Yapay zekâ ve insan üretimi olan örnek olayların eğitimci görüşlerine göre karşılaştırılması

Öz

Yapay zekâ teknolojilerinin eğitim alanında giderek yaygınlaşması, öğretim materyallerinin tasarlanması ve değerlendirilmesine yönelik yeni araştırma alanları ortaya çıkarmaktadır. Bu çalışmanın amacı, yapay zekâ ve araştırmacı tarafından hazırlanan örnek olayların, ilkokul düzeyinde yardımlaşma değerinin kazandırılmasına uygunluk düzeylerini karşılaştırmalı olarak incelemektir. Araştırma, nicel araştırma yaklaşımlarından genel tarama modeli kapsamında yürütülmüştür. Çalışmada ikisi yapay zekâ, ikisi araştırmacı tarafından hazırlanmış olmak üzere toplam dört örnek olay kullanılmıştır. Veriler, 16 akademisyen ve 37 sınıf öğretmeni tarafından değerlendirilen, 11 ölçüt ve beşli derecelendirme yapısına sahip örnek olay değerlendirme ölçeği aracılığıyla toplanmıştır. Elde edilen veriler tek yönlü varyans analizi (ANOVA) ve varyans homojenliği durumuna göre uygun çoklu karşılaştırma testleri kullanılarak analiz edilmiştir. Araştırma bulguları, örnek olayların büyük bölümünde istatistiksel olarak anlamlı bir farklılık bulunmadığını; ancak okuru sıkmayacak uygun uzunlukta olma, örnek olayla birlikte verilen soruların niteliği ile sonunun belirsiz olması ve okuyucuyu belirli bir çözüme yönlendirmeme boyutlarında örnek olay türlerine bağlı olarak anlamlı farklılıklar bulunduğunu göstermiştir. Sonuç olarak, yapay zekâ ve araştırmacı tarafından hazırlanan örnek olayların birçok ölçüt açısından benzer özellikler sergilediği, bazı boyutlarda ise yapı ve sunum özelliklerine bağlı olarak farklılaşmalar ortaya koyduğu belirlenmiştir.

Anahtar Kelimeler

• Yapay Zekâ
• Değerler Eğitimi
• Yardımlaşma Değeri
• Örnek Olay
• Genel Tarama Modeli.

Etik Beyan

Bu çalışmanın hazırlanma sürecinde bilimsel ve etik ilkelere uyulduğu ve yararlanılan tüm çalışmaların kaynakçada belirtildiği beyan olunur. Çalışma için Marmara Üniversitesi Eğitim Bilimleri Enstitüsü Araştırma ve Yayın Etik Kurulu'nun 16.12.2025 tarihli ve 1175168 sayılı kararı ile etik kurul izni alınmıştır. Yazar(lar) arasında herhangi bir çıkar çatışması bulunmamaktadır.

Comparison of artificial intelligence and human-produced case studies according to educators' opinions

Öz

The increasing prevalence of artificial intelligence technologies in education is giving rise to new areas of research into the design and evaluation of teaching materials. The aim of this study is to comparatively examine the suitability levels of artificial intelligence and researcher-prepared case studies for instilling the value of cooperation at primary school level. The research was conducted within the scope of the general survey model, one of the quantitative research approaches. A total of four case studies were used in the study, two of which were prepared by artificial intelligence and two by researchers. Data were collected using a case study evaluation scale with 11 criteria and a five-point rating structure, which was evaluated by 16 academics and 37 classroom teachers. The data obtained were analysed using one-way analysis of variance (ANOVA) and appropriate multiple comparison tests according to the homogeneity of variance. The research findings showed that there was no statistically significant difference in most of the case studies; however, there were significant differences depending on the type of case study in terms of being of an appropriate length that would not bore the reader, the quality of the questions provided with the case study, the uncertainty of the ending, and not directing the reader towards a specific solution. In conclusion, it was determined that the case studies prepared by artificial intelligence and the researcher exhibited similar characteristics in terms of many criteria, while differences emerged in certain dimensions depending on their structure and presentation characteristics.

