Üretken Yapay Zekâ Öğrenme Ortağı mı yoksa Pedagojik Bir Zorluk mu? Öğretmen Adaylarının Bakış Açıları

Abstract

Bu çalışma, öğretmen adaylarının üretken yapay zekâ araçlarını öğrenme süreçlerinde nasıl deneyimlediklerini ve bu teknolojileri gelecekteki öğretim uygulamalarına nasıl entegre etmeyi planladıklarını incelemektedir. Araştırma, fenomenolojik nitel desenle yürütülmüştür. Araştırma kapsamında Türkiye’de bir devlet üniversitesinin İngilizce öğretmenliği programına kayıtlı 28 öğretmen adayıyla çevrim içi yarı yapılandırılmış görüşmeler yapılmıştır. Veriler içerik analizi tekniğiyle çözümlenmiş, kodlama iki kodlayıcı tarafından bağımsız olarak gerçekleştirilmiş ve yüksek düzeyde görüş birliği elde edilmiştir. Bulgular, öğretmen adaylarının üretken yapay zekâyı zaman yönetimi, fikir geliştirme, dil doğruluğu ve öz-düzenleme açısından destekleyici bir öğrenme ortağı olarak gördüklerini göstermektedir. Bununla birlikte, aşırı bağımlılık, yaratıcılığın azalması, etik sorunlar ve yanlış bilgi üretimi gibi risklere de dikkat çekilmiştir. Katılımcılar, üretken yapay zekânın öğrenme süreçlerinde tamamlayıcı işlevi olabileceğini, ancak sınıf içi uygulamalarda şeffaflık, eleştirel doğrulama ve öğretmen rehberliğinin temel koşullar olduğunu vurgulamıştır. Çalışmanın özgün katkısı, öğretmen adaylarının üretken yapay zekâ ile olan deneyimlerini pedagojik, etik ve mesleki kimlik boyutlarını bir arada ele alarak bütüncül bir çerçevede sunmasıdır. Bu bulgular, literatürde sınırlı olarak ele alınan öğretmen adayı perspektifine nitel kanıt sağlayarak, üretken yapay zekânın öğretmen eğitimi bağlamındaki tartışmalarına yeni bir bakış açısı kazandırmaktadır.

Keywords

• Üretken yapay zekâ
• Öğretmen adayları
• Öğretmen eğitimi
• Fenomenoloji

Supporting Institution

İlgili çalışmayı fonlayan herhangi bir kurum bulunmamaktadır.

Ethical Statement

Bu araştırmanın, Trabzon Üniversitesi Sosyal ve Beşerî Bilimler Bilimsel Araştırma ve Yayın Etik Kurulu tarafından 15.08.2025 tarihinde 2025-8/2.8 sayılı kararıyla verilen etik kurul izni bulunmaktadır. Bu araştırmanın planlanmasından, uygulanmasına, verilerin toplanmasından verilerin analizine kadar olan tüm süreçte “Yükseköğretim Kurumları Bilimsel Araştırma ve Yayın Etiği Yönergesi” kapsamında uyulması belirtilen tüm kurallara uyulmuştur. Yönergenin ikinci bölümü olan “Bilimsel Araştırma ve Yayın Etiğine Aykırı Eylemler” başlığı altında belirtilen eylemlerden hiçbiri gerçekleştirilmemiştir. Bu araştırmanın yazım sürecinde bilimsel, etik ve alıntı kurallarına uyulmuş; toplanan veriler üzerinde herhangi bir tahrifat yapılmamıştır. Bu çalışma herhangi başka bir akademik yayın ortamına değerlendirme için gönderilmemiştir.

Generative AI as a Learning Partner or Pedagogical Challenge? Insights from Pre-service Teachers

Abstract

This study investigates how pre-service teachers experience generative artificial intelligence tools in their learning processes and how they plan to integrate these technologies into their future teaching practices. The study employed a qualitative phenomenological design and was conducted with 28 pre-service teachers enrolled in the English language teaching program of a public university in Türkiye. Semi-structured online interviews were carried out, and the data were analyzed through content analysis. Coding was conducted independently by two coders, achieving a high level of inter-rater agreement. The findings reveal that pre-service teachers perceive generative artificial intelligence as a supportive learning partner in areas such as time management, idea development, linguistic accuracy, and self-regulation. However, they also highlighted risks such as over-reliance, diminished creativity, ethical concerns, and the generation of inaccurate information. The participants emphasized that while generative artificial intelligence may serve as a complementary tool in learning processes, classroom integration requires transparency, critical verification, and active teacher guidance as essential conditions. The originality of the study lies in its holistic exploration of pre-service teachers’ experiences with generative artificial intelligence across pedagogical, ethical, and professional identity dimensions. These findings provide qualitative evidence for the relatively underexplored perspectives of pre-service teachers, thereby offering a new lens for ongoing debates on the role of generative artificial intelligence in teacher education.

