How educational are “educational” apps for young children? App store content analysis using the Four Pillars of Learning framework

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 p

学界专家已就当前缺乏实证支撑儿童"教育类"应用（apps）具备教育价值这一问题表达了担忧。本研究旨在将赫希-帕塞克（Hirsh-Pasek）、佐什（Zosh）及其团队提出的学习四大支柱（Four Pillars of Learning）转化为一套可靠的编码体系：支柱1：主动学习（Active Learning）、支柱2：学习过程参与度（Engagement in the Learning Process）、支柱3：有意义学习（Meaningful Learning）、支柱4：社会互动（Social Interaction）；同时描述商用儿童教育类应用的教育质量，并探究免费与付费应用在教育质量上的差异。本研究分析了谷歌应用商店（Google Play）与苹果应用商店（Apple App Store）中下载量最高的100款儿童教育类应用，以及一项纵向队列研究中学龄前儿童最常使用的24款应用。我们开发了一套编码体系，为每款应用在每个支柱下赋予0至3的评分，并将四大支柱得分之和≤4的应用定义为低质量应用。所有支柱的整体得分均偏低。免费应用在支柱2（学习过程参与度）上的得分显著更低（t检验，p