends means that services have little control over how widely information about children is shared.

Lindgren (2012) raises concerns that visual electronic documentation such as the sharing of videos and photos positions children as subjects to be observed, lacking in power and with limited means for participation. Early Childhood Australia (2018) argues that services must develop policies and practices that consider digital privacy and children’s informed consent before taking and sharing photos and videos online. Gallagher (2018) cautions that it is important to consider why and for whom apps are introduced in ECEC settings, stating ‘[i]t remains to be seen in what way are eportfolios for children rather than solely about children’ (Gallagher, 2018, p. 41). Further research into the ethical use of apps that supports the rights of the child in ECEC is urgently needed.

The marketisation of ECEC

Rather than a universal public good, ECEC in Australia, New Zealand and in many Western countries has long been subject to marketised provisioning (Lloyd & Penn, 2012; McDonald & May, 2018; Woodrow & Press, 2018). In this type of provisioning parents are pitched as consumers seeking the commodity (‘child care’) that will best meet the needs of their family. In the context of ECEC today being ‘big business’ (Brennan, 2014, p. 151), a feature of this market approach is what Moss (2019) describes as ‘incessant competition between service providers’ (p. 8). This competition takes place among for-profit and not-for profit operators, with both driven by profit and financial sustainability agendas (Waniganayake et al., 2017). In this context, the emergence of digital apps presents as a marketing tool that ECEC operators can use to vie for the business of parent-consumers. The benefits identified in the literature review for families – increased communication with educators, being more informed about their child’s day and about their learning and development – serve as enticements that offer parents more ‘bang for their buck’. In a competitive market, it is also easy to see increasing numbers of services utilising apps due to a fear of being left behind.

What is unclear from the literature is the extent to which educators feel compelled to use apps to essentially market the service in which they are employed. While not referring explicitly to apps, Stuart (2020) observed that with ECEC being a profit-making business, ‘promotional or marketing purposes are confused with “educational” ones’ (p. 600). With this caution in mind, the prevalence of happy children in digital documentation, for example, may be indicative of a pressure, implicit or explicit, for educators to use digital apps to assuage parental guilt or anxiety and to affirm their child care choice; in other words, to maintain parents’ business. Moreover, issues identified in extant research over parental expectations concerning frequency and timing of digital communications raises questions about performativity and accountability that warrant further investigation, particularly in light of shifting constructions of teacher professionalism discussed below.

ECEC professionalism

In Australia, New Zealand and internationally, concerns have been raised over increasing technicist constructions and applications of teacher professionalism in ECEC (Chalke, 2013; Fenech & Lotz, 2018; Osgood, 2006, 2010; Stuart, 2020). Concerns focus specifically on the narrowing of teaching practices to meet regulatory or prescribed curriculum requirements, and the evaluation of educator professionalism through externally determined criteria. In this context, there is scope for apps to be used to meet multiple and competing facets of teacher/educator professionalism.

First is the potential for apps to be used as a tool from which a strengths-based positioning of educators as professionals can be communicated, and which thus resists an objectifying of educators that technicist constructions promote. Using the apps to document, demonstrate and extend on children’s learning and development, for example, and which available research suggests is the practice for some educators, has much potential to promote ECEC as early learning, and in turn, educators and teachers as professionals. Second, and in contrast to the first, is the use of digital apps to meet regulatory requirements and/or provider fiscal goals. What is not conclusive from the literature, however, and which warrants further investigation, is how apps are primarily used. Are they first and foremost, a pedagogical tool that in turn enables the meeting of regulatory requirements and financial objectives, or from a contrasting deficit positioning, do regulatory requirements and provider imperatives takes precedence and apps become used in a simplistic and technical way, such that regulatory requirements can be ticked off and profit agendas met? In the latter scenario, apps are not merely a benign technology; instead, they are a technology through which the role of the early childhood educator can be defined and confined.