Pith. sign in

REVIEW 4 major objections 4 minor 79 references

Designing an Adaptive Storytelling Platform to Promote Civic Education in Politically Polarized Learning Environments

T0 review · 4 major / 4 minor · reviewed 2026-08-06 · deepseek-v4-flash

Challenge this review Re-run · record.json Download PDF Read on arXiv ↗

Pith's one-line read A working prototype uses facial emotion signals and GPT-4 to rewrite civic story language beat by beat, aiming to keep students emotionally engaged with opposing political views.

desk verdict A candid design report of a novel adaptive storytelling prototype; the integration is real, but the feasibility claim outruns the evidence. read the letter →

arxiv 2507.00161 v1 pith:5ZPY73HB submitted 2025-06-30 cs.HC cs.AI

Christopher M. Wegemer , Edward Halim , Jeff Burke This is my paper · ORCID
classification cs.HCcs.AI
keywords affectivecomputingadaptivestorytellingpoliticalpolarizationciviceducationAI-mediatedlearningfacialemotionrecognitionnarrativepersuasionhuman-AIinteraction
verification ladder T0 review T1 audit T2 compute T3 formal

The pith

A machine-rendered reading of the paper's core claim, the machinery that carries it, and where it could break.

The reading

This paper tries to establish that a working prototype can sense a listener's emotional state from facial expressions and attention cues, compare it against the emotion each story beat is expected to evoke, and rewrite the next beat's language in real time. The motivation is that affective polarization—hostility toward an out-group more than disagreement over policy—demands interventions that keep students emotionally engaged with a narrator who holds a different political view, because rational argument and facilitated intergroup dialogue are limited in scale. The authors built the AI-mediated Digital Civic Storytelling (AI-DCS) platform around three storytelling mechanisms: transportation into the story, identification with the narrator-character, and conversational interaction with the storyteller. The paper's actual claim is feasibility of the adaptation loop, not that the loop measurably reduces polarization or improves civic learning; those outcomes are left to future empirical testing.

What carries the argument

The load-bearing mechanism is the emotion-mismatch adaptation loop built around Story.txt outlines, each segment carrying an expected emotion label. The loop compares averaged facial-emotion probabilities for successive segments; a missed expected shift of at least 30 percent triggers GPT-4 to intensify emotive or descriptive language in the next segment, and three consecutive misses trigger a conversational check-in governed by a supervisory GPT-4 instance. The expected-emotion labels and the threshold are what turn raw affective signals into narrative decisions.

What would settle it

Run the prototype with a user whose webcam frames are artificially degraded—tilted head, glasses, partially covered face—while the user's actual emotion is held constant and matches the expected trajectory; if the system triggers language adaptation or check-ins despite no emotional mismatch, the feasibility claim collapses because the controller is responding to artifact, not affect.

Watch

Extended reading notes

Core claim

On its own terms, the paper claims that beat-by-beat modulation of narrative language—rather than branching plots—is a viable way to apply affective computing to civic education. Each story outline is split into segments of two to five sentences labeled with an expected primary emotion; the system averages emotion-classification probabilities over each story segment and compares the shift between successive segments with the expected emotional trajectory. A shift that misses the expected reaction by at least 30 percent triggers a GPT-4 prompt to render the next segment with stronger emotive and descriptive language, while three consecutive mismatches or attention lapses trigger conversational re-engagement supervised by a separate GPT-4 instance. Trial runs produced the designed adaptations and dialogue check-ins, and the authors present this as evidence that the architecture works, with the caveat that emotional responsiveness remains rudimentary.

Load-bearing premise

The system assumes facial emotion classification is reliable enough in classroom conditions to detect genuine mismatches between expected and felt emotion, even though the paper concedes the classifier misreads tilted heads and partially covered faces and the 30 percent shift threshold is uncalibrated.

Editorial extensions

If this is right

  • If the feasibility claim holds, civic educators can expose students to out-group perspectives through a personalized podcast-style story that requires no trained facilitator.
  • The platform's timestamped logs of emotion probabilities, attention states, and dialogue provide a data stream for studying how young people react emotionally to political narratives at a fine granularity.
  • The design shifts adaptive storytelling from plot branching to linguistic framing, suggesting that keeping a listener inside a story may be achievable by adjusting description and tone rather than changing what happens.
  • Because the adaptation loop can be made visible to the learner, the same architecture could be repurposed to teach algorithmic literacy about how AI personalizes content.

Reading between the lines

Editorial extensions of the paper, not claims the author makes directly.

