Pith. sign in

REVIEW 3 major objections 4 minor 2 cited by

When pre-service elementary teachers prompt an AI tool from the teacher's perspective, they name the intended audience, prescribe the representation type, and reach for more representation formats than when they prompt from the student's pe

Reviewed by Pith at T0; open to challenge. T0 means a machine referee read the full paper against a public rubric. the ladder, T0–T4 →

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

Future elementary teachers gave AI more explicit, audience-aware, and representation-prescriptive prompts when cast as teachers than when cast as students.

T0 review reviewed 2026-08-05 challenge →

load-bearing objection New comparison, but role is confounded with topic, task wording, and familiarity; worth reviewing as an exploratory study, not as a causal claim. the 3 major comments →

arxiv 2508.14760 v1 pith:EP47ZYMJ submitted 2025-08-20 physics.ed-ph

Dual-Role Dynamics in Prompting: Elementary Pre-service Teachers' AI Prompting Strategies for Representational Choices

Razan Hamed , Amogh Sirnoorkar , N. Sanjay Rebello This is my paper
classification physics.ed-ph PACS 01.40.Fk
keywords pre-service teachersgenerative AIAI promptingrepresentational choicesdual roleprescriptive vs exploratory promptsphysics educationscience teacher preparation
verification ladder T0 review T1 audit T2 compute T3 formal T4 reserved

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 asks whether the dual role that pre-service elementary teachers inhabit — student in their own science courses, teacher in their future classrooms — changes how they prompt a generative AI assistant to produce physics representations. The claim it tries to establish is yes: in a two-session comparison of the same 20 people, teacher-role prompts (explaining wave velocity to elementary students) were more explicit about the target audience, more likely to prescribe which representation the AI should generate, and drew on a wider variety of representation types than student-role prompts (explaining the Ideal Gas Law to an English teacher), which tended to be exploratory and let the AI choose. The authors read the teacher-role pattern as a sign of agency and argue that teacher-preparation courses could deliberately invoke the teacher perspective, with AI's multi-modal output as support, to strengthen content learning and representational competence. The paper matters because prompting AI is becoming routine professional work for teachers, and this is one of the first studies to show the same people prompting differently depending on which role they adopt.

Core claim

Stated on the paper's own terms: pre-service elementary teachers' prompting of AI is role-dependent. Session 1 cast participants as teachers, explaining wave velocity to elementary students after completing the waves unit; session 2 cast them as students, asking about the Ideal Gas Law for an English teacher before the thermodynamics unit. Emergent coding of the 20 participants' prompts revealed three features that shifted between roles. Audience explicitness: 17 of 20 named the audience (e.g., '5th graders') in the teacher role versus 11 in the student role. Prescriptiveness: 17 of 20 teacher-role prompts told the AI which representation to produce, versus 11 student-role prompts; and in no

What carries the argument

The argument is carried by a dual-role, same-subjects contrast: one group of pre-service teachers, two lab sessions, one AI text assistant, and the same task shell — choose two representations from a fixed menu to explain a physics concept to a named audience — with only the role framing changed. The working analytic device is the emergent coding scheme that sorts each prompt along three dimensions: whether the target audience is named, whether the prompt is 'prescriptive' (the user dictates the representation to the AI) or 'exploratory' (the user asks the AI to choose), and which representation types are requested. The paper's conclusions are the between-role differences on these three code

Load-bearing premise

The load-bearing premise is that the differences in prompting are caused by the teacher-versus-student role and not by the other things that differed between the two sessions — physics topic, target audience, content familiarity, and task wording; if one of those is the real cause, the central claim collapses.

What would settle it

A two-session experiment holding the topic and audience constant while varying only the role framing, or counterbalancing the topics across sessions, would settle the claim. The decisive variant: assign the teacher role to a topic the participant has not yet studied and the student role to a just-completed topic — the paper's role account predicts teacher-role features (audience-naming, prescriptive prompts, diverse representations) still dominate, whereas a familiarity account predicts the opposite.

Watch this falsifier. Get emailed when new claim-graph text bears on it.

