Rationale Behind the Teachers, Students, and Parents’ Decisions for Selecting Educational App: Key Message for Software Developers and Educational Policy Makers

Document Type : Qualitative Research Paper

Authors

1 Assistant Professor, Faculty of Education & Psychology, Shahid Beheshti University, Tehran, Iran. (Corresponding Author)

2 Professorof Curriculum Studies, Faculty of Education & Psychology, Shahid Beheshti University, Tehran, Iran

3 Assistant Professor, Faculty of Educational Sciences, Farhangian University, Sanandaj, Iran

4 Associate Professor, Faculty of Education & Psychology, Shahid Beheshti University, Tehran, Iran

10.22034/jsa.2025.144486.2609

Abstract

This study explores the rationale behind the decision-making process for selecting educational applications (apps) from the perspective of parents, teachers, and students. The research utilized a qualitative, exploratory approach based on van-Manen’s interpretive phenomenological research to extract the selection criteria from the lived experiences of these primary mediation groups in the Iranian context. In-depth, face-to-face interviews were conducted with a total of 47 participants, including parents (N=15), students (N=16), and teachers (N=16). Data analysis was performed using thematic analysis of lived experiences. Finding show that parents largely relied on user ratings and developer descriptions as their main source of information. They demonstrated a restricted understanding of learning, often associating it strictly with school curricula (e.g., math, language). They prioritized features related to safety (e.g., age-appropriate, adult permission for purchase) and privacy. The least valued feature for parents was personalization, a feature highly preferred by students. Students often had a more unlimited understanding of learning (e.g., exploration and problem-solving). Teachers emphasized features related to content quality (e.g., avoiding mere textbook review, content accuracy). They also highly valued open-ended design that allows users to create their own content, and the availability of real-time, personalized assessment or performance analysis. Criteria most frequently referred to by teachers were content, assessment, access, and reporting. The least valued features were interaction and cooperative learning. The findings reveal a gap in selection priorities: students and teachers prefer manipulable and constructive apps that offer open-ended and personalized structures, while parents favor instructive apps aligned with the school curriculum.

Keywords

Main Subjects

References

Baran, E., Uygun, E., & Altan, T. (2017). Examining pre-service teachers’ criteria for evaluating educational mobile apps. Journal of Educational Computing Research, 54(8), 1117-1141.
Buckler, T. (2012). Is there an app for that? Developing an evaluation rubric for apps for use with adults with special needs? The Journal of BSN Honors Research, 5(1), 19–32.
Camilleri, A. C., & Camilleri, M. A. (2019, May). Mobile learning via educational apps: an interpretative study. In Proceedings of the 5th International Conference on Education and Training Technologies (pp. 88-92).
Camilleri, M. A., & Camilleri, A. C. (2019). The students’ readiness to engage with mobile learning apps. Interactive Technology and Smart Education.
Cherner, T., Dix, J., & Lee, C. (2014). Cleaning up that mess: A framework for classifying educational apps. Contemporary Issues in Technology and Teacher Education, 14 (2), 158–193.
Dias, P., & Brito, R. (2021). Criteria for selecting apps: Debating the perceptions of young children, parents and industry stakeholders. Computers & Education, 165, 104134.
Dubé, A. K., Alam, S. S., Xu, C., Wen, R., & Kacmaz, G. (2019). Tablets as elementary mathematics education tools: Are they effective and why. In Mathematical Learning and Cognition in Early Childhood (pp. 223-248). Springer, Cham.
Falloon, G. (2017). Mobile devices and apps as scaffolds to science learning in the primary classroom. Journal of Science Education and Technology, 26(6), 613–628.
Guernsey, L., & Levine, M. H. (2015). Tap, click, read: Growing readers in a world of screens. John Wiley & Sons.
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, 16(1), 3-34.
Karolčík, Š., Čipková, E., Veselský, M., Hrubišková, H., & Matulčíková, M. (2017). Quality parameterization of educational resources from the perspective of a teacher. British Journal of Educational Technology, 48(2), 313-331.
Karolčík, Š., & Marková, M. (2025). How teachers perceive innovations in education. Journal of Research in Innovative Teaching & Learning, 18(1), 39-55.
Kim, J., Gilbert, J., Yu, Q., & Gale, C. (2021). Measures Matter: A Meta-Analysis of the Effects of Educational Apps on Preschool to Grade 3 Children’s Literacy and Math Skills. AERA Open, 7.
Kucirkova, N., Messer, D., Sheehy, K., & Panadero, C. F. (2014). Children's engagement with educational iPad apps: Insights from a Spanish classroom. Computers & Education, 71, 175-184.
Lee, J. S., & Kim, S. W. (2015). Validation of a tool evaluating educational apps for smart education. Journal of Educational Computing Research, 52(3), 435-450.
Lee, C.-Y., & Cherner, T. S. (2015). A comprehensive evaluation rubric for assessing instructional apps. Journal of Information Technology Education: Research, 14, 21–53.
Liptrot, E., Pearson, H. A., Montazami, A., & Dubé, A. K. (2024). Why this app? How user ratings and app store rankings impact educators' selection of educational apps. Computers & Education, 218, 105080.
Livingstone, S. (2014). What does good content look like? Developing great online content for kids. In L. Whitaker (Ed.), Children’s media yearbook (pp. 66–71). Milton Keynes: The Children’s Media Foundation.
Montazami, A. (2020). Why this App? How educators and parents choose good educational Apps. McGill University (Canada).
Ngadiman, N., Sulaiman, S., Idris, N., Samingan, M. R., & Mohamed, H. (2021). Systematic review on software quality in educational applications. IEEE Access, 9, 60187-60200.
Papadakis, S. J., & Kalogiannakis, M. (2017). Mobile educational applications for children: What educators and parents need to know. International Journal of Mobile Learning and Organization, 11, 256–277.
Pearson, H. A., Montazami, A., & Dubé, A. K. (2023). Why this app: Can a video‐based intervention help parents identify quality educational apps?. British Journal of Educational Technology, 54(3), 712-733.
Rideout, V., & Robb, M. B. (2020). The Common-Sense census: Media 2020.
Stevenson, M., Hedberg, J., Highfield, K., & Diao, M. (2015). Visualizing solutions: apps as cognitive stepping‑stones in the learning process. Electronic Journal of E-Learning, 13(5), pp366-379.
Schmidthaler, E., Hörmann, C., Rottenhofer, M., Sabitzer, B., & Lavicza, Z. (2025). The implementation of learning apps in biological education: a quantitative study of the current situation in Austria. Journal of Research in Innovative Teaching & Learning, 18(1), 95-122.
Taylor, G., Kolak, J., Bent, E. M., & Monaghan, P. (2022). Selecting educational apps for preschool children: How useful are website app rating systems? British Journal of Educational Technology.
Van Manen, M. (1984). Practicing phenomenological writing. Phenomenology+ pedagogy, 36-69.
Van Manen, M. (2014). On ethical (in) decisions experienced by parents of infants in neonatal intensive care. Qualitative Health Research, 24(2), 279-287.
Van Manen, M. (2006), Researching Lived Experience, Human Science for an Action Sensitive Pedagogy, Ontario, Canada: The University of Western Ontario.
Walker, H. (2010). Evaluating the effectiveness of apps for mobile devices. Journal of Special Education Technology, 26(4), 59–63.
School Administration
Volume 13, Issue 4
January 2026
Pages 153-162

Files

History

  • Receive Date: 22 September 2025
  • Revise Date: 01 December 2025
  • Accept Date: 12 December 2025

Share

How to cite

Statistics