Who Is Doing the Thinking? Characterising Human Agency in First-Year Students' AI Interactions

Abstract

When students use generative AI to produce their work, the learning process becomes invisible. Established frameworks such as Bloom's taxonomy then classify the cognitive level of what the AI produced, not what the student contributed. We propose the Human Agency Depth Taxonomy (HADT), a preliminary six-tier taxonomy that classifies the engineering contribution a student makes in a prompt, independent of the AI's output. HADT combines three dimensions: contextual bandwidth, engineering abstraction and student agency. We applied HADT to 962 prompts from 105 students' structured AI Journals in an AI-permissive, first-year software engineering course of 145 students, and examined how agency changed over ten journalled weeks. Most prompts (84.2%) carried some student contribution beyond delegation. Agency tracked the development lifecycle. Architecture-discovery prompts dominated the requirements phase (48% of turns) and fell to 5-12% from week 9, while prompts analysing existing systems rose during build and verification (odds ratio 2.88, with turns clustered by student). Two-thirds of the variance in tier lay within students, so agency depended more on the phase of work than on the student. A turn-level rise in delegation in deadline weeks did not hold once turns were clustered by student. Explicitly specifying constraints on the AI's output was rare throughout, which we interpret as a knowledge bottleneck for novices rather than a gap in instruction. We discuss implications for course and assessment design, and for using HADT as a formative lens on how students engage with AI.