Yükseköğretimde Ödev Destek Sistemi Olarak Yapay Zekâ Kullanımı

Öz

Günümüzde, ödev süreçlerinde kullanılan yapay zekâ uygulamalarının eğitim ortamlarına entegrasyonu önemli bir ilgi alanı haline gelmiştir. Bu çalışma, yapay zekâ uygulamalarının öğrencilerin ödev tamamlama süreçlerindeki rolünü incelemeyi amaçlamaktadır. Araştırma, nitel araştırma desenlerinden durum çalışması yöntemiyle yürütülmüştür. Çalışma grubunu önlisans öğrencileri oluşturmaktadır. Beş hafta süren araştırma sürecinin ilk haftası oryantasyon eğitimiyle geçmiştir. Öğrencilere haftalık ödevler verilmiş ve yalnızca ihtiyaç duyduklarında yapay zekâ araçlarını kullanmaları istenmiştir. Veri toplama aracı olarak öğrencilere uygulanan süreç değerlendirme formları kullanılmıştır. Toplanan veriler içerik analizi yöntemi ile analiz edilmiştir. Bulgular, yapay zekâ uygulamalarının öğrencilerin ödevlerini tamamlama süreçlerini desteklemek amacıyla kullanılabileceğini göstermiştir. Öğrenciler, bu araçların sağladığı geri bildirimin öğrenme verimliliklerini artırdığını bildirmişlerdir. Ayrıca, erkek ve kadın öğrencilerin yapay zekâ araçlarından beklentilerinin farklılaştığı görülmüştür. Sonuç olarak, yapay zekâ araçlarının ödev sürecinde pedagojik rehberlik eşliğinde tamamlayıcı bir kaynak olarak kullanılması önerilmektedir.

Anahtar Kelimeler

• yapay zekâ
• öğretim teknolojileri
• yapay zeka destekli ödev süreci

Using Artificial Intelligence as Homework Support in Higher Education

Öz

In recent years, the integration of artificial intelligence (AI) applications into educational settings to support homework has become a significant area of interest. This study aimed to examine the role of AI applications in students’ homework completion processes. The research was conducted using a case study design, a qualitative research method. The study group consisted of associate degree students. The research process spanned five weeks, with the first week serving as an orientation period. Students were assigned weekly homework and were asked to use AI tools only when assistance was needed. Process evaluation forms administered to students served as the primary data collection tool. The collected data were analyzed using content analysis. The findings indicated that AI applications could support students in completing their homework. Students reported that the feedback provided by these tools increased their learning efficiency. It was also determined that male and female students’ expectations from artificial intelligence tools differed. As a result, it is recommended that artificial intelligence tools be used as a complementary resource in the homework process, accompanied by pedagogical guidance.

Anahtar Kelimeler

• artificial intelligence
• instructional technologies
• AI-supported homework process

Kaynakça

1. Aktaş, İ., Küçükönel, O., & Erol, O. (2025). Öğretmenlerin eğitimde üretken yapay zeka kullanımına ilişkin görüşlerinin incelenmesi. In 3. International 21st Century Educational Research Congress (INER2025) (pp. 265-272). Burdur Mehmet Akif Ersoy University.
2. Aydın, S., Duman, E., Bertiz, Y., & Birişçi, S. (2022). Investigation of the effects of computer-aided animations on conceptual understanding through metaphors: An example of artificial intelligence. Journal of Educational Technology and Online Learning, 5(4), 1140-1159. https://doi.org/10.31681/jetol.1151460
3. Baker, R.S., Inventado, P.S. (2014). Educational Data Mining and Learning Analytics. In: Larusson, J., White, B. (eds) Learning Analytics. Springer, New York, NY. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-1-4614-3305-7_4
4. Baker, R. S. J. d., & Siemens, G. (2014). Educational data mining and learning analytics. In R. K. Sawyer (Ed.), The Cambridge handbook of the learning sciences (2nd ed., pp. 253-274). Cambridge University Press.
5. Bender, E. M., Gebru, T., McMillan-Major, A., & Shmitchell, S. (2021). On the dangers of stochastic parrots: Can language models be too big? In Proceedings of the 2021 ACM Conference on Fairness, Accountability, and Transparency (pp. 610–623). https://doi.org/10.1145/3442188.3445922
6. Bhutoria, A. (2022). Personalized education and artificial intelligence in United States, China, and India: A systematic review using a Human-In-The-Loop model. Computers and Education: Artificial Intelligence, 3, 100068. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.caeai.2022.100068
7. Büyükada, S. (2024). Akademik yazımda yapay zekâ kullanımının etik açıdan incelenmesi: ChatGPT örneği. Rize İlahiyat Dergisi, 26, 1–12. https://doi.org/10.32950/rid.1337208
8. Chen, M., Tworek, J., Jun, H., Yuan, Q., Pinto, H. P. D. O., Kaplan, J., Edwards, H., Burda, Y., Joseph, N., Brockman, G., Ray, A., Puri, R., Krueger, G., Petrov, M., Khlaaf, H., Sastry, G., Mishkin, P., Chan, B., Gray, S., ... Zaremba, W. (2021). Evaluating large language models trained on code. arXiv. https://doi.org/10.48550/arXiv.2107.03374

