Journals / Akdeniz Üniversitesi İletişim Fakültesi Dergisi / 2025 / Issue: 50

Examining the Perceptions of Communication Faculty Students on Algorithm Literacy and Algorithmic Decision Making

İletişim Fakültesi Öğrencilerinin Algoritma Okuryazarlığı ve Algoritmik Karar Verme Konusundaki Algılarının İncelenmesi

Bahar Kayıhan(Ankara Hacı Bayram Veli Üniversitesi)0000-0001-5196-4350
Muzafalu Katamba(Hacı Bayram Veli Üniversitesi Lisansüstü Eğitim Enstitüsü)0000-0002-9000-2303
Pages
195–214
Publication Date
2025-12-30
🏛️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 thematically analyzed findings indicate that algorithms play a double role in decision-making, offering both benefits and challenges, and it is clear that algorithms repeatedly exhibit bias and manipulate users, particularly in position with commercial interests.

📌 3 Key Takeaways

🎯
Objective & Hypothesis:The current digital environment is governed by algorithmic technology.
📊
Key Findings & Data:A total of 32 communication students participated in this study, sharing their perceptions on the role of algorithms in decision-making.
💡
Conclusion & Impact:The thematically analyzed findings indicate that algorithms play a double role in decision-making, offering both benefits and challenges, and it is clear that algorithms repeatedly exhibit bias and manipulate users, particularly in position with commercial interests.
🔬Design:Modeling & Simulation
📍Scope:Comprehensive Sample
⚙️Variables:algoritma · algoritma okuryazarlığı · yapay zekâ

Abstract

The current digital environment is governed by algorithmic technology. While some studies suggest that algorithms unfairly influence human interests and decisions within this digital world, research focusing on algorithm literacy among students and the role of algorithms in decision-making remains relatively scarce. Therefore, this study seeks to reveal students' algorithm literacy to assess their knowledge and experience with algorithms, as well as the influence of algorithms on their decision-making manners. Focus group interviews were conducted, grounded in theories hypothesizing that algorithms are unfair and that the datasets and models applied in algorithmic systems do not provide unbiased representations of reality. A total of 32 communication students participated in this study, sharing their perceptions on the role of algorithms in decision-making. The research also examined students' experiences with algorithm literacy and whether their decisions extend beyond what algorithms offer. The thematically analyzed findings indicate that algorithms play a double role in decision-making, offering both benefits and challenges, and it is clear that algorithms repeatedly exhibit bias and manipulate users, particularly in position with commercial interests. Notably, it was found that students perceived that algorithms can sometimes limit users' choices by prioritising a particular type of content under the influence of adverts and the nature of the media, thereby creating an unfair bias. Therefore, future research should focus on the design and regulation of algorithms to improve their transparency and mitigate the risks of social manipulation.

Özet

Günümüz dijital ortamı algoritma teknolojisi tarafından yönetilmektedir. Bazı çalışmalar, algoritmaların bu dijital dünyada insan çıkarlarını ve kararlarını haksız bir şekilde etkilediğini öne sürerken, öğrenciler arasında algoritma okuryazarlığına ve algoritmaların karar vermedeki rolüne odaklanan araştırmalar nispeten azdır. Bu nedenle, bu çalışma öğrencilerin algoritmalarla ilgili bilgi ve deneyimlerinin yanı sıra algoritmaların karar verme biçimleri üzerindeki rolünü değerlendirmek için algoritma okuryazarlıklarını ortaya çıkarmayı amaçlamaktadır. Çalışmada, algoritmaların adil olmadığı ve algoritmaya dayalı sistemlerde uygulanan veri kümelerinin ve modellerinin gerçekliğin tarafsız temsillerini sağlamadığı hipotezlerinden yola çıkılarak odak grup görüşmeleri gerçekleştirilmiştir. Bu çalışmaya toplam 32 iletişim fakültesi öğrencisi katılmış ve algoritmaların karar verme sürecindeki rolüne ilişkin algılarını aktarmışlardır. Araştırma ayrıca öğrencilerin algoritma okuryazarlığı ile ilgili deneyimlerini ve kararlarının algoritmaların sunduklarının ötesine geçip geçmediğini de incelemiştir. Tematik olarak analiz edilen bulgular, algoritmaların karar vermede hem faydalar hem de zorluklar sunan çifte bir rol oynadığını ve algoritmaların, özellikle tecimsel çıkarlar söz konusu olduğunda, yeniden önyargı sergilediğini ve kullanıcıları manipüle ettiğini göstermektedir. Özellikle, öğrencilerin algoritmaların reklamların ve medyanın doğasının etkisi altında belirli bir içerik türünü önceliklendirerek kullanıcıların seçimlerini sınırlayabileceğini ve böylece haksız bir önyargı yaratabileceğini düşündükleri tespit edilmiştir. Bu nedenle, gelecekteki araştırmalar, şeffaflıklarını artırmak ve sosyal manipülasyon risklerini azaltmak için algoritmaların tasarımına ve düzenlenmesine odaklanmalıdır.

