Digital Tools for Inclusive Education: Enhancing Learning Experiences in Mathematics for Students with Special Needs

Abstract

The integration of digital tools into mathematics education has the potential to transform teaching and learning for students with special needs by fostering inclusion, accessibility, and engagement. Guided by the principles of Universal Design for Learning (UDL) and Vygotsky’s social constructivist theory, this study investigates how digital technologies can enhance learning experiences and promote inclusive education in mathematics classrooms. Using a mixed-method design, data were collected from 110 mathematics teachers and 210 Grade 11 students in special schools across Nigeria to assess the availability, utilization, and impact of digital tools on students’ engagement, motivation, collaboration, and problem-solving. Findings indicate that while access to digital tools remains limited, their effective use significantly improves students’ learning experiences and supports inclusive pedagogical practices. The study underscores the importance of policy alignment to ensure equitable access to digital resources for all students. Findings contribute to global discussions on inclusive digital pedagogies by providing empirical insights into how technology can mediate participation, interaction, and achievement in mathematics for students with special needs.

1. Introduction

Globally, the recent increase in Information and Communication Technology (ICT) has taken the spotlight in educational practices and pedagogical approaches in mathematics education. Technology plays a crucial role in mathematics, especially in students’ skill development, facilitating learning, social interaction, play, and collaboration (Berrones-Yaulema & Buenaño-Barreno, 2023; Dancsa et al., 2023). These tools provide diverse means of participation and interaction, enhancing students’ understanding of mathematical concepts. Critical and abstract thinking, data analysis, research, visualization, creativity, forecasting, and attention to detail are necessary skills for problem-solving (Mihovska et al., 2021). However, while the use of technology has increased in education systems worldwide, it remains insufficiently explored in promoting inclusivity and equity in mathematics classrooms, especially for students with special needs. Despite their diverse potential, integrating digital tools into inclusive mathematics education is hindered by various challenges. These challenges are multidimensional; they include the learning environment, learning approaches, and the beliefs and attitudes of both teachers and students towards the use of technology.

Mathematics, as a universal subject, is essential for developing students’ reasoning skills and enhancing their cognitive abilities. It also serves as the foundational framework for technological advancement, scientific innovation, and economic development. While developing students’ reasoning skills and enhancing their cognitive ability to think logically, solve puzzles, and apply these skills to real-life problems. Though mathematics is a compulsory subject in both primary and secondary schools in many countries, the failure rate is high (Abaver et al., 2024). Failure in mathematics can be attributed to many factors, including ineffective learning strategies, inadequate learning resources, and limited opportunities to apply and visualize mathematical concepts (Presmeg et al., 2018). The visualization of mathematics concepts can be facilitated using digital tools. Mathematics enables humans to understand and engage with the world. Today’s education, therefore, emphasizes pedagogical methods that improve accessibility, such as adaptive learning practices. Although digital tools can be incorporated into inclusive mathematics learning, limitations in infrastructure and inadequate access to them pose major obstacles to learning mathematics with technology.

Digital tools are software, applications, platforms, and devices that leverage digital technology to facilitate, enhance, and transform processes, tasks, and activities. Some digital learning tools include messenger services, social networks, video platforms, and websites accessible via computers and an internet connection, which teachers can use to enhance teaching and learning. (Dancsa et al., 2023). Digital learning tools support teaching, learning, and assessment. Students can learn more effectively, interact with, and collaborate with their peers using digital tools. Digital social networks serve as an educational platform for the acquisition and distribution of information (Al-Qaysi et al., 2023). Moreover, digital social networks, messenger services, and video platforms can be effectively used as learning resources for mathematics education.

Digital tools designed to address students’ diverse needs play a crucial role in supporting learning and inclusion in mathematics education (Mihovska et al., 2021). Digital tools such as screen readers and adaptive keyboards provide valuable avenues for students with visual impairments to participate equally in the classroom (Mulloy et al., 2014). Despite the importance of using digital tools for inclusive learning, their design and accessibility pose significant challenges. Many educational technologies are not designed with inclusivity in mind and therefore lack essential accessibility features, such as screen readers, text-to-speech options, and adjustable interfaces, for students with visual, auditory, or motor impairments. Al-Motrif (2025) emphasizes that digital tools should be developed with the mindset of addressing diverse learners’ needs when considering inclusion. Another challenge is that many teachers lack teacher training and professional development in the use of digital tools in teaching. Research consistently indicates teachers’ incompetence and its impact on the success of using digital tools to foster inclusion (Garcia et al., 2018; Mhlolo, 2022). Effective implementation of digital tools in teaching involves teachers’ competence, pedagogical skills, and confidence (Santos & Sá, 2021; Duque et al., 2024). Furthermore, the educational policies advocating digital implementation are often not supported by on-the-ground teacher training (Modise & Luneta, 2021).

Inclusive education aims to ensure that all students have access to education by adapting to their diverse needs, including those of individuals with special requirements (Ainscow, 2020). Supporting learners with diverse cognitive, physical, and emotional needs while fostering collaboration and social integration in mathematics education requires the inclusion of inclusive practices (Buenaño-Barreno, 2024; Sarrionandia, 2017). Yet, despite policymakers’ advocacy for the role of technology in learning, challenges such as inadequate access to assistive technologies persist and continue to hinder the full implementation of inclusive education in many developing contexts, including Africa (Modise & Luneta, 2021; Reddy et al., 2020). Consequently, students with special needs often struggle to learn mathematics, which limits their participation and opportunities to acquire mathematical skills.

Despite the importance of digital tools in supporting inclusive mathematics learning for students with special needs, access to and use of these tools are limited by various factors. Many schools in the low- and middle-income context continue to experience poor internet connectivity, insufficient hardware, and a lack of technical training. Both teachers’ and students’ needs require technical development to enable the effective use of digital tools. Economic disparities and inconsistent policy implementation further exacerbate inequities in access to assistive technologies (Al-Motrif, 2025). As a result, digital learning remains an unrealized promise for many students who would benefit most from inclusive technologies. Hence, this research sets out to answer the question: ‘How does the availability and utilization of digital tools enhance learning experiences in mathematics for students with special needs and improve learning outcomes in inclusive classroom contexts?

1.1. Theoretical Framework

The research is anchored on Universal Design for Learning (UDL). UDL is a pedagogical framework that aims to accommodate students’ diversity. By providing multiple means of representation (how content is presented), engagement (how students are motivated and involved), and expression (how students demonstrate understanding). In this study, UDL provides a lens for understanding how digital tools can support inclusive learning by offering flexible pathways for learner participation. According to research, UDL is an educational framework and approach rooted in inclusive education. It designs flexible and accessible curricula that provide students with diverse abilities, backgrounds, and learning styles equal opportunities to learn (Priyadharsini & Sahaya, 2024). UDL is based on the principle of presenting various approaches to learning and accommodating different learning styles, thereby enabling the presentation of mathematical content in various ways that each student can relate to. This caters to students’ diverse needs through a range of digital tools. This may involve offering choices, incorporating student interests, and using UDL motivational techniques. Digital tools such as social networks and video platforms can be used by students to complete homework, make presentations, and solve mathematics problems, according to students’ preferred learning styles. According to Galkiene and Ona (2021), the use of diverse approaches and tools in learning aligns with students’ different ways of expressing knowledge, accelerates learning, and promotes a growth mindset. This emphasizes the belief that intelligence and abilities are diverse and can be cultivated through interactive learning.

