Development of the Anxiety Scale for Secondary School Students Regarding the Use of Artificial Intelligence in Education

Öz

The purpose of this study is to develop a psychometrically robust Turkish-language measurement instrument to assess secondary school students’ anxiety levels regarding the use of artificial intelligence in education. During the scale development process, validity and reliability analyses were conducted through both rational and statistical methods. Exploratory factor analysis revealed that the scale consists of 29 items and demonstrated a four-factor structure: (1) instructional environment, (2) information security, (3) lack of skill development and (4) reliability. The total explained variance of the scale was calculated as 53.91 %. The Cronbach's alpha reliability coefficient was calculated as 0,934 for the overall scale, with subscale coefficients of 0,896 (instructional environment), 0,815 (information security), 0,837 (lack of skill development), and 0,806 (reliability), indicating high reliability. Confirmatory factor analysis results confirmed the four-structure, demonstrating a good model-data fit. Standardised factor loadings ranged between 0,33 and 0,79, with all t-values being statistically significant. The composite reliability (CR) coefficients and average variance extracted (AVE) values met the recommended thresholds for convergent validity. Based on these findings, it can be concluded that the Anxiety Scale for Artificial Intelligence Use in Education demonstrates both scientific and psychometric reliability and validity.

Anahtar Kelimeler

• Artificial intelligence
• scale development
• secondary school students.

Ortaöğretim Öğrencilerinin Eğitimde Yapay Zekâ Kullanımına Yönelik Kaygı Ölçeğinin Geliştirilmesi

Öz

Bu çalışmanın amacı ortaöğretim öğrencilerinin eğitimde yapay zekâ kullanımına yönelik kaygı düzeylerini ölçmeye yönelik psikometrik nitelikleri güçlü Türkçe bir ölçme aracı geliştirilmesidir. Ölçme aracının geliştirilmesi sürecinde, geçerlik ve güvenilirlik analizleri rasyonel ve istatistiksel olarak yapılandırılmıştır. Açımlayıcı faktör analiz sonuçlarına göre ölçeğin 29 madde ve 4 faktörden (öğretim ortamı, bilgi güvenliği ve hata payı, beceri geliştirme eksikliği, güvenilirlik) oluşan bir yapı gösterdiği belirlenmiştir. Ölçeğin açıklanan toplam varyansı %53,91 olarak hesaplanmıştır. Ölçme aracının iç tutarlılığı ile ilgili Cronbach Alfa güvenirlik katsayısı ölçeğin geneli için 0,934; öğretim ortamı, bilgi güvenliği ve hata payı, beceri geliştirme eksikliği, güvenilirlik boyutları bazında ise sırayla 0,896, 0,815, 0,837 ve 0,806 olarak hesaplanmıştır. Buna dayanarak ölçeğin yüksek bir güvenirliğe sahip olduğu görülmüştür. Dört faktörlü yapının doğrulayıcı faktör analiz bulguları model veri uyumunun sağlandığı ve madde standart yüklerinin 0,33 ile 0,79 aralığında değiştiği, tüm maddelerin t değerlerinin anlamlı olduğu, CR katsayılarının ve yakınsak geçerlik için elde edilen açıklanan ortalama varyans (AVE) değerlerinin istenen büyüklüklerde olduğu sonucuna ulaşılmıştır. Bu bulgulardan yola çıkılarak, eğitimde yapay zekâ kullanımına yönelik kaygı ölçeğinin, bilimsel ve psikometrik açıdan güvenilir ve geçerli olduğu söylenebilir.

