ÖĞRETMENLERİN BİREYSEL YENİLİKÇİLİK DÜZEYLERİ İLE ÖĞRETİM FAALİYETLERİNDE YAPAY ZEKÂ KULLANIMINA YÖNELİK ALGILARI ARASINDAKİ İLİŞKİ

Abstract

Bireysel yenilikçilik kişilik özellikleri; yeni teknolojilerin benimsenmesinde ve etkili kullanılmasında belirleyici bir değişken olarak kritik rol oynamaktadır. Bu çalışma öğretmenlerin bireysel yenilikçilik özellikleri ile eğitimde yapay zekâ kullanımlarına yönelik algıları arasındaki ilişkiyi belirlemeyi amaçlamaktadır. Çalışmada nicel araştırma yaklaşımlarından ilişkisel tarama yöntemi kullanılmıştır. Araştırmanın örneklemini Trakya Bölgesinin batısında yer alan ortaokullarda görev yapan 568 öğretmen oluşturmuştur. Öğretmenlere cinsiyet, yaş, öğrenim durumu, mesleki kıdem yılı, branşları ve teknolojik araç kullanma süresinin sorgulandığı kısa form ile birlikte “Bireysel Yenilikçilik Ölçeği” ve “Öğretmenlerin Eğitimde Yapay Zekâ Kullanımına Yönelik Algı Ölçeği” eş zamanlı olarak uygulanarak veriler toplanmıştır. Öğretmenlerin bireysel yenilikçilik özellikleri cinsiyet değişkeni bakımından farklılaşmazken yapay zekâ kullanımına ilişkin algıda cinsiyetin önemli bir faktör olduğu görülmektedir. Öğretmenlerin yaşları ve kıdem yılları bireysel yenilikçilik özellikleri üzerinde belirleyici bir unsur değilken, genç öğretmenlerin daha yaşlı ve daha kıdemli meslektaşlarına kıyasla yapay zekâ kullanımına yönelik olumlu tutum sergilediği tespit edilmiştir. Matematik ve İngilizce öğretmenleri diğer branşlar ile karşılaştırıldığında yapay zekâ araçlarına ilişkin daha az etik kaygı yaşadığı ve matematik öğretmenlerinin diğer branşlara göre risk almada daha cesaretli oldukları görülmüştür. Öğretmenlerin daha fazla teknolojik araç kullanım deneyimi ve yüksek bireysel yenilikçilik özelliklerinin eğitim ortamlarında yapay zekâ araçlarını kullanma eğilimlerini anlamlı düzeyde yordadığı tespit edilmiştir. Tüm bu bulgular ışığında öğretmenlerin sahip oldukları bireysel yenilikçilik özelliklerinin geliştirilmesi ve üretken yapay zekâ araçlarının barındırdığı riskler, etik hususlar, pedagojik ve akademik katkıları açısından bilinçlendirilmesi ve bilgilendirilmesi, teknolojik araç kullanma deneyiminin arttırılması eğitimde yapay zekâ entegrasyonu bakımından kritik öneme sahiptir.

