The Efficacy of iPads in Early Childhood Education; A Systematic Review and Meta-Analysis

The Efficacy of iPads in Early Childhood Education; A Systematic Review and Meta-Analysis | Research Square window.SnipcartSettings = { analytics: { enabled: false } }; (function() { var accessVector = localStorage.getItem('access_vector') || ''; window.dataLayer = window.dataLayer || []; if (accessVector) { window.dataLayer.push({ user: { profile: { profileInfo: { snid: accessVector } } } }); } })(); (function(w,d,s,l,i){w[l]=w[l]||[];w[l].push({'gtm.start':new Date().getTime(),event:'gtm.js'});var f=d.getElementsByTagName(s)[0],j=d.createElement(s),dl=l!='dataLayer'?'&l='+l:'';j.async=true;j.src='https://www.googletagmanager.com/gtm.js?id='+i+dl;f.parentNode.insertBefore(j,f);})(window,document,'script','dataLayer','GTM-K279D39R'); Browse Preprints In Review Journals COVID-19 Preprints AJE Video Bytes Research Tools Research Promotion AJE Professional Editing AJE Rubriq About Preprint Platform In Review Editorial Policies Our Team Advisory Board Help Center Sign In Submit a Preprint Cite Share Download PDF Research Article The Efficacy of iPads in Early Childhood Education; A Systematic Review and Meta-Analysis Mohammad Ahmad Abdelaziz Al-Zu’bi, Maher Tayseer Sharadgah, Mohammad Suliman Al Shaar, and 7 more This is a preprint; it has not been peer reviewed by a journal. https://doi.org/ 10.21203/rs.3.rs-5639542/v1 This work is licensed under a CC BY 4.0 License Status: Posted Version 1 posted You are reading this latest preprint version Abstract Primary education is complex and multifaceted. The grades in early childhood education are significant for the children to acquire foundational language, literacy and math skills. Children learn at this stage to communicate through vibrant ways of interaction that are both verbal and non-verbal. To enhance learning, educators are using technology purposefully. The current study has dealt with one of the tools, the iPad, that educators use as a literacy teaching tool in early childhood. The study aims to analyse the efficacy or usefulness of iPads. Data for the study is extracted from the past literature from 2010-2020, and the systematic review and meta-analysis strategy was adopted for the analysis. The result from the systemic review of 36 articles and meta-analysis of 18 articles suggests that iPads seem to be effective in forging critical skills and learning the language. However, integrating iPads and other technologies demand an appropriate classification of technology-based learning in early childhood. Early Childhood iPads Systematic Review Meta-Analysis Figures Figure 1 Figure 2 Figure 3 Figure 4 Figure 5 1. INTRODUCTION This is the era of all-pervading Information Technology and educational technology needs to leverage it as an opportunity. Educational tools need to be revised so that students may be qualified for the current environment. Nowadays, iPad is one such tool prevalent in all education stages, including kindergartens [ 1 ] However, the assessment of effectiveness of educational technology tools, including the iPad, are inconsistent [ 2 , 3 , 4 ], and their utility in educational technology tools is uncertain. Pertaining to the iPad, there are several factors that influence its effectiveness as a new technology educational tool. Some factors create difficulties for the iPad tool, such as social contact, academic competencies, technical abilities, learners' motivation, study time and support, and technical problems [ 5 , 6 ]. Other factors could lead to an improper design and arrangement of the educational material and content of apps using an iPad tool [ 7 ]. Consequently, efficient analysis of the iPad tool in education should be comprehensive and thoroughly investigate its utilisation across all aspects such as effectiveness, teaching methods, educational tools, and learning results [ 8 , 9 ]. Although early childhood learning environments are increasingly supported by digital devices, including laptops and iPads, recent work has only examined the effects of these devices on select skills, including literacy and numeracy, without examining the overall effects on children's cognitive, social, and emotional development. There is also a gap in the results from the studies in the past that compared devices to teacher-led instruction. This highlights the requirement of a systematic review and meta-analysis to develop a more complete understanding. In conclusion, this study attempts to fill this gap and summarize the literature on the effect of laptops in early childhood education to provide a better understanding of the overall effect, and offer evidence-based recommendations to educational and other policymakers. 1.2 The present study The current study aimed to systematically review and meta-analyse the effectiveness of iPad apps as an educational technology tool, as also in a range of children's outcomes in kindergarten (e.g., children's academic, socioemotional, or physical outcomes) [ 10 ]. The authors systematically reviewed the quantitative evidence in literature about the iPad apps' effectiveness. Where possible, in terms of the availability of sufficiently similar studies, the author carried out meta-analyses to quantify the degree of effectiveness of iPad apps as an educational technology tool, and in a range of children's outcomes in kindergarten [ 11 ]. A systematic review employs a very particular and planned strategy to identify, assess and synthesise all empirical data on specific research subjects. The findings are searched, selected and presented based on prescribed eligibility criteria and a systematic methodology [ 12 ]. It is significantly greater than a conventional literary assessment and more intense. A meta-analysis synthesises a wide range of literature with the outcomes of selected research, as data for a new quantitative analysis. Aggregating research-wide empirical data strengthens power (over individual studies) and improves impact estimates. Informing future research, policymaking, and development is incredibly useful [ 13 ]. An additional aim of this study was to examine whether the effectiveness of iPad as an educational technology tool, and in a range of children's outcomes in kindergarten, varied depending on the following moderators identified as necessary in the literature: Operationalisation of children's age (continuous vs categorical) Number of participants. Number of participants in each group Type of statistical analysis such as ANOVA, ANCOVA, t-Test, etc. Year of publication of studies. Since the iPad appeared in 2010, the educational landscape has changed dramatically over the recent decade in which studies have been published in this area. The duration of the study. Number of sessions per week/month. Study findings (significant vs nonsignificant). Type of use: individual or group The material in which it is made. All materials or a specific material Mechanism of use. Individually or via admin The level of use is educational or recreational 2. METHODOLOGY The study followed the preferred reporting items for systematic reviews and meta-analyses (PRISMA), followed by guidelines and recommendations from the Cochrane Handbook. Further, because no human participants were involved, there were no requirements for the ethical review of this study. Besides, the study was applied through 7 steps: (1) Search strategy; (2) Eligibility criteria; (3) Selection strategy; (4) Data extraction; (5) Systematic Review; (6) Meta-analyses; (7) Assessment of biases among included studies. Further, the study population was all studies that addressed children aged 4–6 years (kindergartens). This theoretical approach to the study was already appropriate for synthesizing the existing direct evidence for the effectiveness of iPads in early childhood education. It offered a strategic convergence of varying results across various studies. If done appropriately, systematic reviews structure data collection and appraisal so they may be wholesome in drawing an overview that individual studies may not offer. Meta-analysis often quantifies overall effects and presents robust statistical information. Since early childhood education increasingly develops with the incorporation of iPads, this would help evaluate evidence-based effects on early literacy and cognitive skills. Other methodologies, such as narratives reviews, do not have the rigor and replicable methodologies that provide general conclusions. The study adhered to PRISMA guidelines and complied with best practices specified in the Cochrane Handbook. The review was conducted in this order: (1) Search strategy: study retrieval from various abstracting and indexing services, such as ProQuest, Medline, EBSCO, and ERIC, using predetermined keywords that were combined with several Boolean operators; (2) Eligibility criteria: restriction to studies dealing with children aged 4–6 years and attending formal education; (3) Selection strategy: a two-stage screening process in which studies were included only if they were peer-reviewed, empirical works with clearly defined research methodologies; (4) Data extraction: recording of key variables such as sample characteristics, intervention characteristics, outcome measures, and statistical findings; (5) Systematic review, with qualitative summation of trends in study outcomes; (6) Meta-analysis: statistical approaches to evaluation of overall effect size; and (7) Assessment of biases: publication bias, study heterogeneity, and methodological quality of the study. 2.1 Search strategy . All electronic databases (e.g., ProQuest, Medline, EBSCO, and ERIC) were chosen for this systematic review and meta-analysis because of their extensive coverage of peer-reviewed literature in education, healthcare, and social sciences. ProQuest and EBSCO provide access to a broad range of multidisciplinary research, whereas Medline focusses on studies related to health. ERIC serves as one of the main sources for teaching literature. The databases reviewed provide a comprehensive and representative assortment of studies published during a time frame of a decade-from 2010, with the launch of the iPad, until December 2020. The time for literature review has ranged from 2010 to 2020 to cover one complete decade of research after the launch of the iPad in 2010, an event that served towards growth in the usage of digital technologies in education. This grants sufficient time to draw insights into the first adoption, developments, and impacts of AI related technologies in educational and administrative contexts. The limitation of this review to articles that were published up to 2020 should preserved a level of consistency with methodologies and incorporation of established findings, which had undergone due peer review while the field was still evolving. Furthermore, systematic review and meta-analysis rely on fixed data sets to formulate acceptable quality judgments. This minimizes the relative chances of introducing dangers related to preliminary or developing trends in the research. Further studies are envisaged to take this forward and log the happenings on AI applications in that time. This study included an international approach to search all studies around the world. Two different search tactics were utilised to discover qualifying papers to gather a full range of studies from this search. The first strategy targeted specific terms linked to iPad, applications, and kindergartens or pre-school. The second strategy was a global search that searched a considerable number of various quality metrics simultaneously, for example ‘experimental design with at least 20 participants’. The research collected a number of studies that show that there is significant interest in iPad applications in kindergartens, pre-school and early childhood, or in their utilisation as control variables when other quality indicators are addressed. The approach was to identify the relationships between iPad applications and a broad range of children results in childcare, pre-school or early childhood. It was a thorough strategy. 2.2 Eligibility criteria The present review focused on experimental design studies. Only those studies were included which concerned iPad apps as a new educational technology tool for children between 4–6 years. The studies also needed to address necessary academic, socioemotional, personal or physical outcomes for children. Only studies published works in English have been included because of resource constraints. 2.3 Selection strategy The titles and abstracts of all studies were screened for relevance. The relevant studies were moved to the complete review step. The review in this stage was to determine if all eligibility criteria for the current systematic review were met. A complete and systematic literature search was conducted using a combination of keywords and synonyms pertaining to iPads and early childhood education throughout the selected databases (ProQuest, Medline, EBSCO, and ERIC). The search terms were organised with Boolean operators (AND, OR) to optimise the retrieval of pertinent studies. The principal keywords and their synonyms comprised: IPad (tablets, touchscreen devices, digital tablets, mobile education) Early Childhood Education (preschool education, kindergarten, pre-K, nursery education, early years learning) Educational Efficacy (learning results, student involvement, instructional influence, academic performance) Integration of Technology (digital learning, educational technology, information and communication technology in education) Search filters were utilised to restrict findings to peer-reviewed papers published from 2010 to 2020, consistent with the study's timeline. Furthermore, non-English studies and duplicate records were omitted to uphold the methodological integrity of the systematic review and meta-analysis. 2.4 Data extraction In all the qualified studies, two independent reviewers extracted the information. Extracted data contained broad study descriptors (for example, number of children), descriptive statistics (for example, mean child years) and reporting inferential statistics (e.g., type of statistical analysis such as ANOVA, ANCOVA, t-Test, etc.). Discrepancies were relatively rare between data extractors, with a dialogue with the third examiner for resolving any discrepancies. Selection of Statistical Methods Statistical tests were chosen based on overall data type and analysis objectives. A t-test was used to evaluate the mean differences of two independent groups, specifically studies investigating iPad intervention types compared with more traditional learning methods. A t-test was a suitable test as it is a robust statistical test to evaluate differences associated with data with small to moderate sample sizes and a normal distribution. Additionally, we used ANOVA (Analysis of Variance) in studies where we evaluated means across groups and studies which evaluated the instructional strategy or “degree” of technology integration. ANOVA has the benefit of considering Type I error, as well as testing the means and variance across three or more conditions at once. This permits a more refined analysis of the influence of iPad use across different educational contexts. Through the use of the statistical techniques we chose, we ensured that our findings were extracted from proper and widely regarded inferential statistics, helping to lend to the rigor of our conclusions. Data Extraction and Inconsistency Resolution A data extraction process utilizing a two-step verification method was used to ensure accuracy and consistency of extracted data. Two independent reviewers extracted data from the chosen studies, as informed by established coding criteria, based on PRISMA and Cochrane Handbook guidelines. Any inconsistencies or differences noted during one or both of the reviewers were reconciled by each reviewer discussing their reported findings. If one or both reviewers could not reach a consensus, a third senior researcher was called in to mediate and determine a final resolution. This strategy helped to minimize subjective bias and thus increase the trustworthiness of the extracted data. The flow chart in Fig. 2 sets forth the basic guideline for arriving at the selected articles (18) for meta-analysis from the population of articles got from literature (144). Primarily, the 144 articles were selected based on their titles, out of which 126 were identified through the database using the title keywords, and the rest 18 were identified from the references and journals. Out of 144, only 36 were included for the review, and the rest of the articles were eliminated partly because of their lack of compatibility. These 36 articles were further pruned 18 articles for meta-analysis, because only they had sufficient data to extract effect size. The review of selected articles is presented in the next section. 2.5 Systematic review An informal vote-counting strategy [ 14 ] was used to perform the systematic review in this study. This strategy involved tallying significant results across the studies in the review. The following variables were considered as moderators to investigate whether the significance of the results was associated with any of them: (1) Operationalisation of children's age (continuous vs categorical); (2) number of participants; (3) number of participants in each group; (4) Year of publication of studies; (5) type of statistical analysis such as ANOVA, ANCOVA, t-Test, etcetera.; (6) the duration of the study; (7) number of sessions per week/month and (8) Study findings (significant vs nonsignificant). (9) Individual versus group use, (10) specific subject or all subjects, (11) self- or admin use, (12) educational or recreational use. Under the school-readiness conceptual framework [ 15 ] child results had been grouped in the following four fields: (1) learning approaches; (2) literacy; (3) cognition of Math & science, and (4) social and emotional behaviour (5) Critical thinking (6) Collaboration with colleagues in the systematic review field. The basis for grouping meta-analysis utilised specific conceptual measures like 2 or 3 or 4 groups, at least 20 participants, and so on. 2.6 Meta-analyses The findings of studies having the same theme of child outcome with iPad apps was aggregated. The minimal number needed to conduct these meta-analyses was three studies that contained the same child outcome theme [ 16 ]. Only studies that dealt with kindergarten children and iPad apps with experimental design were included. These studies needed to have employed covariate child scores in their analyses. When several samples from the same dataset were collected, only those studies with the most significant sample of children were selected. All the studies included had tested for Advanced statistical tests (e.g., ANOVA, ANCOVA, Repeated Measure ANOVA, & t-Test, etc.). Thus, the meta-analyses included the findings from advanced statistical tests solely. I2 was utilised to test heterogeneity in all meta-analyses in the results [ 17 ]. Low I2 levels indicate statistical harmony in research' conclusions. All the meta-analyses were conducted employing random effect models. The Comprehensive Meta-Analysis Version 3 statistical program conducted all meta-analyses [ 18 ]. 