Artificial Intelligence-Related Perceptions Among Physical Education and Sports Teachers: Evidence from Ağrı Province, Türkiye

Abstract

Purpose: This cross-sectional study investigated artificial intelligence (AI)-related interaction, perceived widespread effects, anxiety, and overall AI perceptions among physical education and sports teachers, and examined the associations of these outcomes with selected demographic and professional characteristics.

Method: The study included 115 physical education and sports teachers in Ağrı Province, Türkiye. AI-related outcomes were measured using the 25-item Artificial Intelligence Scale. Internal consistency and factorability were assessed using Cronbach’s alpha, McDonald’s omega, the Kaiser–Meyer–Olkin measure, and Bartlett’s test. Group differences, associations, and adjusted relationships were examined using Welch’s t tests, Spearman correlations, and HC3 robust regression models.

Results: Internal consistency was high for all subscales and the total score (Cronbach’s α = .872–.913; McDonald’s ω = .873–.918), and factorability was adequate (KMO = .836; Bartlett’s χ² (300) = 1707.68, p < .001). Gender differences were significant across all outcomes. Teachers with prior AI education or seminar participation had higher Interaction, Widespread Effect, and Total AI scores. Age was negatively associated with Interaction and Widespread Effect, whereas weekly course hours were positively associated with Anxiety. The regression models explained 14.1%–28.7% of the variance, with predictor effects varying by outcome.

Conclusion: AI-related perceptions among physical education and sports teachers were associated with prior professional development in AI and selected teacher characteristics. These findings highlight the potential value of sustained, discipline-specific AI education in promoting responsible and pedagogically appropriate engagement with AI in educational practice.

Keywords

• Interaction
• Artificial Intelligence Anxiety
• Perceived Widespread Effects
• Psychometric Properties
• Teacher Professional Development

Beden Eğitimi ve Spor Öğretmenlerinin Yapay Zekâya İlişkin Algıları: Ağrı İli Örneği

Abstract

Amaç: Bu kesitsel araştırmada, beden eğitimi ve spor öğretmenlerinin yapay zekâ (YZ) ile etkileşim, YZ’nin yaygın etkisine ilişkin algıları, YZ kaygısı ve genel YZ algıları incelenmiş; bu sonuç değişkenlerinin seçilmiş demografik ve mesleki özelliklerle ilişkisi değerlendirilmiştir.

Yöntem: Araştırmaya Türkiye’nin Ağrı ilinde görev yapan 115 beden eğitimi ve spor öğretmeni katılmıştır. YZ ile ilişkili sonuç değişkenleri, 25 maddelik Yapay Zekâ Ölçeği kullanılarak değerlendirilmiştir. Ölçeğin iç tutarlılığı Cronbach alfa ve McDonald omega katsayılarıyla, faktörlenebilirliği ise Kaiser–Meyer–Olkin (KMO) ölçütü ve Bartlett küresellik testi ile incelenmiştir. Gruplar arası farklılıklar, değişkenler arasındaki ilişkiler ve düzeltilmiş ilişkiler sırasıyla Welch t testi, Spearman korelasyon analizi ve HC3 regresyon modelleri ile değerlendirilmiştir.

Bulgular: Ölçeğin tüm alt boyutları ve toplam puanı yüksek iç tutarlılık göstermiştir (Cronbach’s α = .872–.913; McDonald’s ω = .873–.918) ve faktörlenebilirlik yeterli bulunmuştur (KMO = .836; Bartlett’s χ² (300) = 1707.68, p <.001). Tüm sonuç değişkenlerinde cinsiyete göre anlamlı farklılıklar saptanmıştır. Daha önce yapay zekâ eğitimi veya seminerine katılan öğretmenler, Etkileşim, Yaygın Etki ve Toplam YZ puanlarında daha yüksek değerlere sahip olmuştur. Yaş, Etkileşim ve Yaygın Etki ile negatif; haftalık ders saati ise Kaygı ile pozitif ilişki göstermiştir. Regresyon modelleri sonuç değişkenlerindeki varyansın %14,1–%28,7’sini açıklamış; yordayıcı değişkenlerin etkilerinin sonuç değişkenine göre farklılaştığı belirlenmiştir.

Sonuç: Beden eğitimi ve spor öğretmenlerinin YZ’ye ilişkin algıları, daha önce alınan YZ alanındaki mesleki eğitimler ve seçilmiş öğretmen özellikleri ile ilişkilidir. Bulgular, eğitim uygulamalarında yapay zekânın sorumlu ve pedagojik açıdan uygun kullanımını desteklemek amacıyla alana özgü ve sürdürülebilir YZ eğitimlerinin potansiyel önemine işaret etmektedir.

