In educational settings, speech technology interventions comprise teaching approaches that use digital devices (e.g., computers, tablets, smartphones) and applications to convert written text to synthesized speech (TTS) or human speech to written text (STT). Although both the quality and availability of speech technology has increased dramatically in recent years, little is known about how it can be used to improve literacy skills or the implications of its adoption in educational contexts.

Until recently, speech technology has predominantly been used as a tool for accommodating people with learning, physical, and/or sensory disabilities. Today, it has been adopted for everyday use among the general public, such as via “hands free” texting and communication. In this manner, it is an example of how technology is often seamlessly integrated into daily life without users necessarily understanding its consequences. While potentially having a positive impact in some areas, such as convenience, communication, or personalization; the introduction of new technology can also result in misuse, distractions or even the loss of fundamental aspects of humanity and culture (Postman, 2011).

From an inclusive perspective an aim is to explore the implications of introducing speech technology to all students, considering both social and academic advantages or obstacles the technology may present. Research shows that students with disabilities may be hesitant to use digital technologies if an approach, tool or methodology is only provided to them and therefore defined as a special aid. Polgar (2011) argues that assistive technology is not neutral, and the significance that technology holds for the user is a crucial factor in whether a device will be adopted or discarded. If speech technology is considered a tool to facilitate reading or writing activities only for pupils with learning disabilities, it might also be viewed as a visible indicator of a disability and potentially increasing social stigma.

In a study on the use of STT as an inclusive approach (Matre, 2022), teachers argued that speech technology provides academic opportunities for most learners. At the same time, it is also highlighted that speech technology can be a disruptive and embarrassing element in a whole-class environment. The conflict of interest between fulfilling pupils’ social and academic needs is evident when teachers argued that pupils could benefit from being placed in smaller groups and more private locations when using STT.

Regarding the implication of speech technology for older versus younger students, Nordström et al. (2019) found that students ages 9–10 had more favorable attitudes compared to students ages 13–14. This could be because younger students are still developing their reading and writing skills and are less fixed in their literacy approaches compared to older students (Ok et al., 2020).

Earlier reviews of speech technology have been limited to either STT (e.g., Pennington et al., 2018) or TTS (e.g., Wood et al., 2017), or they have solely focused on individuals with disabilities (e.g., Bakken et al. 2019). There are also a number of reviews on assistive and/or learning technology in general (e.g., Perelmutter et al., 2017). However, we have not found any previous systematic reviews of speech technology aimed at both TTS and STT across all educational settings and grade levels. Given that the two approaches are often used in unison, there is a need to gain a better picture of the research that has been conducted to date on speech technology interventions, as well as the effectiveness of interventions that incorporate these tools. The current study seeks to address this gap and answer the broad question: What characterizes research on speech technology for reading and writing in educational contexts?

The study employed a systematic scoping review approach, as described by Peters et al. (2015), to identify and analyze the existing literature. In addition, the protocol for the study was developed in accordance with the PRISMA guidelines (Tricco et al., 2018) and the following databases were searched: ERIC, Scopus, Web of Science, and PsycInfo. The search string used terms such as: speech technology, speech-to-text, text-to-speech, speech recognition, assistive technology, and dictation. Truncations, spelling variations, and abbreviations were included. The Boolean operator “OR” was used between terms while “AND” between term-groupings in accordance with the PICO framework (i.e, population, intervention, comparison, and outcomes). The development of the search string was informed by pilot searches and previous reviews. First, we identified 41 studies referenced in previous reviews and studies on the topic. We then cross-referenced this list with our search results to ensure all 41 studies were included. To refine the inclusion and exclusion criteria further, 100 studies were pilot-screened by four researchers to improve agreement, before finalizing inclusion/exclusion criteria. Grey literature was limited to PhD dissertations, peer-reviewed books or book chapters, and peer-reviewed conference proceedings. No restrictions were imposed on the year of publication, age group, or educational setting. All records were imported into Rayyan, an online platform designed for systematic reviews, to facilitate the screening process. 11300 sources were identified after removal of duplicates in Rayyan. Screening of titles and abstracts was conducted by two reviewers, in which each reviewer screened 50% of sources. In addition, a third reviewer independently screened 20% of the sources (10% from each primary screener) to ensure reliability. The review is currently in the full-text screening phase.

