Teachers’ Perspectives on Internet Use: Towards the Digital Inclusion of Students with Intellectual Disability or Autism Spectrum Disorder

Abstract

People with disabilities have difficulties in digital inclusion, although it is considered essential for participation in the knowledge-based society. This form of inclusion seeks to ensure equal opportunities in the use of digital technologies and their active participation as citizens in the virtual world. The educational environment is key to this digital inclusion, but teacher attitudes and training influence its effectiveness. The aim of this study was to explore, through a descriptive cross-sectional study, Chilean teachers’ perspectives on the safety, benefits, and risks of the Internet for students with intellectual disabilities or autism spectrum disorder. A questionnaire was administered to 211 pre-service and in-service teachers. The results highlight the perception of the Internet as an unsafe environment for these students, where risks prevail over potential benefits. These findings underline the need to improve both initial and ongoing teacher training in digital skills and risk mediation for these students in order to ensure the digital participation of all students.

1. Introduction

Access to information, communication, relationships, knowledge, empowerment, and learning technologies has become an essential issue in literacy processes [1], as the digital aspect is considered a core competence in the current conception of citizenship [2]. Therefore, the fight against discrimination has also incorporated the claim against the digital gap, understood as the access and effective use of these technologies [3], and framed within the right of access to information [4,5]. Despite the goals and challenges set out by international organisations, whether in the rights conventions [6] or in the challenges for sustainable development [7], this digital gap still exists for people with disabilities [8], in spite of the realisation of the potential that these technologies can have for the development, inclusion, and quality of life of these people [9,10]. Thus, although people with disabilities make up 16% of the world’s population, they continue to experience inequalities [11].

Some of the people who experience the most difficulties in this regard are still people with intellectual disabilities (IDs) or autism spectrum disorder (ASD). IDs are characterised by limitations in both intellectual functioning and adaptive behaviour, and people with an ID may require support to encourage the development of their personal autonomy [12]. ASD is a neurodevelopmental disorder characterised by impairments in communication and social interaction [13], and a limited, repetitive, and stereotyped repertoire of behaviours, interests, and activities [14]. IDs and ASD are distinct conditions with fundamental differences. IDs primarily involve significant limitations in intellectual functioning and adaptive behaviour, affecting an individual’s ability to learn and apply conceptual, social, and practical skills. In contrast, ASD is characterised by challenges in social communication, interaction, and behavioural flexibility, often accompanied by restricted and repetitive behaviours. Despite these differences [15,16], IDs and ASD share some similarities, such as the potential need for support in educational and social settings and facing barriers to digital inclusion due to societal stigmatisation and structural inequities [17,18,19,20]. Despite the inherent differences among groups of individuals with diverse characteristics and needs, this study examines both populations jointly since they encounter comparable challenges in mediating the risks and leveraging the opportunities of Internet use. By addressing these shared experiences, the study aims to identify common patterns that can guide the development of inclusive and customised pedagogical strategies, while still acknowledging and respecting the unique needs of each group.

Nowadays, the concept of inclusion has been redefined by adding the digital environment to others such as education, employment, and social inclusion. In this way, digital inclusion is contrasted with the digital divide and consists of a form of social inclusion in the digital era that focuses on ensuring equal opportunities and the ability to access and effectively use digital technologies for all individuals and communities in society [21]. This perspective is essential as the exercise of active citizenship in the knowledge society moves into the digital environment. Therefore, citizens’ rights and responsibilities are no longer exclusively in traditional settings, but are now relevant in the digital world, as are the barriers that hinder such participation [22]. Although the participation of these people in society has increased [23], both groups still face challenges in achieving digital inclusion. These difficulties stem not only from structural barriers and accessibility limitations but also from patterns of Internet use that may reflect coping mechanisms or unmet social needs, as observed in some individuals with ASD [24,25]. Understanding these behaviours in context is essential to developing inclusive strategies that balance risks with opportunities for empowerment and participation.