Keywords

• Öğretmen Algısı
• Bireysel Yenilikçilik
• Yapay Zekâ
• Eğitim Teknolojileri

THE RELATIONSHIP BETWEEN TEACHERS' INDIVIDUAL INNOVATIVENESS LEVELS AND THEIR PERCEPTIONS OF USING ARTIFICIAL INTELLIGENCE IN TEACHING ACTIVITIES

Abstract

Individual innovativeness personality traits play a critical role as a determining variable in the adoption and effective utilization of new technologies. This study aims to determine the relationship between teachers' individual innovativeness characteristics and their perceptions of the use of artificial intelligence in education. The study employed a correlational survey method, which is one of the quantitative research approaches. The sample of the research consisted of 568 teachers working in middle schools located in the western part of the Thrace Region. Data were collected by simultaneously administering the “Indıvıdual Innovativeness Scale” and the “Teachers’ Perception Scale Regarding Artificial İntelligence Use in Education” along with a short questionnaire that asked teachers about their gender, age, educational background, years of professional experience, subject areas, and duration of technology use. While teachers’ individual innovative traits do not differ by gender, gender appears to be a significant factor in perceptions regarding the use of artificial intelligence. While teachers’ ages and years of experience are not a determining factor in their individual innovative traits, it was found that young teachers exhibit a more positive attitude toward the use of artificial intelligence compared to their older and more experienced colleagues. It was found that mathematics and English teachers have fewer ethical concerns regarding artificial intelligence tools compared to teachers in other subjects, and that mathematics teachers are more willing to take risks than teachers in other subjects. It was found that teachers’ greater experience in using technological tools and higher levels of individual innovativeness significantly predict their tendency to use artificial intelligence tools in educational settings. In light of all these findings, it is of critical importance for the integration of artificial intelligence in education to develop teachers’ individual innovative traits and to raise their awareness and inform them about the risks, ethical considerations, and pedagogical and academic contributions of generative artificial intelligence tools, as well as to enhance their experience in using technological tools.

Keywords

• Teacher Perception
• Individual Innovation
• Artificial Intelligence
• Educational Tecnologies

References

1. Ahuja, A. S. (2019). The impact of artificial intelligence in medicine on the future role of the physician. PeerJ, 7, e7702. https://doi.org/10.7717/peerj.7702
2. Akgun, 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. Akın, T., Bulanık, S., Dalkılıç, Z., & Dalkılıç, S. (2025). Transformation in education: Teachers’ perception of artificial intelligence. Uluslararası Eğitim ve Bilim Araştırmaları Dergisi, 2(2), 1–15. https://doi.org/10.5281/zenodo.17465914
4. Allehyani, B., Almashy, A., Jamshed, M., & Banu, S. (2025). Measuring the impact of Meta-AI on English reading comprehension score enhancement: A study within social media application. Theory and Practice in Language Studies, 15(2), 615–623. https://doi.org/10.17507/tpls.1502.31
5. Ali, M. S. B., Yasmeen, R., & Munawar, Z. (2023). The impact of technology integration on student engagement and achievement in mathematics education: A systematic review. International Journal of Computer Integrated Manufacturing, 6(3), 222–232. https://doi.org/10.31149/ijie.v6i3.4182
6. Al-Momani, R. T., & Al-Zyoud, T. N. M. (2025). The impact of e-learning on English language achievement and attitudes towards learning it as a foreign language among secondary students. In Artificial intelligence in the digital era: Economic, legislative and media perspectives (Studies in Systems, Decision and Control). Springer Nature Switzerland.
7. Almuhanna, M. A. (2025). Teachers' perspectives of integrating AI-powered technologies in K-12 education for creating customized learning materials and resources. Education and Information Technologies, 30(8), 10343–10371. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10639-024-13257-y
8. Alshorman, S. M. (2024). The readiness to use AI in teaching science: Science teachers’ perspective. Journal of Baltic Science Education, 23(3), 432–448. https://doi.org/10.33225/jbse/24.23.432

9. Balmes, S. R. (2022). Technology integration and transformative innovation in education. Technology Integration and Transformative Innovation in Education, 106(1), 5. https://doi.org/10.47119/IJRP1001061820223743
10. Baporikar, N. (2016). Technology integration and innovation during reflective teaching. International Journal of Information and Communication Technology Education, 12(2), 14–22. https://doi.org/10.4018/IJICTE.2016040102 Bandura, Albert. (1977). Self-efficacy: Toward a unifying theory of behavioral change. Psychological Review, 84(2), 191–215. https://doi.org/10.1037/0033-295X.84.2.191
11. Batdı, V., Aslan, A., & Zhu, C. (2018). The effect of technology supported teaching on students’ academic achievement: A combined meta-analytic and thematic study. International Journal of Learning Technology, 13(1), 44–60. https://doi.org/10.1504/IJLT.2018.091632
12. Bentler, P. M., & Bonett, D. G. (1980). Significance tests and goodness of fit in the analysis of covariance structures. Psychological Bulletin, 88(3), 588–606. https://doi.org/10.1037/0033-2909.88.3.588
13. Burke, D., & Crompton, H. (2024). Navigating the future: AI applications in K-12 learning environments. Artificial intelligence applications in K-12 içinde (ss. 215–225). IGI Global.
