BETWEEN TECHNICAL RATIONALITY AND RELATIONAL LABOR: A TECHNOFEMINIST ANALYSIS OF PRESERVICE PRESCHOOL TEACHERS' AI PERCEPTIONS AND METAPHORS

Forfattere

  • Gülçin Bilgener Asst. Prof. Dr., Amasya University, Faculty of Education, Amasya, Türkiye

DOI:

https://doi.org/10.46827/ejes.v13i11.7070

Nøgleord:

artificial intelligence in education, technofeminism, preservice preschool teachers, relational labor, deskilling, metaphorical conceptualization

Resumé

Artificial intelligence (AI) threatens to undermine teaching by simplifying practices into a rationalized process and potentially causing deskilling. This study investigated preservice preschool teachers’ professional perspectives and metaphorical conceptualization of AI within a technofeminist framework. The study focused on the inherent tension between the relational nature of early childhood education and the technical rationality of AI. A convergent parallel mixed-methods design was employed with 150 preservice preschool teachers at a Turkish state university. Data were collected utilizing a 15-item AI perception scale, a metaphor form, and three open-ended questions probing the uses of AI, collaboration with AI systems, and broader anxieties. Findings indicated that despite preservice teachers holding a high awareness of the instructional advantages of AI, their moral reservations persisted independently of pedagogical assessments and showed no correlation with frequency of application. Qualitatively, preservice teachers framed AI through theory-driven themes such as “the God trick” and “deskilling”. Female participants' exclusive articulation of the “domestication” theme illustrated a strategy where women tailor technology to their pedagogical goals through relational metaphors such as “mother” and “confidant.” The study demonstrated that AI is not a neutral tool in education but is actively shaped by societal gender structures, necessitating a politically informed approach to teacher education.

Forfatterbiografi

  • Gülçin Bilgener, Asst. Prof. Dr., Amasya University, Faculty of Education, Amasya, Türkiye
    Dr. Gülçin Bilgener is an Assistant Professor of Early Childhood Education at Amasya University. She earned her PhD in Early Childhood Gifted Education from the University of South Florida, USA. Her primary research interests include early childhood giftedness, teacher education, critical theories, multicultural education, artificial intelligence in education, and mixed-methods research.

Referencer

Ağmaz, R. F., & Ergüleç, F. (2024). Öğretmen adaylarının eğitimde yapay zeka algıları: Bir metafor analizi. Necmettin Erbakan Üniversitesi Ereğli Eğitim Fakültesi Dergisi, 6(2), 589–605. https://doi.org/10.51119/ereegf.2024.97

Akinwalere, S. N., & Ivanov, V. (2022). Artificial intelligence in higher education: Challenges and opportunities. Border Crossing, 12(1), 1–15. https://doi.org/10.33182/bc.v12i1.2015

Aktaş, S. D. (2026). Okul öncesi eğitimde yapay zekâ kullanımı ve eğitimin değişen yüzü. International QMX Journal, 5(1), 1–18. https://qmxjournal.com/index.jsp?mod=makale_tr_ozet&makale_id=88970

Balıkçı, H. C., Alpsülün, M., & Hayoğlu, G. (2024). Determination of Teachers’ Perceptions of Artificial Intelligence Concept: A Metaphor Analysis. Sakarya University Journal of Education, 14(Special Issue-AI in Education), 179-193. https://doi.org/10.19126/suje.1433360

Bayne, S. (2015). What’s the matter with ‘technology-enhanced learning’? Learning, Media and Technology, 40(1), 5–20. https://doi.org/10.1080/17439884.2014.915851

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

Braun, V., & Clarke, V. (2006). Using thematic analysis in psychology. Qualitative Research in Psychology, 3(2), 77–101. https://doi.org/10.1191/1478088706qp063oa

Campbell, J. L., Quincy, C., Osserman, J., & Pedersen, O. K. (2013). Coding in-depth semistructured interviews: Problems of unitization and intercoder reliability and agreement. Sociological Methods & Research, 42(3), 294–320. https://doi.org/10.1177/0049124113500475

Creswell, J. W. (2009). Research design: Qualitative, quantitative, and mixed-methods approaches (3rd ed.). SAGE Publications. Retrieved from https://books.google.ro/books/about/Research_Design.html?id=G6PtAQAACAAJ&redir_esc=y

Creswell, J. W. (2014). Research design: Qualitative, quantitative, and mixed-methods approaches (4th ed.). SAGE Publications. Retrieved from https://books.google.ro/books/about/Research_Design.html?id=4uB76IC_pOQC&redir_esc=y

