Will Ederer, Annika VanSandt

Toddlers and Touchscreen Technology: Final Review of Literature

Research Question: What effects does the usage of smartphone technology have on the
psychological and developmental health of children under 5 years of age?
Technology is ever present in our modern society, and its influence can be felt
everywhere, from simply heating a house to artificial intelligence. One of the most influential
technological advances in recent years has been that of touchscreen technology, most notably in
the form of smartphones and tablets. Many people worry about these devices ruining our social
lives, or spoiling our kids, or even costing so much money that we will not be able to afford
health care. An incredibly important issue that is not well known is whether these devices have an
effect on our young children. According to numerous scientific studies, touchscreens are very
influential in affecting the way that children learn, play, and sleep, each altering the psychological
and developmental health of those children.
Since technology is so ubiquitous, it is no surprise that it has made its way into our
childrens hands. According to a study by the Children and Media Project at Hollins University,
around 70% of parents allow their children to use touchscreens, and 72% of the children who do
use these devices use them 2-3 times a week or more. However, not a whole lot is known by
parents about what this means for their children. In this same survey, over 77% of parents had
never talked to their pediatrician about their childs media use, and 55% never or rarely struggled
with questions about their childs media usesuggesting that most parents are using their own
intuition on how to deal with the way that their children use technology (Dodson et al).
This is not to say that science-based recommendations on a childs media use do not
exist. The American Association of Pediatrics (AAP) suggests that children under two years of
age should never use a touchscreen. This guideline has been adopted by other government
agencies around the world (Bedford et al). The National Association for the Education of Young
Children (NAEYC), a leading childrens education organization, recommends that children
should have a moderate amount of playful interactions with technology that support creativity and
exploration.
It is quite clear that parents are self-medicating with regards to their babies tech usage.
According to a survey on French parents, over half of the children had used smartphones before
the age of two years, inconsistent with the AAP guidelines (Cristia & Seidl). In a similar UK
survey, over 50% of children under 11 months old had used a touchscreen, while more than 80%
of the children had used touchscreens by the time they turned two (Bedford et al). In the US,
only 32% of families followed the AAP guidelines for children under 2 years old (Huang et
al). Despite the early use of technology, there is a greater focus on how the technology is being
used.
Many parents strive to use their smartphones to assist in educating their children. In the
Children and Media Project study, 94% of parents said that educational quality was very
important or essential in choosing apps for their children, and the most common reason supplied
to reinforce their childs touchscreen use was to learn, stated by 74% of the parents (Dodson et
al). Schools, too, are feeling the shockwave of the touchscreen technology boom. As of 2014,
almost 70% of primary and secondary schools in the UK used tablet computers (Coughlan,
Sean). In 2015 it was expected that venture funding for education technology to hit $2 billion in
the US (Koba, Mark). Public schools are rapidly increasing the amount of technology in the
classrooms but people are questioning its true effectiveness.
So how well can smartphones help to teach our kids? This question has to be looked at in
a few different ways. The first of these is to find information about the apps that are available to
children. Carly Shuler, a researcher at the Joan Ganz Cooney Center (an independent research lab
that focuses on using digital media to help children learn) wrote a report in 2011 about the top
200 selling apps that were marked educational. Almost three quarters of the top-selling
educational apps targeted preschool or elementary school children, although there were no
standards in place to determine the educational quality of an app. Some apps were rated by third
party sources, like Common Sense Media (CSM), an education advocacy nonprofit, and
Childrens Technology Review (CTR), a magazine to assist people in finding interactive media
for children. Although only 44% of the apps were rated, they all tended to be rated fairly highly,
with an average 4.21/5 from CSM and and average 4.51/5 from CTR, which shows that many of
these apps did have decent educational quality. It is important to note is the fact that only 4% of
the apps available for pre schoolers were intended to be used at school (Shuler).
