Artificial Intelligence as a New Paradigm: A Research on MoNE Artificial Intelligence Applications Course Curriculum

Öz

The main purpose of this study is to comprehensively examine the 7th and 8th grade artificial intelligence applications course curriculum developed by the Ministry of National Education [MoNE] in 2023 in terms of its purpose, content, learning-teaching process (procedures), assessment, and philosophical foundations. The focus of the research is to understand the preparations and strategies of the education system for artificial intelligence by approaching the subject from various angles and to offer constructive suggestions in this sense. For this reason, the method of the study is based on document analysis used in qualitative research. The main data source of the study is the 2023 artificial intelligence applications course curriculum designed by MoNE. The descriptive analysis technique was used to analyse the data. In the evaluation, it was emphasised that the content of the curriculum adopts a comprehensive approach that aims to provide students with cognitive, practical, and social skills. The 2023 MoNE artificial intelligence applications curriculum is partially in line with Tyler's goal-oriented model and Bellon and Handler's curriculum development framework but lacks needs assessment, stakeholder engagement, and implementation planning. While the curriculum integrates life, science, and engineering skills, its interdisciplinary scope remains limited, and affective-psychomotor outcomes—especially emotional engagement in ethical dilemmas—are under-represented. Although cognitive outcomes are dominant, their developmental appropriateness should be ensured. Analysed through the developmental theories of Piaget, Vygotsky, and Erikson, the curriculum supports social interaction and identity formation but warns that the abstract nature of artificial intelligence concepts may lead to cognitive difficulties. The study emphasises that teacher competencies—particularly technological literacy, content knowledge, and digital teaching skills—are important for successful implementation and should be strengthened through intermittent professional development. While the curriculum commendably promotes ethical awareness and lifelong learning, its long-term effectiveness requires iterative revision, stakeholder collaboration, and adaptive strategies to meet the evolving demands of the artificial intelligence-driven education transformation.

Anahtar Kelimeler

• Curriculum and instruction
• artificial intelligence applications
• technology
• curriculum design
• curriculum evaluation
• middle school

Kaynakça

1. Adom, D., Yeboah, A., & Ankrah, A. K. (2016). Constructivism philosophical paradigm: Implication for research, teaching and learning. Global Journal of Arts Humanities and Social Sciences, 4(10), 1-9. https://eajournals.org/gjahss/vol-4-issue10-october-2016/
2. Akdeniz, M., & Özdinç, F. (2021). Eğitimde yapay zekâ konusunda Türkiye adresli çalışmaların incelenmesi [Review of Turkey-based studies on artificial intelligence in education]. Van Yüzüncü Yıl Üniversitesi Eğitim Fakültesi Dergisi, 18(1), 912-932. https://doi.org/10.33711/yyuefd.938734
3. Akyıldız, S. (2020). Öğretim programı okuryazarlığı kavramının kavramsal yönden analizi: Bir ölçek geliştirme çalışması [Conceptual analysis of the concept of literacy in teaching programs: A scale development study]. Elektronik Sosyal Bilimler Dergisi, 19(73). 315-332.
4. Alak, G. (2011). Hayat bilgisi öğretim programı ögelerinin öğretmen görüşlerine göre değerlendirilmesi [Evaluation of life skills teaching program elements according to teachers' opinions [Yayınlanmamış yüksek lisans tezi], Erzurum Atatürk Üniversitesi. Eğitim Bilimleri Enstitüsü. Erzurum.
5. Altun, M., Altun, S. U. & Kutlu, E. (2023). Yapay zekâ [Artificial intelligence]. (U. Tecir, Ed.), Ortaokul ve lise öğretmen el kitabı: Yapay zekâ uygulamaları [Middle school and high school teacher handbook: Artificial intelligence applications]. İçinde, (s. 1-12). Ankara: MEB Yayınları.
6. Anderson, L. W., & Krathwohl, D. R. (Eds.). (2001). A Taxonomy for Learning, Teaching, and Assessing: A Revision of Bloom's Taxonomy of Educational Objectives. New York: Longman.
7. Annoni, A., Benczur, P., Bertoldi, P., Delipetrev, B., De Prato, G., Feijoo, C., & Junklewitz, H. (2018). About AI. In. Craglia, M. (Ed.), Artificial intelligence: A European perspective. (pp. 1-19). Publications Office of the European Union.
8. Arslan, K. (2020). Eğitimde yapay zekâ ve uygulamaları [Artificial intelligence and its applications in education]. Batı Anadolu Eğitim Bilimleri Dergisi, 11(1), 71-88.

