The Effect of AI-Powered Educational Tools on Curriculum Literacy Competencies and Curriculum Fidelity Levels of Preservice Science Teachers

Öz

This study aimed to investigate the impact of AI-powered educational tools on preservice science teachers’ curriculum literacy competencies and curriculum fidelity levels. This study adopted an explanatory sequential mixed methods design. The quantitative component utilized one group pre-test–post-test experimental design, while the qualitative component was designed as a case study. The sample consisted of 19 preservice science teachers enrolled in a university in Türkiye. Data were gathered using the Curriculum Literacy Scale, Curriculum Fidelity Scale, and a semi-structured interview form. Quantitative data were analysed using descriptive statistics and paired samples t-tests, while qualitative data were examined through content analysis. The results of the quantitative analysis demonstrated that AI-powered educational tools significantly enhanced preservice teachers’ curriculum literacy competencies. The qualitative findings, interpreted through the lens of The Diffusion of Innovations Theory (DIT), indicated that participants expressed both positive and negative perceptions of using AI-powered tools in science education. Overall, these findings suggest that integrating AI-powered educational tools into teacher education curricula may be an effective strategy for improving preservice teachers’ curriculum literacy and, potentially, their curriculum fidelity.

Anahtar Kelimeler

• Artificial intelligence
• curriculum literacy
• curriculum fidelity
• science education

Yapay Zeka Destekli Eğitsel Araçların Fen Bilgisi Öğretmen Adaylarının Program Okuryazarlığı Yeterlikleri ile Programa Bağlılık Düzeylerine Etkisi

Öz

Bu çalışmanın amacı, yapay zeka destekli eğitsel araçların, Fen bilgisi öğretmen adaylarının program okuryazarlığı yeterlilikleri ve programa bağlılık düzeyleri üzerindeki etkisinin incelenmesidir. Çalışma açıklayıcı sıralı karma yöntem ile tasarlanmıştır. Nicel bileşen, tek grup ön test–son test deneysel desen ile tasarlanırken, nitel bileşen bir durum çalışması olarak tasarlanmıştır. Örneklem, Türkiye’deki bir Devlet üniversitede öğrenim gören 19 Fen bilgisi öğretmen adayından oluşmaktadır. Veriler; Program Okuryazarlığı Ölçeği, Programa Bağlılık Ölçeği ve yarı yapılandırılmış görüşme formu kullanılarak elde edilmiştir. Nicel veriler betimsel istatistikler ve bağımlı örneklem t-testi kullanılarak analiz edilirken, nitel veriler içerik analizi yoluyla incelenmiştir. Nicel analizler sonuçları, yapay zeka destekli eğitsel araçların öğretmen adaylarının program okuryazarlığı yeterliliklerini önemli ölçüde geliştirdiğini ortaya koymuştur. Yeniliklerin Yayılması Teorisi (YYT) çerçevesinde yorumlanan nitel bulgular, katılımcıların fen eğitiminde yapay zeka destekli eğitsel araçların kullanımına yönelik hem olumlu hem de olumsuz algılar ifade ettiklerini ortaya koymuştur. Genel olarak bu bulgular, yapay zeka destekli eğitsel araçların öğretmen eğitimi programına entegre edilmesinin, öğretmen adaylarının program okuryazarlığını ve potansiyel olarak programa bağlılıklarını geliştirmek için etkili bir strateji olabileceğini göstermektedir.

Anahtar Kelimeler

• Yapay zeka
• program okuryazarlığı
• programa bağlılık
• fen eğitimi

Kaynakça

1. Akyıldız, S. (2020). A conceptual analysis of curriculum literacy concept: a study of scale development. Electronic Journal of Social Sciences. 19(73), 315-332. https://doi.org/10.17755/esosder.554205
2. Almquist, Y.B., Kvart, S., & Brännström L. (2019). A practical guide to quantitative methods with SPSS. Research Reports in Public Health Sciences, (Research in Public Health Sciences, No: 2019:2). Stockholm University.
3. Aslan, S., & Gürlen, E. (2019). Ortaokul öğretmenlerinin program okuryazarlık düzeyleri. Ahi Evran University Journal of Kırşehir Education Faculty (KEFAD), 20(1), 171-186. https://doi.org/10.29299/kefad.2018.20.01.006
4. Aslan, S. (2019). An analysis of prospective teachers' curriculum literacy levels in terms of reading and writing. Universal Journal of Educational Research, 7(4), 973-979. https://doi.org/10.13189/ujer.2019.070408
5. Atalay, M., & Çelik, E. (2017). Artificial intelligence and machine learning applications in big data analysis. Mehmet Akif Ersoy Üniversitesi Sosyal Bilimler Dergisi, 9(22), 155-172. https://doi.org/10.20875/makusobed.309727
6. Atilla, A.Ş. (2022). Yapay zeka teknolojisi ve uygulamalar. Dikeyeksen Yayıncılık.
7. Ayanwale, M.A., & Ndlovu, M. (2024). Investigating factors of students’ behavioral intentions to adopt chatbot technologies in higher education: Perspective from expanded diffusion theory of innovation. Computers in Human Behavior Reports. 14, 100396. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.chbr.2024.100396
8. Aynas, N. (2023). Review of research in the field of program literacy: A content analysis. The Journal of Academic Social Science Studies, 17(99), 69-86, http://dx.doi.org/10.29228/JASSS.75366

