Fonksiyon Öğrenme Sürecinde ChatGPT-Öğrenci Etkileşiminin İncelenmesi

Öz

Bu araştırma, 10. sınıf öğrencilerinin fonksiyonlar konusunu öğrenirken ChatGPT ile kurduğu yazılı etkileşimlerde üretilen promptların bilişsel yönelimini ve ChatGPT yanıtlarının açıklama stratejilerini incelemeyi amaçlamaktadır. Araştırma, etkileşim örüntülerini ve ortaya çıkan öğrenme ihtiyaçlarını betimlemeye odaklanmıştır. Nitel yaklaşımda keşfedici durum çalışması deseninde yürütülen çalışmanın katılımcıları Türkiye’nin güney bölgesinde bulunan bir özel fen lisesinde öğrenim gören 8 öğrencidir (5 kız, 3 erkek). Temel veri kaynağı, uygulama sırasında kaydedilen öğrenci–ChatGPT prompt–yanıt dökümleridir; öğrenme bağlamını yapılandırmak amacıyla fonksiyonlar çalışma kâğıdı kullanılmıştır. Veriler içerik analiziyle açık kodlama yoluyla çözümlenmiş, promptlar beş kategori altında sınıflandırılmıştır. Bulgular, promptların en çok Tanıma Yönelik (%41,2) ve Temsile Yönelik (%27,5) olduğunu; ChatGPT yanıtlarının ise Örnekleyici (%35,3), Görselleştirici (%33,1) ve Önleyici (%31,6) biçimlerde dağıldığını göstermiştir. Sonuçlar, ChatGPT’nin kavramsal netleştirme ve temsil zenginleştirme potansiyeline sahip olduğunu; ancak öğrenme çıktılarının öğrencinin soru sorma niteliği ile doğrulama ve öz-düzenleme davranışlarıyla ilişkili olduğunu ortaya koymuştur. Bu sonuçlarına bağlı olarak üretken yapay zekâ araçlarının matematik öğretiminde etkili kullanımı, pedagojik olarak yapılandırılmış kullanım senaryoları ve rehberlik stratejilerine yönelik çeşitli öneriler sunulmuştur.

Anahtar Kelimeler

• ChatGPT
• Matematik Öğrenme
• Fonksiyon Kavramı
• Yapay Zekâ Destekli Öğrenme Ortamı
• Etkileşim

An Investigation of ChatGPT–Student Interaction ın The Learning of Functions

Öz

This study aims to examine the cognitive orientations of prompts generated by 10th-grade students in their written interactions with ChatGPT while learning the topic of functions, as well as the explanatory strategies employed in ChatGPT’s responses. The research focuses on describing interaction patterns and the emerging learning needs. Conducted within a qualitative approach using an exploratory case study design, the study involved eight students (5 female, 3 male) enrolled in a private science high school located in the southern region of Türkiye. The primary data source consisted of student–ChatGPT prompt–response transcripts recorded during the implementation process; a worksheet on functions was used to structure the learning context. The data were analyzed through content analysis using open coding, and the prompts were classified under five categories. The findings indicated that the prompts were predominantly Definition-Oriented (41.2%) and Representation-Oriented (27.5%), while ChatGPT’s responses were distributed as Exemplifying (35.3%), Visualizing (33.1%), and Preventive (31.6%). The results revealed that ChatGPT has the potential to support conceptual clarification and representational enrichment; however, learning outcomes were found to be associated with the quality of students’ questioning as well as their verification and self-regulation behaviors. Based on these findings, several recommendations were presented regarding the effective use of generative artificial intelligence tools in mathematics education, particularly emphasizing pedagogically structured usage scenarios and guidance strategies.

