SavedAdd your journal

Journals / Dumlupınar Üniversitesi Eğitim Bilimleri Enstitüsü Dergisi / 2026 / Cilt: 10 Sayı: 1

Social Studies Teacher Candidates’ Views on the Use of Artificial Intelligence–Supported Materials

Sosyal Bilgiler Öğretmen Adaylarının Yapay Zekâ Destekli Materyal Kullanımına İlişkin Görüşleri

Berra Bulut(AMASYA ÜNİVERSİTESİ, EĞİTİM FAKÜLTESİ)0009-0009-9957-0305
Gönül Türkan Demir(AMASYA ÜNİVERSİTESİ, EĞİTİM FAKÜLTESİ)0000-0002-6056-4137
Pages
69–91
Publication Date
2026-07-30
🏛️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 indicate that preservice teachers consider AI pedagogically beneficial, particularly for personalizing learning processes, facilitating the creation of visual materials, and enhancing student engagement.

📌 3 Key Takeaways

🎯
Objective & Hypothesis:The aim of this study is to reveal the opinions of social studies teacher candidates regarding artificial intelligence (AI)-supported instructional materials and to analyze the pedagogical opportunities and limitations encountered in integrating these materials into social studies teaching.
📊
Key Findings & Data:The study was designed according to a phenomenological qualitative research model.
💡
Conclusion & Impact:The findings indicate that preservice teachers consider AI pedagogically beneficial, particularly for personalizing learning processes, facilitating the creation of visual materials, and enhancing student engagement.
🔬Design:Modeling & Simulation
📍Scope:Comprehensive Sample
⚙️Variables:Yapay zekâ · öğretmen adayları · sosyal bilgiler eğitimi

Abstract

The aim of this study is to reveal the opinions of social studies teacher candidates regarding artificial intelligence (AI)-supported instructional materials and to analyze the pedagogical opportunities and limitations encountered in integrating these materials into social studies teaching. The study was designed according to a phenomenological qualitative research model. Data were collected through a semi-structured interview form and analyzed using content analysis with the aid of computer-assisted qualitative data analysis software. The theoretical framework of the study is grounded in constructivist learning theory, multiple intelligences theory, and connectivism. The findings indicate that preservice teachers consider AI pedagogically beneficial, particularly for personalizing learning processes, facilitating the creation of visual materials, and enhancing student engagement. However, some participants expressed concerns that AI may weaken the teacher’s role, reduce face-to-face interaction, and negatively affect higher-order cognitive skills. Overall, the results reveal that the teacher candidates maintain both innovative and critical perspectives toward AI technologies. The study concludes that teacher education programs should be redesigned to emphasize practical applications, ethical awareness, and critical thinking in order to better prepare future educators for the effective and responsible integration of AI-supported tools into social studies education.

Özet

Bu araştırmanın amacı, sosyal bilgiler öğretmen adaylarının yapay zekâ destekli eğitim materyallerine ilişkin görüşlerini ortaya koymak ve bu materyallerin sosyal bilgiler derslerine entegrasyonu sürecinde karşılaşılan pedagojik fırsatları ve sınırlılıkları analiz etmektir. Çalışmada, öğretmen adaylarının yapay zekâ temelli araçlara ilişkin mevcut bilgi düzeyleri, bu teknolojilere yönelik tutumları, öğretim sürecine ilişkin beklenti ve kaygıları bütüncül bir bakış açısıyla değerlendirilmiştir. Nitel araştırma yöntemlerinden fenomenolojik desene dayalı olarak yapılandırılan çalışmada, veriler yarı yapılandırılmış görüşme formu aracılığıyla toplanmış ve nitel veri analizine imkan tanıyan bilgisayar destekli bir analiz aracı kullanılarak içerik analizi tekniğiyle çözümlenmiştir. Araştırmanın kuramsal çerçevesi yapılandırmacı öğrenme yaklaşımı, çoklu zekâ kuramı ve bağlantıcılık teorisine dayandırılmış ve bulgular bu kuramsal temeller doğrultusunda yorumlanmıştır. Bulgular, öğretmen adaylarının yapay zekâyı özellikle öğrenme süreçlerini kişiselleştirme, görsel materyal üretimini kolaylaştırma ve derse ilgiyi artırma gibi yönleriyle pedagojik açıdan faydalı bulduklarını ortaya koymaktadır. Bununla birlikte, bazı katılımcılar yapay zekânın öğretmen rolünü zayıflatabileceği, yüz yüze etkileşimi azaltabileceği ve üst düzey bilişsel beceriler üzerinde olumsuz etkiler yaratabileceği yönünde endişelerini dile getirmiştir. Araştırma sonuçları, öğretmen adaylarının yapay zekâ teknolojilerine yönelik hem yenilikçi hem de eleştirel bir perspektife sahip olduğunu ortaya koymakta ve öğretmen eğitimi programlarının bu doğrultuda uygulamalı, etik temelli ve eleştirel düşünmeyi teşvik eden bir yapıda yeniden tasarlanması gerektiğine işaret etmektedir.

