Journal of Applied Research in Memory and Cognition

© 2023 American Psychological Association 2023, Vol. 12, No. 4, 457–472

ISSN: 2211-3681 https://doi.org/10.1037/mac0000132

TARGET ARTICLE

Reexamining Models of Early Learning in the Digital Age:

Applications for Learning in the Wild
Rachel Barr1 and Heather Kirkorian2
1
Department of Psychology, Georgetown University, United States
2
Department of Human Development and Family Studies, University of Wisconsin-Madison, United States
This article is intended solely for the personal use of the individual user and is not to be disseminated broadly.
This document is copyrighted by the American Psychological Association or one of its allied publishers.

Young children are growing up in an increasingly complicated digital world. Laboratory-based research shows
that it is cognitively demanding to process and transfer information presented on screens during early childhood.
Multiple explanations for this cognitive challenge have been proposed. This review provides an updated
comprehensive framework that integrates prior theoretical explanations to develop new testable hypotheses. The
review also considers how the research can be generalized to the “wild” where children engage with multiple
commercial products daily. It includes real-world applications for improving children’s learning and memory
from screen-based media by adding supportive cues and reducing distraction and interference. The review
concludes with a call for future collaborative research between researchers, content developers, and families to
better understand age-related changes in both short-term and long-term learning from digital media. Finally,
policy makers need to be involved to ensure equitable access and to create a safe digital space for all families.

General Audience Summary

Young children are growing up in an increasingly complicated digital world. Rapid expansion and adoption
of technology by families with young children has resulted in frequent use of digital media during early
childhood. It is well-known that learning from media during early childhood is challenging. Each child is
different: The ease with which they learn from screens depends on several characteristics, including the
child’s temperament, memory capacity, and language skills. These things change throughout a child’s
development. However, when content is well-designed and when families engage with media together,
learning from media can and does occur. For example, learning can be supported through social and physical
interactions, such as with video chat or well-designed, simple touchscreen applications. Children learn best
from screen media when the media content includes supportive features and minimizes distracting or
irrelevant information. In addition, parents and educators can help young children connect what they learn
from media to activities in the real world. They can also choose content that has simple storylines and avoid
content that has additional hotspots and features that can make it difficult for young children to learn. Future
collaborative research between academics, content developers, and families should be conducted to better
understand age-related changes in both short-term and long-term learning from digital media. Finally, policy
makers need to be involved to ensure that all families have stable access to broadband and to develop and
enforce regulations to create a safe digital space and remove detrimental practices that prolong engagement
with media or monetize content for the purposes of advertising.

Keywords: transfer deficit, digital media, early childhood, individual differences, cognitive load

Digital media is embedded in the lives of young children, and their related gaps in media access (Rideout & Robb, 2020), although
access to and use of digital media has far outpaced research on disparities in digital access remain (Barr, 2022; Katz et al., 2019).
learning from digital media. In the United States, 97% of families with Parents, educators, and policy makers often remain polarized in the
a child 0–8 years old own at least one mobile device, closing income- adoption of digital devices, acting with either extreme concern or

This article was published Online First September 4, 2023. conceptualization, funding acquisition, and writing–review and editing.
Rachel Barr https://orcid.org/0000-0002-5855-9718 Heather Kirkorian played a lead role in visualization, a supporting role in
Heather Kirkorian https://orcid.org/0000-0002-7990-7777 writing–original draft, and an equal role in funding acquisition, conceptuali-
This research was supported by the National Institute of Child Health and zation and writing–review and editing.
Human Development (Grant 1P01HD109907-01 to Rachel Barr and Heather Correspondence concerning this article should be addressed to Rachel
Kirkorian). Barr, Department of Psychology, Georgetown University, 3700 O Street
Rachel Barr played a lead role in writing–original draft and an equal role in NW, Washington, DC 20057, United States. Email: rfb5@georgetown.edu

