Digital competence and mediation of digital
risks among Chilean teachers working with students witih intellectual
disabilities and/or ASD
Competencia digital y mediación de
riesgos del profesorado chileno con alumnado con discapacidad intelectual y/o
TEA
Dra.
Esther Chiner. Universidad de
Alicante. España.
Dr.
Marcos Gómez-Puerta. Universidad de
Alicante. España.
Dra.
Susan Sanhueza-Henríquez. Universidad de
Chile. Chile.
Received: 2024/10/03 Revised: 2025/11/14 Accepted: 2025/11/21 Published: 2026/01/01
Chiner, E., Gómez-Puerta, M. &
Sanhueza-Henríquez, S. (2026). Competencia y mediación del profesorado chileno
en el uso de internet del alumnado con discapacidad intelectual y/o TEA [Chilean
teachers' competence and mediation in Internet use by students with
intellectual disabilities and/or ASD]. Pixel-Bit,
Revista de Medios y Educación, 75,
Art. 5. https://doi.org/10.12795/pixelbit.110412
ABSTRACT
Learning technologies present
educational opportunities, but also risks, especially for students with
cognitive difficulties. This study analyzes the competencies of Chilean
teachers, both in training and active, to mediate risks in the use of the
Internet by students with intellectual disabilities and/or autism spectrum
disorder. A descriptive quantitative study was conducted using a survey design.
A total of 211 teachers from different educational levels (93 active and 118 in
training) participated. The questionnaires assessed the perceived digital
competence and mediation strategies against risks on the Internet. Teachers
show limited training in digital safety, mainly acquired in informal contexts.
Although their perceived digital competence is moderate, their ability to
mediate risks for students with intellectual disabilities and/or autism
spectrum disorder is low. There is a need to improve teacher training in
digital competencies, not only in technical skills, but also in risk prevention
strategies. This should be addressed in initial and in-service teacher
training.
RESUMEN
Las tecnologías de
aprendizaje presentan oportunidades educativas, pero también riesgos,
especialmente para estudiantes con dificultades cognitivas. Este estudio
analiza las competencias del profesorado chileno, tanto en formación como en
activo, para mediar los riesgos en el uso de internet de estudiantes con
discapacidad intelectual y/o trastorno del espectro autista. Se realizó un
estudio cuantitativo descriptivo, mediante un diseño de encuestas. Participaron
211 docentes de diferentes etapas educativas (93 en activo y 118 en formación).
Los cuestionarios evaluaron la competencia digital percibida y las estrategias
de mediación frente a riesgos en internet. El profesorado muestra una formación
limitada en seguridad digital, principalmente adquirida en contextos
informales. Aunque su competencia digital percibida es moderada, su capacidad
para mediar riesgos en estudiantes con discapacidad intelectual y/o trastorno
del espectro autista es baja. Es necesario mejorar la formación del profesorado
en competencias digitales, no solo en habilidades técnicas, sino también en
estrategias de prevención de riesgos. Esto debe abordarse desde la formación
inicial y continua de los docentes.
KEYWORDS · PALABRAS CLAVES
Competence; mediation; internet; risks; intellectual
disability; autism spectrum disorder.
Competencia; mediación;
internet; riesgos; discapacidad intelectual; trastorno del espectro autista.
1. Introduction
1.1. Risks of internet
use
As reflected in the Kids Online Chile 2022 report, the internet
offers opportunities for minors, such as access to information, learning,
leisure, and entertainment (UNICEF, 2024). However, its use entails potential
exposure to certain risks, which Livingstone and Stoilova (2021) classified
into five main categories: (a) content (sending or receiving content
inappropriate for minors, such as pornography, drugs, or violence), (b) contact
(initiating or receiving inappropriate interactions, such as sexual grooming by
an adult or harassment), (c) conduct (engaging in or being subjected to
inappropriate behaviors, such as cyberbullying), (d) contract (exposure
to misleading advertising, commercial persuasion, or unwanted exploitation of
personal data), and (e) cross-cutting risks (limitations in personal
relationships or interactions, impacts on physical health, development of internet
addictions, etc.). These risks have been documented among Chilean minors, with
the most common being unpleasant online experiences (54%), online contact with
strangers (42%), and receiving hurtful treatment online (35%) (UNICEF, 2024). These
findings are consistent with those observed in Europe (Smahel et al., 2020).
Evidence shows that internet-related risks for students with ID or ASD
depend on factors such as their life experiences and their ability to detect
online deception. Furthermore, caregivers’ perception of danger often leads to
controls and restrictions that limit their digital learning and development,
creating a vicious cycle (Chadwick, 2019). In response, Seale (2024) suggests
addressing these risks through the training of support personnel, fostering
positive management. Similarly, Clements et al. (2025) advocate replacing
overprotection with information, training, and resilience. Thus, mediation by
families and teachers is key and is understood as the direct or indirect
intervention of a third party in technology interactions (Berger, 2020).
