My kid has spent twenty minutes with a reading app. He matched pictures, collected a few stars, and reached the next level. He was certainly busy. But did he learn anything?
That is the question I keep coming back to when I watch him use an app that calls itself educational. The screen is full of movement and cheerful sounds. My child is tapping away. From across the room, it can look like learning. It can also look like very efficient entertainment.
The short answer
The word “educational” does not settle the question. It is a category a developer can choose, not a scientific seal of approval. A counting game can contain plenty of numbers without teaching what those numbers mean. A phonics game can reward quick tapping more than careful listening.
Some well-designed apps can help children practice particular literacy and math skills. But I cannot judge that from stars, levels, an age label, or the word “educational.” I need to look at what the app asks my child to think about, whether its feedback supports that thinking, and whether any learning appears beyond the activity itself.
So I started looking for things I can actually see. I do not need to give my child a test or read a research paper while he plays. I can watch what the app asks him to do—and what happens after the screen turns off.
What the research looked at
This article draws mainly on systematic reviews and meta-analyses rather than one app trial. One review screened 1,447 reports and included 35 experimental or quasi-experimental studies of children whose average age was under six.[1] Another combined 36 intervention studies involving literacy and mathematics apps for children from preschool through Grade 3.[2]
Where the apps were studied matters. In the second review, 92% were used in schools, not as independent entertainment at home. The studies also tested selected apps under research conditions. They did not take a random sample from an app store and prove that “educational apps” work as a category.
What the researchers actually did
The studies compared children who used a particular app with children who received usual instruction, no additional activity, or another activity. Researchers then measured outcomes such as early literacy, counting, or mathematics. Some tests were standardized; others closely matched what the app had taught.
The reviews combined those results and examined why outcomes differed. Other research synthesized here looked at technology-enhanced storybooks, children’s vocabulary learning from media, and the wider context of screen use.[3-7]
What they found
Across the selected studies, apps produced modest average benefits for early literacy and mathematics, but the results varied considerably.[1,2] Gains were larger on tests designed by researchers and closely connected to the app than on broader standardized measures.[2] In other words, an app may successfully teach the exact items it practises without producing an equally large improvement in a wider skill.
Research on digital storybooks found a similar distinction: multimedia can help when it explains the story or a word, while unrelated interactive features can distract from learning.[4] These findings are encouraging, but they are not a consumer guarantee. They give me better questions to ask.
Seven questions I use
1. Can I tell what the app is trying to teach?
The first question is simple: what is the goal?
“Reading” is too broad. Is the app practicing letter sounds, blending sounds into words, vocabulary, sentences, or story comprehension? If it is teaching the sound /m/, I expect my child to spend time listening for it, comparing it, or remembering it. Decorating a cartoon room after one letter question might be fun, but the decorating is not reading practice.
This does not mean an app has to feel like a worksheet. I want the play and the learning to belong together. A clear goal simply gives me a way to tell whether they do.
2. Is my child thinking, or mainly reacting?
My child is doing something with his hands whenever he taps the screen. That does not tell me what his mind is doing.
Sometimes he can tap until the app accepts an answer, follow a glowing arrow, or remember where the right picture appeared. Those are real actions, but they may not mean he understands the word, sound, or number.
I look for interactions that make him do something with the idea being taught. For example, can he:
- listen for the first sound in a word;
- choose between two genuinely different answers;
- remember something he saw earlier;
- blend sounds into a word;
- count a group of objects rather than recognize a written number; or
- use the same idea with a new example?
Researchers sometimes call this “minds-on” learning. A useful framework says that children learn more plausibly when they are mentally active, engaged without being distracted, connecting the new idea to something meaningful, and supported by social interaction when it helps.[3] I use that as a lens, not as a guarantee. An app can tick several boxes and still fail to teach my child anything useful.
3. Does the feedback help after a mistake?
I have seen the familiar red X and the big celebration. The red X says, “Wrong.” The celebration says, “Great job.” Neither one necessarily explains what happened.
Imagine the app asks for a word beginning with /s/ and my child chooses map. A more useful response might draw attention back to the sounds, then give him another chance. Good feedback helps him notice something, make a correction, and try again without turning the mistake into a failure.
The same applies to rewards. Confetti and music can make success feel good, but I want the biggest signal to follow the biggest piece of learning—not the fastest tap.
4. Do the animations support the lesson—or compete with it?
My child enjoys discovering what happens when he taps something. So do I. The question is whether the discovery helps with the lesson or pulls him away from it.
Research on digital storybooks gives a useful example. Animation and sound can help when they clarify a story or explain a word. Unrelated games and clickable hotspots can draw attention away from what a child is meant to understand.[4]
If tapping a tree lets my child hear “tree” and explore its leaves, bark, and branches, that can support vocabulary and curiosity. If the tree suddenly launches a noisy mini-game in the middle of a phonics question, it may simply interrupt him.
The question I ask is not “Does this app have animation?” It is “What is this animation helping my child notice?”
5. Is the challenge about right?
The age label on an app tells me very little about what my child can do today.
I watch for two patterns. If he keeps guessing, waits for hints, or becomes frustrated, the activity may be too hard. If he answers without thinking and races toward the rewards, it may be too easy.
