Geleceğin Sınıflarında Sosyal Bilgiler Öğretimi

Öz

Özet Bu araştırmanın temel amacı, geleceğin sınıfları (Future Classroom Labs) olarak tanımlanan öğrenme ortamlarında gerçekleştirilecek sosyal bilgiler derslerinde hangi araçlardan, nasıl yararlanılacağına dair kapsamlı bir değerlendirme yapmaktır. Bu çerçevede geleceğin sınıfları olarak tanımlanan sınıflarda sosyal bilgiler öğretiminde yararlanılabilecek bir dizi araç bu çalışma ile alanyazından yararlanılarak bir araya getirilmiştir. Bu araştırma nitel bir çalışma olmakla beraber geleneksel derleme yöntemine göre biçimlendirilmiştir. Bu çalışmada derleme yönteminin tercih edilmesinin gerekçesi, alanyazındaki mevcut durumu ve gelecekteki eğilimleri analiz ederek, geleceğin sınıflarında sosyal bilgiler eğitiminin nasıl şekilleneceğine dair kapsamlı ve kuramsal bir çerçeve ortaya koymaktır. Elde edilen verilere göre, geleceğin sınıflarında sosyal bilgiler öğretimi amacıyla birçok zekâ alanına hitap eden çeşitli teknolojik araçların kullanılabileceği öngörülmektedir. Geleceğin sınıflarında gerçekleştirilecek sosyal bilgiler derslerinde; 3D yazıcılar, hologram teknolojisi, insansız hava araçları başta olmak üzere dijital çağın ve internet teknolojilerinin sağladığı birçok teknolojik aracın kullanılabilir potansiyeli olduğu görülmektedir.

Anahtar Kelimeler

• teknoloji
• geleceğin sınıfları
• eğitim
• sosyal bilgiler

Social Studies Teaching in Future Classrooms

Öz

The main objective of this research is to conduct a comprehensive evaluation of which tools can be used and how they can be utilised in social studies lessons to be conducted in learning environments defined as future classrooms (FutureClassroomLabs). Within this framework, a range of tools that can be used in social studies education in classrooms defined as future classrooms have been compiled in this study by drawing on the existing literature. Although this research is a qualitative study, it has been structured according to traditional compilation methods. The reason for choosing the compilation method in this study is to analyse the current situation and future trends in the literature and to present a comprehensive and theoretical framework for how social studies education will take shape in future classrooms. According to the data obtained, it is predicted that various technological tools that appeal to many areas of intelligence can be used for social studies teaching in future classrooms. It is seen that many technological tools provided by the digital age and internet technologies, such as 3D printers, hologram technology, and unmanned aerial vehicles, have the potential to be used in social studies lessons in future classrooms.

Anahtar Kelimeler

• Future classrooms
• Education
• Technology
• Social studies

Kaynakça

1. Akdağ, H., & Kaymakçı, S. (2013). Sosyal bilgiler laboratuvarlarının (sınıflarının) sosyal bilgiler öğretiminde etkililiği üzerine bir çalışma. Gaziantep Üniversitesi Sosyal Bilimler Dergisi, 12(1), 164-177.
2. Aljaloud, A., Gromik, N., Billingsley, W., & Kwan, P. (2015). Research trends in student response systems: A literature review. International Journal of Learning Technology, 10(4), 313-325. https://doi.org/10.1504/IJLT.2015.074073
3. Arstorp, A. T. (2018). Future classroom labs in Norwegian pre-service teacher education. In Innovative Technologies and Learning: First International Conference, ICITL 2018, Portoroz, Slovenia, August 27–30, 2018, Proceedings 1 (pp. 288-292). Springer International Publishing. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-319-99737-7_30
4. Assante, D., Cennamo, G. M., & Placidi, L. (2020, April). 3D printing in Education: an European perspective. In 2020 IEEE Global Engineering Education Conference (EDUCON) (pp. 1133-1138). IEEE. 10.1109/EDUCON45650.2020.9125311
5. Ault, M. J., & Horn, C. K. (2018). Increasing active engagement: Guidelines for using student response systems. Journal of Special Education Technology, 33(3), 207-216. https://doi.org/10.1177/0162643418775745
6. Bakırcı, H., Gök, N., & Artun, H. (2021). Fen öğretiminde kullanılan hologram uygulamalarına yönelik fen bilimleri öğretmenlerinin görüşleri. Afyon Kocatepe Üniversitesi Sosyal Bilimler Dergisi, 23(4), 1334-1348.
7. Barker, C. (2015). I found Rome a city of brick and left it a city of Lego: The Nicholson Museum's exhibitions of Lego models. Journal of History Teachers Association of NSW Inc., Volume 49, No.1, 38-42.
8. Chang, F. C., Chen, D. K., & Huang, H. C. (2015). Future Classroom with the internet of things-A Service-oriented framework. J. Inf. Hiding Multim. Signal Process, 6(5), 869-881.