9. Bolat, Y. (2021). Eğitim programı okuryazarlığı. Pegem Akademi. https://doi.org/10.14527/9786257582926
10. Bolat, Y., & Baş, M. (2023). Two important teaching professional competencies: curriculum literacy and curriculum leadership. Journal of Education for Life, 37(2), 294-330. https://doi.org/10.33308/26674874.2023372541
11. Boncuk, A. (2021). Examination of the relationship between teachers' program literacy and their commitment to the curriculum. Anatolian Turk Education Journal, 3(1), 88-108.
12. Bümen, N.T., Çakar, E.Ö., & Yıldız, G.D. (2014). Curriculum fidelity and factors affecting fidelity in the Turkish context. Educational Sciences: Theory & Practic, 14(1), 203-228. https://doi.org/10.12738/estp.2014.1.2020
13. Büyüköztürk, Ş. (2004). Veri analizi el kitabı (4. Baskı). Pegem Akademi.
14. Carter, L., & Bélanger, F. (2005) The utilization of e-government services: citizen trust, ınnovation and acceptance factors. Information Systems Journal, 15, 5-25. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1365-2575.2005.00183.x
15. Çetinkaya, S., & Tabak, S. (2019). Curriculum literacy efficiency of preservice teachers. Ondokuz Mayıs University Journal of Education, 38(1), 296-309. https://doi.org/10.7822/omuefd.535482
16. Chakravarty, S., & Dubinsky, A. (2005). Individual investors’ reactions to decimalization: Innovation diffusion in financial markets. Journal of Economic Psychology, 26, 89–103. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.joep.2003.10.003
17. Chassignol, M., Khoroshavin, A., Klimova, A., & Bilyatdinova, A. (2018). Artificial Intelligence trends in education: A narrative overview. Procedia Computer Science, 136, 16-24. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.procs.2018.08.233
18. Creswell, J. W., & Plano Clark, V. L. (2014). Karma yöntem araştırmaları tasarımı ve yürütülmesi. (Çev. Edt. Y. Dede, S. B. Demir). Anı Yayıncılık.
19. Duran, A. (2023). Determining the curriculum literacy levels of prospective teachers. e-International Journal of Educational Research, 14(6), 207-218. https://doi.org/10.19160/e-ijer.1364685
20. Dusenbury, L., Brannigan, R., Falco, M., & Hansen, W.B. (2003). A review of research on fidelity of implementation: implications for drug abuse prevention in school settings. Health Education Research,18(2), 237-256. https://doi.org/10.1093/her/18.2.237
21. Erdem, C., & Eğmir, E. (2018). Prospective teachers’ levels of curriculum literacy Afyon Kocatepe Üniversitesi Sosyal Bilimler Dergisi, 20(2), 123-138. https://doi.org/10.32709/akusosbil.428727
22. García-Peñalvo, F. J. (2023). The perception of artificial intelligence in educational contexts after the launch of ChatGPT: Disruption or panic. Education in the Knowledge Society, 24,1-9. https://doi.org/10.14201/eks.31279
23. Güner, T., & Aslan, S. (2023). An analysis of the relationship between the pre-service teachers’ curriculum literacy and their preparedness to teach. Anadolu University Journal of Education Faculty, 7(1), 111-126. https://doi.org/10.34056/aujef.1177806
24. Higher Education Council (HEC, 2018). Teacher training undergraduate programs. https://www.yok.gov.tr
25. Işıkgöz, M. E. (2023). Analysis of the predictors affecting curriculum literacy levels of physical education teacher candidates. The Journal of International Educational Sciences, 9(31), 21-37. https://doi.org/10.29228/INESJOURNAL.62595
26. Kabbas A, Alharthi A., & Munshi A (2020). Artificial intelligence applications in cybersecurity. International Journal of Computer Science and Network Security, 20(2), 120-124. http://paper.ijcsns.org/07_book/202002/20200216.pdf
27. Kahramanoğlu, R. (2019). A study on teachers' levels of curriculum literacy. Journal of International Social Research, 12(65), 827-840. https://doi.org/10.17719/jisr.2019.3495
28. Karagülle, S., Varki, E., & Hekimoğlu, E. (2019). An investigation of the concept of program literacy in the context of apllicability and functionality of educational program. Journal of Educational Reflections, 3(2), 85-97. https://izlik.org/JA78YD92UG
