WEBSITE REVIEW

‘Speech Recognition for Learning’ by the National Centre for Technology Innovation’.
Available at: http://www.readingrockets.org/article/speech-recognition-learning

The website to be critically reviewed has been created on behalf of a multimedia project, that focused on informing its audiences of activities and uses of ‘AT’. They state the overall that their intention of their webpage is:

‘designed to help children how to read and read better, out resources assists parents, teachers and other educators in helping struggling readers build fluency, vocabulary and comprehension skills’.

Evidently, the website has been designed for a specific audience. Additionally, it appears that the website has been designed with a specific focus – the contribution of assistive technologies for younger learners. This assumption has been influenced by the illustrations and primary colour scheme displayed throughout their website.

After immediately opening the webpage, there is an evident underlying constructivist perspective immersed throughout the webpage. This concept of constructivism is emphasised further by Kaye (2017), who illuminates that the use of technology, from a constructivist perspective, is considered as a collaborative tool, that encourages its users to engage and interact with the technology to induce a stimulating process of learning. The authors of the webpage have purposefully used words such as ‘facilitate’ and ‘support’ to describe the role of assistive technologies. Thus, justifying our assumption that this particular webpage has been designed from an underlying constructivist view.

The webpage introduces the diverse users of assistive technologies, and they state ‘speech-to-text programmes have a number of benefits for users with and without disabilities’. The concepts they briefly explore, to justify the potential of speech-to-text technologies are:

1. Improved Access – ‘hands-free computing through the use of speech-recognition may be beneficial…by removing the physical barrier to writing and navigation…you can increase access to education’
2. Writing Production: ‘for students with learning disabilities, speech recognition technology can encourage writing that is more thoughtful and deliberate;
3. Mechanics of Writing – ‘can help reduce some of the difficulties of writing mechanics…often writers with learning disabilities will skip over words when they are unsure of spelling, leading to pieces of writing that are not reflective of the students true abilities’
4. Increased Independence – ‘for students with physical disabilities…using speech-to-text tools can allow the student to be more independent and can correct their errors more independently’
5. Decreased Anxiety – ‘for students who are English Language Learner, speech recognition can allow them to practice pronunciation in low-stress environment’
6. Improvements in Core Reading and Writing Abilities – ‘speech-recognition tools can also serve as a remedial function for students with learning disabilities in the areas of reading and writing’ ‘in allowing students to see the words on screen as they dictate, students can gain an insight into important elements of phonemic awareness. As students speak and see their words appear on the screen, the tool directly demonstrates the relationship between how a word looks and sounds.

We can make correlations from the 6 concepts described above, to the view of McKnight and Davies (2013, p.13) whom state that ‘assistive technologies are enabling technologies, that allow some form of learning that was not previously possible to take place’. Additionally, the webpage advocates how speech-to-text technology can encourage users to become increasingly independent in their academic work. Therefore, by potentially liberating it’s users, the ‘AT’ operates to contribute and enhance the learning process of students. This assumption resonates to the view of Christensen et al’s (2013) perception of how assistive technologies enhance the learning process experienced by the user with technology. Christensen et al (2013, p.39) asserts that ‘one of the major uses of assistive technology, is to support independent[ce]’. This again corroborates to a typical constructivist perspective of assistive technologies. It is also crucial to appreciate the tentative language used within the webpage when addressing the potential impact of speech-to-text software upon the learning process of its users, such as ‘speech-recognition may be beneficial’ and ‘speech-to-text can allow learners to become more independent’(readingrockets.org). This suggests that the outcomes of the ‘AT’ on the learning process is ultimately complex and unpredictable. Thus, the webpage effectively averts from implying ‘deterministic claims’ about the consequences of speech-to-text, which Selwyn (2011, p.33) insists academics, educators and users of ‘AT’ to avoid.

It is also important to comment upon another concept addressed within the webpage. Despite advocating the potential advantageous consequences of utilising assistive technologies into the classroom to support the learning process of students with diverse abilities, the webpage also discusses the challenges users may experience when using speech-to-text technologies. Many previous academics have also explored the potential difficulties users may encounter when using speech-to-text software’s (Blamires, 1999, MacArthur and Cavalier, 2004; Quinlan, 2004, McKnight and Davies, 2013; Arcon, 2015).

Nonetheless, it is important to illuminate one particular aspect of the website which is arguably at fault. The webpage asserts that ‘newer [speech-to-text] programmes never make a spelling mistakes… [but] students must be alter for errors that go unrecognised by the programme’. However, after review of numerous existing studies as cited above, and great research into various speech-to-text software’s available today, we would argue that the webpage is too quick to assume that modern speech-to-text software’s are absolutely accurate.

To conclude, the design of this website effectively informs its desired audience upon the advantageous potential of speech recognition for both academic and everyday use. The webpage is accessible, easy to use and has purposefully used concise and clear language to effectively communicate to its desired audience. Additionally, the webpage is also useful for an amateur audience, who have very little knowledge on ‘AT’ and its purposes in education, as the contextual information is also particularly clear. To me personally, the most valuable aspect of this webpage is the continuous embedded constructivist ideas. There is little overt acknowledgement of their constructivist perception, but as a webpage designed primarily for parents, it is therefore unlikely that explicit mentions of such complex learning theories would be included. Nonetheless, it is crucial to value their embedded constructivist ideals, as they subtly resonate with the view that ‘[assistive] technology is not an answer to all problems… [but] increased use of assistive technology in the educational environment can empower students to work more independently’ (Forgrave, 2010, p.126).