Digital Methods to Promote Inclusive and Effective Learning in Schools: A Mixed Methods Research Study
-
Aleksandra Stalmach
,
Paola D’Elia
Abstract
This study investigates 14 digitally enhanced learning methods, shedding light on students with special educational needs (SEN) in inclusive digital learning environments. We seek to fill the gap in the literature by specifically investigating methods suitable for students with SEN. A survey among experts has been carried out to assess learning methods that are effectively applicable in inclusive digital learning environments. A mixed method: quantitative and qualitative data analysis with the use of a constant comparative method has been applied to synthesise and compare experts’ answers. Quantitative data analysis showed that cooperative learning, digital problem/project-based learning, and virtual exchange are the most suitable methods for all students, whereas digital problem/project-based learning, cooperative learning, and service-learning were agreed upon as the most appropriate for students with SEN. Answers to open questions, evaluated using a qualitative approach, showed that the effectiveness of digital approaches is heavily reliant on the skills, experience, willingness, confidence, and knowledge of teachers implementing them. Employing cooperative learning and digital problem/project-based learning, particularly by experienced and highly skilled teachers, has the potential to effectively support all students, including those with SEN, in digital learning environments.
1 Introduction
1.1 Inclusive Education
Inclusive education emphasises the inviolable right of all students to participate in general education (United Nations, 2006). There are different definitions of inclusion, based on different dimensions (Grosche, 2015), and among them, there is a concept of inclusion being the formal affiliation of all students to mainstream schools (Göransson & Nilholm, 2014). Therefore, inclusive education refers to an approach where all students, regardless of their abilities, special educational needs (SEN), or backgrounds, are educated together in general classrooms (Donath, Lüke, Graf, Tran, & Götz, 2023). Inclusion involves creating an environment where students are provided with accessible learning opportunities (Aas, Uthus, & Løhre, 2024), and diversity is not perceived as problematic (Booth & Ainscow, 2002; Finkelstein, Sharma, & Furlonger, 2021; Hymel & Katz, 2019; Long & Guo, 2023). This evolving, multifaceted process (Francisco, Hartman, & Wang, 2020), in order to be sustainable, needs the actions of all involved actors, that is teachers, parents, and peers (Lindner et al., 2022). Supporting students with SEN in regular classrooms may enhance their social inclusion (Vyrastekova, 2021), which could lead to a more equitable society (Shaeffer, 2019), and benefit students without SEN (Roldán, Marauri, Aubert, & Flecha, 2021). However, empirical studies indicate that students with special needs in learning and emotional/behavioural domains still represent a vulnerable group when it comes to socio-emotional development, well-being, and social participation in general classrooms (e.g. Cameron, Matre, & Canrinus, 2022; Dalgaard, Bondebjerg, Viinholt, & Filges, 2022; de Leeuw, de Boer, & Minnaert, 2019; Zweers et al., 2021). Diverse interpretations of inclusion lead to discrepancies in its practical implementation (Boyle & Anderson, 2020). There are even opinions that the full inclusion movement has reached an impasse due to its failure to effectively integrate students with intellectual disabilities into mainstream classrooms (Hornby & Kauffman, 2024). Further, students from privileged backgrounds tend to have more resources and an easier path to success within the school system (Huilla, Lay, & Tzaninis, 2024; Triventi, Skopek, Kulic, Buchholz, & Blossfeld, 2020). These facts shift the focus to specific evidence-based practices that can be implemented in general classroom education and positively impact the academic and socio-emotional development of all students.
1.2 Digital Learning
Digital learning, in terms of the use of information and communication technology in open and distance learning (Kumar Basak, Wotto, & Bélanger, 2018), constitutes a motivating, individualised way (Shieh & Hsieh, 2021) of sharing knowledge and involves more self-regulation skills than traditional schooling as students need to set goals, manage time, and monitor their progress autonomously (Cho & Shen, 2013; Susanti, Rachmajanti, & Mustofa, 2023), without being immediately controlled by teachers or classmates. The employment of digital tools enhances the process of delivering learning content to the students, enabling affordable education (Mhlongo, Mbatha, Ramatsetse, & Dlamini, 2023), facilitating collaborative learning and supporting communication during the educational process. However, the digital environment is full of distractions, thus self-regulation skills are vital for maintaining concentration while learning (Anthonysamy, Choo, & Hin, 2020; Jin, Im, Yoo, Roll, & Seo, 2023). Further, digital learning requires critical thinking (Saadé, Morin, & Thomas, 2012) to evaluate information found online. The importance of each skill might vary based on the specific learning objectives or the individual’s learning style. Digital approaches are not universally applicable due to various factors such as differing levels of technological proficiency among students, and the inability of some students to access learning environments, particularly, teaching students with SEN in a digitally supported learning environment requires additional solutions concerning their self-regulation skills, motivation, and technical abilities (Börnert-Ringleb, Casale, & Hillenbrand, 2021). While offering flexibility (Müller, Mildenberger, & Steingruber, 2023), enhanced communication, and access to a plethora of resources (Haleem, Javaid, Qadri, & Suman, 2022), digital learning faces challenges such as the digital divide (Afzal, Khan, Daud, Ahmad, & Butt, 2023; van de Werfhorst, Kessenich, & Geven, 2022) or the fact that the effectiveness of digital learning methods directly depends on the severity of encountered emotional and behavioural difficulties (Herzog & Casale, 2022).
1.3 Digital Learning Methods or Methods Applicable in Digital Environments
Our investigation addresses the learning methods that we chose after literature research and a discussion with a team consisting of teachers, university professors, and research assistants. The learning methods were selected based on learning objectives (methods need to align with learning goals), accessibility across various devices, attractiveness (methods should be engaging for students), flexibility (methods need to accommodate various learners’ needs), inclusivity (methods need to address the needs of students with disabilities), and pedagogical effectiveness (evidence-based practices). Most of the indicated methods are not primarily digital (e.g. service-learning), but all of them are applicable in digital environments.
Adaptive learning is an approach that uses Artificial Intelligence to tailor the teaching methods to students’ skills, interests, learning styles, and preferences (Gligorea et al., 2023; Walkington, 2013), thus fostering inclusionary practices. Adaptive learning employs special algorithms and provides targeted interventions with automatic feedback to support students, including those with intellectual disabilities (Standen et al., 2020) or behavioural challenges (McKeown, FitzPatrick, Ennis, & Potter, 2020). One example of adaptive digital learning is an online mathematics program “Mathspace,” which provides students with personalised learning activities.
Community of practice means an informal group of people who are concerned about the same current problems and who communicate regularly to learn from each other and to think together (Pyrko, Dörfler, & Eden, 2017, 2019). In a digital learning environment, communities of practice can be created as online discussion forums, allowing participants to interact from different locations and providing accessibility features, like text-to-speech for visually impaired students. Communities of practice facilitate the whole school approach to fostering interpersonal relations, thus supporting inclusion (Laluvein, 2010). One example of a community of practice is “Stack Overflow” – a programming community where participants may learn and ask questions.
Cooperative learning is an approach that encourages students to work in groups (Cuseo, 1992) and to equally participate in tasks, which also enables students with SEN to share their perspectives. Cooperative learning emphasises collaboration among students (Gillies, 2016), supports their social skills, and may promote inclusion through interactions between peers (Lindner et al., 2022). However, group work does not guarantee the social inclusion of all students, particularly students without SEN require support in working collaboratively in an inclusive manner (Niemi & Vehkakoski, 2023). In a digital context, computer-supported cooperative learning (CSCL) can be conducted in real-time, or asynchronously, for example, by email exchange (Stahl, Koschmann, & Suthers, 2014), whereas a slow pace of asynchronous communication may be convenient for students with communication and learning disabilities. One example of CSCL is the use of “Google Docs” to collaboratively work on a project.
Debate is a formal competition between two teams that engages students in active discussions (Green & Klug, 1990), letting them explore different perspectives and construct arguments. In the online classroom, debates can be supported through audio-visual presentations, discussion boards, live video conferences, or the use of avatars (Park, Sah, Lee, & Lee, 2023), which is an attractive option for all students, including those who want to hide their disability. One example of a digital debate may be a digitally enhanced discussion on the topic “Should standardised testing be abolished in education?,” when team A argues that standardised testing does not measure intelligence, while team B contends that standardised tests provide a fair assessment of students’ abilities.
Digital games and learning ecology are a combination of play and learning (Persico et al., 2019) that engagingly integrates content and practice, enhancing motivation and quick thinking in learners (Lesmes, Acosta-Solano, Benavides, & Umaña Ibáñez, 2022). Digital games include both entertaining experiences and learning outcomes (Pasqualotto, Parong, Green, & Bavelier, 2023) and can apply inclusive design principles, like customisable settings or audio-visual cues. If provided with professional development instruction, teachers can integrate digital games into their classrooms (Stieler-Hunt & Jones, 2019) and thus create immersive learning environments. One example of digital games and learning ecology is “Kahoot,” a learning platform that supports teachers in creating learning games and quizzes.
Digital problem/project-based learning is an approach that encourages students to autonomously and constructively (Kokotsaki, Menzies, & Wiggins, 2016) apply their initial knowledge (Hattie, 2009) through digital platforms and tools to real-world problems (Meng, Dong, Roehrs, & Luan, 2023), thus fostering their engagement, teamwork, and motivation (Zhang & Ma, 2023). Digital problem/project-based learning enables students to collaborate virtually with peers, instructors (Zhu & Zhang, 2023), and experts, using communication tools such as document editing platforms, possibly adapted to the abilities of those with SEN. One example of digital problem/project-based learning is the “Shark Tank Project,” which enables students to show their ideas to local business owners, thus learning about entrepreneurship.
Digital storytelling is a process of sharing stories that integrate narrative, audio-visual, and personal content, empowering students to connect emotionally with the learning content, show their creativity (Mokhtar, Halim, & Kamarulzaman, 2011) and foster their career aspirations (Parola, Di Fuccio, Somma, & Miglino, 2022). Emotional connection with learned topics enhances memory and the learning process (Taylor & Statler, 2014). Moreover, alternative forms of production, such as media implementations of a story, support children with SEN in the acquisition of literary skills more effectively than traditional written work (König, 2021). One example of digital storytelling is an immersive story with animations and sounds, “Hearing Birdsong.”