1.2. Mediation of internet
risks
Mediation is a way of managing risks. Specifically, Livingstone et al. (2011)
described four types of internet mediation: (a) active mediation, which
includes shared online activities and conversations about internet use; (b) restrictive
mediation, which involves limiting or prohibiting access to the network;
(c) supervisory mediation, such as checking browsing history or emails;
and (d) technical mediation, referring to the use of filters or programs
to block certain content and protect against spam, malware, or viruses. Restrictive
mediation has predominated because it considerably reduces risks by preventing
exposure. However, this strategy has the disadvantage of limiting students’
educational opportunities and the development of digital skills (Stoilova et
al., 2021). Moreover, it does not align with current modes of internet access,
which are increasingly focused on mobile devices such as smartphones (Cabello
et al., 2021). Consequently, a combined approach that integrates active
mediation with technical prevention tools, such as content filters, is
increasingly being promoted (UNICEF, 2024).
The concept of teacher competencies encompasses a set of skills,
knowledge, and attitudes that enable educators to perform their work
effectively (Jiménez Hernández et al., 2021). In recent years, particular
emphasis has been placed on strengthening their digital competencies. UNESCO (2019) highlighted the need for
teachers to master aspects of cybersecurity, media and information literacy,
and to be able to promote the safe use of networks and devices, as well as to
identify and respond to problematic online behaviors. Similarly, the European
Commission’s Digital Competence Framework for Educators (DigCompEdu) defines the competencies
required for the effective integration of technologies into teaching,
emphasizing student “protection” and “digital well-being,” which involve
identifying, assessing, and mitigating digital risks (Chiner et al., 2025; Punie & Redecker, 2017). However, various conceptual
frameworks on teacher digital competence indicate that security remains a
poorly developed dimension (Verdú-Pina et al., 2023). This deficiency is also
evident in both initial and continuing teacher education in Chile, highlighting
the need to strengthen the pedagogical use of technologies (Silva Quiroz et al., 2022; Velásquez Castro &
Paredes-Águila, 2024). Furthermore, several studies emphasize the influence of personal factors
such as beliefs, attitudes, biases, and self-efficacy on the application of
these competencies (Lindner et al., 2023).
In Chile, policies have been implemented to promote the inclusion of
students with disabilities in mainstream schools; however, barriers persist,
such as the limited training of teachers to support students with special
educational needs (SEN) (Benavides-Moreno et al., 2021). A similar situation
occurs in the technological domain: despite efforts to integrate digital
technologies into education, these processes face various challenges (Paredes-Águila & Rivera-Vargas, 2023), creating a complex scenario
for students with ID and/or ASD. The few available studies highlight the need
to strengthen teachers’ digital competencies to mediate the online risks faced
by these students (Gómez-Puerta
& Chiner, 2020; Si et al., 2025). Teachers perceive the internet
as an unsafe environment and acknowledge insufficient preparation to prevent or
manage such risks (Chiner et al., 2021), particularly those that are more
complex—such as cyberbullying, hate messages, or radicalization—for which they
feel inadequately qualified (Caton &
Landman, 2021; Hassrick et al., 2021).
In summary, the mediation of digital risks for students with ID and/or
ASD represents a complex challenge for Chilean teachers, requiring a
combination of technical, pedagogical, and ethical competencies to protect
students in digital environments. Analyzing these competencies seeks to address
the lack of research, identify strengths and weaknesses in teacher education,
and guide policies that promote the safe and responsible use of the internet.
1.3. Objectives
This study aims to identify the digital competencies and training needs
of Chilean teachers —both pre-service and in-service— regarding the safe use of
the internet by students with ID and/or ASD, as well as the mediation practices
employed to prevent and manage online risks. The following objectives were
established:
To determine teachers’ training needs related to internet safety.
To explore and compare teachers’ levels of digital and mediation
competence in preventing and managing internet risks for students with ID
and/or ASD.
To examine the relationship between teachers’ digital and mediation
competencies in the prevention and management of online risks.
To identify and compare the mediation strategies employed by teachers to
prevent and manage internet risks among students without SEN, with ID, and/or
with ASD.
2. Methodology
2.1. Research approach
A quantitative approach based on a descriptive-comparative study was adopted.
To gather information from teachers regarding events and perceptions at a
specific point in time and context, the study was conducted using a
cross-sectional survey design (Creswell & Guetterman, 2019).
2.2. Participants
A total of 211 Chilean teachers —both pre-service and in-service— participated
in the study, with the vast majority being women (90%). Specifically, 118
(55.9%) pre-service teachers from two Chilean universities in the Metropolitan
and Bío-Bío Regions participated. They were enrolled in Early Childhood
Education (62.7%) and Special Education (37.3%) programs. Their mean age was
20.90 years (SD = 3.42), with 36.4% reporting prior contact with
individuals with ID and 50.8% with ASD. Among in-service teachers (n = 93, 44.1%), most worked in public
schools (64.5%) across five Chilean regions, mainly the Metropolitan Region (43.0%),
Ñuble (23.7%), and La Araucanía (17.2%). Participants taught at all educational
levels (early childhood, primary, and lower secondary education), with the
majority in primary education (72%). The mean age of in-service teachers was
35.6 years (SD = 9.81), and their teaching experience ranged from 1 to
40 years (M = 10.26, SD = 8.19). The majority reported having
taught students with ID (82.8%) and ASD (87.1%) at some point in their careers.
Both in-service teachers (68.8%) and pre-service teachers (61.0%) had
received some type of training in addressing the diversity of students with
SEN. Specific training regarding students with ID (40.9% vs. 17.8%) and ASD
(50.5% vs. 18.6%) was higher among in-service teachers than among pre-service teachers.
