See discussions, stats, and author profiles for this publication at: https://www.researchgate.

net/publication/232517393

Computers and young children: A review of research

Article in Young Children · November 1987

CITATIONS READS
65 4,153

1 author:

Douglas H. Clements
University of Denver
505 PUBLICATIONS 21,036 CITATIONS

SEE PROFILE

All content following this page was uploaded by Douglas H. Clements on 15 December 2017.

The user has requested enhancement of the downloaded file.

Computers and Young Children: A Review of Research
Author(s): Douglas H. Clements
Source: Young Children, Vol. 43, No. 1 (November 1987), pp. 34-44
Published by: National Association for the Education of Young Children (NAEYC)
Stable URL: http://www.jstor.org/stable/42725946
Accessed: 11-12-2017 19:20 UTC

JSTOR is a not-for-profit service that helps scholars, researchers, and students discover, use, and build upon a wide
range of content in a trusted digital archive. We use information technology and tools to increase productivity and
facilitate new forms of scholarship. For more information about JSTOR, please contact [email protected].

Your use of the JSTOR archive indicates your acceptance of the Terms & Conditions of Use, available at
http://about.jstor.org/terms

National Association for the Education of Young Children (NAEYC) is collaborating with
JSTOR to digitize, preserve and extend access to Young Children

This content downloaded from 132.174.254.116 on Mon, 11 Dec 2017 19:20:36 UTC
All use subject to http://about.jstor.org/terms
 Research in Review

Computers an
A Review of Research
Douglas H. Clements

thought and can, under certain write too soon. However, they can
and effectiveness of com- conditions, exhibit thinking tradi- also be used to provide develop-
Although puters andputers
effectiveness questions
in ineducation
education of of the com-are
are use tionally considered concrete. mentally appropriate experiences.
raised at all levels, these questions Rohwer, Ammon, and Crammer Watson, Nida, and Shade (1986)
are debated most passionately (1974) put it this way: "Children do suggest that the dilemma best be
about the early childhood ages not universally wake up on their handled by allowing children to se-
(birth through 8). Are young chil- seventh birthdays ... to find that lect and work with activities at their
dren physically and cognitively they have arrived at the period of own level. If so permitted, how do
ready to use computers? Will such concrete operations" (p. 172). children react to this new techno-
use inhibit their social develop- A related concern is that com- logical learning device?
ment? Can computers help build puter use demands the ability to
Children's interactions
skills or develop problem-solving work with symbols (i.e., that com-
with computers
ability? Which is preferable? Re- puters are not concrete). This ig-
search has not answered these Children approach computers
nores, however, that much activity
questions definitively. However, in which
in young children engage with
is comfort and confidence and
just a few short years since a symbolic.
sim- They communicate withappear to enjoy exploring this new
ilar review was published (Brady gestures
& and language, and theymedium (Binder & Ledger, 1985).
Hill, 1984), there has been a sub- employ symbols in their play andEven preschoolers can work coop-
stantial increase in what we know eratively with minimal instruction
art. Thus, it appears that preschool
about young children's use of com- and supervision if they initially
children might benefit from using
puters. computer programs. have adult support (Rosengren,
But should they? Isn't this Gross, Abrams, & Perlmutter, 1985;
"rushing" them? One answer is thatShade, Nida, Lipinski, & Watson,
Young children using computers are no more dangerous 1986). However, adults play a signif-
computers than books or pencils - all could beicant role in successful computer
used to push a child to read or use. Children are more attentive,
Are computers developmentally more interested, and less frustrated
appropriate for young children? when an adult is present (Binder &
Douglas Clements , Ph.D., is codirector
This is perhaps the first question of the Logo-Based Geometry Project at Ledger, 1985; Shade et al., 1986).
early childhood educators should Kent State University . He is studying the Thus, teachers may wish to make
ask about computers. An expressed use of Logo with young children. He the computer one of many choices,
taught kindergarten for 5 years.
concern is that children must reach placed where they can supervise
the stage of concrete operations This is one of a regular series of Re- and assist children.
search in Review columns. The column Using the standard keyboard is
before they are ready to work with
in this issue was edited by Douglas R. not a problem for young children,
computers (e.g., Brady & Hill, Powell , Ph.D., Associate Professor in
1984). Recent research, however, and is often superior to other de-
the Department of Child Development
has found that preschoolers are and Family Studies at Purdue Universi- vices, such as a joystick. Indeed,
more competent than has been ty, West Lafayette, Indiana. typing appears to be a source of

