Next Article in Journal
Post-Natural Disasters Emergency Response Scheme Selection: An Integrated Application of Probabilistic T-Spherical Hesitant Fuzzy Set, Penalty-Incentive Dynamic Attribute Weights, and Non-Compensation Approach
Next Article in Special Issue
Preventing Dysgraphia: Early Observation Protocols and a Technological Framework for Monitoring and Enhancing Graphomotor Skills
Previous Article in Journal
Non-Local Prior Dense Feature Distillation Network for Image Compressive Sensing
Previous Article in Special Issue
Towards a QBLM-Based Qualification-Management Methodology Supporting Human-Resource Management and Development
 
 
Search for Articles:
Title / Keyword
Author / Affiliation / Email
Journal
Article Type
 
 
Advanced Search
 
Section
Special Issue
Volume
Issue
Number
Page
 
Journals
Information
Volume 15
Issue 12
10.3390/info15120774
information-logo
Submit to this Journal Review for this Journal Propose a Special Issue
► Article Menu

Article Menu

share Share announcement Help format_quote Cite question_answer Discuss in SciProfiles thumb_up
...
Endorse textsms
...
Comment
first_page
settings
Order Article Reprints
Font Type:
Arial Georgia Verdana
Font Size:
Aa Aa Aa
Line Spacing:
Column Width:
Background:
Review

The Integration of Artificial Intelligence in Inclusive Education: A Scoping Review

by
Silvio Marcello Pagliara
1,*,
Gianmarco Bonavolontà
1,
Mariella Pia
1,
Stefania Falchi
2,
Antioco Luigi Zurru
1,
Gianni Fenu
3 and
Antonello Mura
1
1
Department of Literature, Languages and Cultural Heritage, University of Cagliari, Via Is Mirrionis 1, 09123 Cagliari, Italy
2
Department of Pedagogy, Psychology, Philosophy, University of Cagliari, Via Is Mirrionis 1, 09123 Cagliari, Italy
3
Department of Mathematics and Computer Science, University of Cagliari, Palazzo delle Scienze, Via Ospedale, 72, 09124 Cagliari, Italy
*
Author to whom correspondence should be addressed.
Information 2024, 15(12), 774; https://doi.org/10.3390/info15120774
Submission received: 15 October 2024 / Revised: 22 November 2024 / Accepted: 24 November 2024 / Published: 3 December 2024
(This article belongs to the Special Issue Accessibility and Inclusion in Education: Enabling Digital Technologies)
Browse Figures
Versions Notes

Abstract

:
This scoping review seeks to map the landscape of how Artificial Intelligence (AI) is leveraged within educational environments to support students with disabilities and inclusive strategies and experiences. The research question concerns the role and impact of AI across diverse educational settings and, in particular: “How is Artificial Intelligence (AI) being utilized within educational settings to support individuals with disabilities and promote inclusive education?”. The review explores this question under four pivotal dimensions: Educational Context, Disabilities and Special Needs, Artificial Intelligence Technologies, and Inclusivity and Inclusive Practice. Each contributes to a comprehensive understanding of the interdisciplinary nature of this inquiry. To ensure a comprehensive analysis, four major research databases have been used: Scopus, EBSCO, ERIC, and Web of Science (WoS). This robust search strategy enabled us to capture a wide array of relevant literature. The review also addresses ethical considerations essential for the responsible integration of AI in education, such as privacy, accessibility, and bias. By mapping existing research and identifying gaps, this scoping review lays the groundwork for future advancements in AI-driven inclusive educational practices.

1. Introduction

The integration of individuals with special needs and disabilities into mainstream education represents a pivotal objective in global educational reform, with the aim of guaranteeing equitable access and fostering inclusive societies. The advent of new technologies has led to the emergence of Artificial Intelligence (AI) as a potentially transformative tool with significant promise in supporting the delivery of inclusive education. The objective of this scoping review is to map the landscape of AI utilisation in educational environments with a view to enhancing the learning experiences of students with disabilities and promoting inclusive practices. The central research question addressed is: How is Artificial Intelligence (AI) being utilised within educational settings to support individuals with disabilities and promote inclusive education?
By examining this question, the review explores four key dimensions: the educational context, disabilities and special needs, AI technologies, inclusivity, and inclusive practice. Each dimension contributes to a comprehensive understanding of the interdisciplinary nature of this inquiry. The purpose of this review is to synthesise existing literature on AI applications in special education, an area that has seen less focus compared to general educational settings. The scoping review approach is particularly well-suited to this nascent and heterogeneous field, enabling a comprehensive examination of the available evidence and the eventual identification of research gaps.
In order to achieve a comprehensive analysis, the review draws upon literature from four major research databases: Scopus, EBSCO, ERIC, and Web of Science. By mapping existing research and identifying gaps, this scoping review establishes a foundation for future advancements in AI-driven inclusive educational practices according to the Italian Special Pedagogy perspective. The objective of this review is to inform educators, policymakers, and researchers about the innovative ways in which AI can be leveraged to support diverse learners, with the ultimate goal of contributing to more effective and equitable educational strategies.

2. Background

2.1. Conceptual Foundations of Inclusive Education and Disability

In order to comprehend the theoretical standpoint that informs this review, it is imperative to delineate the notion of disability that is being addressed and, albeit concisely, outline the associated inclusive pedagogical paradigm.
The most recent sources indicate that the definition of disability has developed to encompass a broader range of evolving conditions that are not solely rooted in diseases or impairments. The International Classification of Functioning, Disability, and Health (ICF) offers a more nuanced understanding of these conditions with a holistic and biopsychosocial approach: “Disability is characterized as the outcome or result of a complex relationship between an individual’s health condition and personal factors and of the external factors that represent the circumstances in which the individual lives” [1] (p. 17). This means that anyone can experience a situation of disability that is not necessarily static but is the result of multiple factors that can change. These factors are not only related to the individual’s physical or mental condition but are also significantly influenced by the environment. According to the ICF framework, the context can be either enabling or inhibiting.
In this light, in line with the Italian heritage [2,3,4,5,6], Special Pedagogy is described as a “theoretical and practical discipline dedicated to the development and construction of a theory of individual and social education aimed at reducing or eliminating disability. It is committed to researching, proposing, and promoting increasingly humane and humanising forms of relationships and anthropological, cultural, and social emancipation” [7] (p. 19). Inclusive education, therefore, represents an educational and anthropological paradigm that aims to ensure accessibility, participation, identity empowerment, and academic success for all learners, regardless of their individual differences, including those related to disability. To achieve such goals, it is essential and useful to use tools, strategies, and methodologies that can facilitate educational processes and inclusive practices.

