Speech-to-text (STT) technology enables pupils to write using their voice and has been presented as an alternative to handwriting and typing for pupils who struggle with writing as it reduces the constraints of transcription (Arcon et al., 2017). Baker, Gersten and Graham (2003) posit that dictation allows pupils to spend less effort on lower-order skills, such as spelling, punctuation and grammar, and enables them to devote more attention to higher-order skills, such as planning content, creating a good structure, and text coherence.

Research indicates that students with learning difficulties are able to produce higher quality compositions when dictating texts to a scribe compared to writing by hand or typing (De La Paz & Graham, 1997; Gillespie & Graham, 2014). Similar outcomes have been observed among children without writing difficulties. For example, Hayes and Berninger, (2009) found that primary school students in grades 2, 4, and 6 showed an increase in the number of ideas generated, as well as both the quantity and quality of texts produced when dictating to a scribe compared to writing texts by hand or on a keyboard. However, the approach was not as effective for older students who have already developed solid handwriting and transcription skills (Hayes & Berninger, 2009).

Given the sensitive emotional development and attitudes of pupils in lower secondary school, the social implications of using STT technology among this age group is an important consideration with respect to creating inclusive classroom environments. Inclusive education has been described as a response to diversity, aiming to empower all learners, celebrate differences in dignified ways and improve participation of all students (Barton, 1997). Access to speech technology may provide several advantages to segregated one-to-one instruction or writing with a scribe. For example, the technology may enable pupils to take part in a greater range of writing activities than would otherwise be available to them (Quinlan 2004). Though, there is a risk that these instructional adaptations may create new forms of exclusion when only provided to individual students. As a student may experience feelings of inferiority or low self-esteem when they are permitted to use resources that are not accessible to their classmates (Polgar, 2011).

To address this issue, researchers in the Speech Technology for Improved Literacy (STIL) project have explored how teachers and school leaders at a Norwegian lower secondary school introduce STT technology as an option for all students during writing activities. Schools are now in a position where they must decide whether STT technology should be accepted as an assistive tool available only to a certain group of students, in certain contexts, or as a tool for all learners. Very little research has been conducted on STT as an inclusive approach.

The STIL project comprises three studies, a scoping review study (study 1), a qualitative interview study (study 2) and a stimulated recall study (study 3). The aim of the scoping review is to assess the size and scope of available empirical research on the use of STT in a lower secondary context and identify the nature and extent of evidence. The second study explores teachers’ experiences with introducing STT as an inclusive approach in a full class environment. While the third study aims to explore how pupils with low writing achievement experience writing a reflective text with STT technology and keyboard.

The STIL project employs an exploratory research design with a sample of six teachers and six pupils from a rural lower secondary school in Norway. The use of more than one data collection method, also known as methodological triangulation (Noble & Heale, 2019) was chosen to enrich and validate findings. According to Denscombe (2017) the aim of an explorative research design is to generate insight and information from a little explored area of research. Exploratory studies are often small-scale and employ qualitative research methods (Denscombe, 2017). The explorative design was considered applicable for the STIL project as there had been conducted little previous research on the use of STT in lower secondary school. Study 1 is a scoping review aiming to identify empirical studies on the use of STT for adolescents with learning difficulties, published between January 2000 and April 2022. Searches for peer-reviewed articles were conducted in databases ERIC, PsycINFO and Scopus, while grey literature searches were conducted in Google, Google Scholar, the NDLTD (Networked Digital Library of Theses and Dissertations) and ProQuest Dissertations & Theses Global. The PRISMA-ScR checklist (Tricco et al., 2018) was used to guide the reporting of findings. Study 2 is a qualitative interview study where six teachers comprise the sample. The setting was a lower secondary school with 92 pupils in grades 8–10, situated in southern Norway. A team of researchers and the Norwegian National Service for Special Needs Education (Statped) collaborated on the project. The researchers were responsible for gathering data, and Statped employees developed the digital course and led training sessions with teachers and pupils. All 14 teachers at the school took part in the digital course and were invited to participate in the study, to which six teachers agreed. Study 3 is a stimulated recall study with data from screen recordings, pupil texts and interviews. The pupils had previously been introduced to STT technology by their teachers (in study 2) and had practiced using STT with their classmates for approximately four hours per week for 10 weeks. Six pupils in grades 9 and 10 (M = 14.98 years) were invited to write a text using STT and keyboard. The pupils performed in the lower levels of the national reading test for grade 8, scored in the 30th percentile or lower on a standardized Norwegian spelling test (Skaathun, 2013), and were considered writers with low achievement based on teacher nominations.

