Caitlin Morris

Caitlin Morris, Pattie Maes

AI chat tools are shifting problem-solving and brainstorming conversations away from colleagues and into private AI interactions, reducing the shared awareness that supports team coordination. We introduce InquiryBits, a system that shares minimal summaries of AI conversations within configurable trust boundaries, separating AI-only analysis from human-visible sharing. In a study with 80 professionals, we find that people are broadly willing to share these traces to support collaboration and avoid duplicating work - but only within bounded groups. Comfort drops sharply as audience expands beyond close teams; the level of detail shared matters less than who can see it, with a preference for more detail over less within trusted groups. These findings suggest that trust boundaries, more than information granularity, may be the most impactful design parameter.

Caitlin Morris, Pattie Maes

As AI systems increasingly take on instructional roles - providing feedback, guiding practice, evaluating work - a fundamental question emerges: does it matter to learners who they believe is on the other side? We investigated this using a three-condition experiment (N=148) in which participants completed a creative coding tutorial and received feedback generated by the same large language model, attributed to either an AI system (with instant or delayed delivery) or a human teaching assistant (with matched delayed delivery). This three-condition design separates the effect of source attribution from the confound of delivery timing, which prior studies have not controlled. Source attribution and timing had distinct effects on different outcomes: participants who believed the human attribution spent more time on task than those receiving equivalently timed AI-attributed feedback (d=0.61, p=.013, uncorrected), while the delivery delay independently increased output complexity without affecting time measures. An exploratory analysis revealed that 46% of participants in the human-attributed condition did not believe the attribution, and these participants showed worse outcomes than those receiving transparent AI feedback (code complexity d=0.77, p=.003; time on task d=0.70, p=.007). These findings suggest that believed human presence may carry motivational value, but that this value depends on credibility. For computing educators, transparent AI attribution may be the lower-risk default in contexts where human attribution would not be credible.