A GenAI-Supported Process Design for Story Writing Instruction: The Case of Science and Art Center Primary School Students

Öz

This study examines the effects of generative artificial intelligence (GenAI) on the story writing skills of fourth-grade students attending a Science and Art Center (SAC). GenAI was positioned not as a text-generating tool but as a “writing advisor” providing feedback to students. In this convergent parallel mixed-methods study, quantitative data were collected through a quasi-experimental design, and qualitative data through interviews, diaries, and observations. During the 13-week intervention, personalized GenAI feedback was delivered as printed handouts, writing activities were completed using paper and pencil, and students’ stories were published digitally. Quantitative findings showed significantly greater improvements in the experimental group than in the control group on both the Essay Rubric-6+1 Trait Writing Model and the Scale for Evaluating Story Elements, with large effect sizes. Qualitative findings revealed positive changes in students’ attitudes toward GenAI, perceptions of support, and sense of authorial ownership. The findings indicate that GenAI can support primary-level writing instruction when used as a teacher-mediated pedagogical support structure.

Anahtar Kelimeler

• Generative artificial intelligence
• story writing skill
• formative feedback
• writing advisor
• authorial ownership

Hikâye Yazma Eğitiminde Üretken Yapay Zekâ Destekli Bir Süreç Tasarımı: BİLSEM İlkokul Öğrencileri Örneği

Öz

Bu araştırma, üretken yapay zekânın (ÜYZ) ilkokul dördüncü sınıf Bilim ve Sanat Merkezi (BİLSEM) öğrencilerinin hikâye yazma becerilerine etkisini incelemektedir. Çalışmada ÜYZ; metin üreten bir araç olarak değil, öğrenciye geri bildirim sunan bir “yazma danışmanı” olarak konumlandırılmıştır. Yakınsayan paralel karma desendeki araştırmada; nicel veriler yarı deneysel yöntemle, nitel veriler ise görüşme, günlük ve gözlemlerle toplanmıştır. On üç hafta süren uygulamada ÜYZ geri bildirimleri her hafta kişiselleştirilmiş kâğıt çıktı olarak sunulmuş, yazma süreci kâğıt-kalem üzerinde sürdürülmüş ve öğrenci hikâyelerinin dijital ortamda yayımlanmasıyla tamamlanmıştır. Nicel bulgular, deney grubunun 6+1 Analitik Yazma ve Hikâye Elementleri değerlendirme ölçeklerinde kontrol grubuna kıyasla büyük etki düzeyinde anlamlı bir gelişim gösterdiğini ortaya koymuştur. Nitel bulgular, öğrencilerin ÜYZ’ye yönelik tutumlarında, destek algılarında ve yazarlık sahipliği duygusunda güçlü bir dönüşüme işaret etmektedir. Bulgular, ÜYZ’nin öğretmen aracılığıyla işleyen pedagojik bir destek yapısına dönüştürüldüğünde ilkokul yazma eğitimine anlamlı katkı sağladığını göstermektedir.

Anahtar Kelimeler

• Üretici yapay zekâ
• hikâye yazma becerisi
• biçimlendirici geri bildirim
• yazma danışmanı
• yazarlık sahipliği

Kaynakça

1. Aktaş, N. (2019). Dijital yazma atölyesi etkinliklerinin yazma motivasyonu ve hikâye yazma becerisinin gelişimine etkisi (Tez No. 550290) [Doktora tezi, Gazi Üniversitesi]. YÖK Ulusal Tez Merkezi.
2. Akyol, H. (2006). Türkçe ilk okuma yazma öğretimi. Pegem Yayıncılık.
3. Alber, S. R., Martin, C. M., & Gammill, D. M. (2005). Using the literary masters to inspire written expression in gifted students. Gifted Child Today, 28(2), 50-59. https://doi.org/10.4219/gct-2005-166
4. Baykoç Dönmez, N. (2018). Üstün yetenekli çocuklar ve eğitimleri. N. Baykoç Dönmez (Ed.), Özel eğitim ve kaynaştırma içinde (ss. 323-359). İzge.
5. Bereiter, C., & Scardamalia, M. (1987). The psychology of written composition. Lawrence Erlbaum Associates.
6. Black, P., & Wiliam, D. (1998). Assessment and classroom learning. Assessment in Education: Principles, Policy & Practice, 5(1), 7–74. https://doi.org/10.1080/0969595980050102
7. Boscolo, P. (2008). Writing in primary school. In C. Bazerman (Ed.), Handbook of research on writing: History, society, school, individual, text (pp. 359–379). Lawrence Erlbaum.
8. Cheung, L. M. E., & Shi, H. (2024). Co-creating stories with generative AI: Reflections from undergraduate students of a storytelling service-learning subject in Hong Kong. Australian Review of Applied Linguistics, 47(3), 259–283. https://doi.org/10.1075/aral.24101.che