Another important aspect of smartphones and tablets educating our children is the degree
at which children can actually learn from them. This question has been studied in depth and
almost every study points to young childrens difficulty in transferring their learning. Transfer
Learning refers to the ability to take information from one context and apply that information to
a new context. In an article from the Journal of Experimental Child Psychology, Alecia Moser et
al describe a Bidirectional Transfer Deficit, which is the loss of learning that occurs when a
young child transfers learning across a dimensional change, either from 2D (e.g. information
learned on a smartphone) to 3D (e.g. real life) or 3D learning to 2D application. In Moser et als
study, children had difficulty transferring the learning of how to complete a puzzle from a
touchscreen to a real life scenario, performing much worse than the children who completed the
puzzle in the same context (Moser et al).
This phenomenon has been attributed to a few different reasons and has been observed in
multiple different studies. In a study at Georgetown University, Rachel Barr attributes this to a
lack of Memory Flexibility, the retrieval and mapping of information onto a new setting. Barr
noted that children had difficulty imitating putting a toy together from televisions, picture books,
and touchscreens, each of which are forms of 2D media (Barr). A study at Vanderbilt found a
similar video deficit, but blamed this on the lack of Socially Relevant Information in most
video, which is described as information presented by a social partner that is accompanied by
relevant social cues in the surrounding environment. In their study, children had difficulty finding
a toy that was hidden on camera by an instructor, but did much better when the instructor played
with the kid on camera to show that their information was socially relevant before hiding the toy
(Archer et al). Similarly, researchers at the University of Wisconsin and Hollins University
assessed the ability of children to learn words from an on-screen instructor, and children
demonstrated the knowledge better when told to touch specific parts of the screen that
emphasized important information. This demonstrates their hypothesis that contingency increases
toddlers word learning abilities even in the absence of socially relevant information (Choi et al).
This transfer deficit is suppressive, but not prohibitive. As was described in the
experiments done at Vanderbilt and Wisconsin, the transfer deficit can be overcome through
increased interactivity and higher contingency, as well as simple things like repetition and visual
and auditory cues. In addition, numerous other studies demonstrate that the transfer deficit seems
to disappear at around the age of three years old, at which point children can usually learn from
the two-dimensional media more passively (Kirkorian et al). In the University of Wisconsin
study, the increased contingency actually slightly disrupted the learning of words by older
children, who could learn the material faster without having to interact with the technology as
much (Choi et al). However, the educational value of of touchscreen technology is still very
possible as the children grow older.
Tablet eBooks are especially helpful in teaching kids at later ages, largely due to their
ability to be very engaging to children. In a preschool in which the large majority of students
spoke spanish, researchers from William Paterson University studied the vocabulary, story
comprehension, and engagement of the children when using normal storybooks and iPad eBooks.
The eBooks had the same titles as the normal storybooks, but were narrated by the app and had
special features. Some of the features include touching an object to get both its verbal and written
name, certain animated objects, and words and numbers the could be highlighted or traced to
increase fine motor skill practice. Over six weeks, the iPad group consistently scored better than
the control group on vocabulary assessments, story comprehension, and tended to be more
engaged and less distracted. In addition, the observers noted anecdotally that children from the
iPad group were more descriptive when describing the story and drawing the scenes (An et al).
But what about usage at home? An article in the Journal of Children and Media suggests
that the best way to enhance a childs media experience is to co-use it with them. Co-use was
associated with gains in comprehension and enjoyment of television and shows, as well as
mediation of fear or aggression. In addition, co-use was associated with increased levels of family
connectedness and a teenagers sense of self-efficacy and expertise on computers and
technological literacy. In that same vein, children who co-used the internet with their parents
were more likely to visit educational websites, which is likely to hold true for apps on a tablet or
smartphone (Connell et al). Another important aspect of childrens media usage, however, is the
way that they interact with the media without their parents, and when not in an educational
setting.
