Beyond Rescue: Reframing the Role of Educational Technology in Supporting Learners Marginalised by Mainstream Schooling

 

Abstract
Educational technology (EdTech) is often seen as a solution for learners underserved or excluded by mainstream schooling. However, “rescue” narratives risk oversimplifying the complex sociocultural, pedagogical, and structural issues behind educational marginalisation. This article critically examines how EdTech can support learners left behind, arguing its effectiveness depends not only on technology but also on embedding within inclusive pedagogies, relational teaching, and equitable systems. Drawing on an interpretivist framework and recent empirical literature (2020–2025), the paper explores three key tensions: access and inequality, pedagogical depth, and relational dynamics. It argues EdTech acts as a mediating layer that can either worsen or reduce exclusion depending on design and implementation. The article concludes by proposing a shift from “rescue” discourse to co-constructed, inclusive learning environments where technology supports agency, belonging, and diverse ways of knowing. Implications for teachers, teacher educators, and policymakers are discussed.

Keywords: EdTech, inclusion, marginalised learners, interpretivism, neurodiversity, pedagogy, equity

Introduction

Mainstream schooling systems have long struggled to meet the needs of diverse learners, especially those who are neurodivergent, socioeconomically disadvantaged, or otherwise marginalised. Standardised curricula, rigid pacing, and assessment-driven practices often privilege narrow definitions of ability and success (Biesta, 2022). In response, educational technology (EdTech) has been promoted as a transformative force capable of personalising learning and addressing inequities (Holmes et al., 2023).

Yet, framing EdTech as a “rescue mechanism” warrants critical scrutiny. While digital tools offer new affordances such as adaptive learning systems, multimodal content, and real-time feedback, their impact is shaped by broader pedagogical and sociotechnical contexts.

 This article asks: Can EdTech meaningfully support learners left behind by mainstream schooling, and under what conditions?

Positioned within an interpretivist paradigm, this paper foregrounds learners lived experiences and the meanings they attribute to EdTech. It argues technology alone cannot resolve systemic exclusion but can contribute to more inclusive educational ecosystems when aligned with thoughtful pedagogy, equitable access, and relational teaching practices.

Theoretical Framework: Interpretivism and Sociotechnical Perspectives

Interpretivism emphasises learners' subjective experiences and the socially constructed nature of knowledge (Schwandt, 2019). From this perspective, learning is not simply the acquisition of information, but an active process shaped by identity, context, and interaction.

EdTech, therefore, must be understood as part of a broader sociotechnical system (Selwyn, 2021). Technologies are not neutral tools; they embody assumptions about learning, knowledge, and learners themselves. For instance, adaptive learning platforms often prioritise efficiency and measurable outcomes, potentially reinforcing deficit narratives for learners who do not conform to normative trajectories (Williamson & Eynon, 2020).

This framework allows for a nuanced examination of EdTech’s role—not as inherently emancipatory or oppressive, but as contingent upon its use, context, and interpretation by learners and educators.

EdTech as a Tool for Inclusion: Potential and Promise

Personalisation and Flexibility

One frequently cited benefit of EdTech is its capacity for personalisation. Artificial intelligence-driven platforms can adjust content difficulty, pacing, and feedback to meet individual learner needs (Zawacki-Richter et al., 2021). For students who struggle in traditional classrooms, this flexibility can reduce cognitive overload and enhance engagement.

Multimodal learning environments—combining text, audio, video, and interactive elements—also align with inclusive frameworks such as Universal Design for Learning (CAST, 2018). These approaches recognise that learners differ in how they perceive, process, and express knowledge.

Recent studies suggest that such flexibility can particularly benefit neurodiverse learners. For example, AI-supported scaffolding tools have been shown to improve task persistence and self-regulation among students with ADHD (Seo et al., 2023).

Agency and Learner Control

EdTech can shift learners from passive recipients to active participants. Digital platforms let learners control pacing, revisit materials, and pursue personalised learning pathways (Kimmons et al., 2022).

This sense of agency is critical for learners who have experienced repeated failure in traditional settings. When learners see themselves as capable and in control, motivation and engagement tend to increase (Ryan & Deci, 2020).

However, agency is not inherent to technology; it emerges through design and pedagogy. Poorly designed systems can constrain rather than expand learner autonomy.

Fault Lines: Why EdTech Alone Cannot “Rescue” Learners

Access and the Digital Divide

The assumption that EdTech can support all learners overlooks persistent inequalities in access to devices, connectivity, and digital literacy (UNESCO, 2023). Learners already marginalised often have the least access to reliable technology.

Even when devices are provided, disparities in home environments, parental support, and digital skills can limit effective use (Livingstone & Helsper, 2021). Without systemic intervention, EdTech risks amplifying existing inequities rather than reducing them.

Pedagogical Shallowing

A second limitation is the pedagogical orientation of much EdTech. Many platforms prioritise efficiency, standardisation, and measurable outcomes often at the expense of deep, meaningful learning (Selwyn, 2021).

For disengaged learners, simply digitising traditional instruction does little to address underlying issues. Drill-based learning systems may reinforce feelings of inadequacy and boredom rather than fostering understanding or curiosity.

Research indicates that technology integration without pedagogical transformation yields minimal impact on learning outcomes (Tamim et al., 2022). This highlights the need for critical, reflective use of EdTech rather than uncritical adoption.