29. Karahanna, E., Straub, D. W., & Chervany, N. L. (1999). Information technology adoption across time: A cross-sectional comparison of pre-adoption and post-adoption beliefs. MIS quarterly, 183-213. https://doi.org/10.2307/249751
30. Luckin, R., Holmes, W., Griffiths, M., & Forcier, L.B. (2016). Intelligence Unleashed: An argument for AI in Education. London: Pearson.
31. Mansuroğlu, C. (2019). The Investigation of Teachers’ Curriculum Literacy and Reflective Thinking Trends. Master Thesis. University of Kahramanmaraş Sütçü İmam Üniversity.
32. Menzli, L.J., Smirani, L.K., Boulahia, J.A., & Hadjouni, M. (2022). Investigation of open educational resources adoption in higher education using Rogers’ diffusion of innovation theory. Heliyon, 8(7). https://doi.org/10.1016/j.heliyon.2022.e09885
33. Mikropoulos, T.A., & Natsis, A. (2011). Educational virtual environments: A ten-year review of empirical research (1999–2009). Computers & education, 56(3), 769-780. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.compedu.2010.10.020
34. Ministry of National Education. (2017). Öğretmenlik mesleği genel yeterlikleri. https://oygm.meb.gov.tr
35. Okur, M.R., Salar, H.C., Süral, İ., & Güneş, E.P.U. (2009). The use of 3G technologıes ın distance educatıon. In Proceedings of 9 th International Educational Technology Conference. (pp. 679-684). Hacettepe University.
36. Önal, İ. (2010). Lifelong learning and literacy in process of historical change: A Turkish experience. Bilgi Dünyası, 11(1), 101-121. https://doi.org/10.15612/BD.2010.258
37. Pantelimon, F.V., Bologa, R., Toma, A., & Posedaru, B.S. (2021). The evolution of AI-driven educational systems during the COVID-19 pandemic. Sustainability, 13(23), 13501. https://doi.org/10.3390/su132313501
38. Patton, M.Q. (2014). Nitel araştırma ve değerlendirme yöntemleri. (Çev. M. Bütün ve S. B. Demir, Ed). Pegem Akademi.
39. Pinho, C., Franco, M., & Mendes, L. (2021). Application of innovation diffusion theory to the e-learning process: Higher education context. Education and Information Technologies, 26, 421–440. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10639-020-10269-2
40. Rogers, E.M. (2003). Diffusion of innovations (5th ed.). Free Press.
41. Rus, V., D’Mello, S., Hu, X., & Graesser, A. (2013). Recent advances in conversational intelligent tutoring systems. AI magazine, 34(3), 42-54. https://doi.org/10.1609/aimag.v34i3.2485
42. Şahin, A. İ., & Tekkol, İ. A. (2023). An investigation of primary school teacher candidates’ curriculum literacy. International Anatolia Academic Online Journal Social Sciences Journal, 9(1), 1-12. https://izlik.org/JA53BR42GL
43. Tanaş, R., & Tuncer, M. (2024). Relationships between teachers' levels of curriculum literacy, learning-teaching process competencies, achievement objectives, and curriculum commitment. Cumhuriyet International Journal of Education, 13(2), 426-437. https://doi.org/10.30703/cije.1326230
44. Tosuntaş, Ş.B., & Çubukçu, Z. (2019). Factors affecting use of cloud technology by prospective teachers in the context of the diffusion of ınnovation theory. Eskişehir Osmangazi Üniversitesi Sosyal Bilimler Dergisi, 20, 957-976. https://doi.org/10.17494/ogusbd.555091
45. Wartman, S.A., & Combs, D.C. (2018). Medical education must move from the information age to the age of artificial intelligence. Academic Medicine, 93(8), 1107–1109. https://doi.org/10.1097/ACM.0000000000002044
46. Yalçın, S., Bahar, H.H., & Yalçın, S. (2023). Investigation of the curriculum literacy and self-efficacy of teachers. Euroasia Journal of Social Sciences & Humanities, 10(32), 61-74. https://doi.org/10.5281/zenodo.80788
47. Yaşaroğlu, C., & Manav, F. (2015). Curriculum fidelity scale: the study of validity & reliability. The Journal of International Education Science, 2(4),247-258. http://dx.doi.org/10.16991/INESJOURNAL.60
48. Yılmaz, G., & Kahramanoglu, R. (2021). Examining the relationship between curriculum literacy levels, curriculum orientations and curriculum fidelity levels of teachers. Journal of Interdisciplinary Educational Research, 5(10), 178-187. https://izlik.org/JA47AX48CK