Submitted:
02 February 2025
Posted:
04 February 2025
You are already at the latest version
Abstract
Keywords:
1. Introduction
2. Background
2.1. Very Young Students and Emergent Literacy Skills
2.2. Tablets, Very Young Students, and Literacy Skills with a Focus on Letter Name/Sound Identification
2.3. Statement of the Problem, Issues in Current Research
- While systematic reviews have identified the positive impacts of tablets and mobile devices on literacy and numeracy outcomes, these findings are tempered by methodological limitations, including small sample sizes and potential biases [47]. This underscores the need for robust empirical research to delineate the conditions and groups that benefit most from tablet integration in early education.
- Existing studies have underscored the potential of tablets as effective tools for improving emergent literacy skills, such as letter name identification and letter sound recognition. However, the body of literature on these applications remains fragmented and insufficiently comprehensive (e.g., [47,48]).
- Additionally, the effectiveness of ICT interventions often hinges on adult participation and pedagogical scaffolding, as indicated by studies that demonstrate the necessity of teacher guidance in tablet-assisted literacy instruction [42,45]. Nonetheless, the extent to which such guidance can mitigate disparities in outcomes remains underexplored, particularly regarding variances tied to demographic and instructional factors [46].
- Attention must also be paid to the quality of educational applications, as not all are crafted with pedagogical efficacy in mind, leading to potential gaps in learning outcomes [43]. While the utilization of applications should adhere to phonological awareness and phonics instructional recommendations, current applications may fail to meet these criteria [57].
3. Method
- H1. Compared to conventional materials and controlling for the effects of participants' sex and prior knowledge, tablets have a significantly greater impact on kindergarten students' learning outcomes, in the area of letter identification/letter sound recognition.
- H2. Compared to conventional materials and controlling for the effects of participants' sex and prior knowledge, tablets have a significantly greater impact in kindergarten students' retention of knowledge, in the area of letter identification/letter sound recognition.
- H3a-c. Compared to conventional materials and controlling for the effects of participants' sex, tablets exhibit a more substantial effect on kindergarten students' (a) engagement, (b) enjoyment, and (c) motivation, in the area of letter identification/letter sound recognition.
- H4a-c. Engagement (a), enjoyment (b), and motivation (c), influence kindergarten students' learning outcomes, in the area of letter identification/letter sound recognition.
- H5a-c. Engagement (a), enjoyment (b), and motivation (c), influence kindergarten students' retention of knowledge, in the area of letter identification/letter sound recognition.
3.1. Participants
3.2. Materials
- Although the activities were somewhat repetitive, substantial efforts were made to ensure that the context was meaningful. This approach aimed to facilitate students' retention and application of their knowledge [6]. For instance, students were not only instructed to write the uppercase and lowercase versions of each letter but also to draw objects that include the respective letter.
- The use of visual cues, such as images, was extensively integrated, as these support the writing process [31].
- Emphasis was placed on letter-sound recognition. This enabled children to hear and replicate the sounds of letters and link them to the written ones [32].
- The majority of activities were designed to be play-based, as this method is known to enhance the reading and writing skills of young learners [22]. For example, there were activities in which students were asked to find pairs of letters on a set of flipped cards and match letters/objects and sounds.
- A video projector and a CR player for presenting videos and songs related to the session's focus letter.
- Cards of objects, cards with both the upper- and lowercase versions of letters, and audio recordings of words, for guessing, pairing, and matching activities.
- Paper and pencils for activities related to drawing letters and objects having a specific letter.
- Worksheets including the session's activities.
3.3. Instruments
3.4. Procedure
4. Results
4.1. Initial Data Processing
4.2. Analysis of the Evaluation Tests and Questionnaire
4.3. Analysis of the Factors Affecting Learning Outcomes
4.4. Summary of the Results, Response to the Research Hypotheses
- ■
- In the evaluation tests, after accounting for the effects of sex and prior knowledge, a statistically significant difference was observed between the groups [F(1, 74) = 7.50, p = .008]. The effect size was medium. Thus, the different instructional media had an impact on students' cognitive outcomes, with the experimental group using AR outperforming the control group, which was taught using conventional materials. Therefore, H1 is confirmed.
- ■
- The post-test analysis, after controlling for the effects of sex and prior knowledge, also revealed a statistically significant difference between the groups [F(1, 74) = 5.09, p = .027]. The effect size was medium. Consequently, the different instructional media influenced the retention of knowledge, with the experimental group demonstrating better retention than the control. Thus, H2 is confirmed.
- ■
- Regarding engagement, after controlling for sex effects, a statistically significant difference emerged between the groups [F(1, 74) = 23.46, p < .001]. The effect size was large. The experimental group showed greater engagement compared to the control group. This result confirms H3a.
- ■
- In terms of enjoyment, the analysis indicated a statistically significant difference between the groups [F(1, 74) = 9.84, p = .002]. AR was perceived to offer a more enjoyable experience compared to conventional materials. The effect size was medium. Consequently, H3b is accepted.
- ■
- Investigating motivation, a statistically significant difference was observed between the groups, with AR deemed to provide greater motivation for learning compared to conventional materials [F(1, 74) = 16.91, p < .001]. The effect size was medium to large. Thus, H3c is also accepted.
- ■
- When examining the factors impacting the results of the evaluation tests, enjoyment and motivation were influential in the control group (p = .022 in both cases), while all factors played a role in the experimental group (p = .007 for engagement, p = .004 for enjoyment, and p = .031 for motivation). Hence, H4a-c is fully accepted for the experimental group and partially (H4b and c) for the control one.
- ■
- Regarding the factors influencing post-test outcomes, no factor played a significant role in either the experimental or control group. Therefore, H5a-c is rejected for both groups.
5. Discussion
5.1. Discussion of the Findings Related to H1 and H2
5.2. Discussion of the Findings Related to H3a-c
5.3. Discussion of the Findings Related to H4a-c and H5a-c
5.4. Implications for Research and Practice
5.5. Limitations and Future Work
6. Conclusions
Author Contributions
Funding
Institutional review board statement
Informed consent statement
Data Availability Statement
Conflicts of Interest
Appendix I
| Match the images to the letter that each one begins with. | Color red the stars having the letter "σ", blue the ones having the letter "ε", and yellow the ones with the letter "o" (the instructions were conveyed orally and were not provided in written form). |
![]() |
![]() |
| Draw something beginning with the letter "ε" (the instructions were conveyed orally and were not provided in written form). | |
![]() | |
| Circle the umbrellas having the letter "ο" (the instructions were conveyed orally and were not provided in written form). | |
![]() |
Appendix II
| Factor | Item |
|---|---|
| Engagement | I was deeply concentrated in the applications |
| I forgot about time passing while using the applications | |
| I felt detached from the outside world while using the applications | |
| Motivation | The applications did not hold my attention* |
| When using the applications, I did not have the impulse to learn more about the learning subject* | |
| The applications did not motivate me to learn* | |
| Enjoyment | I think the applications were fun |
| I felt bored while using the applications* | |
| I really enjoyed studying with these applications |
References
- Harris, T. L, & Hodges, R. E. (1995). The literacy dictionary. International Reading Association.
- Battle, D. (2009). Multiculturalism, language, and emergent literacy. In P. M. Rhyner (Ed.), Emergent literacy and language development promoting learning in early childhood (pp. 192-234). The Guilford Press.
- Rohde, L. (2015). The comprehensive emergent literacy model: Early literacy in context. Sage Open, 5(1), 2158244015577664. [CrossRef]
- Wulandari, R. A., Hafidah, R., & Pudyaningtyas, A. R. (2020). The effect of augmented reality (AR) flashcard on early literacy of early childhood. Proceedings of the 4th International Conference on Learning Innovation and Quality Education, 1-5. ACM. [CrossRef]
- Erekson, J. A., Opitz, M. F., & Schendel, R. (2020). Understanding, assessing, and teaching reading: A diagnostic approach (8th ed.). Pearson.
- Casbergue, R. M., & Strickland, D. S. (2016). Reading and writing in preschool: Teaching the essentials. The Guilford Press.
- McGee, L. M., & Richgels, D. J. (2012). Literacy's beginnings: Supporting young readers and writers (6th ed.). Pearson.
- Honig, B., Diamond, L., Gutlohn, L., Cole, L. C., Hudson, R. F., Lane, H. B., Mahler, J., & Pullen, P. C. (2018). Teaching reading sourcebook (3rd ed.). Academic Therapy Publications.
- Fitria, T. N. (2023). Augmented reality (AR) and virtual reality (VR) technology in education: Media of teaching and learning: A review. International Journal of Computer and Information System (IJCIS), 4(1), 14-25.
- Jack, C., & Higgins, S. (2019). Embedding educational technologies in early years education. Research in Learning Technology, 27, 1-17. [CrossRef]
- Soyoof, A., Reynolds, B. L., Neumann, M., Scull, J., Tour, E., & McLay, K. (2024). The impact of parent mediation on young children’s home digital literacy practices and learning: A narrative review. Journal of Computer Assisted Learning, 40, 65-88. [CrossRef]
- Nacher, V., Jaen, J., Navarro, E., Catala, A., & González, P. (2015). Multi-touch gestures for pre-kindergarten children. International Journal of Human-Computer Studies, 73, 37-51. [CrossRef]
- Price, S., Jewitt, C., & Crescenzi, L. (2015). The role of iPads in pre-school children’s mark making development. Computers & Education, 87, 131-141. [CrossRef]
- Apelboim-Dushnitzky, G., & Tova, O. (2025). Promoting letter-naming and initial-phoneme detection abilities among preschoolers at risk for specific learning disorder using technological intervention with two types of mats: With and without target letter forms. Journal of Educational Computing Research, 62(8), 2020-2041. [CrossRef]
- Rubio, A. D. J. (2024). Integration of the tablet in a Spanish early childhood education classroom. In New approaches in mobile learning for early childhood education (pp. 60-90). IGI Global. [CrossRef]
- Fokides, E., & Zachristou, D. (2020). Teaching natural sciences to kindergarten students using tablets: results from a pilot project. In S. Papadakis & M. Kalogiannakis (Eds.), Mobile learning applications in early childhood education (pp. 40-60). IGI Global. [CrossRef]
- Schacter, J., & Jo, B. (2017). Improving preschoolers’ mathematics achievement with tablets: A randomized controlled trial. Mathematics Education Research Journal, 29, 313-327. [CrossRef]
- Justice, L. M., & Pullen, P. C. (2003). Promising interventions for promoting emergent literacy skills: Three evidence-based approaches. Topics in Early Childhood Special Education, 23(3), 99-113. [CrossRef]
- Jones, M. E., & Christensen, A. E. (2022). Early literacy: Essential understandings. In Constructing strong foundations of early literacy (pp. 1-13). Routledge. [CrossRef]
- Peixoto, V., Alegria, R., & Pestana, P. (2023). Early literacy intervention program: Closing the linguistic gap of socially disadvantaged children. In Closing the educational achievement gap for students with learning disabilities (pp. 163-212). IGI Global. [CrossRef]
- Tyner, B. (2019). Climbing the literacy ladder: Small-group instruction to support all readers and writers, preK-5. ASCD.
- Kruse, L. G., Spencer, T. D., Olszewski, A., & Goldstein, H. (2015). Small groups, big gains: Efficacy of a tier 2 phonological awareness intervention with preschoolers with early literacy deficits. American Journal of Speech-Language Pathology, 24(2), 189-205. [CrossRef]
- Lonigan, C. J., Purpura, D. J., Wilson, S. B., Walker, P. M., & Clancy-Menchetti, J. (2013). Evaluating the components of an emergent literacy intervention for preschool children at risk for reading difficulties. Journal of Experimental Child Psychology, 114(1), 111-130. [CrossRef]
- McGee, L. M. (2007). Transforming literacy practices in preschool: Research-based practices that give all children the opportunity to reach their potential as learners. Scholastic.
- Celano, D. C., & Neuman, S. B. (2019). Using the village to raise a reader. Teaching Young Children, 13(1), 30-34.
- Evans, M. A., Bell, M., Shaw, D., Moretti, S., & Page, J. (2006). Letter names, letter sounds and phonological awareness: An examination of kindergarten children across letters and of letters across children. Reading and Writing, 19, 959-989. [CrossRef]
- Huang, F. L., Tortorelli, L. S., & Invernizzi, M. A. (2014). An investigation of factors associated with letter-sound knowledge at kindergarten entry. Early Childhood Research Quarterly, 29(2), 182-192. [CrossRef]
- Fountas, I. C., & Pinnell, G. S. (2017). Guided reading: Responsive teaching across the grades. Heinemann.
- Heroman, C., Burts, D. C., Berke, K. L., Bickart, T. S., Nelson, H. P., Taub, L., & Boyle, K. (2010). Objectives for development & learning: Birth through kindergarten. Teaching strategies GOLD. Teaching Strategies.
- Fauke, J., Burnett, L., Powers, M. A., & Sulzer-Azaroff, B. (1973). Improvement of handwriting and letter recognition skills: A behavior modification procedure. Journal of Learning Disabilities, 6(5), 296-300. [CrossRef]
- Schickedanz, J. A. (1999) Much more than the ABCs: The early stages of reading and writing. National Association for the Education of Young Children.
- Davison, S. (2000). Identifying initial letter sounds. Practical Pre-School, 2000(22), 23. [CrossRef]
- Dodd, B., & Carr, A. (2003). Young children’s letter-sound knowledge. Language, Speech, and Hearing Services in Schools, 34, 128-137. [CrossRef]
- Solichah, N., & Fardana, N. A. (2024). Exploring multisensory programs as early literacy interventions: a scoping review. International Journal of Evaluation and Research in Education (IJERE), 13(5), 3411-3418. [CrossRef]
- Kiss, R., & Csapó, B. (2024). Technology-based assessment of phonological awareness in kindergarten. International Journal of Early Childhood, 1-25. [CrossRef]
- Kartal, G., & Terziyan, T. (2016). Development and evaluation of game-like phonological awareness software for kindergarteners: JerenAli. Journal of Educational Computing Research, 53(4), 519-539. [CrossRef]
- Pramarta, P., & Irfan, I. (2024). Android based letter recognition application with augmented reality implementation. Journal of Intelligent Decision Support System (IDSS), 7(2), 203-209. [CrossRef]
- Maranan, J. R. (2022). An automated speech recognition system for phonological awareness of kindergarten students in Filipino. Proceedings of the 2022 25th Conference of the Oriental COCOSDA International Committee for the Co-ordination and Standardisation of Speech Databases and Assessment Techniques (O-COCOSDA) (pp. 1-7). IEEE. [CrossRef]
- Authors, A. (2020). The reference will be added after the review process.
- Herodotou, C. (2018). Young children and tablets: A systematic review of effects on learning and development. Journal of Computer Assisted Learning, 34(1), 1-9. [CrossRef]
- Dezuanni, M., Dooley, K., Gattenhof, S., & Knight, L. (2015). Introduction: iPads in the early years: developing literacy and creativity. In iPads in the Early Years (pp. 1-11). Routledge. [CrossRef]
- Grigorakis, I. (2020). The impact of mobile learning via touch-screen tablets in emergent literacy development. In Mobile learning applications in early childhood education (pp. 61-81). IGI Global. [CrossRef]
- Neumann, M. M., & Neumann, D. L. (2017). The use of touch-screen tablets at home and pre-school to foster emergent literacy. Journal of Early Childhood Literacy, 17(2), 203-220. [CrossRef]
- Parry, C. R. L., Kumar, S., & Gallingane, C. (2024). Integration of tablets in phonological awareness and phonics instruction: A Systematic review. Journal of Research in Childhood Education, 38(4), 559-576. [CrossRef]
- Chowsomchat, J., Boonrusmee, S., & Thongseiratch, T. (2023). Swipe, tap, read? Unveiling the effects of touchscreen devices on emergent literacy development in preschoolers. BMC pediatrics, 23(1), 625. [CrossRef]
- Cubelic, C. C., & Larwin, K. H. (2014). The use of iPad technology in the kindergarten classroom: A quasi-experimental investigation of the impact on early literacy skills. Comprehensive Journal of Educational Research, 2(4), 47-59.
- Dorris, C., Winter, K., O'Hare, L., & Lwoga, E. T. (2024). A systematic review of mobile device use in the primary school classroom and impact on pupil literacy and numeracy attainment: A systematic review. Campbell Systematic Reviews, 20(2), e1417. [CrossRef]
- Chun-Ru, L. P., Swapna, K., & Caitie, G. (2024) Integration of tablets in phonological awareness and phonics instruction: A systematic review. Journal of Research in Childhood Education, 38(4), 559-576. [CrossRef]
- Giugni, C. C. (2015). Pre kindergarten students increased letter recognition ability through the use of educational apps on tablets for classroom instruction [Master theses, Dominican University of California]. [CrossRef]
- Fink, M. (2018). Effective iPad integration in the kindergarten literacy curriculum through creation-based literacy tasks: An action research study [Doctoral dissertation, University of Pittsburgh].
- Neumann, M. M. (2014). An examination of touch screen tablets and emergent literacy in Australian pre-school children. Australian Journal of Education, 58(2), 109-122. [CrossRef]
- McKenzie, S., Spence, A., & Nicholas, M. (2018). Going on Safari: The design and development of an early years literacy iPad application to support letter-sound learning. Electronic Journal of E-Learning, 16(1), 16-29.
- Parks, A. N., & Tortorelli, L. (2021). Impact of a district-wide one-to-one technology initiative on kindergartners’ engagement and learning outcomes. Journal of Research in Childhood Education, 35, 602-615. [CrossRef]
- Culatta, B. E., Setzer, L. A., & Hall-Kenyon, K. M. (2022). Incorporating digital literacy materials in early childhood programs: Understanding children’s engagement and interactions. In Handbook of research on acquiring 21st century literacy skills through game-based learning (pp. 671-696). IGI Global. [CrossRef]
- Lauricella, A. R., & Jacobson, M. (2022). iPads in first grade classrooms: Teachers’ intentions and the realities of use. Computers and Education Open, 3, 100077. [CrossRef]
- Schriever, V. (2019). Digital technology in kindergarten: Challenges and opportunities. In I. Management Association (Ed.), Early childhood development: Concepts, methodologies, tools, and applications (pp. 1541-1560). IGI Global. [CrossRef]
- Carson, K. L. (2020). Can an app a day keep illiteracy away? Piloting the efficacy of reading Doctor apps for preschoolers with developmental language disorder. International Journal of Speech-Language Pathology, 22(4), 454-465. [CrossRef]
- Neumann, M. M., & Neumann, D. L. (2014). Touch screen tablets and emergent literacy. Early Childhood Education Journal, 42, 231-239. [CrossRef]
- Mayer, C., Wallner, S., Budde-Spengler, N., Braunert, S., Arndt, P. A., & Kiefer, M. (2020). Literacy training of kindergarten children with pencil, keyboard or tablet stylus: The influence of the writing tool on reading and writing performance at the letter and word level. Frontiers in Psychology, 10, 3054. [CrossRef]
- Rocha, B., Ferreira, L. I., Martins, C., Santos, R., & Nunes, C. (2023). The dark side of multimedia devices: Negative consequences for socioemotional development in early childhood. Children, 10(11), 1807. [CrossRef]
- Munzer, T. G., Miller, A. L., Wang, Y., Kaciroti, N., & Radesky, J. (2020). Tablets, toddlers, and tantrums: the immediate effects of tablet device play. Acta Paediatrica, 110(1), 255-256. [CrossRef]
- Buchner, A., & Wierzbicka, M. (2018). Tablet terra incognita: Research note on the role of tablets in digital parenting of preschool children. Polish Sociological Review, 203, 413-421.
- Blackwell, C. K. (2020). Social Hazards or Helpers?: The Role of Mobile Media in Early Childhood Social Development. In S. Papadakis & M. Kalogiannakis (Eds.), Mobile learning applications in early childhood education (pp. 281-301). IGI Global. [CrossRef]
- Delgado-Algarra, E. J., Roman Sanchez, I. M., Ordonez Olmedo, E., & Lorca-Marín, A. A. (2019). International MOOC trends in citizenship, participation and sustainability: Analysis of technical, didactic and content dimensions. Sustainability, 11(20), 5860. [CrossRef]
- Rini, D. R. (2023). 3D animal illustration flashcard as a learning media innovation in early childhood education. Proceedings of the International Conference on Art, Design, Education and Cultural Studies (ICADECS) (pp. 182-187). KnE Social Sciences. [CrossRef]
- Ying, W., Barkhaya, N. M. M., & Sanmugam, M. (2024). A review of augmented reality tools for preschool student learning language. In Power of Persuasive Educational Technologies in Enhancing Learning (pp. 242-255). IGI Global. [CrossRef]
- Pan, Z., López, M., Li, C., & Liu, M. (2021). Introducing augmented reality in early childhood literacy learning. Research in Learning Technology, 29. [CrossRef]
- Piatykop, O. I., Pronina, O. I., Tymofieieva, I. B., & Palii, I. D. (2022). Early literacy with augmented reality. Educational Dimension, 6, 131-148. [CrossRef]
- Authors, A. (2019). The reference will be added after the review process.
- Harlen, W., & Qualter, A. (2014). The teaching of science in primary schools (6th ed.). David Fulton Publishers. [CrossRef]
- Bybee, R. W. (2014). The BSCS 5E instructional model: Personal reflections and contemporary implications. Science and Children, 51(8), 10-13. [CrossRef]
- Hair, J. F., Babin, B. J., Anderson, R. E., & Black, W. C. (2019). Multivariate Data Analysis (8th ed.). Pearson Prentice.
- Quade, D. (1967). Rank analysis of covariance. Journal of the American Statistical Association, 62(320), 1187-1200. [CrossRef]



| Variable |
Control group (N = 38) |
Experimental group (N = 38) |
||||||
| Boys (n = 20) | Girls (n = 18) | Boys (n = 21) | Girls (n = 17) | |||||
| M | SD | M | SD | M | SD | M | SD | |
| Pre test | 81.25 | 15.63 | 80.83 | 18.00 | 80.71 | 22.38 | 81.76 | 15.61 |
| Evaluation tests | 85.83 | 10.92 | 89.63 | 8.62 | 91.59 | 8.34 | 93.86 | 5.85 |
| Post test | 80.17 | 10.73 | 86.11 | 15.65 | 86.51 | 14.32 | 91.18 | 9.93 |
| Engagement | 3.98 | 0.42 | 4.08 | 0.49 | 4.46 | 0.62 | 4.57 | 0.36 |
| Enjoyment | 4.28 | 0.35 | 4.46 | 0.40 | 4.49 | 0.63 | 4.72 | 0.35 |
| Motivation | 3.98 | 0.40 | 4.09 | 0.51 | 4.52 | 0.63 | 4.41 | 0.68 |
| Evaluation tests | Post test | Engagement | Enjoyment | Motivation | |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| dfh | 1 | 1 | 1 | 1 | 1 |
| dfe | 74 | 74 | 74 | 74 | 74 |
| F | 7.50 | 5.09 | 23.46 | 9.84 | 16.91 |
| r (effect size) | .30 (medium) | .25 (medium) | .49 (large) | .34 (medium) | .43 (medium to large) |
| Pairwise comparison (control vs experimental) | |||||
| t | -2.74 | -2.26 | -4.84 | -3.14 | -4.11 |
| p | .008 | .027 | < .001 | .002 | < .001 |
| Group | Variable | B | Bootstrap | ||||
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Bias |
Std. Error |
p | 95% Confidence Interval | ||||
| Lower | Upper | ||||||
| Control | Engagement | -.015 | .000 | .033 | .640 | -.080 | .050 |
| Enjoyment | .140 | .000 | .052 | .022 | .031 | .244 | |
| Motivation | .084 | .001 | .036 | .022 | .016 | .157 | |
| Experimental | Engagement | .051 | -.001 | .017 | .007 | .015 | .082 |
| Enjoyment | .070 | -.002 | .016 | .004 | .034 | .099 | |
| Motivation | .032 | .001 | .013 | .031 | .007 | .058 | |
| Group | Variable | B | Bootstrap | ||||
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Bias |
Std. Error |
p | 95% Confidence Interval | ||||
| Lower | Upper | ||||||
| Control | Engagement | .026 | -.002 | .073 | .701 | -.151 | .147 |
| Enjoyment | .226 | .004 | .117 | .124 | .025 | .488 | |
| Motivation | -.046 | .001 | .070 | .477 | -.201 | .084 | |
| Experimental | Engagement | .051 | >.001 | .102 | .665 | -.128 | .258 |
| Enjoyment | .078 | .002 | .089 | .334 | -.134 | .231 | |
| Motivation | .040 | .003 | .054 | .369 | -.044 | .182 | |
Disclaimer/Publisher’s Note: The statements, opinions and data contained in all publications are solely those of the individual author(s) and contributor(s) and not of MDPI and/or the editor(s). MDPI and/or the editor(s) disclaim responsibility for any injury to people or property resulting from any ideas, methods, instructions or products referred to in the content. |
© 2025 by the authors. Licensee MDPI, Basel, Switzerland. This article is an open access article distributed under the terms and conditions of the Creative Commons Attribution (CC BY) license (http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/).