2.2. Role of Technologies and AI in Inclusive Education

The introduction and progressive development of technologies have had a significant impact in all social contexts, influencing all areas of life and work. In particular, Information and Communication Technologies (ICTs) have not only transformed society into the digital age but have also reshaped education and training environments. For this reason, the interface between education and technology is a much-debated topic today. The dialogue between technology and disability, or inclusive education, is also becoming more relevant. In fact, digital devices are often used in inclusive practices as facilitators of teaching and learning processes, although in other respects they can complicate the internal dynamics.
In recent years, Artificial Intelligence (AI) has become increasingly integrated into mainstream education, incorporated into administration, instruction or teaching, and learning [8]. Presently, the definition of Artificial Intelligence remains a contentious issue, with no common consensus yet established [9,10,11]. This is partly attributable to the continuous evolution and advancement of the technology in question. However, the European Commission [12,13] is actively addressing this issue and has proposed some definitions: An AI system is a machine-based system that is designed to operate with varying degrees of autonomy and may exhibit adaptive behaviour after deployment. Developed using one or more of the techniques and approaches, it can infer from the input it receives how to generate outputs—such as content, predictions, recommendations, or decisions—to achieve explicit or implicit human-defined goals. These outputs may affect the physical or virtual environments with which they interact [14].
Modern AI applications have been instrumental in supporting inclusive education, particularly for students with disabilities, by providing tailored learning supports and accessible educational materials. Actually, the intersection of Artificial Intelligence and the field of education has its origins in the past century [15]. Nevertheless, it is essential to examine and comprehend the present applications and consequences of this technology in educational and training settings. Other literature reviews have sought to address the question through alternative approaches or by focusing on particular and more specific aspects. For instance, Barua et al. [16] investigated and recorded a positive effect of the use of AI-based tools for mental disorders (e.g., ADHD, dyslexia, autism spectrum disorder) in supporting student learning. In addition, Hopcan and colleagues [17] have identified a number of roles and functions for Artificial Intelligence in schools, including those related to administration and teaching. This highlights the necessity for further research in the field of special education to inform the implementation of such technologies. Other researchers [18], more interested in secondary schools, have denounced the lack of reflection, especially pedagogical reflection, on ethical issues and the risks posed by this type of technology. This challenging scenario gives rise to the research objectives: identify the range of AI technologies used in educational settings to implement inclusive processes and explore the role and impact of AI in these kinds of contexts.

3. Materials and Methods

3.1. Protocol and Screening Report

This paper presents a scoping review (ScR) following the PRISMA-ScR checklist [19,20,21]. The aim of the review is to reconstruct the state of the art regarding the integration of Artificial Intelligence tools in learning environments that include individuals with disabilities. The studies were managed with Zotero.

3.2. Eligibility Criteria and Search Process

The initial step involved establishing specific search criteria to effectively query the databases (Table 1). The selection of those to be queried for the review was limited to those most closely related to the field of education and teaching, namely EBSCO, Eric, Scopus, and Web of Science. EBSCO was included in this review through its subcollections ‘Academic Search Complete’ and ‘Education Research Complete,’ chosen for their relevance to interdisciplinary educational studies. These databases were used to complement ERIC and the broader Scopus and Web of Science, ensuring a diverse dataset. While Scopus and Web of Science remain central for bibliometric analysis, the inclusion of EBSCO allowed us to capture studies addressing intersections of education, disability, and AI that might otherwise have been overlooked. Other characteristics of the evidence sources used as eligibility criteria are employed in the construction of the search string. To conduct a more accurate search to interrogate each database, the research group employed four slightly different search strings based on four main topics: Education, Disability, Inclusion, and Artificial Intelligence. (Table 2). This was necessary to accommodate the different interpretations of string syntax that vary for each database.
The research group proceeded with extracting the results from the four selected databases, applying each search string in turn. However, the export systems of the various databases are heterogeneous and not very functional for data analysis. For example, while Scopus allows exporting in various formats, other databases offer fewer export options.

3.3. Screening and Selection of Relevant Literature

As illustrated in the PRISMA flow diagram in Figure 1 [22], the total number of results derived from the four databases following the application of the search queries was 1406. Subsequently, a two-phase procedure was carried out to identify and remove duplicates and articles that did not meet the inclusion criteria for the type of publication (Table 1). This resulted in a total of 304 results (duplicates removed: 943). Thereafter, the research team was divided into two smaller groups, each of which identified the articles to be read by selecting the titles and abstracts that met the pre-established criteria. These could be identified by the presence of the four key dimensions: educational context, inclusion, disability or specific needs, and Artificial Intelligence. Any discrepancies were discussed at a later stage. Consequently, the optimal results for eligibility following this phase were 34, but only 27 were available for reading.

4. Results

4.1. Overview of Included Studies

After applying the inclusion and exclusion criteria, a total of 24 studies were deemed eligible for inclusion in this review (Table 3). A comparison between the 304 identified studies and the 24 studies included in the review by the year (Figure 2) reveals a gradual increase in the identified studies, with a significant increase from 2018 onwards. Nevertheless, there is a stark contrast between the number of identified studies and included studies. Indeed, very few are included in this scoping review.
The geographical predominance of research contributions is from Europe, Asia, and North America, suggesting that these regions are central hubs for academic and scientific activities in the searched field (Figure 3). In particular, seven come from Europe [26,28,29,30,35,42,44]; seven from Asia [24,25,31,34,38,40,41]; six from North America [27,33,36,37,39,45]; two from South America [32,46] and two from Africa [23,43].
Regarding the demographic composition of the populations in the studies reviewed, a predominant number of the samples comprised students (n = 19) [23,24,25,26,27,28,29,31,32,34,36,37,38,39,40,42,43,45,46] as depicted in Figure 4. Notably, the age of the sample size was not specified or available in four instances (n = 4) [33,36,44,45]. Among the included studies, children aged 3 to 10 years were the focus of 12.5% (n = 3) [23,39,40], while 21% involved youth between the ages of 11 and 18 (n = 5) [26,27,31,38,41], and 37.5% pertained to adults aged over 18 (n = 9) [24,25,29,32,35,37,42,43,46]. Additionally, 12.5% of the studies encompassed both children and youth (n = 3) [28,38,45], and 4% included both adolescents and adults (n = 1) [27].
As regards the methodology 79% of the included studies (n = 19) [23,24,25,26,27,28,29,31,32,33,34,35,37,38,39,40,41,42,43,46] are empirical research. Consequently, the remaining 21% (n = 5) [30,33,36,44,45] are theoretical studies. The 37% of the empirical studies are classified as Explorative research (n = 7) [27,28,29,32,41,42], and the 32% as Case-study (n = 6) [24,31,34,35,40,46]. Additionally, as illustrated in Figure 5, of the 24 studies reviewed, nine employed a qualitative approach [23,24,27,29,35,37,38,41,43], seven employed a mixed-methods approach [26,28,31,32,34,40,42], and three employed a quantitative approach [25,39,46].
The sample sizes in these studies exhibit significant variability. For certain cases, data are not available (n = 6) [30,33,36,40,44,45], while for others, they are (n = 18). These samples encompass a range of sizes from a minimum of two to a maximum exceeding 12,000. As depicted in Figure 6, the samples are categorized into four classes: fewer than 10 (n = 3) [34,37,43], between 10 and 50 (n = 10) [23,24,26,27,31,32,35,38,41,42], between 51 and 200 (n = 2) [28,29], and greater than 200 (n = 3) [25,39,46].

4.2. Research Key Dimensions

Examining the four key dimensions—educational context, disability or special educational needs (SEN), Artificial Intelligence (AI), and Inclusion—acknowledged in the reviewed literature reveals a clear prevalence of interest in the formal educational context, including compulsory education and university settings (Figure 7). Half of the included studies (n = 12) focus each on a specific condition of disability, particularly referencing multiple disabilities [36], sensory impairments [24,27,43], movement disorders [31,37], intellectual disabilities [28,35], autism spectrum [34], giftedness [38], and learning disorders [39,42]. Five further studies do not specify a particular condition and refer to disability and special needs in general [23,25,26,30,33]. The last seven papers [29,32,40,41,44,45,46] address various conditions (Figure 8).
In accordance with the search strings and research question, all studies indicate that various AI applications, frequently situated within the realms of deep learning or machine learning, are designed to enhance inclusion processes. Nevertheless, four specific objectives can be discerned. In the majority of the included studies (Figure 9), the integration of AI is observed to support the processes of personalised learning (n = 9) [26,28,31,36,38,40,42,44,45] and accessibility (n = 8) [23,24,27,32,33,35,37,43]; in fewer cases, AI is designed to directly support the teaching process (n = 4) [30,34,41,46] and the identification or categorisation of special needs (n = 3) [25,29,39].

