New report on STEM and digital game learning

Two new reports from SRI was released this past week that was a meta-analyses of all the research that's been published on 1) simulations on STEM learning and 2) digital games. The findings are in general that yes, simulations and games can help to improve learning. Woohoo. Now, before we all run away and start developing STEM apps, here are some of my notes from the reports to keep in mind for app development...

Simulations on STEM learning:
1) Focused on computer-based simulations that were neither simple visualizations nor involved games.
So, not too simple, yet, not too complex.

2) Simulations were developed by researchers.
I'm including this only to say that understanding learning theories is important. It's not just about obtaining good content, but about incorporating that content with other features that enhances learning.

3) Out of the 2,392 initial abstracts, only 40 studies made the cut. 37% were cut because they were not a research-based article.
Again, there's lots of buzz, but not too much evidence.

4) Though no differences were found across age groups, only 4 out of the 40 studies targeted K-5th grades, where as 12 out of 40 targeted 6-8 grades, and over half - 23 out of the 40 studies targeted 9-12 grades
Apps so far skew way younger. Older students may benefit more from technology than younger students.

5) The majority of the studies targeted Science (33 out of 40) as opposed to Math (4) Engineering (2) and Technology (1).
There are many more apps for literacy and math than science.

Here are some of my favorite science apps:
PreK - 5th: Sid's Science Fair, This is My Body, Bobo Explores Light, The Magic School Bus
6th- 8th: Apps by KIDS DISCOVER
9th-12th: Frog Dissection, The Elements, Nova Elements, Simple Physics


Digital Games:
The results for digital games was not as clear. Analyses were based on 77 studies targeting grades spanning PreK-16, averaging around 6-7th grades. Again, most (92%) were computer-based games. Because the studies ranged in the target domain (science, literacy, math, etc.), outcome measures (knowledge, cognitive processes/strategy, general knowledge, etc.) and more, it was hard to draw strong conclusions once whittled down to the sub-categories. The overall point I got though, was that design matters! No real surprises here, but just stresses that it's not just about having good content.

1) For studies that compared the game to other non-game instruction, simple game integration and interactivity may lead to positive outcomes.

2) For studies that compared the game to a control, no intervention group, no positive effect was found. But the researchers note that these games were generally of low production value, among other factors.

3) There was some evidence that games providing scaffolding had positive effects for cognitive/strategy learning.


The Survey Spot
Take this quick survey on parental gating on apps! If you've at all thought about children's privacy and safety while playing apps please take a minute to do the survey. Read the parental gating post for some context.

Click here to take the survey!!
The survey's for parents, teachers, developers, and whoever else. The more responses, the better the results - Help spread the word!

iTunes Kids Category, Parental Gating Revisited

Amid all the buzz about iOS 7 and the updated Macs, Apple also slipped in the announcement of a new Kids category in the iTunes app store at this week's WWDC conference. Children's privacy concerns will undoubtedly become a more explicit issue with apps... which brings me to The Survey Spot - Parental Gating. Thank you to those of you who filled it out. It's not too late to join in, but I thought I'd give a sneak peek at the results given Apple's announcement this week.

Sample: We got 20 responses of exactly equal female and male respondents. The majority of responders were parents and developers:

Finding #1: Almost all respondents (95%) believe gating should be applied to all features that are not part of the game, including in-app purchases, cross-promotions, social media links, ratings, and sharing.

Finding #2: More than half of the respondents feel gating should be applied to apps targeting kids 13 and younger.

Finding #3: However, 20% of respondents feel gating is not necessary IF the specified features are not present during game play, are not easily accessible, and or parents are prompted to turn off in-app purchases on the device.

Finding #4: Developers should consider offering the option of turning gating on or off. 45% of respondents feel it should be the parent's decision whether or not to apply gating and 20% of respondents feel it should be the developers decision.

Want your opinion to count?

The Survey Spot
Take this quick survey on parental gating on apps! If you've at all thought about children's privacy and safety while playing apps please take a minute to do the survey. Read the parental gating post for some context.

