Comments on: Are Learning Apps Good for Babies? http://www.slj.com/2013/08/early-learning/are-learning-apps-good-for-babies/ The world's largest reviewer of books, multimedia, and technology for children and teens Wed, 18 Sep 2013 01:33:20 +0000 hourly 1 http://wordpress.org/?v=3.4.2 By: Mary W. http://www.slj.com/2013/08/early-learning/are-learning-apps-good-for-babies/#comment-102306 Mary W. Fri, 13 Sep 2013 14:26:11 +0000 http://www.slj.com/?p=56013#comment-102306 Thanks for your article, Rachel, and for having the courage to buck the trend I see becoming too prevalent in our profession--the rush to embrace all the 'latest' technology as the best invention since sliced bread . .until a fancier loaf comes along. There is no evidence to support that electronic stimulation is in any way beneficial for developing brains, and is more likely detrimental. I believe the precipitous rise in the occurrence of autism spectrum disorders among children is directly attributable to our electronically oversaturated world. I'm no Luddite, but where young children are concerned, I think librarians and teachers have a responsibility to promote books and hands-on learning experiences first. The time-tested ways of helping children acquire language and other skills are time-tested for a reason: they work. A screen-free environment for little ones is, as KathyK suggests above, desirable, a refuge of sanity in our increasingly harried and electronically bombarded world. Giving a toddler an app to play with in the car is very different than presenting an app as a core piece of an early education curriculum in our libraries and schools. Thanks for your article, Rachel, and for having the courage to buck the trend I see becoming too prevalent in our profession–the rush to embrace all the ‘latest’ technology as the best invention since sliced bread . .until a fancier loaf comes along. There is no evidence to support that electronic stimulation is in any way beneficial for developing brains, and is more likely detrimental. I believe the precipitous rise in the occurrence of autism spectrum disorders among children is directly attributable to our electronically oversaturated world. I’m no Luddite, but where young children are concerned, I think librarians and teachers have a responsibility to promote books and hands-on learning experiences first. The time-tested ways of helping children acquire language and other skills are time-tested for a reason: they work. A screen-free environment for little ones is, as KathyK suggests above, desirable, a refuge of sanity in our increasingly harried and electronically bombarded world. Giving a toddler an app to play with in the car is very different than presenting an app as a core piece of an early education curriculum in our libraries and schools.

]]> By: KathyK http://www.slj.com/2013/08/early-learning/are-learning-apps-good-for-babies/#comment-76805 KathyK Wed, 14 Aug 2013 15:00:41 +0000 http://www.slj.com/?p=56013#comment-76805 I think that librarians have a number of choices in response to the growing use of mobile media and apps. It seems to me that our first consideration is appreciating what we know about the children we serve and we know that most children we serve spend far more time with screens than the AAP advises. Many too are viewing adult-directed content. Many too live in environments with a great deal of background television. These conditions stand to harm child development and in my state it seems to be showing in kindergarten readiness assessments (only 60% are "ready"). How do we respond to this reality? According to what children and families need, libraries can help by offering screen-free environments, encouraging a variety of activities that are healthy options to screen use that help provide balance to screen use and also educate parents on screen use in a way that does not promote it or add to it. Libraries have the opportunity to be more relevant and more appreciated than ever in the current environment. I am afraid though, we could fail children if we succumb to the hope and the hype surrounding app use. This is a mistake we can easily avoid if we simply follow the research. I think that librarians have a number of choices in response to the growing use of mobile media and apps. It seems to me that our first consideration is appreciating what we know about the children we serve and we know that most children we serve spend far more time with screens than the AAP advises. Many too are viewing adult-directed content. Many too live in environments with a great deal of background television. These conditions stand to harm child development and in my state it seems to be showing in kindergarten readiness assessments (only 60% are “ready”). How do we respond to this reality? According to what children and families need, libraries can help by offering screen-free environments, encouraging a variety of activities that are healthy options to screen use that help provide balance to screen use and also educate parents on screen use in a way that does not promote it or add to it. Libraries have the opportunity to be more relevant and more appreciated than ever in the current environment. I am afraid though, we could fail children if we succumb to the hope and the hype surrounding app use. This is a mistake we can easily avoid if we simply follow the research.

