The four profiles differ in academic self-efficacy, time/study management, and effort regulation, with HL highest, but not in help seeking¶

Claim · All claims
Evidence · 1 study · associational r2 · q2 · i1 small
Currency · newest study 2026 · checked against its sources 2026-10-20 (automated, 1 of 1 entry) · not reviewed by a person

Subclaims¶

q2 i1 HL (high literacy, low dependency) scored highest on academic self-efficacy, time/study management, and effort regulation; help seeking did not differ across profiles. → Hilit Maizel 2026

Evidence¶

Hilit Maizel 2026¶

Hilit Maizel, Maya Kalman Halevi, Miri Sarid, and Rony Tutian. (2026). Understanding Student Dependency on AI: The Role of AI Literacy, Academic Self-Efficacy, and Resource Management Strategies. Educ. Sci. 2026, 16, 1123. https://doi.org/10.3390/educsci16071123

q2 · i1 · associational · r2

One-way ANOVAs comparing the four clusters with Tukey HSD post hoc tests. The HL profile scored significantly higher than all other profiles on academic self-efficacy and higher than HH and MM on effort regulation. "Help seeking did not significantly differ across profiles (F(3, 474) = 2.01, p = 0.112, η2 = 0.01)".

"academic self-efficacy (F(3, 474) = 22.60, p < 0.001, η2 = 0.13), time and study environment management (F(3, 474) = 11.21,p < 0.001, η2 = 0.07), and effort regulation (F(3, 474) = 19.00,p < 0.001, η2 = 0.11)"

Discussion¶

Related Claims¶

• Effort regulation negatively predicts, and general academic help seeking positively predicts, reported AI dependency; time management is non-significant — related
• In association-rule mining of survey data from 530 college students in online courses, goal setting, environment structuring and time management were the strategies most often associated with lower digital distraction — related
• Self-efficacy profiles differ in AI use for educational support (η² = .36), the highest-rated support type in the high profile — related
• Learners' task-specific self-efficacy beliefs predict whether they initiate, persist through, and recover from difficulty on academic tasks. — a broader claim this one bears on
• Cluster analysis identifies two antagonistic student profiles differing in level of technology-supported self-regulated learning — related
• Adult learners' motivational profiles differ significantly in self-efficacy, learning strategies and behavioral engagement: the good-quality motivation group scores higher on all three, the high-quantity group on strategies and engagement only — related
• The four achievement goal profiles differ significantly in all four dimensions of writing self-efficacy — related
• Adaptive help seeking is a self-regulatory behavioral strategy, distinct from dependent help seeking — related
• Higher academic self-efficacy profiles report greater overall academic AI use, with a large effect (η² = .36) — related
• Seeking tutoring and attending supplemental instruction sessions are associated with significantly higher academic engagement — related
• Academic self-efficacy is negatively associated with AI dependency among university students — related
• Self-efficacy profiles differ in AI use for informational support (η² = .28) and emotional support (η² = .18) — related
• Teachers' self-reported SRL shows self-efficacy as the highest-practiced skill and help-seeking and goal-setting as the lowest — related
• Clustering of association rules yields four distinct strategy-combination profiles characterizing lower digital distraction — related
• Self-reported SRL strategies vary by individual learner characteristics including demographics, prior experience, and motivations — related
• Peer-related help-seeking and learner-learner engagement strategies appear less often in profiles of students with lower digital distraction — related
• Lower academic self-efficacy is associated with membership of three less engaged momentary-engagement profiles and lower peer support with two, while educational goals and family support do not differ across the four profiles tested — related