A Discipline-Specific Artificial Intelligence Literacy Framework for Secondary Geography Education (Grades 9–12) within Türkiye’s Century Education Model

Öz

Artificial intelligence (AI) literacy has emerged as a key focus in educational research, recognized as a fundamental competency of the digital age. However, the primary frameworks developed in this field are based on a general understanding of user competency, independent of any specific discipline. This results in the distinctive cognitive, thematic, and ethical characteristics of geography education—such as spatial thinking, human–environment relations, and data ethics—being inadequately represented within these frameworks. This study is theoretical and conceptual, combining an integrative literature review with conceptual framework development. Web of Science, Scopus, and ERIC bibliographic databases; Google Scholar for complementary searching; the ULAKBİM TR Index, DergiPark, and the Turkish Council of Higher Education Thesis Center; and the institutional portals of MEB, UNESCO, and OECD were searched. Peer-reviewed publications from 2005 to 2026, institutional policy documents, and the TYMM 2024 Secondary Geography Curriculum (Grades 9–12) as the primary document were included. The findings reveal that the absence of an AI dimension in the TYMM secondary geography curriculum constitutes a critical curricular gap. While this gap is acknowledged at the policy level in the Ministry of National Education’s (MEB) Artificial Intelligence in Education Policy Document and Action Plan (2025–2029), the document does not include a concrete implementation framework specific to geography education. This article proposes a discipline-specific AI literacy framework for Grades 9–12 geography education based on the TYMM 2024 Secondary Geography Curriculum. The developed Geography-Focused AI Literacy Framework (COYZOÇ) consists of five core dimensions: (1) Spatial AI Awareness, (2) Geographic Data Literacy, (3) Algorithmic Spatial Ethics, (4) Tool and Application Competence, and (5) Critical Geographic Inquiry. The article also offers theoretical and practical recommendations for curriculum development and teacher training programs.

Anahtar Kelimeler

• Artificial İntelligence Literacy
• Geography Education
• Turkey's Century Education Model
• Secondary Education (Grades 9–12)

Türkiye Yüzyılı Maarif Modeli Bağlamında Ortaöğretim (9–12. Sınıf) Coğrafya Eğitimi İçin Disipline Özgü Bir Yapay Zekâ Okuryazarlığı Çerçevesi

Öz

Yapay zekâ (YZ) okuryazarlığı, dijital çağın temel yetkinliklerinden biri olarak eğitim araştırmalarının odağına konumlanmaktadır. Ancak bu alanda üretilen başlıca çerçeveler, belirli bir disiplinden bağımsız olarak, genel bir kullanıcı yetkinliği anlayışından hareket etmektedir. Bu durum, coğrafya eğitiminin mekânsal düşünme, insan-çevre ilişkisi ve veri etiği gibi kendine özgü bilişsel, konusal ve etik niteliklerinin söz konusu çerçevelerde yeterince temsil edilememesine neden olmaktadır. Bu araştırma, kuramsal-kavramsal nitelikte olup bütünleştirici literatür derlemesi ile kavramsal çerçeve geliştirmeyi birleştiren bir desen benimsemektedir. Veri kaynağı olarak Web of Science, Scopus ve ERIC bibliyografik veri tabanları; tamamlayıcı tarama için Google Scholar; ULAKBİM TR Dizin, DergiPark ve YÖK Ulusal Tez Merkezi ile MEB/UNESCO/OECD kurumsal portalları taranmış; 2005–2026 yılları arasında yayımlanmış hakemli yayınlar, kurumsal politika belgeleri ve birincil belge olarak TYMM 2024 Ortaöğretim Coğrafya Dersi Öğretim Programı (9–12. sınıflar) analize dâhil edilmiştir. Bulgular, TYMM ortaöğretim coğrafya programında YZ boyutunun yer almaması nedeniyle kritik bir müfredat boşluğu oluştuğunu ortaya koymaktadır. Bu boşluk, MEB’in 2025 yılında yayımladığı Eğitimde Yapay Zekâ Politika Belgesi ve Eylem Planı (2025–2029) ile politika düzeyinde farkında olunmakla birlikte, söz konusu belgede coğrafya eğitimine özgü somut bir uygulama çerçevesi yer almamaktadır. Bu makale, TYMM 2024 Ortaöğretim Coğrafya Dersi Öğretim Programı ekseninde 9–12. sınıf coğrafya eğitimi için disipline özgü bir YZ okuryazarlığı çerçevesi önermeyi amaçlamaktadır. Geliştirilen Coğrafya Odaklı YZ Okuryazarlığı Çerçevesi (COYZOÇ) beş temel boyuttan oluşmaktadır: (1) Mekânsal YZ Farkındalığı, (2) Coğrafi Veri Okuryazarlığı, (3) Algoritmik Mekân Etiği, (4) Araç ve Uygulama Yetkinliği ve (5) Eleştirel Coğrafi Sorgulama. Makale müfredat geliştirme süreçleri ve öğretmen yetiştirme programları için kuramsal ve pratik öneriler de sunmaktadır.

