International Journal of Interactive Mobile Technologies (iJIM) – eISSN: 1865-7923 – Vol 16 No 17 (2022) Paper—A Systematic Review of Augmented Reality Design for Young Children A Systematic Review of Augmented Reality Design for Young Children https://doi.org/10.3991/ijim.v16i17.31837 Masyarah Zulhaida Masmuzidin, Nor Azah Abdul Aziz, Suhazlan Suhaimi() Universiti Pendidikan Sultan Idris, Tanjung Malim, Perak suhazlan@fskik.upsi.edu.my Abstract—Augmented Reality (AR) has become one of the important tools in teaching and learning, which is made evident by an increasing number of stud- ies focusing on such technology over the past few years. However, studies focus- ing on the design of AR applications for young children have been seriously lack- ing and no framework for designing AR for young children has been proposed before. The importance to have a framework for young children is crucial, as their cognitive, skills and preferences are different from the older user groups, and to ensure the apps meet the pedagogical standards and age appropriate. This paper provides the findings in which the Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Re- view and Meta-Analysis (PRISMA) method was used to select and critically re- view articles from Scopus and Web of Science databases. Overall, 16 articles were selected, which revealed five themes: (1) information, (2) interface, (3) in- teraction, (4) imagination, and (5) immersion. All five themes related to the de- sign aspects need to be carefully addressed and considered in developing AR applications for young children. The findings of this study can be used as a guide- line for AR developers to ensure their products can be both efficacious and en- tertaining, improve children’s learning performance, motivation, and interest. Keywords—augmented reality, design of learning applications, motivation, systematic literature review, young children 1 Introduction Augmented Reality (AR) is a technology that allows users to view texts, images, audio, videos, and animations by scanning an object in the real world. As highlighted in the literature, this technology has been given many definitions [1]. However, accord- ing to [2], such technology has three main characteristics as follows: (i) consists of a combination of real-world objects and virtual elements, (ii) highly interactive, and (iii) based on three-dimensional (3D) rendered environment. Over recent years, AR technology has been widely used in many areas, such as busi- ness (advertising and marketing), medical (surgery and pharmaceutical), military, sci- ence, technology, entertainment (games and films), and education. In the educational realm, this technology has been implemented in various levels of education ranging from early childhood education to tertiary education. Its use has become more pervasive 60 http://www.i-jim.org https://doi.org/10.3991/ijim.v16i17.31837 mailto:example@example.org Paper—A Systematic Review of Augmented Reality Design for Young Children and intense in education as there is mounting evidence from studies that show such technology can improve teaching and learning. Specifically, the use of AR applications or tools can improve students’ performances and motivation [3-6], facilitate learning [7], increase students’ interest in lessons [8], enhance participation in learning [9], de- velop positive attitudes, enhance spatial skills, facilitate cooperative learning [10], make learning fun, and decrease cognitive load [11-12]. Despite the high number of studies that have been devoted to studying the imple- mentation of AR technology in the educational field, two main issues have emerged that highlight some inadequacies of such studies. Based on a systematic review con- ducted by [12-16] the first issue relates to the scope of research in that existing studies are mainly concerned with primary, secondary, and tertiary levels of education. By con- trast, as revealed in a study by [12-15] only a few studies have been carried out thus far that deal with early childhood education of preschool and kindergarten students. This statement has been supported by the recent study by [17], where younger age groups have often received less attention in any research, and this is due to the fast development of young children’s cognitive abilities [18-19]. As revealed in a study by [20], the second issue is that the focus of most AR studies in education tends to concentrate on the implementation aspects and not so much on the design aspects of AR applications. In particular, the design aspects of AR learning ap- plications for young children, such as preschoolers, have not been widely researched [21]. Surely, strong knowledge in design is important [22] to ensure smooth, effective implementation and use of technological learning applications where the lack of which can be detrimental to student learning. Often, developers create applications for children by purely relying on their child- hood experiences, which may not necessarily be sufficient and relevant to make the learning applications effective. Due to the passing of time, what they think to be im- portant may not hold to be true anymore as today’s children have different preferences and needs. For instance, in terms of content design, the past generations of young chil- dren can be entertained with the same repetitive sequence of events without being bored [23]. But now, according to a recent finding, the continuous use of the same multimedia elements in a learning application can lead to boredom among children because they could predict events that would take place in their learning [24]. Meanwhile, another example can be seen in terms of interaction. The young children interaction with de- vices such as tablet and mobile phone are totally different with computer, and the way they interact must be carefully taken into consideration, as nowadays these two plat- forms no longer require extensive computer skills such as the use of keyboard and mouse [25]. Such finding strongly suggests that designing learning applications based on a wide range of technologies, including AR technology, for young children entails a firm understanding of design principles, without which such applications will be ren- dered inefficacious. Premised in such a context, the researchers undertook this study to conduct a sys- tematic review of the current literature to help understand the current design guidelines for learning applications