Technologies in Inclusive Education: Solution or Challenge? A Systematic Review

Abstract

Inclusive education aims to ensure equitable participation for all students. Technology plays a crucial role in this endeavor by providing tools that eliminate barriers, personalize learning, and foster active participation, especially for students with functional diversity or specific needs. This research examines whether the adoption of technologies facilitates or poses challenges for achieving effective inclusive education. Through a Systematic Literature Review (SLR), the most commonly used technologies were identified and both their benefits and challenges were evaluated. The PRISMA methodology was applied, and databases such as Scopus were used, undergoing two study refinement processes, resulting in 93 primary studies that contributed to addressing the posed research questions. The findings reveal the use of various technologies in inclusive educational settings, such as screen readers, braille devices, and augmented reality technologies. Their benefits include improved accessibility, enhanced active participation, and the promotion of critical skills like critical thinking and creativity. These tools help create more motivating and equitable learning environments, which aid in reducing dropout rates and strengthening social inclusion. However, the implementation of these technologies faces significant challenges, such as high costs, lack of adequate training for teachers, social inequalities, and ethical barriers. To maximize the effectiveness of these tools, it is crucial to modernize inclusive policies and tailor educational strategies to the specific needs of each student. This study has limitations, including variability in the quality of the studies analyzed, which may affect the generalization of the results. Future research should explore the long-term impacts of technologies on inclusive education and evaluate the necessary teacher training strategies for their effective implementation.

1. Introduction

Education is a human right recognized by various international conventions, including the International Covenant on Economic, Social, and Cultural Rights. Article 13 of this covenant states that education should promote the holistic development of the individual, respect for human rights, participation in a free society, and foster understanding, tolerance and friendship among nations and diverse groups (Naciones Unidas, 1976).

Worldwide, people with functional diversity face numerous barriers and obstacles that hinder recognition of their achievements in economic, financial, and social activity indicators. Additionally, they encounter challenges in accessing basic services such as education, healthcare, employment, information, and communication. The international community acknowledges the urgency of this issue and has developed programs and regulations to support, adapt, and integrate individuals with functional diversity (Yaskevich, 2021).

Through education, equality and diversity can be addressed, improving the acquisition of knowledge, skills, attitudes, competencies, and values necessary to promote a sustainable and equitable future. The premise of inclusive and equitable education for all underpins the concept of an inclusive school, which seeks to integrate these principles into its pedagogical and organizational structure (Rodrigo-Martín et al., 2020).

In recent years, educational policy reforms in various countries around the world have emphasized the importance of including all students in regular classrooms and redesigning the educational process to meet their individual needs (Morales, 2024; United Nations Educational and Cultural Organization, 2017). A robust education system can increase opportunities, improve health, strengthen the resilience of communities and institutions, foster sustainable economic growth, reduce poverty, and stimulate innovation (Bulathwela et al., 2024).

Inclusion, understood from the perspective of social justice and equality, involves not only integrating students with special educational needs into regular schools but also ensuring their active participation in all educational aspects and the social interactions that arise from them. “E-inclusive” pedagogy focuses on teachers’ decisions to provide students with innovative learning methods and alternative means for completing tasks, utilizing technology in educational activities (Karagianni & Drigas, 2023b).

Inclusive education is conceived as a process that aims to recognize and respond to the diversity of students’ needs, with the goal of ensuring effective learning and reducing exclusion both within and outside educational institutions (Sarrionandia, 2017). This educational model, according to Knight (2000) seeks to integrate all students, regardless of their abilities or backgrounds, into a unified and welcoming school environment.

In this context, inclusive education plays a crucial role in preparing students to face the challenges of the modern world, promoting an environment where everyone, irrespective of their capabilities, can learn together. By fostering the active participation of each child in the educational process, this approach meets their individual needs through a variety of both curricular and extracurricular activities, significantly contributing to comprehensive development (Maćkowski et al., 2023).

Alcívar et al. (2022) state that most teachers are not prepared to develop academic intervention plans for students with functional diversity. They recommend enhancing educators’ knowledge and training to integrate ICT resources into the curriculum. Additionally, it is essential to create incentives to prioritize special educational needs and ensure the effective use of technologies that support learning and cognitive development.

Creating inclusive spaces in classrooms requires more than administrative adjustments; educators must develop pedagogical approaches that recognize and accept students’ individual differences. This fosters collaboration and learning through “critical creation” in the classroom (Fernandez, 2021).

The field of inclusive education and the use of technology has seen significant advancements, as demonstrated by recent research. Haleem et al. (2022) emphasize the transformative impact of digital technologies on the education system, particularly after the COVID-19 pandemic, highlighting their ability to personalize learning and expand access, although challenges related to equity, teacher training, and effective integration persist. Chambers (2020) focused on assistive technologies (ATs), underscoring their role in integrating students with functional diversity through devices and services that enhance capabilities, facilitate social interaction, and improve curricular access.

Salas-Pilco et al. (2022) explored the advantages and challenges of using artificial intelligence (AI) and new technologies in inclusive contexts, identifying benefits such as increased student performance and interest in STEM/STEAM but also challenges related to technological, pedagogical, and cultural aspects. Reyes and Prado (2020) analyzed ICT in inclusive primary education, highlighting their potential to reduce social marginalization, democratize knowledge, and promote equity, emphasizing the need for effective policies, teacher training, and differentiation between integration and inclusion.

These studies converge in highlighting the importance of technology in promoting inclusive education while proposing strategies to overcome challenges and foster a more equitable society. Previous research addresses key aspects such as the impact of digital technologies on learning. However, there is no consolidated information that comprehensively identifies these technologies and evaluates whether they represent an effective solution or a predominant challenge in inclusive education, considering their benefits and limitations.