2.3. Instruments
A questionnaire was designed, and its content was validated by six
expert judges in education from a Chilean university. The Content Validity
Index (CVI) was calculated using Lawshe’s (1975) formula, obtaining a value of
0.87. After incorporating the experts’ suggested adjustments, the final
instrument consisted of three sections:
1. Sociodemographic information:
Gender, age, occupational status, training in addressing diversity, training
related to ID and ASD, and years of teaching experience, measured using
multiple-choice items.
2. Competence and training in internet
use and safety: This section included
items on perceived digital competence (10-point scale), training in online
safety and information sources (dichotomous response options), and perceived
competence in preventing or managing the five types of internet risks proposed
by Livingstone and Stoilova (2021), for students with ID and ASD (5-point Likert scale).
The reliability of the scale, measured through internal consistency, was Chronbach’s
Alpha = .94 for both scales (students with ID and ASD).
3. Teacher mediation strategies
for the prevention and management of online risks: Ten items assessed the frequency of use of various
risk-mediation practices with students without SEN, with ID, and/or with ASD
using a 5-point Likert scale. Internal consistency for the three scales was
high (Alpha = 1, Alpha = .89, and Alpha = .95, respectively).
2.4. Procedure
Data were collected
at three universities and two educational centers in the Metropolitan, Bío-Bío,
and Araucanía Regions of Chile. Participation was requested from teachers
enrolled in a Master’s program in Education and/or currently working as
educators, as well as from pre-service teachers. After initial contact,
participants provided informed consent and received a copy of the
questionnaire, either in paper or online format. The estimated completion time
was approximately 10 minutes.
2.5. Ethical considerations
The study was approved by the Ethics Committee of the Universidad de
Alicante (Ref. UA-2023-05-11) and adhered to the
ethical guidelines for educational research outlined by the American Educational Research Association (2011). These guidelines
included obtaining informed consent from all participants, providing detailed
information about the study, and ensuring that all data were treated
anonymously and confidentially.
3. Analysis and results
3.1. Data analysis
An exploratory analysis of the data was conducted using descriptive
statistics. For inter- and within-subject comparisons, both parametric
inferential statistics (t-test and ANOVA) and non-parametric statistics
(chi-square test) were employed, depending on the characteristics of the
variables. In addition, Pearson’s correlation coefficient was calculated to
determine associations between variables. The significance level was set at p
< .05. Data coding and subsequent analyses were performed using IBM SPSS
v.28.
3.2. Results
3.2.1. Teacher training on
internet use and online safety
The vast majority of both in-service and pre-service teachers reported
not having received specific courses on internet safety for students with ID
and/or ASD. Only four (4.3%) in-service teachers and no pre-service teachers
had received any course for students with ID. Similarly, only eight (8.6%)
in-service teachers and one (0.8%) pre-service teacher had received a course
for students with ASD.
Overall, 30.3% of participants stated that they had not received any
information or training on online safety (Table 1). Among those who had
received training or information (69.7%), the main sources cited were family
and friends (51%), mass media (49.7%), and specialized websites (34.7%).
Specifically, 84.9% of in-service teachers and 42.4% of pre-service teachers
reported having received some type of training or information through various
sources. The chi-square test revealed statistically significant differences
regarding family and friends as information sources [χ²(1) = 4.355, p = .037], with 60.3% of pre-service teachers indicating
reliance on this source compared to 43.0% of in-service teachers. Other sources
of training and information for in-service teachers included the school itself
(34.2%), colleagues (29.2%), and teacher training centers (22.8%).
Table 1
Sources of information and training on internet use and online safety
|
Source |
Total (n = 147) |
Pre-service teachers (n = 68) |
In-service teachers (n = 79) |
|
n (%) |
n (%) |
n (%) |
|
|
From the school
itself |
38 (25.9) |
11 (16.2) |
27 (34.2) |
|
From colleagues
at the school |
42 (28.6) |
11 (16.2) |
31 (29.2) |
|
From teacher
training centers |
23 (15.6) |
5 (7.4) |
18 (22.8) |
|
From public
administration |
20 (13.6) |
8 (11.8) |
12 (15.2) |
|
From non-profit
organizations |
19 (12.9) |
7 (10.3) |
12 (15.2) |
|
From specialized
websites |
51 (34.7) |
24 (35.3) |
27 (34.2) |
|
From mass media |
73 (49.7) |
37 (54.5) |
36 (45.6) |
|
From family and
friends |
75 (51.0) |
41 (60.3) |
34 (43.0) |
3.2.2. Perceived digital
competence and mediation of online risks
The average perceived digital competence of teachers was 7.73 (SD
= 1.69), with scores ranging from 2 to 10. This perception was slightly lower
among in-service teachers (M = 7.56, SD = 1.56) compared to
pre-service teachers (M = 7.86, SD = 1.78), although the analysis
revealed no statistically significant differences between the two groups [t (209) = 1.303, p = .194).
Regarding mediation capacity, teachers perceived their competence in
preventing and managing internet risks for students with ID and ASD as moderate
to low, with mean scores below the midpoint of the scale (3). No statistically
significant differences were observed between in-service and pre-service
teachers (p > .05) (see Table 2).