The use of digital tools is important for all students, as it encourages them to persist during problem-solving, as shown in the videos where students try to solve a problem. This aligns with the UDL principle, which presents students with different ways to solve problems and engage in learning experiences. UDL addresses the questions of “what to learn, how to learn, and why of learning”, thereby encouraging the use of various ways of learning, engaging the students in learning, and motivating students to learn. This principle emphasizes the interaction between students and the integration of digital tools into education, motivating students to learn and interact as they use them. It emphasizes the design of instructional materials and activities by teachers that cater to various learning styles, so that all students can participate. The diversity of digital tool design can be understood through the UDL framework, which provides multiple representations of knowledge to support inclusivity and address diverse learning needs. Digital tools can enable students with special needs to access, interact with, and participate in mathematics, acquiring problem-solving and critical reasoning skills as different teaching approaches present knowledge.

Vygotsky’s (1978) social constructivist theory frames this study. Furthermore, it posits that the interaction of students with their learning environment, which includes teachers, peers, and parents, makes learning a social process, and students construct knowledge through these interactions. Vygotsky’s social constructivist theory emphasizes the role of social interaction and mediated learning in cognitive development. Central to this theory is the concept of the Zone of Proximal Development, which refers to the gap between what students can achieve independently and what they can achieve with guidance. This framework is relevant to the present study as it highlights how instructional support and collaborative engagement can enhance students’ understanding in inclusive classroom settings. Furthermore, knowledge can be socially constructed by students. Social activities, such as interaction, communication, and collaborative problem-solving, enable students to participate in, discuss, and engage with their peers, teachers, and the learning environment. This ensures students solve real-life problems as the teacher’s role shifts from being the center of the class to a facilitator, guiding students to discover knowledge through social activities.

This theory supports the use of digital tools to facilitate inclusive education, where students with special needs can interact and learn collaboratively, thereby promoting student engagement, knowledge discovery, and cognitive development. Physical and cognitive barriers in education can be addressed through digital technology by offering instructional materials that enhance learning and enable students to actively participate in school activities, regardless of their special needs.

1.2. Empirical Studies: Learning Experiences Using Digital Tools That Promote Inclusive Education

Recent empirical research underscores the transformative potential of digital tools in fostering inclusive teaching and learning practices. Ainscow (2020) emphasized that there are social and resource benefits to inclusive education, as students with diverse backgrounds and learning difficulties can be taught within the same learning community. Educational videos, multimedia packages, and drama-oriented software have been shown to efficiently enhance students’ engagement and comprehension. Mobile technologies and online learning environments can be efficient in engaging students who face physical, social, or cultural barriers to classroom participation (Bakker et al., 2016). Increasingly, scholars highlight the social dimension of technology-mediated inclusion. There is growing awareness of how digital tools facilitate interaction and collaboration within educational policy, processes, and practice (Isăilă, 2012). With dependable internet connectivity and the availability of hardware and software, interaction, networking, and technology-enabled collaboration can be facilitated (Samaniego-López et al., 2025). Martynchuk (2019) notes that digital platforms and social networks cultivate essential 21st-century competencies such as teamwork, communication, adaptability, emotional intelligence, and negotiation. The use of robots, social media packages, and visual collaborative platforms can facilitate social interaction and communication among students with social-emotional needs, helping them build peer connections and reducing isolation.

Similarly, Fachinetti (2017) demonstrated that computers enhance interaction and collaboration among students with special needs through digital games, social media packages, videos, and audio recorders, while Duque (2024) reported that game-based learning promotes active participation, enables skill development, and provides learning experiences. Gamified platforms and interactive visualizations make mathematical concepts easier to understand, thereby improving students with special needs’ motivation and performance. This affirms that integrating digital tools in mathematics classes supports learners’ motivation and performance of students with special needs, including cognitive and behavioural participation. The application of digital tools also nurtures socio-emotional and academic competencies in learning, enabling perseverance, problem-solving skills, and resilience. As Duque (2024) observed, gamification cultivates in students the ability to persistently try again and again after several failed attempts and builds confidence in tackling complex mathematical activities. Collectively, these studies demonstrate that digital tools can strengthen students with special needs’ motivation, classroom participation, collaboration, and knowledge application, thereby supporting inclusivity and enriching mathematics learning experiences and outcomes.

Furthermore, the emergence of digital technologies has transformed educational systems, introducing new cultures of collaboration, automation, and virtual management in learning environments (Haleem et al., 2022; Sánchez, 2019). In mathematics education, digital tools enable teachers to deliver content to students with diverse needs through video platforms and interactive applications that reinforce foundational comprehension and conceptual reasoning (Al-Motrif, 2025). Likewise, Drushlyak et al. (2023) observed that students in inclusive learning environments develop stronger conceptual and practical understanding of both hardware and software tools when guided by diverse digital learning strategies. In a similar vein, Samaniego-López et al. (2025) highlighted how digital tools can dynamically reduce students’ struggles with learning and applying mathematical tasks based on learners’ abilities, thereby eliminating mathematics phobia, reducing anxiety, and supporting accurate assessment. These adaptive features enable students with special needs to engage in real-world simulations and collaborative problem-solving activities that promote meaningful inclusion.

Research by Lawan et al. (2023) further emphasizes the efficacy of technology strategies in inclusive education. Their study on students with autism spectrum disorder illustrated that social media packages, mobile applications, educational robots, and augmented reality tools encourage learners’ engagement and inclusion. Complementing these findings, Fernandez (2021) reported that technology enhances interactive, creative, and collaborative learning by allowing students to connect across geographical and cultural boundaries. Continuous learning can be enhanced through handheld mobile devices, enabling cooperative learning, collaboration, and inclusivity in mathematics education. Taken together, these empirical studies clearly indicate that technologies, when systematically integrated in mathematics education, serve as powerful tools for inclusion, interaction, engagement, and achievement in mathematics. They not only promote equitable access to knowledge but also cultivate inclusion, social interaction, motivation, and self-efficacy among students with special needs.

1.3. Improved Accessibility and Support

Digital tools play a crucial role in improving accessibility and supporting students with special needs in mathematics education. Digital tools such as reading and writing applications, Augmentative and Alternative Communication (AAC) software, adaptive learning platforms, and interactive digital games have become greatly valuable in fostering inclusive learning (Ok & Kim, 2021). Assistive digital tools, such as text-to-speech applications, screen readers, and specialized input devices, including voice recognition devices, enable students with special needs to learn mathematics concepts with ease. Through these technology tools, learners can overcome communication barriers and learn together more meaningfully with both digital and print-based resources.

Digital tools can expand educational access for students with special needs. Beyond enhancing classroom participation, students can learn by discovering knowledge through digital tools. This creates opportunities for personalized learning by adapting mathematics content to each learner’s unique needs and pace (Arinushkina et al., 2023). They also strengthen collaboration among teachers, students, and parents, fostering ongoing communication and shared problem-solving to support academic progress and outcomes. The integration of such tools prepares students to engage confidently in a knowledge-driven and technology-oriented global society. Mantoan (2018) emphasizes that learners with visual or hearing impairments benefit significantly from specialized devices such as Braille printers, electronic magnifiers, and sound amplification systems. Similarly, sign language interpreters and accessible digital materials enhance students’ motivation to engage and comprehend mathematics concepts. These interventions illustrate how practical applications of technology can contribute to a more inclusive, adaptive, engaging, and collaborative educational ecosystem.

Salas-Pilco et al. (2022), in their studies on applying artificial intelligence and new technologies in inclusive education for minority students in the United States, Colombia, and China, reveal that these technologies enhance accessibility, personalize learning, and facilitate the inclusion of students from diverse backgrounds. However, inadequate resources and the need for teacher training are challenges they often face. Lynch et al. (2024) conducted a study focused on the use of educational technologies to support 208 students with sensory disabilities in low- and middle-income countries, specifically in special schools. Their research emphasizes the need for more inclusive and participatory research that integrates intersectional factors such as gender and geographical location, to develop technological solutions that meet the needs of all students with special needs.

