This article was downloaded by: [University Of Maryland]

On: 03 November 2014, At: 17:04

Publisher: Routledge
Informa Ltd Registered in England and Wales Registered Number: 1072954 Registered office: Mortimer House,
37-41 Mortimer Street, London W1T 3JH, UK

Childhood Education
Publication details, including instructions for authors and subscription information:
http://www.tandfonline.com/loi/uced20

Review of Research: Children and Technology: Issues,

Challenges, and Opportunities
Kathleen Glascott Burris & Carol Wright

Pennsylvania State University Libraries , USA

Published online: 26 Jul 2012.

To cite this article: Kathleen Glascott Burris & Carol Wright (2001) Review of Research: Children and Technology: Issues,
Challenges, and Opportunities, Childhood Education, 78:1, 37-41, DOI: 10.1080/00094056.2001.10521686
To link to this article: http://dx.doi.org/10.1080/00094056.2001.10521686

PLEASE SCROLL DOWN FOR ARTICLE

Taylor & Francis makes every effort to ensure the accuracy of all the information (the Content) contained
in the publications on our platform. However, Taylor & Francis, our agents, and our licensors make no
representations or warranties whatsoever as to the accuracy, completeness, or suitability for any purpose of the
Content. Any opinions and views expressed in this publication are the opinions and views of the authors, and
are not the views of or endorsed by Taylor & Francis. The accuracy of the Content should not be relied upon and
should be independently verified with primary sources of information. Taylor and Francis shall not be liable for
any losses, actions, claims, proceedings, demands, costs, expenses, damages, and other liabilities whatsoever
or howsoever caused arising directly or indirectly in connection with, in relation to or arising out of the use of
the Content.
This article may be used for research, teaching, and private study purposes. Any substantial or systematic
reproduction, redistribution, reselling, loan, sub-licensing, systematic supply, or distribution in any
form to anyone is expressly forbidden. Terms & Conditions of access and use can be found at http://
www.tandfonline.com/page/terms-and-conditions

Children and Technology:

Issues, Challenges, and Opportunities
Carol Wright

Downloaded by [University Of Maryland] at 17:04 03 November 2014

Carol Wright is Education and Behavioral Sciences Librarian, Pennsylvania State University Libraries, and PSU Schreyer Honors College Librarian and a Schreyer Honors College Faculty Fellow.
Educators face compelling questions regarding the integration of
technology into the instructional environment. Although the use of
technology by young children is
particularly controversial, successful integration of technology is an
issue at all levels.

The Net Generation

As technological developments accelerate, a new demographic group
of students can be identified-the
net generation. They are technoliterate and often exceed the abilities
of their parents and teachers; they
and their parents have high expectations concerning the availability
of technology in school; they expect
learning to be fun and entertaining;
and they expect customization, flexibility, and immediacy (Hay, 2000).
Interactive learning, made possible
by technology, brings significant
changes to teaching and learning.
Linear learning gives way to
hypermedia-based learning, instruction becomes construction and
discovery, teacher-centered instruction cedes to learner-centered instruction, the teacher transforms
from transmitter into facilitator, and
an emphasis on absorbing material
shifts to one on navigating information (Tapscott, 1999).
Which Children Are Using
Computers and How?
A 1999 survey reports that 71 percent of U.S. households with chil-

dren ages 8-17have computers, and

67 percent of those computers connect to the Internet (Annenberg
Public Policy Center, 2000). A separate study of on-line households
with children ages 6 through 12
showed that 81.2 percent of the parents or guardians had post-graduate
degrees, 75 percent had college degrees, and 42 percent had high
school degrees. Seventy-one percent had incomes of more than
$50,000; only 14.8 percent had incomesbelow$15,000(Holton, 2000).
In one survey of 291 parents with
children in kindergarten through
6th grade, the parents reported that
games and educational software
were used most often by boys, and
that word processing and creativity
software were most likely to be used
by girls. Internet use most frequently entailed information retrieval and net surfing, followed by
E-mail and chat rooms; girls use of
those Internet functions was lower
than boys in all but the chat room
area (Kafai, 1999).
In addition, a pre-Internet, longitudinal study of 7th- through 12thgraders showed that computer
ownership, parental interest, and
student gender were the most important predictors of heavy computer use. Frequent users were
found to have high degrees of selfsatisfaction and confidence, a strong
social network, and were proficient academically. This finding
contradicts studies suggesting that

