SAJCE South African Journal of Childhood Education 2223-7674 2223-7682 AOSIS SAJCE-16-1846 10.4102/sajce.v16i1.1846 Original Research Supporting parents and early childhood development practitioners through a mobile application: The case of CareUp https://orcid.org/0000-0002-8950-1500 Spencer-Smith Garth 1 https://orcid.org/0000-0002-1910-0162 Roberts Nicky 2 Department of Childhood Education, Faculty of Education, University of Johannesburg, Johannesburg, South Africa Department of Curriculum Studies, Faculty of Education, Stellenbosch University, Stellenbosch, South Africa Corresponding author: Garth Spencer-Smith, gspencer-smith@uj.ac.za 22072026 2026 16 1 1846 03112025 24032026 © 2026. The Authors 2026 Licensee: AOSIS. This work is licensed under the Creative Commons Attribution 4.0 International (CC BY 4.0) license. Background

CareUp is a multilingual mobile communication tool connecting practitioners at early childhood development (ECD) centres with parents or caregivers of 4- to 5-year-old children.

 Aim

The study aimed to measure the uptake and use of the CareUp mobile application among isiXhosa-speaking practitioners and parents, and to extract lessons to inform future m-learning parent-support programmes.

 Setting

Data were collected from 10 ECD centres in four low-income urban communities in Cape Town, Western Cape, South Africa, where both practitioners and parents were primarily isiXhosa speaking.

 Methods

A mixed methods approach was adopted to capture uptake, usage and feedback data before, during and after a 15-week design trial. Quantitative application data were integrated with qualitative interview, focus group and survey data to answer the research questions.

 Results

Approximately, 94% (n = 16) of practitioners downloaded the application (app), compared with 34% (n = 353) of parents. Practitioners recorded an average of 7.8 interactions per week, while parents averaged 3.4. Uptake and usage patterns are interpreted by considering qualitative evidence from interviews, focus groups and survey comments. Both benefits and challenges, as perceived by the beneficiaries, are elucidated.

 Conclusion

Mobile applications offer promise for supporting communication between parents and practitioners in ECD centres. However, structural and contextual constraints need to be mitigated to ensure broader parental access and use.

 Contribution

This article provides evidence of how child development practices in low-income urban ECD centres can be enhanced by engaging parents in their home language through mobile technology.

 education early childhood development m-learning information and communication technology parents Funding information The authors received funding from Innovation Edge for the research leading to the findings. Introduction

There is a notable lack of empirical research on mobile learning (m-learning) interventions that support early childhood development (ECD) practitioners and parents in low-resource African contexts. While mobile phones are widely available, especially in urban and peri-urban townships, there is limited evidence on how they can be used systematically to strengthen communication between ECD centres and families and to support parents and practitioners in promoting young children’s learning in their home languages. Recent reviews highlight a shortage of high-quality quantitative studies on m-learning for pre-school practitioners and day care providers in Africa and note that very few studies examine how mobile services are integrated into everyday ECD practices for both practitioners and parents.

This article addresses this gap through an empirical case study of CareUp, a multilingual mobile communication tool that connects ECD practitioners at centres with parents or caregivers1 of 4-year-old to 5-year-old children in low-income urban communities in the Western Cape, South Africa. CareUp delivers short, practical messages and activities in isiXhosa (and other local languages) with a particular focus on language and early literacy development. The intervention aims to improve both the quality of ECD provision and the learning environment in the home, and to better align these two settings by sending the same weekly content to practitioners and parents.

We draw on data from a 15-week design trial of CareUp conducted in 10 ECD centres across four low-income urban communities in Cape Town: Khayelitsha, Philippi, Stellenbosch and Mitchells Plain. During the trial, practitioners and parents of 4-year-olds to 5-year-olds were invited to use the CareUp application (app), which delivered up to eight messages per week linking to literacy and language resources, instructions and activities intended to stimulate early literacy development in the child’s home language. An intensive activation process was used to obtain ECD centres’ buy-in, provide pre-Grade R practitioners with smartphones and data and support parents and practitioners during Saturday workshops to download and begin using the app.

Figure 1 shows the layout of CareUp, plus provides a few screenshots of pages that could be accessed.

Selected pages from the CareUp mobile app.

Figure 2 shows the theory of change of CareUp, as agreed with the CareUp stakeholders (funders, service providers).

Theory of change of CareUp mobile app.

The study uses a mixed methods design that combines quantitative usage analytics from the CareUp backend with qualitative evidence from interviews, focus groups, surveys and case studies. In this article, we focus on questions of engagement and perceived effectiveness rather than on broader outcomes, interpreting usage patterns through participants’ reported experiences and situating the findings within a theoretical framework of m-learning affordances and configurations. In doing so, we contribute to the limited body of Global South scholarship on mobile-mediated support for ECD practitioners and parents.

By foregrounding empirical evidence on the uptake and use of CareUp, and by interpreting these patterns through participants’ reported experiences, this article contributes to the emerging field of m-learning for ECD in low-resource African contexts. Specifically, it reflects on design features and contextual factors that facilitate or constrain such engagement.

A detailed evaluation was undertaken of the first design trial of CareUp (Roberts & Spencer-Smith 2017). In this article, we revisit that evaluation research work and discuss its relation to a theoretical framework about the affordances and configurations of m-learning.

Literature review Early childhood education in South Africa

In South Africa, the primary policy driving ECD is the National Integrated Early Childhood Development Policy (NIECDP), which aims to transform and improve ECD service delivery across the country by addressing critical gaps and ensuring equitable access to comprehensive ECD services (Department of Social Development 2015). This is supported by the Department of Basic Education’s 2030 Strategy for ECD Programmes, which aims to ensure that all South African children have access to at least 2 years of quality pre-school education by 2030 (Department of Basic Education 2023).

The recent ‘Thrive by Five’ Index on 4-year-olds enrolled in early learning programmes in South Africa provides a clear overview of the state of ECD in the country (Giese et al. 2022, 2025). The study reports that 58% of children enrolled in early learning programmes are not ‘on track’2 in their physical and/or cognitive development and will therefore need additional support to reach the required standard and cope well with Grade R and subsequent schooling (Giese et al. 2025). Thus, more than half of children just before formal school entry is at risk of not reaching their full potential. The authors’ bleak conclusion remains:

There is no conceivable way in which we will realise our development goals of eliminating income poverty and reducing inequality without addressing the significant challenges that South Africa’s children face in their earliest years. (Giese et al. 2022:13)

The same research shows a strong relationship between socio-economic status and the likelihood of being ‘on track’: only 38% of children in the lowest income quintile are on track, compared with 58% of those in the highest income quintile (Giese et al. 2025) (Figure 3).

Proportions of children ‘on track’, by income quintile.

