Education and Information Technologies

https://doi.org/10.1007/s10639-023-12195-5

Enhancing teaching and learning for pupils

with dyslexia: A comprehensive review of technological
and non‑technological interventions

Salman Javed1 · Manoranjitham Muniandy1 · Chen Kang Lee1 ·

Husniza Husni2

Received: 30 June 2023 / Accepted: 29 August 2023

© The Author(s), under exclusive licence to Springer Science+Business Media, LLC, part of Springer Nature 2023

Abstract
Dyslexia is the most prevalent disorder in the world that causes difficulties with
reading, writing, and spelling. Pupils with dyslexia show trouble with their cogni-
tive skills. Various interventions were already introduced for their treatment but dys-
lexia is still a trending disorder. The available interventions utilized for these pupils’
learning open the research area for the current state-of-art of learning interventions
for pupils with dyslexia. The results of this Systematic Literature Review show the
trending interventions, sensory approaches utilized, and difficulties for pupils with
dyslexia learning. Papers published over a period of 5 years were reviewed and their
data was collected using a rigid systematic process. Based on the gathered data, sev-
eral analyses were conducted. The search shows that nowadays, technological-based
interventions are trending specifically apps and games, in parallel haptics technol-
ogy is in its very initial stage. The most predominant sensory approaches were vis-
ual and auditory, followed by kinesthetic and tactile, mainly intervening with non-
technological and technological interventions. There are still many open issues and
research opportunities in the field of learning interventions for pupils with dyslexia,
as most researchers utilized the visual and auditory approaches for the feedback and
guidance of these pupils, while they lack to utilize the kinesthetic and tactile.

Keywords Dyslexia · Haptics · Sensory approaches · Cognitive skills

* Manoranjitham Muniandy
[email protected]
1
Faculty of Information and Communication Technology (FICT), Universiti Tunku Abdul
Rahman (UTAR), Kampar, Malaysia
2
School of Computing, Universiti Utara Malaysia, Sintok, Malaysia

13
Vol.:(0123456789)
 Education and Information Technologies

1 Introduction

Dyslexia is a neurodevelopmental disorder and type of learning disorder (Novembli

& Azizah, 2019) as shown in Fig. 1, manifested as a result of challenges with word-
accurate identification and weak reading and writing skills (Yuzaidey et al., 2018).
According to the International Dyslexia Association, dyslexia affects 10% to 15%
of the world’s population ((IDA), 2020). Dyslexia is not a physical condition like
a visual problem; rather, it refers to how the brain processes information. Dyslexia
is a brain processing condition that affects a person’s ability to break down words
into their component parts when reading, speaking, or writing (Mills, 2018). A per-
son’s literacy abilities, or their capacity to read, write, speak, and listen in a way that
allows them to effectively communicate, are impacted by dyslexia. Reading is the
process of understanding text which is crucially affected by dyslexia. Pupils with
dyslexia show trouble with vocabulary, fluency, the blending of words, recognition
of words, memorization of words, and pronunciation all are necessary for reading
(Novembli & Azizah, 2019). Reading and writing are both dependent and underly-
ing processes that are connected (Hebert et al., 2018). Before writing any content,
writers usually need to examine source materials. They also have to read their work
to detect text issues such as spelling and grammatical faults and disorganization with
the use of their cognitive skills.
Pupils with dyslexia show trouble with their cognitive skills as shown in Fig. 1;
which affects them in the learning process (Hanif et al., 2019). The term "cognitive
skills" refers to the fundamental mental processes that go into knowledge acquisi-
tion, information manipulation, and higher-order reasoning (Behrman et al., 2022).
In developing one’s intelligence, cognitive skills are made up of a variety of abilities
like understanding, judgment, assessment, thinking, memorizing, paying attention,
and remembering that interact and complement one another (Gong & Zhu, 2019).
These abilities gather and process information together, and they support various
cognitive skills like think, read, learn, remember, reason, and pay attention (Gong &
Zhu, 2019). Cognitive abilities affect learning capacity and effectiveness since they

Fig. 1  Dyslexia learning process: (Hanif et al., 2019; Novembli & Azizah, 2019; Russell-Chapin et al.,
2020; Romero, 2020; Saputra et al., 2018)

13
Education and Information Technologies

are closely linked to information processing (Islam et al., 2022). Processing different
types of sensory information requires strong cognitive abilities (Islam et al., 2022).
A person’s ability to coordinate sensory inputs with motor outputs and maintain
a sensorimotor rhythm depends on their brain function. Sensory systems such as
VAKT (visual, auditory, kinesthetic, and tactile) are responsible for receiving infor-
mation, while sensory processing performs perception, organization, and interpreta-
tion of this information (Kilroy et al., 2019). Sensory integration is the ability to
respond to stimuli with suitable motor and behavioral responses. The term “motor
responses” refers to the body’s muscles’ movement to perform certain tasks (Dias da
Silva & Postma, 2022). A person will be able to strengthen the control of their brain-
waves by making use of their abilities to carry out motor movements and enhance
sensorimotor rhythm (Russell-Chapin et al., 2020). Training interventions typically
include exercises involving both motor and sensory activities, despite being intended
to increase sensory functions (Zemková, 2022). It may be more efficient to do motor
training activities and sensory stimulation simultaneously (Mollajani et al., 2019).
All children, even those with dyslexia, benefit from using a multisensory approach
since it combines visual, auditory, tactile, and kinesthetic learning components
which activate multiple regions of the brain (Johnston, 2019). Due to their increased
creativity and robust sensory receptors, a multi-sensory approach is seen to be the
most effective for pupils with dyslexia learning (Saputra et al., 2018).
Using a multi-sensory approach as shown in Fig. 1, pupils with learning difficul-
ties can learn more effectively (Romero, 2020; Saputra et al., 2018). Effective inter-
ventions for pupils with dyslexia follow a methodical and hierarchical approach,
teaching simpler skills before more difficult ones, employing a variety of response
modalities to enhance learning, and using different assessment methods (Denton
et al., 2021). If the right interventions will be provided, pupils with dyslexia can
learn to read and write successfully. During instruction, the student should gradually
take on more responsibility as the teacher serves as a model, offloading the teach-
er’s cognitive load (Johnston, 2019). This process begins with the teacher providing
guided teaching, followed by cooperative learning and ultimately independent learn-
ing. Various non-technological and technological teaching and learning approaches
were introduced for pupils with dyslexia. Non-technological approaches have ordi-
nary teaching and learning modules that help pupils with dyslexia but not in an opti-
mal way. In this digital era, the advancement of technology plays a vital role. The
rise in literacy, combined with the rapid evolution of technology, has resulted in the
growth of technology in education. Introduces new approaches for teaching and
learning of pupils with dyslexia. These technological approaches make teaching and
learning easier and more convenient by introducing different apps and games and
some assistive technology. Technological advancement mainly improves teaching
and learning interventions for pupils with dyslexia. Direct, explicit, and integrated
instruction is among the most efficient interventions for these pupils with dyslexia
(Denton et al., 2021).
The infrastructure of intervention programs meant for pupils with dyslexia
is not optimal. In this respect, this article details the methodology and findings
of a systematic review of interventions based on sensory approaches for the
learning of pupils with dyslexia. This article followed the guidelines provided

13
 Education and Information Technologies

by the Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Reviews and Meta-Analyses

(PRISMA) (Liberati et al., 2009; Moher et al., 2009). Based on these guidelines,
Research Questions (RQs) are developed, and the following RQs are the primary
focus of this work:

• RQ1: What interventions are currently employed to facilitate the learning of

pupils with dyslexia and what are the key characteristics of these interven-
tions?
• RQ2: What primary approaches serve as the foundation for the pupils with
dyslexia learning interventions, and what factors contribute to the prevalence
of specific approaches?
• RQ3: What research gaps exist in the current understanding of dyslexia
learning interventions, and what improvements to the learning process can be
made for pupils with dyslexia by addressing these gaps?

The main contribution of this systematic literature review (SLR) is to show

the current state-of-art of interventions for the learning of pupils with dyslexia,
and the objective is to achieve a critical and comprehensive systematic review.
A detailed description of research from the past five years in the field, and also
identifying the research gap that helps the researchers to improve the interven-
tions and make easy the learning process of pupils with dyslexia. The objective
of this study is achieved through the SLR.

2 Background study

The multi-sensory learning approach involves the most senses possible and uti-
lizing several senses also increases the brain’s connections and associations,
facilitating memory and learning by facilitating knowledge retrieval in the future
(Newman, 2019). The sensory memory system enables people to remember sen-
sory data even after the initial stimulus has ended. The conscious cognitive sys-
tem known as working memory, which has a constrained capacity, is in charge
of temporarily storing, processing, and manipulating information (Bonetti et al.,
2018). They collectively agree on how the information is processed. It is essen-
tial to cognitive functions including reasoning and decision-making. The more
we engage our senses, the more opportunity we give the brain to process infor-
mation in our preferred way. Utilizing many senses helps all students, including
those with dyslexia, to maximize their potential by bridging traditional teaching
strategies with these abilities (Mills, 2018). When dyslexic children are taught
utilizing multisensory approaches like visual, auditory, tactile, and kinesthetic
they learn more quickly, retain information better, and can apply concepts to
new learning more readily (Fazmina et al., 2020). Multisensory approaches are
associated with vision, sound, movement, and touch-based learning as shown in
Fig. 2. Multisensory approaches are found to be most effective with dyslexia.

13
Education and Information Technologies

Fig. 2  Multi-sensory techniques and associated learning

2.1 Visual

The brain area visual cortex is responsible for the sensory-motor function as shown
in Fig. 3. The visual activities are controlled by the visual cortex which is present in
the Occipital lobe area of the brain (Nguyen et al., 2021). The signal that directs the
body to react and conveys information is vision. The vision encompasses more than
just being able to see clearly; it also includes related visual skills that have an impact
on performance (Millard et al., n.d.). Inaccurate or slow message reception by the
visual system may have an adverse effect on performance. Dyslexia pupils have dif-
ficulties in visual memory and perception, which is caused by a problem with brain
function (Hanif et al., 2019). The main element in processing and remembering the
activity’s action is visual memory. Being able to read visually is one of the most
demanding systems, thus it’s crucial for the visual system to perform at its best.

Fig. 3  Sensory motor function areas

13
 Education and Information Technologies

2.2 Auditory

The sensory-motor function area of the sound is the auditory cortex as shown in
Fig. 3; which is present in the temporal lobe area of the brain (Kell et al., 2018).
Sound provides us with a great variety of information about the outside environ-
ment. These skills are made possible by neural processing, which converts the
sound waveform that enters the ear into cortical representations that are hypoth-
esized to make sound qualities that are crucial for action explicit (Kell et al.,
2018). The sound signal directs the body to react and conveys information.