The flipped classroom methodology inverts the traditional educational model, letting students view lessons at home and engage in subsequent activities in the classroom (Abeysekera & Dawson, 2015; van Alten, Phielix, Janssen, & Kester, 2020). Digital platforms can provide a special font adapted to the needs of students with dyslexia (Al-Dokhny, Bukhamseen, & Drwish, 2022), as well as accessible videos with captions, sufficient contrast, manual font size adjustment, descriptive titles, or subtitles, facilitating the preparation for the lessons for hearing-impaired and visual-impaired students. One example of a flipped classroom is the group-based flipped classroom, in which the videos and other resources are shared before a lesson, letting students prepare to work together in the class.
Learning in virtual worlds is a technique that provides students with immersive learning experiences (Stendal, 2012), allowing them to interact with three-dimensional simulations, visit virtual places, or engage in role-playing activities. In inclusive learning, virtual reality platforms should prioritise accessibility features such as audio-based instructions, alternative navigation options (Chițu et al., 2023), or simple programs working without having to control a mouse, designed for students with less developed capabilities (Maguire, Elton, Osman, & Nicolle, 2006). One example of learning in virtual worlds is a virtual field trip with the “Google Expedition App.”
Self-regulated learning, within the meaning of the ability to be metacognitively, motivationally, and behaviourally active in one’s own learning process (Zimmerman, 1986), is a crucial component of academic success (Zimmerman, 2002). In a digital learning environment, self-regulated learning may be facilitated by various digital tools (Li, Xia, Chu, & Yang, 2022), letting students track their progress and receive immediate personalised feedback. Students with SEN may take advantage of additional accommodations like, for example, self-regulated strategy development combined with assistive technology that may improve the quality of essays of students on the Autism Spectrum (Ozdowska, Wyeth, Carrington, & Ashburner, 2021).
Service-learning is an approach that integrates learning with community service, fostering civic engagement and the development of social skills (Rimm-Kaufman et al., 2021). Service-learning helps students recognise the impact they could have on society (Holmes, Webb, & Albritton, 2022) and provides opportunities for all students to participate in improving communities. In digital learning environments, service-learning can be facilitated through virtual collaborations with local organisations (Compare & Albanesi, 2022), combining technology in education with service as a pedagogic tool. One example of virtual service-learning is giving online presentations on relevant topics, like violence prevention or ecology.
Short didactics, mostly educational videos (Kohler & Dietrich, 2021), are one of the most accessible and effective ways to incorporate media technology into classroom ecology. Video clips can provide precise and visually attractive information on specific topics (Guo, Kim, & Rubin, 2014), consisting of an introduction, a presentation of the basic concepts with visual aids, a demonstration (where the instructor explains each step), and a summary. For example, short videos have become an effective resource for foreign language teaching (Zhang, Lucas, & Pedro, 2022).
The trialogical approach is a theoretical construct that integrates a “monological” approach (individual knowledge) and a “dialogical” approach (social interactions) with a third element: conscientious processes occurring during the development of knowledge outcomes that are meant to be shared within the community (Paavola & Hakkarainen, 2005). The trialogical approach offers a general framework within which every teacher can adopt various solutions, incorporating collaboration and technology into learning (Sansone, Cesareni, Bortolotti, & Buglass, 2019). One example of the trialogical approach is the “Knowledge Practices Laboratory,” a blend of technology and pedagogy, endeavouring to find new solutions for collaborative knowledge creation (Paavola, Lakkala, Muukkonen, Kosonen, & Karlgren, 2011).
Virtual exchange is an online educational program that engages learners from different locations in shared activities, thus transferring learning from the classroom to interactions with other geographically distanced learners (Dooly & Vinagre, 2022). With the assistance of a facilitator, students face different perspectives and acquire intercultural competencies (O’Dowd, 2017). Virtual exchanges provide opportunities for students who are not able to participate in traditional mobility programs, thus supporting their inclusion (O’Dowd, 2023). One example of a virtual exchange is the “Student Exchange Platform.”
The methods are presented in Table 1.
Methods applicable in digital learning environments
| Method | Short definition | Example |
|---|---|---|
| Adaptive learning | Employment of special algorithms and targeted interventions | “Mathspace” |
| Community of practice | An informal group concerned about the same current problems | “Stack Overflow” |
| Cooperative learning | An approach encouraging students to work and learn in groups | Use of “Google Docs” |
| Debate | A formal competition engaging students in active discussions | A digitally enhanced discussion on the topic given |
| Digital games and learning ecology | A combination of play and learning | “Kahoot” |
| Digital problem/project-based learning | An approach encouraging students to apply their knowledge and skills to real-world issues | “Shark Tank Project” |
| Digital storytelling | A process of sharing stories, integrating narrative, audio-visual, and personal content | “Hearing Birdsong” |
| Flipped classroom | Methodology inverting the traditional educational model, with students being first introduced to new content outside of class | Group-Based Flipped Classroom |
| Learning in virtual worlds | Immersive learning, allowing students to interact with three-dimensional simulations | “Google Expedition App” |
| Self-regulated learning | An ability to take ownership of one’s own learning process | Self-regulated strategy development combined with assistive technology |
| Service-learning | An approach integrating learning with community service | Giving presentations on relevant topics |
| Short didactics | Incorporating media technology into the classroom ecology | Educational videos for foreign language teaching |
| Trialogical approach | Theoretical construct integrating a “monological” and a “dialogical” approach with processes occurring during the collaborative development of knowledge outcomes | “Knowledge Practices Laboratory” |
| Virtual exchange | An online educational program connecting learners from different locations | “Student Exchange Platform” |
1.4 Aim of the Study
We aimed to gain experts’ opinions on the suitability of learning methods applicable in an inclusive digital learning environment for all students and students with SEN. Experts’ opinions were collected to supply theoretical literature-based background with knowledge based on practice, considering that the topic of digital learning methods in an inclusive environment is still a new research field. We aimed to take a step towards well-founded empirical research on the topic of digital learning in inclusive settings that will be a basis for further exploration.
The following research questions were addressed:
Which digital learning methods or methods applicable in digital environments are suitable for students with and without SEN?
Are digital learning methods or methods applicable in digital environments more suitable for students with or without SEN?
2 Research Design and Methodology
2.1 Participants
We conducted a survey to gather opinions of a group (Pinsonneault & Kraemer, 1993). All the participants in our study needed to be experts in digital learning in inclusive education, namely, to have achieved a significant contribution to the literature in this area (e.g. to have published more than five peer-reviewed articles) and to have at least 3 years of professional experience in the field of digital learning, moreover, to be willing to contribute to our research. Furthermore, we included practitioners who have not published scientific articles but have at least 5 years of professional experience in the field of digital learning and willingness to contribute to our research. We contacted four academics from Germany (two professors from the Institutes for Special Education, one professor from the Department of Education and Social Sciences, and one professor currently working at the Institute for Education Support for Behaviour, Social-Emotional and Psychomotor Development in Switzerland), five academics from Italy (Professor of Practice Digital Innovation and Business Transformation, Associate Professor in Experimental Pedagogy, Associate Professor in Didactics at Department of Philosophy, one Ph.D. working in the Faculty of STEM Education at Dublin City University, Professor from Department of Education, Psychology, Communication Sciences, Associate Professor and Coordinator of the Master’s Degree Course in Communication Technologies and Languages, one Ph.D. in Multimedia Communication at the Faculty of Education), as well as one Italian practitioner working in a company supporting digital education, and six in-service teachers from Portugal and Cyprus. In all, we received filled questionnaires from 16 individuals [9 (56%) female]. All the experts have consented to participate in our study.
2.2 Questionnaire Design and Data Collection
We prepared a questionnaire, as presented in the Appendix, consisting of methods’ descriptions, four Likert scale questions, and one open question. We aimed to ensure that the experts understood the learning methods in the same way; therefore, we added short descriptions of all the methods to the questionnaire. The study was conducted partially per traditional post and partially per electronic post.
Experts were requested to rate each method regarding its evidence base, future orientation, and suitability for students in general and students with learning and behavioural difficulties, as well as to rate one’s level of knowledge of each method and to provide a short comment on each of the methods. The answers to the open questions were analysed qualitatively. Data were collected from October to November 2021.
2.3 Mixed Methods
A mixed-method data collection strategy was employed to combine elements of quantitative and qualitative research methods within this study, hence to “dramatise the artfulness and versatility of research design” (Sandelowski, 2000, p. 254). Quantitative methods provide detailed assessment and generalisability, while qualitative methods offer context to the findings (Driscoll, Appiah-Yeboah, Salib, & Rupert, 2007). We collected, analysed, and interpreted both quantitative (numerical) and qualitative (non-numerical) data to develop a comprehensive understanding of the topic and to drive solutions (Palinkas et al., 2015) for the suitability of learning methods applicable in inclusive digital learning environments.
3 Results
3.1 Quantitative Analysis
3.1.1 Differences between Countries
For every method and every category (e.g. suitability for all students), the mean, the standard deviation, and the confidence intervals were calculated. We observed differences between countries. In Germany, digital problem/project-based learning was ranked best for all students, in Italy – cooperative learning and collaborative methods, in Portugal – virtual exchange, while in Cyprus – service-learning, which may reflect different learning styles and different cultural influences in specific countries. The list of three top-rated methods in particular countries is presented in Table 2.
Ranking in particular countries
| Rank | Italy | Portugal | Germany | Cyprus |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| 1 | Cooperative learning and collaborative methods | Virtual exchange | Digital problem/project-based learning | Service-learning |
| 2 | Digital problem/project-based learning | Debate | Self-regulated learning | Debate |
| 3 | Digital storytelling | Digital problem/project-based learning | Short didactics | Flipped classroom |
The results suggest that Germany, Italy, and Portugal focus on preparing students for a technologically advanced future, while Cyprus emphasises more social skills and community engagement. The differences in top-rated educational methods illustrate how cultural values, societal needs, and educational goals might shape teaching preferences (Thornberg & Oğuz, 2016). The high ranking of digital problem/project-based learning in Germany indicates a strong focus on technology readiness and problem-solving skills. Cooperative and collaborative learning methods were considered the best in Italy, reflecting an emphasis on social skills and group learning; however, digital problem/project-based learning and digital storytelling were also highly ranked. Virtual exchange, as the most popular method in Portugal, suggests an important place of international collaboration, possibly through partnerships with schools in other countries. Service-learning was a leading method in Cypriots ranking, emphasising community engagement, volunteer work, and practical application of knowledge. These preferences highlight the importance of culturally responsive teaching practices (Caingcoy, 2023; Comstock, Litke, Hill, & Desimone, 2023) and of including them in policies. However, these results underline the need for future studies that cross-culturally compare the use, effectiveness, and feasibility of educational technologies across different countries in order to find out what factors contribute to their implementation in each country’s context. The differences between countries might also be influenced by the different professional backgrounds of the experts in our study. The responses of Portuguese and Cypriot experts could reflect the needs of teachers, directly involved in school activities, and therefore more oriented towards practical and engaging activities.
