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 Educators and IEP teams must move past outdated notions of what constitutes "authentic" work and recognize that modern AT, including AI, is essential for many students to express themselves, meet academic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-
22
www.closingthegap.com/membership | August / September, 2025 Closing The Gap © 2025 Closing The Gap, Inc. All rights reserved.
BACK TO CONTENTS
Made with FlippingBook Ebook Creator