Content uploaded by Suzanne M Egan
Author content
All content in this area was uploaded by Suzanne M Egan on Sep 05, 2019
Content may be subject to copyright.
Screen-Time and Vocabulary Development:
Evidence from the Growing Up in Ireland Study
Chloe Beatty and Suzanne M. Egan,
Department of Psychology, Mary Immaculate College, University of Limerick
Citation: Beatty, C. & Egan, S.M. (2018). Screen-Time and Vocabulary Development:
Evidence from the Growing Up in Ireland Study. ChildLinks - Children and the Digital
Environment, 3, 18-22.
Introduction
Screen time has long been of interest to psychologists, parents, and those working with young
children. The last few decades have seen a considerable amount of research exploring the
effects of television viewing on children’s development. However, what “screen time” is has
changed since the introduction of touchscreen devices over the last decade. Research indicates
that children are becoming proficient at using these devices at a young age. Marsh et al. (2015)
found that by 3 years of age, nearly two-thirds of the 2,000 children in their study were able to
effectively navigate a tablet, including the ability to turn it on and off, drag and swipe, and
open and exit apps. McClure, Chentsova-Dutton, Barr, Holochwost, and Parrott (2015) and
Rideout (2011; 2013) also noted the rise in toddlers’ touchscreen use from 10% using
touchscreens daily in 2010, to 38% using them daily in 2013. In contrast, daily television
viewing decreased in the same time period from 79% of toddlers to 63%.
The potential ways in which young children can interact with screens has changed over
the last 10 years. Touchscreens allow for increased opportunities for early learning as
operational barriers, such as using a mouse or keyboard, are less prevalent (Merchant, 2015).
However, the increased range of screen types with which young children can interact (e.g.,
television, smart phone, tablet), and the increased range of activities (e.g., cartoons, video
games, educational games, online video chat) present a challenge to researchers and policy
makers hoping to draw on a strong evidence base to inform policy and practice. Previous
research examining the impact of screen time on early childhood development, much of which
focuses on television viewing, raises questions as to whether or not these findings extend to
other types of screens and activities.
Therefore, it is important to differentiate between screen time, type, and content when
measuring the effect of screen use on children’s development. This distinction may provide a
more nuanced classification of screen use, rather than just screen “time”, appropriate to the
variety of screen uses young children today engage in. As different elements of screen use are
considered separately, their impacts on various aspects of development, such as social
interaction, attention, reasoning, and notably language development, can be explored and
understood.
Screen Use and Language Development
One of the major skills acquired, amongst many others, in the first few years of life is the ability
to use language and communicate. Many factors are known to support language development
during early childhood, such as talking or reading to infants (e.g., Murray & Egan, 2014; Hoyne
& Egan, 2019), but the role of screen use in language development is less clear. Television
viewing has gained a lot of attention in past research for having negative effects on children’s
language development, and other aspects of cognitive development, such as attention and skill
transferability (Anderson & Pempek, 2005; Zimmerman, Christakis & Meltzoff, 2007;
Courage & Setliff, 2009). However, findings from an extensive review of the topic (Barr,
Lauricella, Zack, & Calvert, 2010) suggest that it is difficult to compare across studies
investigating the impact of early television exposure on child development due to the range of
variables that affect just what “screen time” actually involves for different children.
For example, Obel et al. (2004) reported that only 6% of their Danish sample of 3-year-
olds were exposed to more than 2 hours of television per day. In contrast, Christakis,
Zimmerman, DiGiuseppe and McCarty (2004) reported that the average amount of screen time
for American 3-year-olds was 3.6 hours a day. Different average rates of television viewing or
screen use in different countries, and in different studies, along with differences in the ages of
participants in these studies, mean it is difficult to draw conclusions from the literature or to
generalise the results found relating to the impact of screen time (Barr et al., 2010). An example
of these inconsistencies can be seen in screen time’s apparently varied association with both
positive and negative effects for language development in the previous research.
For example, Linebarger and Walker (2005) examined 30-month-olds’ language
development in relation to what content the children were exposed to, particularly focusing on
television programmes designed for children versus adults. The research showed that
programmes such as ‘Dora the Explorer’, ‘Blue’s Clues’, ‘Arthur’, and ‘Clifford’ were
associated with enhanced vocabulary growth. In contrast, viewing mostly adult or older-child
programming was associated with reduced vocabulary. Findings such as these highlight the
importance of considering different aspects of screen time (e.g., the amount of time, type of
content) that may play a role in development.
