Artificial Intelligence Training Program in Research Based on Social-Cognitive Theory: Design and Validation

Yousefi, Maryam; Kareshki, Hossein; Abrishami, Saeid

doi:10.22062/sdme.2025.201567.1634

Artificial Intelligence Training Program in Research Based on Social-Cognitive Theory: Design and Validation

Document Type : Original Article

Authors

Maryam Yousefi ¹

Hossein Kareshki ²

Saeid Abrishami ³

¹ M.A in Educational Psychology, Department of Counseling and Educational Psychology, Faculty of Education and Psychology, Ferdowsi University of Mashhad, Mashhad, Iran

² Professor, Department of Counseling and Educational Psychology, Faculty of Education and Psychology, Ferdowsi University of Mashhad, Mashhad, Iran

³ Associate Professor, Department of Computer Engineering, Faculty of Engineering, Ferdowsi University of Mashhad, Mashhad, Iran

10.22062/sdme.2025.201567.1634

Abstract

Background: The goal of research in any country is scientific growth, with a key focus on empowering students to conduct high-quality research. This requires keeping pace with the latest advancements in the world, but in a principled manner by increasing students' motivation as their driving force for conducting research. This can only be achieved through proper training in utilizing these advancements, relying on the researcher themselves.
Methods: Initially, the opinions of at least 10 artificial intelligence experts were collected using the Delphi method over three rounds, along with the opinions of 10 psychology experts over two rounds. The points obtained from the open-ended questions in the first round were transformed into questionnaires for each field, and this process continued until consensus was reached. Subsequently, based on the results from the previous stage and the theoretical foundations of social-cognitive theory, a five-session protocol was developed and confirmed by 10 experts from both fields for face and content validity.
Results: The results obtained from the Delphi rounds contained 34 points regarding the training of using artificial intelligence tools, including a general introduction to the concept of chatbots and language models, introduction of general and specialized tools, correct and principled prompt writing, displaying errors, and cross-checking with scientific texts. It also included creating a proper culture regarding artificial intelligence as a research assistant rather than a research author, accepting ethical and content responsibility by the researcher, stating the policies of reputable global journals, and the necessity of adhering to them. Additionally, 44 points related to aligning education with social-cognitive theory, such as step-by-step training with visuals and personalization, the necessity of goal-setting and planning, utilizing the experiences of capable role models, and applying the taught materials were identified, along with 15 tools such as Chat GPT, Scopus AI, NotebookLM, and Scite AI. Despite the high content validity of this protocol (via 10 experts, CVR and CVI), the credibility of the Delphi results depends on the scientific credibility of its members. Since all participants in this research were faculty members of reputable universities, the high credibility of the obtained results can be emphasized.

Conclusion: This educational program, considering the foundations of social-cognitive theory and its goals of self-regulation, self-efficacy, and research engagement of graduate students, can serve as a promise as a supportive strategy for the future of research in the country, in line with global advancements and their proper utilization.

Highlights

Maryam Yousefi: (Google Scholar) (PubMed)

Hossein Kareshki: (Google Scholar) (PubMed)

Saeid Abrishami: (Google Scholar) (PubMed)

Keywords

Research

Delphi technique

Validation study

Social-cognitive theory

Artificial intelligence

1. Sarker IH. AI-Based Modeling: Techniques, Applications and Research Issues Towards Automation, Intelligent and Smart Systems. SN Comput Sci. 2022;3(2):158. doi: 10.1007/s42979-022-01043-x. PMID: 35194580 PMCID: PMC8830986

2. Keykha A, Mohammadi H, Darabi F, Hosseini SS. Identifying the Applications of Artificial Intelligence in the Assessment of Medical Students. Strides in Development of Medical Education. 2025; 22(1): 1-18. doi: 10.22062/sdme.2025.200833.1512.

3. Ortega-Ochoa E, Pérez JQ, Arguedas M, Daradoumis T, Puig JMM. The effectiveness of empathic chatbot feedback for developing computer competencies, motivation, self-regulation, and metacognitive reasoning in online higher education. Internet of Things. 2024; 25: 101101.‏ doi: 10.1016/j.iot.2024.101101.

4. Creswell JW, Guetterman TC. Educational research: Planning, conducting, and evaluating quantitative and qualitative research. New Jersey: Pearson; 2019.

5. Cone JD, Foster SL. Dissertations and theses from start to finish: Psychology and related fields. 2nd ed. Washington, DC: American Psychological Association. 2006.

6. Dupont S, Meert G, Galand B, Nils F. Postponement in the completion of the final dissertation: An underexplored dimension of achievement in higher education. European Journal of Psychology of Education. 2013; 28(3): 619–39. doi: 10.1007/s10212-012-0132-7.