Click here to take the survey!!
The survey's for parents, teachers, developers, and whoever else. The more responses, the better the results - Help spread the word!

Whose lives are kid apps improving?

photo by Dick Jensen

I was recently in a meeting with an exec of a tech company and he was talking about how improving lives is a main goal of the company. When it came to apps for kids, he used a now classic anecdote of a family at a restaurant with a crying kid, whipping out the iPad immediately calmed the kid, adults were able to enjoy their meal and have a conversation while kid's eyes were glued to the screen. Goal accomplished - parents (aka, the customer) had a better experience. Really?

1) Probably not surprisingly, my first thought was, "Ahem, you forgot about the kid." There've been many news articles questioning just this. Often using the same anecdote and asking whether using tablets as a babysitter or in general is beneficial for kids socially and cognitively. If you are reading this blog, I'm sure I don't have to go further. I'm not the first to ask, but where's the research?! We have evidence that kids like tablets and find them highly engaging. We have evidence that tablets may not have the same negative social behavior associated with video games. We have evidence that kids can learn from well-designed content on the tablet as much as traditional methods. But what we do not have evidence of (at least not to my knowledge) is that kids can learn better from tablets than traditional methods (not counting case studies and studies lacking control groups). So basically, we know that we are probably not harming kids' lives, but not sure if tablets have lived up to it's potential of improving kids' lives. What are tech companies doing to make sure we're actually improving the lives of kids?

2) The parents. I do not doubt the anecdote. I've seen it happen. You've seen it happen. But a new report (Parenting in a Digital Age: A National Survey) shows that we might think this is happening way more often than it really is. Most parents (70%) do not believe that mobile devices makes parenting easier. Only 37% report using mobile devices to calm their children rather than toys or activities (88%), books, (79%), and TV (78%). So maybe not improving the lives of parents as much as we thought.

Part of the problem for why parents may not be relying on mobile technology as much as other resources may be because parents believe books, toys, and activities are more educational than media and technology. This finding is in line with older surveys. I am however, surprised that this has not changed. I wonder if the same books and activities were available on the tablet, would parents still choose the physical version over the tablet version. Are tablets viewed as less educational because parents haven't found the right content, or is it something about the device? 

If parents believe mobile tech is educational, they may then provide the support and reinforcement that could maximize children's learning. To improve both parents' and children's lives with mobile technology, parents should first start believing that mobile technology can be beneficial for their kids.

The Survey Spot
Take this quick survey on parental gating on apps! If you've at all thought about children's privacy and safety while playing apps please take a minute to do the survey. Read the parental gating post for some context.

Click here to take the survey!!
The survey's for parents, teachers, developers, and whoever else. The more responses, the better the results - Help spread the word!

What is a "Montessori" app?

There is a growing number of educational apps with "Montessori" in the title. In a quick search, typing in "Montessori" in the search on iTunes yields about 450 iPad apps. I suppose claiming "Montessori"might automatically give you some cred, that the app follows a fairly successful educational approach developed by Maria Montessori. But does it? I think of the many educational approaches, the Montessori approach has the most potential as an app because of the underlying principles, especially the materials that require hands-on learning. However, many of the Montessori apps out there don't live up to it's name.

What are the Montessori principles? Here are eight principle of Montessori education - taken from Montessori - The Science Behind the Genius by Angeline Stoll Lillard (pg. 29). (Angeline Lillard was one of my professors in grad school and we spent quite a bit of time on Montessori!)