Creswell, J. W., & Plano Clark, V. L. (2018). Designing and conducting mixed-methods research (3rd ed.). SAGE Publications. Retrieved from https://books.google.ro/books/about/Designing_and_Conducting_Mixed_Methods_R.html?id=eTwmDwAAQBAJ&redir_esc=y

Creswell, J. W. (2022). A concise introduction to mixed-methods research (2nd ed.). SAGE Publications. Retrieved from https://books.google.ro/books/about/A_Concise_Introduction_to_Mixed_Methods.html?id=xLU6EAAAQBAJ&redir_esc=y

Cockburn, C., & Ormrod, S. (1993). Gender and technology in the making. Sage. Retrieved from https://books.google.ro/books/about/Gender_and_Technology_in_the_Making.html?id=85mwBllqv98C&redir_esc=y

Cohen, J. (1988). Statistical power analysis for the behavioral sciences (2nd ed.). Lawrence Erlbaum Associates. Retrieved from https://utstat.toronto.edu/~brunner/oldclass/378f16/readings/CohenPower.pdf

Demir Evcimen, F. B., Ulukaya Öteles, Ü., & Koçoğlu, E. (2025). The effect of critical thinking practices on digital footprint. Problems of Education in the 21st Century, 83(3), 306–322. https://doi.org/10.33225/pec/25.83.306

Demirdiş, B. (2026). Latent profiles of Turkish preservice teachers' attitudes toward artificial intelligence. Bartın University Journal of Faculty of Education, 15(1), 197–215. https://doi.org/10.14686/buefad.1710784

DeVellis, R. F. (2016). Scale development: Theory and applications (4th ed.). SAGE Publications.

Facer, K., & Selwyn, N. (2021). Digital Technology and the Futures of Education: Towards ‘Non-Stupid’ Optimism. UNESCO. Retrieved from:https://unesdoc.unesco.org/ark:/48223/pf0000377071

Faulkner, W. (2001). The technology question in feminism: A view from feminist technology studies. Women's Studies International Forum, 24(1), 79–95. https://doi.org/10.1016/S0277-5395(00)00166-7

Field, A. (2018). Discovering statistics using IBM SPSS statistics (5th ed.). SAGE Publications. Retrieved from https://books.google.ro/books/about/Discovering_Statistics_Using_IBM_SPSS_St.html?id=83L2EAAAQBAJ&redir_esc=y

Garrison, D. R., Cleveland-Innes, M., Koole, M., & Kappelman, J. (2006). Revisiting methodological issues in transcript analysis: Negotiated coding and reliability. The Internet and Higher Education, 9(1), 1–8. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.iheduc.2005.11.001

Gençaslan, D., Türk, S., & Kaya Uyanık, G. (2024). Öğretmenlerin not verme uygulamalarına ilişkin algılarının ölçme ve değerlendirme tutumları bağlamında incelenmesi. In EJER 2024 Tam Metin Bildiri Kitabı (p. 566). ORAV. https://www.orav.org.tr/files/egitim-dokuman/ejer-2024-tam-metin-bildiri-kitabi.pdf

Gilligan, C. (1993). In a different voice: Psychological theory and women's development. Harvard University Press. Retrieved from https://www.researchgate.net/publication/275714106_In_A_Different_Voice_Psychological_Theory_and_Women's_Development

Gölbaşı, B., & Okul, Ö. (2024). Öğretmen adaylarının ‘yapay zekâ’ kavramına ilişkin metaforik algıları. In XI. International Eurasian Educational Research Congress (pp. 49–58). Kocaeli Üniversitesi. Retrieved from https://www.researchgate.net/publication/385648270_Ogretmen_Adaylarinin_'Yapay_Zeka'_Kavramina_Iliskin_Metaforik_Algilari

Güneyli, A., Korkmaz, S., Karabacak, H. E., & Aslantürk Altıntuğ, F. (2026). A phenomenological investigation of teacher candidates’ metaphorical views on AI in language learning. AI, 7(3). https://doi.org/10.3390/ai7030100

Güven, G., Yumugan, S., & Ertekin, L. (2024, 30–31 Ekim). Türkiye'de okul öncesi eğitimde kişiselleştirilmiş öğrenme deneyimleri: “Yapay zekâ destekli uygulamalar ve yerel dinamikler” [Tam metin bildiri]. I. Uluslararası Sosyal Bilimler, Ekonomi ve Finans Kongresi, Saraybosna, Bosna-Hersek. Selçuk Üniversitesi. https://doi.org/10.13140/RG.2.2.22098.47040

