Cited by 47Artificial Intelligence in EducationEducational Technology in LearningArtificial Intelligence in Healthcare and Education

Harnessing the Power of Generative AI to Support ALL Learners

Open access
Evmenova, Anya S., Borup, Jered, Shin, Joan Kang·2024·TechTrends

Abstract

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.

A few free checks a day · papers already verified open instantly · results are public

Integrity signals

Registry

Crossref · 10.1007/s11528-024-00966-x

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.

A few free checks a day · papers already verified open instantly · results are public

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
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