SavedAdd your journal

Journals / Abant İzzet Baysal Üniversitesi Eğitim Fakültesi Dergisi / 2026 / Cilt: 26 Sayı: 2

The Use of Artfical İntelligence Tools in Social Studies Education

Sosyal Bilgiler Eğitiminde Yapay Zekâ Araçlarının Kullanımı

Meryem Maide Ağalday(BOLU ABANT İZZET BAYSAL ÜNİVERSİTESİ)0000-0002-5442-8921
Kaya Yıldız(BOLU ABANT İZZET BAYSAL ÜNİVERSİTESİ)0000-0002-5390-7525
Pages
1198–1225
Publication Date
2026-06-30
🏛️Bibliographic metadata and full text access for this article are provided via DergiPark.
DergiPark Record ↗
✨

AI Summary & Key Takeaways

AI Insight
⚡ TL;DR(Too Long; Didn't Read)

The findings reveal that both participant groups actively utilize a wide range of AI tools for tasks such as conducting research, completing assignments, receiving support in academic writing, translation, and idea development.

📌 3 Key Takeaways

🎯
Objective & Hypothesis:Artificial Intelligence has recently begun to transform the educational landscape, much as it has impacted other fields such as health, economics, and engineering.
📊
Key Findings & Data:This qualitative study aims to explore the perspectives of faculty members and graduate students in the field of Social Studies Education regarding the use of AI tools in academic contexts.
💡
Conclusion & Impact:The findings reveal that both participant groups actively utilize a wide range of AI tools for tasks such as conducting research, completing assignments, receiving support in academic writing, translation, and idea development.
🔬Design:Modeling & Simulation
📍Scope:Comprehensive Sample
⚙️Variables:Yapay zekâ · Yapay zekâ araçları · Eğitim

Abstract

Artificial Intelligence has recently begun to transform the educational landscape, much as it has impacted other fields such as health, economics, and engineering. This qualitative study aims to explore the perspectives of faculty members and graduate students in the field of Social Studies Education regarding the use of AI tools in academic contexts. The participants in this study, designed according to a case study model, consisted of experts in social studies education working at universities affiliated with the Higher Education Council in Türkiye and graduate students studying in this field.Data were collected using two semi-structured interview forms—one for students and one for faculty experts and analysed through descriptive methods. The findings reveal that both participant groups actively utilize a wide range of AI tools for tasks such as conducting research, completing assignments, receiving support in academic writing, translation, and idea development. Faculty members tend to prioritize factors such as usability, sustainability, ethical alignment, and affordability when selecting AI tools. Graduate students, on the other hand, focus on speed, reliability, ethical sensitivity, and user-friendliness.Both groups employ specific techniques when engaging with AI tools, such as writing effective prompts, using polite and structured language, asking questions in the tool’s natural language, and incorporating key concepts. The study highlights several advantages of AI, including saving time, streamlining the research process, and supporting academic productivity. However, concerns were also raised regarding potential drawbacks such as ethical risks, misinformation, and user- or tool-related errors.Additionally, both groups offered forward-looking insights and recommendations concerning the future role of AI in education. These findings provide valuable guidance for understanding how AI tools can be more effectively and ethically integrated into Social Studies Education and broader academic contexts.

Özet

Yapay zekâ, son yıllarda eğitim alanında önemli değişimlerin kapısını aralamış; sağlık, ekonomi, mühendislik gibi farklı disiplinlerdeki etkilerini, artık eğitim süreçlerinde de yoğun biçimde hissettirmeye başlamıştır. Bu çalışma, Sosyal Bilgiler eğitimi özelinde, yapay zekâ araçlarının kullanımına dair öğretim üyeleri ve lisansüstü öğrencilerin bakış açılarını ortaya koymayı amaçlayan nitel bir araştırmadır. Durum çalışması desenine göre tasarlanan bu araştırmanın katılımcılarını, Türkiye'de Yükseköğretim Kurulu’na bağlı üniversitelerde görev yapan Sosyal Bilgiler eğitimi alan uzmanları ve yine bu alanda lisansüstü öğrenim gören öğrenciler oluşturmuştur. Veriler, “Öğrenci Görüşme Formu” ve “Alan Uzmanı Görüşme Formu” olmak üzere iki yarı yapılandırılmış görüşme formu aracılığıyla toplanmış, betimsel analiz yöntemiyle çözümlenmiştir. Elde edilen bulgulara göre, her iki grubun da yapay zekâ araçlarını akademik araştırmalarda, ödev hazırlıklarında, akademik yazım desteğinde, çeviri ve dil desteğinde yoğun olarak kullandıkları görülmüştür. Alan uzmanları, araçları seçerken özellikle kullanışlılık, sürdürülebilirlik, etik uygunluk ve maliyet gibi kriterlere dikkat etmekte; öğrenciler ise hız, güvenilirlik, kullanım kolaylığı ve etik hassasiyet gibi faktörleri ön planda tutmaktadır. Her iki grup da yapay zekâ araçlarını kullanırken prompt yazımı, uygun dil kullanımı, doğal dilde soru sorma, anahtar kavramlarla yönlendirme gibi çeşitli stratejiler geliştirmektedir. Katılımcılar, yapay zekânın zaman kazandırması, araştırma sürecini yapılandırması, akademik üretimi kolaylaştırması gibi güçlü yönlerini vurgulamakla birlikte; etik sorunlar, yanlış bilgi riski, kullanıcıdan kaynaklı hatalar gibi dezavantajlara da dikkat çekmişlerdir. Ayrıca yapay zekânın eğitim alanındaki geleceğine ilişkin çeşitli öngörü ve önerilerde bulunmuşlardır. Bu bulgular, yapay zekânın Sosyal Bilgiler eğitimi bağlamında nasıl ve hangi koşullarda daha etkili şekilde kullanılabileceğine dair ipuçları sunmaktadır.