The educational environment can play a significant role in the digital inclusion of people with disabilities through literacy and the development of the necessary skills, and this is an aspect that has attracted scientific interest in recent years [26]. However, this process can be affected by teachers’ beliefs, attitudes, emotions, and perceived self-efficacy towards the inclusion of people with disabilities [27] as well as by previous experience and interaction with them [28]. In addition, there is evidence that teachers are more or less inclined to encourage inclusion depending on the type of disability of the student, perceiving more positively those with sensory or motor disabilities and lower support needs than those with intellectual disabilities or behavioural disorders and higher support needs [29]. This evidence underlines that, while technological breakthroughs and the expansion of Internet access have opened up new opportunities for inclusive education by enabling the development of tools and platforms that can be adapted to the specific needs of these students, the effective integration of these technologies depends largely on the preparation and perception of the teachers who implement them [30]. Consequently, educators’ attitudes and knowledge about digital technologies and their application in the classroom for students with IDs and ASD are crucial to the success of these programmes.

The Chilean school system has been regarded as one of the most segregated globally, where educational opportunities have been shaped by socioeconomic, cognitive, religious, or behavioural factors [31]. It was not until 2009 that the concept of inclusion was introduced in the General Education Act [32], serving as a precursor to the School Inclusion Act [33], enacted in 2015. Despite efforts over the past decade to promote the recognition of diversity within the Chilean school system, exclusionary practices persist in schools [34]. Moreover, teacher training, both initial and ongoing, remains a significant challenge in achieving equal opportunities and the inclusion of all students [35,36]. In a country where special education teacher education programmes are rooted in a medical model, regular education teachers face significant difficulties in translating inclusive education principles into real classroom practices, as they lack the necessary competencies to implement them effectively. In this context, the specific characteristics of the school system may pose challenges to the educational and digital inclusion of students with SEN.

Beyond this situation, Internet access itself carries both opportunities and risks. Among the opportunities are aspects such as participation, access to information, learning and training, and leisure and entertainment. The Kids Online Chile 2022 report [37] indicates that children tend to use the Internet mainly for online leisure (e.g., watching videos, watching films), gaming, or socialising. These data are similar to those found in the population of children with IDs or ASD [23,38]. In terms of risks, these can come from four sources: content (receiving or sending content inappropriate for minors, such as pornography, drugs, or violence), contacts (receiving or making contact inappropriate for a minor, such as sexual advances by an adult or harassment), behaviours (engaging in or receiving inappropriate behaviour, such as cyberbullying), or contracts (exposure to misleading advertising, commercial persuasion, or unwanted exploitation of personal data) [39]. These authors also consider some risks that cut across the different categories (limitation of personal relationships or interactions, physical health, development of Internet addictions). In the Chilean context, children report having experienced some of these situations, such as having had unpleasant experiences on the Internet (54%), having had online contact with strangers (42%), or having been treated offensively (35%). These data are similar to those found in the European context [40]. On the other hand, there is a tendency to think that risks are higher for students with IDs or ASD, and this fact modulates the perception of Internet safety for them [17].

Mediation, understood as a set of socially modulated strategies, techniques, and practices based on interaction between two parties, e.g., between an individual and an environment, can be used to manage risks [41]. As described by Livingstone et al. [42], Internet mediation strategies fall into four categories: (a) active mediation (e.g., sharing online activities, talking to them about what they do online), (b) restrictive mediation (e.g., banning Internet use), (c) monitoring mediation (e.g., checking browser history or email), and (d) technical mediation (e.g., installing blocking filters on certain content or websites, installing software against spam, malware, or viruses). Traditionally, restrictive mediation has been the most widely used as it significantly reduces risks. However, this is achieved at the cost of missing out on many of the opportunities and undermining the development of students’ digital skills [43]. Moreover, this type of intervention is not consistent with current modalities of Internet access, which are more in line with access via portable devices such as mobile phones [44]. This seems to be the reason why there is a progressive move towards other types of mediation, mainly active mediation combined with technical mediation [37].

Despite Chile being a highly digitalised country, the Ministry of Education [34] warns of digital divides caused by inequalities in access to information and knowledge among children and adolescents, limiting their possibilities for inclusion and participation. As described by Paredes-Águila and Rivera-Vargas [45], in the Chilean context, an important effort is being made to achieve the inclusion of digital technologies in the school system. However, evidence available in other contexts highlights the need to improve teachers’ digital skills, and even more so in risk mediation for people with IDs and ASD [46]. In this last aspect, teachers report not having enough information and training on risks, despite considering that the Internet can be an unsafe environment for people with IDs or ASD [46,47]. Similarly, teachers require specific strategies to manage certain risks (e.g., cyberbullying, terrorism, hate speech, radicalisation) for which they do not feel sufficiently trained [48], and which are already present in people with IDs and ASD [17,22,38]. Teachers play a key role in this process, and their perspectives and experiences are essential to understanding the barriers and facilitators of digital inclusion. Previous research has highlighted the need for ongoing training and institutional support for teachers to effectively integrate digital technologies into their pedagogical practice [49]. This could lead to the provision of quality education for all students that includes the development of differentiated digital literacy processes, promotes the optimisation of opportunities, and provides for the protection of children with IDs and ASD, and the exercise of their rights through positive risk management based on teacher and parental mediation [50,51,52].

