Benefits and challenges of inclusive emerging technologies in universities: Analysis of the voice of students

Vol.:(0123456789) Education and Information Technologies https://doi.org/10.1007/s10639-025-13374-2 Benefits andchallenges ofinclusive emerging technologies inuniversities: Analysis ofthevoice ofstudents AnaCastellano‑Beltran1 · RafaelCarballo1 · AnabelMoriña1 Received: 20 May 2024 / Accepted: 13 January 2025 © The Author(s) 2025 Abstract The use of technology in higher education has been shown to have multiple learning benefits, providing great help to all students. However, more evidence is needed on the benefits of technology for inclusive higher education through the analysis of classroom practices. This study aimed to analyse the advantages and limitations identified by students, after their faculty members used emerging technologies from an integrative perspective after receiving training in this field. A qualitative evaluation of the impact of the teaching practice was carried out to analyse their experiences with emerging technologies and study their effects on the learning of 49 students. The data were gathered using focus groups. The data analysis was conducted through an inductive system of categories and codes. The results showed benefits derived from the use of technologies in the university classroom, such as the increase of motivation, participation and learning, educational inclusion, and a better relationship between faculty and students. The students also pointed out difficulties linked to the use of technology and made recommendations for improvement. This article then discusses the obtained results and compares them with those of previous studies. It concludes by highlighting the benefits and importance of faculty training in technologies to advance toward a more inclusive higher education. Keywords Emerging technologies· Inclusive education· Higher education· Faculty training· Learners· Spain 1 Introduction Access to Higher Education (HE) among students with disabilities is increasing every year (McKinney & Swartz, 2022; Schreuer etal., 2024). This is greatly due to the creation and implementation of policies and regulations for the improvement of the educational and social inclusion of people with disabilities in HE. In * Rafael Carballo [email protected] 1 Departamento de Didáctica y Organización Educativa, Universidad de Sevilla, Seville, Spain Education and Information Technologies the international legislative context, in the last years, the 2030 Agenda for sustainable development stands out (United Nations, 2015). The fourth goal of this action plan is focused on guaranteeing a quality inclusive and equitable education, promoting equal learning opportunities for everyone. In Spain, regulations such as Organic Law 2/2023, of March 22nd, of the University System, and the Royal Legislative Decree 1/2013 on the rights of persons with disabilities and their social inclusion, safeguard the inclusion of university students with disabilities. At the institutional level, universities are promoting an increasing number of measures to facilitate the access and retention of students with disabilities (GarcíaGonzález etal., 2021). As a result of this, according to the 6th Study on the Inclusion of Persons with Disabilities in the Spanish University System, in the academic year 2020–2021, the number of students with disabilities increased by 0.1%, reaching 1.6% of the total number of students registered in universities (Universia Foundation, 2023). However, there remain areas that must be improved to achieve a full inclusion and the increase of the academic rates of these students. Among such areas that require improvement, the faculty and their training are key elements. The need for faculty training in inclusive strategies has been widely demonstrated in the international scientific literature in the last years (González-Castellano etal., 2021). Considering this reality, it is necessary to develop and analyse faculty training experiences for the generation of knowledge on how such training must be and what benefits it provides. Considering the current relevance and benefits of technology for learning, this study presents, from the voice of university students, the evaluation of the impact of a faculty training program about the use of emerging technologies. 1.1 Students withdisabilities inHE Despite the advances for the improvement of inclusive processes in HE, university students with disabilities continue to represent a disadvantaged group, since their presence is still insufficient, and the success rates are lower than those of their peers without disabilities (Kohli & Atencio, 2023). Similarly, there continues to be a great room for improvement in the conditions of real inclusion that favour the access, participation, and academic success of these students. To this end, attaining a quality and equitable HE is increasingly urgent (Zorec etal., 2024). Students continue to report some difficulties, such as the complexity of bureaucratic processes (Toutain, 2019), the lack of access to physical spaces (Soares & Suzane, 2022), and the lack of adaptation and flexibility of the methodologies and syllabi (García etal., 2020). In fact, the latter represent barriers to the learning of students, since they cannot learn or participate if inclusive educational practices based on accessibility and equal opportunities are not carried out in the classrooms. The use of traditional teaching methodologies is still common in universities. Students often demand a greater use of active and innovative methods that move away from master lectures and facilitate participation and meaningful learning (Dewsbury & Brame, 2019). Likewise, faculty members usually employ resources and materials that cannot be easily used by people with disabilities. In this scenario, research shows the relevance of technologies for the optimization of the academic Education and Information Technologies experience, as it helps to remove barriers and facilitate learning (Zorec etal., 2024). Moreover, studies on inclusive education have demonstrated that the adjustments that are made for students with disabilities also benefit students without disabilities (Sanchez-Diaz & Morgado, 2023). Therefore, the differentiation between students with and without disabilities is no longer necessary, giving rise to flexible teaching models that can be accessed by everyone (Moriñaet al., 2024). For the development of this type of teaching, technologies are great allies, as they provide resources suitable to the needs and profiles of all students (Cain & Fanshawe, 2021). 