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
- Margunn Mossige (ORCID: https://orcid.org/0000-0003-2208-8616)
- Nina Berg Gøttsche (ORCID: https://orcid.org/0000-0002-1785-2643)
- Grete Dolmer (ORCID: https://orcid.org/0000-0002-0422-1922)
- Idor Svensson (ORCID: https://orcid.org/0000-0003-2608-6204)
- Helle Bundgaard Svendsen (ORCID: https://orcid.org/0000-0002-7903-6473)
- Gunilla Almgren Bäck
Institutions
- Linnaeus University (SE)
- VIA University College (DK)
- University of Stavanger (NO)
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