This partial transcript of the App Fairy podcast has been edited for length and clarity. Please listen to the full episode here, and visit appfairy.org for more information about Ahoii.

Carissa Christner: In today’s App Fairy episode I’ll be interviewing Wolfgang Schmitz from an app company called Ahoiii. Most of the Ahoii apps feature a tiny little sailor in a blue and white striped shirt, and his name is Fiete. Their newest app is one called Fiete Cars, and it’s all about cars and driving. One of the things that I love about it is that they focus on building the road rather than on designing a fancy car and putting on special wheels and whatnot. I think that’s a really unique spin on a pretty common game. I’m really excited to have Wolfgang Schmitz here to talk with us today.

Thanks for talking with me today. So Wolfgang, can you tell me a little bit about the history of Ahoii?

Wolfgang Schmitz: We as Ahoii have existed since 2014 and we are four people altogether. We are two designers, who teamed up together with Karz, who is a programmer, and Sarah, who is an educationalist, so we have four people doing kids’ apps now.

CC: Wow I didn’t I didn’t know that your staff was only four people—that’s amazing. You guys have done so many apps. So can you tell us where your offices are located?

WS: Our office is in Cologne. It’s the heart of Germany. 

CC: Can you tell us a little bit about Fiete? A lot of your apps feature this little sailor character. He’s super cute and I know that when I first discovered the Fiete apps I just assumed that he must be a well-loved cartoon character from Germany that you guys were incorporating into an app, but then I did a little more research and discovered that he was actually born in the app, right? Like he he didn’t exist outside before that?

WS: No, no [he didn’t]. Maybe that’s what’s so special with Fiete, because we ourselves became fathers in 2010, and then had contact with many great picture books. We thought, maybe we could do something like that ourselves. So we started to try out many children’s apps, and saw that in the printed book arena, there was much more effort put into the physical product than there was in the digital version. So we came up with the style, and I painted with watercolors.

Then Karz came over—he’s a programmer—and said, “Oh let me have that. Give me that and I will try out something.”  And he put together a level that is still in the first Fiete app—it’s the red car, with a tire beside it, and he put a physics engine behind that artwork. And so then I could have the tire move and roll through the whole scene. It was very, very entertaining at that level already. And as we thought about the character, we came up with Fiete. The name is from an area like Hamburg in the north of Germany, where the sea is.

CC: Is Fiete a common name in Germany?

WS: In the northern area, yes. There are newborns that are called Fiete—I am not aware if we are to blame for that—but it’s always been a name that related to the sea. Immediately you picture a sailor in a hat. And we added this kid’s voice into the  app to make a warm welcoming intro for Fiete.

[Clip of children’s voices saying “Fiete!” with seagulls in background.]

CC: And it is indeed warm and welcoming. One of the things I’m really attracted to in your apps is the artwork. Can you tell us a little bit about how it’s created each time?

WS: It’s made with real watercolors. So we make up in the computer something that you could do also with your hands. So when you paint a texture, like a square with a color, and then cut it out with scissors, you would have the same result. We just do the cutting inside the computer.

CC: Okay, so you paint them onto watercolor paper and then scan them in, and then you just do the cutting digitally on your computer.

So Wolfgang, about how long would you say it takes for most apps to go from being just an idea to actually showing up in the App Store? Is it a matter of months or years?

WS: It’s very different [for each app]. When it comes to our most recent app, first we completed sketches, which are now one year old. It took a whole year to turn that idea into a fully functional app. Maybe that’s because we throw many things away when we think, that didn’t work, or see things that could work better. So it’s an evolution. But sometimes it happens much quicker. An example would be our Olympics-inspired app. There are 13 different disciplines to play, and it was in the app store in just three weeks. That was a very clear idea, and every discipline is a level, so we could release it with a smaller number of levels, six or seven at first, and then add more after it was in the App Store.

CC: And do you do a lot of in-house testing, like having kids come in and test the apps? How do you find out whether an app is working for people or not? 

WS: The first apps were, since we were a tiny, two-person team, just tested by our kids, our friends’ kids… But now we reach out more often to foreigners to provide feedback. We have an app called Fiete Math. It was very, very intensive from the testing perspective. Because a kid should be able to play around with it freely, even without a teacher or a parent beside them. And so it had to be very, very intuitive. And it’s very hard to get to that point—making it clear and understandable for the kid, without any text or spoken words. 

