Same Feedback, Different Source: How AI vs. Human Feedback Shapes Learner Engagement
Fuente:
arXiv
Gespeichert in:
| Hauptverfasser: | , |
|---|---|
| Format: | Preprint |
| Veröffentlicht: |
2026
|
| Schlagworte: | |
| Online-Zugang: | |
| Tags: |
Tag hinzufügen
Keine Tags, Fügen Sie den ersten Tag hinzu!
|
| _version_ | 1866918333420404736 |
|---|---|
| author | Morris, Caitlin Maes, Pattie |
| author_facet | Morris, Caitlin Maes, Pattie |
| contents | When learners receive feedback, what they believe about its source may shape how they engage with it. As AI is used alongside human instructors, understanding these attribution effects is essential for designing effective hybrid AI-human educational systems. We designed a creative coding interface that isolates source attribution while controlling for content: all participants receive identical LLM-generated feedback, but half see it attributed to AI and half to a human teaching assistant (TA). We found two key results. First, perceived feedback source affected engagement: learners in the TA condition spent significantly more time and effort (d = 0.88-1.56) despite receiving identical feedback. Second, perceptions differed: AI-attributed feedback ratings were predicted by prior trust in AI (r = 0.85), while TA-attributed ratings were predicted by perceived genuineness (r = 0.65). These findings suggest that feedback source shapes both engagement and evaluation, with implications for hybrid educational system design. |
| format | Preprint |
| id |
arxiv_https___arxiv_org_abs_2602_11311 |
| institution | arXiv |
| publishDate | 2026 |
| record_format | arxiv |
| spellingShingle | Same Feedback, Different Source: How AI vs. Human Feedback Shapes Learner Engagement Morris, Caitlin Maes, Pattie Human-Computer Interaction When learners receive feedback, what they believe about its source may shape how they engage with it. As AI is used alongside human instructors, understanding these attribution effects is essential for designing effective hybrid AI-human educational systems. We designed a creative coding interface that isolates source attribution while controlling for content: all participants receive identical LLM-generated feedback, but half see it attributed to AI and half to a human teaching assistant (TA). We found two key results. First, perceived feedback source affected engagement: learners in the TA condition spent significantly more time and effort (d = 0.88-1.56) despite receiving identical feedback. Second, perceptions differed: AI-attributed feedback ratings were predicted by prior trust in AI (r = 0.85), while TA-attributed ratings were predicted by perceived genuineness (r = 0.65). These findings suggest that feedback source shapes both engagement and evaluation, with implications for hybrid educational system design. |
| title | Same Feedback, Different Source: How AI vs. Human Feedback Shapes Learner Engagement |
| topic | Human-Computer Interaction |
| url | https://arxiv.org/abs/2602.11311 |