If this is right

  • Teacher-preparation courses can use the teacher stance as a lever: asking pre-service teachers to approach their own science learning as future teachers appears to elicit more explicit, audience-aware prompting and more diverse representations.
  • AI literacy training for teachers should treat prompting as role-dependent and practice the two moves the teacher role naturally produces — naming the audience and naming the output format.
  • Because AI's strength is multimodality, scaffolding pre-service teachers to generate several representations of one concept with AI as a partner is a concrete route into representational competence.
  • Exploratory prompting in the student role is a legitimate learning behavior: when content knowledge is thin, pre-service teachers sensibly ask the AI to survey options, fitting AI's role as an open-ended tutor.

Where Pith is reading between the lines

These are editorial extensions of the paper, not claims the author makes directly.

  • The paper's role contrast is bundled with content familiarity: the teacher session followed the waves unit, while the student session preceded the thermodynamics unit. I infer that prescriptiveness may track 'I know this topic' as much as it tracks the teacher hat; a design that counterbalances topics — or holds familiarity fixed while switching the role label — would separate the two.
  • A second testable extension is a two-by-two design crossing role (teacher vs. student) with familiarity (just taught vs. not yet taught); scoring the three emergent features mechanically on a larger corpus would show whether the pattern is robust beyond 20 participants.
  • The audience-explicitness gap (17 vs. 11 of 20) is the cheapest feature to act on, so I would expect a simple intervention — having novices state who the explanation is for before they prompt — to reproduce much of the teacher-role benefit even in the student role.
  • For AI tool designers, the same gap suggests a lightweight prompt-time question of the user ('Who is this for?') whenever the audience is missing from the prompt.
Share X Bluesky LinkedIn Reddit HN

Editorial analysis

A structured set of objections, weighed in public.

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

Referee Report

3 major / 4 minor

Summary. This paper reports an exploratory qualitative study of 20 elementary pre-service teachers' AI prompting behavior in two roles: as a teacher (explaining wave velocity to elementary students) and as a student (explaining the Ideal Gas Law to an English teacher). Through emergent coding of the prompts, the authors identify three features that differ across roles: explicit mention of the target audience (17 vs. 11 participants), prescriptive versus exploratory prompting (17 vs. 11 participants), and diversity of representation types (5 vs. 4 categories). The authors interpret these differences as evidence that the teacher role fosters more audience-aware, prescriptive, and varied prompting. The manuscript includes a limitations section but does not address the most serious threat to the central claim: the role conditions are confounded with topic, content familiarity, audience, task wording, and session order.

Significance. If the observed effect of role were causally valid, this study would make a useful contribution to pre-service teacher education, AI literacy, and representational competence. The paper addresses a timely and understudied question, uses an authentic classroom setting, and provides detailed exemplar prompts. The within-subject design (the same 20 participants in both roles) is a strength, as is the transparent presentation of raw counts and examples. However, the design cannot uniquely support the causal claim that the teacher versus student role caused the observed differences. The study is best viewed as hypothesis-generating, and the current framing overstates the certainty of the conclusions.

major comments (3)
  1. [Section III, Figs. 1 and 2] The teacher and student role conditions differ on at least four dimensions besides the intended role: physics topic (wave velocity vs. Ideal Gas Law), content familiarity (post-unit vs. pre-unit), audience (elementary students vs. an English teacher in a hallway), and task wording. Critically, Fig. 1 instructs participants to first choose two representations and then 'repeat everything' with AI, while Fig. 2 asks 'how AI would come up with the best representation.' The higher prescriptiveness in the teacher role could therefore simply be a response to the task instruction, not to the role. Likewise, audience explicitness and representation diversity could be driven by topic or audience salience. Since the research question asks how the roles 'influence' prompting, the causal attribution is not supported. Please reframe the findings as an exploratory comparison and explicitly discuss thes
  2. [Section IV, second paragraph] The central numerical claims (17 vs. 11 for audience mention; 17 vs. 11 for prescriptive prompts) are based on emergent coding, but no inter-rater reliability, codebook, or second coder is reported. With a sample of 20 and categories that require judgment (e.g., 'prescriptive' vs. 'exploratory'), a single coder's decisions can drive the main results. Please add reliability statistics (e.g., Cohen's kappa) or at least a detailed audit trail. A paired within-subject analysis (e.g., McNemar test) would also clarify whether the differences are robust to individual variation.
  3. [Section IV, third paragraph] The claim that participants produced 'relatively more diverse representations' as teachers rests on 5 vs. 4 representation categories with highly skewed counts (teacher role: pictures 9, cartoons 2, analogies 3, activity 1, graphs 2; student role: pictures 2, analogies 4, story 1, equations 5). No diversity metric is used, categories are not independent (one participant may prompt multiple representations), and the difference is a single category. This is too thin to support the diversity claim, especially because topic and audience may drive representational suitability. Please temper this claim and, if possible, provide per-participant data and a simple diversity index (e.g., Shannon entropy).
minor comments (4)
  1. [Section IV, first paragraph] The list of features uses '(i)' twice: '... (i) explicit specification ... (i) predetermination ...'. The second should be '(ii)'.
  2. [Figure 2 caption] The caption contains a typo: 'Ideas Gas Law' should be 'Ideal Gas Law'.
  3. [Section IV, first feature] In the sentence 'in only two cases the opposite was observed, i.e., representation specified in student role but not specified in the teacher role', 'representation' should likely be 'target audience', based on the surrounding text.
  4. [Section V, Limitations] The limitations paragraph mentions small sample size, linear activity, and between-subject design, but does not acknowledge the role-topic/audience/task-wording confounds. This is the most important limitation and should be stated explicitly.

