Inclusive education has become a global priority, central to rights-based agreements such as the United Nations Convention on the Rights of Persons with Disabilities (United Nations, 2006). Within national strategies for inclusion, assistive technology is increasingly regarded as a critical support to mitigate educational barriers and ensure independent access for disabled students. Equitable access to assistive technology remains a critical challenge across Europe, echoing the European Commission (2020)’s Digital Education Action Plan (2021-2027) which emphasises inclusion within digital transformation. Education systems across Europe increasingly prioritise the provision of accessible technological resources in mainstream schools, where the strategic focus often remains on deploying digital infrastructure as a primary solution for inclusion (European Agency for Special Needs and Inclusive Education, 2021). However, research suggests that a significant gap persists between policy intent and classroom reality. While policies encourage schools to make reasonable accommodations, the availability of assistive technology does not automatically translate into meaningful inclusion (Selwyn, 2011). An exclusive focus on the functional delivery of these resources often obscures the complex social, cultural, and environmental conditions that shape everyday usage.

Responding to this oversight, this study aims to address the gap between policy intent and classroom reality through a whole school analysis. Unlike previous studies that focus on specific disability categories (Ortiz-Escobar et al., 2023) or particular hardware and software (Tan et al., 2022), this research adopts a whole school perspective to explore how assistive technology is used in a mainstream school in England. The objective is to move the focus from technical functions of assistive technologies to understand the lived experiences of the school community. By centring the views of disabled students and staff members, this immersive study aims to explore the gap between policy expectations, the potential of assistive technology, and its everyday use. It explores how school cultures, structures, and historical contexts influence the use of these resources.

Guided by these objectives, the research addresses three research questions: 1) How national policies and school provision structures influence the everyday use of assistive technologies in mainstream schools? 2) How do social and cultural factors influence disabled students’ understanding and engagement with assistive technology? and 3) How student perspectives challenge or reshape the staff’s understanding of assistive technology support? By addressing these questions, the research provides a comprehensive picture of the environment in which assistive technology operates.

The study integrates Critical Disability Studies (CDS) with Cultural Historical Activity Theory (CHAT). CDS positions disability as a constructed phenomenon rooted in social, political, and institutional contexts (Goodley, 2014). From a CDS view, assistive technology is more than a functional object to aid learning. Student decisions to use assistive technology depends on social acceptance and school culture. CDS centres the lived experience of disabled students to understand these complex interactions. Complementing this critical lens, CHAT (Engeström, 2014) offers a structural framework to view the school as a complex ‘activity system’. It analyses how everyday practices are mediated by tools, rules, and the division of labour. CHAT is employed to identify systemic ‘contradictions’ such as the tensions between inclusive policy ideals and the practical realities of training and resources. It also captures the ‘multi-voiced’ nature of the school, accounting for the diverse perspectives of staff and students.

Using a qualitative instrumental case study design (Stake, 2005), the study explores the dynamic interactions among school policies, cultural norms, and individual experiences. Data were generated through a six-month immersion where the first author volunteered alongside the participants in a mainstream school. Using a participatory approach, the study involves disabled students and staff as active contributors rather than research subjects. This helps challenge conventional power relations and keeps the research grounded in participants’ lived experiences. We collected data using multiple methods designed to capture both official policy and lived practice. Methods included the analysis of school documents such as accessibility plans to understand the official framing of assistive technology. We conducted semi-structured interviews with 17 staff members including the Special Educational Needs Coordinator (SENCO), teachers, teaching assistants, IT staff, and school leaders. We also conducted separate semi-structured interviews with eight students using varied assistive technology across diverse disability categories, including autism, visual impairment, physical disability, and dyslexia. We observed eight classrooms for capturing the situated use of assistive technology in real time learning environments. We conducted four participatory focus groups with students through an iterative process to prioritise accessibility and minimize literacy barriers. Specific activities included an ‘AT Mapping exercise’ where students used images and emojis to visually depict their emotional and experiences with assistive technology and a ‘Scenario Poster Activity’ to stimulate collective thinking regarding better scenarios for assistive technology use. We conducted three focus groups with school staff to reflect on preliminary findings and themes identified from student data. By bringing staff into conversation with student perspectives, we linked policy intentions with everyday classroom practice. We employed reflexive thematic analysis (Braun & Clarke, 2019) to analyse data from interviews, observations and focus groups. This method was selected for its flexibility in navigating the power dynamics inherent in disability research allowing the researcher to actively reflect on their influence in knowledge production. We applied framework analysis (Ritchie & Spencer, 1994) guided by CHAT to analyse policy documentation to map the intended support system. Crucially, the interpretative phase synthesises the theoretical frameworks. We applied CHAT (Engeström, 2014) to position teachers, students, and policies within an activity system to identify structural tensions while using CDS (Goodley, 2014) to critique social norms regarding ableism and reveal the power dynamics embedded in the school. Ethical approval was secured with strict protocols regarding informed consent and anonymity.