34 Young Children • November 1987

This content downloaded from 132.174.254.116 on Mon, 11 Dec 2017 19:20:36 UTC
All use subject to http://about.jstor.org/terms
motivation and sense of compe- resentational competence and vo-
tence for many (Borgh & Dickson, cabulary development and display "Children do not
1986b; Lipinski, Nida, Shade, & more organized and abstract forms
universally wake up on
Watson, 1986; Muller & Perlmutter, of free play behavior. They do not
1985; Swigger & Campbell, 1981). differ from less interested peerstheirin seventh birthdays
... to find that they
Preschool children can successfully creativity, estimates of social matu-
use age-appropriate software re- have arrived at the
rity, or social cognitive ability.
quiring that they press only a few Thus, there may be important cog-
period of concrete
single keys. They can turn the com- nitive underpinnings of computer
puter on and off, remove and re- involvement by preschoolers operations."
place diskettes properly, follow in- (Hoover & Austin, 1986; Johnson,
structions from a picture menu, and 1985).
talk meaningfully about their com- Equity: Girls and boys
puter activity (Watson, Chadwick, How young? A consistent finding is that as
& Brinkley, 1986). Although older children may be early as the later elementary school
A computer center may vary more interested in using com- years, boys have more access to
from being among the most popular puters, there is little evidence that computers, own more computers,
free-time activity to being chosen computers should not be intro- and use computers more frequently
slightly less frequently than many duced to younger children. No and with more control (Lieberman,
other areas (Picard & Giuli, 1985). major differences have been found 1985; Picard & Giuli, 1985). Is this
Such differences may be due to the between the way computers are imbalance present in early child-
physical setup, the teacher inter- used by younger and older pre- hood? There are some similar
ventions, and especially the com- schoolers (Beeson & Williams, signs. For example, a pair of studies
puter programs (software) used. 1985), although 3-year-olds takefound that, although children 5
For example, children prefer pro- longer to acclimate to the keyboard years or older used computers sim-
grams that are animated, problem- ilarly, boys younger than 5 used the
than 5-year-olds (Sivin et al., 1985).
solving-oriented, and interactive - Some research suggests that 3 computer more than did girls the
that give them a feeling of control years of age and older be selected same age (Beeson & Williams,
over the computer (Shade et al., as an appropriate time for intro- 1985). In addition, two studies, one
1986; Sherman, Divine, & Johnson, ducing a child to discovery- at the preschool and one at the pri-
1985; Sivin, Lee, & Vollmer, 1985). oriented software. However, even 2-mary level, have found that boys
In most cases, 3- to 5-year-old chil- year-olds might be introduced to are more interested in creative
dren apparently spend approxi- simple, single-keystroke software,problem-solving programs - in ex-
mately the same amount of time mainly for developing positive atti-ploring their control over the com-
playing in the computer center as tudes. The crux is appropriately de-puter - whereas girls tend to stay
drawing, talking, or playing in the signed software (Shade & Watson, within the dictates of established
block or art centers (e.g., Hoover & in press). If computers are seen as adrill and practice programs
Austin, 1986; Picard & Giuli, 1985). general educational tool, perhaps(Shrock, Matthias, Anastasoff,
The attraction outlives the novelty no one is too young. Noting that Vensel, & Shaw, 1985; Swigger,
effect. However, play in other im- handicapped infants are at high risk Campbell, & Swigger, 1983). How-
portant centers, such as blocks, is for learned helplessness, Brinker ever, other studies have not re-
not decreased by the presence of a (1984) sought ways to use com- vealed such differences (e.g.,
computer. Thus, the computer is an puters to help them exert control Sherman et al., 1985), and the vast
interesting, but not engrossing, ac- over their environment. Infants majority report that girls and boys
tivity for young children (Lipinski wore ribbons attached to switches. do not differ in the amount or type
et al., 1986). Their arm or leg movements sent of computer use (Hess & McGarvey,
in press; Hoover & Austin, 1986;
different signals to a computer,
Characteristics of children
which was programmed to turn on Johnson, 1985; Lipinski et al., 1986;
Do any characteristics distin- a tape recording of the mother's Muller & Perlmutter, 1985; Shade et
guish preschoolers most interestedvoice or of music, show a picture, al., 1986; Swigger & Campbell, 1981;
in using computers? They tend activate
to Swigger et al., 1983). Considering
a toy, or the like. These ac-
tivities built motivation to control
be older and to exhibit significantly the traditional heavy dominance of
such events and increased the in-
higher levels of cognitive maturity. computer use by males, these re-
fants' smiling and vocalizing.
They manifest higher levels of rep- searchers have suggested that the

Young Children • November 1987 35

This content downloaded from 132.174.254.116 on Mon, 11 Dec 2017 19:20:36 UTC
All use subject to http://about.jstor.org/terms
early years are the ideal time to in- al., 1986; Rosengren et al., 1985; play areas; others have found that,
troduce students to computers. Swigger et al., 1983; Swigger in & comparison to other areas, com-
"Imagine what it might mean in the Swigger, 1984). The addition of a puters facilitate social interaction
life of young girls to have positive, computer center does not and
disrupt cooperation (Clements & Nas-
early experiences with computers ongoing play activities; many tasi, 1985; Muhlstein & Croft, 1986;
before society convinces them that studies have found that computers Miller & Perlmutter, 1985), friend-
'computers are for boys' " (Watson, encouraged social interaction ship formation (Swigger & Swigger,
Nida, & Shade, 1986, p. 313). (Binder & Ledger, 1985; Rosengren 1984), and group constructive play
et al., 1985). As we shall observe re-(Hoover & Austin, 1986). Consid-
peatedly, people affect how com-ering the nature of both computer
Social! emotional puters are used more than com- and noncomputer activities can re-
puters affect people. For example, solve the discrepancy. Pre-
development
Fein, Campbell, & Schwartz (1984) schoolers' social interactions may
First grader Darius never talked compared young children's social be no different in computer
aloud, was slow to complete his and cognitive behaviors when com- learning centers from those in
work, and had been placed in a so- puters were in or out of the other centers such as blocks or art.

cialization group to draw him out of classroom. As usual, the computersHowever, computers may stimulate
his shell. When the computer ar- were not disruptive. interaction more than noncom-
Interestingly,
rived, Darius spent nearly 90 several specific effects varied as puter
a activities. Interactive be-
minutes with the machine the first function of classroom and teachers. havior should not be viewed as a

day. Immediately thereafter, hisFor example, in the computer's unitary phenomenon. Computer ac-
teacher noticed that he was com- tivities may facilitate interactive
presence, dramatic play decreased
pleting seatwork without prompt- in one classroom and increased in problem solving, but not interactive
ing. Then he would slide his seat the other, because only the play (Fein et al., 1984). Finally,
teacher
over to the computer and watch in the latter classroom made inter- computer use should not be viewed
others program in Logo. A bit later, esting changes in the dramatic play as a unitary activity. Relatively
he stood beside the computer, center. Other factors, such as the simple software cannot be expected
talking and making suggestions. ratio of computers to children, may to engender interactions similar to
When others had difficulties, he also influence social behaviors. Li- those promoted by cognitively
was quick to show them the solu- pinski et al. (1986) found that onlyricher computer programs.
with a 1:22 ratio (and no teacher
tion. Soon, others started getting
present) was there any aggressive Teaching and helping
help with Logo from him. In brief,
Darius moved up to the high behavior, along with a sex differ- A frequent report is that children
reading group, skipping the thirdence favoring boys. With a ratio of help and teach each other while
preprimer. He began completing 1:12, there was no such behavior working on the computer. For ex-
twice as much work per day as he and the sex difference favored girls. ample, Shade et al. (1986) traced
Thus, they suggest that a 1:10 ratio
had previously. He participated ea- the development of 4-year-olds
might ideally encourage computer
gerly during class discussions and from positioning for a turn to as-
- as a crowning achievement - wasuse, cooperation, and equal access sisting one another. Several other
given a 10-minute "time out" be- to girls and boys. With these ca- reports confirm that children spon-
cause he wouldn't stop talking (St. veats in mind, let us see specifically taneously and effectively teach and
Paul Public Schools, 1985)! Such what kinds of social behavior occur help each other in computer envi-
episodes are strikingly inconsistent in computer environments. ronments (e.g., Borgh & Dickson;
with the negative vision of isolated 1986b; Paris & Morris, 1985; Wright
Interaction and cooperation & Samaras, 1986). Kull (1986) ob-
children working with computers.
In retrospect, the early concern Although there is agreement that served first graders engaging in a
that computers would stifle playfulcomputers do not isolate children, considerable amount of peer tu-
social interaction appears over- there is some disagreement as to toring often modeled on their
stated. Children would either have whether computers promote inter- teachers' strategies (therefore
to be forced or mesmerized into action more than other activities or using a guided questioning ap-
to approximately the same degree.proach). Not surprisingly, these ac-
solitary use of computers for long
For instance, Lipinski et al. (1986)
periods. Actually, young children tions were most successful when
prefer social use of computers, reported
and that social interactions such assistance was requested
areet
rarely work alone (e.g., Lipinski similar to interactions in other (Paris & Morris, 1985)!