To delve deeper into this analysis, it is essential to discuss specific technologies such as adaptive learning platforms, accessibility tools, and assistive technology devices. Adaptive learning platforms use algorithms to tailor educational content to the individual needs of each student (Isaeva et al., 2025), thus allowing for personalized learning that can be particularly beneficial for students with functional diversity or special needs. These technologies can significantly enhance participation and learning outcomes, although they also pose challenges such as the need for ongoing training for educators and dependence on adequate technological infrastructure (Khosravi et al., 2020).

On the other hand, accessibility tools like screen readers and adaptive keyboards provide crucial opportunities for students with visual or motor limitations to participate on equal terms in the classroom (Mulloy et al., 2014). Despite their apparent benefits, these devices often require significant investments and are not always effectively integrated within educational settings (Grussenmeyer & Folmer, 2017). This scenario underscores the importance of evaluating both the benefits and challenges associated with the adoption of technologies in inclusive education contexts, ensuring that the strategies implemented are not only innovative but also accessible and sustainable in the long term.

This research seeks to fill a gap by providing a global perspective to understand the real impact and guide future decisions in the design and implementation of technology-based inclusive strategies. The study is of great importance as the adoption of technologies in inclusive education is at a critical turning point. As educational institutions worldwide strive to adapt to the needs of a diverse student population, the ability to effectively integrate technologies that support inclusion becomes central to achieving equitable and accessible education for all students.

The objective of this study is to analyze whether the adoption of technologies facilitates or presents challenges for effective inclusive education, identifying through a Systematic Literature Review (SLR) the most commonly used technologies, and evaluating their benefits and challenges. The research poses the general question: What solutions and challenges does the adoption of technologies present in inclusive education? To fully explore this issue, the following specific research questions are formulated:

RQ1: What are the most widely used technologies in inclusive educational settings?

RQ2: What benefits are reported by studies regarding the use of these tools to promote inclusion?

RQ3: What challenges do researchers identify when integrating technologies in inclusive contexts?

Through these questions, the study seeks to analyze the current state of the field, discuss its implications, and contribute to the debate on the potential and limitations of technologies in promoting educational inclusion.

By identifying and evaluating the most commonly used technologies, as well as their benefits and challenges, this study will provide a solid empirical basis that can be used to inform educational policies and practices. In an increasingly technological world, understanding these aspects is not only relevant for improving the quality of education offered but also for ensuring that no technological barrier excludes students from learning opportunities. Moreover, the findings could help guide the future development of educational technologies, ensuring that they are designed from the outset with principles of accessibility and equity. Overall, this study not only addresses a gap in the existing literature but also has the potential to influence the future direction of inclusive education globally.

Theoretical Framework

Figure 1 presents a diagram that synthesizes the main variables of the study and the research objective, concerning the use of technologies in inclusive education. It focuses on three key aspects: identifying the technologies most used in inclusive educational environments, the documented benefits of these technologies, and the challenges they present. In this way, the study aims to determine whether technologies primarily represent solutions or challenges to inclusive education.

• Inclusive Education

Inclusive education is based on a set of specific values that facilitate the teaching and learning process, requiring a shift towards greater flexibility to address individual differences (Ruiz, 2015). International guidelines and public policies have evolved to establish systems that promote inclusion, addressing diversity from a comprehensive approach that positively values the unique characteristics of students, such as differences in race, ethnicity, gender, language, religion, learning styles, personal conditions, and diverse abilities (Clavijo-Castillo et al., 2020).

According to Mignolo and Walsh (2018), inclusive education represents an epistemological change that challenges conventional academic norms by promoting practices and thoughts that recognize and value the diversity of existences in the contemporary world. This approach criticizes structures of inequality and injustice and proposes a new way of thinking and being that supports alternative visions and more inclusive lifestyles.

In the study by Márquez and Melero-Aguilar (2022) on inclusive education, the importance of adapting teaching–learning processes to comprehensively meet the needs of all students, with the aim of maximizing their success and utilization, is emphasized. To achieve truly inclusive education, it is crucial to diversify teaching, avoiding standardized methods and allowing choices in materials and activities to increase student participation and performance. Moreover, inclusive education is grounded in respect for cultural and personal differences, promoting empathy and commitment among students.

Delgado-Valdivieso et al. (2022) offer a classification to address the diversity of students in an inclusive educational context, grouping factors into three main categories: social condition, intercultural condition, and personal condition. The social condition category considers factors such as origin, language, risks, religion, politics, judicial backgrounds, economic situation, child labor, school bullying, and health emergencies. The intercultural condition emphasizes culture, diversity, and student identity. Finally, the personal condition includes variables such as gender identity and orientation, learning problems and skills, disabilities, behavioral disorders, addictions, exceptional talents, and specific situations like pregnancies in adolescents and young parents.

• Technologies

Technology has established itself as an essential tool in various professional fields, including education. Traditional teaching methods have become insufficient, prompting educational institutions to integrate technology into their curricula. This aims to prepare students with the skills necessary for contemporary careers, making technology a crucial resource to support teaching and learning (Arteaga-Alcívar et al., 2022).

The integration of technology in education involves a structural transformation in educational centers to facilitate networked work, which includes internet connection, continuous provision, and updating of hardware and software. This leads to a new culture of collaborative online work, automation of repetitive tasks, and creation of virtual spaces for management and learning (Sánchez, 2019).

Haleem et al. (2022) highlight that digital technologies have emerged as crucial tools for transforming education, facilitating instructors in creating teaching materials and offering new ways of learning and collaboration. With the global expansion of the Internet and the increase in the use of smart devices, education can be more accessible, effective, and efficient for everyone, everywhere.

Additionally, technology drives educational reforms by introducing mobile devices, smart boards, MOOCs, tablets, computers, and virtual laboratories, thus transforming education in schools and institutions. Unlike the traditional classroom environment, digital learning tools promote more immediate and participatory education (Parveen & Ramzan, 2024).

