1

Early Learning and 

Educational Technology 

Policy Brief

OCTOBER 2016

U.S. Department 

of Education

U.S. Department 

of Health and Human Services 
2

U.S. Department of Education 

John King 

Secretary

Office of Early Learning

Libby Doggett

Deputy Assistant Secretary for Policy and Early 

Learning

Office of Educational Technology 

Joseph South 

Director 

October 2016

Examples are Not Endorsements 

This document contains references to materials that are provided for the user’s convenience. 

The inclusion of these references is not intended to reflect their importance, nor is it intended 

to endorse any views expressed, or products or services offered. These reference materials may 

contain the views and recommendations of various subject matter experts as well as hypertext 

links, contact addresses, and websites to information created and maintained by other public 

and private organizations. The opinions expressed in any of these materials do not necessarily

reflect the positions or policies of the U.S. Department of Education (Department). The 

Department does not control or guarantee the accuracy, relevance, timeliness, or completeness 

of any outside information included in these materials. These references should not be construed as an endorsement by the Department or the U.S. Government.

Licensing and Availability

This report is in the public domain. Authorization to reproduce this report in whole or in part 

is granted. While permission to reprint this publication is not necessary, the suggested citation is: U.S. Department of Education, Office of Educational Technology, Policy Brief on Early 

Learning and Use of Technology, Washington, D.C., 2016. 

This policy brief is available on the Department’s website at http://tech.ed.gov/earlylearning.

Requests for alternate format documents such as Braille or large print should be submitted to 

the Alternate Format Center by calling 202-260-0852 or by contacting the 504 coordinator via 

email at om_eeos@ed.gov.

U.S. Department of Health and Human Services 

Sylvia Mathews Burwell

Secretary 

Linda K. Smith

Deputy Assistant Secretary for Early Childhood 

Development

Shannon L.Rudisill 

Associate Deputy Assistant Secretary for Early Childhood 

Development
3

Acknowledgements

This brief was written under the guidance of a team from both the U.S. Department of 

Education and the U.S. Department of Health and Human Services. From the U.S. Department 

of Education, Joseph South and Katrina Stevens (Office of Educational Technology), Libby 

Doggett and Steven Hicks (Office of Early Learning), and Russell Shilling and Melissa Moritz

(Office of Innovation and Improvement-STEM) provided leadership. From the U.S. Department 

of Health and Human Services, Linda K. Smith, Shannon Rudisill, and Amanda Bryans from 

the Office Early Childhood Development provided leadership. 

Joan Lee (Office of Educational Technology) was the author of the brief and led the development 

and drafting process. Technical assistance was provided by the following people at ED and HHS: 

Kimberly Burgess, James Collins, Fatima Jibril, James Harnett, Charles Homer, Isaiah Kamrar, 

Ngozi Lawal, Kathy Lin, Meredith Reynolds, Douglas Steiger, and Jeffrey Polich.

Experts in early learning and technology use provided valuable support. The Departments are 

grateful to the advice from: Jeanette Betancourt (Sesame Workshop), Preeti Birla (Innovate 

NYC), Joseph Blatt (Harvard University), Chip Donohue (Erikson Institute), Danielle Ewen

(Education Counsel), Ed Green (The Early Learning Collaborative, HITN), Lisa Guernsey (New 

America), Michael Levine (Joan Ganz Cooney Center), Rosemarie Truglio (Sesame Workshop), 

and Melina Uncapher (University of California, San Francisco). 

The Departments also received support from the American Academy of Pediatrics and are 

grateful to Dr. Ari Brown, Dr. Dimitri Christakis, Dr. Corinn Cross, Dr. David Hill, Susan 

Martin, Thomas McPheron, Dr. Jenny Radesky, and Dr. Yolanda Reid-Chassiakos for the 

feedback on initial drafts and input. 

Susan Thomas served as the principal editor for this brief. Graphics were developed by 

O2 Lab in Washington, D.C. 
4

Vision

The vision of the U.S. Department of Education (ED) and the U.S. Department 

of Health and Human Services (HHS) (hereafter known as The Departments) is 

that 1) all young children will have adults in their lives who are well-informed

on how to use technology to support learning at various ages; and 2) all young 

children will have opportunities to learn, explore, play, and communicate through

a multitude of approaches, including the use of technology. 

This vision is already a reality for some early learners and the adults in their 

lives. The examples below represent promising ways to help early learners use 

technology with peers and adults to foster relationships, expand learning, and 

solve meaningful problems. 

 Supporting interpersonal relationships: A military family used video 

chatting software to enable their two daughters aged 2 and 4 to keep in 

touch almost daily with their father, an Army major, during his deployment 

in Iraq. The family reported that the connection made his deployment “more 

bearable” for him and “eased his return home” for the girls because it 

allowed him to be part of their daily lives.1

 Fostering the development of school readiness skills: Preschoolers at 

Austin STEM Academy noticed that the guinea pigs in their class observatory 

looked cramped inside their cage, so they suggested building a new home.

With the help of instructors, the children consulted an application (app) 

that described guinea pig habitat needs and then collaboratively designed 

a blueprint for their new guinea pig home. The project helped students 

develop strong early critical thinking and problem solving skills while executing their plan.2

 Language development and communication: A teacher vetted and 

selected a multimedia storytelling app so that a 4-year-old boy in Athens, 

Georgia who only spoke Chinese was able to create a digital story with a 

tablet to share details about his home life. The project, complete with photos 

from home and narration in both English and Chinese, allowed the other 

students to hear his story in his own words. The digital family story helped 

him become more integrated into the classroom community and improved 

his English language skills.3

 Exploration and learning: A kindergarten classroom in a Southeastern 

U.S. city used digital cameras, digital microscopes, and drawing software 

to learn about fossils, bones, and dinosaurs through an archaeological 

“dig” in their classroom. Sifting through a sand table, the students used 

the cameras and microscopes to record their experience of discovering 

plastic bones and dinosaurs. The children then had the choice of creating a 

multimedia book using drawing software or a handwritten report on their 

discoveries and what they learned.4

TECHNOLOGY 

AND ASSISTIVE 

TECHNOLOGY DEVICES

In this document, technology

refers broadly to both hardware 

that enables connectivity and 

devices (including television 

and handheld devices such 

as smartphones and tablets), 

content (including digital media 

such as apps, games, software 

and television programming), and 

assistive technology devices. 

The term assistive technology 

device stems from the Assistive 

Technology Act of 1998 and is 

specifically defined in Section 

602(1) of the Individuals with 

Disabilities Education Act (IDEA) 

as “any item, piece of equipment, 

or product system, whether 

acquired commercially off the 

shelf, modified, or customized, 

that is used to increase, maintain, 

or improve the functional capabilities of a child with a disability. 

The term does not include a 

medical device that is surgically 

implanted or the replacement of 

such device.” 
5

The rapid pace of innovation in technology provides a seemingly endless stream of new learning 

options for families and early educators. However, not all technology is designed in a way that 

is appropriate for early learners or leads to meaningful learning, so adults need to be thoughtful 

about children’s technology use. Additionally, there is a growing technology opportunity gap. 

The goal of the Departments is that all children in every community and at every socioeconomic level have equitable access to appropriate technology in early learning settings and that 

technology is used responsibly with young children.