1) that movement and cognition are closely entwined, and movement can enhance thinking and learning
2) that learning and well-being are improved when people have a send of control over their lives
3) that people learn better when they are interested in what they are learning
4) that typing extrinsic rewards to an activity, like money for reading or high grades for tests, negatively impacts motivation to engage in that activity when the reward is withdrawn
5) that collaborative arrangements can be very conducive to learning
6) that learning situated in meaningful contexts is often deeper and richer than learning in abstract contexts
7) that particular forms of adult interaction are associated with more optimal child outcomes
8) that order in the environment is beneficial to children

So how do these principals translate to the app world? What I look for in a Montessori app:

1) Is there interactivity where the movement is meaningful and enhances the learning? Do the materials used in the app capture the purpose of Montessori materials? Can kids move around a bunch of "1" blocks and then see that 5 "1" blocks is the same length as a "5" block? Can kids easily make these types of connections from the interactivity offered by the app?

2) What is the premise/context of the activities? I've stressed this before...

3) Is there open-ended play? Is the open-ended activity well-designed and balanced? While we want to give kids control to explore and learn, the activity itself needs to have a purpose, context, and be engaging so that kids will want to choose to play it.

4) Is the app polished, simple and beautiful in design? This might seem like a trivial point, but Montessori materials are polished, simple, and beautiful. Kids should be attracted to it, but not distracted by it. (Back to my Balance issue).

5) How much are kids "rewarded"? I'm not opposed to light forms of rewards, but Montessori apps should be light on reward systems.

6) Are there cooperative learning opportunities? This doesn't just mean make it multiplayer. Do the open-ended activities encourage kids to work together?

Here are a few examples of Montessori apps I like. They may not hit on every principle nor the six areas I look for, but they are some of the better ones of what I've seen so far....

Apps from Les Trois Elles Interactive - I think overall, they do a solid job, though their latest app, Montessori 1st Operation was a disappointment. Check out Montessori Geometry or Montessori Letter Sounds instead.






Apps from Montessorium - These apps are clean and simple. I'm more familiar with the first three shown here...

The Survey Spot
Take this quick survey on parental gating on apps! If you've at all thought about children's privacy and safety while playing apps please take a minute to do the survey. Read the parental gating post for some context.

Click here to take the survey!!
The survey's for parents, teachers, developers, and whoever else. The more responses, the better the results - Help spread the word!

Putting Research to Practice

I thought it would be a good idea to do a refresher on a few of the  research findings that I've discussed and also to see how far we've come in terms of incorporating those findings in the app world.

Less is More: This has been my bread and butter as a researcher. As you may remember, much of my research has shown that preschool-aged children learn better from materials that are simple in presentation. Most directly related is a study I worked on with the Cooney Center showed that kids recalled more when reading a traditional book and an e-book with simple interactions than when reading the same book but with a highly interactive e-book version. I've found the similar findings with pop-up books versus plain, and across different learning domains (learning letters, numbers, facts, etc.) Although this "less is more" theory is more prominent with young children, it can also be applied across the ages into adulthood. A new study found that slightly older kids, 6-8 years learn better from graphs that are plain and simple than from graphs with more colors and pictures (Kaminsky & Sloutsky, 2013). One of the first studies I did in graduate school with a couple of colleagues was very similar, but with middle-schoolers and adults comparing their accuracy in reading plain vs. 3d graphs. They were of course more accurate when looking at plain graphs. So while all the interactivity that can be incorporated in an app may seem cool, it may not be beneficial for learning.

*Check out the Publication section for some of these studies.

Where are we now? Right before my hiatus, I talked about how we were starting to see a shift from let's explore what we can do with apps, which resulted in some apps throwing the kitchen sink in there, to more purposeful inclusion of interactive features. I feel we've definitely continued down that road. It's much less frequent that I might tap on something just to see it sparkle or animate with no purpose. Instead, I might tap on a character in the book and he would say something related to, but not in the text, or tap on the tv to turn it on. However, I think there are still plenty of cases where we could still scale back. Not EVERY item on the screen needs to do something. Is what the character is saying really adding to the meaning of the story? Do we really need to label the chair EVERY instance it appears? And while I've seen more apps incorporate encouraging features like a linked dictionary, many are not well done (understandably, animated dictionaries take a lot of effort).
Grade: B

Realistic vs. Abstract: What is it about seeing letters as animals or other images that make adults think it's so cool? Well, it may be cool to adults, but kids probably just don't get it. I found that kids did not recognize this picture of a dinosaur as the letter D until about 6 years-old - when they already new their letters. So for kids who need to learn their letters, well, this is cute, but not what you need to teach. Other research has found that kids learn labels better from photographs and realistic drawings rather than cartoons. Think about it, if you're trying to teach kids about something they don't really know yet, shouldn't you show them what it really looks like first?