1.2 The use oftechnologies foraninclusive education Teaching must evolve and adapt to the ways of living, interacting, and learning of students at all times. Considering that current university students are mostly digital natives (people born and raised after the digital revolution), the use of technologies in teaching requires the faculty to adapt to them and facilitate their interactions with materials, contents, and people. Thus, the educational field emerges as an area with great potential for the implementation of new technologies, especially due to the variety of users who employ educational technologies focused on facilitating teaching and improving learning (Granić & Marangunić, 2019). In the last years, especially after the COVID-19 pandemic, numerous universities began using teaching–learning models based on emerging technologies, becoming mandatory in many cases (Abu Talib etal., 2021; Peiris etal., 2024). The pandemic context encouraged faculty members to acquire technological competences, assuming a fundamental role in the transition from traditional learning environments to technology-driven learning environments (Peiris, 2024; Peiris etal., 2024). In this way, resources and strategies such as virtual and augmented reality, gamification, virtual intelligence, social networks, and MOOC (Massive Open Online Course) are increasingly common in university teaching (Isaías, 2018). In addition to these tendencies, Mobile-Learning (M-Learning) refers to the use of mobile devices for learning (smartphones, computers, tablets, electronic readers, and smartwatches), which facilitate accessibility and immediacy (Burke etal., 2022). Technologies pose a source of advantages for the learning of all students, creating more effective, inspiring, and motivating media, methods, and learning strategies (Ansori etal., 2024; Pacheco etal., 2021). These advantages have been widely studied through the Technology Acceptance Model (TAM), which emphasizes factors such as ease of use and perceived usefulness as fundamental elements for its successful implementation (Granić & Marangunić, 2019).Their main benefits include the possibility of carrying out interactive experiences (Wynants & Dennis, 2018), the increased student motivation (Perera & Moriña, 2019; Yusmaningsih etal., 2024), and improved time management (Cotán etal., 2024; Seale etal., 2021). Furthermore, technology allows offering different teaching options adapted to the individual characteristics and learning styles of each student (Heiman etal., 2017). Lastly, Information and Communication Technologies (ICTs) provide other possibilities for interaction among students, and between students and faculty members, as Education and Information Technologies they offer different means, both synchronous and asynchronous (Ngubane-Mokiwa & Khoza, 2021). Regarding the benefits for students with disabilities in particular, technologies have shown great potential to improve their participation and learning (Kearney etal., 2021; Perera & Moriña, 2019). ICTs facilitate anticipated access to the content of the subjects (Chun & Williams, 2021), and the use of materials in digital format is essential for numerous students with disabilities (Cain & Fanshawe, 2021). When materials are accessible, they can be easily used by any student, and they are also compatible with assistive technology (Bong & Chen, 2024). Therefore, it can be said that ICTs also aim to democratize education and promote the inclusion of all students (Meet & Kala, 2021). Nevertheless, the use of technologies may also present certain difficulties. For example, they may act as a distraction factor when their pedagogical potential is not fully used (Carrión & Roblizo, 2022). Similarly, it is important to highlight the high cost of some technological resources (Seale etal., 2021) and the dependence on an Internet connection to complete certain assignments (Cotán etal., 2024). The main problem lies in the use of inaccessible technological resources (Seale etal., 2021). If the principles of accessibility and Universal Design for Learning (UDL) are disregarded, they become another barrier that students with disabilities must face (Moriña etal., 2024). In order to be effective, technology-mediated teaching requires a pedagogical use of technology, applying its full educational potential and facilitating its use for everyone (Zorec etal., 2024). Considering that the responsibility of developing inclusive and quality educational processes lies directly in the faculty, universities must focus on their technological skills and knowledge as key elements. 