Distinguishing AI-Generated and Human-Written Text Through Psycholinguistic Analysis

Chidimma Opara

REVIEW 4 major objections 5 minor 1 cited by

Distinguishing AI-Generated and Human-Written Text Through Psycholinguistic Analysis

T0 review · 4 major / 5 minor · reviewed 2026-08-16 · deepseek-v4-flash

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

Pith's one-line read A psycholinguistic map explains why human and AI writing differ.

desk verdict A tidy taxonomy of stylometric features with psycholinguistic labels, but the central claim of a demonstrated interpretable framework has no empirical support. read the letter →

arxiv 2505.01800 v1 pith:XHA3PABL submitted 2025-05-03 cs.CL cs.AIcs.LG

Chidimma Opara This is my paper · ORCID

classification cs.CLcs.AIcs.LG

keywords AI-generatedtextdetectionstylometrypsycholinguisticscognitiveloadtheorymetacognitionauthorshipverificationlargelanguagemodelsacademicintegrity

verification ladder T0 review T1 audit T2 compute T3 formal

The pith

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

The reading

This paper proposes that the stylistic differences between human-written and AI-generated text are not arbitrary statistical quirks but traces of cognitive processes. It maps 31 stylometric features—word counts, sentence complexity, sentiment, readability, named entities, and lexical uniqueness—onto psycholinguistic mechanisms such as cognitive load, metacognitive self-monitoring, lexical retrieval, and discourse planning. The intended result is an interpretable framework for AI-text detection: instead of a black-box score, a detector could explain that a text looks machine-written because it lacks the self-monitoring or planning signatures human writers leave behind. The paper's contribution is this mapping and the argument that human writing carries measurable cognitive signatures AI systems do not share.

What carries the argument

The carrying mechanism is a two-table mapping: six stylometric feature categories (lexical, syntactic, sentiment, readability, named entity, uniqueness) are linked to four psycholinguistic theories (Cognitive Load Theory, metacognition and self-monitoring, lexical access and retrieval, discourse planning and cohesion), with individual features assigned to processes in Table 1 and Table 2. The mapping does the explanatory work: it converts each quantitative feature into a claimed cognitive cause, allowing the paper to propose why that feature should discriminate human from AI writing. The framework leans on the 31-feature stylometric detection model from the author's earlier work as its empirical base.

What would settle it

A direct test: measure the features assigned to cognitive load (average sentence length, complex sentence count) in human essays written under high versus low cognitive load, and measure features assigned to self-monitoring (contraction count, first-person count) in human and LLM text; if load does not shift the predicted features, or if LLM output is indistinguishable from human on the self-monitoring features, the framework's causal interpretation collapses.

Watch

Extended reading notes

Core claim

The central claim, stated in the paper's own terms, is that stylometric features in human writing are surface indicators of underlying psycholinguistic processes, and that these processes are absent in AI generation. The paper assigns each of 31 features to one or more of four processes: cognitive load management, metacognition and self-monitoring, lexical access and retrieval, and discourse planning and cohesion. For example, contraction count is presented as a sign of metacognitive self-monitoring, first-person pronoun count as a sign of self-referential awareness, and average sentence length as a sign of cognitive load management. On this account, AI-generated text differs from human text not just in feature values but in the absence of the cognitive states those features index; AI produces fluent output through statistical prediction without experiencing load, monitoring, retrieval effort, or planning. The conclusion the paper draws is that this feature-to-cognition mapping gives an interpretable basis for distinguishing AI-generated from human-authored text.

Load-bearing premise

The framework hinges on the assumption that each style feature is a reliable outward sign of a particular mental process in human writers, and that AI text lacks those signs; if any of those mappings is wrong, the explanation for why the features separate human and AI writing fails.

Editorial extensions

If this is right

If the mapping is correct, AI-text detectors can report a cognitive rationale for each decision—for example, that a low contraction count and low first-person pronoun count indicate missing self-monitoring—rather than an opaque score.
Feature selection for authorship verification can be guided by psycholinguistic theory, concentrating on features whose cognitive basis is strongest rather than all available statistics.
The framework predicts that human writing under high cognitive load should exhibit the features the paper associates with load (e.g., shorter sentences, lower complexity), giving a natural experimental check.
In educational settings, a detector built on this framework could distinguish machine-like statistical fluency from the imperfect, self-monitored patterns the paper treats as markers of genuine authorship.