36 Young Children • November 1987

This content downloaded from 132.174.254.116 on Mon, 11 Dec 2017 19:20:36 UTC
All use subject to http://about.jstor.org/terms
Social and cognitive interaction
In sum, computers appear to fa-
cilitate certain prosocial behaviors.
Although they may not do so to a
greater degree than other worth-
while learning centers, computer
contexts appear to have one unique
benefit: They facilitate both social
and cognitive interactions. Hoover
and Austin (1986) found that com-
puters produced a more advanced
cognitive type of play and con-
cluded that this technology repre-
sents another way for children to
learn, both socially and cognitively.
In another study, the computer was
the only activity that resulted in
high levels of both language devel-
opment and cooperative play
(Muhlstein & Croft, 1986). Finally,
Logo programming has been found
to increase both prosocial and
higher-order thinking behaviors
(Clements & Nastasi, 1985; Clem-
ents, 1986). Thus, computers may
represent an environment in which
both social and cognitive interac-
tions simultaneously are encour-
aged, each to the benefit of thefl
other . As we shall see, research onir ,
the cognitive influences of com- CO
*-5

puter use supports this claim. Why is writing skili so scarce? One reason may lie in its tedium ; another in its
lack of power. With computers , children write more , are less worried about
Attitudes making mistakes, take increased pride in their writing because text looks bet-
ter , have fewer ñne muscle control problems , and are more willing to take
Researchers frequently observe risks and revise .
young children commenting posi-
tively about their computer workvaried and complex expressions. It verbalizations about correctness
(e.g., "I did it. I did it. I made itappears, then, that the computer and winning, but also encourage
work"; Shade et al., 1986). When enhances both communication and peer teaching; open-ended pro-
asked, girls and boys alike express self-confidence. grams elicit more wondering and
favorable attitudes toward the com- Of course, the type of software hypothesizing (i.e., stimulate imagi-
puter (Shrock et al., 1985). How used influences these behaviors. In nation).
valid are these findings? one study, a drawing program Often used in an open-ended
Observing 5-year-olds, Hyson tended to elicit more indicators of manner, Logo programming has po-
(1985) found that, in comparison to concentration, planning, and socialtential to engender positive atti-
television watching, computer use engagement than a face construc-tudes, especially persistence.
produces far more active, positive, tion and counting program (Hyson, Strand, Gilstad, McCollum, and
and emotionally varied facial ex- 1985). In a similar vein, Borgh & Genishi (1986) showed that pre-
pressions and more smiling. Also,Dickson (1986b) found that chil- school students competently man-
children working at a computer dren's verbal statements are aged their Logo environment and
speak more often either to each strongly affected by the character- evidenced enthusiasm and confi-
other or to observers. They are far istics of the software. Programs dence. Kindergarten children sus-
more animated and display more with definite correct answers elicit tained their attention on Logo tasks

Young Children • November 1987 37

This content downloaded from 132.174.254.116 on Mon, 11 Dec 2017 19:20:36 UTC
All use subject to http://about.jstor.org/terms
 Prereading and reading
Computers can make a special contribution to As early as 1972, Atkinson and
special needs children. Fletcher taught first graders to read
with computer programs empha-
sizing letter recognition and recall,
for substantial time periods, even (e.g., Wright & Samaras, 1986). sight words, spelling, phonics, and
when they had the option to choose Thus, most, but not all, studies have sentence and word meanings. Since
other activities in lieu of program- reported increases in positive atti- then, it has been demonstrated that
ming. Clements and Nastasi (1985) tudes after computer use, espe- about 10 minutes work with CAI per
found that primary grade children cially when children work in day significantly benefits primary
in a Logo environment exhibited a groups, write on the computer, or
grade children's reading skill devel-
greater frequency of several be- program in Logo (cf. Lieberman,
opment (e.g., Ragosta, Holland, &
haviors indicating motivation to ac- Jamison, 1981; Silfen & Howes,
1985). This is promising, especially
tively control their environment, in-
as the motivational advantages of
1984). Similarly, preschoolers can
cluding engaging in self-directed good computer software - chal-develop such reading readiness
explorations and showing pleasure abilities as visual discrimination
lenge, curiosity, control, and fan-
at discovery. Logo has been found tasy - are compellingly consonantand letter naming (e.g., Swigger &
particularly effective in increasing with the type of experiences de-
Campbell, 1981). As always, how-
disabled children's engagement in sired for young children. ever, results are not guaranteed.
learning (Weir, 1987). One re- For example, three 20-minute ses-
searcher recorded the following sions with simple readiness soft-
statement of a boy persisting in the Language ware had no effect on preschoolers'
face of several setbacks on his Logo prereading concepts in one study
project: "He turns to me and very Language development (Goodwin et al., 1986). In a different
seriously says 'I say, never give Not surprisingly, increases in so-study, however, placing computers
up!' " (Carmichael, Burnett, Hig- cial interaction and positive atti- and appropriate software in kinder-
ginson, Moore, & Pollard, 1985, tudes help generate increased lan-gartners' classrooms for several
p. 286). guage use. Preschoolers' language months significantly facilitated their
Properly used, Computer- activity, measured as words spoken acquisition of school readiness and
Assisted Instruction (CAI) might per minute, was almost twice as reading readiness skills. When sup-
provide similar benefits, at least for
high at the computer as at any of plemented by concurrent com-
primary grade children. One study the other activities: dough clay, puting activities outside of school
found students to be more task ori- blocks, art, or games (Muhlstein & (each child in one class also re-
ented, even during regular instruc- Croft, 1986). Research with Logo in- ceived a computer to use at home),
tion, than those in a control group. dicates that it engenders interac- academic gains were even greater
This suggests that experiences with tion and language rich with emo- (Hess & McGarvey, in press).
the computer transfer to regulartion, humor, and imagination (Gen- A specific program that has had
classroom group activity. Students' ishi, McCollum, & Strand, 1985). substantial success in kinder-
attitudes toward learning were also Reports such as these help allay the gartens is Writing to Read. Children
positively affected (Silfen & Howes, fear that computers will de- work with computers, typewriters,
1984). emphasize play and fantasy. When and tape recorders in both prepara-
Not all results have been posi- children are in control, they createtory activities and story writing
tive, however. For example, one fantasy in computer programsusing a simplified phonetic al-
group of preschoolers' interest in beyond the producers' imagina-
phabet. Kindergartners effectively
using the computer declined tions. For example, two children learned to read and write better
(Goodwin, Goodwin, Nansel, & humanized the lines they were con- than those in comparison groups,
Helm, 1986). It may be significantstructing with a computer drawing with no deleterious effects on
that the experimental treatmentprogram. When the line went off spelling (Murphy & Appel, 1984).
was short, solitary, and inflexible. In screen, they declared, "It's Computers can make a special
comparison, other studies reportsleeping." When it reappeared, contribution they to special needs chil-
that children verbalize consider- said "It woke up." Another boy dren. pre- After 6 weeks of reading
able curiosity, interest, enthusiasm, tended the cursor erasing was a
instruction using a microcomputer,
and sense of personal control after termite eating wood (Wright & 3-Sa-
to 6-year-old deaf children dem-
direct involvement with computers maras, 1986). onstrated a significant improve-

