=Paper=
{{Paper
|id=Vol-3265/paper_5253
|storemode=property
|title=A rapid review on Tangible User Interfaces-augmented storytelling in inclusive education
|pdfUrl=https://ceur-ws.org/Vol-3265/paper_5253.pdf
|volume=Vol-3265
|authors=Lorenzo Desideri,Federica Somma
|dblpUrl=https://dblp.org/rec/conf/telexbe/DesideriS22
}}
==A rapid review on Tangible User Interfaces-augmented storytelling in inclusive education ==
https://ceur-ws.org/Vol-3265/paper_5253.pdf
A rapid review on Tangible User Interfaces- augmented
storytelling in inclusive education
Federica Somma 1 and Lorenzo Desideri 2
1
Smarted srl, Via Riviera di Chiaia 256, 80121, Naples, Italy
2
AIAS Bologna onlus, Piazza della Pace, 4/a, 40134, Bologna, Italy
Abstract
Tangible User Interfaces (TUIs) application in education showed its benefits and strengths in
enhancing learning and effective educational experiences of pupils. One of the potential
application fields of TUIs in education is storytelling and narration, where the interaction with
tangibles could enhance the involvement of children in listening and creating stories but also
the inclusion of children with special needs. However, it is crucial to provide a methodological
framework as a guide, not only to design inclusive learning through TUIs-enhanced
storytelling, but also to evaluate TUIs application expected to sustain these practices,
professionals, and practitioners in early years’ education. The present rapid review focuses on
TUIs developed with the aim of fostering educational and inclusive storytelling activities with
a view to identify relevant studies that evaluated the effectiveness of TUIs in educational
settings to enhance inclusive storytelling practices. studies published until 2022 were
identified. The results reveal gaps in the current literature and a paucity of relevant studies on
TUIs for inclusive storytelling, moreover none of the included in the review implemented a
high-quality evaluation design. Further empirical research is necessary to collect evidence that
TUIs are effective for enhancing children’s storytelling experience and allow inclusion of
special needs ones.
Keywords 1
Education, Tangible User Interfaces, storytelling, inclusion, special needs
1. Introduction
Storytelling is a social and educational practice that has always had multiple functions [1]: from
remembering to sharing collective experiences, from learning to pure entertainment. It is an important
tool for interpreting reality, to interact with the social world in which we live. According to Bruner [2],
narrative thinking is one of the two main ways of thinking in which human beings organize and manage
their knowledge of the world, indeed they structure their own immediate experience. Therefore, in
addition to favoring the development of linguistic-expressive functions, narration stimulates the
cognitive development of the child through the enrichment of knowledge, the exercise of thought and
the formation of ideas. The affective-emotional aspect is enhanced as the narrative stimulates emotions
and feelings, enriches the imagination, and emotions have a direct impact on learning and cognition [3];
storytelling activates identification processes essential for the internalization of models, norms and
values as well as for the acquisition of adequate behavioral rules.
1
Proceedings of the Third Workshop on Technology Enhanced Learning Environments for Blended Education, June 10–11, 2022, Foggia,
Italy
EMAIL: federica.somma@unina.it (A. 1); ldesideri@ausilioteca.org (A. 2)
ORCID: 0000-0003-4341-3393 (A. 1); 0000-0003-2091-2907 (A. 2)
©️ 2020 Copyright for this paper by its authors.
Use permitted under Creative Commons License Attribution 4.0 International (CC BY 4.0).
CEUR Workshop Proceedings (CEUR-WS.org)
1
New means of communication generate new communication scenarios. Among the new forms of
storytelling that respond to contemporary educational and methodological needs, the digital storytelling
(DS) integrates the art of listening and telling stories with digital media, including text, pictures,
recorded audio narration, music, and video [4]. Educational digital storytelling (EDS) facilitates
students’ abilities to construct their own narrations and meanings through the process of topic research
and selection, writing a storyboard, collecting materials to give a real form to their stories, such as
images, audio, videos and contents that develop in the digital world and the reader is never passive.
