Unheard voices: Identifying aspects for an inclusive digital education through the lens of low-income contexts schools

Vol.:(0123456789) Education and Information Technologies https://doi.org/10.1007/s10639-025-13490-z Unheard voices: Identifying aspects foraninclusive digital education throughthelens oflow-income contexts schools JonatanCastaño‑Muñoz1 · CeliaMoreno‑Morilla1· ManuelReina‑Parrado1· IsabelLopez‑Cobo1 Received: 31 July 2024 / Accepted: 6 March 2025 © The Author(s) 2025 Abstract This study explores the perceptions, experiences and challenges of schools located in disadvantaged areas regarding the integration of digital technologies in their functioning. Through eight case studies, in which principals, teachers and students were involved, we identified the main challenges that these schools face every day, which were grouped into three areas: a) breaking the hidden digital divide, b) teacher training for culturally responsive teaching, and c) use of technology as a bridge between home and schools. The results show that, in order to prevent digitalisation from increasing the existing divide among schools of different socioeconomic and cultural levels, it is necessary to design inclusive policies for educational digital transformation that take into account the particularities and voices of these schools. Keywords Digital inequality· Inclusive education· ICT education· Low-income contexts· Qualitative research 1 Introduction Information and Communication Technologies (ICT) have revolutionised education, providing new possibilities for teaching and learning. However, this progress is not exempt from challenges, especially regarding social inclusion. In the mid-1990s, the term digital divide was created to refer to the division between social groups who access and use the Internet and those who do not (NTIA, 1995; Vekiri, 2010). Over time, it became evident that the issue was more complex than mere access. Several factors, including disparities in infrastructures (devices, connection and software), digital competence, support or guidance from * Jonatan Castaño-Muñoz [email protected] 1 Department ofTeaching andEducational Organisation, Calle Pirotecnia S/N (Campus Ramón y Cajal), University ofSeville, CP.41013Seville, Spain Education and Information Technologies the families and/or the community, and the uses that different groups make of technologies, contribute to digital inequality. Socioeconomic status play an important role shaping individual´s relationship with technology from early ages (Passaretta & Gil-Hernández, 2023; Qualter, 2024). Parents from higher socioeconomic backgrounds often employ technology for information seeking rather than leisure (van Deursen & van Dijk, 2014) and actively supervise and guide their children’s online activities fostering educational uses (Livingstone etal., 2015). In contrast, students from lower socioeconomic backgrounds often have limited access to technology at home, use them to a lesser extent for their academic activities (van Dijk, 2012) and show an early gap in digital competence that is similar to that of other subjects, which, in addition, persists throughout time (Passaretta & Gil-Hernández, 2023). In vulnerable contexts with limited resources, these disparities can restrict educational and social opportunities, exacerbating existing social divides (Hohlfeldet al., 2008; Scheerderet etal., 2017; Van Dijk, 2020; OECD, 2022). Moreover, in low-income context, implementing culturally responsive education (Gay, 2010) is an important issue. From cultural difference theory (Howard, 2021), schools have been criticized for the lack of adaptation of their practices to students´ diverse cultural background. This neglect can significantly impact student achievement, as it disregards the unique values, learning and communication preferences that students from different cultural backgrounds bring to the classroom. To address this issue, schools must implement culturally responsive teaching methods (Aceves & Orosco, 2014), what involves incorporating diverse perspectives into the curriculum, utilizing a variety of instructional strategies and creating environment where that values and respects the diverse cultural backgrounds and strengths of all students (Hernandez etal., 2021). ICT integration in teaching and learning can enhance this approach by providing access to diverse resources, facilitating peer-to-peer learning, and enabling personalized learning experiences among others (Greene-Clemons, 2016). Recognising the importance of the aspects mentioned above, educational systems and schools are increasingly required to provide tailored responses to lowSES contexts considering societal digitalization. This has a two-fold aim: a) Reduce digital inequalities by empowering students to use technology confidently, safely and responsibly, thereby preparing them for life and work in increasingly digitalized societies (Carretero etal., 2017; Espinosa-Zárate etal., 2023; Gottschalk & Weise, 2023). b) Transform and improve teaching and learning processes using technologies to meet the specific needs of these contexts (Zielezinski & Darling-Hammond, 2016) and foster culturally responsive teaching. Although the digitalisation of schools has been widely analysed in the literature (Pettersson, 2021; Vanderlinde & van Braak, 2010; Timotheou etal., 2023), there is much to explore about the specificities of this process in disadvantaged contexts. This paper aims to address this gap by investigating the current state of Education and Information Technologies digitalization in low-SES schools within the Spanish educational system. Namely, the specific objectives of the research are: • Identify the main challenges of schools located in socioeconomically disadvantaged areas regarding the integration of digital technologies into their functioning. • Describe the perceptions and experiences of principals, teachers, and students, about the main challenges they face in integrating digital technologies in their schools • Describe potential opportunities and implications of the use of technology in low-income context schools to foster more inclusive learning, as perceived by students, teachers and leaders. The study was carried out in the Spanish context, characterized by policies aimed at improving educational quality, equity, and inclusion through digital transformation (Roig-Vila, 2012). These policies have led to an increased importance of digital strategies (Guo et al., 2022), internet access and digital resources use in the schools (Gómez-Fernández & Mediavilla, 2022). However, advanced applications of technology, such as collaborative learning and innovative assessment, require further development (Castaño-Muñoz etal., 2021). Equity in digitalisation of schools remains a concern, with disparities observed across school types and