Circularity Check

3 steps flagged

The central role-based prompt differences are encoded in the task wording itself, so the reported findings reduce to the stimulus construction.

specific steps
  1. self definitional [Figures 1 and 2; Section IV (prescriptive vs exploratory)]
    "Use two of the following representations in your explanations: pictures, cartoons, equations, analogies, graphs, animations, tables containing numbers (data), stories, scripts, plays, games, or drawings. ... Repeat everything you have done in part 1, but now using AI. (Fig. 1); Now you are interested in how AI would come up with the best representation to explain the Ideal Gas Law to your English teacher. (Fig. 2)"

    The teacher-role AI prompt is a repetition of a part-1 task that explicitly requires selecting representations, so a resulting AI prompt that names a representation is almost forced. The student-role AI prompt, by contrast, explicitly asks AI to decide the best representation, which nearly guarantees an exploratory prompt. The coding distinction between 'prescriptive' and 'exploratory' therefore directly recapitulates the wording of the two activities rather than evidencing an independent role-based effect.

  2. self definitional [Figure 1 vs Figure 2; Section IV (explicit target audience)]
    "Choose your students grade level: (Fig. 1)"

    The teacher-role activity requires participants to select and thereby specify a grade level for their audience, making audience-explicitness a required part of the task. The student-role activity contains no analogous required choice. The finding that participants were 'relatively more explicit in mentioning the target audience' when acting as teachers is thus built into the differing instructions rather than being an independent emergent property of the teacher role.

  3. self definitional [Figure 1 vs Figure 2; Section IV (diversity of representations)]
    "Use two of the following representations ... Repeat everything you have done in part 1 (Fig. 1); how AI would come up with the best representation (Fig. 2)"

    The teacher-role instruction asks for two representations and then asks participants to repeat everything with AI, naturally generating multiple or varied representations. The student-role instruction asks how AI would come up with 'the best representation' in the singular, steering toward a single output. The reported greater diversity in the teacher role is therefore a direct consequence of the plural-versus-singular task phrasing, not an independent outcome of the role manipulation.

full rationale

This is a qualitative study with no mathematical derivation, so most forms of circularity (fitted parameters, self-citation uniqueness theorems) do not apply. However, the central claims are not independent of the experimental stimuli. The teacher-role and student-role activities differ in wording in exactly the dimensions that are later reported as findings: the teacher activity forces a grade-level choice, requires selecting two representations, and asks the participant to repeat that selection with AI, while the student activity asks AI to produce the best (singular) representation. Section IV's results—more explicit audience, more prescriptive prompts, and more diverse representations in the teacher role—are thus largely restatements of the task instructions. This is a self-definitional circularity in the operationalization: the outcome categories are encoded in the independent-variable manipulation. The paper's stated limitations mention sample size, linear activity, and order effects, but do not acknowledge that the task wording itself determines the observed pattern. No load-bearing self-citation is present; the cited prior work is background only. The score reflects that the central qualitative findings reduce by construction to the prompt design.