🔖

Cite This Article

Ağalday, M. M., Yıldız, K. (2026). The Use of Artfical İntelligence Tools in Social Studies Education. Abant İzzet Baysal Üniversitesi Eğitim Fakültesi Dergisi, Cilt: 26 Sayı: 2, 1198–1225. https://doi.org/10.17240/aibuefd.2026..-1682631

📄 Full Text PDF Viewer

📄

PDF görüntüleyici hazırlanıyor...

References (40)

  1. Akın, E., & Şahin, M. E. (2024). Derin öğrenme ve yapay sinir ağı modelleri üzerine bir inceleme. EMO Bilimsel Dergi, 14(1), 27-38.
  2. Burr Settles and Brendan Meeder. 2016. A Trainable Spaced Repetition Model for Language Learning. In Proceedings of the 54th Annual Meeting of the Association for Computational Linguistics (Volume 1: Long Papers), pages 1848–1858, Berlin, Germany. Association for Computational Linguistics.
  3. Chen, M., Tworek, J., Jun, H., Yuan, Q., Pinto, H. P. D. O., Kaplan, J.,. & Zaremba, W. (2021). Evaluating large language models trained on code. arXiv preprint arXiv:2107.03374.
  4. Chen, T. J. (2023). ChatGPT and other artificial intelligence applications speed up scientific writing. Journal of the Chinese Medical Association, 86(4), 351-353.
  5. Copeland, J. (1998). Artificial intelligence: A philosophical introduction. Oxford: Blackwell Puplishers.
  6. Corbetta, P. (2003). Social research: Theory, methods and techniques. SAGE Publications, Ltd, https://doi.org/10.4135/9781849209922
  7. Denzin, N. K., & Lincoln, Y. S. (2021). SAGE Nitel Araştırmalar Kılavuz Kitabı (Çev. Ed. G. Ekici & S. Yeşilçınar). Ankara: Vize Yayıncılık.
  8. Devlin, J., Chang, M. W., Lee, K., & Toutanova, K. (2018). BERT: Pre-training deep bidirectional transformers for language understanding. arXiv preprint arXiv:1810.04805.
  9. Gao, C. A., Howard, F. M., Markov, N. S., Dyer, E. C., Ramesh, S., Luo, Y., & Pearson, A. T. (2022). Comparing scientific abstracts generated by ChatGPT to original abstracts using an artificial intelligence output detector, plagiarism detector, and blinded human reviewers. bioRxiv, 2022-12.
  10. Goertzel, B., & Pennachin, C. (2007). Artificial general intelligence. Springer.
  11. Gururaj, P., & Dsouza, P. K. (2024). Artificial Intelligence Tools in Academic Writing Assistance: A Comprehensive Study of Emerging Tools and Techniques. International Journal of Innovative Research in Technology, 10(3), 123–130.
  12. Hendler, J. (2008). Avoiding another AI winter. IEEE Intelligent Systems, 23(2), 2–4. https://doi.org/10.1109/MIS.2008.28
  13. Hill-Yardin, E. L., Hutchinson, M. R., Laycock, R., & Spencer, S. J. (2023). A Chat (GPT) about the future of scientific publishing. Brain, behavior, and immunity, S0889-1591. https://tr.euronews.com/next/2024/10/08/2024-nobel-fizik-odulunun-sahibi-belli-oldu-john-hopfield-ve-geoffrey-hinton
  14. Hutson, M. (2022). Could AI help you to write your next paper?. Nature, 611(7934), 192-193
  15. Kamalov, F., Santandreu Calonge, D., & Gurrib, I. (2023). New era of artificial intelligence in education: Towards a sustainable multifaceted revolution. Sustainability, 15(16), 12451.
  16. LeCun, Y., Bengio, Y., & Hinton, G. (2015). Deep learning. Nature, 521(7553), 436–444.
  17. Lin, Z. (2023). Techniques for supercharging academic writing with generative AI. arXiv preprint arXiv:2310.17143.
  18. Lubowitz, J. H. (2023). ChatGPT, an artificial intelligence chatbot, is impacting medical literature. Arthroscopy, 39(5), 1121-1122.
  19. Luckin, R., Holmes, W., Griffiths, M., & Forcier, L. B. (2016). Intelligence unleashed: An argument for AI in education. Pearson.
