Content area
Providing inclusive education and engaging all students in reading and writing activities presents an ongoing challenge for teachers, not necessarily resolved by implementing digital technology. This study addresses the need to better understand teacher competencies within the digitally infused classroom, specifically in relation to inclusive education and reading and writing practices. The study investigates the competencies and supportive strategies of middle school teachers who perceive themselves as successful in this area. The study employs the Delphi technique, using iterative surveys through which these teachers describe and rate aspects of their competencies and strategies. The results are analyzed through a modified version of the Technological, Pedagogical, and Content Knowledge (TPACK) framework, with particular attention to how teachers support students using their content knowledge and digital competency. Findings reveal a range of strategies and competency aspects related to both proactive accessibility and reactive individualization, using a variety of digital tools and text modalities. The teachers describe a dual orientation in their ability to curiously explore digital tools while simultaneously being able to critically appraise their usefulness. The findings contribute insights on what can support teachers when collaboratively developing knowledge of local practices and their agency in relation to available digital tools.
1. Introduction
As a teacher, balancing diverse student needs while designing productive and engaging reading and writing activities in a digital environment is a considerable challenge. Even as digital technology provides opportunities for teachers to support students in reading and writing activities (c.f. Bray et al., 2024; Jesson et al., 2018), studies show that it also introduces new challenges for teachers in providing equity and inclusive education (Godhe et al., 2023; Resta et al., 2018; Sandberg et al., 2022). This raises the question: how do teachers succeed in combining reading and writing activities with digital tools and inclusive education? Inclusive education benefits all students, particularly those with special needs (Morcom & MacCallum, 2012; Nilholm, 2019; Persson et al., 2015). Providing inclusive education is an objective set out in the Swedish education system (Swedish Education Act, SFS 2010:800, 2010; Swedish National Agency for Education, 2022) and international policy documents (European Commission: Directorate-General for Education, 2019; UNESCO, 1994). Yet, it remains a persistent challenge for education systems, schools, and teachers (Magnússon, 2022; Nilholm, 2021). However, the concept of inclusive education varies across different educational practices. Göransson and Nilholm (2014) identified four definitions of inclusive education in research and policy. The first definition equates inclusion with physical placement in mainstream settings. The second definition expands on this by incorporating academic and social support for students with disabilities. The third definition broadens support to cover all students, not just those with disabilities, creating an academically accessible classroom. The fourth definition builds upon this by emphasizing the importance of fostering a sense of social community for all learners in addition to academic support.
Within the school practice, inclusive education has often been viewed as an issue for special education teachers (Magnússon, 2022). Several studies highlight the need for greater understanding of the role of general education teachers in inclusive education, both in collaboration with special education teachers (c.f. Florian, 2019; Paulsrud & Nilholm, 2023) and within their own classroom practices (Morcom & MacCallum, 2012). Nilholm (2021), in a recent review, stated that there is limited research on the successful implementation of inclusive education in a general education context. Magnússon (2022) further adds that while existing studies address how special education teachers and principals interpret and enact inclusive education policies, there remains a lack of knowledge about how general education teachers implement inclusive education in practice and what specific competencies this requires.
The general aim of this study is to explore teacher competencies in providing inclusive education within the subject and classroom context. The subject context studied is that of language teaching and literacy, as language is closely linked to learning (Vygotsky, 1962), and literacy is recognized as a key competence in educational policy (European Commission: Directorate-General for Education, 2019; Swedish National Agency for Education, 2022). The classroom context is further specified by focusing on the use of digital tools, given that digital technology is an integral component of contemporary literacy development (Kalantzis & Cope, 2025; Kress, 2003; Yelland, 2018). The scope of the classroom context is further narrowed by studying middle school teachers, teaching students in grades 4 to 6, aged 10 to 12.
1.1. Teacher Competency: A Complex Set of Knowledges, Skills, Abilities, and Attitudes
In the widely cited Key Competences for lifelong learning: European Reference Framework, competence is defined as “a combination of knowledge, skills and attitudes appropriate to the context” (European Commission, 2007, p. 3). The terms competence and competency are often used interchangeably in policy and research. In this paper, we use competency to emphasize observable, context-specific abilities and actions in teaching practice rather than a more static or generalized notion of knowledge or skill. Illeris (2012, 2013) described an expanded competency concept building on knowledge, skills, attitudes, and deeper abilities, e.g., creativity, critical appraisal, and flexibility, as aspects that create competency. The skills, abilities, knowledge, and attitudes that constitute competency are context-dependent and vary according to situational demands and requirements. To understand teacher competency in relation to inclusion, this study adopts the Technological, Pedagogical, and Content Knowledge (TPACK) theoretical framework, originally developed by Mishra and Koehler (2006). The framework outlines three primary domains of teacher knowledge: technological knowledge (TK), pedagogical knowledge (PK), and content knowledge (CK). These domains also give rise to specialized integrated knowledge domains, technological pedagogical knowledge (TPK), pedagogical content knowledge (PCK), and technological content knowledge (TCK). The integration of all these domains culminates in technological and pedagogical content knowledge. More recent theoretical developments have emphasized the importance of teaching context and its interaction with the knowledge domains, leading to the proposed addition of contextual knowledge (XK) as a separate domain (Brianza et al., 2022, 2024; Mishra, 2019; Rosenberg & Koehler, 2015). In the context of reading and writing activities, this entails the ability to provide academic support in the classroom using both analogue and digital technologies (Leach, 2017; Sandberg et al., 2022; Yelland, 2018).
1.2. Multiple Tiers of Support
Teacher support is used as the pedagogical aspect to study teacher competency in providing inclusive education. Building on Foley (1994) and Applebee and Langer (1983), teacher support in a literacy context is conceptualized through the following five points:
Student Ownership/Agency: Instruction should create opportunities for students to contribute and take initiative in their learning.
Task Relevance: Tasks should build on students’ prior knowledge while also presenting challenges that promote learning.
Structured Learning Environment: A clear and organized structure supports students in developing strategies and thinking related to the task.
Shared Responsibility: The teacher and student collaboratively engage with the task; the teacher’s role is to provide support rather than judgment.
Gradual Transfer of Responsibility: As students gain confidence, responsibility for the learning process should progressively shift to them.
Support can be implemented across multiple tiers, depending on the needs of individual students or groups, using the tiered support system described by (Coogle et al., 2022). At Tier 1, teaching is made accessible for as many students as possible through using varied forms of representations and supports for knowledge and skill development (Bray et al., 2024; King-Sears et al., 2023; Morcom & MacCallum, 2012). At Tier 2, teachers decide to differentiate the teaching for some students, where the created accessibility is not enough (Tomlinson, 2014, 2015). At Tier 3, teaching is individualized for students who require more intensive support beyond differentiation. This level of individualization is often designed in collaboration with special education teachers. In this study, teacher support at various tiers is examined within the subject context of language and literacy.