Márquez and Melero-Aguilar (2022), in their discussion of inclusive education, emphasize the importance of using teaching–learning approaches that meet the needs of all students and maximize their experiences and success in mathematics. Research also underscores the broader social and developmental benefits of digital inclusion in learning mathematics concepts. Hamburg and Bucksch (2017) reported that the strategic use of digital technologies for children with special needs supports the development of critical social and academic excellence, enhancing the integration of knowledge into mainstream society. Moreover, family involvement is pivotal: parents who expose their children to technologies and engage with digital learning tools enhance communication, interaction, and collaboration with teachers and contribute to highly efficient and responsive education systems (Brazal et al., 2022). Scorgie (2010) similarly found that children with physical special needs can engage socially and learn through virtual interactions, with the assistance of their parents, whose support amplifies the benefits of digital inclusion.

Teacher development and training remain decisive factors in encouraging the use of digital tools and affirming their effectiveness for accessibility. Cagran and Schmidt (2011) emphasized the need for mathematics teachers to be well prepared to use assistive and digital technologies to effectively support students with special needs. Additionally, online learning environments can extend this support by providing flexible platforms for both students and educators to receive continuous aid and direction in inclusive educational contexts (Jones, 2010). Overall, the literature demonstrates that digital tools not only enhance accessibility but also strengthen interaction, networking, and collaboration among teachers, parents, and students. When appropriately implemented and supported by adequate training and resources, they contribute to a more equitable, participatory, and inclusive mathematics learning environment for students with special needs.

1.4. Using Digital Tools in Teaching Mathematics in a Differentiated Manner

In delivering simple strategies for learning, aiding access to course materials, and enabling mathematics experiences, digital tools can be used in the teaching and learning process (Stalmach et al., 2023). Benefits abound for all students when technology is used in learning, thereby enabling an inclusive atmosphere. Digital tools enhance the practical delivery of the learning process, encourage students’ engagement, provide personalized feedback, and support mathematics teaching. Digital tools can be used to meet students where they are, with various approaches that simplify mathematical concepts. Students with special needs differ significantly from those without in their use of digital tools and self-regulated learning strategies. However, various intervention strategies, such as DVDs, math apps, or e-counseling, can be used to instruct students with special needs (Town et al., 2023). Specific bridges to teaching mathematics include integrating digital tools to enhance differentiated instruction, using online resources such as math apps and simulations to provide personalized practice. This fosters inclusion in the mathematics classroom by leveraging messenger services, social digital networks, and video platforms to promote equity, accessibility, and personalized learning (Yau et al., 2015). The use of visual aids like graphs, charts, pictures, and diagrams can support visually impaired students.

According to Vodicková et al. (2023), students can receive scaffolding and support from their teachers, parents, and peers. The use of digital tools can enable peer-to-peer learning and collaboration. Instructors can also integrate mathematical concepts into real-life situations and applications to make them relevant, interesting, and more relatable. While using digital tools, engaging learning activities such as quizzes, qualitative reasoning, and problem-solving can be set up for students. These activities could foster inclusivity in mathematics learning by addressing students’ diverse learning needs. Studies reveal that inclusion not only involves the incorporation of students with special needs but also the quest for coherence in school activities that cover the different cultures and backgrounds of all students (Vodicková et al., 2023). Inclusive practices can be enhanced through digital tools that encourage the use of inclusive teaching and learning strategies, such as hands-on learning. Studies show that the use of projects or grouping students and giving them mathematics tasks using digital tools such as math apps, group discussions, and problem-solving activities on integrating mathematics concepts into real-world situations using messenger services, social digital networks, video platforms, and other social media packages are practical mathematics teaching strategies (Subhi & Kosasih, 2023).

Many students, both those with and without special needs, encounter difficulties applying mathematical concepts and skills to problem-solving. According to Özdemir and Kılıç (2023), evaluating and assessing mathematics knowledge needed to prepare education programs, especially for students with special education needs, is of great importance for inclusivity. These bridges help in the teaching of students with special needs in an inclusive setting, creating a practical learning environment inside and outside the classroom (Abaver & Iyornum, 2024). This can serve as a motivator for both teachers and students, encouraging them to do things differently and to rethink their attitudes and beliefs. Teaching mathematics to students with special education needs using digital tools exposes teachers to issues related to availability, accessibility, utilization, and students’ learning outcomes.

1.5. Statement of the Problem

However, empirical research on the availability, utilization, and impact of digital tools in inclusive mathematics education remains limited, particularly within African and Nigerian contexts. Most studies have focused on general ICT integration rather than on how digital tools specifically enhance students with disabilities’ learning experiences in inclusive settings (Duque et al., 2024; Al-Motrif, 2025). Moreover, despite evidence that teacher preparedness and training are key to the effective use of technology (Mhlolo, 2022; Santos & Sá, 2021), many educators still lack the necessary training to utilize and implement assistive digital tools in mathematics-inclusive classrooms (Garcia et al., 2018; Duque et al., 2024). This highlights a critical need to explore how digital tools can be accessed to enable inclusive and equitable mathematics learning environments for students with special needs.

Against this background, the present study investigates the potential of digital tools to enhance the learning experiences of students with special needs learning experiences in mathematics. It examines (a) the availability and utilization of digital tools among mathematics teachers, and (b) the impact of these tools on learners’ engagement, collaboration, motivation, and problem-solving within inclusive educational settings. The study is underscored by the principles of UDL, which emphasize diverse knowledge representations, and social constructivism, which encourages social interaction, engagement, and collaboration during learning. The study provides empirical evidence to guide teacher professional development, curriculum design, and educational policy to promote inclusion and accessibility in mathematics education.

1.6. Purpose of the Study

The purpose of this study is to examine the potential of digital tools to enhance learning experiences in mathematics for students with special needs and to promote inclusive education. Grounded in the principles of UDL and Vygotsky’s social constructivist theory, the study seeks to determine how digital technologies can be effectively integrated to support equitable, accessible, and interactive learning environments. Specifically, the study aims to achieve the following objectives:

• To ascertain the level of availability and utilization of digital tools for inclusive mathematics instruction among teachers of students with special needs;
• To examine the impact of digital tools on the mathematics learning experiences of students with special needs.

1.7. Research Questions

The study is guided by the following research questions:

• What is the level of availability and utilization of digital tools for inclusive mathematics instruction among teachers of students with special needs?
• What is the impact of digital tools on the mathematics learning experiences of students with special needs?

1.8. Research Hypotheses

Based on these research questions, the following hypotheses were formulated and tested at the 0.05 level of significance:

H1: 

There is no significant difference between the availability and utilization of digital tools for inclusive mathematics instruction among teachers of students with special needs.

H2: 

There is no significant impact of digital tools on the mathematics learning experiences of students with special needs.

2. Materials and Methods

2.1. Research Paradigm

This study aims to examine the potential of digital tools to enhance the mathematics learning experiences of students with special needs mathematics learning experiences and to promote inclusive education. The study is grounded in the philosophical assumption of pragmatism, which emphasizes the practical application of ideas and the use of multiple methods to address real-world problems. Pragmatism supports integrating both quantitative and qualitative approaches, focusing on outcomes with meaningful implications for teaching and learning. In line with this orientation, the study employed a mixed-method design to provide a comprehensive understanding of the extent to which the availability and utilization of digital tools enhance mathematics learning for students with special needs. Quantitative data provide measurable evidence of improvement in mathematics learning, while qualitative data offer insights into participants’ experiences, perceptions, and the contextual factors influencing learning with digital tools.