2.7 Assessment of biases among included studies Most of the studies included in the present review tested the effectiveness of the iPad as an educational tool among kindergarten children. Most studies were peer-reviewed, and many had substantial sample sizes. The impact factors for the journals in which studies were cited ranged from 1.052 (i.e., Early Childhood Education Journal) to 2.72 (i.e., Educational Technology & Society). 3. RESULTS Table 1 gives details of the 36 articles included for systematic review. The earliest experimental design of the use of iPad applications in teaching kindergarten children was published in 2011. Participants in all the included studies were kindergarten students of 4–5 years old. The students in the treatment groups received iPad applications that supported the effectiveness of iPad inside classrooms, literacy, maths, and cognitive psychology. Students in the control groups received conventional tutorials inside kindergarten classrooms. Table 1 Summary of Evaluation of Reflective Measurement Model Study Characteristics No. of Studies Percentage No. of Participants Percentage Study design Post-test-only, 2 groups 18 50% 1306 45.14% Post-test-only, 1 groups 10 28% 1163 40.2% Pre-test-post-test, 2 groups 5 14% 89 3.08% Pre-test-post-test, 1 group 3 8% 335 11.58% Total 40 100% 2893 100% Educational Topics Effectiveness of iPad inside classrooms 8 22% 1471 50.88% Literacy 18 50% 788 27.23% Maths 6 16.6% 354 12.23% cognitive psychology 4 11.4% 280 9.67% Total 40 100% 2893 100% Location US 24 67.5% 2069 71.5% Europe 5 12.5% 472 16.32% Asia 5 15% 279 9.64% Africa 2 5% 73 2.52% Total 40 100% 2893 100% After the type of designs assessment, four experimental designs were extracted from these 40 articles: Post-test-only, 2 groups (20 articles, 1306 participants); Post-test-only, 1 group (11 articles, 1163 participants); Pre-test-post-test, 2 groups (5 articles, 89 participants); Pre-test-post-test, 1 group (4 articles, 335 participants) see figure (3). The studies assessed the efficacy of iPad applications in several orthodontic educational areas, including the effectiveness of iPad inside classrooms (10 articles, 1471 participants); literacy (19 articles, 788 participants); maths (7 articles, 354 participants); cognitive psychology (4 articles, 280 participants) see figure (4). Further, the studies also assessed the efficacy of iPad applications in a group of places, including the US (27 articles, 2069 participants); Europe (5 articles, 472 participants); Asia (6 articles, 279 participants); Africa (2 article, 73 participants). Figures 3 and 4 represent graphically the number of studies and the number of participants across design, topics and location of the studies. These graphs help us understand the diversity of ways in which data is extracted on the usefulness of iPads. The selection of studies was not balanced on specific numbers for design, topic or location Fig. 3 shows that most of the studies are conducted in the US, others being Asia, Europe, and Africa. As far as the topics are concerned, the role of iPads in literacy is mainly analysed. And most studies were on the design of post test only for 2 groups. It must be recalled that iPads were introduced mainly from 2010. To understand the effectiveness of iPad on learning, there are no prior studies about learning that could be used for comparison. Hence experimental design became crucial for this purpose. Most scholars first introduced iPad in class for a treatment group and then, only through post-test, the data was extracted about iPad enhancing learning. In this way it was conclusively found that iPad increased the level of learning in the classroom. Figure 3 shows that the majority of studies were concentrated in America and Europe, with a smaller number in Asia and Africa, which indicates the need for further studies in developing regions. Also, the most common research designs were experimental studies, reflecting the interest in measuring the causal relationship between laptop use and educational outcomes in children. Figure 4 indicates how comprehensive the studies are in terms of the number of participating children. It can be noted that studies in America and Europe included larger samples compared to studies in Asia and Africa, which may reflect the availability of research resources or academic interest in the topic in these regions. Also, some research topics have witnessed the participation of a larger number of children, reflecting the importance of these topics in educational research. 4. EFFECTIVENESS Figure 5 (meta-analysis & cumulative effect sizes) shows comparison the effectiveness of iPad application interventions. Most reported improvements in the outcomes measured, but Miller (2018); Nolan (2016); Wei and Lee (2013) suggested the improvements were not significant in the intervention group. [ 19 , 20 , 21 ] There was significant heterogeneity between the studies. Summary of meta-analysis effects showed a trend in pre-schoolers towards improved literacy, maths, cognitive psychology and effectiveness of iPad inside classrooms. Al-Zu'bi et al. (2017) [ 22 ] found that the TCAM scores demonstrated that pre-school children in the experiment group (iPad applications) show more significant gains on creative thinking skills of fluency, originality and imagination. In addition, Zaranis and Valla (2017) [ 23 ] showed the positive effect of kindergarten children's mathematical competence after the implementation of a software application for counting and calculating with tablet computers. These results signal a possible connection between the development of early numeracy and the use of digital technologies within the learning process. However, it is worth noting, that results surrounding the impact of iPads in education are not entirely consistent. While Wario et al. (2016) [ 24 ] emphasized the importance of confidence and interest in iPad use as factors for students' perceptions of learning mediation, in a completely different context, PICARD et al. (2014) [ 25 ] suggested that teaching drawing with an iPad produced less performance than pen-and-paper equivalents. It raises the question of whether we can realistically represent digital tools as substitutes for traditional approaches in skill-based learning activities. Complexity increases when reflecting on studies related to literacy interventions. Motsch (2016) [ 26 ] reported an advantage when using an iPad for kindergarten students on letter-naming and letter-sound fluency but not for phoneme-segmentation fluency. This indicates iPad advantages may not be widespread but instead may depend on the skill being targeted. [ 26 ] For example, out of all of the general trends of variations showing positives, Nolan (2016) concluded that providing kindergartens with iPads and individual eSpark learning applications did not improve kindergarten-readiness skills. Moreover, Miller (2018) in a play-based learning landscape stated that while the technology improved collaboration and engagement, it did not show evidence of statistically significance improvement to student achievement for children in the play based learning. In summary, variability demonstrates iPads may support engagement and cognitive edge in some areas, the value added to academic performance is still consistent with previous studies. [ 19 , 20 ] 5. DISCUSSION To revolutionise education, the potential of iPads and other comparable tablets that appeared in 2010 have been heralded. iPads are multimodal, allowing the use of pictures, texts and sounds. Like many other tools being used in academia, iPads have the potential of making a positive difference in early education [ 27 ]. The studies from which data was extracted covered several methods, such as videotaping, pre-test and post-test, ANOVA and observation. Meta-analysis sets forth two schools of thought based on the use of iPads. One school compares the digital and paper book resources and matches the indigenous ways of teaching to the contemporary teachings. The other positions technology as the driving force in the educational sector [ 28 ]. Motsch (2016) [ 26 ] focused on the prior notion that digital texts have more potential to engage a broader range of the senses than non-digital books. The argument about fast learning through digital sources is based on the better visual-auditory senses, and the kinaesthetic and tactile senses. In this realm, learners are said to be engaged in activities more effectively and are motivated more when they are engaged in reading texts digitally than from traditional textbook reading [ 29 ] (Neumann et al., 2017). Additionally, text reading from the iPad allows the students to reach hyperlinks to the videos, games and relevant explanations of the text that make reading more exciting and help in motivating the students. Students with special needs were more benefited by using iPad for learning language. Their cognitive, motor and social senses were also more effective [ 30 ]. Students with ADHD were found to have longer attention spans in developing skills, and had positive attitudes about their learning [ 31 ] (Huang, Clark and Wedel, 2013). Flewitt, Messer, and Kucirkova (2015) [ 32 ] suggested that the student's ability to communicate increases with iPads and that even shy children tend to talk more. Their vocalisations and the use of vocabulary also increased in students with hearing impairments. Chmiliar (2017) [ 33 ] found that the students with special needs initially found using the iPads difficult, but they eventually learned and showed gains in multiple areas such as printing their names and tracing the letters, recognising letters, letter sounds and the learning of simple words. Overall learning of these students was improved with iPad. For this reason, The Individuals with Disabilities Act (IDEA) in 1997 introduced assistive technology to increase, maintain and improve the students' capability [ 34 ]. Contrary to the overwhelming evidence of the usefulness of iPad in learning, there are some studies (like Nolan, 2016) [ 20 ] that found that digital tools do not always have pedagogical value. At this age, students are not mature enough to understand most applications. Such constraints widely influence the students' learning and understanding [ 35 ]. It is therefore essential to make them understand the function of the applications for better effectiveness. In early childhood education, the meta-analysis found that teachers had to spend more time selecting the appropriate applications for the specific learning targets. In addition, the integration of the application to be used for learning is also essential. Beschorner and Hutchison (2013) [ 36 ] state that the application must allow the students to make choices, enable problem-solving, imagination, discovery and exploration. Children at this age mainly need creativity to get attracted to learning. Based on these findings, the use of the iPad needs to be modified [ 37 ]. Also, in contrast to the academic perspective where most of the scholars found the use of iPads compelling, its role in social development seems to be lacking. Ralph (2018) [ 38 ] found that students using iPads were likely to exhibit antisocial behaviour. These students were mainly avoiding contact with other children when they had to focus on the activities on the iPad. American Academy of Pediatrics (2016) [ 39 ] found that media use can raise the risk of obesity in children proportionate with the amount of media they use. As discussed, such students tend to be more introverted and do not spend time outdoors. Use of iPads also increases frustration among the students [ 32 ]. Later, researchers such as Vaiopoulou, Papadakis, Sifaki, Stamovlasis and Kalogiannakis (2021) confirmed that iPad and tablets encourage young children to actively participate in a variety of educational programs, radically changing the way they play, learn, and communicate. Even the most experienced users struggle to determine the usefulness and appropriateness of so-called educational apps due to the large number of criteria to examine [ 40 ]. Although this study confirms iPads have a positive contribution to children's engagement and educational outcomes, it is worth noting that a number of other studies show mixed or opposite results. For example, some research has shown that overuse of technology may lead to diversion or reduced social interaction in more traditional learning spaces (the source of these studies, if any). IPads may also be affected by intermediary aspects such as the level of educational support from a teacher, the quality of software, or the economic and social context of students. However, the majority of the studies that produced mixed results were specific in looking at respective applications or learning environments, and this will indicate a need to trial these types of studies on a larger scale while being more cognisant of these factors. To get a better idea of how technology affects early childhood education, this paper suggests that more real-world studies be done to compare various types of technology-based educational interventions while taking into account various cultural and educational settings. 5.1 How the COVID-19 Pandemic Affects Early Childhood Education iPad Effectiveness This paper investigates the impact of the COVID-19 epidemic on early childhood education iPad efficacy. This paper reviews current studies employing iPads in early childhood education, mostly with reference to results between 2010 and 2020. The start of COVID-19 set quick incorporation of technologies into educational systems. While some studies indicate mixed results, others claim iPads increase student involvement and literacy. Studies reveal that too much screen usage diminishes chances for real-life interpersonal communication. To uphold particular data synthesis criteria and avoid major heterogeneity resulting from emergency schooling changes throughout the epidemic, the study excludes studies till 2020. New data, however, is showing that the epidemic has not only hastened the adoption of iPads in early years education but also exposed fresh issues including the equity of participation, different degrees of teacher preparedness, and changes in pedagogical practice fit for virtual learning. Future systematic studies could thus have to investigate these post-pandemic changes independently to find if they have affected learning impacts, engagement, and the use of iPads in hybrid learning environments. To better understand this study, necessary current literature was consulted that highlights the process behind the general developments in educational technology. This guarantees a continuous and comprehensive debate of how digital learning tools influence early childhood education, most importantly due of the COVID-19 transformation effect on pedagogical modes and classroom technology integration. 5.2 Combining contradicting data on iPad integration into early childhood education Still, this systematic study and meta-analysis While creating fresh data is important, it is as important to recognise the variety of studies on the impacts of iPads in early childhood education. Although some studies have found that iPads support higher engagement, teamwork, and literacy development, others have produced mixed, complex, or downright contradicting findings. According to several studies, too much screen usage is linked to less in-person interactions. Others do draw attention to the difficulties in sufficient integration of technology without scaffolding that offers a clear educational orientation. Furthermore influencing student outcomes are variances in instructional design, teacher facilitation, and student background. This study will not only gather favourable results but also offer a critical analysis of contrary and limiting aspects, like cognitive overload, less peer interaction, and the need of a framework for using technology, so presenting a more balanced image. Incorporating the advantages and drawbacks found in the literature helps to clarify the complex nature of iPads in early childhood education and supports the need of using implementation strategies resulting in reasoned contextually sensitive policies whereby positive outcomes are enhanced while concomitant risks are reduced. 