1.3. Literacy in a Context-Specific Setting
Students require support to use and develop reading and writing skills in all subjects, meaning that literacy is not solely the concern of language teachers but teachers of all subjects. In this study, literacy is understood from the perspective of New Literacy Studies (Barton, 2007; Gee, 2015; Kress, 2003) as context-dependent communication through the reading and writing of texts (Leu et al., 2015). Texts are viewed holistically and multimodally, encompassing written, oral, visual, and auditory elements, including letters, images, and sounds (Domingo et al., 2015; Jewitt, 2008; Kress, 2003). This contextualized understanding of texts implies that reading and writing skills vary across subject areas, as the social practices of texts associated with texts differ between disciplines. Moreover, students need to master both analogue and digital literacy as this is essential to functioning professionally, socially, and in further education (Kalantzis & Cope, 2025; Selwyn, 2022; Yelland, 2018). To be able to provide adequate support for all students, regardless of their varying needs and abilities, in the use and development of literacy, teachers need to have digital competencies. This is particularly important for Swedish middle school teachers, as digital tools are widely used and nearly all students have access to one-to-one (1:1) digital devices (Swedish National Agency for Education, 2023, 2025).
1.4. Digital Infrastructure and Teachers Digital Competence
As digital technologies have become increasingly integrated into education, great attention has been given to the role of teachers’ digital competency in supporting student learning. Internationally, the UNESCO ICT Competency Framework for Teachers (UNESCO, 2018) has been developed to support education, including equipping teachers with the necessary digital competencies to enhance teaching and learning. Furthermore, the European Framework for the Digital Competence of Educators (DigCompEdu, n.d.) describes what it means for educators to be digitally competent and supports the development of educator-specific digital competences. Both frameworks acknowledge the complexity in integrating digital technology in education and stress the need for developing teachers’ skills and competencies concerning abilities, e.g., reflective use, choice, and implementation of digital tools for learning.
In Sweden, following these guidelines, substantial investments have been made over the past 30 years to enhance both teachers’ digital competency and the digital infrastructure of schools (Willermark, 2018). Today, most children in Swedish middle school report having access to individual digital tools for reading and writing, and most teachers report using digital tools as part of their teaching (Swedish National Agency for Education, 2025). While increased digital infrastructure has been shown to create opportunities for teachers to support students’ literacy development (Bray et al., 2024; Sandberg et al., 2022; Wiebe et al., 2022), these opportunities appear to depend more on the teaching strategies employed than on the digital tools themselves (Jesson et al., 2018; McDermott & Gormley, 2016). Despite this, studies into teachers’ digital competence have often been conducted without an explicit connection to the content knowledge, viewing digital competency as a set of generic technical skills (Skantz-Åberg et al., 2022; Starkey, 2020). The terminology digital competence, digital competency, and digital literacy is often used interchangeably and inconsistently in both policy and research, as shown in multiple research reviews (Pangrazio et al., 2020; Skantz-Åberg et al., 2022; Spante et al., 2018). In this study, the term “competency” is used to emphasize a more contextualized and applied understanding of digital abilities, beyond the narrower, often technical connotations of “competence”. Digital competency is conceptualized as consisting of both generic digital skills, including using digital technology as digital tools, meaning hardware, applications, and programs; the ability to make critical decisions about technology usage; and knowledge and understanding of how the digital tools function. Digital competency is understood as an integral component of broader teacher competency and is examined in relation to both inclusive education and literacy as content knowledge.
1.5. Aim and Research Questions
There is a need to better understand teacher competency in the everyday classroom context related to inclusive education, literacy, and digital technology. Research reviews have highlighted a limited understanding of how general education teachers successfully implement inclusive education practices in the everyday classroom settings (c.f. Nilholm, 2021; Magnússon, 2022). Given that literacy and use of digital tools are recognized as key student competencies in both research and policy (European Commission: Directorate-General for Education, 2019; Kalantzis & Cope, 2025; Vygotsky, 1962), this study focuses on text-based teaching activities involving digital technologies. Furthermore, Swedish middle school represents a relevant classroom context, as it features increased emphasis on text-based instruction and widespread use of individual digital tools compared to earlier school years (Egelström, 2019; Swedish National Agency for Education, 2025). Understanding how teachers themselves describe their competencies offers valuable insight into the practical knowledge, attitudes, skills, and abilities they rely on to navigate the complex instructional demands of inclusive education. Against this backdrop, the aim of this study is to explore the views of competency from teachers who perceive their own support of students in text-based teaching activities using digital tools as successful.
The research questions guiding this study are as follows:
(RQ1) How do these teachers describe their teaching in relation to student support, literacy, and digital tools?
(RQ2) How do the teachers describe their teaching competency?
(RQ3) What digital contextual factors are described as important to their teaching and competency?
2. Materials and Methods
The Delphi technique was applied to explore teacher competencies, using teachers with self-reported successful teaching strategies as participants. The term Delphi technique originates from the ancient Oracle of Delphi, referring to the use of subject-matter experts as the “oracle” (Linstone & Turoff, 1975). The study design builds on iterative surveys, in which experts explain their views across multiple rounds of surveys with the goal of reaching consensus (Green, 2014; Hsu & Sandford, 2007). This is achieved by beginning with open-ended questions in the first round of surveys, which are analyzed and reformulated into statements that participants can rate and re-rate independently in the following rounds (Linstone & Turoff, 1975; Oxley et al., 2024). This allows participants to describe, elaborate on, and revise a given topic.
2.1. Participants: Teachers as Experts
In this study, middle school teachers were recruited as “experts”, defined by using a self-assessment test. Ten middle school teachers were recruited. Hsu and Sandford (2007), in their review, noted that the number of participants in Delphi studies typically averages between 10 and 15, which aligns with Cochran’s (1983) suggestion that a Delphi study should include at least ten participants. To identify teachers suitable for the study, 493 principals across twelve Swedish municipalities were contacted. The municipalities varied in both size and geographic location across Sweden. To enhance recruitment efforts, a video information of the study was posted on social media and three Facebook groups for teachers. Teachers were asked to participate if they perceived themselves as successful in using digital tools to support students in text-based teaching activities. Participation also required completion of a self-assessment test, administered through Microsoft Forms. The test consisted of five statements where the teachers were asked to agree or disagree:
I have a teaching certificate.
I work at least 50% teaching at the middle school level.
I actively use digital tools in my teaching while working with texts (the texts can be analogue, digital, or composed of various modes of expression, such as sound, image, film, or other).
I adapt the teaching according to the students’ needs and abilities with the help of, among other things, digital tools (such as Legimus, speech-to-text, digital teaching materials, or other tools/programs).
I perceive my use of digital tools in working with texts and student adaptations as predominantly successful.
To participate in the study, the teachers were required to agree with all statements. This means that the participating teachers are licensed middle school teachers who report actively using digital tools to support students in text-based activities and perceive themselves as successful in doing so. The sampling procedure and low response rate of initial recruitment create a sample that likely overrepresents teachers who are highly confident in their digital and inclusive competencies, contributing to the aim of the study. Using teachers as experts in the Delphi technique has been conducted previously in education science (c.f. Oxley et al., 2024; Yeh et al., 2014). Thirteen teachers took the self-assessment test, and ten of them participated in Survey 1.
