ABSTRACT

Experts have expressed concerns about the lack of evidence demonstrating that children’s “educational” applications (apps) have educational value. This study aimed to operationalize Hirsh-Pasek, Zosh, and colleagues' Four Pillars of Learning into a reliable coding scheme (Pillar 1: Active Learning, Pillar 2: Engagement in the Learning Process, Pillar 3: Meaningful Learning, Pillar 4: Social Interaction), describe the educational quality of commercially available apps, and examine differences in educational quality between free and paid apps. We analyzed 100 children’s educational apps with the highest downloads from Google Play and Apple app stores, as well as 24 apps most frequently played by preschool-age children in a longitudinal cohort study. We developed a coding scheme in which each app earned a value of 0–3 for each Pillar, defining lower-quality apps as those scoring ≤4, summed across the Four Pillars. Overall scores were low across all Pillars. Free apps had significantly lower Pillar 2 (Engagement in Learning Process) scores (t-test, p < .0001) and overall scores (t-test, p < .0047) when compared to paid apps, due to the presence of distracting enhancements. These results highlight the need for improved design of educational apps guided by developmental science.

摘要

专家们对缺乏证据表明儿童的“教育”应用程序（应用程序）具有教育价值表示担忧。本研究旨在将 Hirsh-Pasek、Zosh 和同事的四个学习支柱转化为可靠的编码方案（支柱 1：主动学习，支柱 2：参与学习过程，支柱 3：有意义的学习，支柱 4：社会互动)，描述商业应用程序的教育质量，并检查免费和付费应用程序之间教育质量的差异。我们在一项纵向队列研究中分析了 100 个从 Google Play 和 Apple 应用商店下载量最高的儿童教育应用，以及 24 个学龄前儿童最常玩的应用。我们开发了一个编码方案，其中每个应用程序为每个支柱赢得了 0-3 的值，将质量较差的应用程序定义为得分≤4 的应用程序，四个支柱的总和。所有支柱的总体得分均较低。免费应用程序的支柱 2（参与学习过程）分数显着降低（t 检验，与付费应用程序相比， p < .0001）和总分（t 检验，p < .0047），因为存在分散注意力的增强功能。这些结果强调了以发展科学为指导改进教育应用程序设计的必要性。