DİJİTAL YANKIDAN ENTELEKTÜEL SENTEZE: YAPAY ZEKA ÇAĞINDA BİLGİNİN DÖNÜŞÜMÜ ÜZERİNE SİSTEMATİK BİR DERLEME

Abstract

Yapay zekânın eğitim ekosistemlerine entegrasyonu; bilginin üretildiği, tüketildiği ve doğrulandığı süreçleri dönüştürmektedir. Bu dönüşümün iki kutbunda iki farklı fenomen yer almaktadır. Bir yanda algoritmik öneri sistemlerinin öğrencileri kendi inançlarını pekiştiren bilgi balonlarında tuttuğu dijital yankı odaları, diğer yanda yapay zekânın ham veriyi anlamlı kavrayışa dönüştürmek suretiyle entelektüel sentezi mümkün kılma potansiyeli bulunmaktadır. Mevcut alanyazın bu iki olguyu büyük ölçüde ayrı araştırma gündemlerinde ele almaktadır. Dijital yankıdan entelektüel senteze uzanan dönüşümün bütünleşik bir pedagojik perspektiften haritalandığı kapsamlı bir sistematik derleme henüz yer bulmamaktadır. Bu boşluktan hareketle çalışmada, Ocak-Mart 2026 tarihleri arasında Web of Science, Scopus ve ERIC veritabanlarında yayımlanmış araştırmalar PRISMA 2020 protokolü çerçevesinde taranmış; 873 kayıttan belirlenen kriterlere göre seçilen 18 çalışma içerik analizine tabi tutulmuştur. Araştırma bulguları; algoritmik filtre balonlarının ve yankı odalarının epistemik kapasite üzerindeki etkilerini, Bloom taksonomisi çerçevesinde üst düzey düşünme becerilerinin yapay zekâyla nasıl dönüşebildiğini ve ham veriden entelektüel senteze uzanan “bilginin yeni simyası” sürecinin eğitim ortamlarındaki tezahürlerini haritalamaktadır. Bu metafor, yapay zekânın ham veriyi -simyacıların madenleri değerli metale dönüştürme çabasına benzer biçimde- doğrudan bilgiye değil; ancak doğru pedagojik süreçlerle anlamlı kavrayışa dönüştürülebilecek bir ara malzemeye işaret etmesini ifade etmektedir. Sunulan kavramsal çerçeveler öneri niteliği taşımakta olup ampirik doğrulama gerektirmektedir. Bu çalışma, eğitimcilere yapay zekânın epistemik kapasite üzerindeki olası tehditlerini ve entelektüel sentezi güçlendirme fırsatlarını anlamlandırmak için bir referans çerçevesi sunmayı hedeflemektedir.

Keywords

• dijital yankı odası
• entelektüel sentez
• üretken yapay zekâ
• epistemik kapasite
• eleştirel düşünme.

From Digital Echo to Intellectual Synthesis: A Systematic Review on the Transformation of Knowledge in the Age of Artificial Intelligence

Abstract

The integration of artificial intelligence into educational ecosystems is transforming the processes through which knowledge is produced, consumed, and verified. At the two opposing poles of this transformation lie two distinct phenomena: digital echo chambers, in which algorithmic recommendation systems may confine students within information bubbles that reinforce their existing beliefs; and the potential of artificial intelligence to enable intellectual synthesis. The existing literature addresses these two phenomena largely within separate research agendas. Drawing on this gap, searches were conducted between January and March 2026 in Web of Science, Scopus, and ERIC databases following the PRISMA 2020 protocol; from 873 initial records, 18 studies selected according to predefined inclusion and exclusion criteria were subjected to content analysis. The findings map the effects of algorithmic filter bubbles and echo chambers on epistemic capacity, the transformation of higher-order thinking skills through Bloom's taxonomy, and manifestations of the “new alchemy of knowledge” in educational settings -a metaphor denoting the pedagogically mediated process through which AI-processed raw data is transformed into meaningful understanding, rather than knowledge itself. The conceptual frameworks proposed herein are exploratory in nature and require empirical validation. This study aims to provide educators with a reference framework for understanding both the potential threats AI poses to epistemic capacity and the opportunities it may offer for strengthening intellectual synthesis.