Purpose

The purpose of this policy brief is to:

 Provide guiding principles for early educators (including those in home settings), early learning programs, schools, and families on the use of technology by young children to support 

them in making informed choices for all children.

 Inform the public, families, and early educators on the evidence base used to support these 

guiding principles.

 Issue a call to action to researchers, technology developers, and state and local leaders to 

ensure technology is advanced in ways that promote young children’s healthy development 

and learning. 

While this brief addresses early learners from birth to 8 years of age, the Departments 

acknowledge that this is a large age span in the development of a child and what is appropriate 

for an 8-year-old is likely not appropriate for a toddler or infant. This brief focuses mainly 

on age-appropriate guidance for children ages 2-8. A special call out box titled, “What Is 

Developmentally Appropriate Technology Use for Children age 0-2?,” on page 11 discusses technology use with children under the age of 2. 

The Departments’ guiding principles presented in this brief for using technology with young children can help families make informed decisions about their child’s interaction with technology, 

including watching television, playing digital games, using video chats or apps to communicate, 

or using digital tools to create content. They can guide early educators on how to introduce and 

use technology in the classroom, community, or home as a tool to support learning. They can 

also help early educators and policymakers at state and local levels better understand the importance of connectivity and providing appropriate technology for early learners, the importance of 

training and supporting early educators to best use technology in early learning settings, and the 

legal requirements for children with disabilities as defined by IDEA and individuals with disabilities as defined by Section 504 of the Rehabilitation Act of 1973 and Title II of the Americans 

with Disabilities Act. 
6

IDEA, SECTION 504, AND TITLE II

Eligible children with disabilities may receive assistive technology provided as early 

intervention services under the requirements in Part C of the Individuals with Disabilities 

Education Act (IDEA); as special education and related services under the requirements

in Part B of IDEA; or as special education or related aids and services under the requirements in Section 504 of the Rehabilitation Act of 1973 (Section 504) for school-age children. 

Section 504 also applies to school-age children who are not IDEA-eligible. Determinations 

as to whether students with disabilities should receive assistive technology and the 

specific device or devices to be provided are made on an individual basis by the child’s 

Individualized Education Program (IEP) team, Individualized Family Service Plan (IFSP) 

team, or Section 504 team, if appropriate.

This brief is not intended to limit the authority of the appropriate team to make individual 

determinations regarding the assistive technology to be provided to a particular child. In 

addition, all persons with disabilities, including parents and students, are protected from 

discrimination on the basis of disability under Section 504 and Title II of the Americans with 

Disabilities Act. Under these laws, if a covered entity provides technology, the entity must 

ensure that any technology that is provided is accessible to persons with disabilities. 

For more information on the laws that apply to students with disabilities, see the 

following resources:

• IDEA: http://idea.ed.gov

• Section 504: http://www.ed.gov/ocr/504faq.html

• Title II of the ADA: https://www.ada.gov/t2hlt95.htm 

• ED policy documents on accessible technology for students with disabilities:

• Joint “Dear Colleague” Letter: Electronic Book Readers www.ed.gov/ocr/

letters/colleague-20100629.html

• Frequently Asked Questions About the June 29, 2010 Dear Colleague Letter:

http://www.ed.gov/ocr/docs/dcl-ebook-faq-201105.html

The importance of unstructured and unplugged play 

Families and early educators should be aware that technology use should never displace the role 

of unstructured, unplugged, interactive, and creative play that research shows is the best way 

children learn. In fact, unstructured playtime is more important for brain development in young 

children than any type of media use.5 Children should have exposure to many different types of 

play, including those where teachers are guiding play, play with peers, and independent play. In 

early learning settings, play can be intentional, with the teacher thoughtfully creating learning 

environments, or unstructured such as during recess. During unstructured playtime, children 

process what they are learning on a daily basis and develop social skills with peers and adults. 

Technology and media should not take the place of interactions in the real world, including 

playtime with adults and peers, physical and outdoor activities, and the social interactions 

and experiences that are essential for a child’s development.6 For these reasons, frequency 

and duration of technology use are important considerations for families and early educators. 

Families should be aware that, as with many other childhood activities and influences, technology use can have both positive and negative effects depending on use.7

 Adults should expect to 

set limits, encourage a diversity of experiences both digital and unplugged, and keep in mind 

that research shows that for young children in-person interactions should be fostered.8
7

Guiding Principles 

for Use of Technology 

with Early Learners

The Departments recognize that families and early educators have many different options for 

using technology with early learners. The Departments believe that guidance needs to reflect 

the reality that families and early educators have access to apps, digital books, games, video 

chatting software, and a multitude of other interactive technologies that can be used with 

young children. Even as new technologies emerge, the Departments believe that these principles 

apply, though guidance may evolve as more research on this topic is published. 

The Departments’ four guiding principles for use of technology with early learners are as follows:

 Guiding Principle #1: Technology—when used appropriately—can be a tool for learning. 

 Guiding Principle #2: Technology should be used to increase access to learning opportunities 

for all children. 

 Guiding Principle #3: Technology may be used to strengthen relationships among parents, 

families, early educators, and young children.

 Guiding Principle #4: Technology is more effective for learning when adults and peers 

interact or co-view with young children.

Two documents in particular influenced the development of the Departments’ guiding principles: Uses of Technology to Support Early Childhood Practice and the 2016 National Education 

Technology Plan (NETP).

HHS published Uses of Technology to Support Early Childhood Practice9 in March 2015 to examine 

how technology can be used to support and improve the quality of practice of early childhood 

practitioners, particularly in their own professional development. The report presented an 

overview of research related to the use of technology by conducting a literature review and 

consulting with experts on the topic in four key focus areas: 1) instruction and assessment; 

2) parent, family, and community engagement; 3) professional development and informal 

learning; and 4) facilitators and barriers.

At ED, the Office of Educational Technology released the 2016 NETP, the federal government’s 

flagship educational technology policy document. Titled Future Ready Learning: Reimagining 

the Role of Technology in Education, the plan articulates a vision of equity, active use, and 

collaborative leadership to make everywhere, all-the-time learning possible for all learners. 

While acknowledging the continuing need to provide equitable access to technology itself, the 

plan goes further to call upon all involved in American education to ensure equity of access 

to transformational learning experiences enabled by technology, including for early learners.10

The Departments’ four principles state the position of the Departments on this topic and are 

expanded below.
8

Guiding Principle #1:

Technology—when used appropriately—can be a tool for learning. 

Developmentally appropriate use of technology can help young children grow and learn, especially when families and early educators play an active role. Early learners can use technology to 

explore new worlds, make believe, and actively engage in fun and challenging activities. They can 

learn about technology and technology tools and use them to play, solve problems, and role play.

HOW DO YOU DETERMINE WHAT IS DEVELOPMENTALLY APPROPRIATE 

FOR A CHILD WHEN IT COMES TO TECHNOLOGY?

