EUROVIS 2024/ C. Tominski, M. Waldner, and B. Wang

Short Paper

Optimizing Mentor-Student Communication with Symbolic Design
for Message States

arXiv:2312.04227v1 [cs.HC] 7 Dec 2023

Yuanzhe Jin1 and Jiali Yu2
1 University of Oxford, Oxford, England, United Kingdom
2 Zhejiang University, Hangzhou, Zhejiang, China

Abstract
In the mentor-student communication process, students often struggle to receive prompt and clear guidance from their mentors,
making it challenging to determine their next steps. When mentors don’t respond promptly, it can lead to student confusion, as
they may be uncertain whether their message has been acknowledged without resulting action. Instead of the binary options of
"read" and "unread," there’s a pressing need for more nuanced descriptions of message states. To tackle this ambiguity, we’ve
developed a set of symbols to precisely represent the cognitive states associated with messages in transit. Through experimentation, this design not only assists mentors and students in effectively labeling their responses but also mitigates unnecessary
misunderstandings. By utilizing symbols for accurate information and understanding state marking, we’ve enhanced communication efficiency between mentors and students, thereby improving the quality and efficacy of communication in mentor-student
relationships.

Keywords: Mentor-student Relationship, Human-computer
Interaction, State Design
1. Introduction
Effective communication plays a vital role in fostering productive
mentor-student relationships. However, in the context of interactions between mentors and students, challenges often arise in ensuring timely and clear instructions for the next steps. Regardless of
the communication mode employed, whether it be email, text messaging, phone calls, or video conferences, students frequently encounter difficulties in receiving prompt and explicit guidance from
their mentors. This may manifest as unanswered or unread messages, leaving students uncertain about their mentors’ level of understanding or whether any concrete actions have been taken to address their questions or concerns. As the foundation of mentorship
is built upon the pillars of guidance and support, these communication gaps can impede the overall effectiveness of the mentoring
process. In the fast-paced and dynamic world of academia and professional development, such uncertainties can be detrimental to a
student’s progress and growth.
Recognizing the importance of addressing these communication
issues and enhancing the mentor-student relationship, this research
introduces a set of symbols meticulously designed to provide a
more accurate representation of the cognitive states associated with
receiving and processing information. By employing these symbols, students and mentors alike can better label the status of their
information exchanges, thus reducing the likelihood of misunder© 2024 The Authors.
Proceedings published by Eurographics - The European Association for Computer Graphics.
This is an open access article under the terms of the Creative Commons Attribution License, which
permits use, distribution and reproduction in any medium, provided the original work is properly
cited.

standings and optimizing the efficiency of their interactions. This
solution aims to bridge the gap between immediate responses and
no responses at all, offering a precise description of information
flow during mentor-student communication.
Through empirical experiments, this design not only aids in improved information state recognition between mentors and students
but also mitigates the unnecessary ambiguities that often plague
such interactions. Students will gain greater clarity on their mentor’s level of understanding and engagement. Meanwhile, mentors can more accurately signal the status of guidance requested
by students. By employing these symbols to achieve a more precise shared understanding of information states, the communication efficiency between mentors and students can be significantly
enhanced. Response lags can be reduced, and clarity improved.
The idea of the design has the ability to elevate the quality and
effectiveness of mentorship across academic disciplines and professional development contexts. With enhanced communication, students gain the timely guidance needed to progress in their learning
journeys. Mentors can provide support more efficiently to a broader
range of students. The research contributes an innovative solution
that moves beyond the limitations of existing communication tools,
bridging gaps and creating shared meaning to optimize mentorstudent relationships. This has far-reaching implications, as highquality mentoring plays a key role in student success, knowledge
transfer, and the cultivation of talent in many fields. By improving
communication, this work lays the foundation for more productive
mentorships and better outcomes.

