Next Article in Journal
Advancing Artificial Intelligence Literacy in Teacher Education Through Professional Partnership Inquiry
Previous Article in Journal
Let Me Think About It—Establishing “Need to Reflect” as a Motivational Variable in Reflection Processes
Previous Article in Special Issue
Family Diversity from the Perspective of Early Childhood Education Students
 
 
Font Type:
Arial Georgia Verdana
Font Size:
Aa Aa Aa
Line Spacing:
Column Width:
Background:
Article

Modeling Teaching Using Information and Communication Technologies in Early Childhood Education with Functional Diversity: The Case in Spain

by
Dulcenombre de María Fernández-Montoro
1,
Juan Manuel Trujillo-Torres
1,
María-Dolores Benítez-Márquez
2 and
Carmen Rocío Fernández-Fernández
1,*
1
Department of Didactics and School Organization, University of Granada, Cartuja Campus, s/n, 18071 Granada, Spain
2
Department of Applied Economics (Statistics and Econometrics), Faculty of Economics and Business, University of Malaga, El Ejido n° 6, 29071 Malaga, Spain
*
Author to whom correspondence should be addressed.
Educ. Sci. 2025, 15(6), 658; https://doi.org/10.3390/educsci15060658
Submission received: 17 February 2025 / Revised: 13 May 2025 / Accepted: 19 May 2025 / Published: 26 May 2025
(This article belongs to the Special Issue Cutting-Edge Research on Childhood Special Education)

Abstract

:
(1) Background: The objective of this study was to verify a model proposed adapted to the case of teachers working in the field of early childhood education of children with functional diversity. The model analyses the relationship between the perceptions, use, and necessity of Information and Communication Technologies (ICTs) and the level of ICT training. (2) Methods: Snowball sampling was used to acquire a random sample of 254 in-service teachers working in early childhood education centers including children with functional diversity in Andalusia (Spain). A partial least squares–structural equation model was developed. (3) Results: A positive relationship between teachers’ perceptions of ICTs and their use was found, corroborating the findings of previous studies on pre-service teachers working with students with functional diversity. However, unlike previous studies, no significant relationship was found between ICT use and needs and the level of ICT training. The novelty of this study is that the participants are in-service teachers, the education context is early childhood, and the model includes age as a control variable, which had a negative impact in this case in Spain. (4) Conclusions: The importance of improving teacher training to optimize the use of ICTs is emphasized. The professionals interviewed highlighted the need for early assessments and increased material and human resources in public educational institutions. The urgency of administrative restructuring to expedite the delivery of financial aid and the recruitment of more specialized professionals is underscored.

1. Introduction

Digital technology can improve opportunities for quality learning as well as equality and equity for all students (Fernández Batanero et al., 2017; Legorburu-Fernández et al., 2023; Pegalajar Palomino, 2015), regardless of their functional abilities (Bonilla-del-Río et al., 2018; Mañas-Viniegra et al., 2023). Similarly, digital technology provides benefits by increasing (among other things) self-esteem, autonomy, sensory stimulation, motivation, and attention, and can reduce frustration in response to errors (Mas García & Jordá, 2023). Additionally, it can improve the feasibility of teamwork development, increase the likelihood of modifying and adjusting evaluation methods, and enhance bidirectional communication between teachers and students (Morales García, 2023; Pegalajar Palomino, 2017).
Furthermore, digital technology enhances teachers’ competencies; however, prior training or education is necessary (Rodríguez-García et al., 2019; Shin et al., 2023). The initial training of teachers needs to be strengthened to improve their digital technology skills (Colomo-Magaña et al., 2023; Papavlasopoulou et al., 2024; Toledo Morales & Llorente Cejudo, 2016). Additionally, when working, it is important to ensure that student distraction is minimal and that learning is facilitated through educational applications (Pegalajar Palomino, 2015). Therefore, educational institutions must devise educational strategies, develop evaluation types, support the use of ICTs, and create a favorable learning environment (Iancu, 2024; Vega-Angulo et al., 2021).
Digital technology is a powerful tool to help teachers provide more inclusive education (Budnyk & Kotyk, 2020; Fernández Batanero, 2018; Mañas-Viniegra et al., 2023; Pegalajar Palomino, 2017; Polat et al., 2024; Sanahuja Ribés et al., 2020; Silva Sández & Rodríguez Miranda, 2018). The requirements and potential of ICTs are significant and require specific training to ensure effective and accessible implementation (Fernández Batanero & Rodríguez-Martín, 2017; López-Meneses & Fernández-Cerero, 2020). At the same time, it is important to change mindsets and attitudes towards developing critical reflective, collaborative, and creative teaching practices among teachers (Trujillo Torres et al., 2011; Eickelmann & Vennemann, 2017) and their subsequent adoption (Jordá Fabra et al., 2023). Teachers can motivate learning through personalization, access to information, interaction, communication and collaboration, flexibility, immediate feedback, memory support, and organization (Gallardo Montes et al., 2020; Spiteri & Chang Rundgren, 2017), which allow for the promotion and development of multiple literacies and constructive learning (Rodríguez Correa & Arroyo González, 2014).
The term “functional diversity” is often used instead of deficit, limitation, restriction, barrier, “disability”, or “handicap”, in order to emphasize that differences can be a natural part of human functioning. Instead of focusing on a person’s limitations, it emphasizes their abilities and capacities and the diversity in the way in which they can contribute to and participate in society in a valuable way, thereby integrating with conventional societal norms (Mañas-Viniegra et al., 2023). Teachers must provide opportunities for students to contribute and meet their needs and interests (Fernández Batanero & Rodríguez-Martín, 2017), raise awareness about the importance of their inclusion (Legorburu-Fernández et al., 2023), and ensure early interventions to reach their maximum potential (Benítez-Lugo et al., 2021). To achieve this, training in functional diversity and the development of creative activities are necessary (Bonilla-del-Río et al., 2018). Additionally, we can rely on the use of play and emotions to optimize learning, awareness, empathy, and inclusion for children with and without functional diversity (Benítez-Lugo et al., 2021).
Some individuals with functional diversity face barriers in accessing digital devices and platforms. To address this, it is necessary and crucial to consider digital accessibility and Universal Design for Learning (UDL) (Ok & Rao, 2019). This approach enables flexibility, adaptability, and personalized learning materials tailored to individual needs (Jordá Fabra et al., 2023). This includes designing user-friendly interfaces, using accessibility standards, providing options to adjust content presentation, alternative navigation options, and support for assistive devices and technologies (Silva Sández & Rodríguez Miranda, 2018). Specifically, this involves designing accessible websites, screen readers, video subtitles, audio transcriptions, adaptable user interfaces, augmentative and alternative communication (AAC) applications, assistive devices, augmented reality, virtual reality, social networks, and collaboration platforms (López-Meneses & Fernández-Cerero, 2020). It is necessary to provide skills and competencies for teachers’ professional learning and development (Fernández-Batanero et al., 2020). This underscores the need for training in web design and application development that meets accessibility standards (Fernández Batanero et al., 2018).
For students in general, digital technology enhances their academic training and removes social and architectural barriers to achieve inclusion (Vega-Gea et al., 2021). In the specific case of students with significant cognitive difficulties (SCDs), it is crucial for the teacher–student relationship to be functional, offering the student the opportunity to acquire skills and overcome limitations associated with their SCDs. This includes support for auditory comprehension (Nasir-Tucktuck et al., 2023, p. 209), visual connection comprehension (Malone et al., 2023), and cognitive or motor skills (Toledo Morales & Llorente Cejudo, 2016).