CC: That is tricky. I mean, I know that some apps kind of end up taking a shortcut and putting all these like instructions sort of written in there and they’re really, really hard—especially for younger kids that can’t read. And it also makes it hard to have that app work in different countries where different languages are spoken. So I think that you guys do an admirable job of making your apps clean and easy to understand without having to rely on a lot of instructions.

WS: It’s awesome because the time that we take to build the apps is really needed in order to make things easier, and not make things more complicated. It’s complicated in the background, but it’s so easy to use. And that took us a long while, to test that out, different drafts with play testings. But it’s worth the effort, and people really like it. 

CC: Yeah that’s a really good point, that making an app easy to play can be really difficult to program. And I really do like Fiete Math. One of the things I love about it is, it’s really simple —it’s just taking different blocks and putting them onto a ship and the ship needs five blocks. And so you put up five blocks and you can put them in whatever order you want and whatever arrangement you want. And I like that, but I also really like that once you’ve done it successfully a couple of times that the reward isn’t a bunch of, you know, explosions, or kids shouting, “Hurray!” or anything like that—that’s really good. The reward of, like, a more interesting block, that instead of just being a square, might look like a bird or a cat or something like that. And I think I think that’s really special. One of the things I really love about your apps is that you tend to take game concepts that are frequently used and you add something that makes it a little bit special, something that makes it all a bit different.

One of my favorite examples of this is probably in Fiete Match, which is basically just a memory game. [One] thing I think that really sets it apart is that… the player is playing against a small virtual Fiete. He adds so much interest to the game because you can watch him—if you are waiting too long before you start the game, he gets kind of impatient or he’s checking his watch. If he gets disappointed because you’re winning and he’s not, then he has an appropriate emotional reaction. And I just really love that you’ve built that in so that there’s sort of this extra emotional content, to talk about how to be a good sport without without [hitting] you over the head with it. It’s not like it’s trying to teach you a lesson on how to be a good sport. I just really like that. 

And I was just curious to know, is that something that you specifically think about when you’re creating an app, like let’s make this a little bit, a little bit deeper, a little bit more special, a little bit more interesting? Is that something that you put into your design?

WS: Yeah, of course, that’s always really the point—what can we add to this world that’s not out there yet. And we try to have a really good, unique point inside the apps. In every app, hopefully you’ll find that. 

With the memory app that you talked about, that was again, the whole point. Because there are tons of memory apps out there, and they’re easy to program. So our programmer was ready with a memory game in, I don’t know, two or three hours. But we came up with the idea that it would be nice to sit in front of your opponent, Fiete, and then play with him. So, that was the main idea.

We put a lot of work into the emotions. In the beginning he’s very supportive because, the kid doesn’t really know what is happening, but when the kid starts to do too well, he’s not so amused anymore. He’s not really angry, but he’s like a real person. A real person would be, well, a little annoyed if you’re always winning. And we spent a lot of time discussing how he would respond to these different things—we have a really big diagram with all of his reactions in the app. And there was a lot of testing and building his character in a way. Because when you behave in a way, you show a lot of your character. Like if you get angry, you’re not a really nice person to play with. It was very, very delicate to build that. But it was also very funny.

CC: I think you guys did a really great job of walking that fine line, figuring out how irritated to make him look. And you know, kids would also have those same reactions, they’d get irritated if somebody else was winning all the time. And so it’s nice to be able to validate those and also say, you know, you don’t have to get really, really angry if somebody else is winning. 

WS: If you pay a lot of attention, you really can see in his face what he is thinking. So if you put up a card that he didn’t see before, then he makes these smaller gestures that you can read in his face that, oh, I told him something that he didn’t know before.

CC: I just think it’s a really subtle and very graceful and really well done app. I think that’s my favorite. Do you have a favorite of the Fiete apps?

WS: I think right now it’s Fiete Cars. Because, you know, I was really looking forward to it. The cars are so… angry, in a way, and we put in really nice motor sounds, and you can do all these cool tricks and things. And I also like the Fiete Math approach, because it shows something that I think will help some kids to get the idea of what math is about. It puts knowledge inside the heads of the kids. 

CC: I agree. So one of the other really important concepts that librarians and researchers especially in the U.S.—I’m not sure about around the world, but probably—that librarians are trying to share with parents when it comes to sharing apps with their kids is something that they call “joint media engagement” and that’s kind of just a lot of big words strung together to say, playing apps together, or at least, using apps in a way that builds relationships between people, rather than putting up walls between people.

