Category: Technology
Summary:
The article by Batt and Wilson sought to determine the differences in student and teacher experience with voice-recognition technology (VRT). They performed a quantitative study involving instructors and students. Only slight differences were detected, the largest being the lack of document editing when VRT was used. It is not as effective in marginal or interlinear comments on documents. It was helpful in producing larger/longer comments. Students did not detect significant differences between the experiences. In the experiment, DragonNaturallySpeaking standard software (considered one of the best VRT programs available) was used. Some of the respondents found the tactile aspect of the keyboard more effective for crafting their thoughts than reflection and dictation.
Citation-worthy:
"The VRT did not save a significant amount of time on average in terms of words per minute [produced]" (Batt & Wilson, 2008, p. 173).
"In sum, the VRT was not an effective tool overall for composing instructor end comments under the conditions of this study" (Batt & Wilson, 2008, p. 179).
"The VRT did not represent an efficient means of teacher response" (Batt & Wilson, 2008, p. 180).
