In Study 1, Penquiry V1 reduced physical demand and better maintained learning flow, and received higher TAM ratings, than a keyboard baseline¶

Claim · All claims
Evidence · 3 studies · 2 design r3, 1 causal r1 · q3
Currency · no dated study recorded · not yet checked against its sources · not reviewed by a person

Subclaims¶

q3 i? V1 imposed significantly lower physical demand than the baseline (4.06 vs. 2.31, p<0.001). → tlx-physical q3 i? V1 showed a statistically significant advantage in Maintained Learning Flow (4.06 vs. 5.63, p=0.046). → tlx-flow q3 i? V1 received significantly higher TAM ratings than the baseline in most categories including perceived usefulness and intention to use. → tam-1

Evidence¶

tlx-physical¶

Jeongmin Rhee, Changhee Lee, Hyunwoo Kim, Kiroong Choe, Bohyoung Kim, Sungahn Ko, and Jinwook Seo. 2026. Penquiry: A Pen-based Interactive In-situ Q&A System Leveraging LLMs. https://arxiv.org/abs/2609.19870 doi:10.48550/arxiv.2609.19870

q3 · i? · causal · r1

Within-subjects Study 1 (N=16) comparing Penquiry V1 against a keyboard baseline on a NASA-TLX administered on 7-point scales; the printed Physical Demand row shows baseline 4.06 versus V1 2.31 with p<0.001. No standardized effect size is printed.

"2. Physical Demand 4.06 2.31 <0.001***"

tlx-flow¶

Jeongmin Rhee, Changhee Lee, Hyunwoo Kim, Kiroong Choe, Bohyoung Kim, Sungahn Ko, and Jinwook Seo. 2026. Penquiry: A Pen-based Interactive In-situ Q&A System Leveraging LLMs. https://arxiv.org/abs/2609.19870

q3 · i? · design · r3

Same within-subjects Study 1 NASA-TLX results: the printed Maintained Learning Flow row shows baseline 4.06 versus Penquiry V1 5.63, p=0.046. The article reports this as a statistically significant advantage without an effect size.

"5. Maintained Learning Flow 4.06 5.63 0.046*"

tam-1¶

Jeongmin Rhee, Changhee Lee, Hyunwoo Kim, Kiroong Choe, Bohyoung Kim, Sungahn Ko, and Jinwook Seo. 2026. Penquiry: A Pen-based Interactive In-situ Q&A System Leveraging LLMs. https://arxiv.org/abs/2609.19870

q3 · i? · design · r3

Study 1 TAM questionnaire (N=16, within-subjects): V1 rated higher on usefulness (5.98 vs. 6.63, p=0.029) and intention to continue use (5.44 vs. 6.31, p=0.008); intuitiveness was n.s. Average SUS for V1 was 80.78, rated "Excellent".

"The evaluation of TAM showed thatPenquiryV1 received significantly higher ratings than the baseline condition in most categories, including perceived usefulness and intention to use (Table 1)."

Discussion¶

Related Claims¶

• Pen input supported deictic referencing: 85% of V1 queries contained at least one visible pen mark, and ease of referencing improved significantly over the baseline — related
• In Study 1, learners preferred Penquiry V1 for part-scoped, specific-target and short questions, and favored the baseline for general topics and longer interpretive questions — related
• In the TAM structural model, satisfaction mediated sustained use: usability strongly predicted usefulness (β = 0.93), usefulness predicted satisfaction (β = 0.76), but usefulness did not directly predict use intention (β = 0.02, p = .896) — related
• Unmediated pen input introduced new pen-specific barriers: lack of visual feedback on referential intent and high interaction cost of handwriting complex queries — related