38 Young Children • November 1987

This content downloaded from 132.174.254.116 on Mon, 11 Dec 2017 19:20:36 UTC
All use subject to http://about.jstor.org/terms
h.
a
-O

v
<
CL

er
1
2

If computers are just part of a good early childhood program, their use does not stifle social interaction and develop-
ment , and may add considerably to the curriculum.

ment in word recognition and iden- word can create animated pictures
Computer scaffolds allow children
tification (Prinz, Nelson, & Stedt,and stories that can be heard. to maintain a sense of competence:
They
1982). Taking advantage of young can also reduce the tedium of "I did it by myself." Importantly,
children's cognitive readiness re- writing. Little or no research has
scaffolding allows the child - right
gardless of their primary mode of been conducted with the most in- from the beginning - to use written
communication, the program al- language for a purpose: communi-
novative writing programs, but we
lowed them to press a word (say, do know something about using cation. Children can experiment
"flower") and see a picture of acomputers as word processors, with letters and words without
often incorporating speech, with
flower, the word, and a graphic rep- being distracted by the fine motor
resentation of a manual sign. young children. aspects of handwriting.
First, we know that the benefit of If encouraged to use such scaf-
Writing using computers is in providing folding, children write more, are
Why is writing skill so scarce? scaffolding, or necessary support, less worried about making mis-
One reason may lie in its tedium; for young writers (Clements, 1987; takes, take increased pride in their
another in its lack of power. For Rosegrant, 1986). Used in construc- writing because text looks better,
young children especially, spoken tion, scaffolds serve as supports, have fewer fine motor control
language provides them controllifting up workers so they can problems, and are more willing to
over their environment. Their achieve something that otherwise take risks and revise (Clements,
written language is anemic in would
com- not be possible. Educational 1987; Phenix & Hannan, 1984).
parison. But certain computerscaffolds
envi- support children, helping Borgh and Dickson (1986a) have re-
ronments can infuse writing them
withachieve otherwise impossible ported that a talking version of a
control and power. The writtenpersonal communicative tasks. word processor significantly in-

Young Children • November 1987 39

This content downloaded from 132.174.254.116 on Mon, 11 Dec 2017 19:20:36 UTC
All use subject to http://about.jstor.org/terms
creased the amount of editing chil-
dren performed on their composi- The strength of quality computer applications is that
tions, although it did not signifi-
they allow the teacher to focus on the human parts
cantly affect length or quality. It
may be that the spoken feedback of teaching.
fostered an awareness of the need
how it was used (Rosegrant, 1986). birthday party. She, too, thought of
to edit ("When the computer talks
For example, Jessica wrote a letter using the same basic "file," altered
it sorta sounds like someone else is
to one of her grandmothers, mailing appropriately. Her mother refused
reading it to me and that way if it
it when she got home. Several days to let her take that shortcut, forcing
doesn't sound quite right ... 1 can
later, her other grandmother called, her to type the exact same letter 13
change it"; Borgh & Dickson, 1986a,
jestingly "demanding" her own times. Needless to say, Jane's im-
p. 15). Beginning writers learn to
letter. During the next session, Jes- pressions of writing, the use of the
name letters, sound out words, in-
sica loaded in the old computer computer as a tool, and the experi-
vent spelling, express ideas, and
letter, typed the second grand- ence as a whole were traumatic,
write simple sentences (Rosegrant, unlike Jessica's. As a tool, the com-
mother's name over the first, added
1985). Perhaps more importantly,
a quick personalized "P.S." and puter is used to facilitate communi-
young children learn to use the
promptly mailed out the "new" cation, print frequent drafts, and
computer as a tool for exploration
letter! The mother joked, "My explore and experiment. The
and experimentation. For example,
mother just got a form letter from teacher is a supportive mentor. As a
one 4-year-old repeatedly scram-
her own grandchild!" She was, how- trauma, the computer is used to
bled the letters of her name to as-
ever, quite pleased with (and sup- help you be more accurate and
sess the effects on pronunciation.
Another confused "b" and "d" and
portive of) her child's intelligent print only when the composition is
use of the tool. "correct." The teacher is a critic.
continued to experiment on her On the other hand, Jane had to
Word processors will not support
own (note her initial choices: ded
children's writing without corre-
write 13 thank you letters - all vir-
dird dlue, for dead, bird, and blue).
tually identical - following her sponding support from the teacher.
A group of kindergartners discov-
Wendy Press
ered - on their own - "magic
letters" that caused their word pro-
cessor to pronounce a word rather
than separate letters (these were, of
course, vowels; Hofmann, 1986).
Speech is not always the appro-
priate presentation. Deaf children
as young as 3 to 5 years have im-
proved their writing, reading, and
general communication skills by
composing with a special keyboard
that included animation of color
pictures and representations of
signs from American Sign Language
(Prinz, Pemberton, & Nelson, 1985).
This represented a true communi-
cative context for these children.
Benefits do not always accrue,
however (Clements, 1987), and, like
all computer applications, word
processors can be misused. For in-
stance, in one study parents were
involved in teaching their own chil-
dren to compose with word pro-
cessors. The computer became a
"tool" or a "trauma," depending on Computers may promote dramatic gains in a variety of math skills.