In Technology and Interactive Media as Tools in Early Childhood Programs Serving Children from 

Birth through Age 8, the National Association for the Education of Young Children (NAEYC) and 

the Fred Rogers Center state that “appropriate experiences with technology and media allow 

children to control the medium and the outcome of the experience, to explore the functionality 

of these tools, and pretend how they might be used in real life.11”

Lisa Guernsey, author of Screen Time: How Electronic Media—From Baby Videos to 

Educational Software—Affects Your Young Child, also provides guidance for families and 

early educators. For example, instead of applying arbitrary, “one-size-fits-all” time limits, 

families and early educators should determine when and how to use various technologies based on the Three C’s: the content, the context, and the needs of the individual 

child.12 They should ask themselves following questions:

• Content—How does this help children learn, engage, express, imagine, or explore?

• Context—What kinds of social interactions (such as conversations with parents or 

peers) are happening before, during, and after the use of the technology? Does it complement, and not interrupt, children’s learning experiences and natural play patterns?

• The individual child—What does this child need right now to enhance his or her 

growth and development? Is this technology an appropriate match with this child’s 

needs, abilities, interests, and development stage?

Appropriate use in formal early learning settings 

Early educators should keep in mind the developmental levels of children when using technology 

for early learning. That is, they first should consider what is best for healthy child development 

and then consider how technology can help early learners achieve learning outcomes. Technology 

should never be used for technology’s sake. Instead, it should only be used for learning and meeting developmental objectives, which can include being used as a tool during play.

When technology is used in early learning settings, it should be integrated into the learning 

program and used in rotation with other learning tools such as art materials, writing materials, 

play materials, and books, and should give early learners an opportunity for self-expression 

without replacing other classroom learning materials.13 There are additional considerations for 

educators when technology is used, such as whether a particular device will displace interactions with teachers or peers or whether a device has features that would distract from learning. 

Further, early educators should consider the overall use of technology throughout a child’s day 

and week, and adhere to recommended guidelines from the Let’s Move initiative, in partnership 
9

with families. Additionally, if a child is eligible for services under IDEA and/or 

Section 504 and Title II, the student may require specific technology to ensure 

that the student can access the instructional material. 

WHAT ARE SOME DIFFERENCES BETWEEN USING 

AN E-BOOK AND A PHYSICAL BOOK WITH EARLY LEARNERS? 

E-books have the potential to provide learning experiences for children 

and they also have capabilities that are impossible to deliver in print 

format. For example:

• A device can hold a complete library of stories and information for 

children to explore.

• Words and sentences can be highlighted during oral narration. 

• Children can elect to have a pre-recorded narrator read the entire 

text out loud to them.

• Children can experience embedded interactive features within the text.

On the other hand, research has shown that some interactive features 

may actually impede a young child’s comprehension.14, 15 An example is a 

feature that allows children to jump around to different points in the story, 

which can make it difficult for developing readers to follow a sequence of 

events.

The optimal way for children to experience a physical book or an 

e-book is with an adult who is actively involved,16, 17 asking questions that 

allow children to expand on what they’ve read to make connections and 

providing opportunities to check for comprehension. However, the design 

of some e-books may dampen parents’ desires to play that interactive 

role. Two research studies have shown that when parents read e-books 

that have features that asked questions, parents were less likely to play 

that role with their children while reading together.18, 19 On the positive side, 

another research study showed that children who read an e-book with 

a parent remembered content better than children who read an e-book 

alone, regardless of what the parent was saying during the reading.20

When making decisions about incorporating e-books, parents should 

consider what features are available and when and how they will be used. 

Bedtime use of e-books may also require additional considerations. For 

example, currently there is limited research on the impact on sleep when 

using e-books for bedtime reading, but some research suggests that the 

backlighting of electronic devices can curtail the amount of time children 

spend sleeping if a device is used right before bedtime.21

Just as with other educational tools, school-aged children should be taught how to 

correctly handle and care for devices. These skills and the use of technology should 

generally not be taught as a separate rotation or class, but rather integrated into the 

learning objective of the lesson.22 In some cases, however, individualized instruction 

may be desirable to meet the specific needs of a child. As children grow older, they 

should continue to build on this basic skill set with lessons in digital citizenship. 

WHAT IS DIGITAL 

CITIZENSHIP? 

In the Ed Tech Developer’s 

Guide, released by the Office 

of Educational Technology in 

April 2015, digital citizenship is 

defined as “a set of norms and 

practices regarding appropriate 

and responsible technology use...

and requires a whole-community 

approach to thinking critically, 

behaving safely, and participating responsibly online.”23

As early learners reach an appropriate age to use technology 

more independently, they must 

be taught about cyber safety, 

including the need to protect and 

not share personal information 

on the internet, the goals and 

influence of advertisements, 

and the need for caution when 

clicking on links. These skills are 

particularly important for older 

children who may be using a 

parent’s device unsupervised. 

Early childhood educators and 

administrators should ensure that 

the proper filters and firewalls 

are in place so children cannot 

access materials that are not 

approved for a school setting.
10

Distinctions between active and passive use 

To understand how to use technology appropriately with young children, families 

and early educators should understand the differences between passive and active 

use of technology. Passive use of technology generally occurs when children are 

consuming content, such as watching a program on television, a computer, or a 

handheld device without accompanying reflection, imagination, or participation. 

Active use occurs when children use technologies such as computers, devices, 

and apps to engage in meaningful learning or storytelling experiences. Examples 

include sharing their experiences by documenting them with photos and stories, 

recording their own music, using video chatting software to communicate with 

loved ones, or using an app to guide playing a physical game. These types of uses 

are capable of deeply engaging the child, especially when an adult supports them. 

Deep engagement is less likely to occur when a device is used passively. In 

many circumstances, minimal learning occurs when children use devices merely 

to consume videos on their own. However, screen time should not be the only 

factor when considering the value of a child’s interaction with technology since 

high-quality, research-based video content can lead to deep cognitive processing 

in the minds of young children.24 As most content does not meet this standard, 

adults need to recognize that what matters most is whether the child’s mind is 

active and deeply engaged with the content. One way an adult can tell if a child 

is actively engaging with content is for an adult to watch with them (known as 

co-viewing) and to guide them to a deeper engagement. Co-viewing and the 

importance of adult interaction is further discussed in guiding principle #4. 

Similarly, adults need to be cautious about assuming that a child using a device 

in a physically engaging way reflects active learning. While actions such as 

swiping or pressing on devices may seem to be interactive, if the child does not 

intentionally learn from the experience, it is not considered to be active use. 

To be considered active use, the content should enable deep, cognitive processing, 

and allow intentional, purposeful learning at the child’s developmental level.

The Departments further encourage families and early educators to think of 

ways they can reduce the sedentary nature of most technology use. Technology 

can encourage and complement physical activity, such as a parent and child 

using a yoga app together, exploring different varieties of flowers in a neighborhood park while referencing an app to learn about them, or playing console 

games that encourage adults and children to exercise or dance together.

Additional guidance for families and early educators 

Adults should strive to provide balance and moderation when using technology 

with children. They should set limits that are developmentally appropriate and 

meet the needs of their children and family. When introducing technology to 

children, adults should model behaviors such as using technology to promote 

positive interaction instead of allowing it to interfere with interactions, designating and enforcing face-to-face time that is free of interruptions, and using 

technology together before allowing children to use it independently.

