Artificial Intelligence and Digital Colonialism in Education: How Do Western-Centric Algorithms Transform Local Pedagogies?

Öz

The rapid integration of artificial intelligence into global education systems raises fundamental epistemic and political questions beyond technical change. This study critically examines the potential of Western-centric AI systems to produce epistemic colonialism in education and the mechanisms through which they may transform local pedagogical knowledge systems. Using conceptual and theoretical analysis, it integrates Couldry and Mejias's framework of data colonialism, Mignolo's theory of epistemic coloniality, and Freire's critical pedagogy. The theoretical synthesis of the reviewed literature yields three analytical inferences: AI systems cannot be assumed to be epistemically neutral; this structural problem cannot be resolved through technical bias correction alone; and local pedagogical traditions may provide analytical resources for resistance and transformation. Proposed as the study's conceptual contribution, algorithmic epistemic violence describes a sociotechnical relation through which forms of knowledge and language are excluded from representation, devalued by standardized criteria, and rendered invisible in design processes. In the Turkish context, the münazara tradition, the ahilik model, and the Village Institutes are treated as historical references to be tested empirically in culturally responsive AI applications. The study proposes a seven-level policy framework extending from data sovereignty to international advocacy for epistemic justice.

Anahtar Kelimeler

• Digital Colonialism
• Epistemic Justice
• Artificial İntelligence And Education
• Algorithmic Epistemic Violence
• Decolonial Pedagogy

EĞİTİMDE YAPAY ZEKÂ VE DİJİTAL SÖMÜRGECİLİK: BATI MERKEZLİ ALGORİTMALAR YEREL PEDAGOJİLERİ NASIL DÖNÜŞTÜRÜYOR?

Öz

Yapay zekâ teknolojilerinin küresel eğitim sistemlerine hızla entegrasyonu, teknik bir dönüşümün ötesinde köklü epistemik ve siyasi sorular doğurmaktadır. Bu çalışma, Batı merkezli yapay zekâ sistemlerinin eğitimde epistemik sömürgecilik üretme potansiyelini ve yerel pedagojik bilgi sistemlerini dönüştürebilecek mekanizmaları eleştirel bir perspektiften incelemektedir. Kavramsal ve teorik analiz yöntemiyle yürütülen çalışmada Couldry ve Mejias'ın dijital sömürgecilik çerçevesi, Mignolo'nun epistemik coloniality teorisi ve Freire'nin eleştirel pedagoji anlayışı bütünleşik bir analitik çerçevede kullanılmaktadır. İncelenen literatürün kuramsal sentezi üç analitik çıkarım üretmektedir: YZ sistemleri epistemik açıdan tarafsız değildir; bu yapısal sorun yalnızca teknik taraflılık düzeltmeleriyle giderilemez; yerel pedagojik gelenekler ise direniş ve dönüşüm için analitik imkânlar sunabilir. Çalışmanın kavramsal katkısı olarak önerilen algoritmik epistemik şiddet, bilgi ve dil biçimlerinin temsil dışı bırakılması, standartlaştırılmış ölçütlerle değersizleştirilmesi ve tasarım süreçlerinde görünmez kılınmasıyla oluşan sosyoteknik ilişkiyi tanımlamaktadır. Türkiye bağlamında münazara, ahilik ve Köy Enstitüleri, kültürel olarak duyarlı YZ uygulamalarında ampirik olarak sınanabilecek tarihsel referanslar olarak ele alınmaktadır. Çalışma, veri egemenliğinden uluslararası epistemik adalet savunuculuğuna uzanan yedi düzeyli bir politika çerçevesi önermektedir.

Anahtar Kelimeler

• Dijital Sömürgecilik
• Epistemik Adalet
• Yapay Zekâ ve Eğitim
• Algoritmik Epistemik Şiddet
• Dekolonyal Pedagoji.

Kaynakça

1. Akyüz, Y. (2018). Türk eğitim tarihi: M.Ö. 1000'den günümüze (28. bs.). Pegem Akademi.
2. Akandere, O., & Esen, S. (2021). Köy Enstitülerinde iş ve üretim odaklı eğitim, küme çalışmaları ve imece. Atatürk Yolu Dergisi, 69, 331–355. https://doi.org/10.46955/ANKUAYD.1028290
3. Bakhtin, M. M. (1981). The dialogic imagination: Four essays (C. Emerson & M. Holquist, Trans.). University of Texas Press. (Original work published 1975)
4. Bourdieu, P., & Wacquant, L. J. D. (1992). An invitation to reflexive sociology. University of Chicago Press.
5. Bender, E. M., Gebru, T., McMillan-Major, A., & Shmitchell, S. (2021). On the dangers of stochastic parrots: Can language models be too big? In Proceedings of the 2021 ACM Conference on Fairness, Accountability, and Transparency (pp. 610–623). Association for Computing Machinery. https://doi.org/10.1145/3442188.3445922
6. Benjamin, R. (2019). Race after technology: Abolitionist tools for the new Jim code. Polity Press.
7. Bhabha, H. K. (1994). The location of culture. Routledge. https://doi.org/10.4324/9780203820551
8. Birhane, A. (2020). Algorithmic colonization of Africa. Scripted, 17(2), 389–409. https://doi.org/10.2966/scrip.170220.389

