Effectiveness of AI-Based Speech-to-Text Tools for Slow Learners
Abstract
Artificial Intelligence (AI) technology has revolutionized education by offering personalised and inclusive learning experiences for all learners. Among the AI-based educational technologies, speech-to-text tools have shown a high potential to support slow learners in overcoming their writing difficulties, including writing fluency, spelling, idea formulation, and classroom participation. This qualitative study aimed to examine the impact of AI-powered speech-to-text technologies on slow learners' writing, engagement, motivation, participation and confidence in the classroom. A case study design was used. The study involved classroom observations, semi-structured interviews with teachers and learners, and document analysis of learners' writing tasks, pre- and post-intervention. Thematic analysis identified that speech-to-text technology effectively decreased students' writing anxiety, enhanced their ability to express their ideas, improved their engagement in writing tasks, and fostered classroom inclusion. Teachers observed that students felt more confident in independently performing writing tasks, and were more willing to engage in classroom activities. But challenges in implementation were identified in terms of pronunciation, technical infrastructure and teacher training. This study demonstrates that speech-to-text tools powered by AI are an effective assistive learning strategy for slow learners when combined with planned instruction and inclusive pedagogies.
Keywords: Artificial intelligence, speech to text, slow learners, assistive technology, inclusive education, writing, educational innovation
References
References
Almgren Bäck, G., Åkerfeldt, A., & Selander, S. (2025). Supporting students’ writing through speech-to-text technology in classroom contexts. Reading & Writing Quarterly. Advance online publication.
Bandura, A. (1997). Self-efficacy: The exercise of control. W. H. Freeman.
Bowen, G. A. (2009). Document analysis as a qualitative research method. Qualitative Research Journal, 9(2), 27–40. https://doi.org/10.3316/QRJ0902027
Braun, V., & Clarke, V. (2006). Using thematic analysis in psychology. Qualitative Research in Psychology, 3(2), 77–101. https://doi.org/10.1191/1478088706qp063oa
Bryant, B. R., Bryant, D. P., & Smith, D. D. (2019). Teaching students with special needs in inclusive classrooms. Sage.
CAST. (2018). Universal design for learning guidelines version 2.2. CAST.
Creswell, J. W., & Poth, C. N. (2018). Qualitative inquiry and research design: Choosing among five approaches (4th ed.). Sage.
Dockrell, J. E., Marshall, C. R., & Wyse, D. (2016). Teachers’ reported practices for teaching writing in England. Reading and Writing, 29(3), 409–434.
Edyburn, D. L. (2013). Inclusive technologies: Tools for helping diverse learners achieve academic success. Intervention in School and Clinic, 49(2), 63–67.
Edyburn, D. L. (2019). Assistive technology reconsidered. Special Education Technology Practice, 21(1), 5–12.
Etikan, I., Musa, S. A., & Alkassim, R. S. (2016). Comparison of convenience sampling and purposive sampling. American Journal of Theoretical and Applied Statistics, 5(1), 1–4.
Florian, L. (2014). What counts as evidence of inclusive education? European Journal of Special Needs Education, 29(3), 286–294.
Graham, S. (2019). Changing how writing is taught. Review of Research in Education, 43(1), 277–303.
Graham, S., & Harris, K. R. (2018). Evidence-based writing practices. The Elementary School Journal, 118(2), 228–247.
Graham, S., McKeown, D., Kiuhara, S., & Harris, K. (2013). A meta-analysis of writing instruction for students with learning disabilities. Exceptional Children, 79(4), 879–897.
Hall, T. E., Meyer, A., & Rose, D. H. (2012). Universal design for learning in the classroom. Guilford Press.
Hehir, T., Grindal, T., Freeman, B., Lamoreau, R., Borquaye, Y., & Burke, S. (2016). A summary of the evidence on inclusive education. Alana Institute.
Holmes, W., Bialik, M., & Fadel, C. (2022). Artificial intelligence in education: Promises and implications for teaching and learning. Center for Curriculum Redesign.
Kormos, J. (2017). The second language writing processes of students with specific learning difficulties. Routledge Handbook of Second Language Writing.
Luckin, R., Holmes, W., Griffiths, M., & Forcier, L. (2016). Intelligence unleashed: An argument for AI in education. Pearson Education.
MacArthur, C. A. (2019). Assistive technology for writing. In S. Graham et al. (Eds.), Handbook of writing research (2nd ed.). Guilford Press.
MacArthur, C. A., & Cavalier, A. R. (2004). Dictation and speech recognition technology as test accommodations. Learning Disability Quarterly, 27(4), 195–207.
Merriam, S. B., & Tisdell, E. J. (2016). Qualitative research: A guide to design and implementation (4th ed.). Jossey-Bass.
Nowell, L. S., Norris, J. M., White, D. E., & Moules, N. J. (2017). Thematic analysis: Striving to meet trustworthiness criteria. International Journal of Qualitative Methods, 16(1).
Ok, M. W., Rao, K., Pennington, J., & Ulloa, P. R. (2020). Speech recognition technology for writing: Usage patterns and perceptions of students with disabilities. Journal of Special Education Technology, 37(2), 120–132.
Patton, M. Q. (2015). Qualitative research & evaluation methods (4th ed.). Sage.
Peterson-Karlan, G. R. (2011). Technology to support writing by students with learning disabilities. Assistive Technology Outcomes and Benefits, 7(1), 39–62.
Rao, K., Ok, M. W., & Bryant, B. (2019). Assistive technology for students with disabilities. Intervention in School and Clinic, 55(2), 73–79.
Rose, D. H., & Meyer, A. (2002). Teaching every student in the digital age: Universal design for learning. ASCD.
Sand, C. (2024). Speech-to-text intervention to support writing production among students with learning difficulties. Assistive Technology Research Journal.
Schindler, L. A., Burkholder, G. J., Morad, O. A., & Marsh, C. (2017). Computer-based technology and student engagement. International Journal of Educational Technology in Higher Education, 14(7).
Sohail, S., Ain, N. U., Akhtar, M., & Abbas, S. Z. Prevalence of Students with Speech and Language Disorders, Including Dysphonia and Dysgraphia, in Early Learning Environments at the Elementary Level.
Sohail, S., Parveen, S., & Dar, T. (2025). Investigating the Role of Generative Ai in Transforming Teaching, Learning, and Assessment Practices. Journal of Applied Linguistics and TESOL (JALT), 8(4), 159-174.
Sohail, S., Parveen, S., & Zehra, A. (2026). Examining the Role of Teachers’ Feedback in Enhancing Students’ Spelling and Grammatical Skills. The Knowledge, 5(1), 171-183.
Swanson, H. L., Harris, K. R., & Graham, S. (2018). Handbook of learning disabilities (2nd ed.). Guilford Press.
Trust, T., & Whalen, J. (2020). Should teachers be trained in AI literacy? Educational Technology Research and Development, 68(4), 1915–1920.
UNESCO. (2021). AI and education: Guidance for policymakers. UNESCO Publishing.
Wood, S. G., Moxley, J. H., Tighe, E. L., & Wagner, R. K. (2017). Does use of text-to-speech and speech-to-text improve literacy outcomes? Annals of Dyslexia, 67(3), 285–312.
Yin, R. K. (2018). Case study research and applications: Design and methods (6th ed.). Sage.
Zawacki-Richter, O., Marín, V. I., Bond, M., & Gouverneur, F. (2019). Systematic review of AI applications in higher education. International Journal of Educational Technology in Higher Education, 16(39).
Full Text: PDF
Refbacks
- There are currently no refbacks.