1 Introduction

The COVID-19 pandemic highlighted the critical role technology has come to play in children’s education (Zhang & Wasie, 2023) – a role that has not diminished in the several years since lockdowns have disappeared or lessened in duration. Australia has comparatively elevated levels of digital inclusion, but experience of the pandemic illustrated the gaps that remain for children in low-income, rural, recent migrant and Indigenous households (Bessell, 2022). Reasons for these gaps are complex, and relate to a mix of financial, political, cultural, and infrastructural causes. This study examines the barriers and enablers of digital inclusion with a cohort of Year 9 students (with a wide age range – 12–21 – due to a large English as an Additional Language/Dialect) at three West Australian secondary schools in the immediate post-COVID context. It shows that many students face barriers to greater inclusion due to language issues, family credit rating, housing security, quality and affordability of infrastructural provisioning and teacher and family digital literacy, and suggests strategic interventions that combine connectivity, device access and targeted training can help to address these barriers. It also argues that ongoing regulatory and industry reform can improve access for low-income and remote households. In identifying both barriers and potential enablers, it contributes to the rising literature on how to build digital inclusion and promote educational justice in the post-pandemic context.

Access to technology is fundamentally a question of digital inclusion. Some students are empowered in their education, while others are cut off and cut out. In this article, we specifically frame digital inclusion as the ability to use digital capacities, where students can “mobilize material and symbolic resources in order to maximize benefits, opportunities and aspirations afforded by changing digital technologies and techniques” (Magee et al., 2020). This definition highlights the sociocultural, organizational, and infrastructural aspects of inclusion, while foregrounding its benefits – in this case as they relate to the educational outcomes of Australian students.

Almost three-quarters of Australian children reported increased technology use during lockdowns (Li et al., 2022), providing them with a vital point of continuity and connection in a radically disrupted world. Australia has benefitted from rising digital inclusion over time, due to the rollout of national broadband, modest overall increases in affordability of devices and connectivity and changing social habits in relation to labour and leisure, with COVID-19 itself acting as an accelerant to uptake of online products and services (Thomas et al., 2020). However, during COVID it remained the case that not all children had routine and reliable access to technology, and as the 2020 Australian Digital Inclusion Index also reported, compared to the general population digital inclusion was low among low-income groups, women, Indigenous Australians, and Australians with disability (Thomas et al., 2020). As Thomas et al. (2020) further note, digital inclusion needs to be differentiated by type of access – mobile-only compared to broadband / satellite access through other computing devices – and this difference is especially significant in the COVID/post-COVID context, as children with mobile-only access are unlikely to be able to use technology effectively for education. Economic, social, and technological factors therefore can compound disadvantage, particularly in relation to education (Drane et al., 2020; Preston, 2020).

As Drane et al. (2020) argued, the pandemic underscored the educational deficits many face due to the lack of technical infrastructure and human resources needed to support distance or home-based education. While state education departments leave device policies to individual schools, most secondary schools in Australia have had a one-to-one device policy since 2014 (Newhouse, 2014). Devices were used in classrooms to access textbooks and learning materials, with homework and assignments being completed using devices at home (AITSL, 2023). New to many students, using technology for videoconferencing, communication, collaboration, and self-guided learning became critical during the pandemic. One industry report indicates that 91% of responding schools increased their adoption of digital tools and resources during the pandemic and 27% indicated they experienced accessibility challenges for students (Data#3 & Aruba, 2020). The Australian response to the pandemic included both federal and state-specific responses – partly an effect of varied levels of exposure to COVID-19 and jurisdictional differences with respect to borders, public health, policing, and schooling (Ramia & Perrone, 2023). Victoria for example experienced six lockdowns across 2020-21. All states closed schools and moved to online learning models for differing periods (Bessell, 2022). While education sectors provided leadership and varying levels of support, responsibilities for actual delivery of home-based learning fell upon schools, teachers, households, and students. Despite differences between individual states, and between public and private school systems, schools employed common platforms like Zoom, Microsoft Teams, and Microsoft Office, and – as we discuss below – customised Learning Management Systems or bespoke applications to support specific disciplines at various levels. In theory these platforms and applications were accessible via mobile devices. However, student engagement and productivity frequently depended on having a laptop with fast and reliable Internet connections (Drane et al., 2020). Across all states, a key challenge to learning involved household access to reliable Internet connections and adequate digital devices and accessories for studying and working from home, with one report indicating that while most students had access to a device (a phone or shared device was considered access) stable and reliable internet was consistently available for only 10% of respondents (Ziebell et al., 2020).

Post-pandemic schooling produced challenges of its own, as students reported social anxiety, academic pressures, lack of mental health support and yet further changes to routines (Patrick & Pamflett, 2024). Globally, resumption of face-to-face schooling has been accompanied by the greater reliance upon technology introduced during the pandemic (Zhang & Wasie, 2023). This research aimed to identify key barriers and enablers for digitally inclusive learning-at-home. Conducted within a project of school-based technology delivery, it examines the impacts of providing access to affordable Internet and appropriate devices, and of building capability to use and benefit from these technologies. By identifying barriers and enablers, the research aimed to inform scalable digital inclusion at regional and national levels.

2 Literature review

Digital inclusion takes on increased importance in a digitally mediated world. Daily activities such as communication with friends and family, organizing finances, working, learning, managing health and wellbeing, and civic participation are increasingly dependent on an individual’s ability to access and use digital technologies effectively (Thomas et al., 2020). For this reason, digital inclusion has been positioned as critical to children’s rights and citizenship (Livingston & Third, 2017; Swist & Collin, 2017), to health (Sieck et al., 2021), and to social and economic participation (Helsper & Galácz, 2009; Jahan & Zhou, 2023). Social and digital inequalities have been demonstrated to intertwine and reinforce each other (Cheshmehzangi et al., 2023; Kaarakainen & Saikkonen, 2023; Ragnedda et al., 2020). Evidence since the pandemic indicates that children who were already experiencing social disadvantage, such as those with disabilities, in low-income households, living in rural areas, or belonging to marginalized communities, were more affected by a lack of digital inclusion which in turn deepened pre-existing educational inequalities (Dvorsky et al., 2023; Gee et al., 2023; Golden et al., 2023; Tang, 2023).