frequent computers users are socially isolated and withdrawn

(Rocheleau, 1995).
Further evidence exists to quell
fears that computers isolate children and diminish social relationships. Rather, it can be argued that
childrens interpersonal lives and
computer activities reflexively amplify and reinforce each other.
Rather than isolating children, computing may provide an adaptive
social environment. Boys, however,
are much more likely to socialize in
relation to computers than girls are.
The female culture that attaches
minimal importance to a computerfocused social world has significant
implications as computer expertise
becomes the standard for achievement (Orleans, 2000).
One revealing factor to examine
is whether other activities are displaced by the Internet. Not surprisingly, the advertising industry is
studying this question, since the
results have implications for the allocation of advertising dollars.
Thirty-nine percent of one group of
4th-grade children said they were
willing to give up a favorite activity
in favor of exploring the Internet.
Within this group, the activities surrendered were: playing with friends
or siblings (89 percent), watching
TV (67percent),and reading or playing a musical instrument (33-38percent) (Henke, 1999). Research also
demonstrates that children are susceptible to advertising and promoFALL2001

37

Downloaded by [University Of Maryland] at 17:04 03 November 2014

tional efforts. Children as old as 9

have difficulty identifying the intent of advertising on a Web site
(Henke, 1999), however, whereas
previous research indicates that
even young children can identify
the persuasive intent of age-appropriate television advertising
(Donohue, Henke, & Donohue,
1980).While children and teens may
share their parents concerns about
on-line privacy, many are enticed
by offers of free gifts into revealing
personal or family information such
as brand preferences, the nature of
free time activities, allowance
amounts, political positions, drinking patterns, place of worship, and
more (Annenberg Public Policy
Center, 2000).
Conclusions about Internet addiction in the adult population are
conflicting, due to problematic research methodologies. While addiction may be too politicized a
term, some criteria applicable to
impulse control disorders may be
insightful. These include: regarding the habit as the most important
activity, feeling good when using
it, needing to use more to achieve
the same result, and feeling symptoms of withdrawal when not using
it (Griffiths, 1998). While Internet
addiction in children has not been
studied, studies done on adolescents regarding video game addiction identify a parallel to a gambling
addiction in terms of meeting the
above criteria for impulse control
disorders (Fisher, 1994). These addictivebehaviors among youth suggest that careful monitoring of, and
future research on, Internet use are
warranted.
Educational Benefits of
Information Technology
One of the first longitudinal studies
to examine and demonstrate the
benefits of instructional technology
was the Buddy System Project,
launched in 1988 (Corporation for
Educational Technology, 2000).
Another was Apple Classrooms of
38

CHILDHOOD
EDUCATION

Tomorrow (ACOT),which demonstrated that technology in the classroom can significantly increase the
potential for learning (Apple Computer Inc., 2000). The Connecticut
Association of Boards of Education
(2000)also conducted a broad-based
assessment to document the benefits of technology, surveying, beyond simple computer counts, the
degree of integration of computer
competencies, student achievement, and professional development support.
The report Does It Compute?
(Weglinsky, 1998) documents a
study that used a national database, the 1996National Assessment
of Educational Progress in Mathematics, as well as advanced analysis techniques, to isolate the effects
of the computer from the myriad
other factors involved in student
achievement. This study found that
both teachers professional development in technology and the use
of computers to teach higher-order
thinking skills were positively related to academic achievement in
mathematics and the social environment of the school. Furthermore, the greatest inequities in
achievement were found in how
computers were used, not how often they were used (Weglinsky,
1998).
Several recent research literature
reviewsexaminethe benefits of educational technology on student attitudes, applications to basic and
advanced skills, and strategies for
implementation (Kosakowsh, 1998;
National Association for the Education of Young Children [NAEYC],
2000; Project Pegasus, 1999). An
industry-sponsored study, Research Report on the Effectiveness
of Technology in Schools, reports
that technology benefited student
achievement, student self-concept
and attitudes, and teacher-student
interaction, in addition to improving software design (Software &
Information Industry Association,
2000).

