Reading and writing are essential skills to work, live, and communicate in our world, but a large number of people have difficulty with these skills. “[Approximately] 20% of the school population has some kind of reading difficulty, including about 5-8% of the global population with dyslexia” (Svensson et al., 2019). And while there are many strategies that can be used within the classroom to enhance students’ abilities, “even intensive training might be insufficient to fully remediate their difficulties and bring them to an adequate level of reading and writing. For these learners, simply ‘trying harder’ is not enough and ‘more of the same’ training risks that the gap between their reading and writing skills and school requirements will increase over time” (Svensson et al., 2019). When more effort on the part of the student or increased instruction or training is insufficient to support students’ growth in writing, we must look to other solutions. “Writing is a complex skill and many students may experience difficulties with a variety of aspects, including mechanics and written content expression; however, computer-related technologies can enable all students to bypass their deficits and support them through all aspects of the writing process” (Evmenova et al., 2010). There are a number of technologies that can support students in writing increasingly complex and interesting texts, including word processing and word prediction software. These technologies can reduce the cognitive load of writing and fill in gaps in ability.
Despite the promise that technology holds for students who struggle with writing, and the many technologies that are in use in schools today, there is very little research into its use (Svensson et al., 2019; Evmenova et al., 2010). There is even less information regarding what I think is one of the most promising assistive technologies for writing, phonetic word prediction and correction.
Beyond the benefits provided by technology such as speech to text, spell check, word prediction, or other aids, once a student can type effectively, word processors offer many benefits for students who struggle with written output. “A meta-analysis by Bangert-Drowns (1993) found that use of word processing in writing instruction programs produced a positive although relatively modest impact on students’ writing” (MacArthur, 2000). For some students, even a modest improvement can make a big impact, but when coupled with specialized instruction, word processors can have a greater effect. “[The] long-term study of word processing in combination with specially designed instruction found positive effects on writing quality. One reasonable conclusion from these findings is that simply providing students with word processors will not substantially change their writing, but that word processors can facilitate instruction about writing processes and enhance motivation in ways that improve students’ writing achievement over time” (MacArthur, 2000). These programs also make it easier for students to edit their work. While using a word processor, “[students] may find it easier to respond to feedback and add elements such as transition words, descriptive adjectives, or complex sentences” (Technology for Writing, 2019). This fits in with what research is available on the use of word processing to assist students in writing. Evidence “indicates that word processing, in comparison with handwriting, results in a slower composing rate and increases the number of minor revisions made during composition” (MacArthur, 2000).
One major benefit of using a word processor is the ability to access a built in spell check. These can “provide students with immediate feedback to help them refine their writing at the composition stage” (Technology for Writing, 2019) which can be highly motivating for students. “The ability to correct errors and produce an attractive publication can be highly motivating to students who find handwriting and spelling difficult” (MacArthur, 2000). A study that looked at the use of a spell checker by middle school students with learning difficulties or disabilities with moderate to severe spelling problems found that those students who normally misspelled 4% to 35% of their words were able to correct 37% of their errors. Those who did not have access to a spell checker corrected only 9% of their errors (MacArthur, 2000). And in a situation such as mine, in a Grade 4/5 French Immersion class where I don’t mark spelling, the students are motivated when they can produce a text with accurate spelling and it makes it much easier for their audience to read.
Speech-to-text software can also be a big help for students who struggle with written output. Beyond reducing the work of handwriting, this also reduces the need to type. “Freed from these effortful tasks, students may compose stories that are longer, more complex, and contain fewer errors (Graham, 1999)” (Technology for Writing, 2019). This technology isn’t appropriate for all students, and can require a lot of support and practice in order for students to become proficient in its use. And when students do become proficient, there are also limitations to the programs. The systems can have a hard time recognizing individual voices, and this is worse for students with nonstandard pronunciation or language problems (MacArthur, 2000). As technology has progressed, these issues begin to be mitigated but we again encounter the issue of a lack of research on the benefits of assistive technology for students who struggle with writing.
Word prediction software has the opportunity to fill in many of the gaps left by spell checkers. “A serious limitation [of spell check] is that the correct spelling may not appear in the list of suggestions, especially when words are severely misspelled” (MacArthur, 2000). This limitation does exist in word prediction as well. “A basic foundation of phonological awareness is required as students who are unable to identify the beginning sound of words will not benefit from using word prediction software because the user has to provide the first letters of the word” (Technology for Writing, 2019). As with word processing, a drawback for students can be their typing abilities. One study investigating the effects of word prediction software on students’ journal writing found that most of the participants were only able to type 6 to 10 words per minute, whereas most male students the same age are able to handwrite 43-78 characters per minute. “However, the students’ typing skills were determined based on the tests within the typing software, which overestimates the speed” (Evmenova et al., 2010). So when discussing the benefits of word prediction software, it’s important to note that most of the benefits are in improved spelling, not efficiency or speed.
In my practice, I currently have students who are using the software Lexibar to support their writing in French. These students are Anglophones who are writing in their second language. The Lexibar software integrates spell check, text to speech, word prediction, phonetic prediction, orthographic prediction, and illustrations for words to help students choose the correct word during their writing. This software works in multiple word processors, as well as in internet browsers and other computer applications. For students in French Immersion, the word prediction with phonetic support is invaluable. This allows students to type words as they sound to them. Our students in French Immersion have spent much more time listening and speaking French than they have reading and writing. For those students who struggle with letter sounds, this software means that they are able to write coherent texts. For example, a student who writes “geme lé zoizo” can use the software to write it correctly as “j’aime les oiseaux.” And the illustration support means that students are able to choose the correct word, even when they are unable to identify the correct spelling of a word. While I have several students who use this software, I have one student in particular for whom the effects of using this software is astounding. This is a student who previously struggled to write a French text with five sentences. The student in question is now able to write multi-page texts in French and chooses to write for fun when given free time in class, choosing it over drawing, lego, or other games.
For the number of assistive technologies that exist, the lack of research and data that exists is frustrating, especially when I have seen such positive effects in my own classroom. As a result, teachers are forced to take on a teacher-researcher role and try out different types of software and assistive technologies in order to fully support their students. However, that may be to the benefit of individual students as they have the opportunity to try several different types of assistive software in order to find the one that is the best fit for them. The downside to this of course, is that it shifts extra work onto teachers, who may not have the time or ability to do this. Also, with a lack of data and research, school districts may be reluctant to invest in expensive software. This means that many teachers are left trying to support students by using free versions of software that are often limited in what they can do.
Evmenova, A. S., Graff, H. J., Jerome, M. K., & Behrmann, M. M. (2010). Word Prediction Programs with Phonetic Spelling Support: Performance Comparisons and Impact on Journal Writing for Students with Writing Difficulties. Learning Disabilities Research & Practice, 25(4), 170–182. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1540-5826.2010.00315.x
Lexibar â Free: Word prediction and text to speech. (n.d.). Lexibar. Retrieved March 27, 2021, from https://lexibar.ca/en/home
MacArthur, C. A. (2000). New Tools for Writing. Topics in Language Disorders, 20(4), 85–100. https://doi.org/10.1097/00011363-200020040-00008
Svensson, I., Nordström, T., Lindeblad, E., Gustafson, S., Björn, M., Sand, C., Almgren/Bäck, G., & Nilsson, S. (2019). Effects of assistive technology for students with reading and writing disabilities. Disability and Rehabilitation: Assistive Technology, 16(2), 196–208. https://doi.org/10.1080/17483107.2019.1646821
Technology for Writing. (2019, July 4). LD@school. https://www.ldatschool.ca/technology-for-writing/