socioeconomic levels (Castaño-Muñoz etal., 2021), aligning with international findings (Hohlfeld et al., 2008; Reich, 2020). Furthermore, significant disparities in internet access exist between urban and rural areas and among different regions (Gallego-Arrufat etal., 2015; Hernández-Ortega & Álvarez-Herrero, 2021). This study focuses on Andalusia, a region with a high percentage of disadvantaged students, making the analysis of digitalization’s impact on social inclusion particularly relevant (PrietoLatorre etal., 2021). The study aligns with current trends that emphasize inclusive education and challenge "one-size-fits-all" approaches to digitalization (UNESCO, 2009; Asmar etal., 2022). By examining the experiences of students, teachers, and principals in low-SES schools, this study aims to identify strategies for fostering digitalisation of education in a way that promote the inclusion of diverse learners, considering their unique needs, experiences, and backgrounds (Gottschalk & Weise, 2023; Hamburg & Lütgen, 2019; Heemskerk etal., 2005). The findings are expected to contribute to a deeper understanding of the challenges and opportunities of digitalization in these schools, filling a research gap and providing valuable information for the design of public policies and training plans about the use of technology that specifically consider the needs of these schools. 1.1 Related literature To contextualize our research, this section presents a review of the existing literature on the integration of digital technologies in low-income context schools. Education and Information Technologies A first research line has focused on the factors for successful technology implementation in lowincome contexts schools. Zielezinski & Darling-Hammond (2016) synthesized these factors in two areas: ’technological domain’ and ’learning context’ The technological domain encompasses infrastructure, access, and resources. Disadvantaged schools often face limitations in this area, including inadequate budgets for acquiring advanced and updated technologies and software in the school (Gómez-Fernández & Mediavilla, 2022; Kim etal., 2021). This lack of access, particularly to one-to-one devices that have the potential of bridging the digital divide existing at home, reduces students’ learning opportunities (Zielezinski & Darling-Hammond, 2016). Moreover, a lack of technical support often hinders their maintenance, requiring technical training for the staff of the school responsible for this (Adipat etal., 2023). With regard to learning context, the literature remarks the importance of curricular and methodological adaptations to effectively integrate technology in these contexts. This implies not only including technological devices in the classroom, but also redesigning learning experiences to utilize these tools innovatively and contextually (Tondeur etal., 2008). According to literature, effective technology integration in low-income context schools should prioritize higher-order thinking skills and 21st-century competencies over memorization (e.g., through simulations and online games), promote self-directed learning (e.g., student-led project creation, content discovery, creation of content, choosing tasks, demonstrating prior knowledge, deciding how to use technology) over direct instruction, and promote self-confidence and a positive attitude towards learning, thereby enhancing engagement and motivation. While these elements are important for effective teaching and learning in these contexts, they do not guarantee a key element in these contexts: cultural responsiveness (Gay, 2010). Cultural responsiveness requires an understanding of students’ cultural backgrounds and experiences, and technology to leverage these factors within the learning process. Therefore, a second line of research explores the relationship between technology and culturally responsive teaching. While technology can potentially homogenize learning, it also provides the means for differentiated and personalized learning experiences (Bhutoria, 2022; Chen etal., 2021). Some related practices include: the use of technology to connect learning and students’ lived experiences (e.g., through videos showcasing diverse cultural perspectives, or connecting students with individuals from diverse backgrounds via video conferencing); fostering self-directed learning by providing students with agency in selecting and utilizing technology tools for their own learning; creating inclusive digital learning resources that reflect the diverse cultural backgrounds of the students, such as incorporating multilingual resources, using culturally relevant examples in learning activities, and providing opportunities for students to share their own cultural perspectives through digital storytelling and multimedia projects (Shadiev & Dang, 2022). This aligns with research emphasizing the need for culturally responsive computing, which considers how to integrate cultural aspects into computer education to engage minority students while also exploring how technology can contribute to community advancement (Scott etal., 2015). Education and Information Technologies However, research indicates that teachers often lack the pedagogical knowledge to effectively integrate technology in a culturally responsive manner, frequently feeling not confident (European Commission, 2019) and relying on traditional applications like online searches and presentations (Baako & Abroampa, 2023; GreeneClemons, 2016). This suggests a need to enhance teacher education programs, focusing on the development of their technological literacy within the framework of culturally responsive practices. Furthermore, the potential of Artificial Intelligence has also been recognised for this task and as a way to reduce technological expertise required (Bhutoria, 2022). Finally, a third research strand focuses on the quantitative measurement of the impact of educational technology interventions on the academic achievement of low-SES students. Results show that the simple provision of technology to schools does not show a significant effect (Bando et al., 2017; Malamud et al., 2011). However, there are two main promising approaches: Computer-Assisted Learning (CAL) interventions and technology-mediated behavioural interventions (Di Pietro & Castaño Muñoz, 2025). The first approach utilizes technology to supplement traditional classroom instruction and directly addresses cognitive skills and curricular content deficits. CAL encompasses a diverse range of tools, including educational software, intelligent tutoring systems, and even immersive technologies like virtual reality. By providing interactive and engaging learning experiences, CAL interventions can enhance learning opportunities for all students, offering personalized learning experiences, equitable access to high-quality educational resources, and fostering independent learning skills (Banerjee etal., 2007; Lai etal., 2015; Rouse & Krueger, 2004). Conversely, technology-mediated behavioural interventions concentrate on addressing non-cognitive skills such as beliefs, motivation and self-regulation. These interventions often leverage technology to enhance parental engagement, such as through text message reminders for activities or online platforms for parent-teacher communication (Kraft & Monti-Nussbaum, 2017; Berlisnki etal., 2022). These approaches are particularly effective in environments with low cultural capital and poor educational aspirations, confirming the key role of family and community support in fostering academic success for disadvantaged students. Furthermore, the combination of the two approaches, focusing on cognitive and non-cognitive factors, can be an effective strategy for reducing educational inequalities using technologies (Di Pietro & Castaño Muñoz, 2025). 