Regarding students with ID, only 32.7% of teachers felt fairly or very
competent in mediating contact-related risks (e.g., harassment, blackmail),
29.8% felt capable of managing content-related risks (e.g., pornographic or
violent material), 28% and 26% perceived themselves able to mediate
conduct-related risks (e.g., cyberbullying, hostile behavior) and
contract-related risks (e.g., theft, fraud), respectively, and 25.1% reported
feeling prepared to handle cross-cutting risks, such as emotional or health issues
arising from internet use. Although perceived competence was slightly higher
among in-service teachers compared to pre-service teachers, these differences
were not statistically significant (p
> .05).
Similar patterns were observed for students with ASD. Teachers reported
higher competence levels in preventing and managing content-related risks
(30.3%), contact-related risks (30.9%), and conduct-related risks (27%), and,
to a lesser extent, contract-related risks (24.6%) and cross-cutting risks
(23.7%). Again, no statistically significant differences were observed between
in-service and pre-service teachers for any of the five types of risks analyzed
(p > .05).
The analysis of differences in teachers’ responses regarding their
competence to manage and prevent online risks for students with ID versus ASD
revealed no statistically significant differences (p > .05). These
findings were consistent both among in-service teachers and pre-service
teachers.
Table 2
Teachers’ Competence in Mediating internet Risks for Students with ID
and/or ASD
|
Type of Risk |
Total |
Pre-service teachers |
In-service teachers |
|||
|
M(SD) |
(%) |
M(SD) |
% |
M(SD) |
% |
|
|
ID |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Content |
2.77(1.23) |
29.8 |
2.68(1.21) |
27.1 |
2.88(1.24) |
33.4 |
|
Contact |
2.80(1.30) |
32.7 |
2.73(1.27) |
29.7 |
2.89(1.33) |
36.6 |
|
Conduct |
2.69(1.23) |
28.0 |
2.61(1.30) |
28.8 |
2.80(1.13) |
26.9 |
|
Contract |
2.60(1.28) |
26.1 |
2.61(1.28) |
27.9 |
2.59(1.29) |
23.7 |
|
Cross-cutting |
2.57(1.24) |
25.1 |
2.58(1.25) |
26.2 |
2.55(1.23) |
23.6 |
|
ASD |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Content |
2.76(1.22) |
30.3 |
2.66(1.24) |
28.8 |
2.89(1.19) |
32.3 |
|
Contact |
2.77(1.28) |
30.9 |
2.66(1.26) |
27.9 |
2.91(1.29) |
34.4 |
|
Conduct |
2.71(1.19) |
27.0 |
2.58(1.25) |
26.2 |
2.87(1.11) |
27.9 |
|
Contract |
2.59(1.24) |
24.6 |
2.59(1.26) |
27.2 |
2.58(1.21) |
21.5 |
|
Cross-cutting |
2.55(1.23) |
23.7 |
2.54(1.25) |
24.5 |
2.57(1.21) |
22.6 |
Note 1. ID = students with intellectual disabilities; ASD =
students with autism spectrum disorder
Note 2. % = percentage based on the combined responses of “fairly
competent” and “very competent.”
3.2.3. Relationship between digital
competence and competence in mediating online risks
To examine the relationship between perceived digital competence and
perceived teacher mediation competence, Pearson’s correlation coefficient was
calculated. For the total sample, statistically significant positive
correlations were observed between the two variables for all five types of
risks studied (Table 3). These low positive correlations indicate that higher
levels of perceived digital competence are associated with a greater perception
of competence in mediating online risk management.
When analyzing the associations by subsample, this statistically
significant relationship was not observed among in-service teachers (p
> .05), where, conversely, there was a slight tendency toward a negative
relationship, where lower perceived digital competence was associated with
higher perceived mediation competence. In contrast, for the pre-service teacher
sample, a clear positive association between the variables was identified, with
moderate correlations and significance levels of p < .001.
Table 3
Relationship
between perceived digital competence and mediation competence
|
Type of Risk |
Total (N = 211) |
Pre-service teachers (n = 118) |
In-service teachers (n = 93) |
|
|
|
Digital competence |
|
|
Content |
.18* |
.37** |
-.05 |
|
Contact |
.20* |
.42** |
-.08 |
|
Conduct |
.18* |
.42** |
-.19 |
|
Contract |
.22* |
.43** |
.079 |
|
Cross-cutting |
.25** |
.42** |
.014 |
Note. * p < .01, ** p < .001
3.2.4. Teacher strategies for
mediating online risks
Regarding strategies for mediating and managing internet-related risks among
students without SEN and those with ID or ASD, teachers reported that they
frequently use (in-service teachers) or would use (pre-service teachers) each
of the proposed practices (Table 4). In particular, the most frequently
reported strategies included offering help when a student has difficulty
performing a task or finding information online (94.5%), assisting students
with problems encountered on the internet (86.6%), establishing classroom rules
for internet use (86.1%), and teaching students safe ways to use the internet
(85.1%). Less frequently employed strategies were discussing with students what
they do online (72.3%) and staying nearby while they use the internet (60.9%).
