Single Paper Session 33

Session Page

Session Information

This page shows the session details and the presentations assigned to this session.

Back to programme overview
Add this session to calendar

Digital writing and writing motivation

Presenting author
Keller, Franziska , PH FHNW, Switzerland
Keywords
fluency;motivational and emotional factors in writing;text composition;writing tools and writing technology
Domain
Learning and Social Interaction

Abstract

Writing is more than the ability to write a text: writing is embedded in a literacy practice, writers are part of a writing or literacy community (Graham, 2018). Digital writing platforms like myMoment (designed for grade 3 to 6) can provide students with a broader audience, strengthen their sense of ownership over their writing and increase their writing motivation. In our study, we examine how the communicative function as one form of writing motivation can be assessed, how this relates to writing competencies, and how writing motivation changes over the course of writing with myMoment.In our baseline survey with 157 students, we were able to replicate Graham et al.’s (2019) scale measuring students’ attitudes toward writing, as well as seven of the eight subscales of writing motivation from Graham et al. (2022). We complemented these scales with a communication-as-writing-motivation scale, as no such measurement has yet been suggested in the research literature. Our newly developed writing motivation subscale demonstrates an internal consistency of α = 0.78 (n = 148), and it correlates significantly and (predominantly) positively with writing fluency (p < 0.001, r = 0.272), as well as with narrative text quality (p = 0.032, non-linear relationship). The other writing motivation subscales we tested also correlate significantly with our writing performance data, but with either only writing fluency or only narrative text quality. Furthermore, we will present results on the development of this relationship between writing motivation and writing performance during the use of the digital writing platform myMoment, with a focus on struggling and advanced writers. Graham, S. (2018). A Revised Writer(s)-Within-Community Model of Writing. Educational Psychologist, 53(4), 258–279.Graham, S., Harris, K. R., Fishman, E. et al. (2019). Writing Skills, Knowledge, Motivation, and Strategic Behavior Predict Students’ Persuasive Writing Performance in the Context of Robust Writing Instruction. knowledge, 24.Graham, S., Harbaugh-Schattenkirk, A. G., Aitken, A. et al. (2022). Writing motivation questionnaire: validation and application as a formative assessment. Assessment in Education: Principles, Policy & Practice, 29(2), 238–261.

Speech-to-Text for Students with Dyslexia - Implications from Studies in Sweden and Switzerland

Keywords
speaking and writing;text composition;writing impairment;writing tools and writing technology
Domain
Learning and Special Education

Abstract

Research aimWriting is a key competence for academic and professional success. However, students with dyslexia face considerable barriers in text production, as their lower-order writing skills are insufficiently automated. This paper explores whether speech-to-text technology (STT) assists students with dyslexia in text production and whether there is a transfer to other modalities. Findings from complementary studies conducted in Sweden and Switzerland are synthesized to outline benefits and challenges for educational practice.Theoretical frameworkThe theoretical approach draws on Cognitive Load Theory (Sweller, 1994) and Bandura's (1997) concept of self-efficacy. STT may reduce cognitive load from lower-order writing processes, freeing resources for higher-order ones, and may strengthen self-efficacy compared to demanding writing tasks. Thus, STT may assist students with dyslexia in processes and products of text production. MethodsGunilla conducted a counterbalanced within-group study with typically developing middle school students and a multiple-baseline single-case study with students with dyslexia using STT. She also conducted a five-year follow-up interview study on experiences with assistive technologies used by students with dyslexia. Silvana conducted a quasi-experimental mixed-methods study with Grade 5 students with dyslexia. She investigated the effects of STT on text production and writing motivation and conducted interviews with teachers and specialists.FindingsThe present results confirm former mixed findings on the effectiveness of STT. While STT can be a helpful tool for students with dyslexia, co-morbidities may require additional adjustments. Monitoring progress and providing targeted scaffolding are essential and appreciated by students and professionals. The school environment also influences successful use. KeywordsSpeech-to-Text; Assistive Technology; dyslexia; text production1. ReferencesBandura, A. (1997). Self-efficacy: The Exercise of Control. W.H. Freeman/Times Books/Henry Holt & Co. Sweller, J. (1994). Cognitive Load Theory, Learning Difficulty, and Instructional Design. Learning and Instruction, 4, 295–312. PII: 0959-4752(94)90003-5

Who benefits from using speech-to-text as their writing tool?

Keywords
spelling issues;text composition;writing impairment;writing tools and writing technology
Domain
Learning and Instructional Technology

Abstract

Writing presents significant challenges for many children, particularly those with reading and writing difficulties such as dyslexia. In addition to spelling problems, these children often produce texts of lower quality than their peers (Berninger et al., 2008; Connelly et al., 2006). These difficulties are commonly explained by cognitive bottlenecks during transcription, which place heavy demands on working memory and limit the resources available for higher-level writing processes (Berninger et al., 2002). One potential way to reduce transcription demands is the use of speech-to-text (STT) technology (Kraft, 2023; MacArthur & Cavalier, 2004; Quinlan, 2004). However, empirical knowledge of STT’s effects on children’s writing remains limited, particularly for languages other than English (Matre & Cameron, 2022), and it is still unclear for whom STT is most beneficial. This study examined the effects of built-in STT on writing among 57 children aged 10–12 and addressed two research questions: (a) which individual characteristics predict text quality in texts produced using STT, and (b) which children benefit most from using STT compared with typing. To address the first question, linear regression analyses examined whether working memory, reading skills, spelling skills, and expressive language skills predicted text quality in STT-produced texts. Although STT can reduce spelling demands, it may also introduce semantic inaccuracies due to misrecognition, placing additional demands on monitoring and revision. The results showed that neither working memory nor reading skills predicted text quality; only spelling and expressive language skills were significant predictors. To address the second question, participants were divided into three groups: children with both reading and spelling difficulties (n = 15), children with primarily spelling difficulties (n = 16), and children without reading and writing difficulties (n = 16). Texts produced using STT were compared with typed texts. Linear mixed models indicated that children with both decoding and spelling difficulties—but not those with only spelling difficulties—produced longer and higher-quality texts when using STT, even after minimal instruction. Overall, the findings suggest that STT, when combined with appropriate instructional support, can benefit some children with reading and writing difficulties, underscoring the need for further research investigating for whom it is most effective.