D. Fellner & S. Behnke / Optimizing Mentor-Student Communication with Symbolic Design for Message States

2. Related Work
2.1. Factors Affecting Mentor-Student Relationships
Studies have shown that the discipline category is an important
structural condition that influences the mentor-student relationship
[Aus02, GW06], as the feature of disciplines’ knowledge production patterns leads to differences in the daily research interaction
behaviors of mentors and their students. For example, unlike mentors and students who majored in the natural sciences, who often
work collectively in laboratories and have immediate discussions,
students who majored in the social sciences tend to receive oneon-one guidance in the mentor’s office [NR12], where interviews
and discussions are more formalized. The gender factor has also
received academic attention [MM91], with some researchers empirically concluding that mentoring between mentors and students
of the same gender is more effective than the opposite. Some scholars have also examined the impact of specific details of the mentoring model, such as the frequency of mentoring [KC17], whether
face-to-face [NM15], and the content of support. Frequent interactions help increase trust between mentors and students [dJG13].
Online mentoring faces challenges such as technical difficulties,
time management, difficulty writing and receiving written feedback, and life events interrupting study [PK21]. The studies shed
light on our efforts to clarify the communication problems encountered by mentors and students in specific research scenarios. In addition, distinctions of mentor support behaviors and functions provide multiple perspectives for us to examine the roles played by
symbols in communication, e.g., psychosocial support helps to increase student satisfaction with their mentors, while instrumental
support helps to improve the efficiency of research work [TCG01].
Mentoring relationship research is based on empirical methods,
and the most commonly used are semi-structured interviews, participant observation, and questionnaire methods. Most of the studies using the first two methods point to qualitative analysis. The
researcher lists the outline of the interview and disperses, focuses,
and refines the questions in the survey process [Lec11]. Through
participatory observation in real-life scenarios, to grasp the details
of the interactions of the interviewees’ facial expression, Posture,
and tone of voice [Meh17], picking a particular university or several universities as a sample frame, doing questionnaire design and
data analysis with the help of tools such as scales, SPSS and so
on [BKWF20].

2.2. Symbol-Based Information State Design
In the design of tactile symbols, a recent study [SWV∗ 23] explored
the potential of using continuous and motion-coupled vibrations.
The study showed that personal experiences and emotions significantly influence symbol design. This research emphasized the importance of designing tactile symbols based on usage contexts. In
data visualization, a research group [JdJTC23] proposed the concept of radial icicle trees that maintain consistent node areas while
enhancing the visibility of narrow rectangles. This provides new
insights for displaying data with inherent connections. Regarding
differentiating data sizes, a team of researchers [LMvW10] studied
factors affecting size perception in scatterplots and found approximate homogeneity in complex tasks. Another study [TBBS06]

analyzed usability testing of a single interface with three designs
that had the same functionality but different styles. These studies
provided foundations for designing better tactile and visualization
symbols.
In practical applications, a group of researchers [ZILA18] designed tactile symbols representing phonemes and examined human capabilities in learning and processing tactile information.
Horton et al. [Hor96] discussed guidelines for clear and comprehensible icon design. A recent study [HSZ23] combined symbolic
culture with AI generation to create modern Chinese paintings.
These works applied symbolic design to real-world scenarios. Another research team [RT09] explored the use of information states
in call-for-fire situations.
Regarding the integration of symbols and learning, a study
[PCC∗ 21] examined combining expert knowledge with machine
learning training to improve dialogue system accuracy. A group of
researchers [VVH∗ 16] proposed information visualization design
guidelines tailored for expert evaluation. These two studies provided examples of integrating symbolic knowledge and learning
methods.
In dialogue systems, a research team [DRK∗ 05] constructed
a modular architecture incorporating information states. Another
study [GY11] modeled dialogues as Markov decision processes,
emphasizing the importance of logging user goals and histories.
These two studies laid the foundations for dialogue management
and modeling. In information retrieval, a group of researchers
[LY21] identified user task states and conducted adaptive evaluation accordingly. This highlighted the significance of considering
user states in retrieval. Another research team [VRQ08] proposed a
new data-centric dialog system and conducted user research at the
university’s front desk.
Current research has extensively explored symbolic usage and
design in aspects including symbol design, application, integration
with learning, dialogue modeling, etc., establishing foundations in
this field. However, further studies on the in-depth integration of
symbols with learning, interaction, etc. are still needed to uncover
their potential.
3. Background and Designs
3.1. Preliminary Research and User Interviews
We conducted interviews with several current students to obtain initial insights into the communication methods employed by this cohort when interacting with their mentors regarding their academic
work. The majority of mentors preferred using instant messaging
tools or face-to-face meetings to discuss work-related tasks such as
paper revisions and project progress. Some mentors also used email
as a supplementary means for transmitting, receiving, and storing
documents.
The students we interviewed acknowledged the advantages of
instant messenger in communication. They noted that these tools
enhanced the efficiency of their research work and fostered a more
consistent emotional connection with their mentors. For instance,
Participant A pointed out that minor research queries could often
be quickly resolved through brief exchanges on instant messenger,
© 2024 The Authors.
Proceedings published by Eurographics - The European Association for Computer Graphics.