6. CONCLUSION AND SUGGESTIONS This study gives a comprehensive and systematic review and meta-analysis of the effectiveness of iPads in early childhood education, merging studies from various parts of the world. The results reveal the advantages of the iPads in becoming more powerful in enhancing student engagement, support literacy, and cognitive development in general. Yet we are also informed that the impact of digital learning tools varies, depending on the pedagogical strategies employed, instructional designs, and generalized contexts of education. One major factor that will be taken into account for the interpretation of these findings is the role that regional disparities in adoption of digital learning play. The review considers studies from a number of regions; nevertheless, variations in early childhood education policies, digital literacy initiatives, and socioeconomic circumstances put into question the federalization of the findings. Taking this into account, we will definitely put lengthy mentions in the discussion section to showcase that there are indeed regional disparities in adopting technologies for learning. Further, we will look up some recent literature from proven countries to check if any major findings can be imbibed in our discussion to strengthen this comparative perspective of the study and bring to light the shades of efficacy of iPads across different educational settings. It will support a more balanced view of the trends regarding the adoption of technology geared toward education, as well as provide a wider lens for interpreting the findings. Moreover, although the pandemic has driven further technology integration into education, the impacts on early childhood digital learning environments are still under exploration. The future studies can be directed more effectively as to how the changes in educational technology policies and training programs would reinforce or lessen the effectiveness of iPads in early learning environments. Key findings This study presented a systematic review of the available literature and performed a meta-analysis on the effectiveness of iPads in early childhood education. Results imply that through enhanced focus, on-task conduct, and teamwork, iPads could help to improve learning. Their appeal results from low-cost learning apps accessible for them as well as from the simplicity of long-presided iPads. Teachers still find it difficult, though, choosing the appropriate apps. Challenges Though they still have great value, many of them have to do with the early childhood iPad usage. Children now have more opportunities to interact and engage with each other via interactive touchscreens because to the accelerating speed of educational technologies. These units allow for an increased level of independent learning but can create frustration and in some cases social isolation. Further, if technology is introduced too early, it can hamper development in collaboration with learning. Teachers need to prevent this through active facilitation of peer interactions. Future recommendations The COVID-19 pandemic revealed the growing importance of technology, reinforcing its acceptance as a true tool for learning on a global scale. Nevertheless, there is an ever-increasing need to redefine literacy in early childhood education to include multimedia and digital literacy. Such research should make use of demonstrations and post-test comparisons to enable quantifiable results about the literacy growth of pupils both before and after iPad use. This method can help one to grasp how early learning results are influenced by technology. Using methodical reviews and meta-analysis, this study sought to answer the topic of iPad efficacy in early childhood education. Being an approach that enables results across different studies to be aggregated, identification of trends and going further to provide an answer to the question shows that some of the methods and approaches to this study will require more completed research from Western countries in future studies. While it is concluded that learning with the iPad is engaging and in some instances promotes learning, there appears to be evidence countering with regards to some studies stating certain drawbacks: less social interaction, screen time issues, and inequalities in digital access. Considering these pedagogical complexities emphasizes the need for instructional design and teacher guidance to be aligned in order to harness fully the benefits of iPads in early childhood education. By advancing the methodological justification, extending the literature scope, and judging different opinions critically, this study thus contributes to a better understanding of digital learning in early childhood sectors. The results of this study reinforce the current understanding of the role of iPads in supporting early childhood learning, as most studies have shown a positive impact on academic interaction and the development of cognitive and social skills. However, the differences between research designs and differences in learning environments require more in-depth research. More controlled research designs: it is beneficial to conduct, preferably longitudinal studies based on controlled experimental designs that investigate the long-term effects of the use of laptops in distinct educational situations. Focus on cultural and educational contexts: future studies should explore the ramifications of a student's socio-economic background when using educational technology which may provide more precise understanding of how to develop effective educational programs. Examination of potential negative outcomes: it is helpful to investigate potential undesired outcomes, including being potentially distracted or decreased social interaction, through controlled comparative studies between traditional instruction methods to those of laptop-supported education. Development of tailored interactive models: it would be beneficial to test educational software suitable for children's education, assess the appropriateness of materials and how motivating it is for children. The findings of this research support clear recommendations for teachers and policymakers regarding the purposeful use of iPads in the early years: For Classroom Teachers and Practitioners Plan for gradual, spaced integration: it's important that teachers integrate the use of tablets into their planned classroom experiences in a manner which supports learning alongside children's interactions with the teacher. Using interactive educational software: it is useful to use educational applications that are designed specifically for early childhood to promote active and interactive play rather than passive use of an iPad. Balancing technology and traditional activities: to achieve a balanced learning experience, digital activities would need to be balanced with both physical and social experiences to support children's holistic development. We need to establish sustained professional development workshops which help teachers learn the best possible practices for integrating technology into their teaching, focused on the management of learners when they are all using digital devices. 4. For Education Policymakers Create national guidelines for technology integration: A Ministry level education authority, and educational institutions, need to establish clear endorsement of expectations and guidelines regarding the use of tablets in the education of young children including guidelines for choosing appropriate educational apps and the amounts of time recommended per day for educational use of digital devices. Ensure appropriate infrastructure. Schools need technical support and an appropriate level of infrastructure to ensure equitable access to technology in education for all children, particularly in underdeveloped contexts. Conduct regular evaluation studies. It would be reasonable to develop a program of continuous evaluation trials to assess technology use on children's development of skills, and make adjustments to policies and programs based on actual experience and outcome. Foster school relations with software program developers. Encourage educational institutions and companies who specialize in software development to work collaboratively to ensure digital content is designed to achieve educational aims. We should establish continuous teacher professional development workshops to train teachers on best practices for technology integration in education, including classroom management techniques with students using digital devices. 5. For Education Policymakers Create national guidelines for technology integration: A Ministry level education authority, and educational institutions, need to establish clear endorsement of expectations and guidelines regarding the use of tablets in the education of young children including guidelines for choosing appropriate educational apps and the amounts of time recommended per day for educational use of digital devices. Ensure appropriate infrastructure. Schools need technical support and an appropriate level of infrastructure to ensure equitable access to technology in education for all children, particularly in underdeveloped contexts. Conduct regular evaluation studies. It would be reasonable to develop a program of continuous evaluation trials to assess technology use on children's development of skills, and make adjustments to policies and programs based on actual experience and outcome. Foster school relations with software program developers. Encourage educational institutions and companies who specialize in software development to work collaboratively to ensure digital content is designed to achieve educational aims. Limitations of study Regardless of the value of the overall findings, this study has identified some limitations that should be acknowledged for the sake of academic transparency: The characteristics of the included studies were varied: the review included studies that were conducted using different research methods, which might inform the consistency and comparison of the findings. A limited regional focus: while studies from several regions were included, representation from areas such as the African and Asian regions was under-represented here thus highlighting a need for more research in this area. Indirect effects: the paper was unable to refine the indirect effect of using iPads on aspects such as the promotion of creative thinking or the change in learning behavior in children. As these limitations suggest, more research is encouraged that sets out to investigate these aspects, in order to add to the overall understanding of the impact of technology in early years education. Declarations ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS This research was supported by Zarqa University, Jordan, the Research and Innovation Management Centre (RIMC) at Universiti Utara Malaysia (UUM), and INTI International University, Malaysia. Note: Informed Consent was obtained from all the participants involved in the study. Funding Declaration: there are no funding. Ethics and Consent to Participate for publication: not applicable. Competing interests: the authors declare no competing interests. Clinical Trial Number: not applicable. Data Availability: there is no data availability. Author Contribution - Mohammad Ahmad Abdelaziz Al-Zu’bi and Mohd Faiz Mohd Yaakob wrote the main manuscript text - Kholoud Imhammad Meqbel Al-Mseidin prepared figures and tables. Mohd Sofian Bin Omar Fauzee and Reda S.M. Al-Mawadieh analysed the findings. - Maher Tayseer Sharadgah Mohammad Suliman Al Shaar, Zaid Alkouri, Manal Dawoud and Malek Jdaitawi done some of comments.- All authors reviewed the manuscript. References Jan G. (2022). The Effectiveness of The E-Learning and Distance Education System in Teaching Visual Arts Courses during COVID-19, Zarqa Journal for Research and Studies in Humanities, (1)22, 124–39. Al-Mawadieh R, Abu-Ghalyoun O, Al Tarawneh I, Al-Masri H, Fakhir L, Al-Zu'bi M. (2023, December). Development of Educational Sciences Colleges in Jordanian Universities in the Light of Applications of Artificial Intelligence from the Point of View of Faculty Members: A Proposed Concept. In 2023 24th International Arab Conference on Information Technology (ACIT) (pp. 1–7). IEEE. Al-Mseidin KI, Al-Zu'bi MA, Al-Mawadieh RS, Alelaimat AM. (2023, December). The Integration of AI Applications in Psychological and Educational Counselling for University Students: Opportunities and Challenges. In 2023 24th International Arab Conference on Information Technology (ACIT) (pp. 1–6). IEEE. Al-Zu’bi MAA. (2020). IPad as a New Educational Technology: A Review of the Literature. International Journal of Childhood, Counselling and Special Education, 1(1), 1–10. Al-Zu'bi MA, Al-Mseidin KI, Almajali AF, Al-Mawadieh RS, Khafajeh H, Abutayeh N. (2022, November). Motivating pre-school children to learn creative thinking in Jordan using iPad applications: a mixed-methods approach. In 2022 international Arab conference on information technology (ACIT) (pp. 1–7). IEEE. Fantozzi VB. (2021). It's Everyone's iPad: Tablet uses in a play-based pre-school classroom. Journal of Early Childhood Research, 19(2), 115–27. Lerret SM, Johnson NL, Polfuss M, Weiss M, Gralton K, Klingbeil CG, Sawin K. (2020). Using the engaging parents in education for discharge (ePED) iPad application to improve parent discharge experience. Journal of pediatric nursing, 52, 41–8. Aljaafreh AY, Al-Mseidin KI, Al-Zu’bi MA. The Quality of Electronic Services Provided by Zarqa University from the Point of View of Its Employees. From Industry 4.0 to Industry 5.0: Mapping the Transitions. Cham: Springer Nature Switzerland; 2023. pp. 261–71. Al-Mseidin KI, Al-Zu'bi MA. (2021). THE EFFECTS OF COGNITIVE BEHAVIORAL THERAPY ON ACADEMIC ADJUSTMENT AMONG JORDANIAN STUDENTS. J Evidence-Based Psychotherapies, 21(1). Al-Mawadiah RS, Al-Zu’bi MA. The degree of availability of the standards of the national framework for academic qualifications in early childhood in Jordan from the point of view of female teachers. Int J Child Counselling Special Educ (CCSE). 2021;2(2):103–12. Al-Mawadiah RS, Al-Zu'bi MA. The degree to which kindergarten principals in Jordan practice a crisis management strategy in their administrative work in light of the corona pandemic (COVID-19) and their attitudes towards distance learning. J Educational Psychol Stud [JEPS]. 2021;15(1):82–97. Gough D, Oliver S, Thomas J, editors. (2017). An introduction to systematic reviews. Sage. Borenstein M, Hedges LV, Higgins JP, Rothstein HR. (2010). A basic introduction to fixed-effect and random‐effects models for meta‐analysis. Research synthesis methods, 1(2), 97–111. Card NA. (2015). Applied meta-analysis for social science research. Guilford. Britto PR, UNICEF. &. (2012). School readiness: A conceptual framework. New York. Davey J, Turner RM, Clarke MJ, Higgins JPT. Characteristics of meta-analyses and their component studies in the Cochrane database of systematic reviews: A cross-sectional, descriptive analysis. BMC Med Res Methodol. 2011;11:160. http://dx.doi.org/10.1186/1471-2288-11-160 . Higgins JPT, Thompson SG, Deeks JJ, Altman DG. Measuring inconsistency in meta-analyses. BMJ: Br Med J. 2003;327(7414):557–60. http://dx.doi.org/10.1136/bmj.327.7414.557 . Biostat. (2005). Comprehensive meta-analysis (Version 3.0) [computer software]. Englewood, NJ. Miller T. (2018). Developing numeracy skills using interactive technology in a play-based learning environment. International Journal of STEM Education, 5(1), 1–11. https://doi.org/10.1186/s40594-018-0135-2 Nolan JP. (2016). Implementation of iPads for at-risk pre-kindergarten students (Doctoral dissertation, Concordia University Chicago). Wei WJ, Lee LC. (2013). Construction of the e-PAYA for Technology-enhanced Learning in Kindergarten. Journal of Information Technology and Application in Education, 2(4), 143–9. 10.14355/jitae.2013.0204.03 Al-Zu'bi MA, Fauzee O, M. S., Kaur A. The effect of iPad apps on creative thinking among preschoolers in Jordan. Int J Multidisciplinary Educ Res. 2017;2(4):29–35. Zaranis N, Valla V. (2017, July). Tablet computer-assisted counting and calculating activities for kindergarten children. In EDULEARN17 Proceedings, 9th International Conference on Education and New Learning Technologies (pp. 9680–9689). Wario R, Ireri B, Wet L. (2016) Evaluating IPAD as a teaching tool in higher education within a rural area: a case study at a South African university, International Conferences ITS, ISBN: 978-989-8533-58-6. PICARD D, MARTIN P, TSAO R. iPads in school? A quantitative comparison of primary school children's pen-on-paper drawing skills versus on-screen finger drawing skills. J Educational Comput Res. 2014;50(2):203–12. Motsch LR. (2016). A study of the effect of iPad use for reading intervention at the kindergarten level (Doctoral dissertation, University of St. Francis). Ferenstein G. (2011). How the iPad 2 Will Revolutionize Education. Fast Company. Available online at: http://www.fastcompany.com/1733662/how-ipad-2-will-revolutionize-education Chiong C, Ree J, Takeuchi L.. Joan Ganz Cooney Quick Report, Joan Ganz Cooney Center. NY: United Nations Children's Fund; 2012. Print versus E-books. Neumann M, Neumann D. The use of touch-screen tablets at home and pre-school to foster emergent literacy. J Early Child Lit. 2017;17(2):203–20. Turkestani M. The effect of iPads on school preparedness among preschool children with hearing impairments. Int Educ Stud. 2015;8(11):50–62. Huang S, Clark N, Wedel W. Teaching tips: The use of an iPad to promote preschoolers alphabet recognition and letter sound correspondence. Practically Prim. 2013;18(1):24–6. Flewitt R, Messer D, Kucirkova N. New directions for early literacy in the digital age: The iPad. J Early Child Lit. 2015;15(3):289–310. Chmiliar L. (2017). Improving learning outcomes: The iPad and preschool children with disabilities. Front Psychol, 8. Nepo K. The use of technology to improve education. Child Youth Care Forum. 2017;46:207–21. Falloon G. Young students using iPads: App design and content influences on their learning pathways. Computers Educ. 2013;68:505–21. Beschorner B, Hutchison A. iPads as a literacy teaching tool in early childhood. Int J Educ Math Sci Technol. 2013;1(1):16–24. Al-Zu'bi MA, Al-Mseidin KI, Al-Mawadieh RS, Alawmareh AR. (2023, December). The Impact of iPad Applications on Learning Motivation among Preschoolers in Jordan. In 2023 24th International Arab Conference on Information Technology (ACIT) (pp. 1–7). IEEE. Ralph R. Media and Technology in Preschool Classrooms: Manifesting prosocial sharing behaviors when using iPads. Tech Know Learn. 