skip to main content
10.1145/3544548.3581374acmconferencesArticle/Chapter ViewAbstractPublication PageschiConference Proceedingsconference-collections
research-article

Soliloquy: Fostering Poetry Comprehension Using an Interactive Think-aloud Visualization

Published: 19 April 2023 Publication History

Abstract

Complex texts like poetry are distinct from informative texts, requiring additional subprocesses to decode and interpret. Approaching a poem without knowledge of these cognitive strategies can result in confusion and frustration—rather than comprehension. In this work, we explore how interfaces can surface and demonstrate these cognitive processes to novice readers. We introduce Soliloquy, an interface that visualizes the thoughts of an expert as they read and interpret a poem by using animations of text and pop-up tooltips. We evaluate the interface in a five-condition Mechanical Turk study (n=254) by varying the detail of thoughts, including audio, and substituting a static text control. Our study detected a significant difference in comprehension between the detail of thoughts, but not between the Soliloquy interface and static text control. We further investigate this finding in a think-aloud study (n=13), revealing the impact individual differences, experience, and cognitive load could have on Soliloquy’s effectiveness.

Supplementary Material

MP4 File (3544548.3581374-talk-video.mp4)
Pre-recorded Video Presentation
MP4 File (3544548.3581374-video-preview.mp4)
Video Preview