2.2. Research Design

This study adopted a mixed-method design to investigate the availability, utilization, and impact of digital tools on students with special needs’ mathematics learning experiences. The design was deemed appropriate because it enables the systematic collection of data on participants’ perceptions, practices, and experiences without manipulating study variables (Drushlyak et al., 2023). This approach provided quantitative measurements and qualitative evidence on participants’ experiences, ensuring both practical impact and theoretical contributions to understanding how digital tools are used in inclusive mathematics classrooms and how they influence learners’ engagement, motivation, and problem-solving abilities. This design ensures that both numerical data (improvement in learning outcomes) and narrative data (learner experiences) were captured.

2.3. Population and Sample

The target population comprised 110 Grade 11 mathematics teachers and 210 Grade 11 students enrolled in special schools across Nigeria’s North-Central region. Purposive sampling was used to select participants because they actively engage in mathematics instruction and learning within inclusive settings, thereby possessing relevant experience with digital tools. The selected teachers had at least 2 years of experience teaching mathematics and had used digital tools and technology in their teaching. Participants included teachers from both rural and urban settings of Benue State, where these special schools are located. Boys and girls in Grade 11, aged 16 to 20, took part in this research. These ages varied depending on each student’s progression and special needs. Some students with special needs did not start school at the typical school-age. The schools selected included both rural and urban centers of special needs schools in Benue State.

To ensure representativeness, stratified random sampling was used to group schools according to geographical location, followed by cluster sampling to select classes within each school. From these clusters, participants were chosen proportionally to school size and location diversity. This sampling strategy ensured that both urban and rural schools, as well as a range of learning contexts, were included. Five teachers and eight students were purposefully selected to participate in the interview sessions based on prompts listed at the end of the questionnaire. Such methodological triangulation is recommended for quantitative studies examining instructional practices in inclusive environments (Emaikwu, 2015).

2.4. Research Instruments

Data were collected using two instruments designed by the researchers: the Inclusive Mathematics Learning Teachers’ Questionnaire (IMLTQ) and the Inclusive Mathematics Learning Students’ Questionnaire (IMLSQ). The IMLTQ contained 20 items designed to capture teachers’ perceptions of the availability, accessibility, and utilization of digital tools in inclusive classrooms. The IMLSQ comprised 30 items that assessed students’ experiences regarding engagement, motivation, collaboration, and problem-solving when using digital tools in mathematics. Both questionnaires employed a four-point Likert-type scale (Strongly Agree = 4; Agree = 3; Disagree = 2; Strongly Disagree = 1). High and low use of digital tools in this study was determined using a cut-off score. To categorize digital tool usage as high or low, a cut-off score of 2.5 was used. The criteria used were the sum of the four-point Likert-type scale scores, divided by 4: 4 + 3 + 2 + 1 = 10 ÷ 4, yielding 2.5. If the result was 2.5 or higher, it was considered high; if it was below 2.5, it was considered low. Participants were categorized into high and low users of digital tools based on their composite scores on the digital tool usage scale. The above cut-off point was used to distinguish between the two groups, enabling comparative analysis of learning outcomes. The instruments covered the aspects of the availability (items 1–5), utilization (6–10), and the learning outcomes of students when digital tools were used in learning mathematics (11–20), and items 1–10, and 11–30 for teachers and students’ questionnaires, respectively.

Additionally, short interview prompts were embedded in both instruments to capture contextual insights into teachers’ and students’ experiences. This was adaptable enough to offer chances to delve deeper and elaborate on the interviewee’s answers. The responses provided explanatory depth to the results and helped identify patterns related to digital tool accessibility and classroom application. The interview prompts were designed to address the availability and use of digital tools and their impact on students with special needs’ learning experiences in mathematics. The instruments were administered to mathematics teachers in special schools and to students with special needs in schools to determine the influence of digital tools such as messenger services, social networks, and video platforms on inclusive education and on students’ learning experiences in mathematics. Interviews were audio-recorded and transcribed verbatim without modification for analysis. The learning outcomes of students, as assessed through the questionnaire, included problem-solving, interaction, collaboration, motivation, and engagement. These are various UDL representations, expressions of learning, its application, and the need for socialization in learning mathematics.

2.5. Validity and Reliability

Instrument validity was established through expert review by specialists in mathematics education and educational technology, who evaluated the questionnaires for clarity, content relevance, and alignment with the study objectives. Minor modifications were made based on their feedback to enhance construct validity. The scientific quality of this study was ensured by careful adherence to established quality criteria for quantitative and qualitative research.

In terms of quantitative rigor, validity, and reliability were addressed using previously validated instruments, consistent administration procedures, and appropriate statistical analyses aligned with the research questions. Internal consistency was examined to ensure the stability of the measured constructs. Reliability was determined using Cronbach’s alpha, which yielded coefficients of 0.82 for the IMLTQ and 0.79 for the IMLSQ. These values exceed the minimum acceptable threshold of 0.50, confirming satisfactory internal consistency (Emaikwu, 2015). Thus, the instruments were considered reliable for data collection.

Regarding the qualitative components, credibility was supported by systematic transcription, transparent coding procedures, and the use of illustrative extracts to substantiate interpretations. Intersubjective comprehensibility was enhanced by providing clear descriptions of the analytical process, allowing readers to follow how interpretations were derived from the data. Furthermore, the study’s limitations, particularly those related to sample size, contextual specificity, and analytical scope, were explicitly acknowledged, thereby strengthening the trustworthiness and interpretive boundaries of the findings.

2.6. Data Collection Procedures

Permissions were obtained from school authorities prior to data collection. Questionnaires were administered directly to teachers and students during scheduled class sessions, and participation was voluntary. The interview responses were audio-recorded with participants’ consent and later transcribed verbatim. The data collection process prioritized accessibility and ethical inclusivity by ensuring that participants with physical or sensory disabilities received assistance when required. The interview was designed to elaborate on the interviewee’s answers in the questionnaire. The computer was selected as a digital tool that could facilitate students with special needs’ mathematical learning experiences. This digital tool was selected for its appropriateness for learning mathematics and other subjects, such as computer science, in schools. Regarding quantitative measurement, the IMLTQ and IMLSQ were administered to teachers and students to capture their perceptions of availability, utilization, and the impact of digital tools on students’ mathematical learning outcomes with special needs. The data collection process lasted for three weeks.

2.7. Interview Transcription Procedure

Open-ended responses were transcribed verbatim to preserve participants’ original wording. The transcripts were subsequently reviewed and coded using an inductive approach, whereby recurrent ideas were identified and grouped into broad thematic categories. The qualitative data were not subjected to an in-depth interpretive analysis; instead, they were used to provide contextual insight and to support the interpretation of the quantitative findings. This approach was adopted to complement the primary statistical analysis while maintaining coherence with the study’s overall methodological focus.

This research adopted a Jeffersonian transcription system for an open-ended survey of participants’ responses. The Jeffersonian’s style is appropriate for this study for its detailed use of pauses and symbols to emphasize. It explains how spoken data can be transcribed into written transcripts for analysis. The participants’ audio-recorded responses were transcribed verbatim, with the following symbols denoting emphasis (bolded text), and pauses (.). To ensure anonymity, participants’ identifiers, such as names, were removed. In ensuring reliable qualitative data for thematic analysis, transcripts were cross-checked against the original audio recordings. The transcripts were consistently formatted by introducing automatic timestamps at speaker changes and significant pauses.

