Geleceğin Eğitimcilerinin Gözüyle Yapay Zekâ: Eğilimler ve Disipliner Farklılıklar

Abstract

Bu çalışmada, eğitim fakültesinde öğrenim gören öğretmen adaylarının güncel bir sosyobilimsel konu olan yapay zekâya ilişkin zihinsel modellerinin incelenmesi amaçlanmıştır. Çalışmada ayrıca, farklı bölümlerde öğrenim gören öğretmen adaylarının zihinsel modellerinin disiplinler arası bir yaklaşımla kıyaslanması hedeflenmiştir. Araştırma kapsamında öğretmen adaylarına, yapay zekâ denildiğinde akıllarına ne geldiği sorulmuş ve onlardan zihinlerinde canlanan imgeleri kâğıt üzerine çizmeleri istenmiştir. Elde edilen görsel veriler içerik analizi yöntemiyle değerlendirilmiş; analiz süreci, çizimlerde tekrarlanan göstergelerin kodlanması ve bu kodlardan temaların oluşturulması yoluyla gerçekleştirilmiştir. Bulgular, öğretmen adaylarının yapay zekâyı algısal olarak arka planda çalışan algoritmik bir yazılımdan ziyade; ağırlıklı olarak robot, bilgisayar ve çip gibi donanım tabanlı fiziksel unsurlarla somutlaştırdıklarını ve popüler kültür temsillerinin de izlerini taşıdığını göstermiştir. Ayrıca, farklı disiplinlerdeki adayların algılarında belirgin farklılıklar tespit edilmiştir; fen ve matematik gibi temel alanlardaki adaylar ağırlıklı olarak teknik, mekanik ve biyolojik altyapıya odaklanırken, sosyal alanlardaki (beden eğitimi, okul öncesi) adayların yapay zekâyı işsizlik, ayrımcılık, korku ve bilinmezlik gibi psikolojik, etik ve sosyoekonomik bağlamlarla ilişkilendirdikleri belirlenmiştir. Geleceğin öğretmenleri olan öğretmen adaylarının sosyobilimsel konular hakkında gelişmiş anlayışlara sahip olmaları elzemdir. Öğretmen adaylarının yapay zekâ kavramını doğru anlamlandırması ve kavramsal yanılgılardan arınmış zihinsel modellere sahip olması, yapay zekânın eğitime getireceği fırsatlardan etkin biçimde yararlanılabilmesi adına kritik bir unsurdur.

Keywords

• Yapay zekâ
• Zihinsel modeller
• Sosyobilimsel konular
• Öğretmen adayları

Supporting Institution

Bu araştırma, TÜBİTAK 2209-A Üniversite Öğrencileri Araştırma Projeleri Destekleme Programı kapsamında desteklenmiştir.

Ethical Statement

Etik Kurul Komisyon Adı: Alanya Alaaddin Keykubat Üniversitesi Fen ve Mühendislik Bilimleri Bilimsel Araştırma ve Yayın Etiği Kurulu Etik Kurul Belge Tarihi ve Protokol No: 14.6.2022/05

Thanks

Bu araştırmaya sağladıkları desteklerden dolayı TÜBİTAK'a, değerli zamanlarını ayıran öğretmen adaylarına ve görüşleriyle çalışmaya katkı sunan hakemlere teşekkürlerimizi sunarız.

Artificial Intelligence through the Eyes of Future Educators: Inclinations and Disciplinary Differences

Abstract

This study aims to examine the mental models of pre-service teachers studying in the faculty of education regarding artificial intelligence, which is a current socioscientific issue. The study also aims to compare the mental models of pre-service teachers from different departments through an interdisciplinary approach. The participants were asked what comes to mind when they hear the term “artificial intelligence” and were requested to draw the images that emerged in their minds on paper. The visual data obtained were analyzed using content analysis; the analysis was carried out by coding the recurring indicators in the drawings and deriving themes from these codes. The findings revealed that pre-service teachers mostly concretized artificial intelligence through hardware-based physical elements such as robots, computers, and chips, rather than background algorithmic software, and were heavily influenced by popular culture representations. Furthermore, notable differences were detected in the perceptions of candidates from different disciplines; while candidates in basic fields such as science and mathematics focused mainly on technical, mechanical, and biological infrastructure, those in social fields (such as physical education, and early childhood education) associated artificial intelligence with psychological, ethical, and socioeconomic contexts such as unemployment, discrimination, fear, and uncertainty. It is clear that future teachers must have a developed understanding of socioscientific issues. A good understanding and accurate mental representation of the concept of artificial intelligence, free from misconceptions, by pre-service teachers is a critical factor in effectively utilizing the advantages that artificial intelligence can offer in education.

Keywords

• Artificial intelligence
• Mental models
• Socioscientific issues
• Pre-service teachers

Supporting Institution

This research was supported by TÜBİTAK under the 2209-A Research Project Support Programme for Undergraduate Students.