14. Bollen, K. A. (1989). Structural equations with latent variables. John Wiley & Sons.
15. Cabero-Almenara, J., Palacios-Rodríguez, A., Loaiza-Aguirre, M. I., & Rivas-Manzano, M. D. R. D. (2024). Acceptance of educational artificial intelligence by teachers and its relationship with some variables and pedagogical beliefs. Education Sciences, 14(7), 740. https://doi.org/10.3390/educsci14070740
16. Can, A. (2020). SPSS ile nicel veri analizi (9. baskı). Pegem Akademi Yayıncılık.
17. ChanLin, L.-J., Hong, J.-C., Horng, J.-S., Chang, S.-H., & Chu, H.-C. (2006). Factors influencing technology integration in teaching: A Taiwanese perspective. Innovations in Education and Teaching International, 43(1), 57–68. https://doi.org/10.1080/14703290500467467
18. Chen, X., Xie, H., Zou, D., & Hwang, G.-J. (2020). Application and theory gaps during the rise of artificial intelligence in education. Computers and Education: Artificial Intelligence, 1, 100002. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.caeai.2020.100002
19. Chiu, T. K., & Chai, C. S. (2020). Sustainable curriculum planning for artificial intelligence education: A self-determination theory perspective. Sustainability, 12(14), 5568. https://doi.org/10.3390/su12145568
20. Creswell, J. W. (2017). Araştırma deseni: Nitel, nicel ve karma yöntem yaklaşımları (S. B. Demir, Çev. Ed.; 3. baskı). Eğiten Kitap.
21. Cuevas-Ruiz, P., Rello, L., Sanz Labrador, I., & Sevilla, A. (2025). Bridging literacy gaps: The impact of AI-driven personalised learning on reading skills and educational equity (EdWorkingPaper: 25-1209). Annenberg Institute at Brown University. https://doi.org/10.26300/68mk-mk89
22. Connell, R. W. (2005). Masculinities (2. baskı). University of California Press.
23. Crabtree, M., King, K., Prince, K., Righteous-Rogers, J.-A., Swanson, J., & Saveri, A. (2025). Charting a new course for education. KnowledgeWorks. https://knowledgeworks.org/resources/forecast-charting-new-course-education/
24. Darling-Hammond, L. (2000). Teacher quality and student achievement: A review of state policy evidence. Education Policy Analysis Archives, 8(1), 1–44. https://doi.org/10.14507/epaa.v8n1.2000
25. Day, C., Sammons, P., Stobart, G., Kington, A., & Gu, Q. (2007). Teachers matter: Connecting work, lives and effectiveness. Open University Press.
26. Dimock, M. (2019, January 17). Defining generations: Where Millennials end and Generation Z begins. Pew Research Center. https://www.pewresearch.org/short-reads/2019/01/17/where-millennials-end-and-generation-z-begins/
27. Eagly, A. H., & Wood, W. (2012). Social role theory. P. A. M. Van Lange, A. W. Kruglanski, ve E. T. Higgins (Editörler), Handbook of theories of social psychology (2, ss. 458–476). Sage Publications.
