Defining AI Fatigue in Academic Contexts: Dimensions, Indicators, and a Stage-Based Model Using Grounded Theory

Despite AI tools becoming increasingly embedded in academic practice, little is known about how university students integrate them into their writing processes. We examine how students engage with AI across different writing tasks, and how this engagement is shaped by individual factors including AI literacy, writing confidence, trust, authorship concerns, and motivation. Study1 surveys 107 UK university students to map task-specific and co-occurring patterns of AI use across five writing stages (ideation, sourcing, planning, drafting, and reviewing) and their associations with individual factors. Study2 complements this by exploring how these patterns can be assembled in practice, through interviews with 12 postgraduates reflecting on their established use of AI in assessed writing. Together, the studies suggest that AI integration is selective and heterogeneous, forming three recurring and value-oriented configurations: (1) early-stage (learning-oriented), where tools support exploration and understanding; (2) late-stage (quality-oriented), where tools support drafting and refinement; and (3) peripheral (productivity-oriented), where tools are used to reduce friction and sustain momentum across the process. We offer a workflow-level account of AI-supported academic writing, showing how students navigate competing priorities of learning, quality, productivity, and authorship, and how they evaluate and take responsibility for AI-generated outputs.

Artificial intelligence (AI) literacy is increasingly recognized as a foundational competency for all university graduates. Yet students' engagement with AI tools often clusters at two extremes: avoidance driven by fear, mistrust, ethical concern, or lack of access, and uncritical reliance that produces fluent output while masking misunderstanding. Existing AI literacy frameworks provide valuable competency definitions, but most offer limited guidance for diagnosing where learners begin and how they progress toward responsible, critical engagement. This paper proposes a five-stage AI Literacy Continuum: 0) Not Yet Engaged, 1) Uncritical Use, 2) Informed Use, 3) Critical Evaluation, and 4) Improvement --that describes developmental orientations toward AI use in higher education. The continuum complements dimensional frameworks by providing educators with a practical diagnostic and instructional pathway aligned with international frameworks, including UNESCO and OECD. We present a design-based implementation case from North Carolina State University, where credit-bearing courses and intensive hands-on workshops engaged more than 330 participants between Fall 2024 and Spring 2026. Because the implementation did not use a validated pre/post instrument or comparison group, we frame the findings as observational and practice-based: participants exhibited behaviors consistent with movement from non-engagement or uncritical use toward informed engagement, while sustained and discipline-embedded experiences produced stronger evidence of critical evaluation and improvement-oriented practice. We discuss curricular pathways, opportunity considerations, assessment strategies, and argue that AI literacy should be understood not as tool adoption alone but as a developmental capacity to understand, evaluate, and responsibly apply AI systems in disciplinary and societal contexts.

As generative AI (GenAI) becomes increasingly embedded in undergraduate academic writing, how students rely on these tools, rather than simply whether they use them, has become a central question for learning, academic integrity, and educational equity. Existing measures of reliance were developed inductively, focused on discrete problem-solving tasks, and validated mainly with homogeneous samples. This study developed and validated the GenAI Reliance Types Scale (GenAI-RTS), a 20-item instrument measuring four theoretically derived types of GenAI reliance: Strategic, Instrumental, Dependent, and Dialogic. Validation followed the multisource framework of the Standards for Educational and Psychological Testing, drawing on a survey of 382 undergraduates at a U.S. Minority-Serving Institution and interviews with 14 purposively sampled students. Confirmatory factor analyses of six competing models supported a five-factor structure in which Strategic Reliance comprises two facets, Deliberate Use and Critical Evaluation, alongside Instrumental, Dependent, and Dialogic factors (CFI = .92, RMSEA = .08; DWLS CFI = .98, RMSEA = .07). Subscale reliability was acceptable to good (omega = .75-.88), and scalar measurement invariance held across gender, first-generation status, and STEM/non-STEM majors, to our knowledge the first such evidence for a GenAI reliance instrument. Rasch analysis indicated that a five-point response format would improve category functioning. Strategic reliance was positively associated with AI literacy, and the reliance types differentiated students across multiple writing process and outcome variables. The GenAI-RTS offers researchers and educators a theoretically grounded, psychometrically validated instrument for identifying undergraduate reliance profiles and supporting research, assessment, and AI literacy intervention.