Teaching Profession in the Age of Artificial Intelligence: The Happy Teacher and Self-efficacy

Öz

Bu çalışma, öğretmenlerin yapay zeka (YZ) kullanımındaki öz yeterlilikleri ile mutluluk düzeyleri arasındaki ilişkiyi araştırmaktadır. İlişkisel tarama modeline dayanan bu çalışma, 443 öğretmenden toplanan verilerle gerçekleştirilmiştir. Çalışmada, öğretmenlerin yapay zeka teknolojileri hakkındaki öz yeterlilik algıları ve genel mutluluk düzeyleri değerlendirilmiştir. Bulgular, YZ teknolojisini kullanma konusunda kendilerini yetkin hisseden öğretmenlerin daha yüksek düzeyde mesleki tatmin ve mutluluk yaşadıklarını göstermektedir. Çalışma, özellikle çevrimiçi ve dijital araçların kullanımının artmasıyla birlikte eğitimin değişen doğasının, öğretmenlerin yeni teknolojileri benimsemesini ve bunlara uyum sağlamasını gerektirdiğini vurgulamaktadır. Böylece, yapay zeka araçları öğretmenlik mesleğini destekleyen yardımcılar olarak öngörülmektedir. Sonuçlar, Teknolojik Beceriler ve Konfor boyutlarının öğretmenlerin mutluluğu üzerinde en güçlü etkilere sahip olduğunu göstermektedir. Dolayısıyla öğretmenlerin dijital yetkinliklerini artırmaya yönelik destek ve eğitim programlarının sağlanması büyük önem taşıyor. Çalışma ayrıca öğretmenlerin dijital yetkinliklerinin sadece teknik becerilerle sınırlı olmadığını, aynı zamanda genel refahlarına da katkıda bulunduğunu vurgulamaktadır. Bulgular, eğitimde sürdürülebilir dönüşümleri teşvik etmek için yapay zeka tabanlı araçların öğretmenlerin mesleki gelişim süreçlerine entegrasyonunu teşvik etmektedir. YZ'nin öğretmenlerin refahı ve profesyonel gelişimi üzerindeki etkisini incelemek için gelecekte araştırma yapılması önerilmektedir.

Anahtar Kelimeler

• Yapay Zeka
• Öz-yeterlilik
• Mutluluk
• Öğretmen.

TEACHING PROFESSION IN THE AGE OF ARTIFICIAL INTELLIGENCE: THE HAPPY TEACHER AND SELF-EFFICACY

Öz

This study investigates the relationship between teachers' self-efficacy in the use of artificial intelligence (AI) and their happiness levels. This study, based on the relational survey model, was conducted with data collected from 443 teachers. In the study, teachers' self-efficacy perceptions about AI technologies and their general happiness levels were evaluated. The findings show that teachers who feel competent in using AI technology experience higher levels of professional satisfaction and happiness. The study emphasises that the changing nature of education, especially with the increasing use of online and digital tools, requires teachers to adopt and adapt to new technologies. Thus, artificial intelligence tools are envisaged as assistants supporting the teaching profession. The results show that Technological Skills and Comfort dimensions have the strongest effects on teachers' happiness. Therefore, it is of great importance to provide support and training programmes to increase teachers' digital competencies. The study also emphasises that teachers' digital competences are not only limited to technical skills, but also contribute to their overall well-being. The findings encourage the integration of AI-based tools into teachers' professional development processes to promote sustainable transformations in education. Future research is recommended to examine the impact of AI on teachers' well-being and professional development.

Anahtar Kelimeler

• Artificial Intelligence
• Self-efficacy
• Happiness
• Teacher.