Computers and Young Children

Claims that computers are a powerful learning tool for very young
children are difficult to document
because of problems in execution of
research methodologies,confounding variables, and rapidly changing
technologies. At issue is what best
serves childrens development and
learning in the long term. Although
software developers and industry
advocates recommend introducing
infants and toddlers to computers,
child development experts are firm
in recommending against exposing
children to computer use until they
reach age 3, because computers do
not match the learning styles of the
very young (Haugland, 1999).
Questionsabout the appropriate use
of information technologies with
young children can be informed by
the research of Lilian Katz (1995,
1999) regarding what young children should be learning, and what
is developmentally appropriate.
Preschool children can learn
much about technology: that people
control technology, that technology
can take different forms, that technology has rules that control how it
works, and that computer programs
require different ways of organizing thinking (NAEYC, 2000).
Haugland (2000)reviewed research
indicating that 3- and 4-year-old
children who use computers with
activitiesthat reinforce educational
objectives have greater developmental gains, and that kindergarten and primary age children show
improved motor skills, enhanced
mathematical thinking, increased
creativity, higher scores on tests of
critical thinking and problem solving, and increased scores on standardized language assessments. An
NAEYC position paper (2000) reaffirms that, when used appropriately, technology can enhance
childrenscognitiveand socialabilities, that it should be used as one of
many options to support childrens
learning, and that it has many implications for early childhood pro-

Downloaded by [University Of Maryland] at 17:04 03 November 2014

fessional development. Nevertheless, computers should only supplement, and not replace, highly valued
early childhood activities and materials, such as art, blocks, sand,
water, books, explorationwith writing materials, and dramatic play.
Researchers found that substantial levels of scaffoldingby computers increased preschoolers
language-related cognitive skills
(Shute & Miksad, 1997). Scaffolding provided by the computer and
Internet resources also can be successful in promoting a collaborative environment, as discovered
in a study of Internet exploration
using partnered 3rd-graders on
paired keyboards (Peters, 1996).
How computers are used with
young children appears to be more
important than if computers are
used at all. Issues of parent collaboration, teacher training, and
selection of appropriate software
are also key to the ultimate success
in integrating instructional technologies (Haugland, 2000).
Programs demonstrating the effectiveness of integrating technology into early childhood education
are accessible on the Internet. One
notable program is the Early
Childhood Technology Literacy
Project, Montgomery County
(Maryland)Public Schools, which
won the 2000 Computerworld
Smithsonian Award in the Education and Academia category. Several organizations and commercial
sites supporting the use of educational technologies make available
research reviews and supporting resources. Among them are Technology and Young Children, a site
of the National Association for the
Education of Young Childrens
TechnologyCaucus (2001)found at
www. techandyoungchildren.org/
indexshtml, and Children and
Computersfound at www.children
andcomputers.com(Kidsand Computers, Inc., 2000). Desirable improvements for expanding the
on-line, networked environment for

children include an ability to incorporate drawings in addition to text

in E-mail messages; an increased
availability of on-line collaboration
tools; and improved visual cues
between the Worldwide Web, Email, and other forms of on-line
communication (Druin & Platt,
1998).
Cautions Against the Use of
Technology With Young Children
Opponents of using technology
with young children claim that it is
developmentally inappropriate,
that instructional benefits are unproven, that an improper focus on
edu-tainment prevails, and that
technology is integrated at the expense of music, art, sports, etc. The
most vocal opponent of computer
use by young children is the Alliance for Childhood. A report from
the Alliance, Fools Gold: A Critical
Look at Computers in Childhood
(2000),calls for seven action points,
including a focus on basics such as
creative play and hands-on experiences, a report to be issued from the
U.S. Surgeon General on the health
consequences of childrens computer use, and an immediate moratorium on the introduction of
computers in early childhood and
elementary education classrooms.
Armstrong and Casement (1998)
offer anequally strenuous argument
against childrens use of technology. Extensive research led Jane
Healy (1998) to voice similar concerns. Leu (2000) argues that the
decision to use information technologies is based on current realities in business and in higher
education. Rather than conducting
studies on the efficacy of the Internet for teaching and learning, research should explore how to
support teachers efforts to tap the
potential of the new technologies.
Teachers Adoption and
Use of Technology
The U.S. Department of Education,
National Center for Education Sta-