2.3 Kinesthetic

The sensory-motor function area of the movement is the motor cortex in the
brain as shown in Fig. 3. The term kinesthetic refers to the body movement that a
learner uses to interact with their environment. The human kinesthetic system has
the ability of processing, integrating, and remembering information, and the sys-
tem is based on the immediate perception of motion impulses (Shan et al., 2021).
Nevertheless, it is important to remember that our human kinesthetic system not
only carries out sensory tasks, such as processing motor impulses but also inter-
prets and retains motor nerve signals. Learning is most effective kinesthetically
when learner use their large or gross motor muscles (Ngong, 2019).

2.4 Tactile

The sensory-motor function area of the touch is the somatosensory cortex in the
brain as shown in Fig. 3. The most complex and oldest-formed sensory system
is the tactile sensation, which has the ability to translate information from the
outside physical world into interior feelings (Yu et al., 2020). In the human, touch
stimulates a brain network that processes stimuli, having a central node in the
superior temporal sulcus (STS). It is well recognized that the STS is a region that
is very vulnerable to individual variation, especially for the processing of tactile
inputs.

3 Methodology

SLR was used to acquire data for the current study that was pertinent to the study’s
issue. The systematic review was organized and carried out in accordance with
established procedures. PRISMA (Liberati et al., 2009; Moher et al., 2009) was
adopted because it gives systematic reviews and meta-analyses reporting a clear
direction. The PRISMA specifies three primary phases for doing an SLR: literature
review, choosing eligible publications, and data extraction and summarizing.

13
Education and Information Technologies

To ensure that the most recent trend is represented, publications from the past
five years were selected as the appropriate time frame for review.

3.1 Eligibility criteria

The eligibility criteria adopted in this SLR are focused on interventions for dyslexia
that use sensory activities as a learning approach. The search includes comorbid
cases. In other words, research on dyslexia alongside other disorders in relation to
intervention in teaching and learning is included. Keep in mind that the criteria do
not exclude works that utilized multi-sensory activities.

3.2 Database sources

The search was conducted entirely using the Google Scholar and Scopus search
engine. In the target field, these search engines search pertinent digital libraries
and/or publishers including Elsevier, Springer, IEEE Xplore, and Taylor & Francis.
Journal and conference publications that have undergone peer review that may be
pertinent to the objectives of this study are offered by these digital libraries. The rel-
evant papers included in the above-mentioned databases were found using these two
search engines Google Scholar and Scopus.

3.3 Keyword search

Keywords pertaining to dyslexia, well-known multisensory approaches, and inter-

ventions were used to establish the search terms. A set of different related words are
used for the search.

The search string is divided into two groups and each group is connected with
the OR operator, and then both groups are connected through the AND operator.
Below is the search string:(“Dyslexia”) AND (“intervention” OR “multisensory
approach” OR “learning approach” OR “learning technique”) AND (“mobile
application” OR “computer application” OR “Information and Communications
Technology (ICT)” OR “technological approach” OR “touch device” OR “vis-
ual” OR “auditory” OR “kinesthetic” OR “tactile” OR “non-technological” OR
“app” OR “game” OR “haptic” OR “compliance control” OR “force feedback”)

The above search string is used to search articles in google scholar and SCOPUS.
Using the advanced search of both search engines, Google Scholar returned over
3000 results, so we only considered the entries from the first 100 pages, each of
which had 10 articles. Scopus also returned results over 4000, so we only considered
the first 50 pages, each of which contained 20 articles. The search was taken into
consideration from 2018 to 2022. The second appearance of the exact article in these
two search engines was regarded as a duplication and was omitted in the Removed
Duplicates stage. As a result, just one occurrence of each article was examined for
inclusion.

13
 Education and Information Technologies

Table 1  Selection criteria

Sr.No Description Criteria

1 Publication year Articles must be published between 2018 to 2022

2 Publication language Articles must be written in English
3 Publication focus Articles must be mainly focused on the learning of dyslexia pupils
in the title or abstract
4 Publication type Articles must be peer-reviewed journals or conferences proceeding

Table 2  Exclusion criteria

Sr.No Description Criteria

1 Target of Intervention The main target of the article is not learning intervention for
pupils with dyslexia
2 Use of Intervention Used the intervention for the diagnosis of pupils with dyslexia

3.4 Study selection

A set of criteria has been employed to limit the findings to a set addressing the
RQs, and pertinent publications in the field. Selection criteria serve as the initial
filter for collecting pertinent works. The selection criteria are shown in Table 1.
To gather pertinent works, the Selection Criteria were developed as a prelimi-
nary filter. Selection criterion 1 calls for a review of the most recent research
findings and assistance in identifying trends in the field. Selection criterion 2 is
required to make all review readers able to access and read any analytical work
outlining the interventions assessments. Selection criterion 3 primarily focuses
on the review’s area of interest. Selection criterion 4 is to select worthy data from
the selected articles which will help in the analysis.

3.5 Exclusion criteria

A set of criteria were employed, if the research focus was poorly described in the
abstract, the article was completely retained for a second look. The article’s qual-
ity was not addressed in the initial stage. The content of the chosen articles was
then assessed in accordance with the exclusion criteria as shown in Table 2.
The article was taken out of the results if any of the exclusion criteria were
satisfied.

13
Education and Information Technologies

Table 3  Inclusion criteria Sr.No Description Criteria

1 Article objective The main objective of the article

must be related to learning
intervention of pupils with
dyslexia
2 Intervention approach Any visual, auditory, kinesthetic,
or tactile approach was used to
facilitate the learning of pupils
with dyslexia in any aspect

3.6 Inclusion criteria

A set of criteria were employed, if the articles pass the exclusion criteria. At this
stage the remaining articles are being carefully further analyzed for their context,
in accordance with the inclusion criteria as shown in Table 3.
The articles were taken out of the results if any of the inclusion criteria were not
satisfied.

3.7 Quality criteria

A set of criteria were employed, if the articles meet any of the inclusion criteria. At
this stage now the selected articles process through quality screening, in accordance
with the quality criteria as shown in Table 4.
The use of the quality criteria helped to confirm that each article assessed could
contribute to resolving the RQs. Each paper that was included would then have
access to enough data and details to describe the intervention, how the multisensory
approaches worked, and clearly outline the study’s goals.

3.8 Data classification

Each of the data points was gathered in relation to the interventions. The clas-
sification of the interventions was performed according to elements and gadg-
ets used in activities for the learning interventions of pupils with dyslexia. The

Table 4  Quality criteria

Sr.No Description Criteria

1 Objective clarity Are the research objectives described in clear terms?

2 Analysis of the pre- Are the developed or presented interventions the primary focus of the
sented intervention research?
3 Details of approaches Are the multisensory approaches and activities clearly described?
4 Detail findings Are there any definitive findings pertaining to the application of the
chosen technologies/approaches/activities? Are the key findings
discussed in detail?

13
 Education and Information Technologies

learning intervention activities performed, tools employed, participant strengths,

and analytic technique were characterized subjectively based on the intervention’s
description, while the sensory approaches, impact of approaches on learning,
and study approach were all gathered objectively from the studies. It is crucial to
remember that a single intervention might feature elements from several different
activities, tools, strengths, and sensory approaches which can serve one or more
purposes.
The classification of the sensory approaches was performed according to which
sensory approach is used if an instructor uses both visual and auditory for the
learning then both the sensory approaches will be selected. All the approaches
which were used will be added and classified as visual, auditory, kinaesthetic, and
tactile. The classification of the effects by approaches on learning also added that
if the learning intervention is impacted by one or more learning factors then all
the factors will be added to this section.

4 Results

4.1 Study selection

After the search in Google Scholar and Scopus, a total of 2000 articles were
first found to be pertinent. Before the implementation of the selection criteria, a
total of 202 duplicate results were eliminated, producing 1798 results. 625 arti-
cles were eliminated after the first step of the selection criteria’s title and abstract
assessment of the remaining articles, bringing the final number down to 1173. For
the second stage, the exclusion criteria, the entire texts of the remaining articles
were reviewed, and 547 articles—251 for exclusion criteria 1, and 296 for exclu-
sion criteria 2—were eliminated as shown in Table 5. The 626 articles that were
left underwent the inclusion criteria, and 376 more were eliminated. The surviv-
ing 250 were subjected to the quality criteria stage, where 216 additional articles
were eliminated, resulting in a total of 34 articles being processed in the data
extraction phase. Consequently, 34 articles in all were part of this study which
were divided into non-technological and technological intervention categories on
the base utilized tools for interventions. The PRISMA flow diagram shown in
Fig. 4 depicts an overview of this procedure.

Table 5  Number of eliminated Criteria description Criteria 1 Criteria 2 Criteria 3 Criteria 4

articles by each criterion
Duplication 202 N/A N/A N/A
Selection criteria 0 108 239 278
Exclusion criteria 251 296 N/A N/A
Inclusion criteria 160 216 N/A N/A
Quality criteria 33 61 48 74

13
Education and Information Technologies

Identific Springer Taylor & Elsevier IEEE Others

Francis N=629 N=396 N=216
N=552 N=207

Removed duplicates
(N=202)
Records after title and abstract screening

(N=1798)
Selection criteria
(N=625)
Screening

Content screening
(N=1173)
Exclusion criteria
(N=547)
Content screening
(N=626)
Inclusion criteria
(N=376)
Quality screening
Eligibility

(N=250)
Quality criteria
(N=216)
Included

Final articles included

(N=34)

Fig. 4  Flow diagram of PRISMA

4.2 Study characteristics

The selected studies and their respective interventions were classified according to
a few criteria such as (1) types of sensory modalities employed, (2) usage of activi-
ties as a learning approach. Regarding the employed sensory modalities, all these
34 studies used multi-sensory modalities. All the non-technological studies used the

Table 6  Utilized modalities Interventions Modalities used

percentage in each intervention
Visual Auditory Kinesthetic Tactile

Non-technological 100% 84.6% 38.4% 15.3%

App/Game 100% 93.3% 0% 0%
Haptic 100% 40% 100% 100%

13
 Education and Information Technologies

visual (100%), 11 used the auditory (84.6%), 5 used the kinesthetic (38.4%), and 2
used the tactile (15.3%) modalities as shown in Table 6. On the other hand, techno-
logical interventions were divided into apps/games and haptics technology. In apps/
games, the visual modality is utilized by 100% and the auditory modality is utilized
by 93.3% of interventions the tactile and kinesthetic are utilized by 0% as shown

Fig. 5  Number of articles published by year

Fig. 6  Number of articles using sensory approaches per intervention

Fig. 7  Number of articles targeting learning skills per intervention

13
Education and Information Technologies

in Table 6. Tactile is just used for data entry not utilized the functions of tactile for
learning. In the haptics-based approaches the visual, tactile, and kinesthetic modali-
ties are utilized by 100% of studies in this review, and 40% used the auditory.
Figure 5 shows the intervention published by year and Fig. 6 gives the chart of
each sensory approach. Figure 7 shows the number of articles targeting learning
skills per intervention. Most of the interventions target reading difficulties but in
haptics most of the articles target handwriting.

