Assistive technologies (ATs) are essential for supporting the participation of students with disabilities in higher education laboratories. However, evidence on AT in these environments remains fragmented and insufficiently systematized.
Objective
To map assistive technologies and structural adaptations described in higher education laboratory settings between 2015 and 2025, and to identify associated barriers, facilitators, methodological limitations, and research gaps.
Methods
A scoping review was conducted following the JBI Manual for Evidence Synthesis (2024) and the PRISMA-ScR guidelines. Searches were performed in PubMed/MEDLINE, Web of Science, Scopus, IEEE Xplore, ERIC, and BVS. Two reviewers independently screened and extracted data from studies published in English or Portuguese that involved students with disabilities in laboratory environments. The protocol was preregistered.
Results
Of 315 records identified, 20 studies met inclusion criteria, reporting 129 assistive technologies: hardware (56.6%), software (33.3%), structural adaptations (7.8%), and educational resources (2.3%). Common barriers included inaccessible equipment, insufficient faculty training, and limited institutional policies. Facilitators included student participation, accessible materials, and curriculum adaptations.
Conclusions
Digital AT solutions predominate, particularly for students with visual disabilities. Nonetheless, full inclusion in laboratory settings requires integrated strategies combining technology, inclusive pedagogical practices, and institutional support. Future research should involve students with disabilities in co-design processes and evaluate AT effectiveness in real laboratory contexts.
Fernández-BataneroJMMontenegro-RuedaMFernández-CereroJ, et al.Assistive technology for the inclusion of students with disabilities: a systematic review. Educ Technol Res Dev2022; 70(5): 1911–1930. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11423-022-10127-7
4.
McNichollACaseyHDesmondD, et al.The impact of assistive technology use for students with disabilities in higher education: a systematic review. Disabil Rehabil Assist Technol2021; 16(2): 130–143. https://doi.org/10.1080/17483107.2019.1642395
5.
FrançaLFSilvaJAAzevedoCMS, et al.Educação inclusiva 4.0: tecnologia assistiva está revolucionando o ensino. ARACÊ2025; 7(4): 15906–15921. https://doi.org/10.56238/arev7n4-019
IwarssonSStåhlA. Accessibility, usability and universal design--positioning and definition of concepts describing person-environment relationships. Disabil Rehabil2003; 25(2): 57–66. https://doi.org/10.1080/dre.25.2.57.66
10.
MaceR. What is universal design? Raleigh (NC): the center for universal design. North Carolina State University, 1997.
11.
SchererMJFedericiS. Why people use and don't use technologies: introduction to the special issue on assistive technologies for cognition/cognitive support technologies. NeuroRehabilitation2015; 37(3): 315–319. https://doi.org/10.3233/NRE-151264
12.
SvenssonINordströmTLindebladE, et al.Effects of assistive technology for students with reading and writing disabilities. Disabil Rehabil Assist Technol2019; 16(2): 196–208. https://doi.org/10.1080/17483107.2019.1646821
JeannisHGoldbergMSeelmanK, et al.Barriers and facilitators to students with physical disabilities' participation in academic laboratory spaces. Disabil Rehabil Assist Technol2020; 15(2): 225–237. https://doi.org/10.1080/17483107.2018.1559889
15.
BeniteCRMAraújo FrançaFNobre VargasG, et al.Chemistry teaching for visually impaired students: experimentation with the use of assistive technology. Educ Quim Punto Vista2022; 6: 1-17, Available from:https://revistas.unila.edu.br/eqpv/article/view/3293
EgambaramOHiltonKLeighJ, et al.The future of laboratory chemistry learning and teaching must be accessible. J Chem Educ2022; 99(12): 3814–3821. https://doi.org/10.1021/acs.jchemed.2c00328
18.
NdibalemaPKambonaW. Impediments to assistive technology accessibility for students with disabilities in higher education institutions: a systematic review. ECNU Rev Educ2025; 20965311251355657. https://doi.org/10.1177/20965311251355657
19.
KibretAKYilmaTMDaviesTC, et al.Assistive technology and daily living challenges among students with disabilities at university of gondar, Ethiopia: a qualitative study. Disabil Rehabil Assist Technol2025; 20(1): 201–210. https://doi.org/10.1080/17483107.2024.2362248
20.