Sometimes when you’re playing on an app if you’re you know only looking at the app and everybody else in the room is not looking at the app, it can kind of it can feel like there’s a wall put up between you.

So if you have things that encourage people to play your apps with two people playing them together side by side or if you have apps where you can take a picture or a video in the app and then email it to your grandma who lives far away or something like that. That’s some examples of joint media engagement. Is that anything that you guys have ever thought about as you’re developing apps?

WS: Yes of course, of course. Because if you have kids, you know, that kids like to play or build something, and then come and show it to you. It’s the same with apps. So it’s very important to have a save-able area of your app, so they can run around with the ipad and show it to you. And we always think about how kids will behave when they play the app at home. Do they play the app together with the parents, or alone? And I think one of the main positive aspects of our first app is that there is much room for the parents to talk about what they see together with the kid. Because it’s very, very quiet. There is no ongoing push there. There are no pushing animations in that app. It’s really like a digital book. And they can experience it together, all the items that they see. And we really got mail from teachers that said, “It’s so lovely, it’s so perfect, I can really make kids talk with that app.” And it’s really really great for that purpose. It’s maybe not so obvious but there are planned breaking points in some of the apps so that kids can also find an end through the app—it’s not playable for hours. But that’s the purpose. For example, in the Fiete Farm app, you have an arc that follows you throughout the entire app. 

CC: Yes, yes. Like there’s even a whole sun that comes up at the beginning of day and sets in the evening.

WS: Yeah. And then there are, I think 12 tasks that you are supposed to accomplish throughout the day. And they’re very simple tasks. And then when you finish, you can switch off the app. So that’s a planned breaking point, to maybe add this as a bedtime routine. We give a lot of thought to how parents can sort of work with these apps. 

CC: I agree that it is kind of subtle, and I don’t know that I would have thought about that in that way. But you’re absolutely right. I mean your apps, because they do have that storyline arc, and because they don’t have a lot of invasive music or a ton of really distracting animations, they are perfect for that reason. That whole idea, of a parent and child sitting together and reading an app together, in the same way that they would read a book together, is one of the things that I talk about in my library a lot. And when I’m talking with parents about how to read books to their kids, it’s not just reading the words straight out of the book—but maybe also, you know, starting conversations about what’s going on in the pictures. And so I think that you’re right, you’re absolutely right, you’ve designed your apps in a way that makes it a lot easier for parents to just sit down and experience the app together with their kid.

WS: I have to admit, sometimes it’s not that purpose—we’ll get mail from parents who are like, we came up with a story for why Fiete is here or there in the app. And it wasn’t always created for that, but it’s very nice.

CC: That’s the beauty of an open-ended app, that you can put your own story into it. I love it.

WS: Yeah, I like it when parents can play together with their kids. But some apps are also planned that the kids can dive in for themselves. Fiete Math is a very different example, where you can give it to your kid, they can have experiences with blocks and math, for themselves, to get a clue. Without a parent that is always explaining, you have to do it like that, look what’s happening here. They have to think about it for themselves. And that’s helping them. 

CC: Well honestly, I think that is also the mark of a really good app. One of the things I try to encourage parents to do is, the first time that they play an app with a kid (especially if it’s something like Fiete Math) just sit next to them and don’t give instructions. Like, don’t tell the kid what to do. Because, I mean, that’s one of the ways that I judge whether an app is well made. 

Can the kid navigate through it on their own without having to have a lot of explanation? Because that means that they’re not going to get as frustrated as they move forward in the app. And honestly, I mean, while it’s lovely when you can have a lot of joint media engagement, if we’re being honest I know that there are times when you just need to have your kid play independently for a few moments or for a little while. And it’s really nice to have apps that you know you can trust to be usable and to not have any offensive content or anything like that in them. That’s one of the reasons I really, really appreciate that.

WS: Thank you.

CC: Well, thank you so much for taking the time to talk with me today Wolfgang. It’s been a really interesting conversation. And I just really appreciate you taking the time to talk with us. 

WS: Well thank you so much, and thanks to your listeners.