The sweet spot is a little support with a little effort. I am also cautious with claims such as “AI-powered” or “fully personalized.” The important question is not whether the app changes. It is whether the change gives my child more appropriate practice.
6. Does any of the learning survive after the app closes?
Finishing a level tells me that my child finished a level. It does not automatically tell me that he mastered the skill.
This is one of the most useful cautions in the research. Studies often find larger gains when children are tested on exactly what an app taught than when they take a broader, standardized test.[2] That does not make the first kind of improvement meaningless. It means I should describe it honestly.
I can look for transfer without turning our kitchen into an examination room. If the app practiced /m/, I might notice whether my child spots another word beginning with /m/ later. If it taught branch, we might talk about a branch on a walk. If it practiced counting five objects, I can see whether he counts five spoons while setting the table.
He may not show the learning straight away. Young children often need several encounters in different situations. I am looking for learning that eventually travels with him, not a perfect answer on demand.
7. What is this screen time replacing today?
Every activity takes time from another possible activity. Even a genuinely useful app should not regularly replace sleep, movement, conversation, shared reading, imaginative play, or time with other people.
Current American Academy of Pediatrics guidance takes a broader view of children’s digital lives. Time matters, but so do the child, the content, the context, the product’s design, and the habits it encourages. Much of the research linking screen use with child development is observational, so it can show associations without proving that screens caused an outcome.[5]
Sometimes I join my child for a few minutes. Sometimes I ask a question afterwards:
“What did you discover?”
“Can you show me how that works?”
“Where could we find one of those in real life?”
I do not think parents should have to sit beside a child for every second of every app. A short conversation can be enough to connect the screen to the rest of the day.
How confident should we be?
I am reasonably confident that some carefully selected apps can support narrow early literacy or mathematics skills. That conclusion comes from multiple controlled studies and research reviews, not one experiment.[1,2]
I am much less confident that a successful level means broad learning, that a feature described as “personalized” is genuinely useful, or that results from supervised school use will carry over unchanged to a child using an app alone at home. The studies cover different countries, ages, apps, settings, durations, and outcome measures. Many are short, and broader transfer is measured less often than immediate performance.
That is why I use the evidence as a filter, not a stamp of approval.
What I’m taking home
When my child opens a learning app, I watch for two minutes before walking away. I ask myself:
- What is he supposed to learn?
- What is he doing with that idea?
- Does the feedback help him improve?
- Do the sounds, rewards, and animations support the activity?
- Is the challenge about right?
- Does any of the learning appear again later?
- What is this screen time replacing today?
I will not always have a clear answer. That is fine. The goal is not to become a full-time app evaluator or find a perfect product. It is to look beyond the label and use my own judgment.
Some screen experiences are thoughtfully made and give children useful practice. Others wrap a small amount of learning in a great deal of stimulation. The difference is not how busy my child looks, how many stars he collects, or how confidently the app describes itself.
For me, the real test begins when the screen turns off: did any of the learning come with him?
How this article was prepared
I wrote this the same way I approach questions at home: start with a real question, look for the strongest relevant evidence I can find, check the important claims against the source, and be honest about where the research has limits. The examples and suggestions are my judgment as a parent and founder. Sokvis publishes this piece; no independent scientific reviewer has signed off on it. This is general educational information, not medical, diagnostic, or individualized professional advice. See How We Use Research for the fuller method.
Sources
- Griffith, S. F., Hagan, M. B., Heymann, P., Heflin, B. H., & Bagner, D. M. (2020). “Apps As Learning Tools: A Systematic Review.” Pediatrics, 145(1), e20191579. https://doi.org/10.1542/peds.2019-1579
- Kim, J., Gilbert, J., Yu, Q., & Gale, C. (2021). “Measures Matter: A Meta-Analysis of the Effects of Educational Apps on Preschool to Grade 3 Children’s Literacy and Math Skills.” AERA Open, 7. https://doi.org/10.1177/23328584211004183
- Hirsh-Pasek, K., Zosh, J. M., Golinkoff, R. M., Gray, J. H., Robb, M. B., & Kaufman, J. (2015). “Putting Education in ‘Educational’ Apps: Lessons From the Science of Learning.” Psychological Science in the Public Interest, 16(1), 3–34. https://doi.org/10.1177/1529100615569721
- Takacs, Z. K., Swart, E. K., & Bus, A. G. (2015). “Benefits and Pitfalls of Multimedia and Interactive Features in Technology-Enhanced Storybooks: A Meta-Analysis.” Review of Educational Research, 85(4), 698–739. https://doi.org/10.3102/0034654314566989
- Munzer, T., et al. (2026). “Digital Ecosystems, Children, and Adolescents: Policy Statement.” Pediatrics, 157(2), e2025075320. https://doi.org/10.1542/peds.2025-075320
- Mallawaarachchi, S. R., et al. (2024). “Early Childhood Screen Use Contexts and Cognitive and Psychosocial Outcomes: A Systematic Review and Meta-analysis.” JAMA Pediatrics, 178(10), 1017–1026. https://doi.org/10.1001/jamapediatrics.2024.2620
- Jing, M., Ye, T., & Kirkorian, H. L. (2023). “Screen Media Exposure and Young Children’s Vocabulary Learning and Development: A Meta-analysis.” Child Development, 94(5), 1398–1418. https://doi.org/10.1111/cdev.13927
Sokvis 