The Reliance Negotiation Framework: A Dynamic Process Model of Student LLM Engagement in Academic Writing

• URL: http://arxiv.org/abs/2604.16772v1
• Date: Sat, 18 Apr 2026 01:34:58 GMT
• Title: The Reliance Negotiation Framework: A Dynamic Process Model of Student LLM Engagement in Academic Writing
• Abstract summary: Student engagement with large language models (LLMs) in academic writing is not a stable trait, an adoption decision, or a competency level.<n>This article introduces the Reliance Negotiation Framework (RNF), developed from a sequential explanatory mixed-methods study of 382 undergraduates.
• Score: 0.0
• License: http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-nc-nd/4.0/
• Abstract: Student engagement with large language models (LLMs) in academic writing is not a stable trait, an adoption decision, or a competency level; it is a continuously negotiated process that existing frameworks cannot adequately theorize. Typological models provide categories without mechanisms; technology acceptance models explain adoption but not post-adoption quality; AI literacy frameworks treat competency as a static predictor rather than a live input. None accounts for within-student variability across tasks, the developmental paradox whereby experience produces habituation rather than sophistication, or principled non-use as a form of ethical reasoning. This article introduces the Reliance Negotiation Framework (RNF), developed from a sequential explanatory mixed-methods study of 382 undergraduates at a public minority-serving institution in the United States (survey, N = 382; 14 semi-structured interviews; three qualitative survey strands; 1,435 coded instances). The RNF reconceptualizes LLM reliance as an ongoing negotiation among four concurrent inputs (perceived benefits, perceived risks, ethical commitments, and situational demands) with outputs that recursively modify subsequent decisions. A Two-Model Architecture accommodates the 13.0% of participants whose categorical ethical commitments foreclose negotiation entirely. The framework generates four falsifiable predictions with implications for AI literacy pedagogy, academic integrity policy, and equity-centered practice at minority-serving institutions.

