Reframing Writing Instruction for AAC Users in the Age of A…

Dec 22/Jan 23 Closing The Gap Solutions - Collaborating With Augmentative and Alternative Communication (AAC) Users Gains A New Perspective To Best Support Clients By Lydia Dawley

augmentative and alternative communication (AAC)

Reframing Writing Instruction for AAC Users in the Age of AI: Is It Cheating or Is It Access? Part 1 of a 3-part series: The intersection of artificial intelligence, augmentative and alternative communication (AAC), and writing instruction for students who need and use AAC

As new artificial intelligence (AI) technologies such as large language models (LLMs) emerge (e.g., ChatGPT, Perplexity, Claude) educators are increasingly confronted with a familiar question: “ Can my student use this to complete schoolwork? ” More often than not, the answer is a reflexive “No.” This response, however, reflects a longstanding pattern in the history of educational technology: initial resistance followed by gradual acceptance, especially when these tools become mainstream (e.g., speech-to-text). Such resistance is particularly familiar to the field of assistive technology (AT), where innovative tools designed to support access and increase independence have often been met with skepticism, especially when their use challenges traditional notions of authorship, effort, or fairness. The fear that assistive technology will "do the work for the student" isn't new, and it certainly isn't unique to AI. Teachers have seen this with every major technology introduced into schools. In the early 2000s, programs like Co:Writer and DraftBuilder, which supported writing with word prediction and idea organization, raised concerns about fairness. Submitting

assignments via a student's email account was once considered unsafe or impractical. Tools that are now commonplace (i.g., speech-to-text and text-to-speech) and often still are, seen as shortcuts or "cheating" when used by students with disabilities. Speech-to-text, when used as a transcription tool by students who cannot write by hand or type efficiently, has been viewed as giving an unfair advantage. Similarly, the use of text-to-speech to access grade-level content is often questioned by educators or parents who worry that students will stop learning to read. But these tools aren't shortcuts; they're access. Just like a pencil grip or glasses, they give students access to the task, not the answers. These reactions reflect more than just concerns about learning, they expose a deeper discomfort with change itself. As classrooms become more inclusive, our focus must shift from policing the tools students use to recognizing assistive technology as a legitimate and necessary means of access, not an unfair advantage.

SHARON REDMON , M.S. ATP. Sharon is a SpEd, GenEd teacher, and AT Specialist with almost 30 years of experience. She holds an M.S. in Adaptive Education: Assistive Technology from St. Norbert College and ATP from RESNA and is a Doctoral Candidate at Penn State University. Sharon's passion for AT and especially AAC began with her first teaching assignment in WI, where she became involved in WATI, and continues today with the WI AAC Network school committee and founding member of the Wisconsin Assistive Technology Regional Networks (WATRN). She also serves as a member of the Education Committee for USSAAC. Her varied career placements within WI, WA, and overseas schools have given her unique opportunities to combine her passion for AAC, literacy, and Assistive Technology. She is passionate about sharing her experiences with others so that we can all continue to learn together BRENDA DEL MONTE , MA, CCC-SLP. Brenda is a speech language pathologist and an assistive technology evaluator and facilitator. Brenda Del Monte is a co-founder of Believe Beyond Ability, a non-profit organization that evaluates, determines, provides and trains those with multiple disabilities on assistive technology to increase independence. Brenda is also an author of the newly published book, "I See You In There," a collection of stories from her 20+ years of experience working with children and adults with disabilities. She is currently a co-host of the Awe and Wonder Podcast hosted by the Special Ed Tech Center.