5. Discussion

The analysis of the selected articles highlights several key aspects and research gaps regarding the integration of Artificial Intelligence (AI) in inclusive education, particularly within the framework of Italian Special Pedagogy. This distinctive framework, shaped by fifty years of scientific studies and pedagogical reflections [47,48,49,50], significantly influences the current discourse on AI and inclusive education. Italian Special Pedagogy is characterized by its holistic approach, which integrates cultural, historical, and pedagogical traditions. Prioritizing equity and personalization, it aims to create educational environments that address the diverse needs of learners through tailored interventions promoting accessibility and inclusivity.
The integration of AI technologies within this framework can play a pivotal role in enhancing personalized tools, such as adaptive learning platforms for students with specific learning needs, and improving accessibility through its various applications. Recognizing the scientific and cultural background that informs these discussions is essential, as is acknowledging the inherent limitations of the research methodology.
The visual representation of the temporal distribution of identified and included studies, in Figure 2, illustrates two distinct trends. While there has been a significant increase in studies on AI in education since 2018, a focused interest in inclusive education has only emerged prominently since 2020. This disparity may be attributed to the multidimensional and multifactorial nature of inclusive education, as well as the bio-psycho-social framework, which highlights the growing need to address special educational needs through the personalization of educational and teaching processes. In this sense, AI becomes an extremely useful tool to achieve this goal.
Moreover, the UN Agenda on Sustainable Development Goals [51] and similar frameworks, which emphasize the importance of reducing inequalities, may have influenced research in this direction. Notably, the progressive and rapid advancements in information technology, particularly regarding language generation models that have opened new possibilities in education, as well as the COVID-19 pandemic, which globally catalysed the digital transition and prompted many educational institutions to adopt advanced technologies to ensure continuity in teaching, may have both played a significant role in the increasing prevalence of studies in this field. The predominance of quantitative and mixed methods approaches, combined with over 50% employing small sample sizes, raises concerns about the generalizability of the findings. In detail, the use of quantitative and mixed methods approaches and sample sizes of no more than 50 participants is found in 13 studies [23,24,26,27,31,32,34,35,37,38,41,42,43]. Future research should aim to ensure statistically representative samples to enhance the validity of conclusions drawn in this domain.
In addressing the research question, four primary purposes for the utilization of AI in inclusive education have been identified: support for teaching and institutions, support for personalized learning processes, support for accessibility, and identification or categorization of needs. It is important to emphasize that these categories are employed primarily for representational reasons, recognizing that many articles address multiple objectives simultaneously. This complexity highlights the need for a nuanced understanding of AI’s multifaceted role in inclusive education.
The literature reveals a discernible pattern of potential applications for AI in the context of inclusive education. The personalisation of teaching and learning processes, enhanced by AI, reinforces fundamental principles in the discourse on inclusivity. The use of AI-based tools, such as text-to-speech and speech-to-text applications, has the potential to enhance teaching effectiveness [41]. For example, TTS is commonly employed in accessibility tools for visually impaired users, allowing them to access digital content through audio output. It is also a key feature in virtual assistants like Siri and Alexa, educational apps designed to support diverse learning needs, and audiobooks, which make reading more accessible to individuals with reading disabilities or other challenges. Similarly, STT is widely utilized in dictation software, live transcription services, and customer service chatbots. In the educational domain, it is particularly valuable in accessibility contexts, such as providing real-time captions for students with hearing impairments, thereby improving their engagement and participation in classroom activities. Additionally, the implementation of technologies like computer vision demonstrates promising results in enhancing accessibility and autonomy for students with disabilities. These innovations enable functions such as gesture recognition, gaze tracking, and object identification, further supporting students’ interaction with educational content and their surrounding environments. Collectively, these examples underscore the transformative potential of AI technologies when thoughtfully integrated into educational practices, highlighting their ability to address diverse needs and foster inclusivity in various learning environments.
The varied perspectives on the role of AI in education prompt further inquiry. AI is seen as an integrated tool in the educational process, a moderator, or even a fundamental component of the learning environment. From this perspective, the authors propose to categorise the 24 studies within three main functions of AI in inclusive education as follows:
  • AI as a Tool: this denotes the utilization of AI-based technologies to facilitate the delivery of specific functionalities and targeted assistance to students with learning disabilities. The primary characteristics of this approach include the provision of tailored and precise support, the enhancement of particular aspects of learning, and the embedding of specific functionalities within educational devices. A significant number of the reviewed studies fall under this category, highlighting the focus on assistive technologies and task-specific AI applications. Examples include Gouraguine et al. [23] and Srivastava et al. [24], which explore humanoid robots and smart learning tools, respectively. Other studies, such as Standen et al. [28] and Dziatkovskii [33], highlight the use of machine learning algorithms and blockchain technologies to personalize learning experiences. Similarly, works like Zingoni et al. [42] and Sharma et al. [40] address adaptive learning platforms and assistive systems that directly cater to students’ specific needs. This dimension represents the majority of the studies, reflecting the widespread emphasis on AI’s role as an assistive technology.
  • AI as a Moderator: this encompasses the use of AI technologies for the facilitation and enhancement of interactions among stakeholders in an educational context, including students, teachers, and administrators. In this capacity, AI plays a supportive and direct role in mediating educational processes. Its key features include the facilitation of communication and interaction, the promotion of collaboration and social inclusion, and the mediation of access to educational content and resources. For instance, Marino & Pecchio [26] and Mateos-Sanchez et al. [35] demonstrate how AI moderates interactions through vocal assistants and chatbots designed to improve communication and accessibility. Similarly, studies such as McDonald et al. [37] and El Naggar et al. [38] highlight AI’s ability to foster empathy, mediate discussions, and support inclusive learning environments by adapting content and facilitating interactions.
  • AI as an Environment: This entails the establishment of an educational eco-system wherein AI is integrated into the entirety of the learning experience, rendering the environment itself more intelligent and responsive to students’ needs. The defining characteristics of this approach are the creation of a fully integrated and inclusive educational environment, the continuous adaptation of the learning experience to meet students’ needs, and the provision of support for all educational aspects, including teaching, assessment, and intervention. Fewer studies fall under this dimension, reflecting its emergent nature within literature. Examples include Watters et al. [27] and Toyokawa et al. [34], which describe virtual lab assistants and learning analytics frameworks designed to continuously enhance learning environments. Similarly, Hu & Wang [31] and Nganji & Brayshaw [36] explore how AI-driven systems create immersive and personalized ecosystems for students with specific needs.
The reviewed literature predominantly aligns with the first dimension, AI as a Tool, while fewer studies explore the comprehensive integration of AI as a Moderator or as an Environment. These dimensions are proposed to provide a conceptual framework for understanding the diverse roles of AI in education. The categorization is not intended to be rigid or deterministic but rather reflects the relative focus of each study. Further empirical research is necessary to validate and refine these functional distinctions. This also highlights a promising area for future research, focusing on how AI can transform education into a fully integrated and inclusive ecosystem.
The table below (Table 4) shows the proposed categorisation:
Notwithstanding the advantages derived from the use of AI, considerable obstacles and reservations persist regarding its extensive deployment in education. Economic and infrastructural factors frequently impede the acquisition and implementation of advanced devices and appropriate software [24,44]. Furthermore, ethical concerns—particularly regarding algorithmic transparency and the potential to reinforce existing inequalities—impact the integration of AI in education. Although not directly emerging from the reviewed papers, concerns may arise about the potential risk of reducing students’ critical thinking and problem-solving skills. Bulathawela et al. [30] emphasize that AI alone cannot democratize education and that a synergistic combination with inclusive and participatory approaches is essential. The important role of educators and instruction is highlighted in this context. There is a necessity for ongoing professional development for teachers regarding the effective utilization of AI technologies [26,37]. Additionally, educational policies need to be developed to facilitate the implementation of these technologies within schools and educational settings [43,46].
It is evident that AI has the potential to personalize and individualize teaching and learning processes. However, this requires a critical and reflective approach, ensuring that AI complements rather than replaces the relational and human-centred aspects of education. This is why professional development for educators is essential. Educators do not merely accept AI-driven solutions passively; rather, they actively engage in the analysis and interpretation of these technologies. This provides an opportunity to enhance their skills, drive innovation in educational practices, and promote greater inclusion [52].

