Algoritma Okuryazarlığı Çalışmalarının Sistematik Literatür Taraması: Göz Ardı Edilen Boşlukların Belirlenmesi

Öz

Bu sistematik literatür taraması, algoritmik sistemlerin bireylerin bilgiye erişimini, fırsatlarını ve sosyal etkileşimlerini dijital ortamlarda artan bir şekilde şekillendirdiği bağlamda, algoritma okuryazarlığı araştırmalarının mevcut durumunu incelemektedir. Çalışmanın temel amacı, kullanıcıların algoritmik sistemlere yönelik farkındalıklarına ilişkin göz ardı edilen alanları ve bilgi boşluklarını tespit etmektir. Bu amaçla, algoritma okuryazarlığının boyutlarına odaklanan toplam 47 ilgili araştırma sentezlenmiştir. Bulgular, genel algoritma farkındalık seviyelerinin toplu ortalama puanının 3.35 olduğunu, yani orta düzeyde bir bilinç seviyesi bulunduğunu göstermektedir. Bu ortalama skor, 16 kantitatif çalışmada yer alan 11.147 katılımcının verilerine dayanmaktadır. Bu ılımlı seviye, kullanıcıların algoritmaların çevrimiçi deneyimlerini etkilediğine dair temel bir farkındalığa sahip olsalar bile, algoritmaların altında yatan karmaşık mekanizmaları tam olarak anlamayabileceklerine işaret etmektedir. İncelenen araştırmalarda, sosyal medya kullanıcıları ve öğrenciler en baskın araştırma özneleri olarak öne çıkmaktadır. Platform odaklarında ise Facebook, Instagram ve TikTok, en sık çalışılan mecralardır. Analiz, araştırmaların çoğunlukla Amerika Birleşik Devletleri, Çin ve Almanya gibi gelişmiş ülkelerde yürütüldüğünü ortaya koyarak ciddi bir coğrafi dengesizliğe ve bir "algoritmik ayrıma" dikkat çekmektedir. Derleme, marjinalize edilmiş grupların dijital dahli ve etik kaygılar gibi konuları içeren, yeterince temsil edilmeyen bölgeleri ve demografik grupları kapsayan daha kapsayıcı araştırmalara olan kritik ihtiyacı vurgulamaktadır. Gelecek çalışmaların, daha adil bir dijital ortamın oluşumuna katkıda bulunmak için bu küresel eşitsizlikleri gidermeyi hedeflemesi önerilmektedir.

Anahtar Kelimeler

• Algoritma Okuryazarlığı
• Algoritma Farkındalığı
• Sosyal Medya Platformları
• Dijital Bölünme
• Sistematik Tarama

Systematic Literature Review of Algorithm Literacy Studies: Mapping The Overlooked Gaps

Öz

Considering the increasing role of algorithmic systems in shaping individuals’ access to information, social interactions, and opportunities in digital environments, this systematic literature review investigates the present condition of algorithm literacy research. The primary aim of the study is to identify overlooked areas, conceptual blind spots, and persistent knowledge gaps regarding users’ awareness and understanding of algorithmic systems. To achieve this, the review synthesizes a total of 47 relevant studies, each addressing different dimensions of algorithm literacy and offering insights into how individuals perceive, interpret, and respond to algorithmic mechanisms embedded in digital platforms. The findings reveal an overall mean algorithm awareness score of 3.35, indicating a moderate level of awareness based on data from 11.147 participants across 16 quantitative studies. This moderate level suggests that users generally recognize the influence of algorithms on their online experiences, yet many still struggle to grasp how these systems operate or shape content distribution, personalization, and decision making processes. The analysis further shows that social media users and university students constitute the dominant research groups, while platforms such as Facebook, Instagram, and TikTok are most frequently examined. A notable geographical imbalance also emerges, since much of the existing research is concentrated in developed countries including the United States, China, and Germany, pointing to an expanding “algorithmic divide”.

Anahtar Kelimeler

• Algorithm Literacy
• Algorithm Awareness
• Social Media Platforms
• Digital Divide
• Systematic Review