2. Materials and Methods

In this research, the PRISMA methodology (Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Reviews and Meta-Analyses) was applied to conduct a rigorous and transparent systematic review. This methodology facilitated the structured selection, evaluation, and synthesis of relevant studies. The PRISMA flow diagram phases—identification, screening, eligibility, and inclusion—were followed to ensure a controlled and reproducible process at every stage of the review (Page et al., 2021). This approach ensured clear inclusion and exclusion criteria, minimizing bias and guaranteeing the relevance of the selected studies.

2.1. Eligibility Criteria and Information Sources

For study selection, only those indexed in the SCOPUS database were included. SCOPUS was chosen due to its recognition as a comprehensive and reliable database that indexes peer-reviewed publications across various disciplines. Its stringent indexing criteria ensure the relevance and quality of the studies while offering global coverage that provides access to research in multiple languages.

The review included scientific articles, conference papers, and book chapters published between 2019 and 2024, with no language restrictions. These criteria ensured that the reviewed studies were current, relevant, and represented diverse types of scientific dissemination. To be considered, studies had to address at least one of the research questions posed.

Excluded studies included duplicates, those with conflicts of interest, books, and those presenting retraction notices or errata. This decision was made to ensure the quality and objectivity of the review, excluding sources that could compromise the validity of the results.

2.2. Search Strategy

To optimize the search strategy, preliminary search strings were conducted to identify the most relevant keywords and topics in the field of study. Using the bibliometric software R, the studies were analyzed, generating a word cloud that highlighted the most frequently mentioned terms in related research (see Figure 2). This bibliometric analysis enabled the refinement and construction of a more precise search string.

The final search string was applied in SCOPUS, resulting in a total of 122 relevant studies as of 17 April 2024. This approach ensured that the retrieved studies aligned with the research objectives and comprehensively covered the spectrum of the available literature.

(TITLE (tools OR technologies OR technology) AND TITLE (learning OR students OR education) AND TITLE (inclusive OR inclusivity)) AND PUBYEAR > 2018 AND PUBYEAR < 2025 AND (LIMIT-TO (DOCTYPE, “ar”) OR LIMIT-TO (DOCTYPE, “cp”) OR LIMIT-TO (DOCTYPE, “ch”))

2.3. Study Selection Process

The study selection process was conducted in two main phases. Initially, a review was performed based on the title, abstract, and keywords. During this phase, the four authors acted as reviewers and arbitrators, working collaboratively to decide on the inclusion or exclusion of each study. This process helped identify duplicate studies or those that did not meet the established inclusion criteria. Subsequently, the studies that passed this initial screening were retrieved for full-text analysis.

In this second phase, the four authors also participated actively, reviewing each document and replicating the previous evaluation process. The analysis was conducted independently and by consensus, ensuring quality and rigor in the selection process. Figure 3 illustrates the selection process and the number of studies retained at each stage.

2.4. Data Extraction Process

The data extraction process began with 93 primary studies that met the inclusion criteria. Data were systematically extracted using an Excel matrix specifically designed to collect relevant information. This matrix included both demographic data of the studies and responses to the research questions posed. The four reviewers independently participated in data collection to ensure accuracy and minimize bias. In case of discrepancies, reviewers discussed the data to reach a consensus. No automation tools were used in this process, as the manual approach allowed greater control and precision in data extraction.

2.5. Risk of Bias Assessment

The risk of bias in this review was mitigated through a two-stage structured process in which all four authors participated as reviewers. During both phases, the authors conducted independent reviews and collaborated to make final inclusion or exclusion decisions, minimizing personal bias. While no standardized tools or criteria were used to assess methodological bias, the double-review approach and consensus-based decision-making ensured that the selected studies were relevant and of sufficient quality to address the research questions.

2.6. Synthesis Methods

For data synthesis, once the Excel matrix was completed with responses to the research questions from each study, it was observed that the responses were not presented homogeneously due to differences in study approaches and formats. Since the responses also varied in number, categories were created to group similar responses or those that could fit within a common framework. This categorization process allowed for clearer and more comprehensible organization of the information, facilitating the presentation of results to the reader and ensuring coherent interpretation of the findings from the reviewed studies.

3. Results

This section presents the results obtained from the analysis of the reviewed studies, as well as responses to the posed research questions. Details regarding the geographical distribution of the studies are included, addressing the three research questions: for RQ1, the most commonly used technologies in inclusive educational environments are identified; RQ2 describes the benefits reported by the studies in using these tools to promote inclusion; and RQ3 analyzes the challenges researchers have encountered when integrating technologies in inclusive contexts. To examine each included study and its detailed characteristics, it is recommended to review the Supplementary Materials.

3.1. Geographical Distribution of the Studies

The analysis of the Systematic Literature Review on the use of technological tools in inclusive education reveals a diverse geographic distribution of the studies (see Figure 4). The countries with the highest number of investigations in this field are Russia (11 studies), the United States (10), and Spain and the United Kingdom with 9 studies. The next category includes India with six studies, followed by Greece and Ukraine, each with four studies. Other countries such as Brazil, Canada, Cyprus, Italy, South Africa, and Sweden have three studies each, while Belgium, Bulgaria, Denmark, Ecuador, Hong Kong, Indonesia, Kazakhstan, Portugal, Romania, and Turkey report two studies each. Finally, a group of countries, including Germany, Saudi Arabia, Australia, Austria, Cameroon, China, Colombia, South Korea, Finland, Ghana, Japan, Jordan, Lebanon, Lithuania, Malaysia, Mexico, Nigeria, Poland, North Macedonia, Sri Lanka, Taiwan, and Zimbabwe, have one study each. This distribution highlights a global interest in research on the integration of technological tools to promote inclusive education, with a significant concentration in a limited number of leading countries in the field.