Anahtar Kelimeler

• ChatGPT
• Mathematics Learning
• Function Concept
• AI-Supported Learning Environment
• Interaction

Kaynakça

1. Ainsworth, S. (2006). DeFT: A conceptual framework for considering learning with multiple representations. Learning and Instruction, 16(3), 183–198. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.learninstruc.2006.03.001
2. Altun, M. (2015). Matematik öğretimi: İlköğretim ve ortaöğretim. Aktüel Yayınları.
3. Anderson, L. W., & Krathwohl, D. R. (Eds.). (2001). A taxonomy for learning, teaching, and assessing: A revision of Bloom’s taxonomy of educational objectives. Longman.
4. Baidoo-Anu, D., & Owusu Ansah, L. (2023). Education in the era of generative artificial intelligence (AI): Understanding the potential benefits of ChatGPT in promoting teaching and learning. Journal of AI, 7(1), 52–62. https://doi.org/10.61969/jai.1337500
5. Baş, T., & Akturan, U. (2008). Nitel araştırma yöntemleri: NVivo 7.0 ile nitel veri analizi. Seçkin Yayıncılık.
6. Bozkurt, A. (2023). ChatGPT, üretken yapay zekâ ve algoritmik paradigma değişikliği. Alanyazın, 4(1), 63–72. https://doi.org/10.59320/alanyazin.1283282
7. Butterfuss, R., & Kendeou, P. (2020). Reducing interference from misconceptions: The role of inhibition in knowledge revision. Journal of Educational Psychology, 112(4), 782–794. https://doi.org/10.1037/edu0000385
8. Carlson, M., Jacobs, S., Coe, E., Larsen, S., & Hsu, E. (2002). Applying covariational reasoning while modeling dynamic events: A framework and a study.Journal for Research in Mathematics Education, 33(5), 352–378. https://doi.org/10.2307/749741