2 Methodology In order to respond to the research objectives, this study takes a qualitative approach based on multiple nested cases, specifically a Type 4 design in the terminology of Yin (2014). This design involves analysing multiple cases with embedded units of analysis. By allowing for both broad and deep analysis, this approach facilitates comparative studies and a comprehensive understanding of the subject matter. This multiple nested study analysed several cases represented by the participating schools and examined different subunits related to the mentioned cases (e.g., official documents of the school, perception of the principals, teachers and students, etc.), with Education and Information Technologies the aim of guaranteeing the triangulation of the gathered information. This investigation delves into the perceptions and descriptions of the participants; thus, we consider that the narrative perspective is the most adequate to provide information about their experience as principals, teachers and students regarding digitalisation in a complex and contextualised manner (Benson etal., 2010). 2.1 Participants/cases The sample consisted of eight Early Childhood and Primary Education schools of the Autonomous Community of Andalusia (Spain), which were recruited based on the following inclusion criteria: 1) Being located in a Low-Income Context or categorised as a school with special needs due to the socioeconomic conditions of the students (according to the classification of the Government of Andalusia). 2) Geographic diversity, with one school per Andalusian province. 3) Availability and commitment of the management team, teachers and students in participating. The participating schools are located in urban spaces with a combination of serious structural situations of poverty and social marginalisation. The citizens of these areas (a) live in deteriorated homes with deficient infrastructure, equipment and public services, (b) present high levels of school absenteeism and failure, (c) show high unemployment rates along with serious formative and professional deficits, (d) have hygiene-sanitary deficiencies and/or (e) are subjected to social disintegration phenomena (Junta de Andalucía, n.d). In each school, we had the collaboration of the principal, the teachers of Primary Education, and the students of sixth grade, with a total of 8 principals, 30 teachers and 32 students. Annex 1 shows the most relevant attributes of the principals, teachers and students that participated in this study. Participation was voluntary and followed the rules of the informed consent, which limits the use of information to research purposes and guarantees the anonymity and confidentiality of the data. This study followed the internal regulation in Social Sciences of the Research Ethics Committee of the University of Seville. 2.2 Information gathering procedure The techniques used included semistructured interviews, discussion groups and procedures based on participatory and visual methods. In each of the eight participating schools, firstly, a semistructured interview was carried out with the principal, and then a discussion group was conducted with the teachers, with a number of participants that ranged between four and seven per school. The thematic areas addressed were similar and mostly based on the areas covered by the SELFIE tool of the European Commission (Costa etal.,2020): opinion about the use of ICT in lowincome contexts, leadership and strategies for digitalisation, collaboration networks, infrastructure and equipment, professional development, incorporation of ICT in the Education and Information Technologies pedagogical practice, evaluation and digital competence of teachers and students. Moreover, the principals and teachers were asked to identify and describe the main challenges that their schools face in the realisation of digital transformation, as well as good digitalisation practices that are implemented in their schools. In the case of the teachers, after performing the discussion group, they were requested to prioritise the challenges for the digital transformation of their schools in the short, medium and long term (a “ladder of priorities” was developed in visual format). Secondly, the discussion groups were carried out with the students. From four to six students from each school participated. It is worth highlighting that the selection was performed by the teachers attending to criteria such as availability, nationality, ethnicity and involvement. In this case, we addressed aspects related to their uses and perceptions about technology both inside and outside of the school. After the discussion group, the students created a poster that simulated a traffic light, with aspects that they considered unacceptable (red), improvable (orange) or excellent (green) about the use of technologies in education. Each student had red, orange and green stickers in which they wrote down their judgements (one idea in each sticker). As they placed them in the poster, they read them aloud, with the aim of inspiring the rest of their classmates, as well as generating a debate among them. In the context of the study, we called this procedure traffic light of digitalisation. Complementarily, official documents of each school were also gathered (e.g., Educational Project of the School, Digitalisation Plan, Classroom Schedules, etc.) and representative pictures were taken. The data were collected in February-June 2023 and stored in secure servers of the University of Seville. 