3.1.2 Rankings of the Methods
The experts rated their level of knowledge highest for short didactics, cooperative learning, and collaborative methods, as well as for digital problem/project-based learning. They chose cooperative learning, digital problem/project-based learning, and virtual exchange as the most suitable methods for students in general. For those with SEN (“learning and behavioural difficulties” in the questionnaire), digital problem/project-based learning, cooperative learning, and service-learning were considered the most appropriate. Cooperative learning, digital problem/project-based learning, and virtual exchange were also deemed the most future-oriented methods. Further, digital problem/project-based learning, digital storytelling, and adaptive learning were rated by experts as the most evidence-based. Calculating the mean for every method and every category enabled us to prepare the rankings of suitability of the methods for all students and students with SEN and to finally integrate the obtained results into a stacking chart (Figure 1). The Likert scale in our questionnaire was designed from 1 (very suitable) to 5 (not suitable at all), so the shortest stack would have represented the best score. As a ranking, it could be counterintuitive. Therefore, we decided to recode it by reversing the order and adding 1 point to every measurement to make sure that there is the same interval between the maximal score and the score obtained before recoding. In Figure 1, the largest stack represents the most suitable method. The order of the methods was chosen according to their ranking regarding the experts’ answers about suitability for all students. The methods that are on the right side of Figure 1 were assessed as more suitable for all students than the methods on the left side. The results of the assessment of the suitability for students with SEN were added later to make the comparison of the results for both groups easier.
The suitability of the methods for all students and students with SEN.
Digital learning methods as well as analogue methods that are applicable in a digital learning environment scored better in suitability for students with SEN. Only self-regulated learning, flipped classroom, and virtual exchange indicated better scores for students in general.
In our investigation into the suitability scores assigned by experts to various teaching methods, comparing their application to all students versus those with SEN, we also conducted a paired samples Student’s t-test to compare the mean scores for each method between these two student groups. The outcomes unveiled statistically significant differences in the perceived suitability of three instructional methods: self-regulated learning, virtual exchange, and flipped classroom, when evaluating their applicability to these distinct student groups. Notably, the scores are inversely interpreted, with a lower score indicating greater suitability in this context. The negative t-values imply that the mean scores for the suitability of these methods were lower for SEN students than for all students. These findings are limited to self-regulated learning, virtual exchange, and flipped classroom, as these are the only methods for which the Student’s t-test demonstrated statistical significance, highlighting a substantial difference in mean scores between the two student groups. To conduct the analysis, we used the “jamovi” (2022). N indicates not always the same amount because the experts left some questions unanswered.
The suitability scores for self-regulated learning showed a significant difference when applied to all students versus SEN students (t = −2.59, df = 13.0, p = 0.022, mean difference = −0.643, SE difference = 0.248, effect size = −0.692), indicating that self-regulated learning is perceived more suitable for all students than tailored explicitly for those with SEN (Table 3 and Figure 2).
Self-regulated learning – descriptives
| N | Mean | Median | SD | SE | |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| ALL | 14 | 2.36 | 2.0 | 1.34 | 0.357 |
| SEN | 14 | 3.00 | 3.0 | 1.24 | 0.331 |
Self-regulated learning – plot.
Similarly, the suitability scores for virtual exchange exhibited a significant difference between all students and SEN students (t = −3.39, df = 14.0, p = 0.004, mean difference = −0.867, SE difference = 0.256, effect size = −0.875). Virtual exchange was deemed more suitable for the general student population than those with SEN (Table 4 and Figure 3).
Virtual exchange – descriptives
| N | Mean | Median | SD | SE | |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| ALL | 15 | 1.93 | 1.0 | 1.28 | 0.330 |
| SEN | 15 | 2.80 | 3.0 | 1.01 | 0.262 |
Virtual exchange – plot.
Flipped classroom also demonstrated a significant difference in suitability scores for all students compared to SEN students (t = −3.34, df = 15.0, p = 0.004, mean difference = −0.938, SE difference = 0.281, effect size = −0.834). Experts found the flipped classroom method more suitable for the overall student population rather than specifically for SEN students (Table 5 and Figure 4).
Flipped classroom – descriptives
| N | Mean | Median | SD | SE | |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| ALL | 16 | 2.25 | 2.0 | 0.683 | 0.171 |
| SEN | 16 | 3.19 | 3.0 | 0.834 | 0.209 |
Flipped classroom – plot.
Experts perceived differences in the suitability of instructional approaches in these three distinct educational contexts, indicating them as more suitable for students without SEN.
3.2 Qualitative Analysis
The last part of our questionnaire was a sentence: “Please give a short reason for your answer,” added to each method. Out of 16 experts who participated in our study, 9 answered the last part of the questionnaire (we named them E1–E9), which allowed us to gain more detailed opinions about the methods. The obtained data were analysed using a constant comparative method of qualitative analysis (Boeije, 2002). For every method, it was checked if the assessment was positive or negative, for all students and particularly for students with SEN. While coding an incident for a category, one of the co-authors compared it with the previous incidents coded in the same category, whereas as categories were chosen: challenges and advantages for both groups of students, with an example indicator for an advantage being “the possibility of interaction between students from different countries” and for the challenge being “not enough support in this method for the pupils with problems.” Every passage of the experts’ answers was labelled with an adequate code, namely “advantageous” for all students/students with SEN or “challenging” for all students/students with SEN. The comparison has been done between statements within the same method. The fragments from the answers given by different experts were compared, and those interpreted by the researcher as an advantage or challenge were given the same code. The aim was to discover the combinations of codes that would produce clusters like “methods advantageous for students with SEN.” The experts have answered in English; therefore, their comments may be cited directly. The original wording has been left and corrected only in case of misprints.
3.2.1 Code 1. Advantageous for all Students
Experts found digital games and learning ecology to have a motivating character since they may “use lighting, movement, sound and images to attract and maintain our attention” (E5), and similarly: “I believe in the high potential both for the large number of people involved in the digital game and for the strong motivational lever activated” (E1).
The digital methods are also deemed future-oriented, as “the usage of methodologies like Virtual reality in the classroom is, in my opinion, the future of education” (E5), and digital storytelling is “a very up-to-date strategy, capable of quickly involving students of any age and context” (E2). Further, digital methods support the development of social skills and empathy. For example, a community of practice “helps to connect interlocutors” (E5), and service-learning “allows students to learn selected content, as well as to be more sociable individuals and concerned with society” (E6). Experts added, concerning the trialogical approach, that “orienting teaching and learning more and more towards social responsibility, in all domains of knowledge, is imperative for the present and the future” (E4), and regarding a virtual exchange “the biggest advantage of this method is the possibility of interaction between students from different countries” (E6), moreover, flipped classroom “promotes peer-to-peer help” (E6). In general, experts found many of the methods applicable in digital environments motivational and helpful for all students, underlining their role in developing social skills.
3.2.2 Code 2. Advantageous for Students with SEN
Cooperative learning was found advantageous for students with SEN, since “its effectiveness is also known in cases of behavioural difficulties” (E2). Furthermore, service-learning, according to the experts, is beneficial and supportive for the future career of SEN learners, as “in the case of students with learning difficulties, it’s common practice to develop this strategy at the referred age to start preparing them for the world of work” (E5).
Experts found some learning methods especially supportive of students’ inclusion. Community of practice was considered “suitable as a framework for inclusion” (E2) and “an important part of inclusive pedagogies” (E8). Experts also highlighted the importance of the effective implementation of learning methods. For example, concerning digital problem/project-based learning, they said: “if correctly designed, it can be inclusive” (E1); on the topic of service-learning: “if well guided, it is of sure impact for students with difficulties” (E2), and regarding a virtual exchange, “its effectiveness obviously lies both in the methodological setting of the activity” (E2). The arguments about correct implementation were repeated constantly, indicating its importance.
3.2.3 Code 3. Challenging for all Students
Regarding cooperative learning, experts highlighted that “someone who is introverted or who has an issue with social skills might find such an environment stressful and not conducive to learning” (E9), and concerning digital problem/project-based learning, experts added, “I don’t think that all teachers are prepared to do it, above all I think that the organisational conditions do not favour this possibility” (E4). In particular, a flipped classroom requires, according to the experts, good time management, which was called emphatically: “it is necessary to consider the tyranny of time” (E4). Concerning digital storytelling, it was mentioned “I think this method can work, but not in all areas of teaching. Maybe it works better in more theoretical disciplines” (E6), which is not entirely negative. Further, learning in virtual worlds was seen in an educational context rather sceptic: “the system is very interesting for rehabilitation objectives (e.g. relational dimension), but complex to use in the school environment both for the technical implementation and for the variables involved (mediator, distractors,…)” (E1), and regarding self-regulated learning, the experts stated: “I have some doubts whether it will be suitable for all types of student personalities” (E6). Experts found the digital methods per se not challenging for students in general, but they indicated a lot of challenges in those methods’ implementation.
3.2.4 Code 4. Challenging for Students with SEN
Experts mentioned the challenges of teaching students with SEN in a digital environment, especially concerning adaptive learning “doubts arise in the case of students with behavioural difficulties for whom the strategy must be appropriately presented within a broader framework of pedagogical indications aimed at supporting an inclusive climate” (E2) and the debate “in the case of students with greater learning difficulties or who somehow have difficulty in communicating, the methodology can be inhibiting” (E5). Experts added that “it is not guaranteed for the participation of subjects with learning and behavioural difficulties” (E1), moreover: “the risk is high that students with behavioural and learning problems are not included in this discussion” (E7) and concerning flipped classroom, “often it’s recurrent that students with behavioural difficulties won’t voluntarily do the homework of viewing the support material” (E5), and “not enough support in this method for the pupils with problems” (E7).
To conclude, the methods applicable in the digital environment are potentially motivating and future-oriented, and they may enhance interpersonal and intercultural skills needed in the real world. However, some methods, like the use of virtual worlds, are viewed sceptically in educational contexts. The opinions revealed in the survey suggest that each educational method should not be viewed as universally suitable or unsuitable; rather, its effectiveness must be evaluated in the context of its intended audience, objectives, and available classroom resources, with some methods (e.g. community of practice as a framework for inclusion) showing more potential than others. While digital methods offer numerous benefits, their successful implementation requires additional effort from teachers addressing specific challenges to ensure support for all learners.