Kaynakça

1. Alam, A. (2021). Should robots replace teachers? mobilisation of aı and learning analytics in education,International Conference on Advances in Computing, Communication, and Control (ICAC3), Mumbai, India, pp. 1-12, doi: 10.1109/ICAC353642.2021.9697300. Should Robots Replace Teachers? Mobilisation of AI and Learning Analytics in Education | IEEE Conference Publication | IEEE Xplore
2. Alam, A. (2022). Employing adaptive learning and ıntelligent tutoring robots for virtual classrooms and smart campuses: reforming education in the age of artificial ıntelligence. In: Shaw, R.N., Das, S., Piuri, V., Bianchini, M. (eds) Advanced Computing and Intelligent Technologies. Lecture Notes in Electrical Engineering, vol 914. Springer, Singapore. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-981-19-2980-9_32
3. Altan, M. Z., & Özmusul, M. (2022). Geleceğin Türkiye’sinde öğretmen refahı: Öğretmenlik meslek kanununun kayıp parçası. [Teacher well-being in the future of Turkey: Missing part of the teaching professional law] Ahmet Keleşoğlu Eğitim Fakültesi Dergisi, 4(1), 24-42.
4. An F, Xi L, Yu J, Zhang M. (2022). Relationship between technology acceptance and self-directed learning: mediation role of positive emotions and technological self-efficacy. Sustainability.14(16):10390. https://doi.org/10.3390/su141610390
5. Anderson, T., & Garrison, D. R. (1998). Learning in a networked world: New roles and responsibilties. In distance learners in higher education: Institutional responses for quality outcomes. Madison, learning_in_a.pdf (athabascau.ca)
6. Annuš, N. (2024). Education in the age of artificial ıntelligence. TEM Journal, 13(1), 404-413. CEEOL - Article Detail
7. Bandura, A. (2011). The social and policy impact of social cognitive theory. In M. M. Mark, S. I. Donaldson, & B.
8. Campbell (Eds.), Social psychology and evaluation (pp. 31–71). The Guilford Press.