]]> By: Rachel Payne http://www.slj.com/2013/08/early-learning/are-learning-apps-good-for-babies/#comment-75333 Rachel Payne Tue, 13 Aug 2013 18:46:08 +0000 http://www.slj.com/?p=56013#comment-75333 Thanks for your comments, Lizz! I don't think it hurts a baby to play with an interactive screen, but can babies learn from an app? Since the technology is so new, the research hasn't been done or is in process. Another question is do extended sessions on these devices take away from other important hands-on experiences? My take is that too much of any kind of stimulation is not good for a kid. A baby who is forced to listen to books for too a long time, is going to be one cranky baby indeed! A moderate amount of screen time and app use in a childhood filled with play, reading, singing, and interaction is likely not going to hurt anyone. Thanks for the quote from Emily Post! It is a good common sense approach to all of this, but I would add that kids also need time to play "I Spy," use crayons, and interact with a book, too. Thanks for your comments, Lizz! I don’t think it hurts a baby to play with an interactive screen, but can babies learn from an app? Since the technology is so new, the research hasn’t been done or is in process. Another question is do extended sessions on these devices take away from other important hands-on experiences? My take is that too much of any kind of stimulation is not good for a kid. A baby who is forced to listen to books for too a long time, is going to be one cranky baby indeed! A moderate amount of screen time and app use in a childhood filled with play, reading, singing, and interaction is likely not going to hurt anyone. Thanks for the quote from Emily Post! It is a good common sense approach to all of this, but I would add that kids also need time to play “I Spy,” use crayons, and interact with a book, too.

]]> By: Lizz http://www.slj.com/2013/08/early-learning/are-learning-apps-good-for-babies/#comment-74287 Lizz Mon, 12 Aug 2013 21:47:32 +0000 http://www.slj.com/?p=56013#comment-74287 What I'm curious about is if it hurts any to let a child play with an interactive screen? It seems like many places are saying that it isn't beneficial for children under the age of two, and obviously it is better to interact with the child, but giving them an app to play with on a long car ride to keep them distracted doesn't seem to actually cause harm. Sure, that ABC app isn't teaching them how to spell, but, to use your words, it "is not going to melt baby's brain." Although I totally agree that the word "Educational" should be reserved for apps/books/music/DVDs that actually are teaching the child something (just like you can't slap the label "organic" on anything without proving it first), I do think that parents shouldn't feel bad because they are using yet another format of distraction to maintain their sanity. As a librarian who uses apps in story time, the parents I talk to are looking for a distraction that is better than Angry Birds or another game - at least some of these have a chance of being educational. The Emily Post Institute posted the following quote on Facebook today, which I think is applicable here: "iPads instead of crayons at the restaurant, DVDs instead of games like I Spy in the car, and smartphone apps instead of a book in the waiting area are all fine. Don't feel guilty about allowing your kids these distractions. Just set a time limit, make sure the content is age-appropriate, and participate with them when you can." -Manners in a Digital World, p. 129 What I’m curious about is if it hurts any to let a child play with an interactive screen? It seems like many places are saying that it isn’t beneficial for children under the age of two, and obviously it is better to interact with the child, but giving them an app to play with on a long car ride to keep them distracted doesn’t seem to actually cause harm. Sure, that ABC app isn’t teaching them how to spell, but, to use your words, it “is not going to melt baby’s brain.” Although I totally agree that the word “Educational” should be reserved for apps/books/music/DVDs that actually are teaching the child something (just like you can’t slap the label “organic” on anything without proving it first), I do think that parents shouldn’t feel bad because they are using yet another format of distraction to maintain their sanity. As a librarian who uses apps in story time, the parents I talk to are looking for a distraction that is better than Angry Birds or another game – at least some of these have a chance of being educational.

