SavedAdd your journal

Journals / Osmangazi Journal of Educational Research / 2026 / Volume: 13 Issue: 1

An Examination of Pre-service Teachers' Experiences in Educational Digital Game Design with Claude

Ebru Büşra Yılmaz(Bursa Uludağ Üniversitesi)0000-0002-7858-497X
Rıdvan Ezentaş(Bursa Uludağ Üniversitesi)0000-0001-8619-8334
Emre Ev Çimen(ESKİŞEHİR OSMANGAZİ ÜNİVERSİTESİ)0000-0002-6835-6578
Pages
—
Publication Date
2026-09-01
🏛️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)

Finally, their experiences and perspectives regarding Claude were collected.

📌 3 Key Takeaways

🎯
Objective & Hypothesis:This study aims to examine the experiences and perspectives of pre-service teachers regarding the educational digital games they developed using Claude, a generative artificial intelligence tool, as well as their game development processes.
📊
Key Findings & Data:The study group consisted of 27 third-year students from the Primary Mathematics Education program.
💡
Conclusion & Impact:Finally, their experiences and perspectives regarding Claude were collected.
🔬Design:Research Article
📍Scope:Comprehensive Sample
⚙️Variables:educational digital game · artificial intelligence · pre-serviceteachers

Abstract

This study aims to examine the experiences and perspectives of pre-service teachers regarding the educational digital games they developed using Claude, a generative artificial intelligence tool, as well as their game development processes. Within the framework of a professional development program designed to teach mathematics teacher candidates how to design educational digital games using generative AI tools, a case study design, one of the qualitative research methods, was employed to more effectively and clearly understand the quality of the games developed with Claude and the participants’ views on the tool. The study group consisted of 27 third-year students from the Primary Mathematics Education program. Initially, the teacher candidates received training on educational digital games and game-based learning, followed by an introduction to Claude and training on developing educational digital games using Claude. At the end of the training, the teacher candidates developed an educational digital game for a chosen grade level targeting a specific learning outcome. Finally, their experiences and perspectives regarding Claude were collected.

🔖

Cite This Article

Yılmaz, E. B., Ezentaş, R., Çimen, E. E. (2026). An Examination of Pre-service Teachers' Experiences in Educational Digital Game Design with Claude. Osmangazi Journal of Educational Research, Volume: 13 Issue: 1. https://doi.org/10.59409/ojer.1919350

📄 Full Text PDF Viewer

📄

PDF görüntüleyici hazırlanıyor...

References (43)

