A scoping review on the use of speech-to-text technology for adolescents with learning difficulties in secondary education

References

• Rack J, Hulme C, Snowling M, et al. The role of phonology in young children learning to read words: the direct-mapping hypothesis. J Exp Child Psychol. 1994;57(1):42–71.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Berninger VW, Amtmann D. Preventing written expression disabilities through early and continuing assessment and intervention for handwriting and/or spelling problems: research into practice. In Swanson HL, Harris KR, Graham S, editors. Handbook of learning disabilities. New York (NY). Guilford Press; 2003. p. 345–363.
   Google Scholar
• Hayes JR, Chenoweth NA. Is working memory involved in the transcribing and editing of texts? Written Commun. 2006;23(2):135–149.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Berninger VW, Abbott RD, Nagy W, et al. Growth in phonological, orthographic, and morphological awareness in grades 1 to 6. J Psycholinguist Res. 2010;39(2):141–163.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Graham S, Harris KR, Mason L. Improving the writing performance, knowledge, and self-efficacy of struggling young writers: the effects of self-regulated strategy development. Contemp Educ Psychol. 2005;30(2):207–241.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Ivanič R. Discourses of writing and learning to write. Lang Educ. 2004;18(3):220–245.
   Google Scholar
• O'Rourke L, Connelly V, Barnett A, et al. Use of spellcheck in text production by college students with dyslexia. J Writing Res. 2020;12(1):35–61.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Bereiter C, Scardamalia M. The psychology of written composition. Hillsdale (NJ): L. Erlbaum Associates. 1987.
   Google Scholar
• Zimmerman BJ, Risemberg R. Becoming a self-regulated writer: a social cognitive perspective. Contemp Educ Psychol. 1997;22(1):73–101.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Alexander PA. The nature of disciplinary and domain learning: the knowledge, interest, and strategic dimensions of learning from subject-matter text. In: Hynd CR, editor. Learning from text across conceptual domains. Boca Rato (FL): Routledge; 1998. p. 263–287.
   Google Scholar
• Hayes JR, Berninger V. Cognitive processes in writing: a framework. In: Arfé B, editor. Writing development in children with hearing loss, dyslexia, or oral language problems: implications for assessment and instruction. New York (NY): Oxford University Press; 2014. p. 3–15.
   Google Scholar
• Connelly V, Dockrell J. Writing development and instruction for students with learning disabilities: using diagnostic categories to study writing difficulties. In: MacArthur CA, Graham S, Fitzgerald J, editors. Handbook of writing research. New York (NY): The Guilford Press; 2016. p. 349–363.
   Google Scholar
• Lyon GR, Shaywitz SE, Shaywitz BA. A definition of dyslexia. Ann Dyslexia. 2003;53(1):1–14.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Newcomer PL, Barenbaum EM. The written composing ability of children with learning disabilities: a review of the literature from 1980 to 1990. J Learn Disabil. 1991;24(10):578–593.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Ewoldt KB. Productivity apps supporting higher order writing skills for secondary students with learning disabilities. Intervention School Clin. 2018;53(5):313–320.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Pieraccini R, Lubensky D. Spoken language communication with machines: the long and winding road from research to business. International conference on industrial, engineering and other applications of applied intelligent systems. Springer, Berlin, Heidelberg, 2005.
   Google Scholar
• Brown C. Computer access in higher education for students with disabilities. Washington (DC): US Department of Education, Fund for the Improvement of Postsecondary Education; 1987.
   Google Scholar
• Raskind M. Assistive technology and adults with learning disabilities: a blueprint for exploration and advancement. Learn Disabil Q. 1993;16(3):185–196.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Raskind MH, Higgins E. Effects of speech synthesis on the proofreading efficiency of postsecondary students with learning disabilities. Learn Disabil Q. 1995;18(2):141–158.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Tang KW, Kamoua R, Sutan V, et al. Speech recognition technology for disabilities education. J Educ Technol Syst. 2004;33(2):173–184.
   Google Scholar
• Evmenova AS, Regan K. Supporting the writing process with technology for students with disabilities. Intervention School Clin. 2019;55(2):78–85.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• O’Hare EA, McTear MF. Speech recognition in the secondary school classroom: an exploratory study. Comp Educ. 1999;33(1):27–45.
   Google Scholar
• *Nordström T, Nilsson S, Gustafson S, et al. Assistive technology applications for students with reading difficulties: special education teachers’ experiences and perceptions. Disabil Rehabil Assist Technol. 2019;14(8):798–808.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Yu D, Deng L. Automatic speech recognition. A deep learning approach. London: Springer; 2016.
