Educational apps: what we do and do not know.

Abstract

This is a timely and important article on a topic that has been clouded both theoretically and empirically. Kathy Hirsh-Pasek, Jennifer M. Zosh, Roberta Michnick Golinkoff, James H. Gray, Michael B. Robb, and Jordy Kaufman have developed an extensive review of the literature on apps that offers a compelling blueprint for future research and development. As they note, there has been an explosion of apps for children, particularly ones called “educational,” over the past few years. In 2014, the Apple Store held over 75,000 apps classified as educational. Yet we have little evaluation of the educational quality of most of these apps. What few studies we do have are reviewed here. The lack of empirical study of the educational nature of this vast array of apps has clearly been impeded by a lack of agreement on how to conduct such a content study. This review makes an especially important contribution to the literature: The authors argue that theory and research in the learning sciences offer an evidencebased blueprint for analyzing the educational quality of apps. Through an analysis of what learning scientists have discerned about effective learning environments, the authors offer four principles, or pillars, of an optimal learning environment for children younger than age 8. Young children’s learning is optimized when children are cognitively active and engaged and when their learning experiences are meaningful, socially interactive, and goal directed. This article goes on to elaborate these principles. First, active learning occurs when children are “mindson”—that is, engaged in thinking, reflecting, and effortful mental activity. As the authors note, swiping, tapping, and physically engaging with an app is not the same as “minds-on” activity. Second, by “engagement,” the authors refer to focused attention and a lack of distraction from other elements in the app or the environment. Children are engaged when they stay on task, free of distraction. Third, the app should encourage meaningful learning—that is, it should help children connect new knowledge or information to their preexisting knowledge through learning that is relevant and purposeful. The fourth pillar is the importance of highquality social interaction between the learner and others (e.g., a teacher, a parent, another child or peer). There is substantial evidence from research in education to indicate the importance of cooperative and collaborative learning environments for young children. Especially important is the idea of “social contingency”: That backand-forth interaction between speakers in a dialog is an important aspect of how social interaction aids children’s learning. Finally, these four pillars of active, engaged, meaningful, and socially interactive learning experiences should be embedded in a setting that is educationally goal oriented. This educational context for learning will support the child learner by scaffolding those activities through which the child discovers and explores the new knowledge the learning environment is providing. The authors argue that scaffolding can be provided by an app’s structure and design in addition to the setting in which the child uses the app. These principles are then applied by the authors to create an educational profile that they argue can be used by educators, researchers, parents, and app developers. Their own illustration of how to analyze apps on the basis of these principles is clear and convincing. This article thus offers a blueprint for both the development of apps that are meant to be educational and the assessment of the educational quality of apps already developed. This blueprint is informed by the learningscience literature and the principles for creating the best learning environment for children, whether that be in a classroom, via educational television, or through educationally oriented apps. Further, the authors challenge some of the assumptions regarding the uniqueness of 578662 PSIXXX10.1177/1529100615578662WartellaEducational Apps: What We Do and Do Not Know research-article2015