2.3 Data analysis The aim of the analysis was not to simply present the individual opinions and perceptions of the participants, but also to offer a synthesis of the main challenges attending to the coincidence between “type of informant” (principal, teacher or student) and “frequency” of appearance. The identification and description of the challenges for digital transformation were conducted from the information contained in the ladder of priorities (synthesis of the aspects perceived as most relevant by the teachers) and the traffic light of digitalisation (synthesis of the aspects perceived as most relevant by the students), as well as that contained in the interviews and discussion groups. The information of the ladder of priorities and the traffic light of digitalisation was recorded visually, and we also recorded the debate that emerged in the construction session of each of these elements. The information of the interviews and discussion groups was recorded in audio and subsequently transcribed to favour a rigorous thematic analysis of the content. To guarantee the robustness of the thematic analysis, several steps were taking. First, two exploratory interviews (one with a school leader and one with an expert) were carried out to guarantee validity and methodological adequacy of the focus group, interviews and participative methods and the topics/questions covered in them. Secondly, to guarantee inter-rate reliability, the themes were independently Education and Information Technologies identified by two researchers, who then triangulated their data to consolidate a coherent category system. The initial observed agreement between coders was 84%, which translates to a Cohen’s kappa of 0.68, considered substantial agreement. When disagreements arose, three researchers (to avoid ties) convened to discuss the coding and reach consensus. Subsequently, the content was coded in detail. The emerging categories were refined through an iterative process, ensuring they accurately reflected the perceptions and experiences of the participants. This system of categories provided a structured framework for analysis, facilitating the interpretation and synthesis of the gathered data. Finally, it is important to note that any of the involved researchers had a link or previous relationship with the analysed schools what can contribute to minimise possible biases. 3 Results The analysis produced challenges related to the following factors: 1. Breaking the hidden digital divide. 2. Teacher training for culturally responsive teaching. 3. Technology as a bridge between home and school. Next, we describe each of these challenges in detail. 3.1 Breaking thehidden digital divide The digital divide and the lack of adequate infrastructure can lead to exclusion and amplify educational inequalities. Therefore, it emerges as a persistent issue, albeit not a new one, in these centres. Below are the findings for the three most relevant categories related to this dimension: Insufficient access to devices According to the information provided, most students lack adequate devices (computers, tablets) at home. Many depend on mobile phones shared with their parents, as noted by a student from Almería: “My father has a mobile phone, but he is never at home… when he comes back, he doesn’t want to lend it to me. I want to do my homework, but I can’t” (ST12). This situation makes access to technology at school even more important, as it is often the only place where they can regularly use and learn how to operate such devices. However, although schools, especially those officially recognised as "educational compensation schools," receive basic resources, these are not always considered adequate by students and teachers due to their rapid obsolescence. Additionally, school infrastructure often includes physical spaces that make it difficult to set up computer labs, coupled with a shortage of appropriate desks and chairs. This situation neglects physical health considerations when using computers and results in an overreliance on small-screen devices such as laptops and tablets, complicating prolonged work Education and Information Technologies on such devices. As a student from Huelva remarked: “My head and neck hurt from constantly looking down” (ST25). Lack of connectivity School principals, teachers, and students agree that internet infrastructure in these types of schools tends to be deficient. Frequent power outages and unstable Wi-Fi networks unable to support simultaneous device usage are common issues. As a teacher from Seville observed: “If it rains, the electricity goes out; if there is a bit of wind, the same happens, and ’copper’ is highly sought-after in these areas” (T4). These technical difficulties force reliance on analogue methods, limiting students’ development of digital skills. A teacher from Cádiz expressed frustration: “We can’t afford to waste so much time. On the day I plan to use the computers, I know it will be complete chaos. We just can’t work like this” (T25). Outside of school, the situation is no better. Most students lack internet access at home and rely on insecure public Wi-Fi hotspots. This situation adds stress for students trying to meet teachers’ deadlines, as one student from Seville explained: “I don’t like being given short deadlines because our parents sometimes don’t let us use the phone, or we don’t have Wi-Fi; in the end, we get scolded at school, but we couldn’t do the homework—it’s not that we didn’t want to” (ST9). Inadequate equipment maintenance Both teachers and students express dissatisfaction with the maintenance of technological infrastructure in their schools. Teachers point out the inconsistency of having funds to purchase equipment but not to keep it updated. Devices deteriorate quickly, limiting their functionality, and maintenance depends on the goodwill and knowledge of teachers. Consequently, many teachers avoid using technology in their teaching, causing frustration for both them and their students. A teacher from Cádiz described the situation: “The devices stop working, and we can’t repair them. So, we end up using the blackboard and paper instead of teaching students how to use digital tools” (T25). Another teacher from Málaga suggested that digital literacy, despite being part of the official curriculum, is practically reserved for "other contexts" (T23) with more resources. Similarly, a student from Seville complained: “I get really bored here, always writing. We don’t learn cool stuff. I liked it when we had a robotics teacher on Fridays” (ST8). Beyond hardware problems, teachers also criticise the Guadalinex Edu operating system (a Linux-based system used in all Andalusian schools, following regional government instructions), describing it as unsafe, inefficient, and outdated. Restrictions on web browsers and the inability to install updated software imposed by this system significantly limit pedagogical possibilities, hindering students’ development of digital skills and schools’ ability to adapt to educational needs. Despite these challenges, both school leaders and teachers acknowledge the potential of technology to transform education in these settings, given the