40 Young Children • November 1987

This content downloaded from 132.174.254.116 on Mon, 11 Dec 2017 19:20:36 UTC
All use subject to http://about.jstor.org/terms
Mathematics and computerized and a teacher- 2 to a chair (leading to laughter
problem solving about how 2 can be one arm of a
directed program for learning about
shapes were equally beneficial for
chair) or cloning a single bed into a
The most dramatic gains inkindergartners
the bunk bed.
(von Stein, 1982).
use of CAI have been in mathe- Perhaps more promising, however, Children had to be explicit about
matics for primary grade children,is a different approach to devel- the "locations" to which they would
especially in compensatory educa- oping such abilities. move. The increased distance be-
tion (Niemiec & Walberg, 1984; Ra- Working with preschoolers, tween their own action and the ma-
gosta et al., 1981). Again, 10 Forman (1986b) found that certain nipulation of the objects increased
minutes per day proved sufficientgraphics programs offer a new, the need to reflect on their perfor-
for significant gains; 20 minutesdynamic way of drawing and ex- mance. This distance also con-
was even better. Properly chosen, ploring geometric concepts. For ex- tributes to benefits children derive
computer games may also be effec-ample, a boxes function allows chil- from watching a replay of their ac-
tive. Kraus (1981) reported that dren to draw rectangles by tions (in effect, a cartoon the chil-
second graders with an average of stretching an electronic "rubber dren created that could be viewed
one hour of interaction with a com- band." Using this stretching pro- repeatedly). Replay is a powerful
puter game per 2-week period re- cess gives children a different per- tool to help the children think
sponded correctly to twice as manyspective on geometric figures. The about the future when constructing
items on an addition facts speed area fill function, which fills closedthe present action on the computer.
test as students in a control group regions with color, prompts chil- In a sense, these children are "both
with no computer experience. dren to reflect on topological fea- watching an action and watching
Younger children may benefit as tures such as closure as the conse- themselves watching it later"
well. Three-year-olds learned quences of actions rather than (Forman, 1985, p. 33). Computers
sorting from a computer task as merely as characteristics of static can help present children with rep-
easily as from a concrete doll task shapes. The power of such drawingresentations of their own past trials
(Brinkley & Watson, undated). Re- tools lies in the possibility that and errors. These representations
ports of gains in such skills as children will internalize the func- can be observed and edited. "Let
counting have also been reported tions, thus constructing new mental children play with kinetic print re-
for kindergartners (Hungate, 1982). tools. plays of their own performance"
Similarly, kindergartners in a com- Other engaging situations (Forman, 1985, p. 33).
puter group scored higher on nu- Forman (1986a) has explored in- Teachers who expect computer
meral recognition tasks than thoseclude computerized "kinetic print," drawing tools
taught by a teacher (McCollister, or symbols that move. For example,
to help children draw more realistic
Burts, Wright, & Hildreth, 1986).he found that children 3 to 5 years pictures probably will be disappointed.
There was some indication, how- old think more about process in a Teachers who expect Paint and Play
ever, that instruction by a teacher computer Smurf program (Paint Workshops to generate emotionally
was more effective for children just and Play Workshop) and more rich stories probably will not be satis-
fied. On the other hand, teachers who
beginning to recognize numerals; about content in a three-
see these media as new systems of
but the opposite was true for more dimensional doll house. Children cause and effect relations, logic rela-
able children. This recalls the had to reflect more because tions, and spatial relations will make
finding that children more choices inter- must be more deliberate in hundreds of interesting observations
ested in using computers had the computer medium. Ideas for and will invent hundreds of games that
children will find educational. (Forman,
greater representational compe- using miniature real objects
1986b, p. 73)
tence, and has implications for use seemed to flow from the physical
of this type of drill and practice manipulation of those objects, Logo programming is another
program. Children should not work whereas ideas for use of the com- rich environment that can elicit
with such programs until they un- puter objects come full-blown from reflection on mathematics and
derstand the concepts; then, prac- premeditation, often announcedproblem to solving. Classroom obser-
tice may be of real benefit. others. Thus the computer may vations have demonstrated that

Studies have explored the poten- promote planfulness, possibly at students do use certain mathemat-
tial of computer graphics for devel- the cost of playfulness. The com- ical notions in Logo programming,
oping spatial and geometric abili- puter also allowed and encouraged such as notions of inverse opera-
ties. For example, one found that a creative thinking, such as adding a tion. First grader Ryan wanted to

Young Children • November 1987 41

This content downloaded from 132.174.254.116 on Mon, 11 Dec 2017 19:20:36 UTC
All use subject to http://about.jstor.org/terms
turn the turtle to point into his rect- tive, problem-solving behaviors. and effective ways to use them.
angle. He asked the teacher, Primary grade children working Even in this process, we should
"What's half of 90?" After she re- with Logo exhibit similar amounts avoid inflexible conclusions; the
sponded, he typed RT 45. "Oh, of
1 conflict as those working with field is changing too radically. Ac-
went the wrong way." He said CAI programs. However, they re- ceptance of a certain level or type
nothing, eyes on the screen. "Try of either hardware or software,
solve these conflicts more fre-
LEFT 90," he said at last. This in- quently. Logo children also without evinceconsideration of advances,
verse operation produced exactly more high-level problem-solving or rejection of it for its short-
the desired effect (Kull, 1986). Kullbehaviors (e.g., determining the na- comings, would be unfortunate.
maintains that such behaviors illus- ture of problems and selecting This review can reflect only what is.
trate what Piaget called the "spon- strategies to solve them; Clements Teachers should be proactive in
taneous mathematical intelligence & Nastasi, in press). Computers determining what could and should
of the young child" (Kull, 1986,
stimulate the social interaction of be. They know that the goal is to
p. 113). preschoolers to the benefit of their develop problem solvers, not pro-
Other studies have indicated that problem solving (Muller & Perl- grammers; communicators, not
programming in Logo increases mutter, 1985). The children areword also processors; fulfilled children,
problem-solving abilities in kinder-more persistent and effective at not early achievers. The strength of
gartners (Degelman, Free, Scarlato, solving problems (Perlmutter, quality computer applications is
Blackburn, & Golden, 1986) and Behrend, & Muller, undated). This not that they replace the teacher,
special needs preschoolers (Lehrer, is true mostly for 5-year-olds, but that they allow the teacher to
Harckham, Archer, & Pružek, 1986). rather than 4-year-olds, however. focus on the human parts of
Several studies have reported in- Younger preschoolers' problem teaching, as shown by a Writing to
creases in both preschoolers' and solving may be disrupted by social Read letter from a first grader to
primary grade children's ability to interaction. For them, the cognitive her teacher (Wallace, 1985, p. 23):
monitor their comprehension (i.e., demands of simultaneously solving
I liket the tipe riter Best of all
realize when they don't understand; a challenging problem and man-
and I like to work with you.
Clements, 1986; Miller & Emihovich, aging social relations may be too
And I likt lisoning to the story's
1986). This may reflect the preva- taxing. They may also find it too
But best I like working with you.
lence of "debugging" in Logo pro- difficult to take the perspective of
gramming. It is essential to note their partner.
that a critical element in each of References