Anahtar Kelimeler

• Yapay zekâ
• ölçek geliştirme
• ortaöğretim öğrencileri

Kaynakça

1. Agaoğlu, E., Ceyhan, E., Ceyhan, A. A. ve Simsek, Y. (2008). The validity and reliability studies of the computer anxiety scale on educational administrators (CAS-EA). Turkish Online Journal of Distance Education, 9(3), 45-58.
2. Agogo, D. ve Hess, T. J. (2015, Aralık). Technostress and technology induced state anxiety: Scale development and implications. Paper presented at the Thirty-Sixth International Conference on Information Systems (ICIS), Fort Worth, TX, USA. (ss.1-11). https://www.tecnostress.it/wp-content/uploads/2016/03/Technostress-and-Technology-Induced-State-Anxiety.pdf
3. Ahmad, A., Schneider, J., Griffiths, D., Biedermann, D., Schiffner, D., Greller, W., ve Drachsler, H. (2024). Connecting the dots-A literature review on learning analytics indicators from a learning design perspective. Journal of Computer Assisted Learning, 40(6), 2432–2470.
4. Akkaya, B., Özkan, A. ve Özkan, H. (2021). Yapay zekâ kaygı (YZK) ölçeği: Türkçeye uyarlama, geçerlik ve güvenirlik çalışması. Alanya Akademik Bakış, 5(2), 1125-1146.
5. Alan, B., Zengin, F. K. ve Keçeci, G. (2024). Artificial intelligence attitude scale (AIAS): Validity and reliability study. Cumhuriyet International Journal of Education, 13(4), 45-58.
6. Almaiah, M. A., Alfaisal, R., Salloum, S. A., Hajjej, F., Shishakly, R., Lutfi, A., ... Al-Maroof, R. S. (2022). Measuring institutions’ adoption of artificial intelligence applications in online learning environments: Integrating the innovation diffusion theory with technology adoption rate. Electronics, 11(20), e3291. https://doi.org/10.3390/electronics11203291
7. Al-Maroof, R. S., Salloum, S. A., AlHamadand, A. Q. M. ve Shaalan, K. (2020). Understanding an extension technology acceptance model of Google Translation: A multi-cultural study in United Arab Emirates. International Journal of Interactive Mobile Technologies, 14 (3), 157–178. https://doi.org/10.3991/ijim.v14i03.11110
8. Arslan, K. (2020). Eğitimde yapay zekâ ve uygulamaları. Batı Anadolu Eğitim Bilimleri Dergisi, 11(1), 71-88.