References

[1]
Olusola O. Adesope and John C. Nesbit. 2012. Verbal redundancy in multimedia learning environments: A meta-analysis. Journal of Educational Psychology 104, 1 (2012), 250–263.
[2]
Zhila Aghajari, Deniz Sonmez Unal, Mesut Erhan Unal, Ligia Gómez, and Erin Walker. 2020. Decomposition of response time to give better prediction of children’s reading comprehension. In International Conference on Educational Data Mining. ERIC.
[3]
Fatih Ari, Raymond Flores, Fethi A. Inan, Jongpil Cheon, Steven M. Crooks, Dmitrii Paniukov, and Murat Kurucay. 2014. The effects of verbally redundant information on student learning: An instance of reverse redundancy. Computers & Education 76 (July 2014), 199–204.
[4]
Robert K. Atkinson, Alexander Renkl, and Mary Margaret Merrill. 2003. Transitioning from studying examples to solving problems: Effects of self-explanation prompts and fading worked-out steps. Journal of Educational Psychology 95 (2003), 774–783.
[5]
Ryan Shaun Baker, Albert T. Corbett, Kenneth R. Koedinger, and Angela Z. Wagner. 2004. Off-task behavior in the cognitive tutor classroom: When students "game the system". In Proceedings of the SIGCHI Conference on Human Factors in Computing Systems(CHI ’04). 383–390.
[6]
Ryan S. J. d. Baker, Albert T. Corbett, Kenneth R. Koedinger, Shelley Evenson, Ido Roll, Angela Z. Wagner, Meghan Naim, Jay Raspat, Daniel J. Baker, and Joseph E. Beck. 2006. Adapting to when students game an intelligent tutoring system. In Proceedings of the 8th International Conference on Intelligent Tutoring. 392–401.
[7]
Ariane Baye, Amanda Inns, Cynthia Lake, and Robert E. Slavin. 2019. A synthesis of quantitative research on reading programs for secondary students. Reading Research Quarterly 54, 2 (2019), 133–166.
[8]
Joseph E. Beck. 2005. Engagement tracing: Using response times to model student disengagement. In International Conference on Artificial Intelligence in Education. 88–95.
[9]
Joseph E. Beck and Yue Gong. 2013. Wheel-spinning: Students who fail to master a skill. In International Conference on Artificial Intelligence in Education. 431–440.
[10]
Carl Bereiter and Marlene Bird. 1985. Use of thinking aloud in identification and teaching of reading comprehension strategies. Cognition and instruction 2, 2 (1985), 131–156.
[11]
Paulo F. Carvalho, Min Gao, Benjamin A. Motz, and Kenneth R. Koedinger. 2018. Analyzing the relative learning benefits of completing required activities and optional readings in online courses. In International Conference on Educational Data Mining. ERIC.
[12]
Hong-Ren Chen and You-Shiuan Lin. 2016. An examination of digital game-based situated learning applied to Chinese language poetry education. Technology, Pedagogy and Education 25, 2 (2016), 171–186.
[13]
Irene-Angelica Chounta and Paulo F. Carvalho. 2019. Square it up! How to model step duration when predicting student performance. In Proceedings of the 9th International Conference on Learning Analytics & Knowledge(LAK19). 330–334.
[14]
Catherine Crain-Thoreson, Marcia Z. Lippman, and Deborah McClendon-Magnuson. 1997. Windows on comprehension: Reading comprehension processes as revealed by two think-aloud procedures. Journal of Educational Psychology 89, 4 (1997), 579–591.
[15]
Meredyth Daneman and Patricia A. Carpenter. 1980. Individual differences in working memory and reading. Journal of Verbal Learning and Verbal Behavior 19, 4 (1980), 450–466.
[16]
Beth Davey. 1983. Think aloud: Modeling the cognitive processes of reading comprehension. Journal of Reading 27, 1 (1983), 44–47.
[17]
Amy L. Eva-Wood. 2004. Thinking and feeling poetry: Exploring meanings aloud. Journal of Educational Psychology 96, 1 (2004), 182–191.
[18]
Philip J. Guo. 2013. Online python tutor: Embeddable web-based program visualization for cs education. In Proceeding of the 44th ACM Technical Symposium on Computer Science Education(SIGCSE ’13). 579–584.
[19]
Felienne Hermans, Alaaeddin Swidan, and Efthimia Aivaloglou. 2018. Code phonology: An exploration into the vocalization of code. In Proceedings of the 26th Conference on Program Comprehension(ICPC ’18). 308–311.
[20]
Ken Hinckley, Shengdong Zhao, Raman Sarin, Patrick Baudisch, Edward Cutrell, Michael Shilman, and Desney Tan. 2007. InkSeine: In Situ search for active note taking. In Proceedings of the SIGCHI Conference on Human Factors in Computing Systems. 251–260.
[21]
Li‐tze Hu and Peter M. Bentler. 1999. Cutoff criteria for fit indexes in covariance structure analysis: Conventional criteria versus new alternatives. Structural Equation Modeling: A Multidisciplinary Journal 6, 1(1999), 1–55.
[22]
Christopher D. Hundhausen and Jonathan L. Brown. 2007. What you see is what you code: A “live” algorithm development and visualization environment for novice learners. Journal of Visual Languages & Computing 18, 1 (2007), 22–47.
[23]
Tanja Janssen, Martine Braaksma, and Gert Rijlaarsdam. 2006. Literary reading activities of good and weak students: A think aloud study. European Journal of Psychology of Education 21, 1 (2006), 35–52.
[24]
Slava Kalyuga, Paul Ayres, Paul Chandler, and John Sweller. 2003. The expertise reversal effect. Educational Psychologist 38, 1 (2003), 23–31.
[25]
X. J. Kennedy, Dana. Gioia, and Mark. Bauerlein. 2009. Handbook of Literary Terms: Literature, Language, Theory (2nd ed.). Pearson/Longman, New York.
[26]
Jumpei Kobayashi and Toshio Kawashima. 2019. Paragraph-based faded text facilitates reading comprehension. In Proceedings of the 2019 CHI Conference on Human Factors in Computing Systems. 1–12.
[27]
Jimmie Leppink, Fred Paas, Cees P. M. Van der Vleuten, Tamara Van Gog, and Jeroen J. G. Van Merriënboer. 2013. Development of an instrument for measuring different types of cognitive load. Behavior Research Methods 45, 4 (2013), 1058–1072.
[28]
Sherry Lee Linkon. 2011. Literary Learning: Teaching the English Major. Indiana University Press, Bloomington.
[29]
Collin F Lynch, Kevin D Ashley, Vincent Aleven, and Niels Pinkwart. 2006. Defining ill-defined domains; a literature survey. In Intelligent Tutoring Systems (ITS 2006): Workshop on Intelligent Tutoring Systems for Ill-Defined Domains. 1–10.
[30]
Richard E. Mayer and Cheryl I. Johnson. 2008. Revising the redundancy principle in multimedia learning. Journal of Educational Psychology 100, 2 (2008), 380–386.
[31]
Richard E. Mayer and Roxana Moreno. 2003. Nine ways to reduce cognitive load in multimedia learning. Educational Psychologist 38, 1 (2003), 43–52.
