Wordinary: A Software Tool for Teaching Greek Word Families to Elementary School Students
DOI: https://doi.org/10.1145/3575879.3575992
PCI 2022: 26th Pan-Hellenic Conference on Informatics, Athens, Greece, November 2022
Learning word families, that is sets of words with the same root, is important for children of very young ages as it helps them to grow their reading and writing skills in Greek. This is why teaching such word families is one of the main topics of the Modern Greek courses in primary and secondary education of Greece. This paper presents Wordinary, an interactive desktop application that supports teachers in their efforts of teaching Greek word families to elementary school students. The application presented in this paper is the first of its kind that supports the Greek language. Wordinary is meant to be used by teachers to support the design of learning activities related to teaching Greek word families for any word found in the official schoolbooks of the six elementary school grades in Greece. The application was developed following a user-centered design approach and the Python programming language. Two usability evaluation studies were conducted, one user testing study involving end users, and one heuristic evaluation involving HCI experts. The studies found that Wordinary is a usable and useful application. Evaluation results also identified issues for improvement, which led to a redesigned version of Wordinary.
ACM Reference Format:
Nikolaos, Tzamos, Dimitra, Ioannou and Christos, Katsanos. 2022. Wordinary: A Software Tool for Teaching Greek Word Families to Elementary School Students. In 26th Pan-Hellenic Conference on Informatics (PCI 2022), November 25-27, 2022, Athens, Greece. ACM, New York, NY, USA, 10 Pages. https://doi.org/10.1145/3575879.3575992
1 INTRODUCTION
Learning to spell is a rather challenging task. In order to do so, teaching approaches focus on phoneme-grapheme correspondences in the early school years. Orthographic and morphological knowledge is usually targeted later on along with accumulating reading experience [18].
Recent research, however, has questioned the aforementioned teaching tradition. Bowers and Bowers [4] posit that phonology, morphology as well as etymology should be taught jointly from the beginning of literacy instruction. Their argument holds particularly true in morphologically rich languages, such as Greek.
Most of the roots of the Greek words (etymology) are traced back to Ancient Greek or Latin languages. Although a highly transparent orthography in the feedforward direction (from orthography to phonology with 95.1% overall consistency at the grapheme-phoneme level), consistency level drops at 80.3% in the feedback direction (from phonology to orthography) [17]. One significant source of opacity stems from multiple representations for certain vowels. For example, the vowel phoneme /i/ has six different spellings (η, υ, ι, ɛι, οι, υι). Hence, children may spell phonologically acceptable words but struggle with successful choice of vowel graphemes [7].
One way to enhance children's spelling ability is a shift of attention towards word roots through learning of word families. Words from the same family share common vowel graphemes hence reducing the mnemonic load of discrete orthographic representations. For instance, the words "οικογένɛια" /ikojenia/ (family), "κάτοικος" /katikos/ (resident), "πολυκατοικία" /polikaticia/ (apartment block) derive from the root word "οίκος" /ikos/ (house) where the vowel phoneme /i/ is spelled with the vowel grapheme "οι" (not η, υ, etc.). As perceived, children's realization of common roots within multiple words might make spelling attempts less confusing and more accurate.
In accordance with this notion, a study [8] found that an approach which focuses on the interconnections between phonology, morphology and etymology yielded promising results regarding the reading and spelling skills of persistently poor Grade 3 readers. This approach called the Structured Word Inquiry (SWI) [4] trains children to attend to grapho-morphemic patterns, generate and test hypotheses about the spelling-meaning connection of words when there is a conflict of grapheme choice, such as "Why is there a ‘οι’ /i/ and not a ‘ι’ or ‘η’ in the word ‘κάτοικος’ /katikos/ (resident)?" in the aforementioned example.
Although ongoing research informs educational practice on the effectiveness of various approaches, practical implications cannot be disregarded. Educators are confronted with multiple challenges throughout the school curriculum. Thus, it is of outmost importance to be equipped with the appropriate technological tools that would motivate the implementation of alternative methodologies to spelling instruction. That is the purpose of the current research.
This paper presents Wordinary, an interactive desktop application that supports teachers in their efforts of teaching Greek word families to elementary school students. The application presented in this paper is the first of its kind that supports the Greek language. Given the connection between learning word families and developing spelling skills, the importance of such tools to support the teacher becomes apparent.
2 RELATED WORK: SOFTWARE TOOLS FOR TEACHING WORD FAMILIES
This section presents software tools that have a similar purpose to that of the application presented in this paper. These tools provide functionality to search for the family, derivatives or even compound words of a specific word entered by the user. No tool has been found that supports searching for the word family of a user-provided Greek word in general, and a word that is included in the books of the Greek elementary school in particular.