Comparisons between pre-service and in-service teachers revealed
statistically significant differences for most mediation strategies aimed at
students without SEN, as well as those with ID and ASD. Pre-service teachers indicated they would use these
strategies more frequently than in-service teachers. For students without SEN,
differences were observed in all mediation actions except for staying nearby
while students use the internet, establishing classroom rules, and offering
help if students encounter
difficulties completing a task or finding information online (p < .05). The
same trend was observed for students with ID, where only the strategy of
establishing classroom rules did not show significant differences, and for
students with ASD, staying nearby while students use the internet also showed
no significant differences between in-service and pre-service teachers.
Finally, a repeated-measures ANOVA revealed no statistically significant
differences in the use of mediation strategies depending on whether they were
aimed at students without SEN, with ID, or with ASD (p > .05), except
for the strategy of staying nearby while students use the internet. In this
case, teachers reported using or intending to use this practice less frequently
with students without SEN (M = 3.72, SD = 1.14) compared to
students with ID (M = 3.87, SD = 1.17) or ASD (M = 3.85, SD
= 1.18) [Wilks’ Lambda = .95, F(2,
199) = 5.55, p = .003, partial η² = .05].
Table 4
Teacher strategies
for mediating online risks
|
Mediation Strategy |
Students without SEN |
Students with ID |
Students with ASD |
|||||
|
|
M(SD) |
% |
M(SD) |
% |
M(SD) |
% |
||
|
Talk
about what they do online. |
3.93(0.99)*** |
72.3 |
3.84(1.15)*** |
68.6 |
3.80(1.17)*** |
68.8 |
||
|
Stay
nearby while students use the internet. |
3.71(1.14) |
60.9 |
3.86(1.19)* |
66.2 |
3.84(1.20) |
65.9 |
||
|
Establish
classroom rules for internet use. |
4.38(0.89) |
86.1 |
4.25(1.07) |
82.9 |
4.26(1.08) |
83.4 |
||
|
Offer
help if a student has difficulty performing a task or finding information
online. |
4.45(0.95) |
94.5 |
4.38(1.07)** |
84.3 |
4.31(1.14)* |
82.5 |
||
|
Teach
safe ways to use the internet. |
4.40(1.03)*** |
85.1 |
4.33(1.12)*** |
82.9 |
4.25(1.19)*** |
79.7 |
||
|
Teach
appropriate online behavior. |
4.34(1.04)* |
84.2 |
4.34(1.04)*** |
84.2 |
4.19(1.16)*** |
80.1 |
||
|
Discuss
which websites are appropriate and which are not. |
4.17(1.13)*** |
78.8 |
4.14(1.21)*** |
78.1 |
4.09(1.27)*** |
75.4 |
||
|
Talk
about other online risks (e.g., misleading advertising, data theft). |
4.39(0.94)** |
84.7 |
4.29(1.09)*** |
82.4 |
4.26(1.12)*** |
81.0 |
||
|
Teach
what a student could do if they were worried about something that happened
online. |
4.33(1.02)*** |
80.7 |
4.25(1.12)*** |
77.1 |
4.24(1.13)*** |
76.3 |
||
|
Help
students if they encounter a problem on the internet. |
4.43(0.98)** |
86.6 |
4.37(1.07)*** |
85.8 |
4.35(1.10)*** |
83.4 |
||
Note 1. Students without SEN =
students without special educational needs; ID = students with intellectual
disabilities; ASD = students with autism spectrum disorder.
Note 2. % = percentage based
on the combined responses of “fairly competent” and “very competent.”
Note 3. Significance levels at
*p < .05, **p < .01, ***p < .001 for the
comparison of means between in-service and pre-service teachers using the
independent-samples t-test.
4. Discussion and conclusions
The aim of this study was to identify the digital competencies and
training needs of Chilean teachers —both
pre-service and in-service— regarding the safe use of the internet
by students with ID and/or ASD, as well as the strategies teachers employ to
mediate online risks. The results reveal a gap between the demands of inclusive
digital citizenship and the actual preparedness of teachers to manage these
risks for students with ID and/or ASD in the Chilean context.
Regarding the training received, Chilean teachers reported limited
initial and ongoing education on internet safety for students with ID and/or
ASD, a finding consistent with previous research in other contexts (Chiner et
al., 2021; Gómez-Puerta & Chiner, 2020). Furthermore, the training they do
receive mainly comes from informal sources such as family, friends, or mass
media, particularly for pre-service teachers, which does not ensure the quality
of the information provided. Although limited, in-service teachers have access
to non-formal educational alternatives, such as courses offered at their school
or at teacher training centers. While this second option is more appropriate,
it remains insufficient, as previously noted by Verdú-Pina et al. (2023). These
findings underscore the need to implement teacher training programs
specifically designed to meet their needs (Samundeeswari et al., 2024) and to
foster teaching skills that enable the positive management of online risks (Seale,
2021). Such programs should address teacher biases and enhance their
self-efficacy perceptions (Dignath et al., 2022; Lindner et al., 2023).