Where are we now? While I've seen many apps now use realistic drawings (especially in the special ed realm), I'm still seeing anthropomorphic numbers and more. While I'm not saying apps should be devoid of amazing art and fun characters, but if it's the to-be learned material, show it in multiple ways making sure to include a realistic version.
Grade: C

Scaffolding: This is probably one of the oldest and more prominent tenants in the education world. In a very general/loose explanation, it's when a teacher, parent, or whoever is helping a student learn and offers the needed support. This person gages the student's ability level and offers prompts, guidance, etc. when needed to help the student reach the goal. This individualized level of teaching is of course effective, but hard to accomplish for a teacher of 30 students or a busy parent. This is where I think an app can shine.

Where are we now? I've seen some, but not a lot of this. Most of the time when I do see efforts of scaffolding, it's in the form of a character providing "hints." However, often the hints are so basic you can barely call it scaffolding. Repeating the question does not count. Just offering up the answer does not count. Rephrasing the question *may* count if maybe new information is offered. But most of the time, I feel apps are still really just focused on right or wrong answers and not providing the extra information to help deepen understanding.
Grade: D

Hot off the presses: E-book study results

The Joan Ganz Cooney Center released a "QuickStudy" looking at print books versus basic and enhanced e-books; enhanced e-books having more interactive features than basic e-books. This is a study/report I've been working with the JGCC for awhile now and I'm excited to finally be able to share it with you! The report is pretty short and at least in my opinion, worth the read! I'll leave the details to you and your reading of the report.

As you'll see, the results  - very generally - that the interactive features in the enhanced e-book was distracting and took away from the reading experience and comprehension - are very similar to the research on pop-up books (and even other platforms like computers) that I've mentioned. So while I was not surprised by the results, I was surprised by the level of similarity! I really do believe that this is an effect that is strong and here to stay. So drawing upon my observations from the study and past research, here are a couple a hunches:

1) The distraction of the interactive features is not a novelty effect. It is certainly a possibility that as kids get more familiar with e-books and iPads and whatever devices, the interactive features may become distracting - less novel and probably just something they expect. However, my hunch is that yes, they may be more used to it, but the distraction remains. Pop-up books have been around forever, and yet the findings were the same.  It will always be fun to discover what tapping on something does. What I would be interested to see is if the effect remains after many readings of the same book. However, it would be hard to isolate the effects as I would hope that after many readings of the book, kids will remember more of the story, regardless of the interactive features!

2) The distraction of the interactive features is not due to inexperience/comfort level with e-books. I think that we will see differences in how parents read e-books as the popularity of e-books continues to grow. Parents may become more comfortable with the format and elaborate more on the content. Parents and kids may become more used to the interactive features and parents may spend less time saying things like, "Don't touch that yet." Still, I think the effect on children's comprehension will remain. In this current study, we factored in parent's prior experience and comfort level with iPads and e-books to the analyses, and there was still a significant difference in story recall. Further, as I've discussed before, in one of the pop-up book studies, the parents actually elaborated more on the concepts with the pop-up book than the plain book. Yet, the children still learned more from the plain than pop-up book.

This all being said, I cannot stress enough that this is not evidence that we should not have just-for-fun interactive features. As I've discussed before, it's really all about balance. So I hope that the findings have convinced you of the importance of finding a balance of features within an e-book that will engage children, yet not distract them too much from the content.

Questions about the research? Let me know!

Finding the right balance...