  1. Ball, D. L., Thames, M. H., & Phelps, G. (2008). Content knowledge for teaching: What makes it special? Journal of Teacher Education, 59(5), 389-407. https://doi.org/10.1177/0022487108324554
  2. Büyüköztürk, Ş., Kılıç Çakmak, E., Akgün, Ö. E., Karadeniz, Ş., & Demirel, F. (2018). Bilimsel araştırma yöntemleri [Scientific research methods] (24th ed.). Pegem Akademi.
  3. Celik, I. (2023). Towards Intelligent-TPACK: An empirical study on teachers’ professional knowledge to ethically integrate artificial intelligence (AI)-based tools into education. Computers in Human Behavior, 138, Article 107468. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.chb.2022.107468
  4. Çepni, S. (2018). Araştırma ve proje çalışmalarına giriş [Introduction to research and project studies] (8th ed.). Celepler Matbaacılık.
  5. Chan, C. K. Y., & Tsi, L. H. Y. (2024). Will generative AI replace teachers in higher education? A study of teacher and student perceptions. Studies in Educational Evaluation, 83, 101395. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.stueduc.2024.101395
  6. Deterding, S., Dixon, D., Khaled, R., & Nacke, L. (2011). From game design elements to gamefulness: Defining ‘gamification’. In Proceedings of the 15th International Academic MindTrek Conference (pp. 9-15). ACM. https://doi.org/10.1145/2181037.2181040
  7. Dilling & Herrmann (2024). Using large language models to support pre-service teachers' mathematical reasoning an exploratory study on ChatGPT as an instrument for creating mathematical proofs in geometry. Frontiers in Artificial Intelligence, 7, 1460337. https://doi.org/10.3389/frai.2024.1460337
  8. Gall, M. D., Borg, W. R., & Gall, J. P. (1996). Educational research: An introduction (6th ed.). Longman.
  9. Gee, J. P. (2003). What video games have to teach us about learning and literacy. Computers in Entertainment, 1(1), 20. https://doi.org/10.1145/950566.950595
  10. Gros, B. (2007). Digital games in education: The design of games-based learning environments. Journal of Research on Technology in Education, 40(1), 23–38. https://doi.org/10.1080/15391523.2007.10782494
  11. Hamari, J., Koivisto, J., & Sarsa, H. (2014). Does gamification work? A literature review of empirical studies on gamification. In Proceedings of the 47th Hawaii International Conference on System Sciences (pp. 3025-3034). IEEE. https://doi.org/10.1109/HICSS.2014.377
  12. Hattie, J., & Timperley, H. (2007). The power of feedback. Review of Educational Research, 77(1), 81-112. https://doi.org/10.3102/00346543298487
  13. Hava, K., & Babayiğit, Ö. (2024). Exploring the relationship between teachers’ competencies in AI-TPACK and digital proficiency. Education and Information Technologies, 30(3), 3491-3508. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10639-024-12939-x
  14. Hwang, G.-J., & Tu, Y.-F. (2021). Roles and research trends of artificial intelligence in mathematics education: A bibliometric mapping analysis and systematic review. Mathematics, 9(6), 584. https://doi.org/10.3390/math9060584
  15. Kafai, Y. B. (2006). Playing and making games for learning: Instructionist and constructionist perspectives for game studies. Games and Culture, 1(1), 36-40. https://doi.org/10.1177/1555412005281767
  16. Kafai, Y. B., & Burke, Q. (2015). Constructionist gaming: Understanding the benefits of making games for learning. Educational Psychologist, 50(4), 313-334. https://doi.org/10.1080/00461520.2015.1124022
  17. Kandlhofer, M., Steinbauer, G., Hirschmugl-Gaisch, S., & Huber, P. (2016). Artificial intelligence and computer science in education: From kindergarten to university. 2016 IEEE Frontiers in Education Conference (FIE), 1-9. https://doi.org/10.1109/FIE.2016.7757570
  18. Kasneci, E., Sessler, K., Kuchemann, S., Bannert, M., Dementieva, D., Fischer, F., Gasser, U., Groh, G., Gunnemann, S., Hullermeier, E., Bernhardt, J., Kasneci, G., Kiesewetter, J., Klingner, C., Kutyniok, G., Michaeli, T., Nerdel, C., Pfeffer, J., Poquet, O., Sailer, M., Schmidt, A., Seidel, T., Stadler, M., Weller, J., Kuhn, J., & Phillip, 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
  19. Ke, F. (2008). A case study of computer gaming for math: Engaged learning from gameplay? Computers & Education, 51(4), 1609-1620. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.compedu.2008.03.003
  20. Kim, H. (2024). Development of a TPACK educational program to enhance pre-service teachers’ teaching expertise in artificial intelligence convergence education. International Journal on Advanced Science, Engineering and Information Technology, 14(1), 195-202. https://doi.org/10.18517/ijaseit.14.1.19552
