Does the Medium Matter? An Exploration of Voice-Interaction for Self-Explanations
Why this work is in the frame
A frame that forgets how it found something cannot be audited. These are the routes that admitted this work.
Bibliographic record
Abstract
This research evaluates voice-based self-explanations as a pedagogical tool in preparation for lectures, assesses user preferences between voice and text, and derives design insights. We report two studies: Study 1, a quasi-experimental field study, with 247 participants divided into voice-based (N = 83), text-based (N = 81), and choice (N = 83) conditions. Study 2 uses semi-structured interviews (N = 16) to explore perceptions of the interaction paradigms in-depth. Results from the first study revealed a general preference for text, though voice users produced longer responses and more topic-related keywords. Over time, the preference for voice increased among students, from 10% to 46%, when given a choice. Study 2 suggested that factors like social presence contribute to hesitance toward voice-based explanations, with a cognitive load, self-confidence, and performance anxiety also influencing medium preferences. Our findings highlight design recommendations and demonstrate the potential of voice-based self-explanations in educational settings, indicating that mixed interfaces might better meet diverse needs.
Fetched live from OpenAlex and de-inverted. Abstracts are not stored in this database: the inverted indexes are 8.6 GB of the frame’s 9.3 GB of text, and the host has 13 GB free.
Full frame distilled prediction
Teacher imitationNot calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. Learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and 10,348 direct Gemma labels. Candidate is the union of thresholded teacher heads; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels or direct frontier model labels.
Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.004 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
Machine scores (provisional)
The two teacher heads of the student model, read on this work. A score orders the frame for review; it never asserts a category, and the validation status ships verbatim with every row.
Baseline scores from an immature model (maturity gate not passed, 7 training rounds). Scores rank; they never assert a category.
score_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from it