Anahtar Kelimeler

• Artificial Intelligence
• Values Education
• The Value Of Cooperation
• Case Study
• General Screening Model.

Etik Beyan

It is declared that scientific and ethical principles were followed during the preparation of this study, and that all works utilized are cited in the references. Ethical approval for this study was obtained from the Marmara University Institute of Educational Sciences Research and Publication Ethics Committee, with the decision dated 16.12.2025 and numbered 1175168. There is no conflict of interest among the author(s).

Kaynakça

1. Agustin, M. K., Syaodih, E., & Supriatna, N. (2025). Elementary school students' moral reasoning in resolving moral dilemmas: A case study of pre-conventional stage persistence. Journal of Innovation and Research in Primary Education, 4(4), 3819–3832. https://doi.org/10.56916/jirpe.v4i4.2538
2. Alkhraisat, S. (2025). The role of artificial intelligence in shaping cultural narratives and values education in eastern animation: Opportunities, risks, and future directions. Educational Process International Journal, 17(1), 1–21. https://doi.org/10.22521/edupij.2025.17.302
3. Alp, F., & Akalın, B. (2022). Artificial intelligence methods in oncology. Gevher Nesibe Journal IESDR, 7(18), 81–92. https://doi.org/10.46648/gnj.387
4. Ayorinde, I., & Idyorough, P. (2024). Exploring the frontiers of artificial intelligence: A comprehensive analysis. Innovation in Science and Technology, 3, 35–49. https://doi.org/10.56397/IST.2024.07.02
5. Bal, Ö., & Anılan, H. (2019). Hayat bilgisi dersi değer eğitiminde örnek olay yönteminin kullanılması: Bir eylem araştırması. Millî Eğitim, 48(1), 177–202.
6. Banaz, E., & Demirel, O. (2024). Türkçe öğretmen adaylarının yapay zekâ okuryazarlıklarının farklı değişkenlere göre incelenmesi. Dokuz Eylül Üniversitesi Buca Eğitim Fakültesi Dergisi, 60, 1516–1529. https://doi.org/10.53444/deubefd.1461048
7. Cârstea, A. E., Ciocan, L. T., Vasilescu, V. G., Țâncu, A. M. C., Imre, M., Didilescu, A. C., & Pițuru, S. M. (2026). Large language models in medical and dental education: A cross-sectional comparison of AI-generated and faculty-authored prosthodontic materials. Dentistry Journal, 14(5), 249. https://doi.org/10.3390/dj14050249
8. Chakrabarty, T., Laban, P., Agarwal, D., Muresan, S., & Wu, C.-S. (2024). Art or artifice? Large language models and the false promise of creativity. Proceedings of the 2024 CHI Conference on Human Factors in Computing Systems, Article 30. https://doi.org/10.1145/3613904.3642731