  20. Lund, B., Lamba, M., & Oh, S. H. (2024). The Impact of AI on Academic Research and Publishing. arXiv preprint arXiv:2406.06009.
  21. Manohar, N., & Prasad, S. S. (2023). Use of ChatGPT in academic publishing: A rare case of seronegative systemic lupus erythematosus in a patient with HIV infection. Cureus, 15(2).
  22. Nilsson, Nils J. (2010). The Quest for Artificial Intelligence: A History of Ideas and Achievements. Cambridge University Press. ISBN: 9780521122931.
  23. OpenAI. (2023). GPT-4 technical report. https://openai.com/research/gpt-4
  24. Patton, M. Q. (2014). Qualitative research & evaluation methods: Integrating theory and practice. Sage publications.
  25. Popenici, S.A.D., Kerr, S. Exploring the impact of artificial intelligence on teaching and learning in higher education. RPTEL 12, 22 (2017). https://doi.org/10.1186/s41039-017-0062-8 priorities for research. Nature, 614(7947), 224-226
  26. Ramesh, A., Pavlov, M., Goh, G., Gray, S., Voss, C., Radford, A.,. & Sutskever, I. (2021). Zero-shot text-to-image generation. arXiv preprint arXiv:2102.12092.
  27. Riordan, A., Echeverria, V., Jin, Y., Yan, L., Swiecki, Z., Gašević, D., & Martinez-Maldonado, R. (2023). Human-Centred Learning Analytics and AI in Education: A Systematic Literature Review. arXiv preprint arXiv:2312.12751.
  28. Rospigliosi, P. (2023). Artificial intelligence in teaching and learning: what questions should we ask of ChatGPT? Interactive Learning Environments, 31(1), 1-3. https://doi.org/10.1080/10494820.2023.2180191
  29. Russell, S., & Norvig, P. (2022). Artificial Intelligence: A Modern Approach. Pearson.
  30. Schulhoff, S., Ilie, M., Balepur, N., Kahadze, K., Liu, A., Si, C.,. & Resnik, P. (2024). The prompt report: A systematic survey of prompt engineering techniques. arXiv preprint arXiv:2406.06608.
  31. Settles, B., & Meeder, B. (2016). A trainable spaced repetition model for language learning. Proceedings of the 54th Annual Meeting of the Association for Computational Linguistics, 1848–1858. https://doi.org/10.18653/v1/P16-1174
  32. URL 1: https://medium.com/t%C3%BCrkiye/yapay-zekân%C4%B1n-tarih%C3%A7esi-ve-geli%C5%9Fim-s%C3%BCreci-cb4c73deb01d. Erişim Tarihi 10.04.2025
  33. URL 2: https://deepmind.google/discover/blog/alphafold-a-solution-to-a-50-year-old-grand-challenge-in-biology/ Erişim Tarihi 03.04.2025
  34. URL 3: https://quantumzeitgeist.com/openais-dall-e-new-machine-learning-model-creates-images-from-text/ Erişim Tarihi 03.4.2025
  35. Uyan, U. (2023). Yapay zekânın bilimsel yayın amaçlı kullanımına ilişkin etik kaygılar: sistematik bir yazın incelemesi. İş Ahlakı Dergisi, 16 (2), ss. 173-199.
  36. Van Dis, E. A., Bollen, J., Zuidema, W., van Rooij, R., & Bockting, C. L. (2023). ChatGPT: Five
  37. Chen, M., Tworek, J., Jun, H., Yuan, Q., Pinto, H. P. D. O., Kaplan, J.,. & Zaremba, W. (2021). Evaluating large language models trained on code. arXiv preprint arXiv:2107.03374.
  38. Ramesh, A., Pavlov, M., Goh, G., Gray, S., Voss, C., Radford, A.,. & Sutskever, I. (2021). Zero-shot text-to-image generation. arXiv preprint arXiv:2102.12092.
  39. Rospigliosi, P. (2023). Artificial intelligence in teaching and learning: what questions should we ask of ChatGPT? Interactive Learning Environments, 31(1), 1-3. https://doi.org/10.1080/10494820.2023.2180191
  40. Schulhoff, S., Ilie, M., Balepur, N., Kahadze, K., Liu, A., Si, C.,. & Resnik, P. (2024). The prompt report: A systematic survey of prompt engineering techniques. arXiv preprint arXiv:2406.06608.