2.1 Word family framework
The British Council is an organization of the United Kingdom that, among other things, aims to aid people around the world in learning English by providing them helpful tools. One of these tools is the Word Family Framework1 (WFF), an online application where people can find the families of words for any level of the English language, classified according to the scale of the Common European Framework of Reference for Languages (CEFR) [6].
Users can either select a specific word to see its related words in the various CEFR levels, or a specific level to see the words, and their families, included in that level (Figure 1). WWF consists of 22000 words and for each of them information is included about their meaning and what part of speech they are. This tool only supports the English language.
2.2 OWID elexiko
OWID2 is a portal for scientific, corpus-based lexicography of German developed by the Leibniz Institute for the German Language (IDS). Its website contains multiple tools that support the learning and understanding of the German language.
One of these tools is the OWID elexiko3 (Figure 2). This tool provides functionality for a user to search for compound words or derivatives of a particular word. A user can also, among other things, define what parts of speech will be returned in the results of the search as well as whether these results will contain the selected word at the beginning or at the end of them, a handy feature when searching for compound words.
3 WORDINARY REQUIREMENTS AND DESIGN
Wordinary's main functionality is searching for any word contained in the schoolbooks of the Greek elementary school grades and returning its family of words. This could even be considered the sole requirement for the proposed application. However, our goal when developing Wordinary was to create an easy-to-use application that is highly configurable so that users can adapt it to their own needs. Thus, extra requirements were put into place to achieve this. Table 1 presents the main high-level requirements for Wordinary. Development followed the user-centered software design.
Requirements |
---|
1. Search for a word contained in a set of schoolbooks |
2. Display the family of a specific word |
3. Access words that the user has recently searched |
4. Access specific words that the user has for some reason distinguished (e.g., unknown, difficult, or important words) |
5. Create accounts for multiple students (one teacher typically has many students) and differentiate their data |
6. Modify the Wordinary vocabulary (add/edit/remove words, the extracted data from books are imperfect) |
7. Create book profiles, sets of specific books that can help filter the books in which the user wants to search for words |
3.1 Architecture and development technologies
The Wordinary internal architecture comprises two conceptual layers: the vocabulary generation layer (named WordinaryKernel), and the user interface layer (named WordinaryUI). Figure 3 showcases the information flow presented in the following.
The WordinaryKernel is responsible for extracting the words contained in the elementary school books and transforming them in a way that the WordinaryUI can use in order to support the functionality of searching in them to find the family of a user-provided word. First, the WordinaryKernel parses the PDF files of the schoolbooks to extract all words contained in them. The parsing is implemented using the Python programming language and specifically its module, tika. Subsequently, the extracted words are lemmatized using the ILSP Lemmatizer4 tool of the CLARIN:EL5 platform. This results in keeping only the uninflected form of words. Finally, the Greek version of the Wiktionary6 is used to determine the family of each uninflected word. Wiktionary also contains words in their uninflected form, which is typical for any dictionary, and thus lemmatization was a necessary step in the process. The end result of the WordinaryKernel is an SQLite3 database containing the schoolbook words and their families.
The WordinaryUI is responsible for the interaction with the tools’ user. The application's graphical user interface (Figure 4) was developed using the PyQt6 Python library. The PyInstaller Python module was used to create an executable file for the Windows operating system.
3.2 User flows
Wordinary has a single main flow that branches into two separate ones as well as multiple secondary flows that have to do with managing the application data and settings.
The main flow serves the application's main purpose, that is searching for the family of specific user-provided words. Users can achieve this by either typing in the search bar located in the top of the main UI (Figure 4) or by selecting a word from the recent searches or starred words (i.e. favorites) sections which are located in the left part of the main UI (Figure 4). For both ways, the filters in the right part of the main UI (Figure 4) can be used to adjust the set of words a user can search from (i.e., select a specific grade and/or a specific subject), while the search results (i.e. the family of the user-provided word) are displayed in the bottom part of the main UI. As seen in Figure 4, some results are displayed with a black border while others with a blue one. The former corresponds to words contained in the books of the selected grade while the latter to words that are not contained in these books but are returned by Wiktionary as part of the searched word's family.
The secondary user flows have to do with modifying the Wordinary vocabulary (Figure 5, top-left) and user data (Figure 5, top-right), editing the application settings (Figure 5, bottom-left) and reading the application's tutorial (Figure 5, bottom-right). These actions are all accessible through popup windows opened by corresponding buttons in the main window of Wordinary.