9. Ayanwale, M. A., Sanusi, I. T., Adelana, O. P., Aruleba, K. D. ve Oyelere, S. S. (2022). Teachers’ readiness and intention to teach artificial intelligence in schools. Computers and Education: Artificial Intelligence, 3, 100099, https://doi.org/10.1016/j.caeai.2022.100099
10. Ayanwale, M. A. (2023). Evidence from Lesotho Secondary Schools on Students' Intention to Engage in Artificial Intelligence Learning. In 2023 IEEE AFRICON (pp. 1-6). IEEE. https://doi.org/10.1109/AFRICON55910.2023.10293644
11. Ayduğ, D. ve Altınpulluk, H. (2023). 407-Investigation of pre-service teachers’ artificial intelligence anxiety levels. Age, 17(18), 14.
12. Bailey, J. (2023). AI in education: The leap into a new era of machine intelligence carries risks and challenges, but also plenty of promise. Education Next, 23(4), 28-35.
13. Baker, T., Smith, L. ve Anissa, N. (2019). Educ-AI-tion rebooted? Exploring the future of artificial intelligence in schools and colleges. NESTA. https://media.nesta.org.uk/documents/Future_of_AI_and_education_v5_WEB.pdf
14. Brown, J. D. (2009). Statistics corner questions and answers about language testing statistics: Choosing the right number of components or factors in PCA and EFA. Shiken: JALT Testing & Evaluation SIG Newsletter, 13(2), 19-23.
15. Büyüköztürk, Ş. (2011). Sosyal bilimler için veri analizi el kitabı - İstatistik, araştırma deseni, SPSS uygulamaları ve yorum (15. Baskı). Pegem Akademi.
16. Büyüköztürk, Ş. (2014). Sosyal bilimler için veri analizi el kitabı. Pegem Akademi.
17. Castaneda, L. ve Selwyn, N. (2018). More than tools? Making sense of the ongoing digitizations of higher education. International Journal of Educational Technology in Higher Education, 15(22), 1-10.
18. Cattell, R. B. (1966). The scree test for the number of factors. Multivariate Behavioral Research, 1(2), 245-276.
19. Chen, L., Chen, P. ve Lin, Z. (2020). Artificial intelligence in education: A review. Ieee Access, 8, 75264-75278.
20. Chen, X., Xie, H. ve Hwang, G. J. (2020). A multi-perspective study on artificial intelligence in education: Grants, conferences, journals, software tools, institutions, and researchers. Computers and Education: Artificial Intelligence, 1, 100005. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.caeai.2020.100005
21. Chen, C., Hu, W. ve Wei, X. (2024). From anxiety to action: Exploring the impact of artificial intelligence anxiety and artificial intelligence self-efficacy on motivated learning of undergraduate students. Interactive Learning Environments, 1-16. https://doi.org/10.1080/10494820.2024.2440877
22. Chu, P. C. ve Spires, E. E. (1991). Validating the computer anxiety rating scale: Effects of cognitive style and computer courses on computer anxiety. Computers in Human Behavior, 7(1-2), 7-21.
23. Conrad, A. M. ve Munro, D. (2008). Relationships between computer self-efficacy, technology, attitudes and anxiety: Development of the computer technology use scale (CTUS). Journal of Educational Computing Research, 39(1), 51-73.
24. Coppin, B. (2004). Artificial intelligence illuminated. Jones & Bartlett Learning.
25. Coşkun, F. ve Gülleroğlu, H. D. (2021). Yapay zekânın tarih içindeki gelişimi ve eğitimde kullanılması. Ankara University Journal of Faculty of Educational Sciences (JFES), 54(3), 947-966.
26. Crocker, L. ve Algina, J. (1986). Introduction to classical modern test theory. Holt, Rinehart and Winston.
27. Çoban, N., Kar, D. ve Berk, Ş. N. (2025). Artificial ıntelligence anxiety levels of faculty of health sciences students and affecting factors. Archives of Health Sciences Research, 12(1), 1–8. https://doi.org/10.5152/ArcHealthSciRes.2025.24147
28. Çokluk, Ö., Şekercioğlu, G. ve Büyüköztürk, Ş. (2012). Sosyal bilimler için çok değişkenli istatistik: SPSS ve LISREL uygulamaları (Cilt 2). Pegem Akademi.
29. Davis L. L. (1992). Instrument review: Getting the most from a panel of experts. Applied Nursing Research, 5(4), 194-197.
30. DeVellis, R. F. (2012). Scale development: Theory and applications (3rd ed.). Sage.
31. DeVellis, R. F. (2017). Scale development: Theory and applications (4th ed.). Sage.
32. Du Boulay, B. (2000). Can we learn from ITSs?. In Intelligent Tutoring Systems: 5th International Conference, ITS 2000 Montréal, Canada, June 19–23, 2000 Proceedings 5 (pp. 9-17). Springer Berlin Heidelberg.
33. Dunn, T. J., Baguley, T. ve Brunsden, V. (2014). From alpha to omega: A practical solution to the pervasive problem of internal consistency estimation. British Journal of Psychology, 105(3), 399–412. https://doi.org/10.1111/bjop.12046
34. Dülger, E. D. ve Köklü, M. (2023). Okul yöneticilerinin ve öğretmenlerin eğitimde yapay zekâ kullanımına ilişkin görüşlerini belirlemeye yönelik bir ölçek geliştirme çalışması. ISPEC International Journal of Social Sciences & Humanities, 7(1), 154-174.
35. Ekizoglu, N. ve Özcinar, Z. (2011). A study of developing an anxiety scale towards the internet. Procedia-Social and Behavioral Sciences, 15, 3902-3911.