  • An uncalibrated 30 percent threshold plus a classifier that degrades with head pose means the adaptation loop may sometimes be triggered by measurement noise rather than real emotional mismatch; a calibration study with no-emotional-change baseline sessions would settle this.
  • The paper's strongest defensible contribution is the working adaptation loop, not the educational effect. Testing whether adaptive narration outperforms static narration on transportation, identification, or openness would require a controlled experiment with the same story delivered both ways.
  • The expected-emotion labels written into each outline encode a design assumption about how listeners should feel at each beat; surfacing and questioning that assumption is part of responsible deployment in classrooms.
  • A natural extension of the architecture is to fuse speech prosody and sentiment into the same mismatch logic, since the current speech-to-text pipeline cannot handle real-time interruptions and the authors already experimented with speech emotion recognition.
Share X Bluesky LinkedIn Reddit HN

Editorial analysis

A structured set of objections, weighed in public.

Desk editor's note, referee report, and a circularity audit.

Referee Report

4 major / 4 minor

Summary. The manuscript describes the design, implementation, and initial testing of AI-DCS, a web-based platform that presents first-person civic narratives while performing real-time facial emotion recognition and attention tracking. The system compares segment-averaged emotion probabilities against expected emotion labels in Story.txt outlines; mismatches trigger GPT-4-based language intensification, and persistent disengagement triggers dialogic re-engagement. The authors report a design-based research process with iterative refinements by a single developer-researcher and illustrate outputs from trial runs. The central claim is that the prototype demonstrates feasibility of real-time emotional adaptation in civic storytelling.

Significance. If the feasibility claim were backed by realistic validation, the work would be a meaningful step toward scalable civic-education tools that address affective polarization through story-based engagement. The architecture is clearly described and the prototype apparently executes end to end. The paper is also honest about several limitations, including classifier sensitivity to head pose and partial occlusion. However, the current evidence (self-tests by the developer) supports only that the pipeline runs, not that the adaptation loop works reliably with target users. The design tensions and ethical considerations discussed in Section 5.2 are useful contributions to the HCI literature on affect-adaptive learning environments.

major comments (4)
  1. [Section 6] The opening assertion that the prototype 'demonstrates the feasibility of integrating real-time emotional adaptation into civic storytelling' is not supported by the reported testing. All testing was done by the developer-researcher in simulated sessions (Section 3), and no classroom or cross-user data are presented. The word 'feasibility' in context implies that the sensor-to-adaptation loop works under realistic conditions; the evidence only establishes that the software pipeline executes. Either report a user study with target students or narrow the claim to 'technical prototype feasibility under controlled conditions.'
  2. [Section 4.2, Feature 4] The emotion-mismatch rule is triggered by a 30% increase in expected emotion probability, but this threshold is asserted without calibration to classifier error or to natural variation in emotion probabilities across segments. Section 6 concedes that the classifier (trained on approximately 3,000 RAF-DB images, 80% test accuracy) does not tolerate tilted heads or partially covered faces and classifies some emotions less accurately than others. In a classroom, such input conditions are common, so the mismatch signal may be dominated by measurement noise. Without calibration data (e.g., precision/recall on the target population or at least a no-intervention comparison), the claim that beat-by-beat adaptations respond to genuine emotional lapses is unsubstantiated.
  3. [Section 5.1] The two trial runs do not provide evidence that the emotive adaptation changes user emotion as intended. The examples are hand-selected outputs; no systematic measure of user affect or engagement is reported for baseline versus emotive conditions. The statement that increased descriptiveness 'appeared to encourage emotional alignment for some emotions more reliably than others' is anecdotal. This is acceptable as design exploration, but it cannot support the feasibility claim without an outcome measure.
  4. [Section 4.2, Feature 4] The attention signal is a binary indicator of whether facial coordinates are within 20% of the frame center, and the authors acknowledge it does not use eye tracking, head position, or behavioral cues. Attention is a prerequisite for engagement in the system's own logic, yet this signal is too coarse to distinguish looking at the screen from attending to the story. This weakens the re-engagement trigger and, consequently, the feasibility claim for the full adaptive loop.
minor comments (4)
  1. [Section 6] The phrase 'algorithmic literacy38' contains a stray '38' that appears to be a citation rather than part of the sentence; please fix the formatting.
  2. [Section 2.3] The passage citing 'accuracy above 99% in classifying facial emotions in real-world contexts' is in tension with the reported 80% accuracy of the deployed model; I recommend tempering this sentence to avoid implying that such accuracy transfers to the present component.
  3. [Section 4.1] The phrase 'tacit selection of a story' is unclear; the selection is conversationally elicited, so consider describing it as an explicit but unobtrusive choice.
  4. [Section 3] The statement that Edward 'tested and refined user interactions from the perspective of a single developer-researcher' is a key limitation; I recommend moving this limitation into Section 6 so readers see it alongside the feasibility claim.

