1. The article presents a systematic review of 155 studies on Tangible User Interfaces (TUIs) and interactions in young children's education, identifying the most dominant form of tangible object as manipulatives.
2. The majority of studies addressed all three stages of TUI development (design, implementation, and evaluation) but declared a small sample of young children as a major shortcoming.
3. Additional empirical research is required to collect evidence that TUIs are truly beneficial for children's acquisition of knowledge, and the review identifies gaps in the current work, providing suggestions for future research in TUIs application in educational contexts.
The article titled "Tangible interfaces in early years’ education: a systematic review" provides a comprehensive overview of the current state of research on Tangible User Interfaces (TUIs) and interactions in young children's education. The authors conducted a systematic review of 155 studies published between 2001 and 2019, focusing on application domains, forms of tangible objects, TUI design, and assessment.
Overall, the article presents a well-structured and informative review of the literature on TUIs in early years' education. The authors provide valuable insights into the potential benefits of TUIs for children's learning and development, as well as identifying gaps in the current research that require further investigation.
However, there are some potential biases and limitations to consider when interpreting the findings presented in this article. Firstly, the authors acknowledge that their review is limited to studies published in English-language journals, which may have excluded relevant research published in other languages. This could potentially bias their findings towards certain regions or cultures.
Additionally, while the authors provide a thorough analysis of the different forms of tangible objects used in TUIs (e.g., manipulatives), they do not explore potential biases or limitations associated with these forms. For example, some types of manipulatives may be more accessible or engaging for certain children than others based on factors such as socio-economic status or cultural background.
Furthermore, while the authors highlight the need for additional empirical research to collect evidence that TUIs are truly beneficial for children's acquisition of knowledge, they do not fully explore potential risks or drawbacks associated with TUIs. For example, there may be concerns around screen time or over-reliance on technology among young children.
Finally, while the authors provide a balanced overview of both the potential benefits and limitations of TUIs in early years' education, there is some promotional content present throughout the article. For example, STEM toys are presented as an effective way to promote learning science, technology, engineering and mathematics (STEM) through play without fully exploring potential limitations or drawbacks associated with this approach.
In conclusion, while this article provides a valuable contribution to our understanding of TUIs in early years' education by presenting a comprehensive review of existing literature on this topic, it is important to consider potential biases and limitations when interpreting its findings. Further research is needed to fully explore both the benefits and risks associated with TUIs in educational contexts.