The Emily Post Institute posted the following quote on Facebook today, which I think is applicable here:
“iPads instead of crayons at the restaurant, DVDs instead of games like I Spy in the car, and smartphone apps instead of a book in the waiting area are all fine. Don’t feel guilty about allowing your kids these distractions. Just set a time limit, make sure the content is age-appropriate, and participate with them when you can.” -Manners in a Digital World, p. 129

]]> By: Rachel Payne http://www.slj.com/2013/08/early-learning/are-learning-apps-good-for-babies/#comment-73872 Rachel Payne Sun, 11 Aug 2013 18:35:11 +0000 http://www.slj.com/?p=56013#comment-73872 Hi Emily, Thanks for sharing the apps you think work well for babies. You're right to point out that apps are a format, but is this an ideal format for babies? I still feel there are too many unanswered questions for me about how babies interact with screens to feel comfortable recommending apps for learning purposes. The better apps do seem to tap into a baby's interest in cause-and-effect and repetition, but the tactile experience is relatively the same (finger or hand on screen). Touch screens don't have the a wide range of sensory give and take when you use your whole hand to grasp a ball, rub blanket on your face, or grasp a touch and feel board book. And you can't put the iphone in your mouth without mom or dad getting annoyed. I have other questions, but I will start with those. I do agree that passive TV watching and interactive app use is different, but I do think parent-child book reading and parent-child digital device use is also different. The research I find troubling is that when parents look at ebooks with children, the conversation is usually about the technology ("don't touch that, swipe here" etc.), but when parents read the same book in print the talk is about the content of the story. (You can review the research in this overview of lots of other research here: http://bit.ly/15U74Rj ). I see this too with apps. Parents seem to interact less when they give their child a digital device with an app, because the app is doing the work for them and the conversation around the device is where to touch and not touch. As professionals, you are right that we can encourage parents to change this behavior and engage with the child on these devices, but we can also encourage parents to turn off the devices and play with real world objects together, too. As you note, some parents are loading content for babies on their phones and tablets for convenience sake, but I don't think that is the only reason parents do it. It concerns me that some parents buy baby learning apps and think they are giving their child the best learning experience, when letting a baby play with pots and pans in the kitchen might have greater educational value (not to mention being free!). Thanks for the lively back and forth and for giving us food for thought! Hi Emily,
Thanks for sharing the apps you think work well for babies. You’re right to point out that apps are a format, but is this an ideal format for babies? I still feel there are too many unanswered questions for me about how babies interact with screens to feel comfortable recommending apps for learning purposes. The better apps do seem to tap into a baby’s interest in cause-and-effect and repetition, but the tactile experience is relatively the same (finger or hand on screen). Touch screens don’t have the a wide range of sensory give and take when you use your whole hand to grasp a ball, rub blanket on your face, or grasp a touch and feel board book. And you can’t put the iphone in your mouth without mom or dad getting annoyed. I have other questions, but I will start with those.

I do agree that passive TV watching and interactive app use is different, but I do think parent-child book reading and parent-child digital device use is also different. The research I find troubling is that when parents look at ebooks with children, the conversation is usually about the technology (“don’t touch that, swipe here” etc.), but when parents read the same book in print the talk is about the content of the story. (You can review the research in this overview of lots of other research here: http://bit.ly/15U74Rj ). I see this too with apps. Parents seem to interact less when they give their child a digital device with an app, because the app is doing the work for them and the conversation around the device is where to touch and not touch. As professionals, you are right that we can encourage parents to change this behavior and engage with the child on these devices, but we can also encourage parents to turn off the devices and play with real world objects together, too.

As you note, some parents are loading content for babies on their phones and tablets for convenience sake, but I don’t think that is the only reason parents do it. It concerns me that some parents buy baby learning apps and think they are giving their child the best learning experience, when letting a baby play with pots and pans in the kitchen might have greater educational value (not to mention being free!).
Thanks for the lively back and forth and for giving us food for thought!

]]> By: carol http://www.slj.com/2013/08/early-learning/are-learning-apps-good-for-babies/#comment-73607 carol Sun, 11 Aug 2013 01:20:06 +0000 http://www.slj.com/?p=56013#comment-73607 Apps should still be used while the parent is interacting with the child in order to learn for the most part but sometimes its should be ok to let them use the apps for entertainment. Apps should still be used while the parent is interacting with the child in order to learn for the most part but sometimes its should be ok to let them use the apps for entertainment.