457
 458 BARR AND KIRKORIAN
overly optimistic enthusiasm (Lauricella et al., 2017). The current
review will focus on empirical findings and theoretical accounts of
learning from digital media, providing an integrated framework and a
future research agenda. The future agenda includes the need to
conduct more rigorous applied research studies of media use in the
wild. We finish with a series of recommendations for parents and
educators focused on the addition of supportive cues and the
reduction of distraction and interference. We also recommend that
media developers, academics, and families work together with policy
makers to create a safe and accessible digital space for young children.
The Fundamental Problem of Learning From Media:
This article is intended solely for the personal use of the individual user and is not to be disseminated broadly.
A Transfer Deficit
This document is copyrighted by the American Psychological Association or one of its allied publishers.
Transferring information from one context to another is fundamental
to learning (Barnett & Ceci, 2002). However, learning from all forms
of media poses a transfer-of-learning challenge: Applying knowledge
from media to the real world is difficult. For instance, as per Barnett
and Ceci’s (2002) principles, learning from media involves shifts in the
modality (resulting in perceptual changes between sources), the
physical context (as children may transfer learning between 3D and 2D
objects that are physically manipulated in different ways), and the
temporal context (when there is a delay between viewing information
on-screen and using that information in the real world).
Despite such challenges to transfer, young children can and do
learn from media. Infants as young as 6 months old can imitate
simple actions they see on television, both immediately and up to 24
hr later (Barr, Muentener, & Garcia, 2007); by 18 months, toddlers
can remember brief sequences that they saw on television or in a
book for 2 weeks, and by 2 years of age, they can remember these
sequences for 1 month (Brito et al., 2012; Simcock et al., 2011).
Nonetheless, while the educational potential of television and video
is well-documented for preschool-age children the world over
(Anderson & Kirkorian, 2015; Mares & Pan, 2013), research across
several decades demonstrates a “transfer deficit” until at least 3 years
of age such that toddlers are less likely to transfer information from
one context to another (e.g., from video to real life) than within the
same context (Anderson & Pempek, 2005; Barr, 2010, 2013;
Strouse & Samson, 2021). The transfer deficit is a domain-general
phenomenon, having been observed in tasks as diverse as imitation
(Barr & Hayne, 1999; Hayne et al., 2003; McCall et al., 1977), word
learning (Krcmar et al., 2007; Richert et al., 2010; Roseberry et al.,
2009), spatial recall (Schmitt & Anderson, 2002; Troseth &
DeLoache, 1998), phoneme perception (Kuhl et al., 2003), and
socioemotional skills (Mumme & Fernald, 2003; Reiß et al., 2019;
Suddendorf et al., 2007). Moreover, the transfer deficit appears at
about the same age for different types of transfer tasks (e.g., videos,
touchscreen apps). Experience with certain types of media reduces
the transfer deficit (Kirkorian & Choi, 2017; Troseth, 2003; Troseth
et al., 2007), demonstrating the transfer deficit does not result from a
simple inability for young children to learn from screens.
The largest transfer deficit effects have been observed using spatial
recall tasks in which children search for a hidden object based on
information they observed (e.g., watching the experimenter hide the
object) or heard (e.g., “I hid the toy behind the couch”; Strouse &
Samson, 2021). For example, in one seminal study, 2-year-olds were
unable to find a hidden object when they viewed the hiding event
or heard the description over video (Troseth & DeLoache, 1998). If
2-year-olds watched on a television but were told that they were
actually looking through a window, their performance improved
compared to the video condition but was still poorer than actually
watching through a window (Troseth & DeLoache, 1998). The boost
in performance is perhaps because toddlers were not distracted by
irrelevant cues, such as the television frame, during encoding and
retrieval. Whatever the reason, Troseth and DeLoache’s study
revealed an early example of the transfer deficit and also demonstrated
the transfer deficit is malleable.
Theoretical Accounts for the Transfer Deficit
Multiple explanations for the transfer deficit have focused on
developmental constraints on memory processing. Several mechan-
isms have been proposed. We describe each potential mechanism in
turn, recognizing these mechanisms are not mutually exclusive.
Perceptual Processing
Two-dimensional (2D) images are perceptually impoverished;
that is, perceptual cues on 2D images are often smaller and lack
features of 3D objects, such as motion parallax or other depth cues
(Barr & Hayne, 1999; Hipp et al., 2017; McCall et al., 1977).
Moreover, cues from the device itself may interfere with learning.
For example, a child may encode irrelevant features of a 2D context,
such as a button at the base of a tablet. This account might explain
why toddlers appear to process objects more slowly when presented
on-screen versus in-person (Carver et al., 2006; Kirkorian et al.,
2016) and why the transfer deficit is reduced with repeated exposure
to video demonstrations (Barr, Muentener, et al., 2007; Krcmar,
2010; Strouse & Troseth, 2008).
Representational Flexibility
Poor representational flexibility also contributes to the transfer
deficit (Barr, 2010, 2013, 2019). Representational flexibility is
defined as the ability to retrieve cues in a context that is different
than the one present during encoding and allows young children to
generalize beyond the specific details of the original memory (Barr,
2013). When young children encode characteristics of 2D sources,
they do not directly match characteristics that are present during
subsequent retrieval in a 3D context (Barr & Hayne, 1999; Schmidt
et al., 2007). This theory provides an explanation for why the
transfer deficit is bidirectional in nature; that is, children perform
more poorly when transferring across dimensions in either direction
(2D to 3D or 3D to 2D; Moser et al., 2015; Zack et al., 2009).
Symbolic Understanding
A third account posits that young children lack the symbolic
thinking necessary to use symbolic artifacts, such as videos and
photographs, to learn about the real world. Symbolic artifacts are
informational tools; they stand for their referents. For example, an
image on a television can represent a real-life person or object. For
symbolic artifacts to be effective informational tools, children must
have some understanding of the relation between the image or
symbol and the real object (DeLoache, 1995). Immaturity in
symbolic understanding limits children’s ability to understand that
objects and people on the screen represent objects and people in real
life. To the extent young children lack this symbolic ability, they
 MODELS OF EARLY LEARNING IN THE DIGITAL WORLD
will instead hold separate, competing memory representations of on-
screen versus in-person experiences, which has been termed the
problem of dual representation (DeLoache, 1995; Troseth, 2010;
Troseth & DeLoache, 1998). Furthermore, Troseth (2010) argued
that young children may initially learn to discount televised content
as not relevant to the real world following early and repeated
experience with noninteractive video that looks nothing like the
child’s own environment; thus, a transfer deficit may emerge as a
result of early media experience paired with a lack of symbolic
understanding.
Weaker Memory Traces
This article is intended solely for the personal use of the individual user and is not to be disseminated broadly.
Many theoretical accounts of the transfer deficit either explicitly
This document is copyrighted by the American Psychological Association or one of its allied publishers.
or implicitly posit that video demonstrations result in weaker
memory traces than do real-life demonstrations (Barr, 2013;
Kirkorian & Simmering, 2023; Schmidt et al., 2007; Troseth,
2010). Spatial recall tasks provide the best evidence for this account.
When children are tested for spatial recall on multiple trials using the
same materials, their memory for the current trial may be disrupted
by memory interference from previous trials. For this reason,
children tend to do better on the first trial than on subsequent trials.
In some cases, children perseverate (i.e., choose a previously correct
location rather than the location that is correct on the current trial;
Sharon & DeLoache, 2003). Such perseveration is more common
when children view the hiding events on video rather than in-person
(Kirkorian & Simmering, 2023; Kirkorian et al., 2016; Schmidt
et al., 2007; Schmitt & Anderson, 2002; Suddendorf, 2003; Troseth,
2010). Together, these findings provide strong evidence that
memory traces based on video demonstrations are weaker, and
therefore more prone to proactive interference, than memory traces
based on real-life demonstrations.
Limitations of Existing Accounts
Different theoretical accounts of the transfer deficit have not been
well-integrated (Strouse & Samson, 2021). For example, poor
representational flexibility in young children make them particularly
susceptible to perceptual differences between encoding and retrieval
contexts (Barr, 2013; Hipp et al., 2017), and representational
flexibility itself may be necessary for the emergence of symbolic
understanding. Similarly, perceptual processing differences may
interrupt symbolic understanding, as when a child encodes the
surface features of a device (e.g., touchscreen interface or buttons)
rather than the representational content presented on the screen (e.g.,
real objects depicted in video images; Troseth et al., 2019). These
mechanisms can result in weaker memory traces for screens than for
real-life demonstrations. Such weaker memory traces are especially
impacted by mismatched retrieval cues and competition between
multiple representations either in mapping to the correct referent or
when transferring information from one context or medium to
another (e.g., 2D to 3D; Barr, 2013; Kirkorian & Simmering, 2023;
Schmidt et al., 2007; Troseth, 2010).
To the extent such memory constraints play a role, they do not
adequately account for other aspects of information processing.
Other researchers have suggested the transfer deficit may be
sensitive to child characteristics and task demands. For example,
Hipp et al. (2017) provided a more comprehensive theory of transfer
of learning, considering the role of individual child characteristics
459
such as working memory capacity, the effect of cognitive load in
terms of the amount of information presented, and the role of
perceptual and social interactional cues; however, they did not
propose an updated framework. Fisch (2000, 2017) proposed
models of learning from media that centered on media and child
characteristics that influence cognitive load, but this model has
focused on learning from professionally produced educational
television and videogames for preschool- and elementary school-
age children rather than the transfer deficit among younger children.
New Directions in Theory and Research
The development and rapid adoption of new technology,
particularly video chat (2003) and touchscreen technology (eBooks,
2004; smartphones, 2007; tablets, 2010) and increasingly virtual reality
and augmented reality create a critical need to extend theoretical
accounts of the transfer deficit. Researchers have demonstrated young
children can learn from video chat (Myers et al., 2017), eBooks (Etta &
Kirkorian, 2019; Troseth et al., 2020), and touchscreens (for reviews,
see Hipp et al., 2017; Kirkorian, 2018; Kirkorian et al., 2017). In this
section, we propose a comprehensive framework with unique
considerations for the transfer deficit across all forms of screen media.
Figure 1 expands upon traditional information processing models
(attention, encoding, storage, and retrieval; Atkinson & Shiffrin,
1968; Baddeley, 2000) and adds individual child and cognitive
constraints that disproportionately affect toddlers, including poor
representational flexibility and symbolic thinking (Barr, 2013; Troseth
et al., 2019), as well as digital media design (e.g., touchscreen
interactivity) and media use context (e.g., joint media engagement
[JME]) that are likely to affect whether a transfer deficit appears. The
framework shows how these factors interact to produce individual
differences in encoding and determine the degree of cognitive load.
Critically, cognitive load is determined by a child’s capacity (e.g.,
working memory, inhibitory control) and the complexity of the task
(e.g., disruptive vs. supportive design features). Cognitive load in turn
influences the storage of information and subsequent retrieval and
transfer. In the sections that follow, we review evidence to support
each factor shown in Figure 1.
Encoding Information
Some accounts posit the transfer deficit results from encoding
challenges, such as slower processing of information presented in
2D than in 3D. The new framework, therefore, builds on Mayer’s
cognitive theory of multimedia learning (CTML, Mayer, 2014) to
consider the full spectrum of information processing including
perception, attention, and working memory processes. CTML
theory (Mayer, 2014) builds upon Baddeley’s working memory
theory (e.g., Baddeley, 2000) and dual process theories (e.g., Paivio,
1990). The CTML makes three assumptions that will have
consequences for learning: (a) content is encoded in multiple
channels, (b) encoding has a limited capacity, and (c) active learning
engages attention. The child’s ability to encode the content and stay
on task is dependent on the visual channel where the visual content
(e.g., images and animations) on the screen are encoded and the
auditory channel where the narrative and background soundtrack
(e.g., music, sound effects) are encoded. Other channels such as
tactile channels may also be relevant when children are using
touchscreens, and the episodic buffer may also be necessary for
 460 BARR AND KIRKORIAN
Figure 1
Conceptual Model Representing Cognitive Processes, Individual Child Characteristics, and Task Characteristics Involved in Learning and
Transfer From Digital Media
This article is intended solely for the personal use of the individual user and is not to be disseminated broadly.
This document is copyrighted by the American Psychological Association or one of its allied publishers.
Note. See the online article for the color version of this figure.
encoding narrative structure in a television program or processing
language supplied by caregivers when children and caregivers use
media together.
Information is encoded from each channel, and mental re-
presentations are encoded in working memory. These mental
representations can then be transferred to long-term memory.
However, working memory has a limited capacity for simulta-
neous processing. If the media content is well-designed and the
different modes of content (visual, auditory, tactile) are aligned,
then theoretically attending to the multiple channels should help
the child to form mental representations and increase comprehen-
sion and learning. If they are not, the child will not be able to create
stable and coherent representations. Consistent with this assertion,
toddlers are more likely to learn from interactive touchscreen apps
when those apps direct attention to relevant information on the
screen (e.g., “ … touch the box …”) rather than the screen itself
(e.g., “ … touch the screen …”; Choi & Kirkorian, 2016; Kirkorian
et al., 2016).
Most prior research overlooks encoding processes or relies on
coarse measures of encoding such as cumulative looking time
toward the screen (see Kirkorian et al., 2017). However, some
research utilizing eye-tracking technology has been designed to
test how attention and working memory capacity limitations will
impact learning from media and in particular how young children
track multiple components of the incoming stream (e.g., visual,
auditory, tactile; Hipp et al., 2017; Choi et al., 2018, 2021;
Kirkorian et al., 2022). For instance, Kirkorian et al. (2016) tracked
2-year-olds’ eye movements during a spatial recall task, measuring