9. Choi, H., & Kim, J. (2018). Implications for activating 3D printer use for education in elementary and secondary schools. International Journal on Advanced Science, Engineering and Information Technology, 8(4-2), 1546. https://doi.org/10.18517/ijaseit.8.4-2.5722
10. Chien, Y. H. (2017). Developing a pre-engineering curriculum for 3D printing skills for high school technology education. Eurasia Journal of Mathematics, Science and Technology Education, 13(7), 2941-295. https://doi.org/10.12973/eurasia.2017.00729a
11. Colton, S., Smith, C., & Sourdot, L. (2020). Designing a future classroom laboratory for exploring the science OF teaching and learning. International Journal of Designs for Learning, 11(3), 36-46. https://doi.org/10.14434/ijdl.v11i3.25860
12. Dhand, H. (1969). Social Studies Laboratory. https://eric.ed.gov/?id=ED065395 17.10.2025 tarihinde erişim sağlanmıştır.
13. Dúo-Terrón, P. (2024). The future classroom lab. Educational considerations from a systematic review. Review of Science, Mathematics and ICT Education, 18(2), 49-68. https://doi.org/10.26220/rev.5044
14. Deshmukh, A., Jones, A., Janarthanam, S., Foster, M. E., Ribeiro, T., Corrigan, L. J., & Castellano, G. (2015, March). Empathic robotic tutors: map guide. In Proceedings of the Tenth Annual ACM/IEEE International Conference on Human-Robot Interaction Extended Abstracts (pp. 311-311). https://doi.org/10.1145/2701973.2702693
15. Edwards, B. I., & Cheok, A. D. (2018). Why not robot teachers: artificial intelligence for addressing teacher shortage. Applied Artificial Intelligence, 32(4), 345-360. https://doi.org/10.1080/08839514.2018.1464286
16. Jafari, E. (2023). Explanation of the views and opinions regarding the education strategies for using 3D hologram technology as an educational media, Educational Media International, 60(2), 67-91. https://doi.org/10.1080/09523987.2023.2262194.
17. Europen Schoolnet, (2025) https://fcl.eun.org/documents/10180/4589040/FCL_guidelines_2019_ DEF.pdf 02.01.2025 tarihinde erişilmiştir.
18. Eurobarometer, (2012). Public attitudes towards robots. Bussels: European Commission Public Attitudes towards Robots Eylül 2012 Eurobarometer survey 02.02.2025 tarihinde erişilmiştir.
19. Ferrari, R. (2015). Writing narrative style literature reviews. Medical Writing, 24(4), 230-235. https://doi.org/10.1179/2047480615Z.000000000329
20. Fokides, E., & Lagopati, G. (2024). The utilization of 3D printers by elementary-aged learners: A scoping review Journal of Information Technology Education: Innovations in Practice, 23, 006. https://doi.org/10.28945/5288
21. Fuller, J. S., & Dawson, K. M. (2017). Student response systems for formative assessment: Literature-based strategies and findings from a middle school implementation. Contemporary Educational Technology, 8(4), 370-389.
22. Ghuloum, H. (2010). 3D hologram technology in learning environment. In Informing science & IT education conference (pp. 693-704). Informing Science Institute Santa Rosa, CA.
23. Giddings, S. (2017). LEGO and LEGO foundation. In Peppler, Kylie (Ed.). The SAGE Encyclopedia of out-of-school learning. SAGE Publications, pp. 436-438.
24. Gücükoğlu, B., Ceylan, D. Y., & Dursun, Z. (2013). Etkileşimli beyaz tahtalar için arayüz tasarımı ve içerik geliştirme: Millî Eğitim Bakanlığı coğrafya dersi örneği. Retrieved December, 28, 2015.
25. Hagan, H. N., Fegely, A. G., & Warriner, G. H. (2020). Using virtual reality (VR) to enhance C3 framework inquiry. Social Studies and the Young Learner, 32(4), 10-15.
26. Hall, O., & Wahab, I. (2021). The use of drones in the spatial social sciences. Drones, 5(4), 112. https://doi.org/10.3390/drones5040112
27. Han, C., & Demirkan, Ö., (2024). Ortaokul 5. Sınıf öğrencilerinin teknoloji destekli esnek öğrenme ortamındaki İngilizce derslerine ilişkin görüşleri. International Journal of Innovative Approaches in Social Sciences vol.8, no.4, 121-140. https://doi.org/10.29329/ijiasos.2024.1091.1
