SavedAdd your journal

Journals / Siirt Eğitim Dergisi / 2025 / Cilt: 5 Sayı: 2

Artificial Intelligence Ethics And Policies in Education: The Cases of Finland, South Korea, and Turkey

Eğitimde Yapay Zekâ Etiği ve Politikaları: Finlandiya, Güney Kore ve Türkiye Örneği

Yasemin Yeşilbaş Özenç(AYDIN ADNAN MENDERES ÜNİVERSİTESİ)0000-0002-5590-4520
Pages
1–27
Publication Date
2025-12-26
🏛️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)

In conclusion, the experiences of these three countries reveal that AI in education is not merely a technical transformation tool, but must also be addressed in terms of its ethical, pedagogical, and social dimensions.

📌 3 Key Takeaways

🎯
Objective & Hypothesis:The purpose of this study is to analyze the processes of integrating artificial intelligence (AI) into the education systems of Finland, South Korea, and Turkey within the context of policy documents and ethical principles, thereby revealing their similarities and differences.
📊
Key Findings & Data:In the study, national strategy documents, official reports, and relevant literature pertaining to these countries were examined through document analysis in line with Bereday's (1964) analytical method, and the countries were compared in terms of artificial intelligence policies in education and ethical principles.
💡
Conclusion & Impact:In conclusion, the experiences of these three countries reveal that AI in education is not merely a technical transformation tool, but must also be addressed in terms of its ethical, pedagogical, and social dimensions.
🔬Design:Derleme
📍Scope:Comprehensive Sample
⚙️Variables:Eğitim politikaları · eğitimde yapay zekâ · etik ilkeler

Abstract

The purpose of this study is to analyze the processes of integrating artificial intelligence (AI) into the education systems of Finland, South Korea, and Turkey within the context of policy documents and ethical principles, thereby revealing their similarities and differences. In the study, national strategy documents, official reports, and relevant literature pertaining to these countries were examined through document analysis in line with Bereday's (1964) analytical method, and the countries were compared in terms of artificial intelligence policies in education and ethical principles. The findings show that Finland has adopted a human-centered, ethical, and holistic approach to AI. Transparency, data security, protection of individual rights, and pedagogical alignment are prioritized in policy documents. South Korea, while attracting attention with its rapid digital transformation, has been criticized for AI-based textbooks and learning platforms due to pedagogical alignment, sustainability, and ethical issues. In Turkey, although national strategy documents have been prepared, it has been determined that applications remain limited, and there is a need for capacity building, particularly in teacher training, data security, and ethical awareness. In conclusion, the experiences of these three countries reveal that AI in education is not merely a technical transformation tool, but must also be addressed in terms of its ethical, pedagogical, and social dimensions.

Özet

Bu çalışmanın amacı, Finlandiya, Güney Kore ve Türkiye’de yapay zekânın (YZ) eğitim sistemine entegrasyon süreçlerini, politika belgeleri ve etik ilkeler bağlamında analiz ederek benzerlikleri ve farklılıkları ortaya koymaktır. Araştırmada, bu ülkelere ilişkin ulusal strateji belgeleri, resmi raporlar ve ilgili literatür, Bereday’ın (1964) analitik yöntemi doğrultusunda doküman analiziyle incelenmiş ve ülkeler eğitimde yapay zekâ politikaları ile etik ilkeler bakımından karşılaştırılmıştır. Bulgular, Finlandiya’nın insan merkezli, etik ve bütüncül bir YZ yaklaşımı benimsediğini göstermektedir. Politika belgelerinde şeffaflık, veri güvenliği, bireysel hakların korunması ve pedagojik uyum ön planda tutulmuştur. Güney Kore, hızlı dijital dönüşümüyle dikkat çekmekle birlikte, YZ tabanlı ders kitapları ve öğrenme platformlarının pedagojik uyum, sürdürülebilirlik ve etik sorunlar nedeniyle eleştirilere maruz kalmıştır. Türkiye’de ise ulusal strateji belgeleri hazırlanmış olmasına karşın uygulamaların sınırlı kaldığı, özellikle öğretmen eğitimi, veri güvenliği ve etik farkındalık konularında kapasite geliştirilmesine ihtiyaç duyulduğu belirlenmiştir. Sonuç olarak, üç ülkenin deneyimleri, eğitimde yapay zekânın yalnızca teknik bir dönüşüm aracı olmadığını, aynı zamanda etik, pedagojik ve toplumsal boyutlarıyla ele alınması gerektiğini ortaya koymaktadır.