4 EVALUATION STUDIES
Regarding the evaluation of Wordinary, the key question that we wanted to answer was whether this first version of the tool, which was developed in the context of the first author's undergraduate thesis, could satisfy the needs of its end users. To this end, two methods were employed: a) heuristic evaluation, b) user testing.
4.1 Heuristic evaluation
4.1.1 Methodology. Four evaluators, 4 females, conducted a heuristic evaluation [15] of Wordinary.
The evaluators were final-year postgraduate students of the MSc “Technologies of Interactive Systems” offered by the Department of Informatics of the Aristotle University of Thessaloniki. They had a background on developing software applications and had successfully completed at least one course on HCI, the postgraduate course entitled “Human-Computer Interaction” in the context of their studies. For this course, they had to apply the heuristic evaluation method on a real-world application as part of their obligatory graded assignments. Given their profile, they can be characterized as novice evaluators.
The evaluators performed individual inspections of Wordinary using the Nielsen's set of 10 heuristics [14]. They delivered a report following a provided template which asked them to group usability issues per heuristic violated, rate the issue severity on a scale from 1 (a little important, it does not significantly affect the user interaction) to 5 (extremely important, catastrophic problem that may result in unsuccessful task) and propose a solution. The template also asked evaluators to identify good usability points for the evaluated system grouped per heuristic. Finally, the evaluators were asked to comment on the overall usability of Wordinary and list their most important suggestions to the design team.
4.1.2 Results. The Wordinary design team studied the usability issues reported in the evaluators’ reports.
First, a spreadsheet was prepared containing the discovered usability issues and the severity scores assigned by each evaluator. Next, related issues discovered by several evaluators were combined into one, and the frequency of recurrence and mean severity score across all evaluators reporting it were computed. Each problem was given a priority rating (high, medium, low) by the Wordinary design team. This priority label was chosen for each issue based on the frequency of appearance and mean severity score in the heuristic evaluation reports, the impact of the issue on the main use case of the application, and the feasibility of resolving it with the given resources (time, developers).
Table 2 presents a sample of this spreadsheet. Most of the reported issues were resolved in a redesigned version of the application, and the rest ones will be resolved in future versions of Wordinary.
Usability issue | Frequency in HE | Mean score in HE (1-5) | Design team priority label |
---|---|---|---|
Lack of undo for addition or removal of a word from a family | 3 | 4.3 | Medium |
Initial help instructions need rewriting (e.g., less text, better organization) | 4 | 2.8 | Medium |
Ambiguity in the use of the word “profile” | 3 | 2.7 | High |
Text in some buttons or text labels is truncated/not visible | 2 | 1.5 | High |
Unclear what the border colour of each word in the results means | 1 | 1 | Low |
There is no title to separate the results from the rest information | 1 | 1 | Low |
4.2 User testing
4.2.1 Methodology. A total of 12 participants, 11 females and 1 male, was recruited for the user testing study [1]. The participants were potential users of Wordinary, such as elementary school teachers, speech and language therapists, and students in educational sciences.
The user testing was performed remotely due to the restrictions of the COVID-19 pandemic. The participants were provided with a document that included instructions, a URL to download the Wordinary application, and a URL to a Google form. The Google form (mentioned as form hereafter) was split into two parts. The first one asked participants to take as much time as they needed to use Wordinary until they felt that they understand how it works and that they are fully aware of its functionality. The participants were also instructed to record the time it took them to fully explore the application using a stopwatch and record it in a corresponding form field.
The second part of the form asked participants to perform 13 tasks using Wordinary. Examples of such tasks include the following: a) “Search the word family for a word of your choice”, b) “Add a word to the family of a word of your choice”, c) “Remove a word from the family of a word of your choice, d) “Add a new student”, e) “Modify an existing profile”. The participants were asked to tick a checkbox next to each task in an associated form question in order to denote that they have tried to do it. Finally, the participants were asked to answer a questionnaire that included the 10 questions of the System Usability Scale (SUS) [5] to measure the perceived usability of Wordinary, and 4 open-ended questions (Table 3, first column) to collect user feedback and suggestions for improving the application. All questions were administered in Greek, the participants’ native language. Here, they have been translated in English for presentation purposes. For SUS, the standardized Greek version [11,16] was used.