RESEARCH ON 

TELEVISION USE 

Research on television has 

shown that the impact of children 

passively consuming content 

is associated with adverse 

effects on their health in terms 

of weight,25,26,27 sleep habits,28, 29

and language development.30,31,32

One study also showed that 

fast-paced, cartoon television 

shows can have an immediate 

negative impact on executive 

function skills for four-year-olds.33

Executive function refers to a 

set of cognitive and regulation 

skills involved in goal-directed 

problem solving, including 

working memory, inhibitory 

control, and flexible shifting of 

attention. These studies have led 

to previous recommendations 

from the AAP limiting the amount 

of time children have spent with 

screens. 
11

WHAT IS DEVELOPMENTALLY APPROPRIATE TECHNOLOGY USE 

FOR CHILDREN AGED 0–2?

Research shows that unstructured playtime is particularly important for infants and toddlers because they learn more quickly through interactions with the real world than they 

do through media use and, at such a young age, they have limited periods of awake time.34

At this age, children require “hands-on exploration and social interaction with trusted 

caregivers to develop their cognitive, language, motor, and social-emotional skills.”35

Research also shows that children aged 0-2 should not watch media or use technology alone. Children age 12-24 months can learn from videos if parents co-view 

material with them and use the video as a learning tool to build language skills.36 Some 

studies have shown that children in this age range can learn from videos, but do not 

retain information as long as comparison groups who learned the same material using 

books with their parents did.37 When video chatting, children under 16 months show no 

learning gains,38 though there may be a benefit in promoting bonding when physical 

distance limits frequent in-person interactions. 

Based on this research, the Departments recommend the following: 

For children under the age of 2, technology use in early learning settings is discouraged. With families, technology can be used in active ways that promote relationship 

development, such as using video chatting software to talk to relatives, friends, and 

families whom they are not able to see on a regular basis. Parents who are interested 

in using media with their children can start around 18 months with high-quality content, 

but should always co-view content and use technology with their children. As determined appropriate by the IFSP team under Part C of the IDEA, children with disabilities 

in this age range may also use technology, for example, an assistive technology device 

to help them communicate with others, access and participate in different learning 

opportunities, or help them get their needs met.

For children ages 2-5, families and early educators need to take into account that technology 

may be used at home and in early learning settings. New recommendations in the AAP’s 2016 

Media and Young Minds Brief suggest that one hour of technology use is appropriate per day, 

inclusive of time spent at home and in early learning settings and across devices.39 HHS supports 

more limited technology use in early care settings, and more information on their recommendations can be found in Caring for Our Children: National Health and Safety Performance Standards.

40 

However, time is only one metric that should be considered with technology use for children in 

this age range. Families and early educators should also consider the quality of the content, the 

context of use, and opportunities the technology provides to strengthen or develop relationships. 

At home, parents can use technology to supplement real-world interactions, for instance, by 

using an app at the zoo or recapping what they experienced while there. 

For children ages 6-8 in school settings, technology should be used as a tool for children to explore 

and become active creators of content. If children have more than one teacher, those teachers 

should be aware of how much screen time is being used across subject areas and at home. Students 

should learn to use technology as an integrated part of a diverse curriculum. At home, parents 

should set limits they feel are appropriate for their children, understanding the differences between 

passive and active technology use as well as the benefits of using technology with an adult versus 

solo use. Parents should also be aware of how much technology is being used in the classroom, 

what is needed for homework, and how this fits into an overall picture of technology use for 

their child throughout the day. The AAP has created an interactive Family Media Plan Tool on 

HealthyChildren.org to help parents be thoughtful about media exposure for their children.
12

Guiding Principle #2:

Technology should be used to increase access 

to learning opportunities for all children. 

When appropriately used by early learners with guidance and modeling by adults, 

technology can complement or extend learning in ways not easily achieved otherwise. For example, technology can introduce children more directly to cultures 

and places outside their community. Although children may have access to print 

resources from libraries, technology can increase the amount of reference information immediately available to them on a given topic and give them the ability 

to ask questions of people outside of their classroom. Additionally, within a child’s 

own community, technology should be culturally responsive.

Children themselves may be encouraged to take part in creating this content. 

Technology can help children author their own materials and stories and share 

their real-life experiences with others, increasing the amount of diverse, culturally relevant, and community-based content in the classroom.

HOW DOES TECHNOLOGY SUPPORT STEM AND EARLY LEARNING? 

Technology can be a powerful tool to support learning in science, technology, engineering and mathematics (STEM). There are many resources 

that use technology to make STEM come to life for young children, allowing access to experiences they wouldn’t otherwise have. For example, 

children can use the panda cams at the Smithsonian National Zoological 

Park to observe animals that aren’t found in their everyday lives, take 

virtual tours of science museums, and observe cause and effect through 

simulations and games, without risk of harm.

When combined with social interactions and guidance from parents 

and early educators, the combination of video and games (transmedia) 

can be powerful tools at home and in the classroom to promote STEM 

learning. For example, the Corporation for Public Broadcasting-PBS, a 

2010 grantee of ED’s Ready to Learn Television program demonstrated 

significant improvement in 4-year olds’ math skills when using the PBS 

KIDS Transmedia Math Supplement to bolster mathematics instruction.42

The 2015 Ready to Learn Television program grant application included 

a competitive priority to support scientific literacy, which has additional 

potential to support young children in STEM. 

The “T” in STEM is often confused with technological devices such as tablets, laptops, and other physical devices or with the broad term “educational 

technology.” Educational technology is content agnostic and describes using 

technology as a tool to promote learning across disciplines or content areas. 

The “T” in STEM, however, is intended to introduce children to the underlying 

concepts of building or creating technology, including computational 

thinking, which is the basic logic underlying computer science and is 

beginning to be incorporated into early childhood settings. 

WHAT DOES IT MEAN 

TO BE CULTURALLY 

RESPONSIVE? 

Culturally responsive materials 

are designed to create learning 

environments that are conducive 

to learning for all students, no 

matter their ethnic, cultural, 

or linguistic background. In a 

chapter titled “Technology Tools 

for Family Engagement: The 

Role of Diversity,” in the book 

Family Engagement in the Digital 

Age: Early Childhood Educators 

as Media Mentors edited by Chip 

Donahue, Kevin Clark suggests 

that early educators ask themselves the following questions 

when selecting media: 

• Do children see different types 

of people, characteristics, and 

attributes?

• Do children hear a variety of 

sounds, voices, and music?

• Are a variety of situations 

being depicted (e.g. family 

structure, lifestyles, power/

working relationships?)41

It is important that these questions are considered across 

content, including in apps and 

other media. 
13

Digital use divide

The 2016 NETP presents research that points to a widening digital use divide, 

which occurs when some children have the opportunity to use technology 

actively while others are asked primarily to use it passively. The research showed 

that children at lower income levels are more likely to complete passive tasks in 

learning settings while their more affluent peers are more likely to use technology 

to complete active tasks.43, 44

For low-income children who may not have access to devices or the internet at 

home, early childhood settings provide opportunities to learn how to use these 

tools more actively. For example, research shows that preschool-aged children 

from low-income families in an urban Head Start center who received daily access 

to computers and were supported by an adult mentor displayed more positive attitudes toward learning, improved self-esteem and self-confidence, and increased 

kindergarten readiness skills than children who had computer access, but did not 

have support from a mentor.45 Access to technology for children is necessary in 

the 21st century but not sufficient. To have beneficial effects, it must be accompanied by strong adult supports.