2018;23:199–221. American Academy of Pediatrics. (2016). Media and Young Minds. Pediatrics, 138(5). Vaiopoulou J, Papadakis S, Sifaki E, Stamovlasis D, Kalogiannakis M. (2021). Parents’ perceptions of educational apps use for kindergarten children: Development and validation of a new instrument (PEAU-p) and exploration of parents’ profiles. Behavioral Sciences, 11(6), 82. Additional Declarations No competing interests reported. Cite Share Download PDF Status: Posted Version 1 posted You are reading this latest preprint version Research Square lets you share your work early, gain feedback from the community, and start making changes to your manuscript prior to peer review in a journal. As a division of Research Square Company, we’re committed to making research communication faster, fairer, and more useful. We do this by developing innovative software and high quality services for the global research community. Our growing team is made up of researchers and industry professionals working together to solve the most critical problems facing scientific publishing. Also discoverable on Platform About Our Team In Review Editorial Policies Advisory Board Help Center Resources Author Services Accessibility API Access RSS feed Manage Cookie Preferences © Research Square 2026 | ISSN 2693-5015 (online) Privacy Policy Terms of Service Do Not Sell My Personal Information {"props":{"pageProps":{"initialData":{"identity":"rs-5639542","acceptedTermsAndConditions":true,"allowDirectSubmit":true,"archivedVersions":[],"articleType":"Research Article","associatedPublications":[],"authors":[{"id":447718017,"identity":"d1989d3a-3e01-4486-b178-516c1c6e69ca","order_by":0,"name":"Mohammad Ahmad Abdelaziz Al-Zu’bi","email":"","orcid":"","institution":"Zarqa University","correspondingAuthor":true,"prefix":"","firstName":"Mohammad","middleName":"Ahmad Abdelaziz","lastName":"Al-Zu’bi","suffix":""},{"id":447718018,"identity":"1c97e13f-71df-4154-9cb1-4be9ef6ffe3e","order_by":1,"name":"Maher Tayseer Sharadgah","email":"","orcid":"","institution":"Amman Arab University","correspondingAuthor":false,"prefix":"","firstName":"Maher","middleName":"Tayseer","lastName":"Sharadgah","suffix":""},{"id":447718019,"identity":"4b2a1968-d205-4fe5-a098-ce33dbb2c03c","order_by":2,"name":"Mohammad Suliman Al Shaar","email":"","orcid":"","institution":"Zarqa University","correspondingAuthor":false,"prefix":"","firstName":"Mohammad","middleName":"Suliman Al","lastName":"Shaar","suffix":""},{"id":447718020,"identity":"7b25f6a0-308f-48eb-aab6-7ab62e7a974c","order_by":3,"name":"Zaid Alkouri","email":"","orcid":"","institution":"Al-Balqaʼ Applied University, Princess Alia University College","correspondingAuthor":false,"prefix":"","firstName":"Zaid","middleName":"","lastName":"Alkouri","suffix":""},{"id":447718021,"identity":"7c4ebe2b-7c8d-480b-bafd-722b16f939ad","order_by":4,"name":"Manal Dawoud","email":"","orcid":"","institution":"Zarqa University","correspondingAuthor":false,"prefix":"","firstName":"Manal","middleName":"","lastName":"Dawoud","suffix":""},{"id":447718022,"identity":"469ff699-db41-4c2e-8e83-b16367e8dfd5","order_by":5,"name":"Kholoud Imhammad Meqbel Al-Mseidin","email":"","orcid":"","institution":"Amman Arab University","correspondingAuthor":false,"prefix":"","firstName":"Kholoud","middleName":"Imhammad Meqbel","lastName":"Al-Mseidin","suffix":""},{"id":447718023,"identity":"aec3db6b-e781-49c6-8faa-3d2a334b2d5c","order_by":6,"name":"Mohd Faiz Mohd Yaakob","email":"","orcid":"","institution":"Universiti Utara Malaysia","correspondingAuthor":false,"prefix":"","firstName":"Mohd","middleName":"Faiz Mohd","lastName":"Yaakob","suffix":""},{"id":447718024,"identity":"f597a2c4-c41d-4acc-8a38-5bda1ef552ba","order_by":7,"name":"Mohd Sofian Bin Omar Fauzee","email":"","orcid":"","institution":"INTI International University","correspondingAuthor":false,"prefix":"","firstName":"Mohd","middleName":"Sofian Bin Omar","lastName":"Fauzee","suffix":""},{"id":447718025,"identity":"5602a452-89a2-44b8-931b-78b5387fe668","order_by":8,"name":"Reda S.M. Al-Mawadieh","email":"","orcid":"","institution":"Zarqa University","correspondingAuthor":false,"prefix":"","firstName":"Reda","middleName":"S.M.","lastName":"Al-Mawadieh","suffix":""},{"id":447718026,"identity":"cda5add8-5844-4867-9046-4eb23a877254","order_by":9,"name":"Malek Jdaitawi","email":"","orcid":"","institution":"Zarqa University","correspondingAuthor":false,"prefix":"","firstName":"Malek","middleName":"","lastName":"Jdaitawi","suffix":""}],"badges":[],"createdAt":"2024-12-13 16:23:20","currentVersionCode":1,"declarations":"","doi":"10.21203/rs.3.rs-5639542/v1","doiUrl":"https://doi.org/10.21203/rs.3.rs-5639542/v1","draftVersion":[],"editorialEvents":[],"editorialNote":"","failedWorkflow":false,"files":[{"id":82067232,"identity":"2f9cacd2-be35-4cb7-a2b1-b4465a579fe4","added_by":"auto","created_at":"2025-05-06 12:43:40","extension":"jpg","order_by":1,"title":"Figure 1","display":"","copyAsset":false,"role":"figure","size":35764,"visible":true,"origin":"","legend":"\u003cp\u003eStudy Process\u003c/p\u003e","description":"","filename":"1.jpg","url":"https://assets-eu.researchsquare.com/files/rs-5639542/v1/361c828f8b1e876cfe8901dd.jpg"},{"id":82067233,"identity":"e03c31ab-7eb8-4f98-89b0-7189b625efcd","added_by":"auto","created_at":"2025-05-06 12:43:40","extension":"jpg","order_by":2,"title":"Figure 2","display":"","copyAsset":false,"role":"figure","size":111636,"visible":true,"origin":"","legend":"\u003cp\u003eStudy Flow\u003c/p\u003e","description":"","filename":"2.jpg","url":"https://assets-eu.researchsquare.com/files/rs-5639542/v1/1c2beb4d9a7906156b83c2ba.jpg"},{"id":82065778,"identity":"b2964d64-0053-471d-b4d1-7844cdd2a272","added_by":"auto","created_at":"2025-05-06 12:35:40","extension":"jpg","order_by":3,"title":"Figure 3","display":"","copyAsset":false,"role":"figure","size":70790,"visible":true,"origin":"","legend":"\u003cp\u003eNumber of studies\u003c/p\u003e","description":"","filename":"3.jpg","url":"https://assets-eu.researchsquare.com/files/rs-5639542/v1/3746b12f439c611b17da940b.jpg"},{"id":82067796,"identity":"61587158-c499-41ad-90bb-0944cd0ddfb1","added_by":"auto","created_at":"2025-05-06 12:51:40","extension":"jpg","order_by":4,"title":"Figure 4","display":"","copyAsset":false,"role":"figure","size":57518,"visible":true,"origin":"","legend":"\u003cp\u003eNumber of Participants\u003c/p\u003e","description":"","filename":"4.jpg","url":"https://assets-eu.researchsquare.com/files/rs-5639542/v1/190e4a12c259e1abc45a38f5.jpg"},{"id":82065783,"identity":"16422a75-cce1-4613-bc39-950dad8bbb77","added_by":"auto","created_at":"2025-05-06 12:35:40","extension":"jpg","order_by":5,"title":"Figure 5","display":"","copyAsset":false,"role":"figure","size":46769,"visible":true,"origin":"","legend":"\u003cp\u003eResults of Meta-Analysis\u003c/p\u003e","description":"","filename":"5.jpg","url":"https://assets-eu.researchsquare.com/files/rs-5639542/v1/ec112c0a19cd4ec2ce6bc5f5.jpg"},{"id":85853956,"identity":"9e804f82-99e5-42f0-bf24-4b333d1be3dd","added_by":"auto","created_at":"2025-07-02 10:53:57","extension":"pdf","order_by":0,"title":"","display":"","copyAsset":false,"role":"manuscript-pdf","size":1076002,"visible":true,"origin":"","legend":"","description":"","filename":"manuscript.pdf","url":"https://assets-eu.researchsquare.com/files/rs-5639542/v1/120e25dd-bd90-4235-9cee-3b89ffee35b8.pdf"}],"financialInterests":"No competing interests reported.","formattedTitle":"The Efficacy of iPads in Early Childhood Education; A Systematic Review and Meta-Analysis","fulltext":[{"header":"1. INTRODUCTION","content":"\u003cp\u003eThis is the era of all-pervading Information Technology and educational technology needs to leverage it as an opportunity. Educational tools need to be revised so that students may be qualified for the current environment. Nowadays, iPad is one such tool prevalent in all education stages, including kindergartens [\u003cspan citationid=\"CR1\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e1\u003c/span\u003e]\u003c/p\u003e \u003cp\u003eHowever, the assessment of effectiveness of educational technology tools, including the iPad, are inconsistent [\u003cspan citationid=\"CR2\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e2\u003c/span\u003e, \u003cspan citationid=\"CR3\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e3\u003c/span\u003e, \u003cspan citationid=\"CR4\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e4\u003c/span\u003e], and their utility in educational technology tools is uncertain. Pertaining to the iPad, there are several factors that influence its effectiveness as a new technology educational tool. Some factors create difficulties for the iPad tool, such as social contact, academic competencies, technical abilities, learners' motivation, study time and support, and technical problems [\u003cspan citationid=\"CR5\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e5\u003c/span\u003e, \u003cspan citationid=\"CR6\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e6\u003c/span\u003e]. Other factors could lead to an improper design and arrangement of the educational material and content of apps using an iPad tool [\u003cspan citationid=\"CR7\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e7\u003c/span\u003e]. Consequently, efficient analysis of the iPad tool in education should be comprehensive and thoroughly investigate its utilisation across all aspects such as effectiveness, teaching methods, educational tools, and learning results [\u003cspan citationid=\"CR8\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e8\u003c/span\u003e, \u003cspan citationid=\"CR9\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e9\u003c/span\u003e].\u003c/p\u003e \u003cp\u003eAlthough early childhood learning environments are increasingly supported by digital devices, including laptops and iPads, recent work has only examined the effects of these devices on select skills, including literacy and numeracy, without examining the overall effects on children's cognitive, social, and emotional development. There is also a gap in the results from the studies in the past that compared devices to teacher-led instruction. This highlights the requirement of a systematic review and meta-analysis to develop a more complete understanding. In conclusion, this study attempts to fill this gap and summarize the literature on the effect of laptops in early childhood education to provide a better understanding of the overall effect, and offer evidence-based recommendations to educational and other policymakers.\u003c/p\u003e \u003cdiv id=\"Sec2\" class=\"Section2\"\u003e \u003ch2\u003e1.2 The present study\u003c/h2\u003e \u003cp\u003eThe current study aimed to systematically review and meta-analyse the effectiveness of iPad apps as an educational technology tool, as also in a range of children's outcomes in kindergarten (e.g., children's academic, socioemotional, or physical outcomes) [\u003cspan citationid=\"CR10\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e10\u003c/span\u003e]. The authors systematically reviewed the quantitative evidence in literature about the iPad apps' effectiveness. Where possible, in terms of the availability of sufficiently similar studies, the author carried out meta-analyses to quantify the degree of effectiveness of iPad apps as an educational technology tool, and in a range of children's outcomes in kindergarten [\u003cspan citationid=\"CR11\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e11\u003c/span\u003e].\u003c/p\u003e \u003cp\u003eA systematic review employs a very particular and planned strategy to identify, assess and synthesise all empirical data on specific research subjects. The findings are searched, selected and presented based on prescribed eligibility criteria and a systematic methodology [\u003cspan citationid=\"CR12\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e12\u003c/span\u003e]. It is significantly greater than a conventional literary assessment and more intense. A meta-analysis synthesises a wide range of literature with the outcomes of selected research, as data for a new quantitative analysis. Aggregating research-wide empirical data strengthens power (over individual studies) and improves impact estimates. Informing future research, policymaking, and development is incredibly useful [\u003cspan citationid=\"CR13\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e13\u003c/span\u003e].\u003c/p\u003e \u003cp\u003eAn additional aim of this study was to examine whether the effectiveness of iPad as an educational technology tool, and in a range of children's outcomes in kindergarten, varied depending on the following moderators identified as necessary in the literature:\u003c/p\u003e \u003cp\u003eOperationalisation of children's age (continuous vs categorical)\u003c/p\u003e \u003cp\u003eNumber of participants.\u003c/p\u003e \u003cp\u003eNumber of participants in each group\u003c/p\u003e \u003cp\u003eType of statistical analysis such as ANOVA, ANCOVA, t-Test, etc.\u003c/p\u003e \u003cp\u003eYear of publication of studies. Since the iPad appeared in 2010, the educational landscape has changed dramatically over the recent decade in which studies have been published in this area.\u003c/p\u003e \u003cp\u003eThe duration of the study.\u003c/p\u003e \u003cp\u003eNumber of sessions per week/month.\u003c/p\u003e \u003cp\u003eStudy findings (significant vs nonsignificant).\u003c/p\u003e \u003cp\u003eType of use: individual or group\u003c/p\u003e \u003cp\u003eThe material in which it is made. All materials or a specific material\u003c/p\u003e \u003cp\u003eMechanism of use. Individually or via admin\u003c/p\u003e \u003cp\u003eThe level of use is educational or recreational\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/div\u003e"},{"header":"2. METHODOLOGY","content":"\u003cp\u003eThe study followed the preferred reporting items for systematic reviews and meta-analyses (PRISMA), followed by guidelines and recommendations from the Cochrane Handbook. Further, because no human participants were involved, there were no requirements for the ethical review of this study. Besides, the study was applied through 7 steps: (1) Search strategy; (2) Eligibility criteria; (3) Selection strategy; (4) Data extraction; (5) Systematic Review; (6) Meta-analyses; (7) Assessment of biases among included studies. Further, the study population was all studies that addressed children aged 4\u0026ndash;6 years (kindergartens). This theoretical approach to the study was already appropriate for synthesizing the existing direct evidence for the effectiveness of iPads in early childhood education. It offered a strategic convergence of varying results across various studies. If done appropriately, systematic reviews structure data collection and appraisal so they may be wholesome in drawing an overview that individual studies may not offer. Meta-analysis often quantifies overall effects and presents robust statistical information. Since early childhood education increasingly develops with the incorporation of iPads, this would help evaluate evidence-based effects on early literacy and cognitive skills. Other methodologies, such as narratives reviews, do not have the rigor and replicable methodologies that provide general conclusions.\u003c/p\u003e \u003cp\u003eThe study adhered to PRISMA guidelines and complied with best practices specified in the Cochrane Handbook. The review was conducted in this order: (1) Search strategy: study retrieval from various abstracting and indexing services, such as ProQuest, Medline, EBSCO, and ERIC, using predetermined keywords that were combined with several Boolean operators; (2) Eligibility criteria: restriction to studies dealing with children aged 4\u0026ndash;6 years and attending formal education; (3) Selection strategy: a two-stage screening process in which studies were included only if they were peer-reviewed, empirical works with clearly defined research methodologies; (4) Data extraction: recording of key variables such as sample characteristics, intervention characteristics, outcome measures, and statistical findings; (5) Systematic review, with qualitative summation of trends in study outcomes; (6) Meta-analysis: statistical approaches to evaluation of overall effect size; and (7) Assessment of biases: publication bias, study heterogeneity, and methodological quality of the study.\u003c/p\u003e \u003cp\u003e \u003c/p\u003e \u003cdiv id=\"Sec4\" class=\"Section2\"\u003e \u003ch2\u003e2.1 Search strategy\u003c/h2\u003e \u003cp\u003e. All electronic databases (e.g., ProQuest, Medline, EBSCO, and ERIC) were chosen for this systematic review and meta-analysis because of their extensive coverage of peer-reviewed literature in education, healthcare, and social sciences. ProQuest and EBSCO provide access to a broad range of multidisciplinary research, whereas Medline focusses on studies related to health. ERIC serves as one of the main sources for teaching literature. The databases reviewed provide a comprehensive and representative assortment of studies published during a time frame of a decade-from 2010, with the launch of the iPad, until December 2020.\u003c/p\u003e \u003cp\u003eThe time for literature review has ranged from 2010 to 2020 to cover one complete decade of research after the launch of the iPad in 2010, an event that served towards growth in the usage of digital technologies in education. This grants sufficient time to draw insights into the first adoption, developments, and impacts of AI related technologies in educational and administrative contexts. The limitation of this review to articles that were published up to 2020 should preserved a level of consistency with methodologies and incorporation of established findings, which had undergone due peer review while the field was still evolving. Furthermore, systematic review and meta-analysis rely on fixed data sets to formulate acceptable quality judgments. This minimizes the relative chances of introducing dangers related to preliminary or developing trends in the research. Further studies are envisaged to take this forward and log the happenings on AI applications in that time.