In recent years, there has been a heated debate about whether technology is being excessively used in Norwegian schools. Are tablets and smart boards displacing traditional teaching methods - and if so, is that a problem?
Discussions about new tools tend to be polarised and lacking nuanced perspectives, notes Assistant Professor Marianne Engen Matre.
“Teachers should be more mindful of the reasons for introducing technology in the classroom. What are the consequences of using the technology? And what are the consequences of not using it? I miss the argumentation for and against before we start using such new tools,” she says.
Burdened with assistive technology
Matre recently defended her PhD thesis on speech-driven writing in lower secondary education. These are tools where a computer program transcribes what the pupils say.
The use of speech-driven writing is not included in any curriculum. Pupils with documented needs are allowed to utilise this technology during exams.
“Previous research shows that this technology does not significantly enhance learning to read and write, but it can be an aid for those who find it difficult,” says Matre.
But when only students with learning disabilities have access to technology, a stigma is attached to it.
“You would rather hear poorly in class than use a visible hearing aid. We humans are such that if we have to choose between fitting in or learning, we choose to fit in. But now this technology is available to everyone through a button in Word, whereas before you had to apply to assistive technology centres,” says Matre.
Became more linguistically aware
The researcher found several advantages in using the technology. Not surprisingly, it could help those who encounter challenges in text writing.
“A pupil with dyslexia said that he usually had to simplify his text for him to be able write it. Rather than ‘documentary’ he would write ‘film’, for example. He was very satisfied with this tool,” says Matre.
In this way, speech-driven writing made the pupils more equal. Teachers were able to group pupils who typically produced a lot of text with those who had difficulty with writing.
“The pupils also became more aware of oral and written language. Some things can be said, but can you write them in a text? Then the Norwegian teacher was happy, because it contributed to discussions about genre awareness,” says Matre.
The tool could also be useful for students who wrote a lot. These could express their thoughts without stumbling over spelling or getting tired of typing.
Frustrations with the technology
But there were also several disadvantages. The transcribed text was often unreliable, occasionally completely wrong. This required the pupils to spend considerable time editing, which could be a challenge for those with reading and writing difficulties.
“We saw that it wasn’t some miracle cure. There is a lot of technique you have to learn to write in this way, and once you have learned to write in one way, it can take time to learn another way,” says Matre.
The pupils used the technology together in their classrooms, or in smaller groups. Some pupils found it embarrassing to speak out loud, and they felt exposed when others heard their work in progress.
Frustration also arose from technical aspects. In some cases, they would read the text out loud while dictation was turned on, so the program would repeat the transcription. Other times, the dictation turned off after 20 seconds of inactivity without them noticing.
A bigger problem is that those who did not have urban dialects experienced inferior results when using speech-driven typing.
“Those who had distinctive dialects had to conform to the Kristiansand dialect, while those who used the Eastern Norwegian dialect achieved even better results. That is quite problematic in an educational context,” says Matre.
Like with other technologies, Matre suggests a more nuanced approach to the use of speech-driven writing in schools.
“We cannot simply determine whether or not the tool works. There are many different contexts in which it can be used, and it will be effective in some but not in others. We must also reflect more on whether or not dictation should be used in the Norwegian subject,” she says.