Digital technologies have become integral to the discourse on inclusive education, particularly for their untapped potential to enhance learning opportunities for all students (Panesi et al., 2020). These technologies facilitate differentiated and individualized instructional designs, offering tailored support to meet diverse student needs (Karatza, 2019; Kim et al., 2021). Their adaptability, for example, allows for flexible use across time and space and enriches self-directed learning phases through a variety of resources (Major, Francis, & Tsapali, 2021; Kim, Olfman, Ryan, & Eryilmaz, 2014). Consequently, leveraging digital technologies in formal educational settings holds significant potential to enhance both learning and participation opportunities, especially for students at risk of exclusion or underachievement (UN, 2020).

However, the effective use of digital technologies to increase student participation has its challenges. One key challenge is the lack of knowledge about how these technologies operate and can be utilized in educational contexts, which often results in educators failing to take full advantage of them (Bešić, Frizzarin, & Todorova, 2024). This issue was particularly evident during the COVID-19 pandemic, which highlighted numerous barriers to distance online learning and digital technology use more broadly. Even within the same school, disparities in the quality of digital teaching and learning were apparent (OECD, 2020). These disparities contributed to lower education quality and increased pre-existing inequalities for certain student groups, particularly those with disabilities (Bešić & Holzinger, 2020; UN, 2020).

To address these challenges, an international project was initiated to strengthen teachers’ professional profiles in inclusive digital education across four European countries—Austria, Bosnia and Herzegovina, Italy, and North Macedonia. Whereby inclusive digital education is understood as a “…digital transformation that goes far beyond applying suitably designed digital technologies in education” (EASNIE, 2022, p.8). The primary goal of the project was to empower teachers to create inclusive educational environments that leverage digital technologies to expand learning and participation opportunities for all students, particularly those with disabilities.

In this context, the effective use of digital technologies for inclusive teaching and learning depends not only on the users—actors at various levels of the education system (individual, institutional, regional, and national)—but also on the specific conditions under which these technologies are applied. A critical factor in advancing digital transformation within inclusive education is governance at the regional and national levels, as these entities are responsible for ensuring the technological and cultural infrastructure needed to implement inclusive digital education effectively (EASNIE, 2022).

This paper focuses on the initial phases of the aforementioned international project, specifically a review of policy documents and relevant academic literature, which examined how inclusive digital education is addressed and systematized within four national education systems. The review analyzed definitions and implementation levels of inclusive and digital education across the four countries' school systems at a normative level. It explored two key areas: (1) how digital education is defined and regulated in educational policies and relevant literature, and (2) the extent to which inclusive education is integrated into national strategies and policies related to digital education, particularly regarding students with disabilities. By identifying similarities and differences across these systems, the analysis aimed to better understand the unique contexts for implementing digital technologies in inclusive teaching and learning. Our primary argument is that achieving inclusive digital education requires meaningfully addressing the needs of students, particularly those with disabilities, and ensuring these considerations are fully reflected in policies and strategies.

This paper elaborates on a project phase that addressed the following main question: How is inclusive digital education addressed and systematized within the four different national education systems, and what are the implications for inclusive digital education for students with disabilities? A literature review approach was used to address this question. Conducted from September 2022 to January 2023, the review examined the normative definitions and implementation strategies of digital and inclusive education in the four national education systems. Specifically, it analyzed whether and how policies and frameworks in the field of digital and inclusive education acknowledge students with disabilities, as well as the measures proposed to enable their participation in digital education. The purpose of the review was to determine the extent to which strategies and policy documents in the individual project countries systematically address inclusive digital education. It also aimed to explore and better understand the complexity of each national context concerning policies and practices addressing inclusive digital education, as well as the degree to which inclusive education and digital education are integrated within national discourses. To conduct the review and ensure comparability across countries, the project team developed a template with open-ended questions, agreed upon by all partners. This template enabled each country team to identify and document key aspects most relevant to inclusive digital education in their context. Each country team of researchers produced a descriptive report summarizing the policy documents and relevant literature related to inclusive digital education within their nation. The preparation of the reports was guided by the following criteria: •How are inclusive education and digital education conceptualized and defined within your country? •Does your country have a national strategy, specific policy, or framework addressing digital education in schools? Alternatively, is digital education incorporated into a broader strategic framework? If so, what measures, focus areas, and objectives are outlined in these strategies or policies? •Do policy documents referring to digital education in your country specifically address students with disabilities? What measures or provisions are outlined to support this student group? These criteria were designed to explore and understand each national context in depth, rather than to facilitate direct comparisons between countries. The collected reports were analyzed using thematic analysis (Flick, 2014). This method allowed the project team to identify and interpret patterns within the data, shedding light on how inclusive digital education is conceptualized and implemented across the four national contexts.