The preliminary analysis indicates a difference in how staff and students perceive assistive technology. Staff members predominantly focus on the functional utility of assistive technology for students’ schoolwork. In contrast, students navigate complex social dynamics where the visibility of assistive technology distinguishes them from peers. This finding is consistent with previous research indicating that institutional priorities often overshadow the lived social experiences of disabled young people (Hemmingsson et al., 2009; Soderstrom & Ytterhus, 2010). It suggests that the social challenge of using assistive technology remains an ongoing issue despite the growing status of technology as ubiquitous and desirable in contemporary society. The findings also highlight that students using assistive technology rely more on informal support from peers and family than on formal staff assistance when learning new technology or solving technical problems. This reliance on informal support is driven by a structural misalignment within mainstream schools. Although schools maintain IT departments, the primary function of IT departments is typically restricted to infrastructure maintenance rather than the provision of individualised support for assistive technology. Formal assistance often operates in a reactive manner based on staff assumptions that students will actively solicit help. This fails to account for the complex power dynamics that prevent disabled students from self-advocating. The students most in need of assistance are often the ones finding it most difficult to ask for help. The study concludes that providing equipment is insufficient for inclusion. It is important for schools to recognise the social barriers of using visible assistive technology. Support needs to shift from a reactive way to a proactive one. By prioritising student perspectives, schools can ensure assistive technology truly helps disabled students.

Braun, V., & Clarke, V. (2019). Reflecting on reflexive thematic analysis. Qualitative Research in Sport, Exercise and Health, 11(4), 589–597. Engeström, Y. (2014). Learning by expanding: An activity-theoretical approach to developmental research. Cambridge University Press. European Agency for Special Needs and Inclusive Education. (2021). Key principles – Supporting policy development and implementation for inclusive education. https://www.european-agency.org/resources/publications/key-principles-supporting-policy-development-and-implementation-inclusive-education European Commission. (2020). Digital Education Action Plan 2021-2027: Resetting education and training for the digital age. https://education.ec.europa.eu/focus-topics/digital-education/action-plan Goodley, D. (2014). Dis/ability Studies: Theorising disablism and ableism. Routledge. Hemmingsson, H., Lidström, H., & Nygård, L. (2009). Use of assistive technology devices in mainstream schools: Students’ perspective. American Journal of Occupational Therapy, 63(4), 463–472. Ortiz-Escobar, L. M., Chavarria, M., Schönenberger, K., Hurst, S., Stein, M. A., Mugeere, A., & Rivas Velarde, M. (2023). Assessing the implementation of user-centred design standards on assistive technology for persons with visual impairments: A systematic review. Frontiers in Rehabilitation Sciences, 4, Article 1238158. Ritchie, J., & Spencer, L. (1994). Qualitative data analysis for applied policy research. In A. Bryman & R. G. Burgess (Eds.), Analyzing qualitative data (pp. 173–194). Routledge. Selwyn, N. (2011). In praise of pessimism—the need for negativity in educational technology. British Journal of Educational Technology, 42(5), 713–718. Söderström, S., & Ytterhus, B. (2010). The use and non-use of assistive technologies from the world of children with disabilities. Disability & Society, 25(3), 303–315. Stake, R. E. (2005). Qualitative case studies. In N. K. Denzin & Y. S. Lincoln (Eds.), The SAGE handbook of qualitative research (3rd ed., pp. 443–466). Sage. Tan, Y. N., Lokananthan, T., & Yow, W. Q. (2022). Effectiveness of mobile assistive technology on improving the self-perceptions of students with dyslexia in Singapore. Asia Pacific Journal of Developmental Differences, 9(2), 248–278. United Nations. (2006). Convention on the Rights of Persons with Disabilities. United Nations. https://www.un.org/development/desa/disabilities/convention-on-the-rights-of-persons-with-disabilities.html