1.3 Faculty training intechnology andinclusive education As stated by Bong and Chen (2024), faculty members play a fundamental role in the inclusion of students with disabilities. However, these students encounter certain difficulties, identifying the faculty member as a barrier. For instance, some studies point out a negative attitude toward disability or their lack of training in inclusive teaching practices (González-Castellano etal., 2021; Soares & Suzane, 2022). Many of the difficulties related to faculty members are due to a lack of knowledge on how to carry out an inclusive teaching, showing a lack of sensitivity toward disability. At the same time, other authors underline the need for faculty training regarding technologies, especially in terms of the use of accessible digital resources and their implementation as support to students with disabilities (Fernández-Batanero etal., 2022). In Spain, the pedagogical training of faculty members is voluntary, and the training offered about teaching strategies is limited, with matters of disability and inclusive education being rarely addressed (Moriña & Carballo, 2017). Thus, according to the current educational paradigm, it is necessary to develop training actions that prepare faculty members to unify inclusive education, attention to students with disabilities, and the use of technologies (Román-Graván & Fernández-Cerero, 2022). Education and Information Technologies Universities must develop and promote participation in training programs about practices and methodologies that foster the inclusion of all students (González-Castellano etal., 2021). In addition to their implementation, evaluating the impact of these programs on the university community provides evidence of the benefits of faculty training for both faculty members who receive it and their students (Moriña & Carballo, 2017). This is the main contribution of our study, as it evaluates the impact of training in inclusive technologies from the voice of the students. Other studies have analysed faculty training experiences. Hsiao et al. (2019) assessed a training program about UDL, students with disabilities, and accessible online learning. The program was evaluated, showing significant improvements both in the attitudes of the participating faculty members toward disability, and in aspects related to the creation of accessible materials and environments. Hope (2020) shows examples of training related to the qualification of faculty members in technology for the development of an inclusive pedagogy. These trainings are focused on the design of accessible online teaching in universities and the implementation of accessible technology in the university scope. In our study, on the contrary, the assessed training was focused on emerging technologies from an inclusive approach on faceto-face teaching. This research aims to fill a research gap by analysing the impact of a training program for faculty members in inclusive emerging technologies on teaching and learning for students. Thus, the program’s impact is analysed through the students’ opinions. By evaluating the benefits, difficulties, and recommendations for improvement, the study contributes to improving the integration of technologies in the university classroom to promote the inclusion of all students. 2 Method This study is framed within a larger project, whose aim was to design, develop, and evaluate a blended-learning faculty training program on inclusive educational practices with emerging technologies at a face-to-face university. The training program was evaluated at three time points: at the beginning (diagnostic evaluation), during its development (formative evaluation), and at the end of the program (evaluation of results). The evaluation of the program was qualitative, using the case study methodology and following the proposition of Stake (2011) for program evaluation. The case study method allows an in-depth study of a phenomenon within its reallife context. Likewise, this methodology offers flexibility in terms of design and execution and allows it to be complemented with other methods, providing a more complete view of the phenomenon studied (Yin, 2003). Thus, a single case study has been developed, consisting of the analysis of the development and impact of a training program. This research, responding to Stake’s (2011) program evaluation model, focused on evaluating the impact of the training program. In this article, which is focused on the final evaluation of the program, two research questions are posed: How do the students and classroom practices benefit from the faculty training with inclusive emerging technologies? What difficulties do the students encounter and what proposals do they offer to improve the practices Education and Information Technologies with emerging technologies? To answer these questions, the perspectives of the students with whom the faculty members put their post-training knowledge into practice are analysed to assess the impact of emerging technologies on learning. 2.1 Training program The training program aimed to qualify faculty members to carry out inclusive teaching with emerging technologies, especially with the use of mobile devices (M-Learning). The program, which was designed by a multidisciplinary research team, was structured in eight content modules. The first four modules addressed inclusive education, accessibility and UDL, M-Learning methodology, and the pedagogical use of mobile applications. The following four modules presented four educational strategies based on emerging technologies from an inclusive perspective: gamification, flipped-learning, virtual and augmented reality, and educational chatbots. The training experience was carried out with 11 faculty members for three months in a Spanish university. The training modality was blended-learning, with a total of 90h (12 face-to-face hours and 78 online hours). The face-to-face part consisted of three sessions of four hours each, which were conducted at the beginning, middle, and end of the program. In the first session, the doubts of the four initial