Storytelling becomes what (the content) but also “how” to communicate the content; the construction
of the narration is just as important as the content of the story itself because it enhances and empowers
students’ intellect, reasoning, culture and creativity.
It is also known that new technologies always have more impact on children’s development but also
on their methods of learning. Schools and educational context adapt their early years’ education
curricula based on the importance of application of technologies in education. Digital natives are used
to mobile phones, tablets, computers, to the entire digital world: the research on the impact of the digital
technologies on children's cognition and development is ongoing and no unique answer is possible, but
what is known is that many of them could not be suitable and adapted for young children. Especially in
education, the interaction with the environment is crucial when the pupils must understand concepts
that connect with reality and develop their sensory-motor and cognitive system.
It is also widely recognized that teachers have always more need to find easy solutions to integrate
digital environments and concrete reality, in a world that is complex and full of information and devices
and applications that appear but sometimes are not sustained from a methodological and validated
framework [5]: the design of educational technologies should be based on the knowledge of child’s
developmental stages and abilities that affect learning and interaction with the technology. Following
the theoretical framework of Embodied and Situated Cognition theories [6] the idea is that our mind is
embodied in our motor-sense system, in the environment, and context in which we interact. In this
panorama, in the early stages of life, action (how to explore the world with the senses, walking, etc)
and objects manipulation take on a very important role in learning because they become vehicles of
knowledge and our mind changes through their use: that is, during cognitive development manipulative
and “concrete” actions are gradually simulated in our human mind e become “symbolic” acts.
The features of learning technologies to support a more ecological interaction with contents should
be, for example, multisensory and multimodal, allowing an interaction that involves more than one
perceptual channel (or communication input): verbal, visual, auditory, spatial and gestural. Tangible
User Interfaces (hereafter, TUIs) [7] can be considered as a bridge between the physical and the digital
information [Figure 1], for this reason they sustain a natural and ecological interaction of children with
technology.
Figure 1: TUIs functioning
TUI technology has been highly exploited in school and education contexts thanks to theoretical and
methodological frameworks that sustain its development and use. The theoretical framework refers to
classical but also current theories about psychological and cognitive development, such as Piaget theory
[8], but also approaches on educational practices, such as Montessori and Froebel ones [9] [10], that
highlighted how interacting with specific adapted physical objects and learning through experience
2
represents the most effective learning environment for young children. The methodological framework
refers to a set of principles to guide the design of TUIs to enhance learning and pupils’ development
[11] [12]; they provide a perspective on what aspects of TUI design are important to consider in learning
contexts, starting from learning theories and laying out the connections between TUI design choices
and learning theories, but they also propose testable mechanisms of action by which TUI design is
expected to affect learning.
The hybrid approach perspective is to empower learning through digital technology while leveraging
our human ability to grasp and manipulate physical objects and materials. Many psycho-pedagogical
practices exploit the direct manipulation of objects and the use of all the senses to learn during the
experience. TUIs application in education showed its benefits and strengths in enhancing learning and
effective educational experiences of pupils, thanks to the augmentation of learning environments, the
innovation of traditional pedagogical approaches through engaging and pleasant learning. A very recent
review [13] of the literature on TUIs and interactions in young children’s education gives an overview
of how diverse the application fields of technology are in the school and educational context and its
potential benefits on learning.
TUIs support a natural interaction with learning contents promoting active engagement: the user
interacts with augmented tangible objects in parallel with the traditional digital interactions (i.e.,
touchscreen, mouse, etc.), but this allows a high level of manipulation, attention and reflection. It is
then possible for children to learn abstract concepts through concrete representations. TUIs also support
social interaction through collaboration, considering collaboration as an essential skill for social
development and learning, helping children to develop communication skills. Indeed, TUIs
collaborative design processes have been identified as the best approach for active learning in
classrooms [13].