these successful efforts was an ac-

Atkinson, R. C., & Fletcher, J. D. (1972).
tive role of the teacher - encour- Conclusion Teaching children to read with a com-
aging, questioning, prompting, puter. The Reading Teacher, 25, 319-327.
Beeson, B.S., & Williams, R. A. (1985). The
modeling, and, in general, me- We now know that computers are effects of gender and age on preschool
diating children's interaction with neither panacean nor pernicious. children's choice of the computer as a
the computer. This scaffolding led Young children do not need com- child-selected activity. Journal of the
American Society for Information Science,
children to reflect on their own puters any more than they "need" 36, 339-341.
thinking behaviors and bring any of many potentially valuable Binder, S. L., & Ledger, B. (1985). Preschool
problem-solving processes to an learning centers. There is, however, computer project report. Oakville, Ontario,
Canada: Sheridan College.
explicit level of awareness. Logo nothing to lose and potentially rich Borgh, K., & Dickson, W. P. (1986a, April).
does induce high quality instruc- benefits to acquire through in- The effects on children's writing of adding
tion, even from fairly naive and in- formed use of computers with speech synthesis to a word processor.
Paper presented at the annual meeting of
experienced adults. However, "the young children. Informed, because the American Educational Research Asso-
importance of Logo is that it pro- inappropriate or insipid uses will ciation, San Francisco.
vides an unusually rich problem have little or no benefit. Effective- Borgh, K., & Dickson, W. P. (1986b). Two pre-
schoolers sharing one microcomputer:
space within which children can ness depends critically on the Creating prosocial behavior with hard-
confront important ideas; it does quality of the software, the amount ware and software. In P. F. Campbell &
not guarantee that the confronta- of time it is used, and the way in G. G. Fein (Eds.), Young children and mi-
crocomputers (pp. 37-44). Reston Pub-
tion will occur" (Fein, 1985, p. 22). which it is used. Research needs to
lishing, 11480 Sunset Hills Rd., Reston, VA
Such problem solving often has evolve beyond simply assessing, for
22090.

social roots, and computer environ- example, the effects of computersBrady, E. H., & Hill, S. (1984). Research in re-
view. Young children and microcom-
ments appear to have the potential on social behaviors. We need guid-puters: Research issues and directions.
to facilitate social, as well as cogni- ance on effective programs to useYoung Children, 39(3), 49-61.