Anahtar Kelimeler

• Yapay Zekâ Okuryazarlığı
• Coğrafya Eğitimi
• Türkiye Yüzyılı Maarif Modeli
• Ortaöğretim (9–12. Sınıf)

Etik Beyan

Araştırmanın Etik kurul iznine ihtiyacı yoktur. Belge yüklenmiştir.

Kaynakça

1. Acolin, A., & Kim, A. M. (2022). Teaching data justice: Algorithmic bias and critical spatial analysis in urban planning education. Journal of Planning Education and Research, 44(3), 991-1000. https://doi.org/10.1177/0739456X221116356
2. Allen, L. K., & Kendeou, P. (2024). ED-AI Lit: An interdisciplinary framework for AI literacy in education. Policy Insights from the Behavioral and Brain Sciences, 11(1), 3-10. https://doi.org/10.1177/237.273.22231220339
3. Bearman, N., Jones, N., André, I., Cachinho, H. A., & DeMers, M. (2016). The future role of GIS education in creating critical spatial thinkers. Journal of Geography in Higher Education, 40(3), 394–408. https://doi.org/10.1080/03098.265.2016.1144729
4. Bowen, G. A. (2009). Document analysis as a qualitative research method. Qualitative Research Journal, 9(2), 27–40. https://doi.org/10.3316/QRJ0902027
5. Casal-Otero, L., Catalá, A., Fernández-Morante, C., Taboada, M., Cebreiro, B., & Barro, S. (2023). AI literacy in K-12: A systematic literature review. International Journal of STEM Education, 10(1), 29. https://doi.org/10.1186/s40594.023.00418-7
6. Chen, C., Wei, M., Zhang, P., Luo, P., & Meng, L. (2026). An infographic framework of GeoAI ethics based on news data. Cartography and Geographic Information Science, 53(2), 188–208. https://doi.org/10.1080/15230.406.2025.2593949
7. Chiu, T. K. F., Ahmad, Z., Ismailov, M., & Sanusi, I. T. (2024). What are artificial intelligence literacy and competency? A comprehensive framework to support them. Computers and Education Open, 6, 100171. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.caeo.2024.100171
8. Cumhurbaşkanlığı Dijital Dönüşüm Ofisi. (2021). Türkiye Ulusal Yapay Zekâ Stratejisi 2021–2025. T.C. Cumhurbaşkanlığı Dijital Dönüşüm Ofisi.