Below are examples of extracts from teachers’ and students’ interviews transcribed verbatim. The question was: How could access and utilization be improved? Respondents 1 and 4 answered, respectively: “Though the internet connectivity is good, there is a need for technical support, and school policies that prioritize inclusive digital learning, this could significantly enhance utilization”, “Access could be improved by providing more devices and ensuring that each inclusive classroom is equipped with appropriate digital tools. Regular teacher training on how to use technology devices would also encourage more frequent use.” (Interview, 21 March 2024). In response to What kind of improvement have you noticed in learners with special needs when using digital tools? Respondent 2 replied, “I have noticed improved engagement, better concentration, and increased confidence among learners with special needs. Some students who previously struggled with basic operations are now able to solve problems independently using digital support” (Interview, 18 March 2024).

In responding to the questions: “What digital tools are available for your mathematics lessons? Student respondents 1, 4, 6, and 8 stated, respectively, that “We play math games on the teacher’s phone” (Interview, 11 March 2024); “We have computers in the computer hall, but they are used during computer lessons” (Interview, 13 March 2024); “We play math games only when the teacher gives us his phone,” (Interview, 13 March 2024); “We check answers using the calculator” (Interview, 15 March 2024). In response to the question, “How often do you use these tools in learning?”, Respondents 3, 4, and 7 had similar replies: “I use them when math is hard” (Interview, 11 March 2024); “sometimes in the week, not every day” (Interview, 13 March 2024); “only when the teacher is not using his phone” (Interview, 15 March 2024).

2.8. Data Analysis

Quantitative data were analyzed using descriptive and inferential statistics through the Statistical Package for the Social Sciences (SPSS, version 26). Descriptive statistics, means, frequencies, and standard deviations were used to summarize demographic data and responses to individual items. Qualitative data from interviews were analyzed thematically to explore teachers’ and students’ experiences, challenges, and perceptions of the availability and use of digital tools and their impact on mathematics inclusivity. Interview data were subjected to thematic analysis, which identified recurring themes that complemented and contextualized the quantitative results. Coding procedures were applied to categorize statements into themes such as problem-solving, collaboration, interaction, motivation, and engagement. This mixed-analytic approach enhanced the credibility, dependability, and confirmability of the results by triangulating multiple data sources.

2.9. Ethical Considerations

Ethical standards were strictly observed throughout the study. Institutional approval was obtained from participating schools before data collection. Informed consent was obtained from the school authorities on behalf of the participants, and confidentiality was maintained by anonymizing the students’ and their mathematics teachers’ names. Audio recordings and transcripts were stored securely in password-protected digital files, consistent with ethical guidelines for educational research. Participants were assured that their responses would be used solely for academic purposes and would not affect their professional or academic standing. In place of ethics committee approval, her institution (Benue State University, Makurdi) provided a letter of permission and a letter of introduction for the researcher to conduct the research. This research came from the researcher’s PhD thesis work.

3. Results

The following results were obtained from this study.

Research Question 1 is answered by the results presented in

Table 1. Availability of Digital Tools for Inclusive Mathematics Instruction among Teachers of Students with Special Needs (n = 110).

S/N	Item	Strongly Agree	Agree	Disagree	Strongly Disagree	$\overline{\mathit{x}}$	SD	Remark
1	My school provides sufficient digital tools for teaching mathematics.	28	22	36	24	2.49	1.10	Disagree
2	Internet connectivity in my school supports the use of online mathematics resources.	28	29	32	21	2.58	1.07	Agree
3	Technical support is available when I encounter difficulties using digital tools.	23	22	32	33	2.34	1.10	Disagree
4	Digital tools in my school are compatible with the needs of students with disabilities.	28	22	36	24	2.47	1.11	Disagree
5	The quantity and quality of available digital tools meet classroom demands	28	29	32	21	2.33	1.02	Disagree
	Cluster Mean and Standard Deviation					2.44	1.08	Disagree

$\overline{x}$ —mean SD—Standard Deviation.

and

Table 2. Utilization of Digital Tools for Inclusive Mathematics Instruction among Teachers of Students with Special Needs (n = 110).

S/N	Item	Strongly Agree	Agree	Disagree	Strongly Disagree	$\overline{\mathit{x}}$		Remark
6	I frequently integrate at least one digital tool in each mathematics lesson.	10	29	29	42	2.05	1.01	Disagree
7	I have personal access to ICT facilities for lesson preparation.	27	36	34	13	2.68	0.97	Agree
8	I can easily access assistive technologies (e.g., screen readers, talking calculators).	21	19	43	27	2.29	1.04	Disagree
9	My school organizes regular training on digital instructional tools.	25	25	36	24	2.45	1.09	Disagree
10	There are clear policies encouraging teachers to use digital tools.	7	28	28	47	1.95	0.97	Disagree
	Cluster Mean and Standard Deviation					2.28	1.02	Disagree

, while Hypothesis 1 is tested using the results in

Table 3. Teachers’ Use of Digital Tools and Learning Experiences of Students with Special Needs in Mathematics.

Learning Experiences	Impact of Digital Tool	N	$\overline{\mathit{x}}$	SD	Df	t-Value	p	Remark
Problem Solving
	High	112	2.95	0.92
	Low	98	2.49	0.97	208	3.524	0.001	Sig
Collaboration
	High	112	2.66	0.99
	Low	98	2.34	1.09	208	2.229	0.027	Sig
Interaction
	High	112	2.75	1.02
	Low	98	2.41	1.12	208	2.302	0.022	Sig
Motivation
	High	112	3.01	1.03
	Low	98	2.44	1.12	208	3.841	0.000	Sig
Engagement
	High	112	2.65	0.79
	Low	98	2.23	1.04	208	3.318	0.001	Sig

.

Research Question 1

What is the level of availability and utilization of digital tools for inclusive mathematics instruction among teachers of students with special needs?

The results in Table 1 reveal that the availability of digital tools for inclusive mathematics instruction among teachers of students with special needs was generally low. With a cluster mean of 2.44 (SD = 1.08), teachers overall disagreed that digital tools are sufficiently available or adequate for inclusive teaching. Most items showed mean values below 2.50, indicating widespread inadequacy. Specifically, teachers disagreed that their schools provide enough digital tools ($\overline{x}$ = 2.49), have sufficient technical support ($\overline{x}$ = 2.34), or possess tools compatible with students’ disabilities ($\overline{x}$ = 2.47). They also reported that the quality and quantity of existing digital tools do not meet classroom demands ($\overline{x}$ = 2.33). The only exception was internet connectivity ($\overline{x}$ = 2.58), where teachers slightly agreed that access exists, though this value suggests only moderate and somewhat reliable connectivity. The relatively high standard deviation (1.02–1.11) indicates moderate variation in responses, suggesting that while a few schools may have better digital infrastructure, most lack essential facilities.

The data indicate that the spread of response was uniform across the sub-clusters. This highlights the need to explore subgroup differences by age, location, and mathematics learning experiences using digital tools to better understand the factors driving heterogeneity. Such analysis would enable interventions tailored towards preparedness, particularly in providing social digital learning networks for students with special needs.

The results in Table 2 show that the utilization of digital tools for inclusive mathematics instruction among teachers of students with special needs was generally low, with a cluster mean of 2.28 and a standard deviation of 1.02, corresponding to ‘Disagree.’ Across individual items, mean values ranged from 1.95 to 2.68, indicating limited use and weak institutional support. Teachers disagree that they frequently integrate digital tools in lessons ($\overline{x}$ = 2.05) or have access to computers to use social digital tools or videos ($\overline{x}$ = 2.29). Similarly, they disagreed that their schools provide regular digital training ($\overline{x}$ = 2.45) or clear policies encouraging the use of digital tools ($\overline{x}$ = 1.95). The only area with a moderate level of agreement was teachers ‘personal access to ICT facilities ($\overline{x}$ = 2.68), suggesting some availability of digital tools, or individual ownership of devices, though not necessarily used for classroom instruction.