D. Fellner & S. Behnke / Optimizing Mentor-Student Communication with Symbolic Design for Message States

demonstrating its high effectiveness. Participant B mentioned that
their mentor would send encouraging messages via instant messenger, conveying care and support.
However, interviewees also highlighted limitations associated
with instant messaging. For example, Participant C expressed the
view that instant messenger was primarily suitable for short, informal conversations and less suitable for in-depth research discussions that require rigor. Additionally, Participant D shared a personal experience wherein his mentor occasionally went offline on
instant messenger, leaving him uncertain whether to await a reply
or return to his research work. Participant D also mentioned situations where the mentor had promised to schedule a follow-up
discussion on instant messenger but later struggled to keep track of
this commitment due to a growing workload, causing delays in the
research progress.
3.2. Information States

Figure 1: Information states transition
The insights gleaned from our interviews with graduate students and their mentors shed light on the complexities surrounding
communication within these academic relationships. Existing instant messaging tools available in the market, such as Slack, WhatsApp, Messenger, and others, typically employ the use of emoticons (emoji) to indicate the status of messages [AH19]. However,
through in-depth discussions with students and their mentors, we
have realized that the simple use of markers like "not read" and
"checked" presents challenges in accurately understanding the intent behind a message. Between these two states, there exist more
intricate and precise information states that can better convey a
mentor’s expectations and intentions regarding the message.
To gain a deeper understanding of the complexity of information
states, we drew inspiration from the steps humans undergo in information processing. We proposed an information states transition
diagram in Fig. 1 that elaborately illustrates the process of information reply starting from the "not read" state, further breaking it
down into multiple specific states. These states include the initial
"Engaged" state, signifying that the mentor is currently occupied
with other tasks, moving to the state of having seen the message
but not being able to reply immediately, and then gradually transitioning through the states of "Reading," "Verifying," and "Organizing" thoughts, ultimately leading to the action of a "Reply Immediately". It is worth noting that even in situations where an immediate
reply is chosen, these four states still sequentially occur, reflecting
the steps the human brain undergoes in processing information and
achieving the final response.
This multi-stage understanding of information states helps us delineate the information exchange states between mentors and stu© 2024 The Authors.
Proceedings published by Eurographics - The European Association for Computer Graphics.

dents more accurately, enabling us to better comprehend the intricacies of information processing and reply in the communication
process. By using symbols to represent these states in information
exchange, we significantly enhance the clarity and efficiency of
communication, while reducing the risk of information misinterpretation, thereby optimizing the quality and effectiveness of mentorship relationships.
3.3. Symbolic Designs

Figure 2: A symbol set for describing the four message states
In response to the four information states, we have designed specific symbols to depict the different states of information exchange
between mentors and students. These symbols have been meticulously crafted, taking into consideration the distinctive characteristics of each information state to ensure they convey the cognitive
status of the information recipient. Specifically, we have designed
the following four symbols, which can be observed in Fig. 2:
1. Engaged Symbol: This symbol features a person alongside a
group engaged in a meeting, clearly conveying that the recipient is currently occupied with other tasks and unable to reply
immediately. This is crucial for avoiding interruptions to the recipient’s ongoing work.
2. Reading Symbol: This symbol includes icons of a magnifying
glass and a book, explicitly indicating that the information recipient is carefully reading the content of the message. This helps
the sender understand that the recipient is attentively processing
the information rather than ignoring or disregarding it.
3. Verifying Symbol: Comprising a checklist and a confirmation
symbol, this symbol signifies that the information recipient has
received the message but requires further verification of its accuracy. This helps reduce the likelihood of making erroneous
decisions based on incomplete or uncertain information.
4. Organizing Symbol: Composed of a combination of a book and
a text bubble, this symbol signifies that the recipient needs some
time to organize their thoughts and replies. This helps prevent
hasty replies and confusion.
The use of these symbols serves multiple positive purposes in
information exchange between mentors and students. Firstly, they
provide clear and consistent markers for information states, aiding
both parties in better understanding each other’s cognitive status.
This helps eliminate uncertainty and misunderstandings in information communication, enhancing the accurate conveyance of information.
Secondly, the design of these symbols contributes to improved
communication efficiency. Recipients can use symbols to convey
their current status, informing senders when to expect a reply. This
reduces unnecessary waiting time, enabling both parties to make

