App for measuring early childhood development:
a case study
App para la medición del desarrollo
temprano infantil: estudio de caso
Dra. Olga
María Alegre de la Rosa. Catedrática de
Universidad. Universidad de la Laguna. España
Dr. Luis Miguel Villar Angulo. Catedrático de Universidad. Senior. Universidad de Sevilla. España
Received: 2025/02/02 Revised 2025/02/19 Accepted: 2025/04/02 Online First: 2025/04/12 Published: 2025/05/01
How
to cite:
Alegre de la Rosa, O. M.,
& Villar-Angulo, L. M. (2025). App para la medición del desarrollo temprano
infantil: estudio de caso [Technological application for measuring early
childhood development: case study]. Pixel-Bit. Revista
De Medios Y Educación, 73, art.7. https://doi.org/10.12795/pixelbit.114160
ABSTRACT
Introduction. Integrating smartphone use into an
emerging early childhood education curriculum can offer several significant
benefits.
Methodology. We apply mixed methods (evidence-based
practices, action research, formative evaluation, and integration of
technological devices).
Results. A manual has been created that summarizes early
intervention practices that improve child development outcomes. An Open
Educational Resource (OER) has incorporated child development assessment tools
and intervention exercises for children. An app has facilitated access to OER.
Finally, the app's perceptions used by families and practitioners
(professionals) aged 0-5 years have been measured through the User Experience
Questionnaire (CEU).
Discussion. The evaluative findings indicated that the
age of family members and practitioners made a powerful difference in the
educational app's attractiveness, efficiency, and stimulation. In contrast, academic qualification only affected
controllability
RESUMEN
Introducción. La integración
del uso de teléfonos inteligentes en un currículo emergente de educación
infantil puede ofrecer una serie de beneficios significativos.
Metodología. Se han aplicado
métodos mixtos (prácticas basadas en la evidencia, investigación-acción,
evaluación formativa e integración de dispositivos tecnológicos).
Resultados. Se ha creado un
manual que resume prácticas de intervención temprana que mejoran los resultados
del desarrollo infantil. Se han incorporado instrumentos de evaluación del
desarrollo infantil y ejercicios de intervención para niños en un Recurso
Educativo Abierto (REA). Se ha implantado una app
educativa para facilitar el acceso a REA. Finalmente, se han medido las
percepciones de familiares y practicadores profesionales sobre(profesionales)
de la app educativa usada para el desarrollo infantil
entre 0 y 5 años a través del Cuestionario Experiencia de Uso (CEU).
Discusión. Los hallazgos
evaluativos indicaron que la edad de los miembros de las familias y los
profesionales familiares y practicadores (profesionales) marcaba una diferencia
potente en la atracción, eficiencia y estimulación de la app
educativa, mientras que la titulación académica solo lo hacía en la dimensión
controlabilidad.
.
KEYWORDS· PALABRAS CLAVES
Early childhood development, smartphone, educational applications, technology platforms, web
design.
Desarrollo temprano infantil, teléfono
inteligente, aplicaciones educativas, plataformas tecnológicas, diseño web.
1. Introduction
Smartphones have benefits in
an emerging early childhood education curriculum because they allow access to
educational content to develop reading, writing, numeracy and problem solving.
The applications included in smartphones adjust the difficulties of educational
tasks according to children's progress. Simultaneously, they foster parents'
digital literacy by enabling active and participatory learning, while giving
immediate feedback to children and parents on children's mistakes.
1.1. Key factors and
applications related to the use of technology in childhood
The factors that influence the
use of digital technology can be of different nature: individual (such as age, cognitive
development or personal interests), family (and in this case we find parental
beliefs, homework supervision or the rules established at home), educational (and thus we find the availability of resources,
school policies or teacher training). Finally, socioeconomic factors (including
access to devices and level of internet connectivity) (Blackwell et al., 2014;
Collier-Meeket al., 2020).
The abundance of studies around associations between
screen time, emotional development, social skills, and sleep quality has
prompted a meta-analysis of the efficiency of technologies related to
psychosocial factors in child development (Mallawaarachchi et al., 2022).
Following the analyses, the authors discussed that “increased early childhood smart-phone and tablet use was correlated, albeit weakly,
with poorer overall child-specific developmental factors (i.e., aggregate of
psychosocial, cognitive and sleep domains” (p. 27).
Technological platforms are
used in early childhood education to improve children's language, social and
motor skills, to document the activities they perform and to adapt the
curriculum to their present needs (Parnell & Bartlett, 2012). Ultimately, the
use of technologies understood as narrative games or problem-solving platforms
for school content serves to teach social-emotional skills, fundamentally for
those children who lack adequate social-emotional learning (Nikolopoulou &
Gialamas, 2015; McClelland et al., 2017). Consequently, it seems recurrent to
imbue beliefs in faculty to design learning experiences based on digital games
(Odom & Wolery, 2003).
Some authors perceive games as
motivational and educational tools; others doubt their pedagogical
effectiveness (McClelland, Tominey, Schmitt, & Duncan, 2017). The use of
technologies such as narrative games or problem-solving platforms for school content
serves to teach social-emotional skills, primarily for those children who lack
social-emotional learning, because qualitative studies have indicated that
technology had a positive effect on engagement, social interactions, and
mathematical skills (Zomer & Kay, 2016). Simultaneously, increased
communication between parents and educators through interactive platforms is
considered transcendental.
