Four Types of LLM Reliance and Their Predictors Among Undergraduate Writers: A Mixed-Methods Study at a Minority-Serving R1 University

• URL: http://arxiv.org/abs/2606.28749v2
• Date: Thu, 02 Jul 2026 10:24:38 GMT
• Title: Four Types of LLM Reliance and Their Predictors Among Undergraduate Writers: A Mixed-Methods Study at a Minority-Serving R1 University
• Abstract summary: 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.
• Score: 0.0
• License: http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/
• Abstract: Although most undergraduates now use large language models (LLMs), a form of generative artificial intelligence (GenAI) for academic writing, no validated method distinguishes the qualitatively different ways students rely on them. Existing instruments assess reliance solely by frequency of use, a measure that, as this study shows, inadvertently rewards dependence on AI rather than recognizing students' own intellectual contribution. Conducted at a public minority-serving university and grounded in the AI Literacy Framework, Expectancy-Value Theory, and Biggs's Presage-Process-Product model, the study drew on 382 undergraduates, 14 interviews, and 396 open-ended survey responses. Four distinct reliance types were identified and confirmed: Strategic (34.3%), Instrumental (30.9%), Dialogic (30.4%), and Dependent (4.5%). Students' value and cost beliefs predicted the intensity of their reliance on LLMs, whereas their AI literacy predicted the type of reliance they adopted, indicating that differentiated support is needed. Notably, Strategic users, those who engaged AI most deliberately, scored lowest on standard outcome measures. This pattern reflects a limitation of current instruments, which index AI's contribution rather than writing quality, thereby penalizing students who show the greatest independent thinking. Analysis also revealed an additional group, roughly 13%, who declined to use AI for ethical rather than practical reasons, and who existing frameworks overlook. These findings carry implications for AI literacy programs, the measurement of student learning outcomes, and equitable AI policy at minority-serving institutions.

Related papers

• Measuring How Students Rely on Generative AI in Academic Writing: Development and Multi-Source Validation of the Generative AI Reliance Types Scale (GenAI-RTS) [0.0]
  How students rely on generative AI (GenAI) has become a central question for learning, academic integrity, and educational equity.<n>This study developed and validated the GenAI Reliance Types Scale (GenAI-RTS), a 20-item instrument measuring four theoretically derived types of GenAI reliance.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2026-07-15T19:04:11Z)
• Framing, Judging, Steering: An Assessable Competency Model for Teach-ing Students to Reason With Generative AI [47.027290803102666]
  We propose CoRe-3 (Co-Reasoning), a competency model factoring productive AI use into three assessable skills.<n>We ground the skills in theory, state five testable propositions, and instantiate them in CoReasoningLab.<n>Human-rater agreement and outcomes are next; we release the instrument, data, and protocol.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2026-06-04T10:25:31Z)
• The Trust Paradox: How CS Researchers Engage LLM Leaderboards [49.627487948130444]
  Leaderboards rank AI models using standardized benchmarks, but how they shape researchers' actual practice remains empirically uncharted.<n>We find a near-universal paradox of pragmatic skepticism: while participants expressed deep distrust of leaderboard rankings, they continued to use them as rough decision-making aids.<n>We translate these findings into concrete design recommendations that align evaluation infrastructure with how researchers actually use it.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2026-05-27T18:09:26Z)
• Profiles of AI Dependency: A Latent Class Analysis of Filipino Students' Academic Competencies [0.0]
  The increasing dependency among Filipino college students on artificial intelligence (AI) poses concerns about the potential decline of fundamental academic competencies.<n>This study examines the extent of AI dependency and its perceived effects on students' critical thinking, writing skills, learning independence, research skills, and academic engagement.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2026-04-30T02:59:52Z)
• The Reliance Negotiation Framework: A Dynamic Process Model of Student LLM Engagement in Academic Writing [0.0]
  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.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2026-04-18T01:34:58Z)
• Sociodemographic Biases in Educational Counselling by Large Language Models [61.30199414932204]
  This study examines sociodemographic biases in Large Language Models (LLMs)<n>We evaluate responses from six LLMs answering questions about 900 vignettes describing students in diverse circumstances.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2026-04-03T14:08:22Z)
• ELAIPBench: A Benchmark for Expert-Level Artificial Intelligence Paper Understanding [49.67493845115009]
  ELAIPBench is a benchmark curated by domain experts to evaluate large language models' comprehension of AI research papers.<n>It spans three difficulty levels and emphasizes non-trivial reasoning rather than shallow retrieval.<n>Experiments show that the best-performing LLM achieves an accuracy of only 39.95%, far below human performance.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2025-10-12T11:11:20Z)
• Do Students Rely on AI? Analysis of Student-ChatGPT Conversations from a Field Study [10.71612026319996]
  This study analyzed 315 student-AI conversations during a brief, quiz-based scenario across various STEM courses.<n>Students exhibited overall low reliance on AI and many of them could not effectively use AI for learning.<n>Certain behavioral metrics strongly predicted AI reliance, highlighting potential behavioral mechanisms to explain AI adoption.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2025-08-27T20:00:27Z)
• Adapting University Policies for Generative AI: Opportunities, Challenges, and Policy Solutions in Higher Education [1.2691047660244332]
  The rapid proliferation of generative artificial intelligence (AI) tools has ushered in a transformative era in higher education.<n>This article critically examines the opportunities offered by generative AI, explores the multifaceted challenges it poses, and outlines robust policy solutions.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2025-06-27T13:49:02Z)
• Mitigating Subgroup Disparities in Multi-Label Speech Emotion Recognition: A Pseudo-Labeling and Unsupervised Learning Approach [53.824673312331626]
  Implicit Demography Inference (IDI) module uses k-means clustering to mitigate bias in Speech Emotion Recognition (SER)<n>Experiments show that pseudo-labeling IDI reduces subgroup disparities, improving fairness metrics by over 28%.<n>Unsupervised IDI yields more than a 4.6% improvement in fairness metrics with a drop of less than 3.6% in SER performance.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2025-05-20T14:50:44Z)
• Auto-assessment of assessment: A conceptual framework towards fulfilling the policy gaps in academic assessment practices [4.770873744131964]
  We surveyed 117 academics from three countries (UK, UAE, and Iraq) We identified that most academics retain positive opinions regarding AI in education. For the first time, we propose a novel AI framework for autonomously evaluating students' work.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2024-10-28T15:22:37Z)
• Principle-Driven Self-Alignment of Language Models from Scratch with Minimal Human Supervision [84.31474052176343]
  Recent AI-assistant agents, such as ChatGPT, rely on supervised fine-tuning (SFT) with human annotations and reinforcement learning from human feedback to align the output with human intentions. This dependence can significantly constrain the true potential of AI-assistant agents due to the high cost of obtaining human supervision. We propose a novel approach called SELF-ALIGN, which combines principle-driven reasoning and the generative power of LLMs for the self-alignment of AI agents with minimal human supervision.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2023-05-04T17:59:28Z)

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.