According to the analysis of publication years, the highest number of studies was recorded in 2023, with a total of 24 investigations. This was closely followed by 2022, with 22 publications, and 2021, with 17 studies. In earlier years, 2020 saw 11 published investigations, while 2019 reported 10. Finally, nine studies were identified in 2024, suggesting a recent trend potentially linked to shifts in research priorities or technological advancements in the field (see Figure 5). These data reflect a growing interest in the topics addressed, particularly in recent years.

Figure 6 presents the number of studies by type, with scientific articles being the most prominent. The data indicate that articles constitute the majority with 63 publications, followed by conference papers with 25 and book chapters with 5. This distribution underscores the predominance of scientific articles in the research presented, indicating a greater propensity for journal publication compared to other academic formats.

3.2. Technologies Used in Educational Field to Support Inclusion

Identifying the technologies used in the educational field to support inclusion is crucial today, as it allows for an understanding of how technological tools can eliminate learning barriers, ensure educational equity, and respond to the diverse needs of students. This analysis facilitates the implementation of effective solutions and the promotion of an inclusive environment that benefits everyone.

Table 1. Technologies used in educational inclusion.

Technologies		Studies
Assistive Technologies	Screen reading technologies: Screen Reader, Voice Dream Reader.	(Grindei et al., 2024; Karagianni & Drigas, 2023b; Şahin et al., 2023; Yenduri et al., 2023)
	Electronic magnifiers and screen enlargers for individuals with visual impairments.	(Alhabahbe & Alhadidi, 2022; Daems et al., 2023; Drushlyak et al., 2023; Şahin et al., 2023)
	Braille devices: Braille displays, typewriters, and readers.	(Drushlyak et al., 2023; Fälth & Selenius, 2024; Karagianni & Drigas, 2023b; Şahin et al., 2023; Yaskevich, 2021; Maćkowski et al., 2023; Puentes G et al., 2024; Albalhareth & Saleem, 2023; Alhabahbe & Alhadidi, 2022; Izario et al., 2021; Srivastava et al., 2021; Raja & Giannoumis, 2019; Du & Meier, 2020; Ellis, 2020)
	Alternative keyboards, foot-operated mice, and mitts for individuals with motor or mobility functional diversity.	(Drushlyak et al., 2023; Karagianni & Drigas, 2023b; Shmeleva & Litovchenko, 2022)
	Voice-to-text conversion systems: JAWS, Thunder, Read&Write, Speechify.	(Barbetta, 2023; Bulathwela et al., 2024; Chambers, 2020; Hunt, 2021; Karagianni & Drigas, 2023a, 2023b; Kotcherlakota et al., 2024; Raja & Giannoumis, 2019; Şahin et al., 2023)
	Sound field and FM systems.	(Hunt, 2021)
	Tactile interaction systems: CBoard, BigKeys, BigTrack, Interactive Whiteboard.	(Albalhareth & Saleem, 2023; Alcívar et al., 2022; Chambers, 2020; Daems et al., 2023; Hunt, 2021; Karagianni & Drigas, 2023a; Utami & Palacios Hidalgo, 2022; Uygur et al., 2020)
	Communication aid devices: I-communicator, adapted tablets.	(Srivastava et al., 2021)
	Adaptive glove.	(Kristén et al., 2022)
	Talking watches and audiobooks.	(Drushlyak et al., 2023; Hunt, 2021)
Robots and Smart Devices	Tutor or assistant robots: QTrobot, Zora Robotics, Cozmo, and LEGO Mindstorms to facilitate classroom interaction.	(Alcívar et al., 2022; Bulathwela et al., 2024; Chambers, 2020; Dimitrova et al., 2020; Du & Meier, 2020; Han & Shim, 2023; Kuvshinova et al., 2019; McMahon & Walker, 2019; Puentes G et al., 2024; Şahin et al., 2023; Utami & Palacios Hidalgo, 2022; Yenduri et al., 2023)
	Digital assistants: Google Assistant, Siri, Alexa, providing information and support to students.	(Chambers, 2020; Shumilova et al., 2022)
	Motion sensors such as Microsoft Kinect and eye-tracking cameras.	(Ellis, 2020; Han & Shim, 2023)
	Smart mobile devices: Smartphones and tablets.	(Alcívar et al., 2022; Barbetta, 2023; Daems et al., 2023; Demetriou, 2023; Desideri et al., 2023; Diolaiuti et al., 2021; Draper, 2024; Drushlyak et al., 2023; Fälth & Selenius, 2024; Grindei et al., 2019, 2024; Hunt, 2021; Karagianni & Drigas, 2023a; Maćkowski et al., 2023; McMahon & Walker, 2019; Raja & Giannoumis, 2019; Rosado-Castellano et al., 2022; Sarsenbayeva et al., 2022; Seale, 2023; Shumilova et al., 2022; Utami & Palacios Hidalgo, 2022)
Virtual Reality (VR) and Augmented Reality (AR)	Virtual Reality applications: Google Expeditions, Minecraft Education Edition.	(Albalhareth & Saleem, 2023; Chambers, 2020; Diolaiuti et al., 2021; Drushlyak et al., 2023; Du & Meier, 2020; Espinosa-Castaneda & Medellin-Castillo, 2021; Karagianni & Drigas, 2023b; McMahon & Walker, 2019; Mihovska et al., 2021; Shmeleva & Litovchenko, 2022; Shumilova et al., 2022; Yenduri et al., 2023)
	Haptic technologies (tactile perception).	(Espinosa-Castaneda & Medellin-Castillo, 2021)
	Augmented Reality applications: Cospaces, Google Glass, Narrator AR, enabling interactive experiences for hands-on learning.	(Gweshe & Chiware, 2023; Lawan et al., 2023; Maćkowski et al., 2023; McMahon & Walker, 2019; Yenduri et al., 2023)
	3D avatars and sign language characters.	(Rocha et al., 2023)
Artificial Intelligence (AI)	Virtual assistants: ChatGPT, Grammarly.	(Barbetta, 2023; Bulathwela et al., 2024; Chambers, 2020, 2020; Han & Shim, 2023; Karagianni & Drigas, 2023b; McMahon & Walker, 2019; Puentes G et al., 2024; Srivastava et al., 2021; Yenduri et al., 2023)
Educational Applications and Platforms	Learning management systems (LMSs): Google Classroom, Moodle, Edmodo, Blackboard for content management and progress tracking.	(Grindei et al., 2019; Oyelere et al., 2020; Shmeleva & Litovchenko, 2022; Yenduri et al., 2023)
	Interactive applications: Nearpod, Padlet, Flipgrid, Kahoot, Socrative, and Quizizz for creating and managing classes, activities, and assessments.	(Barbetta, 2023; Du & Meier, 2020; Grindei et al., 2019)
	Video conferencing platforms: Google Meet, Zoom, Microsoft Teams for virtual classes and meetings.	(Draper, 2024; Kapieva et al., 2023; Mariappan et al., 2024; Oyelere et al., 2020; Seale, 2023; Shmeleva & Litovchenko, 2022)
	Book creation applications: Book Creator, Storybird, StoryJumper for creating digital books, stories, and narratives.	(Barbetta, 2023; Yenduri et al., 2023)
Games and Simulators	Virtual games.	(Alcívar et al., 2022; Collazo, 2022; Costa et al., 2022; Fälth & Selenius, 2024; Karagianni & Drigas, 2023a; Nasyrova & Muller, 2023; Puentes G et al., 2024; Rocha et al., 2023; Suzianti et al., 2019; Tyutryumova & Pomytkina, 2021)
	3D interactive games.	(Merzon et al., 2022)
	Educational games: Prodigy Math for math and reading activities.	(Yenduri et al., 2023)
Social Networks	Platforms for collaboration: Facebook, Instagram, WhatsApp, YouTube, Pinterest, Slack, and Discord for facilitating collaboration among students, teachers, and online educational communities.	(Drushlyak et al., 2023; Fernandez, 2021; Gupta et al., 2024; Mariappan et al., 2024; Orser et al., 2019; Sarsenbayeva et al., 2022; Seale, 2023; Utami & Palacios Hidalgo, 2022; Uygur et al., 2020; Wood, 2021)
Multimedia Technologies	Multimedia content: Audio, video, images.	(Chiu & Lim, 2020; Demetriou, 2023; Gupta et al., 2024; Kirupainayagam & Sutha, 2022; Merzon et al., 2022; Wood, 2021; Yaskevich, 2021)
	Talking photo albums.	(Daems et al., 2023)
Big Data	Predictive learning analytics to forecast students’ future performance and adapt lessons accordingly.Blockchain technologies.	(Matas-Terrón et al., 2020; Oyelere et al., 2020; Ydesen & Elfert, 2023)