based on AR technology for young children. As stated by [26], a strong understanding of the effects of AR can assist researchers and developers to iJIM ‒ Vol. 16, No. 17, 2022 61 Paper—A Systematic Review of Augmented Reality Design for Young Children make suitable design choices by focusing on the advantages of their affordances to en- hance young children’s learning experience. Certainly, a set of guidelines for designing AR technology-based applications for young children needs to be established to ensure such applications can perform optimally, meets the age-appropriate and pedagogical standards, as nowadays, there are many applications in the market but designed with the lack of quality as aforementioned [27]. As such, this review carried out with the main objective of examining the appropriate design guidelines for the development of AR applications for young children. The findings can be used by the AR developer in any domain and subjects as long as the AR app is designed and developed for early childhood education. The paper is structured as follows: Section 1 explains the purpose of conducting the systematic review while Section 2 details the methodology used, namely the PRISMA Statement (preferred reporting items for systematic review and meta-analysis) ap- proach. Then, Section 3 discusses the review and synthesis of design guidelines for AR learning applications for young children, while Section 4 explains about the guideline. Finally, Section 5 provides the direction of future research and ends with a summariza- tion of research in Section 6. 2 Methodology This section explains the method used to review the current literature regarding Aug- mented Reality design for young children. In this study, the researchers used an adapted method called PRISMA (Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Review and Meta- Analysis) that included resources (such as Scopus and Web of Science) to run the sys- tematic review based on keywords (see Table 1), the inclusion (eligibility) and exclu- sion criteria, steps of the reviewing process (identification, screening, eligibility), data abstraction, and analysis. 2.1 The PRISMA statement The PRISMA Statement was developed to offer a systematic way for researchers to conduct and report systematic reviews and meta-analyses [28-31]. PRISMA has three unique advantages as follows: (1) it can define clear research questions that facilitate systematic research, (2) it can identify inclusion and exclusion criteria, and 3) it can examine a large database of scientific literature in a pre-defined time. Therefore, this methodology was deemed highly appropriate to guide the researchers in identifying relevant information regarding AR design that could help enhance young children’s motivation in learning. 2.2 Resources This systematic review used two well-known databases, namely Web of Science and Scopus [32], which are highly reputable sources consisting of tens of thousands of sci- 62 http://www.i-jim.org Paper—A Systematic Review of Augmented Reality Design for Young Children entific and technical papers, books, reports, and others. For example, the Web of Sci- ence has a collection of more than 21,777 journals, books, and conference proceedings gathered since 1900, with each journal being rigorously reviewed prior to publication. Scopus was created by Elsevier in 2004 and according to [32], Scopus has more than 20,500 peer-reviewed journals published in 5,000 publishers, more than 1200 Open Access journals, over 600 trade publications, 500 conference proceedings, and 360 book series from all areas of science. 2.3 Inclusion (eligibility) and exclusion criteria This study determined several inclusion (eligibility) and exclusion criteria to help select relevant articles for analysis (see Table 2). The first criterion was the document type that determined only journal articles and conference papers were to be selected, which means that reviewed articles, book series, books, and book chapters were all excluded. The second criterion was the timeline, which was within 2011-2020 (a span of 10 years), that essentially helped the researchers to focus on relevant and recent ar- ticles on Augmented Reality research, which also helped highlight the evolution of such a novel technology. In addition, [33] stated that it is very impossible for researchers to evaluate all published articles; as a result, researchers should determine the time period within which they will analyse and submit their review findings properly. Given that young children were the target group; the third criterion was the subjects’ age that focused on the pre-operational group of children (aged 2 – 7). On the other hand, articles pertaining to such a group of children with disabilities, special needs, autism, and Down Syndrome were excluded. The fourth criterion was language such that only articles written in English were selected and those written in other languages were excluded in the selection process. Such exclusion was important to avoid the need for the translation of such articles into English. The fifth criterion was the area of study in those only articles relating to education were selected. 2.4 The systematic review process This systematic review process was conducted in January 2020 by adapting PRISMA Statement developed by [31] which involving four stages. The first stage was to identify the keywords for the search of relevant articles, such as the words ‘aug- mented reality’ and ‘preschoolers’. Identifying the correct terms to be used in the re- search is important as it will affect the amount of paper to be retrieved from the database [28]. In terms of word selection for Augmented Reality, the research decided not to use the Augmented Reality acronym like ‘AR’, as it will produce massively false positive outcomes. This research also did not used the term Mixed Reality as it is the combina- tion of Augmented Reality and Virtual Reality technology, and this is beyond of the research objectives and scopes. Meanwhile, in terms of word selection for ‘preschool- ers’, this research used variety of synonyms (based on thesaurus ad existing research commonly used term) and found out a few similar words that related to preschoolers such as ‘early childhood’, ‘child’, ‘young children’, ‘youngster’, and ‘kid’. Meanwhile, any keywords related to disabilities were excluded because children with disabilities iJIM ‒ Vol. 16, No. 17, 2022 63 Paper—A Systematic