Kaynakça

1. Baas, J., Schotten, M., Plume, A., Côté, G., & Karimi, R. (2020). Scopus as a curated, high-quality bibliometric data source for academic research in quantitative science studies. Quantitative Science Studies, 1(1), 377–386. https://doi.org/10.1162/qss_a_00019
2. Billon, M., Marco, R., & Lera-Lopez, F. (2009). Disparities in ICT adoption: A multidimensional approach to study the cross-country digital divide. Telecommunications Policy, 33(10), 596–610. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.telpol.2009.08.006
3. Brodsky, J. E., Zomberg, D., Powers, K. L., & Brooks, P. J. (2020). Assessing and fostering college students’ algorithm awareness across online contexts. Journal of Media Literacy Education, 12(3), 43–57. https://doi.org/10.23860/JMLE-2020-12-3-5
4. Bucher, T. (2017). The algorithmic imaginary: Exploring the ordinary affects of Facebook algorithms. Information Communication & Society, 20(1), 30–44. https://doi.org/10.1080/1369118X.2016.1154086
5. Bucher, T. (2018). If...Then: Algorithmic power and politics. Oxford University Press.
6. Büchi, M., Just, N., & Latzer, M. (2016). Modeling the second-level digital divide: A five-country study of social differences in Internet use. New Media & Society, 18(11), 2703–2722. https://doi.org/10.1177/1461444815604154
7. Combs, J. P., Bustamante, R. M., & Onwuegbuzie, A. J. (2010). An interactive model for facilitating development of literature reviews. International Journal of Multiple Research Approaches, 4(2), 159–182. https://doi.org/10.5172/mra.2010.4.2.159
8. Corrocher, N., & Ordanini, A. (2002). Measuring the digital divide: A framework for the analysis of cross-country differences. Journal of Information Technology, 17(1), 9–19. https://doi.org/10.1080/02683960210132061