Circularity Check

0 steps flagged · score 0.0 of 10

No significant circularity: the paper is a design-based research prototype description, and its adaptation loop is a control mechanism rather than a fitted prediction.

full rationale

The paper makes no quantitative prediction that could reduce to a fitted input. The expected emotional trajectories in Section 4.2, Feature 4 (e.g., 'if the expected emotion of the first story segment was neutral and the second story segment was happy, then the classification probability of happiness was expected to increase by at least 30%') are authored metadata in the Story.txt files, not parameters fitted to outcome data; matching those expectations is presented as a control signal, not as evidence of attitude change or polarization reduction. The central feasibility claim in Section 6 ('our AI-DCS prototype demonstrates the feasibility of integrating real-time emotional adaptation into civic storytelling through beat-by-beat narrative adjustments') is supported by system trials showing that the pipeline executes, which is a self-contained implementation claim. The only notable self-citation, reference [64] (Wegemer and Burke, in preparation), provides the story outlines ('The outlines were derived from narratives co-designed with GPT-3.5 [64]') and background on an earlier attitude-change study; it is not invoked as the proof of the adaptation mechanism, so it is not load-bearing in the derivation chain. The paper's own limitations—classifier sensitivity to tilted heads and partially covered faces, the uncalibrated 30% threshold, and rudimentary attention detection—undermine the strength of the feasibility claim as an empirical matter, but they are validation gaps, not circular reasoning. No equation or design step is equivalent by construction to its own input.

Assumptions & free parameters 4 free parameters · 4 assumptions · 0 invented entities

The central claim rests on narrative persuasion theory and on the reliability of affect detection. The only fitted values are the emotion classifier weights and the hand-set thresholds for mismatch, attention, and re-engagement. No speculative theoretical entities are introduced; the AI narrator and supervisory GPT-4 are implemented software components. The expected-emotion labels in the story files are author-created assumptions, not validated measurements.

free parameters (4)
  • Emotion mismatch threshold = >=30% increase in emotion probability
    Hand-set threshold in Feature 4: if the classification probability of the expected emotion does not rise by at least 30% between segments, the system triggers language adaptation. No calibration or sensitivity analysis is reported.
  • Attention margin = within 20% of frame center
    Hand-set binary attention detector in Feature 4: face position must remain within 20% of the center of the frame; this ignores gaze, head pose, and most behavioral cues.
  • Disengagement persistence threshold = 3 consecutive story segments
    Hand-set trigger in Feature 5: the narrator initiates a check-in only after three consecutive segments of emotional mismatch or inattention.
  • CNN emotion classifier weights = trained on ~3,000 RAF-DB images, 80% test accuracy
    The TensorFlow CNN described in Feature 4 is the source of the real-time emotion signal. Its weights are fitted parameters that are not released, and the paper reports no per-class accuracy, confidence intervals, or cross-validation details.
assumptions (4)
  • domain assumption Narrative transportation, identification, and interaction with a storyteller can increase persuasion and perspective-taking.
    The paper's design conjectures in Table 1 and Section 2.2 rest on this prior literature; it is not tested by the prototype itself.
  • domain assumption Facial expressions and facial position are reliable real-time indicators of emotional engagement and attention.
    The entire adaptive loop depends on this, but the paper itself notes that the model does not tolerate tilted heads or covered faces and that some emotions are poorly classified (Section 6).
  • ad hoc to paper Expected emotion labels attached to each story segment are valid for a diverse student population.
    The Story.txt outlines are authored by the researchers and label each segment with an expected emotion. If a student does not feel the expected emotion, the system treats this as a mismatch and adapts, possibly incorrectly.
  • ad hoc to paper Increasing the emotional intensity of language moves an emotionally misaligned listener toward the expected emotion.
    Feature 4 and Section 5.1 assume that emotive language adaptation guides the user toward the expected emotional trajectory; this is asserted, not measured across users.

how reviews work

0 comments
Cite this review

Pith. "Pith review of Designing an Adaptive Storytelling Platform to Promote Civic Education in Politically Polarized Learning Environments." pith.science (2026). https://pith.science/paper/5ZPY73HB

@misc{pith2026250700161,
  author       = {Pith},
  title        = {Pith review of: Designing an Adaptive Storytelling Platform to Promote Civic Education in Politically Polarized Learning Environments},
  year         = {2026},
  howpublished = {\url{https://pith.science/paper/5ZPY73HB}},
  note         = {Machine review of arXiv:2507.00161}
}
read the original abstract