One of the potential application fields of TUIs in education, highlighted also from [13] is storytelling
and narration, where the interaction with tangibles could enhance the involvement of children in
listening and creating stories but also the inclusion of children with special needs [14]. The authors of
the review concluded that TUIs seem to be a useful literacy learning and self-expression tools for
children thanks to the solicitation of motivation. When presenting a narration, both the digital features,
such as sound or animation, and the haptic-initiated feedback represent an active and independent
involvement of children in learning from narration contents.
What is missing in the cited review is a focus on inclusive and accessible aspects of TUIs for
education. A great potential of TUIs technologies is the possibility to personalize objects and interaction
between the user and the system. The high level of platform flexibility allows, for example, a
multisensory approach, that is crucial for children that have a limitation of the senses (blindness,
deafness). However, it is decisive to provide a methodological framework as a guide, not only to design
inclusive learning through TUIs-enhanced storytelling, but also to evaluate TUIs application expected
to sustain these practices, professionals, and practitioners in early years’ education. The present rapid
review focuses on TUIs developed with the aim of fostering educational and inclusive storytelling
activities. Particularly, the objective of the study was to identify relevant studies of existing literature
that evaluated the effectiveness of TUIs in educational settings to enhance inclusive storytelling
practices. It was thought that providing an overview of such evidence to researchers working in the
field would be useful to inform the future development of a methodological framework to guide teachers
in the implementation of TUI-based inclusive educational activities.
2. Method
2.1. Search strategy
A literature search was conducted according to a rapid review strategy, which has been
operationalized as “a form of knowledge synthesis in which components of the systematic review
process are simplified or omitted to produce information in a timely manner” [15]. This approach was
chosen given that our primary aim was to extract and summarize only the main features of the
interventions designed to enhance storytelling through TUI-based applications [15].
The search was performed based on the following databases: Web of Science, ERIC, and PsycInfo.
The same keywords were used for each database: ‘child’, ‘student’, ‘pupil’; ‘tangible user interface’,
3
‘TUI’, ‘tangibles’, ‘manipulatives’; ‘storytelling’, ‘narration’; ‘disability’, ‘special educational needs’;
‘SEN’, ‘inclusion’. The aforementioned databases and key words were chosen in a consensus meeting
among the authors.
The search resulted in a total of 521 papers. The number of papers was reduced to 457 after
duplicates were removed. Figure 1 illustrates the search process and outcome. Initially, titles and
abstracts of the 457 papers were screened using the online repository Ryyan. When the titles and
abstracts were judged to be in line with the inclusion criteria (see below), the corresponding full-text
articles were downloaded. Following this process, 31 full-text articles were downloaded. Those full-
text articles were then read by the first and last author and 9 of them were found eligible for the review.
Supplementary search strategies to identify relevant articles were also employed. First, the
references of the 9 articles selected as well as the references of recent review articles were inspected.
Second, a Google Scholar ‘cited by’ search was conducted using the initially identified 9 articles. These
strategies led to the finding of one extra article, with the consequence that 10 articles were finally
included in the review. The inclusion of new articles was completed in May 2022.
2.2. Inclusion and exclusion criteria
Studies were included if they satisfied three basic criteria. First, they involved students with any
form of disability or special educational needs. Second, they involved a working TUI system. Third,
they monitored the effects of the intervention being implemented and relied on qualitative or
quantitative research methods or mixed quantitative and qualitative research methods. Studies were
excluded if they did not meet one or more of the aforementioned criteria.
2.3. Data extraction and coding
A data charting form was jointly developed by the authors who worked iteratively until agreement
was achieved as to the most adequate set of information that should be reported for the single studies
[16]. Eventually, the data extracted for each study entailed (a) the year in which the study was published
and the country in which it was carried out, (b) the storytelling activity proposed, (c) the main features
of the TUI developed, (d) the population and assessment strategy applied, (e) the measurement approach
followed, and (f) the benefits (outcomes) for the students and the educators.
2.4. Interrater agreement
Interrater agreement was checked between the first and second author (a) on scoring the eligibility
of the 457 papers. The percentage of agreement was 94%. Consensus between authors on the articles
with initial disagreement was then achieved after a brief discussion.