the duration of children’s visual fixation on the target location
during hiding events viewed in-person versus on-screen via closed-
circuit video feed. They found children spent more time watching
the target location during on-screen hiding events, despite worse
performance on the spatial recall task (i.e., lower likelihood of
finding the hidden object on the first try). They interpreted this
counterintuitive finding as an indication that on-screen events are
harder to process, thus requiring more time to encode the same
information.
In a subsequent study, Kirkorian et al. (2022) tested whether
incorporating simple touchscreen interactivity could increase visual
tracking of an irrelevant or relevant cue and, by extension, hinder or
help and predict transfer of learning. They found simple touchscreen
interactivity built around the target object (i.e., having children
touch an object to watch where it would be hidden) increased visual
tracking of the target object. However, as in the 2016 study,
individual differences in the degree of object tracking did not predict
children’s spatial recall, suggesting encoding is necessary but
insufficient to ensure toddlers’ transfer from screen media.
Cognitive Load Relative to Capacity
Cognitive load is discussed frequently (Fisch, 2017; Hipp et al.,
2017; Mayer, 2014) as a cause of poor transfer. High cognitive load
decreases learning and longer term retention in many domains
(Murphy et al., 2016). For instance, 2-year-olds are more likely to
imitate real-life demonstrations of a two-step action sequence than a
three-step action sequence (Barr et al., 2016). In a 20-year review of
load theory, Murphy et al. (2016) argued that the theory should be
examined in applied settings. Indeed, given that transferring
information across contexts is itself cognitively demanding,
cognitive load may be especially important in moderating toddlers’
learning from digital media. One suggestive finding revealed a
negative impact of background music on toddlers’ imitation from
video but not from real-life demonstrations, whereas matched sound
effects enhanced imitation from video (Barr et al., 2010). The
background music was disconnected from the visual content and
may have increased cognitive load, whereas the matched sound
effects connected the audio and visual content and decreased
cognitive load (see also Mayer, 2014).
Cognitive load may be particularly important to the emergence
and decline of the transfer deficit in young children. Several early
studies suggested that the transfer deficit offset around 3 years old
(Strouse & Samson, 2021). However, recent studies suggest the
offset does not have an upper bound. Instead, the developmental
time course of the transfer deficit appears to be protracted with
 MODELS OF EARLY LEARNING IN THE DIGITAL WORLD
increasing task complexity and has been observed in children
older than 3 years (Dickerson et al., 2013; Flynn & Whiten, 2008;
Hipp et al., 2017; Kirkorian & Simmering, 2023; Reiß et al., 2019;
Roseberry et al., 2009). For instance, a video deficit for action
imitation declined by age 36 months in one study using relatively
simple action sequences (McCall et al., 1977) but persisted in
studies of older preschoolers using longer action sequences (Flynn
& Whiten, 2008) or introducing distractors (Dickerson et al., 2013).
Similarly, a video deficit for spatial recall disappeared by age 3 years
using a relatively simple task with four easily nameable landmarks
marking each hiding spot (e.g., behind the box; Schmidt et al., 2007)
but persisted in 4- and 5-year-olds using a more difficult search task
without landmarks (Kirkorian & Simmering, 2023). Reiß et al.
This article is intended solely for the personal use of the individual user and is not to be disseminated broadly.
(2019) also observed a video deficit in 4- and 5-year-old children
This document is copyrighted by the American Psychological Association or one of its allied publishers.
using a false belief task, which most children master by age 4.5 years
(Wellman et al., 2001), leading the researchers to conclude the
transfer deficit may be most pronounced as a skill is being
consolidated. Findings such as these are consistent with the
hypothesis that cognitive load may protract the offset of the transfer
deficit (Barr, 2010; Kirkorian, 2018). However, direct empirical
tests are lacking.
Given the centrality of cognitive load in the new conceptual
model, individual differences in working memory capacity are also
likely to produce differences in digital learning (e.g., Barr, 2010,
2013; Hipp et al., 2017; Kirkorian, 2018; Troseth, 2010). There is
some evidence supporting this hypothesis that transfer from screens
is cognitively taxing and relies on working memory capacity. For
instance, toddlers’ working memory performance on the well-
established Spin-the-Pots task (Hughes & Ensor, 2005) predicts
toddlers’ (27–35 months) spatial recall following hiding events
viewed via noninteractive video or a simple touchscreen app (Choi
et al., 2018, 2021). Another aspect of executive functioning, poor
inhibitory control has also been suggested as a potential reason
for lack of updating in spatial search tasks (e.g., Kirkorian &
Simmering, 2023; Suddendorf, 2003). Indeed, toddlers’ self-
regulation was related to their indiscriminate tapping on the screen
during a touchscreen word-learning task and may have implications
for how well children learn from simply watching a video versus
interacting with a touchscreen app (Russo-Johnson et al., 2017).
Individual differences in both working memory and inhibitory
control are likely to influence the rate of learning among children.
Long-Term Storage and Graded Representations
Prior experience will act on encoding, storage, and retrieval, as
indicated by the feedback loop in Figure 1. Prior experience is
important to consider because learning history will change the
strength of representations and affect cognitive load, as shown in the
figure. For example, repetition influences the development of graded
representations (Kirkorian & Simmering, 2023) and recall (Barr,
Muentener, & Garcia, 2007; Krcmar, 2010), while spacing between
learning trials influences memory retrieval (Vlach, 2014). These
findings are all presumably due to changes in long-term storage.
When a particular learning event is repeated (e.g., the same video is
watched over and over again), a stronger memory representation is
formed which reduces cognitive load at the time of retrieval.
However, the experimental tasks commonly used to document a
transfer deficit do not consider prior experience and lack precision
and granularity. For example, many spatial recall tasks (e.g.,
461
Schmidt et al., 2007; Troseth & DeLoache, 1998) measure success
or failure in finding an object hidden in a small number of easily
nameable locations (e.g., under the pillow). Such studies reveal that
transfer deficit declines by 30–36 months old (Kirkorian et al., 2016;
Schmidt et al., 2007; Schmitt & Anderson, 2002; Troseth &
DeLoache, 1998). Older children may be more likely to succeed in
these tasks because they can retrieve discrete namable locations;
however, such binary measures of memory retrieval may
underestimate the age at which the transfer deficit disappears
(Kirkorian & Simmering, 2023).
More sensitive tasks can measure gradations in memory
representation, testing the prediction that children may succeed at
relatively simple tasks but fail at more difficult tasks that measure the
same knowledge but require a stronger memory representation
(Munakata, 2001). To directly test this hypothesis, Kirkorian and
Simmering (2023) used a more sensitive continuous search space.
Rather than hiding a toy in discrete locations, a toy was hidden in a
sandbox at various locations and the location was changed on each
trial. They measured precisely where 4–5-year-old children searched
for the toy. Search errors were measured to assess whether there was
preservative bias (i.e., more systematic error in the direction toward
vs. away from where the toy was found in the previous trial). The
researchers found evidence of perseverative bias that was stronger
for video demonstrations than in-person demonstrations, and that
perseverative bias decreased across repeated trials in the same
location. The authors concluded that memory representations are
graded in nature and strengthened with repetition which might
explain why children may demonstrate a transfer deficit in some
tasks or contexts but not others. Specifically, while a weak mental
representation from video may be sufficient in a relatively simple
task, a similarly weak representation may not be enough in a more
difficult task.
Memory Retrieval Mechanisms
While some theoretical accounts of the transfer deficit focus on
encoding limitations, others characterize the transfer deficit as a
fundamental failure in memory retrieval. The accounts described
earlier highlight some factors that affect memory retrieval. For
example, memory retrieval (and thus transfer) are more likely when
retrieval cues are similar (i.e., the transfer situation is perceptually
similar to the situation in which information was first learned), when
children have high representational flexibility (i.e., ability to retrieve
memories in the face of perceptual changes across contexts), when
children understand the symbolic nature of the video screen, and
when children recognize the real-world reference that was
represented on the screen.
While evidence of the transfer deficit is generally consistent with
these theoretical accounts, the literature is dominated by group
comparisons of immediate memory retrieval, despite the importance
of deferred retrieval for sustained learning (Bjork, 1994; Vlach et al.,
2012). Video demonstrations are forgotten quickly. So far there is
only one published study that has systematically tested toddlers’
forgetting from videos (Brito et al., 2012). Figure 2 shows our
computed forgetting functions (Averell & Heathcote, 2011) for
published data reported in the video study (Brito et al., 2012) and
another study that used real-life demonstrations of the same actions
(Herbert & Hayne, 2000). Imitation by 24-month-olds exceeded
baseline in both studies after a 4-week delay but only in Herbert and
 462 BARR AND KIRKORIAN
Hayne’s study with real-life demonstrations after an 8-week delay.
Based on our cross-study comparison of forgetting functions, we
estimate that forgetting occurred more than 3 times faster for video
than for real-life demonstrations (Figure 2). However, while the
imitation task and age group were the same, these studies were
conducted several years apart in different countries by different
research groups. New studies counterbalancing live and video
demonstrations would allow for a more direct comparison of
forgetting functions in different modalities.
Media Design and Media Use Context
The new conceptual framework also accounts for well-documented
This article is intended solely for the personal use of the individual user and is not to be disseminated broadly.
differences in digital learning as a function of media design and
This document is copyrighted by the American Psychological Association or one of its allied publishers.
context. Here, we describe what is known about three such
characteristics: touchscreen interactivity, JME, and social contingency.
Touchscreen Interactivity
To what extent does other media activity, such as touchscreen
responses, affect early digital learning? The evidence suggests
media interactivity sometimes—but not always—increases tod-
dlers’ learning. A substantial body of literature examines media
interactivity in the context of eBooks. Studies that have compared
learning from eBooks and traditional print books have been mixed
(e.g., Etta & Kirkorian, 2019; Lauricella et al., 2014; Strouse &
Ganea, 2017) and are often dependent on the design and affordances
of the eBooks (for reviews, see Bus et al., 2015, 2020; Kucirkova,
2019; Takacs et al., 2015). Researchers have found that both the
amount of information and the alignment of cues are both critical to
learning outcomes. For example, high-quality eBooks with
animations that highlighted important words using brief animations
and repetition enhanced word learning (Bus & Anstadt, 2021; Bus et
al., 2020). In an eye-tracking study, Eng et al. (2020) found that
when features of the eBook were closely matched to the narrative
Figure 2
Forgetting Functions Estimated From Reported Imitation Scores
Following Live (Herbert & Hayne, 2000) and Video (Brito et al.,
2012) Demonstrations
Note. See the online article for the color version of this figure.
and extraneous details were stripped, 2-year-olds tracked the
relevant content and this was associated with higher comprehension
(see also Bus & Anstadt, 2021; Takacs & Bus, 2018). Conversely,
other studies have found that when relevancy levels are low and
extraneous information is added via features like hotspots,
comprehension of the narrative decreases (Parish-Morris et al.,
2013; Piotrowski & Krcmar, 2017). Overall, comprehension is
higher when the interactive features are closely aligned with the
narrative.
Researchers have also tested the extent to which touchscreen apps
can boost early learning compared to noninteractive video. Again
findings are mixed with some positive (Choi & Kirkorian, 2016;
Kirkorian et al., 2016; Lauricella et al., 2010), some neutral (Moser
et al., 2015), or in the case of more complex digital games some
negative (Aladé et al., 2016; Choi & Kirkorian, 2016; Kirkorian
et al., 2016; Schroeder & Kirkorian, 2016). Like eBooks, differences
across studies may be partly due to differences in design.
Initially, researchers were interested in whether young children
could learn on touchscreens. They hypothesized that additional
tactile cues provided by the touchscreen might facilitate learning and
ameliorate the transfer deficit. Zack et al. (2009) showed 15-month-
olds a demonstration of how to press a button box, either in 3D or on
a touchscreen. The transfer deficit persisted, and the effect was
bidirectional. Despite a high degree of perceptual similarity and high
levels of social engagement between the learning and test context,
children performed more poorly when transferring across dimen-
sions in either direction (2D to 3D or 3D to 2D) than within a single
dimension (2D to 2D or 3D to 3D; Zack et al., 2009). The authors
concluded that infants could imitate a simple action demonstrated on
a touchscreen but transfer remained difficult.
Another group of researchers tested the degree to which interaction
with the app itself during the learning phase might improve
performance. The simple app required the children to tap the screen
to launch a video and compared it to learning from a standard video
demonstration. This approach was based on the logic that a single tap is
the most common touchscreen action in apps for young children (Skora
Horgan et al., 2019) and among the first children master. This action
was performed by 80% of 2-year-olds (Cristia & Seidl, 2015) and 97%
of 3–5-year-olds (Skora Horgan et al., 2019). The researchers found
that younger toddlers learn more from the simple apps than from
video (Choi & Kirkorian, 2016; Kirkorian et al., 2016; Lauricella et al.,
2010). For example, toddlers (24–36-month-olds) watched videos
of an actor removing objects from boxes and performing a simple,
three-step action sequence (see Figure 3).
Demonstrations were presented on a tablet computer in one of two
modalities: Video: The actor instructed children to “watch the box” to
see the object. The actor opened the box and demonstrated the action
sequence. App: The actor instructed children to “touch the box” to see
the object. The video paused until children tapped the box indicated
by the actor. By tapping the correct on-screen box, children launched
the video demonstration. On average, toddlers imitated more
actions following an app demonstration than a video demonstration
(Kirkorian et al., 2019). Similar advantages for the simple app over
video were shown for a word-learning task (Kirkorian et al., 2016)
and a spatial recall task (Choi & Kirkorian, 2016).
To test older children, Dickerson et al. (2013) designed a puzzle
tangram game based on games that are commonly available both in
real objects and digitally in app stores. In their task, an experimenter
demonstrated how to construct a puzzle either on a touchscreen with
 MODELS OF EARLY LEARNING IN THE DIGITAL WORLD 463