BACK TO CONTENTS

AI AND AAC: THE NEW FRONTIER

the same access to high quality instruction as their peers. "Writing is a process of meaning-making through which students construct knowledge, communicate ideas, and demonstrate understanding. It is both a cognitive and social act that develops through instruction and practice." — National Council of Teachers of English (NCTE), 2004 WHAT THE LAW SAYS: AI, AT AND IDEA The integration of artificial intelligence AI into writing supports for students who need or use AAC has sparked questions about fairness, academic integrity, and educational equity. However, guidance released by the U.S. Department of Education in January 2024 titled Myths and Facts Surrounding Assistive Technology Devices directly refutes this idea. This federal document reinforces that assistive technology AT, which includes AI-supported writing tools and those embedded in AAC systems, is not an unfair advantage, but rather we argue is a required AT support to access a Free and Appropriate Public Education under the Individuals with Disabilities Education Act (IDEA). Assistive technology is about equity, not reducing standards or undermining academic rigor (Myth 15, p. 21). AT allows students to demonstrate their knowledge and skills despite physical or communicative barriers. AT includes a wide range of tools, from low- to high-tech, as long as they meet the child’s functional needs (Myth 9, p. 16). This includes not only traditional supports but also emerging technologies. AI-powered supports embedded in AAC devices fall squarely within this definition. Just as a word prediction feature or symbol-based sentence strip is a valid support, so is an AI-based feature that suggests relevant phrases, prompts topic development, or reformulates unclear sentences. If these supports allow the student to author their content more independently and effectively, then they fulfill the very purpose of AT. Using AI within an AAC system to support writing is analogous to a student using a calculator when math computation is not the skill being assessed. Rather than shortcutting the writing process, AI features scaffold the same stages all students encounter: idea generation, vocabulary selection, sentence construction, and revision. If the educational goal is to communicate ideas in written form, then the AI becomes the pencil, not the brain. The student is still responsible for approving, selecting, editing, and organizing their writing. Equally important is the principle that assistive technology must be individualized. AT must be personalized to each student’s needs. What helps one student may not be appropriate for another, even with the same diagnosis (Myth 12, p. 17). For some AAC users, co-constructing writing with AI offers a unique solution to the motor, cognitive, and linguistic challenges they face. While peers may use spellcheck, Google Docs, Grammarly, or peer support, AAC users may require a more robust tool embedded within their device to co-author text. This is not an unfair advantage, it is a tailored intervention. Students using

Unfortunately, this concern is all too familiar for individuals who use Augmentative and Alternative Communication (AAC). As AI becomes integrated into AAC systems, through predictive text, content generation, or enhanced writing supports, some educators and stakeholders are quick to question the legitimacy of these tools, often labeling them as threats to academic integrity. Fears that assistive technology replaces student effort have long existed, but they are now amplified by the visibility and rapid development of AI. These reactions, however, often arise without a deeper understanding of how these tools function or why they are necessary. While AI may be new, the skepticism it provokes is not. Often, the label of “cheating” is less about the tool and more about our discomfort with change. Sitting in the uncomfortable and asking the right questions is how we move the needle forward. Today's panic about AI mirrors these past anxieties. But if we fail to examine the motivations behind our objections and resistance, we risk repeating history, denying access in the name of protecting tradition. Rather than asking whether AI tools represent “cheating,” a more constructive question might be: Under what conditions can AI be used ethically and equitably to provide equitable access to learning, especially for students with disabilities? We argue that framing the issue this way invites educators to consider how new AI tools can reduce barriers, promote access, and foster inclusion, principles central to both Universal Design for Learning (UDL) and inclusive education frameworks (CAST, 2024). As we begin to navigate the role of AI in education, we must also draw from the lessons of AT integration: that the purpose of technology is not to provide an advantage but access. For students who need or use AAC particularly those using alternative access methods (e.g., eye gaze or switches), this resistance has serious consequences: it can limit not just how they complete assignments, but whether they are truly taught and integrated into the process. Written expression is one area where our students who need or use AAC are often not provided

BACK TO CONTENTS

AI to support writing are not bypassing learning; they are engaging in it more meaningfully (Myth 16, p. 21). AI does not replace students' ideas; it helps them structure, expand, and refine those ideas. In fact, without these supports, many AAC users would be left with yes/no questions or limited word-by- word construction, often facilitated by adults. With AI, students move from passive responders to active co-authors, a shift that promotes agency and deeper engagement. The Department of Education’s 2024 Myths and Facts Surrounding Assistive Technology Devices document strongly supports the use of AI-supported writing tools as legitimate assistive technology under IDEA. Far from being a form of cheating, these tools offer students who use AAC a meaningful, equitable way to participate in writing tasks alongside their peers. Educators and IEP teams must move past outdated notions of what constitutes "authentic" work and recognize that modern AT, including AI, is essential for many students to express themselves, meet academic standards, and gain independence. Denying access to these tools not only contradicts federal guidance, it undermines the very principles of inclusive education.