The importance of digital inclusion is increasingly recognised by both public and private stakeholders. The United Nations (2020), for instance, elevated digital inclusion to a Sustainable Development Goal, seeing it as key to harnessing digital opportunities for underserved populations. Internationally, the importance of digital inclusion to education has been recognised by governments and non-government organizations who have committed to a range of responses to address the digital divide (New Zealand Government, 2019; Vlies, 2020; Zelezny-Green et al., 2018) many of which intensified in response to the exacerbation of existing inequalities created by COVID (Bocconi & Lightfoot, 2021; Bowyer et al., 2021; Dorn et al., 2020; Human Rights Watch, 2021; Ingram, 2021).

As the meaning of the ‘digital’ evolves, so too do methods of assessment (Magee et al., 2020). In the Australian context, a prominent multiyear study by the Australian Digital Inclusion Alliance has defined and measured digital inclusion through three dimensions: Access, Affordability, and Digital Ability (ADII, 2023). These dimensions are further operationalised as internet technology and internet data allowance (access), relative expenditure and value of expenditure (affordability), and attitudes, skills, and activities (ability) (Thomas et al., 2020). While measuring access and affordability is comparatively straightforward, defining and assessing the human aspect of digital inclusion has been widely debated, leading to the adoption of various terms such as digital competence, digital literacy, digital skills, and digital capability (Nguyen & Habók, 2024). As Nguyen and Habók (2024) also note, alongside others (e.g. Magee et al., 2020; Lythreatis et al., 2022; Cheshmehzangi et al., 2023), measures of digital literacy and skills are often narrow, imprecise, or time-bound to specific tools, apps, and platforms. Accordingly, in surveys and workshop questions, we draw from what has been termed a ‘second order digital divide,’ relating to ‘autonomy of use,’ ‘patterns of use,’ ‘self-efficacy,’ alongside technical skills (Lythreatis et al., 2022). Moreover, measures often underemphasize social aspects of literacies, such as the ability to seek help from peers, household members, school staff or community members. Accordingly, we draw upon and adapt a more general socio-ecological framework to shape the discussion of findings (Bronfenbrenner, 1977, 1989; Serrano-Santoyo & Rojas-Mendizabal, 2017).

While the Australian Digital Inclusion Index shows young people to be amongst the most digitally included age groups in Australia, qualitative research demonstrates that achieving this level of inclusion may not tell the entire story of inclusion for young people. An in-depth study of digital inclusion in young people in Australia by Third et al. (2019) identified that young people found devices expensive, dated, or obsolete, and incompatible or easily broken, with costs for repairs prohibitive. Difficulties relating to connectivity include the cost and limits of data- and speed-rated pre- or post-paid plans; reliance on public wi-fi hotspots; and the unreliability of connection when on mobile or at home or school. At home, young people were sometimes reliant on devices shared with other family members, and subject to parental limits on connection times and uses. Third et al. (2019) also discovered that at school, young people must comply with device policies, limitations, and restrictions on broadband access, along with inconsistent teacher attitudes and skills supporting digital use in their pedagogical practices. Further exacerbating these challenges, Australian statistics from 2016 suggest that approximately 5% of public-school students do not have fixed internet access in the home (Australian Bureau of Statistics, 2017). Preston (2020) analyses these statistics and demonstrates that housing status (overcrowding, insecure and unsuitable), family structure (single parent), home language and English proficiency, disability, and remoteness all feed into this fixed internet access measure. The lack of fixed internet access, compounded by other factors such as financial situation (Thomas et al., 2020; Preston, 2020; Graham & Sahlberg, 2020), are barriers to young people accessing and succeeding at online education.

Integral to each model of school digital inclusion is the role of teachers and how effectively they can facilitate and model digital inclusion. In Australia teachers are frequently caught between competing demands of incorporating technology into their teaching practices and being conscious of e-safety issues (Wood et al., 2020). The recent emergence of generative AI (Artificial Intelligence) has also led to renewed concerns about plagiarism, inaccuracy, legality and equity of digital content and tools in school settings (Vukovic & Russell, 2023).

A raft of post-pandemic research in Australia identified what did and did not work during lockdowns when schools delivered a learning-at-home model. Reports found that teachers and schools pivoted to a model where socio-emotional and psychological wellbeing of students was prioritized over learning outcomes (Drane et al., 2020; Flack et al., 2020; Masters et al., 2020). Educational sectors, states, and individual schools responded with differing levels of success to the challenges faced (Flack et al., 2020; Wade et al., 2022). Teachers played a critical role as the primary interface between school, home, and student (Gore et al., 2020; Heffernan et al., 2021) and this came at the cost of their physical and emotional wellbeing (Jensen et al., 2020; Gore et al., 2020). Parents and carers were no less significant in ensuring the success of learning from home (Armitage & Loukomitis, 2020; Clinton, 2020; Parliamentary Secretary for Schools, 2020), and existing digital divides meant households from low socio-economic, EALD or indigenous backgrounds often encountered greater difficulties (Armitage & Loukomitis, 2020; Armour et al., 2020; Jensen et al., 2020). Resources – no or unreliable internet access – in the home environment were a factor in the success of home learning, as were the digital capabilities of students and parents particularly in primary schools (Drane et al., 2020; Jensen et al., 2020; Lamb et al., 2020).

These findings on successes and challenges resonate with international studies and those done in other national contexts. In an international exploration of student perspectives on COVID related education disruptions Livingston et al. (2023) found that barriers included inequitable access, social, physical and mental health factors, reduced engagement and motivation and lack of accommodation for differing abilities. In Germany and Mexico, both teachers and parents played a critical role in learning from home success (Pozas et al., 2021)—and this “home environment” included both material aspects and social support from parents, friends and teachers (Dietrich et al., 2021). In Norway, critical factors included student self-efficacy, clear expectations and regular feedback from teachers, and parental support (Mælan et al., 2021). In the United States, student success was attributed to the whole family system (Prime et al., 2020) and that inclusion in the home required holistic consideration of digital literacy training, technical support and online tools for parents and caregivers (Owens et al., 2023). In Ireland, daily structures and routines created by parents, along with supportive family ties and peer networks, adequate equipment, private and quiet spaces to study, and individual coping mechanisms were all considered enablers of effective home learning (Émon et al., 2021).