D. Fellner & S. Behnke / Optimizing Mentor-Student Communication with Symbolic Design for Message States

decisions and take action more promptly. These symbols foster mutual trust between mentors and students. Students know that mentors are diligently processing information, and mentors gain a better
understanding of students’ needs and concerns. Such trust is crucial
for building robust mentor-student relationships and supporting students’ academic and career development.
In the following sections, we delve deeper into the specific impacts of these symbols in two real-world application scenarios and
their effects on mentorship relationships. Through user studies, we
gain a better understanding of the way that symbol design improves
information exchange and provides valuable guidance for future research and practice.

student’s comprehension of the information conveyed. Due to substantial time constraints on mentors, this experiment emphasizes
enhancements in students’ understanding and efficiency after receiving messages. The experiment focuses on the recipient end of
the information transmission, seeking an in-depth understanding
from the student’s perspective regarding the influence and potential
benefits of the information state symbols. By concentrating on the
students’ reception and processing of the transmitted information,
the experiment concentrates on the recipient end of the information
transmission, seeking to understand from the students’ perspective
the influence of the information state symbols on the students’ work
efficiency and level of comprehension of the mentors.

4. User Study

4.2. Case One: Thesis Revision Guidance

In the user study, we selected two common mentoring scenarios,
namely the thesis revision guidance scenario and the literature review guidance scenario, as pivotal contexts for the research. This
choice was based on the ubiquity and significance of these two
scenarios in various academic disciplines and mentorship relationships. They represent typical activities within mentorship relationships, and these activities have widespread applicability across diverse academic fields. This implies that the research findings and
symbol designs possess a generalizability that extends to different
domains and mentorship relationships, offering practical value to a
broader audience. By focusing on these key scenarios, we aim to
provide targeted and feasible solutions for enhancing information
exchange within mentorship relationships, ultimately contributing
to the improvement of mentorship quality and effectiveness.

Paper revision is a common activity within mentor-student relationships, whether in the academic research domain or professional
development. In this scenario, students often require guidance and
feedback from their mentors to improve their papers. Mentors, in
turn, need to carefully review the students’ papers, provide comments, and suggest revisions. In this process, clear information
states are crucial to enable students to understand the progress of
their papers’ feedback and recommendations by their mentors. Simultaneously, mentors also need to effectively communicate their
review process to students, so they are aware of when to expect
feedback. Therefore, this scenario underscores the evident need for
symbols to denote information states, which contributes to enhancing the efficiency of information exchange and reducing unnecessary delays and misunderstandings.

4.1. User Background
We had established our objective of investigating whether precise
representations of information states contribute to more harmonious and efficient communication between mentors and students,
we conducted a study involving 22 participants. To comprehensively assess the impact of these symbols, we sought a diverse
range of participants, considering factors such as age, academic
discipline, mentorship arrangements, and gender. The demographic
information of our participants is detailed in Fig. 3, demonstrating
representation across seven different academic disciplines, spanning from the humanities and engineering to the natural sciences.
Additionally, our participant pool encompassed a spectrum of educational backgrounds, ranging from postgraduate students to doctoral students.
To address this research question, we adopted a multifaceted
approach involving both qualitative and quantitative methods. Initially, we administered our newly designed symbols to the participants and conducted exploratory interviews with them. These interviews aimed to gather their perspectives, emotions, and behaviors
when presented with these symbols during communication. Building upon the insights gained from the interviews, we then employed
the symbols in a comprehensive survey. This survey quantified the
impact of the four information states represented by the symbols.
This study utilizes an experimental methodology comprising
two parts: an experiment and a questionnaire. The experiment involves mentors transmitting messages to students to examine the