🔖

Cite This Article

Özenç, Y. Y. (2025). Artificial Intelligence Ethics And Policies in Education: The Cases of Finland, South Korea, and Turkey. Siirt Eğitim Dergisi, Cilt: 5 Sayı: 2, 1–27. https://doi.org/10.58667/sedder.1777959

📄 Full Text PDF Viewer

📄

PDF görüntüleyici hazırlanıyor...

References (104)

  1. Abimbola, C., Eden, C., Chisom, O., & Adeniyi, I. (2024). Integrating AI in education: Opportunities, challenges, and ethical considerations. Magna Scientia Advanced Research and Reviews, 10(2), 6–13. https://doi.org/10.30574/msarr.2024.10.2.0039
  2. Adams, C., Pente, P., Lemermeyer, G., & Rockwell, G. (2023). Ethical principles for artificial intelligence in K-12 education. Computers & Education: Artificial Intelligence, 4, 100131. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.caeai.2023.100131
  3. AI Ethics Communication Channel, (2020). The national guidelines for AI ethics. https://ai.kisdi.re.kr/eng/main/contents.do?menuNo=500011
  4. AI Watch (2019). Leading the way into the age of artificial intelligence. https://ai-watch.ec.europa.eu/finland-public-sector-dimension-ai-strategy_en
  5. Airaj, M. (2024). Ethical artificial intelligence for teaching-learning in higher education. Education and Information Technologies, 29, 17145–17167. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10639-024-12545-x
  6. Akgun, S., & Greenhow, C. (2021). Artificial intelligence in education: Addressing ethical challenges in K-12 settings. AI and Ethics, 2, 431-440. https://doi.org/10.1007/s43681-021-00096-7
  7. Anadolu Ajansı (2025). MEB yapay zeka ve büyük veri uygulamaları daire başkanlığı kuruldu. https://www.aa.com.tr/tr/egitim/meb-yapay-zeka-ve-buyuk-veri-uygulamalari-daire-baskanligi-kuruldu
  8. Ashok, M., Madan, R., Joha, A., & Sivarajah, U. (2022). Ethical framework for artificial intelligence and digital technologies. International Journal of Information Management, 62, 102433. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ijinfomgt.2021.102433
  9. Asim, S., Kim, H. & Aedo, C. (2024). Teachers are leading an AI revolution in Korean classrooms. World Bank Blogs. https://blogs.worldbank.org/en/education/teachers-are-leading-an-ai-revolution-in-korean-classrooms
  10. Ay, S., & Kılıç, T. (2023). Coğrafi dijital uçurum: Türkiye’de dijital dönüşümün kentsel-kırsal, bölgesel ve cinsiyet eşitsizlikleri. Journal of Geography, (46), 111-122. https://doi.org/10.26650/JGEOG2023-1169477
  11. Baltayeva, A. (2025). The role of artificial intelligence and robotics in primary education: Innovative pedagogical approaches in Finland and Uzbekistan. Sciental Journal of Education Humanities and Social Sciences, 3(5), 36-42. https://doi.org/10.62536/sjehss.2025.v3.i5.pp36-42
  12. Bereday, G. Z. (1964). Comparative method in education. Holt, Rinehart & Winston.
  13. Bowen, G. A. (2009). Document analysis as a qualitative research method. Qualitative Research Journal, 9(2), 27–40. https://doi.org/10.3316/QRJ0902027
  14. Boztepe, C. (2025). Eğitimde yapay zekâ uygulamaları: Fırsatlar, sınırlılıklar ve etik tartışmalar. dumlupınar Üniversitesi Eğitim Bilimleri Enstitüsü Dergisi, 9(1), 98-121. https://doi.org/10.71272/debder.1706141
  15. Bulathwela, S., Pérez-Ortiz, M., Holloway, C., Cukurova, M., & Shawe-Taylor, J. (2024). Artificial intelligence alone will not democratise education: On educational inequality, techno-solutionism and inclusive tools. Sustainability, 16(2), 781. https://doi.org/10.3390/su16020781
  16. 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
  17. Coeckelbergh, M. (2019). Artificial intelligence: Some ethical issues and regulatory challenges. Technology and Regulation, 1, 31-34. https://doi.org/10.26116/TECHREG.2019.003
  18. CSET (2025). Basic act on the development of artificial ıntelligence and establishment of trust. https://cset.georgetown.edu/publication/south-korea-ai-law-2025/