modules were addressed. Based on these modules, the faculty members were requested to design and carry out an activity proposal in the classroom that integrated mobile applications from an inclusive perspective. In the second session, the developed practices were presented, and each faculty member received feedback from the rest of the participants and the trainers. Moreover, the four final educational strategies were introduced, and each faculty member selected one to implement it in the classroom. In the last face-to-face session, each faculty member presented the strategy they developed, which was evaluated by the trainers and the rest of the participants. The online training was conducted through the Moodle platform, where the contents, activities, and materials were provided. In addition, this platform included spaces such as forums to share and discuss doubts and ideas. The platform enabled a continuous follow-up of the work conducted by the faculty members. 2.2 Participants inthestudy The final evaluation of the impact of the training program was based on the opinions of 49 students of 10 out of the 11 faculty members who undertook the program. Since this phase of the study was performed close to the examination period, none of the students of Faculty 8 participated in the study, due to a lack of time. The participants were accessed once the faculty implemented one of the strategies based on emerging technologies. Each faculty member asked their students to voluntarily participate in a discussion group to evaluate the impact of the educational strategies implemented. At the end of the session, the students interested in participating in the research shared their contact information with the researchers. Afterward, the researchers contacted them. The students who were available on the established date participated. In total, 49 students participated, of which 22 were Education and Information Technologies male and 27 were female. Regarding age, 41 participants were under 25years old, 5 were between 25 and 30years old, 1 was between 40 and 30years old, and 2 were over 50years old. Table1 shows the strategies developed by each faculty member and the information about student profiles in each discussion group. 2.3 Research instrument Although interviews with the faculty members and observations in the classroom were also conducted to evaluate the program, this article only uses the analysis of the voice of the students who participated in the focus groups. The intention is to show the direct effects of teaching practices with emerging technologies on students’ learning and academic experience, so this article shows the analysis of the testimonies obtained in the focus groups after developing the strategies learned by the faculty members in the training program. A total of 10 focus groups were performed, with an average duration of 25min. Between 3 and 8 students participated in each focus group. 8 were conducted faceto-face and 2 online. The classroom sessions and focus groups took place over a period of 6months. Each focus group was held in the faculty where the students were taking their classes. Two researchers guided these sessions. First, the objectives of the research were recalled. Then, based on specific questions, a conversation and debate were developed where information was gathered about the students’ valuation and the strategies and tools employed by their faculty members. The following were some of the questions asked in the focus groups: What did you like the most from this experience? Why? Do you think that the experience with technology is designed for the learning and participation of all students, including those with disabilities? Why? Do you consider that the material used by your faculty member can be accessed by every student? Why? Has your perception toward your faculty changed? How? Has your relationship with your faculty changed? Why? 2.4 Data analysis The analysis of the data followed the proposition of Miles & Huberman (1994). A structural analysis of the information was conducted following the three phases of this model. Firstly, the information obtained in the discussion groups was transcribed. Then, a full reading of all the information was performed, from which a system of categories and codes was inductively created. Once this system was created, the information was coded. The categories and codes for the analysis emerged from reading the information collected in the focus groups, making it an inductive system. The focus group scripts were structured by thematic sections, facilitating categories’ generation. These codes were generated from the reading of the transcriptions, at which point the main sub-themes of analysis emerged. Once the categories and codes were created, the coding process was carried out using MaxQDA software. At this point, new codes emerged, so the system was revised and extended on different occasions. Table2 shows the categories and codes used for this analysis. Education and Information Technologies Table 1 Participants’ characteristics Faculty member (FM) Participants (students) Methodology Sex nAge (years) nBSc/MSc FM1 P1, P2, P3, P4, P5, P6, P7, P8 Flipped Learning Men Women 7 1 < 25 25–30 40–50 > 50 6 2 0 0 Geography FM 2 P9, P10, P11, P12, P13, P14 Flipped Learning Men Women 5 1 < 25 25–30 40–50 > 50 4 0 1 1 Geography and History History FM 3 P15, P16, P17 Flipped Learning Men Women 0 3 < 25 25–30 40–50 > 50 2 0 0 1 History of Art FM 4 P18, P19, P20, P21, P22 Gamification Men Women 2 3 < 25 25–30 40–50 > 50 5 0 0 0 French Studies FM 5 P23, P24, P25, P26, P27, P28 Educational Chatbots Men Women 3 3 < 25 25–30 40–50 > 50 6 0 0 0 Physical Activity and Sports Science FM 6 P29, P30, P31, P32, P33 Educational Chatbots Men Women 2 3 < 25 25–30 