Smartphones are very engaging to young children (Cristia & Seidl). But what exactly do
children do on touchscreen technology when not in an educational setting? According to the
survey of French parents, about 68% said that videos were their childs favorite activity on a
smartphone. About half of the parents reported that their children enjoyed playing child-friendly
apps, and a quarter reported the same about touch screen puzzles (Cristia & Seidl). When
analyzing the effects that touchscreens have on children, it is important to break up the actions
into different categories, because different usages of this technology will have different effects on
the children who use them. This is especially important because there have been very few holistic
studies to determine the total effects, since this technology is so new.
The first and foremost usage was for watching videos. Although there is not much
literature about watching videos on a smartphone, there is plenty of literature on watching
television which should be applicable in this scenario. A review of literature in Princetons
journal The Future of Children revealed that content is the most important aspect in how
television affected children. According to this review of literature, violent and non-educational
programming was positively associated with attention problems later in life, while educational
television was not. Children who watched violent cartoons were also worse at self-regulation,
while those who watched prosocial programming were more persistent in their tasks and obedient
when following rules. Educational programming was shown to have lasting effects. For example,
consistent viewers of Blues Clues over a two-year period were more successful at solving
problems. Viewing educational programming as a child was positively associated with better
high school grades too (Kirkorian et al).
The benefits of educational television viewing were maximized in ways that would
similarly help with touchscreen technology. For example, educational television programs use
certain production techniques, like repetition, to increase attentiveness and comprehension in
children. In addition, integrating the educational content into the narrative of the program and
transferring the learning into many different contexts within the show allowed the content to be
learned most effectively. These were each aimed at increasing transfer learning, so they would
also be applicable to touchscreen shows. In agreement with the article in the Journal of Children
and Media, co-viewing the media was also beneficial to the children (Kirkorian et al). Overall,
children watching television shows on smartphones or tablets experience similar effects to
children watching on a traditional television.
About half of the children in the French survey enjoyed playing child-friendly apps,
while around a quarter enjoyed puzzling on their touchscreens (Cristia & Seidl). The effects of
this type of play are also important in the way that smartphones affect children. According to an
article in the UK developmental psychology journal, Frontiers, earlier usage of touchscreen
technology (and, more specifically, scrolling on that touchscreen) was associated with a faster
development in fine motor skills. Because the article involved the usage of a survey rather than an
experiment, it was unclear whether the scrolling helped to develop fine motor skills or if children
with naturally fast-developing fine motor skills happened to enjoy using a touchscreen at an
earlier age (Bedfort et al). A more significant aspect of this type of play may be the way that it
fits into traditional play theory.
Traditional Play Theory emphasizes the importance of play in a childs cognitive
development. According to the book Childrens Play and Learning, play is one of the primary
means through which a child makes sense of the world. In addition, play allows children to
transition between the real world and a world of fantasy, in which they may improvise and
exercise creative thought (Klugman & Smilansky). A particular type of play called Sociodramatic
play holds the greatest importance in helping children integrate their life experiences into a
coherent story that they can understand. Sociodramatic play is the most advanced form of social
and symbolic play, in which children role play and imitate real life people and experiences that
they have had. Sociodramatic play is incredibly powerful, allowing children to practice and
consolidate skills, assimilate new information, and understand what goes on behind the scenes.
According to Sandra Heidemann, The young child can control novel and strange experiences by
creating imaginative microcosms of reality in attempts to assimilate previously imitated actions or
overheard conversations (Klugman & Smilansky, 214-215).
This is also reflected in the way that children play with toys. The book The Biology of
Play describes how children have different ways of playing with toys, and some forms of playing
with toys are more popular at different ages. At 9 months, children tend to focus on sensorimotor
usage of toys, in which they utilise the physical properties of the object. This involves touching,
tapping, waving, and other motions which are similar to the usage of a smartphone. By 18 months
old, children are much more likely to engage in dramatic and representational play, in which
objects are used to represent other objects (Tizard & Harvey, 35-40). This type of representational
play is easily associated with sociodramatic play.