Review of Augmented Reality Design for Young Children and impairment have different needs compared to normal children [34]. Based on such keywords, 1519 articles were retrieved consisting of 382 articles from Web of Science (WoS), 689 articles from Scopus, and 448 articles from other additional resources, in- cluding Science Direct (n=63), IEEE Xplore (n=363), and Google Scholar (n=22). The second phase involved the screening of the 1519 retrieved articles that removed 1354 articles based on inclusion and exclusion criteria. The third phase involved a care- ful review of the remaining articles. After careful examination, only 16 articles were selected for further analysis. A majority of articles were not selected as they did not have such keywords in their main texts, including articles that only mentioned the term ‘augmented reality’ in their reference section. Table 1 and Table 2 show the keywords and inclusion and exclusion criteria used in the systematic review process, respectively. Table 1. Keywords used in the systematic review process Databases Keywords used Scopus TITLE-ABS-KEY (("AUGMENTED REALITY") AND ("PRESCHOOL*" OR "PRE-SCHOOL" OR "EARLY CHILDHOOD" OR "EARLY EDUCATION" OR "CHILD*" OR "YOUNG CHILDREN" OR "KID" OR "YOUNGSTER") AND NOT ("AUTIS*" OR "DISABL*" OR "SPECIAL NEED*" OR "REHAB*" OR "CEREBRAL PALSY"OR "IMPAIRMENT*"OR "ASD" OR "ADHD" OR "DOWN SYNDROME" OR "MOTOR IMPAIRMENT")) Web of Science TS= (("AUGMENTED REALITY") AND ("PRESCHOOL*" OR "PRE-SCHOOL" OR "EARLY CHILDHOOD" OR "EARLY EDUCATION" OR "CHILD*" OR "YOUNG CHILDREN" OR "KID" OR "YOUNGSTER”) NOT ("AUTIS*" OR "DISABL*" OR "SPECIAL NEED*" OR "REHAB*" OR "CEREBRAL PALSY"OR "IMPAIRMENT*"OR "ASD" OR "ADHD" OR "DOWN SYNDROME" OR "MOTOR IMPAIRMENT")) Table 2. The inclusion and exclusion criteria used in the systematic review process Criterion Eligibility Exclusion Document type Journal and conference Journal (Systematic Review), book series, book, chapter in book Language English Non-English Timeline 2011-2020 < 2011 Target User Pre-operational user group Less than 2 years, more than 7 years Disabilities Domain Education Non-education Accessibility Open access Not open access 2.5 Data abstraction and analysis The remaining 16 articles selected from the systematic review process were analyzed to help address the research objective (see Section 1). First, the analysis involved the reading of the abstract of each article to highlight relevant main themes and sub-themes. Then, an in-depth reading of each article was performed to collect more detailed infor- mation related to the research objective. Figure 1 shows the flow of data abstraction and analysis conducted in this study based on the adaptation of PRISMA Statement. 64 http://www.i-jim.org Paper—A Systematic Review of Augmented Reality Design for Young Children Fig. 1. The flow of data abstraction and analysis adapted from [31] 3 Results From the systematic review, five main themes and nine sub-themes related to the research objective were identified. The five main themes are as follows: (1) information design (with three sub-themes), (2) interface design (with one sub-theme), (3) interac- tion design (with two sub-themes), (4) imagination (with two sub-themes), and (5) im- Id en ti fi ca ti on Sc re en in g In cl ud ed E lig ib ili ty Records identified through Web of Science (n=382) Records identified through Scopus (n=689) Records screened (n=1519) Records excluded: Web of Science (n=323); Scopus (n=647); IEEE Xplore (n=330); Sci- ence Direct (n=51); Google Scholar (n=3) Excluded due to systematic review, review articles, articles, book series, book, chapter in book; published not between 2011-2020, non-English version, not age related, non- educational and not accessible (n=1354) Additional records from IEEE Xplore, Sci- ence Direct and Google Scholar (n=448) Full-text articles assessed for eligibility (n=165) Full-text articles excluded, with reason (n=149). Excluded: articles were not based on empirical study, only mention- ing AR in articles, AR games and duplicate articles Studies included in the qualitative synthesis (n=16) iJIM ‒ Vol. 16, No. 17, 2022 65 Paper—A Systematic Review of Augmented Reality Design for Young Children mersion (with one sub-theme). The following subsections discuss the results of a com- prehensive analysis of the current design of augmented reality applications for young children. 3.1 Information design Information is one of the important elements in the design of AR applications for young children. Without interesting and compelling information, such applications will only become technology novelty. In this review, information design could be catego- rized into three subthemes as follows: (1) physical content design, (2) virtual content design, and (3) marker design. Physical content design. Content design is one of the vital features that have a huge impact on the use of any technology. According to [36], AR learning applications need to be designed with curriculum and pedagogy in mind to engender meaningful learning experiences in the classroom. More importantly, application developers and instruc- tional designers must ensure that the learning contents of such applications are appro- priate with preschoolers’ age as their cognitive and emotional developments, needs, skills, and knowledge are different from those of older students. As such, when design- ing physical contents for AR learning applications for children (e.g., AR Books), de- velopers must take into account children’s abilities, language capabilities (reading), and understanding of such contents, as children at such a tender age generally do not have good reading skills. Failure to consider such factors can make such applications diffi- cult to handle, which can eventually make such children unmotivated or frustrated to learn. As reviewed, most of the studies of AR learning applications for preschoolers in- volved learning content based on the preschool curriculum. For example, studies car- ried out by [37-39] involved AR applications containing contents based on the pre- school book activity. Likewise, other studies conducted by [24, 40-48] involved AR applications containing contents based on specific topics of the preschool syllabus. On the other hand, several researchers, such as [49-51] only used available AR applications for young children available on the Internet in their studies. Physical content design. Virtual content design refers to the