This international context echoes some of our findings, anticipating how student success is shaped by their social environment as much as their access to digital technologies. Our research develops further evidence of barriers and enablers in the Australian post-COVID context, with special relevance for other regional and multicultural urban settings. It also suggests how workshop-style intensives might address these systemic inequalities in modest but concrete ways to foster digital capacities.

3 Methods

3.1 Research context and approach

The project aimed to explore barriers and enablers of digital inclusion at secondary schools, addressing the three dimensions of the ADII – access, affordability, and ability – for families of students experiencing disadvantage. The study involved three secondary schools located in Western Australia, belonging to a network of schools connected to one of the partners to the study. While, as noted in the Introduction, Western Australia did not experience high COVID numbers or the resulting long-lasting lockdowns, shorter lockdowns, temporary school closures, travel restrictions and options for parents to enrol students in distance or home-based learning has meant, just as elsewhere in the country, growing reliance upon digital technology for education. The three schools were invited to participate based on elevated levels of (1) families self-reporting a lack of internet access at home; (2) Indigenous or EAL/D students (English as an Additional Language or Dialect); and (3) students from low-income families, as measured by access to government benefits. One regional and two metropolitan schools were included. One of the metropolitan schools, here anonymized as “AC school,” ran an additional educational stream for recent migrants and refugees through which students learnt English intensively. Two of the three schools operated a school-supplied device policy which was more costly for families but meant that all students had the same access to the same devices for learning. The other school operated a “bring your own device” (BYOD) policy, which gave families freedom to use their chosen devices but resulted in inconsistent access to devices across the cohort.

The research involved workshops with students and families, interviews with teachers, and pre-post surveys, and was administered alongside an inclusion program, detailed below, between March and October 2021 (Fig. 1). Families were invited with those who accepted consenting in writing to participate in research activities. School staff, typically those responsible or otherwise heavily involved in the school’s IT program, volunteered to attend adult workshops, or participate in interviews and consented in writing to their participation. Participating schools have been anonymized in reporting and individual responses attributed only to participant group (student, parent/carer, staff member). The study has ethics approval (#H14562) from [REDACTED] Human Research Ethics Committee.

Fig. 1
figure 1

Timeline of research project

Full size image

The inclusion program accompanying the research supplied devices, Internet connections customized support to enhance digital abilities of families. Students at the school running the BYOD policy were supplied with a device (n = 44) loaned to them for the school year. Twenty-five families across the three schools took up the offer of 12 months free broadband access through an internet provider. Devices and internet connection were co-funded by the federal government and the educational sector as part of an investigative research project. A Digital Inclusion Studio (detailed below) was held, aimed at enhancing the skills and capabilities of families to effectively make use of the digital technology made available to them.

3.2 Surveys

As the surveys had differing completion rates across the three schools, we focus our attention here on interview and workshop results. One of the metropolitan schools – indicated above as A / AC – administered the pre-post survey to a large sample of Year 9 students, including, for comparative purposes, those who did not participate in the study. ‘Post’ survey results from this school supply some indication of general demographics of program participants. Fifty-eight students completed this survey, of whom 36 (62.1 per cent) identified as female. The average age of this cohort was 14 years and 10 months, with the youngest participants aged 12 and the eldest 20. Thirty-five (60.3 per cent) students indicated they were migrants or refugees (compared to 27.1 per cent in non-participant group), and 8 indicated they were Aboriginal or Torres Strait Islander (13.8 per cent, compared to 6.3 per cent in the non-participant group). Post-respondents also indicated higher levels of Internet access and use: 100 per cent reported having access (compared to 90.7 per cent among pre-respondents), and 75.8 per cent reported spending more than 3 h online outside school hours (compared to 58.3 per cent among pre-respondents). While these figures are not indicative of participants from the other two schools, they do highlight several of the specific barriers that we refer to in our findings below. We report further on pre-post responses in Section 4 below. The survey instrument, available in the supplementary materials, was developed in close partnership with the research partners including representatives from the schools involved. The instrument was derived from existing validated digital capacity scales and items such as the Digital Capacities Index (Magee et al., 2020) and Global Kids Online (Stoilova et al., 2016), with some items modified to suit the purpose and cohort. The survey was trialled with a small group of Year 9 students and teachers to test suitability for students with EALD.

3.3 Workshops

Two student workshops were held in each school, in April and July 2022 – before and after delivery of devices and connections. For the ‘AC,’ an additional workshop for non-English speaking students in the school delivering the intensive English education stream (4 student workshops, 76 participants, 10–21 years of age). The first workshop focused on understanding experiences of the barriers and enablers to digital inclusion via interactive activities (Appendix 1, ‘Student Workshop’). “Technology Map” for instance, asked children to map how technology was used in their homes, including relationships and device sharing. “Brick Wall” prompted children to identify the key barriers to digital technology they experience and what workarounds they have developed to mitigate those barriers. A “Postcards” activity provided an opportunity for students to share the most prominent issues or action-points needed to address digital exclusion. The second workshop we termed a ‘Digital Inclusion Studio’ (Appendix 2), operated as both research instrument and inclusion training opportunity.

Alongside the first student workshops, supplementary workshops were also held with parents, carers and school staff. Four workshops were held in total: one in each school, and a separate workshop for parents with students in the intensive English educational stream. Involving 22 parents/carers and 10 staff in total, these workshops explored barriers and enablers to students’ digital inclusion from an adult perspective and discussed current and future impacts of exclusion. The workshop employed a socio-ecological model (discussed below), and framed activities around individual, interpersonal, organizational, community and public policy levels.

Interviews with two to three staff members in each school (7 in total) explored the culture of technology use in the school, school expectations around use of technology in the home for learning purposes, barriers and enablers for digital inclusion, and specific digital and non-digital skills students needed for successful learning at school and home (Appendix 3). Teacher interviews were conducted in person at a similar time to the workshops or via teleconferencing in the following weeks.