presents the technologies identified in the review of studies, organized into specific categories and accompanied by their respective citations, providing a clear and well-founded overview of their application in educational contexts.

The studies highlight the most widely used technologies in inclusive education. Among these, assistive devices such as screen readers, braille devices, and voice-to-text conversion systems are fundamental for individuals with sensory or motor functional diversity. Tutor robots, digital assistants, and smart mobile devices are also frequently mentioned for facilitating interaction and adaptive learning.

Virtual and augmented reality, along with educational platforms like Google Classroom and interactive tools such as Kahoot and Nearpod, play a key role in fostering engagement and immersive learning. Technologies such as interactive games, social networks, and big data complement these approaches by promoting personalization and predictive analytics. These tools help remove barriers and make education more accessible and inclusive.

3.3. Reported Benefits of Using Technologies in Inclusive Learning Environments

The analyzed studies report multiple benefits of using technologies in inclusive learning environments, significantly transforming the educational experience. First, these tools increase student access and participation, breaking down physical and digital barriers that have traditionally limited their inclusion in mainstream classrooms (Bulathwela et al., 2024; Du & Meier, 2020; Gweshe & Chiware, 2023; Kotcherlakota et al., 2024; Mavangere et al., 2022; Mihovska et al., 2021; Peruzzo & Allan, 2022; Rocha et al., 2023; Şahin et al., 2023).

Technologies not only enhance accessibility through compensatory and dispensatory measures (Peruzzo & Allan, 2022) but also provide multimedia and multisensory content (Desideri et al., 2023; Fernandez, 2021; Karagianni & Drigas, 2023a; McMahon & Walker, 2019). This facilitates the understanding of fundamental concepts and promotes interactive learning through immersive and gamified experiences (Albalhareth & Saleem, 2023; Alcívar et al., 2022; Chambers, 2020; Daems et al., 2023; Desideri et al., 2023; Grindei et al., 2024; Gweshe & Chiware, 2023; Kapieva et al., 2023; Oyelere et al., 2020; Raja & Giannoumis, 2019; Shumilova et al., 2022).

This approach enables students to access standardized education at their own pace, promoting a more equitable environment (Barbetta, 2023; Ghosh et al., 2022; Mavangere et al., 2022; Merzon et al., 2022). Moreover, these technologies contribute to the development of cognitive and functional skills (Alhabahbe & Alhadidi, 2022; Du & Meier, 2020; Mariappan et al., 2024; Şahin et al., 2023), improving academic performance, attention capacity, working memory, and reading skills (Chiu & Lim, 2020; Karagianni & Drigas, 2023a; Şahin et al., 2023; Tomczyk et al., 2021; Yenduri et al., 2023).