In recent years, the enrolment of students with SEN in School Integration Programmes (PIEs) has steadily increased in Chile. These programmes facilitate the inclusion of SEN students in mainstream schools. Among PIE participants, students with IDs represent 62.7%, while those with ASD account for 15.4%. Notably, the ASD group experienced a remarkable growth of 719% between 2013 and 2020, making it the second-fastest-growing category after students with visual impairments [53]. The rising prevalence of ASD diagnoses and the imperative to provide a comprehensive response have recently led the Chilean government to enact the Autism Spectrum Disorder Act [54]. This legislation seeks to ensure equal opportunities for individuals with ASD by eliminating discrimination across social, educational, and healthcare domains.

Considering the increasing number of students with ID and ASD in regular schools and in order to understand the potential scope of digital inclusion, the purpose of the study was to explore the perspectives of in-service and pre-service teachers (student teachers) in Chile on the use of the Internet by students with IDs and ASD. Specifically, the aim was to examine and compare teachers’ perceptions on:

(1)

Internet safety for adults and children with and without special educational needs (SEN).

(2)

The benefits of the Internet for students with IDs and ASD.

(3)

The risks of the Internet for students with IDs and ASD.

2. Materials and Methods

2.1. Study Design

In order to respond to the objectives set out, quantitative research was carried out through a descriptive study based on a cross-sectional survey design. This type of study makes it possible to describe certain phenomena, such as opinions, beliefs, and attitudes, at a specific time and in a specific context [55].

2.2. Participants

Participants were selected through convenience sampling, and the final sample consisted of 211 in-service and pre-service teachers, 90% of whom were women. The in-service teachers (n = 93) worked mainly in public schools (64.5%) in the Metropolitan (43%), Ñuble (23.7%), and Araucanía (17.2%) regions, and a smaller number in the Maule (8.6%) and Bío-Bío (7.5%) regions. A total of 72% taught in Elementary Education, 20.4% in Secondary Education, and 7.5% in Early Childhood Education. Their ages ranged from 22 to 60 years (M = 35.62, SD = 9.81) and they had an average teaching experience of 10.26 years (SD = 8.19). The vast majority had attended to students with IDs (82.8%) and with ASD (87.1%) in the classroom and had received training on the attention to the diversity of students with SEN (68.8%), with slightly less specific training on students with IDs (40.9%) and with ASD (50.5%).

With regard to the pre-service teachers, 118 student teachers from two Chilean universities in the Metropolitan and Bío-Bío regions participated in the study. A total of 35.6% were third-year students, followed by first-year (23.7%), fourth-year (21.1%), and second-year students (19.5%) of a 5-year programme. Their ages ranged from 18 to 47 with an average age of 20.90 years (SD = 3.42). Almost 51% claimed to have regular contact with people with ASD and 36.4% with people with IDs. Finally, 61% had received training on attention to student diversity, while specific training on IDs and ASD was reduced to 17.8% and 18.6%, respectively.

2.3. Instruments

The ‘Questionnaire on the use of the Internet by children with intellectual and developmental disabilities’ [47] was adapted to the objectives and characteristics of the study population. The questions included in the questionnaire regarding Internet use were sufficiently generic to be applicable to any population of students, both with and without SEN. Changes were made in the socio-demographic variables and in the formulation of the items in order to adjust them to the Chilean educational context (e.g., educational provision for students with SEN, teacher education program). The instrument was validated by six expert judges in education from a Chilean university institution, obtaining a content validity index of 0.93 according to Lawshe’s formula [56]. Following the recommendations of the experts, some items were reformulated to improve their comprehensibility. The final instrument comprised four sections. The first section collected socio-demographic information on participants’ gender, age, years of teaching experience, school, teacher education programme, study year, and training. The other three sections concerned:

(1)

Safety in the use of the Internet (6 items): this scale assessed the perception of Internet safety for different groups (adults and children with and without IDs and ASD).