2.2. Ethical Considerations
The study followed the Swedish ethical guidelines put forward by the Swedish Research Council (2024). Informed consent was obtained from all participants in connection with both the self-assessment test and each survey round. To minimize the workload of participating teachers and reduce participant fatigue, ample time was provided between survey rounds, and submission deadlines were adjusted upon request where possible.
2.3. Surveys
The self-assessment test and surveys were administered and completed in Swedish. Questions and quotes presented in this article were translated into English by the researchers. Prior to deployment, the self-assessment test and Survey 1 were piloted with both active and pre-service middle school teachers. The first round of surveys was conducted between June and September 2023 using the EvaSys survey platform. The survey included a background section with questions about teaching subjects, age, and years of teaching experience, followed by six open-ended questions allowing participants to describe the strategies and competencies considered important when working with texts, digital tools, and student support. The surveys are available as Supplementary Material. According to the background data, two participating teachers had 4–7 years of teaching experience, four had 8–11 years, and four had over 16 years. The participating teachers reported teaching a variety of subjects, with all teachers teaching L1 Swedish.
The open-ended responses were analyzed using Braun and Clarke’s (2022) self-reflexive thematic analysis, following a five-step process using NVivo 14: (1) familiarization by reading and re-reading the responses while reflexively noting initial ideas in relation to the researchers’ prior knowledge and experience; (2) generating initial codes by assigning meaning to participant statements, with continuous refinement throughout several readthroughs; (3) constructing initial themes by identifying potential patterns across the material; (4) reviewing and revising the themes against the dataset and the notes in its entirety; and (5) defining and naming themes by identifying the specifics of each theme and the relationship between them. The following four themes were constructed:
Teaching context: describing factors affecting the teaching strategies, competencies, and desired outcomes.
Teaching competency: encompassing what the teachers described as knowing or being able to do in enacting their teaching strategies.
Teaching strategies: referring to descriptions of what the teachers reported doing.
Desired outcomes: reflecting the goals the teachers aimed to achieve with their strategies.
These themes formed the basis for 42 statements used in Survey 2. A codebook, illustrating the themes and associated codes, is available in the Supplementary Material.
The second round of surveys was conducted between September and November 2023, with participation from the same ten teachers. This round was administered via Microsoft Forms, rather than Evasys, as Microsoft Forms was perceived as more user-friendly. In the second survey, the teachers were presented with the 42 previously generated statements and asked to rate the importance of each statement using a five-point ordinal scale: (1) not important, (2) not particularly important, (3) neither important nor unimportant, (4) fairly important, and (5) very important. The statements were categorized into three sections: teaching context and teaching competency, teaching strategies, and desired outcomes. As the themes teaching context and teaching competency both refer to prerequisites to the teaching strategies and desired outcomes, and to reduce participant fatigue, these themes were combined into one section in Survey 2, as can be seen in Table 1.
After each section, participants were invited to provide additional comments and to reflect on how well the statements represented their views regarding context, competencies, strategies, and desired outcomes. Central tendency scores were calculated for each statement, and the open-ended comments were analyzed using the same thematic method applied in Survey 1. From this analysis, four new statements emerged, all relating to the theme desired outcomes (see Table 2). These were added to Survey 3 as supplementary statements.
The statements were organized hierarchically based on their central tendency rating from Survey 2 to help participants reflect on group consensus and more easily identify areas of agreement and divergence, and they were sent back to the participants for the third round of surveys. For each statement, participants were provided with the overall mean rating, as well as their individual rating. They were then asked to revise, comment on, or confirm each statement. Nine participating teachers completed the final survey, and three teachers made one revision each, resulting in a total of three revisions. After each section, the teachers were invited to comment on how well the results aligned with their perspectives on the corresponding theme. These final comments were analyzed thematically using the same method as in previous survey rounds. The final central tendency scores were calculated using the responses from Survey 3, incorporating any revisions. Survey 2 responses from the participant who did not submit Survey 3 were included.
2.4. Consensus and Stability
Consensus definitions in Delphi studies vary, but the central tendency measures median scores, and standard deviations (SDs) are most commonly used (Christie & Barela, 2005; Hsu & Sandford, 2007; Oxley et al., 2024). In this study, we built on Osborne et al. (2003), who define consensus in the Delphi context as a minimum of 66% of ratings being 4 or higher on a five-point ordinal scale. In this study, 94.5% of all ratings were at or above 4. The preferred SD for consensus varies in Delphi studies due to scales and sample size. Christie and Barela (2005) suggest a maximum threshold of 1–1.5, and Osborne et al. (2003) used an SD of <1.0 as an indication for high levels of consensus. Due to the small sample size, we opted for a maximum threshold of 1.1 SD. All statements except Statement 43 met the defined level of consensus by Survey 3; as such, Statement 43 was omitted from the results. The remaining statements, except numbers 26 and 41, had a final SD of <1.0, indicating a high degree of consensus. Stability is defined by the number of changes made between surveys to be less than one-third of answers (Osborne et al., 2003; Yeh et al., 2014). As only 0.8% of the ratings were revised between Survey 2 and Survey 3, the results are considered stable, and the revisions are noted in the Supplementary Material.
2.5. Post-Survey Analysis
After the final survey, the statements were analyzed using the TPACK framework (Koehler & Mishra, 2009; Mishra & Koehler, 2006) with the addition of contextual knowledge (Brianza et al., 2022, 2024). Each statement was attributed to one or more relevant domains or integrated domains. Statements that could not be attributed to a single domain were classified under multiple domains.
3. Results
A total of 45 statements were generated through thematic analysis of the free-text responses and achieved consensus among participants, with only small differences in ratings. These statements create a description of how the participating teachers view their context, competencies, teaching strategies, and desired outcomes. The differences in central tendency across the domains of the TPACK framework are small, with mode and median values between 4 and 5, indicating that the teachers consider all domains of their competency to be important. The statements are presented in Table 3, organized according to the domains within the TPACK framework.
Below, the domains are presented according to the TPACK framework, as shaped by the teachers’ responses. All participant names are fictitious.
3.1. Technological Knowledge: Digital Competency
The teachers’ technological knowledge, conceptualized here as digital competency, is described by the participating teachers using seven statements. The responses encompass all aspects of digital competency, including knowledge (Statement 12), skill (Statement 7), ability (Statement 15), and attitude (Statement 6). The teacher, Ulrika, writes about the importance of trying different tools.
Using the digital, I would say from my own experience that the most important thing is to dare to try! I don’t need to know all the features of every program, but a baseline. When I show the students, they develop it further and become my experts, that can teach both me and their peers. It becomes a win-win situation where I don’t have to spend time learning everything, and most importantly, the students become very proud when teaching me and others! We learn and develop together.
The quote by Ulrika emphasizes the importance of attitude in relation to technical skills and as part of digital competency. The teachers’ digital competency is described as comprising knowledge of local digital tools, the ability to critically appraise them, an attitude of willingness to try tools in practice, and the technical skills to use them.