[32]
Kathryn S. McCarthy, Micah Watanabe, Jianmin Dai, and Danielle S. McNamara. 2020. Personalized learning in iSTART: Past modifications and future design. Journal of Research on Technology in Education 52, 3 (July 2020), 301–321.
[33]
Nina McCurdy, Julie Lein, Katharine Coles, and Miriah Meyer. 2016. Poemage: Visualizing the sonic topology of a poem. IEEE Transactions on Visualization and Computer Graphics 22, 1(2016), 439–448.
[34]
Danielle S. McNamara, Irwin B. Levinstein, and Chutima Boonthum. 2004. iSTART: Interactive strategy training for active reading and thinking. Behavior Research Methods, Instruments, & Computers 36, 2 (May 2004), 222–233.
[35]
Hrim Mehta, Adam Bradley, Mark Hancock, and Christopher Collins. 2017. Metatation: Annotation as implicit interaction to bridge close and distant reading. ACM Transactions on Computer-Human Interaction 24, 5(2017), 35:1–35:41.
[36]
Joel Meyers, Susan Lytle, Donna Palladino, Gillian Devenpeck, and Michael Green. 1990. Think-aloud protocol analysis: An investigation of reading comprehension strategies in fourth-and fifth-grade students. Journal of Psychoeducational Assessment 8, 2 (1990), 112–127.
[37]
Kouider Mokhtari and Carla Reichard. 2002. Assessing students’ metacognitive awareness of reading strategies. Journal of Educational Psychology 94 (2002), 249–259.
[38]
Aaron van den Oord, Sander Dieleman, Heiga Zen, Karen Simonyan, Oriol Vinyals, Alex Graves, Nal Kalchbrenner, Andrew Senior, and Koray Kavukcuoglu. 2016. WaveNet: A generative model for raw audio. arXiv:1609.03499 (2016).
[39]
Leslie Oster. 2001. Using the think-aloud for reading instruction. The Reading Teacher 55, 1 (2001), 64–69.
[40]
Fred Paas, Alexander Renkl, and John Sweller. 2003. Cognitive load theory and instructional design: Recent developments. Educational Psychologist 38, 1 (2003), 1–4.
[41]
Joan Peskin. 1998. Constructing meaning when reading poetry: An expert-novice study. Cognition and Instruction 16, 3 (1998), 235–263.
[42]
Maximilian Pfost, John Hattie, Tobias Dörfler, and Cordula Artelt. 2014. Individual differences in reading development: A review of 25 years of empirical research on Matthew effects in reading. Review of Educational Research 84, 2 (2014), 203–244.
[43]
Alexander Renkl, Robert K. Atkinson, and Cornelia S. Große. 2004. How fading worked solution steps works – a cognitive load perspective. Instructional Science 32, 1 (2004), 59–82.
[44]
Alexander Renkl, Robert K. Atkinson, Uwe H. Maier, and Richard Staley. 2002. From example study to problem solving: Smooth transitions help learning. The Journal of Experimental Education 70, 4 (2002), 293–315.
[45]
Alice M. Scales Rhee, Ock. 2001. Adult reading habits and patterns. Reading Psychology 22, 3 (2001), 175–203.
[46]
Ido Roll, Vincent Aleven, Bruce M. McLaren, and Kenneth R. Koedinger. 2011. Improving students’ help-seeking skills using metacognitive feedback in an intelligent tutoring system. Learning and Instruction 21, 2 (2011), 267–280.
[47]
Gonny Schellings, Cor Aarnoutse, and Jan van Leeuwe. 2006. Third-grader’s think-aloud protocols: Types of reading activities in reading an expository text. Learning and Instruction 16, 6 (2006), 549–568.
[48]
Keith E. Stanovich. 2009. Matthew effects in reading: Some consequences of individual differences in the acquisition of literacy. Journal of Education 189, 1-2 (2009), 23–55.
[49]
Hariharan Subramonyam, Colleen Seifert, Priti Shah, and Eytan Adar. 2020. texSketch: Active diagramming through pen-and-ink annotations. In Proceedings of the 2020 CHI Conference on Human Factors in Computing Systems. 1–13.
[50]
John Sweller. 2006. The worked example effect and human cognition. Learning and Instruction 16, 2 (2006), 165–169.
[51]
Craig S. Tashman and W. Keith Edwards. 2011. LiquidText: a flexible, multitouch environment to support active reading. In Proceedings of the SIGCHI Conference on Human Factors in Computing Systems. 3285–3294.
[52]
Herbert F. Tucker. 2011. Poetic data and the news from poems: A For Better for Verse memoir. Victorian Poetry 49, 2 (2011), 267–281.
[53]
Paul van den Broek and Christine Espin. 2012. Connecting cognitive theory and assessment: Measuring individual differences in reading comprehension. School Psychology Review 41 (2012), 315–325.
[54]
Kurt VanLehn, Reva Freedman, Pamela Jordan, Charles Murray, Remus Osan, Michael Ringenberg, Carolyn Rosé, Kay Schulze, Robert Shelby, Donald Treacy, Anders Weinstein, and Mary Wintersgill. 2000. Fading and Deepening: The next steps for Andes and other model-tracing tutors. In International Conference on Intelligent Tutoring Systems. 474–483.
[55]
Shang Wang, Deniz Sonmez Unal, and Erin Walker. 2019. MindDot: Supporting effective cognitive behaviors in concept map-based learning environments. In Proceedings of the 2019 CHI Conference on Human Factors in Computing Systems(CHI ’19). 1–14.
[56]
Shang Wang and Erin Walker. 2021. Providing adaptive feedback in concept mapping to improve reading comprehension. In Proceedings of the 2021 CHI Conference on Human Factors in Computing Systems. 1–11.
[57]
Xu Wang, Carolyn Rose, and Ken Koedinger. 2021. Seeing beyond expert blind spots: Online learning design for scale and quality. In Proceedings of the 2021 CHI Conference on Human Factors in Computing Systems. New York, NY, USA, 1–14.
[58]
Yutao Wang and Neil T Heffernan. 2012. Leveraging first response time into the knowledge tracing model.International Conference on Educational Data Mining (2012).
[59]
Kausalai (Kay) Wijekumar, Bonnie J. F. Meyer, and Puiwa Lei. 2013. High-fidelity implementation of web-based intelligent tutoring system improves fourth and fifth graders content area reading comprehension. Computers & Education 68 (Oct. 2013), 366–379.
[60]
Xiaolu Xiong, Zachary A Pardos, 2011. An analysis of response time data for improving student performance prediction. (2011).
[61]
Yan Zhang, Sheela Surisetty, and Christopher Scaffidi. 2013. Assisting comprehension of animation programs through interactive code visualization. Journal of Visual Languages & Computing 24, 5 (2013), 313–326.
[62]
Sacha Zyto, David Karger, Mark Ackerman, and Sanjoy Mahajan. 2012. Successful classroom deployment of a social document annotation system. In Proceedings of the SIGCHI Conference on Human Factors in Computing Systems. Association for Computing Machinery, 1883–1892.