Changes in the way that children play with toys go hand in hand with developments in
cognitive skills. Children whose play matures more rapidly also learned language earlier,
achieved object-permanence earlier, and scored a higher developmental quotient Most
measures remained stable for each child over time (Tizard & Harvey, 39). This is where
touchscreens fit in. Touchscreens are attractive because of their sensorimotor functions which
allow children to develop and experiment with their fine motor skills. This is one of the most
basic forms of play, according to [the author]. Furthermore, the way that children play with
touchscreens currently (i.e apps) is playing with games, which are defined by their ends and by
their socially defined constraints (Klugman & Smilansky, 44). The rules of gaming on a
touchscreen are rigidit is impossible to change the rules or to do anything that the game does
not specifically allow you to do.
This type of play is limiting and does not allow for the representational and sociodramatic
play that is so essential to cognitive development. It detracts from the type of play that can be
seen when children pick up sticks and stones and are able to develop a representational situation
and role from just those few materials. If allowed to dominate a childs free time and experiences,
it replaces the social and symbolic play that allows children to integrate their life experiences and
develop their social and cognitive understanding of the world around them. It also provides every
parameter of playing for the child, which leaves the child ill equipped to develop their own games
when they have to deal with boredom at some point in their lives. Touchscreen technology can
not only be destructive towards childrens psychological health by disrupting their play, but it can
also disrupt their sleep.
Touchscreen technology also has detrimental effects on the way that people sleep, with
effects more noticeable in children. Smartphones emit blue-colored light from their screens,
which is the same color of light that is emitted by the sun. The blue light suppresses melatonin, a
hormone that helps keep circadian rhythms, allowing humans to stay awake while the sun is up,
while a more orange tinted light when the sun goes down helps signal the human body for sleep.
The artificial blue light from smartphones suppresses melatonin even after the sun goes down,
 disrupting circadian rhythms and preventing people from feeling tired even when it is time for
sleep (Khazan).
This starts a vicious cycle, because many children sleep within reach of a smartphone.
According to a study of an urban, low-income community, 29% of parents gave their children
devices to help them fall asleep (Kabali et al). When the children do not feel tired, they are often
tempted to grab their phone to play, further experiencing the blue light and further disrupting their
sleep. In addition, their devices may be sounding with alerts throughout the night, further
disrupting their sleep schedule (Khazan).
This disruption of sleep is very damaging to child cognitive abilities. In a German study
in the Journal of Child Psychology and Psychiatry, researchers measured fluctuations of cognitive
performance in children based on self-reported sleep quality, time in bed, and daytime tiredness.
Working Memory Usage (WMU) performance tests measured the cognitive abilities of the
children, and the researchers found a relationship between sleep quality and performance, as well
as a stronger and more holistic negative relationship between daytime tiredness and WMU
performance. Interestingly, children with lower than average performances showed a stronger
association between sleep quality and WMU performance, suggesting that low-performing
children were even more susceptible to changes in performance due to their previous nights sleep
(Dirk et al). Overall, usage of smartphones disrupts childrens sleep which in turn disrupts their
cognitive abilities, which may make them perform worse at school and when interacting with
their peers.
Touchscreen technology has many effects on young children, both beneficial and
detrimental. Future research is needed to fully assess each individual effect and the ways to
maximize or mitigate those effects. In addition, research is needed to determine whether
smartphones distract from other beneficial usages of childrens time, such as playing outside or
interacting with friends and family. It may well be impossible to holistically determine whether
touchscreens are beneficial or detrimental, because each scenario in which they are used will have
so many variables in play; researchers, teachers, and parents should simply strive to make as
many positive as possible.

Works Cited
An, Heejung, et al. The Effects of Interactive Multimedia iPad E-Books on Preschoolers Literacy.
Tablets in K-12 Education : Integrated Experiences and Implications, by Heejung An et al., PDF
ed., Hershey, Information Science Reference, 2015, pp. 139-55.
Archer, Allison, et al. Young Childrens Use of Video as a Source of Socially Relevant Information.