Other research also supports the idea that different aspects of screen time have different
impacts on development. Kostyrka-Allchorne, Cooper and Simpson (2017) conducted a
systematic literature review of television exposure and its impact on children’s development
and behaviour from 1997 to 2015. It was evident from this analysis that content had more of
an impact on children’s cognitive development than overall duration of screen time itself. The
review suggested that, irrelevant of amount of screen time, early exposure to adult-directed
programmes or violent content was shown to be associated with language delays as well as
lower executive functioning and lower school grades (Anderson & Bushman, 2001; Linebarger
& Walker, 2005; Barr et al., 2010; Sharif & Sargent, 2006).
Similarly, while Zimmerman et al. (2007) found that infants had lower vocabulary
scores with each hour per day viewing baby DVDs, Lavigne, Hanson, and Anderson (2015)
suggested that this negative effect is reduced when parents engage with their children during
screen time. Parents in this study were more likely to introduce new words into their children’s
vocabulary than parents who used screen time for free play. This increased vocabulary richness
was also seen during a 15-minute post-viewing free play session. Findings such as these
highlight the difficulty with drawing firm conclusions about the effect of television viewing on
language development. It is clear that other factors besides the screen time, such as the type of
content and the amount of parental interaction, also affect language development.
Another screen factor that may affect development is the type of screen related activity
the child is engaged in and the type of screen. Neumann (2018) noted that the high prevalence
of digital devices in homes and schools is resulting in children using tablets as a learning
device. Neumann found that children could significantly enhance their emergent literacy skills
when using an iPad compared to traditional teaching tools, with the children in the iPad
condition showing higher letter name and sound knowledge, and name writing skills.
Electronic books (e-book), another form of screen time, have also been shown to promote
vocabulary acquisition and reading comprehension due to their integrated animations, graphic
effects, and synced audio sounds, creating an immersive and interactive learning experience
(Radesky, Schumacher, & Zuckerman, 2015).
However, much of the experimental research on learning from e-books and iPads, as
opposed to traditional methods, has shown mixed results in relation to story comprehension
and further literacy outcomes (Aladé, Lauricella, Beaudoin-Ryan, & Wartella, 2016).
Examples of such research include Lauricella, Barr and Calvert’s (2014) study, which found
no difference in comprehension across the two platforms, while Krcmar and Cingel (2014)
conducted a very similar study and found reading from a paper book resulted in significantly
greater story comprehension. Findings from other studies related to e-books are also
inconclusive, with many contributing different findings based on children’s ability to learn
from interactive storybooks (Aladé et al., 2016). This highlights that, much like other
research on screen activities, there is no consistent evidence for the benefits or drawbacks of
e-books or iPads, for children’s literacy skills or for language development.
These inconsistencies have become a common theme in screen use research, with some
researchers noting that other factors, such as a good night’s sleep or skipping meals, have a far
greater effect on children’s cognitive development than screen time itself (Przybylski &
Weinstein, 2017). With some studies noting inconsistent findings and others with small effects
sizes, there is debate about what impact, if any, screen time alone has on children’s
development (Ferguson, 2015; Etchells, Gage, Rutherford, & Munafò, 2016). This may
particularly be the case when considering the effect of screen use on development during early
childhood. It is important that practices intended to enhance child development in the early
years are based on strong research evidence (Egan & Pope, 2019).
Young children today can interact with screens in a way that was not possible prior to
the recent wide availability of touchscreen technology. Therefore, research examining the
impact of screen use (including screen time and activity) in early childhood, beyond the impact
of television viewing, is necessary to understand what effect, if any, this screen use is having
on child development. As LaForge, Perron, Roy-Charland, Roy and Carignan (2018, p. 320)
note ‘It is easy to be misled when we rely on our intuition or reasoning, hence the importance
of research. One of the reasons we conduct research is usually to provide evidence or lack
thereof for current beliefs and practices.’