Enrolment data, based on the General Household Survey 2019, indicate that attendance at ECD centres rises from the age 2–5, with more than three in every four children enrolled by the age of 5 (Moses & Van der Berg 2023; Statistics South Africa 2021). Cost of education is a major reason for non-enrolment that lies outside parents’ control, with roughly 5% – 10% of children not enrolled for this reason (Moses & Van der Berg 2023). Children from wealthier households (income quintiles 4 and 5) are significantly more likely to attend ECD programmes than those from poorer households (quintiles 1–3) (Hall et al. 2019).

Quality of provision is also a concern. In a representative study of early learning programmes and facilities in the Western Cape, Biersteker et al. (2016) found that, on average, provision for stimulation (activities) and language (language and reasoning) fell below minimal quality levels on two objective standards. They further reported a significant negative relationship between programme quality and the level of child deprivation in the surrounding community, meaning that the poorer the community, the poorer the quality of pre-school education received (Biersteker et al. 2016). Children in low-income areas are thus doubly disadvantaged – less likely to access ECD and more likely to encounter low-quality provision.

 The importance of early childhood education

International research points to several crucial impacts of early childhood education on children’s later outcomes. In a systematic review of ECD literature published from 2010 to 2020, Von Suchodoletz et al. (2023) screened nearly 5000 articles and retained 185 high-quality studies. They found that higher levels of early childhood education and care (ECEC) quality were significantly related to higher levels of academic outcomes in literacy and mathematics, better behavioural skills, greater social competence and improved motor skills, as well as fewer behavioural and socio-emotional problems in later years, although effect sizes were generally small (Von Suchodoletz et al. 2023). They concluded that ‘the findings align with previous meta-analyses, suggesting that ECEC quality plays an important role for children’s development during the early childhood years’ (p. 2).

In South Africa, studies examining the effect of access to ECD centres on learner’s subsequent academic performance are rare. One such study was by Dawes, Biersteker and Hendricks (2012), who found that in poor rural and peri-urban communities in South Africa, children who attended pre-schools where practitioners had been trained outperformed their peers without any pre-school experience when they entered Grade R.

However, ECD interventions can make a positive difference. The Early Learning Outcomes Measures (ELOM) test was used to assess learning in five ECD programmes in low-income communities across four provinces in 2018, with baseline and endline data collected and compared, without a control group (Dawes et al. 2020). Moses and Van der Berg (2023) used learning across different surveys as a counterfactual against which to evaluate the gains of the five programmes. Their finding was that the effect of the five programmes was to reduce the proportion of children ‘at risk’ across the five programmes from 45% to 20%, and to increase those ‘achieving the ELOM standard’ from 31% to 52%. They concluded that ‘these five ECD programmes appear to have done extremely well in raising children’s learning outcomes to levels more appropriate for children who would soon be entering Grade R’ (p. 1169).

 Parents’ role in early childhood education

The key role of the parent in supporting the education of their pre-school children in the home environment has long been identified in research, such as that of Melhuish et al. (2008a, 2008b). More recently, the meta-analysis by Castro et al. (2015) confirmed a significant positive relationship between parental involvement and students’ academic performance. They found that the most impactful parental involvement was parents setting high academic expectations, supervising learning activities and engaging in conversations with their children about their schoolwork.

Similarly, Boonk et al. (2018) reviewed research published between 2003 and 2017 on parental involvement and learners’ academic achievement, including 22 studies focused on the impact of parental involvement on children’s academic development. Most studies reported a positive correlation between parental involvement and achievement, although the effect sizes were generally small to medium. Reading at home, which includes parental modelling, support and creating a stimulating literacy environment, consistently showed a positive impact on improving children’s literacy development (e.g. Crosby et al. 2015). Engaging in learning activities at home, such as storytelling, teaching letters and numbers, problem-solving, singing and playing games, also positively influenced pre-schoolers’ academic achievement, particularly in literacy and reading (e.g. Manolitsis, Georgiou & Tziraki 2013; Melhuish et al. 2008b; Youn, Leon & Lee 2012).

South African research echoes these findings. Visser, Juan and Hannan (2019) found that parental engagement in pre-school educational activities – especially playing games – is positively correlated with mathematics performance of a sample of South African children at the Grade 5 level, even after controlling for key contextual factors like socio-economic status and home language. However, evidence from low-income contexts suggests that many parents face structural and personal barriers to such involvement. In a meta-synthesis of qualitative research on parental involvement in developing countries, Kim (2018) identified three key barriers: poverty and economic constraints that force parents to prioritise work over school involvement; low levels of literacy and education that make parents feel inadequate in supporting learning; and cultural beliefs and practices that may discourage parents from engaging with schools.

Research has shown that children from low-income homes in South Africa typically receive less stimulation and less parent-child interaction than their peers in more affluent homes (Dawes et al. 2020). In Philippi, a low-income community in Cape Town, research by Bayat and Madyibi (2022) documented a lack of supportive home environments for preschoolers’ early learning and development. They found that parental engagement in their children’s education was minimal, with parents reluctant or unable to participate in school activities or to actively stimulate their children’s learning at home.

Recent work with isiZulu-speaking caregivers in under-resourced contexts shows that caregivers often prioritise their children’s basic physiological needs over early language stimulation, largely because of limited awareness of the long-term benefits of early language stimulation (John, Uys & Pascoe 2024). These caregivers predominantly use language modelling as a facilitation technique but express a need to broaden their methods and improve their knowledge through structured training, ideally combining group sessions and self-directed video resources delivered by healthcare professionals. Incorporating such tailored caregiver support mechanisms into interventions like CareUp could enhance parental engagement and the effectiveness of language stimulation practices, ultimately improving child language outcomes in low-income communities.

 Using m-learning to educate parents and/or practitioners in the early childhood development space in the less-developed world

Against this background, digital and mobile technologies have been explored as possible levers to improve ECD access, quality and home–school connections. Recent research into digital learning in South African early childhood education by Hannaway (2024) reveals both the transformative potential and significant challenges. Stakeholders note the benefits of improved accessibility, communication and collaborative learning, while also highlighting disparities in resource availability, limited digital literacy among practitioners and concerns about content suitability and equity. Critically, the effective use of digital learning requires practitioner preparation that incorporates digital pedagogies aligned with democratic and inclusive approaches, as well as systemic support for equitable access. The CareUp intervention exemplifies these principles by aiming to build parent and practitioner capacities through contextually relevant mobile learning tools that foster home-language stimulation and engagement.

More broadly, m-learning has been identified as a promising modality in low- and middle-income countries. Chee et al. (2017) conducted a meta-analysis of trends in m-learning as published from 2010 to 2015. They found that (published) research in m-learning in all countries outside the Global North is quite rare, contributing less than 15% of the m-learning studies. None of the research found by Chee et al. (2017) was from a pre-primary educational setting nor related to ECD practitioner skills training.