Open-ended question | Most frequently reported themes |
---|---|
Q1. What did you like about the app and why? | - Simple to use and useful - Lists of recent search and favourite words very helpful - Help instructions sufficiently detailed |
Q2. What didn't you like about the app and why? | - Aesthetic appearance of the app - Words found in the book are missing from the app |
Q3. Was there something you couldn't figure out in the app? If so, what? | - Cannot understand the use of the profiles |
Q4. What other features could the app include to serve its purpose? | - Show more info per word (meaning, synonyms etc.) - Show sentences from the book that use each word - Add a knowledge test/quiz - User accounts to login into the app |
4.2.2 Results. Wordinary achieved a mean SUS score of 76.1 (SD = 13.0). This score means that its perceived usability was rated from Good to Excellent according to Bangor and colleagues [3]. It should be noted that one participant was excluded from this analysis as he/she reported performing only 3 out of the 13 tasks and his/her free exploration time (10 mins) was an outlier.
Regarding the open-ended questions, a thematic analysis was conducted per question. Table 3 presents the most frequently reported themes per open-ended question.
5 CONCLUSION
This paper presented Wordinary, a free desktop application for teaching Greek word families to elementary school children. Development followed the user-centered software design. Teachers, speech and language therapists and students in educational sciences and computer science participated in the design and evaluation process. A user testing study involving 12 end users found that Wordinary has good-to-excellent usability. Participants characterized Wordinary as a simple to use and useful application, but they have also identified areas where it could be improved and expanded in future work.
Wordinary is not without limitations. One such limitation is related to the parsing algorithm of the elementary level schoolbooks. On one hand, the pdf files of the books retrieved by the website of the Greek Ministry of Education, contain text in a format that is error-prone when parsed by a computer. On the other hand, the Python library used for parsing these files did not always work correctly with some Greek characters. An additional limitation is related to the process of lemmatization. Wordinary uses the ILSP Lemmatizer of the CLARIN:EL platform. However, there isn't any lemmatizer that produces 100% correct results, particularly for the Greek language that is of interest in our work. As a result, some words in the schoolbooks might be not captured correctly or at all.
Lastly, to find the family of a word, Wordinary uses an algorithm that relies on the Wiktionary website. Wiktionary may be a rather large and popular dictionary supporting multiple languages thanks to a large worldwide community that constantly enhances it, but its data still contain some deficiencies, especially in languages like Greek which are not widely used. As a result, the families of the words that it contains might not be complete. In addition, the Wiktionary website does not have an API. Therefore, to extract any information, the corresponding HTML pages of the website had to be parsed. Although some patterns had been identified regarding the arrangement of information on the Wiktionary webpages, these patterns were not consistently followed on every webpage. Even though special handling for the various cases that were found was implemented, some information is probably still being lost in the process.
Limitations related to the user testing study, is the relatively small sample size (N=12) and the fact that the sample was severely gender-skewed. In specific, almost all participants (92%) were women, and thus the results may not be representative of male users of Wordinary.
Future work includes implementing some of the suggestions reported by the user testing participants in order to further improve the usefulness of Wordinary. First, some participants mentioned the enrichment of the information displayed about words contained in the family of a specific word as a significant enhancement that could be made to the current implementation. According to these participants, this information could include the meaning of these words, their synonyms and antonyms as well as example sentences of the schoolbooks in which they are contained. An additional idea for future work was to add a quiz to test the students' knowledge of word families. This could be achieved by various types of exercises (e.g., fill in the blanks with the appropriate word for a word family, match words with other words that are included in their families). Future work also includes the addition of the ability to create an account and log into it while launching the application. This would be quite helpful in cases where the application is installed on a communal computer (e.g. at the school) and possibly used by multiple teachers of different elementary school grades. Finally, the introduction of technology to support a learning context does not guarantee by itself the learning effectiveness of the approach. Based on our previous experience [2,9,10,12,13,19], we plan to evaluate the learning effectiveness of a Wordinary-supported approach for teaching Greek word families.
ACKNOWLEDGMENTS
We would like to thank the postgraduate students of the MSc “Technologies of Interactive Systems” offered by the Department of Informatics of the Aristotle University of Thessaloniki, the elementary school teachers, the speech therapists and the undergraduate students and graduates of the Faculty of Education of the Aristotle University of Thessaloniki who participated in the design and evaluation process of the Wordinary application.
REFERENCES
- William Albert and Thomas S. Tullis. 2013. Measuring the user experience: Collecting, analyzing, and presenting usability metrics (2nd ed.). Morgan Kaufmann.
- Panagiota Altanopoulou, Christos Katsanos, and Nikolaos Tselios. 2014. Effectiveness of wiki-based learning in higher education. In Research on e-Learning and ICT in Education, Charalampos Karagiannidis, Panagiotis Politis and Ilias Karasavvidis (eds.). Springer New York, 137–147.