4.3 Individual studies

Following that, interventions are listed according to their unique qualities and then
categorized according to the elements and gadgets they have used for activities.
Various interventions are available, and different approaches and components are
employed to implement them as shown in Fig. 8.

4.3.1 Non‑technological

There are numerous non-technological approaches available for the learning process
of dyslexic children. These traditional practices show a positive effect on the learn-
ing process of dyslexic children. Mainly these practices focus on reading, writing,
handwriting, and spelling. Using various combinations of the VAKT approaches
were performed in these practices as shown in Table 7. These are the sensory-motor
techniques that take information through the senses and develop responses to that

Fig. 8  Components used: a Reading Tasks with Typoscope, Visual Tracking Magnifier(VTM), and Mag-
nifier; b Alphabet Learning with Plastic Bottle Cap; c Story Learning Game; d Reading and Vocabu-
lary App; e Tracing Wire through Haptic Device; f Handwriting on Touch Monitor using Haptic Device
From: (Omar et al., 2021; Liu et al., 2021; Bigueras et al., 2020; Karpagavalli et al., 2021; Bingham &
Snapp-Childs, 2019; Park et al., 2019)

13
13
Table 7  Summary of non-technological interventions
Sr.No Ref Modalities used Effects of approaches Study approach
Visual Auditory Kinesthetic Tactile

1 (Ziadat, 2021) ✓ ✓ ✓ ✓ Oral reading and reading comprehension Quasi-experimental

2 (Van Reybroeck & Michiels, 2018) ✓ ✗ ✓ ✗ Reading, spelling, and handwriting Single-case intervention study
3 (Omar et al., 2021) ✓ ✗ ✗ ✗ Reading Case–control study
4 (Liu et al., 2021) ✓ ✓ ✓ ✓ Reading, writing, and spelling Quasi-experimental
5 (Wan Norudin & Baba, 2018) ✓ ✓ ✗ ✗ Reading Qualitative case study
6 (Lee, 2021) ✓ ✓ ✗ ✗ Reading and spelling Correlational study
7 (Martínez-García et al., 2021) ✓ ✓ ✓ ✗ Reading, writing, and spelling Experimental study
8 (Van Rijthoven et al., 2021a) ✓ ✓ ✗ ✗ Reading and spelling Qualitative and Quantitative study
9 (van Rijthoven et al., 2021b) ✓ ✓ ✗ ✗ Spelling Qualitative study
10 (Ferraz et al., 2018) ✓ ✓ ✓ ✗ Reading and writing Experimental study
11 (Van der Kleij et al., 2019) ✓ ✓ ✗ ✗ Reading Longitudinally study
12 (Leloup et al., 2021) ✓ ✓ ✗ ✗ Reading Longitudinal study
13 (Wang et al., 2019) ✓ ✓ ✗ ✗ Reading Experimental study
Education and Information Technologies
Education and Information Technologies

information which encourages cognitive ability. There are numerous tasks and activ-
ities like word tracing, skywriting, writing on the wrist, identification of the pho-
neme, repetition of the rhyme, and drawing the shape of grapheme with a finger
involved in the implementation of the VAKT approach.
In this study (Ziadat, 2021), a researcher from Jordan used to examine the VAKT
approach effect on the oral reading and reading comprehension of dyslexic chil-
dren. The study follows a Quasi-experimental approach which has pre and post-
test measurement phases. In their study, 39 dyslexic children were divided into a
control (N = 19) and an experimental group (N = 20). The experimental group deals
with specific instructional activities, such as word tracing, skywriting, writing on
the wrist, utilizing the word in passages, visual modulation of terms, and instruc-
tional materials, such as word cards, highlighted and colored pens, mirrors, sand,
and whiteboard. The control group used the normal routine classes in the dyslexic
center. This study showed that the experimental group showed more improvement
than the control group in oral and comprehension reading. The study’s data was
restricted to categorical data so the recommendation is to adopt continuous scale
measurement. Further study is needed to determine the applicability of the VAKT
approach in schools and at home.
Another research from Belgium in his study (Van Reybroeck & Michiels, 2018),
shows that finger-writing intervention showed a more positive effect on reading,
spelling, and handwriting performance as compared to visual discrimination inter-
vention. This study follows the single-case intervention approach which has pre and
post-test measurement phases. In their study, five Developmental Language Disorder
children were selected and divided into 2 intervention groups they received finger-
writing intervention individually for 2 months. The finger-writing intervention con-
tains different tasks like identifying the shape of the graphemes and letters with their
finger and including the phoneme in the syllable of the word. The same intervention
exercises were performed except the two finger-writing tasks were replaced by two
visual discrimination tasks. Children’s performance was compared before and after
the treatment based on reading, spelling, handwriting, and phonological awareness.
The study has minimal participants and limited items in the grapheme reading task
and handwriting instruction which show the worst effect on the precision of results.
Another team of researchers from Malaysia in his study (Omar et al., 2021),
determines the effectiveness of simple visual devices in the reading performance of
children with dyslexia as shown in Fig. 8(a). A case–control study was conducted
in which reading performance was assessed at baseline, week 2nd,6th, and 12th. In
their study, 80 dyslexic children aged 8–11 years were selected and divided into four
groups: one control group and three groups assigned with the typoscope, VTM, and
magnifier. The analysis is done based on the time taken to complete the reading of
the text and the reading error rate. The reading performance of magnifiers and the
VTM group is significantly increased with 2.5 times faster-reading speed than the
typoscope and control group.
In this study (Liu et al., 2021), a Malaysian research team created multi-senso-
rial-based two programs using phonics that enhance the reading, writing, and spell-
ing skills of children with reading difficulties. One is SMARTER*phonics which
is for the English language and another is foniks*PINTAR which is for the Malay

13
 Education and Information Technologies

language. This study follows the quasi-experimental approach which has pre and
post-test. In this study total of 28 participants are involved who have reading diffi-
culties 16 participants tested in the English language and 12 in the Malay language.
The children intervene with multisensory approaches which contain different tasks
like; recognizing the letters using bottle caps as shown in Fig. 8(b), visualizing the
letters using sky-writing, and also using the tactile mat to trigger fingers nerves dur-
ing writing. The analysis was done based on task time. These practices facilitate
the teaching methodology of teachers who teach language to children with reading
difficulties.
Another Spanish group of researchers in his study (Martínez-García et al., 2021),
investigates the interaction between spelling and handwriting difficulties in chil-
dren with dyslexia using visual, auditory, and kinesthetic tasks. The study follows
an experimental approach in which dyslexic children were compared with the same
age group and same-level reading group. In this study total of 20 dyslexic children
were involved who were tested with the spelling to dictation task, an alphabet writ-
ing task, and two graphic tasks. Statistical analysis is done and measures included
writing latency, total writing duration, writing speed, and peaks of speed. The find-
ings indicated that although children with dyslexia prepared and executed written
responses less quickly and accurately than fellow students who were typically devel-
oping (TD), they displayed the level of spelling that was expected given their read-
ing proficiency.
In this study(Van Rijthoven et al., 2021a), a group of researchers from the Neth-
erlands examined children with dyslexia, they looked at how well they read words
and pseudo words and how well they spelled words after receiving phonics through
spelling intervention. They also looked at how consistently the intervention’s
response held up across various cognitive characteristics. The study follows the
qualitative and also quantitative approaches. A total number of 54 Dutch children
were chosen for this study. Their parents and teachers first completed questionnaires
regarding the child’s developmental and present issues and parents were interviewed
to rule out other potential causes for reading and spelling difficulties. These children
got a structured intervention that incorporated reading and spelling practice and
teaching with phonics. From the pre-test to the post-test, there were positive impacts
on word and pseudo-word reading speed and word spelling. This study leads to the
conclusion that, regardless of the cognitive characteristics, the efficiency of word
and pseudo-word reading as well as word spelling positively increases by combined
reading and spelling intervention. Despite the encouraging findings, this study also
demonstrated how reading and spelling difficulties among children with dyslexia
persisted even after an intervention, with reading difficulties being considerably
more persistent.
This time group of researchers from the Netherlands in his study (van Rijthoven
et al., 2021b) assess the dyslexic children’s responses by comparing the phono-
logical, morphological, and orthographic spelling errors made by dyslexic chil-
dren before and after receiving phonics via spelling intervention. Investigations
were also conducted on whether semantics might play a compensatory influence in
the intervention’s outcomes. In this study, 52 dyslexic and 105 TD children were
selected whose native language was Dutch. Results demonstrated that, before the

13
Education and Information Technologies

intervention, children with dyslexia and normally developing youngsters alike made
more morphological errors than orthographic or phonological errors. Children with
dyslexia committed more errors compared to children with average development in
each area, with phonological errors showing the greatest discrepancies. Children
with dyslexia who had more fully established semantic representations exhibited
lower levels of phonological, morphological, and orthographic mistakes than those
who had less fully developed semantic representations. This study indicates that
children who are developing their spelling skills and are dyslexic or at risk may ben-
efit from semantic stimulation.
A group of researchers from Brazil in his study (Ferraz et al., 2018) used behav-
ioral and objective measures, to assess the effects of a phonological rehabilitation
reading and writing program in dyslexic children. In this study, 20 dyslexic kids
between the ages of 8 and 14 were enrolled. These children were divided into two
groups; group 1, who participated in the program, and ten others made up group 2,
who did not participate in the rehabilitation. Pre and post-testing assessed working
memory, phonological awareness, quick naming, the ability to read and write words
and non-words, thematic writing, and auditory evoked potential. The phonologi-
cal reading and writing rehabilitation program were used in a total of 24 sessions,
which were held twice a week and lasted 30 min each. There was a significant differ-
ence observed in pre and post-testing. The dyslexic kids’ written language improved
quickly as a result of the phonological remediation program, which is an effective
therapeutic strategy.

4.3.2 Technological practices

In this digital era, there are a lot of technological practices for the learning of dys-
lexic children. Researchers introduced technology to the learning practices of
dyslexic children which facilitates the teaching style as well as makes the student
learning easy. During the COVID-19 pandemic when schools were closed, dyslexic
school teachers widely used these applications in online classes. Mainly the techno-
logical practices are divided into two categories Apps/Games and Haptics.