Political polarization undermines democratic civic education by exacerbating identity-based resistance to opposing viewpoints. Emerging AI technologies offer new opportunities to advance interventions that reduce polarization and promote political open-mindedness. We examined novel design strategies that leverage adaptive and emotionally-responsive civic narratives that may sustain students' emotional engagement in stories, and in turn, promote perspective-taking toward members of political out-groups. Drawing on theories from political psychology and narratology, we investigate how affective computing techniques can support three storytelling mechanisms: transportation into a story world, identification with characters, and interaction with the storyteller. Using a design-based research (DBR) approach, we iteratively developed and refined an AI-mediated Digital Civic Storytelling (AI-DCS) platform. Our prototype integrates facial emotion recognition and attention tracking to assess users' affective and attentional states in real time. Narrative content is organized around pre-structured story outlines, with beat-by-beat language adaptation implemented via GPT-4, personalizing linguistic tone to sustain students' emotional engagement in stories that center political perspectives different from their own. Our work offers a foundation for AI-supported, emotionally-sensitive strategies that address affective polarization while preserving learner autonomy. We conclude with implications for civic education interventions, algorithmic literacy, and HCI challenges associated with AI dialogue management and affect-adaptive learning environments.

Figures

Figures reproduced from arXiv: 2507.00161 by the authors.

Figure 1
Figure 1. Workflow diagram of the introduction phase of the AI-DCS prototype. Feature 1: Human-AI dialogue. Emotional engagement depends on natural turn-tak￾ing responsiveness, and accordingly, the interactivity of the platform was based on con￾versational exchange. We began developing our prototype before mixed-media foun￾dation model APIs were publicly available and we built the conversational feature by chaining text-to-sp… view at source ↗
Figure 2
Figure 2. Workflow diagram of the storytelling phase of the AI-DCS prototype. Feature 3: Web video hosting. Real-time, low-latency transmission of audio and video is critical for fostering an authentic and natural interaction. To accomplish this, we uti￾lized WebRTC to establish bidirectional media streams between the client and server [66]. By offloading media handling to WebRTC’s peer-to-peer architecture while inte￾grating… view at source ↗
Figure 3
Figure 3. Visual interface of a user interacting with the storytelling platform. Feature 4: Dynamic emotion assessment. We sought to determine how real-time emotion data could be used to reliably inform dynamic adjustments in story language. We primarily relied on facial emotion recognition using a TensorFlow-based model trained on the Real-world Affective Faces Database (RAF-DB) [67]. The images con￾sist of facial expression… view at source ↗
Figures from the paper (1 more)
Figure 4
Figure 4. Figure 4: Workflow diagram of the interactional loop of the AI-DCS prototype [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p010_4.png]

Discussion (0). Continue with ORCID to comment.

Reference graph

Works this paper leans on

79 extracted references · 77 canonical work pages

  1. [1]

    Peabody J

    DiGiacomo, D.K., Hodgin, E., Kahne, J., Trapp, S.: Civic education in a politi- cally polarized era. Peabody J. Educ. 96(3), 261–274 (2021)

    work page 2021

  2. [2]

    UCLA Institute for Democracy, Education, and Access (2022) 18 C

    Rogers, J., Kahne, J., Ishimoto, M., Kwako, A., Stern, S.C., Bingener, C., Raph- ael, L., Alkam, S., Conde, Y.: Educating for a diverse democracy: The chilling role of political conflict in blue, purple, and red communities. UCLA Institute for Democracy, Education, and Access (2022) 18 C. Wegemer, E. Halim, and J. Burke

    work page 2022

  3. [3]

    Princeton University Press, Princeton (2022)

    Bail, C.: Breaking the Social Media Prism: How to Make Our Platforms Less Polarizing. Princeton University Press, Princeton (2022)

    work page 2022

  4. [4]

    Argyle, L.P., Bail, C.A., Busby, E.C., Gubler, J.R., Howe, T., Rytting, C., Win- gate, D.: Leveraging AI for democratic discourse: Chat interventions can im- prove online political conversations at scale. Proc. Natl. Acad. Sci. 120(41), e2311627120 (2023)

    work page 2023

  5. [5]

    Dias, N., Lelkes, Y.: The nature of affective polarization: Disentangling policy disagreement from partisan identity. Am. J. Polit. Sci. 66(3), 775–790 (2022)

    work page 2022

  6. [6]