9. Choudhuri, R., Liu, D., Steinmacher, I., Gerosa, M., & Sarma, A. (2024). How far are we? The triumphs and trials of generative AI in learning software engineering. In Proceedings of the IEEE/ACM 46th International Conference on Software Engineering (pp. 1–13). https://doi.org/10.1145/3597503.3639201
10. Cooper, J. (2006). The digital divide: The special case of gender. Journal of Computer Assisted Learning, 22(5), 320–334. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1365-2729.2006.00185.x
11. Davis, F. D. (1989). Perceived usefulness, perceived ease of use, and user acceptance of information technology. MIS Quarterly, 13(3), 319–340. https://doi.org/10.2307/249008
12. Ekici, G., & Akdeniz, H. (2018). Lise Öğrencilerinin “Ödev” Kavramına İlişkin Metaforik Algılarının İncelenmesi. Bayburt Eğitim Fakültesi Dergisi, 13(25), 135-162. https://izlik.org/JA37NS33DY
13. Froiland, J. M. (2011). Parental autonomy support and student learning goals: A preliminary examination of an intrinsic motivation intervention. Child and Youth Care Forum, 40, 135–149. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10566-010-9126-2
14. Guest, G., Bunce, A., & Johnson, L. (2006). How many interviews are enough? An experiment with data saturation and variability. Field Methods, 18(1), 59–82. https://doi.org/10.1177/1525822X05279903
15. Heffernan, N. T., & Heffernan, C. L. (2014). The ASSISTments ecosystem: Building a platform that brings scientists and teachers together. International Journal of Artificial Intelligence in Education, 24(4), 470–497. https://doi.org/10.1007/s40593-014-0024-x
16. Holmes, W., Persson, J., Chounta, W., Wasson, B., & Dimitrova, V. (2022). Artificial intelligence and education: A critical view through the lens of human rights, democracy and the rule of law. Council of Europe.
17. Holmes, W., Bialik, M., & Fadel, C. (2023). Artificial intelligence in education. Globethics Publications. https://doi.org/10.58863/20.500.12424/4273108
18. Iskender, A. (2023). Holy or unholy? Interview with Open AI’s ChatGPT. European Journal of Tourism Research, 34, 3414. https://doi.org/10.54055/ejtr.v34i.3169
19. Jacobsen, L. J., & Weber, K. E. (2025). The promises and pitfalls of large language models as feedback providers: A study of prompt engineering and the quality of AI-driven feedback. AI, 6, 35. https://doi.org/10.3390/ai6020035
20. Karakaya Özyer, K., & Aydın, B. (2024). Eğitimde üretken yapay zekâ: Öğretmen adaylarının görüşleri ve kullanım amaçları. In IX. Eğitimde ve Psikolojide Ölçme ve Değerlendirme Kongresi (p. 35). EPODDER.
21. Kayhan, S., & Eyüp, B. (2025). Üretken yapay zekânın akademik yazma becerisi üzerindeki etkisi: Bir SWOT analizi. Bolu Abant İzzet Baysal Üniversitesi Eğitim Fakültesi Dergisi, 25(3), 1586-1608. https://doi.org/10.17240/aibuefd.2025..-1563495
22. Keller, K. L., & Swaminathan, V. (2020). Strategic brand management: Building, measuring, and managing brand equity (5. bs.). Pearson.
23. Kim, J., Yu, S., Detrick, R., & Li, N. (2024). Exploring students’ perspectives on generative AI-assisted academic writing. Education and Information Technologies, 30, 1265–1300. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10639-024-12878-7
24. Kirschner, P. A., Sweller, J., & Clark, R. E. (2006). Why minimal guidance during instruction does not work: An analysis of the failure of constructivist, discovery, problem-based, experiential, and inquiry-based teaching. Educational Psychologist, 41(2), 75–86. https://doi.org/10.1207/s15326985ep4102_1