PetersMDJGodfreyCMcInerneyP, et al.Scoping reviews. In: AromatarisELockwoodCPorrittK, et al. (eds). JBI manual for evidence synthesis [Internet]. : JBI, 2024. [cited 2025 Dec 18]. Available from:https://synthesismanual.jbi.global. doi: 10.46658/JBIMES-24-09
21.
TriccoACLillieEZarinW, et al.PRISMA extension for scoping reviews (PRISMA-ScR): checklist and explanation. Ann Intern Med2018; 169(7): 467–473. https://doi.org/10.7326/M18-0850
SassakiRK. Inclusão: construindo uma sociedade para todos. 8th ed.WVA, 2010.
26.
PutriNKSYuhanaULSiahaanDO, et al.Assistive technology classification for students with disabilities in higher education: a systematic literature review. IEEE Access2025; 13: 28135–28149. https://doi.org/10.1109/ACCESS.2025.3538322
27.
MukhtarkyzyKSmagulovaLTokzhigitovaA, et al.A systematic review of the utility of assistive technologies for SEND students in schools. Front Educ2025; 10: 1523797. https://doi.org/10.3389/feduc.2025.1523797
ModiNSinghJ. A survey of research trends in assistive technologies using information modelling techniques. Disabil Rehabil Assist Technol2022; 17(6): 605–623. https://doi.org/10.1080/17483107.2020.1817992
31.
IsmailiJIbrahimiEHO. Mobile learning as alternative to assistive technology devices for special needs students. Educ Inf Technol2017; 22(3): 883–899. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10639-015-9462-9
32.
CAST. Universal design for learning guidelines version 3.0 [Internet]. Lynnfield (MA): CAST; 2024. Available from: https://udlguidelines.cast.org
33.
SinghalIBalajiBS. Creating atom representations using open-source, stackable 3D printed interlocking pieces with tactile features to support chemical equation writing for sighted and visually impaired students. J Chem Educ2020; 97(1): 118–124. https://doi.org/10.1021/acs.jchemed.9b00255
34.
RashidIChehadehD. Adaptation of chemistry experiments for middle school blind or visually impaired students. J Chem Educ2023; 100: 2262–2268. https://doi.org/10.1021/acs.jchemed.3c00016
BurgstahlerSE (ed). Universal design in higher education: from principles to practice. 2nd ed.Harvard Education Press, 2015.
37.
KroesKCLeflerDSchmittA, et al.Development of accessible laboratory experiments for students with visual impairments. J Sci Educ Students Disabil2016; 19(1): 61–67. Available from:https://files.eric.ed.gov/fulltext/EJ1169435.pdf. doi: 10.14448/jsesd.09.0006
38.
RajaDS.Bridging the disability divide through digital technologies. World Bank, 2016: (Background paper for the World Development Report 2016: Digital Dividends). Available from:https://docs.edtechhub.org/lib/LYZ2PUQ4
39.
KathiriaPMankadSHPatelJ, et al.Assistive systems for visually impaired people: a survey on current requirements and advancements. Neurocomputing2024; 606: 128284. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.neucom.2024.128284
40.
MariappanMSujathamaliniJGunasekaranK. Enhancing science education: the role of accessible laboratories for students with visual impairment. Int J Res Spec Educ2025; 5: 130–136. https://doi.org/10.22271/27103862.2025.v5.i1b.114
HayesCProulxMJ. Turning a blind eye? Removing barriers to science and mathematics education for students with visual impairments. Br J Vis Impair2024; 42: 544–556. https://doi.org/10.1177/02646196221149561
44.
BovalJKennedyS. Laboratory safety for all: accommodating students with disabilities in chemistry teaching laboratories. In: SweetEStrobel GowerWHeltzelCE (eds). Accessibility in the laboratory. : American Chemical Society, 2018, pp. 99–115(ACS Symposium Series; vol. 1272). https://doi.org/10.1021/bk-2018-1272.ch008
45.
MiecznikowskiJRGuberman-PfefferMJButrickEE, et al.Adapting advanced inorganic chemistry lecture and laboratory instruction for a legally blind student. J Chem Educ2015; 92: 1344–1352. https://doi.org/10.1021/ed500489c
46.