The analysis revealed that while all four countries have taken some initial steps toward inclusive digital education, there is still a lack of normative guidance on its implementation. The concept of "digital education" varies across the countries, although all definitions align to some extent with the priorities outlined in the Digital Education Action Plan (DEAP 2021–2027), a renewed European Union (EU) policy framework (European Commission, 2020). Notably, none of the countries provide a clear, standardized definition of digital education, which mirrors the absence of a precise definition at the EU level. However, all four countries reference the two key DEAP priorities: infrastructure development and digital competencies (European Commission, 2020). The inclusion of students with disabilities in digital education policies varies across countries in terms of recognition and implementation strategies. Recognition: Italy explicitly incorporates students with disabilities into its digital education strategy, showcasing a clear commitment to inclusivity. In contrast, Austria, Bosnia and Herzegovina, and North Macedonia acknowledge the needs of all students; however, they do not specifically address this student group. Implementation: Austria focuses on the second DEAP priority “inclusive competencies” but delegates implementation to local authorities, resulting in inconsistencies. Bosnia and Herzegovina relies on external nongovernment projects, which often target marginalized groups but fail to focus specifically on students with disabilities. Italy highlights the importance of digital technologies for inclusive education but provides limited actionable measures. North Macedonia introduces resource centers and individualized education plans but lacks dedicated digital initiatives. During the presentation, a more nuanced analysis of the findings will be shared, and the relevant policies from each country will be introduced to provide deeper insights into the approaches and challenges associated with inclusive digital education. That should enable a discussion on how inclusive digital education should be considered at both policy and practice levels.

Bešić, E., Frizzarin, A., & Todorova, K. (2024). Digital technology use in inclusive schools in four European countries: Within- and between-school differences. Journal of Research on Technology in Education, 1–14. https://doi.org/10.1080/15391523.2024.2378084 Bešić, E., & Holzinger, A. (2020). Fernunterricht für Schüler*innen mit Behinderungen: Perspektiven von Lehrpersonen [Distance learning for students with disabilities: Teachers’ perspectives]. Zeitschrift Für Inklusion, 3. Retrieved from https://www.inklusion-online.net/index.php/inklusion-online/article/view/580(open in a new window) European Agency for Special Needs and Inclusive Education. (2022). Inclusive Digital Education. https://www.european-agency.org/sites/default/files/Inclusive_Digital_Education.pdf European Commission. (2020). Digital Education Action Plan 2021-2027- Resetting education and training for the digital age. https://eur-lex.europa.eu/legal-content/EN/TXT/PDF/?uri=CELEX:52020DC0624 Flick, U. (2014). An introduction to qualitative research. Sage. Karatza, Z. (2019). Information and communication technology (ICT) as a tool of differentiated instruction: An informative intervention and a comparative study on educators’ views and extent of ICT use. International Journal of Information and Education Technology, 9(1), 8–15. https://doi.org/10.18178/ijiet.2019.9.1.1165 Kim, J. K., Yi, P., & Hong, J. I. (2021). Are schools digitally inclusive for all? Profiles of school digital inclusion using PISA 2018. Computers & Education, 170, 104226. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.compedu.2021.104226 Kim, R., Olfman, L., Ryan, T., & Eryilmaz, E. (2014). Leveraging a personalized system to improve self-directed learning in online educational environments. Computers & Education, 70, 150–160. https://doi.org/10.1016/j. compedu.2013.08.006 Major, L., Francis, G. A., & Tsapali, M. (2021). The effectiveness of technology‐supported personalised learning in low‐and middle‐income countries: A meta‐analysis. British Journal of Educational Technology, 52(5), 1935–1964. OECD (2020). Learning remotely when schools close: How well are students and schools prepared? Insights from PISA. OECD Policy Responses to Coronavirus (Covid-19). Panesi, S., Bocconi, S., & Ferlino, L. (2020). Promoting Students’ Well-Being and Inclusion in Schools Through Digital Technologies: Perceptions of Students, Teachers, and School Leaders in Italy Expressed Through SELFIE Piloting Activities. Frontiers in Psychology, 11. https://doi.org/ 10.3389/fpsyg.2020.01563. UN (2020). Policy Brief: The Impact of COVID-19 on Children. unsdg.un.org/resources/policy-brief-impact-covid-19-children