Figure 3
Toddlers’ Imitation From Video Demonstrations Versus a Simple Touchscreen App
This article is intended solely for the personal use of the individual user and is not to be disseminated broadly.
This document is copyrighted by the American Psychological Association or one of its allied publishers.

Note. Produced from data reported by Toddlers’ Imitation and Word Learning From Interactive Videos: Does
Task-Relevant Interactivity Support Learning? (Poster presentation), by H. L. Kirkorian, T. A. Pempek, R. Etta,
S. H. Yoo, E. Skora Horgan, and M. Jing, 2019, Biennial Meeting of the Society for Research in Child
Development, Baltimore, MD, United States. See the online article for the color version of this figure.

2D pieces, on a magnet board with 3D pieces, or in a video
demonstration of the puzzle. While 2- and 2.5-year-olds continued to
show a transfer deficit from video, 3-year-olds did not (Dickerson et
al., 2013). Further, Moser et al. (2015) reported that the bidirectional
transfer deficit on touchscreens persisted in 2.5- and 3-year-olds.
Conversely, Huber et al. (2016) found that 4–6-year-old children
could learn the tower of Hanoi puzzle on a touchscreen and did not
exhibit a transfer deficit when tested with a 3D version of the game.
Older children could imitate more motorically and cognitively
challenging tasks that had been demonstrated on a touchscreen. The
addition of interactivity in the touchscreen sometimes ameliorated the
transfer deficit among children 3 years old and younger (e.g., Choi &
Kirkorian, 2016), and in other cases, the deficit declined along the
same developmental time course as video (Huber et al., 2016; Moser
et al., 2015; Zack et al., 2009). These findings show that the degree to
which interactive features are integrated with the information content
and the relative costs and benefits of increased cognitive load affect
the transfer deficit (Fisch, 2017; Kirkorian, 2018).
It remains to be seen whether the interactivity provided by media
itself, such as touchscreen apps, rivals the real-life interactions
afforded by JME or social contingency afforded by video chat
discussed next. However, some evidence suggests social contin-
gency and interactivity enhance learning and that removal of cues
hinders learning (Lytle et al., 2018; Zimmermann et al., 2017). In
one study, 9-month-olds were unable to learn a phonetic
discrimination when it was presented repeatedly on television but
could learn to distinguish between phonemes from face-to-face
interactions (Kuhl et al., 2003). When 9-month-old infants were
paired together and were able to interact with a tablet to stop and
start the videos themselves, however, they did learn the phonetic
discrimination from a video demonstration but failed to do so when
they interacted with the tablet alone (Lytle et al., 2018).
Joint Media Engagement
There are clear positive effects of social contingency. Toddlers
learn in a social world. Human interactions are predicated on social
contingency or the appropriate and timely back-and-forth manner
of response (Bornstein et al., 2008; Kuhl 2007). Responsive parent–
child interactions promote healthy social attachment formation,
language development, and cognitive development (Bornstein et al.,
2008). The role of caregivers in learning has been considered in
book reading but largely ignored in theoretical models or learning
from other media, such as television and touchscreen devices. For
these reasons, it is critical to understand the impact of social
interactions on children’s learning from digital media.
JME is defined as actively discussing content and interacting with
media content together (Barr, 2019) and should be distinguished
from merely listening and watching together while the video plays
or the eBook narrates the story. JME has been associated with
positive outcomes, including enhanced interactions (Dore et al.,
2018; Sundqvist et al., 2021), increased attention and responsive-
ness to media (Barr et al., 2008), and increased transfer of learning
(Zack & Barr, 2016). JME is likely to be effective because it
increases selective attention to relevant information and helps make
connections within the media content and to the real world.
However, JME could also disrupt encoding of media content if
caregivers do not provide clear cues, or when caregivers focus on the
device features (e.g., how to swipe) rather than the content. The last
assumption of the CTML (Mayer, 2014) suggests that active
engagement with the device or via JME will enhance working
memory and promote learning and that during early childhood,
active engagement is most likely to be facilitated with JME.
Furthermore, JME can be facilitated by providing guidance to
caregivers and instructors. For example, instructional videos
depicting other parents in reading situations displaying dialogic
reading and eBooks with an embedded avatar induce more dialogic
reading by parents (e.g., Arnold et al., 1994; Strouse et al., 2013,
2023; Troseth et al., 2020; Zevenbergen & Whitehurst, 2003).
Examples of effective JME strategies with eBooks include repeating
target words, pointing to the screen to draw attention to important
aspects, and making real-life connections from the screen to the
child’s life to match cues from the book to the real world and to
make content more meaningful. When researchers have embedded
 464 BARR AND KIRKORIAN
cues into avatars in eBooks to prompt caregivers to engage in
dialogic reading, rates of dialogic reading from eBooks were over
and above the rates of print book reading (Strouse et al., 2023;
Troseth et al., 2020). Without such prompts, parents are often
reluctant to “interrupt” the flow of a self-reading eBook, and
dialogic reading during eBooks is often low or parents report solo
use. Analogous research is needed to identify specific mechanisms
that drive the impact of JME on learning from other media (e.g.,
videos, touchscreen apps) and to inform the design of media that
supports early learning in the real world.
Social Contingency
This article is intended solely for the personal use of the individual user and is not to be disseminated broadly.
Social contingency provided during video chat enhances learning.
This document is copyrighted by the American Psychological Association or one of its allied publishers.
Unlike watching television or recorded home videos, during video
chat social contingency is available because the person on the screen
can see, hear, and react to a child in real time. While noncontingent
video may violate infants’ expectations of contingency, such that
infants and toddlers discount noncontingent media as a viable source
of information, the social contingency in video chat may increase the
relevance and meaningfulness of screen-based information for the
child. In laboratory-based research studies, toddlers and preschoo-
lers are more engaged and responsive to video chat than to video
recordings (Gaudreau et al., 2020; Myers et al., 2017, 2019;
Roseberry et al., 2014; Strouse et al., 2018; Troseth et al., 2006). For
example, toddlers (12–25-month-olds) were randomly assigned to
either a video chat or prerecorded videos. They participated for a
week and were then tested on preference and recognition of the
person they saw on the videochat or prerecorded video (compared to
an unfamiliar experimenter), as well as novel words and actions
(Myers et al., 2017). Children in the video chat condition imitated
more novel actions than children in the prerecorded video condition.
Beginning at 18 months, children in the videochat condition, but not
the video condition, preferred the person they saw on the videochat
to the unfamiliar experimenter. The oldest children (22–24-month-
olds) in the videochat condition learned more novel words than the
oldest children in the video condition did. Overall, these findings
indicate that the transfer deficit can be ameliorated with a socially
contingent video chat, but that both task complexity and child
individual differences like age continue to influence these results.
New Theory in Practice: Generating New Questions
Learning in the context of digital media varies considerably
across early childhood, with notable individual differences. Yet, the
literature provides few insights into the moderators that lead to
learning in some toddlers and not others. Equally important, the
literature does not elucidate when information should be
reintroduced to optimize long-term retention. The cumulative
learning effects over time and learning history must be considered as
well. In this section, we describe how the new theoretical framework
can be used to generate new questions aimed at understanding the
transfer deficit as it exists in the real world.
Does Cognitive Load Affect the Offset of the
Transfer Deficit?
The new theoretical model posits that increasing cognitive load
will protract the video deficit, causing it to appear in older children
who would otherwise learn equally well from video and real-life
demonstrations. Consistent with this hypothesis, empirical studies
have shown that repetition can ameliorate (though not fully eliminate)
the transfer deficit (e.g., Barr, Muentener, & Garcia, 2007; Barr,
Muentener, & Garcia, 2007; Crawley et al., 1999). However, most
evidence to date is based on cross-study comparisons (e.g.,
comparing imitation rates in studies with shorter vs. longer action
sequences). The impact of cognitive load could be tested directly in
future research using within-subject manipulations of task constraints
that affect cognitive load (e.g., number of steps or distractors).
Further, the developmental time course for the transfer deficit may
be protracted for more difficult tasks or when there are opportunities
for proactive interference (Barr, 2010; Hipp et al., 2017; Kirkorian,
2018; Troseth, 2010). However, this has not been tested
systematically or longitudinally. Additionally, the upper bound of
the transfer deficit has not been established and is likely to be
contingent on cognitive load (Hipp et al., 2017; Kirkorian, 2018).
Paradigms that are sensitive to graded differences in representational
strength may reveal more subtle deficit effects than previously
observed (Kirkorian & Simmering, 2023). By experimentally
manipulating cognitive load across a wide age range, researchers
can simultaneously test the impact of cognitive load and test the
hypothesis that cognitive load alters the age at which the transfer
deficit declines.
Does Cognitive Load Affect the Onset of the
Transfer Deficit?
Of equal interest, such research could examine conditions that
affect the age at which the transfer deficit emerges. Theoretical
accounts of the transfer deficit tend to describe an age-related
decline in the transfer deficit but rarely consider whether the transfer
deficit is present at birth versus emerges or peaks sometime after
birth. In fact, age-related differences in learning from media are not
always linear. For example, studies have shown no transfer deficit
during the first year after birth with an onset around 12 months (Barr,
Muentener, & Garcia, 2007), and other studies have shown
nonlinear age-related differences in the effectiveness of touchscreen
interactivity on learning (e.g., Choi & Kirkorian, 2016).
Preliminary evidence suggests that there may be a “Goldilocks
effect” for digital learning. In other contexts, the Goldilocks effect
refers to differences in attention and learning that is nonlinear where
learning is best when information provided to the individual is
optimal, neither too simple nor too complex (Kidd et al., 2012). For
example, researchers have attempted to “break the fourth wall” in
prerecorded video with the addition of prompts directed at the
viewer. In programs such as Blue’s clues, the video prompted a
response by directing a question to the child and pausing for a
response and found that 3–5-year-olds respond to these prompts
(Crawley et al., 1999). Researchers tested whether there was an
optimal level of prompting from a prerecorded video for 3-year-olds
(Nussenbaum & Amso, 2016). In this study, the actor on the screen
taught 36-month-olds a novel word. In the low interactivity
condition, the experimenter on the screen asked if the child knew
how to say the novel word but did not wait for the child’s response.
In the medium condition, the experimenter paused for a few
seconds, apparently waiting for the response. In the high condition,
the experimenter added, after the pause, “You’re right!” Children in
the medium condition performed best. In the low condition, social
 MODELS OF EARLY LEARNING IN THE DIGITAL WORLD
norms were violated leading to the expectation that no response was
needed. In the high condition, the addition of “you’re right” led to
some inconsistency when children responded incorrectly, reducing
the effectiveness of the prompt. The medium condition was
therefore just right.
Other studies showed the extent to which touchscreen
interactivity helps (vs. hinders) toddlers’ learning varies by age
(Choi & Kirkorian, 2016; Kirkorian et al., 2016). In one study,
comparing toddlers’ learning from a simple app versus video,
toddlers (24–36 months) completed a word-learning task in which
the target object was presented alongside three distractors. The main
effect of the app was moderated by age such that the app increased
word learning for the youngest and oldest toddlers but decreased
This article is intended solely for the personal use of the individual user and is not to be disseminated broadly.
word learning for those in the middle group (Figure 4). Children’s
This document is copyrighted by the American Psychological Association or one of its allied publishers.
errors in this word-learning study elucidate why some toddlers
performed poorly in the app condition: When asked to select the
target object, children in the middle of the age range were especially
likely to point or reach toward the tablet computer rather than one of
the real test objects in front of them. Thus, it is not that these children
learned nothing from the app; rather, it seems they encoded both
relevant information (the target label) and also irrelevant informa-
tion (the tablet), creating an overly contextualized representation
that was not transferred to the real objects used during the test. The
oldest toddlers did not make this error, consistent with age-related
increases in representational flexibility (Barr, 2013).
The optimal conditions for learning may also depend on the type
of interactivity. For example, in a study of spatial recall in 24–36-
month-olds, the youngest children benefited most when they were
directed by the app to interact with specific and relevant information
on the screen (i.e., touching an object to see where it would be
hidden), whereas the oldest children did better when they could
choose for themselves where to interact on the screen (i.e., instructed
to touch “the screen” rather than a particular object on the screen;
Choi & Kirkorian, 2016). Together, such research identifies ways in
which interactivity can both facilitate and hinder learning transfer.
There are likely to be other forms of interactivity where there are
nonlinear Goldilocks effects.
The framework can also be used to test new theoretical predictions
regarding nonlinear effects of working memory and cognitive load on
digital learning. Studies that manipulate multiple factors could assess
how cognitive load combined with graded representations might
show a deficit in one situation/task/context but not another. Below
is an example of how the framework can be used to generate and test
new hypotheses. The Goldilocks effect whereby apps benefited
learning for the youngest and oldest children in each study but
hindered learning for those in the middle challenges the assumption
that interactive media are fundamentally better for learning
than noninteractive videos. Cross-study comparisons suggest age-
related cognitive constraints and cognitive load moderate this
Goldilocks effect.
Figure 5 shows the hypothetical likelihood of transfer of learning
accounting for individual differences in working memory capacity
(child characteristic) and cognitive load and toddlers’ immediate
and deferred imitation from media when learning from an interactive
(app) and noninteractive (video). The figure contrasts trajectories for
learning from real-life experiences where constraints will be based
on working memory (e.g., Zimmermann et al., 2021) and the amount
of information to be learned (e.g., Barr et al., 2016). Over time both
increase. The hypothesized video trajectory shows the gradual
465
Figure 4
Proportion of Children Who Learned a Novel Word From
Noninteractive Video Versus a Simple Touchscreen App
Note. Produced from data reported in “Toddlers’ Word Learning From
Contingent and Noncontingent Video on Touch Screens,” by H. L.
Kirkorian, K. Choi, and T. A. Pempek, 2016, Child Development, 87(2), pp.
405–413 (https://doi.org/10.1111/cdev.12508). The horizontal line repre-
sents chance. See the online article for the color version of this figure.
emergence of the transfer deficit over time based on evidence that
the deficit is initially absent, but it emerges by 1 year of age and
steadily diminishes across time as a function of age and complexity
(e.g., Barr, Muentener, & Garcia, 2007; Strouse & Samson, 2021).
The hypothesized app trajectory shows the predicted Goldilocks
effect whereby initially there is reduction in the transfer deficit
which returns when memories become too contextualized and then
abates with increasing memory flexibility (e.g., Choi & Kirkorian,
2016; Kirkorian et al., 2016). The figure also allows for graded
representations such that more challenging tasks will result in a shift
of the trajectories. Finally, although currently unknown, the figure
also describes the potential implications of forgetting for the transfer
deficit. Such approaches will allow research to move beyond the
standard questions about whether toddlers learn from digital media
to test theoretically derived mechanisms that influence memory
retrieval across contexts, between learners, and over time.
How Long Is Media-Based Information Remembered?
Research is lacking to test how long children remember media
content that has implications for the effectiveness of media for
educational purposes. Understanding the point at which children
forget information is critical not only for understanding mechanisms
that may limit immediate retrieval but also for identifying optimal
learning schedules for long-term retention. That is, predicting when
children are likely to forget is critical for determining when to
reintroduce information, as posited by desirable difficulties theory
(Bjork, 1994) and demonstrated in research on the spacing effect
(Smith & Scarf, 2017; Vlach, 2014). Future studies should attempt
to model a forgetting function for different modalities and, by
extension, identify optimal learning schedules for different types of
digital media.
 466 BARR AND KIRKORIAN

Figure 5
Hypothetical Likelihood of Transfer as a Function of Working Memory Capacity and
Cognitive Load, Illustrating the Emergence and Decline of the Transfer Deficit and the
Potential Impact of Media Interactivity on Immediate Memory Retrieval
This article is intended solely for the personal use of the individual user and is not to be disseminated broadly.
This document is copyrighted by the American Psychological Association or one of its allied publishers.

Note. See the online article for the color version of this figure.