Keywords

• digital echo chamber
• intellectual synthesis
• generative artificial intelligence
• epistemic capacity
• critical thinking

References

1. Bearman, M., & Ajjawi, R. (2023). Learning to work with the black box: Pedagogy for a world with generative AI. British Journal of Educational Technology, 54(5), 1160–1173. https://doi.org/10.1111/bjet.13337
2. Chen, B. (2025). Beyond tools: Generative AI as epistemic infrastructure in education. arXiv [Preprint]. https://arxiv.org/abs/2504.06928
3. Corbin, J., & Strauss, A. (2014). Basics of qualitative research: Techniques and procedures for developing grounded theory (4. baskı). Sage Publications.
4. Dewey, J. (1910). How we think. D.C. Heath & Co.
5. Doğru, M. S., & Faulconer, E. K. (2026). ChatGPT as a virtual laboratory teaching assistant in undergraduate biology. Research in Science Education, 56(1), 379-399. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11165-025-10271-z
6. Figà Talamanca, G., & Arfini, S. (2022). Through the newsfeed glass: Rethinking filter bubbles and echo chambers. Philosophy & Technology, 35(1), Article 20. https://doi.org/10.1007/s13347-021-00494-z
7. Gerlich, M. (2025). AI tools in society: Impacts on cognitive offloading and the future of critical thinking. Societies, 15(1), 6. https://doi.org/10.3390/soc15010006
8. Gonsalves, C. M. (2024). Generative AI's impact on critical thinking: Revisiting Bloom's taxonomy in an era of large language models. Journal of Marketing Education. https://doi.org/10.1177/02734753241292783