Keywords

• Etkileşim
• Yapay Zekâ Kaygısı
• Algılanan Yaygın Etki
• Psikometrik Özellikler
• Öğretmenlerin Mesleki Gelişimi

References

1. Akkaya, B., Özkan, A., & Özkan, H. (2021). Yapay zekâ kaygı (YZK) ölçeği: Türkçeye uyarlama, geçerlik ve güvenirlik çalışması [Artificial intelligence anxiety (AIA) scale: Adaptation to Turkish, validity and reliability study]. Alanya Akademik Bakış, 5(2), 1125–1146. https://doi.org/10.29023/alanyaakademik.833668
2. An, X., Chai, C. S., Li, Y., Zhou, Y., Shen, X., Zheng, C., & Chen, M. (2023). Modeling English teachers' behavioral intention to use artificial intelligence in middle schools. Education and Information Technologies, 28(5), 5187–5208. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10639-022-11286-z
3. Ayanwale, M. A., Sanusi, I. T., Adelana, O. P., Aruleba, K. D., & Oyelere, S. S. (2022). Teachers' readiness and intention to teach artificial intelligence in schools. Computers and Education: Artificial Intelligence, 3, Article 100099. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.caeai.2022.100099
4. Cai, Z., Fan, X., & Du, J. (2017). Gender and attitudes toward technology use: A meta-analysis. Computers & Education, 105, 1–13. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.compedu.2016.11.003
5. Casey, A., Goodyear, V. A., & Armour, K. M. (Eds.). (2016). Digital technologies and learning in physical education: Pedagogical cases. Routledge. https://doi.org/10.4324/9781315670164
6. Chan, C. K. Y., & Hu, W. (2023). Students' voices on generative AI: Perceptions, benefits, and challenges in higher education. International Journal of Educational Technology in Higher Education, 20, Article 43. https://doi.org/10.1186/s41239-023-00411-8
7. Chiu, T. K. F., Xia, Q., Zhou, X., Chai, C. S., & Cheng, M. (2023). Systematic literature review on opportunities, challenges, and future research recommendations of artificial intelligence in education. Computers and Education: Artificial Intelligence, 4, Article 100118. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.caeai.2022.100118
8. Cohen, J. (1988). Statistical power analysis for the behavioral sciences (2nd ed.). Lawrence Erlbaum Associates. https://doi.org/10.4324/9780203771587