42 Young Children • November 1987

This content downloaded from 132.174.254.116 on Mon, 11 Dec 2017 19:20:36 UTC
All use subject to http://about.jstor.org/terms
Brinker, R. P. (1984). The microcomputer as relevant effects of educational uses of mi- erative play among preschool children.
perceptual tool: Searching for systematic crocomputers in kindergarten classrooms Unpublished manuscript, De Anza College,
learning strategies with handicapped in- and homes. Journal of Educational Com- Cupertino, CA. (ERIC Document Repro-
fants. In R. E. Bennett & C. A. Mäher (Eds.), puter Research. duction Service No. ED 269 004)
Microcomputers and exceptional children Hofmann, R. (1986). Microcomputers, pro- Muller, A.A., & Perlmutter, M. (1985). Pre-
(pp. 21-36). New York: Haworth. ductive thinking, and children. In P. F. school children's problem-solving interac-
Brinkley, V. M., & Watson, J. A. (undated). Ef- Campbell & G. G. Fein (Eds.), Young chil- tions at computers and jigsaw puzzles.
fects of microworld training experience on dren and microcomputers (pp. 87-101). Journal of Applied Developmental Psy-
sorting tasks by young children. Manu- Reston Publishing, 11480 Sunset Hills Rd., chology, 6, 173-186.
script submitted for publication. Reston, VA 22090. Murphy, R. T., & Appel, L. R. (1984). Evalua-
Carmichael, H.W., Burnett, J. D., Higginson, Hoover, J., & Austin, A.M. (1986, April). A tion of Writing to Read. Princeton, NJ: Edu-
W.C., Moore, B.G., & Pollard, P.J. (1985). comparison of traditional preschool and cational Testing Service.
Computers, children and classrooms: A computer play from a social/ cognitive per- Niemiec, R. P., & Walberg, H. J. (1984). Com-
multisite evaluation of the creative use of spective. Paper presented at the annual puters and achievement in the elementary
microcomputers by elementary school meeting of the American Educational Re- schools. Journal of Educational Com-
children. Toronto, Ontario, Canada: Min- search Association, San Francisco. (ERIC puting Research, 1, 435-440.
istry of Education. Document Reproduction Service No. EDParis, C. L., & Morris, S. K. (1985, March). The
Clements, D.H. (1986). Effects of Logo and 270 220) computer in the early childhood
CAI environments on cognition and cre- Hungate, H. (1982, January). Computers in classroom : Peer helping and peer
ativity. Journal of Educational Psychology, the kindergarten. The Computing Teacher, teaching. Paper presented at the Micro-
78, 309-318. pp. 15-18. world for Young Children Conference, Col-
Clements, D.H. (1987). Computers and lit- Hyson, M.C. (1985). Emotions and the mi- lege Park, MD. (ERIC Document Reproduc-
eracy. In J. L. Vacca, R. T. Vacca, & M.K. crocomputer. An exploratory study of tion Service No. ED 257 555)
Gove (Eds.), Reading and learning to read young children's responses. Computers in Perlmutter, M., Behrend, S., & Muller, A. (un-
(pp. 338-372). Boston: Little, Brown. Human Behavior, 1, 143-152. dated). Social inñuence on preschool chil-
Clements, D.H., & Nastasi, B. K. (1985). Ef- Johnson, J. E. (1985). Characteristics of pre- dren's problem solving at a computer. Un-
fects of computer environments on social- schoolers interested in microcomputers. published manuscript, University of Mich-
emotional development: Logo and Journal of Educational Research, 78, igan, Ann Arbor.
computer-assisted instruction. Computers299-305. Phenix, J., & Hannan, L. (1984). Word pro-
in the Schools, 2( 2-3), 11-31. Kraus, W. H. (1981). Using a computer game cessing in the grade one classroom. Lan-
Clements, D.H., & Nastasi, B. K. (in press).to reinforce skills in addition basic facts in guage Arts, 61, 804-812.
Social and cognitive interactions in educa-second grade. Journal for Research in Picard, A. J., & Giuli, C. (1985). Computers as
tional computer environments. AmericanMathematics Education, 12, 152-155. a free-time activity in grades K-4: A two
Educational Research Journal. Kull, J. A. (1986). Learning and Logo. In P. F. year study of attitudes and usage. Unpub-
Degelman, D., Free, J. U., Scarlato, M., Black- Campbell & G. G. Fein (Eds.), Young chil- lished manuscript, University of Hawaii,
burn, J.M., & Golden, T. (1986). Concept dren and microcomputers (pp. 103-130). Honolulu.
learning in preschool children: Effects of Reston
a Publishing, 11480 Sunset Hills Rd., Prinz, P., Nelson, K., & Stedt, J. (1982). Early
short-term Logo experience. Journal of Reston, VA 22090. reading in young deaf children using mi-
Educational Computing Research, 2, Lehrer, R., Harckham, L. D., Archer, P., & crocomputer technology. American
199-205. Pružek, R. M. (1986). Microcomputer- Annals of the Deaf, 127, 529-535.
Fein, G.G. (1985, April). Logo instruction: A based instruction in special education. Prinz, P.M., Pemberton, E., & Nelson, K. E.
constructivist view. Paper presented at the Journal of Educational Computing Re- (1985). The ALPHA interactive microcom-
annual meeting of the American Educa- search, 2, 337-355. puter system for teaching reading, writing,
tional Research Association, Chicago, IL. Lieberman, D. (1985). Research on children and communication skills to hearing-
Fein, G.G., Campbell, P. F., & Schwartz, S.S. and microcomputers. A review of utiliza- impaired children. American Annals of the
(1984). Microcomputers in the preschool : tion and effects studies. In M. Chen & W. Deaf, 130, 444-461.
Effects on cognitive and social behavior. Paisley (Eds.), Children and microcom- Ragosta, M., Holland, P., & Jamison, v.
Manuscript submitted for publication. puters: Research on the newest medium (1981). Computer-assisted instruction and
Forman, G. (1985). The value of kinetic print (pp. 59-83). Beverly Hills: Sage. compensatory education: The ETS/LAUSD
in computer graphics for young children. Lipinski, J.M., Nida, R. E., Shade, D.D., & study. Princeton, NJ: Educational Testing
In E. L. Klein (Ed.), Children and computers Watson, J. A. (1986). The effects of micro- Service.
(pp. 19-34). San Francisco: Jossey-Bass. computers on young children: An exami- Rohwer, W. D., Ammon, P. R., & Crammer, P.
Forman, G. (1986a). Computer graphics as a nation of free-play choices, sex differ- (1974). Understanding intellectual devel-
medium for enhancing reflective thinking ences, and social interactions. Journal of opment. Hinsdale, IL: Dryden.
in young children. In J. Bishop, J. Loch- Educational Computing Research, 2, Rosegrant, T.J. (1985, April). Using a micro-
head, & D. N. Perkins (Eds.), Thinking (pp. 147-168. computer to assist children in their efforts
131-137). Hillsdale, NJ: Erlbaum. McCollister, T. S., Burts, D. C., Wright, V. L., & to acquire beginning literacy. Paper pre-
Forman, G. (1986b). Observations of young Hildreth, G.J. (1986). Effects of computer- sented at the annual meeting of the Amer-
children solving problems with computers assisted instruction and teacher-assisted ican Educational Research Association,
and robots. Journal of Research in Child- instruction on arithmetic task achieve- Chicago.
hood Education, 1, 60-74. ment scores of kindergarten children. Rosegrant, T.J. (1986, April). Adult-child
Genishi, C., McCollum, P., & Strand, E. (1985). Journal of Educational Research, 80, communication in writing. Paper pre-
Research currents: The interactional rich- 121-125. sented at the annual meeting of the Amer-
ness of children's computer use. Language Miller, G.E., & Emihovich, C. (1986). The ef- ican Educational Research Association,
Arts, 62, 526-532. fects of mediated programming instruc- San Francisco.
Goodwin, L. D., Goodwin, W. L., Nansel, A., & tion on preschool children's self- Rosengren, K. S., Gross, D., Abrams, A. F., &
Helm, C. P. (1986). Cognitive and affective monitoring. Journal of Educational Com- Perlmutter, M. (1985, September). An ob-
effects of various types of microcomputer puting Research, 2, 283-297. servational study of preschool children's
use by preschoolers. American Educa- Muhlstein, E. A., & Croft, D.J. (1986). Using computing activity. Paper presented at
tional Research Journal, 23, 348-356. the microcomputer to enhance language "Perspectives on the Young Child and the
Hess, R., & McGarvey, L. (in press). School- experiences and the development of coop- Computer," University of Texas at Austin.