28. Hashimoto, T., & Kobayashi, H. (2014). Android Robot SAYA. Journal of Robotics and Mechatronics, 26(1), 107-108. https://doi.org/10.20965/jrm.2014.p0107
29. Hashimoto, T., Kato, N., & Kobayashi, H. (2010). Study on educational application of android robot SAYA: field trial and evaluation at elementary school. In Intelligent Robotics and Applications: Third International Conference, ICIRA 2010, Shanghai, China, November 10-12, 2010. Proceedings, Part II 3 (pp. 505-516). Springer Berlin Heidelberg.
30. Higgins, S., Beauchamp, G., & Miller, D. (2007). Reviewing the literature on interactive whiteboards. Learning, Media and technology, 32(3), 213-225. https://doi.org/10.1080/17439880701511040
31. Ivanov, S. H. (2016, June). Will robots substitute teachers?. In 12th International Conference “Modern science, business and education (pp. 27-29).
32. Jayakumar, N., Senthilkumar, G., & Pradeep, A. D. (2021). Effect of printing parameters of 3D printed PLA parts on mechanical properties. Journal of Engineering Research, ICMMM Special Issue, 1-16. https://doi.org/10.36909/jer.ICMMM.15697
33. Johnson, B. D., & Winkelman, S. (2014). 21st Century Robot: The Dr. Simon Egerton Stories. Maker Media, Inc.
34. Jones, P., Osborne, T., Sullivan-Drage, C., Keen, N., & Gadsby, E. (2022). Virtual reality methods: A guide for researchers in the social Sciences and humanities (p. 158). Policy Press.
35. Karaçam, Z. (2013). Sistematik derleme metodolojisi: Sistematik derleme hazırlamak için bir rehber. Dokuz Eylül Üniversitesi Hemşirelik Fakültesi Elektronik Dergisi, 6(1), 26-33.
36. Karalı, M. A. (2022). Sosyal bi̇lgi̇ler öğreti̇mi̇nde hologram i̇çeri̇kli̇ uygulamaların akademi̇k başarı ve tutum üzeri̇ne etki̇si̇ [Yayımlanmamış doktora tezi]. Marmara Üni̇versi̇tesi̇ Eğitim Bilimleri Enstitüsü.
37. Karaduman, H. (2017). Sosyal bilgiler eğitiminde 3 boyutlu yazıcıların kullanımı. Anadolu Journal of Educational Sciences International, 7(3), 590-625. https://doi.org/10.18039/ajesi.371659
38. Kaiser, C. M., & Wisniewski, M. A. (2012). Enhancing student learning and engagement using student response systems. Social Studies Research and Practice, 7(3), 137-149.
39. Kocak, O. (2022). A systematic literature review of web-based student response systems: Advantages and challenges. Education and Information Technologies, 27(2), 2771-2805. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10639-021-10732-8
40. Küçükali, R., & Coşkun, H. C. (2021). Eği̇ti̇mde di̇ji̇talleşme ve yapay zekânın okul yöneti̇ci̇li̇ği̇ndeki̇ yeri̇. Uluslararası Liderlik Çalışmaları Dergisi: Kuram ve Uygulama, 4(2), 124-135.
41. Li-Ying, L. I. U., & Cheng, M. T. (2012). A pilot study: Can interactive projectors enhance students’ performance and interactivity in the classrooms? In International Conference on Computers in Education.
42. Liang, D. N. Y., Yun, F. N. J., & Minato, N. (2021). Investigating the use of LEGO® Bricks in education and training: A systematic literature review. Journal of Applied Learning and Teaching, 4(1), 107-113. https://doi.org/10.37074/jalt.2021.4.1.17
43. Mathews, A. J., DeChano-Cook, L. M., & Bloom, C. (2023). Enhancing middle school learning about geography and topographic maps using hands-on play and geospatial technologies. Journal of Geography, 122(5), 115-125. https://doi.org/10.1080/00221341.2023.2226156
44. Metin, E., & Kılıç, F. (2023). Sosyal bilgiler öğretiminde sanal gerçeklik uygulamalarının kullanımı: Seben Kaya Evleri ve Fosil Ormanı Örnekleri. Abant İzzet Baysal Üniversitesi Eğitim Fakültesi Dergisi, 23(4), 2013-2034. https://doi.org/10.17240/aibuefd.2023..-1323974
45. Montero-Izquierdo, A. I., Jeong, J. S., & González-Gómez, D. (2024). A future classroom lab with active and gamified STEAM proposal for mathematics and science disciplines: Analyzing the effects on pre-service teacher’s affective domain. Heliyon, 10(16). ISO 690.