Literature Review and Hypotheses

In the literature, it is evident that the vast majority of early childhood education (preschool) teachers are at a satisfactory level of training in terms of information literacy and communication for early childhood education specialists. In Romania, a qualitative focus group method was used in a group of 15 female teachers from different kindergartens in Bucharest, aged between 32 and 58, to gather their opinions on the integration of information technologies in preschool learning (Iancu, 2024). This study revealed that improvements are needed both in the teaching content and in the organizational and pedagogical support to improve preschool teachers’ information literacy and communication competency. Preschool teachers at the kindergarten level are open to using new digital methods and tools (Iancu, 2024). In a systematic literature review, it was noted that there are a limited number of studies specifically focusing on the early childhood stage, necessitating the reliance on studies from the primary stage that analyze these dimensions (Iancu, 2024).
In their literature review, Eickelmann and Vennemann (2017) referred to a study comparing three European countries: Germany, Norway, and the Czech Republic. In this review, they stated that a 2013 study by the International Association for the Evaluation of Educational Achievement found that positive attitudes and beliefs are considered crucial determinants and predictors for teachers’ use of ICTs in teaching, although the strength of this association varied among countries.
Several recent studies in Spain focused on early childhood and ICTs. Pegalajar Palomino (2017) described the perceptions of 231 university students (pre-service teachers) studying early childhood education and primary education in Murcia, Spain, regarding the use of ICTs for the development of inclusive practices in regular classrooms. The results showed favorable perceptions among the future teachers on the use of ICTs. Fernández-Batanero et al. (2019) investigated the level of training and technological knowledge of 777 primary education teachers from Spain regarding the use of ICTs with individuals with disabilities (functional diversity) and found low levels of teacher proficiency. The analysis of variance (ANOVA) showed significant differences in the effects of different socio-demographic characteristics on teacher training; that is, the level of training was influenced by personal factors (gender, age), professional factors (teaching experience), and educational factors (qualifications).
In other countries, as the Republic of Serbia, Novković Cvetković et al. (2022) analyzed teachers’ attitudes towards the use of information and communication technologies in teaching. The study involved 269 primary school teachers in the Republic of Serbia and found that the teachers frequently used ICTs in their teaching. According to the results, the greatest perceived advantages of using ICTs was the improvement in teaching quality, the ability to conduct interesting lessons, and the quick and easy access to information.
In Agarbe (Portugal), Carrapiço et al. (2022) identified the socio-professional characteristics of 156 teachers in the first cycle of basic education and their relationship with the use of ICTs in their classrooms. They found that female teachers use ICTs more frequently (on a weekly basis), when compared to their male counterparts. Additionally, the study revealed that higher levels of education and training correlated with increased hours of ICT implementation in the classroom.
In Saudi Arabia, Shater et al. (2023) investigated the perceptions of 124 teachers in public schools regarding digital learning for students with disabilities and revealed that they had a positive attitude towards digital learning.
Gözüm et al. (2023) and Papadakis et al. (2024) adapted the Teacher Self-Efficacy Scale in the Use of ICT at Home for Preschool Distance Education (TSES-ICT-PDE) for preschool teachers in Turkey and Greece, respectively. They found that it was a reliable and valid scale for confirmatory analysis in both countries. Papadakis et al. compared the knowledge, communication, and technology factors of Greece and Turkey and found no significant differences. They pointed out that the key to enhancing ICT use in early childhood education is a training approach that emphasizes pedagogical over technological knowledge and suggested strategies to address the practical barriers to technology use in classrooms, such as hardware malfunctions, insufficient institutional and technical support (Kabadayı, 2006; Simsar & Kadim, 2017; Gözüm & Kaya, 2024), and a lack of systematic organization in teacher training programs (Gözüm & Kaya, 2024).
Imasuen and Iyamu (2024) studied the attitude towards and knowledge and application of ICTs in early childhood education among teachers in the Benin metropolis (Nigeria). The study included 560 teachers and found that the teachers’ attitudes towards ICTs in early childhood education were positive. The levels of knowledge and application of ICTs were moderate, and the teachers’ sex, age, and experience significantly predicted their attitude towards and knowledge and application of ICTs in teaching.
In the specific context of functional diversity in Spain, Colomo-Magaña et al. (2023) analyzed 284 future teachers’ perceptions regarding the role of ICTs in addressing diversity. They observed positive perceptions regarding the use of ICTs with students with functional diversity and including them in their training. The study revealed significant differences based on gender in the post-test phase.
We posed the following research questions regarding the use of ICTs by teachers working in early childhood education with children with functional diversity.
Regarding the influence of ICT perceptions, ICT use and the need for ICT training, we have established the following research questions (RQ);
  • (RQ1) Which gap does our study fill?
  • (RQ2) What studies support the proposed PLS-SEM model?
  • (RQ3) Which relationships can be used for the structural equation model that works with the latent variables included in the model?
  • (RQ4) Which latent variable has the greatest impact on the dependent variable (ICT training)?
  • (RQ5) What is the consensus in the literature on this topic and what are the studied relationships with demography characteristics (age, years of experience, gender, and level of education)?
Now, we can respond to some of these questions:
(Response RQ1) Which gap does our study fill? Our study can address the gaps raised by Fernández-Batanero et al. (2019) by extending the analysis to different regions and to early childhood education. We analyzed the quality of preschool functional diversity education in a specific regional context: the Autonomous Community of Andalusia.
(Response RQ2) What studies support the PLS-SEM model? Gallardo Montes et al. (2020) and Colomo-Magaña et al. (2023) were the main references for our study. Gallardo Montes et al. (2020) validated scales using expert judgments and subsequent exploratory analysis. The validation process involved 122 educational and health professionals from the formal and non-formal education sectors, who were teachers of people with functional diversity, without specifying the educational level they were teaching at. Meanwhile, Colomo-Magaña et al. (2023) used these scales in the context of pre-service teachers in the education of young children with functional diversity. The latent variable’s validity was first verified through exploratory factor analysis (EFA) and later through confirmatory factor analysis (CFA), which were used to estimate a covariance-based structural equation model (CB-SEM).
(Response RQ3) Which relationships can be used for the structural equation model that works with their latent variables? The following hypotheses were proposed in the context of educating young children with diversity based on Colomo-Magaña et al. (2023):
H1 (H1+).
Professionals’ perceptions positively influence their uses and the necessity of ICTs in early childhood education for children with functional diversity (ICT_PERCEPT).
H2 (H2+).
Professionals’ perceptions on applying ICTs in early childhood education for children with functional diversity (ICT_PERCEPT) positively influence their level of ICT training for use with children with functional diversity (ICT_NECESS).
H3 (H3+).
The uses and necessity of using ICTs for teaching children with functional diversity (ICT_NECESS) positively influence professionals’ level of ICT training for early childhood education for children with functional diversity (ICT_TRAINING).
H4 (H4+).
Professionals’ perceptions of ICT training for early childhood education for children with functional diversity positively and indirectly influence their level of ICT training (ICT_TRAINING) for working with children with functional diversity based on uses and needs.
H5 (H5-).
Age impacts negatively the level of ICT training (control variable).
(Response RQ4) The response to RQ4 is given in the Results section.
(Response RQ5) What is the consensus in the literature on this topic and what are the studied relationships with demography characteristics (age, years of experience, gender, and level of education)? These characteristics are usually used as control variables, but no academic references are cited in most of the published articles. Although there may be studies that considered age as a control variable in educational research, we did not find any similar papers in our review of the relevant literature in relation to ICT training. To the best of our knowledge, the inclusion of age as a control variable in an SEM in this specific context, where training in ICT for early childhood education for children with functional diversity is the dependent variable, represents a novel contribution of our model. Nevertheless, we recommend that future research further investigate this aspect to confirm if this is an underexplored area.
Fernández-Batanero et al. (2019) conducted a survey of 341 physical education teachers from primary schools in the 17 Autonomous Communities of Spain concerning ICT training for teaching people with disabilities. Significant differences based on age and digital competence (DC) were found using ANOVA. The results indicated that the younger teachers (aged 20–30, 31–40, and 41–50) had higher DC compared to older teachers (51–60 years), which is in line with the findings from other studies (Alqurashi et al., 2017; Gudmundsdottir & Hatlevik, 2017). This higher level of digital knowledge may be due to the younger teachers being closer to the end of their studies, and the recent inclusion of training elements on the use of ICTs for teaching people with disabilities in teachers’ university curricula. However, Fernández-Batanero et al. (2019) argued for the need for a curricular re-structuring for teacher training in Spain, as specializations that provided students with more generalized knowledge have recently disappeared. This may have had negative repercussions on the practical aspects of the training activities for people with disabilities. The results also pointed out the individual efforts of the teachers to supplement the lack of initial training with experience (Fernández-Batanero et al., 2019).
Regarding the correlation between age and digital competence in general terms, in the Spanish context, there are several contradictory results. Some studies presented a negative correlation: there was an inverse relationship between age and digital competence (DC) level in 520 teachers from all over Spain teaching in early childhood, primary, and secondary education, and the authors concluded that older teachers tend to have lower levels of digital competence (Pozo Sánchez et al., 2020). A negative and average correlation (0.30 < r < 0.50) between age and DC in 75 teachers (23–65 years) for two educational groups (preschool–primary and secondary) in Catalonia (Spain) was also found in another study. This shows that older teachers have not received specific training in digital teaching in their initial training and that digital competencies were not considered in higher education qualifications before the adaptation to the European Education Area (Garcia i Grau et al., 2022). In our opinion, a lower level of digital competence may influence the level of ICT training.
Concerning the correlation between age and level of ICT training, there are contradictory results in Spain. One study pointed out that, in the case of teachers of people with functional diversity in Granada (España), age and training level had no relationship (Gallardo Montes et al., 2023). The preliminary results of our study found significant negative correlations between age and level of ICT training. Therefore, we proposed that there is an inverse relationship between age and the latent variables. Most of participants were woman and all of them had obtained university degrees. Thus, gender and level of education were not considered as control variables.