Axiom & Free-Parameter Ledger

0 free parameters · 3 axioms · 0 invented entities

No numeric free parameters are introduced; the paper does not fit equations. The main researcher-controlled choices are the coding categories and the assignment of roles to sessions.

axioms (3)
  • domain assumption Participants adopted the intended role perspectives during each session.
    The design assumes that framing participants as teachers or students induces the corresponding viewpoint, despite the different topics and tasks; see Section III.
  • domain assumption The three emergent coding features are meaningful and reliably identifiable.
    Section IV defines the features but reports no inter-rater agreement or independent validation.
  • domain assumption Self-reported prompt behavior reflects participants' natural prompting rather than demand characteristics.
    Participants were told not to copy-paste questions and to use their own words, but there is no check on their compliance or on social-desirability bias.

reviewed 2026-08-05 · how reviews work

0 comments
Cite this review

Pith. "Pith review of Dual-Role Dynamics in Prompting: Elementary Pre-service Teachers' AI Prompting Strategies for Representational Choices." pith.science (2026). https://pith.science/paper/EP47ZYMJ

@misc{pith2026250814760,
  author       = {Pith},
  title        = {Pith review of: Dual-Role Dynamics in Prompting: Elementary Pre-service Teachers' AI Prompting Strategies for Representational Choices},
  year         = {2026},
  howpublished = {\url{https://pith.science/paper/EP47ZYMJ}},
  note         = {Machine review of arXiv:2508.14760}
}
Share X Bluesky LinkedIn Reddit HN
read the original abstract

Pre-service teachers play a unique dual role as they straddle between the roles of students and future teachers. This dual role requires them to adopt both the learner's and the instructor's perspectives while engaging with pedagogical and content knowledge. The current study investigates how pre-service elementary teachers taking a physical science course prompt AI to generate representations that effectively communicate conceptual ideas to two distinct audiences. The context involves participants interacting with AI to generate appropriate representations that explain the concepts of wave velocity to their elementary students (while casting themselves as teachers) and the Ideal Gas Law to their English teachers (while casting themselves as students). Emergent coding of the AI prompts highlight that, when acting as teachers, participants were more explicit in specifying the target audience, predetermining the type of representation, and producing a broader variety of representations compared to when they acted as students. Implications of the observed 'exploratory' and 'prescriptive' prompting trends across the two roles on pre-service teachers' education and their professional development are discussed.

Figures

Figures reproduced from arXiv: 2508.14760 by Amogh Sirnoorkar, N. Sanjay Rebello, Razan Hamed.

Figure 2
Figure 2. Figure 2: FIG. 2. Student Role. Problem statement on Ideas Gas Law where [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p003_2.png] view at source ↗

discussion (0)

Sign in with ORCID, Apple, or X to comment. Anyone can read and Pith papers without signing in.

Forward citations

Cited by 2 Pith papers

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

  1. Students' Epistemological Beliefs and their Chatbot Preferences in AI-mediated Physics Learning

    physics.ed-ph 2026-07 conditional novelty 5.0

    Students who chose a combination chatbot (guided inquiry then answers) scored slightly higher on an epistemological-beliefs survey than answer-preference students, but the difference was not robust to multiple-testing...

  2. Feedback That Clicks: Introductory Physics Students' Valued Features in AI Feedback Generated From Self-Crafted and Engineered Prompts

    physics.ed-ph 2025-09 conditional novelty 5.0

    Introductory physics students rarely use prompt engineering on their own, but they rate AI feedback as most useful when the prompt explicitly requests evaluation, the correct answer, and improvement suggestions.

Reference graph

Works this paper leans on

35 extracted references · 34 canonical work pages · cited by 2 Pith papers · 1 internal anchor

  1. [1]

    How would you effectively present the concept of wave velocity to your students? Use two of the follow- ing representations in your explanations: pictures, cartoons, equations, analogies, graphs, animations, tables containing numbers (data), stories, scripts, plays, games, or drawings

    work page

  2. [2]

    Repeat everything you have done in part 1, but now using AI (preferably Co-pilot but you are welcome to use any other AI tool) [Link to Co-Pilot] FIG. 1. Teacher Role. Problem statement on wave velocity where participants used AI as teachers to come up an appropriate represen- tation to effectively communicate the concept to their elementary students. ing...

    work page

  3. [3]