4 Conclusion and Discussion
Despite the diverse perspectives, experts have reached a conclusion in the quantitative study regarding the suitability of certain methods for students with and without SEN. Specifically, digital problem/project-based learning and cooperative learning have been identified as the most suitable methods for students with and without SEN, according to the experts’ consensus. This conclusion indicates a nuanced understanding that while no method is universally applicable, these particular approaches are deemed beneficial for all students. Methods applicable in digital environments turned out in quantitative research to be more suitable for students with SEN, gaining a higher score regarding their suitability for students with SEN than without it. However, as indicated by t-tests, experts found flipped classrooms, virtual exchange, and self-regulated learning more suitable for students without SEN than with it. Further, a comparative analysis of the experts’ answers to the open questions indicated cooperative learning, community of practice, and service-learning as advantageous for students with SEN, whereas adaptive learning, debate, and flipped classrooms as rather unsuitable for SEN students. The most repeated explanation for this assessment was that students with learning and behavioural problems would not be included in such activities unless they were additionally supported by teachers.
The supreme aim of special education is appropriate instruction (Anastasiou, Burke, Wiley, & Kauffman, 2024). A recent review of the evidence on the effectiveness of digital learning methods in inclusive settings (Stalmach, D’Elia, Di Sano, & Casale, 2023) showed that whereas digital learning methods can enhance students’ academic and social skills, their effectiveness largely depends on explicit instructions and support for students with SEN. A method might be effective for one student with a specific difficulty, but not for another with different challenges. To optimise learning outcomes, digital methods require appropriate implementation by a teacher (Massouti, Al-Rashaida, & Alhosani, 2024), who needs to be willing, qualified, and technically equipped, as well as not afraid of innovation and sufficiently confident (Stumbrienė, Jevsikova, & Kontvainė, 2024). Therefore, it is not solely the digital methods themselves that determine success, but rather the expertise, knowledge, and adaptability of the teacher in implementing them in a way that meets the unique needs of each student and ensures flexibility in the curriculum (Paul et al., 2022). However, teachers benefit from evidence-based methods and assistance in converting research insights into practical applications (Georgiou, Diery, Mok, Fischer, & Seidel, 2023). There is a need for inclusive and digital, thus “diclusive” (Schroeder & Fränkel, 2023; Schulz, 2021) culture, incorporating effective learning methods and supporting all students in digital learning environments, considering their rights, skills, and needs. Applying the methods assessed as most suitable, cooperative learning, and digital problem/project-based learning, by teachers who possess the paramount skills, knowledge, and characteristics, has a great potential to effectively support all students in digital learning environments.
5 Limitations and Future Research
Language choices are a matter of big importance (Bottema-Beutel, Kapp, Lester, Sasson, & Hand, 2021). The broad term “SEN,” often viewed in modern society as an overarching label, can perpetuate stigma (Goldan, Nusser, & Gebel, 2022) or stereotypes, thus using more person-centred language that recognises the needs of individuals may be unavoidable in the future (Arnhart et al., 2022).
The study is limited to English-speaking experts. Therefore, the results may not always be generalisable to non-English speaking settings.
Due to the small group size, complex statistical analysis cannot be done (Zawacki-Richter, 2009). The reported results are therefore descriptive. The qualitative analysis was conducted by only one researcher; thus, there were no intercoders, and no intercoder reliability was considered (O’Connor & Joffe, 2020).
While both academic researchers and educational practitioners may have valuable insights to offer, they often approach issues from different perspectives (Panda & Gupta, 2014), and it may not always be appropriate to generalise their views together. However, dialogue between these two groups can lead to a more comprehensive understanding of educational issues and contribute to the development of effective teaching practices (Ekiugbo, 2023).
Future studies need to focus on the ways of effective implementation of evidence-based learning methods in a digitally enhanced learning environment. Accessibility of digital learning materials, the suitability of instructional methods for students with SEN, and the acquisition of digital capital by students with SEN (Rizk & Hillier, 2022) need to be further explored in order to better understand how to optimise the use of digital technology to support the learning needs of students with SEN.
Acknowledgements
We thank Moritz Herzog for his thoughtful feedback on the first draft of this article. We thank the SLIDE Project Team for the assistance in the data acquisition. We particularly thank Francesca Mastrogiacomi for participating in our study.
-
Funding information: This publication was supported in part by funding from the European Union under the Erasmus+ Project SLIDE (Project Number: VG-226-IN-NW-20-24-093694).
-
Author contributions: Aleksandra Stalmach: conceptualisation, methodology, formal analysis, investigation, data curation, visualisation, project administration, writing – original draft preparation, writing – review and editing. Paola D’Elia: methodology, formal analysis, investigation, writing – review and editing. Sergio Di Sano: methodology, formal analysis, investigation, supervision, writing – review and editing. Gino Casale: conceptualisation, methodology, formal analysis, investigation, fundings, project administration, supervision, writing – review and editing. All authors have given their approval for the final version of the manuscript and agree to be accountable for the work.
-
Conflict of interest: The authors state no conflict of interest.
-
Ethic statement: The potential for harm in this study is relatively low because participants are mature adults and they have been chosen based on their expertise.
-
Data availability statement: The data that support the findings of this study are available from the corresponding author upon reasonable request.
Example from the questionnaire
| Methodology | Description | |
|---|---|---|
| Short didactics | Use of short video clips on specific topics | |
| Please answer the following questions: | ||
| a. What is your level of knowledge of this method? | Please tick the appropriate number: | |
| 1 = very well | ||
| 2 = well | ||
| 3 = average | ||
| 4 = poor | ||
| 5 = very poor | ||
| 1. How suitable do you find this method of digital learning for students in general? | Please tick the appropriate number: | |
| 1 = very suitable/very future-oriented | ||
| 2 = suitable/future-oriented | ||
| 3 = neutral | ||
| 4 = rather not suitable/rather not future-oriented | ||
| 5 = not suitable at all/not future-oriented at all | ||
| 2. How suitable do you find this method of digital learning for students with learning and behavioural difficulties? | Please tick the appropriate number: | |
| 1 = very suitable/very future-oriented | ||
| 2 = suitable/future-oriented | ||
| 3 = neutral | ||
| 4 = rather not suitable/rather not future-oriented | ||
| 5 = not suitable at all/not future-oriented at all | ||
| 3. Do you find this method future-oriented? | Please tick the appropriate number: | |
| 1 = very suitable/very future-oriented | ||
| 2 = suitable/future-oriented | ||
| 3 = neutral | ||
| 4 = rather not suitable/rather not future-oriented | ||
| 5 = not suitable at all/not future-oriented at all | ||
| 4. Do you find this method evidence-based? | Please choose: | |
| Yes | ||
| No | ||
| 5. Please give a short reason for your answer | ||
References
Aas, H. K., Uthus, M., & Løhre, A. (2024). Inclusive education for students with challenging behaviour: Development of teachers’ beliefs and ideas for adaptations through Lesson Study. European Journal of Special Needs Education, 39(1), 64–78. doi: 10.1080/08856257.2023.2191107.Search in Google Scholar
Abeysekera, L., & Dawson, P. (2015). Motivation and cognitive load in the flipped classroom: Definition, rationale and a call for research. Higher Education Research & Development, 34(1), 1–14. doi: 10.1080/07294360.2014.934336.Search in Google Scholar
Afzal, A., Khan, S., Daud, S., Ahmad, Z., & Butt, A. (2023). Addressing the digital divide: Access and use of technology in education. Journal of Social Sciences Review, 3(2), 883–895. doi: 10.54183/jssr.v3i2.326.Search in Google Scholar
Al-Dokhny, A. A., Bukhamseen, A. M., & Drwish, A. M. (2022). Influence of assistive technology applications on dyslexic students: The case of Saudi Arabia during the COVID-19 pandemic. Education and Information Technologies, 27, 12213–12249. doi: 10.1007/s10639-022-11090-9.Search in Google Scholar
Anastasiou, D., Burke, M. D., Wiley, A. L., & Kauffman, J. M. (2024). The Telos of special education: A tripartite approach. Exceptionality, 32(2), 90–108. doi: 10.1080/09362835.2024.2301819.Search in Google Scholar
Anthonysamy, L., Choo, K. A., & Hin, H. S. (2020). Self-regulation strategic framework for minimizing distraction in digital society. Journal of Physics: Conference Series, 1529, 052027. doi: 10.1088/1742-6596/1529/5/052027.Search in Google Scholar
Arnhart, C., Neale, M., Collins, C., Chesher, T., Coffey, S., Rogers, T. C., … Hartwell, M. (2022). The use of person-centered language in scientific research articles focused on autism. Journal of Developmental and Behavioral Pediatrics, 43(2), 63–70. doi: 10.1097/DBP.0000000000001038.Search in Google Scholar
Boeije, H. (2002). A purposeful approach to the constant comparative method in the analysis of qualitative interviews. Quality & Quantity, 36(4), 391–409. doi: 10.1023/A:1020909529486.Search in Google Scholar
Booth, T., & Ainscow, M. (2002). Index for inclusion: Developing learning and participation in schools. Centre for Studies on Inclusive Education, United Kingdom. Retrieved April 13, 2024, from https://www.eenet.org.uk/resources/docs/Index%20English.pdf.Search in Google Scholar
