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

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.

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.

Investigating the degree to which large language models (LLMs) affect teaching and learning in universities can help identify strategies for integrating LLMs in a way that supports, rather than undermines, student learning outcomes. This study examined how varying levels of LLM assistance affect writing performance, engagement, and perceived authorship. We report a pilot study in which 24 college students were randomly assigned to write a short essay with no LLM access, limited access (<=3 prompts, responses capped at 100 words), or unlimited access. Overall essay quality was statistically indistinguishable across groups. Yet writing behavior and perceived authorship diverged sharply: students with limited access reported higher ownership (62.5% would submit the essay as independent work, vs. 25% in the unlimited group), stronger organizational gains, and more strategic, revision-focused prompting. The unlimited group spent more time writing, produced essays more similar to LLM output, and reported reduced creative expression. Our findings suggest that constraining, rather than banning, LLM access may preserve authorship confidence while retaining the scaffolding benefits of AI assistance.