Pith. sign in

REVIEW 4 major objections 6 minor 185 references

Designing Needs- and Attention-Aware AI Learning Tools for Engineering Education: Insights from Psychological Outcomes

T0 review · 4 major / 6 minor · reviewed 2026-08-01 · deepseek-v4-flash

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

Pith's one-line read AI chatbots produce need-specific psychological benefits for engineering students, ranked from competence relief down to relatedness, and who benefits depends on baseline motivation and attention more than demographics.

desk verdict The paper's central three-way ranking of AI chatbot benefits is not statistically tested; the competence-autonomy gap is trivial, though relatedness does lag. read the letter →

arxiv 2607.26338 v1 pith:3SYE7QL3 submitted 2026-07-28 cs.HC

Kevin Zhongyang Shao , Denise Wilson , Yale Quan , Sep Makhsous This is my paper
classification cs.HC
keywords AIchatbotsengineeringeducationpsychologicalneedscompetencefrustrationautonomyrelatednessinattentionstructuralequationmodeling
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

The paper claims that AI chatbot use does not support all psychological needs equally. In a survey of 206 engineering undergraduates, students reported the strongest perceived benefit as relief from competence frustration, smaller benefits for autonomy, and the weakest benefits for relatedness. The authors argue that these outcomes were driven less by demographic composition and more by students' starting motivational profile—baseline competence frustration, autonomy, a combined self-efficacy/self-regulated-learning factor they call personal agency, and self-reported inattention. They further claim that inattention moderates how baseline competence frustration and autonomy translate into perceived benefits, which would matter for designing adaptive, attention-aware AI learning tools.

What carries the argument

The load-bearing machinery is the structural equation model with latent interaction effects, built from survey items adapted from existing psychological scales. Baseline autonomy, competence frustration, relatedness, and a combined personal-agency factor (self-efficacy plus self-regulated learning, which loaded together in the sample) serve as latent predictors of three perceived AI-benefit constructs, with self-reported inattention and demographic effect-coded covariates also in the model. The latent interactions test whether inattention changes the strength of the baseline-to-outcome paths; this is what allows the authors to claim attention moderates benefit rather than simply raising or l

What would settle it

A pre/post or randomized study that measures actual competence gains (e.g., problem-solving accuracy) and finds no greater gain or perceived relief for competence than for autonomy or relatedness would undercut the ranking; likewise, a study with high statistical power that shows no attenuating interaction between inattention and baseline competence frustration on perceived relief would falsify the moderation claim.

Watch

Extended reading notes

Core claim

Using exploratory and confirmatory factor analysis followed by structural equation modeling with latent interactions, the study finds that higher baseline competence frustration and higher baseline autonomy predict greater perceived relief from competence frustration after AI chatbot use, while higher personal agency predicts less such relief and higher inattention predicts more. Higher baseline autonomy predicts perceived autonomy gains, whereas higher baseline relatedness predicts smaller perceived autonomy and relatedness gains. Two interaction effects show that as inattention increases, the positive links from baseline competence frustration to perceived competence relief, and from basel

Load-bearing premise

The self-report items, after removing some reverse-worded and weak items, validly measure the intended psychological constructs, and the cross-sectional associations reflect baseline states shaping perceived AI benefit rather than common-method bias or reverse causation.

Editorial extensions

If this is right

  • Design should shift from treating AI support as uniform to scaffolding competence first, with contingent help that scales down as personal agency rises.
  • Interfaces for attention-challenged learners should externalize task state (visible next steps, saved state, bounded subtasks) rather than simply offering more explanation.
  • Relatedness support should route learners toward human and peer contact instead of relying on conversational polish.
  • Evaluations of AI learning tools should measure need-specific mechanisms and test heterogeneous effects, not only average outcomes.
  • Feasible next steps include longitudinal or pre/post designs linking perceived relief to objective learning outcomes.

Reading between the lines

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

  • If the competence-first ranking holds in other samples, a testable extension is whether AI chatbots are best deployed as short-term feedback instruments while autonomy and relatedness support is reserved for course design and human interaction.
  • The inattention moderation suggests a concrete adaptive rule: the same baseline competence frustration should trigger stronger scaffolding for students with low inattention than for those with high inattention, since high inattention weakens the translation.
  • The personal-agency diminishing-returns pattern predicts an expertise-reversal effect in AI tutoring that could be experimentally tested by varying scaffolding intensity across learners with high versus low agency.
  • Because the outcomes are perceived rather than observed, a longitudinal study could check whether the competence relief is durable or merely reflects the immediacy of chatbot feedback.
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 / 6 minor

Summary. This paper reports a cross-sectional survey of 206 engineering students who used AI chatbots. The authors use EFA/CFA and SEM with latent interactions to examine how baseline autonomy, competence frustration, relatedness, personal agency, and inattention relate to perceived AI-related benefits for autonomy, competence frustration relief, and relatedness. The central claim is that perceived benefits are need-specific: strongest for relief from competence frustration, moderate for autonomy, and weakest for relatedness. They also claim that baseline motivational states matter more than demographics, and that inattention moderates two of the associations. The final SEM shows good fit (CFI .963, RMSEA .034, SRMR .059) and explains substantial variance in perceived competence relief (52.3%) and autonomy (37.5%), but only 9.7% in perceived relatedness.

Significance. If the rank ordering and moderation results held, the paper would offer a useful empirical contribution to SDT-based design of AI learning tools, with concrete implications for adaptive scaffolding and attention-aware interfaces. The study is transparent about its cross-sectional, self-report nature and uses appropriate psychometric machinery (EFA, CFI/RMSEA/SRMR, omega, latent interactions). The transparent reporting of item deletions and model iterations is a strength. However, the headline rank ordering is asserted without an inferential test, so the central contribution is not currently established. The moderation findings are more defensible but also depend on post-hoc measurement decisions and multiple testing.