40–50 > 50 5 0 0 0 Primary Education FM 7 P34, P35, P36 Virtual and Augmented Reality Men Women 0 3 < 25 25–30 40–50 > 50 2 1 0 0 MSc in Teaching Education and Information Technologies Table 1 (continued) Faculty member (FM) Participants (students) Methodology Sex nAge (years) nBSc/MSc FM 9 P37, P38, P39, P40, P41, P42 Gamification Men Women 1 5 < 25 25–30 40–50 > 50 6 0 0 0 Primary Education FM 10 P43, P44, P45, P46 Gamification Men Women 2 2 < 25 25–30 40–50 > 50 2 2 0 0 MSc in Physical Activity FM 11 P47, P48, P49 Virtual and Augmented Reality Men Women 0 3 < 25 25–30 40–50 > 50 3 0 0 0 Occupational Therapy Education and Information Technologies more inclusive teaching processes, providing facilitators that are sometimes essential for students with disabilities (Kearney etal., 2021; Meet & Kala, 2021). One characteristic that makes technologies promote inclusion by allowing their use by all is accessibility (Chun & Williams, 2021). Technology makes it possible to comply with the principles of UDL by offering multiple ways of representing information and expressing knowledge, adapting teaching to the characteristics of any student (Cain & Fanshawe, 2021). In the case of our study, the digital resources used comply, for the most part, with the accessibility guidelines that faculty had previously learned in the training program. Other studies agree in emphasizing the importance of using accessible materials that are compatible both with different devices and with the assistive technology that many students with disabilities use (Bong & Chen, 2024). Other benefits identified in this study were the improvement of classroom climate and time management, which was assumed by faculty with organization and structuring of teaching. This result coincides with previous works, such as those of Cotán etal. (2024) or Seale etal. (2021), which also point out the benefits of technology, such as the optimization of time, both inside and outside the classroom, and the improvement of the climate. While this study highlights the potential of emerging technologies to improve educational inclusion in HE and other significant benefits, it also reveals a number of challenges that need to be addressed for their effective implementation. These include the need for ongoing training for faculty, adapting technological resources to the needs of all students, and overcoming technical barriers that may hinder their use in the classroom. As evidenced by the students’ testimonies, it is necessary for faculty to receive ongoing training to improve their technical and pedagogical competence in the use of technologies (Peiris, 2024). It is clear that faculty training plays a crucial role in the successful implementation of inclusive technologies. As has been studied, faculty need continuous and adequate training not only in the technical management of digital tools but also in how these can be applied pedagogically to maximize their impact on teaching and educational inclusion (Perera & Moriña, 2019; Seale etal., 2021). Without this training, faculty run the risk of using technologies in isolation, which can limit their effectiveness and positive impact on students. It is, therefore, necessary for universities to promote the development of training activities for faculty in technology and inclusive teaching (González-Castellano et al., 2021). In addition, it would be recommendable to encourage faculty participation in these activities through recognition in professional promotion systems or by establishing ways to ensure the participation of all faculty. On the other hand, in our study, some participants expressed doubts about the accessibility of specific resources, especially for people with visual impairment. This result is in line with what has already been found in the work of Gin etal. (2021), who highlighted that the main problem of experiences with technologies used to reside in the use of inaccessible resources. It is necessary to ensure that all students can fully benefit from technologies in the classroom. It is recommended that faculty members conduct a prior review of the materials and tools they plan to Education and Information Technologies use, ensuring that they comply with accessibility standards. In addition, it would be helpful to develop alternative ways for those resources that may not be accessible to specific groups of students. Therefore, when designing this type of experiences, it is essential to consider UDL and accessibility principles, promoting that the resources can be used by all students (Moriña etal., 2024). On the other hand, it is relevant to highlight that some students perceived a lack of continuity in the application of these methodologies and pointed out that, in some cases, they were perceived as isolated experiences, which reflects a possible disconnection between the training received by faculty and their practical application in the classroom. This finding highlights the importance of encouraging a more systematic and prolonged use of inclusive technologies, preventing them from being perceived as sporadic and isolated initiatives (Gin etal., 2021). Therefore, faculty should integrate these tools systematically throughout the course, ensuring that they form an integral part of the teaching methodology. Despite the challenges noted above, this study’s results suggest that inclusive emerging technologies can be a powerful tool for improving the quality of HE as long as they are applied thoughtfully and accompanied by continuous and appropriate faculty training. 