CC: I hope you have enjoyed getting to know one of the creators of the Ahoii apps as much as I have. Be sure to check out our website where we’ll be posting lots of goodies online for you to enjoy. For this episode, you’ll find photos of Wolfgang and the rest of the staff, pictures of their art process, including that flowchart of Fiete’s emotional reactions to the memory game. So cool. You’ll also find some printable PDF pages from their German language activity book, and my personal favorite, a free printable version of Fitz’s memory game so that you can print out the cards yourself and play the game in person with a friend or a family member. So cool. They’re beautiful.

 

Olivia Thomas was one of the winners of the National STEM Video Game Challenge (2015-16). Now studying computer science and games, interactive media, and mobile development at Boise State University, Olivia has already gained teaching experience of her own as she developed and taught a game design workshop for middle school girls. 

 

When I was a senior in high school, I applied for and received a grant from the National Center for Women and Information Technology (NCWIT) to host a game design workshop for girls in middle school. I would have loved to attend a similar program when I was first learning game design. It was exciting to share what I knew with the 15 participants who were undertaking the same journey that I did not long ago.

When I was first trying to learn how to make games in elementary and middle school, I was often frustrated because none of the books I read actually taught me how to make what I was envisioning. In creating my own program, it was important to me that the girls left the workshop with a fully-functional game of their own design. I wanted to focus on teaching the girls how to create something they would truly be excited about.

The program was carried out through six weekly one-hour workshops. I decided to teach the girls using GameMaker Studio, a game design tool that is relatively simple to use but powerful enough that even some professional game designers choose it as their platform.

Beyond teaching the skills needed to make a game, I also wanted to make the program as fun and engaging as possible—something the girls would look forward to attending each week. The grant allowed me to include t-shirts, snacks, and decorations. Contests like the National STEM Video Game Challenge played an important role in my own game design journey, so I thought it would be fun to emulate this for my students. For extra motivation, I held a contest to determine the best game across several different categories, offering cool tech prizes donated by sponsors. I recruited an educator in the tech field to serve as judge for the competition.

On the first day of the program, we didn’t work on video games at all. As an icebreaker and a way to get the girls thinking about the design process, I used an activity that I learned at the 2015 National STEM Video Game Challenge awards ceremony. I split the girls into groups and gave each group a bag of craft materials, like cardstock and stickers. Their goal was to create a game. I had enjoyed the activity as a participant at the awards ceremony in Pittsburgh, and it went off just as well here. After twenty minutes of giggles and excited murmurs, the girls had created everything from original board games to a new form of bowling. It’s a wonderful activity because it takes the focus off of technical skills and emphasizes the design thinking skills that are just as important when designing a strong game.

The next three weeks of the program featured scaffolded step-by-step tutorials, starting with the basics of GameMaker Studio and working up to create a simple game. I would break the lessons into steps, alternating between showing the girls how to do something on a projector and then giving them time to try it on their own computers. In my past experiences teaching technology, I often showed the entire process from beginning to end, and found that students would sometimes got lost. For this program, I found it was important to give the participants time to follow along and experiment as they went.

To break up the routine, I also included short activities centering on things that I learned from designing games on Gamestar Mechanic. For example, one day we learned about how to give constructive feedback by analyzing game reviews on Gamestar. On another day, we were able to take an exciting tour of Hewlett Packard to see STEM jobs in action.

I can’t begin to describe the feeling of seeing the participants in my program get increasingly excited about their games and ultimately, create something that they were proud of. I saw them go through the same frustrations that I had when I was first learning. Given the right tools and assistance, however, the girls were able to overcome their hurdles and ultimately experience the wonder of bringing their ideas to life. Witnessing their triumph in the pursuit of new skills was a poignant reminder of my own ongoing journey as a game design, and overcoming those challenges together was inarguably my favorite part of developing the program.

 

This piece was originally published in the Executive Summary of the 2017 Common Sense Census: Media Use by Kids Age Zero to Eight and appears here with permission.

 

You may have heard that Sesame Street’s beloved Cookie Monster has learned some valuable lessons in delaying his gratification and eating right. He now knows that his favorite chocolate chip treat is a “sometime food,” part of a balanced diet of fruits, vegetables, and the occasional hubcap!

The same is true of children’s media diets. Some experiences may constitute “empty” calories that should certainly be limited, while others that are proven to be educational, like Sesame Street, are more substantive staples. But parents and educators cannot know what “balanced” means if they don’t have an understanding of how kids are actually spending their time with media. Thanks to Common Sense’s Zero to Eight research initiative, we have a precise record of how much time kids spend on various types of media. We know what devices and platforms they’re using. We know the types of activities they engage in. And we know how those patterns have changed over time.