major comments (4)
  1. [§4.3, Table 10; Abstract; §6 Conclusion] The paper's central claim—that perceived AI benefits are strongest for competence relief, moderate for autonomy, and weakest for relatedness—is never actually tested. Table 10 reports means of 3.02 (competence relief), 2.96 (autonomy), and 2.52 (relatedness) with SDs around 0.76–0.87 and n=206. The competence–autonomy difference of 0.06 scale points is well within sampling error. No paired comparison, repeated-measures test, or latent mean difference test is reported. The SEM R² differences and path significance do not establish mean differences among the three perceived outcomes. The abstract and conclusion assert the 'strongest/moderate/weakest' ordering, and §5.4's design implications are organized around it. The authors should add a formal inferential test (e.g., paired t-tests with appropriate adjustment, or a latent mean difference test within the SEM) and revise the claims accordi
  2. [§3.3.1, §3.3.3, §4.4] The measurement model is decided through a sequence of post-hoc item deletions whose cumulative effect on the conclusions is not quantified. Reverse-worded items (n=3) are removed before EFA; ACO2 is removed from perceived competence; CO2 is removed after SEM inspection due to low loading; SR4 is removed for borderline loading. The paper acknowledges these decisions in §5.5, but there is no sensitivity analysis showing whether the rank ordering or the interaction effects are robust to including/excluding these items. For a claim that rests on comparing three outcome constructs, the authors should at least report the models with the deleted items included (or a conservative robustness check), and should specify whether the pattern of means and structural paths is stable. Without this, the possibility that item deletion artifacts drive the specificity of the results remains live.
  3. [§3.2, §5.5] The perceived-outcome items and baseline items come from the same self-report instrument, and the wording of the perceived items is semantically very close to the baseline items (e.g., 'I feel confident...' vs. 'has caused me to feel more confident...'). This raises common-method variance and carry-over concerns that are acknowledged only partially. The interpretation in §5.2 and §5.3 that baseline states 'translated into' perceived benefits is not supported by the cross-sectional design; it could equally reflect response style or reverse causation (e.g., students who perceive AI as helpful then report their baseline as more frustrated). The authors should either add a common-method-variance test (e.g., a marker variable or CFA-based method factor) or substantially soften the causal language throughout the discussion, restricting claims to concurrent associations.
  4. [§4.4.1] The latent interaction effects are reported with p-values but without simple slopes, regions of significance, or any correction for the number of interactions tested. Given that many interactions were examined (competence frustration × inattention, autonomy × inattention, personal agency × inattention, relatedness × inattention, presumably for each outcome), the two significant effects could be chance findings. The authors should report the number of tests, provide a plot or simple-slope analysis at representative levels of inattention, and either control the false-discovery rate or explicitly frame the interactions as exploratory. The current presentation gives these two interactions a prominence in the abstract and conclusion that the evidence does not yet support.
minor comments (6)
  1. [§3.1] The exclusion rate is high: 94 of 335 submissions failed an IMC. It would be helpful to report whether the 206 chatbot-users differ systematically from the excluded participants on any available demographics, since attrition could affect generalizability.
  2. [Table 2] The effect coding table is clear but the 'Other gender' category includes 'Prefer not to answer', 'Non-binary', and 'Other', which are distinct response options. Aggregating them may obscure meaningful variation; this should be justified or at least restated as a limitation.
  3. [§5.2] The phrase 'personal agency mattered more than demographic composition' is not directly supported by a formal comparison of effect sizes or variance explained. Consider reporting a model comparison or standardized effect-size table to substantiate this claim.
  4. [§3.3.3] The modsem package product-indicator method is suitable for normally distributed indicators, but the observed variables are 5-point Likert items. The authors should discuss or test the robustness of the latent interaction results to treating items as ordinal rather than continuous.
  5. [Table 10] Inattention is scored 0–36 but the other scales are 1–5; the table caption could clarify that this is a sum score, not a mean. Also, the row for competence frustration says '1' footnote but the table shows one row; the footnote numbering appears inconsistent with the table body.
  6. [Abstract] The word 'impact' in RQ1 and the abstract overstates what a cross-sectional survey can establish. Consider replacing with 'association with' or 'perceived association with' throughout the research questions.

Circularity Check

0 steps flagged · score 1.0 of 10

Empirical survey paper; no derivation chain to reduce; minor same-instrument overlap noted as validity risk, not circularity.

full rationale

This paper makes empirical claims from a cross-sectional survey; there is no formal derivation chain whose outputs could be equivalent to its inputs by construction. The central ranking (competence relief 3.02 vs autonomy 2.96 vs relatedness 2.52) is a descriptive comparison, not a derived quantity; it is under-analyzed statistically, but lack of an inferential test is not circularity. The SEM associations are estimated from data, not imposed. The inattention moderation results are empirical interactions. The one potential overlap is that perceived AI outcome items reuse the baseline item stems with change prefixes ('has improved my sense of choice and freedom...' Table 14 vs 'I feel a sense of choice and freedom...' Table 13), and the strong path from baseline autonomy to perceived autonomy (β=.58) may be inflated by common-method and semantic overlap; this is a measurement validity threat the paper itself partially acknowledges in §5.5, not a definitional equivalence. The citation to the authors' own Engineering CAReS instrument [141] is one of several scale sources and is not load-bearing for the conclusions. Overall: no significant circularity; score 1.

Assumptions & free parameters 3 free parameters · 6 assumptions · 0 invented entities

'Personal agency' is a data-derived label for a combined self-efficacy/SRL factor, not a new entity. The central claim rests on SDT's taxonomy, the validity of adapted self-report scales, and the assumption that associations are not badly distorted by common-method variance or unmeasured confounders.

free parameters (3)
  • EFA loading threshold = 0.30
    Items retained only if EFA loadings exceed .30; conventional but arbitrary, and influences which items define each construct.
  • Post hoc item deletions = SR4, ACO2, CO2 removed; 3 reverse-worded items removed
    Scale composition was adjusted after inspecting the same sample's EFA/SEM loadings; these deletions changed construct coverage and fit statistics.
  • Latent factor structure = 4 baseline factors, 3 perceived-AI factors, 1 inattention factor
    Factor counts derived from sample-specific parallel analysis; merging self-regulated learning and self-efficacy into 'personal agency' is not a pre-specified theoretical construct.
assumptions (6)
  • domain assumption Self-Determination Theory's three basic needs (autonomy, competence, relatedness) are the correct organizing framework for AI learning outcomes.
    The study's constructs, measures, and interpretation all presuppose SDT's need taxonomy, introduced in §1 and §2.1; if the taxonomy is wrong for AI-mediated learning, the outcomes are mis-specified.
  • ad hoc to paper Adapted items measure the intended latent constructs after item deletion.
    Scales were adapted from validated instruments; reverse-worded items, SR4, ACO2, and CO2 were removed after inspecting the same sample, with no external revalidation (§3.3.1, §4.1, §4.4).
  • domain assumption Self-reported perceived outcomes are sufficiently accurate proxies for psychological need support.
    All dependent variables are perceptions rather than objective measures; this is acknowledged in §5.5.
  • domain assumption ASRS inattention items measure attentional difficulty in this sample.
    The attention measure is self-report, not clinical diagnosis; the authors note this limitation in §5.5.
  • domain assumption The cross-sectional SEM associations are not materially biased by unmeasured confounders or reverse causation.
    Observational design; authors interpret associations as insights for design and acknowledge causality limits, but the ranking and moderation claims still require this assumption to hold.
  • standard math Standard SEM identification and estimation assumptions hold.
    Robust maximum likelihood, model identification, and fit indices are used; no formal machine-checked verification.

how reviews work

0 comments
Cite this review

Pith. "Pith review of Designing Needs- and Attention-Aware AI Learning Tools for Engineering Education: Insights from Psychological Outcomes." pith.science (2026). https://pith.science/paper/3SYE7QL3

@misc{pith2026260726338,
  author       = {Pith},
  title        = {Pith review of: Designing Needs- and Attention-Aware AI Learning Tools for Engineering Education: Insights from Psychological Outcomes},
  year         = {2026},
  howpublished = {\url{https://pith.science/paper/3SYE7QL3}},
  note         = {Machine review of arXiv:2607.26338}
}
read the original abstract

Artificial Intelligence (AI) is transforming higher education, but its benefits can vary depending on where, how, and how often it supports learning. While prior research emphasizes cognitive and academic outcomes, this study examines how AI chatbots support the psychological needs and motivational states of engineering students. A survey of college engineering students (n = 206) examined perceived effects of AI chatbots on autonomy, relatedness, and relief from competence frustration. Structural equation modeling with latent interaction effects examined how baseline autonomy, competence frustration, relatedness, and personal agency contributed to perceived AI outcomes. Results indicate that students perceived that AI provided the greatest benefits as relief from competence frustration, smaller benefits for autonomy, and the weakest benefits for relatedness. Baseline motivational states mattered more than demographic factors, and inattention moderated how baseline competence frustration and autonomy related to perceived AI-related benefits. These results offer insights into formulating design principles for engineering-specific AI-based tools.

Figures

Figures reproduced from arXiv: 2607.26338 by the authors.