In this sense, programs aimed
at children with special needs (e.g., augmentative communication) have been
implemented and are summarized in the monographic issue of the International
Journal of Special Education, 34(1), 2019. Likewise, interventions with
technologies to teach older children have been evaluated with programs such as
augmented reality or gamification that have shown positive results in
motivation and learning, and self-assessment has been promoted in older
children through the use of digital tools (Hudson,
2019). Likewise, the need to measure the long-term effects for the
generalization of knowledge in an emerging curriculum has been noticed (Lim,
2017).
A correlation has been found
between parents' educational self-efficacy and enhanced use of technologies at
home (Hadlingtonet al., 2019; Fidan & Olur, 2023). Moreover, in 2023, Fidan
and Olur discussed “studies especially on the effects and roles of digital
parenting” (p. 15192), which use technologies to teach parenting skills for
effective parenting, e.g., video tutorials or apps that provide feedback on
parenting strategies. Convincingly, joint use of devices between parents and
children fosters emotional connection and enhances children's learning.
However, excessive use of
technological devices is related to aggressive moods, impulsivity
and lower self-regulation of users. Therefore, interventions based on media
education can reduce disruptive behaviors. An appropriate use of technologies
by children has the benefit of promoting interactive learning and the
development of digital skills. On the contrary, the psychological risks of
misuse of technologies refer to attention problems, social isolation and
technological dependence. However, technological applications contribute to the
sensory and motor development of children with disabilities (Pila et al.,
2021).
Haptic technologies that allow
users to interact with the environment by tactile means have social uses in
socio-educational simulations and research and in physical therapies. In this
regard, technological tools such as digital questionnaires have been developed
to assess the cognitive, motor, social, and emotional development of young
children and monitor their developmental milestones (Louisiana Department of
Education, 2023). Among the data
collected by the questionnaires are academic progress and social skills to
customize interventions based on the findings, always taking care of the
ethical principles of confidentiality in handling sensitive data within
educational settings (Lohmann et al., 2024). Documentation of learning with
digital tools is unquestionable to record children's progress in real time
(e.g., digital portfolios) (Mertala, 2019).
With this in mind, smartphones have become an administrative and documentary tool (Goh et al., 2015).
The use of these devices in schools allows tracking children's learning
progress, communicating with parents and recording daily academic activities
(Sørenssen & Bergschöld, 2021). Consequently, digital tools connect
families to intervention resources (Dunst et al., 2019; Dunst et al., 2020).
Indeed, some purpose-designed mobile apps can detect early signs of
developmental delays in children (Wallace, 2018).
The opinions of teachers and
developers of smart technologies used by children are complementary. Precisely,
teachers reason that technologies are additional to children's development,
stressing the importance of adequate supervision (Vidal-Hall et al., 2020),
while developers seek a balance between entertainment and an education in
application design (Kucirkova & Flewitt, 2020; Kucirkova et al., 2021). In
both cases, the need to empirically validate new tools before their widespread
implementation seems evident.
To this end, it is pertinent
to integrate learning theories (constructivism, sociocultural) in the design
and evaluation of educational technologies. Likewise, the establishment of
clear parental rules and regulations on children's time in front of a screen,
type of content and schedules of use of technologies, which should be flexible
and adapted to the individual needs of each child, is also timely (Merdin &
Şahinb, 2023; Griffith et al., 2024). The research by Bonilla and Aguaded
(2018) manifested the interest shown by families to the proposal of receiving
training in information and communication technology at school, i.e., parents
demand participation in training activities to improve their digital and media
skills. Consequently, parents' education should run parallel to children's
education (Snodgrass et al., 2017). Consistent with the weaknesses found in
previous work, this study posed the following research questions:
1. What are the early
intervention practices that improve child development outcomes, summarized in
an early childhood developmental assessment manual (birth to age five)?
2. Can a website be
designed with developmental assessment tools and intervention exercises for
children?
3. Can a mobile
application (educational app) be drafted to facilitate access to a website with
illustrations of milestones of children's progress between 0 and 5 years of
age, and their follow-up?
4. Can an educational
app focused on families and professionals of children 0-5 years old be
evaluated and its effects measured?
2. Methodology
We used a mixed-methods
approach (evidence-based practice, action research, formative evaluation and
technology integration).
2.1. Participants
Non-probability sampling was
employed in which families and professionals were chosen by utility, as in the
study by Subiñas et al. (2022) which has served as an example approach. The
formative evaluation of the educational App was developed in La Laguna
(Tenerife). After ethical approval by the University, detailed information was
given orally and by telephone to families and professionals. The sample
consisted of 51 cases of children and 62 families and professionals who
authorized the experiment. The total number of participating
infants were as follows: 30 boys and 21 girls. The children were 1 year
old (14 cases), 2 years old (24), 3 years old (6), 4 years old (5), 5 years old
(2) and 8 years old (1).
The gender of family members
and professionals was predominantly female (82.3%, N=51) versus male (17.7%,
N=11). The predominant age of family members and professionals was 18-29 years
(58.1%, N=36), 30-39 years (17.7%, N=11), 40-49 years (16.1%, N=10) and over 50
years (8.1%, N=50). The size of members using the educational App was 47. Of
these, professionals used the educational app (61.7%), followed by family
members (36.2%). Of the 61 responses received, the highest academic degree
received was bachelor's (50%, N=31), doctorate (24.2%, N=15), bachelor's
(17.7%, N=11) or master's (8.1%, N=5).