🔖

Cite This Article

Kayıhan, B., Katamba, M. (2025). Examining the Perceptions of Communication Faculty Students on Algorithm Literacy and Algorithmic Decision Making. Akdeniz Üniversitesi İletişim Fakültesi Dergisi, Issue: 50, 195–214. https://doi.org/10.31123/akil.1705388

📄 Full Text PDF Viewer

📄

PDF görüntüleyici hazırlanıyor...

References (52)

  1. Abrams, L. R., McBride, C. M., Hooker, G. W., Cappella, J. N., & Koehly, L. M. (2015). The Many Facets of Genetic Literacy: Assessing the Scalability of Multiple Measures for Broad Use in Survey Research. PLOS ONE, 10(10), e0141532. https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pone.0141532
  2. Airoldi, M., & Rokka, J. (2022). Algorithmic consumer culture. Consumption Markets & Culture, 25(5), 411–428. https://doi.org/10.1080/10253866.2022.2084726
  3. Archambault, S., Ramachandran, S., Acosta, E., & Fu, S. (2024). Ethical dimensions of algorithmic literacy for college students: Case studies and cross-disciplinary connections. The Journal of Academic Librarianship, 50(3).
  4. Beck, L. C., Trombetta, W. L., & Share, S. (1986). Using focus group sessions before decisions are made. North Carolina Medical Journal, 47(2), 73–74.
  5. Brkan, M. (2019). Do algorithms rule the world? Algorithmic decision-making and data protection in the framework of the GDPR and beyond. International Journal of Law and Information Technology, 27(2), 91–121. https://doi.org/10.1093/ijlit/eay017
  6. Burton, J. W., Stein, M., & Jensen, T. B. (2020). A systematic review of algorithm aversion in augmented decision making. Journal of Behavioral Decision Making, 33(2), 220–239. https://doi.org/10.1002/bdm.2155
  7. Chouldechova, A., Benavides-Prado, D., Fialko, O., & Vaithianathan, R. (2018). A case study of algorithm-assisted decision making in child maltreatment hotline screening decisions. In Conference on Fairness, Accountability and Transparency. PMLR, 134–148.
  8. Corbett-Davies, S., Pierson, E., Feller, A., Goel, S., & Huq, A. (2017). Algorithmic Decision Making and the Cost of Fairness. Proceedings of the 23rd ACM SIGKDD International Conference on Knowledge Discovery and Data Mining, 797–806. https://doi.org/10.1145/3097983.3098095
  9. DeVito, M. A. (2021). Adaptive Folk Theorization as a Path to Algorithmic Literacy on Changing Platforms. Proceedings of the ACM on Human-Computer Interaction, 5(CSCW2), 1–38. https://doi.org/10.1145/3476080
  10. Dogruel, L. (2021). What is Algorithm Literacy?: A Conceptualization and Challenges Regarding its Empirical Measurement (M. Taddicken & C. Schumann, Eds.). Freie Universität Berlin. 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. Elish, M. C., & Boyd, D. (2018). Situating methods in the magic of Big Data and AI. Communication Monographs, 85(1), 57–80. https://doi.org/10.1080/03637751.2017.1375130
  14. Estrela, M., Semedo, G., Roque, F., Ferreira, P. L., & Herdeiro, M. T. (2023). Sociodemographic determinants of digital health literacy: A systematic review and meta-analysis. International Journal of Medical Informatics, 177, 105124. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ijmedinf.2023.105124
  15. Evren, M., & Koyuncu, A. A. (2024). Algorithm Domination As A New Surveillance System. Yeni Medya Dergisi. https://doi.org/10.55609/yenimedya.1528528
  16. 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
  17. Hobbs, R. (2020). Propaganda in an Age of Algorithmic Personalization: Expanding Literacy Research and Practice. Reading Research Quarterly, 55(3), 521–533. https://doi.org/10.1002/rrq.301
