Pith. sign in

REVIEW 1 cited by

Shaping Human-AI Collaboration: Varied Scaffolding Levels in Co-writing with Language Models

Not yet reviewed by Pith; the record is open.

This paper has not been read by Pith yet. Machine review is queued; the pith claim, tier, and objections will appear here once it completes.

SPECIMEN: schema-true, not a live event

T0 review · schema-true

One-sentence machine reading of the paper's core claim.

pith:XXXXXXXX · record.json · timestamp

arxiv 2402.11723 v1 pith:DY5COLS4 submitted 2024-02-18 cs.HC cs.CL

classification cs.HCcs.CL
keywords scaffoldingwritingco-writinglanguagedesignhighhuman-ailevels
verification ladder T0 review T1 audit T2 compute T3 formal
0 comments
read the original abstract

Advances in language modeling have paved the way for novel human-AI co-writing experiences. This paper explores how varying levels of scaffolding from large language models (LLMs) shape the co-writing process. Employing a within-subjects field experiment with a Latin square design, we asked participants (N=131) to respond to argumentative writing prompts under three randomly sequenced conditions: no AI assistance (control), next-sentence suggestions (low scaffolding), and next-paragraph suggestions (high scaffolding). Our findings reveal a U-shaped impact of scaffolding on writing quality and productivity (words/time). While low scaffolding did not significantly improve writing quality or productivity, high scaffolding led to significant improvements, especially benefiting non-regular writers and less tech-savvy users. No significant cognitive burden was observed while using the scaffolded writing tools, but a moderate decrease in text ownership and satisfaction was noted. Our results have broad implications for the design of AI-powered writing tools, including the need for personalized scaffolding mechanisms.

Discussion (0). Continue with ORCID to comment.

Forward citations

Cited by 1 Pith paper

Reviewed papers in the Pith corpus that reference this work. Sorted by Pith novelty score. Full citation record

  1. More AI Assistance Reduces Cognitive Engagement: Examining the AI Assistance Dilemma in AI-Supported Note-Taking

    cs.HC 2025-09 conditional novelty 6.0 of 10

    In a 30-person within-subject study, moderate AI note assistance produced the highest comprehension, while fully automated notes produced the lowest despite being preferred.

Pith tools