"Assisting Writers with Assistive Technology"

Maggie Collins

Maggie Collins is earning her Ph.D. in Rhetoric and Writing at Bowling Green State University. Her research interests include writing program administration, writing assessment, and composition pedagogy. Before attending BGSU, she attended DePaul University where she earned her M.A. in Writing, Rhetoric, and Discourse while working at DePaul University’s University Center for Writing-based Learning as a peer writing tutor.

Contents

Introduction

Assistive Technology Overview

Assistive Technology Overview Cont.

Framework for AT in Writers Centers

Focus Group Research

Focus Group Research Cont.

Discussion

Assistive Technology Recommendations

Conclusion

Works Cited

Focus Group Research

After reviewing the benefits of assistive technology, AT could be used in writing centers to accommodate almost all writers’ preferences and skills during appointments. I conducted a focus group with seven tutors at DePaul University’s University Center for Writing-based Learning. Two of the participants were volunteers who responded to an email about the focus group whereas the other five participants were working at the writing center during the meeting and were scheduled to attend. The focus group’s goals were to uncover how tutors can utilize AT during appointments and the reasons why they would or would not use them. I found that the tutors were comfortable using low-tech forms of AT, but they were hesitant toward high-tech versions because they were not confident in using or incorporating them. Additionally, the tutors debated the ethics and the writer’s agency while using AT during appointments to have a better understanding of how AT would shape interactions with writers.

I probed the writing tutors about three different assistive technologies: sticky notes and colored pens, brainstorming/outlining software, and text-to-speech software, all of which were provided to them. Speech-to-text software could not be tested during this focus group because the amount of people in a small conference room would have resulted in sound contamination.

The tutors worked in small groups (two to three people) to evaluate how they would use these tools inside or outside of tutorials. At the beginning of the focus group, the participants were exposed to the AT before I reviewed what assistive technology was to ensure uncontaminated opinions. After they spent some time debating how they would use the different AT in tutorials, I opened up the discussion by asking what they thought assistive technology was. One tutor, Greg,[1] shared that he thought assistive technology was “taking information that you’re conveying to a writer or someone you’re working with and just making it into something concrete that they could actually like hold onto or see on their computer.” This response was the closest one to the true definition of AT among the group, which showed me that tutors did not initially comprehend what assistive technology means or does for writers.

As the focus group continued, the tutors began to see how assistive technology could help writers. The tutors quickly narrowed in on the idea that learning preferences were crucial to the success of assistive technology. As Alicia said, “I think it’s kind of…like the reason that there’s so many different types is so that it caters specifically to, like, the learning style of whichever student is using it.” And Zoe elaborated by saying that “if a student, like, were more a visual learner and needed to be able to, like, pick up a sticky note and, like, move it around, like, that would be more helpful for them” and recognized that “different students have different needs.”

Despite successfully realizing that assistive technology can aid various types of writers and learning preferences, the tutors faced ethical challenges when discerning whether they would use AT during their appointments. Brittany was worried about the connotations associated with LDs after learning the accepted definition of AT: “Tutors shouldn’t make assumptions, um, about, you know, a student possibly having a disability if they don’t disclose that themselves.” This reaction demonstrates that the tutor is afraid to offend writers because by recommending AT, a writer can misinterpret her intentions; however, by the end of the focus group, it appeared that Brittany’s trepidations about implying a writer has a learning disability were assuaged after Zoe expressed concern about the agency of the writer. Zoe noted that tutors should never outright suggest using AT—they should ask the writer about their learning preferences and if they would be open to using a particular type of assistive technology because “If it’s more of a question and you give them a little bit more agency, . . . that that might be ethically better.” Zoe’s desire to put a writer’s agency first ultimately helps discover what type of AT a writer would like to use, ensures that a writer’s wants are prioritized, and decreases the likelihood of tutors “diagnosing” writers.

[1] Names are pseudonyms.