Börnert-Ringleb, M., Casale, G., & Hillenbrand, C. (2021). What predicts teachers’ use of digital learning in Germany? Examining the obstacles and conditions of digital learning in special education. European Journal of Special Needs Education, 36(1), 80–97. doi: 10.1080/08856257.2021.1872847.Search in Google Scholar
Bottema-Beutel, K., Kapp, S. K., Lester, J. N., Sasson, N. J., & Hand, B. N. (2021). Avoiding ableist language: Suggestions for autism researchers. Autism in Adulthood, 3(1), 18–29. doi: 10.1089/aut.2020.0014.Search in Google Scholar
Boyle, C., & Anderson, J. (2020). The justification for inclusive education in Australia. Prospects, 49, 203–217. doi: 10.1007/s11125-020-09494-x.Search in Google Scholar
Caingcoy, M. E. (2023). Culturally responsive pedagogy: A systematic overview. Diversitas Journal, 8(4), 3203–3212. doi: 10.48017/dj.v8i4.2780.Search in Google Scholar
Cameron, D. L., Matre, M. E., & Canrinus, E. T. (2022). Accommodating students with special educational needs during school closures due to the COVID-19 pandemic in Norway: Perceptions of teachers and students. Frontiers in Education, 7, 856789. doi: 10.3389/feduc.2022.856789.Search in Google Scholar
Chițu, I. B., Tecău, A. S., Constantin, C. P., Tescașiu, B., Brătucu, T. O., Brătucu, G., & Purcaru, I. M. (2023). Exploring the opportunity to use virtual reality for the education of children with disabilities. Children, 10(3), 436. doi: 10.3390/children10030436.Search in Google Scholar
Cho, M. H., & Shen, D. (2013). Self-regulation in online learning. Distance Education, 34(3), 290–301. doi: 10.1080/01587919.2013.835770.Search in Google Scholar
Compare, C., & Albanesi, C. (2022). Stand together by staying apart: Extreme online service-learning during the pandemic. International Journal of Environmental Research and Public Health, 19(5), 2749. doi: 10.3390/ijerph19052749.Search in Google Scholar
Comstock, M., Litke, E., Hill, K. L., & Desimone, L. M. (2023). A culturally responsive disposition: How professional learning and teachers’ beliefs about and self-efficacy for culturally responsive teaching relate to instruction. AERA Open, 9(1), 1–18. doi: 10.1177/23328584221140092.Search in Google Scholar
Cuseo, J. (1992). Cooperative learning vs small-group discussions and group projects: The critical differences. Cooperative Learning and College Teaching, 2(3), 5–10. Retrieved April 16, 2024, from https://www.researchgate.net/publication/259528026_Cooperative_Learning_Vs_Small_Group_Discussions_and_Group_Projects_The_Critical_Differences.Search in Google Scholar
Dalgaard, N. T., Bondebjerg, A., Viinholt, B. C. A., & Filges, T. (2022). The effects of inclusion on academic achievement, socioemotional development and wellbeing of children with special educational needs. Campbell Systematic Reviews, 18(4), e1291. doi: 10.1002/cl2.1291.Search in Google Scholar
de Leeuw, R. R., de Boer, A. A., & Minnaert, A. E. M. G. (2019). Student voices on social exclusion in general primary schools. In S. Schwab, M. Nel, & F. Hellmich (Eds.), Social participation of students with special educational needs in mainstream education (pp. 4–24). London: Routledge. Retrieved April 15, 2024, from https://library.oapen.org/bitstream/id/a6907e39-bdf0-4551-9459-5e9987a5f1d6/9780367209186_oachapter1.pdf.Search in Google Scholar
Donath, J. L., Lüke, T., Graf, E., Tran, U. S., & Götz, T. (2023). Does professional development effectively support the implementation of inclusive education? A meta-analysis. Educational Psychology Review, 35(30). doi: 10.1007/s10648-023-09752-2.Search in Google Scholar
Dooly, M., & Vinagre, M. (2022). Research into practice: Virtual exchange in language teaching and learning. Language Teaching, 55(3), 392–406. doi: 10.1017/S0261444821000069.Search in Google Scholar
Driscoll, D. L., Appiah-Yeboah, A., Salib, P., & Rupert, D. J. (2007). Merging qualitative and quantitative data in mixed methods research: How to and why not. Ecological and Environmental Anthropology, 3(1), 19–28.Search in Google Scholar
Ekiugbo, U. K. E. (2023). Need for collaboration between teachers and academic research: Implications for pedagogy, knowledge production and quality assurance in Nigerian schools’ social studies curriculum. International Journal of Quantitative and Qualitative Research Methods, 11(1), 35–46. doi: 10.37745/ijqqrm13/vol11n13546.Search in Google Scholar
Finkelstein, S., Sharma, U., & Furlonger, B. (2021). The inclusive practices of classroom teachers: A scoping review and thematic analysis. International Journal of Inclusive Education, 25(6), 735–762. doi: 10.1080/13603116.2019.1572232.Search in Google Scholar
Francisco, M. P. B., Hartman, M., & Wang, Y. (2020). Inclusion and special education. Educational Sciences, 10, 238. doi: 10.3390/educsci10090238.Search in Google Scholar
Georgiou, D., Diery, A., Mok, S. Y., Fischer, F., & Seidel, T. (2023). Turning research evidence into teaching action: Teacher educators’ attitudes toward evidence-based teaching. International Journal of Educational Research Open, 4, 100240. doi: 10.1016/j.ijedro.2023.100240.Search in Google Scholar
Gillies, R. M. (2016). Cooperative learning: Review of research and practice. Australian Journal of Teacher Education, 41(3), 39–54. doi: 10.14221/ajte.2016v41n3.3.Search in Google Scholar
Gligorea, I., Cioca, M., Oancea, R., Gorski, A. T., Gorski, H., & Tudorache, P. (2023). Adaptive learning using artificial intelligence in e-learning: A literature review. Education Sciences, 13(12), 1216. doi: 10.3390/educsci13121216.Search in Google Scholar
Goldan, J., Nusser, L., & Gebel, M. (2022). School-related subjective well-being of children with and without special educational needs in inclusive classrooms. Child Indicators Research, 15, 1313–1337. doi: 10.1007/s12187-022-09914-8.Search in Google Scholar
Göransson, K., & Nilholm, C. (2014). Conceptual diversities and empirical shortcomings – a critical analysis of research on inclusive education. European Journal of Special Needs Education, 29(3), 265–280. doi: 10.1080/08856257.2014.933545.Search in Google Scholar
Green, C. S., & Klug, H. G. (1990). Teaching critical thinking and writing through debates: An experimental evaluation. Teaching Sociology, 18(4), 462–471. doi: 10.2307/1317631.Search in Google Scholar
Grosche, M. (2015). Was ist Inklusion? [What is inclusion?]. In P. Kuhl, P. Stanat, B. Lütje-Klose, C. Gresch, H. Pant, & M. Prenzel (Eds.), Inklusion von Schülerinnen und Schülern mit sonderpädagogischem Förderbedarf in Schulleistungserhebungen [Inclusion of students with special educational needs in school performance assessments] (pp. 17–39). Wiesbaden: Springer VS. doi: 10.1007/978-3-658-06604-8_1.Search in Google Scholar
Guo, P. J., Kim, J., & Rubin, R. (2014). How video production affects student engagement: An empirical study of MOOC videos. In Proceedings of the first ACM conference on learning (pp. 41–50). ACM. doi: 10.1145/2556325.2566239.Search in Google Scholar
Haleem, A., Javaid, M., Qadri, M. A., & Suman, R. (2022). Understanding the role of digital technologies in education: A review. Sustainable Operations and Computers, 3, 275–285. doi: 10.1016/j.susoc.2022.05.004.Search in Google Scholar
Hattie, J. A. C. (2009). Visible Learning: A synthesis of over 800 meta-analyses relating to achievement. Abingdon, Oxfordshire: Routledge. doi: 10.4324/9780203887332.Search in Google Scholar
Herzog, M., & Casale, G. (2022). The effects of a computer-based mathematics intervention in primary school students with and without emotional and behavioral difficulties. International Electronic Journal of Elementary Education, 14(3), 303–317. Retrieved April 15, 2024, from https://www.iejee.com/index.php/IEJEE/article/view/1730.Search in Google Scholar
Holmes, A. F., Webb, K. J., & Albritton, B. R. (2022). Connecting students to community: Engaging students through course embedded service-learning activities. The International Journal of Management Education, 20(1), 100610. doi: 10.1016/j.ijme.2022.100610.Search in Google Scholar
Hornby, G., & Kauffman, J. M. (2024). Inclusive education, intellectual disabilities and the demise of full inclusion. Journal of Intelligence, 12(2), 20. doi: 10.3390/jintelligence12020020.Search in Google Scholar
Huilla, H., Lay, E., & Tzaninis, Y. (2024). Tensions between diverse schools and inclusive educational practices: Pedagogues’ perspectives in Iceland, Finland and the Netherlands. Compare: A Journal of Comparative and International Education, 54(1), 1–17. doi: 10.1080/03057925.2022.2065461.Search in Google Scholar
Hymel, S., & Katz, J. (2019). Designing classrooms for diversity: Fostering social inclusion. Educational Psychologist, 54(4), 331–339. doi: 10.1080/00461520.2019.1652098.Search in Google Scholar
Jin, S. H., Im, K., Yoo, M., Roll, I., & Seo, K. (2023). Supporting students’ self-regulated learning in online learning using artificial intelligence applications. International Journal of Educational Technology in Higher Education, 20(37). doi: 10.1186/s41239-023-00406-5.Search in Google Scholar
Kohler, S., & Dietrich, T. C. (2021). Potentials and limitations of educational videos on YouTube for science communication. Frontiers in Communication, 6, 581302. doi: 10.3389/fcomm.2021.581302.Search in Google Scholar
Kokotsaki, D., Menzies, V., & Wiggins, A. (2016). Project-based learning: A review of the literature. Improving Schools, 19(3), 267–277. doi: 10.1177/1365480216659733.Search in Google Scholar
König, L. (2021). Geschichten sind für alle da – Digital Storytelling als Zugang eines inklusiven Literaturunterrichts [Stories are there for everyone – digital storytelling as an approach to inclusive literature lessons]. MiDU – Medien Im Deutschunterricht, 3(1), 1–20. doi: 10.18716/ojs/midu/2021.1.2.Search in Google Scholar
Kumar Basak, S., Wotto, M., & Bélanger, P. (2018). E-learning, M-learning and D-learning: Conceptual definition and comparative analysis. E-Learning and Digital Media, 15(4), 191–216. doi: 10.1177/2042753018785180.Search in Google Scholar
Laluvein, J. (2010). School inclusion and the ‘community of practice’. International Journal of Inclusive Education, 14(1), 35–48. doi: 10.1080/13603110802500950.Search in Google Scholar
Lesmes, C. Z., Acosta-Solano, J., Benavides, L. B., & Umaña Ibáñez, S. F. (2022). Design and production of educational video games for the inclusion of deaf children. Procedia Computer Science, 198, 626–631. doi: 10.1016/j.procs.2021.12.297.Search in Google Scholar