9. Cohen, J. (2013). Statistical power analysis for the behavioral sciences (2nd ed.). Routledge.
10. Coşkun, E. (2005). İlköğretim öğrencilerinin öyküleyici anlatımlarında bağdaşıklık, tutarlılık ve metin elementleri (Tez No. 205427) [Doktora Tezi, Gazi Üniversitesi]. YÖK Ulusal Tez Merkezi.
11. Creswell, J. W., & Plano Clark, V. L. (2020). Karma yöntem araştırmaları (Y. Dede ve S. B. Demir, çev. Ed.). Anı.
12. Culham, R. (2003). 6 + 1 traits of writing: The complete guide, grades 3 and up. Scholastic.
13. Epçaçan, U. (2026). Yapay zekânın eğitimi nasıl şekillendireceğine dair özel yetenekli öğrencilerin görüşleri. EKEV Akademi Dergisi, 106, 419-432. https://doi.org/10.17753/sosekev.1857192
14. Floridi, L., & Chiriatti, M. (2020). GPT-3: Its nature, scope, limits, and consequences. Minds and Machines, 30(4), 681–694. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11023-020-09548-1
15. Flower, L., & Hayes, J. R. (1981). A cognitive process theory of writing. College Composition and Communication, 32(4), 365–387. https://doi.org/10.2307/356600
16. Fusco, F. (2024). Child-AI creativity support tools: A co-design study with children [Master's thesis, Politecnico di Torino]. Politecnico di Torino Open Access Repository.
17. Gönen, B., & Ciğerci, F. M. (2025). Türkiye’de ilkokul düzeyinde yapay zekâya dayalı yapılmış çalışmaların sistematik analizi. Sınıf Öğretmenliği Araştırmaları Dergisi, 5(1), 18–32.
18. Graham, S. (2018). A revised writer(s)-within-community model of writing. Educational Psychologist, 53(4), 258–279. https://doi.org/10.1080/00461520.2018.1481406
19. Graham, S., Bollinger, A., Booth Olson, C., D’Aoust, C., MacArthur, C., McCutchen, D., & Olinghouse, N. (2012). Teaching elementary school students to be effective writers: A practice guide (NCEE 2012-4058). Institute of Education Sciences.
20. Graham, S., & Perin, D. (2007). Writing next: Effective strategies to improve writing of adolescents in middle and high schools – A report to Carnegie Corporation of New York. Alliance for Excellent Education.
21. Han, A. (2024). StoryAI: Designing, developing, and evaluating generative AI-powered story-authoring [Doctoral dissertation, University of California, Irvine]. eScholarship, University of California.
22. Harris, K. R., & Graham, S. (1996). Making the writing process work: Strategies for composition and self-regulation (2nd ed.). Brookline Books.
23. Hattie, J., & Timperley, H. (2007). The power of feedback. Review of Educational Research, 77(1), 81–112. https://doi.org/10.3102/003465430298487
24. İnnalı, H. Ö. (2017). An evaluation of studies on language skills of gifted and talented children in Turkey. Journal of Language Education and Research, 3(1), 75-94.
25. Kamburoğlu, N. E. (2024). Genre-based academic integrity instruction in L2 writing: Effects on plagiarism, GenAI utilization, and writing performance (Tez No: 882375) [Doktora tezi, Çanakkale Onsekiz Mart Üniversitesi]. YÖK Ulusal Tez Merkezi.
26. Kasneci, E., Sessler, K., Küchemann, S., Bannert, M., Dementieva, D., Fischer, F., Gasser, U., Groh, G., Günnemann, S., Hüllermeier, E., Krusche, S., Kutyniok, G., Michaeli, T., Nerdel, C., Pfeffer, J., Poquet, O., Sailer, M., Schmidt, A., Seidel, T., . . . Kasneci, G. (2023). ChatGPT for good? On opportunities and challenges of large language models for education. Learning and Individual Differences, 103, 102274. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.lindif.2023.102274
27. Kızıltaş, Y. (2025). Integration of artificial intelligence (AI) into primary school students’ writing skills: The impact of ChatGPT on creative writing and writing self-efficacy. Journal of Educational Computing Research, 63(7-8), 1717-1747. https://doi.org/10.1177/07356331251365187
28. Kultas, E. (2026). ChatGPT destekli dönütlerin ilkokul öğrencilerinin yaratıcı yazma becerilerine etkisi. Batı Anadolu Eğitim Bilimleri Dergisi, 17(1), 70-93. https://doi.org/10.51460/baebd.1757062
29. LaMear, R., & von Gillern, S. (2025). “AI is like 50% good and 50% bad”: Exploring the strengths and challenges of AI in the elementary writing classroom. The Reading Teacher, 79, e70014. https://doi.org/10.1002/trtr.70014
30. Landis, J. R., & Koch, G. G. (1977). The measurement of observer agreement for categorical data. Biometrics, 33(1), 159–174. https://doi.org/10.2307/2529310
31. Lee, I. (2008). Understanding teachers’ written feedback practices in Hong Kong secondary classrooms. Journal of Second Language Writing, 17(2), 69–85. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jslw.2007.10.001