25. Koç, O. (2024). Sosyal bilimler eğitiminde yapay zeka. International Journal of Social And Humanities Sciences, 8(3), 51-80. https://izlik.org/JA42HP68KX
26. Krasheninnik, I. V., Chorna, A. V., Koniukhov, S. L., Ibrahimova, L., & Serdiuk, I. (2022). Artificial intelligence in personalized ICT learning. International Journal of Computer Science and Network Security, 22(2), 159–166. https://doi.org/10.22937/IJCSNS.2022.22.2.21
27. Luckin, R. (2018). Machine learning and human intelligence: The future of education for the 21st century. UCL Institute of Education Press.
28. Luckin, R., Holmes, W., Griffiths, M., & Forcier, L. B. (2016). Intelligence unleashed: An argument for AI in education. Pearson.
29. Mayer, R. E. (2001). Multimedia learning. Cambridge University Press.
30. Metwally, A. H. S., Huang, R., Palomino, P. T., & Yousef, A. M. F. (2024). The effect of micro gamified online homework on gameful experience, intrinsic motivation, engagement, and cognitive load. Education and Information Technologies, 29(18), 24489–24523. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10639-024-12750-8
31. Miles, M. B., & Huberman, A. M. (1994). Qualitative data analysis: An expanded sourcebook (2. bs.). Sage Publications.
32. Neuendorf, K. A. (2002). The content analysis guidebook. Sage Publications.
33. Nguyen, A., Ngo, H. N., Hong, Y., Dang, B., & Nguyen, B. P. T. (2023). Ethical principles for artificial intelligence in education. Education and Information Technologies, 28(4), 4221–4241. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10639-022-11316-w
34. Norman, D. A. (2004). Emotional design: Why we love (or hate) everyday things. Basic Books.
35. Oubibi, M., Hryshayeva, K., & Huang, R. (2025). Enhancing postgraduate digital academic writing proficiency: The interplay of artificial intelligence tools and ChatGPT. Interactive Learning Environments, 33(6), 3940–3958. https://doi.org/10.1080/10494820.2025.2454445
36. Patton, M. Q. (2014). Qualitative research & evaluation methods: Integrating theory and practice (4. bs.). Sage Publications.
37. Resnick, M., Maloney, J., Monroy-Hernández, A., Rusk, N., Eastmond, E., Brennan, K., Millner, A., Rosenbaum, E., Silver, J., Silverman, B., & Kafai, Y. (2009). Scratch: Programming for all. Communications of the ACM, 52(11), 60–67. https://doi.org/10.1145/1592761.1592779
38. Rudman, N. P. C. (2014). A review of homework literature as a precursor to practitioner-led doctoral research in a primary school. Research in Education, 91(1), 12–29. https://doi.org/10.7227/RIE.91.1.2
39. Savaş, S. (2021). Artificial Intelligence and Innovative Applications in Education: The Case Of Turkey. Journal of Information Systems and Management Research, 3(1), 14-26. https://izlik.org/JA46FE95PX
40. Selvi, B., & Akbaba Eser, R. S. (2025). Digital Tools for Academic Writing: A Systematic Analysis of AI and Technology-Enhanced Support. Türkiye Eğitim Dergisi, 10(2), 275-297. https://doi.org/10.54979/turkegitimdergisi.1828027
41. Semrl, N., Feigl, S., Taumberger, N., Bracic, T., Fluhr, H., Blockeel, C., & Kollmann, M. (2023). AI language models in human reproduction research: Exploring ChatGPT’s potential to assist academic writing. Human Reproduction, 38(12), 2281–2288. https://doi.org/10.1093/humrep/dead207
42. Siemens, G. (2005). Connectivism: A learning theory for the digital age. International Journal of Instructional Technology and Distance Learning, 2(1), 3–10.