7. Akour MM, Damra JK, Al Ali TM, Ghaith SM, Ghbari TA, Shammout NA. Validation of the revised scale of students’ attitudes towards research. Studies in Higher Education. 2023; 49(1): 33–46. doi: 10.1080/03075079.2023.2220700.

8. Heidari-Soureshjani S, Yarmohammadi-Samani P, Mohammadian-Hafshejani A, Gholipour Mofrad-Dashtaki D. Investigating the Relationship between Research Anxiety and Academic Self-Concept in Master’s and Doctoral Students. Strides in Development of Medical Education, 2022; 19(1): 175-8.
doi: 10.22062/sdme.2022.196957.1092.

9. Casanave CP, Hubbard P. The writing assignments and writing problems of doctoral students: Faculty perceptions, pedagogical issues, and needed research. English for Specific Purposes. 1992; 11(1): 33-49.‏ doi:10.1016/0889-4906(92)90005-U.

10. Pruskil S, Burgwinkel P, Georg W, Keil T, Kiessling C. Medical students' attitudes towards science and involvement in research activities: a comparative study with students from a reformed and a traditional curriculum. Med Teach. 2009;31(6):e254-9. doi: 10.1080/01421590802637925. PMID: 19811157

11. Salehi M, Saeedi P, Jabbari N, Kazemi-Malek Mahmoudi M, Kazemi-Malek Mahmoudi Sh. Obstacles to conducting research activities at the university from the perspective of students at Golestan University of Medical Sciences. Educational Development of Judishapur. 2016; 7(1): 84-93. [In Persian]

12. Sobczuk P, Dziedziak J, Bierezowicz N, Kiziak M, Znajdek Z, Puchalska L, et al. Are medical students interested in research? - students' attitudes towards research. Ann Med. 2022; 54(1):
1538-47. doi: 10.1080/07853890.2022.2076900. PMID: 35616902 PMCID: PMC9891220

13. Mahmoodi F, Beheshti H. Survey of the Medical Sciences Students’ Attitude Towards Research. Strides Dev Med Educ. 2024; 21(1):218-25. doi:10.22062/sdme.2024.199683.1368.

14. Behrooz H, Lipizzi C, Korfiatis G, Ilbeigi M, Powell M, Nouri M. Towards Automating the Identification of Sustainable Projects Seeking Financial Support: An AI-Powered Approach. Sustainability. 2023; 15(12): 9701. doi: 10.3390/su15129701.

15. Sáiz-Manzanares MC, Marticorena-Sánchez R, Martín-Antón LJ, González Díez I, Almeida L. Perceived satisfaction of university students with the use of chatbots as a tool for self-regulated learning. Heliyon. 2023; 9(1):e12843. doi: 10.1016/j.heliyon.2023.e12843. PMID: 36704275 PMCID: PMC9871218

16. Fiedler A, Döpke J. Do humans identify AI-generated text better than machines? Evidence based on excerpts from German theses. International Review of Economics Education. 2025; 49: 100321.‏ doi: 10.1016/j.iree.2025.100321.

17. Melliti M. AI in MA thesis writing: The use of lexical patterns to study the ChatGPT influence. TESOL International Journal. 2024; 6 (3); 58-76. doi: 10.58304/ijts.20240305.

18. Dangprasert S, Kamtab P. Development of an AI-Powered System for Thesis Advisor Consultations. International Journal of Information and Education Technology. 2025; 15(6): 1134-43. doi: 10.18178/ijiet.2025.15.6.2316.

19. Bandura A. Social foundations of thought and action: A social cognitive theory. In: Marks D. The Health Psychology Reader. New Jersey: Prentice-Hall, Inc.; 1986:617

20. Zimmerman BJ. A social cognitive view of self-regulated academic learning. Journal of Educational Psychology. 1989; 81(3): 329.‏ doi: 10.1037//0022-0663.81.3.329.

21. Bandura A. Self-efficacy: The exercise of control. 1nd ed. New York: W. H. Freeman and Company; 1997: 604.

22. White B, Frederiksen J, Collins A. The interplay of scientific inquiry and metacognition: More than a marriage of convenience. In: Hacker DJ, Dunlosky J, Graesser AC (Eds.). Handbook of metacognition in education. 1nd ed. England: Routledge; 2009: 175-205.

23. Koohi M, Kareshki H, Mahram B. Investigating the role of Educational Groups and Academic Degrees at Research
Self-Regulation of postgraduate Students. Educational Research. 2019; 6(38): 86-106. doi: 10.52547/erj.6.38.86. [In Persian]

24. Salehi M, Kareshki H, Ahanchian M. Testing the causal model of the role of social cognitive factors affecting research
self-efficacy of doctoral students. Iranian Higher Education. 2014; 5(3): 59-83. [In Persian]

25. Forester M, Kahn JH, Hesson-McInnis MS. Factor Structures of Three Measures of Research Self-Efficacy. Journal of Career Assessment. 2004; 12(1): 3–16. doi: 10.1177/1069072703257719.