increased motivation its use can generate and its utility in adapting the teaching–learning process. In this context, the creation of “future classrooms”—spaces equipped with modular furniture, advanced hardware and software, and maker Education and Information Technologies vulnerability and knowledge about culturally responsive teaching. Finally, the study identified a need for training in innovative pedagogical methods, as detailed in the next point. Innovative pedagogical methods Students express a clear preference for practical, hands-on learning experiences, often expressing dissatisfaction with traditional, unidirectional uses of technology. To enhance student motivation, the use of technology-supported active learning methods, such as project-based learning, gamification, and service-learning, should be encouraged. Furthermore, curricula should integrate resources and activities that reflect student´s cultural context and preferences to guarantee a meaningful learning. This could include, incorporating successful models from non-formal education that prioritize hands-on training, like fablabs and makerspaces, and utilizing technologies that foster immersive and culturally relevant learning experiences using virtual and augmented reality tools (Adipat etal., 2023; Durff & Carter, 2019; Makransky & Petersen, 2021; Molloy & Farrell, 2024; Parmigiani etal., 2021; Zielezinski & Darling-Hammond, 2016). Assistance on creating culturally responsive and engaging didactic materials (Durff & Carter, 2019; Parmigiani etal., 2021) is also important. Recent developments of AI can be used as a pedagogical assistant, facilitating teachers design more contextualised and culturally responsive resources and lesson plans. Moreover, pedagogies should leverage students’ personal literacy practices. Activities such as creating documentaries based on interviews with community members or creating short documentaries about the neighbourhood not only foster creativity and research skills but also enable students to develop digital skills. Finally, when access to technology is limited, pedagogical approaches that foster cultivate computational thinking through unplugged activities or utilizing basic mobile phones and shared resources can be effective options in lowincome schools. School-family-community partnership Given the frequent occurrence of technology-related risk detected in the study, and recognizing the key role of families in guiding children’s technology use, low-income areas schools should implement digital literacy programs for families to enhance their ability to support students in using technology safely and responsibly. Behavioural interventions aimed at increasing parental involvement in digital practices of children or the use of AI apps/chatbots implemented in the more widely use communication platforms (WhatsApp in the case of Andalusia) and aimed to response doubts about digitalisation and how support children can be effective practices. Furthermore, it is important promote spaces for gathering and dialogue, such as learning communities, where families and students can engage in formative workshops to work on the critical, responsible, and safe use of technologies (Medina etal., 2022; Osorio-Saez etal., 2021; Qualter, 2024). Additionally, clear protocols should be established for the use of digital devices and platforms, including the establishment of simple and clear rules for the good use of technology inside and outside of the school (Hohlfeld etal., Education and Information Technologies 2017), to prevent risks such as cyberbullying and inappropriate internet use. The study also highlights the need for comprehensive training in digital safety for minors, a recommendation consistently emphasized by teachers throughout the research process. In addition to these strategies, the results of the study show the importance of schools promoting the use of technologies to bridge cultural divides and enhance communication with families (Goodall, 2016). Technologies can facilitate the creation of networks that connect students with peers from diverse socio-cultural backgrounds and with similar interests, enabling them to explore new environments, experience other cultural realities, and break information bubbles of their communities, empowering students to challenge their detected views about some practices such as early marriage or engaging in illegal activities. Moreover, AI large language models can be useful tools to "translate" school communications from formal language to a more accessible register commonly used by families. Finally, the findings highlight the importance of forging partnerships with local organizations, NGOs, and technology companies to provide digital resources, training, and extracurricular activities, including services such as counselling and support groups, to promote a healthy and balanced use of technology. These partnerships can have a significant impact on student education and community well-being, contributing to a reduction of digital inequalities (Di Maggio etal., 2004). 6 Limitations Although our study offers valuable information to reflect on the digitalisation of inclusive education in schools located in low-income contexts, it also presents some limitations. Firstly, despite comprising different types of low-income contexts, this work was focused on a specific region, which could affect its generalisation to other contexts and countries. The replication of this study in other contexts would allow triangulating and comparing results in other environments. Secondly, it is worth mentioning that the responses of the participants, especially regarding digital/teaching practices, could be subject to social-desirability bias. However, the triangulation of perspectives of different agents and the variety of data-gathering methods minimises this risk. Lastly, this study indicates and prioritises topics for the digitalisation of schools in these contexts, although it does not delve into specific aspects such as the role of emerging technologies to respond to these topics or how the implementation of different innovative socio-community strategies may promote the inclusion of families and the environment in the digital transformation of education. Addressing these limitations in future studies may complement the results presented in this study and help to specify effective actions for a more inclusive digitalisation. Education and Information Technologies Supplementary Information The online version contains supplementary material available at https:// doi. org/ 10. 1007/ s1063902513490-z. Acknowledgements This work was partly funded by the research project “The digitisation of Andalusian schools with greater presence of students with low socioeconomic level” (project 2022/00000398 of the 6th Research Plan of the University of Seville). Jonatan Castaño Muñoz acknowledges the support of the ‘Ramón y Cajal’ grant RYC2020-030157 funded by MCIN/AEI/https:// doi. org/ 10. 