Screen Use in the Growing Up in Ireland Study
The ‘Growing Up in Ireland’ (GUI) study is a government-funded, nationally-representative,
longitudinal study following the development of young children in Ireland throughout their
childhood from 9 months of age (GUI, 2010). The sample of participants in the GUI Infant
Cohort was drawn from the Child Benefit Registrar as it allowed for participants sampling from
all socio-economic backgrounds, and encompassed all family types living in Ireland with
children. Data collection began in 2008 at the first wave, with the second wave occurring in
2010-11, when the children were 3 years of age. The third wave was then carried out in 2012-
13, following the children at 5 years of age (9001 children; 4612 males and 4389 females). A
wide range of information has been collected from families and children, combining household
interviews with school visits.
Face-to-face interviews with both mothers and fathers in each household of the study
child were conducted during visits to the household by a trained interviewer. Examples of
information obtained from these interviews with parents when the children were aged 5 relate
to the child’s home environment, parental education and employment status, as well as
activities the child engages in, including questions related to screen use. The two variables that
were recorded related to ‘Screen Time’ and ‘Screen Activity’. The question relating to screen
time asked: “How many hours does the child spend on screen time on an average weekday?”.
This question included television, DVDs, iPads, smartphones, computers, and gaming
consoles. For screen activity the question asked of parents was “What does the child mostly
engage in during screen time? Is s/he usually playing educational games, playing other (video)
games, watching movies/videos/other TV, or doing a mixture of all types of activities?”.
In addition to interviewing parents, measures of child cognitive development were also
completed by the child, including a measure of vocabulary (using the ‘Naming Vocabulary’
sub-scale of the Early Years Battery of the British Ability Scales II, Elliott, Smith &
McCullough, 1997). Using these data from the GUI study allowed an investigation of the
amount and type of screen use young Irish children are engaged in, and also what impact screen
use has on vocabulary development (see Beatty & Egan, 2019, for additional information on
this study).
What impact does screen time and screen activity have on language development?
The results showed that most Irish 5-year-olds (55%) engage in 1 to 2 hours of daily screen
time, with 28.5% engaging in 2 to 3 hours of daily screen time, and 13.9% engaged in over 3
hours of screen time a day. Only 2.6% of 5-year-olds are not engaged in any screen time.
Parents reported that their children mostly engaged in mixed screen activities (56.4%) or
watched movies, videos, and other TV programmes (36.2%). Relatively few children engaged
in mostly video games (3%) or mostly educational games as their preferred screen activity
(1.6%).
These findings highlight that young Irish children display a wide range of screen time
(ranging from none to more than 3 hours per day) and engage in a variety of activities.
Interestingly, there was an association between the type of activity children engaged in and the
amount of time spent per day on screens. Children who mostly engaged in educational games
were significantly less likely to be on a screen for more than 3 hours a day in comparison to
those who mostly engaged in TV watching, or a mix of activities. More research is needed to
find out why that may be the case, but one possibility may relate to parental rules around screen
use (e.g., children who mostly play educational games during screen time may have parents
who have stricter rules about screen time and screen activities).
Examining the effect of screen time and screen activity on naming vocabulary scores
indicated a significant difference in scores depending of the type of screen activity. The results
show that, on average, children scored between 5 and 8 points lower when their screen time
was spent mostly on video games (Mean score = 104, Standard Deviation = 17.26), compared
to playing educational games (M = 109, SD = 18.46), watching movies, videos, or TV (M =
112, SD = 17.10) or engaging in a mix of activities (M = 112, SD = 17.17). This is in reference
to the overall mean score on the naming vocabulary task for this sample, which was 111 (SD =
17.30, Minimum score = 26, Maximum score = 170).
Of note in the findings also was that there was no significant difference in the
vocabulary scores of children whose main use was educational games, movies, TV or those
who engaged in a mix of activities. Additionally, the amount of time spent on screens did not
impact on vocabulary scores. There was no statistically significant difference in scores between
those who have no screen time (M = 110, SD =18.03), 1 to 2 hours (M = 112, SD = 16.93), 2
to 3 hours (M = 111, SD = 17.26) or more than 3 hours (M = 110, SD = 18.55) in terms of their
vocabulary.
These findings suggest that the type of screen activity is having a larger effect on
vocabulary scores than the amount of screen time. Additional statistical analyses looking at the
impact of the two factors together also support this conclusion. Furthermore, the type of screen
activity continued to have a significant impact on vocabulary scores, even after taking account
of other factors that might impact on language development, such as the family’s socio-
economic status (Hoff, 2003; Pace, Luo, Hirsh-Pasek, & Golinkoff, 2017), or whether the child
had siblings (Maynard, 2004).
