17
views
0
recommends
+1 Recommend
0 collections
    0
    shares
      • Record: found
      • Abstract: found
      • Article: found
      Is Open Access

      All Tapped Out: Touchscreen Interactivity and Young Children’s Word Learning

      research-article

      Read this article at

      Bookmark
          There is no author summary for this article yet. Authors can add summaries to their articles on ScienceOpen to make them more accessible to a non-specialist audience.

          Abstract

          Touchscreen devices differ from passive screen media in promoting physical interaction with events on the screen. Two studies examined how young children’s screen-directed actions related to self-regulation (Study 1) and word learning (Study 2). In Study 1, 30 2-year-old children’s tapping behaviors during game play were related to their self-regulation, measured using Carlson’s snack task: girls and children with high self-regulation tapped significantly less during instruction portions of an app (including object labeling events) than did boys and children with low self-regulation. Older preschoolers ( N = 47, aged 4–6 years) tapped significantly less during instruction than 2-year-olds did. Study 2 explored whether the particular way in which 170 children (2–4 years of age) interacted with a touchscreen app affected their learning of novel object labels. Conditions in which children tapped or dragged a named object to move it across the screen required different amounts of effort and focus, compared to a non-interactive ( watching) condition. Age by sex interactions revealed a particular benefit of dragging (a motorically challenging behavior) for preschool girls’ learning compared to that of boys, especially for girls older than age 2. Boys benefited more from watching than dragging. Children from low socioeconomic status families learned more object names when dragging objects versus tapping them, possibly because tapping is a prepotent response that does not require thoughtful attention. Parents and industry experts should consider age, sex, self-regulation, and the physical requirements of children’s engagement with touchscreens when designing and using educational content.

          Related collections

          Most cited references61

          • Record: found
          • Abstract: found
          • Article: not found

          The relationship between cognition and action: performance of children 3 1/2-7 years old on a Stroop-like day-night test.

          One hundred and sixty children 3 1/2-7 years of age (10 M, 10 F at each 6-month interval) were tested on a task that requires inhibitory control of action plus learning and remembering two rules. They were asked to say "day" whenever a black card with the moon and stars appeared and to say "night" when shown a white card with a bright sun. Children < 5 years had great difficulty. They started out performing well, but could not sustain this over the course of the 16-trial session. Response latency decreased from 3 1/2 to 4 1/2 years. Children < 4 1/2 years performed well when they took very long to respond. To test whether the requirement to learn and remember two rules alone was sufficient to cause children difficulty, 80 children 3 1/2-5 years old were tested on a control version of the task ("say 'day' to one abstract design and 'night' to another"). Even the youngest children performed at a high level. We conclude that the requirement to learn and remember two rules is not in itself sufficient to account for the poor performance of the younger children in the experimental condition.
            Bookmark
            • Record: found
            • Abstract: found
            • Article: not found

            Putting education in "educational" apps: lessons from the science of learning.

            Children are in the midst of a vast, unplanned experiment, surrounded by digital technologies that were not available but 5 years ago. At the apex of this boom is the introduction of applications ("apps") for tablets and smartphones. However, there is simply not the time, money, or resources available to evaluate each app as it enters the market. Thus, "educational" apps-the number of which, as of January 2015, stood at 80,000 in Apple's App Store (Apple, 2015)-are largely unregulated and untested. This article offers a way to define the potential educational impact of current and future apps. We build upon decades of work on the Science of Learning, which has examined how children learn best. From this work, we abstract a set of principles for two ultimate goals. First, we aim to guide researchers, educators, and designers in evidence-based app development. Second, by creating an evidence-based guide, we hope to set a new standard for evaluating and selecting the most effective existing children's apps. In short, we will show how the design and use of educational apps aligns with known processes of children's learning and development and offer a framework that can be used by parents and designers alike. Apps designed to promote active, engaged, meaningful, and socially interactive learning-four "pillars" of learning-within the context of a supported learning goal are considered educational.
              Bookmark
              • Record: found
              • Abstract: found
              • Article: not found

              Development of an aspect of executive control: development of the abilities to remember what I said and to "do as I say, not as I do".

              Luria's tapping test (tap once when E taps twice, tap twice when E taps once) was administered to 160 children (80 males, 80 females) between 3 1/2 to 7 years old. Older children were faster and more accurate than younger children, with most of the improvement occurring by the age of 6. All children tested demonstrated understanding of the instructions during the pretest, and most started out performing well, but younger subjects could not sustain this. Over the 16 trials, percentage of correct responses decreased, especially among younger subjects. Performance here was compared with performance on the day-night Stroop-like task. The most common error on both tasks was to comply with only one of the two rules. Other errors included tapping many times regardless of what the experimenter did and doing the same thing as the experimenter, rather than the opposite. It is suggested that the tapping task requires both the ability to hold two rules in mind and the ability to inhibit a strong response tendency, that these abilities improve between 3-6 years of age, and that this improvement may reflect important changes within frontal cortex during this period of life.
                Bookmark

                Author and article information

                Contributors
                Journal
                Front Psychol
                Front Psychol
                Front. Psychol.
                Frontiers in Psychology
                Frontiers Media S.A.
                1664-1078
                12 April 2017
                2017
                : 8
                : 578
                Affiliations
                Psychology and Human Development, Vanderbilt University, Nashville TN, USA
                Author notes

                Edited by: Joanne Tarasuik, Swinburne University of Technology, Australia

                Reviewed by: Jeffrey Coldren, Youngstown State University, USA; Jennifer M. Zosh, Pennsylvania State University, Brandywine, USA

                *Correspondence: Colleen Russo-Johnson, colleen.russo@ 123456gmail.com

                This article was submitted to Developmental Psychology, a section of the journal Frontiers in Psychology

                Article
                10.3389/fpsyg.2017.00578
                5388766
                2ab1ff52-13d1-43c9-9e67-f44952bdb87d
                Copyright © 2017 Russo-Johnson, Troseth, Duncan and Mesghina.

                This is an open-access article distributed under the terms of the Creative Commons Attribution License (CC BY). The use, distribution or reproduction in other forums is permitted, provided the original author(s) or licensor are credited and that the original publication in this journal is cited, in accordance with accepted academic practice. No use, distribution or reproduction is permitted which does not comply with these terms.

                History
                : 21 July 2016
                : 28 March 2017
                Page count
                Figures: 4, Tables: 2, Equations: 0, References: 74, Pages: 15, Words: 0
                Funding
                Funded by: National Science Foundation 10.13039/100000001
                Award ID: DGE: 14445197
                Funded by: Peabody College 10.13039/100007182
                Funded by: National Institutes of Health 10.13039/100000002
                Award ID: U54HD083211
                Categories
                Psychology
                Original Research

                Clinical Psychology & Psychiatry
                educational technology,touchscreen,app,interactive,tap,drag,haptic exploration,executive function

                Comments

                Comment on this article