9. de Groot, T., de Haan, M., & van Dijken, M. (2023). Learning in and about a filtered universe: Young people’s awareness and control of algorithms in social media. Learning, Media and Technology, 48(4), 701–713. https://doi.org/10.1080/17439884.2023.2253730
10. Dogruel, L. (2021). What is algorithm literacy? A conceptualization and challenges regarding its empirical measurement. In M. Taddicken & C. Schumann (Eds.), Algorithms and communication (pp. 67–93). De Gruyter. https://doi.org/10.48541/dcr.v9.3
11. Dogruel, L., Facciorusso, D., & Stark, B. (2022). “I’m still the master of the machine.” Internet users’ awareness of algorithmic decision-making and their perception of its effect on their autonomy. Information Communication & Society, 25(9), 1311–1332. https://doi.org/10.1080/1369118X.2020.1863999
12. Dogruel, L., Masur, P., & Joeckel, S. (2022). Development and validation of an algorithm literacy scale for internet users. Communication Methods and Measures, 16(2), 115–133. https://doi.org/10.1080/19312458.2021.1968361
13. Eder, M., & Sjøvaag, H. (2024). Artificial intelligence and the dawn of an algorithmic divide. Frontiers in Communication, 9(1), 1–10. https://doi.org/10.3389/fcomm.2024.1453251
14. Ernst, J. (2024). Understanding algorithmic recommendations. A qualitative study on children’s algorithm literacy in Switzerland. Information, Communication & Society, 5(3), 1–17. https://doi.org/10.1080/1369118X.2024.2382224
15. Espinoza-Rojas, J., Siles, I., & Castelain, T. (2023). How using various platforms shapes awareness of algorithms. Behaviour and Information Technology, 42(9), 1422–1433. https://doi.org/10.1080/0144929X.2022.2078224
16. Fang, W., & Jin, J. (2022). Unpacking the effects of personality traits on algorithmic awareness: The mediating role of previous knowledge and moderating role of internet use. Frontiers in Psychology, 13(1), 1–12. https://doi.org/10.3389/fpsyg.2022.953892
17. Goodrow, C. (2020, June 18). On YouTube’s recommendation system. YouTube Blog. https://blog.youtube/inside-youtube/on-youtubes-recommendation-system/
18. Gran, A. B., Booth, P., & Bucher, T. (2021). To be or not to be algorithm aware: A question of a new digital divide? Information, Communication & Society, 24(12), 1779–1796. https://doi.org/10.1080/1369118X.2020.1736124
19. Grant, M. J., & Booth, A. (2009). A typology of reviews: An analysis of 14 review types and associated methodologies. Health Information and Libraries Journal, 26(2), 91–108. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1471-1842.2009.00848.x
20. Hu, J., & Wang, R. (2023). Familiarity breeds trust? The relationship between dating app use and trust in dating algorithms via algorithm awareness and critical algorithm perceptions. International Journal of Human-Computer Interaction. 40(17), 4596–4607. https://doi.org/10.1080/10447318.2023.2217014
21. Jain, A., Brooks, J. R., Alford, C. C., Chang, C. S., Mueller, N. M., Umscheid, C. A., & Bierman, A. S. (2023). Awareness of racial and ethnic bias and potential solutions to address bias with use of health care algorithms. JAMA Health Forum, 4(6), e231197. https://doi.org/10.1001/jamahealthforum.2023.1197
22. Kearns, M., & Roth, A. (2019). The ethical algorithm: The science of socially aware algorithm design. Oxford University Press.
23. Livingstone, S., & Blum-Ross, A. (2020). Parenting for a digital future: How hopes and fears about technology shape children’s lives. Oxford Academic.
24. Voronina, L. V., Sergeeva, N. N., & Utyumova, E. A. (2016). Development of algorithm skills in preschool children. Procedia-Social and Behavioral Sciences, 233(1), 155–159. doi: 10.1016/j.sbspro.2016.10.176
25. Moher, D., Liberati, A., Tetzlaff, J., Altman, D. G., & PRISMA Group. (2009). Preferred reporting items for systematic reviews and meta-analyses: The PRISMA statement. PLoS Medicine, 6(7), e1000097. https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pmed.1000097
26. Mosseri, A. (2021, June 8). Shedding more light on how Instagram works. Instagram. https://about.instagram.com/blog/announcements/shedding-more-light-on-how-instagram-works
27. Mubarak, F., & Suomi, R. (2022). Elderly forgotten? Digital exclusion in the information age and the rising grey digital divide. INQUIRY: The Journal of Health Care Organization, Provision, and Financing, 59(1), 1–7. https://journals.sagepub.com/doi/full/10.1177/00469580221096272
28. Nadini, M., Alessandretti, L., Di Giacinto, F., Martino, M., Aiello, L. M., & Baronchelli, A. (2021). Mapping the NFT revolution: Market trends, trade networks, and visual features. Scientific Reports, 11(1), 20902. https://doi.org/10.1038/s41598-021-00053-8
29. Nishant, R., Kennedy, M., & Corbett, J. (2020). Artificial intelligence for sustainability: Challenges, opportunities, and a research agenda. International Journal of Information Management, 53(1), 102–104. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ijinfomgt.2020.102104
30. Noble, S. U. (2018). Algorithms of oppression: How search engines reinforce racism. New York University Press. Oeldorf-Hirsch, A., & Neubaum, G. (2023). What do we know about algorithmic literacy? The status quo and a research agenda for a growing field. New Media & Society, 27(2), 681–701. https://doi.org/10.1177/14614448231182662
31. Pérez-Escolar, M., Lilleker, D., & Tapia-Frade, A. (2023). A systematic literature review of the phenomenon of disinformation and misinformation. Media and Communication, 11(2), 76–87. https://doi.org/10.17645/mac.v11i2.6453
32. Petrovčič, A., Reisdorf, B. C., Vehovar, V., & Bartol, J. (2025). Disentangling the role of algorithm awareness and knowledge in digital inequalities: An empirical validation of an explanatory model. Information, Communication & Society, 28(4), 557–574. https://doi.org/10.1080/1369118X.2024.2363896
33. Petticrew, M., & Roberts, H. (2006). Systematic reviews in the social sciences: A practical guide. Blackwell Publishing.
34. Rainie, L., & Anderson, J. (2017, February 8). The need grows for algorithmic literacy, transparency and oversight. Pew Research Center. https://www.pewresearch.org/internet/2017/02/08/theme-7-the-need-grows-for-algorithmic-literacy-transparency-and-oversight/
35. Segijn, C. M., Strycharz, J., Riegelman, A., & Hennesy, C. (2021). A literature review of personalization transparency and control: Introducing the transparency–awareness–control framework. Media and Communication, 9(4), 120–133. https://doi.org/10.17645/mac.v9i4.4054
36. Shin, D., Kee, K. F., & Shin, E. Y. (2022). Algorithm awareness: Why user awareness is critical for personal privacy in the adoption of algorithmic platforms? International Journal of Information Management, 65(1), 1–13 102494. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ijinfomgt.2022.102494
37. Statista. (2024, May 17). Number of worldwide social network users 2028. Statista. https://www.statista.com/statistics/278414/number-of-worldwide-social-network-users/
38. TikTok. (2020, June 18). How TikTok recommends videos #ForYou. TikTok. https://newsroom.tiktok.com/en-us/how-tiktok-recommends-videos-for-you/
39. Voorveld, H. A. M., Meppelink, C. S., & Boerman, S. C. (2023). Consumers’ persuasion knowledge of algorithms in social media advertising: Identifying consumer groups based on awareness, appropriateness, and coping ability. International Journal of Advertising, 43(6), 960–986. https://doi.org/10.1080/02650487.2023.2264045
40. X. (2023, March 31). Twitter’s recommendation algorithm. X. https://blog.x.com/engineering/en_us/topics/open-source/2023/twitter-recommendation-algorithm
41. Zarouali, B., Boerman, S. C., & De Vreese, C. H. (2021). Is this recommended by an algorithm? The development and validation of the algorithmic media content awareness scale (AMCA-scale). Telematics and Informatics, 62(1), 1–12. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.tele.2021.101607
42. Zarouali, B., Helberger, N., & De Vreese, C. H. (2021). Investigating algorithmic misconceptions in a media context: Source of a new digital divide?. Media and Communication, 9(4), 134–144. https://doi.org/10.17645/mac.v9i4.4090
43. Zhang, X., & and Jin, H. (2023). How does smart technology, artificial intelligence, automation, robotics, and algorithms (STAARA) awareness affect hotel employees’ career perceptions? A disruptive innovation theory perspective. Journal of Hospitality Marketing & Management, 32(2), 264–283. https://doi.org/10.1080/19368623.2023.2166186