9. Aruğaslan, E. & Çivril, H. (2021). Türkiye’de eğitim alanında yapılan veri madenciliği ve yapay zekâ çalışmaları [Data mining and artificial intelligence studies conducted in the field of education in Turkey]. Uluslararası Teknolojik Bilimler Dergisi, 13(2), 81-89.
10. Aslan, H. & Özyurt, M. (2023). Analysis of students’ attainment levels of higher order thinking skills through primary school fourth grade science curriculum and implementations. Turkish Studies-Educational Sciences, 18(2). https://dx.doi.org/10.7827/TurkishStudies.62660
11. Ataş, R. & Bümen, N. (2023). An analysis of curriculum design principles in science curricula: 2005, 2013, 2018. Educational Academic Research, (49), 91-107.
12. Atik, S. & Aykaç, N. (2019). Hayat bilgisi öğretim programlarının değerlendirilmesi (1926-2018) [Evalution of Life Science Curricula (1926-2018), Trakya Eğitim Dergisi, 9(4), 708-722.
13. Beetham, H., & Sharpe, R. (Eds.). (2013). Rethinking pedagogy for a digital age: Designing for 21st century learning (2nd Ed.). Routledge.
14. Bell, S. (2010). Project-based learning for the 21st century: skills for the future. The clearing house: A Journal of Educational Strategies, 83(2), 39–43. DOI: 10.1080/00098650903505415
15. Bellon, J. J., & Handler, J. R. (1979). Curriculum development and evaluation. Wm. C. Brown Company Publishers.
16. Bloom, B. S. (Ed.). (1956). Taxonomy of educational objectives: The classification of educational goals. handbook I: Cognitive Domain. David McKay Company.
17. Bohnsack, R. (2014). Documentary method. The SAGE handbook of qualitative data analysis, 217-233
18. Bowen, G. A. (2009). Document analysis as a qualitative research method. Qualitative Research Journal, 9(2), 27-40. https://doi.org/10.3316/QRJ0902027
19. Bozkaya, H. & Aydın, E. F. E. (2023). Sosyal bilgiler öğretim programı ölçme ve değerlendirme yaklaşımının öğretimsel denetim ilkelerine göre değerlendirilmesi [Evaluation of social studies curriculum assessment and evaluation approach according to supervision principles]. Iğdır Üniversitesi Sosyal Bilimler Dergisi, (32), 281-296. https://doi.org/10.54600/igdirsosbilder.1194105
20. Bransford, J. D., Brown, A. L., & Cocking, R. R. (Eds.). (2000). How people learn: Brain, mind, experience, and school. National Academy Press.
21. Coşkun, F., & Gülleroğlu, H. D. (2021). Yapay zekânın tarih içindeki gelişimi ve eğitimde kullanılması [The development of artificial intelligence throughout history and its use in education]. Ankara University Journal of Faculty of Educational Sciences (JFES), 54(3), 947-966. https://doi.org/10.30964/auebfd.916220
22. Chu, T. S., & Ashraf, M. (2025). Artificial intelligence in curriculum design: a data-driven approach to higher education innovation. Knowledge, 5(3), 14.
23. Dağ, F. (2022). Eğitimde yapay zekâ uygulamalarına ilişkin yaklaşımlar ve modeller. V. V. Nabiyev ve A. K Erumit, (Eds.), Eğitimde Yapay Zekâ Kuramdan Uygulamaya [Artificial intelligence in education: from theory to practice]. (3. Baskı), Pegem Akademi.
24. Damioli, G., Van Roy, V., Vertesy, D., & Vivarelli, M. (2024). Is Artificial intelligence generating a new paradigm? Evidence from the emerging phase. IZA Discussion Paper No. 17183, Available at SSRN: https://ssrn.com/abstract=4921726
25. Dede, C. (2010). Comparing frameworks for 21st century skills. In J. A. Bellanca & R. S. Brandt (Eds.), 21st century skills: Rethinking how students learn (pp. 51–76). Solution Tree Press.
26. Dursun, B., Pak, F. A., Eriş, A., Aslan, E., Al, M., Doğru, Ş. C., Altun, U. & Kaya, S. (2023). Öğretim programlarının ögeleri [Elements of teaching curriculum]. İçinde (H. Nasırcı, R. Kahramanoğlu, M. Kandırmaz, Eds.), Öğretim programı okuryazarlığı: Öğretmen rehber kitabı [Literacy teaching program: Teacher's guidebook], (s.22-71). MEB Ortaöğretim Genel Müdürlüğü.