choice or bimodal options, where students select from pre- generated content. These choices are often created by teacher, therapist and paraeducators with limited knowledge of the course content or the student’s ideas. In creative writing, this becomes even more limiting. The student may be brimming with ideas, but unless someone gives them the“right”choices, those thoughts remain inaccessible.The result? Students select from limited options that are provided to them in a con-constructed setting, a product is created, boxes are checked. While this approach may produce a completed product, it often masks a lack of authentic student authorship and voice. Ironically, these heavily scaffolded approaches, where the student has limited control over their content and limited agency are accepted as “support,” even if they strip students of autonomy, independence and ownership. Yet in this scenario, where the student’s writing is essentially constructed by others, we don’t call it cheating. Why? Because it fits our traditional, comfortable model of what “help” looks like. But for students with access barriers who need or use AAC, this “help” strips students of any true authorship. REFRAMING THE QUESTION The focus on whether AI constitutes cheating is the wrong question. Instead, educators must ask: • Is the tool providing equitable access? • Does it promote authentic expression? • Is it building the student’s capacity to engage in the writing process? Often writing is viewed only as the act or transcription or the mechanical act of putting words on a page. According to the National Council of Teachers of English (2004), writing is “a process of meaning-making through which students construct knowledge, communicate ideas, and demonstrate understanding.” It is a cognitive and social act that requires support and practice. All students, even those without barriers to their written expression, engage in both the transcription of writing and the process or cognitive act of written expression in a co-constructed process. AI-enhanced AAC tools can help students that have significant barriers in accessing writing, meaningfully participate in that process, perhaps for the first time. AI-supported writing tools can help AAC users do just that. If a student is finally able to generate a sentence, brainstorm an idea, or revise their work using tools embedded in their AAC system, that’s not cheating, that’s access. If we allow students without disabilities to use Grammarly, Google Docs, or ChatGPT to plan, write, and revise, why would we deny these tools to students who need or use AAC? Educators must provide meaningful opportunities for growth by explicitly teaching the full writing process (i.e., planning, drafting, revising, and publishing) even when AT supports

WHAT WRITING INSTRUCTION REALLY LOOKS LIKE FOR AAC USERS In many educational settings, students who need or use AAC face significant barriers to meaningful participation in writing. For direct selectors, writing goals are often reduced to copying model sentences, selecting pre-programmed words, or using forced choice construction to produce syntactically and grammatically correct sentences. For students using eye gaze or switches, writing instruction may not progress beyond letter identification, even into adolescence or adulthood. In general education settings, writing accommodations may include extended time or shortened assignments, but these often substitute for robust instructional strategies. As a result, AAC users may complete writing tasks without ever learning the cognitive processes of ideation, planning, creation and revision. To minimize fatigue, educators sometimes employ multiple-

BACK TO CONTENTS

are required at every stage. Promoting independence means prioritizing tools and strategies that reduce reliance on adult prompting and encourage students to take ownership of their ideas. At the same time, it is essential to validate alternative methods of writing. Composing with AAC, AI tools, or predictive text is no less legitimate than writing with a pencil or typing on a keyboard. Just as we accept spelling support for students with dyslexia or speech-to-text tools for those with fine motor challenges, we must understand and embrace the use of AI even those included in AAC systems not as a shortcut, but as a necessary scaffold that enables equitable participation in the writing process. When thoughtfully integrated into instruction, they can promote independence rather than diminish it or have an over reliance of a student's co-constructed support by a staff member.