Limitations

This scoping review on the integration of Artificial Intelligence (AI) in inclusive education, particularly within the framework of Italian Special Pedagogy, presents several limitations that warrant consideration. A primary limitation is the heterogeneity and lack of consistency in the findings collected. This variability arises from the diverse methodological approaches and differing definitions of disability and inclusion employed across the studies. Such disparities complicate the synthesis of results and hinder the formation of a cohesive understanding of AI’s role in inclusive education.
Given the considerable breadth of studies identified, the decision was made to exclude grey literature to maintain focus and manageability. While this approach ensures a concentration on peer-reviewed and academically rigorous sources, it may inadvertently omit valuable insights from non-traditional or emergent research avenues. Some studies yielded promising results but necessitated a more comprehensive examination, which extended the overall time frame for this review’s completion.
Furthermore, the studies included in the review are largely non-representative and non-generalizable due to small sample sizes and specific contextual factors. This limitation indicates a deficiency in robust, large-scale research within this domain, thereby affecting the ability to extrapolate findings to broader populations or different educational settings. The unique characteristics of Italian Special Pedagogy, with its emphasis on individualized and holistic approaches [47,48,49,50], underscore the need for research that is both contextually relevant and methodologically rigorous.
The review’s reliance on sources available in English and accessible full-text publications introduces a language and accessibility bias. This reliance excludes potentially significant contributions published in other languages, including Italian, which may offer perspectives more closely aligned with the Italian pedagogical context. The exclusion of non-English literature may limit the comprehensiveness of the review and overlook culturally specific methodologies and practices pertinent to inclusive education and AI integration. The choice of databases—Scopus, EBSCO, ERIC, and Web of Science—and the inclusion criteria focusing on journal articles and book chapters may have excluded important studies published in less prominent journals, conference proceedings, or alternative formats such as dissertations and policy reports. Such sources often contain innovative ideas and preliminary findings that could enrich the understanding of AI applications in inclusive education. The same applies to the exclusion of grey literature, which may contain practical insights and real-world applications not yet captured in academic publications. Another limitation is the lack of in-depth consideration of specific ethical issues, such as algorithmic transparency, data privacy, and the potential exacerbation of existing inequalities. These ethical dimensions are critical, especially within the context of Italian Special Pedagogy, which places a strong emphasis on equity, human dignity, and social justice [6,7]. The omission of thorough ethical analysis may affect the interpretation of results and limit the practical applicability of the findings in educational settings that prioritize ethical considerations as foundational principles.
Finally, the rapid evolution of AI technologies and their applications in education means that the field is continuously advancing. The time frame of the literature search may have excluded the most recent studies or emerging technologies that have not yet been extensively documented in academic literature. This temporal limitation may result in a review that does not fully capture the latest innovations, trends, or shifts in pedagogical approaches influenced by AI advancements.
In summary, while this review offers important insights into the integration of AI in inclusive education, its limitations call for cautious interpretation of the findings. Future research should address these gaps by incorporating more diverse sources, including non-English literature, and by engaging more thoroughly with ethical considerations. Adopting broader methodological approaches and working with larger, more diverse samples could improve the generalizability of future studies, contributing to a deeper understanding of AI’s potential to foster inclusive educational environments.

6. Conclusions

The integration of Artificial Intelligence (AI) in education reveals significant potential for supporting inclusive education, particularly through the lens of Italian Special Pedagogy. AI applications can fulfil diverse roles within educational settings, extending beyond functional tools to facilitate stakeholder interactions and integrate into pedagogical ecosystems, thereby fostering inclusivity. By supporting adaptive educational frameworks, AI can intelligently address the diverse needs of students, advancing personalization and accessibility in educational environments.
Despite these promises, significant challenges persist in integrating AI into education. Economic and infrastructural barriers limit the feasibility of widespread implementation, particularly in resource-constrained settings. Ethical concerns, including algorithmic transparency, data privacy, and the risk of reinforcing existing inequalities, require thorough scrutiny.
This study provides a foundational framework for reflecting on the functions of AI in inclusive education, categorising its roles as Tool, Moderator, and Environment. While this categorisation offers meaningful insights, further exploration is necessary to validate and refine these distinctions and evaluate their effectiveness in addressing the complex teaching and learning processes required for inclusion. Continued efforts are essential to ensure the equitable distribution of educational resources and the adoption of ethical practices within institutions. Such endeavours will advance the scalability and integration of AI, fostering more inclusive and adaptive educational ecosystems.
The professional development of educators is critical for the effective integration of AI in inclusive education. Systematic efforts to enhance educators’ AI competencies can contribute to revised digital literacy aligned with contemporary technological advancements. Educators must also be supported in their roles as moderators in integrating AI into curricula. Complementing this, comprehensive educational policies are needed to facilitate the ethical and equitable deployment of AI technologies in various contexts.
Advancement in research and practice is vital to refine the understanding and implementation of AI in education. Identifying best practices is essential to foster global inclusivity and effectively integrate AI into diverse educational paradigms. Special attention should be given to investigating how AI can enhance accessibility and support universal design principles to address the needs of diverse learners. Moreover, research should examine the risks of over-reliance on AI tools, which could undermine critical thinking, creativity, and independent learning. Such investigations will help build a robust framework for advancing the equitable and informed application of AI in education, consistent with the principles of Italian Special Pedagogy and its emphasis on inclusivity and personalized education.
In conclusion, while AI holds immense potential to transform inclusive education, realizing this potential requires addressing persistent economic, infrastructural, and ethical challenges. A critical and reflective approach is necessary to ensure AI complements rather than replaces relational and human-centred aspects of education. Ongoing professional development for educators is essential to equip them with the skills to effectively utilize AI while maintaining a focus on equity and inclusivity. Additionally, policies that ensure the ethical and equitable integration of AI must be developed to distribute its benefits fairly across all educational contexts.
To fully leverage AI as a transformative function, these considerations must be explored by the educational community from a broader perspective. Such learning environments should not only accommodate the diverse needs of all learners and teachers but also actively promote their autonomy, critical engagement, and meaningful participation.