2. Materials and Methods

2.1. The Geographical Context and Participants in the Educational System for Children with Functional Diversity

It is advisable to contextualize the geographical context and participants in the early childhood education system for children with functional diversity in Spain. The focus of this study was on professionals from the region of Andalusia, Spain, and the analysis of early childhood education focused on the second cycle, which includes children aged 3 to 6 years. In Spain, the current protocol used by public institutions for children with functional diversity follows these stages: the children are referred to a pediatrician, then to a neuropediatrician (neurologist), and from there to mental health specialists, such as those specializing in functional diversity, autism or other fields. The majority of these children receive medication, at least for their sleep issues, which is the primary issue. Apart from health professionals, other professionals in the educational field (early childhood educators, speech therapists, teachers, therapists, etc.) conduct evaluations. Later, the children are referred to the early intervention care center (CAIT, “Centro de Atención Infantil Temprana”) to identify their needs and provide information. At this stage, CAIT sends a report to the school, establishing a connection between the family, school, and external services (CAIT) from this point onward. Additionally, in Andalusia, there are multiple associations that complement the work of CAIT (for example, in Granada, there is the MIRAME association). This protocol is very similar throughout the rest of Spain.

2.2. Data, Design, and Participants

The data were collected from November 2022 to September 2023 using Google Forms jointly with phone calls and snowball sampling. The research utilized quantitative and cross-sectional data. The free software G*Power version 3.1 (Faul et al., 2009; G*Power, 2007) was used to calculate the required sample size for the proposed structural equation model based on a small effect size of 0.10, a significance level of 5%, a statistical power of 95%, and a maximum of three predictors of the dependent variable, resulting in a minimum sample size of 132 participants. Age was included in determining the sample size. The final sample, after filtering out outliers and inconsistencies, consisted of 254 valid responses out of 271 responses.
The sample of 254 specialized teachers from Andalusia. Of these, 17.7% were men and 82.3% were women. The average age was 45.5 years, with a standard deviation of 8.416 years. Among the participants, 23.8% were special education teachers, and the rest were teachers with other specialties or educational degrees. All the participants (100%) had a university degree (Table 1).
All the educational centers use the Internet and 81.5% of the teachers have more than 10 years of experience. Regarding experience with teaching students with functional diversity, 3.9% had no experience in this field, 48.9% had more than 10 years of experience, and the rest had less than ten years. All the teachers work in early childhood education. The majority of the teachers, 91.6%, work in public schools (state-funded centers) and the rest in private schools. Over 65% work in urban educational centers, and the rest in rural educational centers. Additionally, more than 60% of the teachers work full time. The most relevant modalities that they work on (sensory, intellectual, and physical–motor, among others) accounted for approximately 47% of their focus, followed by behavioral (Attention Deficit Disorder (ADD) and Attention Deficit Hyperactivity Disorder (ADHD), among others) or emotional (anxiety, depression, etc.) modalities at 30%.

2.3. Indicators and Constructs

The questionnaire included 22 indicators (Table 2). The proposed model contains three constructs—two predictors and two endogenous constructs (one a priori dependent variable and one final dependent variable). These scales have been used with pre-service education teachers focused on education for children with functional diversity (Gallardo Montes et al., 2020). In our research, these scales include 11 indicators to measure professionals’ perceptions of applying ICTs in early childhood education of children with functional diversity (ICT_PERCEPT), five indicators to measure the ICT needs of children with functional diversity (ICT_NECESS), and six items to measure the ICT training level of professionals for working with people with functional diversity (ICT_TRAINING), considering the outer models as reflective. Each indicator was measured on a five-point Likert scale ranging from 1 (strongly disagree) to 5 (strongly agree).
The descriptive measures of the indicators are shown in Table 3. The values of skewness and excess kurtosis statistics are provided in Table 3. The indicators fall outside the acceptable range of normality (±1), indicating they do not follow a normal distribution. If the variables are not normally distributed (unidimensional), then the data will also not have a multivariate normal distribution. Mardia’s test of multivariate kurtosis was performed, with the null hypothesis being that the sample comes from a multivariate normal distribution and is rejected if the significance level is below 1% (Table 3).

2.4. Methodology and Data Analysis

This study employed Partial Least Squares Structural Equation Modeling (PLS-SEM) and the SmartPLS software (Ringle et al., 2022) for the analysis. The model evaluation included assessing the measurement models for internal consistency, convergent reliability, and discriminant validity using three approaches. The structural model evaluation examined the explanatory power or model fit through the coefficient of determination (R2), effect size (f2), multicollinearity analysis using Variance Inflation Factors (VIFs), and significance testing of path coefficients via bootstrapping. The global model fit indices lacked universal agreement. An approximate fit can be obtained using metrics such as the Standardized Root Mean Square Residual (SRMR) and Normed Fit Index (NFI). Common method bias (CMB) concerns were addressed in the model evaluation.
The proposed theoretical model is shown in Figure 1.

3. Research Results and Discussion

3.1. Test of Common Method Bias (CMB)

This study was conducted in accordance with the Declaration of Helsinki. The survey was anonymous and met ethical standards. Before answering the questionnaire (Table S1), the education professionals (participants) were informed by phone about the study’s purpose. All subjects gave their informed consent for inclusion before they participated in the study through e-mail. They completed the document and sent it back by ordinary post. Among other aspects, this minimizes the common method bias (CMB) that can occur in survey studies. Harman’s one-factor test is a commonly applied method for identifying CMB (F. Kock et al., 2021; Podsakoff et al., 2003); however, it is only a diagnostic test and yielded a factor that explains 0.35 of the variance, below the established threshold of 0.50. N. Kock (2015) proposed that a Variance Inflation Factor (VIF) greater than 3.3 not only indicates severe collinearity, but also suggests that common method bias may be affecting the model. The VIFs in the inner model ranged from 1.161 to 1.376, indicating that the model is free from common method bias.

3.2. Results of the Variance-Based Structural Equation Model

3.2.1. Measurement Models

In terms of the reliability of the indicators, not all the outer loadings reach the recommended minimum threshold of 0.7. However, Hair et al. (2017, pp. 113–114) established that factor loadings between 0.4 and 0.7 should be individually examined before considering removal from the measurement scale to meet specific requirements.
Various measures were used to assess the construct’s reliability: Cronbach’s alpha coefficient, Dijkstra–Henseler’s rho coefficient, composite reliability via RhoA and CR or RhoC- coefficients, and average variance extracted (AVE) for convergent validity, which all met the required thresholds (Table 4).
Three criteria were used to analyze the discriminant validity: the Fornell–Larcker Criterion, the heterotrait–monotrait ratio of correlations (HTMT) (Henseler et al., 2015), and the cross-loadings, which all met the recommended thresholds (Table 5).