2.2. Instruments
First, the UPDating University
Curricula on Early Intervention (UPDEIT) team developed an Early Care Manual[1]. From 0 to 5 years following the evidence-based practice method. It included
text and illustrations for the early detection of visual and hearing problems
and the assessment of motor development. It was translated into the four
languages (English, Greek, Macedonian and Spanish) of the countries
participating in the UPDEIT project. It was a teaching resource aimed at
educators and students in teacher training programs such as the Early Childhood
Developmental Screenings Guidebook (Louisiana Department of Education, 2023).
Second, it established an open source Internet Open Educational Resource (OER),
following an action research method and webinars[2] with members of the UPDEIT team. It was dedicated to child development
covering screening tools, intervention exercises and strategies adapted to
developmental delays in perception, gross motor, fine motor, personal-social
development, communication, play and social development in four languages
(English, Greek, Macedonian and Spanish) (Table 1).
Table 1
Open Educational Resource (OER)
|
GUESS WHICH HAND IT IS IN (PERCEPTION AREA) |
|
Take a small toy and
hide it in one of your palms. The first time, let the child see which palm
you will hide the toy in. Then ask him which hand the toy is in and let him guess.
The next time, don't show him which hand he is
putting the toy in and ask him again where it is and let him guess. The
activity is suitable to stimulate the child's curiosity in searching for
objects. |
|
OPEN - CLOSE (MOTOR
SKILLS, PERCEPTION, INDEPENDENCE) |
|
Opening and closing are
very interesting activities for children, whether it is a door, a window or a
drawer. They like to open them and see what is inside. Teach the child to
open and close different types of doors: sliding, regular.... Pay attention
to the child's hands and feet while doing the activity. |
|
PUTTING OBJECTS IN AND
TAKING OBJECTS OUT (MOTOR SKILLS, PERCEPTION, INDEPENDENCE) |
|
Prepare a transparent
box or jar with a wide opening through which the child can reach a small
ball. Show the child how to put the ball in the jar and then take it out.
Assist them in their attempts. |
|
PLAYING WITH PAPER
(PERCEPTION, FINE MOTOR) |
|
Use different types of paper
and show the child how it can be crumpled, twisted, pulled and used to make
origami. This activity stimulates the child's imagination and creativity. |
|
PILED CUPS |
|
Take several plastic
cups and show the child how to stack the cups inside each other, then help
the child stack them independently. |
|
BLOCK TOWER |
|
Start with three blocks,
showing the child how to build a block tower. Help as needed. At this age, it
may take some time for the child to master the skill. Allow the child to
knock over the tower if he/she wants to. |
|
MOVING LARGE OBJECTS |
|
Give the child a large,
soft pillow or toy and allow him/her to move with it. This is important for
maintaining balance and control when walking with reduced visibility of the
floor, encouraging spatial assessment. |
|
GETTING TO KNOW FAMILY
MEMBERS |
|
Take a photo album or
pictures from your phone and introduce each family member by name and the
child's relationship to them. Repeat and encourage the child to say his or
her name when you show him or her a picture of a specific person. If you do
this often, it will be easier for the child to recognize and then name the
faces he or she sees in the pictures. |
|
TICKLE TIME |
|
Sit with the child in
front of a mirror. Tickle the child's feet and the child will see in the
mirror where you are tickling them. Tickle other parts of his body as well,
naming the part that is tickling him at that moment. This is a fun way for
the child to learn body parts and, at the same time, develop self-awareness. |
|
FUN WITH GRAVITY |
|
Take a rubber ball and
drop it. When it bounces on the ground, catch it again. Drop the ball from
different heights and show the child what happens. Also, show him that the
ball is simply falling and he is not throwing it. You can also drop other
objects from your hand so the child can see that they do not bounce like the
ball. |
|
DANCE (MOTOR AREA -
BALANCE AND RHYTHM) |
|
Once the child begins to
balance, show him that music is fun and that we can move our bodies to the
beat. This activity introduces the child to dance. Watching you, the child
will begin to move his arms and body during the songs. You can also sing the songs and move your body along with the child. |
|
IMPORTANT CONVERSATION
(SPEECH AND COMMUNICATION AREA) |
|
When the child is in a
good mood and comes to you after finishing a game, start a conversation by asking
brief questions. Consider every sound uttered as a response. Initiate
frequent conversations on different topics: what was the game like, what were
you doing when the child arrived, what is daddy doing, what will he do next,
etc. Be enthusiastic in asking questions, even when the child cannot yet
answer. Instead of the child, you can always give the answer, introducing the
child to interaction and learning from a model. Even when the child attempts
to vocalize, accept it as an answer and confirm the attempt by giving the
full answer on his or her behalf. |
|
GETTING OUT OF BED
(MOTOR AREA) |
|
Place the child on a
soft surface such as a bed that is no higher than the child's neck. Next, lay
the child on his side on the edge of the bed, help him grasp the surface with
his hands, and then move him so that his legs dangle down. Holding his hands,
let the body move slowly downward. When he stands on the floor, praise him
enthusiastically for his effort. Repeat the same thing several times
throughout the day, holding his hand, until he is confident to lie down on
his own. |
|
HIDE AND SEEK
(PERCEPTUAL, PLAY, SOCIAL DEVELOPMENT) |
|
Play hide-and-seek by
