# Presentation: 627680

## Developing a Reading Strategy ITS: Competing Constraints from Theory, Technology, Pedagogy, and Experiments

- Danielle S. McNamara, Irwin Levinstein,
- Chutima Boonthum, and Srinivasa Pillarisetti
- University of Memphis
- Psychology / Institute for Intelligent Systems

*Funded by the IES Reading Program and the NSF IERI Program*

## iSTART Investigators

**Co-PIs and Senior Researchers:**** Irwin Levinstein (ODU), Keith Millis (NIU), Joe Magliano (NIU), Grant Sinclair, Katja Wiemer-Hastings (NIU), Max Louwerse, Art Graesser**
**Postdocs & Staff: ****Cedrick Bellissens, Rachel Best, Chutima Boonthum, Zhiqiang Cai, David Dufty, Joyce Kim, Chris Kurby, Phil McCarthy, Tenaha O’Reilly, Yasuhiro Ozuru, Margie Petrowski, Srinivasa Pillarisetti, Roger Taylor**
**Many students at Memphis, ODU, and NIU**

## Currently provides self-explanation reading strategy training that 

**Interactive Strategy Training for Active Reading and Thinking**

- Currently provides self-explanation reading strategy training that
- combines training to self-explain text and training to use active reading strategies
- is adaptive
- engages the trainee in an interactive learning environment using animated agents
-  Goal is to provide via the internet
- a variety of empirically supported interventions to improve strategies for reading and thinking

**McNamara, Levinstein, & Boonthum, 2004**

## Introduction Module
Teacher-Agent and 2 Student Agents discuss reading strategies
Demonstration Module
Genie self-explains a text
Merlin provides feedback
Trainee is asked to identify strategies
Practice Module
Trainee types self-explanations to science text
Merlin guides the trainee and provides feedback 

- Teacher-Agent and 2 Student Agents discuss reading strategies
- Demonstration Module
- Genie self-explains a text
- Merlin provides feedback
- Trainee is asked to identify strategies
- Practice Module
- Trainee types self-explanations to science text
- Merlin guides the trainee and provides feedback

## Slide 5

## Slide 6

## Slide 7

## Based on SERT

**S**elf-**E**xplanation **R**eading **T**raining

**Training to self-explain text using reading strategies (e.g., paraphrasing, bridging, elaborating)**
***Self Explanation: say aloud or type an explanation***

- McNamara, 2004

## History

- 1996-2002: Funded by McDonnell and ODU
- Develop and test SERT
- 2000-2006: Funded by NSF IERI
- Test SERT in high-school classrooms
- Develop iSTART
- 2004-2008: Funded by IES Reading
- Increase adaptivity - add texts, modules, student model
- Develop teacher interface
- 2000-2002: Developed iSTART v1.0
- 2002-2004: Developed iSTART v2.0
- 2004-2006: Developed iSTART v3.0
- Currently developing Teacher Interface

## Overarching Goals and Considerations

- Follow Original SERT Script as closely as possible
- But, take advantage of computer environment
- Facilitates individualized interaction
- Enables more fine-tuned feedback
- Increases time for practice
- Escapes (some) social dynamics of classroom
- Anticipated older computers in high schools
- Anticipated recursive development and frequent revisions

## 
Architecture (e.g., software on server)
Programs –  nonproprietary: Java, MySQL 
Agents vs. Text
Pedagogical Agents vs. Real People
Synthesized Voices vs. Human Voices
Full bodied vs. Talking Heads
Cartoon-like vs. Human-like
Develop Agents vs. Use Microsoft Agents

- Architecture (e.g., software on server)
- Programs –  nonproprietary: Java, MySQL
- Agents vs. Text
- Pedagogical Agents vs. Real People
- Synthesized Voices vs. Human Voices
- Full bodied vs. Talking Heads
- Cartoon-like vs. Human-like
- Develop Agents vs. Use Microsoft Agents

- Initial Decision Making (2000-2001)

## Initial Version

## Version 2.0 Changes

- Presentation order of the five strategies
- Mini-demonstration
- Dialogue scripts (e.g., more examples, short dialogues)
- Multiple-choice quizzes revised
- Synthesized voices improved
- Revised interface

***Changed background colors to reduce distraction***
***(probably not one of our best moves)***

## Added box labels

***Added box labels***

## Changed boxes from yellow on blue, to black on white

***Changed boxes from yellow on blue, to black on white***

## Boxes are uniform size – they don’t grow

***Boxes are uniform size – they don’t grow***

## Developed pause and repeat buttons.  

***Developed pause and repeat buttons.  ***
***Scroll Bars replaced buttons.***

## Boxes, characters,  text, and speech bubbles no longer overlap

***Boxes, characters,  text, and speech bubbles no longer overlap***

## Motivation for Changes

- Human Factors
- Observations during testing
- Data and theory

## Theory vs. Pedagogy vs. Data

- Come up with more ideas than we can test
- But, have to avoid the kitchen sink
- Can’t make every modification you think of
- Progress is made by relating ideas to theory
- But, testing them remains complicated
- And, not all ideas turn out to be good ones
- Testing the revisions
- We ain’t in Experimental Psychology Land anymore
- So, hard to know if each revision ‘works’
- Time constraints

## Two Examples

- Data indicated that there was a problem
- Theory pointed to solutions
- Testing told the tale

## Demonstration Section

- Students asked to do a wide range of tasks
- Identify and locate strategies
- Locate text that is the source of strategies
- Point, click, highlight
- College students did fine
- High School students – not so much
- Revised to increase scaffolding and reduce WM load
- Data indicates that changes were effective
- Students increase in levels

## Increase Paraphrasing

- Hypothesized that less skilled students needed more practice at basic skills
- Developed Paraphrasing Practice Module
- Conducted Experiment
- Students received dedicated practice in paraphrasing (without self explanation)
- Predicted that less skilled students would benefit from more paraphrasing practice
- Au Contraire – the more skilled students benefited from the extra practice and the less skilled students benefited more from the version without it

## Can you test it?

- The New Demonstration included a host of changes
- scaffolding, reduce number of choices, visually chunk self-explanation, etc.
- The Paraphrase Module consisted of a single modification (per se)

## Considerations

- The fun factor
- must be inherently interesting or challenging, but not too much
- The boredom factor
- Can’t be too repetitious or too long
- The embarrassment factor
- e.g., 'Genie to the rescue' failed because other students saw *rescued students* singled out
- Avoiding distractions
- developed a means for students to adjust volume pitch and speed of voice, but never used it because they would play
- Theory vs. Intuition (stay the path)

## Thanks!

- For more information and papers
- http://csep.psyc.memphis.edu