To assess the effectiveness of symbols representing different informational states, we designed four corresponding scenarios for
comparative experiments. These experiments aimed to investigate
whether symbols play a role in eliminating uncertainties and misunderstandings, improving work efficiency, fostering academic confidence, and strengthening the bond of trust.
Q1: The mentor has seen my message.
The purpose of this inquiry is to examine whether symbols can
convey signals of information closure, alleviating students’ concerns about whether the mentor has received the message and
whether there is a need to resend it.
Q2: The mentor is still working on revising my paper.
The objective of this question is to evaluate whether symbols
can transmit signals of task progress, informing students that the
paper revision has been prioritized by the mentor, allowing them
to better plan their other tasks and enhance work efficiency.
Q3: The mentor is satisfied with my paper.
This inquiry aims to assess whether symbols can communicate
signals of the mentor’s evaluation, enabling students to realize
that the mentor is willing to invest time in verifying the paper’s
content, thereby making the paper more accurate and refined
and bolstering the student’s academic confidence.
Q4: The mentor is dedicated to guiding my paper.
The purpose of this question is to investigate whether symbols
can convey signals of mentor support, helping students understand that the current round of paper revision is nearing completion, and the mentor will provide detailed and effective feedback, thus fostering trust between the student and mentor.
© 2024 The Authors.
Proceedings published by Eurographics - The European Association for Computer Graphics.

D. Fellner & S. Behnke / Optimizing Mentor-Student Communication with Symbolic Design for Message States

(a) Mentor-Student Gender Distribution

(b) Department Distribution

(c) Degree Distribution

Figure 3: Overview of participant demographic information

(a) Comparison before and after using the "Engaged" symbol

(b) Comparison before and after using the "Reading" symbol

(c) Comparison before and after using the "Verifying" symbol

(d) Comparison before and after using the "Organizing" symbol

Figure 4: Comparison of the effects of symbols used in communication between mentors and students under thesis revision guidance scenario.
Agree from low to high 1-5 as strongly disagree, somewhat disagree, average, somewhat agree, and strongly agree.

To address the four questions, we observed participants in their
communication with mentors when seeing these four symbols. Subsequently, we collected participants’ responses through questionnaires and recorded their reactions. The experimental results are
presented in Fig. 4. In the figures, the blue segments represent students’ understanding of the tasks before using the symbols, while
the orange segments represent students’ understanding of mentors’
tasks after using the information state symbols we designed.
It is evident that before and after using the symbols, students
had a clearer understanding and more accurate awareness of the
tasks their mentors were about to undertake and the actions they
might expect students to follow. In Fig. 4 (a), using the "Engaged"
symbol, students’ average rating of their understanding of mentors’
tasks was 3.59 before using the symbol and increased to 4.0 after
using it, marking an 11% improvement. In Fig. 4 (b), using the
"Reading" symbol, students’ average rating of their understanding
of mentors’ tasks was 3.18 before using the symbol and increased
to 4.14 after using it, indicating a 30% improvement. In Fig. 4 (c),
using the "Verifying" symbol, students’ average rating of their un© 2024 The Authors.
Proceedings published by Eurographics - The European Association for Computer Graphics.

derstanding of mentors’ tasks was 2.45 before using the symbol
and increased to 3.0 after using it, showing a 22% improvement.
In Fig. 4 (d), using the "Organizing" symbol, students’ average rating of their understanding of mentors’ tasks was 3.23 before using
the symbol and increased to 3.95 after using it, marking a 22% improvement.
In summary, for the scenario of paper revision, we observed an
overall improvement in students’ approval of mentors’ guidance.
The average approval rating increased from 3.11 to 3.77, with an
average improvement of 21% across all four questions.