9. Huang, Y.-T., & Chu, C. P. (2026). Curriculum framework for artificial intelligence literacy in veterinary education. Frontiers in Veterinary Science, 13, 1801756. https://doi.org/10.3389/fvets.2026.180.1756
10. Jabareen, Y. (2009). Building a conceptual framework: Philosophy, definitions, and procedure. International Journal of Qualitative Methods, 8(4), 49–62. https://doi.org/10.1177/160.940.690900800406
11. Janowicz, K. (2023). Philosophical foundations of GeoAI: Exploring sustainability, diversity, and bias in GeoAI and spatial data science. In Handbook of Geospatial Artificial Intelligence (pp. 26–42). CRC Press.
12. Janowicz, K., Gao, S., McKenzie, G., Hu, Y., & Bhaduri, B. (2020). GeoAI: Spatially explicit artificial intelligence techniques for geographic knowledge discovery and beyond. International Journal of Geographical Information Science, 34(4), 625–636. https://doi.org/10.1080/13658.816.2019.1684500
13. Jekel, T., & Gryl, I. (2020). Educational resources, geographical information, geomedia, and learning. In Encyclopedia of Education and Information Technologies (pp. 655–669). Springer.
14. Juergens, C., & Redecker, A. P. (2023). Basic geo-spatial data literacy education for economic applications. KN – Journal of Cartography and Geographic Information, 73, 147–159. https://doi.org/10.1007/s42489.023.00135-9
15. Kerski, J. J. (2015). Geo-awareness, geo-enablement, geotechnologies, citizen science, and storytelling. Geography Compass, 9(1), 14–26. https://doi.org/10.1111/gec3.12193
16. Laiskhanov, S., & Seminar, Y. (2026). Identifying opportunities for integrating STEM and GeoAI technologies into geographic education. In Frontiers in Education (Vol. 11, p. 1774264), Frontiers Media SA. https://doi.org/10.3389/feduc.2026.177.4264
17. Lambert, D., & Biddulph, M. (2015). The dialogic space offered by curriculum-making in the process of learning to teach, and the creation of a progressive knowledge-led curriculum. Asia-Pacific Journal of Teacher Education, 43(3), 210–224. https://doi.org/10.1080/1359866X.2014.934197
18. Laupichler, M. C., Aster, A., Haverkamp, N., & Raupach, T. (2023). Development of the “Scale for the assessment of non-experts’ AI literacy”– An exploratory factor analysis. Computers in Human Behavior Reports, 12, 100338. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.chbr.2023.100338
19. Lee, J., Cimová, T., Foster, E. J., France, D., Krajňáková, L., Moorman, L., Rewhorn, S., & Zhang, J. (2025). Transforming geography education: The role of generative AI in curriculum, pedagogy, assessment, and fieldwork. International Research in Geographical and Environmental Education, 34(3), 237–253. https://doi.org/10.1080/10382.046.2025.2459780
20. Long, D., & Magerko, B. (2020). What is AI literacy? Competencies and design considerations. Proceedings of the 2020 CHI Conference on Human Factors in Computing Systems, 1–16. https://doi.org/10.1145/3313.831.3376727
21. Mai, G., Hu, Y., Gao, S., Cai, L., Martins, B., Scholz, J., Gao, J., & Janowicz, K. (2022). Symbolic and subsymbolic GeoAI: Geospatial knowledge graphs and spatially explicit machine learning. Transactions in GIS, 26(8), 3118–3124. https://doi.org/10.1111/tgis.13012
22. Manvi, R., Khanna, S., Burke, M., Lobell, D., & Ermon, S. (2024). Large language models are geographically biased. Proceedings of the 41st International Conference on Machine Learning (ICML), PMLR, 235, 34654–34669.
23. Miao, F., & Cukurova, M. (2024). AI competency framework for teachers. UNESCO. https://doi.org/10.54675/ZJTE2084
24. Miao, F., & Shiohira, K. (2024). AI competency framework for students. UNESCO.
25. Millî Eğitim Bakanlığı (MEB). (2024). Türkiye Yüzyılı Maarif Modeli Ortaöğretim Coğrafya Dersi Öğretim Programı (9–12. sınıflar). MEB.
26. Millî Eğitim Bakanlığı (MEB). (2025). Eğitimde Yapay Zekâ Politika Belgesi ve Eylem Planı 2025–2029. MEB.
27. National Research Council. (2006). Learning to think spatially: GIS as a support system in the K-12 curriculum. The National Academies Press. https://doi.org/10.17226/11019