These tools enhance key competencies such as problem-solving, critical thinking, and creativity while strengthening socio-emotional skills (Daems et al., 2023; Dimitrova et al., 2020; Drushlyak et al., 2023; Grindei et al., 2024; Han & Shim, 2023; Lawan et al., 2023; Mariappan et al., 2024; Merzon et al., 2022; Tomczyk et al., 2021). This comprehensive approach benefits both learning and the emotional well-being of participants in these educational settings.

Another important aspect is the personalization and adaptability offered by technologies, allowing lessons to be tailored to the individual abilities and interests of each student. This promotes greater flexibility in learning, enabling students to progress at their own pace and customize learning objects and experiences to their needs (Albalhareth & Saleem, 2023; Alcívar et al., 2022; Desideri et al., 2023; Mavangere et al., 2022; Merzon et al., 2022; Peruzzo & Allan, 2022; Rodrigo-Martín et al., 2020; Saltanat et al., 2022; Tomczyk et al., 2021).

Communication and collaboration are also enhanced, as these tools improve bidirectional interaction between students and instructors, promoting an equitable exchange of knowledge and experiences while fostering social interaction under equal conditions (Barbetta, 2023; Daems et al., 2023; Draper, 2024; Du & Meier, 2020; Fernandez, 2021; Kirupainayagam & Sutha, 2022; Lawan et al., 2023; Maćkowski et al., 2023; Rocha et al., 2023; Saltanat et al., 2022; Srivastava et al., 2021; Suzianti et al., 2019).

These technologies also have a positive impact on student motivation and active participation, creating a more engaging, playful, and interactive learning environment (Cruz et al., 2021; Du & Meier, 2020; Kirupainayagam & Sutha, 2022; Kotcherlakota et al., 2024; Krasnopevtseva et al., 2022; Kuvshinova et al., 2019; Rosado-Castellano et al., 2022; Shmeleva & Litovchenko, 2022; Shytikova et al., 2022; Tomczyk et al., 2021; Tyutryumova & Pomytkina, 2021; Uygur et al., 2020; Vechkanova et al., 2022; Yaskevich, 2021). This approach increases student interest in the educational process, making learning an enriching and meaningful experience.

Educational technologies also promote social inclusion, respect, and tolerance, reducing school dropout rates and strengthening students’ self-esteem and empowerment by integrating them into an inclusive educational space (Bulathwela et al., 2024; Cruz et al., 2021; Du & Meier, 2020; Orser et al., 2019; Rodrigo-Martín et al., 2020; Shmeleva & Litovchenko, 2022; Wu et al., 2023).

Finally, the use of technologies in these settings contributes to the personal and professional development of students, fostering a positive attitude, emotional stability, and motivation toward achieving their goals (Krasnopevtseva et al., 2022; Shmeleva & Litovchenko, 2022; Yaskevich, 2021). These tools increase competitiveness in the labor market, enabling full participation in society (Fälth & Selenius, 2024; Matas-Terrón et al., 2020). Additionally, they improve the quality of educational activities and promote emerging pedagogies, offering a more innovative, engaging learning environment aligned with the needs of a constantly evolving society (Bulathwela et al., 2024; Kapieva et al., 2023; Suzianti et al., 2019).

3.4. Challenges Reported in the Use of Technologies in Inclusive Learning Environments

The analyzed studies emphasize that inclusive educational policies must be contextualized and adapted to the national environment, the type of school, and the specific characteristics of the classroom (Daems et al., 2023; Raja & Giannoumis, 2019; Rodrigo-Martín et al., 2020; Ydesen & Elfert, 2023). Modernizing the inclusive education system and implementing appropriate regulations are essential to ensure its effectiveness (Fälth & Selenius, 2024; Raja & Giannoumis, 2019). However, financial incentives and other forms of support remain insufficient, hindering access to quality education for individuals with functional diversity (Daems et al., 2023; Fälth & Selenius, 2024; Raja & Giannoumis, 2019; Utami & Palacios Hidalgo, 2022).

Teacher training and professional development represent another significant challenge. There is widespread lack of awareness and insufficient specific training in the use of assistive technologies and tools for inclusive education (Alcívar et al., 2022; Alhabahbe & Alhadidi, 2022; Draper, 2024; Drushlyak et al., 2023; Du & Meier, 2020; Fälth & Selenius, 2024; Kapieva et al., 2023; Karagianni & Drigas, 2023b; Kotcherlakota et al., 2024; Mihovska et al., 2021; Raja & Giannoumis, 2019; Rosado-Castellano et al., 2022; Şahin et al., 2023; Shmeleva & Litovchenko, 2022; Srivastava et al., 2021; Tomczyk et al., 2021; Vechkanova et al., 2022).

This underscores the need for more robust professional development, including training in specialized software and the integration of ICT in the classroom (Alhabahbe & Alhadidi, 2022; Cobian et al., 2024; Demetriou, 2023). Teachers often face resistance to change due to fear or lack of knowledge, and training in these areas requires additional effort and time (Alcívar et al., 2022; Cobian et al., 2024; Kirupainayagam & Sutha, 2022; Rosado-Castellano et al., 2022; Saltanat et al., 2022). Furthermore, the lack of incentives for training trainers in this field contributes to disinterest and complicates the effective implementation of inclusive practices (Mavangere et al., 2022).

Access, costs, and the availability of technological resources constitute significant barriers. The high costs of acquiring technological equipment, coupled with insufficient financial resources and inadequate technological infrastructure in schools, limit the effective implementation of these tools (Asongu et al., 2021; Asongu & Odhiambo, 2019; Chambers, 2020; Cobian et al., 2024; Daems et al., 2023; Diolaiuti et al., 2021; Peruzzo & Allan, 2022; Puentes G et al., 2024; Rocha et al., 2023; Seale, 2023; Shmeleva & Litovchenko, 2022; Uygur et al., 2020). Additionally, the limited availability of accessible technologies and the lack of free and appropriate content for their use exacerbate these challenges (Yaskevich, 2021).

