Yapay zekâ çağında yaşam boyu öğrenme: YouTube ekosisteminde öğrenmenin yeniden inşası

Abstract

Bu çalışma, yapay zekâ ve yaşam boyu öğrenme ilişkisinin YouTube ekosisteminde nasıl söylemsel olarak inşa edildiğini incelemeyi amaçlamaktadır. Teknolojik dönüşüm, günümüzde öğrenme biçimleri, bilgiye erişim yolları, bilginin üretim ve paylaşım ortamları ile öğrenmenin anlamını da dönüştürmektedir. Özellikle yapay zekâ teknolojileri öğrenmenin doğasına ilişkin tartışmaları daha görünür hale getirmektedir. Yapay zeka ise, Teknolojinin Sosyal İnşası Yaklaşımı bakış açısıyla sabit ve tek anlamlı bir teknoloji olmanın ötesinde kullanıcılar tarafından farklı biçimlerde anlamlandırılan toplumsal bir olgu olarak ele alınmaktadır. Öğrenmenin yeniden şekillendiği günümüzde, nitel araştırma desenine dayanan bu çalışmanın veri seti, yapay zekâ temalı YouTube videoları ve bu videolara yapılan kullanıcı yorumlarından oluşmaktadır. Veriler söylem analizi ve metafor analizi ile Teknolojinin Sosyal İnşası Yaklaşımı temelinde çözümlenmiştir. Bulgular, yaşam boyu öğrenmenin içeriklerde çoğunlukla açık bir kavram olarak değil; “uyum sağlama”, “geri kalmama” ve “sürekli kendini güncelleme” söylemleri üzerinden dolaylı biçimde kurulduğunu göstermektedir. Kullanıcı yorumlarında yapay zekâ, bir yandan öğrenmeyi hızlandıran ve kolaylaştıran bir araç olarak, diğer yandan yüzeyselleşme, bağımlılık ve mesleki belirsizlik üreten bir risk unsuru olarak temsil edilmektedir.

Keywords

• Yaşam boyu öğrenme
• Yapay zekâ
• YouTube
• Teknolojinin Sosyal İnşası (SCOT)

Lifelong learning in the age of artificial intelligence: Reconstructing learning in the YouTube ecosystem

Abstract

This study aims to examine how the relationship between artificial intelligence (AI) and lifelong learning is interpreted within the YouTube ecosystem through the perspectives of content creators and user comments. The study adopts the Social Construction of Technology (SCOT) as its theoretical framework to explore how different social groups construct and negotiate meanings attributed to AI. Employing a qualitative research design, the dataset consists of 11 YouTube videos selected according to predetermined criteria and 2,250 user comments associated with these videos. The data were analysed using qualitative content analysis and metaphor analysis. The findings revealed five main themes: adaptation and inevitable transformation; threat perception: crisis, fear and uncertainty; instrumentalization; economic and market-oriented learning; and meaning, wisdom, and learning in everyday life. The results indicate that lifelong learning is not explicitly defined in YouTube content; rather, it is implicitly reconstructed through discourses emphasising adaptation to change, continuous skill development, effective use of AI, economic value creation and the enhancement of critical thinking. Furthermore, AI is not a single-dimensional technology but a phenomenon that is simultaneously interpreted as an opportunity, a threat, a learning partner, and a driver of social transformation. Overall, the findings suggest that YouTube functions not merely as a platform for information sharing but as a dynamic digital learning ecosystem in which meanings attributed to artificial intelligence and lifelong learning are continuously produced, negotiated and reconstructed through interactions between content creators and users.Adopting a qualitative research design, the study draws on a dataset consisting of AI-related YouTube videos and user comments posted on these videos. The data were analyzed through discourse analysis and metaphor analysis within the theoretical framework of SCOT. The findings reveal that lifelong learning is rarely articulated as an explicit concept; instead, it is implicitly constructed through discourses of adapting to change, keeping up, and continuous self-development. User comments portray AI both as a tool that facilitates and accelerates learning and as a source of concerns related to superficial learning, dependency, and professional uncertainty.