28. Nelson, T. A., Goodchild, M. F., & Wright, D. J. (2022). Accelerating ethics, empathy, and equity in geographic information science. Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences, 119(19), e211.996.7119. https://doi.org/10.1073/pnas.211.996.7119
29. Ng, D. T. K., Leung, J. K. L., Chu, S. K. W., & Qiao, M. S. (2021). Conceptualizing AI literacy: An exploratory review. Computers and Education: Artificial Intelligence, 2, 100041. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.caeai.2021.100041
30. OECD/European Commission. (2026). Empowering learners for the age of AI: An AILit framework for primary and secondary education. OECD.
31. Page, M. J., McKenzie, J. E., Bossuyt, P. M., Boutron, I., Hoffmann, T. C., Mulrow, C. D., … Moher, D. (2021). The PRISMA 2020 statement: An updated guideline for reporting systematic reviews. BMJ, 372, n71. https://doi.org/10.1136/bmj.n71
32. Singla, R., Pupic, N., Ghaffarizadeh, S. A., Kim, C., Hu, R., Forster, B. B., & Hacihaliloglu, I. (2024). Developing a Canadian artificial intelligence medical curriculum using a Delphi study. NPJ Digital Medicine, 7(1), 323. https://doi.org/10.1038/s41746.024.01307-1
33. Snyder, H. (2019). Literature review as a research methodology: An overview and guidelines. Journal of Business Research, 104, 333–339. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jbusres.2019.07.039
34. Tolentino, R., Baradaran, A., Gore, G., Pluye, P., & Abbasgholizadeh-Rahimi, S. (2024). Curriculum frameworks and educational programs in AI for medical students: Scoping review. JMIR Medical Education, 10, e54793. https://doi.org/10.2196/54793
35. Torraco, R. J. (2005). Writing integrative literature reviews: Guidelines and examples. Human Resource Development Review, 4(3), 356–367. https://doi.org/10.1177/153.448.4305278283
36. Torraco, R. J. (2016). Writing integrative literature reviews: Using the past and present to explore the future. Human Resource Development Review, 15(4), 404–428. https://doi.org/10.1177/153.448.4316671606
37. Touretzky, D., Gardner-McCune, C., Martin, F., & Seehorn, D. (2019). Envisioning AI for K-12: What should every child know about AI? Proceedings of the AAAI Conference on Artificial Intelligence, 33(01), 9795–9799. https://doi.org/10.1609/aaai.v33i01.33019795
38. UNESCO. (2023). Global toolkit on AI and the rule of law for the judiciary. UNESCO. https://unesdoc.unesco.org/ark:/48223/pf000.038.7331
39. Whittemore, R., & Knafl, K. (2005). The integrative review: Updated methodology. Journal of Advanced Nursing, 52(5), 546–553. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1365-2648.2005.03621.x
40. Wilby, R. L., & Esson, J. (2024). AI literacy in geographic education and research: Capabilities, caveats, and criticality. The Geographical Journal, 190(1), e12548. https://doi.org/10.1111/geoj.12548
41. Yalçın, A. (2023). Sosyal bilgilerde yapay zekâ ve veri bilimi okuryazarlığının kullanımı. Izmir Democracy University Social Sciences Journal, 6(2), 87–123. https://doi.org/10.61127/idusos.1370409
42. Yeşilyurt, S., Dündar, R., & Demir, R. Z. (2024). Türkiye’de yapay zekâ ve eğitim ilişkisini inceleyen lisansüstü tezlerin analizi: Bir meta sentez çalışması. Journal of Innovative Research in Social Studies, 7(1), 47–73. https://doi.org/10.47503/jirss.1484848
43. Yetişensoy, O., & Rapoport, A. (2023). Artificial intelligence literacy teaching in social studies education. Journal of Pedagogical Research, 7(3), 100–110. https://doi.org/10.33902/JPR.202320866
44. Yiğit Özüdoğru, H. (2024). Cumhuriyet dönemi coğrafya dersi öğretim programları (1924-2024). İstanbul Ticaret Üniversitesi Sosyal Bilimler Dergisi, 23(49), 1714–1737. https://doi.org/10.46928/iticusbe.1477944
45. Zhai, X., Chu, X., Chai, C. S., Jong, M. S. Y., Istenic, A., Spector, M., Liu, J.-B., Yuan, J., & Li, Y. (2021). A review of artificial intelligence (AI) in education from 2010 to 2020. Complexity, 2021, 8812542. https://doi.org/10.1155/2021/8812542