Miao et al. (2017) argue that learning through using mobile phones has plenty of potential to help improve academic outcomes in the less-developed world, since mobile phones are in the hands of, and understood by, so many practitioners, even those who may have no access to more advanced technological devices. One of the projects covered in their review of four practitioner development projects was in Pakistan, where United Nations Educational, Scientific and Cultural Organization (UNESCO) used mobile support materials to build the capacity of female ECD practitioners in rural areas. The project was successful in improving the practitioners’ technical skills (ability to use the functions of mobile phones), helped them develop more innovative teaching methods, including activity-based learning, and improved relationships with children, practitioners and parents. Other UNESCO reports on mobile learning for practitioners support the benefits of mobiles in assisting practitioners in Africa and the Middle East (Isaacs 2012) and Latin America (Jaro, Clara & Martinic 2012).

Several other researchers discuss the potential of m-learning to benefit teaching and learning in the developing world (see, for example, Botha et al. 2012; Grimus & Ebner 2015; Wambui et al. 2023). However, Papadakis and Kalogiannakis (2020) – who performed a meta-analysis of mobile applications for pre-school children – caution that ‘a relatively small number of [these] apps are well designed and really support children to learn more easily and effectively’ (p. 11). This underscores the importance of careful pedagogical design and rigorous evaluation when deploying m-learning tools for young children.

A piece of research closely related to the present study is ChildConnect (Mostert, Roberts & Plaatjies 2021; Roberts, Mostert & Plaatjies 2021). ChildConnect is an ECD programme that is used m-learning to support and educate parents and caregivers. The ECD education content was distributed via SMS messaging and followed a carefully designed curriculum. In a pilot study, 899 parents (targeted via a database of pregnant women using public health clinics) who agreed to sign up were randomly assigned to either the treatment or the control group. The former received three messages a week for 24 weeks, while the latter group received one message every fortnight over the same period. Uptake of targeted parents was 24%. Between 25% and 55% of the treatment participants responded to weekly ‘reply’ messages (i.e. messages asking the mothers to respond). Interestingly, response rates were higher among the control group participants – 55% to 75% – perhaps because the ‘reply’ messages were sent out less frequently (fortnightly). Knowledge gains were assessed via pre- and post-tests, where parents responded to seven statements about pre-school learning (e.g. ‘my child is too young to learn’). Changes in learning outcome scores were significantly higher for the treatment group compared to the control group: treatment group parents improved on average by 2.3% points more than control group parents (with a Cohen’s d effect size of 0.21, a small but non-trivial effect).

Despite this potential, several factors constrain the use of m-learning by ECD practitioners. For example, research by Ogegbo and Aina (2020) in Pretoria, South Africa showed that, although ECD practitioners had a positive mindset towards and understood the advantage of incorporating information and communication technology (ICT), including m-learning, in early childhood education, their adoption of these technologies was low because of barriers such as poor parental and school backing, a scarcity of technological resources, and inadequate knowledge and practical training on age-appropriate technology use.

 Synthesising the gap

The literature review – drawing primarily on research from the Global North but also incorporating emerging South African and broader African evidence – highlights the importance of ECD for a child’s academic future, the central role that parents and caregivers play in the education of their pre-school children, and the potential of m-learning to connect and support ECD practitioners and parents.

However, the systematic scoping review of De Wit and Plastow (2021) noted that their review:

… has confirmed the limited available peer-reviewed literature on m-learning for pre-school practitioners and day care providers in Africa in the last 10 years. Gaps within the research are two-fold, namely the lack of high-quality quantitative studies, as well as studies on m-learning for pre-school practitioners and day care providers specifically. (p. 472)

This view is supported by Oosthuizen and Roberts (2021):

‘… there is a clear need for empirical research on the integration of m-learning into pre-Grade R training and development in the South African context’ (p. 4).

This article addresses the relative dearth of academic literature on these aspects, particularly in informal settings in less-developed contexts. The study also demonstrates that children’s learning in ECD centres located in low-income urban settings can be improved by involving parents through mobile-based communication delivered in their home language.

 Conceptual framework

The conceptual framework for this study was informed by Strigel and Pouezevara’s (2012) work on m-learning affordances and m-learning configurations (Figure 4).

The m-learning affordances.

The m-learning affordances (accessibility, immediacy, individualisation and intelligence) refers to the potential ways in which mobile technology can be used to enhance learning. This was extended to include ‘big data’ (large and complex data sets collected from user information and activity), and ‘context management’ (delivering content appropriate to the learner’s goals, situation and resources).

The m-learning configurations refer to potential ways in which m-learning services are designed or intended for use (learning, kinetic, collaboration spectrums). Roberts et al. (2015) expanded the m-learning configuration spectrum to include access, affordability and pedagogy spectrums as key characteristics of particular m-learning services. The expanded list of configurations was used for this study (Figure 5).

The m-learning configurations.

 Research methods and design Methods

Design-based research methods, as introduced by Brown (1992) and Collins (1992), were applied. The first intervention cycle was a proof-of-concept focused on improving the application’s design and its integration into communities. The study sought to develop and test evaluation tools that could be adopted by the project team if and when the programme intervention was expanded to a wider scale.

 Research questions

This article limits its consideration to a few of the evaluation questions, namely:

To what extent did the practitioners and parents engage with the CareUp messages?

To what extent did the practitioners and parents report that CareUp was an effective tool for them?

What facilitated or hampered the engagement of practitioners and parents with the CareUp service?

Each of these questions was addressed by deliberately pairing quantitative indicators of uptake and use with qualitative accounts from parents and practitioners so that numerical trends could be interpreted in relation to participants’ experiences.

While the broader evaluation research also considered shifts in practitioners’ practices and self-reported knowledge shifts among both parents and practitioners, these questions are not the focus of this article. Here, we focus on parent and practitioner engagement and reflect on the CareUp design in relation to the theoretical framework for m-learning affordances and configurations. We do so to guide m-learning designers considering services for ECD in low-income communities. In particular, we offer data on uptake and use from the CareUp first design cycle, as suggested benchmarks or comparative metrics for other m-learning services operating in similar contexts.

 Data collection

With a clear description of the intervention in place, the research design employed mixed methods, drawing on the collection techniques as shown in Figure 6.

Data collection.

The quantitative data on uptake and use of the CareUp application and mobile site were collected from all 10 ECD centres. The uptake and use data were collected from the CareUp backend data analytics. ‘Uptake’ is considered the proportion of targeted users who downloaded the application and were ready to use it on their devices. ‘Use’ considered the interactions on the application on a week-by-week basis. Considering the 15-week intervention, the proportion of users engaging with the application in some way, such as reading messages or downloading data, was considered.

All the qualitative data collected for this evaluation restricted attention to four purposively selected ECD centres in Khayelitsha and Philippi where the language used in interacting with the children is isiXhosa. All interactions with ECD practitioners, parents and children were conducted by isiXhosa-speaking researchers. Parent feedback on CareUp from Khayelitsha and Philippi was collected using multiple methods:

Near-baseline telephone interviews (n = 19) assessed parents’ expectations, knowledge, practices on child development and language literacy, and communication with practitioners.

Two near-endline focus groups, with users and non-users respectively, were held during workshops in Philippi and Khayelitsha, with 5–8 parents per group randomly selected based on their usage data.