26. Vekkaila J. Doctoral student engagement - The dynamic interplay between students and scholarly communities. (dissertation). Helsinki: University of Helsinki; 2014: 110.

27. Saqr M, Cheng R, López-Pernas S, Beck ED. Idiographic artificial intelligence to explain students' self-regulation: Toward precision education. Learning and Individual Differences. 2024; 114: 102499.‏ doi:10.1016/j.lindif.2024.102499.

28. Jin SH, Im K, Yoo M, Roll I, Seo K. Supporting students’
self-regulated learning in online learning using artificial intelligence applications. International Journal of Educational Technology in Higher Education. 2023; 20(1): 37.‏ doi: 10.1186/s41239-023-00406-5.

29. Wei L. Artificial intelligence in language instruction: impact on English learning achievement, L2 motivation, and self-regulated learning. Front Psychol. 2023; 14: 1261955. doi: 10.3389/fpsyg.2023.1261955. PMID: 38023040 PMCID: PMC10658009

30. Yilmaz R, Yilmaz FGK. The effect of generative artificial intelligence (AI)-based tool use on students' computational thinking skills, programming self-efficacy and motivation. Computers and Education: Artificial Intelligence. 2023; 4: 100147.‏ doi: 10.1016/j.caeai.2023.100147.

31. Nazari N, Shabbir MS, Setiawan R. Application of Artificial Intelligence powered digital writing assistant in higher education: randomized controlled trial. Heliyon. 2021; 7(5):e07014. doi: 10.1016/j.heliyon.2021. PMID: 34027198 PMCID: PMC8131255

32. Naseer F, Khan MN, Tahir M, Addas A, Aejaz SH. Integrating deep learning techniques for personalized learning pathways in higher education. Heliyon. 2024; 10(11):e32628. doi: 10.1016/j.heliyon.2024.e32628. PMID: 38961899 PMCID: PMC11219980

33. Ng DTK, Tan CW, Leung JKL. Empowering student self‐regulated learning and science education through ChatGPT: A pioneering pilot study. British Journal of Educational Technology. 2024; 55(4): 1328-53.‏ doi: 10.1111/bjet.13454.

34. Huang AY, Lu OH, Yang SJ. Effects of artificial Intelligence–Enabled personalized recommendations on learners’ learning engagement, motivation, and outcomes in a flipped classroom. Computers & Education. 2023; 194: 104684.‏ doi: 10.1016/j.compedu.2022.104684.

35. Salvagno M, Taccone FS, Gerli AG. Correction to: Can artificial intelligence help for scientific writing? Crit Care. 2023; 27(1):99. doi: 10.1186/s13054-023-04390-0. PMID: 36890525 PMCID: PMC9993712

36. Granjeiro JM, Cury AADB, Cury JA, Bueno M, Sousa-Neto MD, Estrela C. The Future of Scientific Writing: AI Tools, Benefits, and Ethical Implications. Braz Dent J. 2025; 36: e256471. doi: 10.1590/0103-644020256471. PMID: 40197923 PMCID: PMC11981593

37. Fricke S. Semantic Scholar. Journal of the Medical Library Association: JMLA, 2018; 106(1), 145–147. doi: 10.5195/jmla.2018.280.

38. Konwar B. Ethical Considerations in The Use of AI Tools Like ChatGPT and Gemini in Academic Research. Turkish Online Journal of Qualitative Inquiry. 2025; 16(1).‏ doi:10.53555//8x4z4836.

39. Barrot JS. Balancing Innovation and Integrity: An Emerging Technology Report on SciSpace in Academic Writing. Technology, Knowledge and Learning. 2025; 30(1): 587–92. doi: 10.1007/s10758-024-09802-w.

40. Huang J, Tan M. The role of ChatGPT in scientific communication: writing better scientific review articles. Am J Cancer Res. 2023; 13(4):1148-1154. PMID: 37168339 PMCID: PMC10164801

41. Meliante LA, Coco G, Rabiolo A, De Cillà S, Manni G. Evaluation of AI Tools Versus the PRISMA Method for Literature Search, Data Extraction, and Study Composition in Glaucoma Systematic Reviews: Content Analysis. JMIR AI. 2025; 4: e68592. doi: 10.2196/68592. PMID: 40911843 PMCID: PMC12413140

42. Dalkey N, Helmer O. An experimental application of the Delphi method to the use of experts. Management Science. 1963; 9(3): 458-67.‏ doi:10.1287/mnsc.9.3.458.