28. Eker, C. & Halıcı Gürbüz, S.. (2024). Matematik öğretmenlerinin matematik dersinde yapay zekâ kullanımına yönelik yeterlilik algıları. Sosyal, Beşeri ve İdari Bilimler Dergisi, 7(7), 513–528. https://doi.org/10.26677/TR1010.2024.1425
29. Emo, W. (2015). Teachers’ motivations for initiating innovations. Journal of Educational Change, 16, 171–195. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10833-015-9243-7
30. Ertmer, Peggy A. & Ottenbreit-Leftwich, Anne T.. (2010). Teacher technology change: How knowledge, confidence, beliefs, and culture intersect. Journal of Research on Technology in Education, 42(3), 255–284. https://doi.org/10.1080/15391523.2010.10782551
31. Estores, C. O. (2025). The impact of classroom technology integration on students’ engagement and academic achievement. International Journal of Research Publications, 180(1), 13–35. https://doi.org/10.47119/IJRP1001801920258396
32. Fowler, F. J. (2009). Survey research methods (4. baskı). Sage.
33. Ghimire, A., & Edwards, J. (2024). Generative AI adoption in classroom in context of technology acceptance model (TAM) and the innovation diffusion theory (IDT). arXiv preprint arXiv:2406.15360. https://doi.org/10.48550/arXiv.2406.15360
34. Gill, S. S., Xu, M., Patros, P., Wu, H., Kaur, R., Kaur, K., Fuller, S., Singh, M., Arora, P., Parlikad, A. K., Stankovski, V., Abraham, A., Ghosh, S. K., Lutfiyya, H., Kanhere, S. S., Bahsoon, R., Rana, O., Dustdar, S., Sakellariou, R., & Buyya, R. (2024). Transformative effects of ChatGPT on modern education: Emerging era of AI chatbots. Internet of Things and Cyber-Physical Systems, 4, 19–23.
35. Green, S. B., & Salkind, N. J. (2005). Using SPSS for Windows and Macintosh: Analyzing and understanding data (4. baskı). Pearson.
36. Hair, J. F., Black, W. C., Babin, B. J., Anderson, R. E., & Tatham, R. L. (2010). Multivariate data analysis (7. baskı). Pearson Prentice Hall.
37. Hidayat, M. T. (2024). Effectiveness of AI-based personalised reading platforms in enhancing reading comprehension. Journal of Learning for Development, 11(1). .https://doi.org/10.56059/jl4d.v11i1.955
38. Hsiao, H. C., Chang, J. C., Tu, Y. L., & Chen, S. C. (2011). The impact of self-efficacy on innovative work behavior for teachers. International Journal of Social Science and Humanity, 1(1), 31–37. https://doi.org/10.7763/IJSSH.2011.V1.6
39. Hu, L.-T., & Bentler, P. M. (1999). Cutoff criteria for fit indexes in covariance structure analysis: Conventional criteria versus new alternatives. Structural Equation Modeling, 6(1), 1–55. https://doi.org/10.1080/10705519909540118
40. Hurt, H. T., Joseph, K., & Cook, C. D. (1977). Scales for the measurement of innovativeness. Human Communication Research, 4(1), 58–65. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1468-2958.1977.tb00597.x
41. International Society for Technology in Education. (2017). ISTE standards for educators.
42. Istance, D., & Kools, M. (2013). OECD work on technology and education: Innovative learning environments as an integrating framework. European Journal of Education, 48(1), 43–57. https://doi.org/10.1111/ejed.12017
43. Jin Zhao, J., Hanxin Yao, H., & Jianjun Zhang, J. (2025). Investigating factors influencing Chinese teachers’ intelligent technology application: Extending TAM with NET and IDT. Education and Information Technologies, 30, 22649–22676. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10639-025-13661-y
44. Jöreskog, K. G., & Sörbom, D. (1984). LISREL VI: Analysis of linear structural relationships by maximum likelihood, instrumental variables, and least squares methods. Scientific Software.
45. Kaçar, K., & Er, G. (2025). An investigation into the EFL teachers’ self-efficacy beliefs and their individual innovativeness levels. Journal of Interdisciplinary Educational Research, 9(20), 48–69. https://doi.org/10.57135/jier.1644366
46. Karasar, N. (2020). Bilimsel araştırma yöntemi: Kavramlar, ilkeler, teknikler. Nobel Yayın Dağıtım.
47. Kılıçer, K., & Odabaşı, H. F. (2010). Bireysel yenilikçilik ölçeği (BYÖ): Türkçeye uyarlama, geçerlik ve güvenirlik çalışması. Hacettepe Üniversitesi Eğitim Fakültesi Dergisi, 38(38), 150–164.
