Claims

Among studies of young children's digital engagement in educational spaces, engagement was explicitly defined in only 18 of 88 studies (19.3%), theorised in 8 (9.1%), and measured in 31 (35.2%)

Claim · All claims
Evidence · 1 study · review r2 · q2
Currency · newest study 2026 · not yet checked against its sources · not reviewed by a person

Subclaims

Reading the evidence codes

q is the design tier, i the impact, n the sample, and the kind with its r the rigour judged within that kind: what each code means.

This claim: no standardized effect is recorded in observations/ for it yet, so no benchmark reading is possible.

q2 i? In a corpus of 88 included studies, a definition of engagement was provided in 18 studies (19.3%), a theory in 8 (9.1%), and a measure in 31 (35.2%). → J. Harverson 2026

Evidence

J. Harverson 2026

J. Harverson, C. Zomer, C. Chu, S. Horwood, M. Horwood, M. Nicholas, L. Paatsch. (2026). Children's engagement with digital technology in educational spaces: A scoping review. Computers & Education 240 (2026) 105454. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.compedu.2025.105454

q2 · i? · review · r2

Systematic scoping review of 2661 screened records yielding 88 included studies of children aged 5-8 using digital technology in formal or semi-formal educational settings. The review reports: "A measure of engagement was provided in 31 studies (35.2 %), a definition in 18 studies (19.3 %), and a theory of engagement in eight studies (9.1 %)."

"A measure of engagement was provided in 31 studies (35.2 %), a definition in 18 studies (19.3 %), and a theory of engagement in eight studies (9.1 %)."

Discussion

Page metadata
Field Value
type claim
id engagement-rarely-defined-theorised-measured-digital-child-studies
title Among studies of young children's digital engagement in educational spaces, engagement was explicitly defined in only 18 of 88 studies (19.3%), theorised in 8 (9.1%), and measured in 31 (35.2%)
description Among studies of young children's digital engagement in educational spaces, engagement was explicitly defined in only 18 of 88 studies (19.3%), theorised in 8 (9.1%), and measured in 31 (35.2%)
status review
evidence_strength moderate
newest_evidence 2026
generated by process:wiki-ingest on 2026-10-29
trust unverified — no one has confirmed this page's content
sources 1 — j-harverson-2026

Frontmatter is the page's machine-readable record — see the Schema & Guide.