Figure 1
Figure 1. Overview of the analysis procedure. After response screening, exploratory factor analysis (EFA) was [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p008_1.png] view at source ↗
Figure 2
Figure 2. Structural equation model of baseline psychological constructs and perceived need fulfillment with [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p016_2.png] view at source ↗

Discussion (0). Sign in to comment.

Reference graph

Works this paper leans on

185 extracted references · 3 linked inside Pith

  1. [1]

    Herman Aguinis, Jeffrey R Edwards, and Kyle J Bradley. 2017. Improving our understanding of moderation and mediation in strategic management research.Organizational research methods20, 4 (2017), 665–685

    2017

  2. [2]

    Vincent Aleven, Ido Roll, Bruce M McLaren, and Kenneth R Koedinger. 2016. Help helps, but only so much: Research on help seeking with intelligent tutoring systems.International Journal of Artificial Intelligence in Education26, 1 (2016), 205–223

    2016

  3. [3]

    María Álvarez-Godos, Camino Ferreira, and María-José Vieira. 2023. A systematic review of actions aimed at university students with ADHD.Frontiers in psychology14 (2023), 1216692. Designing Needs- and Attention-Aware AI Learning Tools for Engineering Education: Insights from Psychological Outcomes 23

    2023

  4. [4]

    2024.Profiles of Engineering and Engineering Technology, 2023

    American Society for Engineering Education. 2024.Profiles of Engineering and Engineering Technology, 2023. Technical Report. American Society for Engineering Education, Washington, DC. https://ira.asee.org/by-the-numbers/

    2024

  5. [5]

    Dawn Anderson-Butcher and David E Conroy. 2002. Factorial and criterion validity of scores of a measure of belonging in youth development programs.Educational and psychological measurement62, 5 (2002), 857–876

    2002

  6. [6]

    Prathibha Sathyanjalee Ariyasena, Nimthara Nuwangi Bandara Munasinghe, Christan Fryer Cooraydas Chandra, Prashanthi Anushika Dissanayake, Uthpala Samarakoon, and Wishalya Tissera. 2024. Exploring the Utility of Gamified Learning to Support Academic Progress among ADHD-Diagnosed Children. InProceedings of the 2024 Sixteenth International Conference on Cont...

    2024

  7. [7]

    I’d Never Actually Realized How Big An Impact It Had Until Now

    Alex Atcheson, Omar Khan, Brian Siemann, Anika Jain, and Karrie Karahalios. 2025. " I’d Never Actually Realized How Big An Impact It Had Until Now": Perspectives of University Students with Disabilities on Generative Artificial Intelligence. InProceedings of the 2025 CHI Conference on Human Factors in Computing Systems. 1–22

    2025

  8. [8]

    Robert K Atkinson, Alexander Renkl, and Mary Margaret Merrill. 2003. Transitioning from studying examples to solving problems: Effects of self-explanation prompts and fading worked-out steps.Journal of educational psychology 95, 4 (2003), 774

    2003

Show all 185 references
  1. [9]

    Roger Azevedo, François Bouchet, Melissa Duffy, Jason Harley, Michelle Taub, Gregory Trevors, Elizabeth Cloude, Daryn Dever, Megan Wiedbusch, Franz Wortha, et al. 2022. Lessons learned and future directions of MetaTutor: Leveraging multichannel data to scaffold self-regulated ...

    2022

  2. [10]

    Xuemei Bai and Xiaoqing Gu. 2022. Effect of teacher autonomy support on the online self-regulated learning of students during COVID-19 in China: The chain mediating effect of parental autonomy support and students’ self-efficacy.Journal of Computer Assisted Learning38, 4 (2022...

    2022

  3. [11]

    Nick Ballou, Sebastian Deterding, April Tyack, Elisa D Mekler, Rafael A Calvo, Dorian Peters, Gabriela Villalobos- Zúñiga, and Selen Turkay. 2022. Self-determination theory in HCI: shaping a research agenda. InCHI conference on human factors in computing systems extended abstr...

    2022

  4. [12]

    1997.Self-efficacy: The exercise of control

    Albert Bandura. 1997.Self-efficacy: The exercise of control. Vol. 11. Freeman

    1997

  5. [13]

    Russell A Barkley. 1997. Behavioral inhibition, sustained attention, and executive functions: constructing a unifying theory of ADHD.Psychological bulletin121, 1 (1997), 65

    1997

  6. [14]

    Maurice S Bartlett. 1950. Tests of significance in factor analysis.British journal of psychology(1950)

    1950

  7. [15]

    Lindsey D Basileo, Barbara Otto, Merewyn Lyons, Natalie Vannini, and Michael D Toth. 2024. The role of self-efficacy, motivation, and perceived support of students’ basic psychological needs in academic achievement. InFrontiers in education, Vol. 9. Frontiers Media SA, 1385442

    2024

  8. [16]

    Beckwith, M

    L. Beckwith, M. Burnett, S. Wiedenbeck, C. Cook, S. Sorte, and M. Hastings. 2005. Effectiveness of End-User Debugging Software Features: Are There Gender Issues?. InProceedings of the SIGCHI Conference on Human Factors in Computing Systems (CHI ’05). ACM, New York, NY, USA, 869–878

    2005

  9. [17]

    Beckwith, C

    L. Beckwith, C. Kissinger, M. Burnett, S. Wiedenbeck, J. Lawrance, A. Blackwell, and C. Cook. 2006. Tinkering and Gender in End-User Programmers’ Debugging. InProceedings of the SIGCHI Conference on Human Factors in Computing Systems (CHI ’06). ACM, New York, NY, USA, 231–240

    2006

  10. [18]

    Timothy W Bickmore and Rosalind W Picard. 2005. Establishing and maintaining long-term human-computer relationships.ACM Transactions on Computer-Human Interaction (TOCHI)12, 2 (2005), 293–327

    2005

  11. [19]

    Aaron E Black and Edward L Deci. 2000. The effects of instructors’ autonomy support and students’ autonomous motivation on learning organic chemistry: A self-determination theory perspective.Science education84, 6 (2000), 740–756

    2000

  12. [20]

    Jonas Blattgerste, Jannik Franssen, Michaela Arztmann, and Thies Pfeiffer. 2022. Motivational benefits and usability of a handheld Augmented Reality game for anatomy learning. In2022 IEEE International Conference on Artificial Intelligence and Virtual Reality (AIVR). IEEE, 266–274

    2022

  13. [21]

    Victoria Cabales. 2019. Muse: Scaffolding metacognitive reflection in design-based research. InExtended Abstracts of the 2019 CHI Conference on Human Factors in Computing Systems. 1–6

    2019

  14. [22]

    John B Carroll. 1953. An analytical solution for approximating simple structure in factor analysis.Psychometrika18, 1 (1953), 23–38

    1953

  15. [23]

    José-Antonio Cervantes, Sonia López, Salvador Cervantes, Aribei Hernández, and Heiler Duarte. 2023. Social robots and brain–computer interface video games for dealing with attention deficit hyperactivity disorder: A systematic review.Brain Sciences13, 8 (2023), 1172

    2023

  16. [24]

    Beiwen Chen, Maarten Vansteenkiste, Wim Beyers, Liesbet Boone, Edward L Deci, Jolene Van der Kaap-Deeder, Bart Duriez, Willy Lens, Lennia Matos, Athanasios Mouratidis, et al. 2015. Basic psychological need satisfaction and frustration scale.Motivation and Emotion(2015)

    2015

  17. [25]

    Beiwen Chen, Maarten Vansteenkiste, Wim Beyers, Liesbet Boone, Edward L Deci, Jolene Van der Kaap-Deeder, Bart Duriez, Willy Lens, Lennia Matos, Athanasios Mouratidis, et al. 2015. Basic psychological need satisfaction, need 24 Shao et al. frustration, and need strength across...