48. Less, K. H. (2003). Faculty adoption of computer technology for instruction in the North Carolina Community College System [Doctoral dissertation, East Tennessee State University]. https://www.proquest.com/openview/706c163e215a061c7d13416966339bdf/1?pq-origsite=gscholar&cbl=18750&diss=y
49. Leung, W. M. V. (2023). STEM education in early years: Challenges and opportunities in changing teachers’ pedagogical strategies. Education Sciences, 13(5), 490. https://doi.org/10.3390/educsci13050490
50. Liu, Y., & Szabo, Z. (2009). Teachers’ attitudes toward technology integration in schools: A four-year study. Teachers and Teaching: Theory and Practice, 15(1), 5–23. https://doi.org/10.1080/13540600802661295
51. Lu, L. F. L., & Jeng, I. (2006). Knowledge construction in inservice teacher online discourse: Impacts of instructor roles and facilitative strategies. Journal of Research on Technology in Education, 39(2), 183–202. https://doi.org/10.1080/15391523.2006.10782479
52. Markel, J. M., Opferman, S. G., Landay, J. A., & Piech, C. (2023). GPTeach: Interactive TA training with GPT-based students. Proceedings of the Tenth ACM Conference on Learning @ Scale içinde (ss. 226–236). https://doi.org/10.1145/3573051.3593393
53. Marsh, H. W., Hau, K.-T., & Wen, Z. (2004). In search of golden rules: Comment on hypothesis-testing approaches to setting cutoff values for fit indexes and dangers in overgeneralizing Hu and Bentler’s (1999) findings. Structural Equation Modeling, 11(3), 320–341. https://doi.org/10.1207/s15328007sem1103_2
54. McCrindle, M., & Wolfinger, E. (2009). The ABC of XYZ: Understanding the global generations. University of New South Wales Press. Millî Eğitim Bakanlığı. (2024, 25 Ocak). 2023-2024 eğitim öğretim istatistikleri açıklandı. https://www.meb.gov.tr/20232024egitimogretimistatistikleriaciklandi/haber/34977/tr
55. Millî Eğitim Bakanlığı. (2017). Öğretmenlik mesleği genel yeterlikleri. Öğretmen Yetiştirme ve Geliştirme Genel Müdürlüğü.
56. Millî Eğitim Bakanlığı. (2024, 17 Mart). Sınıfların yüzde 99’u etkileşimli tahtalarla buluştu. Millî Eğitim Bakanlığı. https://www.meb.gov.tr/siniflarin-yuzde-99u-etkilesimli-tahtalarla-bulustu/haber/33062/tr
57. Morgan, G. A., Leech, N. L., Gloeckner, G. W., & Barrett, K. C. (2004). SPSS for introductory statistics: Use and interpretation. Lawrence Erlbaum Associates.
58. Nja, C. O., Idiege, K. J., Uwe, U. E., Meremikwu, A. N., Ekon, E. E., Erim, C. M., … Cornelius-Ukpepi, B. U. (2023). Adoption of artificial intelligence in science teaching: From the vantage point of African science teachers. Smart Learning Environments, 10(1), 42. https://doi.org/10.1186/s40561-023-00261-x
59. Nissim, Y., & Simon, E. (2025). The diffusion of artificial intelligence innovation: Perspectives of preservice teachers on the integration of ChatGPT in education. Journal of Education for Teaching, 51(2), 381–401. https://doi.org/10.1080/02607476.2025.2469128
60. OECD. (2016). Trends shaping education 2016. Organisation for Economic Co-operation and Development. https://www.oecd.org/en/publications/trends-shaping-education-2016_trends_edu-2016-en.html
61. Olugbara, C. T., Imenda, S. N., Olugbara, O. O., & Khuzwayo, H. B. (2020). Moderating effect of innovation consciousness and quality consciousness on intention-behaviour relationship in e-learning integration. Education and Information Technologies, 25, 329–350. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10639-019-09960-w
62. Özgür, H. (2013). Bilişim teknolojileri öğretmen adaylarının eleştirel düşünme eğilimleri ile bireysel yenilikçilik özellikleri arasındaki ilişkinin çeşitli değişkenler açısından incelenmesi. Mersin Üniversitesi Eğitim Fakültesi Dergisi, 9(2), 409-420.