Young Children • November 1987 43

This content downloaded from 132.174.254.116 on Mon, 11 Dec 2017 19:20:36 UTC
All use subject to http://about.jstor.org/terms
 Saint Paul Public Schools. (1985). Logo: Strand, E., Gilstad, B., McCollum, P., & Gen- Watson, J. A., Nida, R. E., & Shade, D.D.
Learning in a computer culture. St. Paul, ishi, C. (1986, April). A descriptive study (1986). Educational issues concerning
MN: Author. comparing preschool and kindergarten young children and microcomputers: Lego
Shade, D.D., Nida, R. E., Lipinski, J.M., & Logo interaction. Paper presented at the with Logo? Early Child Development and
Watson, J. A. (1986). Microcomputers and annual meeting of the American Educa- Care, 23, 299-316.
preschoolers: Working together in a tional Research Association, San Fran- Weir, S. (1987). Cultivating minds: A Logo
classroom setting. Computers in the cisco. casebook. New York: Harper & Row.
Schools, 3, 53-61. Swigger, K., & Campbell, J. (1981). Com-Wright, J.L., & Samaras, A. S. (1986). Play
Shade, D.D., & Watson, J. A. (in press). Mi- puters and the nursery school. In D. Harris worlds and microworlds. In P. F. Campbell
croworlds, mother teaching behavior, and & L. Nelson-Heern (Eds.), Proceedings of & G. G. Fein (Eds.), Young children and
concept formation in the very young child. the National Educational Computing Con- microcomputers (pp. 73-86). Reston Pub-
Early Child Development and Care. ference (pp. 264-268). Iowa City, IA: Na- lishing, 11480 Sunset Hills Rd., Reston, VA
Sherman, J., Divine, K.P., & Johnson, B. tional Educational Computing Conference. 22090. SI
(1985, May). An analysis of computer soft- Swigger, K. M., Campbell, J., & Swigger, B. K.
ware preferences of preschool children. (1983, January/February). Preschool chil-
Educational Technology, pp. 39-41. dren's preferences of different types of CAI Copyright ©
Shrock, S.A., Matthias, M., Anastasoff, J., programs. Educational Computer Maga- sociation for
Children.
Vensel, C., & Shaw, S. (1985, January). Ex- zine, pp. 38-40.
amining the effects of the microcomputer Swigger, K. M., & Swigger, B. K. (1984). Social Please inform NAEYC if you make
on a real world class: A naturalistic study. patterns and computer use among pre- copies to share with parents, teachers,
Paper presented at the annual convention school children. AEDS Journal, 17, 35-41. or students; for library reserve; or for
of the Association for Educational Com- von Stein, J. H. (1982). An evaluation of the personal use so that we will know
which articles are most valuable to our
munications and Technology, Anaheim, microcomputer as a facilitator of indirect
CA. learning for the kindergarten child. Dis- readers. This copyright notice must ap-
Silfen, R., & Howes, A.C. (1984). A summer sertation Abstractions International, 43, pear with each copy you make. If you
reading program with CAI: An evaluation. 72A. (University Microfilms Order No. do not have access to a copier, single
Computers, Reading and Language Arts, DA82 14463) copies of this article are available for $2
7(4), 20-22. Wallace, J. M. (1985). Write first, then read. from NAEYC, 1834 Connecticut Ave.,
Sivin, J. P., Lee, P. C., & Vollmer, A. M. (1985, Educational Leadership, 42, 20-24. N.W., Washington, DC 20009-5786.
April). Introductory computer experiences Watson, J. A., Chadwick, S.S., & Brinkley, Permission to reprint is required only
with commercially-available software: Dif- V.M. (1986). Special education technolo- if this material is to be reprinted in an-
ferences between three-year-olds and five- gies for young children: Present and future other form such as a book, newsletter,
year-olds. Paper presented at the annual learning scenarios with related research or journal. Request permission from
meeting of the American Educational Re- literature. Journal of the Division for Early NAEYC in writing.
search Association, Chicago. Childhood, 10, 197-208.

Calendar of Conferences
The Houston Area AEYC and the North National Center for Clinical Infant Pro-
Entries for January's Calendar of Confer-
Harris AEYC Infants and Toddlers Work- grams Frontiers and Front Lines: A Decade
ences must be submitted by October 15;
shop of Strengthening Infants, Toddlers and Their
for March's by December 15; for May's
Houston, TX November 7, 1987 Families Through Research and Practice
by February 15; for July's by April 15; for
Contact: Susan Kruk. 713-659-1602. Washington, DC December 4-6, 1987
September's by June 15; and for No-
Contact: Eileen Powell, NCCIP, 733 15th St.,
UCLA Extension Division Caution : Chil- vember's by August 15. Send announce-
N.W., Suite 912, Washington, DC 20005.
dren Not at Play ments, including telephone number for 202-347-0308.
Los Angeles, CA November 7, 1987 the contact to NAEYC, 1834 Connecticut
Contact: Delores Burris, UCLA Extension Di-Ave., N.W., Washington, DC 20009-5786 Association for Supervision and Curric-
or call 202-232-8777 or 800-424-2460.
vision, 10995 Le Conte Ave., Los Angeles, CA ulum Development Public School Early
90024.213-825-4191. Childhood Programs: A Mini-Conference
Alexandria, VA December 9-11, 1 987
Boston Institute for the Development of Contact: Cynthia L. Warger, ASCD, 125 North
Infants and Parents, Inc. Clinical Applica- West St., Alexandria, VA 22314-2798.
tions of Research in Infant/Parent Relation- Room #208, Indianapolis, IN 46202. 317-266- 703-549-9110.
ships 4234.
The National Association of Private
Boston, MA November 13 & 14, 1987
Lesley College New Perspectives in Early Schools for Exceptional Children Critical
Contact: Arnold M. Kerzner, MD, BIDIP, 26 Issues for Critical Times
Childhood Education
Trapelo Rd., Belmont, MA 02178. 617-484-
6603.
Hollywood, FL January 26-29, 1987
Cambridge, MA November 19-21, 1987
Contact: Mary Mindess, NEKC, Lesley Col-Contact: Susan Nelson or Mary Dancy,
NAPSEC, 1625 Eye St., N.W., Suite 506, Wash-
lege, 29 Everett St., Cambridge, MA 02138-
Indianapolis Public Schools and the In- 2790. 617-868-9600. ington, DC 20006. 202-223-2192. ¡S
diana Department of Education Main-
taining Active Parent Partnerships (MAPP2) Early Childhood Education Council
Indianapolis, IN November 15-18, 1987 (ECEC) Better Beginning
Contact: Izona Warner, Project MAPP2, Indi- Freeport, NY November 21, 1987
anapolis Public Schools, 901 N. Carrollton, Contact: B. Girard. 516-433-9444.

44 Young Children • November 1987

This content downloaded from 132.174.254.116 on Mon, 11 Dec 2017 19:20:36 UTC
View publication stats
All use subject to http://about.jstor.org/terms