🔖

Cite This Article

Bulut, B., Demir, G. T. (2026). Social Studies Teacher Candidates’ Views on the Use of Artificial Intelligence–Supported Materials. Dumlupınar Üniversitesi Eğitim Bilimleri Enstitüsü Dergisi, Cilt: 10 Sayı: 1, 69–91. https://doi.org/10.71272/debder.1816077

📄 Full Text PDF Viewer

📄

PDF görüntüleyici hazırlanıyor...

References (77)

  1. Adaş, E. B., & Erbay, B. (2022). Yapay zekâ sosyolojisi üzerine bir değerlendirme. Gaziantep University Journal of Social Sciences, 21(1), 326–337. https://doi.org/10.21547/jss.991383
  2. Alalwany, W., & Yonan, J. (2023). Role of artificial intelligence (AI) in improving educational quality and networking for students and faculty. Babylonian Journal of Networking. https://doi.org/10.58496/bjn/2023/008
  3. Alpaydın, E. (2013). Yapay öğrenme (4. baskı). Boğaziçi Üniversitesi Yayınevi.
  4. Altun, E. (2024). Yapay zekâ ve pedagoji: Eğitimde fırsatlar ve zorluklar. Dijital Teknolojiler ve Eğitim Dergisi, 3(1), 80– 95. https://doi.org/10.5281/zenodo.12637335
  5. Ayanwale, M. A., Sanusi, I. T., Adelana, O. P., Aruleba, K. D., & Oyelere, S. S. (2022). Teachers’ readiness and intention to teach artificial intelligence in schools. Computers and Education: Artificial Intelligence, 3, 100099. https://doi.org/ 10.1016/j.caeai.2022.100099
  6. Aydın, F. (2023). Yapay zekâ tabanlı EBA akademik destek sisteminin öğrencilerin akademik başarısına etkisinin incelenmesi (Yayımlanmamış yüksek lisans tezi). Sosyal Bilimler Enstitüsü.
  7. Bearman, M., Ryan, J., & Ajjawi, R. (2023). Discourses of artificial intelligence in higher education: A critical literature review. Higher Education, 86(2), 369–385. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10734-022-00937-2
  8. Celik, I., Dindar, M., Muukkonen, H., & Järvelä, S. (2022). The promises and challenges of artificial intelligence for teachers: A systematic review of research. TechTrends, 66(4), 616–630. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11528-02200715
  9. Chang, R. C., Chung, L. Y., & Huang, Y. M. (2016). Developing an interactive augmented reality system as a c o m p l e -ment to plant education and comparing its effectiveness with video learning. Interactive Learning Environments, 24(6), 1245–1264. https://doi.org/10.1080/10494820.2014.982131
  10. 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
  11. Copeland, J. (1993). Artificial intelligence: A philosophical introduction. Blackwell. https://archive.org/details/artificialintell0000cope/ mode/2up
  12. Creswell, J. W. (2013). Qualitative inquiry and research design: Choosing among five approaches (3rd ed.). Sage. https:// www.academia.edu/download/55010759/creswell_Qualitative_Inquiry_2nd_edition.pdf
  13. Çam, M. B., Çelik, N. C., Güntepe, E. T., & Durukan, Ü. G. (2021). Öğretmen adaylarının yapay zekâ teknolojileri ile ilgili farkındalıklarının belirlenmesi. Mustafa Kemal Üniversitesi Sosyal Bilimler Enstitüsü Dergisi, 18(48), 263–285.
  14. Çelebi, C., Demir, U., & Karakuş, F. (2023). Yapay zekâ okuryazarlığı konulu çalışmaların sistematik derleme yöntemiyle incelenmesi. Necmettin Erbakan Üniversitesi Ereğli Eğitim Fakültesi Dergisi, 5(2), 535– 560. https://doi. org/10.51119/ereegf.2023.67
  15. Çelik, T. (2020). Dijital çağda sosyal bilgiler öğretmeni yetiştirme: Bir eylem araştırması. Pamukkale Üniversitesi Sosyal Bilimler Enstitüsü Dergisi, (38), 211–229. https://doi.org/10.30794/pausbed.541913
  16. Çetin, M. (2024). Teknofütüristik bağlamda sosyal bilgiler eğitiminde öğretim materyalleri. Premium e-Journal of Social Sciences (PEJOSS), 8(42), 681–692. https://orcid.org/0000-0002-3065-1969
  17. Deniz, S. S. (2024). Yapay zekâ kaygısının incelenmesine ilişkin bir araştırma. Social Mentality and Researcher Thinkers Journal (SMART Journal), 8(63), 1675–1677. https://doi.org/10.29228/smryj.64393