3.4 Data analysis and limitations

Qualitative data from student and adult workshops and teacher interviews was transcribed and categorised in terms of four levels of barriers and enablers to digital inclusion: individual, interpersonal, organizational, and infrastructural. In analysing qualitative data, we first developed two sets of codes from the digital inclusion literature, distinguishing human (e.g. digital literacy) from material (e.g. access to devices and Internet connectivity) barriers and enablers (Magee et al., 2020; Thomas et al., 2020). We then designed and applied material sub-category codes such as ‘connection’, ‘equipment’, ‘device’ and ‘spaces’, and human codes such as ‘motivations’, ‘social and cultural attitudes’, and ‘skills’. To check code relevance, we then recruited another qualitative researcher to code and compare the data. Coders then collaboratively refined and reached agreement on the data within the emergent code set. Pre-post surveys were analysed descriptively in R. Survey results suffered from poor completion rates from two of the three schools, which limited opportunity to measure general efficacy of the intervention. In the Section 4, we report selectively on several results for the one school where completion rates were high. The unique circumstances of the study limit its generalisability in certain respects, while providing opportunity for insights in others. The demand for periods of intensive home-based online learning in 2020 and 2021 meant existing digital divides were felt more acutely by students, parents, and teachers – in the return to face-to-face teaching, these differences are likely to be less visible. Anecdotal evidence in the years since the study suggests that government policy has made fixed internet more accessible, but cost of devices remain a factor. This may mean that digital exclusion continues to partially determine learning outcomes, but in less conspicuous ways. We reflect upon this point further in the Conclusion.

3.5 Findings: systemic barriers and enablers

In reporting on the research, we employ the socio-ecological model (Bronfenbrenner, 1977, 1989; Serrano-Santoyo & Rojas-Mendizabal, 2017) to frame the factors in the student’s environment when considering digital inclusion. The socio-ecological model can be conceived as a set of concentric circles, beginning from the individual child, with their biological and psychological makeup, which is impacted by their immediate physical and social environment. This microsystem, in turn, is affected by surrounding systems or mesosystems. Moving outward, the system looks to consider broader social, political, and economic conditions (exosystems) as well as the high-level beliefs and attitudes (macrosystems) maintained in a society (Bukatko & Daehler, 2012).

This model (Fig. 2) guided our identification of barriers and enablers to digital inclusion. ‘Barriers’ are factors that appeared as obstacles to student learning, preventing them from accessing or adequately using digital technologies to carry out learning-at-home. ‘Enablers,’ by contrast, are factors that fostered digital inclusion, allowing students to embrace or adopt technologies in ways that empowered their learning. We translated the more abstract system language of the socio-ecological model to four levels: individual, interpersonal, organizational (encompassing schools and community) and infrastructural (referring to technology and governmental policy). Still viewing these levels as interconnected and mutually supporting, we cluster and present barriers and enablers according to this nested structure, beginning from the individual and expanding outward to include the interpersonal, organizational, and infrastructural. In the sections below, drawing from our engagement with students, teachers, and parents, we outline these barriers and enablers in four respective sections.

Fig. 2
figure 2

Barriers and Enablers structured according to the socio-ecological model

Full size image

3.6 Individual

Participants in our schools described a range of barriers and enablers at the individual level. For adults, learning styles and personalities (including learning difficulties or disabilities) were key factors for determining the success of learning from home. Self-control, self-discipline, self-regulation, interest, motivation, and organization were also viewed as important traits. Alongside these characteristics and abilities, a set of skills was also identified as being key for learning at home. These skills included time management, managing unsafe content and distractions online, using digital platforms effectively, critical thinking, and problem-solving.

For students, physical and psychological dispositions were mentioned often in activities. Fatigue featured prominently in responses. In the “Brick Wall” activity, for example, where students identified key learning-at-home obstacles, fatigue or synonyms were mentioned often: “fatigue,” “waking up late,” “sleep,” “tiredness,” “being tired,” “sleepy,” and “lack of sleep.” Other individual barriers identified included being “bored,” procrastinating, lazy, (not) managing distractions, lack of drive, lack of motivation, mental blocks, learning difficulties, bad memory, and not understanding.

Students also spoke at length about the material aspects that affected their ability to learn. Smart phones and laptops were often not shared, while tablets, desktop computers, games consoles and printers were frequently shared across household members. The AC cohort was an exception: students shared devices far more than the other three schools. Across all groups, printer ownership was comparatively rare. As Table 1 below shows, A and AC groups typically had larger households, with less devices per household.

Table 1 Average household size and devices per household
Full size table

The inequality of device ownership echoes student responses, which widely acknowledged these deficits were a direct result of their economic situation. Some of these aspects included devices that did not function at the required level. A lack of necessary accessories, such as mouse, keyboard, and headphones, were identified by many students, especially by those within the AC cohort. Headphones were repeatedly identified as a key strategic device to manage external environments which were frequently noisy and distracting.

Research identified that many home study environments presented learning obstacles. Students described working in spaces that were cramped, cluttered, noisy, poorly lit, shared/overcrowded or otherwise uncomfortable or distracting. As one student stated: “Kitchen table - not very quiet; not a lot of space; a lot of distractions; messy & dirty table; Bedroom - not motivated because I get distracted; sloppy if I work on my bed; don’t have my parents around to check if I’m doing the right stuff so I get distracted” (school student, A).

When discussing these barriers, students often combine items that are missing from their physical, digital, and pedagogical environment:

“I sleep on the floor to do my homework. Can you please help me to get a desk and I don’t have laptop, use my phone. Can I get laptop and speaker. Can you help me headphone for learn better and printer please. So, I can learn better from home thanks.” (student, AC)

“I needed help in software like most of children in my country don’t use computers at school. We have to be familiar with using different kinds of technology.” (student, AC)

“To learn better with digital technology, I need better Wi-Fi so I can do my work more information about how to use technology you need mouse and desk chair and some help with translation and headphones.” (student, AC)

“I have problem with using software. Can you please take classes for us to learn. I want a better computer. Our computers are too slow.” (student, AC)

What these responses show are connections between different elements: feelings of fatigue and sleep deprivation; lack of devices, connections, and skills; and home environment – noisiness and lack of space. Students do not think about inclusion in terms of individual elements, but as interconnected links in a chain. The bullet points below summarise themes from our findings into what we refer to as enabling chains of inclusion:

  • sleep—quiet—space—self-discipline

  • bed (not floor)—desk—laptop—speaker/headphone—printer

  • software—computers—various kinds of technology

  • Wi-Fi—information—mouse—desk chair—translation—headphone

  • software—classes—(better) computer

Many of these items are low-cost but need to be supplied together with other items in these enabling chains. Together, these statements from students, parents and teachers indicate that while learning-from-home is certainly underpinned by digital technology, successful learning hinges on several qualities—sleep, quiet times, technical expertise, adequate furniture, and space for study—that are social rather than technology-dependent.