Studies of long-term retention and computation of forgetting
functions are needed to better understand digital learning and the
transfer deficit in the real world. Counterintuitively, immediate
memory tests may underestimate toddlers’ learning under some
conditions. Research demonstrates immediate tests do not always
predict later memory tests, as children may forget irrelevant details
during sleep consolidation (Barr et al., 2005; Konrad et al., 2019;
Vlach, 2019; Vlach et al., 2012). Paradoxically, but in keeping with
the memory flexibility hypothesis (Barr, 2013), it may be that as the
delay between demonstration and test increases, memory retrieval
improves. This is because highly specific details (i.e., cues) that fail
to match between the encoding and retrieval contexts (e.g., the
button on the tablet) will no longer be accessible. The remaining
cues will match sufficiently well to enable successful retrieval. Put
differently, delay may (counterintuitively) reduce cognitive load and
enhance transfer. This may be particularly relevant for learning from
interactive media (e.g., touchscreen apps) given that interacting with
a mobile device has the potential to increase the salience of the
device itself rather than the information it presents (Troseth et al.,
2019), just as playing with a scale model room as if it were a
dollhouse prevented toddlers from using the scale model as a symbol
to find a hidden toy in a life-size room (DeLoache, 2000; Sharon &
DeLoache, 2003). Indeed, there is some evidence that apps produce
less flexible mental representations, reducing representational
flexibility and preventing young children from generalizing to
new situations (Aladé et al., 2016; Kirkorian et al., 2016; Schroeder
& Kirkorian, 2016). In these cases, apps may reduce memory
retrieval (relative to videos) immediately after encoding but not after
a delay, once highly specific cues are forgotten and a more flexible
representation remains (Barr et al., 2005; Brito et al., 2012; Vlach,
2014). This counterintuitive prediction has not been tested
empirically. Finally, the type of experience is likely to influence
future learning. Prior experience with interactive media but not
video viewing predicted higher transfer success on a spatial recall
task (Kirkorian & Choi, 2017). However, learning history is often
ignored.
How Do Individual Differences Influence
What Is Learned and Remembered?
Research on individual differences in learning from digital media
in general, and the transfer deficit in particular, is limited.
Measurement of individual differences should be incorporated
into research in toddlers’ learning to provide new insights about why
toddlers learn under some conditions and not others. Researchers
need to define the optimal conditions for early learning across
contexts, design features, and the individual child characteristics
that moderate learning from digital media. By elucidating the
conditions that support toddlers’ learning, researchers will be able to
inform the development of early learning materials that harness the
scalability and pervasiveness of digital media. Individual differ-
ences in addition to working memory such as vocabulary, inhibitory
control, and past experience with digital media may also partially
account for differences in learning from digital media (Choi et al.,
2018; Courage et al., 2021; Kirkorian & Choi, 2017; Russo-Johnson
et al., 2017; Troseth et al., 2007; Zimmermann et al., 2015). For
example, self-generation of a label to describe a puzzle facilitated
the transfer of learning (Moser et al., 2019; Zimmermann et al.,
 MODELS OF EARLY LEARNING IN THE DIGITAL WORLD
2015), illustrating the transactional nature of memory encoding and
retrieval based on prior knowledge.
Even if cognitive load is appropriate and the child attends to and
encodes the content, it is also possible that individual differences in
screen-mediated experience could lead to learned irrelevance.
Troseth (2010) argued that because screen-mediated experiences
often do not have real-world overlap (e.g., the objects on the screen
do not exist in the child’s home), then children learn that the
information is not meaningful to their everyday activities.
Consistent with this theory, in many cases, the amount of
exposure that an individual child has in their everyday lives does
not enhance learning from media and in some cases, additional
exposure may even decrease learning (Strouse & Troseth, 2008).
This article is intended solely for the personal use of the individual user and is not to be disseminated broadly.
This could explain why prior experience with symbolic or
This document is copyrighted by the American Psychological Association or one of its allied publishers.
interactive media (but not professionally produced television or
video content) predicts better learning from screens (Kirkorian &
Choi, 2017; Troseth et al., 2007). Additional research is needed to
examine how different types of media exposure in real-world
settings influence subsequent encoding and retrieval from screens
over time.
Do Laboratory Findings Generalize to
Real-World Settings?
Principles derived from laboratory-based research could be
incorporated into research programs in real-world settings. Income-
related achievement gaps are evident by the second year of life, long
before children enter school, and early interventions to enhance
cognitive and language skills are critical to adequately prepare
children for successful school entry (Duncan et al., 2007; Noble
et al., 2015; Ramey & Ramey, 2004). Educational media,
particularly apps, a near-universal resource in U.S. homes with
young children (J. S. Radesky et al., 2020; Rideout & Robb, 2020),
may help bridge such gaps (e.g., Bower et al., 2022; Wright et al.,
2001). However, the vast majority of research on the transfer deficit
is based on laboratory studies using very simple video demonstra-
tions designed to test precise theory-driven questions. It remains to
be seen whether findings based on such research generalize to
professionally produced media that children are likely to use at
home. In fact, researchers find that most early childhood apps
designated as “educational” lack features that are known to support
early learning in real-world contexts (Hirsh-Pasek et al., 2015;
Meyer et al., 2021). This represents a missed opportunity, given
widespread app usage, including apps marketed as educational for
young children (Sensor Tower, 2022). The transfer deficit has not
been tested with these naturalistic stimuli. On the one hand, the
transfer deficit may be ameliorated when children have the
opportunity for repeat exposure over time in a familiar setting.
On the other hand, design features common in professional
produced media (e.g., animation and fantastical content, complex
stories, and touchscreen mechanics) may exacerbate the transfer
deficit compared to the much simpler live-action videos common in
laboratory studies.
Applied research aimed at developing and evaluating educational
apps for young children can build on the model established for
educational television in the last century. Educational television was
successful because of the combined small-scale experimental
studies that have elucidated mechanisms associated with positive
learning outcomes and direct developers to principles that guide
467
new educational content (e.g., D. N. Linebarger et al., 2017). The
collaboration between content developers and researchers then
allowed large-scale educational programming to be tested in the
wild, culminating in best practices for developing educational
content. This approach informed the production of programs such as
Sesame Street and Blue’s Clues (Anderson, 2004; Fisch, 2000,
2004, 2017; D. L. Linebarger et al., 2004; Truglio et al., 2000).
Benefits in early learning and school readiness have been observed
for children across the globe, at all income levels, and in domains as
diverse as Science, Technology, Engineering and Mathematics
knowledge, literacy, and social skills (Anderson & Kirkorian, 2015;
Fisch, 2004; Mares & Pan, 2013).
The same approach is needed to develop effective educational
applications (see Fisch, 2017). To bridge the gap between the
availability of scalable affordable technology and the promise of
educational benefits, it will be necessary for developmentalists,
content designers, and families to collaborate and test multiple well-
designed commercial apps “in the wild.” This will involve developing
effective methods of evaluating the content and testing both the short-
term and long-term effects of app use on young children, comparing a
large number of titles that vary on a wide range of features to test
generalizable science-of-learning principles that inform the design of
future media to maximize learning outcomes.
How Does the Transfer Deficit Operate
Within the Family Media Ecology?
To rigorously evaluate apps in the wild, researchers need to
evaluate content, track usage of apps and family media ecology,
and measure learning outcomes. To effectively capture content
both features that are educational enhancing and those that are
distracting and problematic need to be captured (e.g.,
Fenstermacher et al., 2010; Hirsh-Pasek et al., 2015; D. N.
Linebarger et al., 2017; Meyer et al., 2021; J. Radesky & Hiniker,
2022). Usage can be captured with passive sensing tools (e.g., J. S.
Radesky et al., 2020). In addition to testing professionally
produced media, researchers can test the generalizability of the
transfer deficit by examining media use within the family system.
That is, the vast majority of transfer deficit research has been done
in isolation in laboratory settings with a single child interacting
with a single experimenter. In the real world, children use media
with siblings and caregivers, and such JME could improve learning
outcomes even for young children (e.g., Zack & Barr, 2016).
Finally, it will be necessary to measure child outcomes
longitudinally to track cumulative outcomes of using apps and
for tracking child developmental milestones (Scott & Schulz,
2017). Researchers would then have a means to test theoretically
derived principles in professionally and commercially available
apps by tracking the content and daily usage patterns in the wild
and assessing child outcomes. We would be able to answer
research questions such as—(1) Does this early media exposure
impact preparation for school and social settings? (2) Does
learning numbers and letters transfer to increased school
readiness? (3) Does exposure to narrative and cooperative games
promote social and prosocial behaviors? By testing these
questions, principles from broader investigations “in the wild”
can inform the development of scalable learning tools that
capitalize on media to reach millions of children at a relatively low
cost per child (Mares & Pan, 2013).
 468 BARR AND KIRKORIAN
How Do Newer Forms of Media
Affect the Transfer Deficit?
Media forms are rapidly emerging and evolving. In prior research,
the live condition has been considered the gold standard. As
described earlier in this section, simple interactive media (e.g.,
tapping the screen to play a video) sometimes increases children’s
learning from screens. Similarly, social contingency via video chat
often improves learning from screens. It is possible that newer, more
immersive forms of media like virtual reality could go further,
eventually equaling or even outperforming learning from real-life
demonstrations. For example, a virtual world that included
immersive historical figures could be created to enhance the live
This article is intended solely for the personal use of the individual user and is not to be disseminated broadly.
experience. We would predict that if we conducted an experiment to
This document is copyrighted by the American Psychological Association or one of its allied publishers.
contrast a live reenactment of the historical event versus a virtual
reality immersive event that learning in the live condition might still
be better or at least equivalent to the virtual reality setting. However,
in practical terms, the immersive experience would be more
accessible to many more children. Other advances in the addition of
sensors for haptic cues might similarly increase information access.
Immediate Applications: How to Enhance
Learning From Media
Although there is much that remains to be learned about
children’s learning from educational media, particularly interactive
media such as mobile apps, research to date illuminates several
strategies to facilitate early learning in the digital age. How can we
support parents, educators, and policy makers in making a safe
digital landscape for young children? Based on the available
literature and theory reviewed here, there are a number of strategies