AAC users may rely on partners to help generate language or navigate a device, or now, increasingly, use AI tools to support idea generation, vocabulary, and sentence structure. This isn’t cheating, it’s access. Their non-disabled peers also get support when they brainstorm with friends, use grammar checkers, ask for teacher feedback, or revise with the help of a rubric. These supports are part of good writing instruction. For students who use AAC, AI-enhanced co-authorship is simply a necessary scaffold to make participation in writing possible. Implementing the use of an AT tool such as AI can reduce cognitive and motor load, prompt metacognitive reflection, and, critically, offer content-area information to support students in making informed choices as they write. This aligns with the Universal Design for Learning (UDL) principle of providing multiple means of representation and expression, helping students access and engage with rigorous content in diverse ways (CAST, 2024). Fears of authorship from both AAC users, teachers and parents are valid concerns. However, we are not suggesting AI replace the writer, AI-enhanced co-authorship allows students to focus on idea development, sentence construction, and authorship, what writing instruction is truly about. Ultimately, the goal is not to reduce expectations, but to reimagine support structures so that every student can participate in authentic writing experiences. When used with intentionality, AI becomes not a shortcut, but a scaffold for equity, allowing students to engage in the writing process with agency. CONCLUSION Writing goes beyond transcription—whether through handwriting, typing, or dictation. It is the creation of meaning, a form of communication, and a vital avenue for academic participation and self-expression. Every student—regardless of their access needs—has the right to actively participate in learning how to construct written expression, as affirmed by the Communication Bill of Rights. The integration of artificial intelligence (AI) in education has reignited debates about academic integrity and authorship particularly for students with disabilities who need or use augmentative and alternative communication (AAC). While tools such as ChatGPT and AI- supported AAC systems are often labeled as "cheating," this perspective overlooks a long history of resistance to educational innovation for students with disabilities. When the first reaction to a new tool is “No,” educators must pause and ask: Why not? If the objection is rooted in fear, unfamiliarity, or nostalgia for “how we’ve always done it,” then it may be time to challenge those assumptions. For students who use AAC, especially those who encounter barriers to their learning, AI may be the bridge to meaningful, co-constructed writing. That’s not cheating, that’s access. We will continue this conversation in the next issue where we will dive deeper into the idea of co-authorship and how AI as an

WORKING TOWARD INCLUSIVE WRITING INSTRUCTION

To support equitable access to writing for students who use AAC, we need to rethink what counts as "help" and recognize that writing is often a co-authored process, for all students.

BACK TO CONTENTS

AT can be integrated in the IEP for those that need or use AAC. Note: ChatGPT and Grammarly were used by the authors to edit this content. REFERENCES CAST (2024). Universal Design for Learning Guidelines version 3.0. Retrieved from https://udlguidelines.cast.org Graham, S., & Perin, D. (2007). Writing next: Effective strategies to improve writing of adolescents in middle and high schools. Alliance for Excellent Education.

Individuals with Disabilities Education Act, 20 U.S.C. § 1400 (2004)

Jimenez, B., Courtade, G., & Fosbinder, J. (2024). Leveraging Artificial Intelligence to Enhance Implementation of Research- Based Practices for Teaching Students with Moderate to Severe Intellectual Disability.

Khan, S. (2024). Brave New Words: How AI Will Revolutionize Education (and Why That’s a Good Thing ). Thorndike Press.

Light, J., & McNaughton, D. (2012). Supporting the communication, language, and literacy development of children with complex communication needs: State of the science and future research priorities. Assistive Technology, 24 (1), 34–44. National Council of Teachers of English (NCTE). (2004). NCTE Beliefs about the Teaching of Writing. Retrieved from https://cdn.ncte.org Sennott, S. C., Akagi, L., Lee, M., & Rhodes, A. (2019). AAC and Artificial Intelligence (AI). Topics in Language Disorders, 39(4), 389–403. https://doi.org/10.1097/TLD.0000000000000197 U.S. Department of Education. (2024, January). Myths and Facts Surrounding Assistive Technology Devices. https://sites.ed.gov/idea/files/Myths-and-Facts- Surrounding-Assistive-Technology-Devices-01-22-2024. pdf Zabala, J. S. (2005). Using the SETT Framework to Level the Learning Field for Students with Disabilities. Retrieved from https://www.joyzabala.com

BACK TO CONTENTS

Page 1 Page 2 Page 3 Page 4 Page 5

www.closingthegap.com

Made with FlippingBook Ebook Creator