Author Contributions

Conceptualization, methodology, validation, G.B. and S.M.P.; formal analysis, G.B., S.M.P. and S.F.; resources, G.B. and S.M.P.; data curation, S.F., M.P. and A.L.Z.; writing—original draft preparation, G.B., S.M.P., S.F. and M.P.; writing—review and editing, G.B., S.M.P. and A.M.; visualization, S.F. and M.P.; supervision, A.M.; project administration and funding acquisition, G.F. In detail: A.M. wrote paragraph 1; M.P. wrote paragraph 2; S.M.P. wrote paragraph 3; S.F. wrote paragraph 4; G.B. wrote paragraph 5; G.B. and S.M.P. wrote paragraph 6. All authors have read and agreed to the published version of the manuscript.

Funding

This research received funding for APC under the National Recovery and Resilience Plan (NRRP), Number PNRR 4331-2024, CIG: B47E2BEDFE, CUP: F53C22000430001-“PNRR CONTRACT FUNDED BY THE EUROPEAN UNION ”NEXT GENERATION EU-M4C2-INVESTMENT 1.5.

Institutional Review Board Statement

Not applicable.

Informed Consent Statement

Not applicable.

Data Availability Statement

No new data were created in this study. Data sharing is not applicable to this article.

Acknowledgments

As concerns Silvio Marcello Pagliara, it should be noted that this work was produced during his research activity under financial support of the National Recovery and Resilience Plan (NRRP), Mission 4 Component 2 Investment 1.5—Call n.3277 published on 30 December 2021 by the Ministry of University and Research (MUR) funded by the European Union—NextGenerationEU. Project Code ECS0000038—Title of the eINS Innovation Ecosystem for Sardinia Next Generation Project—CUP F53C22000430001—Grant Assignment Decree no. 1056 adopted on 23 June 2022 by the Ministry of the Ministry of University and Research (MUR). We acknowledge financial support under the National Recovery and Resilience Plan (NRRP), Mission 4 Component 2 Investment 1.5—Call for tender No. 3277 published on 30 December 2021 by the Italian Ministry of University and Research (MUR) funded by the European Union—NextGenerationEU. Project Code ECS0000038—Project Title eINS Ecosystem of Innovation for Next Generation Sardinia—CUP F53C22000430001—Grant Assignment Decree No. 1056 adopted on 23 June 2022 by the Italian Ministry of Ministry of University and Research (MUR). Regarding Stefania Falchi, it should be noted that her PhD at the University of Cagliari is funded by the National Operational Program on Research and Innovation 2014-2020 (NOP R&I 2014–2020) of the Ministry of Education, University and Research, targeting the goals of Axis IV “Education and research for recovery” and Action IV.5, which focuses on green transition, ecosystem conservation, biodiversity, and the reduction in climate change impacts. The project title is “Green Learning Environments: The Ecological Transition as an Opportunity to Innovate Spaces and Methods of Teaching and to Promote a Widespread Culture of Eco-sustainability in Primary Schools”—Ministerial Decree for the grant assignment No. 1062 of 10 August 2021.

Conflicts of Interest

The authors declare no conflicts of interest.

