Vol. 10 (2026): Identidad Bolivariana: 2da Edición Especial
Original Items

Impact of Digital Tools and Artificial Intelligence on the AcademicPerformance, Autonomy and Educational Interaction of Studentswith Motor Disabilities

Marjorie Carla Borja Flores
Universidad Bolivariana del Ecuador
Andrés Sebastián Puente Echeverría
Universidad Bolivariana del Ecuador
Manuel Reyes Wagnio
Universidad Bolivariana del Ecuador
Dayron Rumbaut Rangel
Universidad Bolivariana del Ecuador

Published 2026-11-06

Keywords

  • Artificial intelligence,
  • inclusive education,
  • motor disabilities,
  • assistive technology,
  • accessibility,
  • academic performance
  • ...More
    Less

How to Cite

Impact of Digital Tools and Artificial Intelligence on the AcademicPerformance, Autonomy and Educational Interaction of Studentswith Motor Disabilities. (2026). Identidad Bolivariana, 10, 445-459. https://doi.org/10.37611/IB10ol445-459

Abstract

Introduction: barriers to access and expression restrict the participation of students with motor disabilities. Objective: to examine differences in academic performance, autonomy, and educational interaction associated with an intervention combining digital tools and artificial intelligence. Methods: A quasi-experimental study was conducted with 40 students from an institution in Quito, who were assigned – without documented randomisation – to an experimental group (n = 20) and a control group (n = 20). Over a period of eight weeks, the mathematics syllabus for the eighth year of Upper General Basic Education was covered. Neither the type nor the severity of the disability was controlled for. Descriptive statistics, the t-test and ANCOVA were used. Results: the experimental group scored 8.7/10, compared with 7.1/10 in the control group (p < 0,001; d = 1.98). Assuming independent groups, the estimated 95% CI for d was [1.21, 2.73]. The reported ANCOVA yielded F(1, 37) = 42.3 and partial η² = .53.
Improvements in autonomy and interaction were reported, although their measurement scale requires confirmation. Conclusions: the findings suggest a favourable association with academic performance. The unusually large effect warrants caution because allocation was not randomized, functional characteristics were not documented, and statistical assumptions were not demonstrably checked. Enrolment grade and the measurement of secondary outcomes require confirmation before the findings can be generalized.

Downloads

Download data is not yet available.

References

  1. Aiken, L. R. (1980). Content Validity and Reliability of Single Items or Questionnaires. Educational and Psychological Measurement, 40(4), 955-959. https://doi.org/https://doi.org/10.1177/001316448004000419
  2. Arteaga-Tubay, G. J. (2024). Recursos tecnológicos para el aprendizaje en el marco de la educación inclusiva ecuatoriana. CIENCIAMATRIA, 10(18), 289-312. https://doi.org/https://doi.org/10.35381/cm.v10i18.1272
  3. Bickenbach, J. (2011). The World Report on Disability. Disability & Society, 26(5), 655-658. https://doi.org/https://doi.org/10.1080/09687599.2011.589198
  4. Chamorro-Pinchao, C. X., Loor-Cedeño, G. N., & Agreda-Gómez, J. S. (2021). El buen vivir y la inclusión: Una reflexión desde la legislación educativa ecuatoriana. Revista Electrónica Educare, 2 5 ( 2 ) , 1-17. https://doi.org/https://doi.org/10.15359/ree.25-2.12
  5. Esquivel, P., McGarvey, L., Phelan, S., & Adams, K. (2024). Exploring environmental factors affecting assistive technology strategies in mathematics learning for students with physical disabilities. Disability and Rehabilitation: Assistive Technology,19(1), 66-77. https://doi.org/https://doi.org/10.1080/17483107.2022.2062465
  6. Faul, F., Erdfelder, E., Buchner, A., & Lang, A.-G. (2009). Statistical power analyses using G*Power 3.1: Tests for correlation and regression analyses. Behavior Research Methods, 41(4), 1149-1160. https://doi.org/https://doi.org/10.3758/BRM.41.4.1149
  7. Henadirage, A., & Gunarathne, N. (2025). Barriers to and Opportunities for the Adoption of Generative Artificial Intelligence in Higher Education in the Global South: Insights from Sri Lanka. International Journal of Artificial Intelligence in Education, 35(1), 245-281. https://doi.org/https://doi.org/10.1007/s40593-024-00439-5
  8. Holmes, W., Bialik, M., & Fadel, C. (2019). Artificial intelligence in education. Center for Curriculum Redesign. https://doi.org/10.58863/20.500.12424/4276068
  9. Lakens, D. (2013). Calculating and reporting effect sizes to facilitate cumulative science: A practical primer for t-tests and ANOVAs. Frontiers in Psychology, 4. https://doi.org/https://doi.org/10.3389/fpsyg.2013.00863
  10. Landa-Blanco, M. (2026). Artificial intelligence in education: Applications and limitations for teachers in low- and middle-income countries. Frontiers in Education, 10. https://doi.org/https://doi.org/10.3389/feduc.2025.1681836
  11. McNicholl, A., Casey, H., Desmond, D., & Gallagher, P. (2021). The impact of assistive technology use for students with disabilities in higher education: A systematic review. Disability and Rehabilitation: Assistive Technology, 16(2), 130-143. https://doi.org/10.1080/17483107.2019.1642395
  12. Moore, J., Searles, S., Holterman, L. A., Simone, C., & Huggett, K. (2020). Universal Design for TBL®: Promoting Inclusion and Access for All Learners. Medical Science Educator, 30(1), 595-596. https://doi.org/10.1007/s40670-019-00827-w
  13. Sedláčková, D., Kantor, J., Belkin, L., Marečková, J., Smrčková, A., Du, J., Li, J., Svobodová, Z., & Munn, Z. (2025). The experiences of students with physical disabilities in inclusive education: A qualitative systematic review. Educational Research Review, 49, 100715. https://doi.org/https://doi.org/10.1016/j.edurev.2025.100715
  14. Seelman, K. D. (2011). The World Health Organization/World Bank’s First World Report on Disability. International Journal of Telerehabilitation, 11-14. https://doi.org/https://doi.org/10.5195/ijt.2011.6076
  15. Selwyn, N. (2016). Minding our language: Why education and technology is full of bullshit … and what might be done about it†. Learning, Media and Technology, 41(3), 437-443. https://doi.org/https://doi.org/10.1080/17439884.2015.1012523
  16. UNESCO. (2020). Global education monitoring report, 2020: Inclusion and education: All means all. https://doi.org/https://doi.org/10.54676/JJNK6989
  17. Zawacki-Richter, O., Marín, V. I., Bond, M., & Gouverneur, F. (2019). Systematic review of research on artificial intelligence applications in higher education – where are the educators? International Journal of Educational Technology in Higher Education, 16(1), 39. https://doi.org/https://doi.org/10.1186/s41239-019-0171-0
  18. Zhang, L., CarterJr., R. A., Liu, Y., & Peng, P. (2026). Let’s CHAT About Artificial Intelligence for Students With Disabilities: A Systematic Literature Review and Meta-Analysis. Review of Educational Research, 96(1), 215-257. https://doi.org/https://doi.org/10.3102/00346543241293424