3.2. Pedagogical Knowledge: Support at Different Tiers
Pedagogical knowledge is described as the most diverse component of teaching competency, comprising 16 statements. These include two competency statements, four strategy statements, and ten outcome statements. Although the surveys did not explicitly ask about inclusive education, two statements were phrased using the free-text responses as desired outcomes to create a more inclusive classroom, creating more inclusive education based on the group of students. The teachers describe the importance of having knowledge about both individual students and student groups. They describe teaching as a relational practice in which students are active participants who collaborate with one another. The teaching is also described as facilitating feedback and formative assessment. The teachers describe that their understanding of students and desired pedagogical outcomes informs decisions about how to use digital tools for accessibility, differentiation, and individualization. This is illustrated in a quote from the teacher Eva:
For some students, I have been able to print out the SmartBoard page in advance. These students, with support from a special education teacher, have then been able to work with the text beforehand. This makes it easier for them to keep up and contribute to the lessons. During the previous school year, the students did not have computers to take home and work independently. This meant that much of the work had to be done together and at the same pace. This school year, there will be one-to-one computers. This provides greater opportunities to distribute tasks to students at different levels and with different challenges.
Accessibility, differentiation, and individualization are described as being grounded in the participating teacher’s knowledge of their students, which, in turn, is seen as a foundation for creating inclusive education where all students can contribute and participate more easily.
3.3. Content Knowledge: Literacy
The literacy content knowledge is described in five statements. This includes a competency statement (Statement 11), a strategy statement (Statement 18), and three outcome statements (Statements 36, 37, and 39). The teachers refer to their subject knowledge in general terms, as all participants teach multiple subjects, including L1 Swedish. One teacher highlights the importance of understanding and preparing texts in various modalities to support students’ learning.
This gives me the opportunity to highlight words, add explanations by writing with the ‘pen,’ and insert images into the text. Together with the students, we create the text so that we understand it together. I explain words, concepts, and HOW to approach the text. I often ask in-depth questions (What is the cause of…? How does this affect…?) Together, we can search for the answers in the text and formulate a deeper response rather than just scanning for answers.
The different knowledge domains are not distinctly separated in the teachers’ quotes, as illustrated above. Instead, they appear integrated, reflecting aspects of content, technological, and pedagogical knowledge. The teachers describe subject knowledge as a foundation for making informed decisions about how to represent knowledge through different modalities, ensuring that students can engage with and produce texts in various forms.
3.4. Technological Pedagogical Knowledge
The integrated domain of technological pedagogical knowledge is described in four statements, including two competency statements (Statements 13 and 14), one strategy statement (Statement 38), and one outcome statement (Statement 28). The teachers describe being able to make deliberate, informed choices about which digital tools to use and how to use them in alignment with desired outcomes. Below, Lisa describes the ability to select appropriate tools, illustrating the described TPK in her response:
If you are going to use digital resources, you need to know the goal and purpose of the lesson. Students should be able to handle the digital resources. It should be a learning situation. It cannot become mere time-filling. When working with students with dyslexia and language disorders, it is important to use multimodal learning tools (watching videos, doing quizzes, visual support, having the text read aloud and highlighted, and utilizing speech-to-text etc.
In her response, Lisa describes how the selection and use of digital tools should be guided by the specific needs of the student group and the desired teaching outcomes. The teachers describe combining knowledge from all domains and integrating it with the ability to make critical, context-sensitive decisions about how and when to use digital tools to support student learning.
3.5. Pedagogical Content Knowledge
Pedagogical content knowledge is described through six statements. All six are strategy statements, indicating that PCK is conceptualized by the teachers primarily as a set of strategies rather than desired outcomes or knowledge. One teacher describes using a combination of model texts, collaborative writing exercises, and varied forms of feedback, demonstrating strategic integration of content and pedagogical knowledge to support student learning.
it is important to show students good examples and create together first. After that, they try together with a peer before working on their own. Sometimes, we create multiple texts together or in pairs before the student works independently (sometimes with support from a pedagogue). I also see great success in providing feedback in groups, for example, using Two Stars and a Wish, where we review texts together on the big screen. It often happens that students say to each other: ‘That’s something we also need to think about’ or ‘We could do it this way instead.’ By looking at others’ texts, they identify areas for improvement in their own writing.
This quote serves to illustrate how pedagogical content knowledge is described. The teachers describe the use of model texts that are discussed and developed collaboratively with students. They also report providing individual feedback on student writing and facilitating peer feedback.
3.6. Technological Content Knowledge
Technological content knowledge is described through five statements, including one competency statement (Statement 30), two strategy statements (Statements 21 and 30), and two outcome statements (Statements 36 and 37). Statements 36 and 37, addressing students’ use of multiple modalities, are categorized under both TCK and CK, as the modalities described include both analogue and digital forms. Statement 14, concerning the choice of how digital tools are used, is classified under both TCK and TPK, as the teachers describe this choice as being informed by both content and pedagogical knowledge. Thus, TCK is described as partially integrated with both TPK and CK, reflecting the interconnected nature of teachers’ decision-making. One teacher describes how the choice of text medium is determined by the desired literacy learning outcomes.
I also need to consider in which situations spell checkers and auto-correction (e.g., that iPads automatically capitalize the first letter of sentences) are beneficial and in which situations they hinder students’ knowledge of spelling and writing rules. I have noticed that students in grade 4 struggle with capitalizing the first letter of sentences and that their spelling skills are declining, which I believe is due to the use of digital tools.
This teacher’s response demonstrates the integration of multiple knowledge domains: the technological knowledge component is present in the teacher’s critical approach to tool selection, the content knowledge is reflected in their focus on students’ literacy development, and the pedagogical dimension is present in the strategic use of digital tools to avoid impeding learning. The participating teachers describe the ability to make conscious choices about how digital tools are used to have students engage with and produce content across multiple modalities and media, creating variation and choice for the students.
3.7. Contextual Knowledge
Contextual knowledge is described through five context-statements describing the context and contextualized knowledge of the teachers. The contextual factors are described as impacting other competency aspects and domains. Sara describes how contextual knowledge affects the need for pedagogical ability:
I also need to be aware that not all students have the prerequisites to handle digital tools or programs. As a teacher, I need to teach them how to use them. It is a misconception to assume that children have digital competence just because they have phones or play computer games.
The need for competency aspects is also described as being dependent on contextual factors, which vary between schools. For instance, Richard explains that the knowledge required of him as a teacher changes across different workplaces, as not all schools are equally equipped in terms of digital infrastructure.
if you find tools that work well for all student groups, it is not certain that they are available at a new workplace. This makes it harder to use those that are that work, as you often have to search for new solutions. It also means that I, as a teacher, need to spend a lot of time relearning and understanding new tools. […] The competencies I already have must be continuously developed and recreated, depending on the workplace, the student group I am teaching, or the tools that are available.
The responses demonstrate that contexts affect the required competency. The teachers describe their competency as contingent on collegial collaboration and the digital resources available. They emphasize that students need access to one-to-one (1:1) digital devices, and that these devices must function reliably. Further, students need adequate skills to use the digital tools available. These contextual factors are described as having an impact on both teaching practices and the competencies required to support student learning.