- Aaron Bangor, Philip Kortum, and James Miller. 2009. Determining what individual SUS Scores mean: adding an adjective rating scale. J. Usability Stud. 4 (3), 114–123.
- Jeffrey S. Bowers and Peter N. Bowers. 2017. Beyond phonics: The case for teaching children the logic of the English spelling system. Educ. Psychol. 52 (2), 124–141.
- John Brooke. 1996. SUS: a “quick and dirty” usability scale. In Usability Evaluation in Industry, P. W. Jordan, B Thomas, B. A. Weerdmeester and A. L. McClelland (eds.). Taylor and Francis, London.
- Council of Europe. 2001. Common European framework of reference for languages: Learning, teaching, assessment. Cambridge University Press.
- Konstantina Fragkouli, Faye Antoniou, Angeliki Mouzaki, Asimina M. Ralli, Vasiliki Kokkali, and Kariofyllia Alexoudi. 2021. Evaluation of a spelling intervention program for third graders at risk for learning disabilities. Read. Writ. Q. 38 (6), 544–563.
- George K. Georgiou, Robert Savage, Kristy Dunn, Peter Bowers, and Rauno Parrila. 2021. Examining the effects of Structured Word Inquiry on the reading and spelling skills of persistently poor Grade 3 readers. J. Res. Read. 44 (1), 131–153.
- Christos Katsanos, Athanasios Tsakoumis, and Nikolaos Avouris. 2009. Web accessibility: Design of an educational system to support guidelines learning. In Proceedings of the 13th Pan-Hellenic Conference on Informatics (PCI 2009), Corfu, Greece, 155–164.
- Christos Katsanos, Nikolaos Tselios, Nikolaos Karousos, and Michalis Xenos. 2015. Learning web form design by using the KLM Form Analyzer: A case study. In Proceedings of the 19th Panhellenic Conference on Informatics (PCI 2015), ACM, New York, NY, USA, 44–49.
- Christos Katsanos, Nikolaos Tselios, and Michalis Xenos. 2012. Perceived usability evaluation of learning management systems: a first step towards standardization of the System Usability Scale in Greek. In Proceedings of the16th Panhellenic Conference on Informatics (PCI 2012), 302–307.
- Christos Katsanos, Michalis Xenos, and Nikolaos Tselios. 2018. Tool-mediated HCI modeling instruction in a campus-based software quality course. In Proceedings of the 20th International Conference on Human-Computer Interaction (HCII 2018), Springer International Publishing, 114–125.
- Christos Katsanos, Michalis Xenos, Nikolaos Tselios, and Nikos Karousos. 2022. Tool-mediated HCI modelling instruction: evidence from three studies. Behav. Inf. Technol. 41 (1), 18–31.
- Jacob Nielsen. 2020. 10 usability heuristics for user interface design. Nielsen Norman Group. Retrieved September 2, 2022 from https://www.nngroup.com/articles/ten-usability-heuristics/
- Jakob Nielsen and Rolf Molich. 1990. Heuristic evaluation of user interfaces. In Proceedings of the SIGCHI Conference on Human Factors in Computing Systems (CHI ’90), ACM, New York, NY, USA, 249–256.
- Konstantina Orfanou, Nikolaos Tselios, and Christos Katsanos. 2015. Perceived usability evaluation of learning management systems: Empirical evaluation of the System Usability Scale. Int. Rev. Res. Open Dis. 16 (2), 227–246.
- Athanassios Protopapas and Eleni L. Vlahou. 2009. A comparative quantitative analysis of Greek orthographic transparency. Behav. Res. Methods 41 (4), 991–1008.
- Rebecca Treiman and Brett Kessler. 2014. How children learn to write words. Oxford University Press.
- Nikolaos Tselios, Panagiota Altanopoulou, and Christos Katsanos. 2011. Effectiveness of a framed wiki-based learning activity in the context of HCI education. In Proceedings of the 15th Pan-Hellenic Conference on Informatics (PCI 2011), IEEE Computer Society, 368–372.
FOOTNOTE
1 https://494f9c0dda672f79b2ee-6b9e395a7343d6a0b8b7ac609388ce35.ssl.cf1.rackcdn.com/wff/index.html
3 https://www.owid.de/docs/elex/start.jsp
4 https://inventory.clarin.gr/workflows
5 https://www.clarin.gr/el/about/what-is-clarin
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 ACM 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 permissions@acm.org.
PCI 2022, November 25–27, 2022, Athens, Greece
© 2022 Association for Computing Machinery.
ACM ISBN 978-1-4503-9854-1/22/11…$15.00.
DOI: https://doi.org/10.1145/3575879.3575992