27. Erdem, E. & Demirel, Ö. (2002). Program geliştirmede yapılandırmacılık yaklaşımı [The constructivist approach in curriculum development]. Hacettepe Üniversitesi Eğitim Fakültesi Dergisi, 23(23), 81-87.
28. Erikson, E. H. (1968). Identity: Youth and crisis. W. W. Norton & Company.
29. Ertel, W. (2018). Introduction to artificial intelligence. Springer.
30. European Commission (2019). Ethics Guidelines for Trustworthy AI. https://digital-strategy.ec.europa.eu/en/library/ethics-guidelines-trustworthy-ai
31. Fitzgerald, T. (2012). Documents and documentary analysis. Research Methods in Educational Leadership and Management, 3, 296-308.
32. Fitzpatrick, J. L., Sanders, J. R., Worthen, B. R., & Wingate, L. A. (2022). Program evaluation: Alternative approaches and practical guidelines. Pearson.
33. Floridi, L., Cowls, J., Beltrametti, M., Chatila, R., Chazerand, P., Dignum, V., & Vayena, E. (2018). AI4People—An ethical framework for a good AI society: Opportunities, risks, principles, and recommendations. Minds and Machines, 28(4), 689–707. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11023-018-9482-5
34. Fullan, M. (2007). The new meaning of educational change (4th Ed.). Teachers College Press.
35. Garcia, E. (2019). The use of artificial intelligence (AI) in education. Erişim adresi: https://www.openaccessgovernment.org/artificial-intelligence-ai-in-education/66346/ Erişim tarihi: 31.12.2023.
36. Glasersfeld, E. V. (1995) A constructivist approach to teaching. In. (Steffe L. P. & Gale J. Eds.) Constructivism in education. Routledge. 3–15.
37. Halis, İ. (2002). Öğretim teknolojileri ve materyal geliştirme [Instructional technologies and material development]. (2. baskı). Nobel Akademi.
38. Holmes, W., Bialik, M., & Fadel, C. (2019). Artificial intelligence in education: Promises and Implications for teaching and learning. Center for Curriculum Redesign.
39. Inhelder, B., & Piaget, J. (1958). The growth of logical thinking from childhood to adolescence. Basic Books.
40. İşler, B. & Kılıç, M. (2021). Eğitimde yapay zekâ kullanımı ve gelişimi [The use and development of artificial intelligence in education]. Yeni Medya Elektronik Dergisi, 5(1), 1-11. https://dergipark.org.tr/en/pub/ejnm/issue/58097/738221
41. Isotani, S., Millán, E., Ogan, A., Hastings, P., McLaren, B., & Luckin, R. (Eds.). (2019, June 25-29). Artificial intelligence in education: 20th International Conference, AIED 2019, Chicago, IL, USA, June 25-29, 2019, Proceedings, Part I (Vol. 11625). Springer.
42. Jobin, A., Ienca, M., & Vayena, E. (2019). The global landscape of AI ethics guidelines. Nature Machine Intelligence, 1(9), 389–399. https://doi.org/10.1038/s42256-019-0088-2
43. Johnson, J. (2021). Artificial intelligence and the future of warfare: The USA, China, and strategic stability. Manchester University Press.
44. Kaplan, K. & Demir, M. (2023). Evaluatıon of the Turkish curriculum (2019) accordıng to context-inputprocess-product (CIPP) model. Trakya Journal of Education, 13(1), 770-785. Doi: 10.24315/tred.1125160
45. Karabatak, S., Ay, S., & Karabatak, M. (2025). Artificial intelligence applications in education within the scope of the National Artificial Intelligence Strategy in Turkey. In 2025 13th International Symposium on Digital Forensics and Security (ISDFS) (pp. 1-4). IEEE.
46. Kara, F. (2016). Ortaokul 5. sınıf öğrencilerinin fen bilimleri dersinde öğrendikleri bilgileri günlük yaşamlarıyla ilişkilendirebilmelerine yönelik düşünceleri ile fen bilimleri dersindeki başarıları arasındaki ilişki [The relationship between middle school 5th grade students' ability to relate the information they learn in science class to their daily lives and their success in science class]. Erzincan Üniversitesi Eğitim Fakültesi Dergisi, 18(2), 1380–1397. https://doi.org/10.17556/jef.50116
47. Kayyali, M. (2025). AI in higher education: revolutionizing curriculum and administration. In ai adoption and diffusion in education (pp. 31-62). IGI Global Scientific Publishing.