46. Morgan, M. (2023). Drones as a teaching instrument in the social studies classroom (Master’s thesis, Stephen F. Austin State University). ScholarWorks @ SFA. https://scholarworks.sfasu.edu/etds/548
47. McLure, J. (1970). A social science laboratory. The Clearing House, 44(7), 407–410. http://www.jstor.org/stable/30184099
48. Ng, W. S., & Cheng, G. (2019). Integrating drone technology in stem education: A case study to assess teachers’ readiness and training needs. Issues in Informing Science & Information Technology, 16. https://doi.org/10.28945/4288
49. Ng, D. T. K., Tsui, M. F., & Yuen, M. (2022). Exploring the use of 3D printing in mathematics education: A scoping review. Asian Journal for Mathematics Education, 1(3), 338–358. https:// doi. org/ 10. 1177/ 27527 26322 11293 57
50. Ninković, S. O., & Adamov, J. (2023). University students' opinions on the use of 3D holograms in learning organic chemistry. In Proceedings of the 5th International Baltic Symposium on Science and Technology Education, BalticSTE2023 (pp. 151-161).
51. Okubo, K., Sato, K., Yamamoto, T., Itagaki, S., Nakagawa, S., & Horita, T. (2022). Practice and effects of programming education using drones in the agriculture unit of the fifth grade of elementary school social studies. Information and Technology in Education and Learning, 2(1), Trans-p010.
52. Öngöz, S. (2023). Yapay zekâ teknolojisinin kullanıldığı yeni nesil öğretim materyalleri. V. Nabi̇yev ve A. K. Erümi̇t (Ed.), Eğitimden yapay zekâ kuramdan uygulamaya içinde (s. 58-83). Pegem Akademi̇.
53. Özeren, Ö., Özeren, E. B., Top, S. M., & Qurraie, B. S. (2023). Learning-by-doing using 3D printers: Digital fabrication studio experience in architectural education. Journal of Engineering Research, 11(3), 1-6. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jer.2023.100135
54. Özer, A., & Görgülü, Z. (2021). Bir bilimsel derlemenin planlanması ve yazımı. Erzincan Üniversitesi Eğitim Fakültesi Dergisi, 23(3), 698-713. https://doi.org/10.17556/erziefd.819971
55. Öztaş, E. Ş. (2024). Eğitimde artırılmış gerçeklik teknolojisi kullanımı: 2014-2024 sistematik alanyazın taraması. Ufuk Üniversitesi Sosyal Bilimler Enstitüsü Dergisi, 13(26), 33-54. https://doi.org/10.58635/ufuksbedergi.1594889
56. Park, J. (2023). Development of STEAM education program using drones in social studies and legal challenges. 사회과교육, 62(3), 65-81. https://doi.org/10.37561/sse.2023.6.62.3.65
57. Penuel, W. R., Boscardin, C. K., Masyn, K., & Crawford, V. M. (2007). Teaching student response systems in elementary and secondary education settings: A survey study. Educational Technology Research and Development, 55, 315-346. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11423-006-9023-4
58. Pergantis, P., & Drigas, A. (2024). The effect of drones in the educational process: A Systematic Review. Education Sciences, 14(6), 665. https://doi.org/10.3390/educsci14060665
59. Ramachandiran, C. R., Chong, M. M., & Subramanian, P. (2019). 3D hologram in futuristic classroom: A review. Periodicals of Engineering and Natural Sciences (PEN), 7(2), 580-586.
60. Ramlie, M. K., Ali, A. Z. M., Abd Aziz, M. N., & Ibrahim, N. H. (2023). A Conceptual Framework for 3D Hologram Talking-Head Character Design. International Journal of Information and Education Technology, 13(6), 983-987. https://doi.org/10.18178/ijiet.2023.13.6.1895
61. Riner, A., Hur, J. W., & Kohlmeier, J. (2022). Virtual reality integration in social studies classroom: Impact on student knowledge, classroom engagement, and historical empathy development. Journal of Educational Technology Systems, 51(2), 146-168. https://doi.org/10.1177/004723952211325
62. Rother, E. T. (2007). Systematic literature review X narrative review. Acta paulista de enfermagem, 20, v-vi. https://doi.org/10.1590/S0103-21002007000200001
