One thing this unit made me realize is how many decisions I make with technology without really thinking about them. Not because I do not care, but because some choices feel so normal that I stop noticing them. I use a slide deck, upload a video, or pen an AI tool without always stopping to think about how differently someone else might experience that same thing.
The “quick read” example stuck with me more than I expected. MAET explained that they intentionally avoid phrases like “you can see” and “quick read” because those phrases make assumptions about the learner. I had never noticed that before. As someone with dyslexia, I am actually surprised I had not noticed the lack of “quick read” language because that kind of wording can be a little discouraging. If something is supposed to be quick and it takes me longer, it can make me feel behind before I have even really started. Taking those words out does not change the assignment, but it changes how the experience feels.
That made accessibility feel much bigger than accommodations. The Web Accessibility Initiative describes accessibility as making websites, tools, and technologies usable by people with disabilities (W3C Web Accessibility Initiative, n.d.). That includes things like captions, readable contrast, clear structure, and other design choices. But for me, this unit made accessibility feel less like a checklist and more like a habit of asking, “Who could this be challenging for?”
I can see that question showing up everywhere in my classroom. A slide may look great on my laptop but be difficult to read from the back of the room. A video may be helpful, but only if students can hear it, understand it, or access captions. A digital tool may seem easy to me because I have used it before, while a student could spend most of the lesson figuring out where to click instead of thinking about the actual content. Even something as simple as the amount of text on a page, the font I choose, or whether directions are only written in one place can change how accessible an activity feels. None of those choices seem huge by themselves, but together they can either remove barriers or quietly create more of them.
I had a similar realization around AI and privacy. AI has become genuinely useful in my teaching. I use it to brainstorm, organize ideas, troubleshoot, and create supports. Because it is so convenient, it is easy to forget that entering information into an AI tool is still a choice. Leffer (2023) explains that generative AI models have been trained using enormous amounts of information from the public internet, including personal information people may never have expected to become training data. That made me think more carefully about what I am willing to put into these tools.
For me, that does not mean I stop using AI. It means I need to be more thoughtful about how I use it. I can ask for help creating a reading support without including a student’s name, disability, behavior history, or anything else that does not need to be there. I also need to think about whether I am sharing more information than is actually necessary just because adding context makes the prompt easier to write.
I think that is the biggest thing I am taking from this unit. Being critical does not mean being negative about technology. It means noticing the things I usually move past quickly. It means asking whether a tool is actually helping, who might be left out, and what information I am giving away in exchange for convenience. Those questions may feel small, but they can change the experience for the person on the other side of the screen.
References
Leffer, L. (2023, October 19). Your personal information is probably being used to train generative AI models. Scientific American.
W3C Web Accessibility Initiative. (n.d.). Accessibility fundamentals overview. World Wide Web Consortium.
Leave a Reply