    2015

  18. [26]

    Jing Chen. 2022. The effectiveness of self-regulated learning (SRL) interventions on L2 learning achievement, strategy employment and self-efficacy: A meta-analytic study.Frontiers in Psychology13 (2022), 1021101

    2022

  19. [27]

    John Chen, Xi Lu, Yuzhou Du, Michael Rejtig, Ruth Bagley, Mike Horn, and Uri Wilensky. 2024. Learning agent-based modeling with llm companions: Experiences of novices and experts using chatgpt & netlogo chat. InProceedings of the 2024 CHI Conference on Human Factors in Computi...

    2024

  20. [28]

    Thomas KF Chiu, Benjamin Luke Moorhouse, Ching Sing Chai, and Murod Ismailov. 2024. Teacher support and student motivation to learn with Artificial Intelligence (AI) based chatbot.Interactive Learning Environments32, 7 (2024), 3240–3256

    2024

  21. [29]

    Anna B Costello and Jason Osborne. 2005. Best practices in exploratory factor analysis: Four recommendations for getting the most from your analysis.Practical assessment, research, and evaluation10, 1 (2005)

    2005

  22. [30]

    Marcus Credé and L Alison Phillips. 2011. A meta-analytic review of the Motivated Strategies for Learning Question- naire.Learning and individual differences21, 4 (2011), 337–346

    2011

  23. [31]

    what" and

    Edward L Deci and Richard M Ryan. 2000. The" what" and" why" of goal pursuits: Human needs and the self- determination of behavior.Psychological inquiry11, 4 (2000), 227–268

    2000

  24. [32]

    2013.Intrinsic motivation and self-determination in human behavior

    Edward L Deci and Richard M Ryan. 2013.Intrinsic motivation and self-determination in human behavior. Springer Science & Business Media

    2013

  25. [33]

    Charlotte Dignath, Gerhard Buettner, and Hans-Peter Langfeldt. 2008. How can primary school students learn self- regulated learning strategies most effectively?: A meta-analysis on self-regulation training programmes.Educational Research Review3, 2 (2008), 101–129

    2008

  26. [34]

    Hamzeh Dodeen. 2023. The effects of changing negatively worded items to positively worded items on the reliability and the factor structure of psychological scales.Journal of Psychoeducational Assessment41, 3 (2023), 298–310

    2023

  27. [35]

    Jinming Du and Ben Kei Daniel. 2024. Transforming language education: A systematic review of AI-powered chatbots for English as a foreign language speaking practice.Computers and Education: Artificial Intelligence6 (2024), 100230

    2024

  28. [36]

    Xiaojing Duan, Chaoli Wang, and Guieswende Rouamba. 2022. Designing a learning analytics dashboard to provide students with actionable feedback and evaluating its impacts. InProceedings of International Conference on Computer Supported Education

    2022

  29. [37]

    Daniel Elford, Simon J Lancaster, and Garth A Jones. 2022. Fostering motivation toward chemistry through augmented reality educational escape activities. A self-determination theory approach.Journal of chemical education99, 10 (2022), 3406–3417

    2022

  30. [38]

    Leandre R Fabrigar, Duane T Wegener, Robert C MacCallum, and Erin J Strahan. 1999. Evaluating the use of exploratory factor analysis in psychological research.Psychological methods4, 3 (1999), 272

    1999

  31. [39]

    Kate S Glazko, Momona Yamagami, Aashaka Desai, Kelly Avery Mack, Venkatesh Potluri, Xuhai Xu, and Jennifer Mankoff. 2023. An autoethnographic case study of generative artificial intelligence’s utility for accessibility. In Proceedings of the 25th International ACM SIGACCESS Co...

    2023

  32. [40]

    Saeideh Goharinejad, Samira Goharinejad, Sadrieh Hajesmaeel-Gohari, and Kambiz Bahaadinbeigy. 2022. The usefulness of virtual, augmented, and mixed reality technologies in the diagnosis and treatment of attention deficit hyperactivity disorder in children: an overview of relev...

    2022

  33. [41]

    Arthur C Graesser. 2016. Conversations with AutoTutor help students learn.International Journal of Artificial Intelligence in Education26, 1 (2016), 124–132

    2016

  34. [42]

    James M Graham. 2006. Congeneric and (essentially) tau-equivalent estimates of score reliability: What they are and how to use them.Educational and psychological measurement66, 6 (2006), 930–944

    2006

  35. [43]

    Kandice N Green, Shengjie Yao, Heejae Lee, Lyndsay Michalik Gratch, David Peters, and T Makana Chock. 2024. Understanding Expressions of Self-Determination Theory in the Evaluation of IDEA-Themed VR Storytelling.Media and Communication12 (2024)

    2024

  36. [44]

    Rashmi Gunawardana, Michelle Perera, Rashini Lakshika, Chaminda Ranasinghe, and Kasun Karunanayaka. 2025. Enhancing Adaptive Personalized Learning Interfaces with Generative AI for Individuals with ADHD. InProceedings of the 16th International Conference of Human-Computer Inte...

    2025

  37. [45]

    Khe Foon Hew, Weijiao Huang, Jiahui Du, and Chengyuan Jia. 2023. Using chatbots to support student goal setting and social presence in fully online activities: Learner engagement and perceptions.Journal of Computing in Higher Education35, 1 (2023), 40–68

    2023

  38. [46]

    D Hooper, J Coughlan, MR Mullen, J Mullen, D Hooper, J Coughlan, and MR Mullen. 2008. Structural Equation Modelling: Guidelines for Determining Model Fit Structural equation modelling: guidelines for determining model fit. Dublin Institute of Technology ARROW@ DIT, 6 (1), 53–60

    2008

  39. [47]

    Li-tze Hu and Peter M Bentler. 1999. Cutoff criteria for fit indexes in covariance structure analysis: Conventional criteria versus new alternatives.Structural equation modeling: a multidisciplinary journal6, 1 (1999), 1–55. Designing Needs- and Attention-Aware AI Learning Too...

    1999

  40. [48]

    Anna YQ Huang, Owen HT Lu, and Stephen JH Yang. 2023. Effects of artificial Intelligence–Enabled personalized recommendations on learners’ learning engagement, motivation, and outcomes in a flipped classroom.Computers & Education194 (2023), 104684

    2023

  41. [49]

    Brockmole, and Sidney K

    Stephen Hutt, Kristina Krasich, James R. Brockmole, and Sidney K. D’Mello. 2021. Breaking out of the lab: Mitigating mind wandering with gaze-based attention-aware technology in classrooms. InProceedings of the 2021 CHI conference on human factors in computing systems. 1–14

    2021

  42. [50]

    Kiran Ijaz, Naseem Ahmadpour, Yifan Wang, and Rafael A Calvo. 2020. Player experience of needs satisfaction (PENS) in an immersive virtual reality exercise platform describes motivation and enjoyment.International Journal of Human–Computer Interaction36, 13 (2020), 1195–1204

    2020

  43. [51]

    Hyungshim Jang, Eun Joo Kim, and Johnmarshall Reeve. 2012. Longitudinal test of self-determination theory’s motivation mediation model in a naturally occurring classroom context.Journal of Educational psychology104, 4 (2012), 1175

    2012

  44. [52]