Keywords

• Generative artificial intelligence
• Pre-service teachers
• Teacher education
• Phenomenology

Supporting Institution

No funding was received from any institution or organization for the conduct of the study.

Ethical Statement

This study was approved by the Ethics Committee of Trabzon University, Social and Human Sciences Scientific Research and Publication Ethics Board, with the decision dated August 15, 2025 and numbered 2025-8/2.8. Throughout all stages of the study — from planning and implementation to data collection and analysis — all ethical principles specified in the “Higher Education Institutions Scientific Research and Publication Ethics Directive” were strictly followed. None of the actions defined under the section “Scientific Research and Publication Ethics Violations” of the directive were carried out. During the writing process, all scientific, ethical, and citation principles were observed, and no manipulation or falsification was made on the collected data. This manuscript has not been submitted to any other academic publication medium for evaluation.

References

1. Bae, H., Hur, J., Park, J., Choi, G. W., & Moon, J. (2024). Pre-service Teachers’ Dual Perspectives on Generative AI: Benefits, Challenges, and Integrating into Teaching and Learning. Online Learning, 28(3). https://doi.org/10.24059/olj.v28i3.4543
2. Bayraktar Balkir, N., & Zehir Topkaya, E. (2025). Evolving Perceptions of AI Use and Academic Integrity: Insights from EFL Learners in Turkish Higher Education. Journal of Academic Ethics, 23, 1879–1896. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10805-025-09632-0
3. Creswell, J. W., & Poth, C. N. (2018). Qualitative inquiry and research design: Choosing among five approaches. Sage Publications.
4. 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
5. Derakhshan, A. (2025). Tracking the effects of Gemini as a GenAI tool on L2 learners’ writing proficiency and anxiety: Latent growth curve modeling approach. The Asia-Pacific Education Researcher. https://doi.org/10.1007/s40299-025-01042-5 Engeström, Y. (1999). Activity theory and individual and social transformation. In Y. Engeström, R. Miettinen, & R.-L. Punamäki (Eds.), Perspectives on activity theory (pp. 19–38). Cambridge University Press. https://doi.org/10.1017/CBO9780511812774.003
6. Farhi, F., Jeljeli, R., Aburezeq, I., Dweikat, F. F., Al-Shami, S. A., & Slamene, R. (2023). Analyzing the students’ views, concerns, and perceived ethics about ChatGPT usage. Computers and Education: Artificial Intelligence, 5, 100180. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.caeai.2023.100180
7. Gamlem, S. M., McGrane, J., Brandmo, C., Moltudal, S., Sun, S. Z., & Hopfenbeck, T. N. (2025). Exploring pre-service teachers’ attitudes and experiences with generative AI: a mixed methods study in Norwegian teacher education. Educational Psychology, 1-25. https://doi.org/10.1080/01443410.2025.2528663 Guo, K., Li, Y., Li, Y., & Chu, S. K. W. (2024). Understanding EFL students’ chatbot assisted argumentative writing: An activity theory perspective. Education and Information Technologies, 29(1), 1–20. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10639-023-12230-5
8. Hadan, H., Wang, D. M., Mogavi, R. H., Tu, J., Zhang-Kennedy, L., & Nacke, L. E. (2024). The great AI witch hunt: Reviewers’ perception and (Mis) conception of generative AI in research writing. Computers in Human Behavior: Artificial Humans, 2(2), 100095. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.chbah.2024.100095