3.7 Interpersonal

Students’ interpersonal relationships impacted their ability to learn from home effectively, with household members, friends/peers, and teachers each playing a key role. For instance, students said that it could be difficult to discuss how to create an effective home learning environment with other household members. Young people did want their parents involved in their learning process—provided the nature of that involvement was supportive. Some students wanted their parents to support them to manage distractions. Many others appeared frustrated by what was perceived to be unhelpful limitations placed on their ability to access devices.

[Positive Impacts]

“I can ask for help from my parents” (student, K)

“Ask family to help” (student, K)

“Parents around so I know not do the wrong things” (student, A)

[Negative Impacts]

“Dad interrupts my learning” (student, M)

“Your mum doesn’t let you on it” (student, A)

“Parents take my phone off me; MUM! limited screen time;” (student, A)

Parent workshops and teacher interviews also reiterated the importance of carer/parents creating a conducive environment to support student being able to learn at home. For some students, this involves having parents and family around to help and to set boundaries around appropriate digital use; for others, it meant having time alone, without interruption. Creating this environment encompassed many factors, including parents’ education level, experience with technology, attitudes towards education, ability to create boundaries, and ability to communicate with their student and school. As one teacher noted: “I think you can directly see the attitude of the parents reflected in the student’s attitude.” Teachers consistently stated that parents who themselves are interested, supportive and have relevant skills act as models and enable more effective learning for students. This link between parent support and student success is echoed in other studies both in Australia (Clinton, 2020) and internationally (Émon et al., 2021; Prime et al., 2020).

Siblings also could be a source of distraction and difficulty, or conversely, of support. One student said “my little brother comes into my bedroom and annoys me while I’m doing my homework” (student, A), while another noted “my sister comes to help me and we do it together” (student, A).For EALD students whose parents frequently did not speak much or any English, older siblings were particularly important sources of support and guidance, however those siblings did not always live in the same home or available to provide support which left students without adult guidance or support for learning at home.

Friends and peers were similarly both a source of support and a barrier to learning for young people. If they were experiencing challenges at home with the task, their environment, or their equipment, they would reach out to a friend for support:

“Text my friends while doing my homework” (student, A)

“If my power is cut, I would go to my friend or my cousin’s home” (student, AC)

“Go to a friend’s house or library” (student, AC)

However, students also said friends were often obstacles to learning, with “friends” appearing repeatedly in the list of obstacles to learning from home, along with “facetime,” “notifications,” and “social media.” This points to a need for young people to be supported in learning the skills to create, maintain and respect boundaries, and to manage social distractions. Other research has also found that student’s self-regulation skills were important to student outcomes during lockdown (Huber & Helm, 2020; Börnert-Ringleb et al., 2021).

The attitudes and capacities of teachers to support student learning from home, along with effective communication channels that students are confident and capable of accessing, were an additional interpersonal factor for successful learning from home. For instance, students complained that they were unable to “send message to teacher” (student, A); that “bad teachers are quite a common problem” (student, A); and that there were issues with teacher communication leading to students “not understanding apps or test/assessment” (student, A).

Teachers also acknowledged that differing levels of enthusiasm, confidence, and aptitudes for online teaching affected experiences of learning from home. They recommended a range of measures – increased time for professional development, time to experiment and to shift learning to online modalities, and in-class support persons for the first-time uses of recent technology – to increase teacher confidence and capacity. For example, one teacher suggested:

“What I would love to see is that there’ll be an actual support person in their classroom. So, if they are trying an activity that is based online that there would be someone there to troubleshoot (student devices around the room) if something goes wrong…a big part of that process is really giving the support in the classroom.” (teacher, A).

This underscored the need for teachers to have support to enhance their technological and pedagogical capacities, to successfully adapt and integrate the digital into learning especially in the remote learning context (Stenman &Pettersson, 2020).

According to student participants, parents/carers, other household members, friends, and teachers all work to enable, and occasionally inhibit, digital inclusion in education. While these remarks repeat general wisdom about the vital role of social influences on pedagogy, they also recognise the specificity of this role in relation to online learning.

3.8 Organizational

At the organizational level there appeared to be several key aspects to enablement. Most importantly was equitable access to appropriate devices across a student cohort. While some of the stress on this aspect could be attributed to the study’s stated focus, equitable device access was consistently identified by teachers and parents as a critical enabler of learning. The negative impacts of device inequity at the organizational level were epitomized most clearly in school A. This school had a “bring your own device” (BYOD) policy, forcing students who could not afford their own device to loan one from the school. Here, teachers described “broken devices and loan devices slow” as key barriers to learning. Given these challenges, teachers unanimously felt that device equity and uniformity were key learning enablers—especially after noticing the difference the inclusion program had made.

Teachers and parents both emphasized the importance of consistent use of platforms within the school. According to a K school parent, the communication platform used as a parent interface was “effective and allows communication between parent and school.” This sentiment was echoed across other schools. However, adults noted that when platforms are not used consistently by teachers across the school, this can become a barrier to parent and student engagement. When this occurred, parents and teachers both felt frustrated and unable to adequately support students.