This year’s report contains a treasure trove of important findings. For me, the key one is the very rapid rise of mobile vis-a-vis other media, regardless of family income. In itself, mobile usage among young children is not a new phenomenon; our own research at the Joan Ganz Cooney Center at Sesame Workshop has been documenting this trend since the introduction of the iPhone a decade ago. What is most interesting is the significant narrowing of the “app gap” as mobile device ownership has become more universal. And as this report documents, mobile is certainly here to stay. Children now spend 48 minutes a day on mobile devices. That’s a very substantial increase from just four years ago, when the daily average was 15 minutes!

The big question now: Can well-designed mobile media promote the type of parent-child “serve and return” dialogue that we know is so important to learning in the first few years of life? How can parents and educators ensure their children are engaging with well-designed, next-generation technologies as part of their balanced digital diet? We raised this concern nearly 10 years ago in a pioneering survey jointly conducted by the Cooney Center and Common Sense Media about the role of digital media in children’s lives. The question remains as relevant now as it has ever been, with technology continuing to morph at breakneck speeds.

The Cooney Center’s recent research suggests that many parents—particularly those with lower household incomes—may not feel confident with technology themselves, nor do they have the mentoring and support to find or use the highest-quality content with their children to maximum advantage. And while the Zero to Eight report suggests that young children are increasingly facile in operating mobile technologies, we don’t know yet how to best drive educational and home-based practices to extend learning and development outside of the screen. New programs that support trusted media mentors such as librarians and that offer professional development on the effective use of digital media for early educators are now very much needed.

Grounded in the reality of what children are doing every day, the data contained in this report will stimulate an important debate around many important questions. Today’s increasingly mobile families have a real opportunity to tap the potential of media to help establish a foundation for lifelong learning and success.

My kitchen counter has changed a lot over the last six years. What used to be dedicated to a bowl of fruit, a coffee maker, various papers, and mail that I hadn’t gotten around to throwing away yet has since become a mess of wires coiling back to one put-upon outlet. A rotating set of smartphones, tablets, Bluetooth speakers, and headphones have made their way to the counter as well, pointing to a broader set of changes in the house. Our family, which includes a 5-year-old and 3-year-old, has a lot of mobile device stuff. And we aren’t the only ones.

Today marks the release of the third wave of The Common Sense Census: Media Use by Kids Age Zero to Eight, an ongoing series tracking the use of media and technology among U.S. kids. Beginning in 2011 and repeating again in 2013, these surveys offer us a once-in-a-lifetime look at how new technologies have been enmeshing themselves in our children’s lives. Based on a nationally representative sample of more than 1,400 parents from all over the country, the survey paints a complex portrait of increasingly mobile families. Some of the key findings include:

• Mobile is nearly universal. Nearly all children age 8 and under live in a home with some type of mobile device, the same percentage that have a TV in the home. In 2011, only 41 percent of families had a mobile device; now 95 percent do. In 2011, less than 10 percent of families had a tablet; now nearly 80 percent do.
• The amount of screen media hasn’t changed much, but how kids use media has changed a lot. Children age 8 and under spend an average of about two-and-a-quarter hours a day with screen media, almost exactly the same amount they devoted to screens in 2011. But much more of that time is spent on mobile devices; the average amount of time spent with mobile devices each day has tripled (again), going from 5 minutes a day in 2011 to 15 minutes a day in 2013 to 48 minutes a day in 2017.
• The digital divide persists, but is smaller than it used to be. The gap in high-speed internet access between higher-income and lower-income families has been cut from 50 down to 22 percentage points (96 percent of higher-income families have high-speed internet versus 74 percent of lower-income families). The gap in overall mobile device ownership has virtually disappeared (3 percentage points), due to the number of lower-income families that now have a smartphone.
• Parents and pediatricians are sometimes at odds on media behaviors. Contrary to recommendations from pediatricians, many children use media shortly before bedtime and many families leave the TV on in the background most of the time.

The world has changed a lot since 2011, and my kitchen counter reflects that. Every bit of research about children’s media habits helps us better understand the world they are growing up in. Mobile devices are popular with kids, just as they are with adults, making it all the more important to set a good example. That could mean putting your device away at dinner or turning off screens a little earlier before bed. There are tons of great TV shows, apps, and other media for kids under the age of 8, so when they’re using media, try to steer them toward the good stuff. And finally, though we’re only beginning to understand the impact of new technologies in family life, there’s plenty we know about how to support young kids’ healthy development. Talk with them, ask questions, give them lots of experiences in the real world. And have them tell you about what they’re watching and playing—it’s a great way to make media experiences more meaningful.