Ethical Statement

Ethics committee approval for this study was obtained from Alanya Alaaddin Keykubat University Institutional Review Board for Science and Engineering Research and Publication Ethics (Date: June 14, 2022, Protocol No: 05).

Thanks

The authors would like to express their gratitude to TÜBİTAK for their support, to the pre-service teachers for devoting their valuable time to this research, and to the reviewers for their insightful comments and contributions to the study.

References

1. Ainsworth, S., Prain, V., & Tytler, R. (2011). Drawing to learn in science. Science, 333(6046), 1096–1097.
2. Akgün, S., & Greenhow, C. (2022). Artificial intelligence in education: Addressing ethical challenges in K–12 settings. AI and Ethics, 2(3), 431–440. https://doi.org/10.1007/s43681-021-00096-7
3. Bijker, W. E., Hughes, T. P., & Pinch, T. J. (Eds.). (1987). The social construction of technological systems: New directions in the sociology and history of technology. MIT Press.
4. Bilbao-Eraña, A., & Arroyo-Sagasta, A. (2025). Fostering AI literacy in pre-service teachers: Impact of a training intervention on awareness, attitude and trust in AI. Frontiers in Education, 10, Article 1668078. https://doi.org/10.3389/feduc.2025.1668078
5. Bostrom, N., & Yudkowsky, E. (2014). The ethics of artificial intelligence. In K. Frankish & W. M. Ramsey (Eds.), The Cambridge handbook of artificial intelligence (pp. 316–334). Cambridge University Press. https://doi.org/10.1017/CBO9781139046855.020
6. Büyüköztürk, Ş., Kılıç Çakmak, E., Akgün, Ö. E., Karadeniz, Ş., ve Demirel, F. (2011). Bilimsel çalışma yöntemleri (10. baskı). Pegem Akademi.
7. Chiu, T. K. F., & Chai, C.-S. (2020). Sustainable curriculum planning for artificial intelligence education: A self-determination theory perspective. Sustainability, 12(14), Article 5568. https://doi.org/10.3390/su12145568
8. Chiu, T. K. F., Ahmad, Z., Ismailov, M., & Sanusi, I. T. (2024). What are artificial intelligence literacy and competency? A comprehensive framework to support them. Computers & Education Open, 6, Article 100171. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.caeo.2024.100171