hiding in easy places and calling out to the child. When they are close to
your hiding place, come out and yell “Boo!”, but be careful not to startle
the child. Repeat the game from time to time. After a few times, the child
will understand the concept and will be able to change their hiding place. |
|
MAINTAIN FOCUS (AREA OF
PERCEPTION, LOGIC, AND REASONING). |
|
While the child is
interested in playing with a favorite toy, take it, wrap it in several pieces
of paper, and put it in a laundry basket while you watch. Then ask him where
the toy is. You will have to help him find it at first, but eventually, he
will begin to find it on his own. This helps develop focus and persistence. |
|
GESTURE COMMUNICATION |
|
Communication is
incomplete without hand and body gestures. Tell stories or anecdotes with
full hand and body movements so that the child learns to express himself
through gestures and facial expressions, not just words. For example, when
you are excited and yell “Yay!”, hold up your hands. |
|
LEARNING ABOUT ANIMALS |
|
Show the child different
animals on your phone or cards (lion, monkey, horse, etc.) that are difficult
to see in everyday life. Start with the ones he/she already knows. Introduce
the sound and movement each animal makes. |
Third, we outlined an educational
app as an accessible and convenient way to monitor children's growth and
development contained in the OER that was used by family members and parents,
and that could be extended to caregivers and health professionals to identify
possible developmental delays and provide early interventions. This had
highlighted prominent mobile apps (CDC's Milestone Tracker (https://www.cdc.gov/ncbddd/actearly/milestones-app.html), BabySparks (https://babysparks.com/es/ ), Kinedu (https://app-es.kinedu.com) or Grow by WebMD (https://www.webmd.com/baby/default.htm). These apps include lists of developmental milestones by age, offer
personalized activities to support children's cognitive, motor, social and
emotional development, progress tracking, health and nutrition advice, language
development assessments for use by family members and parents.
The UPDEIT educational app
used the term “haptics” associated with touch (Pila et al., 2021), and was available on iOS and Android platforms that
ensured security, usability, versatility, and data protection for users.
Finally, the Questionnaire
Experience of Use (CEU) was a subjective test aimed at describing, classifying
or rating the satisfaction of parents and family members with the educational
app. The questionnaire had the format of a semantic differential of Osgood
(1964). It was composed of six dimensions (attractiveness, transparency,
efficiency, controllability, stimulation and novelty) and 26 pairs of
antonymous adjectives on a seven-point scale. It operated on paper and Google,
like other questionnaires (Lohmann et al., 2024).
To the knowledge of binary
adjectives that were at the extremes of agreement (+), i.e., 5, 6, and 7, and
disagreement (-), i.e., 1, 2, and 3 of a word, a value of 4 representing
partial knowledge of the evaluative item or item was added. These values of the
CEU scale were represented as shown in Table 2. In this way, greater evaluative
sensitivity was gained.
Adjetives
Adjetives
__ __ __
__ __ __ __
Unpleasant -3 -2 -1
0 +1 +2 +3 Pleasant
Each meaning is reflected in
the following table (Table 2)
Table 2
Meaning of the numeric system to interpret the scale
|
Numerical system |
Meaning |
|
+3 |
Very pleasant |
|
+2 |
Quite pleasant |
|
+1 |
Somewhat pleasant |
|
0 |
Neither pleasant nor
unpleasant |
|
-1 |
Somewhat unpleasant |
|
-2 |
Quite unpleasant |
|
-3 |
Very unpleasant |
2.3. Procedure
The effectiveness indicators were
determined by the successive revisions of the Early Intervention Manual. From 0
to 5 years through webinars.
Then, members of the
Macedonian (Saints Cyril and Methodius University of Skopje, and
Училница
Даскаловски/
Ucilnica Daskalovski) and Cypriot (Frederick University) teams of the UPDEIT
project designed a website
(https://mdl.frederick.ac.cy/UPDEITPlatform/Dashboard) that included
interactive and multimedia elements with other structural ones. The validation
of the website occurred after successive webinars with all the international
members of the project.
Subsequently, researchers from
the Cypriot team at Frederick University made the digital transformation by
designing an educational app for smartphones that allowed the management of the
developmental milestones of children from 0 to 5 years of age of the OER. The
validation of the design of the educational app was carried out by applying a
checklist that was completed in an international face-to-face meeting of the
UPDEIT team held at the University of La Laguna in 2023 (See https://updeit.eu//Main/News).
Finally, seven researchers
from the UPDEIT team from La Laguna, specializing in inclusive education
applied the educational app with 51 children and 62 adults (51 professionals
and 11 families -parent-) to understand the feasibility of its use. They evaluated
the treatment fidelity of the educational app, conceptualized as adherence, as
suggested by Collier-Meek et al. (2020: 335-336). The formative evaluation took
place between February and March 2023. Each researcher had one or more
professionals and family members with their children. Each educational app
evaluation session lasted approximately 15-25 minutes.
2.4. Data analysis
The evaluative analysis of the
educational app had not been guided by any previous research hypothesis or
theory, as had occurred in a study among educators and designers of this style
of technology (Kucirkova & Flewitt, 2020). As we indicated, each professional
and family member’s response to the CEU was scored on a seven-point graduated
ruler or Likert-type scale, with 1 and 7 being the extreme values for bipolar
adjectives, following Osgood's (1964) semantic differential technique.