Li, X., Xia, Q., Chu, S. K. W., & Yang, Y. (2022). Using gamification to facilitate students’ self-regulation in e-learning: A case study on students’ L2 English learning. Sustainability, 14(12), 7008. doi: 10.3390/su14127008.Search in Google Scholar
Lindner, K.-T., Hassani, S., Schwab, S., Gerdenitsch, C., Kopp-Sixt, S., & Holzinger, A. (2022). Promoting factors of social inclusion of students with special educational needs: Perspectives of parents, teachers, and students. Frontiers in Education, 7, 773230. doi: 10.3389/feduc.2022.773230.Search in Google Scholar
Long, T., & Guo, J. (2023). Moving beyond inclusion to belonging. International Journal of Environmental Research and Public Health, 20(20), 6907. doi: 10.3390/ijerph20206907.Search in Google Scholar
Maguire, M., Elton, E., Osman, Z., & Nicolle, C. A. (2006). Design of a virtual learning environment for students with special needs. Human Technology, 2(1), 119–153. doi: 10.17011/ht/urn.2006162.Search in Google Scholar
Massouti, A., Al-Rashaida, M., & Alhosani, M. (2024). A qualitative study on Dubai’s inclusive education policy from school leaders’ perspectives. Sustainability, 16, 1252. doi: 10.3390/su16031252.Search in Google Scholar
McKeown, D., FitzPatrick, E., Ennis, R., & Potter, A. (2020). Writing is revising: Improving student persuasive writing through individualized asynchronous audio feedback. Education and Treatment of Children, 43, 35–48. doi: 10.1007/s43494-020-00004-4.Search in Google Scholar
Meng, N., Dong, Y., Roehrs, D., & Luan, L. (2023). Tackle implementation challenges in project-based learning: A survey study of PBL e-learning platforms. Education Technology Research and Development, 71, 1179–1207. doi: 10.1007/s11423-023-10202-7.Search in Google Scholar
Mhlongo, S., Mbatha, K., Ramatsetse, B., & Dlamini, R. (2023). Challenges, opportunities, and prospects of adopting and using smart digital technologies in learning environments: An iterative review. Heliyon, 9(6), e16348. doi: 10.1016/j.heliyon.2023.e16348.Search in Google Scholar
Mokhtar, N. H., Halim, M. F. A., & Kamarulzaman, S. Z. S. (2011). The effectiveness of storytelling in enhancing communicative skills. Procedia – Social and Behavioral Sciences, 18, 163–169. doi: 10.1016/j.sbspro.2011.05.024.Search in Google Scholar
Müller, C., Mildenberger, T., & Steingruber, D. (2023). Learning effectiveness of a flexible learning study programme in a blended learning design: Why are some courses more effective than others?. International Journal of Educational Technology in Higher Education, 20(1), 10. doi: 10.1186/s41239-022-00379-x.Search in Google Scholar
Niemi, K., & Vehkakoski, T. (2023). Turning social inclusion into exclusion during collaborative learning between students with and without SEN. International Journal of Inclusive Education, 1–20. doi: 10.1080/13603116.2023.2190750.Search in Google Scholar
O’Connor, C., & Joffe, H. (2020). Intercoder reliability in qualitative research: Debates and practical guidelines. International Journal of Qualitative Methods, 19. doi: 10.1177/1609406919899220.Search in Google Scholar
O’Dowd, R. (2017). Virtual exchange and internationalising the classroom. Training Language and Culture, 1(4), 8–24. doi: 10.29366/2017tlc.1.4.1.Search in Google Scholar
O’Dowd, R. (2023). Issues of equity and inclusion in virtual exchange. Language Teaching, 1–13. doi: 10.1017/S026144482300040X.Search in Google Scholar
Ozdowska, A., Wyeth, P., Carrington, S., & Ashburner, J. (2021). Using assistive technology with SRSD to support students on the autism spectrum with persuasive writing. British Journal of Educational Technology, 52(2), 934–959. doi: 10.1111/bjet.13063.Search in Google Scholar
Paavola, S., & Hakkarainen, K. (2005). The knowledge creation metaphor – An emergent epistemological approach to learning. Science & Education, 14(6), 535–557. doi: 10.1007/s11191-004-5157-0.Search in Google Scholar
Paavola, S., Lakkala, M., Muukkonen, H., Kosonen, K., & Karlgren, K. (2011). The roles and uses of design principles for developing the trialogical approach on learning. Research in Learning Technology, 19(3), 233–246. doi: 10.3402/rlt.v19i3.17112.Search in Google Scholar
Palinkas, L. A., Horwitz, S. M., Green, C. A., Wisdom, J. P., Duan, N., & Hoagwood, K. (2015). Purposeful sampling for qualitative data collection and analysis in mixed method implementation research. Administration and Policy in Mental Health, 42(5), 533–544. doi: 10.1007/s10488-013-0528-y.Search in Google Scholar
Panda, A., & Gupta, R. K. (2014). Making academic research more relevant: A few suggestions. IIMB Management Review, 26(3), 156–169. doi: 10.1016/j.iimb.2014.07.008.Search in Google Scholar
Park, I., Sah, Y. J., Lee, S., & Lee, D. (2023). Avatar-mediated communication in video conferencing: Effect of Self-Affirmation on debating participation focusing on Moderation Effect of Avatar. International Journal of Human–Computer Interaction, 39(3), 464–475. doi: 10.1080/10447318.2022.2041897.Search in Google Scholar
Parola, A., Di Fuccio, R., Somma, F., & Miglino, O. (2022). Educational digital storytelling: Empowering students to shape their future. In P. Limone, R. Di Fuccio & G. A. Toto (Eds.), Psychology, learning, technology (pp. 119–129). Cham: Springer. doi: 10.1007/978-3-031-15845-2_8.Search in Google Scholar
Pasqualotto, A., Parong, J., Green, C. S., & Bavelier, D. (2023). Video game design for learning to learn. International Journal of Human–Computer Interaction, 39(11), 2211–2228. doi: 10.1080/10447318.2022.2110684.Search in Google Scholar
Paul, T., Di Rezze, B., Rosenbaum, P., Cahill, P., Jiang, A., Kim, E., & Campbell, W. (2022). Perspectives of children and youth with disabilities and special needs regarding their experiences in inclusive education: A meta-aggregative review. Frontiers in Education, 7, 864752. doi: 10.3389/feduc.2022.864752.Search in Google Scholar
Persico, D., Passarelli, M., Pozzi, F., Earp, J., Dagnino, F. M., & Manganello, F. (2019). Meeting players where they are: Digital games and learning ecologies. British Journal of Educational Technology, 50(4), 1687–1712. doi: 10.1111/bjet.12777.Search in Google Scholar
Pinsonneault, A., & Kraemer, K. L. (1993). Research methodology in management information systems. Journal of Management Information Systems – Special Section: Strategic and Competitive Information Systems Archive, 10(2), 75–105. Retrieved April 15, 2024, from https://escholarship.org/uc/item/6cs4s5f0.10.1080/07421222.1993.11518001Search in Google Scholar
Pyrko, I., Dörfler, V., & Eden, C. (2017). Thinking together: What makes communities of practice work? Human Relations, 70(4), 389–409. doi: 10.1177/0018726716661040.Search in Google Scholar
Pyrko, I., Dörfler, V., & Eden, C. (2019). Communities of practice in landscapes of practice. Management Learning, 50(4), 482–499. doi: 10.1177/1350507619860854.Search in Google Scholar
Rimm-Kaufman, S. E., Merritt, E. G., Lapan, C., DeCoster, J., Hunt, A., & Bowers, N. (2021). Can service-learning boost science achievement, civic engagement, and social skills? A randomized controlled trial of Connect Science. Journal of Applied Developmental Psychology, 74, 101236. doi: 10.1016/j.appdev.2020.101236.Search in Google Scholar
Rizk, J., & Hillier, C. (2022). Digital technology and increasing engagement among students with disabilities: Interaction rituals and digital capital. Computers and Education Open, 3, 100099. doi: 10.1016/j.caeo.2022.100099.Search in Google Scholar
Roldán, S. M., Marauri, J., Aubert, A., & Flecha, R. (2021). How inclusive interactive learning environments benefit students without special needs. Frontiers in Psychology, 12, 661427. doi: 10.3389/fpsyg.2021.661427.Search in Google Scholar
Saadé, R. G., Morin, D., & Thomas, J. D. E. (2012). Critical thinking in E-learning environments. Computers in Human Behavior, 28(5), 1608–1617. doi: 10.1016/j.chb.2012.03.025.Search in Google Scholar
Sandelowski, M. (2000). Combining qualitative and quantitative sampling, data collection, and analysis techniques in mixed-method studies. Research in Nursing & Health, 23(3), 246–255. doi: 10.1002/1098-240X(200006)23:3<246:AID-NUR9>3.0.CO;2-H.Search in Google Scholar
Sansone, N., Cesareni, D., Bortolotti, I., & Buglass, S. (2019). Teaching technology-mediated collaborative learning for trainee teachers. Technology, Pedagogy and Education, 28(3), 381–394. doi: 10.1080/1475939X.2019.1623070.Search in Google Scholar
Schroeder, R., & Fränkel, S. (2023). Das Kompetenzmodell ITPACK-NW für die diklusive Lehrkräftebildung in den Naturwissenschaftsdidaktiken [The competency model ITPACK-NW for diclusive teacher education in science didactics]. QfI – Qualifizierung für Inklusion. Online-Zeitschrift zur Forschung über Aus-, Fort- und Weiterbildung pädagogischer Fachkräfte, 5(2). doi: 10.21248/qfi.121.Search in Google Scholar
Schulz, L. (2021). Diklusive Schulentwicklung: Erfahrungen und Erkenntnisse der digital-inklusiven Multiplikatorinnen-und Multiplikatorenausbildung in Schleswig-Holstein [Diclusive School Development: Experiences and Insights from the Multiplication Training in Schleswig-Holstein]. MedienPädagogik: Zeitschrift für Theorie Und Praxis Der Medienbildung, 41, 32–54. doi: 10.21240/mpaed/41/2021.02.03.X.Search in Google Scholar
Shaeffer, S. (2019). Inclusive education: A prerequisite for equity and social justice. Asia Pacific Education Review, 20(2), 181–192. doi: 10.1007/s12564-019-09598-w.Search in Google Scholar
Shieh, M. D., & Hsieh, H. Y. (2021). Study of influence of different models of E-learning content product design on students’ learning motivation and effectiveness. Frontiers in Psychology, 12, 753458. doi: 10.3389/fpsyg.2021.753458.Search in Google Scholar
Stahl, G., Koschmann, T., & Suthers, D. (2014). Computer-supported collaborative learning. In R. K. Sawyer (Ed.), The Cambridge handbook of the learning sciences (pp. 479–500). Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. doi: 10.1017/CBO9781139519526.029.Search in Google Scholar
Stalmach, A., D’Elia, P., Di Sano, S., & Casale, G. (2023). Digital learning and self-regulation in students with special educational needs: A systematic review of current research and future directions. Education Sciences, 13(10), 1051. doi: 10.3390/educsci13101051.Search in Google Scholar
