Harnessing the Power of Generative AI to Support ALL Learners
Open accessAbstract
While generative AI such as ChatGPT has important drawbacks, it can potentially unlock new types of learning and support – specially for English learners and students with disabilities – by facilitating teachers’ Universal Design for Learning (UDL) efforts. As generative AI is quickly becoming an integral part of our lives (e.g., being incorporated into existing tools such as Google products), teachers will need to decide how they can use and benefit from this new technology. Our analysis of data collected during a summer teacher institute found that in Summer 2023 the majority of teachers had never used generative AI and were evenly split on whether it was a “friend” or “foe” in their teaching efforts. Overall, 43% of teachers reported, “ChatGPT and other generative AI will help make instruction more accessible for ALL learners,” while 32% of teachers were “undecided” indicating an opportunity to improve teacher perceptions. In this article we discuss strategies for using generative AI for improving UDL to benefit ALL learners brainstormed by the teachers. Practical implications for multilingual learners are discussed.
The claims and statistics of this paper haven’t been checked yet.
Run the check — free, no account needed. It reads the open-access text and checks the sources it cites.
Integrity signals
Registry
Cites
Statistics
Claims the paper makes
The claims and statistics of this paper haven’t been checked yet.
Run the check — free, no account needed. It reads the open-access text and checks the sources it cites.
Claims other papers make about this one
Each is checked against this paper’s own text: does it say what the citing paper says it does?
The possibility of net benefit of generative AI for students with disabilities has been raised but not systematically tested.
“Within this contested terrain, the possibility of net benefit for students with disabilities has been raised but not systematically tested.”
From The Use of Generative AI by Students with Disabilities in UK Higher Education: A Mixed-Methods Survey of 125 Students (2025) · cites this paper as Evmenova, Borup, and Shin (2024)
The Abstract raises potential benefits for students with disabilities while saying generative AI’s full impact is unclear. The Purpose and Method describe an exploratory study of teachers’ perceptions, not a test of net student benefit. The paper does not establish the broader claim that net benefit has not been systematically tested elsewhere. (LLM, conf=0.83)
Experimental — accuracy not yet measured
Self-check
Percentages, sums and reported differences re-computed from the paper’s own numbers.
The self-check needs the paper’s full text.
The citation lists haven’t been fetched yet
References 42 · Cited by 47
- Authors
- Evmenova, A. S., Borup, J., & Shin, J. K.
- Affiliations
- George Mason University (US)
- Corresponding author
- Evmenova, Anya S.
- Venue
- TechTrends
- Published
- 2024-05-14
- Volume
- 68
- Issue
- 4
- Pages
- 820-831
- ISSN
- 1559-7075 (ISSN-L)
- 8756-3894
- OpenAlex
- W4396903299
- Cited by
- 47
- References
- 42
- Citations by year
- 2026: 23 · 2025: 19 · 2024: 5
- FWCI
- 17.71
- Type
- journal article
- Language
- en
- Open access
- hybrid
- doi.org
- Locations
- TechTrends (publishedVersion, cc-by)
- Topics
- Physical Sciences › Computer Science › Information Systems › Artificial Intelligence in Education
- Physical Sciences › Computer Science › Information Systems › Educational Technology in Learning
- Health Sciences › Medicine › Health Informatics › Artificial Intelligence in Healthcare and Education
- Keywords
- generative AI, ChatGPT, Universal Design for Learning, multilingual learners, English language learners, students with disabilities, teacher perceptions, inclusive education, teacher professional development
About these checks
Registry, retraction, Cites and statistics results are computed, not judged, with one exception: a printed reference that no index lists is read once by a model before it counts as a citation error. Claims are extracted by a model and kept only when their quote appears verbatim in the text; each cited source is then checked, with a model’s help, for whether it says what the claim relies on. Those verdicts can be wrong — read the claim’s quote and the cited source before relying on one.
Statistics and arithmetic are recomputed, not judged.
Confidence bands are shown only for fields calibrated on our annotated test set. None is calibrated yet, so no band is shown.
What counts as a claim ›How we measure confidence ›How we check this ›
Are you an author, or do you see a problem with this page? Request a review