Using AI in engineering education: a balancing act, driven by clear purpose

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.

As generative AI and low-code workflow platforms become routine in software practice, a key educational question is whether the next generation of computer engineers will accept these tools as useful, usable, and worthy of sustained engagement. This paper reports a mixed-methods, cross-sectional study of undergraduate computer engineering students' acceptance of AI automation tooling, instantiated through the open-source platform n8n across three identically scripted workshops in Thailand (n = 103). A 12-item, five-point Likert instrument mapped to six TAM/UTAUT constructs - Performance Expectancy (PE), Effort Expectancy (EE), Behavioral Intention (BI), Self-Efficacy (SE), Hedonic Motivation (HM), and Output Quality (OQ) - was complemented by inductive thematic analysis of open-ended feedback. Analyses combined ordinal reliability estimation, bootstrap confidence intervals, non-parametric tests, multiple-comparison-controlled correlations, polychoric dimensionality diagnostics, a common-method-bias check, and between-session comparisons. Acceptance was favorable across all six constructs with large effect sizes, with PE emerging as the strongest construct and HM as the weakest. Dimensionality diagnostics further revealed that canonical TAM/UTAUT sub-facets collapsed into a single general acceptance factor in this short-form post-workshop context, a finding with important methodological and theoretical implications. Qualitative themes converged with the quantitative profile regarding usefulness and enthusiasm but diverged on output quality, revealing a small yet articulate reliability-skeptical minority. The findings support the curricular adoption of AI automation tooling in undergraduate computing education and identify three theory-grounded instructional levers: instruction-sequencing scaffolds, self-efficacy supports, and trust-calibration interventions.

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.