Children with disabilities

The 2016 NETP discusses equity in the context of connectivity, access, and active 

experiences, including the accessibility of technology by children with disabilities. 

These include apps, devices, materials, and environments that support and enable 

access to content and educational activities for all learners.46 The Departments 

support the creation of “born accessible” materials (a play on “born digital,” 

which refers to materials created specifically for digital platforms) that use the 

principles of Universal Design for Learning and follow industry accessibility standards from the very beginning of the development process.47 Accessibility is not 

limited to those with sensory or physical disabilities; it also includes individuals 

with intellectual or other developmental disabilities. 

When used appropriately, technology has the potential to help learners of all ages 

and abilities fully engage in learning by providing greater access to curriculum 

and improving learning outcomes.48 For instance technology may provide children 

who struggle to communicate with an efficient means of communicating. One 

example is an app that enables children to point to a picture or a series of pictures 

and then says the words that correspond to the selected item.

For IDEA-eligible children receiving early intervention services or special education and related services, decisions about assistive technology use would be 

made by the child’s IEP or IFSP) team under IDEA, as appropriate. For children 

with disabilities who are not eligible for services under the IDEA, children could 

receive appropriate technology in a preschool program operated by a recipient 

of Federal financial assistance or in a public preschool program, regardless of 

receipt of Federal funds. For students enrolled in public elementary schools 

who are not IDEA-eligible who are entitled to special education or related aids 

and services under Section 504, these determinations generally would be made 

by the group that makes the placement and services decisions for that student 

under Section 504.

UNIVERSAL DESIGN 

FOR LEARNING 

In the Elementary and Secondary 

Education Act of 1965 (ESEA), 

reauthorized by the Every 

Student Succeeds Act (ESSA), 

Universal Design for Learning 

(UDL) is defined as “the meaning 

given the term in Section 103 

of the Higher Education Act of 

1965 (20 U.S.C. § 1003).” In that 

section of the Higher Education 

Act of 1965, UDL is defined as 

“a scientifically valid framework 

for guiding educational practice 

that—(a) provides flexibility in the 

ways information is presented, 

in the ways students respond 

or demonstrate knowledge and 

skills, and in the ways students 

are engaged; and (b) reduces 

barriers in instruction, provides 

appropriate accommodations, 

supports, and challenges, and 

maintains high achievement 

expectations for all students, 

including students with disabilities and students who are limited 

English proficient.”

The Center for Applied Special 

Technology (CAST) developed 

the UDL framework for making a 

curriculum inclusive of “flexible 

approaches that can be customized and adjusted for individual 

needs.” The CAST guidelines 

encourage instructional practices 

and educational content that 

embrace the widest possible 

diversity of learners. The UDL 

approach encourages the development of tools that consider 

this diverse range of users in the 

original design rather than add-on 

features. To see the guidelines, 

refer to the CAST website.
14

Recommendations regarding active and passive use for entertainment and learning purposes apply 

to all children, including those with disabilities. For assistive technology that is necessary for the 

child to communicate with others or allows them to participate in developmentally appropriate 

activities, age or time limits should be determined together with the child’s IEP or IFSP team.

Dual language learners

For dual language learners, digital resources can support language skills development in the 

home language and English. For example, students and families can use digital tools to create 

and share stories in their home language that are culturally relevant for classroom use. Educators 

can use digital tools to adapt materials with translations in both languages to improve comprehension and communication. In addition, oral language development focused on listening and 

speaking skills can be enhanced in two or more languages using speech-recording and playback 

features. When used appropriately and sensitively, technology can help meet the needs of dual 

language learners as individuals and enhance their learning opportunities.49

Guiding Principle #3:

Technology may be used to strengthen relationships among parents, families, 

early educators, and young children.

CONNECTIONS BETWEEN HOME AND SCHOOL

In early childhood settings, technology can be used to strengthen relationships between early 

educators and family members. For example, digital portfolios documenting student work 

through photos, audio, and video recordings enable teachers to share what children are learning 

in class with families more often and more informally than is possible in traditional school-based 

conferences. This allows parents to track their child’s progress, provides more opportunities for 

them to validate their child’s efforts and accomplishments, and opens up opportunities for the 

parents to engage their child about their learning to reinforce or supplement it. In addition to 

using e-mail, text messages, and social media to make communication between early educators 

and families easier, technology can also be used to provide information and coaching to parents 

to reinforce at home what is learned at school. In fact, according to the HHS report, Uses of 

Technology to Support Early Childhood Practice, 40% of parent, family, and community engagement (PFCE) products used video technology to model ideal parent behaviors or coach a parent’s 

behavior. An additional 40% of PFCE products were used to present parents with educational 

materials.50 Technology has tremendous potential to strengthen communication and connection 

between families and early educators to the benefit of children.

STRENGTHENING RELATIONSHIPS

Technology can also be used to enhance relationships between children and adults and between 

children when distance or other barriers such as health prevent in-person interaction. While 

video chatting can be done at any age (as interactions tend to be brief and guided by an adult), 

“new evidence shows that infants and toddlers can attend to and engage in joint attention during 

video-chat interactions but do so more effectively after approximately 16 months of age and with 

parental support.”51 Video chatting is not limited to interactions between parents and children or 

grandparents and children, but is also applicable when children communicate with peers. 
15

While technology has the power to bridge the physical divide between children and loved 

ones in the ways described, technology should not be used to replace meaningful face-to-face 

interactions. Precautions should be taken to ensure that technology use does not impede the 

development of healthy, authentic interactions with adults and peers. 

Guiding Principle #4:

Technology is more effective for learning when adults and peers interact or co-view 

with young children.

Most research on children’s media usage shows that children learn more from content when 

parents or early educators watch and interact with children, encouraging them to make realworld connections to what they are viewing both while they are viewing and afterward.52

THE READY TO LEARN TELEVISION PROGRAM

The Ready to Learn Program: 2010-2015 Policy Brief, published in March 2016, summarized 

ED’s Ready to Learn Television program research on the effectiveness of three educational 

television production organizations.53 The brief reported on 15 effectiveness/summative 

research studies with children aged 3-8 using media in informal learning settings (such as 

after school or child care programs); 7 of the studies focused on learning at home. From 

the 7 studies that focused on learning at home, positive associations were found between 

at-home engagement and children’s math learning with children whose parents received 

interventions such as content guides and suggestions for supplemental activities. The 

studies also found that parents’ awareness of children’s math learning increased their 

likeliness to engage in activities and strategies to help their children learn math.54

While technology such as tablets and smartphones are designed to be handheld and lend 

themselves to individualized instead of shared experiences, children may benefit greatly when 

parents are actively involved while children use such devices. One research study of maternal 

No interaction Best interaction

TECHNOLOGY CAN FACILITATE SOCIAL INTERACTION

Better interaction

TECHNOLOGY CAN FACILITATE SOCIAL INTERACTION

No interaction Better interaction Best interaction
16

interaction with 15-month olds found that the infants are 22 times more likely to transfer 

learning from a touchscreen to a real object, but only if the interaction with the mother was 

highly scaffolded with high levels of maternal input and emotional responsiveness.55

There are many ways that adult involvement can make learning more effective for young children using technology. Adult guidance that can increase active use of more passive technology 

includes, but are not limited to, the following:

 Prior to the child viewing content, an adult can talk to child about the content and suggest 

certain elements to watch for or pay particular attention to;

 An adult can view the content with the child and interact with the child in the moment; 

 After a child views the content, an adult can engage the child in an activity that extends 

learning such as singing a song they learned while viewing the content or connecting the 

content to the world.