    Public Opin

    Iyengar, S., Sood, G., Lelkes, Y.: Affect, not ideology: A social identity per- spective on polarization. Public Opin. Q. 76(3), 405–431 (2012)

    work page 2012

  7. [7]

    Vistorte, A.O.R., Deroncele-Acosta, A., Ayala, J.L.M., Barrasa, A., López- Granero, C., Martí-González, M.: Integrating artificial intelligence to assess emotions in learning environments: A systematic literature review. Front. Psy- chol. 15, 1387089 (2024)

    work page 2024

  8. [8]

    Wang, Y., Song, W., Tao, W., Liotta, A., Yang, D., Li, X., Zhang, W.: A sys- tematic review on affective computing: Emotion models, databases, and recent advances. Inf. Fusion 83, 19–52 (2022)

    work page 2022

Show all 79 references
  1. [9]

    Green, M.C., Appel, M.: Narrative transportation: How stories shape how we see ourselves and the world. Adv. Exp. Soc. Psychol. 70(1) (2024)

    2024

  2. [10]

    Moyer-Gusé, E., Wilson, J.: Eudaimonic entertainment overcoming resistance: An update and expansion of narrative persuasion models. Hum. Commun. Res. 50(2), 208–217 (2024)

    2024

  3. [11]

    In: Proc

    Mateas, M., Stern, A.: Structuring content in the Façade interactive drama ar- chitecture. In: Proc. AAAI Conf. Artif. Intell. Interact. Digit. Entertain., vol. 1(1), pp. 93–98 (2005)

    2005

  4. [12]

    Riedl, M.O., Bulitko, V.: Interactive narrative: An intelligent systems approach. AI Mag. 34(1), 67–67 (2013)

    2013

  5. [13]

    Burke, J., Stein, J.: Live performance and post-cinematic filmmaking. Perform. Matters 6(1), 28–47 (2020)

    2020

  6. [14]

    Fang, X., Ng, D.T.K., Leung, J.K.L., Chu, S.K.W.: A systematic review of ar- tificial intelligence technologies used for story writing. Educ. Inf. Technol. 28(11), 14361–14397 (2023)

    2023

  7. [15]

    Prometheus, New York (1933) (Original work pub- lished 1910)

    Dewey, J.: How We Think. Prometheus, New York (1933) (Original work pub- lished 1910)

    1933

  8. [16]

    iCivics (2021)

    Educating for American Democracy (EAD): Educating for American Democ- racy: Excellence in history and civics for all learners. iCivics (2021). https://www.educatingforamericandemocracy.org, last accessed 2024/06/14

    2021

  9. [17]

    Department of Education: Civics Framework for the 2018 National Assess- ment of Educational Progress

    U.S. Department of Education: Civics Framework for the 2018 National Assess- ment of Educational Progress. National Assessment Governing Board (2018). https://www.nagb.gov/content/dam/nagb/en/documents/publications/frame- works/civics/2018-civics-framework.pdf, last accessed 2...

    2018

  10. [18]

    In: Austin, W.G., Worchel, S

    Tajfel, H., Turner, J.C., Austin, W.G., Worchel, S.: An integrative theory of intergroup conflict. In: Austin, W.G., Worchel, S. (eds.) The Social Psychology of Intergroup Relations, pp. 33–47. Brooks Cole, Monterey (1979) Adaptive Storytelling for Civic Education 19

    1979

  11. [19]

    Taber, C.S., Lodge, M.: Motivated skepticism in the evaluation of political be- liefs. Am. J. Polit. Sci. 50(3), 755–769 (2006)

    2006

  12. [20]

    Cambridge University Press, Cambridge (2021)

    Levendusky, M.S., Stecula, D.A.: We Need to Talk: How Cross-Party Dialogue Reduces Affective Polarization. Cambridge University Press, Cambridge (2021)

    2021

  13. [21]

    Levy, B., Babb-Guerra, A., Batt, L.M., Owczarek, W.: Can education reduce political polarization? Fostering open-minded political engagement during the legislative semester. Teach. Coll. Rec. 121(5), 1–40 (2019)

    2019

  14. [22]

    Jost, J.T., Baldassarri, D.S., Druckman, J.N.: Cognitive–motivational mecha- nisms of political polarization in social-communicative contexts. Nat. Rev. Psy- chol. 1(10), 560–576 (2022)

    2022

  15. [23]

    Kahne, J., Bowyer, B.: Educating for democracy in a partisan age: Confronting the challenges of motivated reasoning and misinformation. Am. Educ. Res. J. 54(1), 3–34 (2017)

    2017

  16. [24]

