Early Childhood Education Journal

, Volume 37, Issue 5, pp 381–389 | Cite as

Applying Technology to Inquiry-Based Learning in Early Childhood Education

  • Feng WangEmail author
  • Mable B. Kinzie
  • Patrick McGuire
  • Edward Pan


Children naturally explore and learn about their environments through inquiry, and computer technologies offer an accessible vehicle for extending the domain and range of this inquiry. Over the past decade, a growing number of interactive games and educational software packages have been implemented in early childhood education and addressed a variety of subjects, including mathematics, science, reading, language, and social studies. However, most software packages have yet to integrate technology into inquiry-based learning for early childhood contexts. Based on existing theoretical frameworks, we suggest that instructional technologies should be used in early childhood inquiry education to (a) enrich and provide structure for problem contexts, (b) facilitate resource utilization, and (c) support cognitive and metacognitive processes. Examples of existing and hypothetical early childhood applications are provided as we elaborate on each role. Challenges and future research directions are also identified and discussed.


Inquiry-based learning Problem solving Early childhood Technology Computers 



The research reported here was supported by the Institute of Education Sciences, U.S. Department of Education, through Grant R305A07068 to the University of Virginia. The opinions expressed are those of the authors and do not represent views of the U.S. Department of Education.


  1. American Association for the Advancement of Science. (1993). Benchmarks for science literacy. New York: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar
  2. Anderson, R. D. (2002). Reforming science teaching: What research says about inquiry. Journal of Science Teacher Education, 13(1), 1–12.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  3. Barrows, H. S. (1996). Problem-based learning in medicine and beyond: A brief overview. In L. Wilkerson & W. H. Gijselaers (Eds.), New directions for teaching and learning: Bringing problem-based learning to higher education: Theory and practice (Vol. 68, pp. 3–12). San Francisco: Jossey-Bass Publishers.Google Scholar
  4. Bell, R. L., Smetana, L., & Binns, I. (2005). Simplifying inquiry instruction: Assessing the inquiry level of classroom activities. The Science Teacher, 72(7), 30–33.Google Scholar
  5. Blumenfeld, P. C., Soloway, E., Marx, R. W., Krajcik, J. S., Guzdial, M., & Palincsar, A. (1991). Motivating project-based learning: Sustaining the doing, supporting the learning. Educational Psychologist, 26((3&4)), 369–398.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  6. Bransford, J. D., Brown, A. L., & Cocking, R. R. (Eds.). (2000). How people learn: Brain, mind, experience, and school. Washington, DC: National Academy Press.Google Scholar
  7. Casey, B., Kersh, J., & Young, J. (2004). Storytelling sagas: An effective medium for teaching early childhood mathematics. Early Childhood Research Quarterly, 19(1), 167–172.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  8. Chen, J., & Chang, C. (2006). Using computers in early childhood classrooms: Teachers’ attitudes, skills and practices. Journal of Early Childhood Research, 4(2), 169–188.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  9. Clemens, A., Moore, T., & Nelson, B. (2001). Math intervention “SMART” Project: Student mathematical analysis and reasoning with technology. Retrieved September 11, 2008, from SMARTer Kids Foundation website:
  10. Clements, D. H. (2002). Computers in early childhood mathematics. Contemporary Issues in Early Childhood, 3(2), 160–181.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  11. Clements, D. H., & Sarama, J. (2004). Engaging young children in mathematics: Standards for early childhood mathematics education. Mahwah, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates.Google Scholar
  12. Clements, D. H., & Sarama, J. (2007). Effects of a preschool mathematics curriculum: Summative research on the Building Blocks project. Journal of Research in Mathematics Education, 38(2), 136–163.Google Scholar
  13. Cuban, L. (2001). Oversold and underused: Computers in the classroom. Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press.Google Scholar
  14. Disney/Pixar. (2005). Learning with Nemo [Computer software]. Emeryville, CA: Pixar Animation Studios.Google Scholar