3. Results
Key findings of 10 studies identified in this rapid review are presented in table 1. In total, 119
students/children were included in the studies selected. Two studies did not report exact numbers. Types
of disabilities involved in the studies included autism spectrum disorders (n = 3 studies), blindness and
visual impairments (n = 3), language disabilities (n = 2), deafness (n = 1), and multiple disabilities (n =
1). None of the studies included in the review followed an experimental design to test the effects of the
TUI-based solutions developed on the end users. It follows that the results of the reviewed studies are
only preliminary, and the devices presented can be considered at an early stage of development.
4
Table 1
Key findings of 10 studies identified in this rapid review
Storytelling Objective of the Sample size and Evaluation
Publication Form of TUI Setting Disability included
activity study age methodology
Voice augmented Four low-
Creating audio sheets of paper Piloting the functioning male Interviews and
Alessandrini et al., Specialized Autism spectrum
sequences to form drawing with tags effectiveness of children with focus groups with
2014; Italy [17] educational center disorders
a story to play or record the system verbal abilities (8– therapists
audio content 12 y)
In Italy, two HF
Evaluate
children with
therapists Prototype trials
Creating voice verbal abilities (8-
Voice augmented prototype use, its with children and
Alessandrini et al., records starting 12 y) led by two Specialized
sheets of paper support in therapists, semi-
2016; from pictures of therapists. In educational Autism spectrum
drawing with tags therapists’ structured
Manchester, UK narrative and Scotland, two center; school for disorders
to play or record learning interviews, and
[18] descriptive participants (17- SEN
audio content objectives, and final focus group
activities 18 y), MF and HF
children’s with therapists
with verbal
engagement
abilities
A tabletop with
traditional toys; a
visual recognition
Two children (4-6
software to track
y) with Trials sessions,
Filling the story the position and
Bonillo et al., Detect problems neurodevelopmen informal interview
sentences with orientation of toys
2019; Zaragoza, and suggest tal disorders; 8 Care center Speech disorders with both with
prepositions that placed on the
Spain [19] improvements children with therapist and
are missing surface; a
speech disorders children
software for easy
(2-6)
creation and
execution of
activities
5
Co-design sessions
Multisensory craft Establish design
starting from
materials and requirements for a Seven children (4
Co-designed story preliminary low-
other components story mapping female), aged 7-10
mapping for tech prototyping
such as an audio system; to years with mixed
understanding of Blindness and to main design
Cullen et al., 2019 sampler and develop and visual abilities,
the components, Primary school visual sessions, to
[20] playback unit and extend co-design ranging from
remembering, and impairments compose and
a grid for methods for congenital
structuring the record stories
organizing the working with blindness to full
events of stories sessions using the
narrative children in mixed sight
preliminary
structure visual abilities
prototype
Distributed
making approach Overview of the
Multimedia, Blindness and
El-Ashry et al., to create an evolution of the
tactile book with a None specified None specified visual Demonstration
2021 [21] interactive tactile design of the
3D pen impairments
storybook system
collaboratively
Modular system
consisting of
exercise mats
Seven children (3-
Linear stories to where standard
Overview of the 6 y) with Day care center
Hengeveld et al., stimulate set of tagged
evolution of the developmental for children Multiple
2008; The vocabulary and objects are Field study
design of the ages between 1 with cognitive disabilities
Netherlands [22] specific language manipulated to
system year 5 months and delays
exercises respond
3 years 9 months
to interactive
stories and
exercises.