5 Limitations andfuture research Some limitations emerged in the development of the study. One of these limitations was the lack of participation from faculty members of some fields of knowledge. Although there was representation of different areas, it would have been interesting to include faculty members from other areas that were not represented, such as Health Science, Experimental Sciences and Technical fields. Some faculty members did not have enough teaching hours to carry out longer and more continuous practices, thus some of the practices were perceived by the students as isolated experiences. Consequently, it is important to consider the lecture hours that the participants have, in order to guarantee that they can adequately design and implement their practices. Despite these limitations, the current study allows identifying the direct benefits of faculty training in the inclusive use of technologies on the learning of university students. With regard to future studies, several research lines are proposed. Firstly, it is necessary to increase the number of faculty training experiences for the development of inclusive teaching through the principles of UDL, since the literature provides little evidence in this regard. Secondly, it would be interesting to identify and analyse good inclusive practices with technologies that are currently carried out in universities, with the aim of generating and sharing knowledge about the benefits and impact of other resources and practices on the learning of students. Lastly, it is fundamental to incorporate the opinion of the students themselves in the generation of knowledge about inclusive practices. Thus, future studies could include students in processes of co-research and co-design of materials and educational practices mediated by technologies. Education and Information Technologies 6 Conclusions This article explores the benefits, difficulties, and proposals for the improvement of university teaching based on emerging technologies and inclusion. This study allows concluding that students have a positive opinion of these practices. In general, they highlighted aspects such as innovation, improvement of time management and increase of participation, motivation, and interactions in the classroom. We can also conclude that the use of technology favors the processes of educational inclusion by incorporating accessibility and flexibility into the methods and materials. These aspects promote the adaptation to the different learning styles and individual characteristics, contributing to the creation of equitable educational environments. However, this study also shows that the use of technologies may present difficulties, such as a lack of technical competence of the faculty, a lack of accessibility, or technical difficulties in the use of certain resources and applications. It is essential to critically examine the accessibility of these technologies to meet the needs of all learners, including those with learning, cognitive and physical disabilities. For many students with disabilities, the use of accessible resources is a fundamental practice, making the development of technology-based teaching practices essential to ensure their academic success. Therefore, the incorporation of accessible technological resources in teaching is essential to provide a truly inclusive education that meets the needs of all learners. Despite these challenges, it can be concluded that faculty training in technology and inclusion has a positive impact on the learning experience of university students and teaching practices. These results can help universities as evidence of the benefits of faculty training for the improvement of teaching quality. This is expected to contribute to raising awareness about the need to strengthen the training processes of faculty members as a strategy to improve educational inclusion and the learning experiences of all students. Author contributions All authors contributed to the study conception, design and development. The first draft of the manuscript was written by Ana Castellano-Beltran and all authors commented on previous versions of the manuscript. All authors read and approved the final manuscript. Funding Funding for open access publishing: Universidad de Sevilla/CBUA. This work was granted by Junta de Andalucía (Regional Ministry of Economy, Knowledge, Business and University) [US-1381423]; Ministry of Science and Innovation/State Research Agency/https://doi. org/10.13039/501100011033and by the European Union "NextGenerationEU/Recovery, Transformation and Resilience Plan [RYC2021-032768-I]; Ministryof Universities [FPU20/01991]. Data availability The data that support the findings of this study are not availabledue to privacy of the participants. Declarations Competing interest The authors have no relevant financial or non-financial interests to disclose. The authors declare that they have no conflict of interest. The participants signed a prior informed consent. This document ensured the confidentiality and anonymity of the gathered data. The informed consent guaranteed the possibility of withdrawing from the study and destroying their data whenever they wished to. Education and Information Technologies The project received ethical approval from the entity that funded the project. 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 Abu Talib, M., Bettayeb, A. M., & Omer, R. I. (2021). Analytical study on the impact of technology in higher education during the age of COVID-19: Systematic literature review. Education and Information Technologies, 26(6), 6719–6746. https:// doi. org/ 10. 1007/ s1063902110507-1 Ansori, M. Z., Faiza, D., Thamrin, & Efrizon. (2024). Development of digital circuits learning media using articulate storyline with the 4D model. Journal of Hypermedia & Technology-Enhanced Learning (J-HyTEL), 2(3), 338–351. https:// doi. org/ 10. 58536/jhytel. v2i3. 