Near-endline written surveys were completed by 87 parents and 11 practitioners at the same workshops, with versions tailored for users and non-users. Tailored versions for users and non-users captured self-reported perceptions of CareUp’s effectiveness and value using closed, 4-point Likert-scale items (ranging from strongly agree to strongly disagree, or excellent to very poor).

Data from the case study home visits and site visits at four case study sites have not been used for this article and are thus not discussed further.

 Data analysis

Open-ended interview and survey responses were analysed using a question-by-question inductive thematic approach. The transcriptions were first translated into English, then codes were developed from the data and iteratively grouped into coherent themes. Practitioner and parent quotes were purposively selected to illustrate key patterns. To enhance trustworthiness, the analysis was conducted by one researcher and subsequently reviewed, checked and refined by a second researcher, thereby supporting inter-rater reliability. The resulting analysis was then presented back to the fieldworkers for sense-checking and to ensure the responses were appropriately captured when translated into English.

The Reach Trust conducted the initial analysis of uptake and usage data, sharing results via regular fortnightly short reports and longer six-weekly reports with stakeholders and the evaluation team. The authors used some of these results while providing deeper interpretation. Additional data not covered in the Reach Trust reports were obtained and analysed for further insights by the authors using Microsoft Excel’s descriptive statistics functionality.

 Ethical considerations

Ethical clearance to conduct this study was obtained from the University of Johannesburg Faculty of Education Research Ethics Committee (No. 2017-012). Informed consent was obtained from all participating adults.

 Results Practitioners’ engagement with CareUp

There was strong uptake among practitioners, with 15 of the 16 signing up. Ninety-four per cent (n = 16) of practitioners downloaded the app and recorded an average of 7.8 interactions (standard deviation [SD] = 3.6) per week.

Usage by the practitioners was very good and indicates a sustained engagement with CareUp over (almost) the full 15 weeks. Over the 15 weeks of the first design cycle:

In all weeks, barring the final one, at least 70% of the user practitioners accessed CareUp at least 3 times per week.

Two-thirds of the practitioners (10 out of the 15) used the service at least 13 out of the 15 weeks (in fact, 40% used it every week of the pilot). This provides another indication of the sustained use by practitioners.

The average practitioner using the application opened 40.1 notifications, 27.2 instructions, 25.8 activities, 8.7 Nal’ibali pages and 14.7 Wordworks pages (a total average of 116.5 interactions [SD = 54.5] with the CareUp application).

 Parents’ engagement with CareUp

Only 34% of the targeted parents (n = 353) signed up for the application. In some cases, the parents did not come to the activation workshop; in other cases, despite being at the workshop, they did not download and register for the CareUp application.3

Over the 15 weeks of the first design cycle:

CareUp-registered parents interacted with the CareUp application an average of 3.4 times per week (SD = 3.9).

For the parents, in most weeks, around two-thirds of the user parents accessed CareUp at least 3 times per week.

The mean (average) number of weeks that the parents were active was 6.4 weeks (slightly less than half the number of weeks in the pilot).

The average CareUp-registered parent using the application opened 18.5 notifications, 12.5 instructions, 9.0 activities, 4.7 Nal’ibali pages and 6.5 Wordworks pages (a total average of 51.3 interactions [SD = 58.3] with the CareUp application).

The parent who used the CareUp activities the most opened 47 activities, and the parent who used the CareUp instructions the most opened 57 instructions.

 Perceived benefits

Practitioners described CareUp as a source of concrete, practical ideas for language and literacy, helping them structure richer lessons and interactions with children and parents. They valued having home-language resources easily accessible, experienced the app as informal professional development that broadened their repertoire, and felt it strengthened communication with families and made it easier to involve parents in learning. Practitioners also reported increased knowledge of child development, for example recognising that ‘the little things that we take for granted are the important building block in kids’ development – like doing [a] shopping list with them’.

For parents, positive perceptions focused on feeling more aware and confident in their role in early learning, with almost all surveyed strongly agreeing that they were more aware it was their job to help their child be ready for Grade R. One parent reflected that they had realised ‘I’m the first teacher and the schoolteacher is the second teacher… we learnt that we need to teach and educate our kids by the things that they see’. Many appreciated being guided with simple, doable home-language activities and stories, reported more frequent purposeful interaction with their children (talking, reading, playing), and felt that CareUp improved communication with practitioners and signalled that the school valued their involvement.

 Perceived challenges

Practitioners noted several challenges, including that some CareUp stories were too long and lacked pictures, making it difficult to keep children engaged on a small phone screen, and that using the app added to their workload and did not always align easily with existing weekly planning. They also found some suggested activities difficult to implement in practice and felt that the timing of the intervention within the academic calendar was not ideal for sustained integration.

For parents, difficulties centred on access and usability: some did not have suitable Android phones or internet, struggled to download or retain the app or missed activation workshops where support and data were provided. Even when they had access, some parents received messages at inconvenient times, felt too busy with work and household responsibilities to use the app consistently, or found stories too long for their children to remember details and answer questions. Additional concerns were that some activities assumed resources they did not have, and that CareUp did not adequately cater for children with disabilities.

 Factors facilitating and limiting uptake and usage

Engagement with CareUp was supported by several design and implementation features: early visits to ECD centres to introduce the project and secure buy-in, structured onboarding workshops, a mobile application that linked directly to practitioners’ day-to-day work with children, and the provision of useful, ready-to-use activities. Although practitioners did not explicitly cite the provision of smartphones and free data as a reason for their engagement, it is highly likely that without this support, their high levels of usage would have been constrained by limited access to appropriate devices and data.

At the same time, several factors limited engagement, especially for parents. Some could not attend activation workshops because of work or other commitments, and there was little structured support afterward for those who still needed help with downloading or using the application. A lack of suitable phones or internet connectivity further constrained participation, and for some parents, the timing of messages was inconvenient, arriving when they were busy with work or household tasks.

 Discussion

This section opens with a description of the CareUp intervention in terms of the m-learning affordances and the m-learning configurations framework. This is followed by a broader discussion on the lessons emerging from this intervention.

Limitations

Critical limitations must be acknowledged. The qualitative components involved relatively small, purposively selected samples and are therefore vulnerable to sampling bias, limiting the extent to which these insights can be generalised beyond the participating centres. Much of the evidence on changes in knowledge, practice and parent-child interaction relied on self-reported data from practitioners and parents, which may be affected by social desirability and recall bias. In addition, the evaluation used a single-group design without a comparison or control group, so observed shifts in practice and reported benefits cannot be causally attributed to CareUp alone. Finally, the relatively short intervention period limits conclusions about long-term engagement and sustained changes in practice or child outcomes.

 Theorising CareUp m-learning affordances and configurations

Situating this small study within the broader literature on m-learning, particularly in relation to the m-learning affordances and configurations framework, is important. While the affordances describe the possible (theoretical) ways in which mobile applications can support learning, the m-learning configurations (i.e. choices made about m-learning design) may constrain or amplify these affordances.

When reflecting on the potential m-learning affordances, CareUp identified a few ways in which mobile applications can support learning (Figure 7).