Index Terms

  1. Soliloquy: Fostering Poetry Comprehension Using an Interactive Think-aloud Visualization

    Recommendations

    Comments

    Information & Contributors

    Information

    Published In

    cover image ACM Conferences
    CHI '23: Proceedings of the 2023 CHI Conference on Human Factors in Computing Systems
    April 2023
    14911 pages
    ISBN:9781450394215
    DOI:10.1145/3544548
    Permission to make digital or hard copies of all or part of this work for personal or classroom use is granted without fee provided that copies are not made or distributed for profit or commercial advantage and that copies bear this notice and the full citation on the first page. Copyrights for components of this work owned by others than the author(s) must be honored. Abstracting with credit is permitted. To copy otherwise, or republish, to post on servers or to redistribute to lists, requires prior specific permission and/or a fee. Request permissions from [email protected].

    Sponsors

    Publisher

    Association for Computing Machinery

    New York, NY, United States

    Publication History

    Published: 19 April 2023

    Permissions

    Request permissions for this article.

    Check for updates

    Author Tags

    1. poetry
    2. reading comprehension
    3. think-aloud
    4. worked example

    Qualifiers

    • Research-article
    • Research
    • Refereed limited

    Conference

    CHI '23
    Sponsor:

    Acceptance Rates

    Overall Acceptance Rate 6,199 of 26,314 submissions, 24%

    Upcoming Conference

    CHI 2025
    ACM CHI Conference on Human Factors in Computing Systems
    April 26 - May 1, 2025
    Yokohama , Japan

    Contributors

    Other Metrics

    Bibliometrics & Citations

    Bibliometrics

    Article Metrics

    • 0
      Total Citations
    • 382
      Total Downloads
    • Downloads (Last 12 months)179
    • Downloads (Last 6 weeks)15
    Reflects downloads up to 16 Feb 2025

    Other Metrics

    Citations

    View Options

    Login options

    View options

    PDF

    View or Download as a PDF file.

    PDF

    eReader

    View online with eReader.

    eReader

    Full Text

    View this article in Full Text.

    Full Text

    HTML Format

    View this article in HTML Format.

    HTML Format

    Figures

    Tables

    Media

    Share

    Share

    Share this Publication link

    Share on social media