“Inconsistent platforms are a barrier; consistent platforms make parents jobs easier; effective training for teachers, students and parents in the platforms the school/sector uses” (parent/carer, M)

“Lack of clarity of expectations of school” (adult, A)

“Parents lack knowledge of technology used by students” (adult, A)

Teachers identified that one of their challenges through the transition to online learning was for all teachers to use school platforms consistently. In these schools this entailed using Microsoft Teams sites for subjects and classes, Microsoft OneNote for learning management, and a bespoke platform for home-school communication. Important enablers here involved sufficient teacher, student and parent training for effective platforms use. This ensured that students and parents are confident in the school’s systems and processes; know how to access both materials and support as required; and contribute to the partnership between schools and families. This was a particular challenge in the schools with high percentages of EALD families, and teachers admitted sometimes struggling to communicate with parents. Many parents did not have email addresses, language, or technical skills to allow them to engage in basic home school communication.

Teachers acknowledged the key role they play in learning dynamics and stressed that their attitudes and capabilities directly impact students. They acknowledged the challenges of the rapid shift to online learning, and that they need to be prepared with suitable materials, ideally made available using the school platforms in a consistent manner. Teachers also noted that throughout the online learning phase it was challenging to ensure the content and pedagogy was appealing and suitable for their students.

“Project based learning necessarily changed to worksheets during remote learning and students found this boring; students were restricted in the materials available, and this impacted content delivery especially for the elective classes - HPE, food tech, manual arts, arts, drama” (adult, M)

“Teacher preparedness - lesson materials, preparing both students and parents to effectively use; having streamlined and clear learning materials” (adult, K)

“Attitudes and capabilities of teachers; effective online delivery of course modules/materials; content being appealing; pedagogy suitable to online learning” (adult, M)

“Teachers not being skilled with technology (barrier) and more PD/training for teachers (enabler)” (adult, A)

Both parents and teachers, then, emphasized how important teachers were for student success. This suggests there would be value in investing resources into enhancing teachers’ ability to use digital technologies effectively.

Teachers also considered the culture of the school towards digital technology as crucial. Teachers acknowledged that the schools involved in this study had generally positive attitudes towards digital technology use, with broad buy-in from teaching staff. These attitudes can be helped or hindered by school and organizational policy. Adults at A school, for example, listed “school policies that don’t support digital learning” as a barrier, and “positive school attitude for online learning” as an enabler. The Bring Your Own Device policy employed at one school, for instance, was criticized by teachers for widening existing digital divides. Students with smartphones or tablets were at a significant disadvantage compared to those with more powerful laptops, despite class materials being accessible though mobile devices.For language-intensive tasks, teachers reported that comparatively minor differences in computing technology – an in-built keyboard and mouse, sufficient RAM, and large screen sizes – created sizeable differences in student engagement, confidence, and aptitude. School supply of uniform devices – even when these were not necessarily ‘state-of-the-art’ reduced a sense of deprivation and difference for students without these devices at home. Such concrete examples demonstrate how organizational practices can cultivate digital inclusion or reinforce digital exclusion.

3.9 Infrastructural

In technological terms, unreliable internet connections were one of the biggest challenges that young people faced. While most students had a home internet connection, this was consistently unreliable. Students reported being forced to turn modems and devices on and off to restore connection, wait until later, go to a friend’s house or community space, hotspot via another device, or wait until they were at school to complete work that required online connectivity.

A key challenge for parents involved the initial activation and setup of home internet. Issues related to account sign up, installation, troubleshooting, billing, and account maintenance. They felt this was sometimes a structural or systemic issue, as internet providers could be inflexible in relation to various challenges faced by the community. Specific challenges relating to the provision of broadband included: existing lock in contracts, insufficient incentive or understanding of the value of offer, and uncertainty as to what occurs at the end of the 12-month period. Several families spoke of their confusion and frustration in being offered a free or subsidised Internet program that could not be delivered because the absence of credit, or because the program would coerce them into financial commitments they could not afford. These linguistic, financial, contractual, and structural conditions affected take-up during the program, but also illustrate challenges faced by both providers (in the supply) and community (in the acquisition) of digital devices, connectivity, and literacy.

Respondents expressed concern about their uncertainty as to how and where to seek support for Internet- or digital technology-related matters, and some also noted a sense of embarrassment associated with needing such support. This could occur specifically for families from multicultural backgrounds, and addressing stigma is an important if complicated facet to which schools, families and technology providers can all contribute.

Adults acknowledged that sometimes young people utilize community spaces to access the Internet when they are having trouble connecting at home and felt that communities should plan to incorporate free and secure Wi-Fi access in public facilities such as libraries and other public spaces conducive to learning. Students identified going to friends and cousin’s houses to study as a workaround they had developed when their home environment was unsuitable.

“I go to the library or go to friend house” (student, AC)

“If my power is cut, I would go to my friend/cousin’s home” (student, AC)

“Go to the library; go to friend house; go to school” (student, AC)

This option emphasizes the significant role of community, extended family, and appropriate infrastructure to support the learning needs of young people, when studying at home is not possible.

Parents stated that there is a governmental responsibility to ensure equitable and consistent access to affordable Internet for students, which includes reliable infrastructure within urban, rural, and regional areas. Participants consistently noted frustrations with certain areas considered “black spots,” even in one of Australia’s capital cities.

“Infrastructure reliability and access should be an equal right but continues to be inconsistent across [capital city] even for families who can afford” (adult, M)

“Not all Internet connections are equal” (adult, M)

“Ongoing challenges connecting to [the internet], ports unavailable; service providers inconsistent/unwilling to help or persist… sections of [capital city] unstable or unable to connect” (adult, M)

Adults also felt that it was the government’s responsibility to ensure equitable access to devices for students. If education systems expect students to use devices for learning, then they must ensure there are structured programs for those who are unable to afford devices. Parents also called upon the government to take the lead in ensuring that young people were safe online through regulation and governance.

4 The Digital Inclusion Studio

The findings above suggest that digital inclusion goes far beyond faster broadband and updated software. Technology is only one component in the broader environment that students need to foster a rewarding learning journey. This insight aligns with research stressing non technology-centric programs are necessary to effectively achieve sustainable digital inclusion projects, particularly in remote and underserved populations (Alejo et al., 2023; Fisk et al., 2023; Marshall et al., 2020, 2023; Owens et al., 2023; Pavez et al., 2023; Serrano-Santoyo & Rojas-Mendizabal, 2017; Zelezny-Green et al., 2018).