  18. Jansen, S. C. (2022). What Was Artificial Intelligence? (1st ed., Vol. 1). mediastudies.press. https://doi.org/10.32376/3f8575cb.0cc62523
  19. Kalır, H. (2023). Siyah Veri, Beyaz Algoritmalar: Veri Sömürgecisinin Dünya Modelini Reddetmek ve Veriyi Sömürgesizleştirmek Mümkün Mü ? Mülkiye Dergisi, 47(6), 1469- 1504.
  20. Karakoç Keskin, E. (2024). Dijital Medya Ortamında Rızanın Algoritmik İnşası: Eleştirel Algoritma Çalışmaları Perspektifinde Bir Tartışma. Yeni Medya, (16), 329-353.
  21. Karakoç Keskin, E. & Demirel, E. S. (2025). Algoritmik Medya İçeriği Farkındalık Ölçeğinin (AMCA-scale) Türkçe Uyarlaması ve Ölçek Faktörleri Arasındaki İlişkilerin Analizi. Journal of Akdeniz University Faculty of Communication/Akdeniz Iletişim, (48).
  22. Karaman, M. K., & Yiğit, İ. (2024). Yeni Medya Bölümü Öğrencilerinin Algoritma Okuryazarlıkları Üzerine Bir Araştırma. Erciyes İletişim Dergisi, 11(1), 155-180.
  23. Katamba, M. (2023). Book Review: Understanding Risks and Crises Through the Media. (15), 351-354.
  24. Katamba, M., & Kayıhan, B. (2024). A Descriptive Analysis for the Future of Journalism Studies in Emerging Artificial Intelligence (AI) and the Case of NewsGPT platform. Yeni Medya Dergisi. https://doi.org/10.55609/yenimedya.1427421
  25. Kayihan, B., Nari̇n, B., Firat, D., & Firat, F. (2021). Algoritmalar, Yapay Zeka ve Makine Öğrenimi Ekseninde Gazetecilik Etiği: Uluslararası Akademik Dergilere Yönelik Bir İnceleme. TRT Akademi, 6(12), 296–327. https://doi.org/10.37679/trta.900086
  26. Köchling, A., & Wehner, M. C. (2020). Discriminated by an algorithm: A systematic review of discrimination and fairness by algorithmic decision-making in the context of HR recruitment and HR development. Business Research, 13(3), 795–848. https://doi.org/10.1007/s40685-020-00134-w
  27. Latzer, M., & Festic, N. (2019). A guideline for understanding and measuring algorithmic governance in everyday life. Internet Policy Review, 8(2). https://doi.org/10.14763/2019.2.1415
  28. Latzer, M., Hollnbuchner, K., Just, N., & Saurwein, F. (2016). The economics of algorithmic selection on the Internet. In J. M. Bauer & M. Latzer (Eds.), Handbook on the Economics of the Internet. Edward Elgar Publishing. https://doi.org/10.4337/9780857939852.00028
  29. Lee, M. K. (2018). Understanding perception of algorithmic decisions: Fairness, trust, and emotion in response to algorithmic management. Big Data & Society, 5(1), 2053951718756684. https://doi.org/10.1177/2053951718756684
  30. Lepri, B., Oliver, N., Letouzé, E., Pentland, A., & Vinck, P. (2018). Fair, Transparent, and Accountable Algorithmic Decision-making Processes: The Premise, the Proposed Solutions, and the Open Challenges. Philosophy & Technology, 31(4), 611–627. https://doi.org/10.1007/s13347-017-0279-x
  31. Lomborg, S., & Kapsch, P. H. (2020). Decoding algorithms. Media, Culture & Society, 42(5), 745–761. https://doi.org/10.1177/0163443719855301
  32. Longhofer, W., & Winchester, D. (Eds.). (2023). Social theory re-wired: New connections to classical and contemporary perspectives (Third edition). Routledge, Taylor & Francis Group.
  33. Low, B., Ehret, C., & Hagh, A. (2025). Algorithmic imaginings and critical digital literacy on #BookTok. New Media & Society, 27(4), 2336–2353. https://doi.org/10.1177/14614448231206466
  34. Lutkevich, B., & Gillis, A. S. (2024). What is a bot? TechTarget. https://www.techtarget.com/whatis/definition/bot-robo
  35. Mahmud, H., Islam, A. K. M. N., Ahmed, S. I., & Smolander, K. (2022). What influences algorithmic decision-making? A systematic literature review on algorithm aversion. Technological Forecasting and Social Change, 175, 121390. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.techfore.2021.121390