that can be implemented to enhance learning from digital media and
reduce potential risk (Barr, 2019, 2022; Kirkorian, 2018) and boil
down to two memory-based applications, the addition of supportive
cues and the reduction of distraction and interference.
Judicious use of effective cues can enhance learning (e.g., Myers
et al., 2017; Choi & Kirkorian, 2021; Troseth et al., 2006). In many
cases, this requires the systematic addition of specific information.
Repetition of media content can enhance encoding and reduce
constraints on both working memory and perceptual processing
(Barr, Muentener, & Garcia, 2007; Crawley et al., 1999; Krcmar,
2010). The addition of matched content features that direct attention
to the relevant content (e.g., matched sound effects; Barr et al., 2010)
and content that supports the narrative (e.g., brief animations in
eBooks; Bus & Anstadt, 2021) enhances learning. The rapid
expansion of virtual reality and haptic cues are also likely to provide
even closer matches between the 2D and 3D worlds. It is important
to match developmental motoric skills with design (Choi &
Kirkorian, 2021). Simple apps that require a single tap, the most
common touchscreen action in apps for young children and among
the first children master (Skora Horgan et al., 2019) have potential
for young children.
Social contingency is another powerful cue for learning during
early childhood and therefore video chat social contingency can
enhance learning (e.g., Myers et al., 2017). Developers and families
may need to consider creative ways to include video social
contingency. Strategies observed during intergenerational videochat
interactions (e.g., Roche et al., 2022) and the emergence of services
to facilitate eBook reading via video chat are two possible creative
approaches. JME with people in the room also enhances learning
(e.g., Dore et al., 2018; Zack & Barr, 2016) by tailoring to the
individual needs of the child and making learning more meaningful.
However, content design is improving such that it can also provide
scaffolding by providing more graduated levels of learning that are
responsive to child learning via computer adaptive algorithms and
the embedding of effective prompts. For example, the addition of
avatars to prompt dialogic interactions during eBook reading
enhanced interactivity (Strouse et al., 2023) and could be applied to
other media as an effective intervention.
In other cases, it is necessary to remove information. The removal
of distractions (e.g., ads, pop-ups, hotspots) could significantly
increase the educational effectiveness of all forms of media (video,
apps, video chat, and eBooks; see Bus et al., 2015, 2020; Kucirkova,
2019; Takacs et al., 2015). It may require intervention from policy
makers to put some guardrails on media producers to reduce
interference rather than leaving the responsibility of monitoring all
the content to parents and educators (Barr, 2022).
Conclusion
Rapid expansion and adoption of technology by families with
young children has resulted in frequent use of digital media during
early childhood. While it is well-known that learning from media
during early childhood often results in a transfer deficit, recent
findings provide us with an updated theoretical view. During early
childhood, there are multiple information processing constraints on
learning from media. Attention and working memory will influence
encoding, and representational flexibility and symbolic understand-
ing at the time of retrieval influence learning and transfer. Media
design and learning context combined with individual differences in
learning will influence cognitive load, thereby determining whether
learning will occur at different points in development. Collaborative
research between academics, content developers, and families should
be conducted at multiple levels to better understand age-related
changes in both short-term and long-term learning from digital media.
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. https://
doi.org/10.1016/j.chb.2016.03.080
Anderson, D. R., & Kirkorian, H. L. (2015). Media and cognitive
development. In R. M. Lerner (Ed.), Handbook of child psychology and
developmental science (7th ed., pp. 949–994). Wiley. https://doi.org/10
.1002/9781118963418.childpsy222
Anderson, D. R., & Pempek, T. (2005). Television and very young children.
American Behavioral Scientist, 48(5), 505–522. https://doi.org/10.1177/
0002764204271506
Anderson, D. R. (2004). Watching children watch television and the creation
of Blue's Clues. In H. Hendershot (Ed.), Nickelodeon nation: The history,
politics, and economics of America's only TV channel for kids (pp. 241–
268). New York University Press.
Arnold, D. H., Lonigan, C. J., Whitehurst, G. J., & Epstein, J. N. (1994).
Accelerating language development through picture book reading: Replication
and extension to a videotape training format. Journal of Educational
Psychology, 86(2), 235–243. https://doi.org/10.1037/0022-0663.86.2.235
Atkinson, R. C., & Shiffrin, R. M. (1968). Human memory: A proposed
system and its control processes. Psychology of learning and motivation,
2, 89–195. https://doi.org/10.1016/S0079-7421(08)60422-3
 MODELS OF EARLY LEARNING IN THE DIGITAL WORLD
Averell, L., & Heathcote, A. (2011). The form of the forgetting curve and the
fate of memories. Journal of Mathematical Psychology, 55(1), 25–35.
https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jmp.2010.08.009
Baddeley, A. (2000). The episodic buffer: A new component of working
memory? Trends in Cognitive Sciences, 4(11), 417–423. https://doi.org/10
.1016/S1364-6613(00)01538-2
Barnett, S. M., & Ceci, S. J. (2002). When and where do we apply what we
learn? A taxonomy for far transfer. Psychological Bulletin, 128(4), 612–
637. https://doi.org/10.1037/0033-2909.128.4.612
Barr, R. (2010). Transfer of learning between 2D and 3D sources during
infancy: Informing theory and practice. Developmental Review, 30(2),
128–154. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.dr.2010.03.001
Barr, R. (2013). Memory constraints on infant learning from picture books,
television, and touchscreens. Child Development Perspectives, 7(4), 205–
This article is intended solely for the personal use of the individual user and is not to be disseminated broadly.
210. https://doi.org/10.1111/cdep.12041
This document is copyrighted by the American Psychological Association or one of its allied publishers.
Barr, R. (2019). Growing up in the digital age: Early learning and family
media ecology. Current Directions in Psychological Science, 28(4), 341–
346. https://doi.org/10.1177/0963721419838245
Barr, R. (2022). Building equitable access and inclusion for children growing
up in the digital age. Policy Insights From the Behavioral and Brain
Sciences, 9(1), 73–80. https://doi.org/10.1177/23727322211068388
Barr, R., & Hayne, H. (1999). Developmental changes in imitation from
television during infancy. Child Development, 70(5), 1067–1081. https://
doi.org/10.1111/1467-8624.00079
Barr, R., Moser, A., Rusnak, S., Zimmermann, L., Dickerson, K., Lee, H., &
Gerhardstein, P. (2016). The impact of memory load and perceptual cues
on puzzle learning by 24-month olds. Developmental Psychobiology,
58(7), 817–828. https://doi.org/10.1002/dev.21450
Barr, R., Muentener, P., & Garcia, A. (2007). Age-related changes in deferred
imitation from television by 6- to 18-month-olds. Developmental Science,
10(6), 910–921. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1467-7687.2007.00641.x
Barr, R., Muentener, P., Garcia, A., Fujimoto, M., & Chávez, V. (2007).
The effect of repetition on imitation from television during infancy.
Developmental Psychobiology, 49(2), 196–207. https://doi.org/10.1002/
dev.20208
Barr, R., Rovee-Collier, C., & Campanella, J. (2005). Retrieval protracts
deferred imitation by 6-month-olds. Infancy, 7(3), 263–283. https://
doi.org/10.1207/s15327078in0703_3
Barr, R., Shuck, L., Salerno, K., Atkinson, E., & Linebarger, D. L. (2010).
Music interferes with learning from television during infancy. Infant and
Child Development, 19(3), 313–331. https://doi.org/10.1002/icd.666
Barr, R., Zack, E., Garcia, A., & Muentener, P. (2008). Infants’ attention and
responsiveness to television increases with prior exposure and parental
interaction. Infancy, 13(1), 30–56. https://doi.org/10.1080/15250000701
779378
Bjork, R. (1994). Memory and meta-memory considerations in the training
of human beings. In J. Metcalfe & A. Shimamura (Eds.), Mezacogaifion
knowing about phowing (pp. 185–205). MIT Press.
Bornstein, M. H., Tamis-Lemonda, C. S., Hahn, C.-S., & Haynes, O. M.
(2008). Maternal responsiveness to young children at three ages:
Longitudinal analysis of a multidimensional, modular, and specific parenting
construct. Developmental Psychology, 44(3), 867–874. https://doi.org/10
.1037/0012-1649.44.3.867
Bower, C. A., Zimmermann, L., Verdine, B. N., Pritulsky, C., Golinkoff,
R. M., & Hirsh-Pasek, K. (2022). Enhancing spatial skills of preschoolers
from under-resourced backgrounds: A comparison of digital app vs.
concrete materials. Developmental Science, 25(1), Article e13148. https://
doi.org/10.1111/desc.13148
Brito, N., Barr, R., McIntyre, P., & Simcock, G. (2012). Long-term transfer of
learning from books and video during toddlerhood. Journal of Experimental
Child Psychology, 111(1), 108–119. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jecp.2011.08.004
Bus, A. G., & Anstadt, R. (2021). Toward digital picture books for a new
generation of emergent readers. AERA Open. Advance online publication.
https://doi.org/10.1177/23328584211063874
469
Bus, A. G., Neuman, S. B., & Roskos, K. (2020). Screens, Apps, and Digital
Books for Young Children: The Promise of Multimedia. AERA Open,
6(1). https://doi.org/10.1177/2332858420901494
Bus, A. G., Takacs, Z. K., & Kegel, C. A. T. (2015). Affordances and
limitations of electronic storybooks for young children’s emergent
literacy. Developmental Review, 35, 79–97. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.dr
.2014.12.004
Carver, L. J., Meltzoff, A. N., & Dawson, G. (2006). Event-related potential
(ERP) indices of infants’ recognition of familiar and unfamiliar objects in
two and three dimensions. Developmental Science, 9(1), 51–62. https://
doi.org/10.1111/j.1467-7687.2005.00463.x
Choi, K., & Kirkorian, H. L. (2016). Touch or watch to learn? Toddlers’
object retrieval using contingent and noncontingent video. Psychological
Science, 27(5), 726–736. https://doi.org/10.1177/0956797616636110
Choi, K., Kirkorian, H. L., & Pempek, T. A. (2018). Understanding the
transfer deficit: Contextual mismatch, proactive interference, and working
memory affect toddlers’ video-based transfer. Child Development, 89(4),
1378–1393. https://doi.org/10.1111/cdev.12810
Choi, K., Kirkorian, H. L., & Pempek, T. A. (2021). Touchscreens for
whom? Working memory and age moderate the impact of contingency on
toddlers’ transfer from video. Frontiers in Psychology, 12, Article 621372.
https://doi.org/10.3389/fpsyg.2021.621372
Courage, M. L., Frizzell, L. M., Walsh, C. S., & Smith, M. (2021). Toddlers
using tablets: They engage, play, and learn. Frontiers in Psychology, 12,
Article 564479. https://doi.org/10.3389/fpsyg.2021.564479
Crawley, A. M., Anderson, D. R., Wilder, A., Williams, M., & Santomero, A.
(1999). Effects of repeated exposures to a single episode of the television
program Blue’s Clues on the viewing behaviors and comprehension of
preschool children. Journal of Educational Psychology, 91(4), 630–637.
https://doi.org/10.1037/0022-0663.91.4.630
Cristia, A., & Seidl, A. (2015). Parental reports on touch screen use in early
childhood. PLOS ONE, 10(6), Article e0128338. https://doi.org/10.1371/
journal.pone.0128338
DeLoache, J. S. (1995). Early understanding and use of symbols: The model
model. Current Directions in Psychological Science, 4(4), 109–113.
https://doi.org/10.1111/1467-8721.ep10772408
DeLoache, J. S. (2000). Dual representation and young children’s use of
scale models. Child Development, 71(2), 329–338. https://doi.org/10
.1111/1467-8624.00148
Dickerson, K., Gerhardstein, P., Zack, E., & Barr, R. (2013). Age-related
changes in learning across early childhood: A new imitation task.
Developmental Psychobiology, 55(7), 719–732. https://doi.org/10.1002/
dev.21068
Dore, R. A., Hassinger-Das, B., Brezack, N., Valladares, T. L., Paller, A.,
Vu, L., Golinkoff, R. M., & Hirsh-Pasek, K. (2018). The parent advantage
in fostering children’s e-book comprehension. Early Childhood Research
Quarterly, 44, 24–33. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ecresq.2018.02.002
Duncan, G. J., Dowsett, C. J., Claessens, A., Magnuson, K., Huston, A. C.,
Klebanov, P., Pagani, L. S., Feinstein, L., Engel, M., Brooks-Gunn, J.,
Sexton, H., Duckworth, K., & Japel, C. (2007). School readiness and later