9. Goswami, A. (2025). AI echo chambers: How algorithms shape reality, influence democracy, and fuel misinformation. TechRxiv [Preprint]. https://doi.org/10.36227/techrxiv.174584745.49540774
10. Hartmann, D., Wang, S. M., Pohlmann, L., & Berendt, B. (2025). A systematic review of echo chamber research: Comparative analysis of conceptualizations, operationalizations, and varying outcomes. Journal of Computational Social Science, 8(2), Article 52. https://doi.org/10.1007/s42001-025-00381-z
11. Hong, Q. N., Fàbregues, S., Bartlett, G., Boardman, F., Cargo, M., Dagenais, P., Gagnon, M. P., Griffiths, F., Nicolau, B., O'Cathain, A., Rousseau, M. C., Vedel, I., & Pluye, P. (2018). Mixed methods appraisal tool (MMAT) version 2018 for information professionals and researchers. Education for Information, 34(4), 285–291. https://doi.org/10.3233/EFI-180221
12. Jackson, L. (2025). Higher order prompting: Applying Bloom's revised taxonomy to large language models in higher education. STEL Journal. https://doi.org/10.18261/stel.3.1.5
13. Jose, B., Cherian, J., Verghis, A. M., Varghise, S. M., S, M., & Joseph, S. (2025). The cognitive paradox of AI in education: Between enhancement and erosion. Frontiers in Psychology, 16, 1550621. https://doi.org/10.3389/fpsyg.2025.1550621
14. Jose, S., Narayanan, V. K., & Ravishankar, M. N. (2025). Epistemic authority and generative AI in learning spaces. Frontiers in Education, 10. https://doi.org/10.3389/feduc.2025.1647687
15. Kılıç, M. S., Doğru, M. S., & Yüzbaşıoğlu, F. (2025). Personalized learning and innovative teaching approaches in universities: Artificial intelligence-supported science education. Eğitim ve İnsani Bilimler Dergisi: Teori ve Uygulama, 16(Özel Sayı), 165-192. https://doi.org/10.58689/eibd.1754301 Landis, J. R., & Koch, G. G. (1977). The measurement of observer agreement for categorical data. Biometrics, 33(1), 159-174.
16. Lee, L. S., & Low, R. (2024). Using generative AI in education: The case for critical thinking. Frontiers in Artificial Intelligence, 7. https://doi.org/10.3389/frai.2024.1454481
17. Luckin, R. (2023). AI for learning: How to use artificial intelligence to fuel the next generation of genius. Kogan Page Publishers.
18. Melisa, R., Ashadi, A., Triastuti, A., Hidayati, S., Salido, A., Luansi Ero, P. E., Marlini, C., Zefrin, Z., & Al Fuad, Z. (2025). Critical thinking in the age of AI: A systematic review of AI's effects on higher education. Educational Process: International Journal, 14, e2025031. https://doi.org/10.22521/edupij.2025.14.31
19. Nefayaz, A., & Reçber-Öztürk, C. (2026). Dijital sermayeden algoritmik eşitsizliğe: Pandemi sonrası ortaöğretimde yapay zekâ bölünmesi üzerine eleştirel bir inceleme. Alanyazın, 7, 1-18. https://doi.org/10.59320/alanyazin.1943121
20. Page, M. J., McKenzie, J. E., Bossuyt, P. M., Boutron, I., Hoffmann, T. C., Mulrow, C. D., Shamseer, L., Tetzlaff, J. M., Akl, E. A., Brennan, S. E., Chou, R., Glanville, J., Grimshaw, J. M., Hrobjartsson, A., Lalu, M. M., Li, T., Loder, E. W., Mayo-Wilson, E., McDonald, S., & Moher, D. (2021). The PRISMA 2020 statement: An updated guideline for reporting systematic reviews. BMJ, 372, n71. https://doi.org/10.1136/bmj.n71
21. Pariser, E. (2011). The filter bubble: What the Internet is hiding from you. Penguin Press.
22. Peters, M. D. J., Godfrey, C., McInerney, P., Munn, Z., Tricco, A. C., & Khalil, H. (2020). Chapter 11: Scoping reviews. E. Aromataris & Z. Munn (Editörler), JBI Manual for Evidence Synthesis içinde. JBI. https://doi.org/10.46658/JBIMES-20-12
23. Raitskaya, L., & Tikhonova, E. (2025). Enhancing critical thinking in ChatGPT-human interaction: A scoping review. Journal of Language and Education, 11(2), 5-19. https://doi.org/10.17323/jle.2025.27387
24. Sánchez Muñoz, J. A., Flores-Eraña, G., Silva-Campos, J. M., Chavira-Quintero, R., & Olais-Govea, J. M. (2025). GenAI as a cognitive mediator: A critical-constructivist inquiry into computational thinking in pre-university education. Frontiers in Education, 10. https://doi.org/10.3389/feduc.2025.1597249
25. Sardi, J., Darmansyah, Candra, O., Yuliana, D. F., Habibullah, Yanto, D. T. P., & Eliza, F. (2025). How generative AI influences students' self-regulated learning and critical thinking skills? A systematic review. International Journal of Engineering Pedagogy, 15(1), 94-108. https://doi.org/10.3991/ijep.v15i1.53379
26. Slimi, Z. (2026). The impact of generative AI on academic authorship, pedagogy, and academic integrity: A systematic critical review. Frontiers in Education, 11. https://doi.org/10.3389/feduc.2026.1769680
27. Sunstein, C. R. (2001). Echo chambers: Bush v. Gore, impeachment, and beyond. Princeton University Press.
28. Tsakeni, M., Nwafor, S. C., Mosia, M., & Egara, F. O. (2025). Mapping the scaffolding of metacognition and learning by AI tools in STEM classrooms: A bibliometric-systematic review approach (2005-2025). Journal of Intelligence, 13(11), 148. https://doi.org/10.3390/jintelligence13110148
29. Williamson, B. (2024). Algorithmic governance in education: Explaining the rise of artificial intelligence in the state and the school. European Educational Research Journal. https://doi.org/10.1177/14749041241231564
30. Xia, Q., Zhang, P., Huang, W., & Chiu, T. K. F. (2025). The impact of generative AI on university students' learning outcomes via Bloom's taxonomy: A meta-analysis and pattern mining approach. Asia Pacific Journal of Education. https://doi.org/10.1080/02188791.2025.2530503
31. Zhou, X., Lavicza, Z., & Chiu, T. K. F. (2026). Developing teacher AI competence: A systematic review of beliefs, professional learning, and cultural factors. Teaching and Teacher Education, 172. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.tate.2026.105384