43. Solak, E. (2024). Exploring the efficiency of ChatGPT and artificial intelligence in advancing academic writing pedagogy. International Journal of Education in Mathematics, Science and Technology, 12(6), 1525-1537. https://doi.org/10.46328/ijemst.4373
44. Stutz, P., Elixhauser, M., Grubinger-Preiner, J., Linner, V., Reibersdorfer-Adelsberger, E., Traun, C., Wallentin, G., Wöhs, K., & Zuberbühler, T. (2023). Ch(e)atGPT? An anecdotal approach addressing the impact of ChatGPT on teaching and learning GIScience. GI_Forum, 1, 140–147. https://doi.org/10.1553/giscience2023_01_s140
45. Sweller, J. (1988). Cognitive load during problem solving: Effects on learning. Cognitive Science, 12(2), 257–285.
46. Şahin, B. (2023). Educational aspect of national artificial intelligence strategies: example of China and Türkiye. Scientific Journal of Finance and Financial Law Studies, 3(2), 78-94. https://izlik.org/JA43CC35SE
47. Tannen, D. (1990). You just don’t understand: Women and men in conversation. William Morrow.
48. Tekeli, M., & Yeşil, Y. (2024). Yabancılara Türkçe öğretiminde geleneksel ve yapay zekâ destekli metin sadeleştirmenin toplum dilbilimsel açıdan incelenmesi: Muallim Naci’nin Ömer’in Çocukluğu örneği. TÜRKAV Kamu Yönetimi Enstitüsü Sosyal Bilimler Dergisi, 4(6), 195-230. https://doi.org/10.5281/zenodo.11577561
49. Trautwein, U., & Lüdtke, O. (2009). Predicting homework motivation and homework effort in six school subjects: The role of person and family characteristics, classroom factors, and school track. Learning and Instruction, 19(3), 243–258. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.learninstruc.2008.05.001
50. Venkatesh, V., & Davis, F. D. (2000). A theoretical extension of the technology acceptance model: Four longitudinal field studies. Management Science, 46(2), 186–204. https://doi.org/10.1287/mnsc.46.2.186.11926
51. Warton, P.M. (1997), Learning about responsibility: lessons from homework. British Journal of Educational Psychology, 67: 213-221. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.2044-8279.1997.tb01238.x
52. Warton, P. M. (2001). The forgotten voices in homework: Views of students. Educational Psychologist, 36(3), 155–165. https://doi.org/10.1207/S15326985EP3603_2
53. Yin, R. K. (2018). Case study research and applications: Design and methods. Sage Publications.
54. Yıldırım, A., & Şimşek, H. (2016). Sosyal bilimlerde nitel araştırma yöntemleri. Seçkin Yayıncılık.
55. Zhai, C., & Wibowo, S. (2023). A systematic review on artificial intelligence dialogue systems for enhancing English as foreign language students' interactional competence in the university. Computers & Education: Artificial Intelligence, 4, 100134.
56. Zhang, L. F. (2004). Thinking styles: University students’ preferred teaching approaches. The Journal of Psychology, 138(3), 233–252. https://doi.org/10.3200/JRLP.138.3.233-252
57. Zhang, F., Wang, X. Y., & Zhang, X. H. (2025). Applications of deep learning method of artificial intelligence in education. Education and Information Technologies, 30(2), 1563–1587. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10639-024-12883-w
58. Zimmerman, B. J. (2002). Becoming a self-regulated learner: An overview. Theory Into Practice, 41(2), 64–70. https://doi.org/10.1207/s15430421tip4102_2
59. Zimmerman, B. J., & Kitsantas, A. (2005). Homework practices and academic achievement: The mediating role of self-efficacy and perceived responsibility beliefs. Contemporary Educational Psychology, 30(4), 397–417. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.cedpsych.2005.05.003