  36. Marmolejo-Ramos, F., Marrone, R., Korolkiewicz, M., Gabriel, F., Siemens, G., Joksimovic, S., Yamada, Y., Mori, Y., Rahwan, T., Sahakyan, M., Sonna, B., Meirmanov, A., Bolatov, A., Som, B., Ndukaihe, I., Arinze, N. C., Kundrát, J., Skanderová, L., Ngo, V.-G., … Tejada, J. (2025). Factors influencing trust in algorithmic decision-making: An indirect scenario-based experiment. Frontiers in Artificial Intelligence, 7, 1465605. https://doi.org/10.3389/frai.2024.1465605
  37. Möhlmann, M., & Zalmanson, L. (2017). Hands on the wheel: Navigating algorithmic management and Uber drivers’ autonomy, proceedings of the International Conference on Information Systems.
  38. Moylan, R., & Code, J. (2024). Algorithmic futures: An analysis of teacher professional digital competence frameworks through an algorithm literacy lens. Teachers and Teaching, 30(4), 452–470. https://doi.org/10.1080/13540602.2023.2263732
  39. Oeldorf-Hirsch, A., & Neubaum, G. (2023). Attitudinal and behavioral correlates of algorithmic awareness among German and U.S. social media users. Journal of Computer-Mediated Communication, 28(5), zmad035. https://doi.org/10.1093/jcmc/zmad035
  40. Oeldorf-Hirsch, A., & Neubaum, G. (2025). 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
  41. Park, Y. J. (2013). Digital Literacy and Privacy Behavior Online. Communication Research, 40(2), 215–236. https://doi.org/10.1177/0093650211418338
  42. Pasquale, F. (2015). The black box society: The secret algorithms that control money and information. Harvard University Press.
  43. Şenyüz, B. (2023). Algoritma okuryazarlığı. In Yapay Zeka ve İletişim. Kriter Yayınları.
  44. Shin, D. (2020). How do users interact with algorithm recommender systems? The interaction of users, algorithms, and performance. Computers in Human Behavior, 109, 106344. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.chb.2020.106344
  45. Tsuei, H.-J., Tsai, W.-H., Pan, F.-T., & Tzeng, G.-H. (2020). Improving search engine optimization (SEO) by using hybrid modified MCDM models. Artificial Intelligence Review, 53(1), 1–16. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10462-018-9644-0
  46. Tucker, C. (2018). Privacy, algorithms, and artificial intelligence. In The economics of artificial intelligence: An agenda (pp. 423-437.).
  47. Wegner, P. (1997). Why interaction is more powerful than algorithms. Communications of the ACM, 40(5), 80–91. https://doi.org/10.1145/253769.253801
  48. Wilkinson, S. (1998). Focus group methodology: A review. International Journal of Social Research Methodology, 1(3), 181–203. https://doi.org/10.1080/13645579.1998.10846874
  49. Woods, S. A., Ahmed, S., Nikolaou, I., Costa, A. C., & Anderson, N. R. (2020). Personnel selection in the digital age: A review of validity and applicant reactions, and future research challenges. European Journal of Work and Organizational Psychology, 29(1), 64–77. https://doi.org/10.1080/1359432X.2019.1681401
  50. Yalcin, G., Lim, S., Puntoni, S., & Van Osselaer, S. M. J. (2022). Thumbs Up or Down: Consumer Reactions to Decisions by Algorithms Versus Humans. Journal of Marketing Research, 59(4), 696–717. https://doi.org/10.1177/00222437211070016
  51. Yin, H. (2021). Role of Artificial Intelligence Machine Learning in Deepening the Internet Plus Social Work Service. Mathematical Problems in Engineering, 2021, 1–10. https://doi.org/10.1155/2021/6915568
  52. Kalır, H. (2023). Siyah Veri, Beyaz Algoritmalar: Veri Sömürgecisinin Dünya Modelini Reddetmek ve Veriyi Sömürgesizleştirmek Mümkün Mü ? Mülkiye Dergisi, 47(6), 1469- 1504.