Answers are grounded in this paper and cite their sources.
This paper presents an educational experience of linguistic immersion with technologies carried out in the first cycle of infant education with children aged 0-3 years. Starting to work with a second foreign language in the first cycle of infant education generates numerous benefits, specifically, improving communicative competence and facilitating a globalized education. In addition to these benefits, it is also necessary to add technologies that are not only motivating but also very useful for the learning of a second language in the first stage of infant education. The experience has been carried out in a Nursery School, with students from 0 to 3 years of age, using the Humanistic TPR method for linguistic immersion. The objective of the study is to know the impact of technologies as a support resource for second language learning. In order to know this impact, information was collected from the different subjects involved in this process: children from 0-3 years of age in a nursery school, their families and their teachers, making up a total of 154 subjects. An observation scale was elaborated for the children and two surveys, one for the families and the other for the teachers. The results obtained indicate that children aged 0-1 years do not suffer significant changes with the use of technology in their learning, while for students aged 1-2 and 2-3 years there are significant differences. The research results indicate that using a second language and technology in the first cycle of infancy provides a novel and motivating approach for children in the first cycle of infancy, resulting in significant improvements in their learning performance and benefits in their teaching process. We can say that the digital game provides these children with operational skills, and broadens their knowledge about the world in addition to developing their dispositions to learn and understand the role of technologies in everyday life.
No takes yet. Share an insight, caveat, or question.
Tena et al. (2024) studied this question.
Synapse has enriched 10 related papers. Consider them for comparative context: