Evidence Hub

Tactile and haptic interaction in STEM learning: a scoping review of embodied and multisensory pathways for conceptual learning processes

Salibay RM, Entice ME, Paraiso MJQ, Tampus VGA, Espina JVM, Cabaron AI, Apas CG

Frontiers in psychology, 2026

Abstract

Conceptual learning in science, technology, engineering, and mathematics (STEM) often involves phenomena that are abstract, dynamic, and not directly observable. Instruction in many STEM classrooms continues to rely predominantly on visual representations and spoken explanations, which may limit opportunities for learners to engage with scientific concepts through multiple sensory pathways. Within this perspective, tactile and haptic interaction offers an alternative sensory pathway through which learners can explore scientific phenomena through direct sensorimotor experiences. This scoping review examines how tactile and haptic learning approaches are implemented in STEM education and how these interventions translate physical phenomena into perceptible sensory experiences that support conceptual understanding, embodied interaction, and active engagement across diverse educational contexts. Following Arksey and O'Malley's scoping review framework and reported in accordance with PRISMA-ScR guidelines, literature published between January 1, 2015 and December 15, 2025 was systematically identified, screened, and synthesized from five major databases. To strengthen the comprehensiveness of the review and broaden coverage of relevant studies published in mainstream STEM education journals, supplementary targeted searches were conducted during the revision process while maintaining the original review timeframe and eligibility criteria. A total of 23 studies met the inclusion…

How strong is the evidence?

Evidence Hub reads this as a systematic review. Its evidence level is 1 of 5 (Highest · pooled evidence). Pooled evidence from several studies sits at the top of the evidence pyramid.

How the five levels of evidence work. The level is assigned automatically from the abstract and can be wrong, so check the paper.

Read the paper

Related studies

Go deeper in Evidence Hub

Evidence Hub adds a study data sheet (design, sample size, evidence level, key numbers), an AI summary and a chat grounded in the paper's text.

Open this study Sign up free