Teachers play a critical role in designing instructional resources that scaffold learning for students with disabilities (SWDs), yet creating these materials can be time-consuming. Generative artificial intelligence (GAI) offers powerful support by enabling teachers to efficiently produce content-specific, customized resources aligned with student needs and academic standards. This article demonstrates how educators can leverage GAI to develop scaffolds that enhance access, understanding, and engagement for SWDs. We provide examples of teacher prompts, show corresponding GAI-generated materials, and classroom applications. Practical recommendations and cautions are offered to help teachers use GAI responsibly and effectively.
AliuT. V. (2024). Artificial intelligence in special education: A literature review. Systemic Analytics, 2(2), 188–199. https://doi.org/10.31181/sa22202424
2.
ElSayaryA.KuhailM. A.HojeijZ. (2025). Examining the role of prompt engineering in utilizing generative ai tools for lesson planning: Insights from teachers’ experiences and perceptions. Human Behavior and Emerging Technologies, 2025(1), Article 9986139. https://doi.org/10.1155/hbe2/9986139
3.
FletcherJ. M.LyonG. R.FuchsL. S.BarnesM. A. (2018). Learning disabilities: From identification to intervention. Guilford Publications.
4.
HattikudurS.PratherR. W.AsquithP.AlibaliM. W.KnuthE. J.NathanM. (2012). Constructing graphical representations: Middle schoolers' intuitions and developing knowledge about slope and Y-intercept. School Science & Mathematics, 112(4), 230–240. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1949-8594.2012.00138.x
5.
HopcanS.PolatE.OzturkM. E.OzturkL. (2023). Artificial intelligence in special education: A systematic review. Interactive Learning Environments, 31(10), 7335–7353. https://doi.org/10.1080/10494820.2022.2067186
6.
JohnstonS. S.JamesonJ. M.O’KeeffeB. V.RainesA. (2024). Teaching in the era of artificial intelligence: Reimagining activities and assignments in preservice special education teacher education programs. Journal of Special Education Preparation, 4(2), 38–50. https://doi.org/10.33043/5z5b435y
7.
Kaplan-RakowskiR.GrotewoldK.HartwickP.PapinK. (2023). Generative AI and teachers’ perspectives on its implementation in education. Journal of Interactive Learning Research, 34(2), 313–338. https://doi.org/10.70725/815246mfssgp
8.
LanninA.van GarderenD.AbdelnabyH. Z.SmithC. M.JuergensenR. L.FolkW.PalmerT.RomineW. (2024). Scaffolding learning via multimodal STEM text sets for students with learning disabilities. Learning Disability Quarterly, 47(2), 97–109. https://doi.org/10.1177/07319487231187637
9.
McGalliardW.OttenS. (2025). AI responses to challenging problems and educator responses to AI availability. Digital Experiences in Mathematics Education, 11(2), 319–332. https://doi.org/10.1007/s40751-024-00167-4
10.
McLeskeyJ.BarringerM.-D.BillingsleyB.BrownellM.JacksonD.KennedyM.LewisT.MaheadyL.RodriguezJ.ScheelerM. C.WinnJ.ZieglerD. (2017). High-leverage practices in special education: Council for Exceptional Children & CEEDAR Center.
11.
MollickE. R.MollickL. (2023). Using AI to implement effective teaching strategies in classrooms: Five strategies, including prompts. The Wharton School Research Paper.
12.
MoundridouM.MatzakosN.DoukakisS. (2024). Generative AI tools as educators’ assistants: Designing and implementing inquiry-based lesson plans. Computers and Education: Artificial Intelligence, 7(1), Article 100277. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.caeai.2024.100277
13.
Panjwani-CharaniS.ZhaiX. (2024). AI for students with learning disabilities: A systematic review. In ZhaiX.KrajcikJ. (Eds.), Uses of artificial intelligence in STEM education (pp. 469–493). Oxford University Press. SSRN. https://ssrn.com/abstract=4617715.
14.
ParkJ.ChooS. (2025). Generative AI prompt engineering for educators: Practical strategies. Journal of Special Education Technology, 40(3), 411–417. https://doi.org/10.1177/01626434241298954
15.
ParmarR. S.SignerB. R. (2005). Sources of error in constructing and interpreting graphs: A study of fourth-and fifth-grade students with LD. Journal of Learning Disabilities, 38(3), 250–261. https://doi.org/10.1177/00222194050380030601
16.
PopeniciS. A.KerrS. (2017). Exploring the impact of artificial intelligence on teaching and learning in higher education. Research and Practice in Technology Enhanced Learning, 12(1), 22. https://doi.org/10.1186/s41039-017-0062-8
17.
RakapS. (2024). Chatting with GPT: Enhancing individualized education program goal development for novice special education teachers. Journal of Special Education Technology, 39(3), 339–348. https://doi.org/10.1177/01626434231211295
18.
RiceM. F.DunnS. (2023). The use of artificial intelligence with students with identified disabilities: A systematic review with critique. Computers in the Schools, 40(4), 370–390. https://doi.org/10.1080/07380569.2023.2244935
19.
RomineW.van GarderenD.FolkW.LanninA.JuergensenR.SmithC.AbdelnabyH.MilarskyT. (2024). Science literacy: Using multimodal STEM text sets to help students with learning disabilities engage in argumentation. Learning Disability Quarterly, 47(2), 84–96. https://doi.org/10.1177/07319487231209505
20.
ShanahanT. (2020). Limiting children to books they can already read: Why it reduces their opportunity to learn. American Educator, 44(2), 13–17. https://www.aft.org/ae/summer2020/shanahan.
21.
SmithC. M.JuergensenR. L. (2023). Virtual Scaffolded Instruction for Students with Learning Disabilities. Journal of Special Education Technology, 38(1), 93–101. https://doi.org/10.1177/01626434211054433
U.S. Department of Education, Office of Educational Technology. (2023). Artificial intelligence and future of teaching and learning: Insights and recommendations.
24.
van den BergG.du PlessisE. (2023). ChatGPT and generative AI: Possibilities for its contribution to lesson planning, critical thinking and openness in teacher education. Education Sciences, 13(10), 998. https://doi.org/10.3390/educsci13100998
25.
van GarderenD.JuergensenR.SmithC.AbdelnabyH.LanninA.FolkW. (2021). Instructional scaffolding to engage all learners in complex science text. Science Scope, 44(3), 37–43.
26.
van GarderenD.SmithC.RodriguesJ.AbdelnabyH. (2025, March). Teaching for quantitative reasoning in written argumentation [Poster presentation]. Council for Exceptional Children 2025 Convention, Baltimore, MD.
27.
WalquiA. (2006). Scaffolding instruction for English language learners: A conceptual framework. International Journal of Bilingual Education and Bilingualism, 9(2), 159–180. https://doi.org/10.1080/13670050608668639
28.
WaterfieldD. A.WatsonL.DayJ. (2024). Applying artificial intelligence in special education: Exploring availability and functionality of AI platforms for special educators. Journal of Special Education Technology, 39(3), 448–454.
29.
WhitacreM.SaulE. (2016). High school girls' interpretations of science graphs: Exploring complex visual and natural language hybrid text. International Journal of Science and Mathematics Education, 14(8), 1387–1406. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10763-015-9677-7
30.
WhitakerD.JacobbeT. (2017). Students' understanding of bar graphs and histograms: Results from the LOCUS assessments. Journal of Statistics Education, 25(2), 90–102. https://doi.org/10.1080/10691898.2017.1321974