With mean scores ranging from 2.28 (SD = 1.02) to 2.68 (SD = 0.97), while the other clusters fell below 2.50, this indicates a moderate utilization of digital tools, with a high cluster indicating some level of utilization of digital tools made available by the teachers for their personal use in preparing mathematics lessons. Overall, the mean values consistently below 2.50 emphasize that teachers’ actual use of digital tools, especially inclusive ones, is infrequent and inadequate, mainly due to limited institutional support, training, and policy direction.

Research Question 2 and Hypothesis 2 make use of Table 3.

Research Question 2

What is the impact of digital tools on the mathematics learning experiences of students with special needs?

The results in Table 3 show that students with special needs whose teachers used digital tools extensively had higher mean scores across all dimensions of learning experiences than those whose teachers used them sparingly. Specifically, for problem-solving, the mean and standard deviation were 2.95 ± 0.92 for the high-use group and 2.49 ± 0.97 for the low-use group; for collaboration, 2.66 ± 0.99 and 2.34 ± 1.09; for interaction, 2.75 ± 1.02 and 2.41 ± 1.12; for motivation, 3.01 ± 1.03 and 2.44 ± 1.12; and for engagement, 2.65 ± 0.79 and 2.23 ± 1.04, respectively.

Test of Hypotheses

Hypothesis 1

There is no significant difference between the availability and utilization of digital tools for inclusive mathematics instruction among teachers of students with special needs.

Table 4. A Paired Samples T-Test Difference in Availability and Utilization of Digital Tools for Inclusive Mathematics Instruction among Teachers of Students with Special Needs.

Digital Tools	Mean	Std. Deviation	Std. Error Mean	95% Confidence Interval of the Difference		T	Df	Sig. (2-Tailed)
				Lower	Upper
Availability & Utilization	0.18	0.24	0.02	0.13	0.22	7.89	109	0.000

presents a paired samples (dependent) t-test of the availability and utilization of digital tools for inclusive mathematics instruction among teachers of students with special needs. The interpretation focuses on the numerical values of the means, standard deviations, t-test statistic, and significance level (sig.). The paired-samples t-test reveals a significant difference in the availability and utilization of digital tools for inclusive mathematics among teachers of students with special needs, t(109) = 7.89, p < 0.001. The availability scores were higher than the utilization scores, with a mean difference of 0.18 (SD = 0.24) and a 95% confidence interval of (0.13–0.22). Since the interval difference is not 0, it means the difference is statistically significant. This result indicates that availability scores were significantly higher than utilization scores. Hence, the null hypothesis is rejected since there is a significant difference between the availability and utilization of digital tools for inclusive mathematics instruction among teachers of students with special needs.

Hypothesis 2

There is no significant impact of digital tools on the mathematics learning experiences of students with special needs. In testing hypothesis 2, Table 3 above was used.

The results in Table 3 revealed significant differences in all five dimensions—problem solving (t(208) = 3.524, p = 0.001), collaboration (t(208) = 2.229, p = 0.027), interaction (t(208) = 2.302, p = 0.022), motivation (t(208) = 3.841, p < 0.001), and engagement (t(208) = 3.318, p = 0.001). Since all p-values were < 0.05, the null hypothesis was rejected at α = 0.05, indicating that teachers’ use of digital tools had a significant positive impact on students with special needs’ learning experiences in mathematics.

Qualitative Results (Interview Findings)

To supplement the quantitative findings, qualitative data were collected through interviews with both teachers and students with special needs. Using the Jeffersonian’s transcription system, the bolded words indicate emphasis. Teachers consistently state that Digital tools, such as computers, were available in the school, but the students had little or no access to them during mathematics lessons. For instance, in response to item 1, describing the availability of digital tools for teaching mathematics in the school, respondent 1 (a teacher) stated that: “Digital tools are available mainly through shared resources like the computer lab, and teachers often take turns using them, which limits consistent access for learners with special needs” (Interview, 21 March 2024). The teachers gave similar responses when asked ‘how often they use digital tools in inclusive classrooms’, for instance, respondent 4’s reply was “I use the computer once or twice a week, with special needs students, as they benefit more from visual and interactive learning materials.” (Interview, 21 March 2024).

For item 2, which explored the impact digital tools have on inclusive mathematics and inclusive learning, respondents’ replies stated that: respondent 2’s reply was “I have noticed improved engagement, better concentration, and increased confidence among learners with special needs. Respondent 3: Some students who previously struggled with basic operations are now able to solve problems independently using digital support. Respondent 5: “There is noticeable improvement in learners’ interaction, participation, motivation, and accuracy in solving mathematical problems, there is improvement using digital tools with the level of interaction, and the application of mathematical skills learnt from digital social platforms using visual aids” (Interview, 18 March 2024). This implies that although digital tools improve the learning of mathematics inclusivity, for students with special needs, the availability of messenger services, video platforms, and digital social platforms on computers is not utilized by teachers and is limited in access for learners.

Students with special needs were also interviewed about the digital tools available for their mathematics lessons. Respondents had similar responses as follows: respondent 1’s reply was “We play math games on the teacher’s phone” (Interview, 11 March 2024), respondent 4’s reply was “We have computers in the computer hall, but they are used during computer lessons,” (Interview, 13 March 2024), respondent 6’s reply was “We play math games only when the teacher gives us his phone” (Interview, 13 March 2024), and respondent 8’s reply was “We check answers using the calculator”(Interview, 15 March 2024). In response to the question, “How often do you use these tools in learning?”, Respondents had similar replies: “I use them when math is hard” (Interview, 11 March 2024; Respondent 3). Respondent 4: “Sometimes in the week, not every day” (Interview, 13 March 2024). Respondent 7: “only when the teacher is not using his phone” (Interview, 15 March 2024). These responses to items 1 and 2 indicate the availability of digital tools but emphasize that their use is limited. Students do not have adequate access to digital tools despite their capacity to improve mathematics learning for students with special needs. This finding aligns with the teachers’ above assertions.

The students also complained about connectivity issues when using digital tools. In response to item 3, ‘‘What makes it difficult to use digital tools in class?”, Respondents 1, 4, 7 and 8 gave the following replies: Respondent 1: “I don’t know how to use it alone” (Interview, 11 March 2024). Respondent 4: “The internet is usually slow” (Interview, 13 March 2024). Respondent 7: “We don’t have enough time to use it.” (Interview, 15 March 2024). Respondent 8: “Sometimes the teacher’s phone is not working,” (Interview, 15 March 2024). In response to item 4: “What changes would make digital tools easier to use?” Respondents 1, 2, 5, and 7 suggested the following: Respondent 1: “More computers for learners” (Interview, 11 March 2024). Respondent 2: “The teacher helping me more” (Interview, 11 March 2024). Respondent 5: “The use of tools that talk and show pictures” (Interview, 14 March 2024). Respondent 7: “We should be given more time to use the computer” (Interview, 15 March 2024).

4. Discussion

The study’s results reveal the relationship between the availability, utilization, and impact of digital tools in enhancing inclusive mathematics education for students with special needs. The results reveal that availability scores were significantly higher than utilization scores. Hence, the null hypothesis is rejected, as there is a significant difference between the availability and utilization of digital tools for inclusive mathematics instruction among teachers of students with special needs. The study’s results further reveal that teachers’ use of digital tools has a significant positive impact on students with special needs’ learning experiences in mathematics.