Apps and games The widespread usage of mobile and laptop devices offers a poten-
tial tool for developing structural approaches to aiding special-needs children. Apps
and Games are easy and interesting ways of learning for students. Most apps and
games provided visual and auditory methods as shown in Table 8. Apps and games
help dyslexic children in their phonological awareness and grapheme-phonemes.
This method also builds the interest of dyslexic children. According to the teacher’s
point of view apps and games minimize the practicing activities time spent and also
provided the opportunity of performing activities individually (Larco et al., 2021).
Quality of research done throughout the world shows that Apps and Games play a
vital role in the learning process of dyslexic children.
In this study (Mehringer et al., 2020) a group of researchers from Switzerland
designed a computer game based on grapheme-phoneme to support the reading
of dyslexic children. In this longitudinal study total of 34 dyslexic children were
selected and divided into two groups the control group (N = 16), and the training

13
13
Table 8  Summary of apps and games interventions
Sr.No Ref Modalities used Effects of approaches Study approach
Visual Auditory Kinesthetic Tactile

1 (Mehringer et al., 2020) ✓ ✓ ✗ ✗ Reading Longitudinal study

2 (Minoofam et al., 2022) ✓ ✓ ✗ ✗ Reading Case-study
3 (Rahim, 2021) ✓ ✓ ✗ ✗ Spelling and Speech Qualitative and Quantitative study
4 (Bigueras et al., 2020) ✓ ✓ ✗ ✗ Reading Experimental study
5 (Helland et al., 2018) ✓ ✓ ✗ ✗ Reading Experimental study
6 (Ansari et al., 2020) ✓ ✓ ✗ ✗ Reading Pilot study
7 (Karpagavalli et al., 2021) ✓ ✓ ✗ ✗ Reading and writing Case study
8 (Brennan et al., 2022) ✓ ✓ ✗ ✗ Reading, writing, and pronunciation A Pilot study with a case study approach
9 (Cancer et al., 2021) ✓ ✓ ✗ ✗ Reading Clinical trials
10 (Cavalli et al., 2019) ✓ ✓ ✗ ✗ Reading Exploratory study
11 (Łuniewska et al., 2022) ✓ ✗ ✗ ✗ Reading Experimental study
12 (Bertoni et al., 2021) ✓ ✓ ✗ ✗ Reading, Phonological decoding & Experimental study
attention control
13 (Maculada et al., 2023) ✓ ✓ ✗ ✗ Reading, phonological awareness Case study
14 (Eroğlu et al., 2022) ✓ ✓ ✗ ✗ Reading comprehension Clinical study
15 (Franceschini & Bertoni, 2019) ✓ ✓ ✗ ✗ Reading and visual attention Clinical study
Education and Information Technologies
Education and Information Technologies

group (N = 18). In this game, different tasks were introduced like rhyming tasks,
word building, and sentence building. The GraphoLearn game facilitates the reading
abilities and teaching instruction with the help of phonological decoding and pho-
neme awareness of dyslexic children.
Another group of researchers from the Philippines (Bigueras et al., 2020) develop
a game to identify the specific game elements based on the learning needs of dys-
lexic children, which need to be integrated into the Larolexia application presented
in Fig. 8(c). The game is based on auditory and visual methods. The study aims
to identify the improvement in the reading performance of dyslexic children. This
study follows an experimental approach in which there is pre and post-training test.
For the improvement of reading performance, different game elements are used like
story, goal, rewards, points, achievements feedback, and levels. The T-test is used for
the analysis of pre and post-test. This game is considered the intervention to enhance
the reading performance of dyslexic children.
Another group of researchers from Norway (Helland et al., 2018) works on the
dichotic listening app to show the auditory training effect in dyslexic children. In
this experimental study, 8-year-old 47 children were selected. 31 children were
selected with no identified learning disabilities and divided into two groups the con-
trol group (N = 16) with no training, and the control group (N = 15) receiving train-
ing. The 16 participants were selected with reading and writing learning difficul-
ties and this group received the training. In this app different auditory tasks were
introduced like 36 stimuli combinations, homonym pairs, syllables played to the ear
through earphones, and finding correct syllables. In summary, this study revealed
that high language processing and verbal working memory skills are associated with
good focus and attention-shifting abilities.
In this study (Ansari et al., 2020) a group of researchers from India proposed a
game-based intervention that aims to reduce expert reliance by offering a uniform
platform to benefit both dyslexic experts and children. In this pilot study there are
different training and testing activities used like word-sound relationship tasks,
letter-word-sound relationship tasks, simple word recognition tests, making a sight
word from scattered characters, and for correct pronunciation need to speak the
word. The proposed game-based intervention received satisfactory evaluation results
and can be used as a learning tool for dyslexic children.
In this study (Karpagavalli et al., 2021) another group of researchers from India
designed and develop a mobile application as shown in Fig. 8(d); to improve and
support the reading and writing of learning-disabled children. This research follows
a case study approach in which two different learning groups are selected ages 9–12
and 13–15. This application introduces the feature voice-enabled interface for read-
ing disabled children which repeatedly reads as much as a child required. Another
feature is voice recognition for writing-disabled children which takes input speech
from the child and converts the process speech into text. Pre and post-assessment
of children in learning Tamil words are done using various parameters like; read-
ing words, recalling words, reading fluency, and rapid naming. The proposed mobile
application helps the learning-disabled child in reading, writing, and motivating
them.

13
 Education and Information Technologies

In this study (Brennan et al., 2022) a group of researchers develops a game with
the toolkit Cosmic Sounds, to boost the learning process of dyslexic children. This
research follows the case study approach which aims to facilitate the phonological
awareness skills of dyslexic children age group 9 to 12 years by supporting teaching
techniques. To support the phonological awareness skills of dyslexic children there
are different techniques used like combining words using blocks, a word with miss-
ing consonant digraph, identifying sounds and symbols, letter blends, decomposing
words, and open and closed vowels. The cosmic sounds game facilitates the teachers
and shows improvement in the dyslexic children’s phonological awareness skills and
also engagement in learning.
A group of researchers from Italy (Cancer et al., 2021) reorganized the rehabilita-
tion procedures for learning disorders (LDs) during COVID-19. Tele-rehabilitation
provided a way to carry on with training treatments while allowing for social iso-
lation during the lockdown period. A rhythm-based reading intervention was put
to the test in a small-scale clinical experiment during the lockdown phase of the
COVID-19 pandemic to assess the efficacy of tele-rehabilitation and in-presence
dyslexia rehabilitation. Assigned to either an in-presence or tele-rehabilitation set-
ting, thirty children with a diagnosis of developmental dyslexia between the ages
of 8 and 13 received rhythm-based reading intervention called Rhythmic Reading
Training (RRT) for ten sessions of 45 min each, held every two weeks, under the
supervision of a qualified professional. The findings demonstrated that both tele-
rehabilitation and in-presence rehabilitation was helpful to enhance reading and
quick automated naming in children with dyslexia. In light of this, RRT was proven
to be efficacious regardless of the method of administration (remote or in-presence).
The efficacy of telemedicine for the treatment of LDs is supported by these findings.

Haptics Digitalization and rapid advancements in technology have significantly

transformed the field of education, revolutionizing the way we teach and learn. A
remarkable and promising technology called "Haptic" has emerged among these
profound shifts. Haptic is the sensing and manipulation of an object through touch.
Various haptic devices have already been introduced for the learning of children.
The haptic device’s primary function is to introduce the operator’s external force
into the virtual environment and allow the operator to feel the force there, ensur-
ing the operator’s feeling of realism and immersion while engaging with the virtual
environment. Different combinations of modalities are used through various tasks
and devices as shown in Table 9.
A group of researchers (Bingham & Snapp-Childs, 2019) from the US developed
an automated method based on haptic-based tasks to facilitate the manual com-
pliance control and prospective control of the stylus presented in Fig. 8(e). In this
experimental study, 7–8-year-old 16 children were selected with 8 Developmental
Coordination Disorder (DCD) and 8 TD children. There were pre and post-training
performance comparisons and participants were trained for 5 weeks. Different level
of training tasks was provided like pushing a bead along a Three Dimensional (3D)
wire path which is magnetically attractive to the stylus and the difficulty of the path
increases with the completion of tasks. The developed automated method improved
the ability of children drawing and handwriting.

13
 Table 9  Summary of haptic-based interventions
Education and Information Technologies

Sr.No Ref Modalities used Effects of approaches Study approach

Visual Auditory Kinesthetic Tactile

1 (Park et al., 2019) ✓ ✗ ✓ ✓ Handwriting skills Longitudinal experimental study

2 (Park et al., 2021) ✓ ✗ ✓ ✓ Handwriting skills Longitudinal experimental study
3 (Bingham & Snapp-Childs, 2019) ✓ ✗ ✓ ✓ Prospective control of movements Experimental study
used in drawing performance
4 (Am Faleel et al., 2021) ✓ ✗ ✓ ✓ Handwriting skills Experimental study
5 (Elbaggari et al., 2021) ✓ ✓ ✓ ✓ Read musical notation Experimental study

13
 Education and Information Technologies

In this study (Park et al., 2019) a group of researchers from Dubai investi-
gated different haptic guidance methods’ roles in normal children’s handwriting
skills outcomes. The study follows a 9-week longitudinal experimental approach
total of 42 children participated aged 4–7 years. Participants were divided
into 5 groups full guidance (N = 9), partial guidance (N = 9), disturbance guid-
ance (N = 8), no haptic guidance (N = 8), and the control group (N = 8). For the
4 groups except for the control group, the researchers designed haptic guidance
methods in which different calculated haptic force is set up. There were pre and
post-training tests for all children which includes 10 characters (e, a, r, i, o, t, n, s,
b, and g), and divided these characters into low, medium, and high complexity. 5
sets of these characters were assigned to each student according to their guidance
category except for the control group. The results were evaluated by 3 teachers
which shows that for high-complexity tasks the disturbance haptic guidance was
most effective. For medium-complexity tasks, the full and partial haptic guidance
shows the best results and for the low-complexity tasks, the full guidance was
most effective. In addition, the effectiveness of the haptic guidance depends on
the handwriting task difficulty.
Another group of researchers from Dubai (Park et al., 2021) provided a haptic-
based training platform as shown in Fig. 8(f); to facilitate the handwriting of adults
and children. This study follows a longitudinal experimental study approach and 12
children who participated in this study have intellectual difficulties, fine motor dif-
ficulties, and griping difficulties. These children were divided into two groups the
targeted group who completed the haptic-based guided training, as well as the pre
and post-training test, and the control group only, participated in the pre and post-
training pencil-and-paper test. The children participate once a week in the experi-
ment for nine weeks in which different tasks will be performed like copy numbers,
letters, shapes, and emoticons. This research summarizes that the effectiveness of
haptic guidance crucially depends on the provided training tasks. When the activ-
ity is visually familiar but haptically challenging, haptic guidance greatly improves
motor function of the handwriting ability in children with cognitive and fine motor
deficits.
In this study (Am Faleel et al., 2021) a group of researchers from Canada and
Columbia used a Haply force feedback device and a Writely application to deter-
mine the effect of force feedback on the handwriting of the non-dominant hand.
In this experimental study, there were 2 sessions per day for 7 days and each ses-
sion have 28 alphabet writing tasks. In this study writing activities are done using
3 feedback conditions the user’s guidance, anti-guidance, and no-force feedback.
The writing activity contains different tasks in which letters are created from a
series of line segments and the forces guide during the writing task. For evalua-
tion, data is collected before, in the middle, and after the experiment. Haply and
Writely show a positive effect on the visual quality of non-dominant handwriting
like smoothness and consistency with the help of jerk and acceleration provided
during writing. Further study is suggested to utilize the Haply device more and
provide a complete experimental method.