    How would you explain the Ideal Gas Law to your English teacher? Use two of the following representations in your explanations: pictures, cartoons, equations, analo- gies, graphs, animations, tables containing numbers (data), stories, scripts, plays, games, or drawings

    work page

  4. [4]

    prescriptive

    Now you are interested in how AI would come up with the best representation to explain the Ideal Gas Law to your English teacher (It is preferred to use Co-pilot here, but you are welcome to use any other AI tool). [Link to Co-Pilot] FIG. 2. Student Role. Problem statement on Ideas Gas Law where participants used AI as students to come up an appropriate r...

    work page 2025

  5. [5]

    Participants were relatively more explicit in mention- ing the target audience in their prompts when acting as teachers as compared to students

    work page

  6. [6]

    When acting as students, the prompts were more likely to be exploratory (seeking representations)

    The prompts were more likely to be prescriptive with pre-determined representations when acting as teach- ers. When acting as students, the prompts were more likely to be exploratory (seeking representations)

    work page

  7. [7]

    Can you give me an analogy for explaining the gas law to my English teacher?

    The participants tended to come up with relatively more diverse representations through AI while being in the role of a teacher than that of a student. Our study with the above results makes several key contri- butions to the current understanding about pre-service teach- TABLE I. Exemplar AI prompts of physics pre-service teachers while in the roles of a...

    work page

  8. [8]

    why am i going to teach science?

    K. Azra Ates, E. Lundqvist, and J. Almqvist, “why am i going to teach science?”: Pre-service science teachersperspectives on science education, Journal of Science Teacher Education , 1 (2025)

    work page 2025

  9. [9]

    J. Gess-Newsome, Pedagogical content knowledge: An in- troduction and orientation, in Examining pedagogical content knowledge: The construct and its implications for science ed- ucation (Springer, 1999) pp. 3–17

    work page 1999

  10. [10]

    Shulman, Pedagogical content knowledge (pck), Learning teaching: Becoming an inspirafional teacher , 69 (1986)

    L. Shulman, Pedagogical content knowledge (pck), Learning teaching: Becoming an inspirafional teacher , 69 (1986)

    work page 1986

  11. [11]

    Stroupe, J

    D. Stroupe, J. Moon, and S. Michaels, Introduction to special issue: Epistemic tools in science education, Science Education 103, 948 (2019)

    work page 2019

  12. [12]

    Chin and D

    C. Chin and D. E. Brown, Student-generated questions: A meaningful aspect of learning in science, International Journal of Science Education 24, 521 (2002)

    work page 2002

  13. [13]

    Chin and J

    C. Chin and J. Osborne, Students’ questions: a potential re- source for teaching and learning science, Studies in science education 44, 1 (2008)

    work page 2008

  14. [14]

    T. O. B. Odden and R. S. Russ, Vexing questions that sustain sensemaking, International Journal of Science Education 41, 1052 (2019)

    work page 2019

  15. [15]

    Sirnoorkar, P

    A. Sirnoorkar, P. D. Bergeron, and J. T. Laverty, Sensemaking and scientific modeling: Intertwined processes analyzed in the context of physics problem solving, Physical Review Physics Education Research 19, 010118 (2023)

    work page 2023

  16. [16]

    N. R. Council, D. of Behavioral, S. Sciences, B. on Science Ed- ucation, and C. on a Conceptual Framework for New K-12 Sci- ence Education Standards, A framework for K-12 science edu- cation: Practices, crosscutting concepts, and core ideas (Na- tional Academies Press, 2012)

    2012

  17. [17]

    Sirnoorkar, D

    A. Sirnoorkar, D. Zollman, J. T. Laverty, A. J. Magana, N. S. Rebello, and L. A. Bryan, Student and ai responses to physics problems examined through the lenses of sensemaking and mechanistic reasoning, Computers and Education: Artificial Intelligence 7, 100318 (2024)

    work page 2024

  18. [18]

    Bralin, A

    A. Bralin, A. Sirnoorkar, Y . Zhang, and N. S. Rebello, Mapping the literature landscape of artificial intelligence and machine learning in physics education research, in Proceedings of the Physics Education Research Conference-PERC 2024, pp. 52- 59 (2024)

    work page 2024

  19. [19]

    Lee and X

    G.-G. Lee and X. Zhai, Using chatgpt for science learning: A study on pre-service teachers’ lesson planning, IEEE Transac- tions on Learning Technologies (2024)

    work page 2024

  20. [20]