9. Büyükdinç, N. F. (2007). Osmanlı medreselerinde bir öğretim metodu olarak münazara ve Ahmet Cevdet Paşa'nın Âdâb-ı Sedâd adlı eseri [Yayımlanmamış yüksek lisans tezi]. Marmara Üniversitesi. https://openaccess.marmara.edu.tr/entities/publication/d3917e37-8d0a-46a9-a5ed-79b32818abff/full
10. Buckingham, D. (2019). The media education manifesto. Polity Press.
11. Buolamwini, J., & Gebru, T. (2018). Gender shades: Intersectional accuracy disparities in commercial gender classification. In S. A. Friedler & C. Wilson (Eds.), Proceedings of the 1st Conference on Fairness, Accountability and Transparency (Proceedings of Machine Learning Research, Vol. 81, pp. 77–91). PMLR. https://proceedings.mlr.press/v81/buolamwini18a.html
12. Costanza-Chock, S. (2020). Design justice: Community-led practices to build the worlds we need. MIT Press. https://doi.org/10.7551/mitpress/12255.001.0001
13. Couldry, N., & Mejias, U. A. (2019). The costs of connection: How data is colonizing human life and appropriating it for capitalism. Stanford University Press. https://doi.org/10.1515/9781503609754
14. De Certeau, M. (1984). The practice of everyday life (S. Rendall, Trans.). University of California Press.
15. Freire, P. (1970). Pedagogy of the oppressed. Continuum.
16. Giroux, H. A. (1983). Theory and resistance in education: A pedagogy for the opposition. Bergin & Garvey.
17. Güneş, G. (2026). Osmanlı Dönemi'nde bir konuşma ve yazma becerisi geleneği: Âdâbü'l-bahs ve'l-münâzara. Osmanlı Medeniyeti Araştırmaları Dergisi, 28, 129–150. https://doi.org/10.21021/osmed.1716000
18. Holmes, W., Bialik, M., & Fadel, C. (2019). Artificial intelligence in education: Promises and implications for teaching and learning. Center for Curriculum Redesign.
19. Kukutai, T., & Taylor, J. (Eds.). (2016). Indigenous data sovereignty: Toward an agenda. ANU Press. https://doi.org/10.22459/CAEPR38.11.2016
20. Kwet, M. (2019). Digital colonialism: US empire and the new imperialism in the Global South. Race & Class, 60(4), 3–26. https://doi.org/10.1177/0306396818823172
21. Lave, J., & Wenger, E. (1991). Situated learning: Legitimate peripheral participation. Cambridge University Press. https://doi.org/10.1017/CBO9780511815355
22. Miao, F., & Holmes, W. (2023). Guidance for generative AI in education and research. UNESCO. https://doi.org/10.54675/EWZM9535
23. Mignolo, W. D. (2000). Local histories/global designs: Coloniality, subaltern knowledges, and border thinking. Princeton University Press.
24. Nekoto, W., Marivate, V., Matsila, T., Fasubaa, T., Kolawole, T., Fagbohungbe, T., Akinola, S. O., Muhammad, S. H., Kabongo, S., Osei, S., Sackey, F., Niyongabo, R. A., Macharm, R., Ogayo, P., Ahia, O., Berhe, M. M., Adeyemi, M., Mokgesi-Selinga, M., Okegbemi, L., … Bashir, A. (2020). Participatory research for low-resourced machine translation: A case study in African languages. In Findings of the Association for Computational Linguistics: EMNLP 2020 (pp. 2144–2160). Association for Computational Linguistics. https://doi.org/10.18653/v1/2020.findings-emnlp.195
25. Quijano, A. (2000). Coloniality of power and Eurocentrism in Latin America. International Sociology, 15(2), 215–232. https://doi.org/10.1177/0268580900015002005
26. Robertson, S. L., & Komljenovic, J. (2016). Unbundling the university and making higher education markets. In A. Verger, C. Lubienski, & G. Steiner-Khamsi (Eds.), World yearbook of education 2016: The global education industry (pp. 288–302). Routledge.
27. Selwyn, N. (2019). Should robots replace teachers? AI and the future of education. Polity Press.
28. Smith, L. T. (2021). Decolonizing methodologies: Research and indigenous peoples (3rd ed.). Zed Books.
29. Toktonaliev, A. (2020). Ahilikte usta çırak ilişkisi ve sosyal güvenlik. İlahiyat Araştırmaları Dergisi, 14, 123–136. https://dergipark.org.tr/tr/pub/ilahiyatarastirmalaridergisi/article/1051474
30. UNESCO. (2021). Recommendation on the ethics of artificial intelligence. https://unesdoc.unesco.org/ark:/48223/pf0000381137
31. Walter, M., & Suina, M. (2019). Indigenous data, indigenous methodologies and indigenous data sovereignty. International Journal of Social Research Methodology, 22(3), 233–243. https://doi.org/10.1080/13645579.2018.1531228
32. Williamson, B. (2017). Big data in education: The digital future of learning, policy and practice. SAGE.
33. Zawacki-Richter, O., Marín, V. I., Bond, M., & Gouverneur, F. (2019). Systematic review of research on artificial intelligence applications in higher education. International Journal of Educational Technology in Higher Education, 16(1), 1–27. https://doi.org/10.1186/s41239-019-0171-0