   Google Scholar
• *MacArthur CA, Cavalier AR. Dictation and speech recognition technology as test accommodations. Except Children. 2004;71(1):43–58.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Orsmond GI, Cohn ES. The distinctive features of a feasibility study: objectives and guiding questions. OTJR. 2015;35(3):169–177.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Peterson-Karlan G, Hourcade JJ, Parette P. A review of assistive technology and writing skills for students with physical and educational disabilities. Phys Disabil Educ Relat Serv. 2008;26(2):13–32.
   Google Scholar
• Edyburn DL. Assistive technology and mild disabilities. Spec Educ Technol Pract. 2006;8(4):18–28.
   Google Scholar
• MacArthur CA. Reflections on research on writing and technology for struggling writers. Learn Disabil Res Pract. 2009;24(2):93–103.
   Google Scholar
• Shadiev R, Hwang WY, Chen NS, et al. Review of speech-to-text recognition technology for enhancing learning. J Educ Technol Soc. 2014;17(4):65–84.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Pennington J, Ok MW, Rao K. Beyond the keyboard: a review of speech recognition technology for supporting writing in schools. Int J Educ Media Technol. 2018;12(2):47–55.
   Google Scholar
• Arcon N, Klein PD, Dombroski JD. Effects of dictation, speech to text, and handwriting on the written composition of elementary school english language learners. Reading Writing Q. 2017;33(6):533–548.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Berninger VW, Nagy W, Tanimoto S, et al. Computer instruction in handwriting, spelling, and composing for students with specific learning disabilities in grades 4–9. Comput Educ. 2015;81:154–168.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Edyburn DL. Rethinking assistive technology. Spec Educ Technol Pract. 2003;5(4):16–23.
   Google Scholar
• Rose DH, Meyer A. Teaching every student in the digital age: universal design for learning. Alexandria (VA): Association for Supervision and Curriculum Development; 2002.
   Google Scholar
• Lenker JA, Paquet VL. A review of conceptual models for assistive technology outcomes research and practice. Assist Technol. 2003;15(1):1–15.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Watkins A. Model policy for inclusive ICTs in education for persons with disabilities. Paris: UNESCO; 2014.
   Google Scholar
• U.S. Department of Education, Office of Educational Technology. Future ready learning: reimagining the role of technology in education. Washington (DC): U.S. Department of Education, Office of Educational Technology; 2016. http://tech.ed.gov/netp/
   Google Scholar
• UNESCO. ICT in Education for People with Special Needs. Specialized training course Moscow. 2006. https://iite.unesco.org/publications/3214644/.
   Google Scholar
• Cochrane D, Key K. Speech recognition as AT for writing. A guide for K-12 education. 2016. https://www.lwsd.org/uploaded/Website/Programs_and_Services/Special_Education_and_504/Assistive_Technology/Speech_Recognition_as_AT_for_Writing_A_Guide_for_K12.pdf.
   Google Scholar
• Edyburn DL. 1999 in review: a synthesis of the special education technology literature. J Spec Educ Technol. 1999;15(1):7–18.
   Google Scholar
• Edyburn DL. 2000 in review: a synthesis of the special education technology literature. J Spec Educ Technol. 2001;16(2):5–25.
   Google Scholar
• Edyburn DL. 2001 in review: a synthesis of the special education technology literature. J Spec Educ Technol. 2002;17(2):5–24.
   Google Scholar
• Edyburn DL. 2002 in review: a synthesis of the special education technology literature. J Spec Educ Technol. 2003;18(3):5–28.
   Google Scholar
• Edyburn DL. 2003 in review: a synthesis of the special education technology literature. J Spec Educ Technol. 2004;19(4):57–80.
   Google Scholar
• Perelmutter B, McGregor KK, Gordon KR. Technology interventions for adolescents and adults with learning disabilities: an evidence-based systematic review and meta-analysis. Comput Educ. 2017;114:139–163.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Pandya JZ, Avila J. Inequitable variations: a review of research in technology, literacy studies and special education. Literacy. 2017;51(3):123–130.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Tricco AC, Lillie E, Zarin W, et al. PRISMA extension for scoping reviews (PRISMA-ScR): checklist and explanation. Ann Intern Med. 2018;169(7):467–473.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Peterson-Karlan GR. Technology to support writing by students with learning and academic disabilities: recent research trends and findings. Assistive Technol Outcomes Benefits. 2011;7(1):39–62.