9. Bates, A. W. (2015). Teaching in a digital age: Guidelines for designing teaching and learning. BCcampus. https://openlibrary-repo.ecampusontario.ca/jspui/handle/123456789/276
10. Beteille, T., Ding, E., Molina, E., Pushparatnam, A., & Wilichowski, T. (2020). Three principles to support teacher effectiveness during COVID-19. https://doi.org/10.1596/33775
11. Bozkurt, A., Karakaya, K., Turk, M., Karakaya, Ö., & Castellanos-Reyes, D. (2022). The impact of COVID-19 on education: A meta-narrative review. TechTrends, 66(5), 883-896. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11528-022-00759-0
12. Büyüköztürk, Ş., Çokluk, Ö., & Köklü, N. (2012). Sosyal bilimler için istatistik (10. bs.). Ankara: Pegem Akademi.
13. Caena, F., & Redecker, C. (2019). Aligning teacher competence frameworks to 21st century challenges: The case for the European digital competence framework for educators (Digcompedu). European Journal Of Education, 54(3), 356-369. https://doi.org/10.1111/ejed.12345
14. Celik, I. (2023). Towards Intelligent-TPACK: An empirical study on teachers’ professional knowledge to ethically integrate artificial intelligence (AI)-based tools into education. Computers in Human Behavior, 138, 107468. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.chb.2022.107468
15. Chen, X., Xie, H., & 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
16. Chiu, T. K., Xia, Q., Zhou, X., Chai, C. S., & Cheng, M. (2023). Systematic literature review on opportunities, challenges, and future research recommendations of artificial intelligence in education. Computers and Education: Artificial Intelligence, 4, 100118. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.caeai.2022.100118
17. Chocarro, R., Cortiñas, M., & Marcos-Matás, G. (2021). Teachers’ attitudes towards chatbots in education: a technology acceptance model approach considering the effect of social language, bot proactiveness, and users’ characteristics. Educational Studies, 49(2), 295–313. https://doi.org/10.1080/03055698.2020.1850426
18. Copeland, J. (1993). Artificial intelligence: A philosophical introduction. John Wiley & Sons.
19. Copper, J. M., & Semich, G. W. (2019). Professional development in the twenty-first century: YouTube teacher training and professional development. In Advanced online education and training technologies (pp. 185-199). IGI Global.
20. Daniel, S.J. (2020). Education and the COVID-19 pandemic. Prospects 49, 91–96. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11125-020-09464-3
21. Diener, E., & Ryan, K. (2009). Subjective well-being: A general overview. South African Journal Of Psychology, 39(4), 391-406. https://doi.org/10.1177/008124630903900
22. Dillman, D. A., Smyth, J. D., & Christian, L. M. (2014). Internet, phone, mail, and mixed-mode surveys: The tailored design method. John Wiley & Sons.
23. Ding, L., Hong, Z. (2024). On the relationship between pre-service teachers’ sense of self-efficacy and emotions in the ıntegration of technology in their teacher developmental programs. Asia-Pacific Edu Res, 33, 869–878. https://doi.org/10.1007/s40299-023-00758-6
24. Doğan, T., & Çötok, A. N. (2011). Oxford mutluluk ölçeği kısa formunun Türkçe uyarlaması: Geçerlik ve güvenirlik çalışması [Adaptation of the short form of the oxford happiness questionnaire into Turkish: A validity and reliability study]. Türk Psikolojik Danışma ve Rehberlik Dergisi, 4, 165–172. oxford-mutluluk-olcegi-kisa-formu-toad.pdf
25. Easterlin, R. A. (2003). Explaining happiness. Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences, 100(19), 11176-11183. https://doi.org/10.1073/pnas.1633144100
26. Ertmer, P. A., Ottenbreit-Leftwich, A. T., Sadik, O., Sendurur, E., & Sendurur, P. (2012). Teacher beliefs and technology integration practices: A critical relationship. Computers & Education, 59(2), 423-435. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.compedu.2012.02.001
27. Ertmer, P. A., Ottenbreit-Leftwich, A., & York, C. S. (2006). Exemplary technology-using teachers: Perceptions of factors influencing success. Journal of Computing in Teacher Education, 23(2), 55–61. https://doi.org/10.1080/10402454.2006.10784561
28. Fidan, M. (2020). Covı̇d-19 belı̇rsı̇zlı̇ğı̇nde eğı̇tı̇m: İlkokulda zorunlu uzaktan eğı̇tı̇me ı̇lı̇şkı̇n öğretmen görüşlerı̇. [Education in the uncertainty of COVID 19: Teachers' views on emergency remote teaching in primary school] Uşak Üniversitesi Eğitim Araştırmaları Dergisi, 6(2), 24-43. https://doi.org/10.29065/usakead.736643
29. Fidan, M. (2020b). Mutlu okulun bileşenleri. [The components of happy school] Eğitim Ve Toplum Araştırmaları Dergisi, 7(1), 107-123. Journal of Research in Education and Society
30. Fidan, M. (2021). Covid-19 pandemisinde öğretmenlik. [Teaching profession during the COVID-19 pandemic] Maarif Mektepleri Uluslararası Eğitim Bilimleri Dergisi, 5(1), 1-14. https://doi.org/10.46762/mamulebd.789097