Keywords

• Lifelong learning
• artificial intelligence
• YouTube
• Social Construction of Technology (SCOT)

References

1. Abdulhameed, T. R., & Al-Sieedy, G. J. (2024). A critical discourse analysis of artificial ıntelligence in Gates' social media content. International Journal of Language and Literary Studies. 6(4), 165-177. https://doi.org/10.36892/ijlls.v6i4.1911
2. Alsharif, R. S. (2025). Hyperbole in Arabic YouTube: A pragmalinguistic study of artificial intelligence discourse. Humanities and Social Sciences Communications, 12, 1085. https://doi.org/10.1057/s41599-025-05215-x
3. Bal, M., Kara Aydemir, A. G., & Coşkun, M. (2024). Exploring YouTube content creators’ perspectives on generative AI in language learning: Insights through opinion mining and sentiment analysis. PLOS ONE, 19(9): Article e0308096. https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pone.0308096
4. Bijker, W. E. (1995). Of bicycles, bakelites, and bulbs: Toward a theory of sociotechnical change. MIT Press.
5. Bijker, W. E., Hughes, T. P., & Pinch, T. J. (Eds.). (1987). The social construction of technological systems. MIT Press.
6. Bowen, G. A. (2009). Document analysis as a qualitative research method. Qualitative Research Journal, 9(2), 27–40. https://doi.org/10.3316/QRJ0902027
7. Braun, V., & Clarke, V. (2006). Using thematic analysis in psychology. Qualitative Research in Psychology, 3(2), 77–101. https://doi.org/10.1191/1478088706qp063oa
8. Couldry, N., & Hepp, A. (2017). The mediated construction of reality. Polity Press.

9. Engelmann, S., Choksi, M. Z., Wang, A., & Fiesler, C. (2024). Visions of a discipline: Analyzing introductory AI courses on YouTube. Proceedings of the 2024 ACM Conference on Fairness, Accountability, and Transparency (FAccT'24). https://doi.org/10.1145/3630106.3659045
10. Franzke, A. S., Bechmann, A., Zimmer, M., Ess, C., & the Association of Internet Researchers. (2020). Internet research: Ethical guidelines 3.0. Association of Internet Researchers. https://aoir.org/reports/ethics3.pdf
11. Hjarvard, S. (2013). The mediatization of culture and society. Routledge.
12. Holmes, W., Bialik, M., & Fadel, C. (2019). Artificial intelligence in education: Promises and implications for teaching and learning. Center for Curriculum Redesign.
13. Jarvis, P. (2009). Learning to be a person in society. Routledge.
14. Klein, H. K., & Kleinman, D. L. (2002). The social construction of technology: Structural considerations. Science, Technology, & Human Values, 27(1), 28–52. https://doi.org/10.1177/016224390202700102
15. Krippendorff, K. (2018). Content Analysis: An Introduction to Its Methodology (4th ed.). Sage.
16. Neuendorf, K. A. (2017). The Content Analysis Guidebook (2nd ed.). Sage.
17. OECD. (2024). OECD digital economy outlook 2024 (Volume 2): Strengthening connectivity, innovation and trust. OECD Publishing. https://doi.org/10.1787/3adf705b-en
18. Patton, M. Q. (2015). Qualitative research & evaluation methods: Integrating theory and practice (4th ed.). SAGE Publications.
19. Pinch, T. J., & Bijker, W. E. (1984). The social construction of facts and artefacts: Or how the sociology of science and the sociology of technology might benefit each other. Social Studies of Science, 14(3), 399–441. https://doi.org/10.1177/030631284014003004
20. Schmidt-Hertha, B., Krašovec, S. J., & Formosa, M. (2014). Learning across generations in Europe. Sense Publishers.
21. Selwyn, N. (2016). Education and technology: Key issues and debates (2nd ed.). Bloomsbury.
22. Siemens, G. (2005). Connectivism: A learning theory for the digital age. International Journal of Instructional Technology and Distance Learning, 2(1), 3–10.
23. UNESCO. (2024). Guidance for generative AI in education and research. UNESCO. https://unesdoc.unesco.org/ark:/48223/pf0000391111
24. Warschauer, M. (2003). Technology and social inclusion: Rethinking the digital divide. MIT Press.
25. 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(39). https://doi.org/10.1186/s41239-019-0171-0