9. Crompton, H., & Burke, D. (2023). Artificial intelligence in higher education: The state of the field. International Journal of Educational Technology in Higher Education, 20, Article 22. https://doi.org/10.1186/s41239-023-00392-8
10. Davis, F. D. (1989). Perceived usefulness, perceived ease of use, and user acceptance of information technology. MIS Quarterly, 13(3), 319–340. https://doi.org/10.2307/249008
11. Kaiser, H. F. (1974). An index of factorial simplicity. Psychometrika, 39(1), 31–36. https://doi.org/10.1007/BF02291575
12. Kamath, A., Poojari, S., & Varsha, K. (2025). Assessing the robustness of normality tests under varying skewness and kurtosis: A practical checklist for public health researchers. BMC Medical Research Methodology, 25, Article 206. https://doi.org/10.1186/s12874-025-02641-y
13. King, W. R., & He, J. (2006). A meta-analysis of the technology acceptance model. Information & Management, 43(6), 740–755. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.im.2006.05.003
14. Kong, S. C., Yang, Y., & Hou, C. (2024). Examining teachers' behavioural intention of using generative artificial intelligence tools for teaching and learning based on the extended technology acceptance model. Computers and Education: Artificial Intelligence, 7, Article 100328. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.caeai.2024.100328
15. Kuleto, V., Ilić, M. P., Bucea-Manea-Țoniş, R., Ciocodeică, D.-F., Mihălcescu, H., & Mindrescu, V. (2022). The attitudes of K–12 schools' teachers in Serbia towards the potential of artificial intelligence. Sustainability, 14(14), Article 8636. https://doi.org/10.3390/su14148636
16. Laupichler, M. C., Aster, A., Schirch, J., & Raupach, T. (2022). Artificial intelligence literacy in higher and adult education: A scoping literature review. Computers and Education: Artificial Intelligence, 3, Article 100101. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.caeai.2022.100101
17. Long, J. S., & Ervin, L. H. (2000). Using heteroscedasticity consistent standard errors in the linear regression model. The American Statistician, 54(3), 217–224. https://doi.org/10.1080/00031305.2000.10474549
18. McNeish, D. (2018). Thanks coefficient alpha, we'll take it from here. Psychological Methods, 23(3), 412–433. https://doi.org/10.1037/met0000144
19. Mishra, P., & Koehler, M. J. (2006). Technological pedagogical content knowledge: A framework for teacher knowledge. Teachers College Record, 108(6), 1017–1054. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1467-9620.2006.00684.x
20. Molefi, R. R., Ayanwale, M. A., Kurata, L., & Chere-Masopha, J. (2024). Do in-service teachers accept artificial intelligence-driven technology? The mediating role of school support and resources. Computers and Education Open, 6, Article 100191. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.caeo.2024.100191
21. Ng, D. T. K., Leung, J. K. L., Chu, S. K. W., & Qiao, M. S. (2021). Conceptualizing AI literacy: An exploratory review. Computers and Education: Artificial Intelligence, 2, Article 100041. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.caeai.2021.100041
22. Nguyen, A., Ngo, H. N., Hong, Y., Dang, B., & Nguyen, B. P. T. (2023). Ethical principles for artificial intelligence in education. Education and Information Technologies, 28, 4221–4241. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10639-022-11316-w
23. Ouyang, F., & Jiao, P. (2021). Artificial intelligence in education: The three paradigms. Computers and Education: Artificial Intelligence, 2, Article 100020. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.caeai.2021.100020
24. Podsakoff, P. M., MacKenzie, S. B., Lee, J.-Y., & Podsakoff, N. P. (2003). Common method biases in behavioral research: A critical review of the literature and recommended remedies. Journal of Applied Psychology, 88(5), 879–903. https://doi.org/10.1037/0021-9010.88.5.879
25. Setia, M. S. (2016). Methodology series module 3: Cross-sectional studies. Indian Journal of Dermatology, 61(3), 261–264. https://doi.org/10.4103/0019-5154.182410
26. Sperlich, B., Düking, P., Leppich, R., & Holmberg, H.-C. (2023). Strengths, weaknesses, opportunities, and threats associated with the application of artificial intelligence in connection with sport research, coaching, and optimization of athletic performance: A brief SWOT analysis. Frontiers in Sports and Active Living, 5, Article 1258562. https://doi.org/10.3389/fspor.2023.1258562
27. Süleymanoğulları, M., Özdemir, A., & Tekin, A. (2024). Yapay Zekâ Ölçeği: Geçerlik ve güvenirlik çalışması [Artificial Intelligence Scale: Validity and reliability study]. Education, Science and Sport, 6(1), 13–27.
28. Sullivan, R., Wintle, J., Campbell, N., & Roberts, W. M. (2024). Using the technological pedagogical content knowledge framework (TPACK) model to analyse teachers' use of information communication technology (ICT) in primary physical education. Cogent Social Sciences, 10(1), Article 2356719. https://doi.org/10.1080/23311886.2024.2356719
29. Terzi, R. (2020). An adaptation of artificial intelligence anxiety scale into Turkish: Reliability and validity study. International Online Journal of Education and Teaching, 7(4), 1501–1515.
30. Venkatesh, V., Morris, M. G., Davis, G. B., & Davis, F. D. (2003). User acceptance of information technology: Toward a unified view. MIS Quarterly, 27(3), 425–478. https://doi.org/10.2307/30036540
31. Verano-Tacoronte, D., Bolívar-Cruz, A., & Sosa-Cabrera, S. (2025). Are university teachers ready for generative artificial intelligence? Unpacking faculty anxiety in the ChatGPT era. Education and Information Technologies, 30(14), 20495–20522. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10639-025-13585-7
32. Wang, Y., & Wang, X. (2024). Artificial intelligence in physical education: Comprehensive review and future teacher training strategies. Frontiers in Public Health, 12, Article 1484848. https://doi.org/10.3389/fpubh.2024.1484848
33. Wang, Y.-Y., & Wang, Y.-S. (2019). Development and validation of an artificial intelligence anxiety scale: An initial application in predicting motivated learning behavior. Interactive Learning Environments, 30(4), 619–634. https://doi.org/10.1080/10494820.2019.1674887
34. Yang, W., Chen, H., & Rao, F. (2026). A qualitative study of physical education teachers' perceptions of artificial intelligence and influencing factors based on social cognitive theory. BMC Psychology, 14, Article 530. https://doi.org/10.1186/s40359-026-04295-x
35. Zawacki-Richter, O., Marin, V. I., Bond, M., & Gouverneur, F. (2019). Systematic review of research on artificial intelligence applications in higher education—where are the educators? International Journal of Educational Technology in Higher Education, 16, Article 39. https://doi.org/10.1186/s41239-019-0171-0
36. Zhai, X., Chu, X., Chai, C. S., Jong, M. S. Y., Istenic, A., Spector, M., Liu, J.-B., Yuan, J., & Li, Y. (2021). A review of artificial intelligence (AI) in education from 2010 to 2020. Complexity, 2021, Article 8812542. https://doi.org/10.1155/2021/8812542