Regarding digital competence, teachers reported feeling generally
competent, with in-service teachers indicating slightly lower self-perceived
ability. These findings contrast with the training they have received and may
not fully reflect actual competence, potentially being biased by
self-perception or social desirability, as previously noted by
Revuelta-Domínguez et al. (2022). Moreover, this does not align with
descriptions of technology integration in the Chilean educational system (Silva
Quiroz & Miranda Arredondo, 2020; Velásquez Castro & Paredes-Águila,
2024). Teachers’ self-perceived competence in mediating online risks for
students with ID and/or ASD is lower (medium-low), consistent with the
difficulties schools experience in addressing student diversity (Benavides-Moreno
et al., 2021) and in line with other studies (Chadwick, 2019; Chiner et al.,
2021). Enhancing teachers’ digital competence could improve their ability to mediate online risks, although further
evidence is needed, as contradictory patterns were observed between pre-service
and in-service teachers.
The results reveal a paradox: although teachers perceive themselves as
generally competent in the pedagogical use of technology, they do not share the
same perception regarding their ability to mediate online risks, particularly for students with ID and/or
ASD. High self-efficacy in digital competence coexists with medium-low levels
of mediation competence, suggesting that training has prioritized instrumental
and didactic mastery of learning technologies over risk prevention and
management in inclusive contexts. A differential pattern emerges across
professional stages. Among pre-service teachers, correlations between digital
and mediation competence are positive and moderate, indicating that those who
feel more technologically capable also perceive themselves as better equipped
to support students. In contrast, for in-service teachers, these associations
disappear or become slightly negative, reflecting the gap between initial
expectations and the real complexity of digital inclusion, leading to more
cautious self-assessments. This dissociation underscores the need to integrate
digital well-being and safety into educational frameworks and policies. In
Chile, digital and inclusive policies have focused on technology provision and
access to the common curriculum, with limited guidance on digitally supporting
students with ID and/or ASD. Internationally, frameworks such as DigCompEdu (Punie
& Redecker, 2017) and UNESCO’s digital citizenship proposals (2019) acknowledge the importance of online
well-being but in a general manner, without adaptation for students with higher
support needs. This absence of specificity may explain why
teacher training does not fully translate these frameworks into effective
differential mediation competencies (Chiner et al., 2025).
To improve practice and address the study’s limitations, several actions
are recommended. First, replicating the study over time and in other contexts would
allow for the analysis of trends and strengthen the evidence base. Second, assessing
actual digital competence would enable comparison with teachers’
self-perceptions and help identify biases; additionally, expanding the sample
would improve representativeness. Third, future research could focus on
specific types of ID or levels of ASD to achieve greater precision. Finally, it
is recommended to implement initial and ongoing teacher training programs that
foster inclusive attitudes, incorporating positive experiences and
evidence-based programs that include prevention and management of risks,
including online risks (Finkelhor, Walsh, et al., 2021; Revuelta-Domínguez et
al., 2022).
This study provides unprecedented evidence from Chile on the
relationship between teachers’ digital competence, online risk mediation, and
inclusive education for students with ID and/or ASD. By comparing pre-service
and in-service teachers and analyzing different risks and strategies for
students with and without SEN, the study offers a detailed profile of training
needs that has not previously been documented. The results support
systematically integrating digital safety and well-being into initial and ongoing
teacher education, beyond mere technical use of technology, incorporating
modules on risk mediation in inclusive contexts, case analysis, ethical
reflection, family collaboration, and work with specialized support. At the
policy level, it is recommended to reinforce digital safety within regulations
governing teacher competence and attention to diversity, including objectives
and indicators on risk mediation within curricular frameworks and inclusive
education guidelines. Such measures would guide schools in the coherent
prevention and management of digital risks for students with ID and/or ASD.
The findings of this study suggest that teacher digital competence can
only be fully understood when it explicitly includes the ability to anticipate,
prevent, and manage the digital risks faced by students with ID and/or ASD. Achieving
this requires moving beyond a conception limited to technical skills and
incorporating risk mediation as a core component of initial and ongoing teacher
education, the organization of educational institutions, and inclusion
policies. Adopting this systemic perspective is essential to advancing
effective digital inclusion that ensures the well-being and full participation
of these students in online environments.
Contributions
Conceptualization:
EC; Methodology: EC, MGP, SS; Validation: EC, MGP; Formal Analysis: EC, MGP;
Investigation: EC, MGP, SS; Resources: EC, SS; Data Curation: EC, MGP, SS;
Writing – Original Draft: EC, MGP, SS; Writing – Review & Editing: EC, MGP,
SS; Visualization: EC, MGP, SS; Supervision: EC; Project Administration: EC;
Funding Acquisition: EC.
Funding
The project “Digital
inclusion in the Chilean educational context: Teacher perceptions of internet
use by students with intellectual disabilities” (Ref. RECUALI22-01) at the
Universidad de Alicante was supported by the Ministry of Universities (Spain)
with funding from the European Union – NextGenerationEU.
Conflicts of interest
The authors declare
that they have no conflicts of interest.
References
American Educational Research Association. (2011).
AERA Code of ethics: American Educational Research Association approved by the
AERA Council February 2011. Educational
Researcher, 40(3), 145–156.
https://doi.org/10.3102/0013189X11410403
Benavides-Moreno, N.,
Ortiz-González, G., & Reyes-Araya, D. (2021). La inclusión escolar en
Chile: Observada desde la docencia. Cadernos de Pesquisa, 51.
https://doi.org/10.1590/198053146806
Berger, P. (2020). Teachers’
mediation practice: Opportunities and risks for youth media behavior//Prácticas
de mediación docente: Oportunidades y riesgos en el comportamiento mediático de
jóvenes. Comunicar, 28(64), 49–59.