  19. Çelik, I. (2022). 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, 107468. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.chb.2022.107468
  20. Çevik, E. & Toplu, M. (2023). Dijital eşitsizliğin hibrit eğitimdeki yansımaları. Türk Kütüphaneciliği, 37(4), 267-292. https://doi.org/10.24146/tk.1356841
  21. Ding, N. (2025). Ethical considerations in the application of artificial intelligence in education. International Journal of Education and Humanities, 19(1), 178-182. https://doi.org/10.54097/78e6gr15
  22. Doğruer, S., & Tuğlu, Y. (2025). Artificial ıntelligence in language education in Türkiye: Potential challenges. Trakia Journal of Sciences, 22(1), 87-94. https://doi.org/10.15547/tjs.2024.s.01.013
  23. Du Boulay, B. (2022). Artificial intelligence in education and ethics. In Handbook of Open, Distance and Digital Education (pp. 1–16). Springer. http://dx.doi.org/10.1007/978-981-19-2080-6_6
  24. Elliott, R., & Kim, B. L. (2025). Overcoming barriers: The potential of AI digital textbooks in multicultural middle school education. Multicultural Education Review, 17(1), 19–41. https://doi.org/10.1080/2005615X.2025.2467765
  25. European Commission, (2019a). Ethics guidelines for trustworthy AI. Publications Office of the European Union. https://digital-strategy.ec.europa.eu/en/library/ethics-guidelines-trustworthy-ai
  26. European Commission, (2019b). National strategies on artificial intelligence a European perspective in 2019. Country report–Finland. https://knowledge4policy.ec.europa.eu/sites/default/files/finland-ai-strategy-report.pdf
  27. European Commission, (2024). Artificial intelligence act (Regulation (EU) 2024/1689 of the European Parliament and of the Council). Official Journal of the European Union. https://eur-lex.europa.eu/eli/reg/2024/1689/oj
  28. European Parliament, (2020). European framework on ethical aspects of artificial intelligence, robotics and related Technologies. European Parliamentary Research Service. https://www.europarl.europa.eu/RegData/etudes/STUD/2020/654179/EPRS_STU(2020)654179_EN.pdf
  29. Finnish National Agency for Education, (2024). AI guide for teachers. EDUFI. https://www.oph.fi/en/statistics-and-publications/publications/ai-guide-teachers
  30. Friedrich Naumann Foundation, (2025). South Korea slows down on AI education. https://www.freiheit.org/north-and-south-korea/south-korea-slows-down-ai-education
  31. Fukuda‐Parr, S., & Gibbons, E. (2021). Emerging consensus on ‘ethical ai’: Human rights critique of stakeholder guidelines. Global Policy, 12(S6), 32-44. https://doi.org/10.1111/1758-5899.12965
  32. Gartner, S., & Krašna, M. (2023). Ethics of artificial intelligence in education. Journal of Elementary Education, 16(2), 221-235. https://doi.org/10.18690/rei.16.2.2846
  33. Government of the Republic of Korea. (2021–2025). Digital government masterplan 2021–2025 of the Republic of Korea. https://thedocs.worldbank.org/en/doc/1004f032e05fa60826a1d4f7760168f6-0350052022/original/-GovTech-Talks-01-Digital-Government-Masterplan-2021-2025.pdf
  34. Göçen, A., & Döğer, M. F. (2025). A global perspective on artificial intelligence in educational leadership. The Journal of Educational Research, 118(6), 752–770. https://doi.org/10.1080/00220671.2025.2510397
  35. Guo, S., Zheng, Y., & Zhai, X. (2024). Artificial intelligence in education research during 2013-2023: A review based on bibliometric analysis. Education and Information Technologies, 29, 16387-16409. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10639-024-12491-8
  36. Ha, Y. (2022). South Korean Public Value Coproduction Towards ‘AI for Humanity’: A Synergy of Sociocultural Norms and Multistakeholder Deliberation in Bridging the Design and Implementation of National AI Ethics Guidelines. Proceedings of the 2022 ACM Conference on Fairness, Accountability, and Transparency, 267-277. https://doi.org/10.1145/3531146.3533091