Haraway, D. J. (1991). Simians, cyborgs, and women: The reinvention of nature. Routledge. https://www.routledge.com/Simians-Cyborgs-and-Women-The-Reinvention-of-Nature/Haraway/p/book/9780415903875

Hair, J. F., Black, W. C., Babin, B. J., & Anderson, R. E. (2014). Multivariate data analysis (7th ed.). Pearson Education. Retrieved from https://books.google.ro/books/about/Multivariate_Data_Analysis.html?id=SLRPLgAACAAJ&redir_esc=y

Holmes, W., Bialik, M., & Fadel, C. (2019). Artificial intelligence in education: Promises and Implications for teaching and learning. Center for Curriculum Redesign. Retrieved from https://www.researchgate.net/publication/332180327_Artificial_Intelligence_in_Educaton_Promise_and_Implications_for_Teaching_and_Learning

Hu, X., Gong, W., & Cortazzi, M. (2025). Researching China’s preservice teachers’ perceptions of AI education for K-12: An elicited metaphor analysis. European Journal of Education, 60(2). https://doi.org/10.1111/ejed.70079

Kalaba Yıldırım, Ö., & Önder, A. (2025). Okul öncesi öğretmenlerinin eğitimde yapay zekâ kullanımı hakkındaki görüşlerinin incelenmesi. Kastamonu İnsan ve Toplum Dergisi, 3(5), 133–166. https://dergipark.org.tr/tr/pub/kitod/article/1678351

Kandır, A., & Temel, M. (2025). Okul öncesi dönemde yapay zekâ okuryazarlığı eğitimine ilişkin öğretmen görüşlerinin incelenmesi. Journal of History School, 18(74), 1–21. https://doi.org/10.29228/joh.78184

Kaniwa, F., & Adekanmbi, G. (2026). AI in higher education in the context of open and distance learning: Opportunities and challenges. In V. Wang (Ed.), AI Applications and Pedagogical Innovation (pp. 1–48). IGI Global Scientific Publishing. https://doi.org/10.4018/979-8-3373-5092-9.ch001

Kaya, M., & Köseoğlu, Z. (2024). Geleceğin eğitimini şekillendirmek: Öğretmen yardımcısı yapay zekâ [Shaping future education: Teacher assistant artificial intelligence]. Pearson Journal of Social Sciences & Humanities, 8(29), 1555–1578. https://doi.org/10.5281/zenodo.13384238

Korkmaz, A., & Çilsalar Sağnak, H. (2024). Perceptions of preschool teacher candidates regarding artificial intelligence and the meanings they attribute. Çukurova Üniversitesi Türkoloji Araştırmaları Dergisi, 9(2), 1319–1342. https://doi.org/10.32321/cutad.1561556

Küçükkara, M. F., Ünal, M., & Sezer, T. (2024). Okul öncesi eğitimi öğretmenlerinin yapay zekâya ilişkin görüşleri. Temel Eğitim Araştırmaları Dergisi, 4(1), 17–28. https://doi.org/10.55008/te-ad.1431142

Lim, E. M. (2024). Metaphor analysis on preservice early childhood teachers’ conception of AI (Artificial Intelligence) education for young children. Thinking Skills and Creativity, 51, Article 101455. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.tsc.2023.101455

Lix, L. M., & Keselman, H. J. (1998). To trim or not to trim: Tests of location equality under heteroscedasticity and nonnormality. Educational and Psychological Measurement, 58(3), 409–429. https://doi.org/10.1177/0013164498058003004

Malvini Redden, S. (2017). Metaphor analysis. In J. Matthes, C. S. Davis, & R. F. Potter (Eds.), The international encyclopedia of communication research methods (pp. 1–9). Wiley-Blackwell. https://doi.org/10.1002/9781118901731.iecrm0154

Martinez, J. A. (2026). AI and emerging digital worlds as a tool, not a replacement. In V. Wang (Ed.), AI applications and pedagogical innovation (pp. 365–414). IGI Global Scientific Publishing. https://doi.org/10.4018/979-8-3373-5092-9.ch014

Noddings, N. (2013). Caring: A relational approach to ethics & moral education (2nd ed., updated). University of California Press. Retrieved from https://books.google.ro/books/about/Caring.html?id=u7MwDwAAQBAJ&redir_esc=y

Oudshoorn, N., Rommes, E., & Stienstra, M. (2004). Configuring the user as everybody: Gender and design cultures in information and communication technologies. Science, Technology, & Human Values, 29(1), 30–63. https://doi.org/10.1177/0162243903259190