 

 

Michael Robb is Director of Research at Common Sense, overseeing the research program, evaluation of organization impact, and program development research. Michael has been involved in issues involving media and children for over 15 years. He has published research on the impact of electronic media on young children’s language development, early literacy outcomes, and problem-solving abilities in a variety of academic journals. Michael also has supervised community educational outreach efforts, helping parents and teachers make the most of quality children’s programming. Previously, Michael served as the Director of Digital Learning and Research at the Fred Rogers Center for Early Learning and Children’s Media. Michael received his B.A. from Tufts University and M.A. and Ph.D. in psychology from UC Riverside.

Fill Out Survey

 

In his new podcast series, No Such Thing, host Marc Lesser surveys the current landscape of digital learning through lively interviews with students, practitioners, researchers, and more. To learn more about the show, we asked Marc to share how NST got its start—along with a few highlights from recent episodes. 

Thanks for taking the time to speak with us, Marc! First off, can you tell us more about your background in the digital learning space?

Currently I’m the Senior Director of Learning Design at Mouse, a youth development nonprofit that empowers students to create with technology. I’m also the Youth Studies Fellow at the City University of New York (CUNY) and co-founder of Emoti-Con NYC, New York’s biggest youth digital media and technology festival.

What was your inspiration for creating No Such Thing?

I set out to produce a new podcast with a focus on digital learning for a few simple reasons. For starters, there’s not enough media out there that’s focused on this field. Digital learning is trans-disciplinary and trans-contextual, yet most of the media available to practitioners is focused on K-12 #edtech or occasionally “after-school.”

I’ve also noticed that, in general, podcasts rarely lift up the work of informal practitioners and organizations that, working alongside colleagues in classrooms, museums, and parents, are helping carve out new innovation in digital learning. These leaders are vital in shaping how young people learn and develop a sense of identity across a multitude of digital environments.

Finally, industry-oriented media is too often lacking the voice and perspective of end-users. We hear from academic researchers, educators, and policy-makers about what’s best for youth, but rarely do young people have a seat at the table. I feature youth voices prominently across my interviews as a way to flip the existing pattern on its head—too many decisions about what matters most rest solely with the adults in the room. No Such Thing provides a platform to highlight new perspectives and diverse voices in relation to learning with technology.

How did the podcast get its name? 

In the ’80s, Richard E. Clark at the University of Southern California set off a pretty epic debate based on his statement that, “media are mere vehicles that deliver instruction, but do not influence student achievement any more than the truck that delivers our groceries causes changes in nutrition.” His words frequently ring in my ears when I’m tempted to take things at face value, asking myself, “Is it the method, or the medium?” The ice cream truck that’s featured in our logo is one nod to Clark.

The podcast’s name, No Such Thing, has a few meanings. Mostly, it emphasizes the importance of asking hard questions as we’re developing and documenting the narrative around “education” in the United States. Clark’s question seems to be whether or not there’s such a thing as learning from new technologies. For others, the big question may be whether there’s a panacea for the challenges faced in the digital learning field. Whatever the question we choose to examine, I hope it’s a reminder to keep asking yourself, your students, and others, what’s working—and how.

What can people expect from the podcast? Any highlights to share so far? 

No Such Thing goes way beyond “Ed Tech” to cover digital environments and socio-cultural perspectives—how the zeitgeist intersects with youth development and learning. Episodes range from short “PowerUp” episodes to longer-form interviews that can be 60 minutes or more. I try and keep it lively with cut scenes or segments separately produced, and generally we try and dig into the areas of digital learning that are relevant today. 

The pilot episode features three young people who share their experiences with digital learning programs in the New York public school system. In another recent episode, I talked with Matthew Farber and Alex Fleming how designing games about real world issues can teach students empathy, systems thinking, and design thinking. I also had a great conversation with game designer, professor, and researcher Naomi Clark on games and gender, gamification, and whether game design should be part of the humanities.

 

To learn more about the podcast, visit the No Such Thing website. You can listen to No Such Thing on iTunes, GooglePlay, or wherever you download podcasts. Get in touch with Marc on Twitter @malesser.