9. Chen, L., Chen, P., & Lin, Z. (2020). Artificial intelligence in education: A review. IEEE Access, 8, 75264–75278. https://doi.org/10.1109/ACCESS.2020.2988510
10. Çeken, B., & Şen, O. (2023). Grafik tasarım sektöründe yapay zekânın kullanılması (Midjourney). In Proceedings of the 1st International Conference on Contemporary Academic Research (pp. 138–145), May 17–19, 2023, Konya, Turkey.
11. Dawam, A., Sajari, D., & Jamil, R. (2025). Application of AI in moral education for students. Asian Journal of Social Science and Management Technology, 7(1), 156–170.
12. DeCook, R., Muffly, B. T., Mahmood, S., Holland, C. T., Ayeni, A. M., Ast, M. P., Bolognese, M. P., Guild, G. N., III, Sheth, N. P., Pean, C. A., & Premkumar, A. (2024). AI-generated graduate medical education content for total joint arthroplasty: Comparing ChatGPT against orthopaedic fellows. Arthroplasty Today, 27, 101412. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.artd.2024.101412
13. Dewi, C. A., & Rahayu, S. (2023). Implementation of case-based learning in science education: A systematic review. Journal of Turkish Science Education, 20(4), 729–749. https://doi.org/10.36681/tused.2023.041
14. Doyle, A., Sridhar, P., Agarwal, A., Savelka, J., & Sakr, M. (2025). A comparative study of AI-generated and human-crafted learning objectives in computing education. Journal of Computer Assisted Learning, 41(1), e13092. https://doi.org/10.1111/jcal.13092
15. Efe, A. (2022). Yargısal ve hukuki süreçlerde yapay zekâ kullanan araçlar üzerine bir araştırma. Bilgi Yönetimi, 5(1), 92–117. https://doi.org/10.33721/by.971873
16. Fembriani, Siswandari, Joyoatmojo, S., & Efendi, A. (2025). Can case-based learning-oriented science teaching materials improve critical thinking skills? Edelweiss Applied Science and Technology, 9(6), 1465–1472. https://doi.org/10.55214/25768484.v9i6.8174
17. Gasser, L., Preisig, D., Dammert, Y., Frei, A., Egger, S., & Murphy, P. K. (2026). Improving children’s collective and individual moral reasoning through small-group discussions about narrative fiction. Child Development, 1–16. https://doi.org/10.1093/chidev/aacag089
18. Hakam, K. A. (2018). Model of learning cognitive moral development in elementary school. IJAEDU- International E-Journal of Advances in Education, 4(10), 6–14. https://doi.org/10.18768/ijaedu.415391
19. Handiranto, M., Widyawati, L., & Wahyuni, E. (2024). Artificial intelligence and formation of values and character in the field of education. In Proceedings of the International Conference on Applied Social Sciences in Education (pp. 134–139). https://doi.org/10.31316/icasse.v1i1.6922
20. Holmes, W., Bialik, M., & Fadel, C. (2019). Artificial intelligence in education: Promise and implications for teaching and learning. Center for Curriculum Redesign.
21. Karasar, N. (2017). Bilimsel araştırma yöntemi (35. bs.). Nobel Akademik Yayıncılık.
22. Kulkarni, P. S., & Ashadeepa, S. N. (2023). History and growth of artificial intelligence. Indian Scientific Journal of Research in Engineering and Management, 7(10), 1–11.
23. Luckin, R., Holmes, W., Griffiths, M., & Forcier, L. B. (2016). Intelligence unleashed: An argument for AI in education. Pearson.
24. Morjaria, L., Burns, L., Gandhi, B., Bracken, K., Farooq, M. S., Levinson, A. J., Ngo, Q., & Sibbald, M. (2026). Can large language models generate high-quality short-answer assessments? A comparative study in undergraduate medical education. Applied Sciences, 16(5), 2535. https://doi.org/10.3390/app16052535
25. Munawaroh, F., Ariyanto, A., & Tajab, M. (2025). Problem-based learning to improve elementary school students' understanding of mathematical concepts. JIE (Journal of Islamic Education), 10(2), 875–900. https://doi.org/10.35723/jie.v10i2.739
26. Nene, M., Len, K. E., & Nkepah, B. D. (2025). Case-based cooperative learning and learners' academic achievement in mathematics in primary schools in Bui Division. Asian Journal of Education and Social Studies, 51(9), 596–608. https://doi.org/10.9734/ajess/2025/v51i92400