Based on the insights above, the final workshop became a “Digital Inclusion Studio,” with “studio” specifically chosen to underline the intent to create a generative, open space for instruction and experimentation. School A hosted the studio, with a separate studio conducted for those in the intensive English program. Students from A, AC and M schools attended the sessions, along with carers from AC school and teachers from all three schools (34 students, 6 parents/carers, 5 staff members).

The studio lasted five hours, including a whole group open and closing session and seven small group sessions as outlined in Table 2 below. Sessions were led by experts from stakeholders involved in the project, through which students and parents/carers rotated. The studio session topics were developed in response to the barriers revealed in the student and adult workshops and teacher interviews. Topics and content delivery were further refined in consultation with the broader research team including educational sector and internet provider staff. Each small group session was structured to include three aspects: (1) content delivery, (2) opportunity for application or experimentation, and (3) a forum for discussion, questions, and specific expert advice (see Appendix 2 for further details).

Table 2 Digital Inclusion Studio agenda
Full size table

Studio sessions allowed space for students and parents to obtain technical support and discuss other issues relating to their connection and study environments. This also gave the research team an opportunity to gather data, and with the support of teachers, internet providers and others, to build digital literacy through an open educational forum.

Students absorbed the content presented in the digital inclusion studios, were enthusiastic about their new knowledge, and readily shared their key takeaways. Students shared their understanding of digital devices and the learning platforms their school used in several ways. First, they discussed their technical knowledge: the working parts of a laptop, how to take care of it, how to access technical support, and how to use software effectively, including text-to-speech and translate functions.

“I have also learnt how you can do translating in OneNote.” (student, AC)

“I have learnt how to use shortcuts keys on devices e.g. laptops, and computers, how to use devices that have Microsoft 365 apps on it and that we need to shut down devices when not in use so that they can update throughout the day.” (student, A)

Second, they reported that they had learned how to be safe on the internet using resources from the eSafety Commissioner’s website and techniques such as blocking and reporting on their social media apps.

I have learnt about how you can use safety online and also how to report someone.

“I also have to make my social media accounts private, just for my safety” (student, AC)

“Stand up or stay out of the way (not get involved) of cyber-bullying” (student, M)

“I learnt how to stay safe in social media and how to prevent the unsafe spam” (student, AC)

Third, they discussed insights about creating suitable spaces and strategies for learning at home, including study habits, scheduling, and managing distractions.

“[I’ve learned] to create a new schedule; to eat health food and get some rest; to not sit all day and go for a walk” (student, AC)

“How you can study without getting distracted” (student, AC)

“I learnt to make a schedule for my studies; I learnt that I have to take a break after 20–20 min of studying” (student, AC)

Likewise, parents demonstrated interest and expressed appreciation for the Studio. They reported a greater understanding of school platforms, how to manage their home network and access resources for online safety to support their child.

“I’ve learned about eSafety Commission website; how to plan for home learning; learned how [school software system] works and to navigate; learned about the insurance on the device loaned to my child … and how to report any damage” (parent, A)

“I’ve learnt that our modem may be in the wrong spot; where to find parental locks [and how to] report abuse” (parent, A)

Importantly, parents and students recognised their respective roles in developing a supportive learning environment. Parents discussed how they could work collaboratively to improve learning outcomes, and where they can access further help.

“[I’ve] learned the importance of discussing with your children about the use of devices/Internet while at home” (parent, A)

“That we need to keep lines of communication open and flowing” (parent, A)

“Follow the things I learnt and tell my mom and dad what to do when you’re in problems” (student, AC)

“Different services that help all certain types of communities” (student, M)

“Where and who I can go to when I need help and ways to have a more effective online work environment” (student, A)

Teachers were also particularly enthusiastic about the studios, commenting that there needs to be more time in their regular routines to provide this additional support to students and families to enable their digital inclusion at a level conducive to effective learning and communication.

Survey results did not discriminate students enrolled in the program from those who also attended the Digital Inclusion Studio. However aggregate effects showed that those who participated in the program showed greater change (measured as pre-post mean differences) on several measures, compared to non-participants. Figures 3 and 4 below show small but incremental relative change for two variables: time management and family recognition of the importance of schoolwork. The independent t-test shows a significant difference for second of these variables between participants pre-test (M = 2.71, SD = 1.25) and post-test (M = 2.10, SD = 1.36); t(77) = 2.21, p < .05. Though mean values also decreased for non-participants, (pre-test scores: M = 2.80, SD = 1.21; post-test scores: M = 2.64, SD = 1.23), the results were not significant (t(94) = 0.66)). Such results could indicate the efficacy of the program overall and perhaps also of the Studio, with a program on digital inclusion resulting in greater family awareness of the importance of technology and education. However, we note that for other questions, including the question on time management, results were not significant for either participants or non-participants. More work is needed to measure the benefits of inclusion interventions – which can also involve greater accountability of online dangers – but these results seem promising.

Fig. 3
figure 3

I plan my time online effectively so I can get my schoolwork done and have time for leisure activities

Full size image
Fig. 4
figure 4

In my family, chores, working or other things are more important than schoolwork

Full size image

Both qualitative and quantitative feedback suggests the comparatively loose and informal “carousel” format of the Digital Inclusion Studio worked well to address various student, parent/carer, and teacher concerns about digital inclusion in education settings. While far from a remedy to all barriers to inclusion, the format offered opportunity for specialists to facilitate discussion and address challenges specific to the audience. Rather than presenting students and households with a bewildering array of documentation and dedicated training options, the relaxed environment allowed participants to rotate through and “pick-and-choose” elements of a wider socio-ecology of digital inclusion at their own pace, expertise, need and level of interest.