145 Bong, W. K., & Chen, W. (2024). Increasing faculty’s competence in digital accessibility for inclusive education: A systematic literature review. International Journal of Inclusive Education, 28(2), 197– 213. https:// doi. org/ 10. 1080/ 13603 116. 2021. 19373 44 Burke, P. F., Kearney, M., Schuck, S., & Aubusson, P. (2022). Improving mobile learning in secondary mathematics and science: Listening to students. Journal of Computer Assisted Learning, 38(1), 137–151. https:// doi. org/ 10. 1111/ jcal. 12596 Cain, M., & Fanshawe, M. (2021). Expectations for success: Auditing opportunities for students with print disabilities to fully engage in online learning environments in higher education. Australasian Journal of Educational Technology, 37(3), 137–151. https:// doi. org/ 10. 14742/ ajet. 6449 Carrión, E., & Roblizo, M. J. (2022). Gamification and mobile learning: Innovative experiences to motivate and optimise music content within university contexts. Music Education Research, 24(3), 377– 392. https:// doi. org/ 10. 1080/ 14613 808. 2022. 20425 00 Chun, J., & Williams, T. O. (2021). A Community of practice for professional development in technology integrations for accessibility: A case study of a faculty inquiry group. College Teaching, 69(3), 126–137. https:// doi. org/ 10. 1080/ 87567 555. 2020. 18324 35 Cotán, A., Carballo, R., & Spinola-Elias, Y. (2024). Giving a voice to the best faculty members: Benefits of digital resources for the inclusion of all students in arts and humanities. International Journal of Inclusive Education, 28(7), 1240–1257. https:// doi. org/ 10. 1080/ 13603 116. 2021. 19914 92 Dewsbury, B., & Brame, C. J. (2019). Inclusive teaching. CBE—Life Sciences Education, 18(2), 1–5. https:// doi. org/ 10. 1187/ cbe. 19010021 Fernández-Batanero, J. M., Cabero-Almenara, J., Román-Graván, P., & Palacios-Rodríguez, A. (2022). Knowledge of university teachers on the use of digital resources to assist people with disabilities. The case of Spain. Educational Information Technologies, 27, 9015–9029. https:// doi. org/ 10. 1007/ s1063902210965-1 García, M. M., Toledo, L. D., & Rodríguez, M. L. H. (2020). Evaluation of inclusive measures against educational dropout. New Trends and Issues Proceedings on Humanities and Social Sciences, 7(3), 34–44. https:// doi. org/ 10. 18844/ prosoc. v7i3. 5230 García-González, J. M., Gutiérrez, S., Solera, E., & Ríos-Aguilar, S. (2021). Barriers in higher education: Perceptions and discourse analysis of students with disabilities in Spain. Disability & Society, 36(4), 579–595. https:// doi. org/ 10. 1080/ 09687 599. 2020. 17495 65 Gin, L. E., Guerrero, F. A., Brownell, S. E., & Cooper, K. M. (2021). COVID-19 and undergraduates with disabilities: Challenges resulting from the rapid transition to online course delivery for students with disabilities in undergraduate STEM at large-enrollment institutions. CBE—Life Sciences Education, 20(3), 1–17. https:// doi. org/ 10. 1187/ cbe. 21020028 Education and Information Technologies González-Castellano, N., Cordón-Pozo, E., Pueyo-Villa, S., & Colmenero-Ruiz, M. J. (2021). Higher education teachers’ training in attention to SEN students: Testing a mediation model. Sustainability, 13(9), 4908. https:// doi. org/ 10. 3390/ su130 94908 Granić, A., & Marangunić, N. (2019). Technology acceptance model in educational context: A systematic literature review. British Journal of Educational Technology, 50, 2572–2593. https:// doi. org/ 10. 1111/ bjet. 12864 Heiman, T., Fichten, C. S., Olenik-Shemesh, D., Keshet, N. S., & Jorgensen, M. (2017). Access and perceived ICT usability among students with disabilities attending higher education institutions. Education and Information Technologies, 22(6), 2727–2740. https:// doi. org/ 10. 1007/ s106390179623-0 Hope, J. (2020). Advocate for universal design across campus. Disability Compliance for Higher Education, 25(6), 1–5. https:// doi. org/ 10. 1002/ dhe. 30767 Hsiao, F., Burgstahler, S. E., Johnson, T., Nuss, D. & Doherty, M. (2019). Promoting an accessible learning environment for students with disabilities via faculty development (Practice Brief). Journal of Postsecondary Education and Disability, 32(1), 91–99. https:// files. eric. ed. gov/ fullt ext/ EJ121 7448. pdf. Accessed 10 Mar 2024. Isaías, P. (2018). Model for the enhancement of learning in higher education through the deployment of emerging technologies. Journal of Information, Communication and Ethics in Society, 16(4), 401– 412. https:// doi. org/ 10. 1108/ JICES0420180036 Kearney, K. B., Joseph, B., Finnegan, L., & Wood, J. (2021). Using a peer-mediated instructional package to teach college students with intellectual and developmental disabilities to navigate an inclusive university campus. The Journal of Special Education, 55(1), 45–54. https:// doi. org/ 10. 1177/ 00224 66920 937469 Kohli, J., & Atencio, M. (2023). ‘The person with a disability gets to define their disability’: Exploring identity formation through the voices of university students. Disability & Society, 38(5), 819–841. https:// doi. org/ 10. 1080/ 09687 599. 2021. 19655 45 McKinney, E. L., & Swartz, L. (2022). Integration into higher education: Experiences of disabled students in South Africa. Studies in Higher Education, 47(2), 367–377. https:// doi. org/ 10. 1080/ 03075 079. 2020. 17505 81 Meet, R. K., & Kala, D. (2021). Trends and future prospects in MOOC researches: A systematic literature review 2013–2020. Contemporary Educational Technology, 13(3), 1–18. https:// doi. org/ 10. 30935/ cedte ch/ 10986 Miles, M. B., & Huberman, A. M. (1994). Qualitative Data Analysis (2nd ed.). Sage Publications. https:// vivau niver sity. wordp ress. com/ wpcon tent/ uploa ds/ 2013/ 11/ miles andhu berma n1994. pdf Moriña, A., & Carballo, R. (2017). The impact of a faculty training program on inclusive education and disability. Evaluation and Program Planning, 65, 77–83. https:// doi. org/ 10. 