4. Discussion
The present study explores descriptions of competency from a group of expert teachers; in this study, middle school teachers who self-identify as being successful at using digital tools to support students in text-related teaching activities. Through iterative surveys, the participating teachers reached consensus on 45 statements, which describe their teaching in the form of desired outcomes and strategies and their perceived competencies. These were categorized using the domains and integrated domains of the TPACK framework (Koehler & Mishra, 2009; Mishra & Koehler, 2006). Although there was a limited number of teachers participating (N = 10) and one teacher not answering the final survey, the statements and responses give a rich and nuanced description of teaching competencies.
4.1. The Teachers’ Description of Support Using Digital Tools
The teachers describe creating a student-centred, proactive, and accessible learning environment using varied, collaborative, and structured strategies with a special focus on reactive individualized student support. The first tier of support, accessibility (Coogle et al., 2022), is described as using the full range of teachers’ support as defined by Applebee and Langer (1983) and Foley (1994). The teachers describe using task relevance, structured learning environment, student agency, a shared responsibility for the activity engagement, and a gradual transfer of responsibility to the students. Digital tools are described as potential compensatory aids in literacy instruction. These results are similar to those found in case studies examining teachers’ literacy support using digital tools, cf. Sandberg et al. (2022) and McDermott and Gormley (2016). As such, the digital tools are used to create accessibility proactively for students to gradually use the tools independently, taking gradual responsibility for their learning and self-support. In the proactive support, the teachers describe preparing variations of knowledge representation through text modality, consistent with results previously found in studies using a Universal Design for Learning-perspective (c.f. Bray et al., 2024; King-Sears et al., 2023).
The second tier of support, differentiation, is less explicitly described. Rather, the second and third tiers of support, i.e., differentiation and individualization (Coogle et al., 2022), are framed as reactive measures to address specific student needs, particularly in cases of disability. Individualization is described both as a desired outcome and as a strategy used to provide support, similar to how inclusion is described. Drawing on Göransson and Nilholm’s (2014) four definitions of inclusive education, the results indicate that the participating teachers operate with dual understandings. When describing accessibility, the teachers describe proactively creating an academically and socially inclusive learning environment, aligning with the fourth definition. However, their descriptions of individualization correspond more closely to the second definition, which focuses on additional support for students with disabilities. The teachers’ description of their competencies suggests this dual understanding of inclusive education.
4.2. The Teachers’ Description of Their Competencies
The teachers describe their competencies as consisting of knowledge, skills, attitudes, and abilities across all domains and integrated domains of the modified TPACK framework (Koehler & Mishra, 2009; Mishra & Koehler, 2006) and similar to competencies put forward internationally by the UNESCO ICT framework (UNESCO, 2018) and DigCompEdu (n.d). They describe needing knowledge of their subject content, digital resources available in the local contexts, and their student groups. Skills are explicitly described in relation to the technological domain. However, when these skills intersect with pedagogical and content knowledge, they are more often described as abilities. These results are similar to those found by Skantz-Åberg et al. (2022) and Starkey (2020) in their respective research reviews, which showed that teachers’ digital competences are often framed as generic skills on their own but are reframed when linked to subject-specific teaching.
The integrated technological domains appear complex regarding attitude and abilities. The teachers describe the need to be curious and exploratory, trying a variety of digital tools while also maintaining a critical perspective, evaluating tools in light of pedagogical and content knowledge. The exploration is interpreted as tied to content knowledge through text design, modality variation, and the use of different media, and to pedagogical knowledge through the desired outcome of enhancing student agency and task relevance. The critical use of tools appears associated with the structured learning environment, as the participating teachers consistently stress that tools must be used strategically to achieve the desired learning outcomes. The digital tools, while being used as support for some students, are also described as creating new needs for support to be used. This knowledge is interpreted as part of the critical decision-making, as students cannot be expected to be able to handle the tools on their own. This aligns with Selwyn’s (2022) argument that digital tools must be critically evaluated and implemented by teaching professionals rather than treated as standalone solutions. The teachers in this study reinforce this by emphasizing their agency and contextual decision-making.
4.3. Contextual Factors
The contextual factors described as important by the teachers are connected to the local digital infrastructure, collegial collaboration, and students’ digital skills. The digital infrastructure is important as there needs to be enough digital tools to choose from. A 1:1 student-to-device ratio is described as important but not sufficient; tools must be functional and reliable. In some cases, the functionality of local tools is cited as part of the teachers’ own competencies, underscoring how technological infrastructure becomes embedded in pedagogical planning. Even though digital infrastructure in Swedish classrooms has been a source of substantial investment (Swedish National Agency for Education, 2025; Willermark, 2018), the teachers in this study describe a context where not all middle school students have access to their own digital units, and that existing tools do not always function as intended. There are described inconsistencies between schools that appear to partly limit the supportive strategies and the desired outcomes.
The results indicate that students’ technical skills function as a contextual factor as they are required to access the support offered. This makes the skills both a contextual factor that the teacher needs to be aware of and a desired learning outcome. This double role of students’ digital skills makes it a factor for the contextualization of the teachers’ knowledge. Brianza et al. (2022, 2024) describe different forms of contextualized knowledge, which can be seen here as the teachers discuss how the different aspects of their competency, namely technical skills and knowledge of local digital tools, need to be adapted to the contextual factors. However, how these adaptations are made is not clear from the responses, pointing to a need for further research to better understand these strategies in practice.
4.4. Limitations and Further Research
The generalizability of this study is limited due to the small sample size (N = 10) and low response rate of the initial recruitment. While the participating teachers answered a self-assessment test, their inclusion as experts is based on their self-defined success in using digital tools to support students. The sample likely overrepresents teachers who are particularly motivated and confident in their digital and inclusive competencies. However, we argue that their minimum of four years of teaching experience adds credibility to their self-assessments. While the generalizability of the study is limited, the findings offer insights to inform future professional development efforts.
In Survey 3, the statements were presented in a ranked order, which could have influenced the participants’ perception and responses. This was mitigated by asking participants to independently reconsider and justify their ratings for each statement. It should also be acknowledged that, despite efforts to minimize participant fatigue, one teacher did not complete the final survey. Participant fatigue is a well-documented concern in Delphi studies (Green, 2014; Oxley et al., 2024). Nonetheless, due to the high level of consensus and stability observed across the survey rounds, this is unlikely to have had a significant impact on the results or conclusions.
Given that the findings are based on a small, purposefully selected sample, there is also a need for broader research on how middle school teachers more generally perceive inclusive education in the context of support, working with texts and digital tools. A larger-scale survey could offer valuable insights in this regard.