  37. Harris, J., Mishra, P., & Koehler, M. J. (2009). Teachers’ technological pedagogical content knowledge and learning activity types. Journal of Research on Technology in Education, 41(4), 393-416. http://dx.doi.org/10.1080/15391523.2009.10782536
  38. Hauer, T. (2022). Ethical behavior and legal regulations in artificial intelligence. 4th International Conference on Advanced Research Methods and Analytics (CARMA 2022). Universitat Politécnica de Valéncia. https://doi.org/10.4995/carma2022.2022.15013
  39. Heponiemi, T., Gluschkoff, K., Leemann, L., Manderbacka, K., Aalto, A.-M., & Hyppönen, H. (2021). Digital inequality in Finland: Access, skills and attitudes as social impact mediators. New Media & Society, 25(9), 2475-2491. https://doi.org/10.1177/14614448211023007
  40. Holmes, W., Bialik, M., & Fadel, C. (2019). Artificial intelligence in education: Promises and implications for teaching and learning. Center for Curriculum Redesign. https://curriculumredesign.org/wp-content/uploads/AIED-Book-Excerpt-CCR.pdf
  41. Holmes, W., Porayska-Pomsta, K., Holstein, K., Sutherland, E., Baker, T., Shum, S., Santos, O., Rodrigo, M., Cukurova, M., Bittencourt, I., & Koedinger, K. (2021). Ethics of AI in education: Towards a community-wide framework. International Journal of Artificial Intelligence in Education, 32, 504-526. https://doi.org/10.1007/s40593-021-00239-1
  42. Huang, C., Zhang, Z., Mao, B., & Yao, X. (2023). An overview of artificial ıntelligence ethics. IEEE Transactions on Artificial Intelligence, 4(4), 799-819. https://doi.org/10.1109/TAI.2022.3194503
  43. IMF (2025). Transforming the future: The impact of artificial intelligence in Korea (IMF Selected Issues Paper No. 2025/013). International Monetary Fund. https://www.imf.org/en/Publications/CR/Issues/2025/01/21/Republic-of-Korea-Selected-Issues-529468
  44. İbili, H. & Yalçın, S. (2021). Liselerde görev yapan yönetici ve öğretmenlerin, EBA Akademik Destek Platformu hakkındaki görüşleri (Erzincan ili örneği). Afyon Kocatepe Üniversitesi Sosyal Bilimler Dergisi, 23(2), 462-487. https://doi.org/10.32709/akusosbil.832766
  45. İçen, M. (2022). The future of education utilizing artificial intelligence in Turkey. Humanities and Social Sciences Communications, 9(268), 1-10. https://doi.org/10.1057/s41599-022-01284-4
  46. Jeon, I., Yun, S., & Shin, S. (2024). Examining AI and digital ethics ıssues for youth and educational approaches: Focusing on IoT and generative AI. Korean Association For Learner-Centered Curriculum And Instruction, 24(10), 537-550. https://doi.org/10.22251/jlcci.2024.24.10.537
  47. Kim, H. (2024). Education for sustainable library infrastructure in the digital age: Analysis of library and information science curricula in South Korea. Journal of Infrastructure, Policy and Development, 8(14), 9233. https://doi.org/10.24294/jipd9233
  48. Kim, K., & Kwon, K. (2023). Exploring the AI competencies of elementary school teachers in South Korea. Computers and Education: Artificial Intelligence, 4, 10013. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.caeai.2023.100137
  49. Kinder, T., Stenvall, J., Koskimies, E., Webb, H., & Janenova, S. (2023). Local public services and the ethical deployment of artificial intelligence. Government Information Quarterly, 40(4), 101865. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.giq.2023.101865
  50. Kirichenko I. (2021). Finland's ınnovation policy: Sociohumanitarian aspects. World Eсonomy and International Relations, 65(12), 61-67. https://doi.org/10.20542/0131-2227-2021-65-12-61-67
  51. Klimova, B., Pikhart, M., & Kacetl, J. (2023). Ethical issues of the use of AI-driven mobile apps for education. Frontiers in Public Health, 10, 1118116. https://doi.org/10.3389/fpubh.2022.1118116
  52. Kosenchuk, Y. (2023). Trends in the development of educational policy of the republic of Finland to ensure the quality of school education. Pedagogical Education:Theory and Practice, (34), 45-63. https://doi.org/10.32626/2309-9763.2023-34-45-63