I recently wrote a post for Curated Book Apps for Kids about finding a balance with the different types of interactive features within an app. This off course is one of my categories in my reviews and I think it is important to explain to you my views on the categories I've chosen to base my reviews on, as I did with Parental Involvement. So here it is again, but please also go to the original post and see what Curator Mom has to say about the parallels with museum exhibits for kids.

"One of the criteria in my reviews is Balance. This is probably one of the hardest components for me to judge. There are so many possible combination of features in an app and other contextual factors that it is almost impossible to research and say x, y, z, are good features and a, b, c are not. It truly is about finding a balance between incorporating features so that kids will be engaged, but not distracted.

So let me break this down further. I think of features in three ways:

Just for fun features– These features don’t add much to learning. Think of hotspots that make things animate or reveal hidden objects – fun for kids to discover, but are probably distracting from the relevant content. I (and my colleagues) have conducted many studies on pop-up books and have found that kids learn better with a plain version of the book than from the pop-up version. I think the tabs to pull or wheels to spin are similar to hotspots – kids get very into discovering what these features reveal.

Well, you might say, these types of hotspots can help learning. For example, in a counting app, there are five flowers, and tapping each flower makes it dance, and the child can count as they tap on the flowers. It’s a good thought. But, if the pop-up findings hold true, the kids will just like seeing the dancing, and not really think about the one-to-one correspondence of the flowers to numbers. I have found the same effect with pop-up books when trying to teach letters, numbers, animals, and facts with different kinds of pop-up books – the effect is strong, regardless of the domain and presentation of the pop-up features. Kids are really just interested in the physical interaction with the pop-up features.

This is not to say these just for fun features should not be used. Kids love them. Pop-up books have been shown to be useful to engage kids in literacy, especially at-risk or kids with learning disabilities.

Relevant to direct learning features – Examples of these features are if you tap on a word, the definition appears or tracing letters to help letter recognition. They are meant to directly enhance the learning. These features have potential but could be less effective than you may think – at least in the initial times of use. In a study where I compared a plain alphabet book with an identical one where the letters where made out of sandpaper, a method often used in Montessori preschools – the idea being that the sandpaper will encourage tracing and thus heighten letter learning – the findings were the same with the two types of books. In this case, having the extra sandpaper features did not hinder learning, but it also did not lead to more learning than the plain book. Another more surprising result was with a study where I had parents read a book about camouflage – either pop-up or a plain version. I actually thought the pop-up book was great – pulling a tab would reveal an animal out of camouflage from behind a bush or tree. It really illustrated the concept of camouflage. Parents thought so too – as we found that they elaborated more on what camouflage is with their child when reading the pop-up book than when reading the plain version. However, despite their parent’s effort, when asked what camouflage means at the end of the reading, the children were able to explain camouflage better when reading the plain book than when reading the pop-up version!

Now, there is a possibility that with time, these types of features may yield better results as the novelty wears off.

Active thinking features – Here, I think of features that prompt you to answer a question or somehow make you think about what you have just read or completed. These real time scaffolding features can be highly effective. TV studies have found that the format of programs like Blues Clues or Arthur is effective because they have moments where they pause and ask their audience questions. It may seem weird at first for the characters to be silent and wait, but it works – it makes the viewer go from a passive to active viewer. I’ve not seen this type of feature as much in apps yet – of course this may not be appropriate for all apps. But I’d like to see more features try to shift the child from passive to active thinker (not just active doer).

So, in the end, I don’t have any real answers here – there is no formula for what types of features should or should not be included. It really depends on the app itself and what the aim of the app is. And of course the age of the child matters – the younger they are, the more easily distracted they can be. Finally, it is especially important to think about the balance of features when it comes to apps because the research thus far show that the life span of an app is fairly short – short sessions, and short duration. Often, with other types of media, some of the distracting qualities of features lessen as a kid spends more time with playing with whatever it is. The novelty of the “cool” things they can do wears off, at which point, hopefully, they start concentrating more on the to-be-learned content (still, this is not a guarantee). However, given the seemingly shorter lifespan of an app, we might not have the time to wait for the novelty effect to go away. So I hope that thinking about features in these three ways will help developers find the right balance for their app."

