Reframing Educational Value in EdTech for Neuro-Inclusive Primary School Classrooms: A Scoping Review

Synthesis: Educational technologies are increasingly used to support neurodivergent learners in primary classrooms, yet their educational value remains difficult to establish across diverse learners, technologies, and contexts. This scoping review screened 3,340 records across six databases and included 93 studies to examine not whether EdTech works, but what counts as success, how it is established, and for whom. The evidence base is uneven, concentrated on autistic learners, individualized academic and cognitive support, and emerging technologies such as Virtual and Augmented Reality, Robots in Education, and artificial intelligence, while social, communicative, and peer-interaction outcomes received less attention. Design and evaluation were frequently researcher-led or unreported, participation from children was limited, and intended goals often misaligned with evaluated outcomes. The authors argue that educational value is constructed across conceptual, operational, and endorsed dimensions, and propose two complementary frameworks grounded in Neurodiversity and Universal Design for Learning. The reframing matters for Inclusive Learning and Accessibility: value claims validated predominantly by researchers can detach from the priorities of classroom users.

Key Findings

1. A large but concentrated corpus. The review screened 3,340 records across six databases and included 93 studies.
2. Autism dominates the evidence. Autism was the most studied learner profile (n = 37, 39.8%), ahead of intellectual/cognitive disabilities (n = 22, 23.7%), ADHD (n = 16, 17.2%), and dyslexia (n = 15, 16.1%).
3. Emerging technologies lead. Extended reality was the most studied category (n = 26, 28.0%), ahead of robotics (n = 14, 15.1%) and AI-driven systems (n = 12, 12.9%).
4. Design is researcher-led or unreported. Design processes were unreported in 43.0% of articles (n = 40); researcher-led design (39.8%, n = 37) outnumbered co-design (17.2%, n = 16); only one study (1.1%) made children design partners.
5. Goals and outcomes misalign. Academic goals were intended in 74% of studies (n = 69) but evaluated in 51% (n = 47); stakeholder perception, the most common focus (43%, n = 40), was never a stated goal.
6. Children are measured, not consulted. Children took part in evaluation in 89% of studies (n = 83) but never as consultants or partners; individual use dominated adoption (n = 57, 61.3%).

Why educational value is hard to establish

An estimated 10–20% of the school-age population is neurodivergent, yet primary classrooms remain largely organized around a "typical" learner, and teachers often lack the resources to enact inclusion in practice. EdTech promises personalized instruction, adaptive feedback, and multimodal engagement that may suit neuro-inclusive learning, but research is fragmented across technologies, learner profiles, and evaluation approaches. The same technology may be experienced differently by different children, and generative AI forces practitioners to weigh uncertain evidence against diverse needs. Prior reviews span K–12 or clinical settings; none mapped evidence across technologies and profiles specifically for primary classrooms while asking how educational value is defined.

What the evidence covers

The 93 studies concentrate on particular profiles, technologies, and goals: autism (ASD) was the most studied learner profile, while language disorder or delay appeared in only six studies (6.5%). Most research took place in mainstream schools (n = 63, 67.7%), with less in SEN schools (n = 16, 17.2%) or homeschooling (n = 7, 7.5%). Extended reality was the most studied technology category, ahead of robotics and AI-driven systems; assistive and accessibility technologies fell below 5%. Intended goals were predominantly academic (n = 69, 53.9%) and cognitive (n = 23, 18.0%), with social, communicative, and peer-interaction goals far less common. Design emphasized multimodality (n = 70, 75.3%), feedback (n = 43, 46.2%), and personalization (n = 42, 45.2%); whole-class and small-group use each accounted for 16 studies (17.2%).

The evaluation problem: researcher-led design and misaligned goals

Design was frequently unreported or researcher-led, with children overwhelmingly positioned as users (n = 77, 83%) rather than testers, informants, or design partners. The same asymmetry extends to evaluation: intended goals and evaluated outcomes diverged — academic goals were intended in 74% of studies but evaluated in 51% — while outcomes never stated as goals, such as stakeholder perception and satisfaction (43%, n = 40), became prominent. Children took part in evaluation in most studies but almost always as subjects (52%) or respondents (38%), never as consultants or partners; among design partners, 52% became respondents and 39% were absent from evaluation. Educational value was thus validated predominantly by researchers, leaving children's experiences largely invisible.

Reframing educational value for neuro-inclusive classrooms

The authors argue that educational value is constructed across three dimensions: conceptual (what counts as valuable), operational (how value is measured), and endorsed (whose judgments validate it). Disconnected, these dimensions let value claims detach from the priorities of those the technologies serve. Their research framework asks future work to define value through participatory methods, align operational with conceptual goals, and sustain stakeholder participation across all three levels. The companion practitioner framework translates these dimensions into appraisal questions, supported by the free NeuroTech Compass dashboard. Individual accommodation is not classroom-level inclusion: support should be complemented by attention to whether technologies reshape classroom practice for diverse learners.

What this means for practice

• Instructors. Use the practitioner appraisal guide and the NeuroTech Compass dashboard to ask whose priorities define a technology's value.
• Researchers. Align operational with conceptual value, justify outcomes added at evaluation, and involve children and teachers from design through evaluation.
• Administrators. Demand evidence reflecting classroom users rather than researcher-defined outcomes: stakeholder perception (43%, n = 40) was evaluated without ever being a stated goal.
• Developers. Move children beyond the user role — they were design partners in one study (1.1%), and none shaped evaluation.

Limitations

• The review was restricted to English-language studies from six databases, potentially excluding relevant work elsewhere or in other languages.
• Peer-reviewed publications only; gray literature such as white papers and reports was excluded, and the latest search ran on 9 August 2026.
• Themes were broadly specified by design — appropriate for scoping but limiting for effect-level conclusions.
• The review cannot establish why the evidence concentrates on particular profiles (e.g., autism) or technologies.

Citation

Gibson, J. L., Tervola, S. M. H., & Goodacre, E. J. (2026). Reframing Educational Value in EdTech for Neuro-Inclusive Primary School Classrooms: A Scoping Review. PsyArXiv preprint (osf.io/xeqfg).