The antonymic or binary adjectives
measured gradients in the six CEU dimensions: attractiveness
(unpleasant-unpleasant; bad-good; repellent-attractive, awkward-comfortable,
ugly-suggestive, unpleasant-sympathetic), transparency
(incomprehensible-comprehensible; intricate-simple; complicated-easy,
confusing-clear), efficiency (slow-fast, inefficient-efficient,
theoretical-pragmatic, anarchic-orderly), controllability
(unpredictable-predictable, obstructive-expeditious, insecure-unsure;
unconcerned-expectant), stimulation (insignificant-valuable, boring-exciting,
dull-interesting), and novelty (chimerical-creative, conventional-original,
familiar-novel, routine-innovative).
3. Results
The study employed a
combination of statistical tests to analyze data and understand the
relationship between variables, as well as to determine the reliability of the
results. The Fisher-Snedecor F-test was used to compare the variance of more
than two sets of data and to determine if there was a significant difference
between the means of the populations from which the samples were drawn. The
chi-square coefficient (χ²) was used to determine whether there was a significant relationship
between two or more categorical variables, and a reliability analysis was used
to assess the consistency and stability of a measure in different situations,
as other researchers had proceeded in their work (Posokhova et al., 2016).
In the present study, two CEU
reliability coefficients were applied: the Cronbach's Alpha coefficient for six
dimensions and N= 62 with a value of .943 and the Guttman discrimination
coefficient in the dimensions: attraction (.786), transparency (.948), efficiency
(.943), controllability (.913), stimulation (.921) and novelty (.946). In both
cases, the semantic differential had internal consistency
reliability and the ability to discriminate between people with high and low
scores on each dimension. Table 3 shows the means, standard deviations,
variance and mode of the dimensions.
Table 3
Means and standard deviations of the dimensions
|
Dimensions |
Means |
Standard deviations |
Skewness |
Kurtosis |
|
Attraction |
4.35 |
1.784 |
-.649. |
-1.113 |
|
Transparency |
5.40 |
1.336 |
-.744 |
-.021 |
|
Efficiency |
5.47 |
1.082 |
.006 |
-1.261 |
|
Controllability |
5.79 |
1.103 |
-.475 |
-.791 |
|
Stimulation |
5.95 |
1.220 |
-.856 |
-.316 |
|
Novelty |
5.50 |
1.211 |
-.372 |
-.558 |
The greatest dispersion around
the mean explained by the variance was in the attraction dimension, which was
also observed in the spread of the data around the mean value (standard
deviation). The mode indicated that 6 (quite pleasant) and 7 (very pleasant)
were the predominant or most representative values of the six dimensions.
Table 4 shows the chi-square statistics
for the dimensions and the p-value associated with each dimension. Since the
p-value was less than the α (.05) level of significance in four dimensions: attractiveness, controllability,
stimulation, and novelty, the null hypothesis was rejected, concluding that
there was a significant relationship between these dimensions.
Table 4
Contingency table of chi-square test of the dimensions
|
|
Attraction |
Transparency |
Efficiency |
Controllability |
Stimulation |
Novelty |
|
Chi-Squared |
36.226 |
29.613 |
21.548 |
37.613 |
97.032 |
29.355 |
|
Sig. |
p<.001 |
p<.057 |
p<.063 |
p<.001 |
p<.001 |
p<.001 |
Figure 1 shows the graphical representation of the values
obtained for the dimensions that were found to be significant.
Figure 1
Representation of the values of the elements in the dimensions attraction,
controllability, stimulation and novelty of the semantic differential
Of the six attractiveness
items, three attitudes had a rating of “maximum disagreement” (ugly,
uncomfortable and bad), indicating that the educational app was presented as
suggestive, comfortable and good. The unsympathetic-sympathetic pair, however,
shows a mean rating between unsympathetic and sympathetic.
In addition, subjects had a
totally positive perception (interesting, exciting and valuable) on three
elements of stimulation and on four elements of novelty (innovative, novel,
original and creative). Likewise, three items (expectancy, expediency and predictability)
were totally positive and one totally negative in controllability, which
represented the perception of “maximum disagreement” and, therefore, there was
no insecurity in the educational app.
Strengths indicated that users
found the educational app engaging and motivating (stimulation). Also, that it offered something different and fresh compared
to other options on the market (novelty), and they knew what to expect from the
educational app, that it worked efficiently, safely, and that it was easy to
understand and use. The educational app is rated in the attractiveness
dimension as suggestive, comfortable, appealing, good and pleasant.
As a somewhat weaker point, it
seems that the educational app is rated somewhere between nice/unfriendly and a
small percentage (11.3%) find it not very novel.
There were no significant
differences between families and professionals, according to gender and
academic qualifications of the users.
However, there were
significant differences in terms of subjects' age in three dimensions:
attraction (F=5.126, 3gl, p<.003) with the following values: 18-29 (x̄=5.63,
σ=. 499), 30-39 (x̄=4.88, σ=.817), 40-49 (x̄=5.22, σ=.676) and highlighting the significant difference between the 18-29 and
30-39 group (F=4.84, 45gl, p<.001) with higher mean
in the case of 18-29.