48. Kerkez, B., Nasırcı, H. & Kandırmaz, M. (2023).Öğretim programi okuryazarliği nedir ve neden önemlidir. İçinde (H. Nasırcı, R. Kahramanoğlu, M. Kandırmaz, Eds.), Öğretim programı okuryazarlığı. Öğretmen rehber kitabı [Teaching program literacy. Teacher's guidebook]. (s. 4-5). MEB Ortaöğretim Genel Müdürlüğü.
49. Koehler, M. J., & Mishra, P. (2009). What is technological pedagogical content knowledge (TPACK)? Contemporary Issues in Technology and Teacher Education, 9(1), 60–70.
50. Kopec, D., Pileggi, C., Ungar, D., & Shetty, S. (2016). Artificial intelligence and problem solving. Mercury Learning & Information.
51. Korucu, A. T. (2022). Eğitimde yapay zekânın rolleri ve eğitsel yapay zekâ uygulamaları. V. V. Nabiyev ve A.K. Erumit, (Eds.) Eğitimde yapay zekâ kuramdan uygulamaya. (3. Baskı), Pegem Akademi.
52. Krathwohl, D. R., Bloom, B. S., & Masia, B. B. (1964). Taxonomy of Educational Objectives. Handbook II: Affective Domain. David McKay Company.
53. McArthur, D., Lewis, M., & Bishary, M. (2005). The roles of artificial intelligence in education: Current progress and future prospects. Journal of Educational Technology, 1(4), 42-80.
54. McCarthy, J., & Hayes, P. J. (1981). Some philosophical problems from the standpoint of artificial intelligence. B. L. Webber & N. J. Nilsson (Ed.) In. Readings in artificial intelligence (ss. 431-450). Morgan Kaufmann.
55. McCulloch, G. (2004). Documentary research: In education, history and the social sciences (Vol. 22). Routledge.
56. Meço, G., & Coştu, F. (2022). Eğitimde yapay zekânın kullanılması: Betimsel içerik analizi çalışması [The use of artificial intelligence in education: A descriptive content analysis study]. Karadeniz Teknik Üniversitesi Sosyal Bilimler Enstitüsü Sosyal Bilimler Dergisi, 12(23), 171-193. https://dergipark.org.tr/en/pub/sbed/issue/70445/1092727
57. Miles, M.B. & Huberman, A. M. (1994). Qualitative data analysis. Sage Publications.
58. Ministry of National Education (MoNE) [Milli Eğitim Bakanlığı], (2024). Eğitimde yapay zeka araçları: öğretmen el kitabı [Artificial intelligence tools in education: teacher's handbook]. Yenilik ve Eğitim Teknolojileri Genel Müdürlüğü.
59. Ministry of National Education (MoNE) [Millî Eğitim Bakanlığı]. (2023). Artificial intelligence applications course curriculum (I-II) (7th and 8th grades of middle school and imam hatip middle school). [Yapay zekâ uygulamaları dersi öğretim programı (ı-ıı) (ortaokul ve imam hatip ortaokulu 7 ve 8. Sınıflar]. MEB Yayınları.
60. Ministry of National Education (MoNE) [Millî Eğitim Bakanlığı]. (2025). Artificial intelligence course in education. Accessed on 27. 07.2025. https://www.oba.gov.tr/egitim/detay/egitimde-yapay-zeka-kursu-1140
61. Mohamed, H., & Lamia, M. (2018). Implementing flipped classroom that used an intelligent tutoring system into learning process. Computers & Education, 124, 62-76.
62. Narvaez, D. (2006). Integrative ethical education. In M. Killen & J. G. Smetana (Eds.), Handbook of moral development (pp. 703–733). Lawrence Erlbaum Associates.
63. Nilsson, N. J. (2012). John McCarthy. National Academy of Sciences, 1-27. https://citeseerx.ist.psu.edu/document?repid=rep1&type=pdf&doi=a09823a075319757a7699ba44716e4851989d9bf
64. Ornstein, A. C., & Hunkins, F. P. (2017). Curriculum: foundations, principles and issues (7th Ed.). Pearson Education.
65. Özmantar, M. F., Bingölbali, E., Demir, S., Sağlam, Y., & Keser, Z. (2009). Değişen öğretim programları ve sınıf içi normlar [Changing curricula and classroom norms]. Uluslararası İnsan Bilimleri Dergisi, 6(2), 1-23.
