Conversations about AI in education often fall into two camps: advocates who emphasize its potential and skeptics who warn about its risks. Yet both perspectives tend to ask the same central question: Should students use AI? While this question is important, it may not be the most meaningful one for understanding what is actually happening in classrooms. A more productive question might be: What happens to students’ thinking when they use AI, and under what circumstances does AI become more beneficial or risky? This shift moves the conversation away from simple approval or rejection of AI and toward a deeper examination of how learning itself is changing. In our recent paper by Seung and Dr. Basham (2026), Cognitive Offloading in the Age of Generative AI: What Does It Mean for Students With Learning Disabilities? (published in Learning Disability Quarterly), we explore this question through the lens of cognitive offloading, a concept that helps explain how students redistribute their mental effort when using AI.
The May 19 CIDDL Office Hour highlighted the CIDDL AI Studio, a free six-week collaborative experience designed to deepen AI literacy.
Roughly two-thirds of U.S. states have enacted legislation restricting student phone access during the school day, and more than half of countries worldwide have followed suit (D’Addio, 2025; Prothero et al., 2026). Nearly 5,000 schools deployed them by 2026 (Allcott et al., 2026). The pace has outstripped the evidence.
Artificial intelligence does not have to be a black box. In a recent CIDDL webinar, Drs. James Basham, Trey Vasquez from the University of Kansas, and Matthew Marino from the University of Central Florida walked educators through one of the most practical applications of large language models available today: building a custom generative pre-trained transformer, or GPT, trained on information you already trust.
Roughly two-thirds of U.S. states have enacted legislation restricting student phone access during the school day, and more than half of countries worldwide have followed suit (D’Addio, 2025; Prothero et al., 2026). Nearly 5,000 schools deployed them by 2026 (Allcott et al., 2026). The pace has outstripped the evidence.
During this CIDDL Office Hour session, Cheryl Lemke, President and CEO of The Metiri Group, shared early findings from CIDDL’s 2026 Needs Assessment, offering a timely look at how higher education faculty and preparation programs are thinking about educational technology, artificial intelligence, and assistive technology. As CIDDL begins a new five-year cycle, the needs assessment provides an important snapshot of the field’s current priorities and emerging concerns. A central message from the session was clear: faculty are no longer simply asking which tools to use, but are asking deeper questions about pedagogy, student learning, accessibility, ethics, and how to prepare future educators for increasingly AI-rich K–12 environments.
This brief explores how artificial intelligence can support writing instruction through prompt engineering, feedback systems, and increased access to supports. It highlights how AI can reduce barriers to writing while maintaining student ownership and independence. The brief also provides practical recommendations for integrating AI into teacher preparation programs.
Smartphones, tablets, and wearable devices have become natural parts of everyday life. People use mobile devices to navigate, communicate, manage schedules, access information, and monitor health and daily routines (we don’t endorse products or companies; these are simply examples). In special education, however, mobile devices can be more than convenient tools; they can serve as assistive technology that supports students with disabilities in accessing opportunities in academics, transitions, employment, independent living, and community participation.
Finals assess more than content knowledge. They require students to plan, initiate, and persist under pressure. Faculty who use AI to provide structure and support can reduce barriers while maintaining rigor.