Cabello, P., Claro, M., Rojas, R., & Trucco, D.
(2021). Children’s and adolescents’ digital access in Chile: The role of
digital access modalities in digital uses and skills. Journal of Children
and Media, 15(2), 183–201.
https://doi.org/10.1080/17482798.2020.1744176
Caton, S., & Landman, R. (2021). Internet safety,
online radicalisation and young people with learning disabilities. British
Journal of Learning Disabilities, 50(1), 88–97.
https://doi.org/10.1111/bld.12372
Chadwick, D. D. (2019). Online risk for people with
intellectual disabilities. Tizard Learning Disability Review, 24(4),
180–187. https://doi.org/10.1108/TLDR-03-2019-0008
Chiner, E., Gómez-Puerta, M., & Mengual-Andrés, S.
(2021). Opportunities and hazards of the internet for students with
intellectual disabilities: The views of pre-service and in-service teachers. International
Journal of Disability, Development and Education, 68(4), 538–553.
https://doi.org/10.1080/1034912X.2019.1696950
Chiner, E., Gómez-Puerta,
M., Mengual-Andrés, S., & Merma-Molina, G. (2025). Teacher and school
mediation for online risk prevention and management: Fostering sustainable
education in the digital age. Sustainability, 17(8), 3711.
https://doi.org/10.3390/SU17083711
Clements, F. A., Orchard, L. J., & Chadwick, D. D.
(2025). A scoping review investigating the perspectives of people with mild to
moderate intellectual disabilities on experiences of cyberbullying
victimisation and its subtypes. Journal of Intellectual Disabilities, 29(3),
743–759. https://doi.org/10.1177/17446295241252214
Creswell, J. W., & Guetterman, T. C. (2019). Educational
research: Planning, conducting, and evaluating quantitative and qualitative
research (6th ed.). Pearson.
Dignath, C., Rimm-Kaufman, S., van Ewijk, R., &
Kunter, M. (2022). Teachers’ beliefs about inclusive education and insights on
what contributes to those beliefs: A meta-analytical study. Educational
Psychology Review, 34(4), 2609–2660.
https://doi.org/10.1007/s10648-022-09695-0
Finkelhor, D., Jones, L., & Mitchell, K. (2021).
Teaching privacy: A flawed strategy for children’s online safety. Child
Abuse & Neglect, 117.
https://doi.org/10.1016/J.CHIABU.2021.105064
Finkelhor, D., Walsh, K., Jones, L., Mitchell, K.,
& Collier, A. (2021). Youth internet safety education: aligning programs
with the evidence base. Trauma, Violence, & Abuse, 22(5),
1233–1247. https://doi.org/10.1177/1524838020916257
Glencross, S., Mason, J., Katsikitis, M., &
Greenwood, K. M. (2021). Internet use by people with intellectual disability:
Exploring digital inequality—A systematic review. Cyberpsychology, Behavior,
and Social Networking, 24(8), 503–520.
https://doi.org/10.1089/cyber.2020.0499
Gómez-Puerta, M., & Chiner, E. (2020). Teachers’
perceptions on online behaviour of students with intellectual disability, risk
mediation and training. European Journal of Special Needs Education, 35(4),
437–450. https://doi.org/10.1080/08856257.2019.1703602
Hassrick, E. M., Holmes, L. G., Sosnowy, C., Walton,
J., & Carley, K. (2021). Benefits and risks: A systematic review of information
and communication technology use by autistic people. Autism in Adulthood, 3(1), 72–84.
https://doi.org/10.1089/aut.2020.0048
Haz-Gómez, F. E.,
López-Martínez, G., & Manzanera-Román, S. (2024). La exclusión digital como
una forma de exclusión social: una revisión crítica del concepto de brecha
digital. Studia Humanitatis Journal, 4(1),
57–89. https://doi.org/10.33732/shj.v4i1.112
Jæger, B. (2021). Digital citizenship – A review of
the academic literature. Der Moderne Staat – Zeitschrift Für Public Policy,
Recht Und Management, 14(1–2021), 24–42.
https://doi.org/10.3224/dms.v14i1.09
Jiménez Hernández, D., Muñoz Sánchez, P., &
Sánchez Giménez, F. S. (2021). La competencia
digital docente, una revisión sistemática de los modelos más utilizados. Revista
Interuniversitaria de Investigación En Tecnología Educativa, 105–120.
https://doi.org/10.6018/riite.472351
Lawshe, C. H. (1975). A quantitative approach to
content validity. Personnel Psychology, 28(4), 563–575.
https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1744-6570.1975.tb01393.x
Lindner, K.-T., Schwab, S., Emara, M., &
Avramidis, E. (2023). Do teachers favor the inclusion of all students? A
systematic review of primary schoolteachers’ attitudes towards inclusive
education. European Journal of Special Needs Education, 38(6),
766–787. https://doi.org/10.1080/08856257.2023.2172894
Livingstone, S., Haddon, L., Görzig, A., &
Ólafsson, K. (2011). Risks and safety on the internet: The perspective of
European children. Full findings. EU Kids Online, The London School of
Economics and Political Science. https://eprints.lse.ac.uk/33731/
Livingstone, S., & Stoilova, M. (2021). The
4Cs: Classifying online risk to children. Leibniz-Institut für
Medienforschung | Hans-Bredow-Institut (HBI); CO:RE - Children Online: Research
and Evidence. https://doi.org/10.21241/ssoar.71817
Malik, S., Elbatal, I., & Khan, S. U. (2024).