13
Education and Information Technologies

4.4 Research questions

4.4.1 RQ1: What interventions are currently employed to facilitate the learning

of pupils with dyslexia, and what are the key characteristics of these
interventions?

The gathered data shows that there are two categories of interventions 1) non-tech-
nological and 2) technological. The technological interventions are further divided
into apps/games and haptics. However, in most of the non-technological interven-
tions, the researcher used traditional and ordinary practices for the learning of
pupils with dyslexia. In addition, most of the non-technological interventions uti-
lized cards, puzzle games, painting, sandpaper, and clay. These interventions mainly
focused on the reading, writing, spelling, and memory of these pupils with dyslexia.
Somehow these interventions positively impact these factors. All these interventions
are reliable and helpful for the learning of pupils with dyslexia with positive results
in various studies. One challenge associated with non-technological interventions is
that teachers bear the responsibility of providing personalized attention, feedback,
and guidance to students individually, making it demanding to manage the diverse
needs of the entire class effectively. This may lower the positive impact of the non-
technological interventions for the learning of these pupils with dyslexia.
The other most employed intervention category is technological. The techno-
logical intervention is subdivided into apps/games and haptics. These interventions
widely utilized mobile and computer for games and apps. These games and apps are
mostly based on educational practices and some of them have entertainment-based
games that help pupils with dyslexia in learning and cognitive skills. These inter-
ventions reduced teacher dependency and were also very helpful during the corona
pandemic when schools and centers were closed. Some of these interventions have
feedback and guidance system during practices in the form of visual and auditory.
The lack of tactile and kinesthetic motor function techniques is one disadvantage of
these apps and games.
Haptics-based technological interventions utilizing different devices can provide
kinesthetic movements and tactile sensation. Researchers investigate the kinesthetic
movements and tactile sensation ability of these devices. One group of researchers
also investigates the different levels of guidance provided by these devices in the
form of force feedback. Some researchers just used these devices only for data entry
purposes. Another group of researchers used a 3D wire path that is magnetically
attractive to the stylus. The haptic interventions are at the very initial stage. One
disadvantage is that these interventions did not utilize the feedback and guidance
ability of these devices for the learning of pupils with dyslexia.

4.4.2 RQ2: What primary approaches serve as the foundation for the pupils
with dyslexia learning interventions, and what factors contribute
to the prevalence of specific approaches?

These interventions are based on multisensory approaches. Different combinations

of VAKT are utilized to intervene in the learning of pupils with dyslexia as shown in

13
 Education and Information Technologies

Tables 7, 8, and 9. Interventions are based on multisensory approaches because dys-

lexia is a disorder of brain processing which have effects on learning and cognitive
skills and multisensory approaches can evoke and intervene in different areas of the
brain. As discussed early in this study Sect. 4.2 most of the researchers utilized vis-
ual and auditory modalities for the interventions. But in the haptics the visual, kin-
esthetic, and tactile are widely used and the auditory modality is used in one study.
To utilize these modalities most of the interventions are based on Apps/Games
and also non-technological approaches. All four modalities were utilized by two
researchers through non-technological interventions which used different modules
for these intervention activities and these interventions lack feedback and guidance
in the form of kinesthetic and tactile. In one haptic-based intervention a researchers
utilized all four modalities but they also lack to utilized feedback and guidance for
the learning purpose. Most of the interventions targeting the reading, writing, and
spelling difficulties of pupils with dyslexia, for which the visual modality is impor-
tant. Auditory is also widely utilized because pupils with dyslexia have difficulty in
phonological awareness.

4.4.3 RQ3: What research gaps exist in the current understanding of dyslexia

learning interventions, and what improvements to the learning process can
be made for pupils with dyslexia by addressing these gaps?

According to the findings of this systematic review and the answers to the earlier
RQs, it is obvious that there are many challenges and limitations that researchers and
developers still need to go through to create learning-based interventions for pupils
with dyslexia. The majority of the challenges and limitations that must be resolved
for developing interventions to become a feasible platform for learning pupils with
dyslexia are related to not only the technology itself but how the interventions are
designed, how the interventions are adapted, and how reliable the control is from the
perspective of the pupils.
The first challenge is the feedback and guidance provided to pupils with dyslexia
during the interventions. Feedback and guidance are the two main factors that influ-
ence learning. According to the current study, the instructor provides visual and
auditory feedback and guidance in non-technological and apps/games-based inter-
ventions. On the other hand, haptic technology provides tactile sensation and kin-
esthetic movements. However, researchers just utilized these devices for data entry,
compliance training, and pen perspective control during handwriting activities. The
current research is lacking in providing tactile and kinesthetic feedback for the learn-
ing of pupils with dyslexia. A haptic device may be helpful to provide tactile and
kinesthetic feedback and guidance during the learning intervention for pupils with
dyslexia. The feedback and guidance must be considered by intervention designers
in light of this constraint.
The second challenge is to use the VAKT approach while incorporating all visual,
auditory, kinesthetic, and tactile techniques into a single module. Previous research
has shown that multisensory techniques help dyslexic students learn more easily
however, using the VAKT approach in various modules is a slow and difficult learn-
ing approach from the pupil’s as well as the teacher’s perspective. In this review

13
Education and Information Technologies

study, all the interventions are based on the VAKT approaches but all the techniques
are implemented in various modules some of them are used a combination of two
techniques. All of the senses are engaged in non-technological interventions through
various activities, but in technological apps and games, the visual and auditory are
frequently used, touch is used for data entry which lacks the feel of immersion, and
the kinesthetic is completely disregarded. Games that use a haptic device may help
resolve this issue because the haptic device may provide tactile feelings and kines-
thetic movements in addition to the visual and audio sensations that apps and games
can also deliver. The VAKT approach in one module must be considered by inter-
vention designers in light of this constraint.
The third challenge is to measure the effect of the intervention on the process-
ing areas in the brains of pupils with dyslexia. Prior research has demonstrated that
multimodal techniques affect different processing areas of the brain. According to
earlier studies, visual, auditory, kinesthetic, and tactile stimuli are processed in the
visual cortex, the auditory cortex, the somatosensory cortex, and the motor cortex,
respectively. In the current review study, intervention evokes distinct impulses using
VAKT approaches that process the various brain areas. These interventions, which
use a VAKT approach to evoke various impulses, may enhance brain processing.
During the intervention, it is important to monitor the brain’s behavior and measures
its processing.

5 Discussion

This review’s primary results and main findings are discussed in this section, par-
ticularly with respect to the RQs. Based, on the strengths and flaws of the examined
interventions, conclusions about the results are reached. On the findings and the
information gathered throughout the review, further observations were also made.
In this review, we investigate different publicly available articles that are used
for the intervention of pupils with dyslexia. Review findings show that, currently,
the interventions are employed to facilitate the learning of pupils with dyslexia in
two ways: technological and non-technological. But in this digital era, technology is
at its peak; but in the past years’ non-technological practices are seeking attention,
interest, and adoption by educators, students, or researchers in the current period,
possibly due to the base of intervention approaches (Rahmatullah et al., 2022; Yoon
& Kwon, 2022). A notable finding is that all of the included studies in this review
employed the VAKT approaches for intervention in various combinations as shown
in Tables 7, 8, and 9.
Studies have revealed that different individuals have distinct learning prefer-
ences. According to studies visual learners prefer to process information through
images, graphs, charts, and other visual aids (Tzenios, 2020). They learn best
when they can see and observe information. Auditory learners learn effectively
through listening and verbal communication (Ariastuti & Wahyudin, 2022). They
grasp information best when it is presented through spoken words, discussion,
and lectures. Kinesthetic learners learn by doing and engaging in hands-on activi-
ties (Stamm et al., 2021). They thrive when they can physically interact with the

13
 Education and Information Technologies

subject matter, such as through experiments or simulations. Tactile learners are

similar to kinesthetic learners but specifically learn through touch and physical
sensations (Montero-SaizAja, 2022). They benefit from activities that involve the
manipulation of objects or textures.
Some of the main characteristics of these interventions are that VAKT approaches
create stronger neural connections, neural pathway activation, neurotransmitter
release, improve motor, and sensory processing (Ziadat, 2021). Incorporating VAKT
strategies into teaching practices can maximize brain engagement and optimize the
learning experience for students (Redcay, 2023). By stimulating multiple sensory
channels and promoting neural plasticity, these strategies support the brain’s natural
capacity for learning and adaptation.
The current literature review shows the formation of interventions has two main
stages: the development and deployment stages as shown in Fig. 9. In-depth, the
development stage mainly focused on the utilized sensory modalities and different
learning and teaching approaches. This study shows that the VAKT approach is uti-
lized and all four types of modalities are used with different combinations to develop
a learning and teaching intervention for pupils with dyslexia. As mentioned in the
introduction section, that dyslexia is a learning disorder in which they have difficulty
how to process information. Different information is processed in different areas
of the brain as shown in Fig. 3. The researchers utilized various modalities with
different combinations because it helps to evoke the different areas in the brain of
dyslexia pupils (Redcay, 2023). To utilize these combinations of modalities, various
approaches are used by researchers non-technological, apps/games, and haptics as
discussed in the individual study section.
The "Apps/Games" category includes technological innovations like educa-
tional games and mobile apps. These interventions make use of technology-based
learning to offer individualized instruction, involve dyslexic students, and provide

Fig. 9  Current-state-of-art framework

13
Education and Information Technologies

chances for practice and reinforcement. Interventions utilizing tactile feedback

devices and touch-sensitive interfaces fall under the "Haptics" category as shown
in Table 10. These interventions emphasize sensory-based learning, promoting kin-
esthetic learning and enhancing the multisensory experiences of dyslexic learners.
The "Non-Technological Interventions" section, on the other hand, includes inter-
ventions that do not use technology. This group includes well-known strategies like
explicit instruction, phonics-based instruction, and multisensory teaching as shown
in Table 10. With a focus on multiple aspects of the development of reading and lan-
guage skills, these evidence-based interventions have been widely used to address
dyslexia challenges.
Most of the non-technological approaches utilized VAKT modalities with dif-
ferent combinations some of the researchers used all four modalities to evoke all
of their senses, but they do not offer tactile or kinesthetic feedback and guid-
ance as mentioned in Table 11. When teaching pupils with dyslexia, the com-
monly employed non-technological approaches lack to provide the primary
training components—feedback and guidance—that were not always given in
the best way. The instructor usually gives feedback and guidance during these
interventions in visual and auditory forms, which did not train the motor cor-
tex and somatosensory cortex areas of the brain, which are responsible for kin-
esthetic and tactile processing (Fugate et al., 2019). Somehow there are tactile
and kinesthetic-based interventions that use the motor cortex and somatosensory
cortex area of the brain, but they are not used to their full potential due to the
absence of aspects that provide feedback and guidance. In these non-technolog-
ical approaches, all the multisensory interventions are implemented in different
modules which are very slow and difficult teaching strategies. Particularly in a
crisis, pandemic, or emergency, such as the current global COVID-19 problem,
technology has proven to be important.
Regarding the intervention development based on technology, the researchers
utilized technology to help pupils with dyslexia in learning. Researchers introduce
different apps and game approaches according to the needs of dyslexic children’s
learning. These apps and games have different reading, writing, pronunciation, and
spelling practices which improve the learning of dyslexic children. Researchers
mostly concentrate on the games and apps that have primarily focused on VAKT-
based interventions. For these interventions, the researcher made extensive use of
the visual, auditory, and tactile senses. In these interventions, tactile functions are
not exploited; rather, the tactile was only used to enter data and not for its sensa-
tion function. Most of the games and apps are mobile-based in which the touch
screen completely lacks in providing tactile feedback. A user can not feel any guid-
ance through the mobile touch screen. Apps and games completely lack to use of the
brain area which processes tactile and kinesthetic information. So these apps and
games practices used visual, and auditory as a learning intervention that practices
only the visual and auditory information processing area.
The current review literature shows that some practices used tactile and kines-
thetic as an intervention but these interventions are based on non-technological
practices. The employment of haptic technology to aid pupils with dyslexia in their
learning is quite unusual. This technology was used by researchers for tactile and