  53. Kulik, J. A., & Fletcher, J. D. (2016). Effectiveness of intelligent tutoring systems: A meta-analytic review. Review of Educational Research, 86(1), 42–78. https://doi.org/10.3102/0034654315581420
  54. KVKK (2025). 6698 sayılı Kişisel Verilerin Korunması Kanunu hakkında doğru bilinen yanlışlar. https://www.kvkk.gov.tr/SharedFolderServer/CMSFiles/ca752cda-c3df-4645-8d5e-e2a507e63200.pdf
  55. Larsson, S. (2020). On the governance of artificial intelligence through ethics guidelines. Asian Journal of Law and Society, 7(3), 437-451. https://doi.org/10.1017/als.2020.19
  56. Lee, J., & Jeong, H. (2023). Keyword Analysis of Artificial Intelligence Education Policy in South Korea. IEEE Access, 11, 102408-102417. https://doi.org/10.1109/ACCESS.2023.3317261
  57. Lee, G., Kim, H., & Lee, Y. J. (2023). Analysis of adaptive learning in Korea’s AI mathematics learning platforms. Korean School Mathematics Society, 26(3), 245-268. http://dx.doi.org/10.30807/ksms.2023.26.3.245
  58. Leikas, J., Johri, A., Latvanen, M., Wessberg, N., & Hahto, A. (2022). Governing ethical AI transformation: A case study of AuroraAI. Frontiers in Artificial Intelligence, 5, 1-12. https://doi.org/10.3389/frai.2022.836557
  59. Leta, F., & Vancea, D. (2023). Ethics in education: Exploring the ethical implications of artificial intelligence implementation. Ovidius University Annals. Economic Sciences Series, 23(1), 413-421. https://doi.org/10.61801/ouaess.2023.1.54
  60. Li, H., Davaasuren, M., & Dorjpalam, N. (2024). Comparative analysis of artificial intelligence education policies in China, the United States and Mongolia. Journal of Educational Research and Policies, 6(6), 159–165. https://doi.org/10.53469/jerp.2024.06(06).35
  61. Lo Piano, S. (2020). Ethical principles in machine learning and artificial intelligence: Cases from the field and possible ways forward. Humanities and Social Sciences Communications, 7(9), 1-7. https://doi.org/10.1057/s41599-020-0501-9
  62. MEB (2024a). Haberler. Yapay zekâ uygulamaları eğitici eğitimi kursu başlıyor. https://www.meb.gov.tr/yapay-zek-uygulamalari-egitici-egitimi-kursu-basliyor/haber/33332/tr
  63. MEB (2024b). Eğitimde kullanılan yapay zeka araçları: Öğretmen el kitabı. https://yegitek.meb.gov.tr/meb_iys_dosyalar/2024_07/12172521_meb_nek_yapay_zek_araclari_12072024_web.pdf
  64. MEB (2024c). Eğitimde yapay zekâ uygulamaları uluslararası forumu raporu. https://yegitek.meb.gov.tr/meb_iys_dosyalar/2024_09/11104346_meb_egitimde_uyz_formu_raporu_web_28082024_tr.pdf
  65. MEB (2025). Eğitimde yapay zekâ politika belgesi ve eylem planı (2025-2029).https://yegitek.meb.gov.tr/meb_iys_dosyalar/2025_06/17092340_egitimdeyapayzekapolitikabelgesiveeylemplani202520291.pdf
  66. MEF (2017). Digital Finland framework: Framework for turning digital transformation to solutions to grand challenges. https://www.businessfinland.fi/globalassets/julkaisut/digital-finland-framework.pdf
  67. Ministry of Finance, (2020). The AuroraAI national artificial intelligence programme begins – with the aim of using artificial intelligence to bring services and people together in a better way. Finland: Ministry of Finance. https://valtioneuvosto.fi/en/-/10623/the-auroraai-national-artificial-intelligence-programme-begins-with-the-aim-of-using-artificial-intelligence-to-bring-people-and-services-together-in-a-better-way
  68. MOE, (2023). Digital-based education innovation plan. Government of the Republic of Korea. https://english.moe.go.kr
  69. Mouta, A., Pinto-Llorente, A.M. & Torrecilla-Sánchez, E.M. (2023). Uncovering blind spots in education ethics: Insights from a systematic literature review on artificial intelligence in education. Journal of Artificial Intelligence in Education, 34, 1166–1205. https://doi.org/10.1007/s40593-023-00384-9
