No single control-timing paradigm dominates across subjective measures: eight of ten questionnaire items show no significant differences between paradigms¶

Claim · All claims
Evidence · 1 study · causal r2 · q3
Currency · newest study 2026 · not yet checked against its sources · not reviewed by a person

Subclaims¶

q3 i? Friedman tests revealed no significant differences between tools on eight of the ten questionnaire items, including ease of use, mental effort, educational fit, and reuse intention. → Zhengxu Li 2026

Evidence¶

Zhengxu Li 2026¶

Zhengxu Li, Junling Wang, and April Yi Wang. (2026). When Should Teachers Control AI Generation for Mathematics Visuals? arXiv preprint. https://arxiv.org/abs/2605.10672 doi:10.48550/arxiv.2605.10672

q3 · i? · causal · r2

Null results from the 24-teacher within-subject questionnaire study: "no significant differences between tools on eight of the ten questionnaire items". Equivalence was not tested; only non-significance is reported. No effect size printed.

"Friedman tests revealed no significant differences between tools on eight of the ten questionnaire items, including measures related to ease of use, mental effort, educational fit, and reuse intention."

Discussion¶

Related Claims¶

• Primary mathematics teachers rate post-generation control significantly higher than pre- and mid-generation control on perceived numerical correctness of generated visuals — related
• In a 30-participant user study, proactive paradigms are preferred over user-initiated interaction, with lower workload, fewer window switches, shorter editing time, and higher acceptance — related
• Stateful proactive collaboration (L2) yields higher acceptance and lower editing effort than stateless proactive collaboration (L1), with lower acceptance in creative than scientific domains — related
• AI assistance reduces subjective mental effort across all tasks even when it does not reduce completion time, dissociating time and effort — related