(2)

Benefits of the Internet (22 items): this scale included questions related to the opportunities that the Internet offers to people with ID and ASD in terms of social relationships and online communication (keeping in touch with friends and family, expanding their circle of friends, sharing advice, providing or receiving support from friends), learning (developing digital competence, social skills, critical thinking), and civic and community participation (learning about other cultures, society, discovering new things).

(3)

Internet risks (30 items): following the risk classification proposed by Livingstone and Stoilova [39], questions were asked about exposure to certain hazards related to content, contact, behaviour, contract, as well as certain cross-cutting risks.

The benefit and risk scales were presented in a double-entry matrix (students with IDs and ASD) in which, using a 5-point Likert scale (1 = not at all; 5 = very much), teachers were asked to rate their perception of the different issues raised. The analysis of the internal consistency of the study sample revealed high reliability with similar Cronbach’s Alpha values for the scales referring to students with IDs and ASD (α_Benefits = 0.95; α_Safety = 0.86; α_Risks = 0.96).

2.4. Procedure

The participation of pre-service and in-service teachers was requested in order to respond to the online or paper version of the questionnaire. For this purpose, teachers from three universities in the Metropolitan and Bío-Bío regions, as well as from two educational centres in the Metropolitan and Araucanía regions, collaborated. Pre-service (student teachers) and in-service teachers studying for a Master’s degree in Education at one of the participating institutions answered the questionnaire during class hours. On the other hand, a paper copy of the questionnaire was provided to the teachers by the management team of the schools and, once completed, was returned by post. The response time was 15–20 min. After discarding incomplete surveys (22.9% of the returned questionnaires), the final response rate was 52.74%.

2.5. Data Analysis

Descriptive analyses were performed for the total sample and the subsamples (in-service and pre-service teachers) and inferential statistics were used for inter- and intra-group comparisons. The Kolmogorov–Smirnov test showed that the distributions did not meet the assumption of normality (p < 0.001), so non-parametric statistical techniques were used to compare independent (Mann–Whitney U test) and related groups (Wilcoxon signed-rank test and Friedman test). The significance level was set at p < 0.05, using the Bonferroni correction in post-hoc tests. All analyses were performed using IBM SPSS v.28 (IBM, Armonk, NY, USA).

2.6. Ethical Considerations

Taking as a reference the ethical principles and recommendations for research [57], the following actions were carried out: (a) request for the approval from the Ethics Committee of the University of Alicante (Ref. UA-2023-05-11); (b) request for informed consent from all participants; (c) detailed information about the project and the importance of the study; (d) guarantee of anonymity and confidentiality of the data provided by the participants.

3. Results

3.1. Teachers’ Perceptions of Internet Safety

The general perception of teachers is that the Internet is an unsafe environment, with perceived safety being slightly higher for adults without SEN (M = 3.39, SD = 0.86) followed, at a greater distance, by adults with ASD (M = 2.60, SD = 0.84). As shown in

Table 1. Pre-service and in-service teachers’ perceptions on Internet safety in people with and without intellectual disabilities and autism spectrum disorder.

Group with/ without SEN	Total Sample (N = 211)	Pre-Service Teachers (n = 118)		In-Service Teachers (n = 93)		Mann–Whitney U Test
	M (SD)	M (SD)	Md	M (SD)	Md	U	z	r
People without SEN
Adults	3.39 (0.86)	3.38 (0.79)	3	3.41 (0.95)	3	5202	−0.69	0.04
Minors	2.16 (0.80)	2.17 (0.68)	2	2.14 (0.93)	2	5705	0.53	0.03
People with IDs
Adults	2.44 (0.81)	2.60 (0.76)	3	2.23 (0.82)	2	6754 *	3.08	0.21
Minors	1.85 (0.72)	1.90 (0.68)	2	1.78 (0.77)	2	6059	1.41	0.09
People with ASD
Adults	2.60 (0.84)	2.78 (0.81)	3	2.38 (0.83)	2	6835 *	3.26	0.22
Minors	1.95 (0.73)	2.01 (0.64)	2	1.87 (0.82)	2	6183	1.72	0.11

Note: SEN = special educational needs; IDs = intellectual disabilities; ASD = autism spectrum disorder. * p < 0.01.