]]> By: Emily Lloyd http://www.slj.com/2013/08/early-learning/are-learning-apps-good-for-babies/#comment-73444 Emily Lloyd Sat, 10 Aug 2013 17:36:49 +0000 http://www.slj.com/?p=56013#comment-73444 Hi, Rachel-- thanks for taking the time to respond so thoughtfully. I've just uploaded a slide deck--the form I feel most comfortable "blogging" in--to SlideShare responding to this week's news and this post. It includes screen grabs, links to, and descriptions of several apps that I do think "take into account how babies learn." If interested, you can find it here: http://www.slideshare.net/elloyd74/apps-and-babies Thanks again! I think this is a good conversation for us all to be having. Hi, Rachel–

thanks for taking the time to respond so thoughtfully. I’ve just uploaded a slide deck–the form I feel most comfortable “blogging” in–to SlideShare responding to this week’s news and this post. It includes screen grabs, links to, and descriptions of several apps that I do think “take into account how babies learn.” If interested, you can find it here: http://www.slideshare.net/elloyd74/apps-and-babies

Thanks again! I think this is a good conversation for us all to be having.

]]> By: Rachel Payne http://www.slj.com/2013/08/early-learning/are-learning-apps-good-for-babies/#comment-73310 Rachel Payne Sat, 10 Aug 2013 11:16:01 +0000 http://www.slj.com/?p=56013#comment-73310 Thanks for your thoughts, Emily. I think it is great librarians are having a lively debate about this topic. I tried to be balanced and not dismiss apps out of hand, since I do think they have entertainment value and they can be a lifesaver when you need to distract a baby on a plane or other such situation. I don't think much of the apps specifically designed for babies, so I would love to see the ones you think work well. I think you are right to point out the convenience aspect of it all, too. And we both agree that parents using apps should talk with their child about what is going on on the screen. What I am concerned about (as is the CCFC) s the overblown educational claims of companies producing apps. The research just doesn't support it. I do think books are qualitatively different than apps and video. It is much easier to step back and let the app do the interaction for you. I see that myself when I use the ipad with my son versus when we read a book together The bottom line is we need more research on the effects of screens, interactive and otherwise, on babies. Until we have more conclusive evidence, I think some of us are going to be more conservative about our approach to apps for babies. For kids two years and up, I think there are some fabulous apps out there and I think what you are doing to model best practices is great! Thanks for your thoughts, Emily. I think it is great librarians are having a lively debate about this topic. I tried to be balanced and not dismiss apps out of hand, since I do think they have entertainment value and they can be a lifesaver when you need to distract a baby on a plane or other such situation. I don’t think much of the apps specifically designed for babies, so I would love to see the ones you think work well. I think you are right to point out the convenience aspect of it all, too. And we both agree that parents using apps should talk with their child about what is going on on the screen. What I am concerned about (as is the CCFC) s the overblown educational claims of companies producing apps. The research just doesn’t support it. I do think books are qualitatively different than apps and video. It is much easier to step back and let the app do the interaction for you. I see that myself when I use the ipad with my son versus when we read a book together The bottom line is we need more research on the effects of screens, interactive and otherwise, on babies. Until we have more conclusive evidence, I think some of us are going to be more conservative about our approach to apps for babies. For kids two years and up, I think there are some fabulous apps out there and I think what you are doing to model best practices is great!