multimedia elements used as overlays when users started scanning a marker. Essentially, all of the virtual contents consisted of five multimedia elements, namely text, image, audio, video, and animation. Marker design. Another important aspect of AR applications is the design of mark- ers. In general, there are two types of AR markers, namely the QR code marker and Image-based marker. Previously, the latter was based on two-dimensional (2D) pro- grammed markers showing digital contents in either black and white or color tags [51]. Now, colored 2D images are used for the design of such markers. In this review, 11 out of 16 studies used image-based markers; in contrast, only four studies involved QR code markers. The remaining two studies did not provide any information about the type of markers used. Arguably, most of the researchers used image-based markers be- cause such markers were more attractive compared to QR code markers consisting of square white and black boxes that were less appealing. According to [47], the visual 66 http://www.i-jim.org Paper—A Systematic Review of Augmented Reality Design for Young Children richness and aesthetics of a marker are important to attract users’ attention. They also assert that it is important to make a marker invisible, which can help increase users’ imagination of AR applications as something magically appealing. On the other hand [51] assert that users can easily identify black-and-white markers, such as the QR code marker, more easily than colored image-based markers, arguing that the multiplicity of shades or similarities in colorful signs may render the mobile device’s camera unable to identify such images correctly. For easy recognition and tracking of markers, [39] recommended the use of large markers (such as 8 cm by 8 cm markers) and 0.5 cm white border. They also recom- mended the use of markers with a handle rather than markers printed on a flashcard or an AR book, as the former will ensure they will not be touched and covered by the children’s hands. Such a recommendation seems reasonable as children will inevitably cover a marker that blocks a mobile device’ camera from scanning, thus making them unable to launch the AR application. For optimal detection of a marker, [38] found that the distance between a camera and a marker was within 10 cm and 30 cm under normal condition. 3.2 Interface design A well-designed interface is important for users to interact smoothly with AR learn- ing applications. Essentially, the interface of an interactive system consists of several important components that provide information and control for the user to accomplish specific tasks [52]. Thus, an interface can affect a user in a variety of ways. If the design of an interface is confusing, users will have difficulties in completing a task at best or they may commit many mistakes at worst, thus making them frustrated and demoti- vated, respectively. Therefore, it is important to understand how to design a good inter- face for an AR application. In this review, only six studies by [37,41, 43-46] had infor- mation of the type of user interfaces used in such studies, which were essentially based on a simple design of AR interface. For example, [46] divided their AR graphic user interface (GUI) into three main areas, namely display space, main button, and narration space. Such a design allows users to view a 3D model and animation in the display space. It also allows users to control the application by providing ‘Start’, ‘Quit’, and ‘Refresh’ buttons. In addition, users can use the narration space to listen to a story. Meanwhile, the interface of an AR application developed by [37] had a 3D model space, information space, and ‘Rotation’, ‘Home’, ‘Exit’, and ‘Video’ buttons. In addition to the above features, [43] AR appli- cation interface also had ‘Play’, ‘Quit’, and ‘Back’ buttons, while the interface designed by [44] consisted of a splash scene, loading, information page, and main page, with the last two features providing information on how to use the application and allowing them to navigate between pages, respectively. 3.3 Interaction design Interaction can be defined as the communication between the user and computer that plays an important role in the overall user experience. For the AR technology, one way iJIM ‒ Vol. 16, No. 17, 2022 67 Paper—A Systematic Review of Augmented Reality Design for Young Children of interaction is by letting the user to view or to perceive the world from different per- spectives. In addition to this basic interaction, the user may interact with the AR appli- cation by gestures, voice recognition (command), and a combination of actions. As highlighted in this review, AR applications used in previous studies mainly supported two types of interaction as follows: (1) interaction between a participant and an AR application, and (2) interaction between a participant and other participant. Participant- AR application interaction. In this review, 77% of previous studies focused on the interaction design between users and AR applications. Based on the analysis, the interaction design of AR applications allowed users to view virtual objects by pointing and scanning techniques. In addition, the users could perform a few tech- niques, such as zooming and rotating virtual objects [49] which was accomplished by touching a digital screen by using his or her fingers, taking photos of virtual objects [50], and playing games, such as a jigsaw puzzle [24], which heightened the interaction between the user and the AR application. Such an interaction is called touchscreen in- teraction, which is one of the common interaction techniques used in AR games for children. In principle, this interaction allows users to select a particular item of interest by touching on the screen of a mobile device with their fingers. Thus, appropriately designed virtual contents can engender seamless interaction between the virtual and physical worlds. On the other hand, a review conducted by [39] revealed that some AR applications used in previous studies supported multimodal interaction. Specifically, their study sug- gests that speech recognition will be a new interaction technique for AR learning ap- plications. They found that speech recognition could help children complete their tasks faster with a greater sense of enjoyment. The same researchers also recommended that the arrangements or locations of AR makers should be such that children would be able to select them intuitively, as children (who are in general have a very short attention span) tend to miss markers during the learning process. Participant- Participant(s) interaction. Several researchers did mention about the type of interaction involving children in their studies. They found that children enjoyed such an interaction that helped enhance their motivation. Such findings are hardly sur- prising as learning activities can be fun if children collaborate or work in a group [39]. In addition, the above findings are consistent with the research findings of [24] who found children were willing to take turns in sharing an AR application with one another. Likewise, the same consistency was observed in [40] finding that showed children will- ingly interacted with one another in completing an AR task on their iPads [50]. 