What is an educational app?

How exactly do we define what an "educational app" is? I think we all have a general idea of what we consider "educational," but with the explosion of apps, we obviously need a clearer definition and standards. I am not the first to say this. I've heard cries from our leaders in this field for setting standards, but what I'm not hearing are the answers.

Since starting this blog, I've been sent many requests for reviewing apps and in previewing these apps, I've really had to ask myself what I consider to be an educational app. I have to admit - I probably have not always been consistent in my judgement. So I thought that maybe writing this post would force me to come up with some guidelines for this little o' blog of mine and maybe start a conversation for how we should set some standards for our field overall. Here are some seemingly basic questions I've asked myself when previewing an app that have led to only more questions and issues to resolve.

1) Does this app teach you something?

At first, I naively thought that asking this question was enough. It would set apart the apps that were "just for fun" versus those trying to teach something. But then came:

• Apps that stretch the definition of "teaching." Terms like "spatial cognition" and "memory" seem to get thrown out there a lot. Are these skills important? Yes. Does it make the app "educational"? I'm thinking no. A car racing game may lead to better spatial skills, but to me, it doesn't make it "educational." 
• e-books. I want to say that all books are educational. We want to promote literacy and we want kids to be engaged in books - any books. But do all books "teach" something? I'm not sure. And now, many e-books are starting to look like games and movies. Where do we draw the line? Should we draw a line?

2) Is the subject matter of this app covered in school?

So then I thought a good way this might be a good way to narrow things down. It's not that I think that educational apps should only be about core subjects like math and reading, but it helped me to ask, "Would this topic be covered in school?" But then what about...

• Preschool apps. Given their young age, preschool curricula is sometimes more loosely defined (speaking of standards...)
• "Subjects" are not as clearly defined. Often, preschoolers are learning precursor skills, the basics that lead up to learning the concepts of a given subject. For example, learning about the seasons and weather isn't exactly science, nor is telling time exactly math. I would consider these basic skills "educational."
• Social development. Many preschool curricula (and now apps) cover social skills like learning how to keep a daily routine or having more patience. While I think social development is important and should be taught in preschool, this is a gray area for me. For my own reasons, I've been saying no to apps targeting social development only because my background is more in cognitive development and those are the apps I prefer to be reviewing. But it does seem like apps targeting cognitive versus social skills should be very clearly labelled in separate categories.
• The Other Subjects. Remember art or music class or library time? Sadly, funding has been cut to many of these subjects. Even gym has been scaled back. I think most would agree that art and music are educational. Library time would support that all e-books should be considered educational. What about gym? I guess gym is really about physical activity (although I do remember having to take tests about the rules of the game...) so I would not consider a sports app as educational as it does not promote physical activity.
• "Edutainment" apps. For the purpose of setting standards, I am really not liking the term "edutainment". It just opens the door for virtually any app to be considered "educational." I like the idea of "edutainment" in that it trying to make learning fun - and that is a good goal. But it really gives marketers a wide reach to try to capitalize on parents seeking fun yet educational apps. I'm gonna stay away from this label for now and see where it goes...

This is as far as I've gotten. There are probably some gaping holes in my thinking or perspectives I've failed to take into account (hey, I've really only been at this for about a month!)  - you tell me.

Parental Misconceptions

I want to take a moment and discuss in more detail why I've chosen to include "Parental Involvement" as its own category in my ratings. A few months ago, I wrote a short article for Early Childhood Matters where I talk about the "potential" and "hype" surrounding mobile technology in education. Below is an excerpt where I discuss what I believe are three parental misconceptions about using mobile technology with their child. Some parents may already have a hunch about these "misconceptions" (and I think that probably all of the parents reading my blog do since you have taken the time to read reviews about apps), but I wanted to use research to show that these aren't just hunches; to make it evident that parents need to take an active role. So maybe this post is more for the developers reading my blog... how do parents fit into your app?