63. Papadakis, S. (2018). Evaluating pre-service teachers' acceptance of mobile devices with regards to their age and gender: A case study in Greece. International Journal of Mobile Learning and Organisation, 12(4), 336–352. https://doi.org/10.1504/IJMLO.2018.095130
64. Partnership for 21st Century Skills. (2019). Framework for 21st century learning definitions. Sage Publications. Prensky, M. (2001). Digital natives, digital immigrants part 2: Do they really think differently? On the horizon, 9(6), 1-6. https://doi.org/10.1108/10748120110424843
65. Pine, K. H., Bossen, C., Holten Møller, N., Miceli, M., Lu, A. J., Chen, Y., & Mazmanian, M. (2022). Investigating data work across domains: New perspectives on the work of creating data. CHI Conference on Human Factors in Computing Systems Extended Abstracts, 1–6. https://doi.org/10.1145/3491101.3519627
66. Pisanu, F. (2014). Educational innovation and technology: A need for integration. Perspectives of Innovations, Economics and Business, 14(2), 103–108. https://doi.org/10.15208/pieb.2014.12
67. Rogers, E. M. (2003). Diffusion of innovations (5. baskı). Free Press.
68. Riedl, M. O., & Desai, D. R. (2025, Ekim). AI agents and the law. Proceedings of the AAAI/ACM Conference on AI, Ethics, and Society, 8(3), 2189–2198. https://doi.org/10.1609/aies.v8i3.36705
69. Rind, A. A., Asad, M. M., Marri, S. A., Sherwani, F., & Rehman, F. U. (2021). How integration of information and communication technologies impact academic achievement? An empirical study on Sindh Education Foundation. Journal of Applied Research in Higher Education, 14(4), 1761–1772. https://doi.org/10.1108/JARHE-05-2021-0177
70. Scherer, R., F. Siddi, & J. Tondeur. (2019). The Technology Acceptance Model (TAM): A Meta- Analytic Structural Equation Modeling Approach to Explaining Teachers’ Adoption of Digital Technology in Education. Computers & Education 128:13–35. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.compedu.2018.09.009
71. Sultan Safa, B., & Arabacıoğlu, T. (2021). Sınıf öğretmenlerinin eğitim teknolojileri kullanım düzeylerinin bireysel yenilikçilik özellikleri açısından incelenmesi. Ondokuz Mayıs Üniversitesi Eğitim Fakültesi Dergisi, 40(1), 369-386. https://doi.org/10.7822/omuefd.686056
72. Sanayi ve Teknoloji Bakanlığı. (2022). İlçelerin sosyo-ekonomik gelişmişlik sıralaması araştırması (SEGE-2022). Kalkınma Ajansları Genel Müdürlüğü. https://www.sanayi.gov.tr/merkez-birimi/b94224510b7b/sege
73. Sanayi ve Teknoloji Bakanlığı. (2025). İllerin sosyo-ekonomik gelişmişlik sıralaması araştırması (SEGE-2025). Kalkınma Ajansları Genel Müdürlüğü. https://www.sanayi.gov.tr/merkez-birimi/b94224510b7b/sege
74. Schermelleh-Engel, K., Moosbrugger, H., & Müller, H. (2003). Evaluating the fit of structural equation models: Tests of significance and descriptive goodness-of-fit measures. Methods of Psychological Research Online, 8(2), 23–74.