Out of a total of 11 784 abstracts, 450 (4 %) were removed as duplicates, 10 634 (90%) were excluded from title and abstract screening, and 700 abstracts (6%) were included in full-text screening. Of the 10 634 excluded articles 6106 (57,5%) were not on STT or TTS technology, 2592 (25%) were not on reading and writing, 1287 (12%) were not on L1, 436 (4%) were not empirical studies, 82 (0,8%) were reviews or meta-analyses and 76 (0.7%) were not conducted in educational contexts. Based on previous reviews of the literature related to this field (e.g., Matre & Cameron, 2022, Wood et al., 2017), we expect to find a wide range of studies that vary substantially in quality and scope. There are likely to be more studies on the use of TTS technology alone than there is on the use of STT, or on the use of the two technologies combined. Previous research indicates that the use of speech technology in an educational context is an active and growing area of research, however the quality of reported effect studies has been relatively low due to convenience samples, proper controls and inadequate statistical reporting (Wood et al., 2018). Pertaining to reading, TTS technology is likely to positively affect reading comprehension and literal comprehension (Silvestri et al. 2022). Yet, it is more likely to have a positive effect for students with dyslexia who are characterized by listening comprehension greater than decoding skills. Regarding writing, Quinlan (2004) found that pupils with writing difficulties showed improved writing performance, fewer surface errors and higher holistic text quality, when writing with STT. Though research also suggests that pupils who are hesitant to speak up in large groups do not find STT to be an eligible writing approach in a whole class environment (Matre, 2022).

Bakken, J. P., Uskov, V. L., & Varidireddy, N. (2019). Text-to-voice and voice-to-text software systems and students with disabilities: a research synthesis. Smart Education and e-Learning 2019, 511-524. Matre, M. E., & Cameron, D. L. (2024). A scoping review on the use of speech-to-text technology for adolescents with learning difficulties in secondary education. Disability and Rehabilitation: Assistive Technology, 19(3), 1103-1116. Matre, M. E. (2022). Speech-to-text technology as an inclusive approach: Lower secondary teachers’ experiences. Nordic Journal of Education and Criticism [Nordisk tidsskrift for pedagogikk og kritikk] , 8. Nordström, T., Nilsson, S., Gustafson, S., & Svensson, I. (2019). Assistive technology applications for students with reading difficulties: special education teachers’ experiences and perceptions. Disability and Rehabilitation: Assistive Technology. Ok, M. W., Rao, K., Pennington, J., & Ulloa, P. R. (2020). Speech recognition technology for writing: Usage patterns and perceptions of students with high incidence disabilities. Journal of Special Education Technology. https://doi.org/10.1177/0162643420979929 Pennington, J., Ok, M. W., & Rao, K. (2018). A review of speech recognition technology for supporting writing in schools. International Journal for Educational Media and Technology, 12(2), 47-55. Perelmutter, B., McGregor, K. K., & Gordon, K. R. (2017). Assistive technology interventions for adolescents and adults with learning disabilities: An evidence-based systematic review and meta-analysis. Computers & Education, 114, 139-163. Peters, M. D., Godfrey, C. M., Khalil, H., McInerney, P., Parker, D., & Soares, C. B. (2015). Guidance for conducting systematic scoping reviews. JBI Evidence Implementation, 13(3), 141-146. Polgar, J. M. (2011). The myth of neutral technology. In Design and use of assistive technology (pp. 17–23). Springer. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-1-4419-7031- 2_2 Postman, N. (2011). Technopoly: The surrender of culture to technology. Vintage. 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 Silvestri, R., Holmes, A., & Rahemtulla, R. (2022). The interaction of cognitive profiles and text-to-speech software on reading comprehension of adolescents with reading challenges. Journal of Special Education Technology, 37(4), 498-509. Tricco, A. C., Lillie, E., Zarin, W., O'Brien, K. K., Colquhoun, H., Levac, D., ... & Straus, S. E. (2018). PRISMA extension for scoping reviews (PRISMA-ScR): checklist and explanation. Annals of Internal Medicine, 169(7), 467-473. Wood, S. G., Moxley, J. H., Tighe, E. L., & Wagner, R. K. (2018). Does use of text-to-speech and related read-aloud tools improve reading comprehension for students with reading disabilities? A meta-analysis. Journal of Learning Disabilities, 51(1), 73-84.