9. Clark, J. M., & Paivio, A. (1991). Dual coding theory and education. Educational Psychology Review, 3(3), 149–210. https://doi.org/10.1007/BF01320076
10. Cope, B., Kalantzis, M., & Searsmith, D. (2021). Artificial intelligence for education: Knowledge and its assessment in AI-enabled learning ecologies. Educational Philosophy and Theory, 53(12), 1229–1245. https://doi.org/10.1080/00131857.2020.1728732
11. Creswell, J. W. (2013). Qualitative inquiry and research design: Choosing among five approaches (3rd ed.). SAGE Publications.
12. Dao, X.-Q., & Le, N.-B. (2023). Investigating the effectiveness of ChatGPT in mathematical reasoning and problem solving: Evidence from the Vietnamese National High School Graduation Examination. arXiv. https://arxiv.org/abs/2306.06331
13. Demircioğlu, E., Yazıcı, C., & Demir, B. (2024). Yapay zekâ destekli matematik eğitimi: Bir içerik analizi. International Journal of Social and Humanities Sciences Research (JSHSR), 11(106), 771–785. https://doi.org/10.5281/zenodo.11109449
14. Duval, R. (2006). A cognitive analysis of problems of comprehension in a learning of mathematics. Educational Studies in Mathematics, 61(1–2), 103–131.
15. Herring, S. C. (2010). Computer-mediated conversation: Introduction and overview. Language@Internet, 7, Article 2. https://scholarworks.iu.edu/journals/index.php/li/article/view/37584
16. Holmes, W., Bialik, M., & Fadel, C. (2019). Artificial intelligence in education: Promise and implications for teaching and learning. Center for Curriculum Redesign.
17. Hwang, G.-J., & Tu, Y.-F. (2021). Roles and research trends of artificial intelligence in education: A bibliometric mapping analysis and systematic review. Mathematics, 9(6), Article 584. https://doi.org/10.3390/math9060584
18. Karabıyık, Ü. (2024). Matematik eğitiminde yenilikçi bir yaklaşım: ChatGPT’nin rolü. Uşak Üniversitesi Eğitim Araştırmaları Dergisi, 10(1), 26–46. https://doi.org/10.29065/usakead.1393487
19. Kasneci, E., Seßler, K., Küchemann, S., Bannert, M., Dementieva, D., Fischer, F., Gasser, U., Groh, G., Günnemann, S., Hüllermeier, E., Krusche, S., Kutyniok, G., Michaeli, T., Nerdel, C., Pfeffer, J., Poquet, O., Sailer, M., Schmidt, A., Seidel, T., ... Kasneci, G. (2023). ChatGPT for good? On opportunities and challenges of large language models for education. Learning and Individual Differences, 103, Article 102274. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.lindif.2023.102274
20. Lo, C. K. (2023). What is the impact of ChatGPT on education? A rapid review of the literature. Education Sciences, 13(4), Article 410. https://doi.org/10.3390/educsci13040410
21. Luckin, R., Holmes, W., Griffiths, M., & Forcier, L. B. (2016). Intelligence unleashed: An argument for AI in education. Pearson.
22. Merriam, S. B. (2009). Qualitative research: A guide to design and implementation (3rd ed.). Jossey-Bass.
23. Merriam, S. B., & Tisdell, E. J. (2016). Qualitative research: A guide to design and implementation (4th ed.). Jossey-Bass.
24. Miles, M. B., Huberman, A. M., & Saldaña, J. (2014). Qualitative data analysis: A methods sourcebook (3rd ed.). SAGE Publications.
25. Mirin, A. (2024). Where we see one function, they see two. International Journal of Mathematical Education in Science and Technology, 55(9), 2107–2135. https://doi.org/10.1080/0020739X.2022.2123285
26. Ngu, B. H. (2025). Worked examples reduce cognitive load and support schema acquisition: A meta-analysis. Education Sciences, 15(4), Article 504. https://doi.org/10.3390/educsci15040504
27. Özkaya, M., & İşleyen, T. (2012). Fonksiyonlarla ilgili bazı kavram yanılgıları. Çankırı Karatekin Üniversitesi Sosyal Bilimler Enstitüsü Dergisi, 3(1), 1–32. https://dergipark.org.tr/tr/pub/jiss/article/273063
28. Punch, K. F. (2013). Introduction to social research: Quantitative and qualitative approaches (2nd ed.). SAGE Publications.
29. Sfard, A. (1991). On the dual nature of mathematical conceptions: Reflections on processes and objects as different sides of the same coin. Educational Studies in Mathematics, 22(1), 1–36. https://doi.org/10.1007/BF00302715
30. Stylianides, A. J. (2007). Proof and proving in school mathematics. Educational Studies in Mathematics, 66(1), 1–18. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10649-006-9038-0
31. Tall, D., & Vinner, S. (1981). Concept image and concept definition in mathematics with particular reference to limits and continuity. Educational Studies in Mathematics, 12(2), 151–169. https://doi.org/10.1007/BF00305619
32. UNESCO.(2023).Guidance for generative Al in education and research. https://unesdoc.unesco.org/ark:/48223/pf0000386693
33. van de Pol, J., Volman, M., Oort, F., & Beishuizen, J. (2015). The effects of scaffolding in the classroom: Support contingency and student independent working time in relation to student achievement, task effort and appreciation of support. Instructional Science, 43(5), 615–641. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11251-015-9351-z
34. van Loon, M. H., & Roebers, C. M. (2024). Development of metacognitive monitoring and control skills in elementary school: A latent profile approach. Metacognition and Learning, 19, 1065–1089. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11409-024-09400-2
35. Vinner, S., & Dreyfus, T. (1989). Images and definitions for the concept of function. Journal for Research in Mathematics Education, 20(4), 356–366. https://doi.org/10.2307/749441
36. Wardat, Y., Tashtoush, M. A., AlAli, R., & Jarrah, A. M. (2023). ChatGPT: A revolutionary tool for teaching and learning mathematics. Eurasia Journal of Mathematics, Science and Technology Education, 19(7), Article em2286. https://doi.org/10.29333/ejmste/13272
37. Yıldırım, A., & Şimşek, H. (2018). Sosyal bilimlerde nitel araştırma yöntemleri (11. baskı). Seçkin Yayıncılık.
38. Yin, R. K. (2018). Case study research and applications: Design and methods (6th ed.). SAGE Publications.
39. 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, Article 39. https://doi.org/10.1186/s41239-019-0171-0
40. Zepeda, C. D., & Nokes-Malach, T. J. (2023). Assessing metacognitive regulation during problem solving: A comparison of three measures. Journal of Intelligence, 11(1), Article 16. https://doi.org/10.3390/jintelligence11010016
41. Zimmerman, B. J. (2000). Attaining self-regulation: A social cognitive perspective. In M. Boekaerts, P. R. Pintrich, & M. Zeidner (Eds.), Handbook of self-regulation (pp. 13–39). Academic Press.