Technology‐Based Writing—Qualitative Study of the Writing Process When Students With Dyslexia Use Speech‐to‐Text

This qualitative study examines the writing processes of four students (aged 10-12) with severe dyslexia in an educational context, using Hayes and Berninger's (2014) writing process model as the theoretical framework. The participants attended a 7-week instructional program focusing on speech-to-text (STT). Their writing processes were examined through screencasts of verbal protocols during writing with reading and writing technology (RWT), with a particular focus on STT. The transcribed screencasts were coded and analysed. Our analysis shows that although no conventional spelling errors were found, other technology-based errors occurred. The most frequent were misrecognition of single words and omission of words or parts of sentences. Three categories of technology-based errors were identified: homophonic or nearly homophonic words, incorrect suffix/morpheme errors and compound words. The analysis also reveals that the evaluation process consists of three parts: correction, low-level revision and high-level revision. This means that an additional correction process is required because of technology-based errors. Consequently, the recognition accuracy of STT technology appears to influence writing flow and working memory load during technology-based writing.

Authors

Institutions

Publication Details

Journal
Dyslexia
Published
2025-12-26
DOI
https://doi.org/10.1002/dys.70024
Primary Topic
Writing and Handwriting Education
Type
article
Field-Weighted Citation Impact
0.00
Controls
|||
ALL TIME
JAN
FEB
MAR
APR
MAY
JUN
JUL
AUG
SEP
OCT
article

Technology‐Based Writing—Qualitative Study of the Writing Process When Students With Dyslexia Use Speech‐to‐Text

Margunn Mossige, Nina Berg Gøttsche, Grete Dolmer, Idor Svensson et al.
Dyslexia
Writing and Handwriting Education
article

Technology‐Based Writing—Qualitative Study of the Writing Process When Students With Dyslexia Use Speech‐to‐Text

Margunn Mossige, Nina Berg Gøttsche, Grete Dolmer, Idor Svensson, Helle Bundgaard Svendsen, Gunilla Almgren Bäck
article en

Abstract

This qualitative study examines the writing processes of four students (aged 10-12) with severe dyslexia in an educational context, using Hayes and Berninger's (2014) writing process model as the theoretical framework. The participants attended a 7-week instructional program focusing on speech-to-text (STT). Their writing processes were examined through screencasts of verbal protocols during writing with reading and writing technology (RWT), with a particular focus on STT. The transcribed screencasts were coded and analysed. Our analysis shows that although no conventional spelling errors were found, other technology-based errors occurred. The most frequent were misrecognition of single words and omission of words or parts of sentences. Three categories of technology-based errors were identified: homophonic or nearly homophonic words, incorrect suffix/morpheme errors and compound words. The analysis also reveals that the evaluation process consists of three parts: correction, low-level revision and high-level revision. This means that an additional correction process is required because of technology-based errors. Consequently, the recognition accuracy of STT technology appears to influence writing flow and working memory load during technology-based writing.

DyslexiaVol. 32(1)
Linnaeus University (SE), VIA University College (DK), University of Stavanger (NO)
Quality Education
Openalex Percentile: Top 17%
Writing and Handwriting Education
AI Navigator

Ask Laika to Summarize, Analyze, and Connect papers live on the map.

Summarize Papers & Methodologies

Extract key findings, datasets, and comparative methods across publications.

Benchmark Rankings & Visual Analytics

Rank top research institutions, authors, funders, topics, and journals by Field-Weighted Citation Impact (FWCI) and paper volume with instant charts.

Connect Distant Disciplines

Bridge topological clusters on the map to find hidden collaborative intersections.