Reading between the lines

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

One extension the paper does not pursue: induce cognitive load in human writers (e.g., dual-task typing) and check whether the features assigned to load move as predicted; if they do not, the causal mapping would need revision.
A further implication is that an LLM explicitly trained or prompted to imitate these cognitive traces—inserting contractions, varying sentence length under simulated load—could erode the discriminative value of the mapped features, pushing detection toward content-level or process-based signals.
The mapping is best read as an interpretive overlay rather than a quantitative model, since several features appear under multiple cognitive processes and no causal magnitudes are specified.

Share X Bluesky LinkedIn Reddit HN

Signed reviews

No signed human review yet.

Editorial analysis

A structured set of objections, weighed in public.

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

Desk Editor's Note

read the letter

The punchline: this is a taxonomy with a conclusion that overstates it. Opara maps stylometric features from her earlier StyloAI work onto psycholinguistic theories and then says the framework “demonstrates” interpretable AI-text detection. Nothing in the paper demonstrates anything in the empirical sense. There’s no dataset, no classifier, no accuracy, no comparison, no ablation.

Credit where it’s due: the paper is clearly written and the idea is not silly. If you want a structured way to think about why certain features—contractions, first-person pronouns, hapax legomena—might separate human and machine text, Tables 1 and 2 are a reasonable starting point. The conceptual organization into lexical, syntactic, sentiment, readability, named entity, and uniqueness categories is tidy, and the citations to cognitive load theory, metacognition, and lexical access are relevant. As a proposal for future work, it’s a coherent research agenda.

The soft spots are large. The central claim depends on two things the paper never measures: that the 31 features actually discriminate, and that the assigned cognitive labels explain the discrimination. Neither is established. The only empirical grounding is a citation to the author’s own StyloAI paper and two unlabeled excerpts from its dataset. The feature count is inconsistent: 31 claimed, Table 1 maps 18 (or 19 if you count unique features), and Table 2 lists 29. That kind of sloppiness undercuts confidence in the framework’s precision. The psycholinguistic attributions are hand-assigned; “contraction_count reflects metacognitive self-monitoring” is asserted, not derived. The conclusion switches from “proposes” to “demonstrates” without any new evidence. Also, claims like “AI lacks fundamental metacognitive capabilities” are stated as fact when they’re at best reasonable hypotheses.

The citation pattern isn’t a problem on its own—[17] is the author’s own prior work and self-citation is normal here—but the paper leans on it rather than re-evaluating it, so the reader can’t tell whether StyloAI’s features work in the first place.

Who is this for? Someone looking for a quick overview of stylometric features with cognitive labels might find it useful. For an editor, it’s not ready for peer review as a research paper. I’d desk reject with an invitation to resubmit after either (a) adding real experiments or (b) rewriting it explicitly as a position paper with the counts fixed and the conclusions softened.

Referee Report

4 major / 5 minor

Summary. The paper proposes a framework that maps 31 stylometric features (the count varies across the manuscript) to psycholinguistic constructs such as cognitive load, metacognition, lexical access, and discourse planning, with the stated goal of making AI-generated-text detection more interpretable. The framework extends the author's earlier StyloAI model, and Section 3.1 illustrates the mapping with two short text excerpts. The conclusion asserts that the study 'demonstrates' an interpretable framework for distinguishing AI-generated from human-authored text. However, the manuscript reports no experiments: there is no dataset description, no classifier, no evaluation metric, and no quantitative evidence that the proposed features separate the two text types or that the assigned psycholinguistic explanations are valid.

Significance. If empirically validated, a framework that provides cognitive explanations for stylometric differences between human and AI text could be genuinely useful in educational integrity applications, where black-box detectors are difficult to trust. The paper identifies a plausible and interesting direction: connecting feature-level stylometry to theories of human writing processes. That said, the current manuscript is only a conceptual proposal. The central claim is empirical, and the paper provides no empirical support beyond citation to prior work and two anecdotal excerpts. The value of the contribution therefore depends entirely on future validation, which the conclusion prematurely claims to have delivered.

major comments (4)