Related papers

• Do LLMs Have Values? A Quantitative Analysis and Alignment Framework for Values in Large Language Models [49.45276299939287]
  Large Language Models (LLMs) increasingly handle complex subjective tasks.<n>LLMs fluctuate unpredictably under minor wording changes.<n> resolving this duality is critical for reliable AI alignment.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2026-09-15T03:35:04Z)
• CLAIM: Leading Open-domain Active Clarification of Large Language Models with Uncertainty Measurement [50.91045324738942]
  CLAIM is an uncertainty-driven framework for active clarification learning in open-domain settings.<n>We propose an entropy-driven synthetic data generation pipeline that integrates uncertainty estimation with semantic clustering and reasoning-based judgments.<n> Experimental results demonstrate that CLAIM can learn stable and generalizable clarification strategies without relying on manually labeled data.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2026-08-12T04:27:45Z)
• Four Types of LLM Reliance and Their Predictors Among Undergraduate Writers: A Mixed-Methods Study at a Minority-Serving R1 University [0.0]
  Existing instruments assess reliance solely by frequency of use.<n>Students' value and cost beliefs predicted the intensity of their reliance on large language models.<n> Strategic users, those who engaged AI most deliberately, scored lowest on standard outcome measures.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2026-06-27T05:56:03Z)
• SAVOIR: Learning Social Savoir-Faire via Shapley-based Reward Attribution [82.31558282651811]
  Social intelligence, the ability to navigate complex interpersonal interactions, presents a fundamental challenge for language agents.<n>Existing approaches directly employ language models to distribute episode-level rewards, yielding attributions that are retrospective and lack theoretical grounding.<n>We propose SAVOIR, a novel principled framework grounded in cooperative game theory.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2026-04-21T02:08:25Z)
• When Contextual Inference Fails: Cancelability in Interactive Instruction Following [51.2195840589474]
  We introduce Build What I Mean, an interactive benchmark for contextual meaning construction.<n>In BWIM, models must resolve ambiguity by either performing a contextual inference or requesting clarification at a small communication cost.<n>We observe suboptimal strategies, such as partner-blind over-clarification and question-averse guessing under uncertainty.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2026-03-20T14:46:59Z)
• Assessing the Pedagogical Readiness of Large Language Models as AI Tutors in Low-Resource Contexts: A Case Study of Nepal's K-10 Curriculum [0.0]
  The integration of Large Language Models into educational ecosystems promises to democratize access to personalized tutoring.<n>This study presents a systematic evaluation of four state-of-the-art LLMs--GPT-4o, Claude Sonnet 4, Qwen3-235B, and Kimi K2--assessing their capacity to function as AI tutors.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2026-03-17T04:37:22Z)
• Syntactic Framing Fragility: An Audit of Robustness in LLM Ethical Decisions [1.0671844383558033]
  Large language models (LLMs) are increasingly deployed in consequential decision-making settings.<n>We study whether LLMs maintain consistent ethical judgments across logically equivalent but syntactically different prompts.<n>We introduce Syntactic Framing Fragility (SFF), a robustness evaluation framework that isolates purely syntactic effects.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2025-12-27T18:09:34Z)
• Designing AI-Resilient Assessments Using Interconnected Problems: A Theoretically Grounded and Empirically Validated Framework [0.0]
  The rapid adoption of generative AI has undermined traditional modular assessments in computing education.<n>This paper presents a theoretically grounded framework for designing AI-resilient assessments.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2025-12-11T15:53:19Z)
• Assessing the Reliability and Validity of Large Language Models for Automated Assessment of Student Essays in Higher Education [0.30158609733245967]
  Five advanced Large Language Models (LLMs), Claude 3.5, DeepSeek v2, Gemini 2.5, GPT-4, and Mistral 24B, were investigated for automated essay scoring in a higher education context.<n>A total of 67 Italian-language student essays were evaluated using a four-criterion rubric.<n>Human-LLM agreement was consistently low and non-significant, and within-model reliability across replications was similarly weak.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2025-08-04T14:02:12Z)
• Learning to Reason via Mixture-of-Thought for Logical Reasoning [56.24256916896427]
  Mixture-of-Thought (MoT) is a framework that enables LLMs to reason across three complementary modalities: natural language, code, and truth-table.<n>MoT adopts a two-phase design: (1) self-evolving MoT training, which jointly learns from filtered, self-generated rationales across modalities; and (2) MoT inference, which fully leverages the synergy of three modalities to produce better predictions.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2025-05-21T17:59:54Z)
• Advancing Fairness in Natural Language Processing: From Traditional Methods to Explainability [0.9065034043031668]
  The thesis addresses the need for equity and transparency in NLP systems. It introduces an innovative algorithm to mitigate biases in high-risk NLP applications. It also presents a model-agnostic explainability method that identifies and ranks concepts in Transformer models.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2024-10-16T12:38:58Z)
• Implicit Personalization in Language Models: A Systematic Study [94.29756463158853]
  Implicit Personalization (IP) is a phenomenon of language models inferring a user's background from the implicit cues in the input prompts. This work systematically studies IP through a rigorous mathematical formulation, a multi-perspective moral reasoning framework, and a set of case studies.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2024-05-23T17:18:46Z)
• A Unifying Framework for Learning Argumentation Semantics [47.84663434179473]
  We present a novel framework, which uses an Inductive Logic Programming approach to learn the acceptability semantics for several abstract and structured argumentation frameworks in an interpretable way.<n>Our framework outperforms existing argumentation solvers, thus opening up new future research directions in the area of formal argumentation and human-machine dialogues.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2023-10-18T20:18:05Z)
• Towards Quantifiable Dialogue Coherence Evaluation [126.55560816209756]
  Quantifiable Dialogue Coherence Evaluation (QuantiDCE) is a novel framework aiming to train a quantifiable dialogue coherence metric. QuantiDCE includes two training stages, Multi-Level Ranking (MLR) pre-training and Knowledge Distillation (KD) fine-tuning. Experimental results show that the model trained by QuantiDCE presents stronger correlations with human judgements than the other state-of-the-art metrics.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2021-06-01T14:11:17Z)

This list is automatically generated from the titles and abstracts of the papers in this site.

This site does not guarantee the quality of this site (including all information) and is not responsible for any consequences.