4.3. Case Two: Literature Review Guidance
Literature review is another common activity in mentor-student relationships, particularly within the realm of academic research. Students may require guidance from mentors to select appropriate literature, comprehend key concepts within the literature, or assess
the quality and relevance of academic papers. In this context, clarity regarding information states becomes crucial for students to un-

D. Fellner & S. Behnke / Optimizing Mentor-Student Communication with Symbolic Design for Message States

derstand whether mentors have initiated the review of literature or
if they need additional time to read and comprehend the materials. Likewise, mentors need to convey their progress in information processing to inform students when their guidance is available.
Therefore, this scenario also serves as an application context for the
information state design, contributing to enhanced efficiency and
quality of information exchange.
For the literature review guidance scenario, we have designed
the following four questions to examine the functional utility of
symbols.
Q1: The mentor has seen my message.
The purpose of this query is to assess whether symbols can convey signals of information closure, thereby alleviating students’
uncertainties regarding the need to resend messages and helping
students anticipate the mentor’s response.
Q2: The mentor is reading the work.
The objective of this question is to evaluate whether symbols
can communicate signals of task progress, informing students
that the mentor has initiated literature review work and will provide effective answers to the queries raised by the students.
Q3: The mentor considers this literature worthy of investigation.
This question aims to test whether symbols can convey the mentor’s attitude, allowing students to recognize the mentor’s interest in the literature topic, acknowledgment of its academic
value, and confidence in the student’s ability to gather and organize literature, thereby assisting students in building academic
confidence.
Q4: The mentor will provide effective guidance.
The purpose of this question is to assess whether symbols can
convey signals of mentor support, helping students understand
that the mentor is willing to invest time in organizing their
thoughts, providing effective guidance to resolve confusion, and
offering academic and emotional support to the students.
In addressing the four questions, we conducted observations
where participants were in communication with mentors seeing
these four symbols. Subsequently, we gathered feedback from participants through questionnaires and recorded their responses. The
experimental results are presented in Fig. 5. The blue segments in
the figures represent students’ understanding of the tasks before using the symbols, while the yellow segments indicate students’ understanding of the tasks after using the information state symbols
we designed. It is evident that before and after using the symbols,
students had a clearer understanding and awareness of the steps
their mentors were about to take and the actions they might be expected to follow.
In Fig. 5 (a), using the "Engaged" symbol, students’ average rating of their understanding of the mentors’ tasks before the symbol’s usage was 3.36. After using the symbol, the rating increased
to 3.82, marking a 13% improvement. In Fig. 5 (b), using the
"Reading" symbol, students’ average rating of their understanding
of mentors’ tasks before the symbol’s usage was 3.0, while it increased to 3.59 after symbol usage, showing an approximately 20%
improvement. In Fig. 5 (c), using the "Verifying" symbol, students’
average rating of their understanding of mentors’ tasks before the
symbol’s usage was 2.81, which increased to 3.95 after symbol usage, indicating a 40% improvement. In Fig. 5 (d), using the "Orga-

nizing" symbol, students’ average rating of their understanding of
mentors’ tasks before the symbol’s usage was 3.09. After using the
symbol, the rating increased to 3.82, showing a 23% improvement.
Overall, for the scenario of paper revision, we observed that students’ average level of approval of mentors’ guidance increased
from 3 to 3.8, with an average improvement of 26% across all four
questions.
5. Discussion and Conclusion
5.1. Discussion
While our study has designed a set of symbols to describe information states, this design can still be further optimized. Future research can improve these symbols through user feedback and experiments to ensure that they are more understandable and userfriendly. Additionally, exploring alternative symbols for information states to meet different contexts and needs is a viable avenue
for future investigation.
The current study has primarily focused on the immediate effects
of information exchange, but the long-term effects of mentorship
relationships are equally deserving of attention. At this stage, the
research has only examined the efficiency changes brought about
by information state symbols for students after receiving messages
from mentors. Further research is needed to understand the comprehension of symbols from the mentor’s perspective. Future studies can delve into the long-term interactions between mentors and
students and further explore mentors’ understanding of these symbols to ascertain their sustained contribution to mentorship relationships. This will contribute to a deeper understanding of the practical
value of information labeling.
5.2. Conclusion
This study introduces a more precise description of information
states. In the communication between mentors and students, we
have designed a set of symbols to accurately depict the cognitive
status of the information being exchanged. The utilization of these
symbols aids mentors and students in better labeling the status responses of information, thereby averting unnecessary misunderstandings. Through this innovation, we have addressed the issue
commonly faced by students in obtaining clear instructions from
mentors and the potential confusion arising from the lack of mentor
responses. This innovation provides a clearer framework for communication between mentors and students, to enhance communication efficiency and improve the quality and effectiveness of mentorship. This research offers a valuable new approach in the field of
information exchange, poised to have a broad impact on future educational research and practice. Through continued efforts and indepth exploration, we can further refine the theoretical framework
of this field, enhance the efficiency and quality of mentor-student
relationships, and provide better support for student learning and
development.