[Section 4 (Conclusion)] The conclusion states that this study 'demonstrates' an interpretable framework for distinguishing AI-generated from human-authored texts, but the manuscript contains no experiment, dataset description, classifier, baseline, accuracy measure, or error analysis. The only empirical elements are two unquantified excerpts in Section 3.1 and a citation to the prior StyloAI model [17]. The central claim is therefore asserted rather than supported, and this is a load-bearing omission, not a presentation issue.
[Section 3 and Tables 1 and 2] The number of stylometric features in the framework is inconsistent. The abstract and Section 1.1 state that 31 features are mapped to cognitive processes; Section 3 says that 'Table 1 summarises the mapping of 18 out of the 31 of these features'; Table 1 actually lists 19 distinct feature names; and Table 2 lists 29 features. The paper must define a single, consistent feature set and explain the relationship between the claimed 31 features, the 18 (or 19) mapped in Table 1, and the 29 listed in Table 2.
[Section 3, Tables 1 and 2] The assignment of stylometric features to psycholinguistic processes is hand-specified without empirical derivation or validation. For example, Table 2 states that contraction_count reflects metacognitive self-monitoring and that first_person_count reflects self-referential awareness, but no data, prior study, or formal argument establishes these links. Since the paper's interpretability claim rests on these feature-to-theory mappings, they need justification or empirical testing; otherwise the framework's explanatory component is arbitrary.
[Section 2] The paper presents as fact claims about AI systems lacking cognitive processes, such as 'AI systems do not experience cognitive load in the human sense' and 'AI models, by contrast, lack fundamental metacognitive capabilities.' These claims are unsupported and are used as premises for why particular features should discriminate human from AI text. They should be reframed as hypotheses with testable implications, rather than established facts.

minor comments (5)

[Title] The title contains an extra space: 'T ext' should be 'Text'.
[Section 2.4 and References] The text attributes the cohesion discussion to Halliday and Hasan (1976), but reference [3] is Carrell (1982), 'Cohesion is not coherence.' Please correct the citation or add the Halliday and Hasan reference.
[Section 1, Introduction] 'Open ai' should be written as 'OpenAI'.
[Table 2] The feature name 'ﬂesch_reading_ease' in Table 2 should be 'flesch_reading_ease'.
[Section 3, Table 2] The sentence referring to 'Table 2 in the Appendix' is confusing because Table 2 appears in the main body of the manuscript, not in an appendix; please clarify the intended organization.

Circularity Check

2 steps flagged · score 6.0 of 10

The framework's psycholinguistic 'explanations' are the hand-assigned labels from Tables 1-2 restated as findings; its empirical grounding is imported from the author's own StyloAI paper without re-evaluation.

self definitional [Section 3.1 'Syntactic Features'; Table 2 'ContractionCount' row]
"Contractions demonstrate stylistic awareness and adaptation to context, reflecting self-monitoring [7] and flexible tone control. ... Without intrinsic self-monitoring, AI cannot vary syntax for rhetorical or communicative effect. As a result, its writing tends to lack the stylistic modulation typical of human authorship."

The feature's discriminative 'explanation' is the very cognitive label assigned in Table 2. ContractionCount is asserted to reflect self-monitoring; Section 2.2 asserts self-monitoring is a key marker of human authorship; then the Syntactic Features paragraph concludes AI's lack of self-monitoring explains the feature's absence. No measurement links contraction counts to the construct of self-monitoring, so the output (a cognitive explanation) is identical to the input (the hand-assigned rationale). The mapping is the conclusion rather than evidence for it.
self citation load bearing [Section 3, first paragraph; reference [17]]
"The StyloAI model proposed in the previous work [17] incorporates 31 stylometric features, including 12 novel metrics specifically developed for detecting AI-generated texts."