    Hyungshim Jang, Johnmarshall Reeve, and Edward L Deci. 2010. Engaging students in learning activities: It is not autonomy support or structure but autonomy support and structure.Journal of educational psychology102, 3 (2010), 588

    2010

  45. [53]

    Robert I Jennrich and PF Sampson. 1966. Rotation for simple loadings.Psychometrika31, 3 (1966), 313–323

    1966

  46. [54]

    Daeun Jeong, Sungbok Shin, and Jongwook Jeong. 2025. Conversation Progress Guide: UI system for enhancing self-efficacy in conversational AI. InProceedings of the 2025 CHI Conference on Human Factors in Computing Systems. 1–11

    2025

  47. [55]

    Hyoungwook Jin, Seonghee Lee, Hyungyu Shin, and Juho Kim. 2024. Teach ai how to code: Using large language models as teachable agents for programming education. InProceedings of the 2024 CHI Conference on Human Factors in Computing Systems. 1–28

    2024

  48. [56]

    Henry F Kaiser. 1958. The varimax criterion for analytic rotation in factor analysis.Psychometrika23, 3 (1958), 187–200

    1958

  49. [57]

    Henry F Kaiser. 1970. A second generation little jiffy.Psychometrika35, 4 (1970), 401–415

    1970

  50. [58]

    Slava Kalyuga. 2007. Expertise reversal effect and its implications for learner-tailored instruction.Educational psychology review19, 4 (2007), 509–539

    2007

  51. [59]

    Slava Kalyuga. 2009. The expertise reversal effect. InManaging cognitive load in adaptive multimedia learning. IGI Global Scientific Publishing, 58–80

    2009

  52. [60]

    Chester Chun Seng Kam. 2023. Why do regular and reversed items load on separate factors? Response difficulty vs. item extremity.Educational and Psychological Measurement83, 6 (2023), 1085–1112

    2023

  53. [61]

    Stuart A Karabenick and Myron H Dembo. 2011. Understanding and facilitating self-regulated help seeking.New directions for teaching and learning2011, 126 (2011), 33–43

    2011

  54. [62]

    Majeed Kazemitabaar, Runlong Ye, Xiaoning Wang, Austin Zachary Henley, Paul Denny, Michelle Craig, and Tovi Grossman. 2024. Codeaid: Evaluating a classroom deployment of an llm-based programming assistant that balances student and educator needs. InProceedings of the 2024 chi ...

    2024

  55. [63]

    David A Kenny, Burcu Kaniskan, and D Betsy McCoach. 2015. The performance of RMSEA in models with small degrees of freedom.Sociological methods & research44, 3 (2015), 486–507

    2015

  56. [64]

    Ronald C Kessler, Lenard Adler, Minnie Ames, Olga Demler, Steve Faraone, EVA Hiripi, Mary J Howes, Robert Jin, Kristina Secnik, Thomas Spencer, et al. 2005. The World Health Organization Adult ADHD Self-Report Scale (ASRS): a short screening scale for use in the general popula...

    2005

  57. [65]

    Jeanine Kirchner-Krath, Manuel Schmidt-Kraepelin, Sofia Schöbel, Mathias Ullrich, Ali Sunyaev, and Harald FO Von Korflesch. 2024. Outplay your weaker self: A mixed-methods study on gamification to overcome procrastination in academia. InProceedings of the 2024 CHI Conference o...

    2024

  58. [66]

    Paul A Kirschner, John Sweller, Richard E Clark, PA Kirschner, and RE Clark. 2010. Why minimal guidance during instruction does not work: An analysis of the failure of constructivist.Based Teaching Work: An Analysis of the Failure of Constructivist, Discovery, Problem-Based, E...

    2010

  59. [67]

    Eva Knekta, Christopher Runyon, and Sarah Eddy. 2019. One size doesn’t fit all: Using factor analysis to gather validity evidence when using surveys in your research.CBE—Life Sciences Education18, 1 (2019), rm1

    2019

  60. [68]

    Christopher Knievel, Alexander Bernhardt, and Christian Bernhardt. 2025. AITEE–Agentic Tutor for Electrical Engineering.arXiv preprint arXiv:2505.21582(2025)

    2025 arXiv

  61. [69]

    Michael J Kofler, Leah J Singh, Elia F Soto, Elizabeth SM Chan, Caroline E Miller, Sherelle L Harmon, and Jamie A Spiegel. 2020. Working memory and short-term memory deficits in ADHD: A bifactor modeling approach.Neuropsy- chology34, 6 (2020), 686

    2020

  62. [70]

    Lasha Labadze, Maya Grigolia, and Lela Machaidze. 2023. Role of AI chatbots in education: systematic literature review.International journal of Educational Technology in Higher education20, 1 (2023), 56. 26 Shao et al

    2023

  63. [71]

    Himanshi Lalwani, Maha Elgarf, and Hanan Salam. 2024. Productivity coachbot: a social robot coach for university students with adhd. InA3DE, ACM/IEEE International Conference on Human-Robot Interaction. IEEE

    2024

  64. [72]

    Himanshi Lalwani, Mira Saleh, and Hanan Salam. 2025. A study companion for productivity: exploring the role of a social robot for college students with ADHD. In2025 20th ACM/IEEE International Conference on Human-Robot Interaction (HRI). IEEE, 1438–1442

    2025

  65. [73]

    Min Lan and Xiaofeng Zhou. 2025. A qualitative systematic review on AI empowered self-regulated learning in higher education.npj Science of Learning10, 1 (2025), 21

    2025

  66. [74]

    Anna Lieb and Toshali Goel. 2024. Student interaction with newtbot: An llm-as-tutor chatbot for secondary physics education. InExtended Abstracts of the CHI Conference on Human Factors in Computing Systems. 1–8

    2024

  67. [75]

    Guan-Chyun Lin, Zhonglin Wen, Herbert W Marsh, and Huey-Shyan Lin. 2010. Structural equation models of latent interactions: Clarification of orthogonalizing and double-mean-centering strategies.Structural Equation Modeling17, 3 (2010), 374–391

    2010

  68. [76]

    Chung Kwan Lo, Khe Foon Hew, and Morris Siu-yung Jong. 2024. The influence of ChatGPT on student engagement: A systematic review and future research agenda.Computers & Education219 (2024), 105100

    2024

  69. [77]

    Like Having a Really Bad PA

    Ewa Luger and Abigail Sellen. 2016. " Like Having a Really Bad PA" The Gulf between User Expectation and Experience of Conversational Agents. InProceedings of the 2016 CHI conference on human factors in computing systems. 5286–5297

    2016

  70. [78]

    Jihao Luo, Chenxu Zheng, Jiamin Yin, and Hock Hai Teo. 2025. Design and assessment of AI-based learning tools in higher education: a systematic review.International Journal of Educational Technology in Higher Education22, 1 (2025), 42

    2025

  71. [79]

    Shuai Ma, Junling Wang, Yuanhao Zhang, Xiaojuan Ma, and April Yi Wang. 2025. Dbox: Scaffolding algorithmic programming learning through learner-llm co-decomposition. InProceedings of the 2025 CHI Conference on Human Factors in Computing Systems. 1–20

    2025

  72. [80]

    Herbert W Marsh, Kit-Tai Hau, and Zhonglin Wen. 2004. In search of golden rules: Comment on hypothesis-testing approaches to setting cutoff values for fit indexes and dangers in overgeneralizing Hu and Bentler’s (1999) findings. Structural equation modeling11, 3 (2004), 320–341

    2004

  73. [81]