3.2.2. Structural Model

There is controversy regarding the use of global model fit indices (Benítez et al., 2020). In this study, two commonly used indices for this purpose, the standardized root mean square residual (SRMR = 0.08) and the normed fit index (NFI = 0.76), had values very close to the established threshold of <0.08 (Hu & Bentler, 1999). Based on these indices, the model could be considered satisfactory (Hair et al., 2019; Hu & Bentler, 1999).
The coefficient of determination, R2, assesses the explanatory power of the model within the sample (in-sample). For the final dependent composite (R2 of Professional ICT Training = 0.375), it was moderate, and for the other dependent variable (R2 of ICT Needs = 0.147), it was weak (Hair et al., 2017, 2019). The collinearity analysis did not find any concerning issues. Additionally, the composite of professional perceptions showed the largest effect size (f2 = 0.451) on the professionals’ level of ICT training (Table 6).
Table 7 presents the analysis results of the effects (direct and indirect) and the final decisions on the hypotheses. H1, H2 and H4 are supported while H3 and H4 are rejected (2. Needs -> 3. Training), which shows that only the indirect effects were not significant. Figure 2 shows the estimated model. The response to the research question RQ4 is that the perception on ICT has the highest direct positive impact on ICT training following by the control variable age with negative direct effect.

4. Discussion

Three of the five hypotheses are supported by data in the model adapted to the case of teachers working in early childhood education of children with functional diversity for Andalusia (Spain).

4.1. Relationship Between Perceptions of ICTs and the Uses and Necessity of ICTs

Regarding the relationship between the perceptions of ICTs and the uses and necessity of ICTs, it was concluded that the data support a positive effect of ICT use on early childhood education of children with functional diversity, corroborating the findings of Colomo-Magaña et al. (2023). Additionally, another study on early childhood education in Benin City, Nigeria, conducted by Imasuen and Iyamu (2024), showed that preschool teachers’ attitudes towards and application of ICTs were also positive. Furthermore, our results align with those obtained from specialized teachers (early childhood, primary, and secondary) in the use of ICTs in inclusive education in Spain (Vega-Gea et al., 2021). Finally, Shin and Jang (2023), who focused on secondary school teachers in Korea, found a positive relationship between perceptions and the use of ICTs.
Pegalajar Palomino (2017) found favorable perceptions of future teachers towards the didactic possibilities of ICT resources in the teaching–learning process of students with educational needs, and their contribution to professional development processes, inclusion of students, and analysis of the teaching function.

4.2. Relationship Between Perceptions and ICT Training

There was a direct relationship between perceptions of ICTs and level of ICT training, which is consistent with the findings of Colomo-Magaña et al. (2023). In our model, we found that perceptions of ICTs influence the level of ICT training, whereas Colomo-Magaña et al. (2023) found positive covariances. The perception of the utility of ICTs and the rapid software updates could explain this positive relationship.
Several studies on primary education university students focusing on inclusive education (Fernández Batanero et al., 2017; Matheu Pérez et al., 2024; Toledo Morales & Llorente Cejudo, 2016; Vega-Gea et al., 2021) concluded that there was limited knowledge regarding the application of ICTs for people with disabilities, and that their knowledge varied depending on the type of disability. Therefore, measures need to be taken regarding initial teacher training to provide future teachers with the opportunity to acquire skills and competencies in using and integrating ICTs in inclusive classrooms. Thus, universities should improve teacher training in the use of ICTs for diversity support (Fernández-Batanero et al., 2020).

4.3. Relationship Between Uses and Necessity of ICTs and Level of ICT Training

Our study’s results do not support a positive relationship between the use or necessity of ICTs and ICT training, unlike Colomo-Magaña et al. (2023). One possible reason could be that the constructs of use and necessity are not related to the same indicators in both models. Furthermore, the different participant populations—namely, teachers working (in-service) with children with functional diversity vs. future teachers (i.e., pre-service teachers)—could also contribute to this disparity. Finally, the different level of education and age of children could be another reason.

4.4. Relationship Between Uses and Necessity of ICTs and ICT Training

The indirect relationship between perceptions of ICTs and ICT training is not supported. This could be interpreted that the perceptions of use and necessity do not necessarily motivate undergoing ICT training. Furthermore, the separation of use and necessity should be considered to see if it changes the model.

4.5. Age

Although there are studies that have considered age as a control variable in educational research, our review of the relevant literature did not find any similar papers in relation to ICT training. To the best of our knowledge, the inclusion of age as a control variable in this specific context represents a novel contribution of our model. Nonetheless, we recommend that future research further investigate this aspect to confirm if this is an underexplored area.
Fernández-Batanero et al. (2019) found that older teachers have lower levels of digital competence compared with younger teachers. The reason could be the modification of university curricula to remove specialized courses in functional diversity. ICTs undergo rapid and tremendous changes over time. In our opinion, the lower level of digital competence, though not included in our model, of older people may impact their confidence and produce anxiety when using ICTs. Their ICT training may also be affected due to a lack of time or effort or a lack of available resources to put into practice the concepts in training sessions (robotics, 3D modeling, artificial intelligence, among others). Additionally, as they near retirement age, this type of training that requires effort, concentration, and time is less interesting since they will not need to apply this specific educational knowledge in everyday life. Therefore, it is reasonable to expect an inverse relationship between age and level of ICT training, which is in line with the findings from other Spanish studies (Garcia i Grau et al., 2022; Pozo Sánchez et al., 2020).
Some studies concerning age and digital competence pointed out significant differences in digital ability between different age groups (Fernández-Batanero et al., 2019). Digital ability was related to the use of ICTs, training, and age. Therefore, we should tailor the type of training to specific age groups: generations X, Y, and Z, or dichotomous groups (e.g., younger versus older), among others. In general, older age correlates with a lower cognitive ability, less concentration, greater anxiety at work, and more stress, among other implications of old age. Therefore, time to retirement is another factor that should be taken into account because these people may not be motivated to undergo training in the use of ICTs for students with functional diversity or other types of disabilities.
Finally, for training in general, Shin et al. (2023) emphasized the need for continuous and long-term teacher training (professional development) in the use of educational technology and teaching methods based on their recent study targeting elementary school teachers in Korea. They also highlighted that the production and exchange of teaching materials had the least amount of support and recognized it as an area that should be prioritized (Kim, 2022 cited in Shin et al., 2023). This support should include budgetary support for content creation and a platform for content sharing.

5. Conclusions

5.1. Theoretical Implications

The considered type of analysis was applied for the first time in the context of early childhood education of children with functional diversity, with the aim of addressing the research gaps identified by various authors (Fernández-Batanero et al., 2019; Gallardo Montes et al., 2020; Colomo-Magaña et al., 2023). The rising incidence of these issues in children is raising concerns and prompting a search for solutions, not only in Spanish society but also in other countries. Therefore, this study contributes to the improvement of teacher training and, consequently, to that of the students.

5.2. Practical Implications

The interviewed professionals emphasized the importance of early assessments. In this regard, they perceive the personal and material resources to be scarce. The majority of centers are public and have limited human and financial resources to invest in this type of student. Therefore, the scarcity of resources is the main limitation faced by public institutions. The assistance received is often insufficient and delayed. In some cases, it takes two or more years to receive assistance when it is needed at a young age. The solutions involve restructuring and streamlining the bureaucracy of Spanish public administrations to achieve faster delivery of financial aid for purchasing ICT equipment. Moreover, this should be accompanied by technical support and maintenance support. Another solution is increasing the hiring of professionals. However, the primary focus should be on expanding teacher training and developing strategies for family involvement. Concerning age, different types of training could be offered for different age groups, in order to motivate the teachers.