The only empirical content of the proposed framework—that these 31 features separate human from AI-generated text and that 12 are AI-detection metrics—is imported from the author's own prior paper [17] and not re-derived, re-run, or benchmarked here. The conclusion that the integrated framework 'demonstrates' distinguishing therefore relies on this self-citation for its factual basis. Because the current manuscript adds only labels to the imported feature set, the claimed demonstration reduces to the prior paper's claimed effectiveness rather than to evidence presented in this study.

full rationale

The manuscript reports no experiment, dataset, classifier, or accuracy, so the conclusion's 'demonstrates' is not backed by new evidence; that is primarily an evidentiary gap. The circular core is the explanatory layer: Tables 1 and 2 assign each stylometric feature a psycholinguistic rationale, and then Section 3.1's 'Psycholinguistic Interpretation' paragraphs and Section 4 treat those assignments as the discovered reason the features discriminate. Since the rationale is the same statement used as the input, the 'why' holds by construction rather than by measurement. The empirical side is likewise inherited wholesale from the author's own StyloAI paper [17]; cited prior work can be legitimate support, but here it carries the entire empirical weight because the paper offers no re-evaluation. Numerical inconsistencies (31 features claimed, 18 in Table 1, 29 in Table 2) further undermine precision but are correctness concerns, not circularity. Overall, the central explanatory claim partially reduces to hand-assigned labels, warranting a 6 rather than a higher score because no quantitative prediction is attempted.

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

This is a conceptual paper with no fitted parameters or invented entities. The framework depends on several untested domain assumptions about how cognitive processes map to writing statistics, and on the effectiveness of the author's prior StyloAI model, which is cited but not reproduced.

assumptions (4)

domain assumption Cognitive Load Theory accurately describes human writing processes and produces measurable stylistic markers.
Invoked in Section 2.1 to assign features such as word_count and avg_sentence_length to cognitive load.
domain assumption Large language models lack cognitive load, metacognition, and intentional lexical access, and this absence is observable in their output.
Stated in Sections 2.1 to 2.3; the discriminative value of the mapped features depends on this assumption, presented with citations to opinion and commentary pieces.
domain assumption The StyloAI feature set from the author's prior work is an effective basis for AI-text detection.
Section 1.1 states the current work extends StyloAI [17], but the accuracy of that model is not re-validated here; the paper inherits it as a given.
ad hoc to paper Each feature-to-theory assignment in Tables 1 and 2 is correct.
The mappings, e.g., contraction_count to metacognition and first_person_count to self-monitoring, are hand-chosen by the author and are not supported by data or prior empirical findings.

how reviews work

0 comments

Cite this review

Pith. "Pith review of Distinguishing AI-Generated and Human-Written Text Through Psycholinguistic Analysis." pith.science (2026). https://pith.science/paper/XHA3PABL

@misc{pith2026250501800,
  author       = {Pith},
  title        = {Pith review of: Distinguishing AI-Generated and Human-Written Text Through Psycholinguistic Analysis},
  year         = {2026},
  howpublished = {\url{https://pith.science/paper/XHA3PABL}},
  note         = {Machine review of arXiv:2505.01800}
}

read the original abstract

The increasing sophistication of AI-generated texts highlights the urgent need for accurate and transparent detection tools, especially in educational settings, where verifying authorship is essential. Existing literature has demonstrated that the application of stylometric features with machine learning classifiers can yield excellent results. Building on this foundation, this study proposes a comprehensive framework that integrates stylometric analysis with psycholinguistic theories, offering a clear and interpretable approach to distinguishing between AI-generated and human-written texts. This research specifically maps 31 distinct stylometric features to cognitive processes such as lexical retrieval, discourse planning, cognitive load management, and metacognitive self-monitoring. In doing so, it highlights the unique psycholinguistic patterns found in human writing. Through the intersection of computational linguistics and cognitive science, this framework contributes to the development of reliable tools aimed at preserving academic integrity in the era of generative AI.

Discussion (0). Continue with ORCID to comment.

Forward citations

Cited by 1 Pith paper

Reviewed papers in the Pith corpus that reference this work. Sorted by Pith novelty score. Full citation record

Policies Permitting LLM Use for Polishing Peer Reviews Are Currently Not Enforceable
cs.CL 2026-03 accept novelty 6.5 of 10

State-of-the-art AI detectors misclassify a non-trivial fraction of LLM-polished peer reviews as fully AI-generated, rendering polishing-only policies currently unenforceable.