achievement. Developmental Psychology, 43(6), 1428–1446. https://
doi.org/10.1037/0012-1649.43.6.1428
Eng, C. M., Godwin, K. E., & Fisher, A. V. (2020). Keep it simple:
Streamlining book illustrations improves attention and comprehension in
beginning readers. NPJ Science of Learning, 5(14), Article 14. https://
doi.org/10.1038/s41539-020-00073-5
Etta, R. A., & Kirkorian, H. L. (2019). Children’s learning from interactive
eBooks: Simple irrelevant features are not necessarily worse than relevant
ones. Frontiers in Psychology, 9, Article 2733. https://doi.org/10.3389/
fpsyg.2018.02733
Fenstermacher, S. K., Barr, R., Brey, E., Pempek, T. A., Ryan, M., Calvert,
S., Shwery, C. E., & Linebarger, D. (2010). Interactional quality depicted
in infant-directed videos: Where are the interactions? Infant and Child
Development, 19(6), 594–612. https://doi.org/10.1002/icd.714
 470 BARR AND KIRKORIAN
Fisch, S. M. (2000). A Capacity Model of children’s comprehension of
educational content on television. Media Psychology, 2(1), 63–91. https://
doi.org/10.1207/S1532785XMEP0201_4
Fisch, S. M. (2004). Children’s learning from educational television: Sesame
street and beyond. Routledge. https://www.routledge.com/Childrens-Learni
ng-From-Educational-Television-Sesame-Street-and-Beyond/Fisch/p/book/
9780805839364
Fisch, S. M. (2017). Bridging theory and practice: Applying cognitive and
educational theory to the design of educational media. In F. C. Blumberg
& P. J. Brooks (Eds.), Cognitive development in digital contexts (pp. 217–
234). Academic Press. https://doi.org/10.1016/B978-0-12-809481-5
.00011-0
Flynn, E., & Whiten, A. (2008). Imitation of hierarchical structure versus
component details of complex actions by 3- and 5-year-olds. Journal of
This article is intended solely for the personal use of the individual user and is not to be disseminated broadly.
Experimental Child Psychology, 101(4), 228–240. https://doi.org/10
This document is copyrighted by the American Psychological Association or one of its allied publishers.
.1016/j.jecp.2008.05.009
Gaudreau, C., King, Y. A., Dore, R. A., Puttre, H., Nichols, D., Hirsh-Pasek,
K., & Golinkoff, R. M. (2020). Preschoolers benefit equally from video
chat, pseudo-contingent video, and live book reading: Implications for
Storytime during the Coronavirus pandemic and beyond. Frontiers in
Psychology, 11, Article 2158. https://doi.org/10.3389/fpsyg.2020.02158
Hayne, H., Herbert, J., & Simcock, G. (2003). Imitation from television by 24-
and 30-month-olds. Developmental Science, 6(3), 254–261. https://doi.org/
10.1111/1467-7687.00281
Herbert, J., & Hayne, H. (2000). The ontogeny of long-term retention during
the second year of life. Developmental Science, 3(1), 50–56. https://
doi.org/10.1111/1467-7687.00099
Hipp, D., Gerhardstein, P., Zimmermann, L., Moser, A., Taylor, G., & Barr,
R. (2017). The dimensional divide: Learning from TV and touchscreens
during early childhood. In R. Barr & D. N. Linebarger (Eds.), Media
exposure during infancy and early childhood (pp. 33–54). Springer.
https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-319-45102-2_3
Hirsh-Pasek, K., Zosh, J. M., Golinkoff, R. M., Gray, J. H., Robb, M. B., &
Kaufman, J. (2015). Putting education in “educational” apps: Lessons
from the science of learning. Psychological Science in the Public Interest:
A Journal of the American Psychological Society, 16(1), 3–34. https://
doi.org/10.1177/1529100615569721
Huber, B., Tarasuik, J., Antoniou, M. N., Garrett, C., Bowe, S. J., &
Kaufman, J. (2016). Young children’s transfer of learning from a
touchscreen device. Computers in Human Behavior, 56, 56–64. https://
doi.org/10.1016/j.chb.2015.11.010
Hughes, C., & Ensor, R. (2005). Executive Function and Theory of Mind in 2
Year Olds: A Family Affair? Developmental Neuropsychology, 28(2),
645–668. https://doi.org/10.1207/s15326942dn2802_5
Katz, V. S., Moran, M. B., & Ognyanova, K. (2019). Contextualizing
connectivity: How internet connection type and parental factors influence
technology use among lower-income children. Information Communication
and Society, 22(3), 313–335. https://doi.org/10.1080/1369118X.2017
.1379551
Kidd, C., Piantadosi, S. T., & Aslin, R. N. (2012). The Goldilocks effect:
Human infants allocate attention to visual sequences that are neither too
simple nor too complex. PLOS ONE, 7(5), Article e36399. https://doi.org/
10.1371/journal.pone.0036399
Kirkorian, H. L., & Simmering, V. (2023). Searching in the sand: Protracted
video deficit in U.S. preschoolers’ spatial recall using a continuous search
space. Developmental Science, 26(4), Article e13376. https://doi.org/10
.1111/desc.13376
Kirkorian, H. L. (2018). When and how do interactive digital media help
children connect what they see on and off the screen? Child Development
Perspectives, 12(3), 210–214. https://doi.org/10.1111/cdep.12290
Kirkorian, H. L., & Choi, K. (2017). Associations between toddlers’
naturalistic media experience and observed learning from screens. Infancy,
22(2), 271–277. https://doi.org/10.1111/infa.12171
Kirkorian, H. L., Choi, K., & Pempek, T. A. (2016). Toddlers’ word learning
from contingent and noncontingent video on touch screens. Child
Development, 87(2), 405–413. https://doi.org/10.1111/cdev.12508
Kirkorian, H. L., Choi, K., Yoo, S. H., & Etta, R. A. (2022). The impact of
touchscreen interactivity on U.S. toddlers’ selective attention and learning
from digital media. Journal of Children and Media, 16(2), 188–204.
https://doi.org/10.1080/17482798.2021.1944888
Kirkorian, H. L., Pempek, T. A., & Choi, K. (2017). The role of online
processing in young children’s learning from interactive and noninterac-
tive digital media. In R. F. Barr & D. N. Linebarger (Eds.), Media exposure
during infancy and early childhood: The effects of content and context on
learning and development (pp. 65–89). Springer. https://doi.org/10.1007/
978-3-319-45102-2_5
Kirkorian, H. L., Pempek, T. A., Etta, R., Yoo, S. H., Skora Horgan, E., &
Jing, M. (2019, March). Toddlers’ imitation and word learning from
interactive videos: Does task-relevant interactivity support learning?
[Poster presentation]. Biennial Meeting of the Society for Research in
Child Development, Baltimore, MD, United States.
Konrad, C., Dirks, N. D., Warmuth, A., Herbert, J. S., Schneider, S., &
Seehagen, S. (2019). Sleep-dependent selective imitation in infants. Journal
of Sleep Research, 28(1), Article e12777. https://doi.org/10.1111/jsr.12777
Krcmar, M. (2010). Can social meaningfulness and repeat exposure help
infants and toddlers overcome the video deficit? Media Psychology, 13(1),
31–53. https://doi.org/10.1080/15213260903562917
Krcmar, M., Grela, B., & Lin, K. (2007). Can toddlers learn vocabulary from
television? An experimental approach. Media Psychology, 10(1), 41–63.
https://doi.org/10.1080/15213260701300931
Kucirkova, N. (2019). Children’s reading with digital books: Past moving
quickly to the future. Child Development Perspectives, 13(4), 208–214.
https://doi.org/10.1111/cdep.12339
Kuhl, P. K. (2007). Is speech learning “gated” by the social brain?
Developmental Science, 10(1), 110–120. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1467-
7687.2007.00572.x
Kuhl, P. K., Tsao, F.-M., & Liu, H.-M. (2003). Foreign-language experience
in infancy: Effects of short-term exposure and social interaction on
phonetic learning. Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences of the
United States of America, 100(15), 9096–9101. https://doi.org/10.1073/
pnas.1532872100
Lauricella, A. R., Barr, R., & Calvert, S. L. (2014). Parent–child interactions
during traditional and computer storybook reading for children’s compre-
hension: Implications for electronic storybook design. International Journal
of Child-Computer Interaction, 2(1), 17–25. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ijcci
.2014.07.001
Lauricella, A. R., Blackwell, C. K., & Wartella, E. (2017). The “new”
technology environment: The role of content and context on learning and
development from mobile media. In R. Barr & D. Linebarger (Eds.),
Media exposure during infancy and early childhood: The effects of content
and context on learning and development (pp. 1–23). Springer. https://
doi.org/10.1007/978-3-319-45102-2_1
Lauricella, A. R., Pempek, T. A., Barr, R. F., & Calvert, S. L. (2010).
Contingent computer interactions for young children’s object retrieval
success. Journal of Applied Developmental Psychology, 31(5), 362–369.
https://doi.org/10.1016/j.appdev.2010.06.002
Linebarger, D. L., Kosanic, A. Z., Greenwood, C. R., & Doku, N. S. (2004).
Effects of viewing the television program between the lions on the
emergent literacy skills of young children. Journal of Educational
Psychology, 96(2), 297–308. https://doi.org/10.1037/0022-0663.96.2.297
Linebarger, D. N., Brey, E., Fenstermacher, S., & Barr, R. (2017). What
makes preschool educational television educational? A content analysis of
literacy, language-promoting, and prosocial preschool programming. In R.
Barr & D. N. Linebarger (Eds.), Media exposure during infancy and early
childhood: The effect of content and context on learning and development
(pp. 97–134). Springer.
 MODELS OF EARLY LEARNING IN THE DIGITAL WORLD
Lytle, S. R., Garcia-Sierra, A., & Kuhl, P. K. (2018). Two are better than one:
Infant language learning from video improves in the presence of peers.
Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences of the United States of
America, 115(40), 9859–9866. https://doi.org/10.1073/pnas.1611621115
Mares, M.-L., & Pan, Z. (2013). Effects of sesame street: A meta-analysis of
children’s learning in 15 countries. Journal of Applied Developmental
Psychology, 34(3), 140–151. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.appdev.2013.01.001
Mayer, R. E. (2014). Incorporating motivation into multimedia learning.
Learning and Instruction, 29, 171–173. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.learni
nstruc.2013.04.003
McCall, R. B., Parke, R. D., Kavanaugh, R. D., Engstrom, R., Russell, J., &
Wycoff, E. (1977). Imitation of live and televised models by children one
to three years of age. Monographs of the Society for Research in Child
Development, 42(5), 1–94. https://doi.org/10.2307/1165913
This article is intended solely for the personal use of the individual user and is not to be disseminated broadly.
Meyer, M., Zosh, J. M., McLaren, C., Robb, M., McCafferty, H., Golinkoff,
This document is copyrighted by the American Psychological Association or one of its allied publishers.
R. M., Hirsh-Pasek, K., & Radesky, J. (2021). How educational are
“educational” apps for young children? App store content analysis using
the Four Pillars of Learning framework. Journal of Children and Media,
15(4), 526–548. https://doi.org/10.1080/17482798.2021.1882516
Moser, A., Olsen, S., Rusnak, S. N., Barr, R., & Gerhardstein, P. (2019). How
self-generated labelling shapes transfer of learning during early childhood:
The role of individual differences. British Journal of Developmental
Psychology, 37(1), 68–83. https://doi.org/10.1111/bjdp.12254
Moser, A., Zimmermann, L., Dickerson, K., Grenell, A., Barr, R., &
Gerhardstein, P. (2015). They can interact, but can they learn? Toddlers’
transfer learning from touchscreens and television. Journal of
Experimental Child Psychology, 137, 137–155. https://doi.org/10.1016/
j.jecp.2015.04.002
Mumme, D. L., & Fernald, A. (2003). The infant as onlooker: Learning from
emotional reactions observed in a television scenario. Child Development,
74(1), 221–237. https://doi.org/10.1111/1467-8624.00532
Munakata, Y. (2001). Graded representations in behavioral dissociations.
Trends in Cognitive Sciences, 5(7), 309–315. https://doi.org/10.1016/
S1364-6613(00)01682-X
Murphy, G., Groeger, J. A., & Greene, C. M. (2016). Twenty years of load
theory-Where are we now, and where should we go next? Psychonomic
Bulletin & Review, 23(5), 1316–1340. https://doi.org/10.3758/s13423-
015-0982-5
Myers, L. J., Keyser, H., & Cors, M. (2019). Co-viewers support
participation in video chat interactions, but live experiences promote
richer word learning for 24- to 36-month-olds in the USA. Journal of
Children and Media, 13(4), 415–432. https://doi.org/10.1080/17482798
.2019.1646294
Myers, L. J., LeWitt, R. B., Gallo, R. E., & Maselli, N. M. (2017). Baby
FaceTime: Can toddlers learn from online video chat? Developmental
Science, 20(4), Article e12430. https://doi.org/10.1111/desc.12430
Noble, K. G., Engelhardt, L. E., Brito, N. H., Mack, L. J., Nail, E. J., Angal,
J., Barr, R., Fifer, W. P., Elliott, A. J., & the PASS Network. (2015).
Socioeconomic disparities in neurocognitive development in the first two
years of life. Developmental Psychobiology, 57(5), 535–551. https://
doi.org/10.1002/dev.21303