tistics (1999)closely monitors use of

and levels of access to the Internet in
schools. Internet access has increased every year since 1994, and
the 1999 survey found that 99 percent of full-time public schoolteachers had access to computers or the
Internet somewherein their schools.
Of that group, across all grade levels, 39 percent of the teachers reported that they used computers or
the Internet a lot to create instructional materials; 34 percent used
them for record-keeping; less than
10 percent used them to access lesson plans or to access research and
best practices. Teacherswith four to
nine years of experience were more
likely to use the Internet than those
with 20 or more years of experience.
Sixty-six percent reported its use
during class time, and 41 percent
reported assigning work that involved computer applications.
Teacher training in technology,
which is accelerating rapidly, is a
defining element in the acceptance
and adoption of technology in the
classroom. In 1995, the Office of
Technology Assessment reported
that technology is not central to the
teacher preparation experience
(U.S. Congress, Office of Technology Assessment, 1995, p. 12). However, improvements are being made
in colleges of education (Beck &
Wynn, 1998). Even as recently as
1997, only a few teachers in a few
schools had been trained to maximize technology use (Gatewood &
Conrad, 1997), and administrators
were even less likely to have had
technology training (Epler, 1995).
In a 1999 survey, teachers with
more than 32 hours of professional
development were more likely to
assign problem-solving, graphical
presentations, and simulation assignments on the computer.
Twenty-threepercent reported fkelingwell-prepared, and an additional
10percent reported feelingvery well
prepared in computer and Internet
use (U.S. Department of Education,
National Center for Education StaFALL2001

39

Downloaded by [University Of Maryland] at 17:04 03 November 2014

tistics, 1999). Student success and

performance are directly related to
teacher training. Students of teachers with more than 10hours of training significantly outperformed
students of teachers with five or
fewer hours of training (Software &
Information Industry Association,
2000). Types of training range from
the most common (inservice)to least
common (vendor training and regional centers) (Epler, 1995).
The National Council for Accreditation of Teacher Education (2000)
is in the process of approving new
standards that include technology
education. During the technology
adoption process, teachers generally go through distinct stages as
they develop expertise with the
Internet-a cyclic process in which
they evolve from being learners to
becoming adopters of educational
technology, then they become colearners / co-explorers with their
students in the classroom, and ultimately arrive at a decision about
reaffirmation/ rejection of the technologies. Many of those who reaffirm the technology decision
become leaders among their peers
and become change agents for technology implementation. Reaffirmers require administrative
support, an incentive system, and
evidence of how their efforts influence teaching (Sherry,Bilig, Tavalin,
& Gibson, 2000).
Beyond use for professional development and lesson planning, the
Internet presents a powerful tool
for teachers to build partnerships
with parents. A class Web page can
provide information about content,
outlines, and time lines, as well as
individual student progress. E-mail
can provide rapid communication
on recent developments (Johnson,
2000). The role of the teacher changes
dramatically in a classroom where
the Internet is an active component
of the curriculum. A survey of secondary teachers who used the Internet concurrent with classroom
instruction at least once a week reCHILDHOOD
EDUCATION

ported that students were highly

engaged and more willing to work;
that learning is more active, accelerated, and individualized; and that
technology enhances the teachable
moment (Hemenway, 2000, p. 115).
Teachers, parents, and others involved in the education and development of young children must be
aware of the issues involved with
childrens use of technology, and be
knowledgeable about the resources
available to guide them through this
dynamic environment. Many excellent sites provide guidelines for
sensible Internet use, links to childappropriate Web sites, and instructional and educational sites. The
appendix is a starting point to identify many of these sites.
References
Alliance for Childhood. (2000). Fools gold:
A critical look at computers in childhood.
[On-line] Available at: www.alliance
for childhood.org / projects/ computers /
computers-reports.htm
Annenberg Public Policy Center, University of Pennsylvania. (2000). The internet
and the family, 2000. [On-line] Available
at www.appcpenn.org/ finalrepor-fam.
Pd f
Apple Computer, Inc. (2000). Apple classrooms of tomorrow, [On-line] Available at:
/ www.app1e.com / education/ k12 /leadership/acot/; Apple K-12 effectiveness
reports. www.apple.com/education/
k12 / leadership / effect.htm1.
Armstrong, A,, &Casement, C. (1998). The child
and the machine: Why coinputers put childrens
education at risk. Toronto: Key Porter Books.
Beck, J. A,, & Wynn, H. C. (1998). Technology
in teacher education: Progress along the
continuum. (ERIC Document Reproduction Service No. ED 424 212)
Connecticut Association of Boards of Education. (2000). 1998 CABE technology survey.
Executive summary. [On-line] Available at:
http: / / cabe.org/Docs/ 1998techsurveyl
foreword.htrn#
Corporation for Educational Technology,
Indiana Department of Education. (2000).
Buddy system project. [On-line] Available
at: www.buddyproject.org
Donohue, T. R., Henke, L. L., & Donohue,
W. A. (1980). Do kids know what TV
commercials intend? Journal of Advertising Research, 20(5), 51-58.
Druin, A,, & Platt, M. (1998). Childrens
online environments. In C. Forsythe
(Ed.), Human factors and web developinent