9. Creswell, J. W. (2008). Educational research: Planning, conducting and evaluating quantitative and qualitative research. Pearson Merrill Prentice Hall.
10. Creswell, J. W. (2014). Research design: Qualitative, quantitative, and mixed methods approaches (4th ed.). Sage.
11. Crompton, H., & Burke, D. (2023). Artificial intelligence in higher education: The state of the field. International Journal of Educational Technology in Higher Education, 20(1), Article 22. https://doi.org/10.1186/s41239-023-00392-8
12. Çelik, I. (2023). Towards a comprehensive understanding of the readiness of teachers for artificial intelligence. Computers and Education: Artificial Intelligence, 4, 100135.
13. Denzin, N. K. (1978). The research act: A theoretical introduction to sociological methods. McGraw-Hill. Gentner, D., & Stevens, A. L. (Eds.). (1983). Mental models. Lawrence Erlbaum Associates.
14. Holmes, W., Bialik, M., & Fadel, C. (2019). Artificial intelligence in education: Promises and implications for teaching and learning. Center for Curriculum Redesign.
15. Johnson-Laird, P. N. (1983). Mental models: Towards a cognitive science of language, inference, and consciousness. Harvard University Press.
16. Kalniņa, D., Nīmante, D., & Baranova, S. (2024). Artificial intelligence for higher education: Benefits and challenges for pre-service teachers. Frontiers in Education, 9, Article 1501819. https://doi.org/10.3389/feduc.2024.1501819
17. Keleş, P. U., & Aydın, S. (2021). University students’ perceptions about artificial intelligence. Shanlax International Journal of Education, 9(S1), 212–220. https://doi.org/10.34293/education.v9iS1-May.4014
18. Kolstø, S. D. (2001). Scientific literacy for citizenship: Tools for dealing with the science dimension of controversial socioscientific issues. Science Education, 85(3), 291–310.
19. Kuhn, T. S. (1970). The structure of scientific revolutions (2nd ed.). University of Chicago Press.
20. 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, 100-101. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.caeai.2022.100101
21. Lester, B. T., Ma, L., Okhee, L., & Lambert, J. (2006). Social activism in elementary science education: A science, technology and society approach to teach global warming. International Journal of Science Education, 28(4), 315–339.
22. Miles, M. B., & Huberman, A. M. (1994). Qualitative data analysis: An expanded sourcebook (2nd ed.). Sage.
23. Millî Eğitim Bakanlığı [MEB]. (2013). Fen bilimleri dersi öğretim programı. Talim ve Terbiye Kurulu Başkanlığı.
24. Millî Eğitim Bakanlığı [MEB]. (2024). Türkiye Yüzyılı Maarif Modeli öğretim programları ortak metni. Talim ve Terbiye Kurulu Başkanlığı.
25. Moseley, C., Desjean-Perrotta, B., & Utley, J. (2010). The Draw-An-Environment Test Rubric (DAET-R): Exploring pre-service teachers’ mental models of the environment. Environmental Education Research, 16(2), 189–208. https://doi.org/10.1080/13504620903548674
26. Nader, K., Toprac, P., Scott, S., & Baker, S. (2024). Public understanding of artificial intelligence through entertainment media. AI & Society, 39, 713–726. https://doi.org/10.1007/s00146-022-01427-w
27. Norman, D. A. (1983). Some observations on mental models. In D. Gentner & A. L. Stevens (Eds.), Mental models (pp. 7–14). Lawrence Erlbaum Associates.
28. Osborne, J., Erduran, S., & Simon, S. (2004). Enhancing the quality of argumentation in school science. Journal of Research in Science Teaching, 41(10), 994–1020.
29. Presley, M. L., Sickel, A. J., Muslu, N., Merle-Johnson, D., Witzig, S. B., Izci, K., & Sadler, T. D. (2013). A framework for socio-scientific issues based education. Science Educator, 22(1), 26–32.
30. Punch, K. F. (2005). Sosyal araştırmalara giriş: Nicel ve nitel yaklaşımlar (D. Bayrak, H. B. Arslan, ve Z. Akyüz, Çev.). Siyasal Kitabevi. (Orijinal eserin yayımlanma tarihi 1998).
31. Rezwana, J., & Maher, M. L. (2025). An exploration of mental models of AI in human–AI co-creativity: A framework and insights. ACM Transactions on Interactive Intelligent Systems, 15(4), Article 24. https://doi.org/10.1145/3769072
32. Rose, G. (2016). Visual methodologies: An introduction to researching with visual materials (4th ed.). Sage.
33. Russell, S., & Norvig, P. (2021). Artificial intelligence: A modern approach (4th ed.). Pearson.
34. Sadler, T. D. (2004). Informal reasoning regarding socioscientific issues: A critical review of research. Journal of Research in Science Teaching, 41(5), 513–536.
35. Sadler, T. D. (Ed.). (2011). Socio-scientific issues in the classroom: Teaching, learning and research. Springer.
36. Sadler, T. D., & Zeidler, D. L. (2005). Patterns of informal reasoning in the context of socioscientific decision making. Journal of Research in Science Teaching, 42(1), 112–138.
37. Sönmez, V., ve Alacapınar, F. G. (2013). Örneklendirilmiş bilimsel çalışma yöntemleri (2. baskı). Anı Yayıncılık.
38. Topçu, M. S., Muğaloğlu, E. Z., & Güven, D. (2014). Socioscientific issues in science education: The case of Turkey. Educational Sciences: Theory & Practice, 14(6), 2340–2348. https://doi.org/10.12738/estp.2014.6.2226
39. UNESCO. (2022). K-12 AI curricula: A mapping of government-endorsed AI curricula. United Nations Educational, Scientific and Cultural Organization.
40. Wang, X., Li, L., Tan, S. C., Yang, L., & Lei, J. (2023). Preparing for AI-enhanced education: Conceptualizing and empirically examining teachers’ AI readiness. Computers in Human Behavior, 146, Article 107798. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.chb.2023.107798
41. White, R. T., & Gunstone, R. F. (1992). Probing understanding. Falmer Press.
42. Winner, L. (1980). Do artifacts have politics? Daedalus, 109(1), 121–136.
43. Yıldırım, A., ve Şimşek, H. (2005). Sosyal bilimlerde nitel çalışma yöntemleri. Seçkin Yayıncılık.
44. Yıldırım, B., ve Akgün, Ö. E. (2023). Öğretmen adaylarının yapay zekâya yönelik tutumlarının incelenmesi. Eğitim Teknolojisi Kuram ve Uygulama, 13(1), 112-130.
45. Yue, M., Jong, M. S.-Y., & Dai, Y. (2022). Pedagogical design of K–12 artificial intelligence education: A systematic review. Sustainability, 14(23), Article 15620. https://doi.org/10.3390/su142315620
46. Zawacki-Richter, O., Marín, 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(1), Article 39. https://doi.org/10.1186/s41239-019-0171-0
47. Zeidler, D. L., & Keefer, M. (2003). The role of moral reasoning and the status of socioscientific issues in science education. In D. L. Zeidler (Ed.), The role of moral reasoning on socioscientific issues and discourse in science education (pp. 7–38). Kluwer Academic Publishers.