© 2024 The Authors.
Proceedings published by Eurographics - The European Association for Computer Graphics.

D. Fellner & S. Behnke / Optimizing Mentor-Student Communication with Symbolic Design for Message States

(a) Comparison before and after using the "Engaged" symbol

(b) Comparison before and after using the "Reading" symbol

(c) Comparison before and after using the "Verifying" symbol

(d) Comparison before and after using the "Organizing" symbol

Figure 5: Comparison of the effects of symbols used in communication between mentors and students under literature review guidance
scenario. Agree from low to high 1-5 as strongly disagree, somewhat disagree, average, somewhat agree, and strongly agree.

References
[AH19] A RAFAH B., H ASYIM M.: The language of emoji in social media. KnE Social Sciences (2019), 494–504. 3
[Aus02] AUSTIN A. E.: Preparing the next generation of faculty: Graduate school as socialization to the academic career. The journal of higher
education 73, 1 (2002), 94–122. 2
[BKWF20] B LANEY J. M., K ANG J., W OFFORD A. M., F ELDON D. F.:
Mentoring relationships between doctoral students and postdocs in the
lab sciences. Studies in Graduate and Postdoctoral Education 11, 3
(2020), 263–279. 2
[dJG13] DE JANASZ S. C., G ODSHALK V. M.: The role of e-mentoring
in protégés’ learning and satisfaction. Group & Organization Management 38, 6 (2013), 743–774. 2
[DRK∗ 05] D E VAULT D., RUTGERS N. K., KOTHARI A., OVED I.,
S TONE M.: An information-state approach to collaborative reference.
In Proceedings of the ACL interactive poster and demonstration sessions
(2005), pp. 1–4. 2
[GW06] G OLDE C. M., WALKER G. E.: Envisioning the future of doctoral education: Preparing stewards of the discipline-Carnegie essays on
the doctorate, vol. 3. John Wiley & Sons, 2006. 2
[GY11] G AŠI Ć M., YOUNG S.: Effective handling of dialogue state
in the hidden information state pomdp-based dialogue manager. ACM
Transactions on Speech and Language Processing (TSLP) 7, 3 (2011),
1–28. 2
[Hor96] H ORTON W.: Designing icons and visual symbols. In Conference companion on Human factors in computing systems (1996),
pp. 371–372. 2

[KC17] K UMAR S., C OE C.: Mentoring and student support in online doctoral programs. American Journal of Distance Education 31,
2 (2017), 128–142. 2
[Lec11] L ECHUGA V. M.: Faculty-graduate student mentoring relationships: Mentors’ perceived roles and responsibilities. Higher education
62 (2011), 757–771. 2
[LMvW10] L I J., M ARTENS J.-B., VAN W IJK J. J.: A model of symbol
size discrimination in scatterplots. In Proceedings of the SIGCHI Conference on Human Factors in Computing Systems (2010), pp. 2553–2562.
2
[LY21] L IU J., Y U R.: State-aware meta-evaluation of evaluation metrics in interactive information retrieval. In Proceedings of the 30th
ACM international conference on information & knowledge management
(2021), pp. 3258–3262. 2
[Meh17] M EHRABIAN A.: Communication without words. In Communication theory. Routledge, 2017, pp. 193–200. 2
[MM91] M UTCHNICK R. J., M UTCHNICK E. S.: The mentoring of
graduate students: A conceptual framework for same-gender and crossgender mentor-protégé relationships. Criminal Justice Policy Review 5,
4 (1991), 292–306. 2
[NM15] NASIRI F., M AFAKHERI F.: Postgraduate research supervision
at a distance: A review of challenges and strategies. Studies in higher
education 40, 10 (2015), 1962–1969. 2
[NR12] N OY S., R AY R.: Graduate students’ perceptions of their advisors: Is there systematic disadvantage in mentorship? The Journal of
Higher Education 83, 6 (2012), 876–914. 2

