SavedAdd your journal

Journals / Necatibey Eğitim Fakültesi Elektronik Fen ve Matematik Eğitimi Dergisi / 2026 / Cilt: 20 Sayı: 1

An Examination of Mathematics Teachers’ Views on Differentiated and Individualized Education Programs for Gifted Students Developed with Artificial Intelligence

Matematik Öğretmenlerinin Üstün Yetenekli Öğrenciler için Yapay Zekâ ile Geliştirilen Farklılaştırılmış ve Bireyselleştirilmiş Eğitim Programlarına İlişkin Görüşlerinin İncelenmesi

Burak Karabey(DOKUZ EYLUL UNIVERSITY, BUCA FACULTY OF EDUCATION)0000-0001-8614-8628
Arzunur Çakmak(DOKUZ EYLUL UNIVERSITY, BUCA FACULTY OF EDUCATION)0009-0008-1383-3745
Yağmur Günay(DOKUZ EYLUL UNIVERSITY, BUCA FACULTY OF EDUCATION)0009-0005-3911-0391
Pages
357–383
Publication Date
2026-06-26
🏛️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 indicate that ChatGPT was found to be stronger than other tools in terms of content and academic depth, originality and creativity, suitability to students' interests and needs, differentiation and individualization, ease of implementation, and educational and technological consistency.

📌 3 Key Takeaways

🎯
Objective & Hypothesis:The rapid development of artificial intelligence (AI) technologies in the field of education offers new opportunities in personalized learning and instructional design.
📊
Key Findings & Data:Data were collected using a semi-structured interview form developed by the researchers; teachers were asked to rate each AI tool on a 1–5 Likert scale according to specified criteria and to explain their opinions.
💡
Conclusion & Impact:The findings indicate that ChatGPT was found to be stronger than other tools in terms of content and academic depth, originality and creativity, suitability to students' interests and needs, differentiation and individualization, ease of implementation, and educational and technological consistency.
🔬Design:Araştırma Makalesi
📍Scope:Comprehensive Sample
⚙️Variables:Yapay zekâ · üstün yetenekliler eğitimi · farklılaştırılmış eğitim programı

Abstract

The rapid development of artificial intelligence (AI) technologies in the field of education offers new opportunities in personalized learning and instructional design. The purpose of this study is to examine the effectiveness of three different AI tools (ChatGPT, Gemini, and DeepSeek) in preparing an differentiated and individualized education programs (DIEP) that can be used in the education of gifted students, based on teachers' opinions. The research employed a basic qualitative research design; the participant group consisted of six middle school mathematics teachers working at Science and Art Centers in Turkey. Data were collected using a semi-structured interview form developed by the researchers; teachers were asked to rate each AI tool on a 1–5 Likert scale according to specified criteria and to explain their opinions. The findings indicate that ChatGPT was found to be stronger than other tools in terms of content and academic depth, originality and creativity, suitability to students' interests and needs, differentiation and individualization, ease of implementation, and educational and technological consistency. Gemini was found to be pedagogically balanced, while DeepSeek was considered innovative in its interdisciplinary approach but conceptually superficial. In conclusion, the findings indicate that AI tools, when used with teacher guidance, have the potential to offer individualized and deepened learning experiences in the education of gifted students.

Özet

Yapay zekâ (YZ) teknolojilerinin eğitim alanındaki hızlı gelişimi, bireyselleştirilmiş öğrenme ve öğretim tasarımında yeni fırsatlar sunmaktadır. Bu araştırmanın amacı, üç farklı YZ aracının (ChatGPT, Gemini ve DeepSeek) üstün yetenekli öğrencilerin eğitiminde kullanılabilecek Farklılaştırılmış ve Bireyselleştirilmiş Eğitim Programı hazırlama yeterliklerini, öğretmen görüşleri doğrultusunda incelemektir. Araştırma, temel nitel araştırma deseni ile yürütülmüş; katılımcı grubunu Türkiye’deki Bilim ve Sanat Merkezlerinde görev yapan altı ortaokul matematik öğretmeni oluşturmuştur. Veriler, araştırmacılar tarafından geliştirilen yarı yapılandırılmış görüşme formu aracılığıyla toplanmış; öğretmenlerden her bir YZ aracını belirlenen ölçütlerde 1–5 arası Likert tipi puanlamaları ve görüşlerini açıklamaları istenmiştir. Bulgular, ChatGPT’nin içerik ve akademik derinlik, özgünlük ve yaratıcılık, öğrenci ilgi ve ihtiyaçlarına uygunluk, farklılaştırma ve bireyselleştirme, uygulama kolaylığı, eğitsel ve teknolojik tutarlılık, açısından diğer araçlara göre daha güçlü bulunduğunu göstermektedir. Değerlendirmelerde Gemini pedagojik olarak dengeli, DeepSeek ise disiplinler arası yönüyle yenilikçi ancak kavramsal açıdan yüzeysel bulunmuştur . Sonuç olarak, YZ araçlarının öğretmen rehberliğiyle birlikte kullanıldığında üstün yetenekli öğrencilerin eğitiminde bireyselleştirilmiş ve farklılaştırılmış öğrenme deneyimleri sunma potansiyeline sahip olduğu belirlenmiştir.