\u003c/p\u003e \u003cp\u003eThis study included an international approach to search all studies around the world. Two different search tactics were utilised to discover qualifying papers to gather a full range of studies from this search. The first strategy targeted specific terms linked to iPad, applications, and kindergartens or pre-school. The second strategy was a global search that searched a considerable number of various quality metrics simultaneously, for example \u0026lsquo;experimental design with at least 20 participants\u0026rsquo;. The research collected a number of studies that show that there is significant interest in iPad applications in kindergartens, pre-school and early childhood, or in their utilisation as control variables when other quality indicators are addressed. The approach was to identify the relationships between iPad applications and a broad range of children results in childcare, pre-school or early childhood. It was a thorough strategy.\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/div\u003e \u003cdiv id=\"Sec5\" class=\"Section2\"\u003e \u003ch2\u003e2.2 Eligibility criteria\u003c/h2\u003e \u003cp\u003eThe present review focused on experimental design studies. Only those studies were included which concerned iPad apps as a new educational technology tool for children between 4\u0026ndash;6 years. The studies also needed to address necessary academic, socioemotional, personal or physical outcomes for children. Only studies published works in English have been included because of resource constraints.\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/div\u003e \u003cdiv id=\"Sec6\" class=\"Section2\"\u003e \u003ch2\u003e2.3 Selection strategy\u003c/h2\u003e \u003cp\u003eThe titles and abstracts of all studies were screened for relevance. The relevant studies were moved to the complete review step. The review in this stage was to determine if all eligibility criteria for the current systematic review were met.\u003c/p\u003e \u003cp\u003eA complete and systematic literature search was conducted using a combination of keywords and synonyms pertaining to iPads and early childhood education throughout the selected databases (ProQuest, Medline, EBSCO, and ERIC). The search terms were organised with Boolean operators (AND, OR) to optimise the retrieval of pertinent studies. The principal keywords and their synonyms comprised:\u003c/p\u003e \u003cp\u003eIPad (tablets, touchscreen devices, digital tablets, mobile education)\u003c/p\u003e \u003cp\u003eEarly Childhood Education (preschool education, kindergarten, pre-K, nursery education, early years learning)\u003c/p\u003e \u003cp\u003eEducational Efficacy (learning results, student involvement, instructional influence, academic performance)\u003c/p\u003e \u003cp\u003eIntegration of Technology (digital learning, educational technology, information and communication technology in education)\u003c/p\u003e \u003cp\u003eSearch filters were utilised to restrict findings to peer-reviewed papers published from 2010 to 2020, consistent with the study's timeline. Furthermore, non-English studies and duplicate records were omitted to uphold the methodological integrity of the systematic review and meta-analysis.\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/div\u003e \u003cdiv id=\"Sec7\" class=\"Section2\"\u003e \u003ch2\u003e2.4 Data extraction\u003c/h2\u003e \u003cp\u003eIn all the qualified studies, two independent reviewers extracted the information. Extracted data contained broad study descriptors (for example, number of children), descriptive statistics (for example, mean child years) and reporting inferential statistics (e.g., type of statistical analysis such as ANOVA, ANCOVA, t-Test, etc.). Discrepancies were relatively rare between data extractors, with a dialogue with the third examiner for resolving any discrepancies.\u003c/p\u003e \u003cp\u003e \u003cem\u003eSelection of Statistical Methods\u003c/em\u003e \u003c/p\u003e \u003cp\u003eStatistical tests were chosen based on overall data type and analysis objectives. A t-test was used to evaluate the mean differences of two independent groups, specifically studies investigating iPad intervention types compared with more traditional learning methods. A t-test was a suitable test as it is a robust statistical test to evaluate differences associated with data with small to moderate sample sizes and a normal distribution. Additionally, we used ANOVA (Analysis of Variance) in studies where we evaluated means across groups and studies which evaluated the instructional strategy or \u0026ldquo;degree\u0026rdquo; of technology integration. ANOVA has the benefit of considering Type I error, as well as testing the means and variance across three or more conditions at once. This permits a more refined analysis of the influence of iPad use across different educational contexts. Through the use of the statistical techniques we chose, we ensured that our findings were extracted from proper and widely regarded inferential statistics, helping to lend to the rigor of our conclusions.\u003c/p\u003e \u003cp\u003e \u003cem\u003eData Extraction and Inconsistency Resolution\u003c/em\u003e \u003c/p\u003e \u003cp\u003eA data extraction process utilizing a two-step verification method was used to ensure accuracy and consistency of extracted data. Two independent reviewers extracted data from the chosen studies, as informed by established coding criteria, based on PRISMA and Cochrane Handbook guidelines. Any inconsistencies or differences noted during one or both of the reviewers were reconciled by each reviewer discussing their reported findings. If one or both reviewers could not reach a consensus, a third senior researcher was called in to mediate and determine a final resolution. This strategy helped to minimize subjective bias and thus increase the trustworthiness of the extracted data.\u003c/p\u003e \u003cp\u003eThe flow chart in Fig.\u0026nbsp;\u003cspan refid=\"Fig2\" class=\"InternalRef\"\u003e2\u003c/span\u003e sets forth the basic guideline for arriving at the selected articles (18) for meta-analysis from the population of articles got from literature (144). Primarily, the 144 articles were selected based on their titles, out of which 126 were identified through the database using the title keywords, and the rest 18 were identified from the references and journals. Out of 144, only 36 were included for the review, and the rest of the articles were eliminated partly because of their lack of compatibility. These 36 articles were further pruned 18 articles for meta-analysis, because only they had sufficient data to extract effect size. The review of selected articles is presented in the next section.\u003c/p\u003e \u003cp\u003e \u003c/p\u003e \u003c/div\u003e \u003cdiv id=\"Sec8\" class=\"Section2\"\u003e \u003ch2\u003e2.5 Systematic review\u003c/h2\u003e \u003cp\u003eAn informal vote-counting strategy [\u003cspan citationid=\"CR14\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e14\u003c/span\u003e] was used to perform the systematic review in this study. This strategy involved tallying significant results across the studies in the review. The following variables were considered as moderators to investigate whether the significance of the results was associated with any of them:\u003c/p\u003e \u003cp\u003e(1) Operationalisation of children's age (continuous vs categorical); (2) number of participants; (3) number of participants in each group; (4) Year of publication of studies; (5) type of statistical analysis such as ANOVA, ANCOVA, t-Test, etcetera.; (6) the duration of the study; (7) number of sessions per week/month and (8) Study findings (significant vs nonsignificant). (9) Individual versus group use, (10) specific subject or all subjects, (11) self- or admin use, (12) educational or recreational use.\u003c/p\u003e \u003cp\u003eUnder the school-readiness conceptual framework [\u003cspan citationid=\"CR15\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e15\u003c/span\u003e] child results had been grouped in the following four fields: (1) learning approaches; (2) literacy; (3) cognition of Math \u0026amp; science, and (4) social and emotional behaviour (5) Critical thinking (6) Collaboration with colleagues in the systematic review field. The basis for grouping meta-analysis utilised specific conceptual measures like 2 or 3 or 4 groups, at least 20 participants, and so on.\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/div\u003e \u003cdiv id=\"Sec9\" class=\"Section2\"\u003e \u003ch2\u003e2.6 Meta-analyses\u003c/h2\u003e \u003cp\u003eThe findings of studies having the same theme of child outcome with iPad apps was aggregated. The minimal number needed to conduct these meta-analyses was three studies that contained the same child outcome theme [\u003cspan citationid=\"CR16\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e16\u003c/span\u003e]. Only studies that dealt with kindergarten children and iPad apps with experimental design were included. These studies needed to have employed covariate child scores in their analyses. When several samples from the same dataset were collected, only those studies with the most significant sample of children were selected.\u003c/p\u003e \u003cp\u003eAll the studies included had tested for Advanced statistical tests (e.g., ANOVA, ANCOVA, Repeated Measure ANOVA, \u0026amp; t-Test, etc.). Thus, the meta-analyses included the findings from advanced statistical tests solely. I2 was utilised to test heterogeneity in all meta-analyses in the results [\u003cspan citationid=\"CR17\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e17\u003c/span\u003e]. Low I2 levels indicate statistical harmony in research' conclusions. All the meta-analyses were conducted employing random effect models. The Comprehensive Meta-Analysis Version 3 statistical program conducted all meta-analyses [\u003cspan citationid=\"CR18\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e18\u003c/span\u003e].\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/div\u003e \u003cdiv id=\"Sec10\" class=\"Section2\"\u003e \u003ch2\u003e2.7 Assessment of biases among included studies\u003c/h2\u003e \u003cp\u003eMost of the studies included in the present review tested the effectiveness of the iPad as an educational tool among kindergarten children. Most studies were peer-reviewed, and many had substantial sample sizes. The impact factors for the journals in which studies were cited ranged from 1.052 (i.e., Early Childhood Education Journal) to 2.72 (i.e., Educational Technology \u0026amp; Society).\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/div\u003e"},{"header":"3. RESULTS","content":"\u003cp\u003eTable\u0026nbsp;\u003cspan refid=\"Tab1\" class=\"InternalRef\"\u003e1\u003c/span\u003e gives details of the 36 articles included for systematic review. The earliest experimental design of the use of iPad applications in teaching kindergarten children was published in 2011. Participants in all the included studies were kindergarten students of 4\u0026ndash;5 years old. The students in the treatment groups received iPad applications that supported the effectiveness of iPad inside classrooms, literacy, maths, and cognitive psychology. Students in the control groups received conventional tutorials inside kindergarten classrooms.\u003c/p\u003e \u003cp\u003e \u003cdiv class=\"gridtable\"\u003e\u003ctable float=\"Yes\" id=\"Tab1\" border=\"1\"\u003e \u003ccaption language=\"En\"\u003e \u003cdiv class=\"CaptionNumber\"\u003eTable 1\u003c/div\u003e \u003cdiv class=\"CaptionContent\"\u003e \u003cp\u003eSummary of Evaluation of Reflective Measurement Model\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/div\u003e \u003c/caption\u003e \u003ccolgroup cols=\"6\"\u003e \u003cdiv align=\"left\" class=\"colspec\" colname=\"c1\" colnum=\"1\"\u003e\u003c/div\u003e \u003cdiv align=\"left\" class=\"colspec\" colname=\"c2\" colnum=\"2\"\u003e\u003c/div\u003e \u003cdiv align=\"left\" class=\"colspec\" colname=\"c3\" colnum=\"3\"\u003e\u003c/div\u003e \u003cdiv align=\"left\" class=\"colspec\" colname=\"c4\" colnum=\"4\"\u003e\u003c/div\u003e \u003cdiv align=\"left\" class=\"colspec\" colname=\"c5\" colnum=\"5\"\u003e\u003c/div\u003e \u003cdiv align=\"left\" class=\"colspec\" colname=\"c6\" colnum=\"6\"\u003e\u003c/div\u003e \u003cthead\u003e \u003ctr\u003e \u003cth align=\"left\" colspan=\"2\" nameend=\"c2\" namest=\"c1\"\u003e \u003cp\u003eStudy Characteristics\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/th\u003e \u003cth align=\"left\" colname=\"c3\"\u003e \u003cp\u003eNo. of Studies\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/th\u003e \u003cth align=\"left\" colname=\"c4\"\u003e \u003cp\u003ePercentage\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/th\u003e \u003cth align=\"left\" colname=\"c5\"\u003e \u003cp\u003eNo. of Participants\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/th\u003e \u003cth align=\"left\" colname=\"c6\"\u003e \u003cp\u003ePercentage\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/th\u003e \u003c/tr\u003e \u003c/thead\u003e \u003ctbody\u003e \u003ctr\u003e \u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c1\" morerows=\"4\" rowspan=\"5\"\u003e \u003cp\u003eStudy design\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/td\u003e \u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c2\"\u003e \u003cp\u003ePost-test-only, 2 groups\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/td\u003e \u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c3\"\u003e \u003cp\u003e18\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/td\u003e \u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c4\"\u003e \u003cp\u003e50%\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/td\u003e \u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c5\"\u003e \u003cp\u003e1306\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/td\u003e \u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c6\"\u003e \u003cp\u003e45.14%\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/td\u003e \u003c/tr\u003e \u003ctr\u003e \u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c2\"\u003e \u003cp\u003ePost-test-only, 1 groups\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/td\u003e \u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c3\"\u003e \u003cp\u003e10\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/td\u003e \u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c4\"\u003e \u003cp\u003e28%\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/td\u003e \u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c5\"\u003e \u003cp\u003e1163\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/td\u003e \u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c6\"\u003e \u003cp\u003e40.2%\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/td\u003e \u003c/tr\u003e \u003ctr\u003e \u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c2\"\u003e \u003cp\u003ePre-test-post-test, 2 groups\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/td\u003e \u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c3\"\u003e \u003cp\u003e5\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/td\u003e \u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c4\"\u003e \u003cp\u003e14%\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/td\u003e \u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c5\"\u003e \u003cp\u003e89\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/td\u003e \u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c6\"\u003e \u003cp\u003e3.08%\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/td\u003e \u003c/tr\u003e \u003ctr\u003e \u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c2\"\u003e \u003cp\u003ePre-test-post-test, 1 group\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/td\u003e \u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c3\"\u003e \u003cp\u003e3\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/td\u003e \u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c4\"\u003e \u003cp\u003e8%\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/td\u003e \u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c5\"\u003e \u003cp\u003e335\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/td\u003e \u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c6\"\u003e \u003cp\u003e11.58%\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/td\u003e \u003c/tr\u003e \u003ctr\u003e \u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c2\"\u003e \u003cp\u003eTotal\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/td\u003e \u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c3\"\u003e \u003cp\u003e40\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/td\u003e \u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c4\"\u003e \u003cp\u003e100%\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/td\u003e \u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c5\"\u003e \u003cp\u003e2893\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/td\u003e \u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c6\"\u003e \u003cp\u003e100%\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/td\u003e \u003c/tr\u003e \u003ctr\u003e \u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c1\" morerows=\"4\" rowspan=\"5\"\u003e \u003cp\u003eEducational Topics\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/td\u003e \u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c2\"\u003e \u003cp\u003eEffectiveness of iPad inside classrooms\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/td\u003e \u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c3\"\u003e \u003cp\u003e8\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/td\u003e \u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c4\"\u003e \u003cp\u003e22%\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/td\u003e \u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c5\"\u003e \u003cp\u003e1471\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/td\u003e \u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c6\"\u003e \u003cp\u003e50.88%\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/td\u003e \u003c/tr\u003e \u003ctr\u003e \u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c2\"\u003e \u003cp\u003eLiteracy\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/td\u003e \u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c3\"\u003e \u003cp\u003e18\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/td\u003e \u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c4\"\u003e \u003cp\u003e50%\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/td\u003e \u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c5\"\u003e \u003cp\u003e788\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/td\u003e \u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c6\"\u003e \u003cp\u003e27.23%\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/td\u003e \u003c/tr\u003e \u003ctr\u003e \u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c2\"\u003e \u003cp\u003eMaths\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/td\u003e \u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c3\"\u003e \u003cp\u003e6\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/td\u003e \u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c4\"\u003e \u003cp\u003e16.6%\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/td\u003e \u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c5\"\u003e \u003cp\u003e354\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/td\u003e \u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c6\"\u003e \u003cp\u003e12.23%\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/td\u003e \u003c/tr\u003e \u003ctr\u003e \u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c2\"\u003e \u003cp\u003ecognitive psychology\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/td\u003e \u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c3\"\u003e \u003cp\u003e4\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/td\u003e \u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c4\"\u003e \u003cp\u003e11.4%\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/td\u003e \u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c5\"\u003e \u003cp\u003e280\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/td\u003e \u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c6\"\u003e \u003cp\u003e9.67%\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/td\u003e \u003c/tr\u003e \u003ctr\u003e \u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c2\"\u003e \u003cp\u003eTotal\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/td\u003e \u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c3\"\u003e \u003cp\u003e40\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/td\u003e \u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c4\"\u003e \u003cp\u003e100%\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/td\u003e \u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c5\"\u003e \u003cp\u003e2893\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/td\u003e \u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c6\"\u003e \u003cp\u003e100%\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/td\u003e \u003c/tr\u003e \u003ctr\u003e \u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c1\" morerows=\"4\" rowspan=\"5\"\u003e \u003cp\u003eLocation\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/td\u003e \u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c2\"\u003e \u003cp\u003eUS\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/td\u003e \u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c3\"\u003e \u003cp\u003e24\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/td\u003e \u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c4\"\u003e \u003cp\u003e67.5%\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/td\u003e \u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c5\"\u003e \u003cp\u003e2069\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/td\u003e \u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c6\"\u003e \u003cp\u003e71.5%\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/td\u003e \u003c/tr\u003e \u003ctr\u003e \u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c2\"\u003e \u003cp\u003eEurope\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/td\u003e \u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c3\"\u003e \u003cp\u003e5\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/td\u003e \u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c4\"\u003e \u003cp\u003e12.5%\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/td\u003e \u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c5\"\u003e \u003cp\u003e472\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/td\u003e \u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c6\"\u003e \u003cp\u003e16.32%\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/td\u003e \u003c/tr\u003e \u003ctr\u003e \u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c2\"\u003e \u003cp\u003eAsia\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/td\u003e \u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c3\"\u003e \u003cp\u003e5\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/td\u003e \u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c4\"\u003e \u003cp\u003e15%\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/td\u003e \u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c5\"\u003e \u003cp\u003e279\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/td\u003e \u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c6\"\u003e \u003cp\u003e9.64%\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/td\u003e \u003c/tr\u003e \u003ctr\u003e \u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c2\"\u003e \u003cp\u003eAfrica\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/td\u003e \u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c3\"\u003e \u003cp\u003e2\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/td\u003e \u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c4\"\u003e \u003cp\u003e5%\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/td\u003e \u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c5\"\u003e \u003cp\u003e73\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/td\u003e \u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c6\"\u003e \u003cp\u003e2.52%\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/td\u003e \u003c/tr\u003e \u003ctr\u003e \u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c2\"\u003e \u003cp\u003eTotal\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/td\u003e \u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c3\"\u003e \u003cp\u003e40\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/td\u003e \u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c4\"\u003e \u003cp\u003e100%\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/td\u003e \u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c5\"\u003e \u003cp\u003e2893\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/td\u003e \u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c6\"\u003e \u003cp\u003e100%\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/td\u003e \u003c/tr\u003e \u003c/tbody\u003e \u003c/colgroup\u003e \u003c/table\u003e\u003c/div\u003e \u003c/p\u003e \u003cp\u003eAfter the type of designs assessment, four experimental designs were extracted from these 40 articles: Post-test-only, 2 groups (20 articles, 1306 participants); Post-test-only, 1 group (11 articles, 1163 participants); Pre-test-post-test, 2 groups (5 articles, 89 participants); Pre-test-post-test, 1 group (4 articles, 335 participants) see figure (3).\u003c/p\u003e \u003cp\u003eThe studies assessed the efficacy of iPad applications in several orthodontic educational areas, including the effectiveness of iPad inside classrooms (10 articles, 1471 participants); literacy (19 articles, 788 participants); maths (7 articles, 354 participants); cognitive psychology (4 articles, 280 participants) see figure (4).\u003c/p\u003e \u003cp\u003eFurther, the studies also assessed the efficacy of iPad applications in a group of places, including the US (27 articles, 2069 participants); Europe (5 articles, 472 participants); Asia (6 articles, 279 participants); Africa (2 article, 73 participants).\u003c/p\u003e \u003cp\u003eFigures \u003cspan refid=\"Fig3\" class=\"InternalRef\"\u003e3\u003c/span\u003e and \u003cspan refid=\"Fig4\" class=\"InternalRef\"\u003e4\u003c/span\u003e represent graphically the number of studies and the number of participants across design, topics and location of the studies. These graphs help us understand the diversity of ways in which data is extracted on the usefulness of iPads. The selection of studies was not balanced on specific numbers for design, topic or location Fig.\u0026nbsp;\u003cspan refid=\"Fig3\" class=\"InternalRef\"\u003e3\u003c/span\u003e shows that most of the studies are conducted in the US, others being Asia, Europe, and Africa. As far as the topics are concerned, the role of iPads in literacy is mainly analysed. And most studies were on the design of post test only for 2 groups.\u003c/p\u003e \u003cp\u003eIt must be recalled that iPads were introduced mainly from 2010. To understand the effectiveness of iPad on learning, there are no prior studies about learning that could be used for comparison. Hence experimental design became crucial for this purpose. Most scholars first introduced iPad in class for a treatment group and then, only through post-test, the data was extracted about iPad enhancing learning. In this way it was conclusively found that iPad increased the level of learning in the classroom.\u003c/p\u003e \u003cp\u003e \u003c/p\u003e \u003cp\u003eFigure \u003cspan refid=\"Fig3\" class=\"InternalRef\"\u003e3\u003c/span\u003e shows that the majority of studies were concentrated in America and Europe, with a smaller number in Asia and Africa, which indicates the need for further studies in developing regions. Also, the most common research designs were experimental studies, reflecting the interest in measuring the causal relationship between laptop use and educational outcomes in children.\u003c/p\u003e \u003cp\u003e \u003c/p\u003e \u003cp\u003eFigure \u003cspan refid=\"Fig4\" class=\"InternalRef\"\u003e4\u003c/span\u003e indicates how comprehensive the studies are in terms of the number of participating children. It can be noted that studies in America and Europe included larger samples compared to studies in Asia and Africa, which may reflect the availability of research resources or academic interest in the topic in these regions. Also, some research topics have witnessed the participation of a larger number of children, reflecting the importance of these topics in educational research.\u003c/p\u003e"},{"header":"4. EFFECTIVENESS","content":"\u003cp\u003eFigure\u0026nbsp;\u003cspan refid=\"Fig5\" class=\"InternalRef\"\u003e5\u003c/span\u003e (meta-analysis \u0026amp; cumulative effect sizes) shows comparison the effectiveness of iPad application interventions. Most reported improvements in the outcomes measured, but Miller (2018); Nolan (2016); Wei and Lee (2013) suggested the improvements were not significant in the intervention group. [\u003cspan citationid=\"CR19\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e19\u003c/span\u003e, \u003cspan citationid=\"CR20\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e20\u003c/span\u003e, \u003cspan citationid=\"CR21\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e21\u003c/span\u003e]\u003c/p\u003e \u003cp\u003eThere was significant heterogeneity between the studies. Summary of meta-analysis effects showed a trend in pre-schoolers towards improved literacy, maths, cognitive psychology and effectiveness of iPad inside classrooms.\u003c/p\u003e \u003cp\u003eAl-Zu'bi et al. (2017) [\u003cspan citationid=\"CR22\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e22\u003c/span\u003e] found that the TCAM scores demonstrated that pre-school children in the experiment group (iPad applications) show more significant gains on creative thinking skills of fluency, originality and imagination. In addition, Zaranis and Valla (2017) [\u003cspan citationid=\"CR23\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e23\u003c/span\u003e] showed the positive effect of kindergarten children's mathematical competence after the implementation of a software application for counting and calculating with tablet computers. These results signal a possible connection between the development of early numeracy and the use of digital technologies within the learning process. However, it is worth noting, that results surrounding the impact of iPads in education are not entirely consistent.\u003c/p\u003e \u003cp\u003eWhile Wario et al. (2016) [\u003cspan citationid=\"CR24\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e24\u003c/span\u003e] emphasized the importance of confidence and interest in iPad use as factors for students' perceptions of learning mediation, in a completely different context, PICARD et al. (2014) [\u003cspan citationid=\"CR25\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e25\u003c/span\u003e] suggested that teaching drawing with an iPad produced less performance than pen-and-paper equivalents. It raises the question of whether we can realistically represent digital tools as substitutes for traditional approaches in skill-based learning activities. Complexity increases when reflecting on studies related to literacy interventions. Motsch (2016) [\u003cspan citationid=\"CR26\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e26\u003c/span\u003e] reported an advantage when using an iPad for kindergarten students on letter-naming and letter-sound fluency but not for phoneme-segmentation fluency. This indicates iPad advantages may not be widespread but instead may depend on the skill being targeted. [\u003cspan citationid=\"CR26\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e26\u003c/span\u003e]\u003c/p\u003e \u003cp\u003eFor example, out of all of the general trends of variations showing positives, Nolan (2016) concluded that providing kindergartens with iPads and individual eSpark learning applications did not improve kindergarten-readiness skills. Moreover, Miller (2018) in a play-based learning landscape stated that while the technology improved collaboration and engagement, it did not show evidence of statistically significance improvement to student achievement for children in the play based learning. In summary, variability demonstrates iPads may support engagement and cognitive edge in some areas, the value added to academic performance is still consistent with previous studies. [\u003cspan citationid=\"CR19\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e19\u003c/span\u003e, \u003cspan citationid=\"CR20\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e20\u003c/span\u003e]\u003c/p\u003e \u003cp\u003e \u003c/p\u003e"},{"header":"5. DISCUSSION","content":"\u003cp\u003eTo revolutionise education, the potential of iPads and other comparable tablets that appeared in 2010 have been heralded. iPads are multimodal, allowing the use of pictures, texts and sounds. Like many other tools being used in academia, iPads have the potential of making a positive difference in early education [\u003cspan citationid=\"CR27\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e27\u003c/span\u003e].\u003c/p\u003e \u003cp\u003eThe studies from which data was extracted covered several methods, such as videotaping, pre-test and post-test, ANOVA and observation. Meta-analysis sets forth two schools of thought based on the use of iPads. One school compares the digital and paper book resources and matches the indigenous ways of teaching to the contemporary teachings. The other positions technology as the driving force in the educational sector [\u003cspan citationid=\"CR28\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e28\u003c/span\u003e].\u003c/p\u003e \u003cp\u003eMotsch (2016) [\u003cspan citationid=\"CR26\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e26\u003c/span\u003e] focused on the prior notion that digital texts have more potential to engage a broader range of the senses than non-digital books. The argument about fast learning through digital sources is based on the better visual-auditory senses, and the kinaesthetic and tactile senses. In this realm, learners are said to be engaged in activities more effectively and are motivated more when they are engaged in reading texts digitally than from traditional textbook reading [\u003cspan citationid=\"CR29\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e29\u003c/span\u003e] (Neumann et al., 2017). Additionally, text reading from the iPad allows the students to reach hyperlinks to the videos, games and relevant explanations of the text that make reading more exciting and help in motivating the students.\u003c/p\u003e \u003cp\u003eStudents with special needs were more benefited by using iPad for learning language. Their cognitive, motor and social senses were also more effective [\u003cspan citationid=\"CR30\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e30\u003c/span\u003e]. Students with ADHD were found to have longer attention spans in developing skills, and had positive attitudes about their learning [\u003cspan citationid=\"CR31\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e31\u003c/span\u003e] (Huang, Clark and Wedel, 2013). Flewitt, Messer, and Kucirkova (2015) [\u003cspan citationid=\"CR32\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e32\u003c/span\u003e] suggested that the student's ability to communicate increases with iPads and that even shy children tend to talk more. Their vocalisations and the use of vocabulary also increased in students with hearing impairments. Chmiliar (2017) [\u003cspan citationid=\"CR33\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e33\u003c/span\u003e] found that the students with special needs initially found using the iPads difficult, but they eventually learned and showed gains in multiple areas such as printing their names and tracing the letters, recognising letters, letter sounds and the learning of simple words. Overall learning of these students was improved with iPad. For this reason, The Individuals with Disabilities Act (IDEA) in 1997 introduced assistive technology to increase, maintain and improve the students' capability [\u003cspan citationid=\"CR34\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e34\u003c/span\u003e].