HOW CAN WE PROTECT PRIVACY AND SECURITY FOR YOUNG CHILDREN? 

The Children’s Online Privacy Protection Act (COPPA) (15 U.S.C. § 6501–6505) governs online collection of personal information by online services such as apps and 

websites from children under aged 13. For example, before a developer can collect 

personally identifiable information from a child under 13 verifiable parental consent 

is required. Any information collected from a child, including photos of the child or 

a voice recording, must be protected by reasonable security measures. The Federal 

Trade Commission, which enforces COPPA, has said that school officials can act in 

the capacity of a parent to provide consent to sign students up for online educational 

programs at school. 

If technology is being used in a school setting, the Family Educational Rights and 

Privacy Act (FERPA) might also protect the child’s privacy online. More information 

on FERPA is available through the U.S. Department of Education’s Privacy Technical 

Assistance Center: http://ptac.ed.gov/. 

Regardless of whether either of these two statutes applies, families and educators 

should evaluate an app’s privacy policies prior to using the app. Assistance on what to 

review for can be found in the PTAC Model Terms of Service

TECHNOLOGY IS MORE EFFECTIVE WHEN USED TOGETHER

Engage Communicate Learn Create

Engage Communicate Learn Create

TECHNOLOGY IS MORE EFFECTIVE WHEN USED TOGETHER
17

Advertising and in-app purchases

Beyond ensuring privacy and security, before downloading an app, families, educators, and 

others who work with young children also need to evaluate whether the app offers in-app 

purchasing or advertising. Many apps, particularly those that are free, offer advertising or 

in-app purchases, both of which are generally inappropriate for young children. Many methods 

of online advertising have the ability to track a user’s behavior across multiple sites and services, putting a child’s privacy and security at risk. Additionally, parents should also evaluate 

whether the app includes advertising, particularly age-inappropriate advertising. While adults 

can sometimes protect from in-app purchases by using appropriate passwords or disabling 

in-app purchases at the device level, a best practice is to choose software for very young children that avoids in-app purchases and advertising altogether. 

Parents and early learning educators should stay up-to-date and informed

Parents and early learning educators who follow the Departments’ principles can help ensure 

that technology is being used intentionally and appropriately to expand a young child’s learning and enable experiences and opportunities that previously were not available. However, not 

all technology is appropriate for young children and not every technology-based experience 

is good for young children’s development. To ensure that technology has a positive impact, 

adults who use technology with children should continually update their knowledge and equip 

themselves to make sophisticated decisions on how to best leverage these technology tools 

to enhance learning and interpersonal relationships for young children. Some sources for 

information on how to do this include: Common Sense Media, Fred Rogers Center, Joan Ganz 

Cooney Center, National Association for the Education of Young Children, and Zero to Three. 
18

Call to Action

This brief provides guiding principles and suggestions for families and early learning practitioners on how to use technology with young children. While the brief draws upon the most 

recent research available, there is still much to be learned when it comes to the impact of early 

learners’ use of technology. The Departments encourage researchers, developers, and administrators to continue to pursue important research questions in this area and to develop policies 

and products that ensure the best uses of technology in early learning that services the needs 

of families and early educators. To this end, we offer the following recommendations: 

Researchers

The Departments encourage researchers to conduct rigorous studies on the following topics 

so that additional research-based guidance can be provided to families and early learning 

educators. 

 Longitudinal studies are needed to better understand how young children use and learn 

with technology and interactive media and its short-and long-term effects. This includes 

research to understand developmental shifts in children’s use of technology at different 

ages and that maps the trajectory of children’s learning and technology use over time, as 

well as the interaction between technology use and health related behaviors, including 

diet and physical activity. 

 Research is required on how much time children should spend with technology at different 

stages of development; this research should clearly distinguish between active and passive 

use and take into account content and context.

 Research is required on the impact of the use of new technologies such as mobile and handheld devices, particularly on the impact on children’s cognitive and social development. 

Some areas of potential research include the impact of the speed of digital games and the 

effectiveness of new interactive features.

 Research is required on young children’s use of emerging technologies such as virtual reality, 

augmented reality, and digital robots. 

 Research should include how parents can best facilitate children’s media use.

 Research is needed on the use of technology-based interventions and assessment tools with 

young dual language learners; differences in access to and use of technology by parents and 

children and how they associate with children’s learning and development; the role of culture 

and language in the development and use of technology and technology-based interventions 

and assessments; and how the use of e-books for bedtime stories and children’s affects sleep 

patterns and development.
19

 Research should be conducted on how early educators can use technology to better provide 

educational experiences for children. This includes using technology-based assessments to 

assess children’s skills and outcomes and using the data from those assessments to inform 

classroom interactions and instructional practices.

 Research is needed on how early educators make decisions about what technologies and 

what content to use and how to train and provide ongoing support for early educators 

in implementing technologies, including evaluating the impact of technology-based professional development interventions on the interactions and practices of early childhood 

educators.

 Research is needed on the development and implementation of technology-based interventions or curricula that are designed to address children’s school readiness skills (for example, 

early math, language and literacy, and social behavioral skills). 

 Research needs to be conducted to assess the educational claims of media producers that use 

internal studies to guide families and early educators on their technology purchases. Though 

over 80,000 apps claim to be educational, there is little research around what works, making 

it difficult for parents and early educators to know what is quality, appropriate, and effective 

for each individual child.56

 The research process for studying technology should use a variety of methodologies, including rapid, design-based iterative testing. Research in this area can lag behind development 

of new technologies because of the amount of time it takes to design and implement studies. 

 Research is necessary to aid in the development and study of the effectiveness of technology 

for children with disabilities, including the development of apps to help children access play 

or communicate. This research needs to include children with a wide range of disabilities, 

including those with developmental delays. 

 Research should include studies on the effectiveness of assistive technology devices that 

would inform research and development that would lead to improved devices. 

Developers

Ideally, media and app developers should work closely with learning scientists and child 

development experts to develop content that is research-based. They should also work with 

researchers and practitioners to study efficacy once the content has been released and engage 

in a continuous improvement cycle to improve efficacy over time. Developers should present 

findings from research their products and on websites, including the methodology and results 

used to draw conclusions. Developers who are not aware of the foundations of cognitive science, 

instructional design, or the learning sciences can miss out on opportunities for high-impact 

design and ways to systematically build in features from effectiveness data collected from users 

that can help them improve their product. They should also apply the principles of UDL to make 

their applications accessible. For more information, developers can read the Ed Tech Developer’s 

Guide or learn about grant opportunities from the Institute for Education Sciences, including 

grants for educational technology, special education technology, and small business innovation 

research. 
20

Administrators of early learning programs

Because children from birth to 8 years old can receive care from multiple adults 

and in more than one setting, there is a need to ensure that information on using 

technology effectively with early learners is given to anyone who cares for children in this age range. According to Uses of Technology to Support Early Childhood 

Practice, the most common barrier to successful implementation of technology in 

early childhood classrooms is staff technology literacy. Teachers in early learning 

settings are particularly in need of training and support, since early childhood 

programs are often underfunded and professional development on the use of technology is rarely a top priority. Teachers need adequate professional development 

and access to support services to successfully use technology in the classroom. 