AntonescuAMDumitruFSEnachescuM. The universal learning platform (ULP): a hybrid IoT-based learning environment for automatic device and circuit characterization. IEEE Access2025; 13: 45168–45186. https://doi.org/10.1109/ACCESS.2025.3550022
47.
BrinsonJR. Learning outcome achievement in non-traditional (virtual and remote) versus traditional (hands-on) laboratories: a review of the empirical research. Comput Educ2015; 87: 218–237. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.compedu.2015.07.003
48.
MeeksLMJainNRHerzerKR. Universal design: supporting students with color vision deficiency (CVD) in medical education. J Postsecond Educ Disabil2016; 29(3): 303–309.
49.
FernándezGAOcampoRACostantinoAR, et al.Application of didactic strategies as multisensory teaching tools in organic chemistry practices for students with visual disabilities. J Chem Educ2019; 96(4): 691–696. https://doi.org/10.1021/acs.jchemed.8b00816
MoonNWToddRLMortonDL, et al.Accommodating students with disabilities in science, technology, engineering, and mathematics (STEM). Atlanta (GA): Center for Assistive Technology and Environmental Access. Georgia Institute of Technology, 2012. Available from: https://advance.lehigh.edu/sites/advance.cc.lehigh.edu/files/accommodating.pdf.
52.
PapadopoulosKKoustriavaEIsarajL, et al.Assistive technology for higher education students with disabilities: a qualitative research. Digital2024; 4(2): 501–511. https://doi.org/10.3390/digital4020025
53.
BongWKChenW. Increasing faculty’s competence in digital accessibility for inclusive education: a systematic literature review. Int J Incl Educ2024; 28(2): 197–213. https://doi.org/10.1080/13603116.2021.1937344
54.
HacklEErmolinaI. Inclusion by design: embedding inclusive teaching practice into design and preparation of laboratory classes. Curr Pharm Teach Learn2019; 11(12): 1323–1334. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.cptl.2019.09.012
55.
GarradTANolanH. Rethinking higher education unit design: embedding universal design for learning in online studies. Stud Success2023; 14(1): 1–8. https://doi.org/10.5204/ssj.2300
56.
OrndorfHCWatermanMLangeD, et al.Opening the pathway: an example of universal design for learning as a guide to inclusive teaching practices. CBE-Life Sci Educ2022; 21: ar28. https://doi.org/10.1187/cbe.21-09-0239
57.
AlmeidaLPSRLahrSLNGuimarãesJF, et al.Barreiras e estratégias de acesso nas trajetórias de pessoas com deficiência (PcD) no ensino superior: uma leitura a partir do conceito de territorialidades. Rev Bras Ed Esp2025; 31: e0132. https://doi.org/10.1590/1980-54702025v31e0132
58.
FilippouKAcquahEOBengsA. Inclusive policies and practices in higher education: a systematic literature review. Rev Educ2025; 13: e70034. https://doi.org/10.1002/rev3.70034
59.
BartoloPABorgMCallusAM, et al.Students with disabilities in higher education call for personal empowerment, equitable inclusive systems and individualized accommodations. Front Educ2025; 10: 1432682. https://doi.org/10.3389/feduc.2025.1432682
60.
BentonLJohnsonH. Widening participation in technology design: a review of the involvement of children with special educational needs and disabilities. Int J Child-Comput Interact2015; 3: 23–40. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ijcci.2015.07.001
MesquitaCAFPellenseGMde Souza LibânioC. Tecnologias assistivas para estudantes com deficiência: uma revisão de escopo [Internet]. Open Science Framework; 2025 [cited 2026 May 26]. Available from: https://doi.org/10.17605/OSF.IO/GACJN.
Supplementary Material
Please find the following supplemental material available below.
For Open Access articles published under a Creative Commons License, all supplemental material carries the same license as the article it is associated with.
For non-Open Access articles published, all supplemental material carries a non-exclusive license, and permission requests for re-use of supplemental material or any part of supplemental material shall be sent directly to the copyright owner as specified in the copyright notice associated with the article.