, the perception of insecurity increases in the case of children, with mean scores below the intermediate value of the scale (3), especially for children with IDs (M = 1.85, SD = 0.72) and ASD (M = 1.95, SD = 0.73).

Comparison between groups using the Mann–Whitney U test revealed statistically significant differences between the perceptions of pre-service and in-service teachers in relation to adults with IDs (U = 6754, z = 3.08, p = 0.002, r = 0.21) and adults with ASD (U = 6835, z = 3.26, p = 0.001, r = 0.22), with the perception of security being greater in the case of pre-service teachers. Regarding people without SEN (adults and minors) and minors with IDs and ASD, no statistically significant differences were observed (p > 0.05).

In order to find out the differences in participants’ responses for the three groups studied (without SEN, with IDs, and with ASD), Friedman tests were conducted for the subsamples of in-service and pre-service teachers. The results indicated statistically significant differences in the perception of Internet safety of adults without SEN, with IDs, and with ASD, both in in-service teachers [χ² (2, n = 93) = 116.91, p < 0.001] and in pre-service teachers [χ² (2, n = 118) = 108.96, p < 0.001], with the perception of safety being lower in adults with ASD and with ID. With regard to safety in minors, statistically significant differences were also observed in the sample of in-service teachers [χ² (2, n = 93) = 34.26, p < 0.001] and pre-service teachers [χ² (2, n = 118) = 25.29, p < 0.001]. In all cases, the perception of insecurity was higher for people with ID and, to a lesser extent, with ASD.

3.2. Teachers’ Perceptions of the Benefits of the Internet

Teachers perceive the use of the Internet as moderately beneficial for students with IDs and ASD in all the categories analysed, with mean scores that did not reach a value of 4 on the Likert scale (

Table 2. Perceptions of the benefits of the Internet for students with intellectual disabilities and autism spectrum disorder.

Type of Benefit	Total Sample (N = 211)	Pre-Service Teachers (n = 118)		In-Service Teachers (n = 93)		Mann–Whitney U Test
	M (SD)	M (SD)	Md	M (SD)	Md	U	z	r
Students with IDs
Communication	3.49 (0.84)	3.67 (0.82)	3.7	3.26 (0.82)	3.2	7004 **	3.45	0.23
Learning	3.59 (0.80)	3.65 (0.81)	3.7	3.51 (0.79)	3.4	5928	1.00	0.06
Participation	3.71 (0.83)	3.80 (0.84)	3.7	3.60 (0.81)	3.7	6243	1.73	0.11
Students with ASD
Communication	3.49 (0.87)	3.69 (0.83)	3.7	3.25 (0.87)	3.1	6962 **	3.35	0.23
Learning	3.60 (0.82)	3.70 (0.80)	3.8	3.48 (0.83)	3.4	6176	1.57	0.10
Participation	3.71 (0.86)	3.83 (0.83)	4.0	3.56 (0.87)	3.7	6440 *	2.18	0.15

Note: IDs = intellectual disabilities; ASD = autism spectrum disorder; Communication = social relations and online communication; Participation = civic and community participation. * p < 0.01; ** p < 0.001.

). Regarding the category of social relationships and online communication, the possibility of maintaining contact with friends and family stands out for both students with IDs (M = 4.09, SD = 0.94) and students with ASD (M = 4.09, SD = 0.97), with the opposite extreme being the opportunity to become emotionally attached to other people, with a mean value of 2.90 (SD = 1.26) in the case of students with IDs and 2.89 (SD = 1.29) in the case of students with ASD. With regard to learning opportunities, teachers particularly value the possibility of developing the digital competence of students with IDs (M = 4.30, SD = 0.83) and ASD (M = 4.33, SD = 0.84) and the knowledge and understanding of new information (IDs: M = 3.83, SD = 0.96; ASD: M = 3.83, SD = 1.00). In terms of civic and community participation, the opportunity to learn about other cultures stands out (IDs: M = 4.13, SD = 0.90; ASD: M = 4.13, SD = 0.93).