Analysis of CareUp in relation to m-learning affordances.

The CareUp programme design utilised accessibility by making educational resources and materials available to practitioners and parents. This is particularly important in the ECD context of supporting young children: the application connected the two caring adults in the 4–5-year-old child’s life. While the child did not have direct access to the m-learning application or to a device, the adults caring for them received the same information about learning opportunities, which they could – most commonly orally – offer to their child. While there was theoretical availability of educational resources and materials, access to them was, in reality, constrained by both device access and data access. These limitations to access are described in more detail below in relation to the m-learning configurations.

It also made use of immediacy, as the materials were available at all times. The CareUp application, once installed, provided the materials to the users, and this could be accessed whenever desired. It facilitated aligning the activities of the practitioner with that of the parent. So, although the ‘week in focus’ was highlighted and foregrounded, previous and future activities could be revisited with ease. Regular messaging directed attention to specific content aspects which were relevant to a given week. Parents and practitioners could take out the application for inspiration at a moment when engagement with their child (or the children in their care) was appropriate. However, the aspects of immediacy relating to real-time communication (between parent and practitioner), and data sharing were not exploited.

CareUp did not build on the m-learning affordances of big data analytics and intelligence. While data analytics were collected to measure uptake and use, these patterns of use were not used intelligently to shift the nature of engagement or frequency of messaging based on this data. Furthermore, the data were not analysed and used to inform or enhance design. Under intelligence, the multimedia aspect was used but in a unidirectional manner – from the app to the user – and there was no return path. The multimedia was appropriately simple (requiring little data, in a data scarce context) and made use of pictures, as well as voice notes/audio clips, in addition to text.

However, neither of these affordances was part of the project design, which intended to test the viability of a simple mobile application to communicate the same ECD learning materials to both parents and practitioners so that learning opportunities could revisit the child’s environments: school and home. In this, it succeeded.

One important aspect of context management which was evident in the CareUp application was the choice of language. The application was designed for trial in the Western Cape, where three languages are dominant: Afrikaans, isiXhosa and English. The parent and practitioner could choose which language options they wanted to use. At the activation workshop, they were explicitly encouraged to choose their dominant language (isiXhosa). This was an important move, as there is a common perception among parents that a ‘straight to English’ experience may benefit this child’s learning. However, it is clear that learning in the dominant language (mother tongue/home language) is a very important for the child’s language development (Brady 2008; Cummins 2016). Other context management aspects could have been more explicitly utilised, with greater variation and opportunity provided, by, for example, being responsive to the global positioning system (GPS) location of the user (if they choose to share their location) and recommending nearby facilities (health clinic, school field, police station, library and so on.). However, this was beyond the reasonable scope of the small pilot. This affordance is, however, important as it could be used effectively if a wider scale intervention is planned. There would also be an opportunity to create community-based communication platforms (which bring together parents with similar aged children in the same location or connect ECD practitioners with one another across ECD sites).

We now turn now to the m-learning configuration options, which may enhance or hinder the m-learning affordances (Figure 8).

Analysis of CareUp in relation to m-learning configuration spectrums.

In terms of m-learning configurations, for the learning spectrum, CareUp supported both formal and informal learning processes. The practitioners were guided through activities4 for use in the ECD classrooms (making this a support for formal processes). The same activities were provided to parents for them to use at home. This supported informal learning processes, with the aim that the formal activity introduced at school could be reinforced in the home. Figure 9 provides an example of one such activity.

An example of an activity.

Given the kinetic spectrum, CareUp could be used by practitioners and parents while moving. As such, the mobility of the CareUp application was emphasised in the lesson observations with practitioners (where they could walk around their class and consult the application) and with parents in the case study home visits (mention was made to using the app when walking home from the ECD centre). However, given the broadcast nature of the application (information was sent from the application to the users, with limited feedback loops), the opportunities to exploit the mobility aspects were limited. The design could, for example, have included users sending images of nearby environments or giving a space for sharing engagements (in a closed group). Again, in this small study, exploiting the fact that the device was mobile was not a priority. Data restrictions limited what could be expected in terms of a feedback loop, and images and video clips were too data-heavy to be a serious design consideration.

Regarding the collaborative spectrum, the CareUp application was designed for individual use, and no collaboration elements (such as the ability to set up groups or message at a local level) were included in the design. This is unfortunate, as the mobile interface would have been ideal for creating parent groups and joining up ECD practitioners in the same local community.

For device access, while practitioners were provided with a free mobile device, parents were expected to bring their own device. This is likely to have contributed to the relatively low uptake among parents. Approximately, 94% (n = 16) of practitioners (who were provided with a device) downloaded the application, compared to 34% of the targeted parents (n = 353), where they were expected to use their own devices. It is important to consider the South African context in which the CareUp project was undertaken. When focusing on internet use (a requirement for using the CareUp application), 79% of the population (50.8 million individuals) have access to the internet on a device (Kemp 2025). There are therefore a sizeable 21% of the population without internet access, and it can be assumed that the majority of these people live in low-income and rural communities.

Similar barriers to access for parents invited into the CareUp project were evident in terms of the data access spectrum. While ECD practitioners were given data vouchers, parents were only supported with data at the activation workshop where they were assisted to download the application. Thereafter, they were expected to ‘bring’ their own data. This distinction helps to explain differences in engagement where practitioners recorded an average of 7.8 interactions (SD = 3.6) per week; for parents, this was 3.4 times per week (SD = 3.9). One would expect a higher application engagement from a practitioner who is motivated in their role (seeking ideas for lessons and activities), particularly if supported – as they were – by having both a (donated) device and data for this purpose. Conversely, the parents may not see this as their role and might be discouraged to use the application because of the lack of ready access to a device and/or a shortage of data.

The pedagogy adopted was well-defined, as the mobile content was adapted from a well-established and trialled approach to encouraging talk between caring adults and young children, developed by Wordworks (https://www.wordworks.org.za/).

 Implications for research and practice

In this section, we discuss the implications of this small-scale study, which may be useful for investors and innovators considering m-learning as a potential tool to support quality ECD provision.

This design trial underscores that mobile interventions for ECD must be understood as socio-technical systems rather than standalone apps. The relatively high and sustained practitioner uptake contrasted with more modest and uneven parent engagement shows that access, incentives and institutional support shape usage at least as much as interface design. Embedding CareUp within existing relationships with ECD centres, providing devices and data to practitioners and offering well-supported activation workshops were critical for practitioner participation, whereas parents’ participation was far more vulnerable to work schedules, device and data constraints, and limited opportunities for follow-up support. For practitioners and programme designers, this implies that m-learning services for low-income communities should budget and plan not only for content development, but also for piloting the service, activation, ongoing support, regular face-to-face engagement with beneficiaries to inform iterations, and attention to timing within the school year.

Sustaining use over time also requires deliberate motivational design. As is common in mobile services, usage declined over the intervention period, particularly for parents, suggesting that usage encouragement should be built into the application from the outset. Future iterations should explore methods used in other mobile interventions, such as reminders via SMS or WhatsApp, and gamification elements like leaderboards, competitions or milestone rewards, to prompt users to return to the service and to recognise consistent engagement.