4.1. Availability and Utilization of Digital Tools

The study found a significant difference between the availability and utilization of digital tools among teachers of students with special needs. This suggests that although digital tools are available, they are mostly owned by the teachers, such as their phones and laptops, which are inadequate for supporting video platforms, digital social networks, and messenger services for students. These tools are not actively used by teachers in inclusive mathematics instruction; hence, the availability of digital tools alone cannot be categorically stated to influence their use. Nevertheless, teachers acknowledge that using digital tools in teaching mathematics improves students’ learning. This finding reinforces Mantoan’s (2018) assertion that digital devices, such as Braille printers, magnifiers, and auditory aids, serve as a prerequisite for equitable participation in learning. The availability of these devices should be directly proportional to their classroom use in inclusive learning. Thus, the essence of the availability of digital tools lies in their positive influence on utilization.

This aligns with Salas-Pilco et al. (2022), who found that while digital tools enhance accessibility, customization, and inclusion, inadequate resources and poor infrastructure limit their effective use. Similarly, the results support Stalmach et al. (2023), who emphasize the importance of digital tools and how, when used, they can enable improved mathematical outcomes. A comparable perspective is offered by Scorgie (2010), Hamburg and Bucksch (2017), Brazal et al. (2022), and Lynch et al. (2024), who collectively highlight those digital tools, when available, enhance the practical delivery of learning encourage students’ engagement, provide personalized feedback, develop mathematics teaching and strengthen communication between the school and the parents. Thus, availability is a key determinant of utilization, enhancing self-regulated learning of mathematics concepts.

The study also highlights the role of teacher preparedness in the effective use of technology. Jones (2010) and Cagran and Schmidt (2011) stressed that the effective use of digital tools depends on educators’ technological literacy, training, and content knowledge. This aligns with Town et al.’s (2023) assertion that various intervention strategies involving messenger services, social digital networks, and video platforms, used to instruct students with special needs, enable the practical application of mathematics concepts in problem-solving. The present findings suggest that the inadequacy of digital resources not only reduces teachers’ capacity to use technology in teaching mathematical concepts but also limits their professional development in inclusive pedagogy. This resonates with Modise and Luneta (2021), who identified a persistent gap between educational policies advocating technology integration and the practical realities of teacher training and the acquisition of efficient content knowledge. Similarly, Santos and Sá (2021) argue that difficulties in using digital tools stem from insufficient professional development and inconsistent institutional support. Collectively, these findings underscore that the availability and use of digital tools are interdependent, requiring systemic attention to ensure meaningful implementation in inclusive mathematics education.

This result agrees with the responses of most teachers from the verbatim transcribed interview extracts, indicating a significant difference between the availability and utilization of digital tools. This emphasizes that, though schools have digital tools such as computers, teachers do not consistently use them during instruction. This limits students with special needs’ access to technology to support their learning, despite its benefits for learning mathematics. This result also aligns with students’ responses to items 1 and 2, which affirm the availability of digital tools but emphasize their limited use. As a result, students do not have adequate access to digital tools, regardless of their capacity to improve inclusive mathematics learning for students with special needs.

4.2. Impact of Digital Tools on Learning Experiences

The study further reveals that teachers’ use of digital tools has a significant positive effect on students with special needs’ learning experiences in mathematics. Learners whose teachers frequently used digital tools performed better in areas of problem-solving, collaboration, interaction, motivation, and engagement in mathematics. This underscores the transformative role of technology in creating more inclusive, participatory, and stimulating learning environments for students with special needs. These results corroborate Fernandez (2021), Haleem et al. (2022), and Duque (2024), who found that technology integration fosters interactive learning, creativity, and engagement in mathematics classrooms, thereby enhancing discussions and improving mathematics outcomes. The results also align with Isăilă (2012), Samaniego-López et al. (2025), and Martynchuk (2019), who highlighted that digital tools enhance teamwork, interaction, socialization, and collaboration, key features of inclusive education that bridge social and learning divides. The present study extends this evidence by empirically demonstrating that digital technologies substantially improve learners’ emotional and cognitive involvement in mathematics lessons.

The finding indicates that digital tools foster problem-solving skills by bridging gaps in teaching mathematics. Integrating digital tools enhances the teaching of mathematics in practical ways, such as using online resources like math apps and simulations, thereby providing personalized practice. This finding indicates that the use of visual aids like graphs, charts, pictures, and diagrams supports visually impaired students. This aligns with Drushlyak et al. (2023) and Samaniego-López et al. (2025), who observed that digital environments allow adaptive question sequencing, reduce phobia and anxiety, and support real-world application of knowledge in mathematics education. Similarly, Al-Motrif (2025) affirmed that mathematics content can be tailored to individual learner needs through adaptive software, thus enhancing motivation, engagement, and comprehension. As students learn using technology tools such as online tutorials, they gain a broader range of knowledge. These findings support the view that technology is not merely an instructional but a cognitive and social mediator that transforms how students construct mathematical knowledge. The recent findings also align with Vodicková et al.’s (2023) findings that students can be provided with scaffolding and support from teachers, parents, and peers when using digital tools.

Moreover, the results echo Ok and Kim (2021), who concluded that emerging technologies promote inclusivity by creating motivating, effective, and accessible learning experiences. These experiences in mathematics education enhance the motivation and engagement of students with special needs in learning. Consistent with Ainscow (2020) and Bakker et al. (2016), this study reaffirms that technology offers both social and resource benefits for inclusive education by enabling remote and flexible learning for students who face physical, social, or emotional barriers. Additionally, Lawan et al. (2023) demonstrated that digital interventions such as mobile applications, educational robots, and augmented reality effectively support students with autism and other learning disabilities. Similarly, this aligns with Özdemir and Kılıç’s (2023) findings, which encourage the use of digital tools in the evaluation and assessment of mathematical knowledge when preparing education programs, needed for inclusive mathematics experiences. The present study strengthens this evidence base by showing that such interventions can substantially improve learners’ mathematical engagement and enhance their capacity to collaborate and communicate effectively in inclusive classrooms. The results also align with the responses of most teachers from the verbatim interview extracts in item 2, indicating that the use of digital tools in teaching enhances students with special needs’ learning experiences in mathematics and supports inclusive education. This implies that the availability of messenger services, video platforms, and digital social networks, enabled by technology, fosters improvements in learning outcomes.

From a theoretical perspective, the findings affirm the value of both the UDL and Vygotsky’s social constructivist theory as guiding frameworks for inclusive mathematics education. Within the UDL framework, the results confirm that digital tools provide multiple means of representation, engagement, and expression, enabling learners with diverse abilities to access content in ways that suit their strengths. Within Vygotsky’s framework, digital tools act as mediational artefacts that scaffold social interaction, collaboration, and shared meaning-making—processes essential for cognitive and emotional development. These perspectives illustrate that when digital tools are available, accessible, and used effectively, they enhance not only the individual learning experience but also the collective dynamics of inclusive mathematics classrooms.

This study’s findings reveal that the availability and use of digital tools in inclusive mathematics education are mutually reinforcing and must therefore be addressed concurrently in both policy and practice. Increasing the accessibility of digital tools without ensuring their pedagogical use would have minimal impact, just as encouraging their use without providing the necessary resources would be ineffective. Sustainable improvement requires an integrated approach that combines resource provision, institutional support, and consistent monitoring to ensure that digital tools become an integral part of inclusive mathematics instruction. The study further demonstrates that the effective integration of digital tools significantly enhances learners’ motivation, collaboration, interaction, and problem-solving abilities, thereby strengthening the overall quality of inclusive education. When learners with special needs engage with adaptive, interactive, and assistive digital tools, they not only participate more actively but also develop deeper conceptual understanding and greater confidence in mathematics. Such technologies promote social inclusion by facilitating teamwork, communication, and equitable participation in classroom activities.