  15. Edelson, D. C., Gordin, D. N., & Pea, R. D. (1999). Addressing the challenges of inquiry-based learning through technology and curriculum design. Journal of the Learning Sciences, 8(3&4), 391–450.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  16. Elias, M. J., & Allen, G. J. (1991). A comparison of instructional methods for delivering a preventive social competence/social decision making program to at risk, average, and competent students. School Psychology Quarterly, 6(4), 251–272.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  17. Elliott, A., & Hall, N. (1997). The impact of self-regulatory teaching strategies on “at-risk” preschoolers’ mathematical learning in a computer-mediated environment. Journal of Computing in Childhood Education, 8(2), 187–198.Google Scholar
  18. Essa, E. (2002). Introduction to early childhood education (4th ed.). Clifton Park, NY: Thomson Delmar Learning.Google Scholar
  19. Fredricks, J., Blumenfeld, P., & Paris, A. (2004). School engagement: Potential of the concept, state of the evidence. Review of Educational Research, 74(1), 59–109.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  20. Gauvain, M. (2001). The social context of cognitive development. New York: Guilford.Google Scholar
  21. Ginsburg, H. P., & Golbeck, S. L. (2004). Thoughts on the future of research on mathematics and science learning and education. Early Childhood Research Quarterly, 19(1), 190–200.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  22. Grolnick, W. S., & Ryan, R. M. (1987). Autonomy in children’s learning: An experimental and individual difference investigation. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 52(5), 890–898.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  23. Hannafin, M. J., Land, S., & Oliver, K. (1999). Student-centered learning environments. In C. M. Reigeluth (Ed.), Instructional-design theories and models: A new paradigm of instructional theory (Vol. II, pp. 115–140). Mahwah, NJ: Erlbaum.Google Scholar
  24. Hart, B., & Risley, T. R. (1995). Meaningful differences in the everyday experiences of young American children. Baltimore, MD: Paul H. Brookes Publishing.Google Scholar
  25. Haugland, S. W. (1999). What role should technology play in young children’s learning? Young Children, 54(6), 26–31.Google Scholar
  26. Haugland, S. W. (2000). What role should technology play in young children’s learning? Part 2. Young Children, 55(1), 12–18.Google Scholar
  27. Hewitt, J., & Scardamalia, M. (1998). Design principles for distributed knowledge building processes. Educational Psychology Review, 10(1), 75–96.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  28. Hill, J. R., & Hannafin, M. J. (2001). Teaching and learning in digital environments: The resurgence of resource-based learning. Educational Technology Research and Development, 49(3), 37–52.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  29. Hoffman, B., & Ritchie, D. (1997). Using multimedia to overcome the problems with problem based learning. Instructional Science, 25(2), 97–115.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  30. Howard, J. R., Watson, J. A., Brinkley, V. M., & Ingels-Young, G. (1994). Comprehension monitoring, stylistic differences, pre-math knowledge, and transfer: A comprehensive pre-math/spatial development computer-assisted instruction (CAI) and LOGO curriculum designed to test their effects. Journal of Educational Computing Research, 11(2), 91–105.Google Scholar
  31. Iiyoshi, T., Hannafin, M. J., & Wang, F. (2005). Cognitive tools and student-centered learning: Rethinking tools, functions and applications. Educational Media International, 42(4), 281–296.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  32. Inhelder, B., & Piaget, J. (1958). The growth of logical thinking from childhood to adolescence. New York: Basic Books.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  33. International Society for Technology in Education [ISTE]. (2000). National educational technology standards for teachers. Eugene, OR: Author.Google Scholar
  34. Jablon, J., & Wilkinson, M. (2006). Using engagement strategies to facilitate children’s learning and success. Young Children, 61(2), 12–16.Google Scholar
  35. Jonassen, D. H., & Reeves, T. C. (1996). Learning with technology: Using computers as cognitive tools. In D. H. Jonassen (Ed.), Handbook of research on educational communications and technology (pp. 693–719). New York: Macmillan.Google Scholar