9. Hwang, H., Chang, X., & Sun, J. (2025). Generative AI is useful for second language writing, but when, why, and for how long do learners use it? Journal of Second Language Writing, 69, 101230. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jslw.2025.101230 Ifenthaler, D., Majumdar, R., Gorissen, P., Judge, M., Mishra, S., Raffaghelli, J., … Shimada, A. (2024). Artificial intelligence in education: Implications for policymakers, researchers, and practitioners. Technology, Knowledge and Learning, 29, 1693–1710. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10758-024-09747-0
10. Kim, J., Lee, S.-S., Detrick, R., Wang, J., & Li, N. (2026). Students-Generative AI interaction patterns and its impact on academic writing. Journal of Computing in Higher Education, 38(1), 504–525. https://doi.org/10.1007/s12528-025-09444-6
11. Kohnke, L., Zou, D., & Xie, H. (2025). Microlearning and generative AI for pre-service teacher education: A qualitative case study. Education and Information Technologies, 30, 21221–21248. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10639-025-13606-5
12. Lee, S., Choe, H., Zou, D., & Jeon, J. (2026). Generative AI (GenAI) in the language classroom: A systematic review. Interactive Learning Environments, 34(1), 335–359. https://doi.org/10.1080/10494820.2025.2498537
13. Lincoln, Y. S., & Guba, E. G. (1985). Naturalistic inquiry. Sage Publications.
14. Liu, Y., Wang, Q., & Lei, J. (2025). Adopting generative AI in future classrooms: A study of preservice teachers’ intentions and influencing factors. Behavioral Sciences, 15(8), 1040. https://doi.org/10.3390/bs15081040
15. Long, D., & Magerko, B. (2020). What is AI literacy? Competencies and design considerations. In Proceedings of the 2020 CHI Conference on Human Factors in Computing Systems (pp. 1–16). Association for Computing Machinery. https://doi.org/10.1145/3313831.3376727
16. McHugh, M.L. (2012) Interrater reliability: The kappa statistic. Biochemia Medica, 22, 276-282. https://doi.org/10.11613/BM.2012.031
17. Meegan, J., & Young, K. (2025). It's a Tool Not a Crutch: A Pilot Generative AI Intervention to Enhance Pre-service Teachers' Self-efficacy and AI Literacy. Technology, Knowledge and Learning, 30, 1895–1916. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10758-025-09875-1
18. Miles, M. B., & Huberman, A. M. (1994). Qualitative data analysis: An expanded sourcebook (2nd ed). Sage Publications.
19. Moustakas, C. (1994). Phenomenological research methods. Sage Publications.
20. Nelson, A. S., Santamaría, P. V., Javens, J. S., & Ricaurte, M. (2025). Students’ perceptions of Generative Artificial Intelligence (GenAI) use in academic writing in English as a foreign language. Education Sciences, 15(5), 611. https://doi.org/10.3390/educsci15050611
21. Ng, D. T. K., Leung, J. K. L., Chu, S. K. W., & Qiao, M. (2021). Conceptualizing AI literacy: An exploratory review. Computers and Education: Artificial Intelligence, 2, 100041. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.caeai.2021.100041
22. Nyaaba, M., Shi, L., Nabang, M., Zhai, X., Kyeremeh, P., Ayoberd, S. A., & Akanzire, B. N. (2024). Generative AI as a Learning Buddy and Teaching Assistant: Pre-service Teachers’ Uses and Attitudes (Version 2). arXiv:2407.11983v2. https://doi.org/10.48550/ARXIV.2407.11983
23. Panday-Shukla, P. (2025). Exploring generative artificial intelligence in teacher education. Teaching and Teacher Education, 165, 10508. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.tate.2025.105088
24. UNESCO (2023). Guidance for generative AI in education and research. Paris: UNESCO. Retrieved from https://unesdoc.unesco.org/ark:/48223/pf0000386693 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, Paris. Retrieved from https://doi.org/10.1787/15df715b-en
25. Vygotsky, L. S. (1978). Mind in society: The development of higher psychological processes. Harvard University Press. Retrieved September 2, 2025, from https://www.hup.harvard.edu/catalog.php?isbn=9780674576292
26. Wang, Y., Derakhshan, A., & Ghiasvand, F. (2025). EFL teachers’ generative artificial intelligence (GenAI) literacy: A scale development and validation study. System, 133, 103791. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.system.2025.103791
27. Yao, G. (2025). Exploring teacher perspectives on GPT in L2 disciplinary academic writing through the lens of feedback literacy: A Q-methodology approach. Assessment & Evaluation in Higher Education, 1-17. https://doi.org/10.1080/02602938.2025.2553104
28. Zhang, Y., Lai, C., & Gu, M. M. Y. (2025). Becoming a teacher in the era of AI: A multiple-case study of pre-service teachers’ investment in AI-facilitated learning-to-teach practices. System, 133, 103746. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.system.2025.103746