Standen, P. J., Brown, D. J., Taheri, M., Galvez Trigo, M. J., Boulton, H., Burton, A., … Hortal, E. (2020). An evaluation of an adaptive learning system based on multimodal affect recognition for learners with intellectual disabilities. British Journal of Educational Technology, 51(5), 1748–1765. doi: 10.1111/bjet.13010.Search in Google Scholar
Stendal, K. (2012). How do people with disability use and experience virtual worlds and ICT: A literature review. Journal of Virtual Worlds Research, 5(1), 1–17. doi: 10.4101/jvwr.v5i1.6173.Search in Google Scholar
Stieler-Hunt, C., & Jones, C. M. (2019). A professional development model to facilitate teacher adoption of interactive, immersive digital games for classroom learning. British Journal of Educational Technology, 50(1), 264–279. doi: 10.1111/bjet.12679.Search in Google Scholar
Stumbrienė, D., Jevsikova, T., & Kontvainė, V. (2024). Key factors influencing teachers’ motivation to transfer technology-enabled educational innovation. Education and Information Technologies, 29, 1697–1731. doi: 10.1007/s10639-023-11891-6.Search in Google Scholar
Susanti, A., Rachmajanti, S., & Mustofa, A. (2023). Between teacher’ roles and students’ social: Learner autonomy in online learning for EFL students during the pandemic. Cogent Education, 10(1). doi: 10.1080/2331186X.2023.2204698.Search in Google Scholar
Taylor, S. S., & Statler, M. (2014). Material matters: Increasing emotional engagement in learning. Journal of Management Education, 38(4), 586–607. doi: 10.1177/1052562913489976.Search in Google Scholar
The jamovi project. (2022). jamovi (Version 2.3). Retrieved January 3, 2024, from https://www.jamovi.org.Search in Google Scholar
Thornberg, R., & Oğuz, E. (2016). Moral and citizenship educational goals in values education: A cross-cultural study of Swedish and Turkish student teachers’ preferences. Teaching and Teacher Education, 55, 110–121. doi: 10.1016/j.tate.2016.01.002.Search in Google Scholar
Triventi, M., Skopek, J., Kulic, N., Buchholz, S., & Blossfeld, H.-P. (2020). Advantage ‘finds its way’: How privileged families exploit opportunities in different systems of secondary education. Sociology, 54(2), 237–257. doi: 10.1177/0038038519874984.Search in Google Scholar
United Nations. (2006). Convention on the rights of persons with disabilities. Treaty Series, 2515, 3.Search in Google Scholar
van Alten, D. C. D., Phielix, C., Janssen, J., & Kester, L. (2020). Effects of self-regulated learning prompts in a flipped history classroom. Computers in Human Behavior, 108, 106318. doi: 10.1016/j.chb.2020.106318.Search in Google Scholar
van de Werfhorst, H. G., Kessenich, E., & Geven, S. (2022). The digital divide in online education: Inequality in digital readiness of students and schools. Computers and Education Open, 3, 100100. doi: 10.1016/j.caeo.2022.100100.Search in Google Scholar
Vyrastekova J. (2021). Social inclusion of students with special educational needs assessed by the Inclusion of Other in the Self scale. PloS One, 16(4), e0250070. doi: 10.1371/journal.pone.0250070.Search in Google Scholar
Walkington, C. A. (2013). Using adaptive learning technologies to personalize instruction to student interests: The impact of relevant contexts on performance and learning outcomes. Journal of Educational Psychology, 105(4), 932–945. doi: 10.1037/a0031882.Search in Google Scholar
Zawacki-Richter, O. (2009). Research areas in distance education: A Delphi study. The International Review of Research in Open and Distributed Learning, 10(3). doi: 10.19173/irrodl.v10i3.674.Search in Google Scholar
Zhang, L., & Ma, Y. (2023). A study of the impact of project-based learning on student learning effects: A meta-analysis study. Frontiers in Psychology, 14, 1202728. doi: 10.3389/fpsyg.2023.1202728.Search in Google Scholar
Zhang, Y., Lucas, M., & Pedro, L. (2022). A decade of short videos for foreign language teaching and learning: A review. Education Sciences, 12(11), 786. doi: 10.3390/educsci12110786.Search in Google Scholar
Zhu, M., & Zhang, K. (2023). Promote collaborations in online problem-based learning in a user experience design course: Educational design research. Education and Information Technologies, 28, 7631–7649. doi: 10.1007/s10639-022-11495-6.Search in Google Scholar
Zimmerman, B. J. (1986). Becoming a self-regulated learner: Which are the key subprocesses? Contemporary Educational Psychology, 11(4), 307–313. doi: 10.1016/0361-476X(86)90027-5.Search in Google Scholar
Zimmerman, B. J. (2002). Becoming a self-regulated learner: An overview. Theory Into Practice, 41(2), 64–70. doi: 10.1207/s15430421tip4102_2.Search in Google Scholar
Zweers, I., de Schoot, R. A. V., Tick, N. T., Depaoli, S., Clifton, J. P., de Castro, B. O., & Bijstra, J. O. (2021). Social–emotional development of students with social–emotional and behavioral difficulties in inclusive regular and exclusive special education. International Journal of Behavioral Development, 45(1), 59–68. doi: 10.1177/0165025420915527.Search in Google Scholar
© 2024 the author(s), published by De Gruyter
This work is licensed under the Creative Commons Attribution 4.0 International License.
Articles in the same Issue
- Special Issue: Building Bridges in STEAM Education in the 21st Century - Part II
- The Flipped Classroom Optimized Through Gamification and Team-Based Learning
- Method and New Doctorate Graduates in Science, Technology, Engineering, and Mathematics of the European Innovation Scoreboard as a Measure of Innovation Management in Subdisciplines of Management and Quality Studies
- Impact of Gamified Problem Sheets in Seppo on Self-Regulation Skills
- Special Issue: Disruptive Innovations in Education - Part I
- School-Based Education Program to Solve Bullying Cases in Primary Schools
- The Project Trauma-Informed Practice for Workers in Public Service Settings: New Strategies for the Same Old Objective
- Regular Articles
- Limits of Metacognitive Prompts for Confidence Judgments in an Interactive Learning Environment
- “Why are These Problems Still Unresolved?” Those Pending Problems, and Neglected Contradictions in Online Classroom in the Post-COVID-19 Era
- Potential Elitism in Selection to Bilingual Studies: A Case Study in Higher Education
- Predicting Time to Graduation of Open University Students: An Educational Data Mining Study
- Risks in Identifying Gifted Students in Mathematics: Case Studies
- Technology Integration in Teacher Education Practices in Two Southern African Universities
- Comparing Emergency Remote Learning with Traditional Learning in Primary Education: Primary School Student Perspectives
- Pedagogical Technologies and Cognitive Development in Secondary Education
- Sense of Belonging as a Predictor of Intentions to Drop Out Among Black and White Distance Learning Students at a South African University
- Gender Sensitivity of Teacher Education Curricula in the Republic of Croatia
- A Case Study of Biology Teaching Practices in Croatian Primary Schools
- The Impact of “Scratch” on Student Engagement and Academic Performance in Primary Schools
- Examining the Structural Relationships Between Pre-Service Science Teachers’ Intention to Teach and Perceptions of the Nature of Science and Attitudes
- Validation of the Undesirable Behavior Strategies Questionnaire: Physical Educators’ Strategies within the Classroom Ecology
- Economics Education, Decision-Making, and Entrepreneurial Intention: A Mediation Analysis of Financial Literacy
- Deconstructing Teacher Engagement Techniques for Pre-service Teachers through Explicitly Teaching and Applying “Noticing” in Video Observations
- Influencing Factors of Work–Life Balance Among Female Managers in Chinese Higher Education Institutions: A Delphi Study
- Examining the Interrelationships Among Curiosity, Creativity, and Academic Motivation Using Students in High Schools: A Multivariate Analysis Approach
- Teaching Research Methodologies in Education: Teachers’ Pedagogical Practices in Portugal
- Normrank Correlations for Testing Associations and for Use in Latent Variable Models
- “The More, the Merrier; the More Ideas, the Better Feeling”: Examining the Role of Creativity in Regulating Emotions among EFL Teachers
- Principals’ Demographic Qualities and the Misuse of School Material Capital in Secondary Schools
- Enhancing DevOps Engineering Education Through System-Based Learning Approach
- Uncertain Causality Analysis of Critical Success Factors of Special Education Mathematics Teaching
- Novel Totto-Chan by Tetsuko Kuroyanagi: A Study of Philosophy of Progressivism and Humanism and Relevance to the Merdeka Curriculum in Indonesia
- Global Education and Critical Thinking: A Necessary Symbiosis to Educate for Critical Global Citizenship
- The Mediating Effect of Optimism and Resourcefulness on the Relationship between Hardiness and Cyber Delinquent Among Adolescent Students
- Enhancing Social Skills Development in Children with Autism Spectrum Disorder: An Evaluation of the “Power of Camp Inclusion” Program
- The Influence of Student Learning, Student Expectation and Quality of Instructor on Student Perceived Satisfaction and Student Academic Performance: Under Online, Hybrid and Physical Classrooms
- Household Size and Access to Education in Rural Burundi: The Case of Mutaho Commune
- The Impact of the Madrasati Platform Experience on Acquiring Mathematical Concepts and Improving Learning Motivation from the Point of View of Mathematics Teachers
- The Ideal Path: Acquiring Education and Gaining Respect for Parents from the Perspective of Arab-Bedouin Students
- Exploring Mentor Teachers’ Experiences and Practices in Japan: Formative Intervention for Self-Directed Development of Novice Teachers
- Research Trends and Patterns on Emotional Intelligence in Education: A Bibliometric and Knowledge Mapping During 2012–2021
- Openness to Change and Academic Freedom in Jordanian Universities
- Digital Methods to Promote Inclusive and Effective Learning in Schools: A Mixed Methods Research Study
- Translation Competence in Translator Training Programs at Saudi Universities: Empirical Study
- Self-directed Learning Behavior among Communication Arts Students in a HyFlex Learning Environment at a Government University in Thailand
- Unveiling Connections between Stress, Anxiety, Depression, and Delinquency Proneness: Analysing the General Strain Theory
- The Expression of Gratitude in English and Arabic Doctoral Dissertation Acknowledgements
- Subtexts of Most Read Articles on Social Sciences Citation Index: Trends in Educational Issues
- Experiences of Adult Learners Engaged in Blended Learning beyond COVID-19 in Ghana