  36. Justice, L. M., & Kaderavek, J. (2004). Embedded-explicit emergent literacy I: Background and description of approach. Language, Speech, and Hearing Services in Schools, 35, 201–211.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  37. Klemm, E. B., & Tuthill, G. (2003). Virtual field trips: Best practices. International Journal of Instructional Media, 30(2), 177–193.Google Scholar
  38. Kuiper, E., Volman, M., & Terwel, J. (2005). The Web as an information resource in K-12 education: Strategies for supporting students in searching and processing information. Review of Educational Research, 75(3), 285–328.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  39. Li, X., & Atkins, M. S. (2004). Early childhood computer experience and cognitive and motor development. Pediatrics, 113, 1715–1722.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  40. Lillard, A. S. (2005). Montessori: The science behind the genius. New York: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar
  41. Lind, K. K. (1998). Science in early childhood: Developing and acquiring fundamental concepts and skills. Mathematics, and Technology Education: Paper presented at the Forum on Early Childhood Science.Google Scholar
  42. Lind, K. K. (2005). Exploring science in early childhood (4th ed.). Clifton Park, NY: Thomson Delmar Learning.Google Scholar
  43. Linn, M. C., Clark, D., & Slotta, J. D. (2003). WISE design for knowledge integration. Science Education, 87(4), 517–538.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  44. Ljung-Djärf, A. (2008). To play or not to play—that is the question: Computer use within three Swedish preschools. Early Education and Development, 19(2), 330–339.Google Scholar
  45. Ljung-Djärf, A., Aberg-Bengtsson, L., & Ottosson, T. (2005). Ways of relating to computer use in pre-school activity. International Journal of Early Years Education, 13(1), 29–41.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  46. Moseley, D., & Lane, D. (1986). Children’s binocular efficiency in relation to competence in reading. Educational and Child Psychology, 3(2), 90–102.Google Scholar
  47. Moyer, P., Boylard, J., & Spikell, M. (2002). What are virtual manipulatives? Teaching Children Mathematics, 8(6), 372–377.Google Scholar
  48. National Council of Teachers of Mathematics. (2000). Principles and standards for school mathematics. Reston, VA: Author.Google Scholar
  49. National Research Council. (1996). National science education standards. Washington, DC: National Academy Press.Google Scholar
  50. Nir-Gal, O., & Klein, P. S. (2004). Computers for cognitive development in early childhood—the teacher’s role in the computer learning environment. Information Technology in Childhood Education Annual, 2004(1), 97–119.Google Scholar
  51. Pange, J. (2003). Teaching probabilities and statistics to preschool children. Information Technology in Childhood Education Annual, 2003(1), 163–172.Google Scholar
  52. Papert, S. (1980). Mindstorms: Children, computers, and powerful ideas. New York: Basic Books, Inc.Google Scholar
  53. Parette, H. P., Hourcade, J. J., Dinelli, J. M., & Boeckmann, N. M. (2009). Using Clicker 5 to enhance emergent literacy in young learners. Early Childhood Education Journal, 36, 355–363.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  54. Pea, R. D. (1993). Practice of distributed intelligence and designs for education. In G. Salomon (Ed.), Distributed cognitions: Psychological and educational considerations (pp. 47–87). Cambridge, U.K.: Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar
  55. Pelletier, J., Reeve, R., & Halewood, C. (2006). Young children’s knowledge building and literacy development through Knowledge Forum®. Early Education and Development, 17(3), 323–346.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  56. Plowman, L., & Stephen, C. (2005). Children, play, and computers in pre-school education. British Journal of Educational Technology, 36(2), 145–157.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  57. Puntambekar, S., & Hubscher, R. (2005). Tools for scaffolding students in a complex learning environment: What have we gained and what have we missed? Educational Psychologist, 40(1), 1–12.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  58. Quintana, C., Reiser, B. J., Davis, E. A., Krajcik, J., Fretz, E., Duncan, R. G., et al. (2004). A scaffolding design framework for software to support science inquiry. Journal of the Learning Sciences, 13(3), 337–386.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  59. Reiser, B. J. (2004). Scaffolding complex learning: The mechanisms of structuring and problematizing student work. Journal of the Learning Sciences, 13(3), 273–304.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  60. Rideout, V. J., Vandewater, E. A., & Wartella, E. A. (2003). Zero to six: Electronic media in the lives of infants, toddlers and preschoolers. Menlo Park, CA: The Henry J. Kaiser Family Foundation.Google Scholar