16 participants
Tangible blocks
(11-65 y) including Stories creation
with an
Creating audio Explore the tool 5 disabled trials sessions with
Koushik et al., augmented Blindness and
stories and concept and the students (middle School setting; a combination of
2019; Colorado, workspace and a visual
sharing creations initial design and high school), University Lab students and
USA [23] software for impairments
with others prototype 8 teachers, and 3 educational staff
interpreting and
staff members—2 using the tool
playing back
Braille
6
users’ story transcriptionists
programs and 1 preschool
staff member
Creating stories Basic building
aimed at blocks allowing
Lund & Marti, stimulating the user to Overview of the Two children with
2004; narrative construct an evolution of the hypoacusia (6 y) Educational Language
Field study
Denmark/Italy competence, artefact that can design of the and dyslexia (10 y) service center disabilities
[24] language learning, perceive input, system respectively
and emotional process, and
expression produce output
Language
Acquisition
Manipulatives
Blending Early
Childhood Provide an 1 classroom of
Parton et al., School for the
Not specified Research and overview of pre-school Deafness Field study
2010; USA [25] Deaf
Technology LAMBERT children (3 y)
(LAMBERT): an
RFID scanner
connected to a PC
to read flash cards
The ZECA
humanoid robot, Online
Associating stories 138 participants –
that randomly anonymized
with an emotion 69 typically
tells one of the questionnaire to
choosing the developing
Silva et al., 2019; stories and the Validate the game School (previous Autism Spectrum read, observe
correct facial children (7–11 y -
Portugal [26] OPT PlayBrick scenarios work) - Online Disorders images, and select
expression 56.5% female) and
(Playware the emotions that
matching the 69 adults (20–67 y
Technology), matches the
emotion - 69.6% female)
where the child stories
selects the answer
7
The storytelling activities augmented by the TUIs concern different objectives, mainly the
development of language and narrative skills [17] [19] [22] [24] [25]; but also emotional skills [18]
[26], programming skills [23] collaboration skills and story co-design [20] [21]. The objectives become
even more specific by identifying the target selected for the activity and above all the type of disability
included. It should be emphasized that all the studies except one did not specify or did not foresee the
involvement of both typically developing and special needs children, many in fact were carried out with
only children with disabilities in rehabilitation settings or special schools. Only the study by Cullen and
colleagues [20] realized the inclusion of children with visual impairments in a group of typically
developing pupils in a primary school.
Of particular relevance is the association of TUIs with the activities’ objectives and target: from the
literature reviewed it seems that most of the augmented tangible objects are objects already used in
therapeutic / educational activities for children with disabilities. Alessandrini et al. [17], for instance,
involved children with autism spectrum disorder in a proof-of-concept study in which children could
augment their own drawings on a paper sheet with audio recordings in order to enhance the social stories
learning activity; Parton et al. [25] displayed stories on the screen based on the manipulation of cards
to stimulate deaf children language development; Hengeveld et al. [22] used objects representative of
vocabulary terms with which produce an answer for children with different disabilities and cognitive
impairments ; Bonillo et al [19] used tokens with the same function for children with language
disabilities ; Lund et al. [24], again, enabled children with language disabilities to build objects with
blocks to stimulate the production of content and express themselves despite linguistic difficulties .
Other physical environments include robots and consoles with which to interact to stimulate
emotional skills for children with autism [26]; or tactile books augmented by audio [21] for the creation
of collaborative adventure stories for children with visual impairments; or multisensory materials that
support all the senses connected to a unit of sound reproduction and spatial structuring of the story,
always to stimulate collaboration in the creation of stories on themes concerning extracurricular
activities including children with visual disabilities [20]; or tangible objects that represent commands
and elements of the story read by digital devices when they are placed on the surface, to develop
programming skills and narrative sequencing always for children with visual disabilities [23].
These TUIs also allow collaborative and not just individual activities, in fact most of the studies
(except [19], [25] and [26], where is not specified) report the opportunity of using the augmented
environment and objects to encourage co -construction of the physical scenarios but also the stories,
both between children and peers and between children and therapists/educators. Mainly, however, TUIs
have been developed in such a way as to allow and motivate an interaction with the stories as well as
stimulate the creation of stories by children, compensating for linguistic-expressive skills difficulties,
impaired cognitive abilities, and sensory disabilities.
4. Discussions
The analyzed studies described mostly storytelling TUI for enhancement of language and narrative
skills, which is clearly consistent with the main functions of storytelling practices and very important
especially in pre-school and early primary school years because it influences future linguistic and
narrative ability [4].