The findings further illustrate the value and limits of usage analytics as indicators of programme success. Backend data showed that, once on board, practitioners used CareUp frequently and consistently, and that a subset of parents engaged regularly over many weeks. However, qualitative evidence from interviews and focus groups revealed why usage tapered for many parents, and how those who did use the app translated messages into everyday interactions with children. For researchers, this reinforces the importance of mixed-methods approaches that integrate data with lived experiences, to move beyond ‘how much’ use towards understanding ‘how’ and ‘why’ use varies across contexts. For practitioners, it suggests that interpreting usage metrics without attention to barriers such as time, data costs and competing interventions risks misreading the potential and constraints of m-learning.

The study also points to design considerations for future m-learning initiatives in the ECD sector. Parents and practitioners valued home-language content, concrete activity ideas and resources that could be easily integrated into existing routines, yet they also highlighted challenges related to story length, visual support and assumptions about available materials and children’s needs. This suggests that content for similar interventions should be iteratively tested for length, visual scaffolding and appropriateness for group use on small screens and should explicitly account for diverse household resources and children with disabilities. Scaffolding for parents is particularly important, as video evidence showed that many struggled to engage children while reading and to support them to master an activity as intended. Customisation is also needed so that practitioners and parents receive slightly different offerings that align with their distinct roles. In addition, there is good reason to move beyond a multi-monolingual design (a single language chosen at the outset) towards bilingual offerings where users select a primary language but can easily toggle to view the same content in a secondary language.

More broadly, future research could explore how configurations of affordances such as immediacy (e.g. push notifications, cross-platform messaging), individualisation (tailoring to usage patterns and language choice) and collaboration (linking home and centre practices) can be combined to support both sustained engagement and equitable access. For policy and practice, the CareUp case illustrates that mobile tools can strengthen communication and early learning, but only when they are aligned with local conditions and accompanied by strategies to mitigate structural barriers in low-income communities.

When considering a shift from a small pilot to a larger-scale intervention, cost-effective models of uptake and support become critical. A key lesson is that the intensive, workshop-based activation used in this design trial is unlikely to be affordable at scale, so lighter-touch approaches to supporting sign-up and onboarding need to be tested. Securing and maintaining political will and buy-in from provincial government decision-makers will be essential for sustainability, particularly where integration with public ECD systems is envisaged. Working through intermediaries such as non-governmental organisations (NGOs) and ECD centre forums, which already have established relationships with parents and crèches, may offer a practical route for outreach, onboarding and ongoing communication as CareUp-type interventions move beyond the pilot phase.

 Conclusion

Drawing on the extended theoretical framework of Strigel and Pouezevara’s (2012) by Roberts et al. (2015), this article examined the affordances and configurations of a multilingual mobile application, CareUp, which aimed to strengthen communication between early childhood practitioners and parents in low-income urban communities in South Africa. These conclusions are drawn from a synthesis of backend usage data (showing the reach and consistency of use) and participants’ accounts of their experiences (highlighting both value and constraints).

Regarding the m-learning affordances framework, the findings showed that CareUp successfully leveraged accessibility to connect ECD practitioners and parents around the learning experiences of 4–5-year-old children. The application’s design, which distributed aligned content in the user’s home language, enabled a shared pedagogical focus between school and home. The mobile application partially used the immediacy and context management m-learning affordances. Its design provided on-demand learning, while being contextually responsive to the linguistic needs (as it was offered in the three dominant languages of English, Afrikaans and isiXhosa). It did not harness the m-learning affordances of individualisation, intelligence or big data analytics.

When considering the m-learning configurations for the CareUp intervention, the study found that the application operated across both formal and informal learning spectrums: it supported practitioners in structured ECD activities while extending these into unstructured, home-based interactions between parents and children. For the kinetic spectrum, mobility was only partially realised, as the unidirectional broadcast design limited interaction. Collaboration was also constrained and positioned near the individual end of the collaboration spectrum, as data constraints limited opportunities for interactive feedback.

Despite the many promising aspects of CareUp, parental uptake of the application remained limited. This was primarily due not to dislike of or disinterest in the app, but because of structural constraints such as limited access to smart devices and a lack of affordable mobile data. The success of m-learning interventions depends not only on their pedagogical design but also on their sensitivity to socio-economic realities. These constraints were most evident for the parents, where a ‘bring your own device and data’ model was applied for device access and data access. This makes clear that the access and affordability spectra impose key constraints on the uptake use and efficacy of m-learning opportunities in low-income communities.

Nonetheless, the CareUp pedagogy was tightly specified, building on decades of ECD work by Wordworks, and offered a weekly rhythm of engagement that aligned well between parent and practitioner. Even in this modest configuration, CareUp provided an empirical demonstration of how m-learning can be mobilised to bridge institutional and household learning environments, if access and affordability spectra are addressed (with zero rating and supporting the acquisition of affordable smart devices) it offers a feasible model for connecting parents of young children to practitioners who can then work in tandem to support the child’s early learning.

This study makes four important contributions:

Firstly, it documents a clear and realistic theory of change for how m-learning can strengthen parent–practitioner collaboration in early childhood settings. This theory of change posits that when content is linguistically accessible, contextually relevant and synchronised across learning environments, parents are likely to engage in pedagogically aligned activities that reinforce classroom learning.

Secondly, this article provides an example of how the extended m-learning affordances and configurations framework can be applied to reflect on m-learning design. The importance of the three additional spectra (access, affordability and pedagogy) to low-resource communities, is clearly demonstrated.

Thirdly, the research provides empirically grounded benchmarks for uptake and use, showing that high practitioner participation (94%) can be achieved in short-cycle interventions when data and devices are provided, whereas parental uptake (34%) remains dependent on structural enablers such as device access and data affordability. These metrics provide a comparative reference point for m-learning studies in similar contexts.

Finally, the article contributes to the limited body of Global South scholarship on m-learning in ECD, illustrating how multilingual design, with locally relevant content development that offers a weekly rhythm of structured pedagogy, is well received by parents and practitioners alike.

For policymakers and early learning innovators and investors, this study underscores the urgent need to address the systemic barriers to mobile phone and internet access in poor communities. As such, digital inclusion strategies must be integrated into parent-support programmes. The CareUp study demonstrates that even modest m-learning interventions can meaningfully extend the pedagogical reach of ECD programmes when designed around the real-world configurations of connectivity, language and caring adult-child relationships.

 Acknowledgements

The authors would like to acknowledge the Western Cape Department of Social Development and Innovation Edge who conceptualised, funded and supported the CareUp initiative. There were several service providers supporting the funding partners’ vision and intention, especially The Reach Trust (the technical partners) and Wordworks (which supplied much of the literacy material). The authors were involved in the evaluation of the original intervention through their role in Kelello Consulting.