  61. Riverdeep. (2001). Reader rabbit preschool: Sparkle star rescue [Computer software]. Novata, CA: Riverdeep Inc.Google Scholar
  62. Riverdeep. (2006). Sammy’s science house [Computer software] (Version 4). Novato, CA: Riverdeep Inc.Google Scholar
  63. Rogoff, B. (2003). The cultural nature of human development. Oxford: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar
  64. Ruff, H. A., & Capozzoli, M. C. (2003). Development of attention and distractability in the first 4 years of life. Developmental Psychology, 39(5), 877–890.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  65. Ruff, H. A., & Rothbart, M. K. (1996). Attention in early development: Themes and variations. New York: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar
  66. Salomon, G. (1993). No distribution without individuals’ cognition: A dynamic interactional view. In G. Salomon (Ed.), Distributed cognitions: Psychological and educational considerations (pp. 111–138). Cambridge, United Kingdom: Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar
  67. Sarama, J. (2004). Technology in early childhood mathematics: Building Blocks as an innovative technology-based curriculum. In D. H. Clements & J. Sarama (Eds.), Engaging young children in mathematics: Standards for early childhood mathematics education (pp. 361–375). Mahwah, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates.Google Scholar
  68. Savery, J. R., & Duffy, T. M. (1996). Problem based learning: An instructional model and its constructivist framework. In B. G. Wilson (Ed.), Constructivist learning environments: Case studies in instructional design (pp. 135–148). Englewood Cliffs, NJ: Educational Technology Publications.Google Scholar
  69. Scardamalia, M. (2004). CSILE/Knowledge Forum. In A. Kovalchick & K. Dawson (Eds.), Education & technology: An encyclopedia (pp. 183–192). Santa Barbara, CA: ABC-CLIO.Google Scholar
  70. Scholastic. (2003). Math missions: The race to spectacle city arcade [Computer software]. New York: Scholastic, Inc.Google Scholar
  71. Short, K. G., & Harste, J. C. (1996). Creating classrooms for authors and inquirers. Portsmouth, NH: Heinemann.Google Scholar
  72. Spiro, R. J., & Jehng, J.-C. (1990). Cognitive flexibility and hypertext: Theory and technology for the nonlinear and multidimensional traversal of complex subject matter. In D. Nix & R. Spiro (Eds.), Cognition, education, multimedia: Exploring ideas in high technology (pp. 163–205). Hillsdale, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates.Google Scholar
  73. Sweller, J. (1988). Cognitive load during problem solving: Effects on learning. Cognitive Science, 12, 257–285.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  74. The Learning Company. (2001). Arthur’s math games [Computer Software]. Freemont, CA: The Learning Company.Google Scholar
  75. Tippons, D. J., & Kittleson, J. M. (2007). Considering young children’s production of science: The tensions associated processes, uncertainty, and authority. Cultural Studies of Science Education, 2, 816–821.Google Scholar
  76. U.S. Department of Education (USDOE). (2003). Federal funding for educational technology and how it is used in the classroom: A summary of findings from the integrated studies of educational technology. Washington, DC: Office of the Under Secretary, Policy and Program Studies Service.Google Scholar
  77. Weinert, F. E., & Helmke, A. (1998). The neglected role of individual differences in theoretical models of cognitive development. Learning and Instruction, 8(4), 309–323.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  78. Wilkerson, L., & Gijselaers, W. H. (Eds.). (1996). New directions for teaching and learning: Bringing problem-based learning to higher education: Theory and practice (Vol. 68). San Francisco, CA: Jossey-Bass Publishers.Google Scholar
  79. Youngquist, J., & Pataray-Ching, J. (2004). Revisiting “play”: Analyzing and articulating acts of inquiry. Early Childhood Education Journal, 31(3), 171–178.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer Science+Business Media, LLC 2009

Authors and Affiliations

  • Feng Wang
    • 1
    Email author
  • Mable B. Kinzie
    • 2
  • Patrick McGuire
    • 2
  • Edward Pan
    • 2
  1. 1.Mount Saint Mary CollegeNewburghUSA
  2. 2.University of VirginiaCharlottesvilleUSA

Personalised recommendations