6. Limitations and Future Research Lines

This study has several limitations. The study was cross-sectional and the results are specific to the region of Andalusia, Spain. Regarding future studies, several avenues can be explored:
(1)
Comparisons of outcomes of this type of education with technology integration and which professionals (such as therapeutic pedagogy for integration support, PTAI, and regular teaching staff) utilize these technologies in different countries.
(2)
At a theoretical level, we can extend the model by adding how decisions are made in public and/or private schools. Additionally, we can study the impact of new technologies on students with professionals involved in their education.
(3)
Future research could analyze the perceptions of parents or guardians of children with functional diversity to determine if they perceive improvements during this educational stage. It would be valuable to compare these perceptions with those of teachers or professionals.
(4)
Future studies should use larger sample sizes.
(5)
Additionally, it should consider performing multigroup analysis based on gender, age, years of experience, and type of school, among others.
(6)
Other control variables should be added such as gender, type of professional, years of experience, and level of education, among others.
Apart from advocating for increased training, other crucial questions arise: Should this enhanced training focus more on psychological aspects and train teachers from a perspective that fosters better social relationships with children with functional diversity? Or should it solely emphasize technological training? Or does it require a balance of both? Is technology replacing human interactions? Answering these questions will require further investigation and expansion of this study. Therefore, validating this idea would involve jointly analyzing both types of training within the same model.
Finally, we would like to acknowledge and express gratitude not only for the role of the regional and national public educational institutions in Spain, but also for the involvement of non-governmental organizations in promoting and assisting schools and parents with children with functional diversity at any educational stage.

Supplementary Materials

The following supporting information can be downloaded at https://www.mdpi.com/article/10.3390/educsci15060658/s1, Table S1: The questionnaire.

Author Contributions

Conceptualization, D.d.M.F.-M. and J.M.T.-T.; methodology, D.d.M.F.-M., J.M.T.-T. and M.-D.B.-M.; software, M.-D.B.-M.; validation, D.d.M.F.-M. and J.M.T.-T.; formal analysis, D.d.M.F.-M. and M.-D.B.-M.; investigation, D.d.M.F.-M.; resources, J.M.T.-T.; data curation, M.-D.B.-M.; writing—original draft preparation, D.d.M.F.-M.; visualization, D.d.M.F.-M., C.R.F.-F., M.-D.B.-M. and J.M.T.-T.; writing—review and editing, D.d.M.F.-M., M.-D.B.-M. and C.R.F.-F.; supervision, J.M.T.-T. and C.R.F.-F.; project administration, J.M.T.-T.; funding acquisition, J.M.T.-T. All authors have read and agreed to the published version of the manuscript.

Funding

This research received no external funding.

Institutional Review Board Statement

This study was conducted in accordance with the ethical principles outlined in the Declaration of Helsinki and was approved by the Ethics Committee of the AREA Research Group (HUM-672) at the University of Granada. The project received a favorable evaluation and was assigned the approval code CE/2025/HUM672.

Informed Consent Statement

Informed consent was obtained from all subjects involved in this study.

Data Availability Statement

The raw data supporting the conclusions of this article will be made available by the authors on request.

Conflicts of Interest

The authors declare no conflicts of interest.