4.5. Conclusions
The teachers in this study, perceiving their support with digital tools for working with texts as successful, appear to have a dual understanding of how they create inclusive education. The results indicate that they employ proactive strategies for creating an accessible classroom environment and reactive strategies to provide individualized support to students with disabilities. These strategies are built on competencies comprising the combined abilities to curiously explore and critically appraise digital tools and their usefulness, drawing on a complex interplay of Pedagogical, Content, and Technological Knowledge, skills, abilities, and attitudes. The findings contribute to the operationalisation of the TPACK framework and the XK domain in relation to inclusive education. The findings highlight the importance of teacher attitudes and agency in choosing digital tools, affecting their context. The results further suggest that it might be beneficial to conduct professional development initiatives that enable teachers to collaboratively develop an understanding of their local teaching practices, particularly in relation to the aspects identified in the study, for example, the abilities to critically appraise and curiously explore, to jointly advance inclusive education based on student needs, and the availability of digital tools. While this study gives a descriptive account of teaching competency, further research is needed to better understand how the digital tools to support students working with texts are curiously explored and critically appraised by teachers in general. Ultimately, supporting all learners in a digitally infused classroom requires not only the right tools but the nuanced, reflective competencies of teachers who know how and when to use them.
Conceptualization, K.B.K., P.M. and D.Ö.; methodology, K.B.K., P.M. and D.Ö.; validation, K.B.K., P.M. and D.Ö.; formal analysis, K.B.K.; investigation, K.B.K., P.M. and D.Ö.; resources, K.B.K.; data curation, K.B.K.; writing—original draft preparation, K.B.K.; writing—review and editing, K.B.K., P.M. and D.Ö.; visualization, K.B.K.; supervision, P.M. and D.Ö.; project administration, K.B.K., P.M. and D.Ö.; funding acquisition, P.M. and D.Ö. All authors have read and agreed to the published version of the manuscript.
Ethical review and approval were waived for this study as the study only used anonymized survey data. In compliance with Swedish law (
Informed consent was obtained from all subjects involved in the study. Written informed consent has been obtained from the participants to publish this paper.
The original contributions presented in this study are included in the article and
During the preparation of this manuscript, the authors used ChatGPT-4 EDU by OpenAI for text editing and translation. The authors have reviewed and edited the output and take full responsibility for the content of this publication.
The authors declare no conflicts of interest.
The following abbreviations are used in this manuscript:
| TPACK | Technological, Pedagogical, and Content Knowledge |
| TK | Technological Knowledge |
| PK | Pedagogical Knowledge |
| CK | Content Knowledge |
| TPK | Technological Pedagogical Knowledge |
| PCK | Pedagogical Content Knowledge |
| TCK | Technological Content Knowledge |
| XK | Contextual Knowledge |
| SD | Standard Deviation |
Footnotes
Disclaimer/Publisher’s Note: The statements, opinions and data contained in all publications are solely those of the individual author(s) and contributor(s) and not of MDPI and/or the editor(s). MDPI and/or the editor(s) disclaim responsibility for any injury to people or property resulting from any ideas, methods, instructions or products referred to in the content.
Statements used in Survey 2.
| Teaching Context and Teaching Competency | Teaching Strategies | Desired Outcomes |
|---|---|---|
| 1. All students have access to 1-to-1 units | 16. Working with texts in full class | 31. Students become more active in teaching activities |
Supplementary statements for Survey 3.
| Desired Outcomes | ||
|---|---|---|
| 43. Teaching facilitates my work as a teacher |
Quantitative results from Survey 3.
| Technological Knowledge | ||||
| Statement | Mode | Median | Mean | SD |
| 6. Daring to try new digital tools | 4 | 4 | 4.3 | 0.48 |
| 7. Technical skills to use available digital tools | 4 | 4 | 4.3 | 0.67 |
| 12. Knowledge of local digital tools | 4 | 4 | 4.4 | 0.52 |
| 15. Having a critical approach | 5 | 5 | 4.8 | 0.42 |
| 26. Students practice technical skills | 5 | 4.5 | 4.2 | 1.03 |
| 41. Students’ technical skills are increased | 4 | 4 | 3.8 | 1.03 |
| 42. Students explore a variety of digital tools | 4 | 4 | 3.8 | 0.79 |
| Pedagogical Knowledge | ||||
| 8. Pedagogical competence to conduct teaching | 5 | 5 | 4.7 | 0.48 |
| 9. Knowledge about students | 5 | 5 | 4.9 | 0.32 |
| 10. Working with student relations | 5 | 5 | 4.7 | 0.48 |
| 19. Creating inclusive education for each group of students | 5 | 5 | 5 | 0 |
| 20. Varying working in a full class, groups, or individually | 4 | 4.5 | 4.5 | 0.53 |
| 27. Individually adapting tasks according to students’ abilities | 5 | 5 | 4.8 | 0.42 |
| 29. Individually adapting how students demonstrate knowledge | 5 | 5 | 5 | 0 |
| 31. Students becoming more active in teaching | 4 | 4 | 4.3 | 0.67 |
| 32. Teaching becoming more varied | 5 | 5 | 4.6 | 0.52 |
| 33. Teaching becomes more inclusive | 5 | 5 | 4.8 | 0.42 |
| 34. Teaching becomes more individualized | 5 | 5 | 4.9 | 0.32 |
| 35. Instructions to students become more clearly structured * | 4 | 4 | 4.4 | 0.52 |
| 40. Student collaboration increased | 4 | 4 | 4 | 0.67 |
| 44. Teaching methods facilitate giving feedback | 4 | 4 | 4.2 | 0.97 |
| 45. Teaching methods facilitate assessment | 4 | 4 | 4.1 | 0.92 |
| 46. Teaching methods facilitate individualization | 5 | 5 | 4.9 | 0.33 |
| Content Knowledge | ||||
| 11. Good subject content knowledge | 5 | 5 | 4.6 | 0.52 |
| 18. Using text composed of multiple modalities | 4 | 4 | 4.3 | 0.67 |
| 36. Students use more modalities *** | 5 | 5 | 4.7 | 0.48 |
| 37. Students encounter more modalities in texts *** | 5 | 5 | 4.6 | 0.52 |
| 39. Students revise their texts more | 4 | 4 | 4.1 | 0.57 |
| Technological Pedagogical Knowledge | ||||
| 13. Can make a conscious choice of which digital tools to use | 5 | 5 | 4.9 | 0.32 |
| 14. Can make a conscious choice of how digital tools are used *** | 5 | 5 | 4.7 | 0.48 |
| 28. Making individual adaptations with digital tools | 5 | 5 | 5 | 0 |
| 38. Digital tools work as compensatory tools ** | 5 | 5 | 4.9 | 0.32 |
| Pedagogical Content Knowledge | ||||
| 16. Working with texts in a full class * | 5 | 4.5 | 4.4 | 0.7 |
| 17. Using model texts | 5 | 5 | 4.7 | 0.48 |
| 22. Giving feedback on student texts | 5 | 5 | 4.7 | 0.48 |
| 23. Students give peer feedback on texts | 4 | 4 | 3.9 | 0.32 |
| 24. Students develop texts by others | 4 | 4 | 3.8 | 0.42 |
| 25. Talking collaboratively about texts in class | 5 | 5 | 4.7 | 0.48 |
| Technological Content Knowledge | ||||
| 14. Can make a conscious choice of how digital tools are used *** | 5 | 5 | 4.7 | 0.48 |
| 21. Students reading both analogue and digital texts | 5 | 5 | 4.8 | 0.42 |
| 30. Students creating both analogue and digital texts | 5 | 5 | 4.9 | 0.32 |
| 36. Students use more modalities *** | 5 | 5 | 4.7 | 0.48 |
| 37. Students face more modalities in texts *** | 5 | 5 | 4.6 | 0.37 |
| Contextual Knowledge | ||||
| 1. Students having access to 1-to-1 | 5 | 5 | 4.5 | 0.97 |
| 2. Enough digital resources | 5 | 5 | 4.8 | 0.42 |
| 3. Students have enough technical skills | 4 | 4 | 3.9 | 0.99 |
| 4. Available digital resources work | 5 | 5 | 4.8 | 0.42 |
| 5. Enough collegial collaboration concerning digital work | 4 | 4 | 4 | 0.47 |
* One participant revised their answer from 3 to 4. ** One participant revised their answer from not answering to 5. *** Statement is present in multiple knowledge domains.