    Hillygus, D.S., Holbein, J.B.: Refocusing civic education: Developing the skills young people need to engage in democracy. Ann. Am. Acad. Polit. Soc. Sci. 705(1), 73–94 (2023)

    2023

  17. [25]

    Keegan, P.: Critical affective civic literacy: A framework for attending to polit- ical emotion in the social studies classroom. J. Soc. Stud. Res. 45(1), 15–24 (2021)

    2021

  18. [26]

    Graf, E., Goetz, T., Bieleke, M., Murano, D.: Feeling politics at high school: Antecedents and effects of emotions in civic education. Polit. Psychol. 45, 23– 42 (2024)

    2024

  19. [27]

    Teachers College Press, New York (2018)

    Mirra, N.: Educating for Empathy: Literacy Learning and Civic Engagement. Teachers College Press, New York (2018)

    2018

  20. [28]

    Oxford University Press, Oxford (2015)

    Papacharissi, Z.: Affective Publics: Sentiment, Technology, and Politics. Oxford University Press, Oxford (2015)

    2015

  21. [29]

    Santoro, E., Broockman, D.E.: The promise and pitfalls of cross-partisan con- versations for reducing affective polarization. Sci. Adv. 8(25) (2022)

    2022

  22. [30]

    Allport, F.H.: The structuring of events: Outline of a general theory with appli- cations to psychology. Psychol. Rev. 61(5), 281–303 (1954)

    1954

  23. [31]

    Pettigrew, T.F.: Intergroup contact theory. Annu. Rev. Psychol. 49(1), 65–85 (1998)

    1998

  24. [32]

    MacInnis, C.C., Page-Gould, E.: How can intergroup interaction be bad if inter- group contact is good? Perspect. Psychol. Sci. 10(3), 307–327 (2015)

    2015

  25. [33]

    Polletta, F., Redman, N.: When do stories change our minds? Narrative persua- sion about social problems. Sociol. Compass 14(4), e12778 (2020)

    2020

  26. [34]

    Theory Res

    Conklin, H.G., Andolina, M.W.: Toward a more empathic, connected, and hu- manizing democracy: A civics curriculum centering listening and storytelling. Theory Res. Soc. Educ. 53, 1–34 (2025)

    2025

  27. [35]

    Cohen, J., Tal-Or, N., Mazor-Tregerman, M.: The tempering effect of transpor- tation: Exploring the effects of transportation and identification during exposure to controversial two-sided narratives. J. Commun. 65(2), 237–258 (2015)

    2015

  28. [36]

    Till, B., Vitouch, P.: Capital punishment in films: The impact of death penalty portrayals on viewers’ mood and attitude toward capital punishment. Int. J. Pub- lic Opin. Res. 24(3), 387–399 (2012) 20 C. Wegemer, E. Halim, and J. Burke

    2012

  29. [37]

    Green, M.C., Brock, T.C.: The role of transportation in the persuasiveness of public narratives. J. Pers. Soc. Psychol. 79(5), 701–721 (2000)

    2000

  30. [38]

    Discourse Process

    Gerrig, R.J.: Processes and products of readers’ journeys to narrative worlds. Discourse Process. 60(4–5), 226–243 (2023)

    2023

  31. [39]

    PLoS ONE 8(1), e55341 (2013)

    Bal, P.M., Veltkamp, M.: How does fiction reading influence empathy? An ex- perimental investigation on the role of emotional transportation. PLoS ONE 8(1), e55341 (2013)

    2013

  32. [40]

    Hibbin, R.: The psychosocial benefits of oral storytelling in school: Developing identity and empathy through narrative. Pastor. Care Educ. 34(4), 218–231 (2016)

    2016

  33. [41]

    Van Krieken, K., Hoeken, H., Sanders, J.: Evoking and measuring identification with narrative characters: A linguistic cues framework. Front. Psychol. 8, 1190 (2017)

    2017

  34. [42]

    In: Vorderer, P., Klimmt, C

    Cohen, J., Klimmt, C.: Stepping in and out of media characters: Identification and dynamic shifts in users’ positioning toward entertainment messages. In: Vorderer, P., Klimmt, C. (eds.) The Oxford Handbook of Entertainment Theory, pp. 266–284. Oxford University Press, Oxford (2021)

    2021

  35. [43]

    De Graaf, A., Hoeken, H., Sanders, J., Beentjes, J.W.: Identification as a mech- anism of narrative persuasion. Commun. Res. 39(6), 802–823 (2012)

    2012

  36. [44]

    Storytelling Self Soc

    Polletta, F.: Characters in political storytelling. Storytelling Self Soc. 11(1), 34– 55 (2015)

    2015

  37. [45]

    Huang, K.Y., Fung, H.H., Sun, P.: The effect of audience–character similarity on identification with narrative characters: A meta-analysis. Curr. Psychol. 43(8), 7026–7043 (2024)

    2024

  38. [46]

    I can’t believe that hap- pened!