References

  1. WHO. International Classification of Functioning, Disability and Health; WHO: Geneva, Switzerland, 2001. [Google Scholar]
  2. Mura, A. Pedagogia Speciale. Riferimenti Storici, Temi e Idee, 3rd ed.; FrancoAngeli: Milano, Italy, 2012. [Google Scholar]
  3. D’Alonzo, L. Pedagogia Speciale per L’inclusione, 3rd ed.; Scholé: Brescia, Italy, 2018. [Google Scholar]
  4. De Anna, L. Pedagogia Speciale. Integrazione e Inclusione, 3rd ed.; Carocci: Roma, Italy, 2014. [Google Scholar]
  5. Gaspari, P. La Pedagogia Speciale, Oggi, 3rd ed.; FrancoAngeli: Milano, Italy, 2023. [Google Scholar]
  6. Canevaro, A. Pedagogia Speciale. La Riduzione Dell’handicap, 3rd ed.; Bruno Mondadori: Milano, Italy, 1999. [Google Scholar]
  7. Mura, A. Diversità e Inclusione. Prospettive di Cittadinanza tra Processi Storico-Culturali e Questioni Aperte, 3rd ed.; FrancoAngeli: Milano, Italy, 2016. [Google Scholar]
  8. Chen, L.; Chen, P.; Lin, Z. Artificial Intelligence in Education: A Review. IEEE Access 2020, 8, 75264–75278. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  9. Wang, P. On Defining Artificial Intelligence. J. Artif. Gen. Intell. 2019, 10, 1–37. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  10. European Commission. Joint Research Centre. AI Watch: Defining Artificial Intelligence: Towards an Operational Definition and Taxonomy of Artificial Intelligence; Publications Office: Luxembourg, 2020; Available online: https://data.europa.eu/doi/10.2760/382730 (accessed on 16 September 2024).
  11. Gajjar, D. Artificial Intelligence: An Explainer; Parliamentary Office of Science and Technology: London, UK, 2023. [CrossRef]
  12. European Commission. EU AI Act. 2021. Available online: https://eur-lex.europa.eu/legal-content/EN/TXT/?uri=celex%3A52021PC0206 (accessed on 26 July 2024).
  13. European Commission. A Definition of AI: Main Capabilities and Scientific Disciplines; European Commission: Brussels, Belgium, 2018. [Google Scholar]
  14. OECD. Explanatory Memorandum on the Updated OECD Definition of an AI System. In OECD Artificial Intelligence Papers 8; OECD: Paris, France, 2023. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  15. Bonavolontà, G.; Pagliara, S.M. Tra Timor e Vereor: Il Complesso Dibattito sul Rapporto Uomo-Macchina e la Valenza dei Chatbot IA nei Contesti Educativi. Nuova Second. 2024, XLI, 293–303. [Google Scholar]
  16. Barua, P.D.; Vicnesh, J.; Gururajan, R.; Oh, S.L.; Palmer, E.; Azizan, M.M.; Kadri, N.A.; Acharya, U.R. Artificial Intelligence Enabled Personalised Assistive Tools to Enhance Education of Children with Neurodevelopmental Disorders—A Review. Int. J. Environ. Res. Public Health 2022, 19, 1192. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  17. Hopcan, S.; Polat, E.; Ozturk, M.E.; Ozturk, L. Artificial Intelligence in Special Education: A Systematic Review. Interact. Learn. Environ. 2023, 31, 7335–7353. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  18. Pierrès, O.; Christen, M.; Schmitt-Koopmann, F.M.; Darvishy, A. Could the Use of AI in Higher Education Hinder Students with Disabilities? A Scoping Review. IEEE Access 2024, 12, 27810–27828. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  19. Peters, M.D.J.; Godfrey, C.M.; Khalil, H.; McInerney, P.; Parker, D.; Soares, C.B. Guidance for Conducting Systematic Scoping Reviews. Int. J. Evid. Based Healthc. 2015, 13, 141–146. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  20. Tricco, A.C.; Lillie, E.; Zarin, W.; O’Brien, K.K.; Colquhoun, H.; Levac, D.; Moher, D.; Peters MD, J.; Horsley, T.; Weeks, L.; et al. PRISMA Extension for Scoping Reviews (PRISMA-ScR): Checklist and Explanation. Ann. Intern. Med. 2018, 169, 467–473. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  21. Peters, M.D.J.; Marnie, C.; Tricco, A.C.; Pollock, D.; Munn, Z.; Alexander, L.; McInerney, P.; Godfrey, C.M.; Khalil, H. Updated Methodological Guidance for the Conduct of Scoping Reviews. JBI Evid. Synth. 2020, 18, 2119–2126. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  22. Page, M.J.; McKenzie, J.E.; Bossuyt, P.M.; Boutron, I.; Hoffmann, T.C.; Mulrow, C.D.; Shamseer, L.; Tetzlaff, J.M.; Akl, E.A.; Brennan, S.E.; et al. The PRISMA 2020 Statement: An Updated Guideline for Reporting Systematic Reviews. BMJ 2021, 372, n71. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  23. Gouraguine, S.; Qbadou, M.; Rafik, M.; Riad, M.; Mansouri, K. A New Knowledge Primitive of Digits Recognition for NAO Robot Using MNIST Dataset and CNN Algorithm for Children’s Visual Learning Enhancement. J. Inf. Technol. Educ. Res. 2023, 22, 389–408. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  24. Srivastava, S.; Varshney, A.; Katyal, S.; Kaur, R.; Gaur, V. A Smart Learning Assistance Tool for Inclusive Education. J. Intell. Fuzzy Syst. 2021, 40, 11981–11994. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  25. Namoun, A.; Sen, A.A.A.; Tufail, A.; Alshanqiti, A.; Nawaz, W.; BenRhouma, O. A Two-Phase Machine Learning Framework for Context-Aware Service Selection to Empower People with Disabilities. Sensors 2022, 22, 5142. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  26. Marino, T.; Pecchio, P. AI and Teaching Approach in High School. In Economic and Policy Implications of Artificial Intelligence; Springer: Cham, Switzerland, 2020; pp. 149–154. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  27. Watters, J.; Hill, A.; Weinrich, M.; Supalo, C.; Jiang, F. An Artificial Intelligence Tool for Accessible Science Education. J. Sci. Educ. Stud. Disabil. 2021, 24, 1–14. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  28. Standen, P.J.; Brown, D.J.; Taheri, M.; Trigo, M.J.G.; Boulton, H.; Burton, A.; Hallewell, M.J.; Lathe, J.G.; Shopland, N.; Gonzalez, M.A.B.; et al. An Evaluation of an Adaptive Learning System Based on Multimodal Affect Recognition for Learners with Intellectual Disabilities. Br. J. Educ. Technol. 2020, 51, 1748–1765. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  29. Coughlan, T.; Iniesto, F.; Carr, J.E. Analysing Disability Descriptions and Student Suggestions as a Foundation to Overcome Barriers to Learning. J. Interact. Media Educ. 2024, 2024, 1–17. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  30. Bulathwela, S.; Pérez-Ortiz, M.; Holloway, C.; Cukurova, M.; Shawe-Taylor, J. Artificial Intelligence Alone Will Not Democratise Education: On Educational Inequality, Techno-Solutionism, and Inclusive Tools. Sustainability 2024, 16, 781. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  31. Hu, M.; Wang, J. Artificial Intelligence in Dance Education: Dance for Students with Special Educational Needs. Technol. Soc. 2021, 67, 101784. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  32. Ingavelez-Guerra, P.; Robles-Bykbaev, V.E.; Perez-Munoz, A.; Hilera-Gonzalez, J.; Oton-Tortosa, S. Automatic Adaptation of Open Educational Resources: An Approach From a Multilevel Methodology Based on Students’ Preferences, Educational Special Needs, Artificial Intelligence, and Accessibility Metadata. IEEE Access 2022, 10, 9703–9716. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  33. Dziatkovskii, A. Blockchain and Artificial Intelligence for Inclusion. Ger. Int. J. Mod. Sci. Dtsch. Int. Z. Für Zeitgenössische Wiss. 2022, 47, 33–34. [Google Scholar]
  34. Toyokawa, Y.; Horikoshi, I.; Majumdar, R.; Ogata, H. Challenges and Opportunities of AI in Inclusive Education: A Case Study of Data-Enhanced Active Reading in Japan. Smart Learn. Environ. 2023, 10, 67. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  35. Mateos-Sanchez, M.; Melo, A.C.; Blanco, L.S.; García, A.M.F. Chatbot, as Educational and Inclusive Tool for People with Intellectual Disabilities. Sustainability 2022, 14, 1520. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  36. Nganji, J.T.; Brayshaw, M. Disability-Aware Adaptive and Personalised Learning for Students with Multiple Disabilities. Int. J. Inf. Learn. Technol. 2017, 34, 307–321. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  37. McDonald, N.; Massey, A.; Hamidi, F. Elicitation and Empathy with AI-Enhanced Adaptive Assistive Technologies (AATs): Towards Sustainable Inclusive Design Method Education. J. Probl. Based Learn. High. Educ. 2023, 11, 78–99. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  38. El Naggar, A.; Gaad, E.; Inocencio, S.A.M. Enhancing Inclusive Education in the UAE: Integrating AI for Diverse Learning Needs. Res. Dev. Disabil. 2024, 147, 104685. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  39. Erbeli, F.; He, K.; Cheek, C.; Rice, M.; Qian, X. Exploring the Machine Learning Paradigm in Determining Risk for Reading Disability. Sci. Stud. Read. 2023, 27, 5–20. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  40. Sharma, S.; Tomar, V.; Yadav, N.; Aggarwal, M. Impact of AI-Based Special Education on Educators and Students. In AI-Assisted Special Education for Students with Exceptional Needs; IGI Global: Hershey, PA, USA, 2023; pp. 47–66. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  41. Garg, S.; Sharma, S. Impact of Artificial Intelligence in Special Need Education to Promote Inclusive Pedagogy. Int. J. Inf. Educ. Technol. 2020, 10, 523–527. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  42. Zingoni, A.; Taborri, J.; Panetti, V.; Bonechi, S.; Aparicio-Martínez, P.; Pinzi, S.; Calabrò, G. Investigating Issues and Needs of Dyslexic Students at University: Proof of Concept of an Artificial Intelligence and Virtual Reality-Based Supporting Platform and Preliminary Results. Appl. Sci. 2021, 11, 4624. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  43. Pitikoe, S.; Biswalo, P. Logged in or Locked out of the Twenty-First Century? Implications for Adult Learners with Special Needs. In Digital Literacy and Socio-Cultural Acceptance of ICT in Developing Countries; Springer International Publishing: Cham, Switzerland, 2021; pp. 199–210. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  44. Zdravkova, K. The Potential of Artificial Intelligence for Assistive Technology in Education. In Handbook on Intelligent Techniques in the Educational Process; Springer Nature: Cham, Switzerland, 2022; Volume 29, pp. 61–85. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  45. Confer, C.A. The Use of Artificial Intelligence to Create Inclusivity in Special Education Classrooms. J. Appl. Prof. Stud. 2023, 4, 1–24. [Google Scholar]
  46. Bressane, A.; Zwirn, D.; Essiptchouk, A.; Saraiva, A.C.V.; Carvalho, F.L.d.C.; Formiga, J.K.S.; Medeiros, L.C.d.C.; Negri, R.G. Understanding the Role of Study Strategies and Learning Disabilities on Student Academic Performance to Enhance Educational Approaches: A Proposal Using Artificial Intelligence. Comput. Educ. Artif. Intell. 2024, 6, 100196. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  47. Giraldo, M. Sulle tracce della pedagogia speciale in Italia. 1967–1976: La breve, ma significativa, parabola della rivista Didattica Integrativa. CQIIA Riv. 2019, 20, 158–174. [Google Scholar]
  48. Pinnelli, S. La pedagogia speciale per la scuola inclusiva: Le coordinate per promuovere il cambiamento. Integr. Scolastica E Soc. 2015, 14, 183–194. [Google Scholar]
  49. Galanti, M.A.; Giaconi, C.; Zappaterra, T. Didactics and Planning: Stories and Evolutive Traces Towards Inclusion. Ital. J. Spec. Educ. Incl. 2021, IX, 7–14. [Google Scholar]
  50. Sibilio, M. Simplex Didactics: A Non-Linear Trajectory for Research in Education. Rev. Synthèse 2015, 136, 477–493. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  51. UN. Transforming Our World: The 2030 Agenda for Sustainable Development; UN: New York, NY, USA, 2015. [Google Scholar]
  52. Zurru, A.L. Reverting to the Oracle. Anthropological, Ethical, and Pedagogical Questions about Artificial Intelligence. J. Incl. Methodol. Technol. Learn. Teach. 2024, 4. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
Information 15 00774 g001
Figure 1. PRISMA 2020 flow diagram.
Figure 1. PRISMA 2020 flow diagram.
Information 15 00774 g001
Information 15 00774 g002
Figure 2. Distributions of the identified studies and the included studies by year.
Figure 2. Distributions of the identified studies and the included studies by year.
Information 15 00774 g002
Information 15 00774 g003
Figure 3. Distribution by continents.
Figure 3. Distribution by continents.
Information 15 00774 g003
Information 15 00774 g004