  70. MSIT, (2019). National artificial intelligence strategy. https://www.msit.go.kr/bbs/view.do?sCode=eng&nttSeqNo=9&bbsSeqNo=46&mId=10.
  71. MSIT, (2025). Strategy to realize trustworthy artificial intelligence for everyone. Ministry of Science and ICT. https://www.msit.go.kr/eng/bbs/view.do?bbsSeqNo=42&mId=4&mPid=2&nttSeqNo=509#:~:text=The%20strategy%20has%20the%20vision,ethics'%20and%2010%20action%20plans
  72. Nam, J., Jung, Y., & Kim, J. (2024). Understandings of the AI business ecosystem in South Korea: AI startups’ perspective. Telecommunications Policy, 48(6), 102763. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.telpol.2024.102763
  73. Naseri, R., & Abdullah, R. (2025). Transforming education with AI: Insights from developed countries. International Journal of Research and Innovation in Social Science, 9(3), 3877-3886. https://doi.org/10.47772/ijriss.2025.90300308
  74. Nguyen, A., Ngo, H., Hong, Y., Dang, B., & Nguyen, B. (2022). Ethical principles for artificial intelligence in education. Education and Information Technologies, 28, 4221-4241. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10639-022-11316-w
  75. OECD, (2023). Digital education outlook 2023: Pushing the frontiers with AI. OECD Publishing. https://doi.org/10.1787/c74f03de-en
  76. Opetushallitus. (2025). Tekoäly varhaiskasvatuksessa ja koulutuksessa – lainsäädäntö ja suositukset. https://www.oph.fi/fi/tekoalysuositukset
  77. OPSI, (2022). The AuroraAI: A human-centric and life-event based public sector transformation. OECD Observatory of Public Sector Innovation. https://oecd-opsi.org/innovations/auroraai/
  78. Park, D. H., Cho, E., & Lim, Y. (2024). A tough balancing act – the evolving AI governance in Korea. East Asian Science, Technology and Society: An International Journal, 18(2), 135–154. https://doi.org/10.1080/18752160.2024.2348307
  79. Park, W., & Kwon, H. (2023). Implementing artificial intelligence education for middle school technology education in Republic of Korea. International Journal of Technology and Design Education, 34, 109-135. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10798-023-09812-2
  80. Phillips, D. & Schweisfurth, M. (2006). Comparative and international education. An introduction to theory,method and practice. Continuum International Publishing Group.
  81. Pörn, R., Braskén, M., Wingren, M., & Andersson, S. (2024). Attitudes towards and expectations on the role of artificial intelligence in the classroom among digitally skilled Finnish K-12 mathematics teachers. LUMAT: International Journal on Math, Science and Technology Education, 12(3), 53–77. https://doi.org/10.31129/lumat.12.3.2102
  82. Putkiranta, A. (2021). Erilainen-ja onnellinen. Stoori, 4, 52-53. https://www.theseus.fi/bitstream/handle/10024/732041/Erilainen_-_ja_onnellinen.pdf?sequence=1
  83. Roll, I., & Wylie, R. (2016). Evolution and revolution in artificial intelligence in education. International Journal of Artificial Intelligence in Education, 26(2), 582–599. https://doi.org/10.1007/s40593-016-0110-3
  84. Saari, A., & Säntti, J. (2018). The rhetoric of the ‘digital leap’ in Finnish educational policy documents. European Educational Research Journal, 17(3), 442-457. https://doi.org/10.1177/1474904117721373
  85. Sahlberg, P. (2007). Education policies for raising student learning: the Finnish approach. Journal of Education Policy, 22(2), 147-171. https://doi.org/10.1080/02680930601158919
  86. SBB, (2023). Türkiye Cumhuriyeti Cumhurbaşkanlığı Strateji ve Bütçe Başkanlığı. On ikinci kalkınma planı (2024-2028). https://www.sbb.gov.tr/wp-content/uploads/2023/12/On-Ikinci-Kalkinma-Plani_2024-2028_11122023.pdf
  87. Securiti. (2025). An overview of South Korea’s basic act on the development of artificial intelligence and creation of a trust base (AI Basic Act). Securiti Knowledge Center. https://securiti.ai/south-korea-basic-act-on-development-of-ai/