Comparisons were made between the subsamples (pre-service and in-service teachers) using the Mann–Whitney U test, and statistically significant differences were observed in relation to social relationships and online communication for both students with IDs (U = 7004, z = 3.45, p < 0.001, r = 0.23) and students with ASD (U = 6962, z = 3.35, p < 0.001, r = 0.23). Statistically significant differences were also detected with respect to the category civic and community participation (U = 6440, z = 2.18, p = 0.002, r = 0.15). In all cases, pre-service teachers perceived greater benefits than in-service teachers (Table 2).

To find out the differences in teachers’ perceptions between students with IDs and students with ASD, a Wilcoxon signed-rank test was calculated. No statistically significant differences were found between the perceived benefits for students with ID and students with ASD in any of the categories studied (p < 0.05), with the exception of the Learning category in the case of pre-service teachers (z = −2.82, p = 0.005, r = 0.18). Table 2 shows that pre-service teachers consider that students with ASD have greater opportunities for online learning than students with IDs.

Finally, teachers’ perceptions were compared according to benefit categories using the Friedman test, and statistically significant differences were detected. For in-service teachers, these differences were found for students with IDs [χ² (2, n = 93) = 27.32, p < 0.001] and with ASD [χ² (2, n = 93) = 20.68, p < 0.001]. In both cases, perceptions of benefits related to social relationships and online communication were lower than for learning opportunities and civic and community participation. For pre-service teachers, the differences were also statistically significant for both students with IDs [χ² (2, n = 118) = 8.43, p = 0.015] and students with ASD [χ² (2, n = 118) = 9.89, p = 0.007]. In this case, civic and community participation was rated as more beneficial than learning and social relationships.

3.3. Teachers’ Perceptions of Internet Risks

Overall, teachers’ perceptions of Internet risks for students with IDs and ASD are high, with mean values for the total sample above a score of 4 on a 5-point Likert scale (

Table 3. Perception of Internet risks for students with intellectual disabilities and autistic spectrum disorder.

Type of Risk	Total Sample (N = 211)	Pre-Service Teachers (n = 118)		In-Service Teachers (n = 93)		Mann–Whitney U Test
	M (SD)	M (SD)	Md	M (SD)	Md	U	z	r
Students with IDs
Content	4.25 (0.67)	4.08 (0.70)	4.2	4.47 (0.57)	4.7	3642 *	−4.22	0.29
Contact	4.33 (0.67)	4.12 (0.70)	4.2	4.61 (0.52)	4.8	3135 *	−5.42	0.37
Conduct	4.08 (0.80)	3.82 (0.83)	3.8	4.42 (0.62)	4.6	3186 *	−5.26	0.36
Contract	4.05 (0.81)	3.80 (0.81)	3.9	4.37 (0.69)	4.6	3192 *	−5.24	0.36
Cross-Sectional	4.18 (0.71)	3.76 (0.85)	3.9	4.48 (0.59)	4.7	3087 *	−5.48	0.37
Students with ASD
Content	4.24 (0.69)	4.05 (0.71)	4.2	4.48 (0.58)	4.7	3453 *	−4.65	0.32
Contact	4.31 (0.71)	4.09 (0.74)	4.2	4.59 (0.54)	4.8	3163 *	−5.35	0.36
Conduct	4.06 (0.81)	3.80 (0.82)	3.8	4.40 (0.66)	4.6	3157 *	−5.32	0.36
Contract	4.01 (0.85)	3.76 (0.85)	3.9	4.33 (0.73)	4.6	3233 *	−5.14	0.35
Cross-Sectional	4.20 (0.72)	3.98 (0.73)	4.0	4.49 (0.60)	4.7	3136 *	−5.38	0.37

Note: IDs = intellectual disabilities; ASD = autism spectrum disorder. * p < 0.001.

). This risk perception is higher for issues related to student contact with strangers, with a mean score of 4.33 (SD = 0.68) for students with IDs and 4.31 (SD = 0.71) for students with ASD. For example, the fears of the student having contact with strangers or being harassed by an adult with a clear sexual intention (grooming) stand out. Issues related to exposure to inappropriate or harmful content are also rated as very high for both students with IDs (M = 4.25, SD = 0.67) and ASD (M = 4.24, SD = 0.69). These include, among others, students being exposed to pornographic, inappropriate, or offensive content, violent content, or accessing drug-related material. While the mean scores in the other categories (behaviour, contract, and cross-cutting) are high, the perception of risk is slightly lower.