3.4 Imagination design Interestingly, the review showed that some children viewed AR technology as some sort of a magical tool that enhanced their imagination, a factor that is also important in learning. For example, [48] found that children’s liking for AR books was attributed to their perception of such materials as being magically appealing, with many animations appearing in such novel books. Compellingly, they were attracted by AR books because of the lively characters in such books that could ‘talk’ to them as well sense their pres- ence. 68 http://www.i-jim.org Paper—A Systematic Review of Augmented Reality Design for Young Children Similarly, in the same year, [50] found animated virtual objects in AR applications could trigger children’s imagination. In their study, children imitated various move- ments of a virtual airplane that helped improve their imagination, motivation, positive feelings, and motivation in learning [53]. Similar improvements were observed in a recent study by [40] who found Bangladeshi children were eagerly excited in exploring hidden objects in an AR book. Likewise, [39] observed that children were highly ex- cited and motivated in learning when the latter felt like talking to a robot when an AR application responded verbally to their responses. 3.5 Immersion design Immersion refers to how children perceive the degree of reality in a virtual environ- ment through various sensorial engagements, including self-engagement, environmen- tal engagement, and interactive engagement [35]. Interestingly, in this review, a study by [39] revealed that the size of displayed virtual objects had a major impact on immer- sion. They observed that children became highly immersed in learning when the sizes of virtual objects were close in relation to children’s sizes. However, they cautioned that AR-based applications for young children should not be designed for full immer- sion because they may have difficulties to differentiate between the real and augmented environment, which may raise several issues relating to safety, security, and miscon- ceptions. 4 Discussion In this study, the researchers attempted to systematically analyze the current litera- ture on the design of AR learning applications for young children. As reviewed, design- ing such applications will be quite challenging. Nonetheless, appropriate designs have to be put in place to ensure young children can use novel AR learning applications with greater ease and enjoyment. Overall, 16 articles relating to the design and development of AR learning applications were selected from two leading databases, which revealed five themes and nine subthemes as follows: (1) information design (with three sub- themes), (2) interface design (with one subtheme), (3) interaction design (with two sub- themes), (4) imagination (with two subthemes), and (5) immersion (with one theme). Table 3 summarizes the themes and subthemes of the design of AR applications for young children. Table 3. The themes and subthemes of the design of AR applications for young children Main theme Subtheme Recommendation Information Design Physical Content Design The AR design for learning purposes must use educational-related con- tent. The contents must be appropriately designed based on young children’s’ age. Virtual Content Design The design of virtual contents (overlays) must use multimedia elements. iJIM ‒ Vol. 16, No. 17, 2022 69 Paper—A Systematic Review of Augmented Reality Design for Young Children Marker Design Use 2D colorful images to attract young children’s attention. Marker must be invisible to increase children’s level of imagination. Used large markers with a border of 0.5 cm on each side. Design markers with a handle to prevent children’s fingers or hands from blocking images. Set distances between markers within a 10-30 cm margin for easy marker detection. Interface Design User interface AR applications must be designed with a simple user interface. Interaction Design Participant- appli- cation interaction Point, scan, rotation, zooming, photo-taking, and games can increase chil- dren’s level of interaction. Use multimodal interaction to achieve a high level of interaction, such as voice recognition as an input. Arrange makers that can facilitate easy selection (scanning) and design activities that can make children remain alert during the learning process. Participant-partici-pant(s) interaction Design activities that involve more than two participants to enhance chil- dren’s sense of enjoyment and motivation. Imagination Design Animated virtual objects Use animated virtual objects to increase young children’s imagination. Characters Use design characters that can respond verbally (using audios) such that children can feel they are talking with such characters during the learning process. Immersion Design Display size Use large displays to immerse young children in AR applications 5 Future works The findings of this systematic review can be used as a guideline for other research- ers to conduct more in-depth studies relating to the impact of new designs of AR learn- ing applications on young children’s learning from the emotional, cognitive, and moti- vational aspects. In addition, future studies can use other types of databases to retrieve more articles regarding the AR design for young children. 