The results show that, statistically, there is little difference in vocabulary scores of 5-
year-olds who do not use screens at all compared to those that do have screen time, even where
that screen time would seem excessive by some standards. Similarly, there is little difference
in vocabulary scores across different types of screen activities, with the exception of mostly
engaging in video games. It may be the case that video games contain less verbal content than
watching a cartoon, or may provide less opportunity for talk time with parents than other screen
activities. It could also be the case that those who engage mostly in video games may have
fewer rules in the home regarding screen use.
Conclusion
The findings briefly described in this article, and those of previous research, highlight the
importance of considering the impact of different aspects of screen use on development. This
study reports that there is a negative effect of video game use for vocabulary development in
Irish 5-year-olds. However, it is important to note as well that the negative effect of video game
use is small, and in this instance is only demonstrated for vocabulary development. The impact
of video game use may differ for other aspects of development, such as reasoning, attention,
or social skills. Future research should continue to explore the effect of various aspects of
screen use on child development, as it is important that policies and guidelines related to screen
use during early childhood are founded on a strong, research evidence base.
Acknowledgements
This research is supported by a Mary Immaculate College Assistantship awarded to Chloe
Beatty.
References
Aladé, F., Lauricella, A. R., Beaudoin-Ryan, L., & Wartella, E. (2016). Measuring with
Murray: Touchscreen technology and preschoolers' STEM learning. Computers in
Human Behavior, 62, 433-441.
Anderson, C. A., & Bushman, B. J. (2001). Effects of Violent Video Games on Aggressive
Behavior, Aggressive Cognition, Aggressive Affect, Physiological Arousal, and
Prosocial Behavior: A Meta-Analytic Review of the Scientific Literature.
Psychological Science, 12(5), 353–359.
Anderson, D. R., & Pempek, T. A. (2005). Television and very young children. American
Behavioral Scientist, 48(5), 505-522.
Barr, R., Lauricella, A., Zack, E., & Calvert, S. L. (2010). Infant and early childhood
exposure to adult-directed and child-directed television programming: Relations with
cognitive skills at age four. Merrill-Palmer Quarterly, 56(1), 21-48.
Beatty, C. & Egan, S.M. (2019). The Effect of Screen Time and Screen Activity on Cognitive
Development in Early Childhood: Evidence from the Growing Up in Ireland Study.
Manuscript in preparation.
Christakis, D. A., Zimmerman, F. J., DiGiuseppe, D. L., & McCarty, C. A. (2004). Early
television exposure and subsequent attentional problems in children. Pediatrics,
113(4), 708-713.
Courage, M. L., & Setliff, A. E. (2009). Debating the impact of television and video material
on very young children: Attention, learning, and the developing brain. Child
Development Perspectives, 3(1), 72-78.
Egan, S.M. & Pope, J. (2019). From Research Evidence to Evidence Based Practice in Early
Childhood Settings. An Leanbh Og: The OMEP Ireland Journal of Early Childhood
Studies, 12 (Forthcoming).
Elliott, C. D., Smith, P., & McCulloch, K. (1997). British ability scales second edition (BAS
II): Technical manual. Windsor: NFER-Nelson.
Etchells, P. J., Gage, S. H., Rutherford, A. D., & Munafò, M. R. (2016). Prospective
investigation of video game use in children and subsequent conduct disorder and
depression using data from the Avon longitudinal study of parents and children. PloS
one, 11(1), e0147732.
Ferguson, C. J. (2015). Do angry birds make for angry children? A meta-analysis of video
game influences on children’s and adolescents’ aggression, mental health, prosocial
behavior, and academic performance. Perspectives on Psychological Science, 10(5),
646-666.
Growing Up in Ireland (2010). Infants and Their Families. Department of Children and
Youth Affairs. Retrieved from https://www.esri.ie/publications/growing-up-in-
ireland-the-infants-and-their-families
Hoff, E. (2003). Causes and consequences of SES-related differences in parent-to-child
speech. In M. H. Bornstein & R. H. Bradley (Eds.), Socioeconomic status, parenting,
and child development. Mahwaw, NJ: Erlbaum.
