Interactive Displays in Early Childhood Settings: Navigating the Evidence on Appropriate Use

Interactive whiteboards and touchscreen displays have become common fixtures in early childhood classrooms across many countries, driven in part by government technology initiatives and in part by vendor marketing that presents these tools as essential for modern education. The research on their effectiveness in early childhood settings, however, presents a more nuanced picture that educators should understand before making significant investments.

What the Research Shows

Potential Benefits

Morgan (2010) found that interactive whiteboards could enhance group learning experiences when used for specific, time-limited purposes. The most effective uses identified in early childhood settings include:

• Shared reading experiences where enlarged text and illustrations support group engagement with stories
• Music and movement activities where visual and auditory content supports physical participation
• Virtual experiences such as connecting with distant classrooms, visiting museums, or exploring environments that are physically inaccessible
• Teacher modelling of writing, drawing, and problem-solving processes where the large display makes teacher thinking visible to the whole group

Documented Concerns

Plowman and Stephen's extensive research programme at the University of Stirling, documented across multiple publications in Journal of Computer Assisted Learning and Early Years, identified several concerns about interactive display use in early childhood settings:

1. Duration drift - What begins as a brief, purposeful session often extends well beyond developmental appropriateness, with some programs using interactive displays for 30+ minutes at a time
2. Passive consumption - Many uses of interactive displays in practice resemble passive viewing rather than the interactive engagement that research supports
3. Displacement - Time spent with interactive displays directly reduces time available for hands-on, sensory, and social learning experiences that have stronger empirical support
4. Whole-group instruction bias - Interactive displays encourage whole-group teaching, which research consistently identifies as one of the least effective instructional formats for young children

The Critical Variable: How, Not Whether

The most productive framing, supported by research from Aubrey and Dahl (2014) at the University of Warwick, is that the effectiveness of interactive displays depends almost entirely on how they are used rather than whether they are present. Their study found no relationship between the presence of interactive whiteboards in classrooms and children's learning outcomes, but significant relationships between the quality of teacher-mediated interaction during display use and subsequent learning.

Guidelines for Appropriate Use

Duration

Research on attention span development suggests that whole-group activities with interactive displays should be limited to:

• Under 3 years: Avoid routine use; occasional, brief moments only (under 5 minutes)
• 3-4 years: Maximum 10-15 minutes per session
• 4-5 years: Maximum 15-20 minutes per session

Interaction Quality

Every display session should prioritise child participation over passive viewing. Effective strategies include:

• Asking open-ended questions about displayed content
• Having children come to the board to make choices or contributions
• Using the display as a jumping-off point for hands-on activities rather than as the activity itself
• Pausing frequently to allow children to process, discuss, and respond

Integration with Physical Experience

The most educationally sound approach treats interactive displays as one element within a broader learning sequence. A virtual field trip to an aquarium becomes meaningful when preceded by children's questions about marine life and followed by hands-on exploration with water tables, books, and creative materials. The display serves as a window, not a destination.

Making Informed Decisions

For programs considering interactive display purchases, the research suggests asking several questions:

• Will this tool enable learning experiences that are genuinely impossible without it, or is it merely a digital replacement for existing practices?
• Do our educators have the professional development support needed to use this tool in developmentally appropriate ways?
• What will we stop doing to make time for display-based activities, and is that trade-off justified by the evidence?

The honest answer, in many cases, is that the funds would produce greater educational returns if invested in professional development, outdoor learning environments, or quality learning materials that support active, hands-on exploration.

---

References: Morgan, A. (2010). Interactive whiteboards, interactivity and play. Australasian Journal of Early Childhood; Plowman, L. & Stephen, C. (2007). Journal of Computer Assisted Learning; Aubrey, C. & Dahl, S. (2014). Journal of Research on Technology in Education.