Administrators can also make families aware of resources to increase home 

access, including Everyone On, ConnectHOME, and Lifeline. 

One recommendation in the Uses of Technology to Support Early Childhood Practice 

report is to incorporate technologies that practitioners are familiar with to ensure 

that technology is used in a developmentally appropriate way for early learners.57

While program directors of early learning programs with limited budgets may be 

reluctant to invest in technology, it is critical that they recognize technology as an 

important investment they need to make informed decisions. In addition, administrators of early learning programs should consider developing a modernization 

plan that includes an early learning and technology audit.

WHAT SHOULD 

BE INCLUDED IN A 

TECHNOLOGY AUDIT?

A technology audit should include 

“an assessment of broadband 

access and the availability of 

digital tools to support teachers 

in early learning programs, 

documentation and promotion 

of professional development 

opportunities, a tally of financial 

commitments made to technology-supported early learning 

programs, and recommendations 

for redirecting existing assets 

from less effective programs”58
21

Conclusion

When evaluating and recommending technology for use with early learners, consideration should 

be given to how the child is using the technology, including the quality of the content, the context for its use, and the involvement of adults and peers. With the plethora of new technologies 

and the active ways they can be used, families and early educators should take a more nuanced 

approach than simply thinking about screen time limits and evaluate the content, context, and 

their child’s development to determine what is appropriate in each circumstance.

Early learning settings should strive to ensure that technology, when used, is applied in ways 

that promote children’s learning and healthy development. In early learning environments, 

technology should be used to increase accessibility for children with disabilities and dual language learners, and to strengthen relationships with peers and adults. 

Whether in early learning settings or at home, appropriate use of technology should support deep 

cognitive processing and intentional, purposeful learning that promotes the healthy development 

of children. Equipped with this knowledge, early educators and families are encouraged to use 

their judgment of what works best for their individual child, understanding the quality of content 

and context of use matter. 

Finally, technology should be used strategically, thoughtfully, and safely by early educators at 

all times and incorporated along with other valuable classroom materials in early childhood 

learning environments. 
22

References 

1 Chalmers, M. (2011) Social media allows military families a deeper connection. USA Today. Retrieved from 

http://usatoday30.usatoday.com/news/military/story/2011-11-28/military-deployment-social-media/51349158/1

2 Austin STEM Academy, ADMIN. (2013) Inquiry, problem, and project based learning. Retrieved from 

http://austinstemacademy.com/2013/04/25/inquiry-problem-and-project-based-learning/

3 Bales, D. (n.d.) Digital story helps dual language learner connect with classmates. NAEYC. Retrieved from 

http://www.naeyc.org/technology/digital-story-helps-dual-language-learner

4 Beyond the Journal, Young Children on the Web. (2008) Meaningful technology integration in early learning 

environments. NAEYC. Retrieved from https://www.naeyc.org/files/yc/file/200809/OnOurMinds.pdf

5 Ginsburg, Kenneth. The Importance of Play in Promoting Healthy Child Development and Maintaining Strong 

Parent-Child Bonds. AAP. Retrieved from http://pediatrics.aappublications.org/content/119/1/182 

6 National Association for the Education of Young Children & Fred Rogers Center for Early Learning and Children’s 

Media at Saint Vincent College. (2012) Technology and interactive media as tools in early childhood programs serving 

children from birth through age 8. Washington, DC: NAEYC; Latrobe, PA: Fred Rogers Center for Early Learning and 

Children’s Media and Saint Vincent College, page 5.

7 American Academy of Pediatrics, Communications and Media Council. (2015) Beyond turn it off: how to advise 

families on media use. (Policy statement) Retrieved from http://www.aappublications.org/content/36/10/54

8 American Academy of Pediatrics. (2011) Media use by children younger than 2 years. (Policy statement) 

Retrieved from http://pediatrics.aappublications.org/content/pediatrics/128/5/1040.full.pdf

9 Hernandez, M.W., Estrera, E., Markovitz, C.E., Muyskens, P., Bartley, G., Bollman, K., Kelly, G. & Silberglitt, B. 

(2015). Uses of technology to support early childhood practice. OPRE Report. Washington, DC: Office of Planning, 

Research and Evaluation, Administration for Children and Families, U.S. Department of Health and Human Services.

10 U.S. Department of Education, Office of Educational Technology. (2016) Future ready learning: reimagining the 

role of technology in education. Retrieved from http://tech.ed.gov/netp/

11 National Association for the Education of Young Children & Fred Rogers Center for Early Learning and Children’s Media at Saint Vincent College (2012), page 8.

12 Guernsey, L. (2012) Screen Time: How electronic media—from baby videos to educational software—affects your 

young child. New York, NY: Basic Books.

13 National Association for the Education of Young Children & Fred Rogers Center for Early Learning and Children’s Media at Saint Vincent College (2012), page 8.

14 Bus AG, Takacs ZK, Kegel CA. Affordances and limitations of electronic storybooks for young children’s emergent literacy. Dev Rev. 2015;35:79-97

15 Shamir, Adina and Ofra Korat. 2006. How to select CD-ROM storybooks for young Children: The Teacher’s role.

Reading Teacher 59, no 6: 532-43. http://link.springer.com/article/10.1007%2Fs11145-009-9182-x.

16 Lauricella AR, Barr R, Calvert SL. Parent–child interactions during traditional and computer storybook reading for children’s comprehension: implications for electronic storybook design. Int J Child-Computer Interact.

2014;2(1):17-25

17 Strouse GA, O’Doherty K, Troseth GL. Effective coviewing: preschoolers’ learning from video after a dialogic 

questioning intervention. Dev Psychol. 2013;49(12):2368-2382
23

18 Korat, Orfa and Tal Or. 2010. How Technology Influences Parent-Child Interaction: The Case of e-book reading. First 

Language 30, no. 2 (May): 139-54. http://fla.sagepub.com/content/30/2/139.abstract.

19 Parrish-Morris, Julia. Neha Mahajan, Kathy Hirsh-Pasek, Roberta Michnick Golinkoff, and Molly Fuller Collins. 

2013. Once upon a Time: Parent-Child Dialogue and STory-book reading in the Electronic Era. Mind, Brain, and 

Education 7. No. 3 (September): 200-2011. http://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/10.1111/mbe.12028/abstract.

20 Robb, Michael Benjamin. (2010). New Ways of Reading: The Impact of an Interactive Book on Young Children’s 

Story Comprehension and Parent-Child Dialogic Reading Behaviors. UC Riverside: Psychology. Retrieved from: 

http://escholarship.org/uc/item/5xm8n8xk

21 Vijakkhana N, Wilaisakditipakorn T, Ruedeekhajorn K, Pruksananonda C, Chonchaiya W. Evening media exposure reduces night-time sleep. Acta Paediatr. 2015;104(3):306-312

22 U.S. Department of Education, Office of Educational Technology, (2016), Retrieved from http://tech.ed.gov/netp/

24 Fisch, Shalom M. (2014) Children’s learning from educational television sesame street and beyond. New York: NY, 

Routledge.