32. Liao, C.-Y. (2026). Enhancing elementary students’ writing habits with generative AI: A study of handwritten diary and AI companions. Journal of Writing Research, 17(3), 419–451. https://doi.org/10.17239/jowr-2026.17.03.03
33. Ma, H., Ismail, L., & Han, W. (2024). A bibliometric analysis of artificial intelligence in language teaching and learning (1990–2023): Evolution, trends and future directions. Education and Information Technologies, 29(18), 25211–25235. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10639-024-12848-z
34. Meyer, J., Jansen, T., Schiller, R., Liebenow, L. W., Steinbach, M., Horbach, A., & Fleckenstein, J. (2024). Using LLMs to bring evidence-based feedback into the classroom: AI-generated feedback increases secondary students' text revision, motivation, and positive emotions. Computers and Education: Artificial Intelligence, 6, 100199. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.caeai.2023.100199
35. Miles M.B., & Huberman, A.M. (1994). Qualitative data analysis: An expanded sourcebook. Sage.
36. Mollick, E., & Mollick, L. (2023). Assigning AI: Seven approaches for students, with prompts. arXiv. https://doi.org/10.48550/arXiv.2306.10052
37. Nachar, N. (2008). The Mann-Whitney U: A test for assessing whether two independent samples come from the same distribution. Tutorials in Quantitative Methods for Psychology, 4(1), 13–20. https://doi.org/10.20982/tqmp.04.1.p013
38. Oruç, T., Aktaş, İ., & Kurt, M. (2026). The effects of artificial intelligence-assisted creative writing on students’ writing motivation, writing anxiety, and creative writing skills. Journal of Educational Computing Research, 64(3), 627-657. https://doi.org/10.1177/07356331251409998
39. Ön, A. (2025). 4. sınıf öğrencilerinin yapay zekâ destekli hikâye yazma deneyimleri: Fen eğitiminde sosyobilimsel konular (Tez No. 967870) [Yüksek lisans tezi, Bolu Abant İzzet Baysal Üniversitesi]. Ulusal Tez Merkezi.
40. Özkara, Y. (2007). 6+ 1 analitik yazma ve değerlendirme modelinin 5. sınıf öğrencilerinin hikâye edici metin yazma becerilerini geliştirmeye etkisi (Tez No. 206907) [Doktora tezi, Gazi Üniversitesi]. YÖK Ulusal Tez Merkezi.
41. Perl, S. (1980). Understanding composing. College Composition and Communication, 31(4), 363–369. https://doi.org/10.2307/356586
42. Pett, M. A. (2016). Nonparametric statistics for health care research: Statistics for small samples and unusual distributions (2nd ed.). SAGE.
43. Sharples, M. (2023). Towards social generative AI for education: Theory, practices and ethics. Learning: Research and Practice, 9(2), 159–167. https://doi.org/10.1080/23735082.2023.2261131
44. Siegle, D. (2023). A role for ChatGPT and AI in gifted education. Gifted Child Today, 46(3), 211-219. https://doi.org/10.1177/10762175231168443
45. Steiss, J., Tate, T., Graham, S., Cruz, J., Hebert, M., Wang, J., Moon, Y., Tseng, W., Warschauer, M., & Olson, C. B. (2024). Comparing the quality of human and ChatGPT feedback of students’ writing. Learning and Instruction, 91, 101894. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.learninstruc.2024.101894
46. Su, Y., Lin, Y., & Lai, C. (2023). Collaborating with ChatGPT in argumentative writing classrooms. Assessing Writing, 57, 100752. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.asw.2023.100752
47. Tzirides, A. O., Galla, M., Cope, B., & Kalantzis, M. (2025). Thinking through AI: Advancing cognitive and collaborative research for AI in education. EdArXiv. https://doi.org/10.35542/osf.io/s8hqe
48. Yamaç, A. (2015). İlkokul üçüncü sınıf öğrencilerinin yazma becerilerinin gelişiminde dijital hikâyelerin etkisi (Tez No. 397437) [Doktora tezi, Gazi Üniversitesi]. YÖK Ulusal Tez Merkezi.
49. Yıldırım, A., & Şimşek, H. (2018). Sosyal bilimlerde nitel araştırma yöntemleri (11. bs.). Seçkin.
50. Yıldız, M. (2018). Yazma öğretiminde temel kavramlar. H. Akyol ve M. Yıldız (Ed.), Kuramdan uygulamaya yazma öğretimi içinde (ss. 2–28). Pegem Akademi.
51. Yurtbakan, E. (2022a). Comparison of writing attitudes of gifted and average primary school students (3rd and 4th grades). International Online Journal of Education and Teaching, 10(1), 590-603.
52. Yurtbakan, E. (2022b). Özel yetenekli ilkokul öğrencilerinin yazma eğilimleri, kaygıları ve tutumlarında Scratch kodlama programının etkisi. Mersin Üniversitesi Eğitim Fakültesi Dergisi, 18(3), 241-258. https://doi.org/10.17860/mersinefd.1130994
53. Zimmerman, B. J., & Risemberg, R. (1997). Becoming a self-regulated writer: A social cognitive perspective. Contemporary Educational Psychology, 22(1), 73–101. https://doi.org/10.1006/ceps.1997.0919