  18. Fattah, N. E. E. A. (2022). Effectiveness of using artificial intelligence in behavioral disorders management among the third-grade primary students. Eurasian Journal of Educational Research, 101(101), 33–48. https://doi.org/10.14689/ ejer.2022.101.003
  19. Floridi, L., Chiriatti, M., & Taddeo, M. (2023). AI as agency without intelligence: On ChatGPT, large language m o d e l s, and other generative models. Philosophy & Technology, 36(1), 15. https://doi.org/10.1007/s13347-023-00621-y
  20. Fosnot, C. T. (2013). Constructivism: Theory, perspectives, and practice. Teachers College Press.
  21. Gardner, H., & Hatch, T. (1989). Educational implications of the theory of multiple intelligences. Educational Researcher, 18(8), 4–10. https://doi.org/10.3102/0013189X018008004
  22. GDPR. (2018). General Data Protection Regulation. https://gdpr-info.eu/
  23. Ghareeb Ahmed Ali, S. (2020). Using an artificial intelligence application for developing primary school pupils’ oral language skills. The Educational Journal of the Faculty of Education in Sohag, 75(75), 67–110. https://doi.org/10.21608/edusohag.2020.97643
  24. Goldie, J. G. S. (2016). Connectivism: A knowledge learning theory for the digital age? Medical Teacher, 38(10), 1064– 1069. https://doi.org/10.3109/0142159X.2016.1173661
  25. 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
  26. Güzey, C., Çakır, O., Athar, M. H., & Yurdaöz, E. (2023). Eğitimde yapay zekâ üzerine gerçekleştirilmiş araştırmalardaki eğilimlerin incelenmesi. Bilgi ve İletişim Teknolojileri Dergisi, 5(1), 67–78. https://doi.org/10.53694/bited.1060730
  27. Holmes, W., Bialik, M., & Fadel, C. (2019). Artificial intelligence in education: Promises and implications for t e a c - hing and learning. Center for Curriculum Redesign. https://circls.org/primers/artificial-intelligence- in-education-promises-and-implications-for-teaching-and-learning
  28. Hsieh, H.-F., & Shannon, S. E. (2005). Three approaches to qualitative content analysis. Qualitative Health Research, 15(9),1277–1288. https://doi.org/10.1177/1049732305276687
  29. Husserl, E., & Moran, D. (2012). Ideas: General introduction to pure phenomenology. Routledge. h t t p s: / / d o i org/10.4324/9780203120330
  30. Kamalov, F., Calonge, D., & Gurrib, I. (2023). New era of artificial intelligence in education: Towards a sustainable multifaceted revolution. Sustainability, 15(16), 12451. https://doi.org/10.3390/su151612451
  31. Kasneci, E., Seßler, K., Küchemann, S., Bannert, M., Dementieva, D., Fischer, F., … & Kasneci, G. (2023). ChatGPT for good? On opportunities and challenges of large language models for education. Learning and Individual Differences,103, 102274. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.lindif.2023.102274
  32. Koç, O. (2024). Sosyal bilimler eğitiminde yapay zekâ. International Journal of Social and Humanities Sciences, 8(3), 51–80.
  33. Lincoln, Y. S., & Guba, E. (1985). Assessing naturalistic inquiry reports: Criteria and frameworks. ERIC. https://coilink.org/20.500.12592/2mjadxv
  34. Luckin, R., Holmes, W., Griffiths, M., & Forcier, L. B. (2016). Intelligence unleashed: An argument for AI in education. Pearson.
  35. Luckin, R. (2018). Machine learning and human intelligence: The future of education for the 21st century. UCL I n s t i t u t eof Education Presshttps://discovery.ucl.ac.uk/id/eprint/10178695/1/Machince.pdf
  36. Marshall, M. N., Cardon, P. W., Poddar, A., & Fontenot, R. (2013). Does sample size matter in qualitative research? A review of qualitative interviews in IS research. Journal of Computer Information Systems, 54(1), 11–22. https://doi.org/10.1080/08874417.2013.11645667
  37. Mason, J. (2017). Qualitative researching (2nd ed.). Sage.
  38. Mayring, P. (2000). Qualitative content analysis. Forum: Qualitative Social Research, 1(2), doiorg/10.17169/fqs-1.2.1089