References

  1. Alqurashi, E., Gokbel, E. N., & Carbonara, D. (2017). Teachers’ knowledge in content, pedagogy and technology integration: A comparative analysis between teachers in Saudi Arabia and United States. British Journal of Educational Technology, 48(6), 1414–1426. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  2. Benítez, J., Henseler, J., Castillo, A., & Schuberth, F. (2020). How to perform and report an impactful analysis using partial least squares: Guidelines for confirmatory and explanatory IS research. Information & Management, 57, 103168. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  3. Benítez-Lugo, M. L., Pinero-Pinto, E., León Larios, F., Medrano-Sánchez, E. M., De la Casa Almeida, M., & Suárez-Serrano, C. (2021). Inclusive design in the field of education from the paradigm of early intervention. Children, 8, 474. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  4. Bonilla-del-Río, M., García-Ruíz, R., & Pérez-Rodríguez, M. A. (2018). La educomunicación como reto para la educación inclusiva. EDMETIC, Revista de Educación Mediática y TIC, 7(1), 66–85. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  5. Budnyk, O., & Kotyk, M. (2020). Use of Information and Communication Technologies in the Inclusive Process of Educational Institutions. Journal of Vasyl Stefanyk Precarpathian National University, 7(1), 15–23. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  6. Carmines, E. G., & Zeller, R. A. (1979). Reliability and validity assessment. Sage Publications. [Google Scholar]
  7. Carrapiço, F., Pozuelos-Estrada, F. J., & Rodríguez-Miranda, F. P. (2022). Profesorado de enseñanza básica: Características socioprofesionales, formación TIC y efectos en su práctica (Algarbe-Portugal). Campus Virtuales, 11(2), 9–20. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  8. Colomo-Magaña, E., Colomo-Magaña, A., Basgall, L., & Cívico-Ariza, A. (2023). Pre-service teachers’ perceptions of the role of ICT in attending to students with functional diversity. Education and Information Technologies, 28(8), 9379–9395. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  9. Cronbach, L. (1951). Coefficient alpha and internal structure of test. Psychometrika, 16, 297–334. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  10. Dijkstra, T., & Henseler, J. (2015). Consistent partial least squares path modeling. Management Information Systems Quarterly, 39(2), 297–316. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  11. Eickelmann, B., & Vennemann, M. (2017). Teacher’s attitudes and beliefs regarding ICT in teaching and learning in European countries. European Educational Research Journal, 16(6), 733–761. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  12. Falk, R., & Miller, N. (1992). A primer for soft modeling. University of Akron Press. [Google Scholar]
  13. Faul, F., Erdfelder, E., Buchner, A., & Lang, A. (2009). Statistical power analyses using g*power 3.1: Tests for correlation and regression analysis. Behavior Research Methods, 41(4), 1149–1160. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  14. Fernández Batanero, J. M. (2018). TIC y la discapacidad. Conocimiento del profesorado de Educación Especial. Revista Educativa Digital Hekademos, 24, 19–29. Available online: https://bit.ly/3f0YZ71 (accessed on 18 May 2025).
  15. Fernández Batanero, J. M., & Rodríguez-Martín, A. (2017). ICT and functional diversity: Knowledge of the teaching staffTIC y diversidad funcional: Conocimiento del profesorado. European Journal of Investigation in Health, Psychology and Education, 7(3), 157–175. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  16. Fernández-Batanero, J. M., Montenegro-Rueda, M., Fernández-Cerezo, J., & Tadeu, P. (2020). Formación del profesorado y TIC para el alumnado con discapacidad: Una revisión sistemática. Revista Brasileña de Educación Especial, 26(4), 711–732. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  17. Fernández Batanero, J. M., Reyes-Rebollo, M. M., & El Homrani, M. (2018). TIC y discapacidad. Principales barreras para la formación del profesorado. Revista de Educación Mediática y TIC, 7(1), 1–25. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  18. Fernández Batanero, J. M., Román-Graván, P., & El Homrani, M. (2017). TIC y discapacidad. Conocimiento del profesorado de educación primaria en Andalucía. Aula Abierta, 46(2), 65–72. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  19. Fernández-Batanero, J. M., Sañudo, B., Montenegro-Rueda, M., & García-Martínez, I. (2019). Physical education teachers and their ICT training applied to students with disabilities. The case of Spain. Sustainability, 11(9), 2559. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  20. Fornell, C., & Larcker, D. F. (1981). Evaluating structural equation models with unobservable variables and measurement error. Journal of Marketing Research, 18(1), 39–50. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  21. G*Power. ((2007,, January 12)). 1st release. Available online: https://www.psychologie.hhu.de/arbeitsgruppen/allgemeine-psychologie-und-arbeitspsychologie/gpower (accessed on 18 May 2025).
  22. Gallardo Montes, C. P., Caurcel-Cara, M. J., Crisol-Moya, E., & Peregrina-Nievas, P. (2023). ICT training perception of professionals in functional diversity in Granada. International Journal of Environmental Research and Public Health, 3, 2064. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  23. Gallardo Montes, C. P., Rodríguez-Fuentes, A., Caurcel, M. J., & Capperucci, D. (2020). Adaptación y validación de un instrumento de evaluación sobre la utilización de herramientas digitales en las aulas de Educación Especial. Studi sulla Formazione, 23(2), 161–173. Available online: https://digibug.ugr.es/handle/10481/65370 (accessed on 18 May 2025). [CrossRef]
  24. Garcia i Grau, F., Lázaro Cantabrana, J. L., & Valls Bautista, C. (2022). La competencia digital docente: Un estudio de caso de una escuela-instituto. Edutec, Revista Electrónica de Tecnología Educativa, (81), 35–54. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  25. Gözüm, A. İ. C., & Kaya, Ü. Ü. (2024). ICT use in blog design: A study of pre-service preschool teachers during pandemic. In S. Papadakis (Ed.), IoT, AI, and ICT for educational applications [EAI/Springer innovations in communication and computing]. Springer. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  26. Gözüm, A. İ. C., Metin, Ş., Uzun, H., & Karaca, N. H. (2023). Developing the teacher self-efficacy scale in the use of ICT at home for pre-school distance education during COVID-19. Technology, Knowledge and Learning, 28, 1351–1381. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  27. Gudmundsdottir, G. B., & Hatlevik, O. E. (2017). Newly qualified teachers’ professional digital competence: Implications for teacher education. European Journal of Teacher Education, 41(2), 214–231. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  28. Hair, J. F., Hult, G. T., Ringle, C. M., & Sarstedt, M. (2017). A primer on partial least squares structural equation modeling (PLS-SEM) (2nd ed.). SAGE Publications Inc. [Google Scholar]
  29. Hair, J. F., Hult, G. T., Ringle, C. M., Sarstedt, M., Castillo-Apraiz, J., Cepeda Carrion, G., & Roldán, J. L. (2019). Manual de partial least squares structural equation modeling (PLS-SEM). OmniaScience (Omnia Publisher SL). [Google Scholar]
  30. Henseler, J., Ringle, C., & Sarstedt, M. (2015). A new criterion for assessing discriminant validity in variance-based structural equation modeling. Journal of the Academy of Marketing Science, 43(1), 115–135. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  31. Hu, L., & Bentler, P. M. (1999). Cutoff criteria for fit indexes in covariance structure analysis: Conventional criteria versus new alternatives. Structural Equation Modeling: A Multidisciplinary Journal, 6(1), 1–55. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  32. Iancu, A. (2024). Use of information technologies by pre-school teachers. Euromentor Journal, 15(1), 47–57. Available online: https://euromentor.ucdc.ro/Euromentor%20Martie%20no.1.2024%20final.pdf (accessed on 18 May 2025).
  33. Imasuen, K., & Iyamu, I. F. (2024). Assessment of early childhood education teachers’ attitude, knowledge, and application of information technology (ICT) in teaching in Benin metropolis. Journal of Environmental and Tourism Education, 7. Available online: https://jeate.k-publisher.com/index.php/Jete/article/view/96 (accessed on 18 May 2025).
  34. Jordá Fabra, T., Mas García, V., & Agustí López, A. I. (2023). La importancia de la creación de recursos digitales de calidad destinados a docentes. Una propuesta para su evaluación y mejora. Praxis Educativa, 27(1), 1–18. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  35. Kabadayı, A. (2006). Analyzing preschool student teachers’ and their cooperating teachers’ attitudes towards the use of educational technology. TOJET: The Turkish Online Journal of Educational Technology, 5(4), 3–10. Available online: https://api.semanticscholar.org/CorpusID:203669738 (accessed on 18 May 2025).
  36. Kim, J.-O. (2022). A study on the perception of elementary school teachers on the use of edutech. Journal of Korean Practical Arts Education, 28(1), 37–55. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  37. Kock, F., Berbekova, A., & Assaf, A. G. (2021). Understanding and managing the threat of common method bias: Detection, prevention and control. Tourism Management, 86, 104330. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  38. Kock, N. (2015). Common method bias in PLS-SEM: A full collinearity assessment approach. International Journal of e-Collaboration, 11, 1–10. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  39. Legorburu-Fernández, I., Dosil-Santamaría, M., Idoiaga-Mondragón, N., & Ozamiz-Etxebarria, N. (2023). Teachers’ involvement in inclusive education: Attitudes of future teachers. Education Sciences, 13(9), 851. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  40. López-Meneses, E., & Fernández-Cerero, J. F. (2020). Tecnologías de la Información y la Comunicación y diversidad funcional. Conocimiento y formación del profesorado en Navarra. International Journal of Educational Research and Innovation (IJERI), 14, 59–75. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  41. Malone, K., Hollingshead, A., & Fodor, J. (2023). Increasing interaction in social settings for students with intellectual disabilities using visual supports. Education and Training in Autism and Developmental Disabilities, 58(2), 198–208. Available online: https://www.proquest.com/scholarly-journals/increasing-interaction-social-settings-students/docview/2810209643/se-2?accountid=14568 (accessed on 18 May 2025).
  42. Mañas-Viniegra, L., Rodríguez-Fernández, L. H., & Veloso, A. (2023). New technologies applied to the inclusion of people with disabilities in the digital society: A challenge for communication, educationand employability/Nuevas tecnologías aplicadas a la comunicación, educación y empleabilidad para la inclusión de las personas con discapacidad en la sociedad digital. Revista ICONO 14. Revista Científica de Comunicación y Tecnologías Emergentes, 21(2), 1–19. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  43. Mas García, V., & Jordá, T. (2023). Diversidad funcional y tecnologías en el ámbito educativo: Análisis del estado del arte. REIDOCREA, 12(20), 261–270. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  44. Matheu Pérez, A., Muñoz, M., Cortés Cortés, M., Díaz-Contreras, L., Muñoz Sepúlveda, S., Juica Martínez, P., & Dehnhardt, M. (2024). Percepciones de profesores y alumnos sobre el uso de las TIC en las clases de educación física: Usos, ventajas y proyecciones (Perceptions of teachers and students about the use of ICTs in physical education classes: Uses, advantages, and projections). Retos, 51, 86–93. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  45. Morales García, W. Y. (2023). Estrategias didácticas y el uso de las TIC en la práctica docente. Revista Científica del Sistema de Estudios de Postgrado, 6(1), 111–120. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  46. Nasir-Tucktuck, M., More, C., Baker, J. N., & Spies, T. (2023). Effects of distributing trials in shared stories on listening comprehension and skill acquisition for students with significant cognitive disability. Education and Training in Autism and Developmental Disabilities, 58(2), 209–221. Available online: https://www.proquest.com/scholarly-journals/effects-distributing-trials-shared-stories-on/docview/2810210398/se-2?accountid=14568 (accessed on 18 May 2025).
  47. Novković Cvetković, B., Arsić, Z., & Cenić, D. (2022). Attitudes of teachers to using information and communication technology in teaching—Advantages and obstacles. International Journal of Cognitive Research in Science, Engineering and Education (IJCRSEE), 10(2), 69–76. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  48. Ok, M. W., & Rao, K. (2019). Digital tools for the inclusive classroom: Google chrome as assistive and instructional technology. Journal of Special Education Technology, 34(3), 204–211. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  49. Papadakis, S., Gözüm, A. İ. C., Kaya, Ü. Ü., Kalogiannakis, M., & Karaköse, T. (2024). Examining the validity and reliability of the teacher self-efficacy scale in the use of ICT at home for preschool distance education (TSES-ICT-PDE) among greek preschool teachers: A comparative study with Turkey. In S. Papadakis (Ed.), IoT, AI, and ICT for educational applications. EAI/Springer innovations in communication and computing. Springer. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  50. Papavlasopoulou, S., Undheim, M., Meaney, T., & Esmaeeli, S. (2024). Early childhood pre-service teachers’ preparation for using technology with children: A systematic literature review. European Journal of Teacher Education, 1–18. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  51. Pegalajar Palomino, M. C. (2015). Diseño y validación de un cuestionario sobre percepciones de futuros docentes hacia las TIC para el desarrollo de prácticas inclusivas [Design and validation of a questionnaire on perceptions of future teachers towards ICT for development inclusive practices]. Pixel-Bit. Revista de Medios y Educación, 47(89), 89–104. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  52. Pegalajar Palomino, M. C. (2017). El futuro docente ante el uso de las TIC para la educación inclusiva. Digital Education Review, 31, 131–148. Available online: https://bit.ly/32IBkDr (accessed on 18 May 2025).