Moreover, the high costs of research and development in the design and manufacture of technological devices hinder the availability of assistive technologies that could benefit a larger number of students. Social inequalities (Asongu & Odhiambo, 2019; Peruzzo & Allan, 2022; Rodrigo-Martín et al., 2020) and the limited availability of electronic devices further exacerbate access gaps (Asongu & Odhiambo, 2019).

The preparation and adaptation of students with functional diversity also represent a crucial aspect. These students require both intellectual and psychological preparation to participate effectively in inclusive education environments (Krasnopevtseva et al., 2022). Additionally, excessive reliance on digital solutions may not be suitable for all students, highlighting the importance of complementary and personalized approaches (Chiu & Lim, 2020; Peruzzo & Allan, 2022).

Ethical and privacy barriers are also significant concerns. Privacy violations have been reported in the use of technologies in educational contexts, underscoring the need for clear ethical and pedagogical guidelines (McDonald et al., 2023). It is essential for educators and technologists to work together to address the social and ethical implications of using these tools and to ensure their responsible application (Bulathwela et al., 2024).

Finally, research and evaluation play a fundamental role in improving inclusive education. There is a notable lack of studies evaluating the effectiveness of assistive technologies, particularly at the higher education level (Seale, 2023; Yenduri et al., 2023). Moreover, the integration of technologies must be accompanied by a review of educational processes and the implementation of new participation and governance schemes (Mihovska et al., 2021).

4. Discussion

The concentration of studies on technological tools in inclusive education in countries like Russia, the United States, Spain, and the United Kingdom is attributed to their high investment in educational and technological research, as well as policies that promote inclusion (El País, 2024; Opportimes, 2023). These countries benefit from advanced infrastructure and significant research resources. In contrast, countries with fewer studies, such as those in Latin America, Asia, and Africa, may face limitations due to lower research investment and socioeconomic challenges. This highlights the need to promote international collaboration and share best practices to advance inclusive education globally.

Building on this, studies highlight a wide range of inclusive technologies, such as screen readers, braille devices, tutor robots, and interactive platforms (Grindei et al., 2024; Şahin et al., 2023). These tools have a positive impact on accessibility and personalized learning but face challenges in implementation due to high costs, lack of teacher training, and limitations in technological infrastructure (Chambers, 2020; Alcívar et al., 2022).

While advanced technologies such as virtual reality and robots offer significant benefits, their adoption is limited in resource-constrained contexts, where more accessible options like mobile devices and simulations may be more viable (Albalhareth & Saleem, 2023; Yenduri et al., 2023). Furthermore, the effectiveness of these tools depends on their contextualization according to classroom needs and the educational environment (Daems et al., 2023).

4.1. Technologies in Inclusive Education: Solution or Challenge?

Transitioning to the broader debate the question of whether technologies in inclusive education represent a definitive solution or a predominant challenge requires a comprehensive analysis of the benefits and challenges reported in the literature. On one hand, technologies have positively transformed inclusive learning environments, offering accessibility, personalization, and adaptability while fostering the development of cognitive, socio-emotional, and functional skills. However, these advantages are not without significant challenges that limit their potential impact.

4.1.1. Solution: Transformative Benefits

Delving deeper into solutions, the use of technologies in inclusive contexts has demonstrated the ability to remove physical and digital barriers, facilitating equitable access to education for students with functional diversity and special needs (Peruzzo & Allan, 2022; Bulathwela et al., 2024). These tools enable students to learn at their own pace and access resources tailored to their individual abilities, fostering a more equitable and personalized environment (Alcívar et al., 2022).

Additionally, technologies such as multimedia content, immersive experiences, and gamified learning have enriched the educational experience, promoting motivation and interest in the learning process (Albalhareth & Saleem, 2023; Şahin et al., 2023). This approach not only improves academic performance but also strengthens skills like critical thinking, creativity, and problem-solving (Tomczyk et al., 2021). On a socio-emotional level, these tools have fostered social inclusion and student empowerment, reducing dropout rates and boosting self-esteem (Rodrigo-Martín et al., 2020).

4.1.2. Challenge: Persistent Barriers

Conversely, despite these benefits, the integration of technologies into inclusive environments faces challenges that limit their effectiveness. Insufficient teacher training is one of the greatest obstacles, as many educators lack specific preparation in the use of technological tools for inclusion (Draper, 2024; Raja & Giannoumis, 2019). This issue is exacerbated by a lack of incentives to train professionals in this field, contributing to disinterest and complicating the effective implementation of inclusive practices (Mavangere et al., 2022).

Another major challenge is inequality in access to technologies, particularly in communities with limited financial resources and poor technological infrastructure (Asongu & Odhiambo, 2019). The high costs of acquiring devices and the scarcity of accessible educational content worsen this gap, primarily affecting students in vulnerable contexts (Peruzzo & Allan, 2022).

Furthermore, excessive reliance on digital solutions poses risks such as the dehumanization of educational processes and the exclusion of students who do not adapt well to technological environments (Chiu & Lim, 2020). Ethical concerns, including privacy breaches and the lack of regulation in the use of technologies, also emerge as significant barriers requiring immediate attention (McDonald et al., 2023).

4.1.3. Final Reflection

In conclusion, while technologies in inclusive education hold immense potential to positively transform educational environments, their effectiveness depends on contextual and implementation factors. The absence of sustainable policies, teacher training, equitable access, and personalized approaches limits their impact and presents challenges that must not be overlooked. To maximize their benefits, it is crucial to design comprehensive strategies that include continuous educator training, investment in technological infrastructure, and the creation of accessible content.