Finally, the study reinforces the explanatory power of the UDL and social constructivist theory in understanding how digital tools transform educational environments. Through UDL, technology provides multiple means of engagement, representation, and expression, enabling learners to access and demonstrate understanding in ways suited to their abilities. From a social constructivist perspective, digital tools act as mediating artefacts that promote collaboration and co-construction of knowledge, transforming learning into an interactive and socially grounded process.

4.3. Challenges in Using Digital Tools for Students with Special Needs

Despite recent findings, there are major challenges in the use of digital tools, including inadequate infrastructure, limited availability, and limited teacher use in inclusive mathematics instruction. Attitudinal barriers also contribute to the underutilization of digital tools in inclusive settings. Some educators perceive digital tools as difficult to understand and artificial, and they emphasize that technology reduces their professional autonomy and personal interaction with students (Duque, 2023). Such misconceptions hinder experimentation with innovative pedagogies and limit the broader adoption of assistive technologies. Sustained professional learning opportunities and peer collaboration are therefore essential to change teachers’ mindsets and enhance their confidence in using digital tools to support inclusion.

Finally, other factors, such as inadequate funding and a lack of administrative support, pose significant challenges to implementing policies on the use of digital tools. Schools often lack funding allocated for technological maintenance, renewal, or training, resulting in outdated or non-functional devices. These structural challenges reduce the potential impact of digital initiatives. As Sá and Endlish (2014) and Duque (2023) suggest, continuous capacity-building programs, regular policy evaluation, and resource allocation are essential for sustainable digital inclusion. Learners’ cognitive, social, and emotional needs, as well as future pedagogical and didactic methodologies, should also be designed based on those changes, so that learners can gather information and develop adaptable teaching methodologies, such as the use of digital tools that cater to students’ learning needs (Flavian, 2024).

Collectively, these insights suggest that improving digital access, strengthening teacher professional development, and embedding inclusive technology practices in learning are necessary to promote equity and quality in mathematics education for students with special needs. By aligning policy, pedagogy, and practice, mathematics education systems can harness the transformative potential of digital tools to build inclusive classrooms where every learner can thrive.

4.4. Recommendations

Based on the findings and conclusions of this study, several recommendations are proposed to guide educational practice, policy formulation, and future research on digital inclusion in mathematics education. First, education authorities and school management should prioritize the availability and equitable access to digital tools. Maintaining accessible technologies, such as assistive software, adaptive learning platforms, and reliable internet connectivity, is important for enabling students with special needs to participate meaningfully in mathematics learning. Efforts to allocate resources must be guided by principles of equity to minimize disparities between urban and rural schools and between well-resourced and under-resourced institutions. Ensuring fairness in access will help bridge the digital divide and promote inclusive participation across different learning contexts. Second, policy alignment and institutional support are critical for sustainable implementation. Ministries of Education, higher education institutions, and school administrators should ensure coherence between technology integration policies and inclusive education frameworks. Institutional support structures such as ICT help desks, digital mentorship programs, and peer-learning communities should be established to provide teachers with practical guidance and collaborative platforms for sharing best practices. Strengthening these institutional mechanisms will facilitate the consistent and confident use of digital tools in inclusive mathematics classrooms.

Thirdly, parental and community engagement should be strengthened to reinforce inclusive digital learning beyond the classroom. Parents and community stakeholders play a vital role in supporting learners’ access to digital resources, particularly for students with special needs. Providing home access to technologies and maintaining open channels of communication between teachers and families can enhance continuity in digital learning, reinforce inclusion, and promote social interaction. Collaborative partnerships between schools and communities also foster shared responsibility for learners’ academic and emotional development. Finally, monitoring, evaluation, and future research are essential for assessing progress and deepening understanding of digital inclusion in education. Future studies should examine the long-term effects of integrating digital tools on learners’ achievement, motivation, emotional well-being, and social inclusion. Longitudinal and mixed-methods research designs would be particularly valuable in uncovering how specific technologies, teaching strategies, and contextual factors influence inclusive learning trajectories over time.

Collectively, these recommendations emphasize that equitable access, teacher empowerment, policy coherence, community participation, and ongoing research are the foundations for advancing inclusive, technology-enhanced mathematics education. Through concerted efforts across these dimensions, education systems can ensure that digital tools serve as powerful enablers of equity, engagement, and excellence for all learners. Achieving meaningful digital inclusion in mathematics education for students with special needs requires systemic transformation, integrating access, training, and policy coherence within a supportive institutional ecosystem. When these elements work in synergy, digital tools can truly function as catalysts for equity, empowerment, and excellence in inclusive mathematics learning.

4.5. Limitations

The following are limitations to the study:

A limitation of this study is the nested nature of the data, as learners were taught by the same teacher. Although multilevel modelling would have been methodologically appropriate, the sample size was insufficient to support it. Future studies with larger samples are therefore encouraged to employ multilevel analytical techniques. With this design, a more generalized result will be acquired. Internet connectivity problems were consistently experienced in all the schools in both rural and urban settlements. Regarding internet connectivity at their school, both teachers and students noted that “the internet is slow”. The interview prompts were constrained by time and therefore limited to a few participants. For example, in response to item 4, “What changes would make digital tools easier to use?”, respondent 7 suggested that: “we should be given more time to use the computer” (Interview, 15 March 2024).

5. Conclusions

This study investigated the availability, use, and impact of digital tools on inclusive mathematics instruction for students with special needs. The findings demonstrate a strong interdependence between the availability and utilization of digital tools, both of which were comparatively low among teachers of students with special needs. This limited access directly restricts teachers’ capacity to incorporate technology into their instructional practices, revealing challenges that connect inadequate infrastructure with low levels of classroom implementation. Despite these limitations, the study found that when teachers used digital tools extensively, learners exhibited significantly greater motivation, collaboration, engagement, interaction, and problem-solving ability.

These results affirm that digital tools can transform mathematics instruction from a traditional, teacher-centred model into an interactive and learner-centred environment that fosters inclusivity, participation, and equity. Theoretically, the findings align with both the UDL and social constructivist perspectives, indicating that digital tools provide multiple pathways for engagement, representation, and expression while fostering interactive, socially mediated learning. Consequently, inclusive digital pedagogy addresses diverse learning needs and advances quality education for all students.

In summary, while digital tools have shown significant promise in enhancing mathematics learning for students with special needs, their successful implementation requires addressing challenges related to availability, utilization, inclusive design, teacher competence, and attitudes toward technology use. Overcoming these challenges will enable educators to use digital tools as aids and transformative instruments for equitable and inclusive education. The overall conclusion is that digital tools are not merely technological add-ons but essential enablers of inclusive education. However, their potential can only be realized when structural, pedagogical, and professional conditions align to support their effective integration. A holistic approach encompassing infrastructure, teacher training, and institutional policy is therefore imperative to embed technology sustainably within inclusive mathematics education.

Future Studies

Follow-up studies can be carried out using the following:

With a larger population, structural modelling with nesting (multi-level modelling) can be used in a study to determine the effects of digital tools on students’ experiences in mathematics learning and inclusivity.

Investigating the long-term impact of digital tools on students with special needs.

Evaluating diverse digital tools or teaching approaches in mathematics for students with special needs.

Exploring the combined effects of digital tools and teacher support on the engagement and achievement of students with special needs in inclusive classrooms.