4.2 Article

Speech Recognition Technology for Writing: Usage Patterns and Perceptions of Students with High Incidence Disabilities

期刊

JOURNAL OF SPECIAL EDUCATION TECHNOLOGY
卷 37, 期 2, 页码 191-202

出版社

SAGE PUBLICATIONS INC
DOI: 10.1177/0162643420979929

关键词

speech recognition; speech-to-text; voice recognition; writing; learning disabilities

向作者/读者索取更多资源

This exploratory study investigated the usage of speech recognition technology by students with disabilities, as well as their and teachers' perceptions of using this technology in the writing process. The results showed that students had positive attitudes towards speech recognition, with younger students using it more frequently. This technology was particularly beneficial for students struggling with spelling, but not all students found it helpful for drafting text. The study highlighted the importance of considering individual student variability when it comes to using speech recognition technology.
This exploratory study examined the usage of speech recognition (SR) technology by students with high incidence disabilities in grades 4-8 and student and teacher perceptions of using SR as part of the writing process. The study also examined factors contributing to students' use of SR and barriers to using this technology. Results indicated that students across all grades had positive perceptions about using SR, but younger students tended to use it more often. SR was especially helpful for students who struggled with spelling and supported some, but not all, students with drafting text. The study illustrated the importance of taking student variability into account in relation to affinity for SR usage. By integrating opportunities for using SR as part of writing instruction and guiding students to reflect on whether the technology is useful for their individual needs and preferences, teachers can help students with disabilities make choices to use SR in ways that are the most useful for their individual needs.

作者

我是这篇论文的作者
点击您的名字以认领此论文并将其添加到您的个人资料中。

评论

主要评分

4.2
评分不足

次要评分

新颖性
-
重要性
-
科学严谨性
-
评价这篇论文

推荐

暂无数据
暂无数据