This article includes visual content (e.g., figures) improved with the assistance of Gemini 2.5 Flash Image. The authors reviewed, modified, and validated all AI-improved artefacts and take full responsibility for their accuracy and integrity.

Competing interests

The authors reported receiving funding from Innovation Edge, which may be affected by the research reported in the enclosed publication. The authors have fully disclosed those interests and implemented an approved plan to manage any potential conflicts arising from their involvement. The terms of these funding arrangements have been reviewed and approved by the affiliated university in accordance with its policy on objectivity in research.

 CRediT authorship contribution

Garth Spencer-Smith: Conceptualisation, Data curation, Formal analysis, Methodology, Project administration, Writing – original draft, Writing – review & editing. Nicky Roberts: Conceptualisation, Data curation, Formal analysis, Funding acquisition, Methodology, Project administration, Writing – original draft, Writing – review & editing. Both authors reviewed the article, contributed to the discussion of results, approved the final version for submission and publication, and take responsibility for the integrity of its findings.

 Data availability

The data that support the findings of this study are available from the corresponding author, Garth Spencer-Smith, upon reasonable request.

 Disclaimer

The views and opinions expressed in this article are those of the authors and are the product of professional research. They do not necessarily reflect the official policy or position of any affiliated institution, funder, agency, or the publisher. The authors are responsible for the results, findings, and content of this article.