Figure 4. Distribution of the role of the reference population.
Figure 4. Distribution of the role of the reference population.
Information 15 00774 g004
Information 15 00774 g005
Figure 5. Distribution by data collection approach.
Figure 5. Distribution by data collection approach.
Information 15 00774 g005
Information 15 00774 g006
Figure 6. Distribution by sample size.
Figure 6. Distribution by sample size.
Information 15 00774 g006
Information 15 00774 g007
Figure 7. Distribution by educational context.
Figure 7. Distribution by educational context.
Information 15 00774 g007
Information 15 00774 g008
Figure 8. Distribution by focus on disability or SEN conditions.
Figure 8. Distribution by focus on disability or SEN conditions.
Information 15 00774 g008
Information 15 00774 g009
Figure 9. Distribution of AI utilisation in inclusive education.
Figure 9. Distribution of AI utilisation in inclusive education.
Information 15 00774 g009
Table 1. Inclusion and exclusion criteria.
Table 1. Inclusion and exclusion criteria.
Inclusion CriteriaExclusion Criteria
Published between 2014 and April 2024Published before 2014
English languageNot in English
Primary researchSecondary research (e.g., review)
Document type: journal articles and book chapterOther documents (e.g., conference paper)
Studies focused on the main topics: educational context, AI, Inclusion, SEN or Disabilities
Full-text available		Absence of at least one of the main topics
Full-text not available
Table 2. Database and research queries.
Table 2. Database and research queries.
DatabaseResearch Query
EBSCO(“education” OR “educational setting” OR “learning environment” OR “educational environment” OR “special education”) AND (disabilit* OR “people with disabilities” OR “special needs”) AND (“artificial intelligence” OR “AI” OR “Machine learning” OR “Deep learning”) AND (inclus* OR “inclusive education” OR “inclusive practices”)
ERIC(“education” OR “educational setting” OR “learning environment” OR “educational environment” OR “educational context”) AND (disabilit* OR “people with disabilities” OR “special needs” OR “special education”) AND (“artificial intelligence” OR “AI” OR “Machine learning” OR “Deep learning”) AND (inclus* OR “inclusive education” OR “inclusive practices”)
Scopus((disabilit*) OR (people with disabilities) OR (special needs)) AND ((artificial intelligence) OR (AI) OR (Machine learning) OR (Deep learning)) AND ((inclusion*) OR (inclusive education) OR (inclusive practices)) AND ((education) OR (educational setting) OR (learning environment) OR (educational environment) OR (special education))
Web of Science((disabilit*) OR (people with disabilities) OR (special needs) OR (special education)) AND ((artificial intelligence) OR (AI) OR (Machine learning) OR (Deep learning)) AND ((inclusion*) OR (inclusive education) OR (inclusive practices)) AND ((education) OR (educational setting) OR (learning environment) OR (educational environment) OR (educational context))
Table 3. Summary of the studies included.
Table 3. Summary of the studies included.
IDAuthor(s) and YearTitleJournal/BookCountryKeywords
[23]Gouraguine, S. et al. (2023)A New Knowledge Primitive of Digits Recognition for Nao Robot Using Mist Dataset and CNN Algorithm for Children’s Visual Learning EnhancementJournal of Information Technology Education: ResearchMoroccoconvolutional neural network; educational robotics; human–robot interaction; NAO robot; recognition of handwritten digits; students with special needs; visual learning
[24]Srivastavaa, S. et al. (2021)A smart learning assistance tool for inclusive educationJournal of Intelligent & Fuzzy SystemsIndiaBraille; Artificial Intelligence; Computer vision; Inclusive education; Visually impaired students; Children with disabilities; Special education
[25]Namoun, A. et al. (2022)A Two-Phase Machine Learning Framework for Context-Aware Service Selection to Empower People with DisabilitiesSensorsSaudi Arabiaservice selection; disabled people; web services; quality of service; QoS; accessibility; assistive technologies; universal design; machine learning; ontologies
[26]Marino, T. & Pecchio, P. (2020)AI and Teaching Approach in High SchoolStudies in Systems, Decision and ControlItalyArtificial Intelligence; Education; Special educational needs
[27]Watters, J. et al. (2021)An Artificial Intelligence Tool for Accessible Science EducationJournal of Science Education for Students with DisabilitiesUSAArtificial Intelligence, Virtual Assistant, Accessible Science Education
[28]Standen, P. J. et al. (2020)An evaluation of an adaptive learning system based on multimodal affect recognition for learners with intellectual disabilitiesBritish Journal of Educational TechnologyUK; Italy; Spain;NA
[29]Coughlan, T., Iniesto, F.& Carr, J. E. (2024)Analysing Disability Descriptions and Student Suggestions as a Foundation to Overcome Barriers to LearningJournal of Interactive Media in EducationUKaccessibility; Artificial Intelligence; chatbots; crowdsourcing; disability; inclusion
[30]Bulathwela, S. et al. (2024)Artificial Intelligence Alone Will Not Democratise Education: On Educational Inequality, Techno-Solutionism and Inclusive ToolsSustainability (Switzerland)UK (affiliation)lifelong e-learning; open education; recommendation systems; state-based learner modelling; Sustainable Development Goal 4; Wikipedia
[31]Hu, M. & Wang, J. (2021)Artificial Intelligence in dance education: Dance for students with special educational needsTechnology in SocietyChinaDance education; Dance students; Artificial Intelligence; Musculoskeletal system diseases; Musculoskeletal system
[32]Ingavelez-Guerra, P. et al. (2022)Automatic Adaptation of Open Educational Resources: An Approach From a Multilevel Methodology Based on Students’ Preferences, Educational Special Needs, Artificial Intelligence and Accessibility MetadataIEEE AccessEcuadorArtificial Intelligence; Electronic learning; ISO Standards; Metadata; Proposals; Standards; Training
[33]Dziatkovskii, A. (2022)Blockchain and Artificial Intelligence for inclusionGerman International Journal of Modern ScienceUSA (affiliation)Artificial Intelligence; Blockchains; Children’s rights; Inclusive education; Special education; Educational technology
[34]Toyokawa, Y. et al. (2023)Challenges and opportunities of AI in inclusive education: a case study of data-enhanced active reading in JapanSmart Learning EnvironmentsJapanActive reading; AI; Learning analytics; Log data
[35]Mateos-Sanchez, M. et al. (2022)Chatbot, as Educational and Inclusive Tool for People with Intellectual DisabilitiesSustainability (Switzerland)SpainChatbot; COVID-19; Educational innovation; Inclusive education; Intellectual disabilities; Mobile application; Social abilities
[36]Nganji, J. T. & Brayshaw, M. (2017) Disability-aware adaptive and personalised learning for students with multiple disabilitiesInternational Journal of Information and Learning TechnologyCanada; UK (affiliation)Disability-aware systems; E-learning; Machine learning; Multiple disabilities; Personalization; Virtual learning environments
[37]McDonald, N., Massey, A. & Hamidi, F. (2023) Elicitation and Empathy with AI-enhanced Adaptive Assistive Technologies (AATs): Towards Sustainable Inclusive Design Method EducationJournal of Problem Based Learning in Higher EducationUSAAdaptive Assistive Technology; Computing higher education; Design Justice; Elicitation Toolkit; Intersectionality; Participatory Toolkit; Privacy; Problem-based Learning
[38]El Naggar, A., Gaad, E. & Inocencio, S. A. M. (2024) [38]Enhancing inclusive education in the UAE: Integrating AI for diverse learning needsResearch in Developmental DisabilitiesUnited Arab EmiratesArtificial Intelligence; Exceptional learners; Inclusive education; Pedagogy; Special needs
[39]Erbeli, F. et al. (2024)Exploring the Machine Learning Paradigm in Determining Risk for Reading DisabilityScientific Studies of ReadingUSANA
[40]Sharma, S. et al. (2023)Impact of AI-based special education on educators and studentsAI-Assisted Special Education for Students With Exceptional NeedsIndiaNA
[41]Garg, S. & Sharma, S. (2020)Impact of Artificial Intelligence in special need education to promote inclusive pedagogyInternational Journal of Information and Education TechnologyIndiaAI; Disabilities; Special need education
[42]Zingoni, A. et al. (2021)Investigating Issues and Needs of Dyslexic Students at University: Proof of Concept of an Artificial Intelligence and Virtual Reality-Based Supporting Platform and Preliminary ResultsApplied Sciences (2076–3417)Italyadaptive learning; Artificial Intelligence; dyslexia; inclusive teaching; specific learning disorders; virtual reality
[43]Pitikoe, S. & Biswalo, P. (2021)Logged In or Locked Out of the Twenty-First Century? Implications for Adult Learners with Special NeedsDigital Literacy and Socio-Cultural Acceptance of ICT in Developing CountriesKingdom of Eswatini (formerly Swaziland), South AfricaAdult learners; Assistive technology; ICT; Inclusive education; Learners with special needs
[44]Zdravkova, K. (2022)The Potential of Artificial Intelligence for Assistive Technology in EducationLearning and Analytics in Intelligent SystemsNorth Macedonia (affiliation)Assistive technologies; Cognitive impairment; Communication impairment; Futuristic assistive technologies; Hearing impairment; Intellectual impairment; Motor impairment; Social inclusion; Visual impairment
[45]Confer, C. A. (2023)The Use of Artificial Intelligence to Create Inclusivity in Special Education ClassroomsJournal of Applied Professional StudiesUSAadvocacy; Artificial Intelligence; disability; education; inclusivity; Individuals with Disabilities Education Act; special needs; stigmas
[46]Bressane, A. et al. (2024)Understanding the role of study strategies and learning disabilities on student academic performance to enhance educational approaches: A proposal using Artificial IntelligenceComputers and Education: Artificial IntelligenceBrazilEducational approach; Learning limitation and potential; Study strategies
Table 4. Studies categorisation by the AI function and description.
Table 4. Studies categorisation by the AI function and description.
AI FunctionAuthor(s) and ReferenceDescription
ToolGouraguine et al. [23]NAO robot with deep learning assists visual learning.
ToolSrivastava et al. [24]SLA tool designed for impairments (hearing, speech, visual).
ToolNamoun et al. [25]Machine learning framework for context-aware assistance.
ToolStanden et al. [28]Multimodal affect recognition enables adaptive learning.
ToolCoughlan et al. [29]AI-powered chatbots addressing learning barriers.
ToolDziatkovskii [33]Blockchain technologies for translators and monitoring fatigue.
ToolErbeli et al. [39]AI models predict reading disabilities.
ToolSharma et al. [40]Adaptive learning systems and speech technologies (TTS/STT).
ToolGarg & Sharma [41]AI tools like Siri and Alexa for special education.
ToolZingoni et al. [42]BESPECIAL platform for dyslexic students.
ToolPitikoe & Biswalo [43]Envision AI for navigation and obstacle detection.
ToolZdravkova [44]Learning management systems with accessibility features.
ToolConfer [45]AI tutoring systems for diagnostic and assistive functions.
ToolBressane et al. [46]Artificial Neural Network (ANN), Fuzzy System, and Decision Support System (DSS) were used to identify patterns and offer recommendations on effective and personalise educational interventions
ModeratorMarino & Pecchio [26]Vocal assistants and transcription tools moderate teacher–student interactions.
ModeratorIngavelez-Guerra et al. [32]AI adapts educational content based on accessibility needs.
ModeratorMateos-Sanchez et al. [35]Chatbot for improving communication and social skills.
ModeratorMcDonald et al. [37]AI-enhanced assistive technologies fostering empathy.
ModeratorEl Naggar et al. [38]AI mediates discussions among exceptional learners.
Moderator/
Environment		Bulathwela et al. [30]Intelligent tutoring systems for collaboration and inclusion/Exploration of AI systems as adaptive ecosystems.
EnvironmentWatters et al. [27]Virtual Lab Assistant creates adaptive education ecosystems.
EnvironmentHu & Wang [31]Bayesian networks for adaptive dance education.
EnvironmentToyokawa et al. [34]LEAF system adapts through learning analytics.
EnvironmentNganji & Brayshaw [36]AI-driven personalized virtual environments.
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.