13039/ 50110 00110 33 and by “ESF Investing in your future”. Funding Funding for open access publishing: Universidad de Sevilla/CBUA. Data availability An anonymized version of the data used and analysed during the current study (transcriptions, images etc.) is available from the corresponding author on reasonable request. Declarations Conflict of interest None. Open Access This article is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution 4.0 International License, which permits use, sharing, adaptation, distribution and reproduction in any medium or format, as long as you give appropriate credit to the original author(s) and the source, provide a link to the Creative Commons licence, and indicate if changes were made. The images or other third party material in this article are included in the article’s Creative Commons licence, unless indicated otherwise in a credit line to the material. If material is not included in the article’s Creative Commons licence and your intended use is not permitted by statutory regulation or exceeds the permitted use, you will need to obtain permission directly from the copyright holder. To view a copy of this licence, visit http://creativecommons.org/ licenses/by/4.0/. References Abuhammad, S. (2020). Barriers to distance learning during the COVID-19 outbreak: A qualitative review from parents’ perspective. Heliyon, 6(11), e05482. https:// doi. org/ 10. 1016/j. heliy on. 2020. e05482 Aceves, T. C., & Orosco, M. J. (2014). Culturally responsive teaching. University of Florida. Adipat, S., Chotikapanich, R., Laksana, K., Busayanon, K., Piatanom, P., Ausawasowan, A., & Elbasouni, I. (2023). Technological pedagogical content knowledge for professional teacher development. Academic Journal of Interdisciplinary Studies, 12(1), 173–182. https:// doi. org/ 10. 36941/ ajis20230015 Asmar, A., Mariën, I., & Van Audenhove, L. (2022). No one-size-fits-all! Eight profiles of digital inequalities for customized inclusion strategies. New Media & Society, 24(2), 279–310. https:// doi. org/ 10. 1177/ 14614 44821 10631 82 Baako, I., & Abroampa, W. K. (2023). Research trends on ICT integration in education: A bibliometric analysis. Cogent Education, 10(2). https:// doi. org/ 10. 1080/ 23311 86X. 2023. 22811 62 Bando, R., Gallego, F., Gertler, P., & Romero Fonseca, D. (2017). Books or laptops? The effect of shifting from printed to digital delivery of educational content on learning. Economics of Education Review, 61, 162–173. https:// doi. org/ 10. 1016/j. econe durev. 2017. 07. 005 Banerjee, A. V., Cole, S., Duflo, E., & Linden, L. (2007). Remedying education: Evidence from two randomized experiments in India. The Quarterly Journal of Economics, 122(3), 1235–1264. https:// doi. org/ 10. 1162/ qjec. 122.3. 1235 Benson, R., Hewitt, L., Heagney, M., Devos, A., & Crosling, G. (2010). Diverse pathways into higher education: Using students’ stories to identify transformative experiences. Australian Journal of Adult Learning, 50(1), 26–53. Berlinski, S., Busso, M., Dinkelman, T., & Martínez, C. (2022). Reducing parent-school information gaps and improving education outcomes: Evidence from high-frequency text messages. Journal of Human Resources. https:// doi. org/ 10. 3368/ jhr. 112111992 R2 Education and Information Technologies Bhutoria, A. (2022). Personalized education and artificial intelligence in the United States, China, and India: A systematic review using a human-in-the-loop model. Computers and Education: Artificial Intelligence, 3, 100068. Büchi, M. (2021). Digital well-being theory and research. New Media and Society. https:// doi. org/ 10. 1177/ 14614 44821 10568 51 Burr, C., Taddeo, M., & Floridi, L. (2020). The ethics of digital well-being: A thematic review. Science and Engineering Ethics, 26(1), 2313–2343. https:// doi. org/ 10. 1007/ s1194802000175-8 Carretero, S., Vuorikari, R., & Punie, Y. (2017). DigComp 2.1: The digital competence framework for citizens with eight proficiency levels and examples of use. European Commission. https:// doi. org/ 10. 2760/ 38842 Castaño-Muñoz, J., Weikert Garcia, L., & Herrero Rámila, C. (2021). Analysing the digital capacity of Spanish schools using SELFIE. Publications Office of the European Union. https:// doi. org/ 10. 2760/ 947402 Chen, X., Zou, D., Xie, H., & Cheng, G. (2021). Twenty years of personalized language learning. Educational Technology & Society, 24(1), 205–222. Costa, P., Castaño Muñoz, J., & y Kampylis, P. (2020). Capturing schools’ digital capacity: Psychometric analyses of the SELFIE self-reflection tool. Computers & Education, 162, 1–15. https:// doi. org/ 10. 1016/j. compe du. 2020. 104080 Darling-Hammond, L. (2020). Accountability in teacher education. Action in Teacher Education, 42(1), 1–12. https:// doi. org/ 10. 1080/ 01626 620. 2019. 17044 64 Di Pietro, G., & Castaño Muñoz, J. (2025). A meta-analysis on the effect of technology on the achievement of less advantaged students. Computers & Education, 226, 105197. https:// doi. org/ 10. 1016/j. compe du. 2024. 105197 DiMaggio, P., Hargittai, E., Celeste, C., & Shafer, S. (2004). From unequal access to differentiated use: A literature review and agenda for research on digital inequality. Social Inequality, 1, 355–400. Durff, L., & Carter, M. (2019). Overcoming second-order barriers to technology integration in K–5 schools. Journal of Educational Research and Practice, 9(1), 246–260. https:// doi. org/ 10. 5590/ JERAP. 2019. 09.1. 18 ElSayary, A. (2023). The impact of a professional upskilling training programme on developing teachers’ digital competence. Journal of Computer Assisted Learning, 39(4), 1154–1166. https:// doi. org/ 10. 1111/ jcal. 12788 Espinosa-Zárate, Z., Camilli-Trujillo, C., & Plaza-de-la-Hoz, J. (2023). Digitalization in vulnerable populations: A systematic review in Latin America. Social Indicators Research: An International and Interdisciplinary Journal for Quality-of-Life Measurement, 170(3), 1183–1207. https:// doi. org/ 10. 1007/ s1120502303239-x European Commission. (2019). 2nd survey of schools: ICT in education.https:// ec. europa. eu/ newsr oom/ dae/ docum ent. cfm? doc_ id= 57894 Francom, G. M. (2020). Barriers to technology integration: A time-series survey study. Journal of Research on Technology in Education, 52(1), 1–16. https:// doi. org/ 10. 1080/ 15391 523. 2019. 16790 55 Gallego-Arrufat, M. J., Gutiérrez-Santiuste, E., & Campaña-Jiménez, R. L. (2015). Online distributed leadership: A content analysis of interaction and teacher reflections on computer-supported learning. Technology, Pedagogy and Education, 24(1), 81–99. https:// doi. org/ 10. 1080/ 14759 39X. 2013. 