    M. A. Ayanwale, E. K. Frimpong, O. A. G. Opesemowo, and I. T. Sanusi, Exploring factors that support pre-service teach- ers’ engagement in learning artificial intelligence, Journal for STEM Education Research , 1 (2024)

    work page 2024

  21. [21]

    Abdulayeva, N

    A. Abdulayeva, N. Zhanatbekova, Y . Andasbayev, and F. Boribekova, Fostering ai literacy in pre-service physics teachers: inputs from training and co-variables, in Frontiers in Education, V ol. 10 (Frontiers Media SA, 2025) p. 1505420

    work page 2025

  22. [22]

    P. S. Moyer and E. Milewicz, Learning to question: Categories of questioning used by preservice teachers during diagnostic mathematics interviews, Journal of Mathematics Teacher Edu- cation 5, 293 (2002)

    work page 2002

  23. [23]

    G. Erdem Co¸ sgun, Artificial intelligence literacy in assess- ment: Empowering pre-service teachers to design effective exam questions for language learning, British Educational Re- search Journal (2025)

    work page 2025

  24. [24]

    M. T. Siddiqui, M. V . Mansoori, M. A. Siddiqui, and A. Yadav, Ai-enabled pedagogy: Advancing education through innova- tive teaching tools and the ai-teach model, Journal of Informat- ics Education and Research (2025)

    work page 2025

  25. [25]

    Hwang, Definition, framework and research issues of smart learning environments-a context-aware ubiquitous learn- ing perspective, Smart Learning Environments 1, 1 (2014)

    G.-J. Hwang, Definition, framework and research issues of smart learning environments-a context-aware ubiquitous learn- ing perspective, Smart Learning Environments 1, 1 (2014)

    work page 2014

  26. [26]

    Shafiq, M

    M. Shafiq, M. A. Sami, N. Bano, R. Bano, and M. Rashid, Arti- ficial intelligence in physics education: Transforming learning from primary to university level, Indus Journal of Social Sci- ences 3, 717 (2025)

    work page 2025

  27. [27]

    Mahligawati, E

    F. Mahligawati, E. Allanas, M. Butarbutar, and N. Nordin, Ar- tificial intelligence in physics education: a comprehensive lit- erature review, in Journal of Physics: Conference Series , V ol. 2596 (IOP Publishing, 2023) p. 012080

    work page 2023

  28. [28]

    N. N. S. P. Verawati and N. Nisrina, The role of artificial in- telligence (ai) in transforming physics education: A narrative review, Lensa: Jurnal Kependidikan Fisika 12, 212 (2024)

    work page 2024

  29. [29]

    H. Bae, J. Hur, J. Park, G. W. Choi, and J. Moon, Pre-service teachers’ dual perspectives on generative ai: Benefits, chal- lenges, and integration into their teaching and learning., Online Learning 28, 131 (2024)

    work page 2024

  30. [30]

    B. L. Moorhouse, T. Y . Ho, C. Wu, and Y . Wan, Pre-service language teachers’ task-specific large language model prompt- ing practices, RELC Journal , 00336882251313701 (2025)

    work page 2025

  31. [31]

    R. C. Kerr and H. Kim, From prompts to plans: A case study of pre-service efl teachers’ use of generative ai for lesson plan- ning., English Teaching 80, 95 (2025)

    work page 2025

  32. [32]

    Physics task development of prospective physics teachers using ChatGPT

    S. Küchemann, S. Steinert, N. Revenga, M. Schweinberger, Y . Dinc, K. E. Avila, and J. Kuhn, Physics task development of prospective physics teachers using chatgpt, arXiv preprint arXiv:2304.10014 (2023)

    work page internal anchor Pith review Pith/arXiv arXiv 2023

  33. [33]

    K. L. Daniel, C. J. Bucklin, E. Austin Leone, and J. Idema, To- wards a definition of representational competence, Towards a framework for representational competence in science educa- tion , 3 (2018)

    work page 2018

  34. [34]

    Bandura, Toward a psychology of human agency, Perspec- tives on psychological science 1, 164 (2006)

    A. Bandura, Toward a psychology of human agency, Perspec- tives on psychological science 1, 164 (2006)

    work page 2006

  35. [35]

    Kozma, J

    R. Kozma, J. Russell, et al., Students becoming chemists: De- veloping representational competence, Visualization in science education 1, 121 (2005)

    work page 2005

This paper was first reviewed by deepseek-v4-flash on August 5, 2026.