Comparison between the groups using the Mann–Whitney U test showed statistically significant differences between pre-service teachers and in-service teachers (p < 0.001) in all risk categories, with a medium effect size, according to Cohen’s [58] classification. This trend was observed for both students with ID and ASD, with the perception of risk being significantly higher for in-service teachers in all cases (Table 3).

On the other hand, the perceptions of the participants did not vary significantly according to whether they were students with IDs or ASD, as assessed by the Wilcoxon signed-rank test (p > 0.05), except in the contract category (z = −3.14, p = 0.002, r = 0.15), where the perception of risk was lower in the case of students with ASD. This difference was also observed in the same way for in-service teachers (z = −2.59, p = 0.009, r = 0.18) and pre-service teachers (z = −1.97, p = 0.048, r = 0.12).

Regarding the intra-group comparison for the study subsamples, the Friedman test showed statistically significant differences between categories, both in the perceptions of in-service teachers [χ² (4, n = 93) = 20.67, p < 0.001] and pre-service teachers [χ² (4, n = 118) = 49.98, p < 0.001] with respect to students with IDs. In the case of in-service teachers, the perception of risk was significantly higher in the contact category compared to the other categories. Pre-service teachers, in contrast, considered the cross-cutting risks to be lower than those related to content, contact, or contract. On the other hand, the contact and content categories involved greater risks than the behaviour and contract categories. For students with ASD, statistically significant differences were also observed in both subsamples. For in-service teachers [χ² (2, n = 93) = 21.65, p < 0.001], the contact category was significantly riskier than the contract and behaviour categories, and the contract category was riskier than the cross-cutting risks. In turn, pre-service teachers [χ² (2, n = 118) = 49.415, p < 0.001] considered content, contact, and cross-cutting risks to be higher than contract and conduct.

4. Discussion

This research set out to explore in the Chilean context the perceptions of pre-service and in-service teachers about the use of the Internet by students with IDs and ASD, in particular seeking to identify their views on the safety, benefits, and risks of the Internet for these students. The results obtained are discussed below.

With regard to safety, the general perception of teachers is that it is a particularly unsafe environment for children with IDs and ASD. This view, previously identified in other contexts [47], could be based on stereotypes since, so far, there is no solid evidence to confirm that the risks are higher for these students, so further scientific development in this area is needed. It is a fact that mediated experience improves safety, that experience increases competence, and that the supportive role provided by the different environments in which the student with IDs or ASD participates is crucial [51,59,60,61], even though they may encounter difficulties in some aspects such as the reliability of the source of the information they access [62]. However, an overprotective attitude that limits the student’s participation should be avoided [63]. Lack of contact of pre-service teachers with students with IDs or ASD, or negative experiences of in-service teachers may lead to differences in perceptions of safety [28,64], so information and training on how to mediate is essential to foster greater teacher confidence [65].

In terms of benefits, it is considered that Internet use may be moderately beneficial for students with IDs or ASD, as has been described in other contexts [46,66], with social contact being highlighted as the most important opportunity, which is consistent with the evidence available so far [23]. However, the differences found between pre-service and in-service teachers show that beliefs, attitudes, perceptions, or competences, among other aspects, may affect teachers’ perceptions of online opportunities for these learners [27]. The danger of minimising the benefits is that it could limit the implementation of digital literacy and inclusion actions [30]. This can undermine the development of digital skills of these learners [43] and unintentionally generate a vicious circle in their development, which is limited due to a lack of confidence in their abilities, leading in turn to less stimulation and development of these skills [67]. More specifically, the higher perceived benefits for civic participation than for learning or social relations could be related to the fact that the civic participation category consists of only three items, while the other two categories have between nine and ten questions, which implies greater variability in the responses to the different items and lowers the mean. This nuance should be taken into account when interpreting this aspect.