75. Seitan, W. I., Ajlouni, A. O., & Al-Shra’h, N. D. (2020). The impact of integrating flipped learning and information and communication technology on the secondary school students’ academic achievement and their attitudes towards it. International Education Studies, 13(2), 1–10. https://doi.org/10.5539/ies.v13n2p1
76. Seyrek, M., Şahin, A., Yıldız, S., Türkmen, M. T., & Emeksiz, H. (2024). Öğretmenlerin eğitimde yapay zekâ kullanımına yönelik algılar. International Journal of Social and Humanities Sciences Research / Uluslararası Sosyal ve Beşeri Bilimler Araştırma Dergisi, 11(106), 845–856. https://doi.org/10.5281/zenodo.11113077
77. Strauss, W., & Howe, N. (1991). Generations: The history of America’s future, 1584 to 2069. New York: Morrow. https://catalogue.nla.gov.au/catalog/1981249
78. Stewart, I., & Buehler, M. J. (2025). Molecular analysis and design using generative artificial intelligence via multi-agent modeling. Molecular Systems Design & Engineering, 10, 314–337. https://doi.org/10.1039/D4ME00174E
79. Swati Singh, S., & Artur Strzelecki, A. (2026). Academics as adopters of generative AI: An application of diffusion of innovations theory. Education and Information Technologies, 31, 621–645. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10639-025-13835-8
80. Şendağ, S., & Odabaşı, H. F. (2009). Effects of an online problem based learning course on content knowledge acquisition and critical thinking skills. Computers & Education, 53(1), 132–141. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.compedu.2009.01.008
81. Taheri, R., Nazemi, N., Pennington, S. E., Clark, J. A., & Dadgostari, F. (2025). Factors influencing educators’ AI adoption: A grounded meta-analysis review. Computers and Education: Artificial Intelligence, 9, 100464. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.caeai.2025.100464
82. Takıl, N., Erden, N. K., & Sarı, A. B. (2022). Farklı meslek grubu adaylarının yapay zekâ teknolojisine yönelik kaygı seviyesinin incelenmesi. Balıkesir Üniversitesi Sosyal Bilimler Enstitüsü Dergisi, 25(48), 343–353. https://doi.org/10.31795/baunsobed.1165386
83. Tariq, B., Dilawar, M., & Muhammad, Y. (2019). Innovative teaching and technology integration: Exploring elderly teachers’ attitudes. International Journal of Distance Education and E-Learning, 5(1), 1–16. https://doi.org/10.36261/ijdeel.v5i1.789
84. Teo, T. (2010). Measuring the effect of gender on computer attitudes among pre-service teachers: A multiple indicators, multiple causes (MIMIC) modeling. Campus-Wide Information Systems, 27(4), 227–239. https://doi.org/10.1108/10650741011073770
85. Thompson, B. (2004). Exploratory and confirmatory factor analysis: Understanding concepts and applications. American Psychological Association. https://doi.org/10.1177/0146621606290168
86. Uçar, İ. (2024). Öğretmenlerin bireysel yenilikçilik düzeyleri ile öğrenen okul algıları arasındaki ilişki .Yüksek lisans tezi, İstanbul Kültür Üniversitesi/Lisansüstü Eğitim Enstitüsü, İstanbul.
87. Uğur, M. ve Aydoğdu, E. (2023). Okul yöneticilerinin davranışlarının hegemonik erkeklik ve toplumsal cinsiyet bağlamında incelenmesi. Ege Eğitim Dergisi, 24(3), 241-261. https://doi.org/10.12984/egeefd.1297601
88. Üzüm, B., Elçiçek, M., & Pesen, A. (2024). Development of teachers’ perception scale regarding artificial intelligence use in education: Validity and reliability study. International Journal of Human–Computer Interaction, 1–12. https://doi.org/10.1080/10447318.2024.2385518
89. Varsik, S., & Vosberg, L. (2024). The potential impact of artificial intelligence on equity and inclusion in education. OECD Artificial Intelligence Papers, No. 23. OECD Publishing. https://doi.org/10.1787/15df715b-en
90. Walton Family Foundation. (2023, March 1). Teachers and students embrace ChatGPT for Education. https://www.waltonfamilyfoundation.org/learning/teachers-and-students-embrace-chatgpt-for-education
91. Wang, T., & Cheng, E. C. K. (2021). An investigation of barriers to Hong Kong K-12 schools incorporating artificial intelligence in education. Computers and Education: Artificial Intelligence, 2, 100031. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.caeai.2021.100031