  53. Podsakoff, P., MacKenzie, S., Lee, J., & Podsakoff, N. (2003). Common method biases in behavioral research: A critical review of the literature and recommended remedies. Journal of Applied Psychology, 88, 879–903. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  54. Polat, E., Cepdibi Sıbıç, S., Cirit, N. C., Hopcan, S., & Emre, Y. (2024). Educational technology in inclusive classrooms: Assessing teacher awareness and needs. Journal of Educational Technology and Online Learning, 7(1), 116–131. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  55. Pozo Sánchez, S., López Belmonte, J., Fernández Cruz, M., & López Núñez, J. A. (2020). Análisis correlacional de los factores incidentes en el nivel de competencia digital del profesorado. Revista Electrónica Interuniversitaria de Formación del Profesorado, 23(1), 143–159. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  56. Ringle, C. M., Wende, S., & Becker, J. ((2022,, June 20)). SmartPLS. Oststeinbek: SmartPLS GmbH (latest version is SmartPLS 4.1.1.2). Available online: http://www.smartpls.com (accessed on 18 May 2025).
  57. Rodríguez Correa, M., & Arroyo González, M. J. (2014). Las TIC al servicio de la inclusión educativa. Digital Education Review, 25, 108–126. Available online: https://dialnet.unirioja.es/servlet/articulo?codigo=4778259 (accessed on 18 May 2025).
  58. Rodríguez-García, A. M., Trujillo Torres, J. M., & Sánchez Rodríguez, J. (2019). Impacto de la productividad científica sobre competencia digital de los futuros docentes: Aproximación bibliométrica en Scopus y Web of Science. Revista Complutense de Educación, 30(2), 623–646. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  59. Sanahuja Ribés, A., Moliner Miravet, L., & Alegre Ansuategui, F. J. (2020). Educación inclusiva y TIC: Un análisis de las percepciones y prácticas docentes. Bordón. Revista De Pedagogía, 72(3), 123–138. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  60. Shater, A., AlMahdawi, A. J., & Khasawneh, M. A. S. (2023). The digital learning of disabled students: Perceptions of teachers in public schools. Information Sciences Letters an International Journal, 12(2), 879–887. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  61. Shin, M., & Jang, J. (2023). Plans to facilitate ICT use in schools: Focusing on the perception of middle school teachers, principals, and ICT Manegers Minchul, Shin (Daegu Wolchon elementary school teacher). Journal of Educational Technology, 39(1), 187–217. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  62. Shin, M., Yoo, H., & Hong Jang, J. (2023). Barriers and solutions of edtech integration in schools: Focused on leadingteachers’ perceptions Minchul Shin (Daegu Wolchon elementary school teacher). Journal of Educational Technology, 39(1), 219–250. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  63. Silva Sández, G., & Rodríguez Miranda, F. d. P. (2018). Una mirada hacia las TIC en la educación de las personas con discapacidad y con trastorno del espectro autista: Análisis temático y bibliográfico. EDMETIC, Revista de Educación Mediática y TIC, 7(1), 43–65. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  64. Simsar, A., & Kadim, M. (2017). Okul öncesi öğretmenlerinin bilişim teknolojilerini kullanma durumları ve bunun öğretime etkisi. Kilis 7 Aralık Üniversitesi Sosyal Bilimler Dergisi, 7(14), 127–146. Available online: https://dergipark.org.tr/tr/download/article-file/386964 (accessed on 18 May 2025).
  65. Spiteri, M., & Chang Rundgren, S. N. (2017). Maltese primary teachers’ digital competence: Implications for continuing professional development. European Journal of Teacher Education, 40(4), 521–534. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  66. Toledo Morales, P., & Llorente Cejudo, M. d. C. (2016). Formación inicial del profesorado en el uso de Tecnologías de la Información y la Comunicación (TIC) para la educación del discapacitado. Digital Education Review, 30, 135–146. Available online: https://revistes.ub.edu/index.php/der/article/view/14540/pdf_1 (accessed on 18 May 2025).
  67. Trujillo Torres, J. M., López Núñez, J. A., & Pérez Navío, E. (2011). Caracterización de la alfabetización digital desde la perspectiva del profesorado: La competencia docente digital. Revista Iberoamericana de Educación, 55(4), 1–16. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  68. Vega-Angulo, H. E., Rozo-García, H., & Dávila-Gilede, J. (2021). Estrategias de evaluación mediadas por las tecnologías de la información y comunicación (TIC): Una revisión de bibliografía/Evaluation Strategies Mediated by ICT: A Literature Review/Estratégias de Avaliação Mediadas por TIC: Uma revisão da literatura. Revista Electrónica Educare, 25(2), 285–306. Available online: http://www.una.ac.cr/educare (accessed on 18 May 2025). [CrossRef]
  69. Vega-Gea, E., Calmaestra, J., & Ortega Ruiz, R. (2021). Percepción docente del uso de TIC en la Educación Inclusiva. [Teacher perception on the use of ICT in inclusive education]. Pixel-Bit. Revista de Medios y Educación, 62, 235–268. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  70. Werts, C., Linn, R., & Jöreskog, K. (1974). Intraclass reliability estimates: Testing structural assumptions. Educational and Psychological Measurement, 34, 25–33. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
Figure 1. Proposed theoretical model. Modified from Ringle et al. (2022).
Figure 1. Proposed theoretical model. Modified from Ringle et al. (2022).
Education 15 00658 g001
Figure 2. The estimated model. Prepared by authors based on SmartPLS vers. 4.1.1.2 Ringle et al. (2022).
Figure 2. The estimated model. Prepared by authors based on SmartPLS vers. 4.1.1.2 Ringle et al. (2022).
Education 15 00658 g002
Table 1. Sociodemographic information.
Table 1. Sociodemographic information.
Sociodemographic VariableFrequency Percentage
Sex
Men4517.7%
Women20982.3%
Age
24–33249.4%
34–437629.9%
44–5311043.3%
54–644417.3%
Academic Qualification
Special Education (Speech and Language Therapy/Therapeutic Pedagogy)6023.6%
Early Childhood Education16063.0%
Education + Specialization114.3%
Psychopedagogy/Psychology/Pedagogy239.1%
Total254100%
Table 2. Construct and indicators.
Table 2. Construct and indicators.
Construct/IndicatorDescription
ICT_PERCEPTProfessional’s perceptions of ICTs
fd101Enhance teacher competencies.
fd102Require guidance on searching, selecting, and evaluating ICT resources for the teaching–learning process.
fd103Provide greater flexibility in the teaching–learning process.
fd104Enable responses to educational needs.
fd105Are easy to use in the context of addressing diversity.
fd106Promote inclusion.
fd107Offer multiple opportunities in the realm of diversity management.
fd108Improve performance and effectiveness.
fd109Increase motivation towards learning.
fd110Enable access to information.
fd111Allow for achieving objectives in a more flexible manner.
ICT_NECESSICT uses and necessities
fd201Demand greater dedication and effort in my work.
fd202Require specific training.
fd203Require greater material resources and investment from the administration.
fd204Help provide better support for diversity.
fd205Selection of specific ICTs based on students’ needs.
ICT_TRAININGProfessional’s level of ICT training
fd301I am aware of the main limitations that can affect their use.
fd302I know different places on the Internet where specific resources can be found.
fd303I can design activities using widely used educational software.
fd304I feel prepared to assist them in using technical support and ICTs.
fd305They facilitate the design and adaptation of activities.
fd306They help with evaluation processes.
Table 3. Descriptive analysis of indicators.
Table 3. Descriptive analysis of indicators.
ItemNo.TypeMissingMeanMedianMinimumMaximumStandard
Deviation
Excess
Kurtosis
Skewness
Sex10|100.8231010.3820.901−1.701
Age2MET045.5474624648.399−0.546−0.063
fd1013MET04.3584350.616−0.655−0.411
fd1024MET04.2404150.5962.526−0.590
fd1035MET04.4134350.626−0.587−0.588
fd1046MET04.3584350.647−0.677−0.512
fd1057MET04.0164250.758−0.507−0.299
fd1068MET04.1774250.679−0.229−0.388
fd1079MET04.3394350.578−0.665−0.207
fd10810MET04.3234350.600−0.635−0.278
fd10911MET04.5085350.580−0.486−0.700
fd11012MET04.3904350.597−0.670−0.406
fd11113MET04.2684350.614−0.600−0.236
fd20114MET04.1344250.6620.211−0.400
fd20215MET04.2764350.623−0.637−0.277
fd20316MET04.3394350.636−0.679−0.436
fd20417MET04.3504350.614−0.656−0.387
fd20518MET03.9804250.707−0.067−0.308
fd30119MET03.9294250.6420.396−0.294
fd30220MET04.0164250.6870.907−0.606
fd30321MET03.4254151.02−0.543−0.412
fd30422MET03.7684250.762−0.251−0.226
fd30523MET04.1654250.6730.439−0.523
fd30624MET04.1504250.7110.464−0.623
Source: Ringle et al. (2022).
Mardia’s multivariate Test
                    b    z       p-value
Skewness           1287.921    54,521.96877   0
Kurtosis          4023.459     28.03496      0
Table 4. Item reliability: internal consistency, reliability, and convergent validity.
Table 4. Item reliability: internal consistency, reliability, and convergent validity.
Construct (Composite)Factor Loadings
(Min.; Max.)
CAComposite ReliabilityAVE
RhoARhoC
1. Professionals’ perceptions of applying ICTs in education...(0.670; 0.840)0.8280.8350.8750.540
2. Necessity of applying ICTs in education...(0.789; 0.919)0.6510.7380.8460.733
3. Professionals’ level of ICT training for educating...(0.691; 0.855)0.8740.8890.9040.614
4 Note: Factor loadings > 0.707 (Carmines & Zeller, 1979); 0.4 ≤ loadings ≤ 0.7 (Hair et al., 2017, 2nd ed.). CA: Cronbach’s alpha > 0.7 (Cronbach, 1951); RhoA: Dijkstra–Henseler rho (ρA) > 0.7 (Dijkstra & Henseler, 2015); CR or RhoC: composite reliability > 0.7 (Werts et al., 1974); AVE: average variance extracted > 0.5 (Fornell & Larcker, 1981). Obtained from the * 95% confidence intervals. All items were significant (p < 0.001). Source: Prepared by authors based on Ringle et al. (2022).
Table 5. Discriminant validity approaches.
Table 5. Discriminant validity approaches.
Fornell–Larcker Criterion and HTMT Criteria
Construct123
1. Professionals’ perceptions of applying ICTs in education...0.7350.5050.659
2. Necessity of applying ICTs in education...0.3840.8560.298
3. Professionals’ level of ICT training for educating...0.5780.2390.783
Note: The square roots of the average variance extracted (AVE) in bold are located on the diagonal. Over-diagonal and under-diagonal HTMT correlations indicate the construct’s inter-correlations.
Cross-Loading Approach
Constructs
Indicator1. Professionals’ perceptions of applying ICTs in education...2. Necessity of applying ICTs in education...3. Professionals’ level of ICT training for educating...
fd101deleteddeleteddeleted
fd102deleteddeleteddeleted
fd103deleteddeleteddeleted
fd1040.6880.2420.427
fd1050.6700.1740.456
fd1060.7300.3160.309
fd107deleteddeleteddeleted
fd1080.8400.3050.511
fd1090.7250.3220.401
fd110deleteddeleteddeleted
fd1110.7450.3290.423
fd2010.3820.9190.249
fd2020.2570.7890.142
fd203deleteddeleteddeleted
fd204deleteddeleteddeleted
fd205deleteddeleteddeleted
fd3010.3250.1720.701
fd3020.3610.1570.691
fd3030.4490.2650.810
fd3040.4360.1120.850
fd3050.5460.1800.855
fd3060.5340.2240.775
Note: the highest values are marked in bold. Source: prepared by authors based on Ringle et al. (2022).
Table 6. Measures of the inner model.
Table 6. Measures of the inner model.
Dependent ConstructExplanatory PowerInner VIF Effect Size f2
R2ConstructsConstructs
12323
1. Professionals’ perceptions of applying ICTs in education... 0.1640.451
2. Uses and necessity of applying ICTs in education...0.147 *Weak a 1.0001.164 0.000
3. Professionals’ level of ICT training for educating...0.375 *Moderate a 1.170
Age 0.065
Note. Minimum cut-off: R2 ≥ 0.1 (Falk & Miller, 1992); inner VIF (Variance Inflation Factor) ≤ 3.3 (F. Kock et al., 2021). * p < 0.05. Tested by bootstrapping 10,000 samples; percentile configuration, one-tailed. a: classification according to Hair et al. (2017). Source: prepared by authors based on Ringle et al. (2022).
Table 7. Analysis of direct and mediating effects and final decisions.
Table 7. Analysis of direct and mediating effects and final decisions.
HPathDirect
Effect
Sig.DecisionHPathTotal
Indirect Effect
Sig.DecisionType of
Mediation
Total
Effect
H1+1 −> 20.384 ***YesSupport------0.384
H2+1 −> 30.572 ***YesSupportH4+1 −> 2 −> 30.002noRejectNo Mediation0.572
H3+2 −> 30.004 (ns) NoReject-------
H5-4 −> 3−0.202 ***YesSupport
Note: H, proposed hypothesis; Sig, significant; ns, not significant; *, p < 0.05; **, p < 0.01; ***, p < 0.001. Total indirect effects = total effects − direct effects. Source: prepared by authors base on Ringle et al. (2022). 1. Professionals’ Perceptions of ICTs; 2. Use or necessity of ICTs; 3. Professionals’ level of ICT training; 4. Age (control variable).
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.