In the efficiency dimension
(F=2.966, 3gl, p<.039), the following values are presented by age: 18-29 (x̄=5.61,
σ=1.004), 30-39 (x̄=4.66, σ=861), 40-49 (x̄=5.60, σ=1.113), and >50 (x̄=5.00, σ=968). Furthermore, it stands out that the 18-29 age group (x̄=5.61,
σ=1.004) manifests a significant difference with the 30-39 group (x̄=4.66,
σ=861) (F=.434, 45gl, p<.007).
In the stimulation dimension
(F=4.836, 3gl, p<.005) significant differences were obtained by age: 18-29
(x̄=6.24, σ=.950), 30-39 (x̄=4.84, σ=1.393), 40-49 (x̄=5.38, σ=1.506), and >50 (x̄=5.90, σ=1.069). The largest significant difference was between age group 18-29
(x̄=6.24, σ=.950) and 30-39 (x̄=4.84, σ=1.393), (F=2.086, 45gl, p<.001).
Likewise, significant
differences were found concerning the academic degree of the sample in the
controllability dimension (F=3.950, gl3, p<.012): Master's degree (x̄=4.40,
σ=1.506), PhD (x̄=5.85, σ=.944), Bachelor's degree (x̄=6.00, σ=.944) and Bachelor's degree (x̄=5.43, σ=1.090). The largest significant difference was between those with
Bachelor's education (x̄=6.00, σ=.944) and Bachelor's (x̄=5.43, σ=1.090) with a significant difference (F=12.298, 3gl, p<.012).
Figure 2 shows graphically
that the maximum pole (+3 “very pleasant”) in the pleasant consideration of the
app is the stimulation dimension followed by controllability and novelty. It is
followed by the consideration of “quite pleasant” (+2) where attraction
occupies a relevant role followed equally by controllability and novelty.
“Somewhat pleasant” (+1) is rated by those who emphasize attraction in the app,
then controllability, followed by stimulation and finally novelty.
Note that average scores
somewhat outstanding can only be mentioned novelty and the values of the
negative poles in the proposed adjectives is very minority..
Figure 2
Gradation in the evaluation of the adjectives (-3 to +3) organized in the
four dimensions that obtained significant values
However, there were
significant differences about the age of the subjects
in three dimensions: attraction (F=5.126, 3gl, p<.003), efficiency (F=2.966,
3gl, p<.039) and stimulation (F=4.836, 3gl, p<.005). Likewise,
significant differences were found to the academic degree of the sample in the
controllability dimension (F=3.950, gl3, p<.012).
Figure 3 shows graphically
that the stimulation, controllability and novelty dimensions are located at the
maximum pole (+3 “very pleasant”) of the educational app. It is followed by the
gradient “quite pleasant” (+2) where attraction occupies a relevant role
followed equally by the controllability and novelty dimensions. Subjects rated
“somewhat pleasant” (+1) the educational app dimensions attraction, followed by
controllability, stimulation and novelty.
Note that the novelty
dimension obtains the mean scores somewhat prominent in the pleasantness
scalar gradients, while the adjectives located in the unpleasantness scalar
values are very little perceptible.
Figure 3
Gradation in the evaluation of the adjectives (-3 to +3) organized in the
four dimensions that obtain significant values
4. Discussion
The evaluative objective of
the educational app was to ascertain the perceptions of family members and
professionals targeting children ages 0-5 years focused on six dimensions
(attractiveness, transparency, efficiency, etc.) measured through CEU.
The findings of this research
problem indicated that the age of family members and professionals made a
powerful difference in the attractiveness, efficiency and stimulation
dimensions of CEU, while academic degree only did so in the controllability
dimension.
Attraction was not a
unidimensional concept, because it described the intensity of a sensory
reaction, alluded to the moral and ethical evaluation of something, focused on
the physical and emotional sensation experienced by the subjects, on the
aesthetic perception of the educational app and on the possibility of
connecting with someone through it. In this dimension, there was a significant
difference between the 18-29 and 30-39 groups, with a higher mean
in the case of the 18-29 group, reflecting the fact that the younger the age,
the more attractive the educational app was considered to be.
Efficiency was the ability to
achieve a given objective with the minimum possible resources and time. It also
indicated a balance between theory and practice, and
was related to the organization and structure of a process. In the efficiency
dimension, the 18-29 age group shows a significant difference with the 30-39
group. The younger group emphasizes the efficiency of the educational app.
Stimulation, caused by
relevance, intensity and motivation, was the ability of an incitement (in this
case the educational app) to capture attention, arouse interest and generate a
response in a sample subject. In this dimension, significant differences were obtained by age, with the greatest significant difference
being with the 18-29 age group. Again, the younger group found the educational
app stimulating.
There were significant
differences between subjects with different academic degrees in the
controllability dimension. Thus, graduates perceived greater controllability in
the educational app than subjects with a bachelor's degree.
The educational app offered
something different and fresh with an efficient, safe and easy to understand
and use operation. The attraction dimension showed that it was suggestive,
comfortable, appealing, good and pleasant. On the other hand, it was rated
somewhere between nice/antipathetic and a small percentage of subjects found it
not very novel.
The evaluation of the
educational app provides contributions regarding the educational technology
contained in the OER manual and, specifically, the future design of digital
personalization of smartphones for use by parents, caregivers, educators, and
health professionals. First, it focuses on convergences of the educational app.
What views were shared by family members and professionals? Considering the
sample by gender, they responded with the same perceptions in all dimensions.