92. Wing, J. M. (2006). Computational thinking. Communications of the ACM, 49(3), 33-35.
93. Woodruff, K., Hutson, J., & Arnone, K. (2023). Perceptions and barriers to adopting artificial intelligence in K-12 education: A survey of educators in fifty states. Faculty Scholarship, 506. http://dx.doi.org/10.5772/intechopen.1002741
94. Yang, H. (2024). Multidimensional analysis of art education teachers’ attitudes and self-efficacy toward artificial intelligence: Exploring relationships and strategies for enhancement. Interactive Learning Environments, 33(4), 2824–2847. https://doi.org/10.1080/10494820.2024.2423175
95. Yao, N., & Abd Halim, N. D. (2024). Analyzing factors influencing primary school teachers' acceptance willingness of artificial intelligence technology. In Proceedings of the 2023 6th International Conference on Educational Technology Management (ICETM ’23) (pp. 35–41). ACM. https://doi.org/10.1145/3637907.3637951
96. Yapıcı, İ. Ü., & Kaya, S. (2020). Biyoloji öğretmenlerinin bireysel yenilikçilik düzeylerinin incelenmesi (Diyarbakir İli Örneği). Elektronik Sosyal Bilimler Dergisi, 19(73), 348-362.
97. Yapıcı, İ. Ü. (2016). Biyoloji öğretmen adaylarının bireysel yenilikçilik düzeylerinin incelenmesi. Eğitim ve Öğretim Araştırmaları Dergisi, 5(4), 348.
98. Yenice, N., & Alpak Tunç, G. (2019). Öğretmen adaylarının yaşam boyu öğrenme eğilimleri ile bireysel yenilikçilik düzeylerinin incelenmesi. Kastamonu Eğitim Dergisi, 27(2), 753-765. https://doi.org/10.24106/kefdergi.2716
99. Yılmaz, A. (2021). The effect of technology integration in education on prospective teachers' critical and creative thinking, multidimensional 21st century skills and academic achievements. Participatory Educational Research, 8(2), 163–199. https://doi.org/10.17275/per.21.35.8.2
100. Yılmaz, O., & Bayraktar, D. M. (2014). Teachers’ attitudes towards the use of educational technologies and their individual innovativeness categories. Procedia-Social and Behavioral Sciences, 116, 3458–3461. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.sbspro.2014.01.783
101. Younis, B. (2025). The artificial intelligence literacy (AIL) scale for teachers: A tool for enhancing AI education. Journal of Digital Learning in Teacher Education, 41(1), 37–56. https://doi.org/10.1080/21532974.2024.2441682
102. Yüceer, E., & Tümkaya, S. (2024). Sınıf öğretmenlerinin mesleki yenilikçilik eğilimlerinin incelenmesi. Van Yüzüncü Yıl Üniversitesi Eğitim Fakültesi Dergisi, 21(1), 72-94. https://doi.org/10.33711/yyuefd.1286798
103. Zainal, M. A., & Mohd Matore, M. E. E. (2021). The influence of teachers’ self-efficacy and school leaders’ transformational leadership practices on teachers’ innovative behaviour. International Journal of Environmental Research and Public Health, 18(12), 6423. https://doi.org/10.3390/ijerph18126423
104. Zhang, C., Schießl, J., Plößl, L., Hofmann, F., & Gläser-Zikuda, M. (2023). Acceptance of artificial intelligence among pre-service teachers: A multigroup analysis. International Journal of Educational Technology in Higher Education, 20(1), 49. https://doi.org/10.1186/s41239-023-00420-7