Reference graph

Works this paper leans on

24 extracted references · 21 canonical work pages · cited by 1 Pith paper

[17]

In: International conference on artiﬁcial intelligence in education

Opara, C.: Styloai: Distinguishing ai-generated conte nt with stylometric analysis. In: International conference on artiﬁcial intelligence in education. pp. 105 –114. Springer (2024)

work page 2024
[1]

Nature reviews neuroscience 4(10), 829–839 (2003)

Baddeley, A.: Working memory: looking back and looking fo rward. Nature reviews neuroscience 4(10), 829–839 (2003)

work page 2003
[2]

Journal of Learning Development in Higher Education (1) (20 09)

Bailey, R.A.: Undergraduate students’ perceptions the r ole and utility of written assessment feedback. Journal of Learning Development in Higher Education (1) (20 09)

work page
[3]

TESOL quarterl y 16(4), 479–488 (1982)

Carrell, P.L.: Cohesion is not coherence. TESOL quarterl y 16(4), 479–488 (1982)

work page 1982
[4]

In: Proceedings of the Annual Meeting of th e Cognitive Science Society

Collins, K.M., Wong, C., Feng, J., Wei, M., Tenenbaum, J.: Structured, ﬂexible, and robust: bench- marking and improving large language models towards more hu man-like behavior in out-of-distribution reasoning tasks. In: Proceedings of the Annual Meeting of th e Cognitive Science Society. vol. 44 (2022)

work page 2022
[5]

Instructional science 38(2), 105–134 (2010)

De Jong, T.: Cognitive load theory, educational research , and instructional design: Some food for thought. Instructional science 38(2), 105–134 (2010)

work page 2010
[6]

Cognition 42(1-3), 287– 314 (1992)

Dell, G.S., O’Seaghdha, P.G.: Stages of lexical access in language production. Cognition 42(1-3), 287– 314 (1992)

work page 1992
[7]

American Psychologist 34, 906–911 (1979)

Flavell, J.: Theories of learning in educational psychol ogy. American Psychologist 34, 906–911 (1979)

work page 1979

Show all 24 references

[8]

Data & Kno wledge Engineering 151, 102307 (2024)

García-Díaz, J.A., Beydoun, G., Valencia-García, R.: Ev aluating transformers and linguistic features integration for author proﬁling tasks in spanish. Data & Kno wledge Engineering 151, 102307 (2024)

2024
[9]

Nature neuroscience 25(3), 369–380 (2022)

Goldstein, A., Zada, Z., Buchnik, E., Schain, M., Price, A ., Aubrey, B., Nastase, S.A., Feder, A., Emanuel, D., Cohen, A., et al.: Shared computational princi ples for language processing in humans and deep language models. Nature neuroscience 25(3), 369–380 (2022)

2022
[10]

ACM SIGKDD Explorations Newsletter 26(2), 21–43 (2025)

Huang, B., Chen, C., Shu, K.: Authorship attribution in t he era of llms: Problems, methodologies, and challenges. ACM SIGKDD Explorations Newsletter 26(2), 21–43 (2025)

2025
[11]

arXiv prepr int arXiv:2303.03697 (2023)

Kumarage, T., Garland, J., Bhattacharjee, A., Trapezni kov, K., Ruston, S., Liu, H.: Stylometric detec- tion of ai-generated text in twitter timelines. arXiv prepr int arXiv:2303.03697 (2023)

2023 arXiv
[12]

, Tenenbaum, J.B., Fedorenko, E.: Dissociating language and thought in large language models

Mahowald, K., Ivanova, A.A., Blank, I.A., Kanwisher, N. , Tenenbaum, J.B., Fedorenko, E.: Dissociating language and thought in large language models. Trends in Cog nitive Sciences (2024)

2024
[13]

In: International Conference on Arti ﬁcial Intelligence in Education Technology

Mindner, L., Schlippe, T., Schaaﬀ, K.: Classiﬁcation of human-and ai-generated texts: Investigating features for chatgpt. In: International Conference on Arti ﬁcial Intelligence in Education Technology. pp. 152–170. Springer (2023)

2023
[14]

International Journal of Emerging Technologies in Learning (Online) 18(17), 4 (2023)

Ngo, T.T.A.: The perception by university students of th e use of chatgpt in education. International Journal of Emerging Technologies in Learning (Online) 18(17), 4 (2023)

2023
[15]

In: First Workshop on Theory of Mind in Communicating Agents (2023)

Nguyen, K.X.: Language models are bounded pragmatic spe akers. In: First Workshop on Theory of Mind in Communicating Agents (2023)

2023
[16]

Adaptive Behavior 32(6), 493–502 (2024)