31. Fidan, M. (2022). Pedagogical agility in Turkey: Teachers agility in educational change and uncertainty days based on parents’ views. Yıldız Journal of Educational Research, 7(1), 34–41. https://doi.org/10.14744/yjer.2022.004
32. Field, A. (2024). Discovering statistics using IBM SPSS statistics. Sage Publications Limited.
33. Fisher, C. D. (2010). Happiness at work. International Journal Of Management Reviews, 12(4), 384-412. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1468-2370.2009.00270.x
34. Fraenkel, J., Wallen, N., & Hyun, H. (1993). How to design and evaluate research in education 10th ed. McGraw-Hill Education.
35. Fromm, E. (1995). Erdem ve mutluluk. [An lnquiry into the psychology of ethics] Ayda Yörükan (çev), Türkiye İş Bankası Yayınları, Ankara.
36. George, D., & Mallery, P. (2019). IBM SPSS statistics 26 step by step: A simple guide and reference (16th ed.). Routledge. https://doi.org/10.4324/9780429056765
37. Gocen,A. & Aydemir,F.(2020).Artificial ıntelligence in education and schools. Research on Education and Media,12(1) 13-21. https://doi.org/10.2478/rem-2020-0003
38. Goldberg, E. R., & Lannoye-Hall, C. (2023). Adapting learning materials for the digital age: Teacher education during emergency remote learning. In Handbook of Research on Advancing Teaching and Teacher Education in the Context of a Virtual Age (pp. 176-202). IGI Global. https://doi.org/10.4018/978-1-6684-8407-4.ch009
39. Griffin, J. (2007). What do happiness studies study? Journal of Happiness Study, 8, 139–148. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10902-006-9007-4
40. Guler, N. (2018). Preparing to teach English language learners: effect of online courses in changing mainstream teachers’ perceptions of English language learners. Innovation in Language Learning and Teaching, 14(1), 83–96. https://doi.org/10.1080/17501229.2018.1494736
41. Helliwell, J. F., Layard, R., Sachs, J., & De Neve, J. E. (2020). World Happiness Report 2020. New York: Sustainable Development Solutions Network. Gallup World Poll
42. Holmes, W. (2023). The unintended consequences of artificial intelligence and education.The Unintended Consequences of Artificial Intelligence and Education - UCL Discovery
43. Keller, F. S. (1968). Good-bye, teacher... Journal Of Applied Behavior Analysis, 1(1), 79. 1. https://doi:10.1901/jaba.1968.1-79
44. Khlaisang, J., Songkram, N., Huang, F., & Teo, T. (2021). Teachers’ perception of the use of mobile technologies with smart applications to enhance students’ thinking skills: a study among primary school teachers in Thailand. Interactive Learning Environments, 31(8), 5037–5058. https://doi.org/10.1080/10494820.2021.1993933
45. Kilag, O. K., Miñoza, J., Comighud, E., Amontos, C., Damos , M., & Abendan, C. F. (2023). Empowering teachers: Integrating technology into livelihood education for a digital future. Excellencia: International Multi-Disciplinary Journal of Education (2994-9521), 1(1), 30-41.
46. Klassen, R. M., & Tze, V. M. (2014). Teachers’ self-efficacy, personality, and teaching effectiveness: A meta-analysis. Educational Research Review, 12, 59-76. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.edurev.2014.06.001
47. Kokkinos, C. M. (2007). Job stressors, personality and burnout in primary school teachers. British Journal Of Educational Psychology, 77(1), 229-243. https://doi.org/10.1348/000709905X90344
48. Korthagen, F. A. (2004). In search of the essence of a good teacher: Towards a more holistic approach in teacher education. Teaching and Teacher Education, 20(1), 77-97. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.tate.2003.10.002
49. Langlois, S., Xyrichis, A., Daulton, B. J., Gilbert, J., Lackie, K., Lising, D., … Khalili, H. (2020). The COVID-19 crisis silver lining: interprofessional education to guide future innovation. Journal of Interprofessional Care, 34(5), 587–592. https://doi.org/10.1080/13561820.2020.1800606
50. Levin, T., & Wadmany, R. (2006). Teachers’ beliefs and practices in technology-based classrooms: A developmental view. Journal of Research on Technology in Education, 39(2), 157–181. https://doi.org/10.1080/15391523.2006.10782478
51. McCarthy, J. (2007). From here to human-level AI. Artificial Intelligence, 171(18), 1174-1182. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.artint.2007.10.009
52. McKnight, K., O’Malley, K., Ruzic, R., Horsley, M. K., Franey, J. J., & Bassett, K. (2016). Teaching in a digital age: How educators use technology to ımprove student learning. Journal of Research on Technology in Education, 48(3), 194–211. https://doi.org/10.1080/15391523.2016.1175856