    Nichols, E., Szapiro, D., Vasylkiv, Y., Gomez, R.: “I can’t believe that hap- pened!”: Exploring expressivity in collaborative storytelling with the tabletop robot Haru. In: Proc. 31st IEEE Int. Conf. Robot Hum. Interact. Commun. (RO- MAN), pp. 59–59 (2022)

    2022

  39. [47]

    In: Proc

    Maeda, T., Quan-Haase, A.: When human-AI interactions become parasocial: Agency and anthropomorphism in affective design. In: Proc. 2024 ACM Conf. Fairness, Accountab. Transparency, pp. 1068–1077 (2024)

    2024

  40. [48]

    Cambridge University Press, Cam- bridge (1996)

    Reeves, B., Nass, C.: The Media Equation: How People Treat Computers, Tel- evision, and New Media Like Real People. Cambridge University Press, Cam- bridge (1996)

    1996

  41. [49]

    Edwards, C., Edwards, A., Stoll, B., Lin, X., Massey, N.: Evaluations of an ar- tificial intelligence instructor’s voice: Social identity theory in human-robot in- teractions. Comput. Hum. Behav. 90, 357–362 (2019)

    2019

  42. [50]

    Brewer, W.F., Lichtenstein, E.H.: Stories are to entertain: A structural-affect theory of stories. J. Pragmat. 6(5–6), 473–486 (1982)

    1982

  43. [51]

    Hoeken, H., Kolthoff, M., Sanders, J.: Story perspective and character similarity as drivers of identification and narrative persuasion. Hum. Commun. Res. 42(2), 292–311 (2016)

    2016

  44. [52]

    In: Proc

    Ye, L., Jiang, J., Liu, Y., Ran, Y., Chang, D.: Colin: A Multimodal Human-AI Co-Creation Storytelling System to Support Children’s Multi-Level Narrative Adaptive Storytelling for Civic Education 21 Skills. In: Proc. Extended Abstracts CHI Conf. Hum. Factors Comput. Syst., pp. ...

    2025

  45. [53]

    Moore, T.: Pedagogy, podcasts, and politics: What role does podcasting have in planning education? J. Plann. Educ. Res. (2022). https://doi.org/10.1177/0739456X221106327

    2022 doi

  46. [54]

    MIT Press, Cambridge (2000)

    Picard, R.W.: Affective Computing. MIT Press, Cambridge (2000)

    2000

  47. [55]

    IEEE Trans

    Calvo, R.A., D'Mello, S.: Affect detection: An interdisciplinary review of mod- els, methods, and their applications. IEEE Trans. Affect. Comput. 1(1), 18–37 (2010)

    2010

  48. [56]

    Mejbri, N., Essalmi, F., Jemni, M., Alyoubi, B.A.: Trends in the use of affective computing in e-learning environments. Educ. Inf. Technol. 27, 1–23 (2022)

    2022

  49. [57]

    Barbosa, P.L.S., Carmo, R.A.F.D., Gomes, J.P., Viana, W.: Adaptive learning in computer science education: A scoping review. Educ. Inf. Technol. 29(8), 9139–9188 (2024)

    2024

  50. [58]

    Ahmed, N., Al Aghbari, Z., Girija, S.: A systematic survey on multimodal emo- tion recognition using learning algorithms. Intell. Syst. Appl. 17, 200171 (2023)

    2023

  51. [59]

    In: 2024 4th Int

    Dutta, S., Ranjan, S., Mishra, S., Sharma, V., Hewage, P., Iwendi, C.: Enhanc- ing educational adaptability: A review and analysis of AI-driven adaptive learn- ing platforms. In: 2024 4th Int. Conf. Innov. Pract. Technol. Manag. (ICIPTM), pp. 1–5. IEEE (2024)

    2024

  52. [60]

    Khare, S.K., Blanes-Vidal, V., Nadimi, E.S., Acharya, U.R.: Emotion recogni- tion and artificial intelligence: A systematic review (2014–2023) and research recommendations. Inf. Fusion 102, 102019 (2024)

    2024

  53. [61]

    Weinberger, A., Fischer, F.: A framework to analyze argumentative knowledge construction in computer-supported collaborative learning. Comput. Educ. 46(1), 71–95 (2006)

    2006

  54. [62]

    Routledge, New York (2018)