814585 Gay, G. (2010). Culturally responsive teaching: Theory, research, and practice (2nd ed.). Teachers College Press. Gómez-Fernández, N., & Mediavilla, M. (2022). Factors influencing teachers’ use of ICT in class: Evidence from a multilevel logistic model. Mathematics, 10(5), 799. https:// doi. org/ 10. 3390/ math1 00507 99 González-Betancor, S. M., López-Puig, A. J., & Cardenal, M. E. (2021). Digital inequality at home. The school as compensatory agent. Computers and Education, 168, 104195. https:// doi. org/ 10. 1016/j. compe du. 2021. 104195 Goodall, J. S. (2016). Technology and school–home communication. International Journal of Pedagogies and Learning, 11(2), 118–131. https:// doi. org/ 10. 1080/ 22040 552. 2016. 12272 52 Gottschalk, F., & Weise, C. (2023). Digital equity and inclusion in education: An overview of practice and policy in OECD countries. https:// www. oecdilibr ary. org/ docse rver/ 7cb15 030en. pdf? expir es= 17137 99769 & id= id& accna me= guest & check sum= 8C317 7F45E 58E98 E3103 92909 8BD5A 96. Accessed 17 Mar 2025. Education and Information Technologies Greene-Clemons, C. D. (2016). Perceptions of technology engagement on culturally responsive pre-service teachers. Journal for Multicultural Education, 10(3), 339–353. Gudmundsdottir, G. B., & Hatlevik, O. E. (2018). Newly qualified teachers’ professional digital competence: Implications for teacher education. European Journal of Teacher Education, 41(2), 214–231. https:// doi. org/ 10. 1080/ 02619 768. 2017. 14160 85 Guo, D., Suo, J., Hu, Q., & Duan, C. (2022) The impact of technology in educational resources: A survey and new perspectives. 2022 International Conference on Culture-Oriented Science and Technology (CoST), Lanzhou, China (pp. 114–118). https:// doi. org/ 10. 1109/ CoST5 7098. 2022. 00033 Gupta, P., & Verma, A. (2024). Bridging the digital divide: Navigating the landscape of digital equity. In B. Verma, B. Singla, & A. Mittal (Eds.), Digital technologies, ethics, and decentralization in the digital era (pp. 167–179). IGI Global. https:// doi. org/ 10. 4018/ 979-836931762-4. ch009 Hamburg, I., & Lütgen, G. (2019). Digital divide, digital inclusion and inclusive education. Advances in Social Sciences Research Journal, 6(4), 193–206. https:// doi. org/ 10. 14738/ assrj. 64. 6457 Hébert, C., Jenson, J., & Terzopoulos, T. (2021). Access to technology is the major challenge: Teacher perspectives on barriers to DGBL in K-12 classrooms. E-Learning and Digital Media, 18(3), 307– 324. https:// doi. org/ 10. 1177/ 20427 53021 995315 Heemskerk, I., etal. (2005). Inclusiveness and ICT in education: A focus on gender, ethnicity and social class. Journal of Computer Assisted Learning, 21(1), 1–16. Heers, M., Van Klaveren, C., Groot, W., & Maassen van den Brink, H. (2016). Community schools: What we know and what we need to know. Review of Educational Research, 86(4), 1016–1051. https:// doi. org/ 10. 3102/ 00346 54315 627365 Helsper, E. J., van Deursen, A. J. A. M., & Eynon, R. (2015). Tangible outcomes of internet use. From digital skills to tangible outcomes project report.https:// doi. org/ 10. 13140/ RG.2. 1. 1117. 6722. Accessed 17 Mar 2025. Hernandez, I. A., Silverman, D. M., & Destin, M. (2021). From deficit to benefit: Highlighting lower-SES students’ background-specific strengths reinforces their academic persistence. Journal of Experimental Social Psychology, 92, 104080. Hernández-Ortega, J., & Álvarez-Herrero, J. F. (2021). Gestión educativa del confinamiento por COVID19: Percepción del docente en España. Revista Española De Educación Comparada, 38, 129–150. https:// doi. org/ 10. 5944/ reec. 38. 2021. 29017 Hohlfeld, T. N., Ritzhaupt, A. D., Barron, A. E., & Kemker, K. (2008). Examining the digital divide in K-12 public schools: Four-year trends for supporting ICT literacy in Florida. Computers & Education, 51(4), 1648–1663. https:// doi. org/ 10. 1016/j. compe du. 2008. 04. 002 Hohlfeld, T. N., Ritzhaupt, A. D., & Dawson, K. (2017). An examination of seven years of technology integration in Florida schools: Through the lens of the levels of digital divide in schools. Computers & Education, 113, 135–161. https:// doi. org/ 10. 1016/j. compe du. 2017. 05. 017 Howard, T. C. (2021). Culturally responsive pedagogy. In J. A. Banks (Ed.), Transforming multicultural education policy and practice: Expanding educational opportunity (pp. 137–163). Teachers College Press. Huntington, B., Goulding, J., & Pitchford, N. J. (2023). Expert perspectives on how educational technology may support autonomous learning for remote out-of-school children in low-income contexts. International Journal of Educational Research Open, 5, 100263. https:// doi. org/ 10. 1016/j. ijedro. 2023. 100263 Junta de Andalucía-Consejería de Inclusión Social, Juventud, Familias e Igualdad (n.d.). Zonas con Necesidades de Transformación Social (ZNTS). Junta de Andalucía. https:// www. junta deand alucia. es/ organ ismos/ inclu sions ocial juven tudfa milia seigu aldad/ areas/ inclu sion/ zonastrans forma cion/ pagin as/ intro ducci onzonastrans forma cion. html. Accessed 17 Mar 2025. Kim, H. J., Yi, P., & Hong, J. I. (2021). Are schools digitally inclusive for all? Profiles of school digital inclusion using PISA 2018. Computers and Education, 170. https:// doi. org/ 10. 1016/j. compe du. 2021. 104226 Kraft, M. A., & Monti-Nussbaum, M. (2017). Can schools enable parents to prevent summer learning loss? A text-messaging field experiment to promote literacy skills. The ANNALS of the American Academy of Political and Social Science, 674(1), 85–112. https:// doi. org/ 10. 1177/ 00027 16217 73200 Lai, F., Luo, R., Zhang, L., Huang, X., & Rozelle, S. (2015). Does computer-assisted learning improve learning outcomes? Evidence from a randomized experiment in migrant schools in Beijing. Economics of Education Review, 47, 34–48. https:// doi. org/ 10. 1016/j. econe durev. 2015. 03. 005 Education and Information Technologies Livingstone, S., Mascheroni, G., Dreier, M., Chaudron, S., & Lagae, K. (2015). How Parents of Young Children Manage Digital Devices at Home: The Role of Income. EU Kids Online, LSE: Education and Parental Style. https:// eprin ts. lse. ac. uk/ 63378/ 1/__ lse. ac. uk_ stora ge_ LIBRA RY_ Secon dary_ libfi le_ shared_ repos itory_ Conte nt_ EU% 20Kids% 20Onl ine_ EU_ Kids_ Online_ How% 20par ents% 20man age% 20 Makransky, G., & Petersen, G. B. (2021). The cognitive affective model of immersivelearning (CAMIL): A theoretical research-based model of learning in immersive virtu-al reality. Educational Psychology Review, 33(3), 937–958. https:// doi. org/ 10. 1007/ s1064802009586-2 Malamud, O., & Pop-Eleches, C. (2011). Home computer use and the development of human capital. The Quarterly Journal of Economics, 126(2), 987–1027. Medina, A., Mahjoub, Y., Shaver, L., & Pringsheim, T. (2022). Prevalence and incidence of Huntington’s disease: An updated systematic review and meta-analysis. Movement Disorders. https:// doi. org/ 10. 