  88. STB (2021). Türkiye Ulusal Yapay Zekâ Stratejisi (2021–2025). https://bilgem.tubitak.gov.tr/wp-content/uploads/sites/8/TR-UlusalYZStratejisi2021-2025-1.pdf
  89. Syobar, K. (2024). Basic value of education in the era of artificial intelligence (AI). International Conference on Aplied Social Sciences in Education, 1(1), 251–254. https://doi.org/10.31316/icasse.v1i1.6847
  90. Sywelem, M., & Mahklouf, A. (2024). Ethical Considerations in the Integration of Artificial Intelligence in Education: An Overview. Education & Information Technology, 14(12), 1-15. https://doi.org/10.5121/csit.2024.141201
  91. Tani, P., Moisio, A., Ruotsalainen, T., Huttunen, S., Toukkari, P., & Ahokallio-Leppälä, H. (2019). Building bridges between universities of applied sciences and the job market – Artificial intelligence boosting higher education. ICERI2019 Proceedings, 1256-1260 https://doi.org/10.21125/iceri.2019.0384
  92. Temur, S. (2025). Eğitimde yapay zekâ kullanımı: Etik sorunlar ve çözümler. Mehmet Akif Ersoy University Journal of Education Faculty, (74), 568-595. https://doi.org/10.21764/maeuefd.1516576
  93. The Korea Herald. (2025). South Korea pulls plug on AI textbooks. https://www.koreaherald.com/article/10546695
  94. Tulgar, Y., Tulgar, S., Köse, S., Köse, H., Nasirlier, G., Doğan, M., & Thomas, D. (2023). Anesthesiologists’ Perspective on the use of artificial intelligence in ultrasound-guided regional anaesthesia in terms of medical ethics and medical education: A survey study. The Eurasian Journal of Medicine, 55, 146-151. https://doi.org/10.5152/eurasianjmed.2023.22254.
  95. UNESCO, (2021). Recommendation on the ethics of artificial intelligence. UNESCO Digital Library. https://unesdoc.unesco.org/ark:/48223/pf0000381137 Välimaa, J. (2021). Trust in Finnish education: A historical perspective. European Education, 53(3–4), 168–180. https://doi.org/10.1080/10564934.2022.2080563
  96. Vartiainen, H., & Tedre, M. (2023). Using artificial intelligence in craft education: crafting with text-to-image generative models. Digital Creativity, 34(1), 1–21. https://doi.org/10.1080/14626268.2023.2174557
  97. Wang, Y. (2024). Government approaches and discussions on addressing AIGC challenges in education. Frontiers in Educational Research, 7(6), 192-196. https://doi.org/10.25236/fer.2024.070629
  98. Wei, G. & Niemi, H. (2023). Ethical guidelines for artificial intelligence-based learning: A transnational study between China and Finland. In: Niemi, H., Pea, R.D., Lu, Y. (eds) AI in Learning: Designing the Future. Springer. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-031-09687-7_16
  99. World Education Blog, (2025). AI textbooks to arrive in Korea – the good, the bad, and the ugly. https://world-education-blog.org/2025/01/03/ai-textbooks-to-arrive-in-korea-the-good-the-bad-and-the-ugly/
  100. Yeşilbaş Özenç, Y. & Başaran, R. (2024). Yaşam boyu öğrenme ve yapay zeka. Sinop Üniversitesi Eğitim Fakültesi Dergisi, 1(1), 101-125. https://dergipark.org.tr/tr/pub/suefd/issue/85357/1495139
  101. Yin, R. K. (2018). Case study research and applications: Design and methods (6th ed.). SAGE Publications. https://ebooks.umu.ac.ug/librarian/books-file/Case%20Study%20Research%20and%20Applications.pdf
  102. Yoo, S. (2025). Bioethical analysis of the EU AI Act: Implications and challenges for AI regulation in South Korea. Catholic Institute of Bioethics, 15(1), 71-111. https://doi.org/10.35230/pb.2025.15.1.71
  103. YÖK (2024). Haberler. Yapay zeka temelli ön lisans programları. https://eski.yok.gov.tr/Sayfalar/Haberler/2024/yapay-zeka-temelli-onlisans-programlari.aspx YÖK (2023). Yükseköğretim Kurulu 2024-2028 stratejik planı. https://www.yok.gov.tr/2024-2028-yok-stratejik-plani.pdf
  104. 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 Journal of Educational Technology in Higher Education, 16(39), 1-17. https://doi.org/10.1186/s41239-019-0171-0