Supplementary Materials
The following supporting information can be downloaded at
Applebee, A. N.; Langer, J. A. Instructional scaffolding: Reading and writing as natural language activities. Language Arts; 1983; 60,
Barton, D. Literacy: An introduction to the ecology of written language; 2nd ed. Blackwell Publishing: 2007.
Braun, V.; Clarke, V. Thematic analysis: A practical guide; SAGE Publications: 2022.
Bray, A.; Devitt, A.; Banks, J.; Sanchez Fuentes, S.; Sandoval, M.; Riviou, K.; Byrne, D.; Flood, M.; Reale, J.; Terrenzio, S. What next for universal design for learning? A systematic literature review of technology in UDL implementations at second level. British Journal of Educational Technology; 2024; 55,
Brianza, E.; Schmid, M.; Tondeur, J.; Petko, D. Situating TPACK: A Systematic literature review of context as a domain of knowledge. Contemporary Issues in Technology and Teacher Education; 2022; 22,
Brianza, E.; Schmid, M.; Tondeur, J.; Petko, D. Is contextual knowledge a key component of expertise for teaching with technology? A systematic literature review. Computers and Education Open; 2024; 7, 100201. [DOI: https://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.caeo.2024.100201]
Christie, C. A.; Barela, E. The Delphi technique as a method for increasing inclusion in the evaluation process. Canadian Journal of Program Evaluation; 2005; 20,
Cochran, S. W. The Delphi method: Formulating and refining group judgements. Journal of Human Sciences; 1983; 2,
Coogle, C. G.; Storie, S.; Rahn, N. L. A Framework for promoting access, increasing participation, and providing support in early childhood classrooms. Early Childhood Education Journal; 2022; 50,
DigCompEdu. European framework for the digital competence of educators; n.d.; Available online: https://joint-research-centre.ec.europa.eu/digcompedu_en (accessed on 2 July 2025).
Domingo, M.; Jewitt, C.; Kress, G. Rowsell, J.; Pahl, K. Multimodal social semiotics: Writing in online contexts. The Routledge handbook of literacy studies; Routledge: 2015; pp. 251-266.
Egelström, M. Samma lärare—Olika praktiker? En studie av literacy och meningsskapande i grundskolans tidiga ämnesundervisning. Doctoral thesis; Umeå University: 2019; Available online: https://www.diva-portal.org/smash/record.jsf?pid=diva2%3A1388861&dswid=-7996 (accessed on 4 October 2022).
European Commission. Key competences for lifelong learning: European reference framework; 2007; Available online: https://education.ec.europa.eu/resources-and-tools/online-platforms (accessed on 7 July 2025).
European Commission: Directorate-General for Education, Youth, Sport and Culture. Key competences for lifelong learning; 2019; Available online: https://data.europa.eu/doi/10.2766/569540 (accessed on 6 May 2025).
Florian, L. On the necessary co-existence of special and inclusive education. International Journal of Inclusive Education; 2019; 23,
Foley, J. Key concepts in ELT. ELT Journal; 1994; 48,
Gee, J. P. Rowsell, J.; Pahl, K. The new literacy studies. The routledge handbook of literacy studies; Routledge: 2015; pp. 35-49.
Godhe, A.-L.; Ideland, J.; Ollinen, K. Dilemmatic spaces pertaining to digitalisation, equity and increased goal attainment in Swedish schools and preschools. Pedagogy, Culture and Society; 2023; 33,
Göransson, K.; Nilholm, C. Conceptual diversities and empirical shortcomings—A critical analysis of research on inclusive education. European Journal of Special Needs Education; 2014; 29,
Green, R. A. The Delphi technique in educational research. SAGE Open; 2014; 4,
Hsu, C.; Sandford, B. A. The delphi technique: Making sense of consensus. Practical Assessment, Research, and Evaluation; 2007; 12, 10. [DOI: https://dx.doi.org/10.7275/pdz9-th90]
Illeris, K. International perspectives on competence development; Routledge: 2012; [DOI: https://dx.doi.org/10.4324/9780203523032]
Illeris, K. Kompetens—Vad, varför och hur?; Studentlitteratur AB: 2013.
Jesson, R.; McNaughton, S.; Rosedale, N.; Zhu, T.; Cockle, V. A mixed-methods study to identify effective practices in the teaching of writing in a digital learning environment in low income schools. Computers and Education; 2018; 119, pp. 14-30. [DOI: https://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.compedu.2017.12.005]
Jewitt, C. Multimodality and literacy in school classrooms. Review of Research in Education; 2008; 32,
Kalantzis, M.; Cope, B. Literacy in the time of artificial intelligence. Reading Research Quarterly; 2025; 60,
King-Sears, M. E.; Stefanidis, A.; Evmenova, A. S.; Rao, K.; Mergen, R. L.; Owen, L. S.; Strimel, M. M. Achievement of learners receiving UDL instruction: A meta-analysis. Teaching and Teacher Education; 2023; 122, 103956. [DOI: https://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.tate.2022.103956]
Koehler, M. J.; Mishra, P. What is technological pedagogical content knowledge?. Contemporary Issues in Technology and Teacher Education; 2009; 9,
Kress, G. Literacy in the new media age; Routledge: 2003; [DOI: https://dx.doi.org/10.4324/9780203299234]
Leach, A. M. Digital media production to support literacy for secondary students with diverse learning abilities. Journal of Media Literacy Education; 2017; 9,
Leu, D. J.; Slomp, D.; Zawilinski, L.; Corrigan, J. A. MacArthur, C. A.; Graham, S.; Fitzgerald, J. Writing research through a new literacies lens. Handbook of writing research; 2nd ed. Guilford Press: 2015; pp. 41-53.
Linstone, H. A.; Turoff, M. Linstone, H. A.; Turoff, M. Introduction. The delphi method techniques and applications; University of Michigan: 1975; pp. 7-11.