6 Conclusion The systematic review of the current literature of augmented reality (AR) technology revealed the imperative of designing an appropriate design for AR learning applications for young children. As highlighted, five main themes (with nine subthemes) emerged from the review of 16 selected articles relating to the design of such applications, namely information design, interface design, interaction design, immersion design, and imagination design. As such, all five themes related to the design aspects of AR learning applications need to be carefully addressed and taken into account in developing effi- cacious AR learning applications for young children. Overall, the findings of this study based on the systematic review of the current AR literature can be used a guideline for developers of AR learning applications in all do- main or subjects as long as it is focusing on the AR app development for early childhood education. This finding also can be used as a guideline for developers in order to ensure 70 http://www.i-jim.org Paper—A Systematic Review of Augmented Reality Design for Young Children their products development can be both efficacious and entertaining, the impact of which can surely improve children’s learning performance, motivation, and interest. 7 References [1] G. M. Santi, A. Ceruti, A. Liverani, and F. Osti, “Augmented Reality in Industry 4.0 and future innovation programs,” Technologies (Basel), vol. 9, no. 2, p. 33, 2021. https://doi.org/ 10.3390/technologies9020033 [2] R. T. Azuma, “A survey of augmented reality,” Presence (Camb.), vol. 6, no. 4, pp. 355– 385, 1997. https://doi.org/10.1162/pres.1997.6.4.355 [3] J. Ferrer-Torregrosa, J. Torralba, M. A. Jimenez, S. García, and J. M. Barcia, “ARBOOK: Development and assessment of a tool based on augmented reality for anatomy,” J. Sci. Educ. Technol., vol. 24, no. 1, pp. 119–124, 2015. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10956-014- 9526-4 [4] F. Najwa Rusli, A. N. Zulkifli, M. N. Bin Saad, and Y. Md.Yussop, “A study of students’ motivation in using the Mobile Arc Welding Learning app,” Int. J. Interact. Mob. Technol., vol. 13, no. 10, p. 89, 2019. https://doi.org/10.3991/ijim.v13i10.11305 [5] S. Vedadi, Z. B. Abdullah, and A. D. Cheok, “The effects of multi-sensory augmented reality on students’ motivation in English language learning,” in 2019 IEEE Global Engineering Education Conference (EDUCON), 2019. https://doi.org/10.1109/EDUCON.2019.8725096 [6] M. E. C. Santos et al., “Augmented reality as multimedia: the case for situated vocabulary learning,” Res. pract. technol. enhanc. learn., vol. 11, no. 1, p. 4, 2016. https://doi.org/ 10.1186/s41039-016-0028-2 [7] K. J. Carlson and D. J. Gagnon, “Augmented reality integrated simulation education in health care,” Clin. Simul. Nurs., vol. 12, no. 4, pp. 123–127, 2016. https://doi.org/10.1016/ j.ecns.2015.12.005 [8] J. Zhang, Y.-T. Sung, H.-T. Hou, and K.-E. Chang, “The development and evaluation of an augmented reality-based armillary sphere for astronomical observation instruction,” Com- put. Educ., vol. 73, pp. 178–188, 2014. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.compedu.2014.01.003 [9] D. M. Bressler and A. M. Bodzin, “A mixed methods assessment of students’ flow experi- ences during a mobile augmented reality science game: Flow experience with mobile AR,” J. Comput. Assist. Learn., vol. 29, no. 6, pp. 505–517, 2013. https://doi.org/10.1111/jcal. 12008 [10] J. Martín-Gutiérrez, P. Fabiani, W. Benesova, M. D. Meneses, and C. E. Mora, “Augmented reality to promote collaborative and autonomous learning in higher education,” Comput. Human Behav., vol. 51, pp. 752–761, 2015. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.chb.2014.11.093 [11] S. Küçük, S. Kapakin, and Y. Göktaş, “Learning anatomy via mobile augmented reality: Effects on achievement and cognitive load: Learning Anatomy,” Anat. Sci. Educ., vol. 9, no. 5, pp. 411–421, 2016. https://doi.org/10.1002/ase.1603 [12] M. Sirakaya and D. Alsancak Sirakaya, “Trends in educational augmented reality studies: A systematic review,” Malays. Online J. Educ. Technol., vol. 6, no. 2, pp. 60–74, 2018. https://doi.org/10.17220/mojet.2018.02.005 [13] Bacca, J., Baldiris, S., Fabregat, R., Graf, S., & Kinshuk, Ed., Augmented reality trends in education: a systematic review of research and applications, vol. 17, no. 4. International Forum of Educational Technology & Society, National Taiwan Normal University, Taiwan, 2014. [14] P. Chen, X. Liu, W. Cheng, and R. Huang, “A review of using Augmented Reality in Edu- cation from 2011 to 2016,” in Innovations in Smart Learning, Singapore: Springer Singa- pore, 2017, pp. 13–18. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-981-10-2419-1_2 iJIM ‒ Vol. 16, No. 17, 2022 71 https://doi.org/10.3390/technologies9020033 https://doi.org/10.3390/technologies9020033 https://doi.org/10.1162/pres.1997.6.4.355 https://doi.org/10.1007/s10956-014-9526-4 https://doi.org/10.1007/s10956-014-9526-4 https://doi.org/10.3991/ijim.v13i10.11305 https://doi.org/10.1109/EDUCON.2019.8725096 https://doi.org/10.1186/s41039-016-0028-2 https://doi.org/10.1186/s41039-016-0028-2 https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ecns.2015.12.005 https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ecns.2015.12.005 https://doi.org/10.1016/j.compedu.2014.01.003 https://doi.org/10.1111/jcal.12008 https://doi.org/10.1111/jcal.12008 https://doi.org/10.1016/j.chb.2014.11.093 https://doi.org/10.1002/ase.1603 https://doi.org/10.17220/mojet.2018.02.005 https://doi.org/10.1007/978-981-10-2419-1_2 Paper—A Systematic Review of Augmented Reality Design for Young Children [15] J. Li, E. D. van der Spek, L. Feijs, F. Wang, and J. Hu, “Augmented reality games for learn- ing: A literature review,” in Distributed, Ambient and Pervasive Interactions, Cham: Springer International Publishing, 2017, pp. 612–626. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-319- 58697-7_46 [16] E. L.-C. Law and M. Heintz, “Augmented reality applications for K-12 education: A sys- tematic review from the usability and user experience perspective,” Int. J. Child Comput. Interact., vol. 30, no. 100321, p. 100321, 2021. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ijcci.2021.100321 [17] F. K. Lehnert, J. Niess, C. Lallemand, P. Markopoulos, A. Fischbach, and V. Koenig, “Child–Computer Interaction: From a systematic review towards an integrated understand- ing of interaction design methods for children,” Int. J. Child Comput. Interact., vol. 32, no. 100398, p. 100398, 2022. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ijcci.2021.100398 [18] C. Oranç and A. C. Küntay, “Learning from the real and the virtual worlds: Educational use of augmented reality in early childhood,” Int. J. Child Comput. Interact., vol. 21, pp. 104– 111, 2019. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ijcci.2019.06.002 [19] I. Radu and B. MacIntyre, “Using children’s developmental psychology to guide aug- mented-reality design and usability,” in 2012 IEEE International Symposium on Mixed and Augmented Reality (ISMAR), 2012, pp. 227–236. https://doi.org/10.1109/ISMAR.2012. 6402561 [20] J. Luis and B. Acosta, “Framework for the design and development of motivational aug- mented reality learning experiences in vocational education and training,” Udg.edu. [Online]. Available: https://dugi-doc.udg.edu/bitstream/handle/10256/14459/tjlb_2017061 2.pdf?sequence=1&isAllowed=y [Accessed: 26-Jul-2022]. [21] I. Radu, B. MacIntyre, and S. Lourenco, “Comparing children’s crosshair and finger inter- actions in handheld augmented reality: Relationships between usability and child develop- ment,” in Proceedings of the The 15th International Conference on Interaction Design and Children - IDC ’16, 2016. https://doi.org/10.1145/2930674.2930726 [22] N. Tuli and A. Mantri, “Evaluating usability of mobile-based augmented reality learning environments for early childhood,” Int. J. Hum. Comput. Interact., pp. 1–13, 2020. [23] H. Gelderblom and P. Kotzé, “Ten design lessons from the literature on child development and children’s use of technology,” in Proceedings of the 8th International Conference on Interaction Design and Children - IDC ’09, 2009. https://doi.org/10.1145/1551788.1551798 [24] D. R. A. Rambli, W. Matcha, and S. Sulaiman, “Fun learning with AR alphabet book for preschool children,” Procedia Comput. Sci., vol. 25, pp. 211–219, 2013. https://doi.org/ 10.1016/j.procs.2013.11.026 [25] S. Papadakis, “Apps to promote Computational Thinking concepts and coding skills in chil- dren of preschool and pre-primary school age,” in Research Anthology on Computational Thinking, Programming, and Robotics in the Classroom, IGI Global, 2022, pp. 610–630. https://doi.org/10.4018/978-1-6684-2411-7.ch028 [26] J. Li, E. D. van der Spek, J. Hu, and L. Feijs, “Turning your book into a game: Improving motivation through tangible interaction and diegetic feedback in an AR mathematics game for children,” in Proceedings of the Annual Symposium on Computer-Human Interaction in Play, 2019. https://doi.org/10.1145/3311350.3347174 [27] S. Papadakis, “Mobile learning as an educational reform,” Adv Mobile Learn Educ Res, vol. 1, no. 1, pp. 1–4, 2021. https://doi.org/10.25082/AMLER.2021.01.001 [28] E. O. Acquah and H. T. Katz, “Digital game-based L2 learning outcomes for primary through high-school students: A systematic literature review,” Comput. Educ., vol. 143, no. 103667, p. 103667, 2020. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.compedu.2019.103667 [29] K. Knobloch, U. Yoon, and P. M. Vogt, “Preferred reporting items for systematic reviews and meta-analyses (PRISMA) statement and publication bias,” J. Craniomaxillofac. Surg., vol. 39, no. 2, pp. 91–92, 2011. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jcms.2010.11.001 72 http://www.i-jim.org https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-319-58697-7_46 https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-319-58697-7_46 https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ijcci.2021.100321 https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ijcci.2021.100398 https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ijcci.2019.06.002 https://doi.org/10.1109/ISMAR.2012.6402561 https://doi.org/10.1109/ISMAR.2012.6402561 https://dugi-doc.udg.edu/bitstream/handle/10256/14459/tjlb_20170612.pdf?sequence=1&isAllowed=y https://dugi-doc.udg.edu/bitstream/handle/10256/14459/tjlb_20170612.pdf?sequence=1&isAllowed=y https://doi.org/10.1145/2930674.2930726 https://doi.org/10.1145/1551788.1551798 https://doi.org/10.1016/j.procs.2013.11.026 https://doi.org/10.1016/j.procs.2013.11.026 https://doi.org/10.4018/978-1-6684-2411-7.ch028 https://doi.org/10.1145/3311350.3347174 https://doi.org/10.25082/AMLER.2021.01.001 https://doi.org/10.1016/j.compedu.2019.103667 https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jcms.2010.11.001 Paper—A Systematic Review of Augmented Reality Design for Young Children [30] M. J. Page et al., “PRISMA 2020 explanation and elaboration: updated guidance and exem- plars for reporting systematic reviews,” BMJ, vol. 372, p. n160, 2021. https://doi.org/ 10.1136/bmj.n160 [31] D. Moher, A. Liberati, J. Tetzlaff, D. G. Altman, and PRISMA Group, “Preferred reporting items for systematic reviews and meta-analyses: the PRISMA statement,” PLoS Med., vol. 6, no. 7, p. e1000097, 2009. https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pmed.1000097 [32] A. A. Chadegani et al., “A comparison between two main academic literature collections: Web of science and Scopus databases,” Asian Soc. Sci., vol. 9, no. 5, 2013. https://doi.org/ 10.5539/ass.v9n5p18 [33] N. U. Che Mustaffa and S. N. Sailin, “A systematic review of mobile-Assisted Language Learning research trends and practices in Malaysia,” Int. J. Interact. Mob. Technol., vol. 16, no. 05, pp. 169–198, 2022. https://doi.org/10.3991/ijim.v16i05.28129 [34] M. Shoaib, I. Hussain, H. T. Mirza, and M. Tayyab, “The role of information and innovative technology for rehabilitation of children with Autism: A Systematic Literature Review,” in 2017 17th International Conference on Computational Science and Its Applications (ICCSA), 2017. https://doi.org/10.1109/ICCSA.2017.7999647 [35] J. Han, M. Jo, E. Hyun, and H.-J. So, “Examining young children’s perception toward aug- mented reality-infused dramatic play,” Educ. Technol. Res. Dev., vol. 63, no. 3, pp. 455– 474, 2015. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11423-015-9374-9 [36] I. Radu, “Augmented reality in education: a meta-review and cross-media analysis,” Pers. Ubiquitous Comput., vol. 18, no. 6, pp. 1533–1543, 2014. https://doi.org/10.1007/s00779- 013-0747-y [37] N. Markamah, S. Subiyanto, and A. Murnomo, “The effectiveness of Augmented Reality app to improve students achievement in learning introduction to animals,” J. Educ. Learn. (EduLearn), vol. 12, no. 4, pp. 651–657, 2018. https://doi.org/10.11591/edulearn.v12i4. 9334 [38] H. Pradibta, “Augmented Reality: Daily prayers for Preschooler student,” Int. J. Interact. Mob. Technol., vol. 12, no. 1, p. 151, 2018. https://doi.org/10.3991/ijim.v12i1.7269 [39] C. S. Che Dalim, M. S. Sunar, A. Dey, and M. Billinghurst, “Using augmented reality with speech input for non-native children’s language learning,” Int. J. Hum. Comput. Stud., vol. 134, pp. 44–64, 2020. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ijhcs.2019.10.002 [40] M. F. Abrar, M. R. Islam, M. S. Hossain, M. M. Islam, and M. A. Kabir, “Augmented reality in education: A study on preschool children, parents, and teachers in Bangladesh,” in Vir- tual, Augmented and Mixed Reality. Applications and Case Studies, Cham: Springer Inter- national Publishing, 2019, pp. 217–229. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-030-21565-1_14 [41] E. Cieza and D. Lujan, “Educational mobile application of augmented reality based on mark- ers to improve the learning of vowel usage and numbers for children of a kindergarten in Trujillo,” Procedia Comput. Sci., vol. 130, pp. 352–358, 2018. https://doi.org/10.1016/ j.procs.2018.04.051 [42] Rosli, H. W., Fauziah Baharom, N. M., Darus, H. H., Mohd, H., & Daud, A. Y, “Augmented Reality Implementation in Preschool Environment Using Experiential Learning Model Per- spective,” in International Conference on Active Learning (ICAL 2012), 2012, pp. 91–93. [43] B. A. Koca, B. Cubukcu, and U. Yuzgec, “Augmented reality application for preschool chil- dren with unity 3D platform,” in 2019 3rd International Symposium on Multidisciplinary Studies and Innovative Technologies (ISMSIT), 2019. https://doi.org/10.1109/ISMSIT.2019. 8932729 [44] S. S. Nathan, M. Berahim, A. Hussain, N. L. Hashim, and K. Kathiresan, “An augmented reality mobile application for preschool children in learning Japanese language,” Adv. Sci. Lett., vol. 24, no. 11, pp. 8430–8433, 2018. https://doi.org/10.1166/asl.2018.12581 [45] H. Pradibta, U. Nurhasan, T. D. Pramesti, and S. B. Suryadi, “‘Hijaiyah’ interactive learning for pre-school students,” J. Phys. Conf. Ser., vol. 1402, no. 6, p. 066050, 2019. https://doi. org/10.1088/1742-6596/1402/6/066050 iJIM ‒ Vol. 16, No. 17, 2022 73 https://doi.org/10.1136/bmj.n160 https://doi.org/10.1136/bmj.n160 https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pmed.1000097 https://doi.org/10.5539/ass.v9n5p18 https://doi.org/10.5539/ass.v9n5p18 https://doi.org/10.3991/ijim.v16i05.28129 https://doi.org/10.1109/ICCSA.2017.7999647 https://doi.org/10.1007/s11423-015-9374-9 https://doi.org/10.1007/s00779-013-0747-y https://doi.org/10.1007/s00779-013-0747-y https://doi.org/10.11591/edulearn.v12i4.9334 https://doi.org/10.11591/edulearn.v12i4.9334 https://doi.org/10.3991/ijim.v12i1.7269 https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ijhcs.2019.10.002 https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-030-21565-1_14 https://doi.org/10.1016/j.procs.2018.04.051 https://doi.org/10.1016/j.procs.2018.04.051 https://doi.org/10.1109/ISMSIT.2019.8932729 https://doi.org/10.1109/ISMSIT.2019.8932729 https://doi.org/10.1166/asl.2018.12581 https://doi.org/10.1088/1742-6596/1402/6/066050 https://doi.org/10.1088/1742-6596/1402/6/066050 Paper—A Systematic Review of Augmented Reality Design for Young Children [46] D. Rohaya, A. Rambli, W. Matcha, S. Sulaiman, and M. Y. Nayan, “Design and develop- ment of an interactive augmented reality edutainment storybook for preschool,” IERI Pro- cedia, vol. 2, pp. 802–807, 2012. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ieri.2012.06.174 [47] A. B. Tomi and D. R. A. Rambli, “An interactive mobile augmented reality magical play- book: Learning number with the thirsty crow,” Procedia Comput. Sci., vol. 25, pp. 123–130, 2013. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.procs.2013.11.015 [48] R. M. Yilmaz, S. Kucuk, and Y. Goktas, “Are augmented reality picture books magic or real for preschool children aged five to six?: Augmented Reality Picture Books for Preschool Students,” Br. J. Educ. Technol., vol. 48, no. 3, pp. 824–841, 2017. https://doi.org/10.1111/ bjet.12452 [49] Z. Gecu-Parmaksiz and O. Delialioglu, “Augmented reality‐based virtual manipulatives ver- sus physical manipulatives for teaching geometric shapes to preschool children,” Br. J. Educ. Technol., vol. 50, no. 6, pp. 3376–3390, 2019. https://doi.org/10.1111/bjet.12740 [50] Y. Huang, H. Li, and R. Fong, “Using Augmented Reality in early art education: a case study in Hong Kong kindergarten,” Early Child Dev. Care, vol. 186, no. 6, pp. 879–894, 2016. https://doi.org/10.1080/03004430.2015.1067888 [51] A. H. Safar, A. A. Al-Jafar, and Z. H. Al-Yousefi, “The effectiveness of using augmented reality apps in teaching the English alphabet to kindergarten children: A case study in the state of Kuwait,” Eurasia j. math. sci. technol. educ., vol. 13, no. 2, 2016. https://doi.org/ 10.12973/eurasia.2017.00624a [52] A. Selviany, E. R. Kaburuan, and D. Junaedi, “User interface model for Indonesian Animal apps to kid using Augmented Reality,” in 2017 International Conference on Orange Tech- nologies (ICOT), 2017. https://doi.org/10.1109/ICOT.2017.8336106 [53] S. Papadakis, “Tools for evaluating educational apps for young children: a systematic review of the literature,” Interactive Technology and Smart Education Vol. 18 No. 1, pp. 18-49, 2020. https://doi.org/10.1108/ITSE-08-2020-0127 8 Authors Masyarah Zulhaida Masmuzidin is student of Universiti Pendidikan Sultan Idris, Malaysia. She also works as Multimedia lecturer at Universiti Kuala Lumpur. Her re- search interest is in Augmented Reality, Virtual Reality and Child Computer Interaction (email: mzmasmuzidin@gmail.com). Nor Azah Abdul Aziz is the Associate Professor of Universiti Pendidikan Sultan Idris, Malaysia. Expertise in Information Technology and Multimedia (email: azah@fskik.upsi.edu.my). Suhazlan Suhaimi is a lecturer of Universiti Pendidikan Sultan Idris, Malaysia. His interest is in Networking, Information Technology, Educational Technology and Inter- net of things (email: suhazlan@fskik.upsi.edu.my). Article submitted 2022-04-20. Resubmitted 2022-07-30. Final acceptance 2022-07-30. Final version pub- lished as submitted by the authors. 74 http://www.i-jim.org https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ieri.2012.06.174 https://doi.org/10.1016/j.procs.2013.11.015 https://doi.org/10.1111/bjet.12452 https://doi.org/10.1111/bjet.12452 https://doi.org/10.1111/bjet.12740 https://doi.org/10.1080/03004430.2015.1067888 https://doi.org/10.12973/eurasia.2017.00624a https://doi.org/10.12973/eurasia.2017.00624a https://doi.org/10.1109/ICOT.2017.8336106 https://doi.org/10.1108/ITSE-08-2020-0127