Moreover, authors reported that this kind of TUIs seems to be effective learning tools for children
since they foster their motivation [19], engagement and attentional control [17] [18] [23] and allow
them to collaborate and communicate with other people, peers, or teachers/therapists [17] [20] [21]
[23]. Indeed, TUIs support for social interaction through collaboration is crucial for students with
special educational needs (SEN) students that can benefit from collaborative activities to develop
academic and social skills adapted to their conditions, particularly for children with speech disorders,
but also sensory impairments.
Due to their mainly explorative nature, the selected studies have gaps and limitations such as lack
of methodological framework on the design and evaluation of TUIs specific for inclusive educational
8
storytelling. Most studies lack tools implementation in daily educational environments and do not adopt
reliable evaluation procedures to assess potential benefits of TUIs. Specifically, most of the identified
studies (a) are preliminary evaluations or even proof-of-concept designs involving first prototypes and
(b) are short-duration empirical studies that miss investigation of long-term educational effect of
evaluated TUIs. With regard to this latter point, it is important to note that most were carried out in a
trial session or as a day study; they involved a small sample of participants that does not allow a
significant quantitative analysis; they used non-structured evaluation tools but observation procedures
and interviews tools. Moreover, we found no accurate selection and operationalization of expected
outcomes in terms of developing skills or interaction.
In the future an effort should be made to adopt both valid method-based TUI design for children and
children with special needs, and higher standard assessment approaches with larger participants’ sample
size as well as research time period, in order to determine if TUIs are truly beneficial for children’s
learning and skills development, also defining what are the learning outcomes and benefits, with a focus
on trials done in school environments.
Limitations of our review need to be pointed out. First, only specific and not all databases were
addressed; inclusion criteria had no time limits and some inclusion criteria (for example disability
focus-studies in English) could have excluded potentially relevant studies, also studies in other
languages from English; then, the search strategy did not encompass all key terms.
5. Conclusions
Storytelling plays an essential role in an enhancement of self-reflective, narrative, emotional,
creative and collaborative skills allowing children to interact and express themselves. TUI- based
storytelling tools allow interaction with stories and different means of expression and representation,
such as pictures, videos, sounds, tangible objects, and feedback, sustaining active children involvement
in story content production and understanding, but also personalization and adaptability of materials;
so, it could be applied as a facilitator to storytelling also for children with disabilities and special needs.
To conclude, there is a need for a TUI design framework and guidelines for enhancement of inclusive
young children’s storytelling production and fruition, also to sustain designers, researchers and teachers
in managing innovative educational and inclusive practices.
6. Acknowledgment
I’M IN TALES (Inclusive Methodology for Technology Aimed at Learning and Enhancement of
Storytelling) is co-founded by the Erasmus+ program of the European Union, in the call Key Activity
2 – Strategic Partnership (Grant Agreement 2021-1-IT02-KA220-SCH-24F1BF37 ) and runs between
December 2021 and May 2024. The European Commission's support for the production of this
publication does not constitute an endorsement of the contents, which reflect the views only of the
authors, and the Commission cannot be held responsible for any use which may be made of the
information contained therein.
7. References
[1] Lugmayr, Artur, et al. "Serious storytelling–a first definition and review." Multimedia tools and
applications 76.14 (2017): 15707-15733.
[2] J. Bruner, Acts of meaning, Harvard university press, 1990.
9
[3] Tyng, Chai M., et al. "The influences of emotion on learning and memory." Frontiers in
psychology 8 (2017): 1454.
[4] Robin, Bernard R. "The power of digital storytelling to support teaching and learning." Digital
Education Review 30 (2016): 17-29.
[5] Toto, Giusi Antonia, and Pierpaolo Limone. "New Perspectives for Using the Model of the Use
and Acceptance of Technology in Smart Teaching." International Workshop on Higher
Education Learning Methodologies and Technologies Online. Springer, Cham, 2020.
[6] A. Clark, Supersizing the mind: Embodiment, action, and cognitive extension, OUP USA,
2008.