Nolﬁ, S.: On the unexpected abilities of large language m odels. Adaptive Behavior 32(6), 493–502 (2024)

2024
[18]

Current Directions in Psycho logical Science 29(4), 394–398 (2020)

Paas, F., van Merriënboer, J.J.: Cognitive-load theory : Methods to manage working memory load in the learning of complex tasks. Current Directions in Psycho logical Science 29(4), 394–398 (2020)

2020
[19]

arXiv preprint arXiv:2309.11285 (2023)

Sarvazyan, A.M., González, J.Á., Franco-Salvador, M., Rangel, F., Chulvi, B., Rosso, P.: Overview of autextiﬁcation at iberlef 2023: Detection and attribution of machine-generated text in multiple domains. arXiv preprint arXiv:2309.11285 (2023)

2023 arXiv
[20]

PLOS Digital Health 2(11), e0000388 (2023)

Smith, A.L., Greaves, F., Panch, T.: Hallucination or co nfabulation? neuroanatomy as metaphor in large language models. PLOS Digital Health 2(11), e0000388 (2023)

2023
[21]

, Rogers, T.T.: Conceptual structure coheres in human cognition but not in large language models

Suresh, S., Mukherjee, K., Yu, X., Huang, W.C., Padua, L. , Rogers, T.T.: Conceptual structure coheres in human cognition but not in large language models. arXiv pr eprint arXiv:2304.02754 (2023)

2023 arXiv
[22]

Learning and instruction 4(4), 295–312 (1994)

Sweller, J.: Cognitive load theory, learning diﬃculty, and instructional design. Learning and instruction 4(4), 295–312 (1994)

1994
[23]

arXiv e-prints pp

Talboy, A.N., Fuller, E.: Challenging the appearance of machine intelligence: Cognitive bias in llms and best practices for adoption. arXiv e-prints pp. arXiv–2304 (2023)

2023
[24]

-ive,” “-ous

Tuckute, G., Kanwisher, N., Fedorenko, E.: Language in b rains, minds, and machines. Annual Review of Neuroscience 47 (2024) 8 C. Opara F eature Description Psycholinguistic Rationale Stylometric Category WordCount Total number of words in the text WordCount reﬂects cognitive ...

2024

Pith tools

Reviewed August 16, 2026 · model on record in the stance chip above.

[1] [17]

In: International conference on artiﬁcial intelligence in education

Opara, C.: Styloai: Distinguishing ai-generated conte nt with stylometric analysis. In: International conference on artiﬁcial intelligence in education. pp. 105 –114. Springer (2024)

work page 2024

[2] [1]

Nature reviews neuroscience 4(10), 829–839 (2003)

Baddeley, A.: Working memory: looking back and looking fo rward. Nature reviews neuroscience 4(10), 829–839 (2003)

work page 2003

[3] [2]

Journal of Learning Development in Higher Education (1) (20 09)

Bailey, R.A.: Undergraduate students’ perceptions the r ole and utility of written assessment feedback. Journal of Learning Development in Higher Education (1) (20 09)

work page

[4] [3]

TESOL quarterl y 16(4), 479–488 (1982)

Carrell, P.L.: Cohesion is not coherence. TESOL quarterl y 16(4), 479–488 (1982)

work page 1982

[5] [4]

In: Proceedings of the Annual Meeting of th e Cognitive Science Society

Collins, K.M., Wong, C., Feng, J., Wei, M., Tenenbaum, J.: Structured, ﬂexible, and robust: bench- marking and improving large language models towards more hu man-like behavior in out-of-distribution reasoning tasks. In: Proceedings of the Annual Meeting of th e Cognitive Science Society. vol. 44 (2022)

work page 2022

[6] [5]

Instructional science 38(2), 105–134 (2010)

De Jong, T.: Cognitive load theory, educational research , and instructional design: Some food for thought. Instructional science 38(2), 105–134 (2010)

work page 2010

[7] [6]

Cognition 42(1-3), 287– 314 (1992)

Dell, G.S., O’Seaghdha, P.G.: Stages of lexical access in language production. Cognition 42(1-3), 287– 314 (1992)

work page 1992

[8] [7]

American Psychologist 34, 906–911 (1979)

Flavell, J.: Theories of learning in educational psychol ogy. American Psychologist 34, 906–911 (1979)

work page 1979