The scoping review shows that little research has been conducted on the use of STT for adolescents with learning difficulties in secondary education. It identifies 8 peer-reviewed studies and 5 publications of grey literature. Areas of interest mainly regard five topics: writing related skills, text assessment, writing processes, accuracy of the technology, and participants’ experiences. Findings indicate that writing performance among students with learning difficulties tends to improve when using STT and that parents, teachers, and pupils report positive experiences with the technology. The study of teachers’ experiences of STT as an inclusive approach shows that implementation of STT technology challenges different aspects of inclusion. The teachers primarily considered SST to be an assistive technology useful for pupils with writing difficulties. Yet, they noted that STT offers opportunities for all pupils to participate in collaborative writing tasks, discuss norms for formal and informal language, and produce first drafts without having to worry about spelling. Findings show that STT provides academic opportunities for most learners; at the same time, it is described as a disruptive and embarrassing element in whole-class environments. The conflict of interest between fulfilling pupils’ social and academic needs became evident when teachers argued that pupils could benefit from being placed in smaller groups and more private locations when using STT. Preliminary findings from study 3 contest the hypothesis that STT allows pupils to spend less effort on lower-order skills and enables them to devote more attention to higher-order skills. The video and interview analyses show that pupils could not rely on STT to be 100% accurate and provide correct orthography and syntax in Norwegian. The findings suggest that technological issues need to be addressed and sufficient instruction is necessary before STT can be a truly beneficial tool for adolescents with low writing achievement in Norwegian secondary education.

Arcon, N., Klein, P. D., & Dombroski, J. D. (2017). Effects of dictation, speech to text, and handwriting on the written composition of elementary school English language learners. Reading & Writing Quarterly, 33(6), 533–548. https://doi.org/10.1080/10573569.2016.1253513 Baker, S., Gersten, R., & Graham, S. (2003). Teaching expressive writing to students with learning disabilities: Research-based applications and examples. Journal of Learning Disabilities, 36(2), 109–123. https://doi.org/10.1177/002221940303600204 Barton, L. (1997). Inclusive education: romantic, subversive or realistic? International Journal of Inclusive Education, 1(3), 231-242. https://doi.org/10.1080/1360311970010301 De La Paz, S., & Graham, S. (1997). Effects of dictation and advanced planning instruction on the composing of students with writing and learning problems. Journal of Educational Psychology, 89(2), 203. https://doi.org/10.1037/0022-0663.89.2.203 Denscombe, M. (2017). The good research guide: For small-scale social research projects. McGraw-Hill Education (UK). Gillespie, A., & Graham, S. (2014). A meta-analysis of writing interventions for students with learning disabilities. Exceptional Children, 80(4), 454–473. https://doi.org/10.1177/0014402914527238 Hayes, J. R., & Berninger, V. W. (2009). 13 relationships between idea generation and transcription. Traditions of Writing Research, 166. Noble, H., & Heale, R. (2019). Triangulation in research, with examples. Evidence-based nursing, 22(3), 67-68. Polgar, J. M. (2011). The myth of neutral technology. In Design and use of assistive technology (pp. 17-23). Springer, New York, NY. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-1-4419-7031-2_2 Quinlan, T. (2004). Speech recognition technology and students with writing difficulties: Improving fluency. Journal of Educational Psychology, 96(2), 337. https://doi.org/10.1037/0022-0663.96.2.337 Skaathun, A. (2013). The reading test by the Norwegian reading centre [Lesesenterets staveprøve]. Stavanger: University of Stavanger. Tricco AC, Lillie E, Zarin W, et al. (2018) PRISMA extension for scoping reviews (PRISMA-ScR): checklist and explanation. Annals of Internal Medicine. 169(7) 467-473.