Hoyne, C. & Egan, S.M. (2019). Shared Book Reading in Early Childhood: A review of
Influential Factors and Developmental Benefits. An Leanbh Og: The OMEP Ireland
Journal of Early Childhood Studies, 12 (Forthcoming).
Kostyrka-Allchorne, K., Cooper, N. R., & Simpson, A. (2017). The relationship between
television exposure and children’s cognition and behaviour: A systematic review.
Developmental Review, 44, 19-58.
Krcmar, M., & Cingel, D. P. (2014). Parent–child joint reading in traditional and electronic
formats. Media Psychology, 17(3), 262-281.
Lauricella, A. R., Barr, R., & Calvert, S. L. (2014). Parent–child interactions during
traditional and computer storybook reading for children’s comprehension:
implications for electronic storybook design. International Journal of Child
Computer Interaction, 2(1), 17-25.
LaForge, C., Perron, M., Roy-Charland, A., Roy, E. & Carignan, I. (2018). Contributing to
Children’s Early Comprehension of Emotions: A Picture Book Approach. Canadian
Journal of Education, 41(1), 301-328.
Lavigne, H. J., Hanson, K. G., & Anderson, D. R. (2015). The influence of television
coviewing on parent language directed at toddlers. Journal of Applied Developmental
Psychology, 36, 1-10.
Linebarger, D. L., & Walker, D. (2005). Infants’ and toddlers’ television viewing and
language outcomes. American Behavioral Scientist, 48(5), 624-645.
Marsh, J., Plowman, L., Yamada-Rice, D., Bishop, J. C., Lahmar, J., Scott, F., ... & Thornhill,
S. (2015). Exploring play and creativity in pre-schoolers’ use of apps: Final project
report. Technology and Play. Retrieved from:
http://www.techandplay.org/reports/TAP_Final_Report.pdf.
Maynard, A. E. (2004). Sibling interactions. In U. P. Gielen & J. Roopnarine (Eds.),
Childhood and adolescence: Cross
‐
cultural perspectives and applications. Advances
in applied developmental psychology. Westport, CT: Praeger.
McClure, E. R., Chentsova-Dutton, Y. E., Barr, R. F., Holochwost, S. J., & Parrott, W. G.
(2015). “Facetime doesn’t count”: Video chat as an exception to media restrictions for
infants and toddlers. International Journal of Child-Computer Interaction, 6, 1-6.
Merchant, G. (2015). Keep taking the tablets: iPads, story apps and early literacy. Australian
Journal of Language and Literacy, 38(1), 3.
Murray, A., & Egan, S. M. (2014). Does reading to infants benefit their cognitive
development at 9-months-old? An investigation using a large birth cohort survey.
Child Language Teaching and Therapy, 30(3), 303-315.
Neumann, M. M. (2018). Using tablets and apps to enhance emergent literacy skills in young
children. Early Childhood Research Quarterly, 42, 239-246.
Obel, C., Henriksen, T. B., Dalsgaard, S., Linnet, K. M., Skajaa, E., Thomsen, P. H., &
Olsen, J. (2004). Does children's watching of television cause attention problems?
Retesting the hypothesis in a Danish cohort. Pediatrics, 114(5), 1372-1373.
Pace, A., Luo, R., Hirsh-Pasek, K., & Golinkoff, R. M. (2017). Identifying pathways between
socioeconomic status and language development. Annual Review of Linguistics, 3,
285-308.
Przybylski, A. K., & Weinstein, N. (2017). A large-scale test of the goldilocks hypothesis:
quantifying the relations between digital-screen use and the mental well-being of
adolescents. Psychological Science, 28(2), 204-215.
Radesky, J. S., Schumacher, J., & Zuckerman, B. (2015). Mobile and interactive media use
by young children: the good, the bad, and the unknown. Pediatrics, 135(1), 1-3.
Rideout, V. J. (2011). Zero to eight: Children’s media use in America. San Francisco, CA:
Common Sense Media.
Rideout, V. J. (2013). Zero to eight: Children’s media use in America. New York, NY:
Common Sense Media.
Sharif, I., & Sargent, J. D. (2006). Association between television, movie, and video game
exposure and school performance. Pediatrics, 118(4), 1061-1070.
Zimmerman, F. J., Christakis, D. A., & Meltzoff, A. N. (2007). Associations between media
viewing and language development in children under age 2 years. The Journal of
Pediatrics, 151(4), 364-368.