13
13
Table 10  Summary of Interventions for learning of dyslexic children
Intervention Characteristics Approach Common usage and reasons

Apps/Games Mobile applications and educational games Technology-based learning Increasingly used for individualized instruction, engagement, and
practice
Haptics Tactile feedback devices and touch-sensitive interfaces Sensory-based learning Employed to enhance multisensory experiences and kinesthetic
learning
Non-Technolog- Multisensory teaching, phonics-based instruction, Various approaches Widely used and evidence-based interventions addressing dyslexia
ical Interven- explicit instruction challenges
tions
Education and Information Technologies
 Table 11  Summary of feedback and guidance
Education and Information Technologies

S.No Intervention Feedback Guidance

1 Non-Technological Provided by the instructor Yes, provided by the instructor

Visual or Auditory Visual or Auditory
2 App/Game Provided in the form of result/score Yes, provided in the form of prompt instructions
Visual or Auditory Visual or Auditory
3 Haptic device Provided by the device in the form of force feed- No, can be provided by the device in the form of
back in real-time force feedback in real-time
kinesthetic, and tactile kinesthetic, and tactile
4 App/Game with Haptic device Can be provided in the form of Visual, Auditory, Can be provided in the form of Visual, Auditory,
Recommended kinesthetic, and tactile kinesthetic, and tactile

13
 Education and Information Technologies

kinesthetic interventions, to process impulses in the motor cortex and somatosen-

sory cortex regions of the brain. The use of tactile and kinesthetic feedback is used
but guidance is lacking in the research. Haptic is the technology of touch and also
provided kinesthetic movements. Some researcher investigates the different level of
haptic force guidance. One research group used to push a bead along a 3D wire path
that is magnetically attractive to the stylus, the task improved the manual compli-
ance control and prospective control of a stylus which have a positive impact on
the drawing and handwriting. There are some haptic devices like Phantom Omni,
Touch, and Touch X which have the ability to provide real-time tactile and kines-
thetic feedback and guidance. The haptic device can improve the independency of
pupils with dyslexia.
In the deployment stage, these approaches are utilized in the form of different
learning and teaching-based activities as discussed in the individual study section.
The most commonly used activities are alphabet puzzles, repetition of the rhyme,
selection of phonemes among pictures, drawing the shape of grapheme with the fin-
ger, and word tracing. Performing these activities, pupils with dyslexia need feed-
back on their performance and also guidance to improve their learning. The learn-
ing feedback and guidance provided to pupils with dyslexia during these activities
are based on visual, auditory, kinesthetic, and tactile modalities as shown in Fig. 9.
The non-technological and apps/games approaches provided feedback and guidance
in the form of visual and auditory but haptics used kinesthetic and tactile only as
feedback. Using different modalities, approaches, activities, guidance, and feedback
provides different levels of interventions for the learning and teaching of pupils with
dyslexia.
In regards to general directions for the design and implementation of interventions,
it is recommended to try to evoke all the VAKT processing areas in the brain because
pupils with dyslexia have difficulty processing data. The multisensory approach
works better to evoke the different areas of the brain. Some researchers used all these
modalities VAKT which are implemented in different modules which is a very slow
teaching style and also very difficult for instructors. So a recommended intervention
is to introduce all modalities of VAKT in one module. According to studies, when
students were given the proper support at the correct moment in the form of feedback
and guidance, their learning was boosted (Ajjawi et al., 2022; Lodge et al., 2018).
The complicated relationship between the design and the promptness of feedback,
guidance, and assistance given to students during the learning activity or task is the
cause of the challenges experienced by learners in any content (Lodge et al., 2018).
One another recommendation as mentioned in Table 11 and Fig. 10 is to introduce
the haptic technology for the implementation of recommended intervention because
haptics with the combination of apps/games can provide visual, auditory, tactile, and
kinesthetic feedback and guidance in real time which is still not provided by the apps/
games and non-technological interventions individually.
Researchers working with dyslexic pupils face several challenges that can have an
impact on the research process. Firstly, finding a sufficient number of willing partici-
pants among the dyslexic student population is difficult. Researchers must actively
seek out participants and ensure their willingness to participate in the study, which is
taking time and demand extensive outreach efforts. The lack of resources is a major

13
Education and Information Technologies

Fig. 10  Recommended multi-sensory modalities, feedback, and guidance-based learning intervention for
pupils with Dyslexia

obstacle. To carry out their studies successfully, researchers frequently need spe-
cialized assessment equipment, technological resources, or funding. These resources
are not readily available and accessible, which may present challenges and limit the
scope of the research and affect the accuracy of the results. In research involving
dyslexic students, ethical considerations are also very important. The ethical conduct
of studies must be ensured by researchers, who must also obtain informed consent,
maintain participant confidentiality, and protect participants’ welfare throughout the
research process. It takes serious planning and consideration to follow these ethical
standards. Dyslexic students have trouble focusing and paying attention, especially
when conventional teaching methods are used, making it difficult to involve them in
the learning process. To create a stimulating and welcoming learning environment
that encourages the interest and attention of dyslexic students, educators should
investigate advanced instructional approaches that incorporate technology, interac-
tive activities, and multisensory techniques.
While our SLR on dyslexic learning interventions offers valuable insights, it is
important to acknowledge several limitations. Firstly, we excluded articles related
to the diagnosis of pupils with dyslexia, potentially missing crucial perspectives
and insights related to the diagnostic process. Secondly, our scope focused solely
on learning interventions, neglecting other domains affected by dyslexia. Thirdly,
there is a possibility of publication bias, as studies with statistically significant or
positive results may have a higher chance of being published. Moreover, our review
had a time constraint, potentially excluding more recent studies and developments.
Lastly, our study was limited to English-language publications, potentially intro-
ducing a language bias. Recognizing these limitations provides avenues for future
research to address these gaps and enhance our understanding of dyslexic learning
interventions.

13
 Education and Information Technologies

6 Conclusion

In conclusion, our review aimed to present an overview of the current state of inter-
ventions for pupils with dyslexia, considering both non-technological and techno-
logical approaches. Through an extensive search of various databases, we classi-
fied relevant studies into different learning intervention categories, with a particular
focus on multisensory techniques. Our analysis revealed that haptic-based interven-
tions, supplemented with apps or games that engage multiple senses simultaneously,
represent the most recent and promising development in this field.
Furthermore, we identified the importance of feedback and guidance systems in
each category of intervention. Although multisensory approaches are commonly uti-
lized in dyslexic learning interventions, our findings indicate that they alone may
not be sufficient in assisting these pupils. Therefore, understanding how these mul-
tisensory approaches can provide effective feedback and guidance is crucial for the
development of more impactful interventions.
The results of this study have implications for researchers and developers work-
ing on dyslexic learning interventions. By leveraging insights from advanced inter-
ventions and the latest research, these professionals can incorporate more effective
strategies and technologies into their work. However, it is important to acknowledge
the limitations of this SLR. Specifically, we excluded articles related to the diagno-
sis of pupils with dyslexia, which warrants a separate in-depth review to gain new
insights into learning interventions. Additionally, a more comprehensive examina-
tion of brain processing in relation to multisensory approaches may uncover valu-
able information for enhancing dyslexia learning interventions.
Future work in this field should focus on addressing the limitations identified
in our review and expanding our understanding of dyslexic learning interven-
tions. Firstly, conducting an in-depth review of pupils with dyslexia diagnosis
approaches would provide valuable insights into tailoring interventions to specific
needs. Understanding the relationship between diagnostic processes and interven-
tion outcomes can help inform more effective and targeted interventions. Sec-
ondly, further research is needed to explore the impact of multisensory approaches
on brain processing in dyslexic individuals. Investigating the underlying neural
mechanisms involved in multisensory interventions can provide a deeper under-
standing of how these approaches facilitate learning and guide the development
of more effective interventions. Additionally, future studies should aim to incor-
porate diverse populations and languages to overcome the limitations of language
bias and expand the generalizability of findings. Lastly, longitudinal studies exam-
ining the long-term effectiveness and sustainability of dyslexic learning interven-
tions are needed to assess their impact over time and guide the development of
evidence-based practices. By addressing these future research directions, we can
advance the field of dyslexic learning interventions and provide better support for
individuals with dyslexia.

13
Education and Information Technologies

Appendix

Table 12

Table 12  List of abbreviations S.No Abbreviation Description

and acronyms
1 VAKT Visual, Auditory, Kinesthetic, and Tactile
2 PRISMA Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic
Reviews and Meta-Analyses
3 RQs Research Questions
4 SLR Systematic literature Review
5 STS Superior Temporal Sulcus
6 ICT Information and Communications Technology
7 VTM Visual Tracking Magnifier
8 LDs Learning Disorders
9 DCD Developmental Coordination Disorder
10 TD Typically developing
11 3D Three Dimensional

Funding This work was supported by the Ministry of Higher Education Malaysia (MoHE) under Funda-
mental Research Grant Scheme (FRGS/1/2021/ICT03/UTAR/02/2).

Data availability Data sharing is not applicable to this article as no datasets were generated or analyzed
during the current study.

Declarations
Conflicts of interest There are no relevant conflicts of interest to mention.

Human and animal rights There is no involvement of human participants and animals.