53. Noddings, N. (2006). Eğitim ve mutluluk. [Happiness and education] Zuhal Bilgin (çev). İstanbul: Kitap Yayınevi. Nyaaba, M., & Zhaı, X. (2024). Generative AI professional development needs for teacher educators. Journal of AI, 8(1), 1-13. https://doi.org/10.61969/jai.1385915
54. Oishi, S., Graham, J., Kesebir, S., & Galinha, I. C. (2013). Concepts of happiness across time and cultures. Personality and Social Psychology Bulletin, 39(5), 559-577. https://doi.org/10.1177/0146167213480042
55. Oke, A., & Fernandes, F. A. P. (2020). Innovations in teaching and learning: Exploring the perceptions of the education sector on the 4th industrial revolution (4IR). Journal of Open Innovation: Technology, Market, and Complexity, 6(2), 31. https://doi.org/10.3390/joitmc6020031
56. Opara, V., Spangsdorf, S., & Ryan, M. K. (2023). Reflecting on the use of Google Docs for online interviews: Innovation in qualitative data collection. Qualitative Research, 23(3), 561-578. https://doi.org/10.1177/14687941211045192
57. Rich, P. J., & Hannafin, M. (2009). Video annotation tools: Technologies to scaffold, structure, and transform teacher reflection. Journal of Teacher Education, 60(1), 52-67. https://doi.org/10.1177/0022487108328486
58. Shearer, R. L., Aldemir, T., Hitchcock, J., Resig, J., Driver, J., & Kohler, M. (2019). What students want: A vision of a future online learning experience grounded in distance education theory. American Journal of Distance Education, 34(1), 36–52. https://doi.org/10.1080/08923647.2019.1706019
59. Starkey, L. (2020). A review of research exploring teacher preparation for the digital age. Cambridge Journal of Education, 50(1), 37–56. https://doi.org/10.1080/0305764X.2019.1625867
60. Sutton, R. S. (2020). John McCarthy’s definition of intelligence. Journal of Artificial General Intelligence, 11(2), 66-67. Untitled (sciendo.com) U.S. Department of Education. (2023). Artificial intelligence and the future of teaching and learning: Insights and recommendations. Retrieved from https://tech.ed.gov/files/2023/05/ai-future-of-teaching-and-learning-report.pdf
61. Uyan, U., & Gültekin, S. U. (2024). Yapay zeka öz-yeterlilik ölçeğinin Türkçeye uyarlanması: Geçerlililik ve güvenirlik çalışması. [Türkish adaptation of artificial intelligence self efficacy scale: Validity and reliability study] Journal of Research in Business, 9(1), 135-148. https://doi.org/10.54452/jrb.1415212
62. Uyl, D. D., & Machan, T. R. (1983). Recent work on the concept of happiness. American Philosophical Quarterly, 20(2), 115–134. http://www.jstor.org/stable/20013993
63. Veenhoven, R. (2023). Happiness. In: Maggino, F. (eds) Encyclopedia of quality of life and well-being research. Springer, Cham. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-031-17299-1_1224
64. Veenhoven, R., & Dumludağ, D. (2015). İktisat ve mutluluk. [Economics of happiness] İktisat ve Toplum Dergisi, 58(2), 46-51. 2015ca-fullt.pdf
65. Verganti, R., Vendraminelli, L., & Iansiti, M. (2020). Innovation and design in the age of artificial intelligence. Journal of Product İnnovation Management, 37(3), 212-227. https://doi.org/10.1111/jpim.12523
66. Wang, H., Fu, T., Du, Y. et al. (2023). Scientific discovery in the age of artificial intelligence. Nature 620, 47–60. https://doi.org/10.1038/s41586-023-06221-2
67. Wang, YY., Chuang, YW. (2024). Artificial intelligence self-efficacy: Scale development and validation. Educ Inf Technol 29, 4785–4808 https://doi.org/10.1007/s10639-023-12015-w
68. Weber, M., Ruch, W., Littman-Ovadia, H., Lavy, S., & Gai, O. (2013). Relationships among higher-order strengths factors, subjective well-being, and general self-efficacy–The case of Israeli adolescents. Personality and Individual Differences, 55(3), 322-327. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.paid.2013.03.006
69. World Economic Forum. (2024). Revolutionizing classrooms: How AI is reshaping global education. Retrieved from https://www.weforum.org/press/2024/04/revolutionizing-classrooms-how-ai-is-reshaping-global-education/
70. Xu, Y., Liu, X., Cao, X., Huang, C., Liu, E., Qian, S., ... & Zhang, J. (2021). Artificial intelligence: A powerful paradigm for scientific research. The Innovation, 2(4). Artificial intelligence: A powerful paradigm for scientific research: The Innovation (cell.com)
71. Yolcu, H. (2024). Yapay genel zekâ çağında öğretmen rolünün yeniden tanımlanması: Öngörüler. [Redefining the teacher's role in the era of artificial general intelligence: Prognosticate] Açıköğretim Uygulamaları Ve Araştırmaları Dergisi, 10(1), 155-167. https://doi.org/10.51948/auad.1383166
72. Young, M., & Muller, J. (2010). Three educational scenarios for the future: Lessons from the sociology of knowledge. European Journal of Education, 45(1), 11-27. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1465-3435.2009.01413.x