"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 Cont.

The questioning of agency was carried throughout the focus group. Greg problematized text-to-speech software by indicating “no one has any agency over the tutoring now…you’re just listening,” and some of the tutors responded that text-to-speech software could be good for instances where a writer has read his or her paper aloud “too many” times already or with ESL/ELL students who may hear the mistakes, which would give the writer more agency over catching errors. But Greg asserted that writers would still benefit more from human readers because listeners need “that stumble, like when they come to an awkward sentence.” Later in the focus group, Ann returned to this topic by stating that bringing a computer screen into an appointment would act as a third entity participating in the session; this means that there is less of a chance for the writer to have agency over the appointment because they are negotiating their agency with two other entities now.

A final concern the tutors discussed was the use of high-tech AT; they thought the brainstorming/outlining software was complicated and did not fully understand how to use it. The tutors were given five minutes with the software, which would be similar to the amount of time a writer would spend learning about the software during a 30-minute appointment, and they were overwhelmed. Almost all of the tutors felt uneasy about how “difficult” the software is to use and how it “would waste too much time” because it is so hard to maneuver. Had the tutors received instructions on how to use the program, the focus group probably would not have viewed the software as difficult to use. Even though the software was not user-friendly, the tutors have used similar programs and exercises before and used those experiences to shape their opinions. Zoe initially stated that she did not like the concept behind the program; she believed using it “may restrict the process a little bit” seeing that students may have to think linearly. But Rick retorted with how “it makes you even think about [organization] more clearly,” which the tutors agreed would help writers who had organization issues. The tutors remained skeptical about this tool by stating that it could overwhelm writers and cause them to “shut down” during appointments.

Despite their skepticism toward AT, all the tutors seemed to be open to the idea of at least using low-tech AT during tutorials and they generated several ways to leverage each tool during appointments. They also viewed AT as something that could help all writers. As Greg shared, “So it’s like instead of looking at these things as like resources for people with disabilities, we should be looking at ‘em as, like, these are just different ways that we can communicate with each other.”