Child Development, PDF ed., vol. 77, no. 3, May-June 2006, pp. 786-99.
Barr, Rachel. Memory Constraints on Infant Learning from Picture Books, Television, and
Touchscreens. Child Development Perspectives, PDF ed., vol. 6, no. 4, 2013, pp. 205-10.
Bedford, Rachael, Irati R. Saez De Urabain, Celeste H. M. Cheung, Annette Karmiloff-Smith, and Tim J.
Smith. "Toddlers' Fine Motor Milestone Achievement Is Associated with Early Touchscreen
Scrolling." Frontiers. Frontiers, 11 July 2016. Web. 12 Mar. 2017.
Choi, Koeun, et al. Toddlers Word Learning from Contingent and Noncontingent Video on Touch
Screens. Child Development, digital ed., vol. 87, no. 2, Mar.-Apr. 2016, pp. 405-13.
Connell, Sabrina, et al. Parental Co-Use of Media Technology with Their Young Children in the USA.
Journal of Children and Media, PDF ed., vol. 9, no. 1, 2015, pp. 5-21.
Coughlan, Sean. "Tablet Computers in '70% of Schools'." BBC News. BBC, 03 Dec. 2014. Web.
12 Mar.
2017.
Cristia, Alejandrina, and Amanda Seidl. Parental Reports on Touch Screen Use in Early Childhood. Plos
One, 17 June 2015. Plos One.
Dirk, Judith, et al. Cognitive Benefits of Last Nights Sleep: Daily Variations in Childrens Sleep
Behavior Are Related to Working Memory Fluctuations. Journal of Child Psychology and
Psychiatry, PDF ed., vol. 56, no. 2, 2015, pp. 171-82.
Dodson, Emily, et al. Infants, Toddlers, and Touchscreens: A Descriptive Study of Early Childhood Use
and Parent Attitudes..
Khazan, Olga. How Smartphones Hurt Sleep. The Atlantic, Atlantic Monthly, 24 Feb. 2015. Accessed
21 Feb. 2017.
Kirkorian, Heather, et al. Media and Young Childrens Learning. The Future of Children, vol. 18,
Spring 2008, pp. 39-61. Accessed 29 Jan. 2017.
Klugman, Edgar, and Sara Smilansky. Childrens Play and Learning: Perspectives and Policy
Implications. New York, Teachers College Press, 1990.
Koba, Mark. "Education Tech Funding Soars but Is It Working in the Classroom?"Fortune -
Tech.
2017 Time Inc., 28 Apr. 2015. Web. 12 Mar. 2017.

NAEYC. "Technology and Interactive Media as Tools in Early Childhood Programs Serving
Children from Birth through Age 8." NAEYC. National Association for the Education of
Young Children, Jan. 2012. Web. 28 Jan. 2017.
Moser, Alecia, et al. They Can Interact, but Can They Learn? Toddlers Transfer Learning from
Touchscreens and Television. Journal of Experimental Child Psychology, 2015, pp. 137-55.
Science Direct. Accessed 16 Jan. 2017.
Rosin, Hanna. The Touch-Screen Generation. The Atlantic. Atlantic Media Company, 1 Apr.
2013.
Web. 14 Jan. 2017.
Rowan, Cris. "The Impact of Technology on the Developing Child." The Huffington Post.
TheHuffingtonPost.com, 29 May 2013. Web. 19 Feb. 2017.
Shuler, Carly. iLearn II: An Analysis of the Education Category of the iTunes App Store. Joan Ganz
Cooney Center at Sesame Workshop.
Tizard, Barbara, and David Harvey. Biology of Play. Philadelphia, Lippincott, 1977.
Vandewater, Elizabeth A., Victoria J. Rideout, Ellen A. Wartella, Xuan Huang, June H. Lee, and Mi-Suk
Shim. "Digital Childhood: Electronic Media and Technology Use Among Infants, Toddlers, and
Preschoolers." Sci-Hub. N.p., n.d. Web. 12 Mar. 2017.