Nussenbaum, K., & Amso, D. (2016). An attentional goldilocks effect: An
optimal amount of social interactivity promotes word learning from video.
Journal of Cognition and Development, 17(1), 30–40. https://doi.org/10
.1080/15248372.2015.1034316
Paivio, A. (1990). Mental representations: A dual coding approach, Oxford
psychology series. Oxford Academic. https://doi.org/10.1093/acprof:Oso/
9780195066661.001.0001
Parish-Morris, J., Mahajan, N., Hirsh-Pasek, K., Golinkoff, R. M., & Collins,
M. F. (2013). Once upon a time: Parent–child dialogue and storybook
reading in the electronic era. Mind, Brain and Education: The Official
Journal of the International Mind, Brain, and Education Society, 7(3),
200–211. https://doi.org/10.1111/mbe.12028
471
Piotrowski, J. T., & Krcmar, M. (2017). Reading with hotspots: How young
children respond to touchscreen stories. Computers in Human Behavior,
70, 328–334. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.chb.2017.01.010
Radesky, J., & Hiniker, A. (2022). From moral panic to systemic change:
Making child-centered design the default. International Journal of Child-
Computer Interaction, 31, Article 100351. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ijcci
.2021.100351
Radesky, J. S., Weeks, H. M., Ball, R., Schaller, A., Yeo, S., Durnez, J.,
Tamayo-Rios, M., Epstein, M., Kirkorian, H., Coyne, S., & Barr, R.
(2020). Young children’s use of smartphones and tablets. Pediatrics,
146(1), Article e20193518. https://doi.org/10.1542/peds.2019-3518
Ramey, C. T., & Ramey, S. L. (2004). Early learning and school readiness:
Can early intervention make a difference? Merrill-Palmer Quarterly,
50(4), 471–491. https://doi.org/10.1353/mpq.2004.0034
Reiß, M., Krüger, M., & Krist, H. (2019). Theory of mind and the video
deficit effect: Video presentation impairs children’s encoding and
understanding of false belief. Media Psychology, 22(1), 23–38. https://
doi.org/10.1080/15213269.2017.1412321
Richert, R. A., Robb, M. B., Fender, J. G., & Wartella, E. (2010). Word
learning from baby videos. Archives of Pediatrics & Adolescent Medicine,
164(5), 432–437. https://doi.org/10.1001/archpediatrics.2010.24
Rideout, V., & Robb, M. B. (2020). The common sense census: Media use by
kids age zero to eight. Common Sense Media. https://www.commonsense
media.org
Roche, E., Rocha-Hidalgo, J., Piper, D., Strouse, G. A., Neely, L. I., Ryu, J.,
Myers, L. J., McClure, E., Troseth, G. L., Zosh, J. M., & Barr, R. (2022).
Presence at a distance: Video chat supports intergenerational sensitivity
and positive infant affect during COVID-19. Infancy, 27(6), 1008–1031.
https://doi.org/10.1111/infa.12491
Roseberry, S., Hirsh-Pasek, K., & Golinkoff, R. M. (2014). Skype me!
Socially contingent interactions help toddlers learn language. Child
Development, 85(3), 956–970. https://doi.org/10.1111/cdev.12166
Roseberry, S., Hirsh-Pasek, K., Parish-Morris, J., & Golinkoff, R. M. (2009).
Live action: Can young children learn verbs from video? Child Development,
80(5), 1360–1375. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1467-8624.2009.01338.x
Russo-Johnson, C., Troseth, G., Duncan, C., & Mesghina, A. (2017). All
tapped out: Touchscreen interactivity and young children’s word learning.
Frontiers in Psychology, 8, Article 578. https://doi.org/10.3389/fpsyg
.2017.00578
Schmidt, M. M., Crawley-Davis, A., & Anderson, D. (2007). Two-year-olds’
object retrieval based on television: Testing a perceptual account. Media
Psychology, 9(2), 389–409. https://doi.org/10.1080/15213260701291346
Schmitt, K., & Anderson, D. (2002). Television and reality: Toddlers’ use of
visual information from video to guide behavior. Media Psychology, 4(1),
51–76. https://doi.org/10.1207/S1532785XMEP0401_03
Schroeder, E. L., & Kirkorian, H. L. (2016). When seeing is better than
doing: Preschoolers’ transfer of STEM skills using touchscreen games.
Frontiers in Psychology, 7, Article 1377. https://doi.org/10.3389/fpsyg
.2016.01377
Scott, K., & Schulz, L. (2017). Lookit (part 1): A new online platform for
developmental research. Open Mind: Discoveries in Cognitive Science,
1(1), 4–14. https://doi.org/10.1162/OPMI_a_00002
Sensor Tower. (2022). The state of education apps in the U.S. 2022. An
analysis of education app market trends in the United States. Retrieved
March 8, 2023, from https://sensortower.com/blog/state-of-education-
apps-us-2022
Sharon, T., & DeLoache, J. S. (2003). The role of perseveration in children’s
symbolic understanding and skill. Developmental Science, 6(3), 289–296.
https://doi.org/10.1111/1467-7687.00285
Simcock, G., Garrity, K., & Barr, R. (2011). The effect of narrative cues
on infants’ imitation from television and picture books. Child
Development, 82(5), 1607–1619. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1467-8624
.2011.01636.x
 472 BARR AND KIRKORIAN
Skora Horgan, E., Etta, R. A., & Kirkorian, H. L. (2019, May). Zooming in
on interactivity: Prior knowledge precits preschoolers’ science learning
from digital media. International Communication Association.
Smith, C. D., & Scarf, D. (2017). Spacing repetitions over long timescales: A
review and a reconsolidation explanation. Frontiers in Psychology, 8,
Article 962. https://doi.org/10.3389/fpsyg.2017.00962
Strouse, G. A., & Ganea, P. A. (2017). Parent–toddler behavior and language
differ when reading electronic and print picture books. Frontiers in
Psychology, 8, Article 677. https://doi.org/10.3389/fpsyg.2017.00677
Strouse, G. A., O’Doherty, K., & Troseth, G. L. (2013). Effective coviewing:
Preschoolers’ learning from video after a dialogic questioning interven-
tion. Developmental Psychology, 49(12), 2368–2382. https://doi.org/10
.1037/a0032463
Strouse, G. A., & Samson, J. E. (2021). Learning From video: A meta-
This article is intended solely for the personal use of the individual user and is not to be disseminated broadly.
analysis of the video deficit in children ages 0 to 6 years. Child
This document is copyrighted by the American Psychological Association or one of its allied publishers.
Development, 92(1), e20–e38. https://doi.org/10.1111/cdev.13429
Strouse, G. A., & Troseth, G. L. (2008). “Don’t try this at home”: Toddlers’
imitation of new skills from people on video. Journal of Experimental
Child Psychology, 101(4), 262–280. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jecp.2008
.05.010
Strouse, G. A., Troseth, G. L., O’Doherty, K. D., & Saylor, M. M. (2018).
Co-viewing supports toddlers’ word learning from contingent and
noncontingent video. Journal of Experimental Child Psychology, 166,
310–326. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jecp.2017.09.005
Strouse, G. A., Troseth, G. L., & Stuckelman, Z. D. (2023). Page and screen:
Storybook features that promote parent–child talk during shared reading.
Journal of Applied Developmental Psychology, 86, Article 101522.
https://doi.org/10.1016/j.appdev.2023.101522
Suddendorf, T. (2003). Early representational insight: Twenty-four-month-
olds can use a photo to find an object in the world. Child Development,
74(3), 896–904. https://doi.org/10.1111/1467-8624.00574
Suddendorf, T., Simcock, G., & Nielsen, M. (2007). Visual self-recognition
in mirrors and live videos: Evidence for a developmental asynchrony.
Cognitive Development, 22(2), 185–196. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.cogdev
.2006.09.003
Sundqvist, A., Koch, F. S., Birberg-Thornberg, U., Barr, R., & Heimann, M.
(2021). Growing up in a digital world—Digital media and the impact
of the child’s language development at two years of age. Frontiers
in Psychology, 12, Article 569920. https://doi.org/10.3389/fpsyg.2021
.569920
Takacs, Z. K., & Bus, A. G. (2018). How pictures in picture storybooks
support young children’s story comprehension: An eye-tracking experi-
ment. Journal of Experimental Child Psychology, 174, 1–12. https://
doi.org/10.1016/j.jecp.2018.04.013
Takacs, Z. K., Swart, E. K., & Bus, A. G. (2015). Benefits and pitfalls of
multimedia and interactive features in technology-enhanced storybooks: A
meta-analysis. Review of Educational Research, 85(4), 698–739. https://
doi.org/10.3102/0034654314566989
Troseth, G. L. (2003). TV guide: Two-year-old children learn to use video as
a source of information. Developmental Psychology, 39(1), 140–150.
https://doi.org/10.1037/0012-1649.39.1.140
Troseth, G. L. (2010). Is it life or is it memorex? Video as a representation of
reality. Developmental Review, 30(2), 155–175. https://doi.org/10.1016/j
.dr.2010.03.007
Troseth, G. L., Casey, A. M., Lawver, K. A., Walker, J. M. T., & Cole, D. A.
(2007). Naturalistic experience and the early use of symbolic artifacts.
Journal of Cognition and Development, 8(3), 309–331. https://doi.org/10
.1080/15248370701446772
Troseth, G. L., & DeLoache, J. S. (1998). The medium can obscure the
message: Young children’s understanding of video. Child Development,
69(4), 950–965. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1467-8624.1998.tb06153.x
Troseth, G. L., Flores, I., & Stuckelman, Z. D. (2019). When representation
becomes reality: Interactive digital media and symbolic development.
Advances in Child Development and Behavior, 56, 65–108. https://
doi.org/10.1016/bs.acdb.2018.12.001
Troseth, G. L., Saylor, M. M., & Archer, A. H. (2006). Young children’s use
of video as a source of socially relevant information. Child Development,
77(3), 786–799. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1467-8624.2006.00903.x
Troseth, G. L., Strouse, G. A., Flores, I., Stuckelman, Z. D., & Russo
Johnson, C. (2020). An enhanced eBook facilitates parent–child talk
during shared reading by families of low socioeconomic status. Early
Childhood Research Quarterly, 50, 45–58. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ecre
sq.2019.02.009
Truglio, R. T., Lovelace, V. O., Segui, I., & Scheiner, S. (2000). The varied
role of formative research: Case studies from 30 years. In S. M. Fisch &
R. T. Truglio (Eds.), G is for growing: Thirty years of research on children
and sesame street (pp. 279–290). Routledge.
Vlach, H. A. (2014). The spacing effect in children’s generalization of
knowledge: Allowing children time to forget promotes their ability to
learn. Child Development Perspectives, 8(3), 163–168. https://doi.org/10
.1111/cdep.12079
Vlach, H. A. (2019). Learning to remember words: Memory constraints as
double-edged wword mechanisms of language development. Child
Development Perspectives, 13(3), 159–165. https://doi.org/10.1111/cde
p.12337
Vlach, H. A., Ankowski, A. A., & Sandhofer, C. M. (2012). At the same time
or apart in time? The role of presentation timing and retrieval dynamics in
generalization. Journal of Experimental Psychology: Learning, Memory,
and Cognition, 38(1), 246–254. https://doi.org/10.1037/a0025260
Wellman, H. M., Cross, D., & Watson, J. (2001). Meta-analysis of theory-of-
mind development: The truth about false belief. Child Development, 72(3),
655–684. https://doi.org/10.1111/1467-8624.00304
Wright, J. C., Huston, A. C., Murphy, K. C., St Peters, M., Piñon, M.,
Scantlin, R., & Kotler, J. (2001). The relations of early television viewing
to school readiness and vocabulary of children from low-income families:
The early window project. Child Development, 72(5), 1347–1366. https://
doi.org/10.1111/1467-8624.t01-1-00352
Zack, E., & Barr, R. (2016). Maternal Scaffolding Enhances Learning from
Touch Screens during Infancy. Frontiers in Psychology, 7, Article 1264.
https://doi.org/10.3389/fpsyg.2016.01264
Zack, E., Barr, R., Gerhardstein, P., Dickerson, K., & Meltzoff, A. N. (2009).
Infant imitation from television using novel touch screen technology.
British Journal of Developmental Psychology, 27(1), 13–26. https://
doi.org/10.1348/026151008X334700
Zevenbergen, A. A., & Whitehurst, G. J. (2003). Dialogic reading: A shared
picture book reading intervention for preschoolers. In A. van Kleeck, S. A.
Stahl, & E. B. Bauer (Eds.), On reading books to children: Parents and
teachers (pp. 177–200). Lawrence Erlbaum.
Zimmermann, L., Frank, H. E., Subiaul, F., & Barr, R. (2021). Applying
computational modeling to assess age-, sex-, and strategy-related differences
in Spin the Pots, a working memory task for 2- to 4-year-olds. Developmental
Psychobiology, 63(1), 42–53. https://doi.org/10.1002/dev.22016
Zimmermann, L., Moser, A., Grenell, A., Dickerson, K., Yao, Q.,
Gerhardstein, P., & Barr, R. (2015). Do semantic contextual cues facilitate
transfer learning from video in toddlers? Frontiers in Psychology, 6, Article
561. https://doi.org/10.3389/fpsyg.2015.00561
Zimmermann, L., Moser, A., Lee, H., Gerhardstein, P., & Barr, R. (2017).
The ghost in the touchscreen: Social scaffolds promote learning by
toddlers. Child Development, 88(6), 2013–2025. https://doi.org/10.1111/
cdev.12683
Received March 13, 2023
Revision received June 20, 2023
Accepted June 26, 2023 ▪