(pp. 75-85). Mahwah, NJ: Erlbaum.

Epler, D. (1995). K-12 netmorking: Breaking
down the uialls of the learning environment.
Medford, NJ: Information Today.
Fisher, S. (1994). Identifying video game
addiction in children and adolescents.
Addictive Behaviors, 19(5), 545-553.
Gatewood, T. E., & Conrad, S. H. (1997). Is
your schools technology up-to-date? A
practical guide for assessing technology
in elementary schools. Childhood Education, 73, 249-251.
Griffiths, M. (1998). Internet addiction:
Does it really exist? In J. Gackenbach
(Ed.), Psychology and f h e internet:
Intrapersonal,
interpersonal, and
transpersonal implications (pp. 61-75). San
Diego, CA: Academic Press.
Haugland, S. W. (1999). What role should
technology play in young childrens learning? Part I. Young Children, 54(6), 26-31.
Haugland, S.W. (2000). What role should
technology play in young childrens
learning? Part 11: Early childhood classrooms in the 21st century: Using computers to maximize learning. Young
Children, 55(1),12-18.
Hay, L. E. (2000). Educating the net generation. School Administrator, 57(4), 6-8.
Healy, J. M. (1998). Failure to connect: Hmu
computersa@tour childrens minds-for betfer
and worse. New York Simon & Schuster.
Hemenway, M. V. (2000). What effect does
classroom use of the Internet have on the
teacher-student relationship? NASSP
Bulletin, 84(615), 114.119.
Henke, L. (1999). Children, advertising and the
internet: An exploratory study. In D. W.
Schumann (Ed.), Advertising and the world
zuideweb (pp. 73-80). Mahwah, NJ: Erlbaum.
Holton, L. (2000). The surfer in the family.
American Demographics, 22(4), 34-36.
Johnson, D. (2000). Teacher web pages that
build parent partnerships. Multimedia
Schools, 7(4), 48-51.
Kafai, Y. B. (1999). Elementary school studentscomputerand Internet useathome.
lournal of Educational Computing Research,
21(3), 345-362.
Katz, L. G. (1995). A developmental approach to the education of young children: Basic principles. Internafional
Schools Journal, 14(2), 49-60.
Katz, L. G. (1999). Another lookat ulhatyoung
children should be /earning. ERIC Digest.
(ERIC Document Reproduction Service
No. ED 430 735) www.ed.gov/databases/ERIC-Digests /ed430735.html
Kids and Computers, Inc., and the University of Texas Pan-American College
of Education. (2000). Children and
computers. [On-line] Available at:
www .childrenandcomputers.com
Kosakowski, J. (1998). Benefits of information technology. ERIC Digest. (ERIC
Document Reproduction Service No. ED

Downloaded by [University Of Maryland] at 17:04 03 November 2014

420 302) www.ed.gov/databases/

ERIC-Digests / ed420302.html
Leu, D. (2000). Our childrensfuture: Changing the focus of literacy and literacy instruction. Reading Teacher, 53(5), 424-9.
National AssodationfortheEducationofYoung
Children. (2ooO). NAEYCposition statement.
Technologyandyoungchildren-ages3 through
8. [On-line]Available a t www.naeyc.org /
resources/ position-statements /
pstech98.htm
National Association for the Education of
Young Children, Technology Caucus.
(2001). Technology and young children.
[On-line] Available at: www.techand
youngchildren.org / indexshtml.
National Council for Accreditation of Teacher
Education. (2000). Program standards. [Online]Availableat www.ncate.org/standard/
programstds.htm
Orleans, M. (2000). Childrens computer use
in the home: Isolation or sociation? Social
Science Computer Reuim, 18(1), 56-72.