Classified by academic level, their perceptions were the same in all
dimensions, except controllability, and ordered by age, they had analogous
perceptions in transparency, controllability and novelty.
The main difference between
subjects occurred for reasons of age and academic level. Understanding these
convergences and divergences between family members and professionals, as
Kucirkova & Flewitt (2020, p. 146) did, is crucial for the development of
successful strategies for the implementation of the educational app in initial
teacher training and in early childhood education teacher development. This had
been suggested by researchers in other contexts (Dunst, 2019),
and so could be implemented in cultural and educational contexts
analogous to Tenerife.
4.1. Limitations and
implications
The results should be
interpreted with some caution for several reasons. First, family members and
professionals evaluated an educational app with a semantic differential that
they were unfamiliar with and may have been reluctant because it was the first
time they met with a researcher, as Goh et al. (2015, p. 794) mentioned in
their study; second, the dimensions of the semantic differential included
elements that should have been rationally and empirically justified; third, the
educational app was a technological tool based on OER evidence that encompassed
areas of child development, (communication, motor, social-emotional
development, etc. ); however, the semantic differential did not identify
possible delays in child development in key areas that would allow for early
and effective intervention, as was the case with the ASQ (Ages & Stages
Questionnaires, third edition) by Squires & Bricker (2009). And third, the
accessibility of the app for parents and trainers was not ideal, because
telepractice involves the use of technologies such as video calls, interactive
platforms or applications to provide educational, therapeutic or training
services at a distance.
Technological implications
applied to early childhood care: Design and usability. The educational app
needs an urgent renovation in its visual design and
usability. Priority should be given to the creation of an attractive, intuitive
and user-friendly interface. Emotional connection. An emotional connection must
be created with the users. This can be achieved through a friendly language, an
attractive interface and a focus on users' needs and preferences. Security.
Addressing the perception of insecurity is critical. Robust security measures
should be implemented and clearly communicate to users
how their data is protected. Leverage strengths. Capitalize on the positive
perception of stimulation and novelty. You can continue to innovate and offer
interesting and valuable content to keep users motivated and engaged.
5. Conclusions
The results obtained have led to the following
conclusions linked to the initial questions:
First, creation
of the REA manual that summarizes early intervention practices that improve
child development outcomes.
Second, OER has incorporated
child development assessment tools and intervention exercises for children.
Third, an educational app has
facilitated access to OER.
Finally, family and
professional perceptions of the educational app on child development between 0
and 5 years of age have been tested.
Author
contributions
Conceptualisation, V.A.-L.M.; Data curation,
V.A.-L.M., A.R.-O.M.; Formal analysis, V.A.-L.M., A.R.-O.M.; Investigation,
V.A.-L.M., A.R.-O.M.; Methodology, A.R.-O.M.;
Project administration, A.R.-O.M.; Supervision, V.A.-L.M., A.R.-O.M.;
Validation, V.A.-L.M., A.R.-O.M.; Writing—original draft, V.A.-L.M., A.R.-O.M.;
Writing—review and editing, V.A.-L.M., A.R.-O.M.
Funding
European
Union funded project KA2: UPDating University Curricula on Early Intervention
(UPDEIT). Erasmus+ European Union competitive project nº
2021-1-MKO-1-KA2-2-0-HED-0000229812 2022-2024
Data Availability Statement
The data set used in this
study is available at reasonable request to the corresponding author
Ethics approval
Not aplicable
Consent for publication
The author has consented to the
publication of the results obtained by means of the corresponding consent forms
Conflicts of interest
The author declares that they
have no conflict of interest
Rights and permissions
Open Access. This article is licensed under
a Creative Commons Attribution 4.0 International License, which permits use, sharing, adaptation, distribution and reproduction
in any medium or format, as long as you give appropriate credit to the original
author(s) and the source, provide a link to the Creative Commons licence, and
indicate if changes were made.
References
Bonilla, M. y Aguaded, I.
(2018) La escuela en la era digital: smartphones, apps
y programación en educación primaria y su repercusión en la competencia
mediática del alumnado. Pixel Bit. Revista
de Medios y Educación, 53, 151-163. http://dx.doi.org/10.12795/pixelbit.2018.i53.10
Collier-Meek, M. A., Sanetti, L. M. H., Gould, K.,
& Pereira, B. (2020). Una comparación
exploratoria de tres métodos de evaluación de la fidelidad del tratamiento:
muestreo de tiempo, registro de eventos y lista de verificación posterior a la
observación. Journal of Educational and Psychological Consultation, 31 (3),
334–359. https://doi.org/10.1080/10474412.2020.1777874.
Departamento de Educación de Luisiana (2023). Guía de evaluación del desarrollo infantil
temprano. ERIC: ED647582.
Dunst, C.J., Bruder, M.B., Maude, S.P., Schnurr, M.,
Van Polen, A., Clark, G.F., Winslow, A., & Gethmann, D. (2019).
Professional Development Practices and Practitioner Use of Recommended Early
Childhood Intervention Practices. Journal of Teacher Education and
Educators, 8(3), 2019, 229-246. https://files.eric.ed.gov/fulltext/EJ1240077.pdf
Fidan, N. K., & Olur, B. (2023). Examining the relationship between
parents’ digital parenting self-efficacy and digital parenting attitudes. Education
and Information Technologies, 28, 15189–15204. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10639-023-11841-2.