Share and Cite

MDPI and ACS Style

Fernández-Montoro, D.d.M.; Trujillo-Torres, J.M.; Benítez-Márquez, M.-D.; Fernández-Fernández, C.R. Modeling Teaching Using Information and Communication Technologies in Early Childhood Education with Functional Diversity: The Case in Spain. Educ. Sci. 2025, 15, 658. https://doi.org/10.3390/educsci15060658

AMA Style

Fernández-Montoro DdM, Trujillo-Torres JM, Benítez-Márquez M-D, Fernández-Fernández CR. Modeling Teaching Using Information and Communication Technologies in Early Childhood Education with Functional Diversity: The Case in Spain. Education Sciences. 2025; 15(6):658. https://doi.org/10.3390/educsci15060658

Chicago/Turabian Style

Fernández-Montoro, Dulcenombre de María, Juan Manuel Trujillo-Torres, María-Dolores Benítez-Márquez, and Carmen Rocío Fernández-Fernández. 2025. "Modeling Teaching Using Information and Communication Technologies in Early Childhood Education with Functional Diversity: The Case in Spain" Education Sciences 15, no. 6: 658. https://doi.org/10.3390/educsci15060658

APA Style

Fernández-Montoro, D. d. M., Trujillo-Torres, J. M., Benítez-Márquez, M.-D., & Fernández-Fernández, C. R. (2025). Modeling Teaching Using Information and Communication Technologies in Early Childhood Education with Functional Diversity: The Case in Spain. Education Sciences, 15(6), 658. https://doi.org/10.3390/educsci15060658

Note that from the first issue of 2016, this journal uses article numbers instead of page numbers. See further details here.

Article Metrics

Back to TopTop