🔖

Cite This Article

Karabey, B., Çakmak, A., Günay, Y., *, B. K. (2026). An Examination of Mathematics Teachers’ Views on Differentiated and Individualized Education Programs for Gifted Students Developed with Artificial Intelligence. Necatibey Eğitim Fakültesi Elektronik Fen ve Matematik Eğitimi Dergisi, Cilt: 20 Sayı: 1, 357–383. https://doi.org/10.17522/balikesirnef.1821050

📄 Full Text PDF Viewer

📄

PDF görüntüleyici hazırlanıyor...

References (23)

  1. Alomari, M. A., & Jabr, M. O. (2020). The effect of the use of an educational software based on the strategy of artificial intelligence on students’ achievement and their attitudes towards it. Management Science Letters, 10(13), 2951–2960. https://doi.org/10.5267/j.msl.2020.5.030
  2. Ayeni, O., Al Hamad, N. M., Chisom, O. N., Osawaru, B., & Adewusi, O. E. (2024). AI in education: A review of personalized learning and educational technology. GSC Advanced Research and Reviews, 18(2), 261–271. https://doi.org/10.30574/gscarr.2024.18.2.0062
  3. Chiu, T. K. F., et al. (2023). Embracing the future of artificial intelligence in the classroom. International Journal of Educational Technology in Higher Education, 21, Article 15. https://doi.org/10.1186/s41239-024-00448-3
  4. Holmes, W., Bialik, M., & Fadel, C. (2021). Artificial intelligence in education: Promises and implications for teaching and learning. Center for Curriculum Redesign.
  5. Johnsen, S. K. (2025). A new era of gifted education. Gifted Child Today, 48(2), 85. https://doi.org/10.1177/10762175241309441
  6. Kamalov, F., Santandreu Calonge, D., & Gurrib, I. (2023). Artificial intelligence in education: A systematic review. Sustainability, 15(16), Article 12451. https://doi.org/10.3390/su151612451
  7. Luckin, R., Emary, M. & Holmes, W. (2016). Intelligence unleashed: An argument for AI in education. Pearson Education.
  8. Luckin, R. (2018). Machine learning and human intelligence: The future of education for the 21st century. UCL Institute of Education.
  9. Merriam, S. B. (2013). Qualitative research: A guide to design and implementation (3rd ed.). Jossey-Bass.
  10. Mollick, E. R., & Mollick, L. (2023). Using AI to implement effective teaching strategies in classrooms: Five strategies, including prompts. The Wharton School Research Paper. https://doi.org/10.2139/ssrn.4391243
  11. Reis, S. M., & Renzulli, J. S. (2010). Is there still a need for gifted education? An examination of current research. Learning and Individual Differences, 20(4), 308–317. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.lindif.2009.10.012
  12. Renzulli, J. S. (2012). Reexamining the role of gifted education and talent development for the 21st century: A four-part theoretical approach. Gifted Child Quarterly, 56(3), 150–159. https://doi.org/10.1177/0016986212444901
  13. Renzulli, J. S., & Reis, S. M. (2014). The schoolwide enrichment model: A how-to guide for talent development (3rd ed.). Prufrock. https://doi.org/10.4324/9781003238904
  14. Steenbergen-Hu, S., Makel, M. C., & Olszewski-Kubilius, P. (2016). What one hundred years of research says about the effects of ability grouping and acceleration on K–12 students’ academic achievement: Findings of two second-order meta-analyses. Review of Educational Research, 86(4), 849–899. https://doi.org/10.3102/0034654316675417
  15. Sternberg, R. J., & Williams, W. M. (1996). How to develop student creativity. Educational Leadership, 53(4), 37–39. https://eric.ed.gov/?id=ED400059
  16. Subotnik, R. F., Olszewski-Kubilius, P., & Worrell, F. C. (2011). Rethinking giftedness and gifted education: A proposed direction forward based on psychological science. Psychological Science in the Public Interest, 12(1), 3–54. https://doi.org/10.1177/1529100611418056
  17. Tomlinson, C. A. (2014). The differentiated classroom: Responding to the needs of all learners (2nd ed.). ASCD.
  18. Turing, A. M. (1950). Computing machinery and intelligence. Mind, 59(236), 433–460. https://doi.org/10.1093/mind/LIX.236.433
  19. U.S. Department of Education, Office of Educational Technology. (2023, May). Artificial intelligence and the future of teaching and learning: Insights and recommendations (ED631097). ERIC. https://eric.ed.gov/?id=ED631097
  20. VanTassel-Baska, J., & Stambaugh, T. (2006). Comprehensive curriculum for gifted learners (3rd ed.). Pearson/Allyn & Bacon.
  21. Vygotsky, L. S. (1978). Mind in society: The development of higher psychological processes. Harvard University.
  22. Yan, L., Chen, Y., Wang, H., & Li, X. (2023). Opportunities and challenges of large language models in education: A review and future perspectives. Computers and Education: Artificial Intelligence, 4, Article 100158. https://doi.org/10.3352/jeehp.2024.21.6
  23. Yeşilyurt, M., Dündar, H., & Demir, T. (2024). Bibliographic analysis of postgraduate theses on the use of artificial intelligence in education in Turkey. MANAS Journal of Social Studies, 13(1), 695–714. https://doi.org/10.33206/mjss.1587252