Additionally, an ethical approach is essential to ensure privacy and equity in the use of these tools. Balancing the benefits and challenges, it becomes evident that technologies in inclusive education represent a potential solution capable of significantly transforming educational environments by offering accessibility, personalization, and equitable learning opportunities. However, their positive impact depends on overcoming the associated challenges of their implementation.

To fulfill the promise of these tools, an integral approach addressing technological, pedagogical, and social barriers is imperative. This approach includes ensuring equitable access to devices and connectivity, particularly in underprivileged communities, through inclusive public policies that prioritize investment in technological infrastructure and accessible educational resources. Additionally, continuous teacher training is crucial, not only in the technical use of these tools but also in pedagogical strategies that foster their effective integration into classrooms, addressing the diverse needs of students.

Furthermore, collaboration among governments, educational institutions, technology developers, and communities is fundamental for designing sustainable and ethical solutions. This collaborative effort should include the creation of clear regulatory frameworks that protect user privacy and security while promoting responsible innovation.

Ultimately, inclusive education based on technology requires a long-term vision that considers the cultural and social dynamics of each context. By implementing inclusive and collaborative strategies, technologies move beyond being a promise and become a cornerstone for building a more just, equitable, and accessible education for all.

Figure 7 presents the main social benefits that technology brings to inclusive education, highlighting its transformative role in creating more equitable and accessible environments. These benefits underscore how inclusive technologies turn education into a pillar for social and personal development.

5. Conclusions

The use of technologies in inclusive educational environments includes tools such as screen readers, braille devices, voice-to-text conversion systems, and adaptive keyboards. These technologies facilitate learning by removing barriers for individuals with visual, auditory, and motor functional diversity, enabling more equitable access to knowledge. Additionally, smart devices, virtual assistants, and augmented and virtual reality technologies provide immersive, gamified, and customizable experiences that enhance concept comprehension and support students’ cognitive, emotional, and functional development.

Reported benefits include improved accessibility and participation, the promotion of key competencies such as critical thinking and creativity, and the strengthening of social interaction and self-esteem. These technologies also foster more motivating and equitable learning environments tailored to the individual needs of students, contributing to reduced dropout rates and enhanced opportunities for social and professional inclusion.

Despite these benefits, the implementation of inclusive technologies faces multiple challenges. These include a lack of teacher training in assistive tools, high acquisition costs for devices, insufficient technological infrastructure, and social inequalities that limit access to these technologies. Ethical barriers related to privacy and the responsible use of student data have also been identified. Excessive reliance on digital solutions and the absence of complementary, personalized approaches may be inadequate for certain students.

Furthermore, greater efforts are needed in the evaluation and validation of these technologies to ensure their effectiveness, particularly in higher education. Modernizing inclusive policies and contextualizing educational strategies are crucial to overcoming these limitations and promoting broader and more equitable access to inclusive technologies.

The findings of this study are crucial for advancing our understanding of how technology can be effectively integrated into inclusive education systems. By demonstrating the benefits of assistive technologies, such as improved access and participation, this research points to the transformative potential of these tools in making education more accessible and engaging for all students. Moreover, the application of immersive technologies like augmented and virtual reality not only makes learning more interactive but also deeply personalizes the educational experience, catering to the unique learning styles and needs of each student.

The practical implications of these technologies are vast. For instance, the use of adaptive devices and digital tools can lead to a more nuanced approach to education, where teaching methods are continuously adapted based on real-time feedback from students. This dynamic approach could significantly enhance learning outcomes by ensuring that educational content is always aligned with the student’s pace and learning preferences.

Another practical implication is the use of data analytics and learning management systems (LMSs) to monitor student progress in real-time. These systems can provide educators with detailed insights into the learning habits, strengths, and areas of improvement for each student, enabling targeted interventions that are much more effective than traditional broad-spectrum approaches. Additionally, this technology can facilitate ongoing communication between educators and parents, keeping all parties informed about student progress and enabling a collaborative approach to education.

Moreover, the integration of technology in inclusive education can also extend beyond the classroom. For example, virtual reality (VR) and augmented reality (AR) can be used for virtual field trips and real-world simulations, providing all students with access to experiences that would be otherwise limited by physical, financial, or geographical constraints. These experiences are not only educational but can also be vital in fostering social inclusion by giving students common ground and shared experiences.

On a broader scale, the use of assistive technologies in inclusive classrooms can act as a catalyst for social change by normalizing diversity and fostering an environment of acceptance and adaptation. By equipping schools with these technologies, society can move toward more inclusive community spaces where differences are not just accommodated but are integral to the ecosystem.

In terms of assessment, adaptive testing technologies can adjust the difficulty of questions based on the test-taker’s ability, reducing anxiety and providing a more accurate measure of students’ knowledge and skills. This kind of testing is especially beneficial in inclusive settings, where students’ abilities can vary widely.

These practical applications of technology in education contribute to improved learning and promote a more inclusive, adaptive, and collaborative educational environment. By focusing on these technologies, educational institutions can better prepare all students for the complexities of modern society and the global economy.

Finally, it is important to mention that the study presents inherent limitations due to its methodological design and the approach of the systematic review. Although the PRISMA methodology is used to ensure rigor in the selection and analysis of sources, the generalizability of the results may be restricted due to the limited scope of the technologies examined. Not all emerging or lesser-known technologies have been included, which could affect the breadth and timeliness of the conclusions regarding the effectiveness of technologies in inclusive education. Additionally, as a literature review, this study does not generate new empirical data, which limits its ability to capture and analyze recent and dynamic changes in the field of inclusive education and technology. Finally, the restriction to a single database could affect the generalization of the results. Future research is recommended to expand the analysis to multiple databases and to explore the long-term impacts and the training needs of teachers for the effective implementation of technologies in inclusive education.