↓ Skip to main content

Using Touchscreen Tablets to Help Young Children Learn to Tell Time

Overview of attention for article published in Frontiers in Psychology, November 2016
Altmetric Badge

About this Attention Score

  • In the top 25% of all research outputs scored by Altmetric
  • High Attention Score compared to outputs of the same age (89th percentile)
  • High Attention Score compared to outputs of the same age and source (83rd percentile)

Mentioned by

news
1 news outlet
twitter
3 X users

Citations

dimensions_citation
35 Dimensions

Readers on

mendeley
87 Mendeley
You are seeing a free-to-access but limited selection of the activity Altmetric has collected about this research output. Click here to find out more.
Title
Using Touchscreen Tablets to Help Young Children Learn to Tell Time
Published in
Frontiers in Psychology, November 2016
DOI 10.3389/fpsyg.2016.01800
Pubmed ID
Authors

Fuxing Wang, Heping Xie, Yuxin Wang, Yanbin Hao, Jing An

Abstract

Young children are devoting more and more time to playing on handheld touchscreen devices (e.g., iPads). Though thousands of touchscreen apps are claimed to be "educational," there is a lack of sufficient evidence examining the impact of touchscreens on children's learning outcomes. In the present study, the two questions we focused on were (a) whether using a touchscreen was helpful in teaching children to tell time, and (b) to what extent young children could transfer what they had learned on the touchscreen to other media. A pre- and post-test design was adopted. After 10 min of exposure to an iPad touchscreen app designed to teach time, three groups of 5- to 6-year-old children (N = 65) were, respectively, tested with an iPad touchscreen, a toy clock or a drawing of a clock on paper. The results revealed that post-test scores in the iPad touchscreen test group were significantly higher than those at pre-test, indicating that the touchscreen itself could provide support for young children's learning. Similarly, regardless of being tested with a toy clock or paper drawing, children's post-test performance was also better than pre-test, suggesting that children could transfer what they had learned on an iPad touchscreen to other media. However, comparison among groups showed that children tested with the paper drawing underperformed those tested with the other two media. The theoretical and practical implications of the results, as well as limitations of the present study, are discussed.

X Demographics

X Demographics

The data shown below were collected from the profiles of 3 X users who shared this research output. Click here to find out more about how the information was compiled.
As of 1 July 2024, you may notice a temporary increase in the numbers of X profiles with Unknown location. Click here to learn more.
Mendeley readers

Mendeley readers

The data shown below were compiled from readership statistics for 87 Mendeley readers of this research output. Click here to see the associated Mendeley record.

Geographical breakdown

Country Count As %
United States 1 1%
Unknown 86 99%

Demographic breakdown

Readers by professional status Count As %
Student > Ph. D. Student 18 21%
Researcher 10 11%
Student > Master 10 11%
Student > Bachelor 7 8%
Student > Doctoral Student 6 7%
Other 14 16%
Unknown 22 25%
Readers by discipline Count As %
Psychology 26 30%
Social Sciences 13 15%
Computer Science 4 5%
Linguistics 3 3%
Medicine and Dentistry 3 3%
Other 13 15%
Unknown 25 29%
Attention Score in Context

Attention Score in Context

This research output has an Altmetric Attention Score of 15. This is our high-level measure of the quality and quantity of online attention that it has received. This Attention Score, as well as the ranking and number of research outputs shown below, was calculated when the research output was last mentioned on 13 December 2022.
All research outputs
#2,138,019
of 23,332,901 outputs
Outputs from Frontiers in Psychology
#4,202
of 31,035 outputs
Outputs of similar age
#44,516
of 420,218 outputs
Outputs of similar age from Frontiers in Psychology
#70
of 435 outputs
Altmetric has tracked 23,332,901 research outputs across all sources so far. Compared to these this one has done particularly well and is in the 90th percentile: it's in the top 10% of all research outputs ever tracked by Altmetric.
So far Altmetric has tracked 31,035 research outputs from this source. They typically receive a lot more attention than average, with a mean Attention Score of 12.6. This one has done well, scoring higher than 86% of its peers.
Older research outputs will score higher simply because they've had more time to accumulate mentions. To account for age we can compare this Altmetric Attention Score to the 420,218 tracked outputs that were published within six weeks on either side of this one in any source. This one has done well, scoring higher than 89% of its contemporaries.
We're also able to compare this research output to 435 others from the same source and published within six weeks on either side of this one. This one has done well, scoring higher than 83% of its contemporaries.