References
Ajjawi, R., Kent, F., Broadbent, J., Tai, J.H.-M., Bearman, M., & Boud, D. (2022). Feedback that
works: A realist review of feedback interventions for written tasks. Studies in Higher Education,
47(7), 1343–1356.
Am Faleel, S., Joshi, B. R., & Rey, B. (2021). Writely: Force feedback for non-dominant hand writ-
ing training. 2021 IEEE World Haptics Conference (WHC). https://​doi.​org/​10.​1109/​WHC49​131.​
2021.​95172​09
Ansari, S., Banerjee, H., Guha, R., & Mukhopadhyay, J. (2020). Improving the readability of dyslexic
learners with mobile game-based sight-word training. 2020 IEEE 20th International Conference
on Advanced Learning Technologies (ICALT). https://​doi.​org/​10.​1109/​ICALT​49669.​2020.​00093

13
 Education and Information Technologies

Ariastuti, M. D., & Wahyudin, A. Y. (2022). Exploring academic performance and learning style of
undergraduate students in English Education program. Journal of English Language Teaching
and Learning, 3(1), 67–73. https://​doi.​org/​10.​33365/​jeltl.​v3i1.​1817
Behrman, J., Briones, K., Cueto, S., Favara, M., Freund, R., Hittmeyer, A., Lopez, J., Pazos Navarro,
N., Sánchez, A., & Scott, D. (2022). Measuring foundational cognitive skills in Young Lives
using RACER. Young Lives Technical Note, 54. https://​doi.​org/​10.​2307/j.​ctvkj​b390.​15
Bertoni, S., Franceschini, S., Puccio, G., Mancarella, M., Gori, S., & Facoetti, A. (2021). Action
video games enhance attentional control and phonological decoding in children with develop-
mental dyslexia. Brain Sciences, 11(2), 171. https://​doi.​org/​10.​3390/​brain​sci11​020171
Bigueras, R. T., Arispe, M. C. A., Torio, J. O., & Maligat Jr, D. E. (2020). Mobile game-based learning to
enhance the reading performance of dyslexic children. International Journal, 9(1.3). https://​doi.​org/​
10.​30534/​ijatc​se/​2020/​5191.​32020
Bingham, G. P., & Snapp-Childs, W. (2019). Training children aged 5–10 years in manual compliance
control to improve drawing and handwriting. Human Movement Science, 65, 42–50. https://​doi.​org/​
10.​1016/j.​humov.​2018.​04.​002
Bonetti, L., Haumann, N., Brattico, E., Kliuchko, M., Vuust, P., Särkämö, T., & Näätänen, R. (2018).
Auditory sensory memory and working memory skills: Association between frontal MMN and per-
formance scores. Brain Research, 1700, 86–98. https://​doi.​org/​10.​1016/j.​brain​res.​2018.​06.​034
Brennan, A., Mcdonagh, T., Dempsey, M., & Mcavoy, J. (2022). Cosmic Sounds: A game to support Pho-
nological Awareness skills for children with Dyslexia. IEEE Transactions on Learning Technolo-
gies. https://​doi.​org/​10.​1109/​tlt.​2022.​31702​31
Cancer, A., Sarti, D., De Salvatore, M., Granocchio, E., Chieffo, D. P. R., & Antonietti, A. (2021). Dys-
lexia telerehabilitation during the COVID-19 pandemic: Results of a rhythm-based intervention for
reading. Children, 8(11), 1011. https://​doi.​org/​10.​3390/​child​ren81​11011
Cavalli, E., Colé, P., Brèthes, H., Lefevre, E., Lascombe, S., & Velay, J.-L. (2019). E-book reading hin-
ders aspects of long-text comprehension for adults with dyslexia. Annals of Dyslexia, 69(2), 243–
259. https://​doi.​org/​10.​1007/​s11881-​019-​00182-w
Denton, C. A., Montroy, J. J., Zucker, T. A., & Cannon, G. (2021). Designing an intervention in reading
and self-regulation for students with significant reading difficulties, including dyslexia. Learning
Disability Quarterly, 44(3), 170–182. https://​doi.​org/​10.​1177/​07319​48719​899479
Dias da Silva, M. R., & Postma, M. (2022). Straying off course: The negative impact of mind wander-
ing on fine motor movements. Journal of Motor Behavior, 54(2), 186–202. https://​doi.​org/​10.​1080/​
00222​895.​2021.​19370​32
Elbaggari, H., Guerra, R., Knappe, S., & Regimbal, J. (2021). Crescendo: Haptic Exploration of Scores
for Novice Musicians with Dyslexia. 2021 IEEE World Haptics Conference (WHC). https://​doi.​org/​
10.​1109/​WHC49​131.​2021.​95172​05
Eroğlu, G., Teber, S., Ertürk, K., Kırmızı, M., Ekici, B., Arman, F., Balcisoy, S., Özcan, Y. Z., & Çetin,
M. (2022). A mobile app that uses neurofeedback and multi-sensory learning methods improves
reading abilities in dyslexia: A pilot study. Applied Neuropsychology: Child, 11(3), 518–528. https://​
doi.​org/​10.​1080/​21622​965.​2021.​19088​97
Fazmina, A. F., Jazeel, A., Saravanakumar, A., Devi, K. P., & Ponniah, K. (2020). Enhancing the attain-
ment of students with dyslexia in science through multisensory instructional strategies. Journal of
Xidian University, (6), 1812–1818. https://​doi.​org/​10.​37896/​jxu14.6/​216
Ferraz, E., dos Santos Gonçalves, T., Freire, T., de Lima Ferreira Mattar, T., Lamônica, D. A. C., Maxi-
mino, L. P., & Crenitte, P. A. P. (2018). Effects of a Phonological Reading and Writing Remediation
Program in students with dyslexia: intervention for specific learning disabilities. Folia Phoniatrica
et Logopaedica, 70, 59–73. https://​doi.​org/​10.​1159/​00048​9091
Franceschini, S., & Bertoni, S. (2019). Improving action video games abilities increases the phonological
decoding speed and phonological short-term memory in children with developmental dyslexia. Neu-
ropsychologia, 130, 100–106. https://​doi.​org/​10.​1016/j.​neuro​psych​ologia.​2018.​10.​023
Fugate, J. M., Macrine, S. L., & Cipriano, C. (2019). The role of embodied cognition for transforming
learning. International Journal of School & Educational Psychology, 7(4), 274–288. https://​doi.​org/​
10.​1080/​21683​603.​2018.​14438​56
Gong, X., & Zhu, R. (2019). Cognitive abilities, non-cognitive skills, and gambling behaviors. Journal of
Economic Behavior & Organization, 165, 51–69. https://​doi.​org/​10.​1016/j.​jebo.​2019.​06.​016
Hanif, S., Achmad, L., Madjdi, H., & Utom, S. (2019). The Vakt model-based on psycholinguistic review
for overcoming Dyslexia children. CONECT 2019: Proceeding of the 2nd International Conference
Education Culture and Technology, ICONECT. https://​doi.​org/​10.​4108/​eai.​20-8-​2019.​22881​33

13
Education and Information Technologies

Hebert, M., Kearns, D. M., Hayes, J. B., Bazis, P., & Cooper, S. (2018). Why children with dyslexia
struggle with writing and how to help them. Language, Speech, and Hearing Services in Schools,
49(4), 843–863. https://​doi.​org/​10.​1044/​2018_​lshss-​dyslc-​18-​0024
Helland, T., Morken, F., Bless, J. J., Valderhaug, H. V., Eiken, M., Helland, W. A., & Torkildsen, J. V.
(2018). Auditive training effects from a dichotic listening app in children with dyslexia. Dyslexia,
24(4), 336–356. https://​doi.​org/​10.​1002/​dys.​1600
(IDA), T. I. D. A. (Producer). (2020). Dyslexia basics. https://​dysle​xiaida.​org/​dysle​xia-​basics/. Accessed
22 Feb 2023
Islam, M. N., Hasan, U., Islam, F., Anuva, S. T., Zaki, T., & Islam, A. N. (2022). IoT-Based serious gam-
ing platform for improving cognitive skills of children with special needs. Journal of Educational
Computing Research, 07356331211067725. https://​doi.​org/​10.​1177/​07356​33121​10677​25
Johnston, V. (2019). Dyslexia: What reading teachers need to know. The Reading Teacher, 73(3), 339–
346. https://​doi.​org/​10.​1002/​trtr.​1830
Karpagavalli, S., Gripsy, J. V., & Nandhini, K. (2021). Speech assistive Tamil learning mobile applica-
tions for learning disability children. Materials Today: Proceedings. https://​doi.​org/​10.​1016/j.​matpr.​
2021.​01.​050
Kell, A. J., Yamins, D. L., Shook, E. N., Norman-Haignere, S. V., & McDermott, J. H. (2018). A task-
optimized neural network replicates human auditory behavior, predicts brain responses, and reveals
a cortical processing hierarchy. Neuron, 98(3), 630–644. e616. https://​doi.​org/​10.​1016/j.​neuron.​
2018.​03.​044
Kilroy, E., Aziz-Zadeh, L., & Cermak, S. (2019). Ayres theories of autism and sensory integration revis-
ited: What contemporary neuroscience has to say. Brain Sciences, 9(3), 68. https://​doi.​org/​10.​3390/​
brain​sci90​30068
Larco, A., Carrillo, J., Chicaiza, N., Yanez, C., & Luján-Mora, S. (2021). Moving beyond limitations:
Designing the helpdys app for children with dyslexia in rural areas. Sustainability, 13(13), 7081.
https://​doi.​org/​10.​3390/​su131​37081
Lee, L. W. (2021). The role of phonological processing in children from a national-type Chinese primary
school in Malaysia: Implications for dyslexia assessment. Australian Journal of Learning Difficul-
ties, 26(2), 167–178. https://​doi.​org/​10.​1080/​19404​158.​2021.​19950​14
Leloup, G., Anders, R., Charlet, V., Eula-Fantozzi, B., Fossoud, C., & Cavalli, E. (2021). Improving read-
ing skills in children with dyslexia: Efficacy studies on a newly proposed remedial intervention—
Repeated reading with vocal music masking (RVM). Annals of Dyslexia, 71(1), 60–83. https://​doi.​
org/​10.​1007/​s11881-​021-​00222-4
Liberati, A., Altman, D. G., Tetzlaff, J., Mulrow, C., Gøtzsche, P. C., Ioannidis, J. P., Clarke, M., Devereaux,
P. J., Kleijnen, J., & Moher, D. (2009). The PRISMA statement for reporting systematic reviews and
meta-analyses of studies that evaluate health care interventions: Explanation and elaboration. Journal
of Clinical Epidemiology, 62(10), e1–e34. https://​doi.​org/​10.​1016/j.​jclin​epi.​2009.​06.​006
Liu, O. P., Tee, O. P., Loy, N. K., & Hoon, O. P. (2021). ‘I want to go to school but…’ The case of the
Penan and Orang Asli Children of Malaysia. https://​doi.​org/​10.​4108/​eai.​17-7-​2019.​23033​83
Lodge, J. M., Kennedy, G., Lockyer, L., Arguel, A., & Pachman, M. (2018). Understanding difficulties
and resulting confusion in learning: an integrative review. Frontiers in Education. https://​doi.​org/​10.​
3389/​feduc.​2018.​00049
Łuniewska, M., Wójcik, M., & Jednoróg, K. (2022). The effect of inter-letter spacing on reading perfor-
mance and eye movements in typically reading and dyslexic children. Learning and Instruction, 80,
101576. https://​doi.​org/​10.​1016/j.​learn​instr​uc.​2021.​101576
Maculada, R. E. P., Caballero, A. R., Villarin, C. G., & Albina, E. M. (2023). FUNologo: An android-
based mobile virtual reality assisted learning with speech recognition using diamond-square algo-
rithm for children with phonological dyslexia. 2023 8th International Conference on Business and
Industrial Research (ICBIR). https://​doi.​org/​10.​1109/​ICBIR​57571.​2023.​10147​727
Martínez-García, C., Afonso, O., Cuetos, F., & Suárez-Coalla, P. (2021). Handwriting production in
Spanish children with dyslexia: Spelling or motor difficulties? Reading and Writing, 34(3), 565–
593. https://​doi.​org/​10.​1007/​s11145-​020-​10082-w
Mehringer, H., Fraga-González, G., Pleisch, G., Röthlisberger, M., Aepli, F., Keller, V., Karipidis,
I. I., & Brem, S. (2020). (Swiss) GraphoLearn: An app-based tool to support beginning readers.
Research and Practice in Technology Enhanced Learning, 15(1), 1–21. https://​doi.​org/​10.​1186/​
s41039-​020-​0125-0
Millard, L., Breukelman, G. J., Mathe, N., Shaw, I., & Shaw, B. S. (n.d.). A review of the essential visual
skills required for soccer: Beyond–optometry. https://​doi.​org/​10.​3389/​fspor.​2022.​965195