36. Güven, G. Ö., Yilmaz, Ş. ve Inceoğlu, F. (2024). Determining medical students' anxiety and readiness levels about artificial intelligence. Heliyon, 10(4), e25894. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.heliyon.2024.e25894
37. Güzey, C., Çakır, O., Athar, M. H. ve Yurdaöz, E. (2023). Eğitimde yapay zekâ üzerine gerçekleştirilmiş araştırmalardaki eğilimlerin incelenmesi. Bilgi ve İletişim Teknolojileri Dergisi, 5(1), 67-78.
38. Harahap, M. A. K., Haryanto, H., Lestari, V. L., Rinovian, R. & Munandar, H. (2023). Utilization of artificial intelligences (AI) technology for lecturers in facing the challenges of higher education in the era of disruption. Innovative: Journal of Social Science Research, 3(5), 10566– 10576.
39. Hatcher L. (1994). A step-by-step approach to using the SAS system for factor analysis and structural equation modeling. The SAS Institute.
40. Holmes, W., Bialik, M. ve Fadel, C. (2019). Artificial intelligence in education: Promises and implications for teaching and learning (1st ed.). Centre for Curriculum Redesign. https://curriculumredesign.org/wp-content/uploads/AI-in-Education.pdf
41. Hopcan, S., Türkmen, G. ve Polat, E. (2024). Exploring the artificial intelligence anxiety and machine learning attitudes of teacher candidates. Education and Information Technologies, 29(6), 7281–7301. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10639-023-12086-9
42. Hwang, G. J. (2003). A conceptual map model for developing intelligent tutoring systems. Computers & Education, 40(3), 217-235.
43. Işık, S., Çakır, R. ve Korkmaz, Ö. (2024). Teachers' perception scale towards the use of artificial ıntelligence tools in education. Participatory Educational Research, 11 (Prof. Dr. H. Ferhan Odabaşı Gift Issue), 80-94.
44. Ivanov, S. (2023). The dark side of artificial intelligence in higher education. The Service Industries Journal, 43(15-16), 1055–1082. https://doi.org/10.1080/02642069.2023.2258799
45. İşler, B. ve Kılıç, M. (2021). Eğitimde yapay zekâ kullanımı ve gelişimi. Yeni Medya Elektronik Dergisi, 5(1), 1-11.
46. Jatileni, C. N., Sanusi, I. T., Olaleye, S. A., Ayanwale, M. A., Agbo, F. J. ve Oyelere, P. B. (2023). Artificial intelligence in the compulsory level of education: Perspectives from Namibian in-service teachers. Education and Information Technologies, 29(10), 12569-12596
47. Johnson, D. G. ve Verdicchio, M. (2017). AI anxiety. Journal of the Association for Information Science and Technology, 68(9), 2267-2270. https://doi.org/10.1002/asi.23867
48. Jöreskog, K. G. ve Sörbom, D. (1993). LISREL 8: Structural equation modeling with the SIMPLIS command language. Scientific Software International.
49. Kalaycı, Ş. (2005). SPSS Uygulamalı Çok Değişkenli İstatistik Teknikleri. Asil Yayın Dağıtım.
50. Kieslich, K., Lünich, M. ve Marcinkowski, F. (2021). The threats of artificial intelligence scale (TAI): Development, measurement and test over three application domains. International Journal of Social Robotics, 13, 1563-1577.
51. Kline, R. B. (2016). Principles and practice of structural equation modeling (4th ed.). The Guilford Press.
52. Kong, S. C., Zhu, J. ve Yang, Y. N. (2025). Developing and validating a scale of empowerment in using artificial intelligence for problem-solving for senior secondary and university students. Computers and Education: Artificial Intelligence, 8, 100359. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.caeai.2024.100359
53. Kwak, Y., Ahn, J.-W. ve Seo, Y. H. (2022). Influence of AI ethics awareness, attitude, anxiety, and self-efficacy on nursing students’ behavioral intentions. BMC Nursing, 21(1), 267. https://doi.org/10.1186/s12912-022-01048-0
54. Lee, Y. F., Hwang, G. J. ve Chen, P. Y. (2022). Impacts of an AI-based Chatbot on College Students' After-Class Review, Academic Performance, Self-Efficacy, Learning Attitude, and Motivation. Educational Technology Research and Development, 70(5), 1843-1865. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11423-022-10142-8
55. Lester, D., Yang, B. ve James, S. (2005). A short computer anxiety scale. Perceptual and motor skills, 100(3), 964-968.
56. Li, J. ve Huang, J.-S. (2020). Dimensions of artificial intelligence anxiety based on the integrated fear acquisition theory. Technology in Society, 63, 101410. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.techsoc.2020.101410
57. Liu, X. ve Liu, Y. (2025). Developing and validating a scale of artificial ıntelligence anxiety among chinese efl teachers. European Journal of Education, 60(1), e12902. https://doi.org/10.1111/ejed.12902
58. López-Bonilla, J. M. ve López-Bonilla, L. M. (2011). Validation of an information technology anxiety scale in undergraduates. British Journal of Educational Technology, 43(2), E56–E58. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1467-8535.2011.01256.x
59. Marcoulides, G. A. (1989). Measuring computer anxiety: The computer anxiety scale. Educational and Psychological Measurement, 49(3), 733-739.