[HSZ23] H AORAN X., S HUYAO C., Z HANG Y.: Magical brush: A
symbol-based modern chinese painting system for novices. In Proceedings of the 2023 CHI Conference on Human Factors in Computing Systems (2023), pp. 1–14. 2

[PCC∗ 21] P INHANEZ C. S., C ANDELLO H., C AVALIN P., P ICHILIANI
M. C., A PPEL A. P., A LVES R IBEIRO V. H., N OGIMA J., D E BAYSER
M., G UERRA M., F ERREIRA H., ET AL .: Integrating machine learning
data with symbolic knowledge from collaboration practices of curators
to improve conversational systems. In Proceedings of the 2021 CHI Conference on Human Factors in Computing Systems (2021), pp. 1–13. 2

[JdJTC23] J IN Y., DE J ONG T. J., T ENNEKES M., C HEN M.: Radial
icicle tree (rit): Node separation and area constancy. arXiv preprint
arXiv:2307.10481 (2023). 2

[PK21] P OLLARD R., K UMAR S.: Mentoring graduate students online:
Strategies and challenges. International Review of Research in Open and
Distributed Learning 22, 2 (2021), 267–284. 2

© 2024 The Authors.
Proceedings published by Eurographics - The European Association for Computer Graphics.

D. Fellner & S. Behnke / Optimizing Mentor-Student Communication with Symbolic Design for Message States
[RT09] ROQUE A., T RAUM D.: An information state-based dialogue
manager for call for fire dialogues. In Proceedings of the 7th SIGdial
Workshop on Discourse and Dialogue (USA, 2009), SigDIAL ’06, Association for Computational Linguistics, p. 88–95. 2
[SWV∗ 23] S ABNIS N., W ITTCHEN D., V EGA G., R EED C. N.,
S TROHMEIER P.: Tactile symbols with continuous and motion-coupled
vibration: An exploration of using embodied experiences for hermeneutic design. In Proceedings of the 2023 CHI Conference on Human Factors in Computing Systems (2023), pp. 1–19. 2
[TBBS06] T OHIDI M., B UXTON W., BAECKER R., S ELLEN A.: Getting
the right design and the design right. In Proceedings of the SIGCHI Conference on Human Factors in Computing Systems (New York, NY, USA,
2006), CHI ’06, Association for Computing Machinery, p. 1243–1252.
URL: https://doi.org/10.1145/1124772.1124960, doi:
10.1145/1124772.1124960. 2
[TCG01] T ENENBAUM H. R., C ROSBY F. J., G LINER M. D.: Mentoring relationships in graduate school. Journal of vocational behavior 59,
3 (2001), 326–341. 2
[VRQ08] VARGES S., R ICCARDI G., Q UARTERONI S.: Persistent information state in a data-centric architecture. In Proceedings of the 9th SIGdial Workshop on Discourse and Dialogue (USA, 2008), SIGdial ’08,
Association for Computational Linguistics, p. 68–71. 2
[VVH∗ 16] V ÄÄTÄJÄ H., VARSALUOMA J., H EIMONEN T., T IITINEN
K., H AKULINEN J., T URUNEN M., N IEMINEN H., I HANTOLA P.: Information visualization heuristics in practical expert evaluation. In Proceedings of the sixth workshop on beyond time and errors on novel evaluation methods for visualization (2016), pp. 36–43. 2
[ZILA18] Z HAO S., I SRAR A., L AU F., A BNOUSI F.: Coding tactile
symbols for phonemic communication. In Proceedings of the 2018 CHI
Conference on Human Factors in Computing Systems (2018), pp. 1–13.
2

© 2024 The Authors.
Proceedings published by Eurographics - The European Association for Computer Graphics.