25 American Academy of Pediatrics, Council on Communications and Media. (2011) Children, adolescents, obesity 

and the media. Pediatrics. 10.1542/peds, page 1066.

26 Viner, R.M. & Cole, T.J. (2005) Television viewing in early childhood predicts adult body mass index. J Pediatr. 

147(4), pages 429–435.

27 Anderson, S.E. & Whitaker, R.C. (2010) Household routines and obesity in US preschool-aged children. Pediatrics.

125(3), pages 420–428.

28 Owens, J., Maxim, R., McGuinn, M., Nobile, C., Msall, M., & Alario, A. (1999) Television habits and sleep disturbance in school children. Pediatrics. 104(3). Retrieved from www.pediatrics.org/cgi/content/full/104/3/e27

29 Thompson, D.A. & Christakis, D.A. (2005) The association between television viewing and irregular sleep 

schedules among children less than three years of age. Pediatrics. 116(4), pages 851–856.

30 Linebarger, D.L. & Walker, D. (2005) Infants’ and toddlers’ television viewing and language outcomes. Am Behav 

Sci. 48(5), pages 624–645.

31 Zimmerman, F.J., Christakis, D.A., & Meltzoff, A.N. (2007) Associations between media viewing and language 

development in children under age two years. J Pediatr. 151(4), pages 364-368.

32 Chonchaiya, W. & Pruksananonda, C. (2008) Television viewing associates with delayed language development. 

Acta Paediatr. 97(7), pages 977–982.

33 Lillard, A.S. & Peterson, J. (2011) The immediate impact of different types of television on young children’s 

executive function. J Pediatrics. 128, pages 644-649.

34 Lerner, C. & Barr, R. (2014) Screen sense: setting the record straight: research-based guidelines for screen 

use for children under 3 years old. Zero to Three, page 2. Retrieved from https://www.zerotothree.org/

resources/1200-screen-sense-full-white-paper

35 AAP Council on Communications and Media. Media and Young Minds. Pediatrics. 2016;138(5):e20162591

36 Richert, R.A., Robb, M.B., Fender, J.G., & Wartella, E. (2010) Word learning from baby videos. Arch Pediatr 

Adolesc Med. 164(5), pages 432-437.

37 Dayanim, S. & Namy, L.L. (2015) Infants learn baby signs from video. Child Dev. 86(3), pages 800-811.

38 American Academy of Pediatrics. (2011) Media use by children younger than 2 years. (Policy statement) 

Retrieved from http://pediatrics.aappublications.org/content/pediatrics/128/5/1040.full.pdf
39 American Academy of Pediatrics, American Public Health Association, National Resource Center for Health and 

Safety in Child Care and Early Education. (2015.) Caring for our children: National health and safety performance 

standards; Guidelines for early care and education programs. 3rd Edition. Elk Grove Village, IL: American 

Academy of Pediatrics; Washington, DC: American Public Health Association. Also available at http://nrckids.org.

40 AAP Council on Communications and Media. Media and Young Minds. Pediatrics. 2016;138(5):e20162591 

41 Clark, K. (2017), “Technology tools for family engagement: the role of diversity,” in Family engagement in the 

digital age early childhood educators as media mentors, Donohue, C. (ed.). New York: NY, Routledge.

42 Pasnik, S., & Llorente, C. (2013). Preschool teachers can use a PBS KIDS transmedia curriculum supplement to support young children’s mathematics learning: results of a randomized controlled trial. A report to the CPB-PBS Ready 

to Learn initiative. New York, NY and Menlo Park, CA: Education Development Center and SRI International. 

Retrieved from http://www-tc.pbskids.org/lab/media/pdfs/research/Y3-EDC_SRI_PreK_Math_Full_Report.pdf

43 Fishman, B., Dede, C., & Means, B. (In press). Teaching and technology: New tools for new times. In Gitomer D. & Bell 

C. (Eds.), Handbook of Research on Teaching (5th ed.).

44 Purcell, K., Heaps, A., Buchanan, J., & Friedrich, L. (2013) How teachers are using technology at home and in their 

classrooms. Washington, DC: Pew Research Center’s Internet & American Life Project.

45 Primavera, J., Wiederlight, P.P. & DiGiacomo, T.M. (2001) Technology access for low-income pre-schoolers: bridging 

the digital divide. In annual meeting of the American Psychological Association. San Francisco, CA.

46 U.S. Department of Education, Office of Educational Technology, (2016), Retrieved from http://tech.ed.gov/netp/

47 Center on Technology and Disability and American Institutes for Research. (2016). Born accessible learning resources.

Retrieved from http://ctdinstitute.org/sites/default/files/file_attachments/Born_Accessible_QuickGuide_508.pdf

48 Center on Technology and Disability. (n.d.) About CTD. Retrieved from http://ctdinstitute.org/content/about-ctd

49 National Association for the Education of Young Children & Fred Rogers Center for Early Learning and Children’s 

Media at Saint Vincent College, (2012), page 9

50 Hernandez, M.W., Estrera, E., Markovitz, C.E., Muyskens, P., Bartley, G., Bollman, K., Kelly, G. & Silberglitt, B. 

(2015), page 83

51 McClure, E.R., Chentsova-Dutton, Y.E., Barr, R.F., Holochwost, S.J., & Parrott, W.G. Look at that! Skype and 

joint visual attention development among babies and toddlers. (In press)

52 Lerner, C. & Barr, R. (2014), page 3. Retrieved from https://www.zerotothree.org/resources/1200-screensense-full-white-paper

53 Northwestern University, School of Communications, Center on Media and Human Development. (2016) 

The ready to learn program. Retrieved from http://cmhd.northwestern.edu/wp-content/uploads/2016/04/

RTL-Policy-Brief-2010-2015-Wartella-et-al-FINAL-March-2016.pdf

54 Northwestern University, School of Communications, Center on Media and Human Development, (2016) 

Retrieved from http://cmhd.northwestern.edu/wp-content/uploads/2016/04/RTL-Policy-Brief-2010-2015-

Wartella-et-al-FINAL-March-2016.pdf

55 Zack, E. A. (2010). Infant transfer of learning across 2D/3D dimensions: A touch screen paradigm, Georgetown 

University, Washington DC.

56 Guernsey, L. & Levine, M. (2015) Tap Click Read: Growing Readers in a World of Screens. San Francisco, CA: 

Jossey Bass.

57 Hernandez, M.W., Estrera, E., Markovitz, C.E., Muyskens, P., Bartley, G., Bollman, K., Kelly, G. & Silberglitt, B. 

(2015), pages 7-8

58 Tap, Click, Read. (n.d.) Early literacy in the digital age: a modern action plan for states and communities. Retrieved 

from http://www.tapclickread.org/wp-content/uploads/2016/05/2016.07.26_NA_TCR_CommunitySteps.pdf
U.S. Department of Health and Human Services 

It is the mission of the U.S. Department of Health & Human 

Services (HHS) to enhance and protect the health and well-being of all 

Americans. We fulfill that mission by providing for effective health and human 

services and fostering advances in medicine, public health, and social services.

tech.ed.gov/earlylearning

U.S. Department of Education

The mission of the Department of Education is to promote student 

achievement and preparation for global competitiveness by fostering 

educational excellence and ensuring equal access.