    Herbert W Marsh, Zhonglin Wen, and Kit-Tai Hau. 2004. Structural equation models of latent interactions: evaluation of alternative estimation strategies and indicator construction.Psychological methods9, 3 (2004), 275

    2004

  74. [82]

    Scott E Maxwell and David A Cole. 2007. Bias in cross-sectional analyses of longitudinal mediation.Psychological methods12, 1 (2007), 23

    2007

  75. [83]

    Scott E Maxwell, David A Cole, and Melissa A Mitchell. 2011. Bias in cross-sectional analyses of longitudinal mediation: Partial and complete mediation under an autoregressive model.Multivariate behavioral research46, 5 (2011), 816–841

    2011

  76. [84]

    Bruce M McLaren, Tamara Van Gog, Craig Ganoe, Michael Karabinos, and David Yaron. 2016. The efficiency of worked examples compared to erroneous examples, tutored problem solving, and problem solving in computer-based learning environments.Computers in Human Behavior55 (2016), 87–99

    2016

  77. [85]

    Jia Miao and Li Ma. 2023. Teacher autonomy support influence on online learning engagement: the mediating roles of self-efficacy and self-regulated learning.Sage Open13, 4 (2023), 21582440231217737

    2023

  78. [86]

    Karen D Multon, Steven D Brown, and Robert W Lent. 1991. Relation of self-efficacy beliefs to academic outcomes: A meta-analytic investigation.Journal of counseling psychology38, 1 (1991), 30

    1991

  79. [87]

    Adam Neufeld and Greg Malin. 2019. Exploring the relationship between medical student basic psychological need satisfaction, resilience, and well-being: a quantitative study.BMC medical education19, 1 (2019), 405

    2019

  80. [88]

    Christopher P Niemiec and Richard M Ryan. 2009. Autonomy, competence, and relatedness in the classroom: Applying self-determination theory to educational practice.Theory and research in Education7, 2 (2009), 133–144

    2009

  81. [89]

    Benjamin D Nye, Arthur C Graesser, and Xiangen Hu. 2014. AutoTutor and family: A review of 17 years of natural language tutoring.International Journal of Artificial Intelligence in Education24, 4 (2014), 427–469

    2014

  82. [90]

    Amy O’Connell, Ashveen Banga, Jennifer Ayissi, Nikki Yaminrafie, Ellen Ko, Andrew Le, Bailey Cislowski, and Maja Mataric. 2024. Design and evaluation of a socially assistive robot schoolwork companion for college students with adhd. InProceedings of the 2024 ACM/IEEE Internati...

    2024

  83. [91]

    Fred Paas, Alexander Renkl, and John Sweller. 2003. Cognitive load theory and instructional design: Recent develop- ments.Educational psychologist38, 1 (2003), 1–4

    2003

  84. [92]

    Zachary A Pardos and Shreya Bhandari. 2024. ChatGPT-generated help produces learning gains equivalent to human tutor-authored help on mathematics skills.Plos one19, 5 (2024), e0304013

    2024

  85. [93]

    Erika A Patall, Harris Cooper, and Jorgianne Civey Robinson. 2008. The effects of choice on intrinsic motivation and related outcomes: a meta-analysis of research findings.Psychological bulletin134, 2 (2008), 270

    2008

  86. [94]

    Pantelis Pergantis, Victoria Bamicha, Charalampos Skianis, and Athanasios Drigas. 2025. AI chatbots and cognitive control: enhancing executive functions through chatbot interactions: a systematic review.Brain Sciences15, 1 (2025), Designing Needs- and Attention-Aware AI Learni...

    2025

  87. [95]

    Franziska Pfitzner-Eden. 2016. Why do I feel more confident? Bandura’s sources predict preservice teachers’ latent changes in teacher self-efficacy.Frontiers in psychology7 (2016), 1486

    2016

  88. [96]

    Tung Phung, Victor-Alexandru Pădurean, Anjali Singh, Christopher Brooks, José Cambronero, Sumit Gulwani, Adish Singla, and Gustavo Soares. 2024. Automating human tutor-style programming feedback: Leveraging gpt-4 tutor model for hint generation and gpt-3.5 student model for hi...

    2024

  89. [97]

    A little bit of a life raft

    Anika Pinto, Emily Quilter, Jerusaa Vasikaran, Sarah Koerner, Tefkros Chimonas, Emily Esther Nielsen, Paul Marshall, and Kenton O’Hara. 2025. " A little bit of a life raft”–Exploring the Use and Experiences of ChatGPT as a Support Tool among Adults with ADHD. InProceedings of ...

    2025

  90. [98]

    Paul R Pintrich. 2004. A conceptual framework for assessing motivation and self-regulated learning in college students.Educational psychology review16, 4 (2004), 385–407

    2004

  91. [99]

    Paul R Pintrich et al. 1991. A manual for the use of the Motivated Strategies for Learning Questionnaire (MSLQ). (1991)

    1991

  92. [100]

    XIA Qi, Qian Liu, Ahmed Tlili, and KF Thomas. 2025. A systematic literature review on designing self-regulated learning using generative artificial intelligence and its future research directions.Computers & education(2025), 105465

    2025

  93. [101]

    Felix Reer, Lars-Ole Wehden, Robin Janzik, Wai Yen Tang, and Thorsten Quandt. 2022. Virtual reality technology and game enjoyment: The contributions of natural mapping and need satisfaction.Computers in Human Behavior132 (2022), 107242

    2022

  94. [102]

    Johnmarshall Reeve. 2013. How students create motivationally supportive learning environments for themselves: The concept of agentic engagement.Journal of educational psychology105, 3 (2013), 579

    2013

  95. [103]

    Johnmarshall Reeve and Sung Hyeon Cheon. 2021. Autonomy-supportive teaching: Its malleability, benefits, and potential to improve educational practice.Educational psychologist56, 1 (2021), 54–77

    2021

  96. [104]

    Johnmarshall Reeve and Woogul Lee. 2014. Students’ classroom engagement produces longitudinal changes in classroom motivation.Journal of educational psychology106, 2 (2014), 527

    2014

  97. [105]

    Johnmarshall Reeve and Ching-Mei Tseng. 2011. Agency as a fourth aspect of students’ engagement during learning activities.Contemporary educational psychology36, 4 (2011), 257–267

    2011

  98. [106]

    Michelle Richardson, Charles Abraham, and Rod Bond. 2012. Psychological correlates of university students’ academic performance: a systematic review and meta-analysis.Psychological bulletin138, 2 (2012), 353

    2012

  99. [107]

    Thomas Rigotti, Birgit Schyns, and Gisela Mohr. 2008. A short version of the occupational self-efficacy scale: Structural and construct validity across five countries.Journal of Career Assessment16, 2 (2008), 238–255

    2008

  100. [108]

    Evan F Risko and Sam J Gilbert. 2016. Cognitive offloading.Trends in cognitive sciences20, 9 (2016), 676–688

    2016

  101. [109]

    Dulce Romero-Ayuso, Abel Toledano-González, María Del Carmen Rodríguez-Martínez, Palma Arroyo-Castillo, José Matías Triviño-Juárez, Pascual González, Patrocinio Ariza-Vega, Antonio Del Pino Gonzalez, and Antonio Segura-Fragoso. 2021. Effectiveness of virtual reality-based inte...