 

A new study on public libraries highlights their role in digital literacy and family engagement

A recent survey of more than 400 public library directors provides new evidence of how public libraries are transforming to help families build digital literacy skills and become familiar with new technology. The results, published last month in Public Library Quarterly, raise the question: Are public schools doing enough to take advantage of these resources in their backyards?

The results are part of a larger research study, “Engaging Families in Public Libraries,” by M. Elena Lopez, Margaret Caspe, and Christina Simpson, leaders of and contributors to the Global Family Research Project, a non-profit organization dedicated to new ideas for engaging with and for families. The survey, which was distributed online to 1,600 library directors across the country, showed that 95 percent of respondents believe it as “important” or “very important” to serve as “experts on digital media and technology”  for families. (The only activity that scored higher in the survey was serving as “catalysts to inspire a love of reading,” at 99 percent of respondents.)

Nearly all respondents said they have formed partnerships with schools, typically through summer learning initiatives. But the study calls into question whether those partnerships are robust enough to support families’  efforts to promote their children’s learning. Public libraries have become well-known for storybook hours to support families with young children, but as kids grow up and move through grade levels, libraries do not typically offer many opportunities for parents and caregivers to be involved in students’ learning or for parents and their kids to explore and learn together. Meanwhile, schools are being asked to engage in new ways with families but may not know where to start.

For school-age children, the authors write, libraries “could be more deliberate in creating family-oriented learning experiences that capitalize on their frequently reported partnerships with schools.” Maker spaces, home visits by librarians, and mobile media centers in neighborhoods are among the new ideas that emerged from their research.

The authors also used information from semi-structured interviews with 40 librarians and discussions with a group of 20 librarians to brainstorm how libraries should evolve to meet the needs of learners of all ages. For example, the authors suggest that libraries augment the relationships that they may have already established with families of pre-kindergarten age children by working with schools to help those families to transition their kids into kindergarten and the early grades. The authors also see libraries becoming more welcoming places for family meet-ups, continuing to serve as important locales for providing Internet access, and as vital spaces for building digital literacy skills.

The study results ultimately paint a picture of public libraries becoming more dynamic contributors to a “learning ecology” that includes early learning centers, schools, recreational spaces, museums, and afterschool programs, with libraries “offering vast collections of books, media, and informational events to guide families in their children’s learning and development.”

This intersection of family engagement, children’s learning, and technology is new and buzzing terrain, and this study is not the only evidence that public libraries are well-situated to capitalize on it. In partnership with the Joan Ganz Cooney Center at Sesame Workshop, we have published reports on how to bring early learning and family engagement into the Digital Age and how to analyze efforts that integrate technology into early literacy programs, along with digital maps that spotlight innovators in libraries, early learning centers, and elsewhere. We have also written about the rise of media mentors among public librarians and other professionals who work with families and young children.

In the coming months, the Early Learning Lab, an initiative based in Oakland, California, will release survey results on technology and family engagement (for parents with infants and toddlers), coinciding with a forthcoming report from the Silicon Valley Community Foundation, which has been surveying parents and early educators, and interviewing public librarians, in three California counties about technology and early learning. Also to watch is the Future Ready Schools initiative, which is designed to help school district leaders develop strategies for personalized learning. It includes Future Ready Librarians, most of whom are school librarians working on digital literacy initiatives within school buildings.

As policymakers and educators begin to learn from these projects, new questions arise:

• Do school district leaders recognize the new roles that their public libraries could play or want to play in their communities?
• Are public library leaders adequately connected to school leaders who are working on family engagement or digital literacy?
• Are there opportunities for school librarians and public librarians to work together to support families and family learning opportunities for school-age children?
• What are the incentives for school districts and public libraries to work more closely together? What policies could help?
• Where are institutions unnecessarily replicating effort? What are the funding implications of that replication?
• When it comes to professional development around literacy (both traditional and digital) and family engagement, are professionals from these two realms given opportunities to share insights?
• Do public librarians and school educators have opportunities to learn together?

The Public Quarterly article helps show that libraries have the potential to be a community’s linchpin for building digital literacy within families and enabling families’ success with their children from birth through adolescence. Now comes the hard work of figuring out how to create deeper partnerships with schools and other institutions that may also be working toward these goals. As Lopez and her co-authors write: Libraries “cannot do it alone.”