5 Conclusion

Digital technology and the set of abilities to effectively utilise it became increasingly important in children’s education during the pandemic and post-pandemic has been shown as a critical factor in employment (Jahan & Zhou, 2023). However, many children in Australia lack access to these tools and infrastructures, a condition that exacerbates existing inequalities and disadvantages. Our project with three schools in Western Australia worked closely with students, parents, and teachers to identify key barriers and enablers of digital inclusion. Technical infrastructures matter, and through this study we noted the challenges inherent in ensuring consistent access where both distance and multi-stakeholder involvement present unique challenges, which were not dissimilar to findings from rural UK (Wagg & Simeonova, 2022). However, we also found that an array of social and environmental factors, from noisy work environments to inconsistent parent-teacher communication comprise these barriers. These findings are consistent with international research, such as that by Owens et al. (2023) in the US, Kaarakainen and Kaikkonen (2023) in Finland and Méndez-Domínguez et al. (2023) in Spain and highlight the sometimes intractable and involuted character of exclusion. A holistic mixture of social, environmental, and skills “infrastructure” is needed to support success learning-at-home. This insight aligns with other research which underscores the importance of non-technical interventions (Hatlevik & Christophersen, 2013; Marshall et al., 2020). While those studies were from a development context, our research suggests digital inclusion is also a live issue in the “Global North” context of Australia. The strong positive feedback from students, parents, and teachers for the Digital Inclusion Studio activity suggests potential for fostering greater inclusion through expansion of the activity in other schools and regions.

We offer three areas for policy reform and further research in cultivating digital inclusion.

5.1 At home

Digital inclusion starts at home by supporting students and the parents or carers that nurture them. This support is needed by all populations, but particularly by underserved populations like the migrant or refugee families included in this research. Institutions such as schools, education bodies and local governments can:

  • Support families to establish the physical and routinal aspects of a conducive home learning environment. Students noted, at a material level, they needed desks, access to laptops, headphones, Wi-Fi, electricity, and training in software. They also mentioned the need for productive household habits –time for focusing on homework, freedom from interruptions, and offers of help and support.

  • Support parents to communicate effectively with schools and teachers, including standardizing or simplifying digital parent-teacher platforms.

  • Upskill students to harness digital technology for learning at home: how to use software, apply critical thinking and be safe online.

5.2 In the classroom

Digital inclusion must also be fostered in the physical or virtual classroom, regardless of whether learning takes place remotely or in-person. Digital inclusion involves developing a culture that emphasizes the collective responsibility for learning, alongside an attitude that stresses the importance of technology accessibility and equity of learning conditions. Examples of this commitment could include:

  • Provide financial support for equitable access to functional devices for all students, along with the necessary associated equipment for learning from home, such as headphones for ambient noise control. Students, parents/carers, teachers all voiced similar concerns about the effects of different device capabilities.

  • Ensure adequate professional development time for teachers and ongoing support and space within their workload to integrate technology effectively. Parents / carers and teachers each discussed their frustrations with the lack of training in digital technology, and its effects on both classroom pedagogy and family-teacher communication.

  • Support students who need further specific support to enhance their digital inclusion such as those with EALD or refugee backgrounds.

  • Prioritise digital inclusion and associated financial support, through policy at the government level, or through the allocation of resources at the education sector and school level.

5.3 At the internet infrastructure/service provider

Equitable and reliable access to broadband is critical for any meaningful program of digital inclusion. However, barriers at the access level are both technical and cultural, and addressing inclusion at all levels requires: as.

  • Ensuring access is consistent across urban, rural, and regional areas. Adult workshops reported that Internet connectivity was not even uniform across metropolitan Perth. Respondents also reported issues with regular power supply, with students often needing to work from the local library, where both electricity and Internet supply were reliable.

  • Ensuring Internet providers have flexible and responsive billing systems, policies and staff training that account for the socio-economic differences of different customer groups. Some refugee families reported it was difficult to communicate with Internet providers, to set up broadband or resolve internet issues. Fisk et al. (2023) offers a conceptual model of service inclusion practices that would go some way towards addressing this aspect of digital inclusion.

  • Investment in public spaces conducive to learning that offer free and secure Wi-fi access along with digital inclusion support.

In adopting a socio-ecological model, our findings underscore the fact that exclusion can be embedded in powerful but subtle ways in social and technological systems. Lockdowns enforced to limit COVID’s spread created a ‘natural experiment’ that brought intense focus on the effects of digital exclusion. As memories of those lockdowns recede, connections between digital access and student learning have only thickened and multiplied. The advent of generative AI is an example of a technological force that threatens to transform education radically (Peters et al., 2023) – and which requires new literacies, capable hardware, and software subscriptions. While national Internet infrastructures differ widely – with Australia generally rated above average on OECD benchmarks – digital exclusion is a common characteristic. As comparable results by Livingston et al. (2023) suggest, many of our findings and recommendations are likely to be broadly consistent across different countries, despite the unusual setting.

Our findings also suggest that provision of connections and devices can be supplemented by initiatives like the Digital Inclusion Studio, to give students, families, and the skills to navigate recent technologies, create appropriate learning environments, and to foster helpful learning habits. This study’sresults are limited by the specific COVID conditions and location of participating schools. As the schools were private – though fees are comparatively low and often subsidised – the experiences of students at government-funded schools may differ in many respects. In addition, voluntary participation of students and households means that the research was unable to investigate students that self-exclude, due to unattendance, embarrassment or other socioeconomic factors. The results nonetheless suggest open collaborative formats like the Digital Inclusion Studio can address some of the above recommendations and advocate for future research which trials this method in other states and educational sectors. The studio round-table format is flexible and provides individual and expert advice to families across the physical, financial, technological, and social challenges they may be experiencing. In addition to immediate expert advice and building relationships at the school level, families can be provided with takeaway resources and provided additional wrap-around and ongoing support, such as links to community organisations, which may be beneficial to populations who are experiencing digital exclusion.

Our work, grounded in close collaboration with students, parents, and teachers at three schools, highlights the interplay between socio–ecological and technological determinants of digital inclusion, and contributes to the justifiable attention given to inclusion in a context where learning is increasingly mediated via digital devices and services. Through the statements we gather from students, parents, and teachers, we see a fine-grained portrait of digital exclusion emerge, one that operates in powerful but often subtle ways. This condition can undermine the ability of students to learn, but as the Digital Inclusion Studio demonstrated, it can be addressed in concrete ways through crafted programs and careful interventions. Together, these insights point to formidable challenges but also highlight a series of positive improvements that could cultivate inclusive learning for the next generation of learners.