[7] Ishii, Hiroshi, and Brygg Ullmer. "Tangible bits: towards seamless interfaces between people,
bits and atoms." Proceedings of the ACM SIGCHI Conference on Human factors in computing
systems. 1997.
[8] Piaget, Jean. "Cognitive development in children." Journal of research in science teaching 2.2
(1964): 176-186.
[9] M. Montessori, The Montessori Method, Rome 1912, 1964.
[10] Zukerman, Oren. "Designing digital objects for learning: lessons from Froebel and
Montessori." International Journal of Arts and Technology 3.1 (2010): 124-135.
[11] Antle, Alissa N., and Alyssa F. Wise. "Getting down to details: Using theories of
cognition and learning to inform tangible user interface design." Interacting with Computers
25.1 (2013): 1-20.
[12] Markova, Milena S., Stephanie Wilson, and Simone Stumpf. "Tangible user interfaces
for learning." International Journal of Technology Enhanced Learning 4.3-4 (2012): 139-155.
[13] Rodić, Lea Dujić, and Andrina Granić. "Tangible interfaces in early years’ education:
a systematic review." Personal and Ubiquitous Computing (2021): 1-39.
[14] Somma, Federica, et al. "Multisensorial tangible user interface for immersive
storytelling: a usability pilot study with a visually impaired child." teleXbe. 2021.
[15] Tricco, Andrea C., et al. "A scoping review of rapid review methods." BMC medicine
13.1 (2015): 1-15.
[16] Arksey, Hilary, and Lisa O'Malley. "Scoping studies: towards a methodological
framework." International journal of social research methodology 8.1 (2005): 19-32.
[17] Alessandrini, Andrea, Alessandro Cappelletti, and Massimo Zancanaro. "Audio-
augmented paper for therapy and educational intervention for children with autistic spectrum
disorder." International Journal of Human-Computer Studies 72.4 (2014): 422-430.
[18] Alessandrini, Andrea, et al. "Designing ReduCat: audio-augmented paper drawings
tangible interface in educational intervention for high-functioning autistic children."
Proceedings of the The 15th International Conference on Interaction Design and Children.
2016.
10
[19] Bonillo, Clara, et al. "Tackling developmental delays with therapeutic activities based
on tangible tabletops." Universal Access in the Information Society 18.1 (2019): 31-47.
[20] Cullen, Clare, and Oussama Metatla. "Co-designing inclusive multisensory story
mapping with children with mixed visual abilities." Proceedings of the 18th ACM International
Conference on Interaction Design and Children. 2019.
[21] H. El-Ashry, Amina, et al. "Exploring the Collaboration Possibilities of Distributed
Making for Storytelling Using 3D Printing Pens." Companion Publication of the 2021
Conference on Computer Supported Cooperative Work and Social Computing. 2021.
[22] Hengeveld, Bart, et al. "The development of LinguaBytes: an interactive tangible play
and learning system to stimulate the language development of toddlers with multiple
disabilities." Advances in Human-Computer Interaction 2008 (2008).
[23] Koushik, Varsha, Darren Guinness, and Shaun K. Kane. "Storyblocks: A tangible
programming game to create accessible audio stories." Proceedings of the 2019 CHI
Conference on Human Factors in Computing Systems. 2019.
[24] Marti, Patrizia, and Henrik Hautop Lund. "Novel tangible interfaces for physical
manipulation, conceptual constructions and action composition." Proceedings of intelligent
manipulation and grasping (IMG04) (2004).
[25] Parton, Becky Sue, Robert Hancock, and Mihir Mihir. "Physical world hyperlinking:
can computer-based instruction in a K-6 educational setting be easily accessed through tangible
tagged objects." Journal of Interactive Learning Research 21.2 (2010): 257-272.
[26] Silva, Vinicius, et al. "Adequacy of game scenarios for an object with Playware
Technology to promote emotion recognition in children with Autism Spectrum Disorder."
International Conference on Human Systems Engineering and Design: Future Trends and
Applications. Springer, Cham, 2019.
11