Relational Disconnection

Perhaps the most significant limitation of EdTech is its inability to replace human relationships. Teacher–student relationships remain central to engagement, belonging, and academic success (Roorda et al., 2021).

Over-reliance on digital platforms can reduce opportunities for meaningful interaction. For learners already disconnected from schooling, this can worsen disengagement.

Effective use of EdTech, therefore, requires integration with relational pedagogies—where technology supports rather than substitutes for human connection.

Neurodiversity and EdTech: Inclusion or Reinforcement of Norms?

Neurodiversity challenges deficit-based views of learning differences, advocating for recognition of diverse cognitive profiles as natural variations (Singer, 2017). EdTech holds promise in supporting neurodiverse learners by offering alternative pathways to engagement and expression.

However, technology may reinforce normative expectations. Adaptive systems often measure progress against standard benchmarks, potentially pathologising differences rather than accommodating it (Kapp et al., 2023).

From an interpretivist perspective, the critical question is how learners experience these tools. Do they feel empowered or surveilled? Supported or judged?

Emerging qualitative research suggests mixed experiences. While some learners report increased independence, others describe anxiety related to constant monitoring and performance tracking (Holmes et al., 2023).

This underscores the importance of involving learners in the design and implementation of EdTech, ensuring that tools align with their needs and preferences.

EdTech as a Mediating Layer: A Sociotechnical Reframing

Rather than viewing EdTech as a solution, this article proposes understanding it as a mediating layer within educational systems. Its impact depends on interactions among technology, pedagogy, and context.

In inclusive environments, EdTech can:

• Support differentiated instruction
• Enhance accessibility
• Facilitate collaboration and creativity.

In exclusionary context, it can:

• Reinforce standardisation
• Increase surveillance
• Exacerbate inequities

These dual potential highlights the need for critical engagement with EdTech. Teachers play a pivotal role in mediating its use and in adapting tools to align with inclusive values and practices.

Implications for Teaching and Teacher Education

Teacher Agency and Professional Judgment

Teachers must be active agents in EdTech integration, not passive implementers of pre-designed systems. Professional development should emphasise critical evaluation, pedagogical alignment, and ethical considerations (Tondeur et al., 2023).

Design for Inclusion

Teacher education programmes should incorporate principles of inclusive design, enabling future educators to select and adapt technologies that support diverse learners.

Co-Construction with Learners

Involving learners in decision-making processes can enhance relevance and engagement. Co-design approaches ensure that EdTech reflects learners lived experiences and needs (Bovill, 2020).

Policy Considerations

Policymakers must address structural inequalities that limit access to EdTech. Investment in infrastructure, training, and support systems is essential for equitable implementation.

Discussion

The notion of EdTech as a “rescue” for marginalised learners is appealing but problematic. While technology offers valuable tools for personalisation and engagement, it cannot address the root causes of educational exclusion.

An interpretivist lens shows that EdTech’s effectiveness depends on how learners experience it. This experience is shaped by context, relationships, and pedagogy. Thus, the question is not whether EdTech can rescue learners but how it can contribute to more inclusive educational systems. This requires a shift from technological determinism to pedagogical intentionality.

Conclusion

EdTech holds significant potential to support learners who are left behind by mainstream schooling. However, its impact depends on its integration into inclusive, relational, and equitable educational practices.

Rather than positioning EdTech as a solution, this article advocates reframing technology as a mediator that can either widen or narrow educational gaps.

For meaningful change, educators, researchers, and policymakers must move beyond simplistic narratives and engage critically with the complexities of EdTech. Only then can it contribute to creating learning environments where all learners have the opportunity to thrive.

References

Biesta, G. (2022). World-centred education: A view for the present. Routledge.

Bovill, C. (2020). Co-creation in learning and teaching. Higher Education, 79(6), 1023–1037.

CAST. (2018). Universal Design for Learning guidelines version 2.2.

Holmes, W., Bialik, M., & Fadel, C. (2023). Artificial intelligence in education: Promise and implications.

Kapp, S. K., et al. (2023). Neurodiversity and education. Educational Psychology Review, 35(2), 1–22.

Kimmons, R., et al. (2022). Digital agency in education. Educational Technology Research and Development, 70(4), 1895–1912.

Livingstone, S., & Helsper, E. (2021). Digital inequalities. New Media & Society, 23(6), 1539–1556.

Roorda, D. L., et al. (2021). Teacher–student relationships. Review of Educational Research, 91(2), 245–284.

Ryan, R. M., & Deci, E. L. (2020). Self-determination theory. Guilford Press.

Schwandt, T. A. (2019). The SAGE dictionary of qualitative inquiry.

Selwyn, N. (2021). Education and technology: Key issues and debates.

Seo, J., et al. (2023). AI scaffolding and ADHD. Computers & Education, 194, 104688.

Tamim, R. M., et al. (2022). Technology and learning outcomes. Review of Educational Research, 92(1), 55–89.

Tondeur, J., et al. (2023). Teacher professional development and EdTech. Teaching and Teacher Education, 121, 103936.

UNESCO. (2023). Global education monitoring report.

Williamson, B., & Eynon, R. (2020). Historical threads in EdTech. Learning, Media and Technology, 45(1), 1–15.

Zawacki-Richter, O., et al. (2021). AI in higher education. International Journal of Educational Technology in Higher Education, 18(1), 1–20.