43. Rahmani A, Vaziri Nejad R, Ahmadi Nia H, Rezaian M. Methodological Principles and Applications of the Delphi Method: A Narrative Review. Journal of Rafsanjan University of Medical Sciences. 2020; 19(5): 515-38. doi:10.29252/jrums.19.5.515. [In Persian]

44. Ahmadi A, Noetel M, Parker P, Ryan RM, Ntoumanis N, Reeve J, et al. A classification system for teachers’ motivational behaviors recommended in self-determination theory interventions. Journal of Educational Psychology. 2023; 115(8): 1158-76. doi: 10.1037/edu0000783.

45. Okoli C, Pawlowski SD. The Delphi method as a research tool: an example, design considerations and applications. Information & Management. 2004; 42(1): 15-29.‏‏ doi: 10.1016/j.im.2003.11.002.

46. Linstone HA, Turoff M. The Delphi method: techniques and applications. Massachustts; Addison-Wesley Pub; 2002:616.

47. Khodyakov D, Grant S, Kroger J, Bauman M. RAND methodological guidance for conducting and critically appraising Delphi panels. Santa Monica, California: RAND Corporation; 2023.

48. Diefenbach MA, Weinstein ND, O'Reilly J. Scales for assessing perceptions of health hazard susceptibility. Health Educ Res. 1993; 8(2):181-92. doi: 10.1093/her/8.2.181. PMID: 10148827

49. Chiu TKF. A classification tool to foster self-regulated learning with generative artificial intelligence by applying self-determination theory: A case of ChatGPT. Educational Technology Research and Development. 2024; 72(4): 2401-16.‏ doi: 10.1007/s11423-024-10366-w.

50. Shang Z. Use of Delphi in health sciences research: A narrative review. Medicine (Baltimore). 2023; 102(7):e32829. doi: 10.1097/MD.0000000000032829. PMID: 36800594 PMCID: PMC9936053

51. Gottlieb M, Caretta-Weyer H, Chan TM, Humphrey-Murto S. Educator's blueprint: A primer on consensus methods in medical education research. AEM Educ Train. 2023; 7(4):e10891. doi: 10.1002/aet2.10891. PMID: 37448627 PMCID: PMC10336022

52. Diamond IR, Grant RC, Feldman BM, Pencharz PB, Ling SC, Moore AM, et al. Defining consensus: a systematic review recommends methodologic criteria for reporting of Delphi studies. J Clin Epidemiol. 2014; 67(4):401-9. doi: 10.1016/j.jclinepi.2013.12.002. PMID: 24581294

53. Lawshe CH. A quantitative approach to content validity. Personnel Psychology. 1975; 28(4): 563-75. doi: 10.1111/j.1744-6570.1975.tb01393.x.

54. Waltz CF, Bausell RB. Nursing research: Design, statistics, and computer analysis. Philadelphia: F.A. Davis Co; 1981: 362.

55. Huang AYQ, Lin CY, Su SY, Yang SJH. The impact of GenAI‐enabled coding hints on students' programming performance and cognitive load in an SRL‐based Python course. British Journal of Educational Technology. 2025; 56: 1942-72. doi: 10.1111/bjet.13589.

56. Zimmerman BJ. Becoming a Self-Regulated Learner: An Overview. Theory Into Practice. 2002; 41(2): 64–70. doi:10.1207/s15430421tip4102_2.

57. Lee HY, Chen PH, Wang WS, Huang YM, Wu TT. Empowering ChatGPT with guidance mechanism in blended learning: Effect of self-regulated learning, higher-order thinking skills, and knowledge construction. International Journal of Educational Technology in Higher Education. 2024; 21(1): 16.‏ doi: 10.1186/s41239-024-00447-4.

58. Badakhshian SS, Samiei F. The effectiveness of a vocational rehabilitation program based on cognitive-social theory on the self-efficacy of individuals with spinal cord injury. Journal of Counseling Research. 2022; 21(83): 193-210. doi:10.18502/qjcr.v21i83.11091. [In Persian]

59. Sohrabi A, Mahdad A, Sadeghi A, Sadeghi A. The effectiveness of cognitive-social counseling of Lent and Brown's pleasure on the components of the perception of academic self-efficacy of Isfahan medical students. Iranian Journal of Education in Medical Sciences. 2014; 22(45): 305-13. doi: 10.48305/22.10. [In Persian]

60. Hashemian M, Abdolkarimi M, Asadollahi Z, Nasirzadeh M. Effect of “Social Cognitive Theory”-based Intervention on Promoting Physical Activity in Female High-School Students of Rafsanjan City, Iran. Journal of Education and Community Health. 2021; 8(2): 111-119.