\u003c/p\u003e \u003cp\u003eContrary to the overwhelming evidence of the usefulness of iPad in learning, there are some studies (like Nolan, 2016) [\u003cspan citationid=\"CR20\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e20\u003c/span\u003e] that found that digital tools do not always have pedagogical value. At this age, students are not mature enough to understand most applications. Such constraints widely influence the students' learning and understanding [\u003cspan citationid=\"CR35\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e35\u003c/span\u003e]. It is therefore essential to make them understand the function of the applications for better effectiveness. In early childhood education, the meta-analysis found that teachers had to spend more time selecting the appropriate applications for the specific learning targets. In addition, the integration of the application to be used for learning is also essential. Beschorner and Hutchison (2013) [\u003cspan citationid=\"CR36\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e36\u003c/span\u003e] state that the application must allow the students to make choices, enable problem-solving, imagination, discovery and exploration. Children at this age mainly need creativity to get attracted to learning. Based on these findings, the use of the iPad needs to be modified [\u003cspan citationid=\"CR37\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e37\u003c/span\u003e].\u003c/p\u003e \u003cp\u003eAlso, in contrast to the academic perspective where most of the scholars found the use of iPads compelling, its role in social development seems to be lacking. Ralph (2018) [\u003cspan citationid=\"CR38\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e38\u003c/span\u003e] found that students using iPads were likely to exhibit antisocial behaviour. These students were mainly avoiding contact with other children when they had to focus on the activities on the iPad. American Academy of Pediatrics (2016) [\u003cspan citationid=\"CR39\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e39\u003c/span\u003e] found that media use can raise the risk of obesity in children proportionate with the amount of media they use. As discussed, such students tend to be more introverted and do not spend time outdoors. Use of iPads also increases frustration among the students [\u003cspan citationid=\"CR32\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e32\u003c/span\u003e]. Later, researchers such as Vaiopoulou, Papadakis, Sifaki, Stamovlasis and Kalogiannakis (2021) confirmed that iPad and tablets encourage young children to actively participate in a variety of educational programs, radically changing the way they play, learn, and communicate. Even the most experienced users struggle to determine the usefulness and appropriateness of so-called educational apps due to the large number of criteria to examine [\u003cspan citationid=\"CR40\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e40\u003c/span\u003e].\u003c/p\u003e \u003cp\u003eAlthough this study confirms iPads have a positive contribution to children's engagement and educational outcomes, it is worth noting that a number of other studies show mixed or opposite results. For example, some research has shown that overuse of technology may lead to diversion or reduced social interaction in more traditional learning spaces (the source of these studies, if any). IPads may also be affected by intermediary aspects such as the level of educational support from a teacher, the quality of software, or the economic and social context of students. However, the majority of the studies that produced mixed results were specific in looking at respective applications or learning environments, and this will indicate a need to trial these types of studies on a larger scale while being more cognisant of these factors. To get a better idea of how technology affects early childhood education, this paper suggests that more real-world studies be done to compare various types of technology-based educational interventions while taking into account various cultural and educational settings.\u003c/p\u003e \u003cdiv id=\"Sec14\" class=\"Section2\"\u003e \u003ch2\u003e5.1 How the COVID-19 Pandemic Affects Early Childhood Education iPad Effectiveness\u003c/h2\u003e \u003cp\u003eThis paper investigates the impact of the COVID-19 epidemic on early childhood education iPad efficacy. This paper reviews current studies employing iPads in early childhood education, mostly with reference to results between 2010 and 2020. The start of COVID-19 set quick incorporation of technologies into educational systems. While some studies indicate mixed results, others claim iPads increase student involvement and literacy. Studies reveal that too much screen usage diminishes chances for real-life interpersonal communication.\u003c/p\u003e \u003cp\u003eTo uphold particular data synthesis criteria and avoid major heterogeneity resulting from emergency schooling changes throughout the epidemic, the study excludes studies till 2020.\u003c/p\u003e \u003cp\u003eNew data, however, is showing that the epidemic has not only hastened the adoption of iPads in early years education but also exposed fresh issues including the equity of participation, different degrees of teacher preparedness, and changes in pedagogical practice fit for virtual learning. Future systematic studies could thus have to investigate these post-pandemic changes independently to find if they have affected learning impacts, engagement, and the use of iPads in hybrid learning environments.\u003c/p\u003e \u003cp\u003eTo better understand this study, necessary current literature was consulted that highlights the process behind the general developments in educational technology. This guarantees a continuous and comprehensive debate of how digital learning tools influence early childhood education, most importantly due of the COVID-19 transformation effect on pedagogical modes and classroom technology integration.\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/div\u003e \u003cdiv id=\"Sec15\" class=\"Section2\"\u003e \u003ch2\u003e5.2 Combining contradicting data on iPad integration into early childhood education\u003c/h2\u003e \u003cp\u003eStill, this systematic study and meta-analysis While creating fresh data is important, it is as important to recognise the variety of studies on the impacts of iPads in early childhood education. Although some studies have found that iPads support higher engagement, teamwork, and literacy development, others have produced mixed, complex, or downright contradicting findings. According to several studies, too much screen usage is linked to less in-person interactions. Others do draw attention to the difficulties in sufficient integration of technology without scaffolding that offers a clear educational orientation. Furthermore influencing student outcomes are variances in instructional design, teacher facilitation, and student background. This study will not only gather favourable results but also offer a critical analysis of contrary and limiting aspects, like cognitive overload, less peer interaction, and the need of a framework for using technology, so presenting a more balanced image. Incorporating the advantages and drawbacks found in the literature helps to clarify the complex nature of iPads in early childhood education and supports the need of using implementation strategies resulting in reasoned contextually sensitive policies whereby positive outcomes are enhanced while concomitant risks are reduced.\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/div\u003e"},{"header":"6. CONCLUSION AND SUGGESTIONS","content":"\u003cp\u003eThis study gives a comprehensive and systematic review and meta-analysis of the effectiveness of iPads in early childhood education, merging studies from various parts of the world. The results reveal the advantages of the iPads in becoming more powerful in enhancing student engagement, support literacy, and cognitive development in general. Yet we are also informed that the impact of digital learning tools varies, depending on the pedagogical strategies employed, instructional designs, and generalized contexts of education.\u003c/p\u003e \u003cp\u003eOne major factor that will be taken into account for the interpretation of these findings is the role that regional disparities in adoption of digital learning play. The review considers studies from a number of regions; nevertheless, variations in early childhood education policies, digital literacy initiatives, and socioeconomic circumstances put into question the federalization of the findings. Taking this into account, we will definitely put lengthy mentions in the discussion section to showcase that there are indeed regional disparities in adopting technologies for learning. Further, we will look up some recent literature from proven countries to check if any major findings can be imbibed in our discussion to strengthen this comparative perspective of the study and bring to light the shades of efficacy of iPads across different educational settings. It will support a more balanced view of the trends regarding the adoption of technology geared toward education, as well as provide a wider lens for interpreting the findings.\u003c/p\u003e \u003cp\u003eMoreover, although the pandemic has driven further technology integration into education, the impacts on early childhood digital learning environments are still under exploration. The future studies can be directed more effectively as to how the changes in educational technology policies and training programs would reinforce or lessen the effectiveness of iPads in early learning environments.\u003c/p\u003e \u003cp\u003e \u003cstrong\u003eKey findings\u003c/strong\u003e \u003cp\u003eThis study presented a systematic review of the available literature and performed a meta-analysis on the effectiveness of iPads in early childhood education. Results imply that through enhanced focus, on-task conduct, and teamwork, iPads could help to improve learning. Their appeal results from low-cost learning apps accessible for them as well as from the simplicity of long-presided iPads. Teachers still find it difficult, though, choosing the appropriate apps.\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/p\u003e \u003cp\u003e \u003cstrong\u003eChallenges\u003c/strong\u003e \u003cp\u003eThough they still have great value, many of them have to do with the early childhood iPad usage. Children now have more opportunities to interact and engage with each other via interactive touchscreens because to the accelerating speed of educational technologies. These units allow for an increased level of independent learning but can create frustration and in some cases social isolation. Further, if technology is introduced too early, it can hamper development in collaboration with learning. Teachers need to prevent this through active facilitation of peer interactions.\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/p\u003e \u003cp\u003e \u003cstrong\u003eFuture recommendations\u003c/strong\u003e \u003cp\u003eThe COVID-19 pandemic revealed the growing importance of technology, reinforcing its acceptance as a true tool for learning on a global scale. Nevertheless, there is an ever-increasing need to redefine literacy in early childhood education to include multimedia and digital literacy. Such research should make use of demonstrations and post-test comparisons to enable quantifiable results about the literacy growth of pupils both before and after iPad use. This method can help one to grasp how early learning results are influenced by technology.\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/p\u003e \u003cp\u003eUsing methodical reviews and meta-analysis, this study sought to answer the topic of iPad efficacy in early childhood education. Being an approach that enables results across different studies to be aggregated, identification of trends and going further to provide an answer to the question shows that some of the methods and approaches to this study will require more completed research from Western countries in future studies.\u003c/p\u003e \u003cp\u003eWhile it is concluded that learning with the iPad is engaging and in some instances promotes learning, there appears to be evidence countering with regards to some studies stating certain drawbacks: less social interaction, screen time issues, and inequalities in digital access. Considering these pedagogical complexities emphasizes the need for instructional design and teacher guidance to be aligned in order to harness fully the benefits of iPads in early childhood education. By advancing the methodological justification, extending the literature scope, and judging different opinions critically, this study thus contributes to a better understanding of digital learning in early childhood sectors.\u003c/p\u003e \u003cp\u003eThe results of this study reinforce the current understanding of the role of iPads in supporting early childhood learning, as most studies have shown a positive impact on academic interaction and the development of cognitive and social skills. However, the differences between research designs and differences in learning environments require more in-depth research.\u003c/p\u003e \u003cp\u003eMore controlled research designs: it is beneficial to conduct, preferably longitudinal studies based on controlled experimental designs that investigate the long-term effects of the use of laptops in distinct educational situations. Focus on cultural and educational contexts: future studies should explore the ramifications of a student's socio-economic background when using educational technology which may provide more precise understanding of how to develop effective educational programs. Examination of potential negative outcomes: it is helpful to investigate potential undesired outcomes, including being potentially distracted or decreased social interaction, through controlled comparative studies between traditional instruction methods to those of laptop-supported education. Development of tailored interactive models: it would be beneficial to test educational software suitable for children's education, assess the appropriateness of materials and how motivating it is for children.\u003c/p\u003e \u003cp\u003eThe findings of this research support clear recommendations for teachers and policymakers regarding the purposeful use of iPads in the early years:\u003c/p\u003e \u003cp\u003e \u003col\u003e \u003cspan\u003e \u003cli\u003e \u003cp\u003eFor Classroom Teachers and Practitioners Plan for gradual, spaced integration: it's important that teachers integrate the use of tablets into their planned classroom experiences in a manner which supports learning alongside children's interactions with the teacher.\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/li\u003e \u003c/span\u003e \u003cspan\u003e \u003cli\u003e \u003cp\u003eUsing interactive educational software: it is useful to use educational applications that are designed specifically for early childhood to promote active and interactive play rather than passive use of an iPad.\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/li\u003e \u003c/span\u003e \u003cspan\u003e \u003cli\u003e \u003cp\u003eBalancing technology and traditional activities: to achieve a balanced learning experience, digital activities would need to be balanced with both physical and social experiences to support children's holistic development.\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/li\u003e \u003c/span\u003e \u003c/ol\u003e \u003c/p\u003e \u003cp\u003eWe need to establish sustained professional development workshops which help teachers learn the best possible practices for integrating technology into their teaching, focused on the management of learners when they are all using digital devices.\u003c/p\u003e \u003cp\u003e4. For Education Policymakers Create national guidelines for technology integration: A Ministry level education authority, and educational institutions, need to establish clear endorsement of expectations and guidelines regarding the use of tablets in the education of young children including guidelines for choosing appropriate educational apps and the amounts of time recommended per day for educational use of digital devices.\u003c/p\u003e \u003cp\u003eEnsure appropriate infrastructure. Schools need technical support and an appropriate level of infrastructure to ensure equitable access to technology in education for all children, particularly in underdeveloped contexts. Conduct regular evaluation studies. It would be reasonable to develop a program of continuous evaluation trials to assess technology use on children's development of skills, and make adjustments to policies and programs based on actual experience and outcome. Foster school relations with software program developers. Encourage educational institutions and companies who specialize in software development to work collaboratively to ensure digital content is designed to achieve educational aims.\u003c/p\u003e \u003cp\u003eWe should establish continuous teacher professional development workshops to train teachers on best practices for technology integration in education, including classroom management techniques with students using digital devices.\u003c/p\u003e \u003cp\u003e5. For Education Policymakers Create national guidelines for technology integration: A Ministry level education authority, and educational institutions, need to establish clear endorsement of expectations and guidelines regarding the use of tablets in the education of young children including guidelines for choosing appropriate educational apps and the amounts of time recommended per day for educational use of digital devices.