Peters, J. (1996). Paired keyboards as a tool

for Internet exploration of third grade
students. journal of Educational Computing Research, 14(3), 229-242.
Project Pegasus, Edmonton Public Schools,
Edmonton, Alberta, Canada. (1999). Literaturereuiew. [On-line]Availableat:http:/
/epsb.edmonton.ab.ca/pd/pegasus/
litreview.htm
Rocheleau, B. (1995). Computer use by
school-age children: Trends, patterns,
and predictors. Journal of Educational
Computing Research, 12(1), 1-17.
Sherry, L., Bilig, S., Tavalin, F., &Gibson, D.
(2000). New insights on technology adoption in schools. T.H.E. Journal, 27(7), 4246.
Shute, R., & Miksad, J. (1997). Computer
assisted instruction and cognitive development in preschoolers. Child Study Journal, 27(3), 237-53.
Software & Information Industry Association. (2000). Research report on the effec-

tiveness of technology in schools. Executive

summary. [On-line] Available at: www.
siia.net /sharedcontent/store/e-edtechsum00.pdf
Tapscott, D. (1999). Educatingthenet generation. Educational Leadership, 56(5), 6-11.
U.S. Congress, Office of Technology Assessment. (1995). Teachers and technology:
Making the connection. (ERIC Document
Reproduction Service No. ED 386 155)
U.S. Department of Education, National
Center for Education Statistics. (1999).
Teacher quality: A report on the preparation
and qualifications of public school teachers.
[On-line] Available at: http: / /nces.ed.
gov /pubsearch / pubsinfo.asp?pubid=
1999080
Weglinsky, H. (1998). Does it compute? The
relationship between educational technology
and student achievement in mathematics.
Princeton, NJ: Educational Testing Services. Available a t www.ets.org/mearch/
pic / technolog.htm1

APPENDIX
WEBSITES
FOR TEACHERS
AND PARENTS
AskERIC Lesson Plans: http: / / askeric.org/Virtual /Lessons
Best Practice Resources: www.teachermentors.com
Bigchalk: www.bigchalk.com
ERIC Clearinghouse for Social Studies Education: www.indiana.edu / -ssdc/eric-chess.htm
EducationWorld: www.education-world.com
Family Education Network: www.FEN.com /home
The Gateway Lesson Plans: www.thegateway.org
Global Schoolhouse: www.gsn.org/project/ indexhtml
International Classroom Exchange: www.stolaf.edu /network/iecc
Lightspan: www.lightspan.com
National Council for History Education (References and ERIC Resources): www.history.org/nche
Online Collaborative Projects [Pitsco]: www.pitsco.com/p / Respages / collab.htm1
SafeKids.com : www.safekids.com
Technology Plans for K-12 Schools: www.nctp.com
About.com Family Internet: http: / / familyinternet.about.com/ internet/ familyinternet / mbody.htm

EXAMPLES
OF SCHOOL,
DEPARTMENTAL,
AND COURSE
SITES
Cinco de Mayo (a sample Grades 2-3 site): www.zianet.com/hatchelementary /Cinco.html
Hazels Home Page: www.marshall-es.marshall.kl2.tn.us/jobe
Loogootee West Elementary School [Indiana]: www.siec.kl2.in.us/ -west
Princeton, Ohio: www.phs.princeton.kl2.oh.us
Alachua, Florida social studies site: www.sbac.edu / -fhs/SocStudHome.htm
Montgomery County, Maryland, Schools Social Studies Program: www.mcps.kl2.med.us/ curriculum/socialstd
WEB SITES FOR CHILDREN

Ask Dr. Math (E-mail to dr.math(@forum.swarthmore.edu)

Ask Jeeves for Kids: www.ajkids.com
Greatsites [American Library Association]: www.ala.org/parentspage/ greatsites
Kidsconnect (Q/A service for k-12): www.ala.org/ICONN/kidsconn.html
MAD Scientist Network: www.madsci.org
About.com Internet for Kids: http:/ / kidsinternet.about.com/internet/
kidsinternet/mbody.htm
Studyweb: www.studyweb.coin
SEARCH
ENGINES
Ask Jeeves for Kids: www.ajkids.com
Kids Click: http: / /sunsite.berkeley.edu /Kidsclick!
One Key: www.onekey,com/live/index.htm
FALL2001

+ 41