   Google Scholar
• Schardt C, Adams MB, Owens T, et al. Utilization of the PICO framework to improve searching PubMed for clinical questions. BMC Med Inform Decis Mak. 2007;7:16.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Kitzing P, Maier A, Åhlander VL. Automatic speech recognition (ASR) and its use as a tool for assessment or therapy of voice, speech, and language disorders. Logoped Phoniatr Vocol. 2009;34(2):91–96.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Flanagan S, Bouck EC, Richardson J. Middle school special education teachers’ perceptions and use of assistive technology in literacy instruction. Assist Technol. 2013;25(1):24–30.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• *Higgins EL, Raskind MH. Speaking to read: the effects of continuous vs. discrete speech recognition systems on the reading and spelling of children with learning disabilities. J Spec Educ Technol. 1999;15(1):19–30.
   Google Scholar
• *Quinlan T. Speech recognition technology and students with writing difficulties: improving fluency. J Educ Psychol. 2004;96(2):337–346.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• *Ok MW, Rao K, Pennington J, et al. Speech recognition technology for writing: usage patterns and perceptions of students with high incidence disabilities. J Spec Educ Technol. 2022;37(2):191–202.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• *Noakes M, Schmitt AJ, McCallum E, et al. Speech-to-text assistive technology for the written expression of students with traumatic brain injuries: a single case experimental study. Sch Psychol. 2019;34(6):656–664.
   PubMedGoogle Scholar
• *Svensson I, Nordström T, Lindeblad E, et al. Effects of assistive technology for students with reading and writing disabilities. Disabil Rehabil Assist Technol. 2021;16(2):196–208.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• *Jeffs T, Behrmann M, Bannan-Ritland B. Assistive technology and literacy learning: reflections of parents and children. J Spec Educ Technol. 2005;21(1):37–44.
   Google Scholar
• *Nisbet P, Wilson A. Speech recognition in schools. Using ViaVoice. Call Centre. Edinburgh: The University of Edinburgh; 2002.
   Google Scholar
• *Nisbet P, Wilson A, Balfour F. Speech recognition in schools. Using NaturallySpeaking v 9. Call Scotland. Edinburgh: The University of Edinburgh; 2008.
   Google Scholar
• *Lawson S, Nisbet P. Talking in exams project report. Edinburgh: The University of Edinburgh; 2016.
   Google Scholar
• *Mader CL. The effects of speech recognition technology on the writing skills and attitudes of adolescents with learning disabilities [dissertation]. Morgantown (WV): West Virginia University; 2007.
   Google Scholar
• *Levine S, Hsieh H, Southerton E, et al. How high school students used speech-to-text as a composition tool. 2022. 55 p. SSRN: https://ssrn.com/abstract=4181906.
   Google Scholar
• Rumrill PD Jr, Cook BG, Wiley AL. Research in special education: designs, methods, and applications. 2020. https://eric.ed.gov/?id=ED516426
   Google Scholar
• Cresswell JW. Educational research: planning, conducting and evaluating quantitative and qualitative research. Essex: Pearson; 2014.
   Google Scholar
• Lincoln Y, Guba E. Naturalistic inquiry. Beverly Hills, CA: Sage; 1985.
   Google Scholar
• Lange AA, Mulhern G, Wylie J. Proofreading using an assistive software homophone tool: compensatory and remedial effects on the literacy skills of students with reading difficulties. J Learn Disabil. 2009;42(4):322–335.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Haug KN, Klein PD. The effect of speech-to-text technology on learning a writing strategy. Reading Writing Q. 2018;34(1):47–62.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Waddington H, Aloe AM, Becker BJ, et al. Quasi-experimental study designs series – paper 6: risk of bias assessment. J Clin Epidemiol. 2017;89:43–52.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Newman M, Gough D. Systematic reviews in educational research: methodology, perspectives and application. In Zawacki-Richter O, Kerres M, Bedenlier S, et al., editors. Systematic reviews in educational research. Wiesbaden (Germany): Springer VS; 2020. p. 3–22.
   Google Scholar
• Davies H, Nutley S, Smith P. Introducing evidence-based policy and practice in public service. In Davies H, Nutley S, Smith P, editors. What works? Evidence-based policy and practice in public services. Bristol: The Policy Press; 2000. p 1–1126.
   Google Scholar