Magnússon, G. From Salamanca to Sweden: Inclusive education as policy in transit. International encyclopedia of education: Fourth edition; Elsevier: 2022; pp. 386-396. [DOI: https://dx.doi.org/10.1016/B978-0-12-818630-5.12022-6]
McDermott, P.; Gormley, K. A. Teachers’ use of technology in elementary reading lessons. Reading Psychology; 2016; 37,
Mishra, P. Considering contextual knowledge: The TPACK diagram gets an upgrade. Journal of Digital Learning in Teacher Education; 2019; 35,
Mishra, P.; Koehler, M. J. Technological pedagogical content knowledge: A framework for teacher knowledge. Teachers College Record; 2006; 108,
Morcom, V. E.; MacCallum, J. A. Getting personal about values: Scaffolding student participation towards an inclusive classroom community. International Journal of Inclusive Education; 2012; 16,
Nilholm, C. En inkluderande skola: Möjligheter, hinder och dilemman; Studentlitteratur: 2019.
Nilholm, C. Research about inclusive education in 2020—How can we improve our theories in order to change practice?. European Journal of Special Needs Education; 2021; 36,
Osborne, J.; Collins, S.; Ratcliffe, M.; Millar, R.; Duschl, R. What “ideas-about-science” should be taught in school science? A delphi study of the expert community. Journal of Research in Science Teaching; 2003; 40,
Oxley, E.; Nash, H. M.; Weighall, A. R. Consensus building using the delphi method in educational research: A case study with educational professionals. International Journal of Research and Method in Education; 2024; 48,
Pangrazio, L.; Godhe, A.-L.; Ledesma, A. G. L. What is digital literacy? A comparative review of publications across three language contexts. E-Learning and Digital Media; 2020; 17,
Paulsrud, D.; Nilholm, C. Teaching for inclusion—A review of research on the cooperation between regular teachers and special educators in the work with students in need of special support. International Journal of Inclusive Education; 2023; 27,
Persson, H.; Åhman, H.; Yngling, A. A.; Gulliksen, J. Universal design, inclusive design, accessible design, design for all: Different concepts—One goal? On the concept of accessibility—Historical, methodological and philosophical aspects. Universal Access in the Information Society; 2015; 14,
Resta, P.; Laferrière, T.; McLaughlin, R.; Kouraogo, A. Voogt, J.; Knezek, G.; Christensen, R.; Lai, K. W. Issues and challenges related to digital equity: An overview. Second handbook of information technology in primary and secondary education; Springer: 2018; pp. 987-1004. [DOI: https://dx.doi.org/10.1007/978-3-319-71054-9_67]
Rosenberg, J. M.; Koehler, M. J. Context and technological pedagogical content knowledge (TPACK): A systematic review. Journal of Research on Technology in Education; 2015; 47,
Sandberg, G.; Kallberg, P.; Hellblom-Thibblin, T. The use of digital technology for differentiation of teaching in early school years. Nordic Journal of Literacy Research; 2022; 8,
Selwyn, N. Education and technology: Key issues and debates; 3rd ed. Bloomsbury Academic: 2022.
SFS: 2004:460. Lag (2003:460) om etikprövning av forskning som avser människor [Law (2003:46) Ethical review of research involving humans]; n.d.; Available online: https://www.riksdagen.se/sv/dokument-och-lagar/dokument/svensk-forfattningssamling/lag-2003460-om-etikprovning-av-forskning-som_sfs-2003-460/ (accessed on 27 May 2025).
Skantz-Åberg, E.; Lantz-Andersson, A.; Lundin, M.; Williams, P. Teachers’ professional digital competence: An overview of conceptualisations in the literature. Cogent Education; 2022; 9,
Spante, M.; Hashemi, S. S.; Lundin, M.; Algers, A. Digital competence and digital literacy in higher education research: Systematic review of concept use. Cogent Education; 2018; 5,
Starkey, L. A review of research exploring teacher preparation for the digital age. Cambridge Journal of Education; 2020; 50,
Swedish Education Act [Skollag] (SFS 2010:800). 2010; Available online: https://www.riksdagen.se/sv/dokument-och-lagar/dokument/svensk-forfattningssamling/skollag-2010800_sfs-2010-800/ (accessed on 17 July 2025).
Swedish National Agency for Education [Skolverket]. Läroplan för grundskolan, förskoleklassen och fritidshemmet Lgr22 [Curriculum for compulsory school, preschool class and school-age educare—Lgr22]; Swedish National Agency for Education: 2022.
Swedish National Agency for Education [Skolverket]. PIRLS 2021 Läsförmågan hos svenska elever i årskurs 4 i ett internationellt perspektiv [PIRLS 2021: Reading comprehension among Swedish grade 4 students in an international perspective]; 2023; Available online: https://www.skolverket.se/getFile?file=11490 (accessed on 27 May 2025).
Swedish National Agency for Education [Skolverket]. Attityder till skolan 2024—Delrapport 2: Studiero, elevinflytande och lärverktyg [Attitudes towards school 2024—Interim report 2: Study environment, student influence and learning tools]; 2025; Available online: https://www.skolverket.se/getFile?file=13208 (accessed on 27 May 2025).
Swedish Research Council [Vetenskapsrådet]. God forskningssed 2024; Vetenskapsrådet: 2024.
Tomlinson, C. A. The differentiated classroom Responding to the needs of all learners; 2nd ed. ASCD: 2014.
Tomlinson, C. A. Teaching for excellence in academically diverse classrooms. Society; 2015; 52,
UNESCO. The salamanca statement and framework for action on special needs education; 1994; Available online: www.european-agency.org/sites/default/files/salamanca-statement-and-framework.pdf (accessed on 7 July 2025).
UNESCO. UNESCO ICT competency framework for teachers; 2018; Available online: https://unesdoc.unesco.org/ark:/48223/pf0000265721 (accessed on 2 July 2025).
Vygotsky, L. Thought and language; Hanfmann, E.; Vakar, G. MIT Press: 1962; [DOI: https://dx.doi.org/10.1037/11193-000]
Wiebe, A.; Crisostomo, L. J.; Feliciano Perez, R.; Anderson, T. Comparative advantages of offline digital technology for remote indigenous classrooms in Guatemala (2019–2020). Journal of Learning for Development; 2022; 9,
Willermark, S. Digital Didaktisk Design: Att utveckla undervisning i och för en digitaliserad skola. Doctoral thesis; University West: 2018; Available online: https://urn.kb.se/resolve?urn=urn:nbn:se:hv:diva-12009 (accessed on 27 May 2025).
Yeh, Y. F.; Hsu, Y. S.; Wu, H. K.; Hwang, F. K.; Lin, T. C. Developing and validating technological pedagogical content knowledge-practical (TPACK-practical) through the Delphi survey technique. British Journal of Educational Technology; 2014; 45,
Yelland, N. J. A pedagogy of multiliteracies: Young children and multimodal learning with tablets. British Journal of Educational Technology; 2018; 49,
© 2025 by the authors. Licensee MDPI, Basel, Switzerland. This article is an open access article distributed under the terms and conditions of the Creative Commons Attribution (CC BY) license (https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/). Notwithstanding the ProQuest Terms and Conditions, you may use this content in accordance with the terms of the License.