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.

翻译：暂无翻译