- The Influence of STEM-Based Digital Learning on 6C Skills of Elementary School Students
- Gender and Family Stereotypes in a Photograph: Research Using the Eye-Tracking Method
- ChatGPT in Teaching Linear Algebra: Strides Forward, Steps to Go
- Partnership Quality, Student’s Satisfaction, and Loyalty: A Study at Higher Education Legal Entities in Indonesia
- SEA’s Science Teacher Voices Through the Modified World Café
- Construction of Entrepreneurship Coaching Index: Based on a Survey of Art Design Students in Higher Vocational Colleges in Guangdong, China
- The Effect of Audio-Assisted Reading on Incidental Learning of Present Perfect by EFL Learners
- Comprehensive Approach to Training English Communicative Competence in Chemistry
- The Collaboration of Teaching at The Right Level Approach with Problem-Based Learning Model
- Effectiveness of a Pop-Up Story-Based Program for Developing Environmental Awareness and Sustainability Concepts among First-Grade Elementary Students
- Effect of Computer Simulation Integrated with Jigsaw Learning Strategy on Students’ Attitudes towards Learning Chemistry
- Unveiling the Distinctive Impact of Vocational Schools Link and Match Collaboration with Industries for Holistic Workforce Readiness
- Students’ Perceptions of PBL Usefulness
- Assessing the Outcomes of Digital Soil Science Curricula for Agricultural Undergraduates in the Global South
- The Relationship between Epistemological Beliefs and Assessment Conceptions among Pre-Service Teachers
- Review Articles
- Fostering Creativity in Higher Education Institution: A Systematic Review (2018–2022)
- The Effects of Online Continuing Education for Healthcare Professionals: A Systematic Scoping Review
- The Impact of Job Satisfaction on Teacher Mental Health: A Call to Action for Educational Policymakers
- Developing Multilingual Competence in Future Educators: Approaches, Challenges, and Best Practices
- Using Virtual Reality to Enhance Twenty-First-Century Skills in Elementary School Students: A Systematic Literature Review
- State-of-the-Art of STEAM Education in Science Classrooms: A Systematic Literature Review
- Integration of Project-Based Learning in Science, Technology, Engineering, and Mathematics to Improve Students’ Biology Practical Skills in Higher Education: A Systematic Review
- Teaching Work and Inequality in Argentina: Heterogeneity and Dynamism in Educational Research
- Case Study
- Teachers’ Perceptions of a Chatbot’s Role in School-based Professional Learning
Articles in the same Issue
- Special Issue: Building Bridges in STEAM Education in the 21st Century - Part II
- The Flipped Classroom Optimized Through Gamification and Team-Based Learning
- Method and New Doctorate Graduates in Science, Technology, Engineering, and Mathematics of the European Innovation Scoreboard as a Measure of Innovation Management in Subdisciplines of Management and Quality Studies
- Impact of Gamified Problem Sheets in Seppo on Self-Regulation Skills
- Special Issue: Disruptive Innovations in Education - Part I
- School-Based Education Program to Solve Bullying Cases in Primary Schools
- The Project Trauma-Informed Practice for Workers in Public Service Settings: New Strategies for the Same Old Objective
- Regular Articles
- Limits of Metacognitive Prompts for Confidence Judgments in an Interactive Learning Environment
- “Why are These Problems Still Unresolved?” Those Pending Problems, and Neglected Contradictions in Online Classroom in the Post-COVID-19 Era
- Potential Elitism in Selection to Bilingual Studies: A Case Study in Higher Education
- Predicting Time to Graduation of Open University Students: An Educational Data Mining Study
- Risks in Identifying Gifted Students in Mathematics: Case Studies
- Technology Integration in Teacher Education Practices in Two Southern African Universities
- Comparing Emergency Remote Learning with Traditional Learning in Primary Education: Primary School Student Perspectives
- Pedagogical Technologies and Cognitive Development in Secondary Education
- Sense of Belonging as a Predictor of Intentions to Drop Out Among Black and White Distance Learning Students at a South African University
- Gender Sensitivity of Teacher Education Curricula in the Republic of Croatia
- A Case Study of Biology Teaching Practices in Croatian Primary Schools
- The Impact of “Scratch” on Student Engagement and Academic Performance in Primary Schools
- Examining the Structural Relationships Between Pre-Service Science Teachers’ Intention to Teach and Perceptions of the Nature of Science and Attitudes
- Validation of the Undesirable Behavior Strategies Questionnaire: Physical Educators’ Strategies within the Classroom Ecology
- Economics Education, Decision-Making, and Entrepreneurial Intention: A Mediation Analysis of Financial Literacy
- Deconstructing Teacher Engagement Techniques for Pre-service Teachers through Explicitly Teaching and Applying “Noticing” in Video Observations
- Influencing Factors of Work–Life Balance Among Female Managers in Chinese Higher Education Institutions: A Delphi Study
- Examining the Interrelationships Among Curiosity, Creativity, and Academic Motivation Using Students in High Schools: A Multivariate Analysis Approach
- Teaching Research Methodologies in Education: Teachers’ Pedagogical Practices in Portugal
- Normrank Correlations for Testing Associations and for Use in Latent Variable Models
- “The More, the Merrier; the More Ideas, the Better Feeling”: Examining the Role of Creativity in Regulating Emotions among EFL Teachers
- Principals’ Demographic Qualities and the Misuse of School Material Capital in Secondary Schools
- Enhancing DevOps Engineering Education Through System-Based Learning Approach
- Uncertain Causality Analysis of Critical Success Factors of Special Education Mathematics Teaching
- Novel Totto-Chan by Tetsuko Kuroyanagi: A Study of Philosophy of Progressivism and Humanism and Relevance to the Merdeka Curriculum in Indonesia
- Global Education and Critical Thinking: A Necessary Symbiosis to Educate for Critical Global Citizenship
- The Mediating Effect of Optimism and Resourcefulness on the Relationship between Hardiness and Cyber Delinquent Among Adolescent Students
- Enhancing Social Skills Development in Children with Autism Spectrum Disorder: An Evaluation of the “Power of Camp Inclusion” Program
- The Influence of Student Learning, Student Expectation and Quality of Instructor on Student Perceived Satisfaction and Student Academic Performance: Under Online, Hybrid and Physical Classrooms
- Household Size and Access to Education in Rural Burundi: The Case of Mutaho Commune
- The Impact of the Madrasati Platform Experience on Acquiring Mathematical Concepts and Improving Learning Motivation from the Point of View of Mathematics Teachers
- The Ideal Path: Acquiring Education and Gaining Respect for Parents from the Perspective of Arab-Bedouin Students
- Exploring Mentor Teachers’ Experiences and Practices in Japan: Formative Intervention for Self-Directed Development of Novice Teachers
- Research Trends and Patterns on Emotional Intelligence in Education: A Bibliometric and Knowledge Mapping During 2012–2021
- Openness to Change and Academic Freedom in Jordanian Universities
- Digital Methods to Promote Inclusive and Effective Learning in Schools: A Mixed Methods Research Study
- Translation Competence in Translator Training Programs at Saudi Universities: Empirical Study
- Self-directed Learning Behavior among Communication Arts Students in a HyFlex Learning Environment at a Government University in Thailand
- Unveiling Connections between Stress, Anxiety, Depression, and Delinquency Proneness: Analysing the General Strain Theory
- The Expression of Gratitude in English and Arabic Doctoral Dissertation Acknowledgements
- Subtexts of Most Read Articles on Social Sciences Citation Index: Trends in Educational Issues
- Experiences of Adult Learners Engaged in Blended Learning beyond COVID-19 in Ghana
- The Influence of STEM-Based Digital Learning on 6C Skills of Elementary School Students
- Gender and Family Stereotypes in a Photograph: Research Using the Eye-Tracking Method
- ChatGPT in Teaching Linear Algebra: Strides Forward, Steps to Go
- Partnership Quality, Student’s Satisfaction, and Loyalty: A Study at Higher Education Legal Entities in Indonesia
- SEA’s Science Teacher Voices Through the Modified World Café
- Construction of Entrepreneurship Coaching Index: Based on a Survey of Art Design Students in Higher Vocational Colleges in Guangdong, China
- The Effect of Audio-Assisted Reading on Incidental Learning of Present Perfect by EFL Learners
- Comprehensive Approach to Training English Communicative Competence in Chemistry
- The Collaboration of Teaching at The Right Level Approach with Problem-Based Learning Model
- Effectiveness of a Pop-Up Story-Based Program for Developing Environmental Awareness and Sustainability Concepts among First-Grade Elementary Students
- Effect of Computer Simulation Integrated with Jigsaw Learning Strategy on Students’ Attitudes towards Learning Chemistry
- Unveiling the Distinctive Impact of Vocational Schools Link and Match Collaboration with Industries for Holistic Workforce Readiness
- Students’ Perceptions of PBL Usefulness
- Assessing the Outcomes of Digital Soil Science Curricula for Agricultural Undergraduates in the Global South
- The Relationship between Epistemological Beliefs and Assessment Conceptions among Pre-Service Teachers
- Review Articles
- Fostering Creativity in Higher Education Institution: A Systematic Review (2018–2022)
- The Effects of Online Continuing Education for Healthcare Professionals: A Systematic Scoping Review
- The Impact of Job Satisfaction on Teacher Mental Health: A Call to Action for Educational Policymakers
- Developing Multilingual Competence in Future Educators: Approaches, Challenges, and Best Practices
- Using Virtual Reality to Enhance Twenty-First-Century Skills in Elementary School Students: A Systematic Literature Review
- State-of-the-Art of STEAM Education in Science Classrooms: A Systematic Literature Review
- Integration of Project-Based Learning in Science, Technology, Engineering, and Mathematics to Improve Students’ Biology Practical Skills in Higher Education: A Systematic Review
- Teaching Work and Inequality in Argentina: Heterogeneity and Dynamism in Educational Research
- Case Study
- Teachers’ Perceptions of a Chatbot’s Role in School-based Professional Learning