  39. McCarthy, J. (2004). What is artificial intelligence. https://scholar.google.com/citations view_op=view_citation&hl=en&user=SuVID2wAAAAJ&citation _for_view=SuVID2wAAAAJ:UebtZRa9Y70C
  40. McCarthy, J., Minsky, M. L., Rochester, N., & Shannon, C. E. (1955). A proposal for the Dartmouth summer r e s e a r c hproject on artificial intelligence. AI Magazine, 27(4), 12–12. https://doi.org/10.1609/aimag.v27i4.1904
  41. MEB. (2024). Sosyal bilgiler dersi öğretim programı. Talim ve Terbiye Kurulu Başkanlığı Yayınları (Ankara).
  42. Mele, C., Marzullo, M., Morande, S., & Spena, T. R. (2022). How artificial intelligence enhances human learning abilities:Opportunities in the fight against COVID-19. Service Science, 14(2), 77–89. https://doi.org/10.1287/serv.2021.0289
  43. Miles, M. B., Huberman, A. M., & Saldaña, J. (2023). Nitel veri analizi (S. Akbaba Altun & A. Ersoy, Çev. Ed.). P e g e m Akademi.
  44. Mishra, P., & Koehler, M. J. (2006). Technological pedagogical content knowledge: A framework for teacher knowledge.Teachers College Record, 108(6), 1017–1054. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1467- 9620.2006.00684.x
  45. Nugent, G., Barker, B., Grandgenett, N., & Adamchuk, V. I. (2010). Impact of robotics and geospatial technology inter90ventions on youth STEM learning and attitudes. Journal of Research on Technology in Education, 42(4), 391–408. https://doi.org/10.1080/15391523.2010.10782557
  46. OECD. (2021). AI and the future of skills, Volume 1: Capabilities and assessments. OECD Publishing. Palinkas, L. A., Horwitz, S. M., Green, C. A., Wisdom, J. P., Duan, N., & Hoagwood, K. (2015). Purposeful sampling for qualitative data collection and analysis in mixed method implementation research. Administration and Policy in MentalHealth and Mental Health Services Research, 42(5), 533–544. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10488-013-0528-y
  47. Patton, M. Q. (2014). Qualitative research & evaluation methods: Integrating theory and practice. Sage.
  48. Piaget, J. (2004). Piaget’s theory. In B. Inhelder, H. H. Chipman, & C. Zwingmann (Eds.), Piaget and his school (pp. 11–23). Springer. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-642-46323-5_2
  49. Randhawa, G. K., & Jackson, M. (2020). The role of artificial intelligence in learning and professional development forhealthcare professionals. Healthcare Management Forum, 33(1), 1924.https://doi.org/10.1177/0840470419869032
  50. Riski, D., & Nuryanto, A. (2024). The effect of artificial intelligence (AI)-based learning implementation on the quality of learning outcomes of vocational high school students in the field of machining. International Journal of Social Scienceand Human Research. https://doi.org/10.47191/ijsshr/v7-i09-18
  51. Russell, S. J., & Norvig, P. (2016). Artificial intelligence: A modern approach. Pearson. https://thuvienso.hoasen.edu.vn/handle/123456789/8967
  52. Schreier, M. (2012). Qualitative content analysis in practice. Sage.
  53. Selwyn, N. (2019). Should robots replace teachers?: AI and the future of education. John Wiley & Sons.
  54. Seng, K. T., & Choo, L. S. (2008). Digital skills and education: Singapore’s ICT master planning for the school sector. InToward a better future (p. 167). The World Bank. http://hdl.handle.net/10986/6432
  55. Seyhan, A. (2024). Sosyal bilgiler öğretmenlerinin eğitimde yapay zekâ kullanımına ilişkin görüşleri. Uluslararası EğitimBilimleri Dergisi, 11(41), 100–125. https://doi.org/10.29228/INESJOURNAL.78798
  56. Shenton, A. K. (2004). Strategies for ensuring trustworthiness in qualitative research projects. Education for Information,22(2), 63–75. https://doi.org/10.3233/EFI-2004-22201
  57. Silverman, D. (2018). Nitel verileri yorumlama (E. Dinç, Çev. Ed.). Pegem Akademi.
  58. Smith, J. A., Flowers, P., & Larkin, M. (2009). Interpretative phenomenological analysis: Theory, method and research. Sage.