  21. Korthagen, F. A. J. (2004). In search of the essence of a good teacher: Towards a more holistic approach in teacher education. Teaching and Teacher Education, 20(1), 77-97. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.tate.2003.10.002
  22. Long, D., & Magerko, B. (2020). What is AI literacy? Competencies and design considerations. In Proceedings of the 2020 CHI Conference on Human Factors in Computing Systems (pp. 1-16). ACM. https://doi.org/10.1145/3313831.3376727
  23. Luckin, R., Holmes, W., Griffiths, M., & Forcier, L. B. (2016). Intelligence unleashed: An argument for AI in education. Pearson Education.
  24. Marzano, R. J., Pickering, D. J., & Pollock, J. E. (2001). Classroom instruction that works: Research-based strategies for increasing student achievement. ASCD.
  25. Miles, M. B., & Huberman, A. M. (1994). Qualitative data analysis: An expanded sourcebook (2nd ed.). Sage Publications.
  26. 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
  27. Ng, D. T. K., Leung, J. K. L., Chu, S. K. W., & Qiao, M. S. (2021). Conceptualizing AI literacy: An exploratory review. Computers and Education: Artificial Intelligence, 2, 100041. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.caeai.2021.100041
  28. Noster, N., Gerber, S., & Siller, H.-S. (2024). Pre-service teachers’ approaches in solving mathematics tasks with ChatGPT. Digital Experiences in Mathematics Education, 10(3), 543-567. https://doi.org/10.1007/s40751-024-00155-8
  29. Ottenbreit-Leftwich, A., Liao, J. Y. C., Sadik, O., & Ertmer, P. (2023). Evolution of teachers’ technology integration knowledge, beliefs, and practices: How can we support beginning teachers use of technology? Journal of Research on Technology in Education, 48(3), 186–208. https://doi.org/10.1080/15391523.2015.1055010
  30. Papert, S. (1980). Mindstorms: Children, computers, and powerful ideas. Basic Books.
  31. Prensky, M. (2001). Digital natives, digital immigrants. On the Horizon, 9(5), 1-6. https://doi.org/10.1108/10748120110424816
  32. Qian, Y. (2025). Prompt engineering in education: A systematic review of approaches and educational applications. Journal of Educational Computing Research, 63(7-8), 1782-1818. https://doi.org/10.1177/07356331251365189
  33. Republic of Türkiye Ministry of National Education. (2025). Yapay zekâ ve eğitim: Öğretmenler için uygulamalı prompt mühendisliği ve üretken araçlarla yenilikçi öğrenme stratejileri [Artificial intelligence and education: Applied prompt engineering for teachers and innovative learning strategies with generative tools]. MoNE.
  34. Ryan, R. M., & Deci, E. L. (2000). Self-determination theory and the facilitation of intrinsic motivation, social development, and well-being. American Psychologist, 55(1), 68-78. https://doi.org/10.1037/0003-066X.55.1.68
  35. Shulman, L. S. (1986). Those who understand: Knowledge growth in teaching. Educational Researcher, 15(2), 4-14. https://doi.org/10.3102/0013189X015002004
  36. Squire, K. (2011). Video games and learning: Teaching and participatory culture in the digital age. Teachers College Press.
  37. Stembert, N., & Harbers, M. (2019). Accounting for the human when designing with AI: Challenges identified. In Extended Abstracts of the 2019 CHI Conference on Human Factors in Computing Systems. ACM.
  38. Van Eck, R. (2006). Digital game-based learning: It’s not just the digital natives who are restless. EDUCAUSE Review, 41(2), 16-30.
  39. Vygotsky, L. S. (1978). Mind in society: The development of higher psychological processes. Harvard University Press.
  40. Wen, W., & Wen, H. (2024). Bridging generative AI technology and teacher education: Understanding preservice teachers' processes of unit design with ChatGPT. Contemporary Issues in Technology and Teacher Education, 24(4).
  41. White, J., Fu, Q., Hays, S., Sandborn, M., Olea, C., Gilbert, H., Elnashar, A., Spencer-Smith, J., & Schmidt, D. C. (2023). A prompt pattern catalog to enhance prompt engineering with ChatGPT. arXiv preprint arXiv:2302.11382. https://doi.org/10.48550/arXiv.2302.11382
  42. Wood, D., Bruner, J. S., & Ross, G. (1976). The role of tutoring in problem solving. Journal of Child Psychology and Psychiatry, 17(2), 89-100. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1469-7610.1976.tb00381.x
  43. Zawacki-Richter, O., Marin, V. I., Bond, M., & Gouverneur, F. (2019). Systematic review of research on artificial intelligence applications in higher education: Where are the educators? International Journal of Educational Technology in Higher Education, 16(1), 39. https://doi.org/10.1186/s41239-019-0171-0