27. Netland, T., von Dzengelevski, O., Tesch, K., & Kwasnitschka, D. (2025). Comparing human-made and AI-generated teaching videos: An experimental study on learning effects. Computers & Education, 224, 105164. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.compedu.2024.105164
28. O'Flaherty, J., & McGarr, O. (2013). The use of case-based learning in the development of student teachers' levels of moral reasoning. European Journal of Teacher Education, 36(3), 313–330. https://doi.org/10.1080/02619768.2013.769425
29. O'Reilly, C., & Hayes, N. (2026). Oral storytelling and emergent critical thinking in early childhood. Early Childhood Education Journal, 1–10. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10643-026-02296-4
30. Rahmawati, S., Marzuki, M., Novianto, V., & Syed Marzuki, S. Z. (2026). Problem-based flipped learning and students' moral judgment: The mediating role of moral sensitivity in civic education. Journal of Educational Science and Technology, 12(1), 70–82. https://doi.org/10.26858/est.v12i1.85364
31. Ripoll Y Schmitz, L. M., & Sonnleitner, P. (2025). Evaluating AI-generated vs. human-written reading comprehension passages: An expert SWOT analysis and comparative study for an educational large-scale assessment. Large-Scale Assessments in Education, 13, 20. https://doi.org/10.1186/s40536-025-00255-w
32. Rudin, S. (2020). Happily ever after? Story endings in Hebrew children's literature. New Review of Children's Literature and Librarianship, 26(1–2), 103–130. https://doi.org/10.1080/13614541.2021.1949232
33. Setyarini, S., Muslim, A. B., Rukmini, D., Yuliasri, I., & Mujianto, Y. (2018). Thinking critically while storytelling: Improving children's HOTS and English oral competence. Indonesian Journal of Applied Linguistics, 8(1), 189–197. https://doi.org/10.17509/ijal.v8i1.11480
34. Sincar, M. (2023). Yapay zekâ bağlamında okul liderlerini bekleyen zorluklar. Mustafa Kemal Üniversitesi Eğitim Fakültesi Dergisi, 7(12), 74–85. https://doi.org/10.56677/mkuefder.1407065
35. Sirodjuddin, M., Putra, P., Basyaruddin, M., Lenah, R., Prastiwi, T., & Khasanah, U. (2026). Case study-based learning planning strategies to enhance student engagement in elementary schools: A literature review. Atmosfer: Jurnal Pendidikan, Bahasa, Sastra, Seni, Budaya, dan Sosial Humaniora, 4(2), 461–471. https://doi.org/10.59024/atmosfer.v4i2.1759
36. Sridharan, K., & Sequeira, R. P. (2024). Artificial intelligence and medical education: Application in classroom instruction and student assessment using a pharmacology & therapeutics case study. BMC Medical Education, 24, 431. https://doi.org/10.1186/s12909-024-05365-7
37. Şen Akbulut, M., & Hill, J. R. (2020). Case-based pedagogy for teacher education: An instructional model. Contemporary Educational Technology, 12(2), ep287. https://doi.org/10.30935/cedtech/8937
38. Wang, S., Iwata, J., & Wang, X. (2025, September). Language learning content development from human effort to AI generation: Successes and challenges. In 2025 5th International Conference on Educational Technology (ICET) (pp. 255–260). IEEE. https://doi.org/10.1109/ICET67421.2025.11380641
39. Wulandari, R., Mustaji, Mariono, A., & Arianto, F. (2025). The effect of case-based learning on mathematical problem-solving abilities. Veredas do Direito, 22(5), e223786. https://doi.org/10.18623/rvd.v22.n5.3786
40. Yaralı, K. T., & Kunduracı, H. K. Ö. (2024). Teachers' views and strategies for improving children's critical thinking skills. Gazi Eğitim Fakültesi Dergisi, 44(1), 801–827.
41. Yashchenko, V. (2024). From McCulloch to GPT-4: Stages of development of artificial intelligence. Artificial Intelligence, 29(1), 31–44. https://doi.org/10.15407/jai2024.01.031
42. Zawacki-Richter, O., Marín, V. I., Bond, M., & Gouverneur, F. (2019). Systematic review of research on artificial intelligence applications in higher education. International Journal of Educational Technology in Higher Education, 16(1), Article 39. https://doi.org/10.1186/s41239-019-0171-0