Goh, W., & Bay, S., & Chen, V. (2015). Young
school children's use of digital devices and parental rules. Telematics and
Informatics, 32. 787-795. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.tele.2015.04.002.
Hudson, M.E. (2019). Using iPad-delivered Instruction
and Self-Monitoring to Improve the Early Literacy Skills of Middle School
Nonreaders with Developmental Disabilities. International Journal of Special
Education, 34(1), 182-196. https://files.eric.ed.gov/fulltext/EJ1237171.pdf
Kucirkova, N., & Flewitt, R. (2020). The
future-gazing potential of digital personalization in young children’s reading:
Views from education professionals and app designers. Early Child
Development and Care, 190 (2), 135-149. https://
doi.org/10.1080/03004430.2018.1458718
Lim, S. (2017). Mobile Documentation with Smartphone and
Cloud in an Emergent Curriculum. Computers in the Schools, 34(4),
304-317, https://doi.org/10.1080/07380569.2017.1387469.
Lohmann, M.J., Riggleman, S., & Higgins, J. P.
(2024). Uso de un dispositivo móvil para la
recopilación de datos sobre el comportamiento en el aula en la primera
infancia. Early Childhood Educ J, 52, 427-434. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10643-023-01443-5.
McClelland, M.M., Tominey, S.L., Schmitt, S.A., &
Duncan, R. (2017). Intervenciones
SEL en la primera infancia. El futuro de los niños, 27(1), 33-47.
Merdin, E., & Şahinb, V. (2023). Young
Children’s Electronic Media Use and Parental Rules and Regulations. Journal
of Learning and Teaching in Digital Age, 8(2), 187-196.
Mertala, P. (2019). Young Children’s Conceptions of
Computers, Code, and the Internet. International Journal of
Child-Computer Interaction, 19, 56–66. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ijcci.2018.11.003.
Odom, S.L., & Wolery, M. (2003). Una teoría unificada de la práctica en la
intervención temprana/educación especial en la primera infancia: prácticas
basadas en la evidencia. The Journal of Special Education, 37 (3),
164–173. https://doi.org/10.1177/00224669030370030601.
Osgood, C. E. (1964). Semantic Differential Technique
in the Comparative Study of Cultures. American Anthropologist, 66,
171-200.
Parnell, W., & Bartlett, J. (2012). iDocument: How
smartphones and tablets are changing documentation in preschool and primary
classrooms. Young Children, 67(3), 50-59
Pila, S., Lauricella, A. R., Piper, A. M., &
Wartella, E. (2021). El
poder de las actitudes de los padres: análisis de las actitudes de los padres
hacia la tecnología tradicional y emergente. Human Behavior and
Emerging Technologies, 3(4), 540-551. https://doi.org/10.1002/hbe2.279.
Posokhova, S., Konovalova, N., Sorokin, V., Demyanov,
Y., Kolosova, T., & Didenko, E. (2016). System of attitudes in parents of
young people having sensory disorders. International Journal of
Environmental & Science Education, 11(16), 8956-8967. ERIC number:
EJ1118954.
Squires, J., & Bricker, D. (2009). Ages &
Stages Questionnaires, Third Edition (ASQ-3). Baltimore, MD: Brookes
Publishing Co.
Snodgrass, M. R., Chung, M. Y., Biller, M. F., Appel,
K. E., Meadan, H., & Halle, J. W. (2017). Telepractice in Speech–Language
Therapy: The Use of Online Technologies for Parent Training and Coaching. Communication
Disorders Quarterly, 38(4), 242-254. https://doi.org/10.1177/1525740116680424.
Sørenssen, I. K., & Bergschöld, J. M. (2021).
Domesticated Smartphones in Early Childhood Education and Care settings.
Blurring the lines between pedagogical and administrative use. International
Journal of Early Years Education, 31(4), 874–887. https://doi.org/10.1080/09669760.2021.1893157.
Subiñas Medina, P.,
García-Grau, P., Gutiérrez-Ortega, M., & León-Estrada, I. (2022). Family-centered
practices in early intervention: family confidence, competence, and quality of
life. Psychology, Society & Education, 14(2), 39–47. https://doi.org/10.21071/psye.v14i2.14296.
Vidal-Hall, C., Flewitt, R., & Wyse, D. (2020).
Early childhood practitioner beliefs about digital media: integrating
technology into a child-centred classroom environment. European Early
Childhood Education Research Journal, 28(2), 167-181. https://doi.org/10.1080/1350293X.2020.1735727.
Wallace, I. F. (2018). Universal Screening of Young Children
for Developmental Disorders: Unpacking the Controversies. RTI Press Publication
No. OP-0048-1802. Research Triangle Park, NC: RTI Press. https://doi.org/10.3768/rtipress.2018.op.0048.1802.
Wert, J. (2023). Partnering With Children
Through Visual Documentation. Childhood Education, 99(2),
60–65. https://doi.org/10.1080/00094056.2023.2185046.
Williams, C.
(2021). Learning and Literacy Through Image-Based Story. Childhood
Education, 97(3), 32–37. https://doi.org/10.1080/00094056.2021.1930911.
Zomer, N.R., & Kay, R.H. (2016). Technology Use in
Early Childhood Education. Journal of Educational Informatics, 1,
1-25, https://journalofeducationalinformatics.ca/index.php/JEI/article/view/45.