1002/ mds. 29228 Mintz, J., Connolly, C., O’Brien, E., Daniela, L., & Ceallaigh, T. Ó. (2024). Inclusive digital education: Contexts, practices and perspectives. Computers in the Schools, 41(2), 115–119. https:// doi. org/ 10. 1080/ 07380 569. 2024. 23408 73 Molloy, C., & Farrell, R. (2024). Cultivating positive classroom environments: Exploring the efficacy of immersive technologies in removing barriers to learning among primary school students. Computers in the Schools, 41(2), 164–192. https:// doi. org/ 10. 1080/ 07380 569. 2024. 23254 41 National Telecommunications & Information Administration (NTIA). (1995). Falling through the net: a survey of the “have nots” in rural and urban America. https:// www. ntia. gov/ page/ falli ngthrou ghnetsurveyhavenotsruralandurbanameri ca. Accessed 17 Mar 2025. OECD. (2022). Trends shaping education 2022. OECD. https:// doi. org/ 10. 1787/ 22187 049 Ofosu-Asare, Y. (2024). Developing classroom ICT teaching techniques, principles and practice for teachers in rural Ghana without access to computers or internet: A framework based on literature review. International Journal of Information and Learning Technology, 41(3), 262–279. https:// doi. org/ 10. 1108/ IJILT0420230045 Osorio-Saez, E. M., Eryilmaz, N., & Sandoval-Hernandez, A. (2021). Parents’ acceptance of educational technology: Lessons from around the world. Frontiers in Psychology, 12, 719430. https:// doi. org/ 10. 3389/ fpsyg. 2021. 719430 Parmigiani, D., Benigno, V., Giusto, M., Silvaggio, C., & Sperandio, S. (2021). E-inclusion: Online special education in Italy during the Covid-19 pandemic. Technology, Pedagogy and Education, 30(1), 111–124. https:// doi. org/ 10. 1080/ 14759 39X. 2020. 18567 14 Passaretta, G., & Gil-Hernández, C. J. (2023). The early roots of the digital divide: Socioeconomic inequality in childrens ICT literacy from primary to secondary schooling. In Research handbook on digital sociology (pp. 307–327). Edward Elgar Publishing. https:// doi. org/ 10. 4337/ 97817 89906 769. 00026 Pettersson, F. (2021). Understanding digitalization and educational change in school by means of activity theory and the levels of learning concept. Educ Information Technologies, 26, 187–204. https:// doi. org/ 10. 1007/ s1063902010239-8 Prieto-Latorre, C., Marcenaro-Gutierrez, O. D., & Vignoles, A. (2021). School segregation in public and semiprivate primary schools in Andalusia. British Journal of Educational Studies, 69(2), 175–196. https:// doi. org/ 10. 1080/ 00071 005. 2020. 17950 78 Qualter, D. (2024). From digital exclusion to digital inclusion: Shaping the role of parental involvement in home-based digital learning – a narrative literature review. Computers in the Schools, 41(2), 120– 144. https:// doi. org/ 10. 1080/ 07380 569. 2024. 23221 67 Ragnedda, M. (2018). Conceptualizing digital capital. Telematics and Informatics, 35(8), 2366–2375. https:// doi. org/ 10. 1016/j. tele. 2018. 10. 006 Reich, J. (2020). Failure to disrupt, why technology alone can’t transform education. Harvard University Press. https:// doi. org/ 10. 2307/j. ctv32 2v4cp Roig-Vila, R. (2012). Spanish policies on information and communication technologies in education. REM - Researches on Education and Media, 4(2), 205–218. Rouse, C. E., & Krueger, A. B. (2004). Putting computerized instruction to the test: A randomized evaluation of a “scientifically based” reading program. Economics of Education Review, 23(4), 323–338. Scheerder, A., Van Deursen, A., & Van Dijk, J. A. G. M. (2017). Determinants of Internetskills, uses and outcomes. A systematic review of the second-and third-level digital divide. Telematics and Informatics, 34(8), 1607–1624. https:// doi. org/ 10. 1016/j. tele. 2017. 07. 007 Education and Information Technologies Scott, K. A., Sheridan, K. M., & Clark, K. (2015). Culturally responsive computing: A theory revisited. Learning, Media and Technology, 40(4), 412–436. Shadiev, R., & Dang, C. (2022). A systematic review study on integrating technology-assisted intercultural learning in various learning context. Education and Information Technologies, 27(5), 6753– 6785. https:// doi. org/ 10. 1007/ s1063902110877-6 Timotheou, S., Miliou, O., Dimitriadis, Y., etal. (2023). Impactos de las tecnologías digitales en la educación y factores que influyen en la capacidad y transformación digital de las escuelas: Una revisión de la literatura. Education and Information Technologies, 28, 6695–6726. https:// doi. org/ 10. 1007/ s1063902211431-8 Tondeur, J., Van Keer, H., Van Braak, J., & Valcke, M. (2008). ICT integration in the classroom: Challenging the potential of a school policy. Computers & Education, 51(1), 212–223. https:// doi. org/ 10. 1016/j. compe du. 2007. 05. 003 UNESCO. (2009). Towards inclusive education for children with disabilities: A guideline. http:// www. uis. unesco. org/ Libra ry/ Docum ents/ disab child 09en. pdf. Accessed 17 Mar 2025. UNESCO. (2023). Global education monitoring report 2023: Technology in education-a tool on whose terms? https:// doi. org/ 10. 54676/ UZQV8 501 Val, S., & López-Bueno, H. (2024). Analysis of digital teacher education: Key aspects for bridging the digital divide and improving the teaching-learning process. Education Sciences, 14(3), 321. https:// doi. org/ 10. 3390/ educs ci140 30321 van Deursen, A. J., & van Dijk, J. A. (2014). The digital divide shifts to differences in usage. New Media & Society, 16(3), 507–526. https:// doi. org/ 10. 1177/ 14614 44813 487959 van Dijk, J. A. G. M. (2012). The evolution of the digital divide: The digital divide turns to inequality of skills and usage. In J. Bus, M. Crompton, M. Hildebrandt, & G. Metakides (Eds.), Digital enlightenment yearbook (pp. 57–75). IOS Press. https:// doi. org/ 10. 3233/ 978-161499057-457 van Dijk, J. A. G. M. (2020). The digital divide. Wiley. Vanderlinde, R., & Van Braak, J. (2010). The e-capacity of primary schools: Development of a conceptual model and scale construction from a school improvement perspective. Computers & Education, 55(2), 541–553. Vekiri, I. (2010). Socioeconomic differences in elementary students’ ICT beliefs and out-of-school experiences. Computers & Education, 54(4), 941–950. https:// doi. org/ 10. 1016/j. compe du. 2009. 09. 029 Yin, R. K. (2014). Case study research. Design and methods. Sage. Zhan, W., & You, Z. (2024). Family communication patterns, self-efficacy, and adolescent online prosocial behavior: A moderated mediation model. Humanit Soc Sci Commun, 11, 658. https:// doi. org/ 10. 1057/ s4159902403202-2 Zielezinski, M. B., & Darling-Hammond, L. (2016). Promising practices: A literature review of technology use by underserved students. Stanford Center for Opportunity Policy in Education. Publisher’s Note Springer Nature remains neutral with regard to jurisdictional claims in published maps and institutional affiliations.