From the article:

Addressing common parental misconceptions

With young children’s learning so easily affected by formats and features, there is a need for parental and adult guidance. However, there are a few parental misconceptions about young children’s usage of mobile technology that have led to less rather than more parental involvement.

Misconception 1: ‘Technology is not my thing, but my child is great at it, so I just let them use it on their own.’

In an exploratory study looking at intergenerational video game play, by the EA Game Innovation Lab at the University of South Carolina and the Cooney Center, many parents were not comfortable with the gaming system and thus lacked confidence during the game play. They tended to let their child take the lead, and did not offer the same mentoring about the rules and strategy as they did when playing a board game (Chiong, 2009). It is likely that these parents assumed that since their children were adept at navigating the game, they would just figure out any rules or strategies on their own.

But being able to use something does not mean that learning has occurred, especially for struggling students. In a study exploring the effectiveness of a digital literacy program, the findings revealed that there are differences based on learning levels (Chiong et al., under review). The study took place in an underperforming, predominantly minority and low-SES (socio-economic status) school district. When looking at the results by initial literacy levels, the students who started above the mean score on the pre-test benefited from independent use of the digital program. The students who started below the mean score did not benefit from independent use. These results suggest that although the seriously struggling students had no trouble navigating the program, they were not absorbing the content of the materials as much as their counterparts. This supports findings from Neuman and Celano (2006), that although low-SES children were adept at searching for information on the internet, they preferred sites with pictures and barely any print, whereas middle-SES children preferred print-heavy sites. Thus, parents cannot assume that any time their child spends with an educational application is quality time. Children often need an adult to make the materials more meaningful by reinforcing concepts or by linking the materials to relevant issues they are learning in school.

Misconception 2: ‘This program can teach my child better than I can.’

Some parents, especially immigrants and those with lower levels of education, may feel less confident about teaching their own child. They may then rely on programs that have been deemed ‘educational’ rather than try to teach their child on their own. But given the many factors that can affect a child’s learning, software programs should not be viewed as a replacement for a parent or teacher.

Instead, programs that provide scaffolding should be viewed as an opportunity for less confident parents to learn how to give appropriate feedback and support to their child. There have been studies confirming that low-SES parents may not provide the same rich interactions with their child as high-SES parents (Hammer, 2001). However, research in reading interactions has shown that parents can be easily trained to provide quality interactions (Arnold et al., 1994). With today’s technology parents can, without extra training, learn to use prompts provided by the program to serve as cues to provide that extra support and ensure that their child is paying attention to the relevant information.

Misconception 3: ‘It is important for my child to learn to use technology, especially computers, or they will fall behind.’

In a 2011 Cooney Center survey of 800 parents of children aged 3–10, nearly three-quarters of parents felt that technology and computers were important to their child’s success in school (Takeuchi, 2011). The same parents also felt that, of the different platforms, computers had the most educational potential and mobile devices or phones the least. While it is true that it is important for children to be proficient in using technology, parents may be placing too much emphasis on the platform itself rather than the content. The technology is only a delivery system for information. Software applications are becoming more and more platform-agnostic, downloadable onto virtually any device. Young children have proven to have natural instincts when it comes to using technology. Thus, the focus should be on exposing children to the right material, not the right technology.

These three misconceptions overlap in that they have led some parents to believe that they may not need to play an active role while their child interacts with technology. While independently playing with a quality app may be beneficial for young children at times, it should not be accepted as the norm or the optimal type of interaction. Specifically, low-income families and families with struggling students should view educational apps as an opportunity for family interactions. Granted, parents are busy, especially those who are working long hours to make ends meet. But the average session children spend with an app is 20 minutes or less (Chiong and Shuler, 2010), less time than watching a TV show. Given the anywhere/anytime nature of mobile technology, parents should seize the opportunity to make the 10 minutes waiting for the school bus meaningful. Mobile technology can not only change the way we educate our young children, but also change when and how families interact.

Access the journal and full article

Photo by Tim Wilson