]]> By: Emily Lloyd http://www.slj.com/2013/08/early-learning/are-learning-apps-good-for-babies/#comment-73044 Emily Lloyd Fri, 09 Aug 2013 20:50:04 +0000 http://www.slj.com/?p=56013#comment-73044 The trouble I have with this article and with portions of the CCFC's complaint is that they dismiss all apps (apps are a form, like books are--many apps are worthless, just as many books are--and some are great!) in a way they would never dismiss books because they assume that a parent is exploring a book with a child but absent (physically or mentally) when the child is interacting with an app. The mistake is thinking of an app in the first place as "a little screen time distraction so mom can squeeze in a shower." A baby given the best alphabet board book and left alone to interact with it isn't going to learn her ABCs from the book any more than she might from an app. Rather than easily condemning them, we need to educate parents and caregivers (and librarians!) on how to choose great, age-appropriate apps as well as on how to explore them together with their children. Why? Because one of the answers to the question this article poses when it asks "Why are parents getting apps for babies?" is convenience. Just as an iPad (or other tablet, or phone) loaded with 40 ebooks is easier to carry than 40 books, an iPad containing a good selection of apps for kids is something you are always likely to have on hand. And yes! Of course I'd always recommend carrying some analog books and other things for children to interact with--I'm not suggesting that apps on a tablet can replace these things. But I don't believe the below to be true of all apps, any more than I believe that all board books, just because they happen to be board books, are age-appropriate for babies (many have far too much text, or too busy illustrations, etc): "Educational apps, videos, and flashcards, however well-meaning, do not take into account how babies learn. Babies learn through interaction, touching, feeling, grabbing, moving, and doing the same thing over and over again." It's true that there aren't currently many high-quality apps for babies, and that the three Fisher-Price apps I've tried out are junk. I do know of a few good apps for babies (2?), and will comment again here with their names once I get my hands on my iPad (I'm at work without it). I've focused mainly on apps for slightly older kids (pre-readers) and am preparing a presentation for parents and caregivers at the public library where I work that addresses the importance of exploring apps *with* your child, gives tips on what to avoid in an app as well as what to look for, explains how many apps are easily customized and shows how to do that, ties a generous handful of free iPad apps *directly* to the ECRR2 framework--in fact, I'll be talking as much about ECRR2 as I will about apps!--and suggests ways to extend the apps into your "non-app" life with your child. The presentation slides are online. Please do take a look. We need to know how to do more than broadly dismiss something as ubiquitous as apps: http://www.slideshare.net/elloyd74/ipad-apps-your-prereader-a-session-for-parents-and-caregivers The trouble I have with this article and with portions of the CCFC’s complaint is that they dismiss all apps (apps are a form, like books are–many apps are worthless, just as many books are–and some are great!) in a way they would never dismiss books because they assume that a parent is exploring a book with a child but absent (physically or mentally) when the child is interacting with an app.

The mistake is thinking of an app in the first place as “a little screen time distraction so mom can squeeze in a shower.” A baby given the best alphabet board book and left alone to interact with it isn’t going to learn her ABCs from the book any more than she might from an app.

Rather than easily condemning them, we need to educate parents and caregivers (and librarians!) on how to choose great, age-appropriate apps as well as on how to explore them together with their children. Why? Because one of the answers to the question this article poses when it asks “Why are parents getting apps for babies?” is convenience. Just as an iPad (or other tablet, or phone) loaded with 40 ebooks is easier to carry than 40 books, an iPad containing a good selection of apps for kids is something you are always likely to have on hand.

And yes! Of course I’d always recommend carrying some analog books and other things for children to interact with–I’m not suggesting that apps on a tablet can replace these things. But I don’t believe the below to be true of all apps, any more than I believe that all board books, just because they happen to be board books, are age-appropriate for babies (many have far too much text, or too busy illustrations, etc):

“Educational apps, videos, and flashcards, however well-meaning, do not take into account how babies learn. Babies learn through interaction, touching, feeling, grabbing, moving, and doing the same thing over and over again.”

It’s true that there aren’t currently many high-quality apps for babies, and that the three Fisher-Price apps I’ve tried out are junk. I do know of a few good apps for babies (2?), and will comment again here with their names once I get my hands on my iPad (I’m at work without it). I’ve focused mainly on apps for slightly older kids (pre-readers) and am preparing a presentation for parents and caregivers at the public library where I work that addresses the importance of exploring apps *with* your child, gives tips on what to avoid in an app as well as what to look for, explains how many apps are easily customized and shows how to do that, ties a generous handful of free iPad apps *directly* to the ECRR2 framework–in fact, I’ll be talking as much about ECRR2 as I will about apps!–and suggests ways to extend the apps into your “non-app” life with your child. The presentation slides are online. Please do take a look. We need to know how to do more than broadly dismiss something as ubiquitous as apps: http://www.slideshare.net/elloyd74/ipad-apps-your-prereader-a-session-for-parents-and-caregivers

]]>