 References Bayat, A. & Madyibi, S., 2022, ‘The home environment and parental involvement of preschoolers in Philippi, a low-income area: Do they hinder or support early learning?’ South African Journal of Childhood Education 12(1), 1055. https://doi.org/10.4102/sajce.v12i1.1055 Biersteker, L., Dawes, A., Hendricks, L. & Tredoux, C., 2016, ‘Center-based early childhood care and education program quality: A South African study’, Early Childhood Research Quarterly 36, 334–344. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ecresq.2016.01.004 Boonk, L., Gijselaers, H.J., Ritzen, H. & Brand-Gruwel, S., 2018, ‘A review of the relationship between parental involvement indicators and academic achievement’, Educational Research Review 24, 10–30. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.edurev.2018.02.001 Botha, A., Batchelor, J., Traxler, J., De Waard, I. & Herselman, M., 2012, ‘Towards a mobile learning curriculum framework’, in P. Cunningham & M. Cunningham (eds.), IST-Africa 2012 conference proceedings, May 9–11, 2012, pp. 1–9, IIMC International Information Management Corporation, Johannesburg. Brady, N., 2008, ‘Interventions aimed at improving child language by enhancing maternal responsivity and language stimulation’, Journal of Early Intervention 30(4), 318–328. Brown, A.L., 1992, ‘Design experiments: Theoretical and methodological challenges in creating complex interventions’, Journal of the Learning Sciences 2(2), 141–178. https://doi.org/10.1207/s15327809jls0202_2 Castro, M., Expósito-Casas, E., López-Martín, E., Lizasoain, L., Navarro-Asencio, E. & Gaviria, J.L., 2015, ‘Parental involvement on student academic achievement: A meta-analysis’, Educational Research Review 14, 33–46. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.edurev.2015.01.002 Chee, K.N., Yahaya, N., Ibrahim, N.H. & Hasan, M.N., 2017, ‘Review of mobile learning trends 2010–2015: A meta-analysis’, Journal of Educational Technology and Society 20(2), 113–126. Collins, A., 1992, ‘Towards a design science of education’, in E. Scanlon & T. O’Shea (eds.), New directions in educational technology, pp. 15–22, Springer-Verlag, New York, NY. Crosby, S.A., Rasinski, T., Padak, N. & Yildirim, K., 2015, ‘A 3-year study of a school-based parental involvement program in early literacy’, Journal of Educational Research 108(2), 165–172. https://doi.org/10.1080/00220671.2013.867472 Cummins, J., 2016, ‘Mother tongue instruction and educational equity: Framing and reframing the issue’, Language, Culture and Curriculum 29(2), 109–124. Dawes, A., Biersteker, L. & Hendricks, L., 2012, Towards integrated early childhood development: An evaluation of the Sobambisana initiative, The D.G. Murray Trust, viewed 30 October 2025, from https://ilifalabantwana.co.za/wp-content/uploads/2016/04/An-Evaluation-of-the-Sobambisana-Initiative.pdf. Dawes, A., Biersteker, L., Girdwood, E. & Snelling, M., 2020, The early learning programme outcomes study: Research insights, Innovation Edge and Ilifa Labantwana, viewed 03 October 2025, from https://www.datafirst.uct.ac.za/dataportal/index.php/catalog/863/download/12629. De Wit, M. & Plastow, N.A., 2021, ‘Recommendations to improve the usability of mobile learning for preschool practitioners in Africa: A systematic scoping review’, International Journal of Learning, Teaching and Educational Research 20(11), 461–475. https://doi.org/10.26803/ijlter.20.11.25 Department of Basic Education, 2023, South Africa’s 2030 strategy for early childhood development programmes, Department of Basic Education, viewed 30 October 2025, from https://ecdinfohub.org/wp-content/uploads/2024/04/South-Africas-2030-Strategy-for-Early-Childhood-Development-Programmes.pdf. Department of Social Development, 2015, National integrated early childhood development policy, Government Printers, Pretoria, viewed 27 October 2025, from https://www.gov.za/sites/default/files/gcis_document/201610/national-integrated-ecd-policy-web-version-final-01-08-2016a.pdf. Giese, S., Dawes, A., Tredoux, C., Mattes, F., Bridgman, G., Van der Berg, S. et al., 2022, Thrive by five index report, rev., Innovation Edge, viewed 27 October 2025, from https://thrivebyfive.co.za/wp-content/uploads/2022/11/Thrive-by-Five-Index-report-Revised-August-2022-FINAL.pdf. Giese, S., Pettersson Gelander, G., Cook, C., Carnegie, T., Tredoux, C., Dawes, A. et al., 2025, Thrive by five index 2024: National findings, DataDrive2030, Cape Town, viewed 27 October 2025, from https://thrivebyfive.co.za/wp-content/uploads/2025/09/TB5-Main-Report_FINAL.pdf. Grimus, M. & Ebner, M., 2015, ‘Learning and teaching with mobile devices: An approach in higher secondary education in Ghana’, International Journal of Mobile and Blended Learning 7(2), 17–32. https://doi.org/10.4018/ijmbl.2015040102 Hall, K., Sambu, W., Berry, L., Almeleh, C. & Almeleh, C., 2019, South African early childhood review 2019, Children’s Institute, University of Cape Town and Ilifa Labantwana, viewed 27 October 2025, from http://childrencount.uct.ac.za/uploads/publications/SA%20ECR_2019.pdf. Hannaway, D., 2024, ‘Digital learning in childhood: Possibilities for pedagogical transformation in South Africa’, South African Journal of Childhood Education 14(1), a422. https://doi.org/10.4102/SAJCE.v14i1.1422 Isaacs, S., 2012, Mobile learning for practitioners in Africa and the Middle East: Exploring the potential of mobile technologies to support practitioners and improve practice, UNESCO, viewed 02 October 2025, from https://unesdoc.unesco.org/ark:/48223/pf0000216358. Jaro, I., Clara, M. & Martinic, R., 2012, Mobile learning for practitioners in Latin America: Exploring the potential of mobile technologies to support practitioners and improve practice, UNESCO, viewed 02 October 2025, from https://unesdoc.unesco.org/ark:/48223/pf0000216081. John, D., Uys, C. & Pascoe, M., 2024, ‘IsiZulu-speaking caregivers’ perceptions of child language stimulation’, South African Journal of Communication Disorders 71(1), a1028. https://doi.org/10.4102/sajcd.v71i1.1028 Kemp, S., 2025, Digital 2025: South Africa, viewed 11 September 2025, from https://datareportal.com/reports/digital-2025-south-africa. Kim, S.W., 2018, ‘Parental involvement in developing countries: A meta-synthesis of qualitative research’, International Journal of Educational Development 60, 149–156. Manolitsis, G., Georgiou, G.K. & Tziraki, N., 2013, ‘Examining the effects of home literacy and numeracy environment on early reading and math acquisition’, Early Childhood Research Quarterly 28(4), 692–703. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ecresq.2013.05.004 Melhuish, E.C., Sylva, K., Sammons, P., Siraj-Blatchford, I. & Taggart, B., 2008a, ‘Effects of the home learning environment and preschool center experience upon literacy and numeracy development in early primary school’, Journal of Social Issues 64(1), 95–114. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1540-4560.2008.00550.x Melhuish, E.C., Sylva, K., Sammons, P., Siraj-Blatchford, I. & Taggart, B., 2008b, ‘Preschool influences on mathematics achievement’, Science 321(5893), 1161–1162. https://doi.org/10.1126/science.1158808 Miao, F., West, M., So, H.J. & Toh, Y., 2017, Supporting practitioners with mobile technology: Lessons drawn from UNESCO projects in Mexico, Nigeria, Pakistan and Senegal, UNESCO, viewed 30 October 2025, from https://unesdoc.unesco.org/ark:/48223/pf0000251511. Moses, E. & Van der Berg, S., 2023, ‘Evaluating the demand, supply and impact of early childhood development programmes in South Africa’, Development Southern Africa 40(6), 1153–1173. https://doi.org/10.1080/0376835X.2023.2198555 Mostert, I., Roberts, N. & Plaatjies, L.A., 2021, ‘Measuring uptake and engagement in an m-learning intervention: The case of ChildConnect South Africa’, in M.E. Auer & T. Tsiatsos (eds.), Internet of things, infrastructures and mobile applications: Proceedings of the 13th IMCL conference, Thessaloniki, Greece, November 4–5, 2021, pp. 81–90, Springer International Publishing, Cham. Ogegbo, A.A. & Aina, A., 2020, ‘Early childhood development practitioners’ perceptions on the use of technology in teaching young children’, South African Journal of Childhood Education 10(1), 1–10. https://doi.org/10.4102/sajce.v10i1.880 Oosthuizen, S. & Roberts, N., 2021, ‘A sociocultural framework to analyse m-learning options for early childhood development (ECD) practitioner training’, African Journal of Information and Communication 28, 1–20. https://doi.org/10.23962/10539/32209 Papadakis, S. & Kalogiannakis, M., 2020, ‘A research synthesis of the real value of self-proclaimed mobile educational applications for young children’, in S. Papadakis & M. Kalogiannakis (eds.), Mobile learning applications in early childhood education, pp. 1–19, IGI Global, Hershey, PA. Roberts, N., Mostert, I. & Plaatjies, L.A., 2021, ‘Measuring knowledge gains in an SMS m-learning intervention: The case of ChildConnect South Africa’, in M.E. Auer & T. Tsiatsos (eds.), Internet of things, infrastructures and mobile applications: Proceedings of the 13th IMCL conference, Thessaloniki, Greece, November 4–5, 2021, pp. 69–80, Springer International Publishing, Cham. Roberts, N. & Spencer-Smith, G., 2017, An evaluation of the CareUp first design cycle, Kelello in partnership with the Centre for Educational Practice Research, University of Johannesburg, Johannesburg. Roberts, N. & Spencer-Smith, G., 2019, ‘A modified analytical framework for describing m-learning (as applied to early grade Mathematics)’, South African Journal of Childhood Education 9(1), a532. https://doi.org/10.4102/sajce.v9i1.532 Roberts, N., Spencer-Smith, G., Vänskä, R. & Eskelinen, S., 2015, ‘From challenging assumptions to measuring effect: Researching the Nokia Mobile Mathematics Service in South Africa’, South African Journal of Education 35(2), Article 1045. https://doi.org/10.15700/saje.v35n2a1045 Statistics South Africa, 2021, General household survey 2019, viewed 30 October 2025, from https://www.datafirst.uct.ac.za/dataportal/index.php/catalog/852/get-microdata. Strigel, C. & Pouezevara, S., 2012, Mobile learning and numeracy: Filling gaps and expanding opportunities for early grade learning, RTI International, viewed 27 October 2025, from https://www.rti.org/sites/default/files/resources/mobilelearningnumeracy_rti_final_17dec12_edit.pdf. Visser, M.M., Juan, A.L. & Hannan, S.M., 2019, ‘Early learning experiences, school entry skills and later mathematics achievement in South Africa’, South African Journal of Childhood Education 9(1), a597. https://doi.org/10.4102/sajce.v9i1.597 Von Suchodoletz, A., Lee, D.S., Henry, J., Tamang, S., Premachandra, B. & Yoshikawa, H., 2023, ‘Early childhood education and care quality and associations with child outcomes: A meta-analysis’, PLoS One 18(5), e0285985. https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pone.0285985 Wambui, E., Rono, J., Waweru, E., Kithinji, C., Kinoti, E., Nyamu, G. et al., 2023, ‘Perceptions of the influence of a mobile phone-based messaging platform on caregiver ECD knowledge, attitudes and practices: A qualitative exploration in an informal settlement in Nairobi’, BMC Primary Care 24(1), 187. https://doi.org/10.1186/s12875-023-02127-0 Youn, M.J., Leon, J. & Lee, K.J., 2012, ‘The influence of maternal employment on children’s learning growth and the role of parental involvement’, Early Child Development and Care 182, 1227–1246. https://doi.org/10.1080/03004430.2011.604944

How to cite this article: Spencer-Smith, G. & Roberts, N., 2026, ‘Supporting parents and early childhood development practitioners through a mobile application: The case of CareUp’, South African Journal of Childhood Education 16(1), a1846. https://doi.org/10.4102/sajce.v16i1.1846

Hereafter, for simplicity, only the word “parents” or “parent” is used to denote those caring for the children.

Being ‘on track’ is defined as meeting the learning standard(s) and able to do the tasks expected of children of that age.

Possibly because of issues like a lack of suitable devices and funds to buy data.

Each activity was a written instruction of a task to undertake. On occasion, a link provided access to reading resources.