People with disabilities, the age of information and communication technology and
the prevailing digital divide—A descriptive analysis. Journal of Disability
Research, 3(2). https://doi.org/10.57197/JDR-2024-0011
Normand, C. L., Fisher, M. H., Simonato, I., Fecteau,
S.-M., & Poulin, M.-H. (2022). A systematic review of problematic internet
use in children, adolescents, and adults with autism spectrum disorder. Review
Journal of Autism and Developmental Disorders, 9(4), 507–520.
https://doi.org/10.1007/s40489-021-00270-x
Paredes-Águila, J. A., &
Rivera-Vargas, P. (2023). La política de inclusión de tecnologías digitales en
el sistema escolar chileno. Una revisión sistemática. Pensamiento Educativo:
Revista de Investigación Educacional Latinoamericana, 60(3).
https://doi.org/10.7764/PEL.60.3.2023.4
Punie, Y., & Redecker, C. (2017). European framework
for the digital competence of educators: DigCompEdu. Publications Office of
the European Union. https://dx.doi.org/10.2760/178382
Revuelta-Domínguez, F.-I.,
Guerra-Antequera, J., González-Pérez, A., Pedrera-Rodríguez, M.-I., &
González-Fernández, A. (2022). Digital teaching competence: A systematic review. Sustainability,
14(11), 6428. https://doi.org/10.3390/su14116428
Samundeeswari, D., Angayarkanni, R., Raju, G., Rana,
N., & Sharma, A. (2024). Teacher professional development: Effective
strategies and evaluation methods. Educational Administration: Theory and
Practice, 30(6), 1726–1733. https://doi.org/10.53555/kuey.v30i6.5578
Seale, J. (2021). Supporting people with learning
disabilities to use technology: A toolkit for supporters. The Open
University.
Seale, J. (2024). Digitally inclusive support
practices for people with learning disabilities: The role of ethics and beliefs.
In V. Heitplatz & L. Wilkens (Eds.), Rehabilitation technology in
transformation: A human-technology-environment perspective (pp. 339–351). Eldorado.
Si, J. J., Lin, X., Cui, H.,
Zhou, X., & Wang, K. Y. (2025). Digital safety for children with intellectual
disabilities when using mobile devices from parents’ and teachers’
perspectives. In ACM (Ed.), Proceedings of the 2025 ACM SIGSAC Conference on
Computer and Communications Security (CCS ’25) (pp. 1–15). ACM. https://doi.org/10.1145/3719027.3765101
Silva Quiroz, J., Cerda, C.,
Fernández-Sánchez, M. R., & Leon, M. (2022). Competencia digital docente
del profesorado en formación inicial de universidades públicas chilenas. Revista
Interuniversitaria de Formación del Profesorado. Continuación de la antigua Revista
de Escuelas Normales, 97(36.1), 301–319.
https://doi.org/10.47553/rifop.v97i36.1.90221
Silva Quiroz, J., &
Miranda Arredondo, P. (2020). Presencia de la competencia digital docente en
los programas de formación inicial en universidades públicas chilenas. Revista
de Estudios y Experiencias en Educación, 19(41), 149–165.
https://doi.org/10.21703/rexe.20201941silva9
Smahel, D., Machackova, H., Mascheroni, G., Dedkova,
L., Staksrud, E., Olafsson, K., Livingstone, S., & Hasebrink, U. (2020). EU
Kids Online 2020: Survey results from 19 countries.
https://www.eukidsonline.ch/files/Eu-kids-online-2020-international-report.pdf
Stoilova, M., Livingstone, S., & Khazbak, R.
(2021). Investigating risks and opportunities for children in a digital
world: A rapid review of the evidence on children’s internet use and outcomes.
https://doi.org/10.18356/25211110-2020-03
Timotheou, S., Miliou, O., Dimitriadis, Y., Sobrino,
S. V., Giannoutsou, N., Cachia, R., Monés, A. M., & Ioannou, A. (2023).
Impacts of digital technologies on education and factors influencing schools’
digital capacity and transformation: A literature review. Education and Information Technologies, 28(6), 6695–6726.
https://doi.org/10.1007/s10639-022-11431-8
UNESCO. (2019). Marco de
competencias de los docentes en materia de TIC. UNESCO.
UNICEF. (2024). Kids Online Chile 2022. CEPPE
UC / IE-CIAE / MINEDUC / UNICEF.
Velásquez Castro, L. A.,
& Paredes-Águila, J. A. (2024). Systematic review of the challenges facing the
development and integration of digital technologies in the Chilean school
context, from the teaching perspective. Región
Científica, 3(1), 2024226. https://doi.org/10.58763/rc2024226
Verdú-Pina, M.,
Lázaro-Cantabrana, J. L., Grimalt-Álvaro, C., & Usart, M. (2023). El
concepto de competencia digital docente: Revisión de la literatura. Revista
Electrónica de Investigación Educativa, 25, 1–13.
https://doi.org/10.24320/redie.2023.25.e11.4586