13
 Education and Information Technologies

Mills, J. R. (2018). Effective multi-sensory strategies for students with dyslexia. Kappa Delta Pi Record,
54(1), 36–40. https://​doi.​org/​10.​1080/​00228​958.​2018.​14071​81
Minoofam, S. A. H., Bastanfard, A., & Keyvanpour, M. R. (2022). RALF: an adaptive reinforcement
learning framework for teaching dyslexic students. Multimedia Tools and Applications, 1–24.
https://​doi.​org/​10.​1007/​s11042-​021-​11806-y
Moher, D., Liberati, A., Tetzlaff, J., Altman, D. G., Group, P. (2009). Preferred reporting items for
systematic reviews and meta-analyses: the PRISMA statement. Annals of internal medicine,
151(4), 264–269. https://​doi.​org/​10.​7326/​0003-​4819-​151-4-​20090​8180-​00135
Mollajani, R., Taghavi, S. S., Hosseini, A. F., Farhadi, M., Jameie, M., Jameie, M., & Jameie, S. B.
(2019). Simultaneous use of sensory stimulation and motor exercise improves the manual skills
of educable children with mental retardation at preprimary and primary school levels. Medical
journal of the Islamic Republic of Iran, 33, 148. https://​doi.​org/​10.​47176/​mjiri.​33.​148
Montero-SaizAja, A. (2022). The Effect of Multimodal Learning Preferences on Two English Instruc-
tional Programs. In Intercultural communication and ubiquitous learning in multimodal english
language education (pp. 205–225). IGI Global. https://​doi.​org/​10.​4018/​978-1-​7998-​8852-9.​ch010
Newman, I. (2019). When saying ‘go read it again’won’t work: Multisensory ideas for more inclusive teach-
ing & learning. Nurse Education in Practice, 34, 12–16. https://​doi.​org/​10.​1016/j.​nepr.​2018.​10.​007
Ngong, A. A. (2019). Effectiveness of multisensory learning approach in teaching reading to pupils
with dyslexia in ordinary primary schools in Bamenda III Sub Division, Mezam Division, of The
North West Region of Cameroon. International A. Unique Paper ID IJTSRD26560.
Nguyen, B. N., Kolbe, S. C., Verghese, A., Nearchou, C., McKendrick, A. M., Egan, G. F., & Vidyasagar,
T. R. (2021). Visual search efficiency and functional visual cortical size in children with and without
dyslexia. Neuropsychologia, 155, 107819. https://​doi.​org/​10.​1016/j.​neuro​psych​ologia.​2021.​107819
Novembli, M. S., & Azizah, N. (2019). Mobile learning in improving reading ability dyslexia: A system-
atic literature review. International Conference on Special and Inclusive Education (ICSIE 2018).
https://​doi.​org/​10.​2991/​icsie-​18.​2019.​41
Omar, R., Buari, N. H., Majumder, C., & Knight, V. F. (2021). Comparison of visual aids for improv-
ing reading performance in children with dyslexia. Medical Hypothesis, Discovery & Innovation in
Optometry, 2(2), 85–93. https://​doi.​org/​10.​51329/​mehdi​optom​etry1​30
Park, W., Korres, G., Moonesinghe, T., & Eid, M. (2019). Investigating haptic guidance methods for
teaching children handwriting skills. IEEE Transactions on Haptics, 12(4), 461–469. https://​doi.​org/​
10.​1109/​toh.​2019.​29222​84
Park, W., Babushkin, V., Tahir, S., & Eid, M. (2021). Haptic guidance to support handwriting for children
with cognitive and fine motor delays. IEEE Transactions on Haptics, 14(3), 626–634. https://​doi.​
org/​10.​1109/​toh.​2021.​30687​86
Rahim, R. A. (2021). A hermeneutic approach utilising interactive visual communication to enhance
speech and spelling for dyslexic children in malaysia primary schools. Environment-Behaviour Pro-
ceedings Journal, 6(SI4), 3–8. https://​doi.​org/​10.​21834/​ebpj.​v6isi4.​2894
Rahmatullah, A. S., Mulyasa, E., Syahrani, S., Pongpalilu, F., & Putri, R. E. (2022). Digital era 4.0: The
contribution to education and student psychology. Linguistics and Culture Review, 6(S3), 89–107.
https://​doi.​org/​10.​21744/​lingc​ure.​v6ns3.​2064
Redcay, J. (2023). Ludus reading and RoboKind™ robots increase early literacy rates. https://​doi.​org/​10.​
5772/​intec​hopen.​110603
Romero, Y. (2020). Lazy or dyslexic: A multisensory approach to face english language learning difficul-
ties. English Language Teaching, 13(5), 34–48. https://​doi.​org/​10.​5539/​elt.​v13n5​p34
Russell-Chapin, L. A., Pacheco, N. C., & DeFord, J. A. (2020). Practical neurocounseling: Connecting
brain functions to real therapy interventions. Routledge. https://​doi.​org/​10.​4324/​97803​67824​402
Saputra, M. R. U., Alfarozi, S. A. I., & Nugroho, K. A. (2018). LexiPal: Kinect-based application for
dyslexia using multisensory approach and natural user interface. International Journal of Computer
Applications in Technology, 57(4), 334–342. https://​doi.​org/​10.​1504/​ijcat.​2018.​10014​728
Shan, L., Liu, Y., Zhang, X., Li, E., Yu, R., Lian, Q., Chen, X., Chen, H., & Guo, T. (2021). Bioinspired
kinesthetic system for human-machine interaction. Nano Energy, 88, 106283. https://​doi.​org/​10.​
1016/j.​nanoen.​2021.​106283
Stamm, M., Francetic, K., Reilly, R., Tharp, A., Thompson, N., & Weidenhamer, R. (2021). Kinesthetic
learners during the COVID-19 pandemic: Occupational therapy students’ perspective on e-learning.
Journal of Occupational Therapy Education, 5(2), 3. https://​doi.​org/​10.​26681/​jote.​2021.​050203
Tzenios, N. (2020). Clustering students for personalized health education based on learning styles. Sage
Science Review of Educational Technology, 3(1), 22–36.

13
Education and Information Technologies

Van der Kleij, S., Segers, E., Groen, M., & Verhoeven, L. (2019). Post-treatment reading development in
children with dyslexia: The challenge remains. Annals of Dyslexia, 69(3), 279–296. https://​doi.​org/​
10.​1007/​s11881-​019-​00186-6
Van Reybroeck, M., & Michiels, N. (2018). Finger-writing intervention impacts the spelling and hand-
writing skills of children with developmental language disorder: A multiple single-case study. Read-
ing and Writing, 31(6), 1319–1341. https://​doi.​org/​10.​1007/​s11145-​018-​9845-6
Van Rijthoven, R., Kleemans, T., Segers, E., & Verhoeven, L. (2021a). Response to phonics through
spelling intervention in children with dyslexia. Reading & Writing Quarterly, 37(1), 17–31. https://​
doi.​org/​10.​1007/​s11881-​021-​00233-1
van Rijthoven, R., Kleemans, T., Segers, E., & Verhoeven, L. (2021b). Semantics impacts response to
phonics through spelling intervention in children with dyslexia. Annals of Dyslexia, 71(3), 527–546.
https://​doi.​org/​10.​1007/​s11881-​021-​00233-1
Wan Norudin, S. W. A., & Baba, S. (2018). Literacy difficulties of Dyslexic students in Bahasa Malaysia:
a case study in Kelantan. INSANIAH: Online Journal of Language, Communication, and Humani-
ties, 1(2), 9–24.
Wang, L.-C., Liu, D., & Xu, Z. (2019). Distinct effects of visual and auditory temporal processing train-
ing on reading and reading-related abilities in Chinese children with dyslexia. Annals of Dyslexia,
69(2), 166–185. https://​doi.​org/​10.​1007/​s11881-​019-​00176-8
Yoon, W., & Kwon, S. (2022). The impact of technological and non-technological innovative activities on
technological competitiveness. Journal of the Knowledge Economy, 1–19. https://​doi.​org/​10.​1007/​
s13132-​021-​00868-w
Yu, F., Cai, J. C., Zhu, L. Q., Sheikhi, M., Zeng, Y. H., Guo, W., Ren, Z. Y., Xiao, H., Ye, J. C., & Lin,
C.-H. (2020). Artificial tactile perceptual neuron with nociceptive and pressure decoding abilities.
ACS Applied Materials & Interfaces, 12(23), 26258–26266. https://​doi.​org/​10.​1021/​acsami.​0c047​
18.​s001
Yuzaidey, N. A. M., Din, N. C., Ahmad, M., Ibrahim, N., Razak, R. A., & Harun, D. (2018). Interven-
tions for children with dyslexia: A review on current intervention methods. Medical Journal of
Malaysia, 73(5), 311.
Zemková, E. (2022). Cognition and motion: Sensory processing and motor skill performance in athletic
training and rehabilitation, 12, 10345. MDPI. https://​doi.​org/​10.​3390/​app12​20103​45
Ziadat, A. H. (2021). The impact of using VAKT strategy on oral reading and reading comprehension
skills of elementary students with dyslexia. International Journal of Learning, Teaching and Educa-
tional Research, 20(2), 121–136. https://​doi.​org/​10.​26803/​ijlter.​20.2.7

Publisher’s Note Springer Nature remains neutral with regard to jurisdictional claims in published maps
and institutional affiliations.

Springer Nature or its licensor (e.g. a society or other partner) holds exclusive rights to this article under
a publishing agreement with the author(s) or other rightsholder(s); author self-archiving of the accepted
manuscript version of this article is solely governed by the terms of such publishing agreement and
applicable law.

13