    McKenney, S., Reeves, T.: Conducting Educational Design Research. Routledge, New York (2018)

    2018

  55. [63]

    Bannan-Ritland, B.: The role of design in research: The integrative learning de- sign framework. Educ. Res. 32(1), 21–24 (2003)

    2003

  56. [64]

    Wegemer, C.M., Burke, J.: Can Generative AI Promote Democracy? Confront- ing Partisan Stereotypes with Digital Storytelling. Am. Educ. Res. J. (in prepa- ration)

  57. [65]

    In: Proc

    Topsakal, O., Akinci, T.C.: Creating large language model applications utilizing LangChain: A primer on developing LLM apps fast. In: Proc. Int. Conf. Appl. Eng. Nat. Sci. 1(1), 1050–1056 (2023)

    2023

  58. [66]

    Edan, N., Mahmood, S.A.: Design and implement a new mechanism for audio, video and screen recording based on WebRTC technology. Int. J. Electr. Com- put. Eng. 10(3), 2773 (2020)

    2020

  59. [67]

    In: Proc

    Li, S., Deng, W., Du, J.: Reliable crowdsourcing and deep locality-preserving learning for expression recognition in the wild. In: Proc. IEEE Conf. Comput. Vis. Pattern Recognit., pp. 2852–2861 (2017)

    2017

  60. [68]

    Qiao, L., Han, Z., Wang, W., Li, L., Tong, Y.: A review of attention detection in online learning. Artif. Intell. Educ. Teach. Assess., 87–100 (2021) 22 C. Wegemer, E. Halim, and J. Burke

    2021

  61. [69]

    In: Proc

    Hutto, C., Gilbert, E.: Vader: A parsimonious rule-based model for sentiment analysis of social media text. In: Proc. Int. AAAI Conf. Web Soc. Media, vol. 8(1), pp. 216–225 (2014)

    2014

  62. [70]

    arXiv preprint arXiv:2504.16939 (2025)

    Acikgoz, E.C., Qian, C., Wang, H., Dongre, V., Chen, X., Ji, H., et al.: A desid- eratum for conversational agents: Capabilities, challenges, and future directions. arXiv preprint arXiv:2504.16939 (2025)

    2025 arXiv

  63. [71]

    Nelimarkka, M., Vuorenmaa, V.: What Do We Study When Studying Politics and Democracy? A semantic analysis of how politics and democracy are used in SIGCHI conference papers. Int. J. Hum.-Comput. Interact. 1–17 (2024)

    2024

  64. [72]

    In: Proc

    Frey, J., Ostrin, G., Grabli, M., Cauchard, J.R.: Physiologically driven storytell- ing: Concept and software tool. In: Proc. 2020 CHI Conf., pp. 1–13 (2020)

    2020

  65. [73]

    SSRN 4912427 (2024)

    Boots, B.C., Matlack, A.K., Richardson-Gool, T.S.: A call for promoting algo- rithmic literacy. SSRN 4912427 (2024)

    2024

  66. [74]

    NSF Report (2024)

    Garcia, A., Berland, M., Mirra, N., Moore, D.P.: RAPID: DRL-AI: Construct- ing understandings of generative AI and machine learning with high school youth. NSF Report (2024). https://stelar.edc.org/sites/default/files/2024- 10/RAPID%20Project%20Brief.pdf, last accessed 2024/06/14

    2024

  67. [75]

    AI Ethics 4(4), 927–948 (2024)

    Katirai, A.: Ethical considerations in emotion recognition technologies: A re- view of the literature. AI Ethics 4(4), 927–948 (2024)

    2024

  68. [76]

    Mattioli, M., Cabitza, F.: Not in my face: Challenges and ethical considerations in automatic face emotion recognition technology. Mach. Learn. Knowl. Extr. 6(4), 2201–2231 (2024)

    2024

  69. [77]

    Madanian, S., Chen, T., Adeleye, O., Templeton, J.M., Poellabauer, C., Parry, D., Schneider, S.L.: Speech emotion recognition using machine learning—A systematic review. Intell. Syst. Appl. 20, 200266 (2023)

    2023

  70. [78]

    Memarian, B., Doleck, T.: Fairness, accountability, transparency, and ethics (FATE) in artificial intelligence (AI) and higher education: A systematic re- view. Comput. Educ.: Artif. Intell. 100152 (2023)

    2023

  71. [79]

    MIT Exploration of Generative AI (2024)

    Resnick, M.: Generative AI and creative learning: Concerns, opportunities, and choices. MIT Exploration of Generative AI (2024)

    2024

Pith tools

Reviewed August 6, 2026 · model on record in the stance chip above.