"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

Discussion

The focus group’s initial apprehension toward AT reified the belief that tutors were afraid of its LD connotations. This was most evidenced by Brittany who expressed concern over tutors choosing to use AT solely because they thought a writer had a disability, and an alternative is that tutors may be operating under assumptions for a writer’s learning preference. Both of these scenarios put tutors in a “diagnosing” role rather than a peer-tutoring role. The focus group determined that tutors should ask writers how they understand material best (i.e., their learning preference) and if they would be open to using an AT. When tutors suggest AT according to what the writer is comfortable with, then there will be a greater success rate when using AT to leverage a writers’ abilities, which is crucial because if incorrectly chosen, the technologies may be useless, or even damaging, to writers (Raskind & Higgins, 1998, pg. 29).

Asking a writer for their learning preferences also ensures the writer has agency over the appointment. Maintaining agency was a recurring theme in the focus group. Zoe first mentioned how tutors should ask writers what their learning preferences are and additional questions like “Would you like to do this with these Post-It notes? Or would you prefer like writing in your paper?” to ensure that AT is not forced onto writers and that writers feel like they have control over the appointment. In the end, the tutors resolved this issue. They found that it would be best to ask the writer about their learning preferences and provide options. This method gives writers agency and is something that tutors will have to keep in mind when they are using AT in appointments.

By using a writer’s responses, tutors exercise equitable use from UID principles. As previously mentioned, McGuire and Scott (2006) said that the nine principles are not a checklist and can be used as a framework to think about how a learning environment functions. The tutors’ discussion of AT use in writing centers unknowingly touched on three principles of UID: equitable use, flexibility in use, and tolerance for error.

Equitable use means “instruction is designed to be useful to and accessible by people with diverse abilities,” meaning that tutors should accommodate a writer’s needs so that they can best access the material and therefore achieve effective assistive technology use (McGuire & Scott, 2006, pg. 23). Most of the time, tutors recommend strategies based on learning preferences, like how Zoe indicated that Post-It notes would be good for visual students but not others. But this can be complicated when using AT. The focus group participants debated the effectiveness of the outlining software because it was too time-consuming, rendering the tool “worthless” despite their acknowledgment of how it would be helpful for writers; however, the tutors did not discuss recommending AT for use after the appointment. By recommending AT for use while writing outside the writing center, individuals with different preferences could receive an ample amount of time to learn how to use it and benefit from its outcomes.

The next principle is flexibility in use, which gives individuals choices in the methods they use (McGuire & Scott, 2006, pg. 23). One tutor, Ann, shared an experience where a student she was working with became frustrated and unwilling to participate because she could not comprehend what Ann was saying. Ann asked the writer if she would prefer switching methods and draw ideas out on paper—the writer immediately became more engaged in the appointment and knew what her next steps were. Similar to Ann’s experience, flexibility in the writing center would mean using various methods to provide the writer with multiple ways to learn or comprehend the tutorial. This could be achieved through assistive technology by having tutors or writers use outlining software to create a layout the draft or their discussion, which would allow the writer to process the information visually, orally, auditorily, and/or kinesthetically. By providing multiple methods to process, writers are more likely to comprehend the material.

The final method is tolerance for error, a teaching method that expects different levels of students, and therefore prepares for varied learning paces (McGuire & Scott, 2006, pg. 23). This was acknowledged by the focus group when discussing the user-friendliness of each AT; the tutors found that the high-tech AT would take more time during appointments whereas the low-tech forms would be easily incorporated. The main cause of concern was time, and an average writing center appointment length at the University Center for Writing-based Learning is 30 minutes, leaving tutors with minimal time to introduce a method before causing a writer to become frustrated. The tutors would not want to risk teaching someone a new technology unless they had a one-hour or longer appointment; this would allow them to explain how to use the AT in-depth and thereby account for slower learning paces. As a result, the tutors felt more comfortable using tools that individuals encounter regularly: colored pens and Post-It notes. The familiarity would allow the low-tech AT to be explained much faster than new, high-tech software.

The focus group enlightened the tutors about the conditions surrounding the definition of AT as well as how it may help a broad spectrum of writers. The participants focused on agency, LDs, and learning preferences, and they were able to see the benefits of using AT in appointments. However, the tutors shared they are uncomfortable using AT, particularly high-tech forms, which may mean they would still avoid using it during appointments.