66. Pak, F. A., Dursun, B. & Kahramanoğlu, R. (2023). Temel kahramanlar [main characters]. İçinde (H. Nasırcı, R. Kahramanoğlu, M. Kandırmaz, Eds.), Öğretim programı okuryazarlığı: Öğretmen rehber kitabı [Literacy teaching program: teacher's guidebook]. (s. 6-8). MEB Ortaöğretim Genel Müdürlüğü.
67. Perez, J. (2023). Artificial ıntelligence (AI) in education: Impact and Examples. https://www.questionpro.com/blog/tr/egitimde-yapay-zeka-ai-etki-ve-ornekler/
68. Piaget, J. (1972). The psychology of the child (B. Gabain & R. Gabain, Trans.). Basic Books.
69. Ruhsar Kavasoğlu, B. (2025). Innovative Applications and Ethical Framework of Generative AI Models in the Turkish Education System. J Modr Sci Scient Res, 1, 1-10.
70. Roll, I. & Wylie, R. (2016). Evolution and revolution in artificial intelligence in education. International Journal of Artificial intelligence in Education, 26, 582-599. https://doi.org/10.1007/s40593-016-0110-3
71. Sak, R., Şahin Sak, İ. T., Öneren Şendil, Ç. & Nas, E. (2021). Bir araştırma yöntemi olarak doküman analizi [Document analysis as a research method]. Kocaeli Üniversitesi Eğitim Dergisi, 4(1), 227-250. http://doi.org/10.33400/kuje.843306
72. Straus, J. (2021). Artificial intelligence–challenges and chances for Europe. European Review, 29(1), 142-158.
73. Sweller, J., Ayres, P., & Kalyuga, S. (2011). Cognitive load theory (Vol. 1). Springer.
74. Timms, M. J. (2016). Letting artificial intelligence in education out of the box: educational cobots and smart classrooms. International Journal of Artificial Intelligence in Education, 26(2), 701-712. https://doi.org/10.1007/s4059
75. Türk Dil Kurumu [Turkish Language Association], (2023, Aralık 31). Zekâ [intelligence]. https://sozluk.gov.tr/
76. Flinders, D. J., & Thornton, S. J. (Eds.). (2021). Tyler, R. W. Basic principles of curriculum and instruction. In Curriculum studies reader E2. In. The curriculum studies reader (pp. 60-68). Routledge.
77. Tyler, R. (1950). Basic principle of curriculum and instruction. Chicago University.
78. UNESCO (2021). Recommendation on the ethics of artificial intelligence. https://unesdoc.unesco.org/ark:/48223/pf0000381137
79. Ullah, R. S., Hashim, F., Bandeali, M. M., & Akbar, A. (2025). Artificial Intelligence in Curriculum Design a Roadmap for Adaptive and Personalized Learning in Higher Education. The Critical Review of Social Sciences Studies, 3(3), 304-322.
80. Vygotsky, L. S. (1978). Mind in society: The development of higher psychological processes (M. Cole, V. John-Steiner, S. Scribner, & E. Souberman, Eds. & Trans.). Harvard University Press.
81. Wang, H., Fu, T., Du, Y., Gao, W., Huang, K., Liu, Z. & Zitnik, M. (2023). Scientific discovery in the age of artificial intelligence. Nature, 620(7972), 47-60.
82. Woolfolk, A. (2021). Educational psychology (14th Ed.). Pearson.
83. Yalçın, A. (2023). Sosyal bilgilerde yapay zekâ ve veri bilimi okuryazarlığının kullanımı [The use of artificial intelligence and data science literacy in social studies]. Izmir Democracy University Social Sciences Journal, 6(2), 87-123. https://doi.org/10.61127/idusos.1370409
84. Yıldırım, A. & Şimşek, H. (2021). Sosyal bilimlerde nitel araştırma yöntemleri [Qualitative research methods in social sciences]. (12. Baskı). Seçkin Yayıncılık.
85. Yüksel, R., Yılmaz, M., & Kurt, M. (2023). İlkokul Fen Bilimleri 2013 ve 2018 öğretim programı kazanımlarının öğrenme ve yenilenme becerileri açısından incelenmesi [Examination of Primary School Science Curriculum Acquisitions in 2013 and 2018 in Terms of Learning and Innovation Skills]. Temel Eğitim, 21, 28-41. https://dergipark.org.tr/en/download/article-file/3199152
86. Zawacki-Richter, O., Marín, V. I., Bond, M., & Gouverneur, F. (2019). Systematic review of research on artificial intelligence applications in higher education–where are the educators? International Journal of Educational Technology in Higher Education, 16(1), 39. https://doi.org/10.1186/s41239-019-0171-0