    2021

  102. [110]

    Yves Rosseel. 2012. lavaan: An R package for structural equation modeling.Journal of statistical software48 (2012), 1–36

    2012

  103. [111]

    Ryan and E.L

    R.M. Ryan and E.L. Deci. 2018.Self-Determination Theory: Basic Psychological Needs in Motivation, Development, and Wellness. Guilford Publications. https://books.google.com/books?id=th5rDwAAQBAJ

    2018

  104. [112]

    Richard M Ryan and Edward L Deci. 2000. Self-determination theory and the facilitation of intrinsic motivation, social development, and well-being.American psychologist55, 1 (2000), 68

    2000

  105. [113]

    Richard M Ryan and Edward L Deci. 2020. Intrinsic and extrinsic motivation from a self-determination theory perspective: Definitions, theory, practices, and future directions.Contemporary educational psychology61 (2020), 101860

    2020

  106. [114]

    Anouk Scheres and Mary V Solanto. 2021. Do ADHD symptoms, executive function, and study strategies predict temporal reward discounting in college students with varying levels of ADHD symptoms? A pilot study.Brain sciences11, 2 (2021), 181

    2021

  107. [115]

    Dale H Schunk and Maria K DiBenedetto. 2016. Self-efficacy theory in education. InHandbook of motivation at school. Routledge, 34–54

    2016

  108. [116]

    Dale H Schunk and Maria K DiBenedetto. 2020. Motivation and social cognitive theory.Contemporary educational psychology60 (2020), 101832

    2020

  109. [117]

    Jane A Sedgwick-Müller, Ulrich Müller-Sedgwick, Marios Adamou, Marco Catani, Rebecca Champ, Gísli Gudjónsson, Dietmar Hank, Mark Pitts, Susan Young, and Philip Asherson. 2022. University students with attention deficit hyperactivity disorder (ADHD): a consensus statement from ...

    2022

  110. [118]

    Judah W Serrano, Tamara M Abu-Ramadan, John M Vasko, Daniel R Leopold, Will H Canu, Erik G Willcutt, and Cynthia M Hartung. 2023. ADHD and psychological need fulfillment in college students.Journal of Attention Disorders27, 8 (2023), 912–924

    2023

  111. [119]

    Preya Shabrina, Behrooz Mostafavi, Sutapa Dey Tithi, Min Chi, and Tiffany Barnes. 2023. Learning Problem Decomposition-Recomposition with Data-Driven Chunky Parsons Problems within an Intelligent Logic Tutor. International Educational Data Mining Society(2023)

    2023

  112. [120]

    Dexin Shi, Christine DiStefano, Alberto Maydeu-Olivares, and Taehun Lee. 2022. Evaluating SEM model fit with small degrees of freedom.Multivariate behavioral research57, 2-3 (2022), 179–207

    2022

  113. [121]

    Eline Sierens, Maarten Vansteenkiste, Luc Goossens, Bart Soenens, and Filip Dochy. 2009. The synergistic relationship of perceived autonomy support and structure in the prediction of self-regulated learning.British journal of educational psychology79, 1 (2009), 57–68

    2009

  114. [122]

    Jonathan Smallwood and Jonathan W Schooler. 2015. The science of mind wandering: Empirically navigating the stream of consciousness.Annual review of psychology66, 1 (2015), 487–518

    2015

  115. [123]

    Tainá Souza, Mônica Silva, Renato Alves, and Waldir Moura. 2021. The use of games as an educational aid to students with ADHD: a framework proposal. In2021 International Conference on Advanced Learning Technologies (ICALT). IEEE, 333–335

    2021

  116. [124]

    Brooke S Staley. 2024. Attention-deficit/hyperactivity disorder diagnosis, Treatment, and telehealth use in adults—National center for health statistics rapid surveys system, United States, October–November 2023.MMWR. Morbidity and Mortality Weekly Report73 (2024)

    2024

  117. [125]

    Candice R Stefanou, Kathleen C Perencevich, Matthew DiCintio, and Julianne C Turner. 2004. Supporting autonomy in the classroom: Ways teachers encourage student decision making and ownership.Educational psychologist39, 2 (2004), 97–110

    2004

  118. [126]

    John Sweller. 1988. Cognitive load during problem solving: Effects on learning.Cognitive science12, 2 (1988), 257–285

    1988

  119. [127]

    Nathalie Alexandra Penglin Tcherdakoff, Grace Jane Stangroome, Ashlee Milton, Catherine Holloway, Marta E Cecchinato, Antonella Nonnis, Tessa Eagle, Dena Al Thani, Hwajung Hong, and Rua Mae Williams. 2025. Designing for Neurodiversity in Academia: Addressing Challenges and Opp...

    2025

  120. [128]

    Leonard Tetzlaff, Bianca Simonsmeier, Tabea Peters, and Garvin Brod. 2025. A cornerstone of adaptivity–A meta- analysis of the expertise reversal effect.Learning and Instruction98 (2025), 102142

    2025

  121. [129]

    Maria Theobald. 2021. Self-regulated learning training programs enhance university students’ academic performance, self-regulated learning strategies, and motivation: A meta-analysis.Contemporary Educational Psychology66 (2021), 101976

    2021

  122. [130]

    April Tyack and Elisa D Mekler. 2024. Self-determination theory and HCI games research: Unfulfilled promises and unquestioned paradigms.ACM Transactions on Computer-Human Interaction31, 3 (2024), 1–74

    2024

  123. [131]

    Kurt VanLehn. 2011. The relative effectiveness of human tutoring, intelligent tutoring systems, and other tutoring systems.Educational psychologist46, 4 (2011), 197–221

    2011

  124. [132]

    Alessandro Vanzo, Sankalan Pal Chowdhury, and Mrinmaya Sachan. 2024. GPT-4 as a homework tutor can improve student engagement and learning outcomes.arXiv preprint arXiv:2409.15981(2024)

    2024 arXiv

  125. [133]

    J Wang and W Fan. 2025. The effect of ChatGPT on students’ learning performance, learning perception, and higher-order thinking: Insights from a meta-analysis. Humanities and Social Sciences Communications, 11 (1), Article 59

    2025

  126. [134]

    Kai Wang, Wencheng Cui, and Xue Yuan. 2025. Artificial intelligence in higher education: The impact of need satisfaction on artificial intelligence literacy mediated by self-regulated learning strategies.Behavioral Sciences15, 2 (2025), 165

    2025

  127. [135]

    Qiaosi Wang, Shan Jing, and Ashok K Goel. 2022. Co-designing AI agents to support social connectedness among online learners: functionalities, social characteristics, and ethical challenges. InProceedings of the 2022 ACM Designing Interactive Systems Conference. 541–556

    2022

  128. [136]

    Nathaniel Weinman, Armando Fox, and Marti A Hearst. 2021. Improving instruction of programming patterns with faded parsons problems. InProceedings of the 2021 chi conference on human factors in computing systems. 1–4

    2021

  129. [137]

    Lisa L Weyandt and George DuPaul. 2006. ADHD in college students.Journal of attention disorders10, 1 (2006), 9–19

    2006

  130. [138]

    Kyle M Whitcomb, Z Yasemin Kalender, Timothy J Nokes-Malach, Christian D Schunn, and Chandralekha Singh

  131. [139]

    Robert W White. 1959. Motivation reconsidered: the concept of competence.Psychological review66, 5 (1959), 297

    1959

  132. [140]

    2026.psych: Procedures for Psychological, Psychometric, and Personality Research

    William Revelle. 2026.psych: Procedures for Psychological, Psychometric, and Personality Research. Northwestern University, Evanston, Illinois. https://CRAN.R-project.org/package=psych R package version 2.6.5. Designing Needs- and Attention-Aware AI Learning Tools for Engineer...