60. Matos, T., Santos, W., Zdravevski, E., Coelho, P. J., Pires, I. M., ve Madeira, F. (2025). A systematic review of artificial intelligence applications in education: Emerging trends and challenges. Decision Analytics Journal, 100571.
61. McDonald, R. P. (1999). Test theory: A unified treatment. Lawrence Erlbaum Associates.
62. McNeish, D. (2018). Thanks coefficient alpha, we’ll take it from here. Psychological Methods, 23(3), 412–433. https://doi.org/10.1037/met0000144
63. Nilsson, N. J. (1998). Artificial intelligence: A new synthesis. Elsevier.
64. O’Connor, B. P. (2000). SPSS and SAS programs for determining the number of components using parallel analysis and Velicer’s MAP test. Behavior Research Methods, Instruments, & Computers, 32(3), 396-402.
65. Papadakis, S. ve Lampropoulos, G. (Ed.). (2024). İntelligent educational robots: Toward personalized learning environments. Walter de Gruyter GmbH & Co KG.
66. Popenici, S. A. ve Kerr, S. (2017). Exploring the impact of artificial intelligence on teaching and learning in higher education. Research and practice in technology enhanced learning, 12(1), 22. https://doi.org/10.1186/s41039-017-0062-8
67. Roll, I. ve Wylie, R. (2016). Evolution and revolution in artificial intelligence in education. International Journal of Artificial Intelligence in Education, 26, 582-599.
68. Rowe, M. (2019). Shaping our algorithms before they shape us. J. Knox, Y. Wang and M. Gallagher (Ed.), Artificial intelligence and inclusive education: Speculative futures and emerging practices içinde (s. 151-163). Springer Singapore.
69. Sabordino, E.B., Ardina, G.T., Empedrado, I.R.A. ve Baguio, A.J.P. (2024). Assessing future teachers’ readiness in an Ai-driven classroom. International Journal of Current Research, 16(5), 28129 – 28133.
70. Sanusi, I. T., Olaleye, S. A., Agbo, F. J. ve Chiu, T. K. (2022). The role of learners’ competencies in artificial intelligence education. Computers and Education: Artificial Intelligence, 3, 100098. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.caeai.2022.100098
71. Sarman, A. ve Tuncay, S. (2025). Attitudes and anxiety levels of nursing students toward artificial intelligence. Teaching and Learning in Nursing, 20(2), e431-e438.
72. Scherer, R. F., Luther, D. C., Wiebe, F. A. ve Adams, J. S. (1988). Dimensionality of coping: Factor stability using the ways of coping questionnaire. Psychological reports, 62(3), 763-770.
73. Selwyn, N. (2016). Is technology good for education? Polity Press.
74. Tabachnick, B. G. ve Fidell, L. S. (2015). Using multivariate statistics, (M. Baloğlu, Çev. Ed.). Nobel Yayıncılık.
75. Terzi, R. (2020). An adaptation of artificial intelligence anxiety scale into Turkish: Reliability and validity study. International Online Journal of Education and Teaching, 7(4), 1501-1515.
76. Turgut, M. F. ve Baykul, Y. (2010). Eğitimde ölçme ve değerlendirme (2.baskı). Pegem Akademi.
77. Uçar, M., Çapuk, H. ve Yiğit, M. F. (2024). The relationship between artificial intelligence anxiety and unemployment anxiety among university students. Work, 80(2), 701-710.
78. Üzüm, B., Elçiçek, M. ve Pesen, A. (2025). Development of teachers’ perception scale regarding artificial intelligence use in education: Validity and reliability study. International Journal of Human–Computer Interaction, 41(5), 2776-2787.
79. Wang, Y. S. (2007). Development and validation of a mobile computer anxiety scale. British Journal of Educational Technology, 38(6), 990-1009.
80. Wang, S., Sun, Z. ve Chen, Y. (2023). Effects of higher education institutes’ artificial intelligence capability on students' self-efficacy, creativity and learning performance. Education and Information Technologies, 28(5), 4919-4939. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10639-022-11338-4
81. Wang, Y. Y. ve Wang, Y. S. (2022). Development and validation of an artificial intelligence anxiety scale: An initial application in predicting motivated learning behavior. Interactive Learning Environments, 30(4), 619-634.
82. Watkins, M. W. (2006). Determining parallel analysis criteria. Journal of Modern Applied Statistical Methods, 5(2), 344-346.
83. Wilson, M. L., Huggins-Manley, A. C., Ritzhaupt, A. D. ve Ruggles, K. (2023). Development of the abbreviated technology anxiety scale (ATAS). Behavior Research Methods, 55(1), 185-199.
84. Wuisan, D. S. S., Sunardjo, R. A., Aini, Q., Yusuf, N. A. ve Rahardja, U. (2023). Integrating artificial intelligence in human resource management: A smartpls approach for entrepreneurial success. Aptisi Transactions on Technopreneurship (ATT), 5(3), 334-345.
85. Yaşlıoğlu, M. M. (2017). Sosyal bilimlerde faktör analizi ve geçerlilik: Keşfedici ve doğrulayıcı faktör analizlerinin kullanılması. İstanbul Üniversitesi İşletme Fakültesi Dergisi, 46(Özel Sayı), 74-85.
86. Yurdugül, H. (2005). Ölçek geliştirme çalışmalarında kapsam geçerliği için kapsam geçerlik indekslerinin kullanılması. XIV. Ulusal Eğitim Bilimleri Kongresi, 1, 771-774.
87. Zwick, W. R. ve Velicer, W. F. (1986). Comparison of five rules for determining the numberof components to retain. Psychological Bulletin, 99, 432-442.