\u003c/p\u003e \u003cp\u003eEnsure appropriate infrastructure. Schools need technical support and an appropriate level of infrastructure to ensure equitable access to technology in education for all children, particularly in underdeveloped contexts. Conduct regular evaluation studies. It would be reasonable to develop a program of continuous evaluation trials to assess technology use on children's development of skills, and make adjustments to policies and programs based on actual experience and outcome. Foster school relations with software program developers. Encourage educational institutions and companies who specialize in software development to work collaboratively to ensure digital content is designed to achieve educational aims.\u003c/p\u003e \u003cp\u003e \u003cb\u003eLimitations of study\u003c/b\u003e \u003c/p\u003e \u003cp\u003eRegardless of the value of the overall findings, this study has identified some limitations that should be acknowledged for the sake of academic transparency:\u003c/p\u003e \u003cp\u003eThe characteristics of the included studies were varied: the review included studies that were conducted using different research methods, which might inform the consistency and comparison of the findings.\u003c/p\u003e \u003cp\u003eA limited regional focus: while studies from several regions were included, representation from areas such as the African and Asian regions was under-represented here thus highlighting a need for more research in this area.\u003c/p\u003e \u003cp\u003eIndirect effects: the paper was unable to refine the indirect effect of using iPads on aspects such as the promotion of creative thinking or the change in learning behavior in children. As these limitations suggest, more research is encouraged that sets out to investigate these aspects, in order to add to the overall understanding of the impact of technology in early years education.\u003c/p\u003e"},{"header":"Declarations","content":"\u003cp\u003e\u003cstrong\u003eACKNOWLEDGEMENTS\u003c/strong\u003e\u003c/p\u003e\n\u003cp\u003eThis research was supported by Zarqa University, Jordan, the Research and Innovation Management Centre (RIMC) at Universiti Utara Malaysia (UUM), and INTI International University, Malaysia.\u003c/p\u003e\n\u003cp\u003e\u003cstrong\u003eNote:\u0026nbsp;\u003c/strong\u003eInformed Consent was obtained from all the participants involved in the study.\u003c/p\u003e\n\u003cp\u003eFunding Declaration: there are no funding.\u003c/p\u003e\n\u003cp\u003eEthics and Consent to Participate for publication: not applicable.\u003c/p\u003e\n\u003cp\u003eCompeting interests: the authors declare no competing interests.\u003c/p\u003e\n\u003cp\u003eClinical Trial Number: not applicable.\u003c/p\u003e\n\u003cp\u003eData Availability: there is no data availability.\u003c/p\u003e\u003ch2\u003eAuthor Contribution\u003c/h2\u003e\u003cp\u003e- Mohammad Ahmad Abdelaziz Al-Zu\u0026rsquo;bi and Mohd Faiz Mohd Yaakob wrote the main manuscript text - Kholoud Imhammad Meqbel Al-Mseidin prepared figures and tables. Mohd Sofian Bin Omar Fauzee and Reda S.M. Al-Mawadieh analysed the findings. - Maher Tayseer Sharadgah Mohammad Suliman Al Shaar, Zaid Alkouri, Manal Dawoud and Malek Jdaitawi done some of comments.- All authors reviewed the manuscript.\u003c/p\u003e"},{"header":"References","content":"\u003col\u003e\u003cli\u003e\u003cspan\u003eJan G. (2022). The Effectiveness of The E-Learning and Distance Education System in Teaching Visual Arts Courses during COVID-19, Zarqa Journal for Research and Studies in Humanities, (1)22, 124\u0026ndash;39.\u003c/span\u003e\u003c/li\u003e \u003cli\u003e\u003cspan\u003eAl-Mawadieh R, Abu-Ghalyoun O, Al Tarawneh I, Al-Masri H, Fakhir L, Al-Zu'bi M. (2023, December). Development of Educational Sciences Colleges in Jordanian Universities in the Light of Applications of Artificial Intelligence from the Point of View of Faculty Members: A Proposed Concept. In 2023 24th International Arab Conference on Information Technology (ACIT) (pp. 1\u0026ndash;7). IEEE.\u003c/span\u003e\u003c/li\u003e \u003cli\u003e\u003cspan\u003eAl-Mseidin KI, Al-Zu'bi MA, Al-Mawadieh RS, Alelaimat AM. (2023, December). The Integration of AI Applications in Psychological and Educational Counselling for University Students: Opportunities and Challenges. In 2023 24th International Arab Conference on Information Technology (ACIT) (pp. 1\u0026ndash;6). IEEE.\u003c/span\u003e\u003c/li\u003e \u003cli\u003e\u003cspan\u003eAl-Zu\u0026rsquo;bi MAA. (2020). IPad as a New Educational Technology: A Review of the Literature. International Journal of Childhood, Counselling and Special Education, 1(1), 1\u0026ndash;10.\u003c/span\u003e\u003c/li\u003e \u003cli\u003e\u003cspan\u003eAl-Zu'bi MA, Al-Mseidin KI, Almajali AF, Al-Mawadieh RS, Khafajeh H, Abutayeh N. (2022, November). Motivating pre-school children to learn creative thinking in Jordan using iPad applications: a mixed-methods approach. In 2022 international Arab conference on information technology (ACIT) (pp. 1\u0026ndash;7). IEEE.\u003c/span\u003e\u003c/li\u003e \u003cli\u003e\u003cspan\u003eFantozzi VB. (2021). It's Everyone's iPad: Tablet uses in a play-based pre-school classroom. Journal of Early Childhood Research, 19(2), 115\u0026ndash;27.\u003c/span\u003e\u003c/li\u003e \u003cli\u003e\u003cspan\u003eLerret SM, Johnson NL, Polfuss M, Weiss M, Gralton K, Klingbeil CG, Sawin K. (2020). Using the engaging parents in education for discharge (ePED) iPad application to improve parent discharge experience. Journal of pediatric nursing, 52, 41\u0026ndash;8.\u003c/span\u003e\u003c/li\u003e \u003cli\u003e\u003cspan\u003eAljaafreh AY, Al-Mseidin KI, Al-Zu\u0026rsquo;bi MA. The Quality of Electronic Services Provided by Zarqa University from the Point of View of Its Employees. From Industry 4.0 to Industry 5.0: Mapping the Transitions. Cham: Springer Nature Switzerland; 2023. pp. 261\u0026ndash;71.\u003c/span\u003e\u003c/li\u003e \u003cli\u003e\u003cspan\u003eAl-Mseidin KI, Al-Zu'bi MA. (2021). THE EFFECTS OF COGNITIVE BEHAVIORAL THERAPY ON ACADEMIC ADJUSTMENT AMONG JORDANIAN STUDENTS. J Evidence-Based Psychotherapies, 21(1).\u003c/span\u003e\u003c/li\u003e \u003cli\u003e\u003cspan\u003eAl-Mawadiah RS, Al-Zu\u0026rsquo;bi MA. The degree of availability of the standards of the national framework for academic qualifications in early childhood in Jordan from the point of view of female teachers. Int J Child Counselling Special Educ (CCSE). 2021;2(2):103\u0026ndash;12.\u003c/span\u003e\u003c/li\u003e \u003cli\u003e\u003cspan\u003eAl-Mawadiah RS, Al-Zu'bi MA. The degree to which kindergarten principals in Jordan practice a crisis management strategy in their administrative work in light of the corona pandemic (COVID-19) and their attitudes towards distance learning. J Educational Psychol Stud [JEPS]. 2021;15(1):82\u0026ndash;97.\u003c/span\u003e\u003c/li\u003e \u003cli\u003e\u003cspan\u003eGough D, Oliver S, Thomas J, editors. (2017). An introduction to systematic reviews. Sage.\u003c/span\u003e\u003c/li\u003e \u003cli\u003e\u003cspan\u003eBorenstein M, Hedges LV, Higgins JP, Rothstein HR. (2010). A basic introduction to fixed-effect and random‐effects models for meta‐analysis. Research synthesis methods, 1(2), 97\u0026ndash;111.\u003c/span\u003e\u003c/li\u003e \u003cli\u003e\u003cspan\u003eCard NA. (2015). Applied meta-analysis for social science research. Guilford.\u003c/span\u003e\u003c/li\u003e \u003cli\u003e\u003cspan\u003eBritto PR, UNICEF. \u0026amp;. (2012). School readiness: A conceptual framework. New York.\u003c/span\u003e\u003c/li\u003e \u003cli\u003e\u003cspan\u003eDavey J, Turner RM, Clarke MJ, Higgins JPT. Characteristics of meta-analyses and their component studies in the Cochrane database of systematic reviews: A cross-sectional, descriptive analysis. BMC Med Res Methodol. 2011;11:160. \u003cspan class=\"ExternalRef\"\u003e\u003cspan class=\"RefSource\"\u003ehttp://dx.doi.org/10.1186/1471-2288-11-160\u003c/span\u003e\u003cspan address=\"10.1186/1471-2288-11-160\" targettype=\"DOI\" class=\"RefTarget\"\u003e\u003c/span\u003e\u003c/span\u003e.\u003c/span\u003e\u003c/li\u003e \u003cli\u003e\u003cspan\u003eHiggins JPT, Thompson SG, Deeks JJ, Altman DG. Measuring inconsistency in meta-analyses. BMJ: Br Med J. 2003;327(7414):557\u0026ndash;60. \u003cspan class=\"ExternalRef\"\u003e\u003cspan class=\"RefSource\"\u003ehttp://dx.doi.org/10.1136/bmj.327.7414.557\u003c/span\u003e\u003cspan address=\"10.1136/bmj.327.7414.557\" targettype=\"DOI\" class=\"RefTarget\"\u003e\u003c/span\u003e\u003c/span\u003e.\u003c/span\u003e\u003c/li\u003e \u003cli\u003e\u003cspan\u003eBiostat. (2005). Comprehensive meta-analysis (Version 3.0) [computer software]. Englewood, NJ.\u003c/span\u003e\u003c/li\u003e \u003cli\u003e\u003cspan\u003eMiller T. (2018). Developing numeracy skills using interactive technology in a play-based learning environment. International Journal of STEM Education, 5(1), 1\u0026ndash;11. \u003cspan class=\"ExternalRef\"\u003e\u003cspan class=\"RefSource\"\u003ehttps://doi.org/10.1186/s40594-018-0135-2\u003c/span\u003e\u003cspan address=\"10.1186/s40594-018-0135-2\" targettype=\"DOI\" class=\"RefTarget\"\u003e\u003c/span\u003e\u003c/span\u003e\u003c/span\u003e\u003c/li\u003e \u003cli\u003e\u003cspan\u003eNolan JP. (2016). Implementation of iPads for at-risk pre-kindergarten students (Doctoral dissertation, Concordia University Chicago).\u003c/span\u003e\u003c/li\u003e \u003cli\u003e\u003cspan\u003eWei WJ, Lee LC. (2013). Construction of the e-PAYA for Technology-enhanced Learning in Kindergarten. Journal of Information Technology and Application in Education, 2(4), 143\u0026ndash;9. \u003cspan class=\"ExternalRef\"\u003e\u003cspan class=\"RefSource\"\u003e10.14355/jitae.2013.0204.03\u003c/span\u003e\u003cspan address=\"10.14355/jitae.2013.0204.03\" targettype=\"DOI\" class=\"RefTarget\"\u003e\u003c/span\u003e\u003c/span\u003e\u003c/span\u003e\u003c/li\u003e \u003cli\u003e\u003cspan\u003eAl-Zu'bi MA, Fauzee O, M. S., Kaur A. The effect of iPad apps on creative thinking among preschoolers in Jordan. Int J Multidisciplinary Educ Res. 2017;2(4):29\u0026ndash;35.\u003c/span\u003e\u003c/li\u003e \u003cli\u003e\u003cspan\u003eZaranis N, Valla V. (2017, July). Tablet computer-assisted counting and calculating activities for kindergarten children. In EDULEARN17 Proceedings, 9th International Conference on Education and New Learning Technologies (pp. 9680\u0026ndash;9689).\u003c/span\u003e\u003c/li\u003e \u003cli\u003e\u003cspan\u003eWario R, Ireri B, Wet L. (2016) Evaluating IPAD as a teaching tool in higher education within a rural area: a case study at a South African university, International Conferences ITS, ISBN: 978-989-8533-58-6.\u003c/span\u003e\u003c/li\u003e \u003cli\u003e\u003cspan\u003ePICARD D, MARTIN P, TSAO R. iPads in school? A quantitative comparison of primary school children's pen-on-paper drawing skills versus on-screen finger drawing skills. J Educational Comput Res. 2014;50(2):203\u0026ndash;12.\u003c/span\u003e\u003c/li\u003e \u003cli\u003e\u003cspan\u003eMotsch LR. (2016). A study of the effect of iPad use for reading intervention at the kindergarten level (Doctoral dissertation, University of St. Francis).\u003c/span\u003e\u003c/li\u003e \u003cli\u003e\u003cspan\u003eFerenstein G. (2011). How the iPad 2 Will Revolutionize Education. Fast Company. Available online at: \u003cspan class=\"ExternalRef\"\u003e\u003cspan class=\"RefSource\"\u003ehttp://www.fastcompany.com/1733662/how-ipad-2-will-revolutionize-education\u003c/span\u003e\u003cspan address=\"http://www.fastcompany.com/1733662/how-ipad-2-will-revolutionize-education\" targettype=\"URL\" class=\"RefTarget\"\u003e\u003c/span\u003e\u003c/span\u003e\u003c/span\u003e\u003c/li\u003e \u003cli\u003e\u003cspan\u003eChiong C, Ree J, Takeuchi L.. Joan Ganz Cooney Quick Report, Joan Ganz Cooney Center. NY: United Nations Children's Fund; 2012. Print versus E-books.\u003c/span\u003e\u003c/li\u003e \u003cli\u003e\u003cspan\u003eNeumann M, Neumann D. The use of touch-screen tablets at home and pre-school to foster emergent literacy. J Early Child Lit. 2017;17(2):203\u0026ndash;20.\u003c/span\u003e\u003c/li\u003e \u003cli\u003e\u003cspan\u003eTurkestani M. The effect of iPads on school preparedness among preschool children with hearing impairments. Int Educ Stud. 2015;8(11):50\u0026ndash;62.\u003c/span\u003e\u003c/li\u003e \u003cli\u003e\u003cspan\u003eHuang S, Clark N, Wedel W. Teaching tips: The use of an iPad to promote preschoolers alphabet recognition and letter sound correspondence. Practically Prim. 2013;18(1):24\u0026ndash;6.\u003c/span\u003e\u003c/li\u003e \u003cli\u003e\u003cspan\u003eFlewitt R, Messer D, Kucirkova N. New directions for early literacy in the digital age: The iPad. J Early Child Lit. 2015;15(3):289\u0026ndash;310.\u003c/span\u003e\u003c/li\u003e \u003cli\u003e\u003cspan\u003eChmiliar L. (2017). Improving learning outcomes: The iPad and preschool children with disabilities. Front Psychol, 8.\u003c/span\u003e\u003c/li\u003e \u003cli\u003e\u003cspan\u003eNepo K. The use of technology to improve education. Child Youth Care Forum. 2017;46:207\u0026ndash;21.\u003c/span\u003e\u003c/li\u003e \u003cli\u003e\u003cspan\u003eFalloon G. Young students using iPads: App design and content influences on their learning pathways. Computers Educ. 2013;68:505\u0026ndash;21.\u003c/span\u003e\u003c/li\u003e \u003cli\u003e\u003cspan\u003eBeschorner B, Hutchison A. iPads as a literacy teaching tool in early childhood. Int J Educ Math Sci Technol. 2013;1(1):16\u0026ndash;24.\u003c/span\u003e\u003c/li\u003e \u003cli\u003e\u003cspan\u003eAl-Zu'bi MA, Al-Mseidin KI, Al-Mawadieh RS, Alawmareh AR. (2023, December). The Impact of iPad Applications on Learning Motivation among Preschoolers in Jordan. In 2023 24th International Arab Conference on Information Technology (ACIT) (pp. 1\u0026ndash;7). IEEE.\u003c/span\u003e\u003c/li\u003e \u003cli\u003e\u003cspan\u003eRalph R. Media and Technology in Preschool Classrooms: Manifesting prosocial sharing behaviors when using iPads. Tech Know Learn. 2018;23:199\u0026ndash;221.\u003c/span\u003e\u003c/li\u003e \u003cli\u003e\u003cspan\u003eAmerican Academy of Pediatrics. (2016). Media and Young Minds. Pediatrics, 138(5).\u003c/span\u003e\u003c/li\u003e \u003cli\u003e\u003cspan\u003eVaiopoulou J, Papadakis S, Sifaki E, Stamovlasis D, Kalogiannakis M. (2021). Parents\u0026rsquo; perceptions of educational apps use for kindergarten children: Development and validation of a new instrument (PEAU-p) and exploration of parents\u0026rsquo; profiles. Behavioral Sciences, 11(6), 82.\u003c/span\u003e\u003c/li\u003e \u003c/ol\u003e"}],"fulltextSource":"","fullText":"","funders":[],"hasAdminPriorityOnWorkflow":false,"hasManuscriptDocX":true,"hasOptedInToPreprint":true,"hasPassedJournalQc":"","hasAnyPriority":false,"hideJournal":true,"highlight":"","institution":"","isAcceptedByJournal":false,"isAuthorSuppliedPdf":false,"isDeskRejected":"","isHiddenFromSearch":false,"isInQc":false,"isInWorkflow":false,"isPdf":false,"isPdfUpToDate":true,"isWithdrawnOrRetracted":false,"journal":{"display":true,"email":"[email protected]","identity":"researchsquare","isNatureJournal":false,"hasQc":true,"allowDirectSubmit":true,"externalIdentity":"","sideBox":"","snPcode":"","submissionUrl":"/submission","title":"Research Square","twitterHandle":"researchsquare","acdcEnabled":true,"dfaEnabled":false,"editorialSystem":"","reportingPortfolio":"","inReviewEnabled":false,"inReviewRevisionsEnabled":true},"keywords":"Early Childhood, iPads, Systematic Review, Meta-Analysis ","lastPublishedDoi":"10.21203/rs.3.rs-5639542/v1","lastPublishedDoiUrl":"https://doi.org/10.21203/rs.3.rs-5639542/v1","license":{"name":"CC BY 4.0","url":"https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/"},"manuscriptAbstract":"Primary education is complex and multifaceted. The grades in early childhood education are significant for the children to acquire foundational language, literacy and math skills. Children learn at this stage to communicate through vibrant ways of interaction that are both verbal and non-verbal. To enhance learning, educators are using technology purposefully. The current study has dealt with one of the tools, the iPad, that educators use as a literacy teaching tool in early childhood. The study aims to analyse the efficacy or usefulness of iPads. Data for the study is extracted from the past literature from 2010-2020, and the systematic review and meta-analysis strategy was adopted for the analysis. The result from the systemic review of 36 articles and meta-analysis of 18 articles suggests that iPads seem to be effective in forging critical skills and learning the language. However, integrating iPads and other technologies demand an appropriate classification of technology-based learning in early childhood.\n\n","manuscriptTitle":"The Efficacy of iPads in Early Childhood Education; A Systematic Review and Meta-Analysis","msid":"","msnumber":"","nonDraftVersions":[{"code":1,"date":"2025-05-06 12:35:35","doi":"10.21203/rs.3.rs-5639542/v1","editorialEvents":[{"type":"communityComments","content":0}],"status":"published","journal":{"display":true,"email":"[email protected]","identity":"researchsquare","isNatureJournal":false,"hasQc":true,"allowDirectSubmit":true,"externalIdentity":"","sideBox":"","snPcode":"","submissionUrl":"/submission","title":"Research Square","twitterHandle":"researchsquare","acdcEnabled":true,"dfaEnabled":false,"editorialSystem":"","reportingPortfolio":"","inReviewEnabled":false,"inReviewRevisionsEnabled":true}}],"origin":"","ownerIdentity":"b31ef857-410b-47d2-9384-2ab0a4f58449","owner":[],"postedDate":"May 6th, 2025","published":true,"recentEditorialEvents":[],"rejectedJournal":[],"revision":"","amendment":"","status":"posted","subjectAreas":[],"tags":[],"updatedAt":"2025-08-08T13:53:16+00:00","versionOfRecord":[],"versionCreatedAt":"2025-05-06 12:35:35","video":"","vorDoi":"","vorDoiUrl":"","workflowStages":[]},"version":"v1","identity":"rs-5639542","journalConfig":"researchsquare"},"__N_SSP":true},"page":"/article/[identity]/[[...version]]","query":{"redirect":"/article/rs-5639542","identity":"rs-5639542","version":["v1"]},"buildId":"8U1c8b4HqxoKbykW_rLl7","isFallback":false,"isExperimentalCompile":false,"dynamicIds":[84888],"gssp":true,"scriptLoader":[]}