  59. Sun, L., & Zhou, L. (2023). Development direction of generative artificial intelligence education policies for p r i m a r yand secondary schools: An analysis based on Japan’s application guidelines for generative artificial intelligence education or primary and secondary school students. China Electronic Education, 11(5), 53–61.
  60. Tlili, A., Shehata, B., Adarkwah, M. A., Bozkurt, A., Hickey, D. T., Huang, R., & Agyemang, B. (2023). What if the devil is my guardian angel: ChatGPT as a case study of using chatbots in education. Smart Learning Environments, 10, 15. https://doi.org/10.1186/s40561-023-00237-x
  61. Tripathy, S., & Devarapalli, S. (2021). Emerging trend set by start-ups on Indian online education system: A case of Byju’s. Journal of Public Affairs, 21(1), e2128. https://doi.org/10.1002/pa.2128
  62. Turing, A. M. (1956). Can a machine think? In The world of mathematics (Vol. 4, pp. 2099–2123).
  63. Türker, O., & Kahraman, A. D. (2024). Artificial intelligence software in the context of educational process. T u r k i s h Online Journal of Educational Technology (TOJET), 23(1), 16–23.
  64. Wang, L., & Zhao, M. (2024). Can artificial intelligence technology promote the improvement of student learning outcomes? Meta-analysis based on 50 experimental and quasi-experimental studies. In Proceedings of the 3rd International Conference on Educational Innovation and Multimedia Technology (EIMT 2024). https://doi.org/10.4108/eai.29-3-2024.2347685
  65. Weizenbaum, J. (1962). How to make a computer appear intelligent. Datamation, 8(2), 24–26. https://ebiquity.umbc.edu/paper/html/id/1130/How-to-Make-a-Computer-Appear-Intelligent
  66. Wileman, S. (2022). South Staffordshire College. Teachermatic. https://teachermatic.com/blog/
  67. Williamson, B., & Eynon, R. (2020). Historical threads, missing links, and future directions in AI in education. Learning, Media and Technology, 45(3), 223–235. https://doi.org/10.1080/17439884.2020.1798995
  68. Xie, X. (2023). Influence of AI-driven inquiry teaching on learning outcomes. International Journal of Emerging Technologies in Learning, 18(23), 59–70. https://doi.org/10.3991/ijet.v18i23.45473
  69. Xu, Z. (2024). AI in education: Enhancing learning experiences and student outcomes. Applied and Computational Engineering.https://doi.org/10.54254/2755-2721/51/20241187
  70. Yalçın, A. (2023). Sosyal bilgilerde yapay zekâ ve veri bilimi okuryazarlığının kullanımı. İzmir Democracy University SocialSciences Journal, 6(2), 87–123. https://doi.org/10.61127/idusos.1370409
  71. Yang, W. (2022). Artificial intelligence education for young children: Why, what, and how in curriculum design and implementation.Computers and Education: Artificial Intelligence, 3, 100061. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.caeai.2022.100061
  72. Yeşilyurt, S., Dündar, R., & Aydın, M. (2024). Sosyal bilgiler eğitimi alanında lisansüstü eğitimini sürdüren öğrencilerin yapay zekâ hakkındaki görüşleri. Asya Studies, 8(27), 1–14. https://doi.org/10.31455/asya.1406649
  73. Yıldırım, A., & Şimşek, H. (2013). Sosyal bilimlerde nitel araştırma yöntemleri (9. baskı). Seçkin Yayıncılık.
  74. Yufeia, L., Salehb, S., Jiahuic, H., & Syed, S. M. (2020). Review of the application of artificial intelligence in education. Integration (Amsterdam), 12(8), 1–15. https://doi.org/10.53333/IJICC2013/12850
  75. Zawacki-Richter, O., Marín, V. I., Bond, M., & Gouverneur, F. (2019). Systematic review of research on artificial intelligence applications in higher education—Where are the educators? International
  76. Floridi, L., Chiriatti, M., & Taddeo, M. (2023). AI as agency without intelligence: On ChatGPT, large language m o d e l s, and other generative models. Philosophy & Technology, 36(1), 15. https://doi.org/10.1007/s13347-023-00621-y
  77. Husserl, E., & Moran, D. (2012). Ideas: General introduction to pure phenomenology. Routledge. h t t p s: / / d o i org/10.4324/9780203120330