    2026

  133. [141]

    Denise Wilson, Jennifer J VanAntwerp, and Shruti Misra. 2023. Engineering CAReS: Measuring Basic Psychological Needs in the Engineering Workplace. In2023 ASEE Annual Conference & Exposition

    2023

  134. [142]

    Marshall Winget and Adam M Persky. 2022. A practical review of mastery learning.American journal of pharmaceutical education86, 10 (2022), ajpe8906

    2022

  135. [143]

    Jacob O Wobbrock, Krzysztof Z Gajos, Shaun K Kane, and Gregg C Vanderheiden. 2018. Ability-based design. Commun. ACM61, 6 (2018), 62–71

    2018

  136. [144]

    Jacob O Wobbrock, Shaun K Kane, Krzysztof Z Gajos, Susumu Harada, and Jon Froehlich. 2011. Ability-based design: Concept, principles and examples.ACM Transactions on Accessible Computing (TACCESS)3, 3 (2011), 1–27

    2011

  137. [145]

    Hao Wu and Ryne Estabrook. 2016. Identification of confirmatory factor analysis models of different levels of invariance for ordered categorical outcomes.Psychometrika81, 4 (2016), 1014–1045

    2016

  138. [146]

    Rong Wu and Zhonggen Yu. 2024. Do AI chatbots improve students learning outcomes? Evidence from a meta-analysis. British Journal of Educational Technology55, 1 (2024), 10–33

    2024

  139. [147]

    Fan Yang and Jill Stefaniak. 2023. A Systematic Review of Studies Exploring Help-Seeking Strategies in Online Learning Environments.Online Learning27, 1 (2023), 107–126

    2023

  140. [148]

    Xi Yang and Marco Aurisicchio. 2021. Designing conversational agents: A self-determination theory approach. In Proceedings of the 2021 CHI Conference on Human Factors in Computing Systems. 1–16

    2021

  141. [149]

    Jiaqi Yin, Haoxin Xu, Yafeng Pan, and Yi Hu. 2025. Effects of different AI-driven Chatbot feedback on learning outcomes and brain activity.npj Science of Learning10, 1 (2025), 17

    2025

  142. [150]

    Jiaqi Yin, Yi Zhu, Tiong-Thye Goh, Wen Wu, and Yi Hu. 2024. Using Educational Chatbots with Metacognitive Feedback to Improve Science Learning.Applied Sciences14, 20 (2024), 9345

    2024

  143. [151]

    Siyu Zha, Yujia Liu, Chengbo Zheng, Jiaqi Xu, Fuze Yu, Jiangtao Gong, and Yingqing Xu. 2025. Mentigo: An Intelligent Agent for Mentoring Students in the Creative Problem Solving Process. InProceedings of the 2025 CHI Conference on Human Factors in Computing Systems. 1–22

    2025

  144. [152]

    Chunpeng Zhai, Santoso Wibowo, and Lily D Li. 2024. The effects of over-reliance on AI dialogue systems on students’ cognitive abilities: a systematic review.Smart Learning Environments11, 1 (2024), 28

    2024

  145. [153]

    Xin Zhao, Andrew Cox, and Xuanning Chen. 2025. The use of generative AI by students with disabilities in higher education.The Internet and Higher Education66 (2025), 101014

    2025

  146. [154]

    Rui Zhen, Ru-De Liu, Yi Ding, Jia Wang, Ying Liu, and Le Xu. 2017. The mediating roles of academic self-efficacy and academic emotions in the relation between basic psychological needs satisfaction and learning engagement among Chinese adolescent students.Learning and individu...

    2017

  147. [155]

    Barry J Zimmerman. 2002. Becoming a self-regulated learner: An overview.Theory into practice41, 2 (2002), 64–70

    2002

  148. [156]

    this AI tool

    Oren Zuckerman, Guy Hoffman, Daphne Kopelman-Rubin, Anat Brunstein Klomek, Noa Shitrit, Yahav Amsalem, and Yaron Shlomi. 2016. KIP3: Robotic Companion as an External Cue to Students with ADHD. InProceedings of the TEI ’16: Tenth International Conference on Tangible, Embedded, ...

    2016

  149. [158]

    I feel that the decisions I make in my education truly reflect what I want to do

  150. [159]

    Most of the tasks I complete in my curriculum feel like requirements I have to fulfill rather than choices I make

  151. [160]

    Competence (CO)1

    I feel that, in my coursework and other activities, I have been doing what really interests me. Competence (CO)1. I feel confident that I can successfully complete challenging tasks

  152. [161]

    I often have serious doubts about whether I can excel

  153. [162]

    I sometimes feel disappointed with my overall performance

  154. [163]

    I feel insecure about my abilities in my coursework

  155. [164]

    Relatedness (RE)1

    When working on coursework, I sometimes feel like a failure because of the mistakes I make. Relatedness (RE)1. I feel that the classmates and instructors I care about also care about me

  156. [165]

    I feel connected with others who are important to me

  157. [166]

    I feel that people who are important to me are cold or distant toward me

  158. [167]

    Self-Regulated Learn- ing (SR)

    I feel that I am accepted by my peers. Self-Regulated Learn- ing (SR)

  159. [168]

    I feel comfortable connecting new knowledge with what I already know in my coursework

  160. [169]

    I feel confident that I can develop my own ideas when materials are given in my coursework

  161. [170]

    I always consider how to approach a problem before beginning to solve it

  162. [171]

    If I struggle with coursework, I know where to find help

  163. [172]

    Self-Efficacy (SE)1

    I feel comfortable taking advantage of external feedback (e.g., advice from professors or TAs) to improve in coursework. Self-Efficacy (SE)1. I can remain calm when facing difficulties because I trust my abilities

  164. [173]

    When I am confronted with a challenge in my courses, I can usually find multiple solutions

  165. [174]

    Whatever comes my way, I can usually handle it

  166. [175]

    IMC 1 I feel that paying close attention to instructions is important for accurately completing this survey

    I feel prepared for most of the demands in my coursework and academic program. IMC 1 I feel that paying close attention to instructions is important for accurately completing this survey. Please select “Agree” for this statement. Table 14. Likert-scale Items for Perceived Meas...

  167. [176]

    has helped me to make decisions that truly reflect what I want to do

  168. [177]

    has made me feel more like the tasks I have to complete are by choice rather than simply required as part of my degree

  169. [178]

    Competence (PCO)1

    has made me feel that, in my coursework and other activities, I have been doing what really interests me. Competence (PCO)1. . . . has caused me to feel more confident that I can successfully complete challenging tasks

  170. [179]

    has made me have less serious doubts about whether I can excel

  171. [180]

    has reduced my disappointment with my overall performance

  172. [181]

    has made me feel less insecure about my abilities in my coursework

  173. [182]

    Relatedness (PRE)1

    has made me feel less like a failure when I make mistakes in working on coursework. Relatedness (PRE)1. . . . has made me feel that the classmates and instructors I care about also care about me

  174. [183]

    has made me feel more connected with others who are important to me

  175. [184]

    has made me feel that people who are important to me are less cold or distant toward me

  176. [185]

    has made me feel that I am more accepted by my peers. IMC 2. . . has enabled me to complete every assignment before it is released by my instructor

  177. [2020]

    A mismatch between self-efficacy and performance: Undergraduate women in engineering tend to have lower self-efficacy despite earning higher grades than men.arXiv preprint arXiv:2003.06006(2020)

    2003 arXiv

Pith tools

Reviewed August 1, 2026 · model on record in the stance chip above.