1016/j. evalp rogpl an. 2017. 06. 004 Moriña, A., Carballo, R., & Castellano-Beltran, A. (2024). A systematic review of the benefits and challenges of technologies for the learning of university students with disabilities. Journal of Special Education Technology, 39(1), 41–50. https:// doi. org/ 10. 1177/ 01626 43423 11753 57 Ngubane-Mokiwa, S. A., & Khoza, S. B. (2021). Using community of inquiry (CoI) to facilitate the design of a holistic e-learning experience for students with visual impairments. Education Sciences, 11(4), 152. https:// doi. org/ 10. 3390/ educs ci110 40152 Organic Law 2/2023 of 22 March on the University System. (2023). Official State Bulletin, 70. https:// www. boe. es/ eli/ es/ lo/ 2023/ 03/ 22/2/ con. Accessed 10 Mar 2024. Pacheco, E., Yoong, P., & Lips, M. (2021). Transition Issues in higher education and digital technologies: The experiences of students with disabilities in New Zealand. Disability & Society, 36(2), 1791– 2201. https:// doi. org/ 10. 1080/ 09687 599. 2020. 17353 05 Peiris, M. (2024). Unravelling Technology acceptance: lessons learnt from teacher’s experience during COVID-19 for post-pandemic systemic education. International Journal of Emerging Technologies in Learning (iJET), 19(07), 59–80. https:// doi. org/ 10. 3991/ ijet. v19i07. 51367 Peiris, M., Ferrazza, A., & TharindiDonmanige, T. (2024). Enhancing student engagement: Technology acceptance in higher education during Covid-19. International Journal of Emerging Technologies in Learning (iJET), 19(07), 104–125. https:// doi. org/ 10. 3991/ ijet. v19i07. 51351 Perera, V. H., & Moriña, A. (2019). Technological challenges and students with disabilities in higher education. Exceptionality, 27(1), 65–76. https:// doi. org/ 10. 1080/ 09362 835. 2017. 14091 17 Román-Graván, P., & Fernández-Cerero, J. (2022). Training of University Teachers in ICT and Disability. The Case of the University of Seville. IJERI: International Journal of Educational Research and Innovation, 17, 135–151. https:// doi. org/ 10. 46661/ ijeri. 6168 Education and Information Technologies Royal Legislative Decree (2013) 1/2013, of 29 November, approving the Consolidated Text of the General Law on the Rights of Persons with Disabilities and their Social Inclusion. Official State Bulletin, 289. https:// www. boe. es/ eli/ es/ rdlg/ 2013/ 11/ 29/1/ con. Accessed 11 Mar 2024. Sanchez-Diaz, M., & Morgado, B. (2023). Democratizing higher education: The use of educational technologies to promote the academic success of university students with disabilities. Societies, 13(3), 57. https:// doi. org/ 10. 3390/ soc13 030057 Schreuer, N., Shpigelman, C. N., Mor, S., Sarid, M., Kanter, A. S., & Sachs, D. (2024). Academic staff members’ engagement in accessible higher education for students with disabilities. Higher Education Research & Development, 1–16. https:// doi. org/ 10. 1080/ 07294 360. 2023. 22926 52 Seale, J., Colwell, C., Coughlan, T., Heiman, T., Kaspi-Tsahor, D., & Olenik-Shemesh, D. (2021). ‘Dreaming in colour’: Disabled higher education students’ perspectives on improving design practices that would enable them to benefit from their use of technologies. Education and Information Technologies, 26(2), 1687–1719. https:// doi. org/ 10. 1007/ s1063902010329-7 Soares, A., & Suzane, B. T. (2022). Barriers and facilitators in the inclusion of persons with disabilities in higher education: The students’ point of view. Education Policy Analysis Archives, 30(177), 1–18. https:// doi. org/ 10. 14507/ epaa. 30. 6809 Stake, R. E. (2011). Program evaluation particularly responsive evaluation. Journal of MultiDisciplinary Evaluation, 7(15), 180–201. https:// doi. org/ 10. 56645/ jmde. v7i15. 303 Toutain, C. (2019). Barriers to accommodations for students with disabilities in higher education: A literature review. Journal of Postsecondary Education and Disability,32(3), 297–310. https:// files. eric. ed. gov/ fullt ext/ EJ123 6832. pdf.Accessed 15 Mar 2024. United Nations. (2015). 2030 Agenda for sustainable development. UN. https:// www. un. org/ susta inabl edeve lopme nt/ es/ 2015/ 09/ laasamb leagener aladoptalaagenda2030paraeldesar rollososte nible/. Accessed 10 Mar 2024. Universia Foundation. (2023). VI study on the inclusion of people with disabilities in the Spanish university system. https:// www. funda cionu niver sia. net/ conte nt/ dam/ funda cionu niver sia/ pdf/ VI% 20Est udio% 20Uni versi dad% 20y% 20Dis capac idad% 20ACC ESIBLE. pdf. Accessed 13 Mar 2024. Wynants, S., & Dennis, J. (2018). Professional development in an online context: Opportunities and challenges from the voices of college faculty. Journal of Educators Online, 15(1), 1–13. https:// files. eric. ed. gov/ fullt ext/ EJ116 8955. pdf. Accessed 15 Mar 2024. Yin, R. K. (2003). Case study research: Design and methods. Sage Publication. https:// iwans uhary anto. wordp ress. com/ wpconte nt/ uploa ds/ 2013/ 04/ rober t_ k-_ yin_ case_ study_ resea rch_ design_ and_ meboo kfiorg. pdf. Accessed 15 Mar 2024. Yusmaningsih, Y., Delianti, V. I., Mursyida, L., & Marta, R. (2024). Development of interactive learning media based on motion graphic animation for basic photography subject. Journal of Hypermedia & Technology-Enhanced Learning (J-HyTEL), 2(3), 304–319. https:// doi. org/ 10. 58536/jhytel. v2i3. 146 Zorec, K., Desmond, D., Boland, T., McNicholl, A., O’Connor, A., Stafford, G., & Gallagher, P. (2024). A whole-campus approach to technology and inclusion of students with disabilities in higher education in Ireland. Disability & Society, 24(5), 1147–1172. https:// doi. org/ 10. 1080/ 09687 599. 2022. 21148 85 Publisher’s Note Springer Nature remains neutral with regard to jurisdictional claims in published maps and institutional affiliations.