63. Safitri, D., Marini, A., Fitrisia, A., Widodo, S., & Meyers, K. F. (2023). Model of virtual reality in social studies to improve student learning outcomes. Eurasian Journal of Educational Research, 105(105), 103-118. https://doi.org/10.14689/ejer.2023.105.007
64. Sertalp, E. (2024). Using hologram technique in educational environment: The case of perspective module. Croatian Journal of Education: Hrvatski časopis za odgoj i obrazovanje, 26(2), 485-507.https://doi.org/10.15516/cje.v26i2.5056
65. Sharkey, A. J. (2016). Should we welcome robot teachers?. Ethics and Information Technology, 18, 283-297. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10676-016-9387-z
66. Suh, H. (2011). Collaborative learning models and support technologies in the future classroom. International Journal for Educational Media and Technology, 5(1), 50-61.
67. Şen, N. (2021). Özel eğitimde insansı robotlar. Avrupa Bilim ve Teknoloji Dergisi, (32), 832-842.
68. Tena-Fernández, R., & Carrera-Martínez, N. (2020). La Future Classroom Lab como marco de desarrollo del aprendizaje por competencias y el trabajo por proyectos. Revista Mexicana de Investigación Educativa. 25(85), 449–468. http://www.scielo.org.mx/scielo.php?script=sciarttext&pid=S1405-66662020000200449&lng=es&tlng=es
69. Themistocleous, K., Agapiou, A., & Hadjimitsis, D. G. (2016, October). Experiencing cultural heritage sites using 3D modeling for the visually impaired. In Euro-Mediterranean Conference (pp. 171-177). Cham: Springer International Publishing.
70. Tosuntaş, Ş. B., Cubukcu, Z., & Beauchamp, G. (2020). Kara tahtadan etkileşimli tahtaya geçiş: Öğretmenlerin etkileşimli tahta kabul ve kullanımlarının incelenmesi. Elektronik Sosyal Bilimler Dergisi, 19(76), 1720-1740.
71. Türel, Y. K., & Johnson, T. E. (2012). Teachers' belief and use of interactive whiteboards for teaching and learning. Journal of Educational Technology & Society, 15(1), 381-394.
72. Villena Taranilla, R., Cózar-Gutiérrez, R., González-Calero, J. A., & López Cirugeda, I. (2022). Strolling through a city of the Roman Empire: an analysis of the potential of virtual reality to teach history in Primary Education. Interactive Learning Environments, 30(4), 608-618. https://www.tandfonline.com/doi/pdf/10.1080/10494820.2019.1674886?casa_token=lO-c-aX97msAAAAA:UG8DchXne3yRr5pl7UXEZfJlVW6X5dPxagDAya2RTVoGchQDQqS5tzQkqWBascaSfBygAB7nCoQ
73. Yavrutürk, A. R., & Saper, Ü. (2024). Yenilikçi ve esnek öğrenme alanı geleceğin sınıf laboratuvarı alanında eğitim gören öğrencilerin deneyimlerinin incelenmesi. Journal of Uludag University Faculty of Education, 37(3), 949-973. https://doi.org/10.19171/uefad.1459904
74. YEĞITEK. (2021). Türkiye’de aktif öğrenme ve esnek öğrenme alanlarının pedagojik çerçevede incelenmesi. https://yegitek.meb.gov.tr/meb_iys_dosyalar/2021_04/02145004_Arastirma _SHE_comments.pdf 17.10.2025 tarihinde erişim sağlanmıştır.
75. Yılmaz, K. (2021). Sosyal bilimlerde ve eğitim bilimlerinde sistematik derleme, meta değerlendirme ve bibliyometrik analizler. Manas Sosyal Araştırmalar Dergisi, 10(2), 1457-1490. https://doi.org/10.33206/mjss.791537
76. Zhou, L. (2023). How to develop 21st Century skills in students: The role of LEGO education. Science Insights Education Frontiers, 15(2), 2281–2283. https://doi.org 10.15354/sief.23.co066
77. Zantua, L. S. O. (2017). Utilization of virtual reality content in grade 6 social studies using affordable virtual reality technology. Asia Pacific Journal of Multidisciplinary Research, 5(2), 1-10.
78. Wang, A. I. (2015). The wear out effect of a game-based student response system. Computers & Education, 82, 217-227. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.compedu.2014.11.004
79. Xie, Y., Chen, Y., & Ryder, L. H. (2021). Effects of using mobile -based virtual reality on Chinese L2 students’ oral proficiency. Computer Assisted Language Learning, 34(3), 225-245. https://doi.org/10.1080/09588221.2019.1604551