ArticleFrontiers in psychology2026
Modeling and measuring graduate students' generative AI literacy: a study based on Marzano's taxonomy.
Article in Frontiers in psychology, 2026. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Not yet cited in PubMed.
What it found
Each row is one number read from the abstract, on the scale the paper reported it, with its interval. Left of the dashed line favours the treatment, right favours the comparator. Under each row is the sentence it came from. New to these charts? A ten-minute tutorial.
The abstract states no effect estimate the extractor could read, or names no intervention and outcome on the map, so this paper lights no cell and moves no belief. It is still indexed, cited and linked below.
The trial behind it
Trials whose registry record cites this paper, or whose number appears in the abstract. A trial that started after this paper was published is citing it as background, not reporting it.
Neither the registry nor the abstract names a trial number. If this is a trial report, that itself is worth knowing.
Who cites it
0 citing papers in PubMed.
No citing paper in PubMed yet.
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
3 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
Background: Generative AI is rapidly reshaping graduate students' academic research practices. Existing research lacks both literacy models specific to graduate students and a unifying theoretical framework to explain each dimension's functional role and interrelationships, constraining its cultivation and evaluation. Methods: Semi-structured interviews with 14 professors were analyzed using grounded theory, with Marzano's taxonomy of educational objectives serving as the theoretical framework for selective coding. A corresponding scale was developed and empirically validated with 308 graduate students through exploratory factor analysis, confirmatory factor analysis, and reliability and validity tests. Results: Five first-order dimensions and 15 s-order indicators were identified and validated through grounded theory analysis and questionnaire testing, with the scale demonstrating acceptable reliability and validity. Grounded theory analysis revealed that the five dimensions functioned as an interconnected whole. Cognitive foundation provided the underlying knowledge base for AI tool use; higher-order thinking critically evaluate and deeply processed AI-generated content; operational skills served as the practical tool that translated cognitive and critical thinking into academic outputs; metacognitive reflection monitored and evaluated the AI usage process; and ethical responsibility offered value guidance and normative boundaries for the functioning of all dimensions. Conclusion: This study developed and initially validated a scale for measuring graduate students perceived generative AI literacy. These findings offer actionable insights for designing AI-integrated graduate education and literacy cultivation strategies.
Indexed as
Identifiers
What OpenQuestion holds
Registered trials
Read under generation 80e0d062 · epoch 390. Bibliography from PubMed, PubMed Central and OpenAlex; grants from NIH RePORTER; trial links from ClinicalTrials.gov; estimates, votes and beliefs from the OpenQuestion graph.