Share and Cite

MDPI and ACS Style

Pagliara, S.M.; Bonavolontà, G.; Pia, M.; Falchi, S.; Zurru, A.L.; Fenu, G.; Mura, A. The Integration of Artificial Intelligence in Inclusive Education: A Scoping Review. Information 2024, 15, 774. https://doi.org/10.3390/info15120774

AMA Style

Pagliara SM, Bonavolontà G, Pia M, Falchi S, Zurru AL, Fenu G, Mura A. The Integration of Artificial Intelligence in Inclusive Education: A Scoping Review. Information. 2024; 15(12):774. https://doi.org/10.3390/info15120774

Chicago/Turabian Style

Pagliara, Silvio Marcello, Gianmarco Bonavolontà, Mariella Pia, Stefania Falchi, Antioco Luigi Zurru, Gianni Fenu, and Antonello Mura. 2024. "The Integration of Artificial Intelligence in Inclusive Education: A Scoping Review" Information 15, no. 12: 774. https://doi.org/10.3390/info15120774

APA Style

Pagliara, S. M., Bonavolontà, G., Pia, M., Falchi, S., Zurru, A. L., Fenu, G., & Mura, A. (2024). The Integration of Artificial Intelligence in Inclusive Education: A Scoping Review. Information, 15(12), 774. https://doi.org/10.3390/info15120774

Note that from the first issue of 2016, this journal uses article numbers instead of page numbers. See further details here.

Article Metrics

Back to TopTop