Regarding risks, these are perceived as very high by teachers, especially in the categories of content and contact. The existence of differences between pre-service and in-service teachers highlights the possible dissonance between objective risks, training, and/or the perception of professionals. In addition, in-service teachers perceive greater risks than pre-service teachers. This may be due to certain experiences they have had with their students that lead them to have this idea. These teachers should assess whether this view is representative of other students with IDs or ASD. However, this bias has been previously identified in other contexts [47] and appears to show a pattern of focusing more on the risks of the Internet than on the potential benefits [17,23]. Again, teachers’ beliefs need to be taken into consideration as they may limit the implementation of actions that favour the development of digital competences of these students [27], especially those who may need more educational support [29]. Thus, the disconnection between teachers’ perceptions of digital risks and the actual evidence highlights a need to address potential biases and misinformation in teacher training [47]. Misconceptions regarding the capabilities and vulnerabilities of students with IDs or ASD may inadvertently reinforce stigmatising attitudes and lead to exclusionary practices [68,69,70,71], undermining the goals of digital inclusion. These biased perceptions must be situated within the broader context of discrimination, rejection, and bullying that students with disabilities often face, not only from peers but, in some cases, from educators themselves [72]. Previous research has documented instances where teachers’ low expectations or overprotective attitudes hinder the development of autonomy and digital competence in these students [46]. Addressing these issues through comprehensive teacher education programs is critical [73]. Such programs should include evidence-based training on the digital behaviours and potential of students with IDs and ASD, as well as strategies to challenge and reduce biases [74]. This would not only enhance teachers’ effectiveness in fostering digital inclusion but also contribute to creating more equitable and inclusive educational environments.

Certain limitations must be taken into consideration when interpreting the findings of this study. Firstly, the results cannot be extrapolated to the overall population of Chilean teachers, as participants’ responses may not represent the perceptions of other pre-service or in-service teachers outside the regions where this study was conducted. In addition, the cross-sectional nature of the data collection, as well as the sample size, do not allow for causal inferences to be made or for the findings to be generalised to the entire population of people with IDs or ASD. Future research should include a wider geographical area to ensure the representativeness of the sample. Secondly, the term ‘students with IDs or ASD’ encompasses a variety of people with different characteristics and support needs. The purpose of this study was to explore teachers’ perceptions from a general perspective. However, future studies might consider focusing on students with specific types of ID or levels of ASD in order to provide more accurate evidence. Thirdly, participants’ responses may be biased and may not fully reflect their true view of the issue addressed, having provided socially desirable responses. Fourthly, the lack of observed differences between populations with IDs and ASD across some variables may be attributed to the design of the instrument itself, which employed generic questions about Internet use without accounting for the unique characteristics of each population. Future research should prioritise the development of more specialised instruments specifically designed to address the distinctive needs and experiences of individuals with ASD or IDs. Lastly, training and prior experience with students with IDs and ASD may significantly influence teachers’ perceptions of these students’ Internet use. Therefore, future research should carefully consider these factors.

Based on the findings, it is recommended to highlight the importance of schools in the development of digital inclusion for students with IDs or ASD [49]. In order to optimise the work of teachers, initial and ongoing training plans should be established that promote the development of inclusive beliefs and attitudes and include previous positive experiences, perhaps already in the training practices of initial studies [30]. It is also important to focus on learning active mediation and technical mediation strategies that respond appropriately to the growing use of portable Internet access devices [44] from an empowering and positive risk-taking perspective [51,52] and to continue the work initiated in the Chilean context [45].

Future work, in addition to compensating for the aspects already described about the limitations of this study, could design, implement, and evaluate the impact of teacher-training programmes that would enable them to intervene with students and to advise families. In this sense, the availability of training programmes based on scientific evidence is very scarce [75], even more so when we refer to specific contexts such as the Chilean context. Therefore, further research should be conducted along these lines. In addition, the experience of risk and resilience of students with IDs or ASD should continue to be further analysed from their own point of view, incorporating their perspective into specific research [59].

5. Conclusions

Digital inclusion is a right that aims to guarantee equal opportunities in the knowledge society for all individuals, including people with disabilities, with the ultimate goal of exercising full citizenship through active participation in digital environments. The educational context plays a relevant role in this inclusion process. This study reveals an overprotective attitude on the part of Chilean teachers regarding the use of the Internet by students with IDs or ASD. Both pre-service and in-service teachers perceive the Internet as an unsafe environment for people with IDs and ASD, and consider that there are more risks than benefits in their access to the Internet. However, the progressive access of these students to portable devices highlights the importance of addressing their digital literacy and acquisition of digital skills from a positive risk-taking perspective based on active mediation and allowing the benefits of the Internet to be optimised. To this end, it is necessary to implement teacher-training plans that enable them to implement mediation strategies.