Özaydın Aydoğdu, Y., & Aydoğdu, Ş. (2025). Yapay zekâ araçlarının kullanımının öğretmen adaylarının tutumlarına ve görüşlerine etkisi [The effect of artificial intelligence tools use on preservice teachers' attitudes and opinions]. Uludağ Üniversitesi Eğitim Fakültesi Dergisi, 38(Özel Sayı), 63–95. https://doi.org/10.19171/uefad.1609070

Ribeiro, J. (2016). A review of: Is technology good for education? [Review of the book Is technology good for education?, by N. Selwyn]. Canadian Journal of Educational Administration and Policy, 182, 42–45. Retrieved from: https://journalhosting.ucalgary.ca/index.php/cjeap/article/view/42078

Saldaña, J. (2021). The coding manual for qualitative researchers (4th ed.). SAGE Publications. Retrieved from https://books.google.ro/books/about/The_Coding_Manual_for_Qualitative_Resear.html?id=RwcVEAAAQBAJ&redir_esc=y

Savaşkan, V. (2024). Turkish language prospective teachers’ perceptions of metaphors regarding artificial intelligence. Shanlax International Journal of Education, 12(S1-June), 180–189. https://doi.org/10.34293/education.v12iS1-June.7761

Sayın, V., & Orbay, K. (2025). Comparison of metaphorical perceptions of classroom teachers and candidates regarding artificial intelligence. International Journal of Turkish Education Sciences, 13(3), 1972–1999. https://doi.org/10.46778/goputeb.1628903

Selwyn, N. (2017). Education and technology: Key issues and debates (2nd ed.). Bloomsbury Academic. Retrieved from https://books.google.ro/books/about/Education_and_Technology.html?hl=id&id=dMZKEAAAQBAJ&redir_esc=y

Selwyn, N. (2022). The future of AI and education: Some cautionary notes. European Journal of Education, 57(4), 620–631. https://doi.org/10.1111/ejed.12532

Schmitt, R. (2005). Systematic metaphor analysis as a method of qualitative research. The Qualitative Report, 10(2), 358–394. https://doi.org/10.46743/2160-3715/2005.1828

Şentürk, R., & Akol Göktaş, S. (2024). Determining the metaphorical perceptions of German teacher candidates regarding the concept of artificial intelligence. International Journal of Educational Spectrum, 6(2), 322–350. https://doi.org/10.47806/ijesacademic.1527105

Üzüm, B., Elçiçek, M., & Pesen, A. (2025). Development of teachers’ perception scale regarding artificial intelligence use in education: Validity and reliability study. International Journal of Human–Computer Interaction, 41(5), 2776–2787. https://doi.org/10.1080/10447318.2024.2385518

Wajcman, J. (1991). Feminism confronts technology. Pennsylvania State University Press. Retrieved from https://books.google.ro/books/about/Feminism_Confronts_Technology.html?id=BtaiFSv09jMC&redir_esc=y

Wajcman, J. (2004). TechnoFeminism. Polity Press. Retrieved from https://archive.org/details/technofeminism0000wajc

Wajcman, J. (2006). New connections: Social studies of science and technology and studies of work. Work, Employment and Society, 20(4), 773–786. https://doi.org/10.1177/0950017006069814

Wajcman, J. (2007). From women and technology to gendered technoscience. Information, Communication & Society, 10(3), 287–298. https://doi.org/10.1080/13691180701409770

Wajcman, J. (2010). Feminist theories of technology. Cambridge Journal of Economics, 34(1), 143–152. https://doi.org/10.1093/cje/ben057

Wajcman, J. (2015). Pressed for time: The acceleration of life in digital capitalism. University of Chicago Press. Retrieved from https://books.google.ro/books/about/Pressed_for_Time.html?id=yj0yBQAAQBAJ&redir_esc=y

Wajcman, J. (2017), Automation: is it really different this time?. The British Journal of Sociology, 68: 119-127. https://doi.org/10.1111/1468-4446.12239

Wajcman, J. (2020). Pressed for time: The acceleration of life in digital capitalism (2nd ed.). University of Chicago Press.

Wajcman, J., Young, E., & Fitzmaurice, A. (2020). The digital revolution: Implications for gender equality and women's rights 25 years after Beijing (Discussion Paper No. 36). UN Women. https://www.unwomen.org/en/digital-library/publications/2020/08/discussion-paper-the-digital-revolution-implications-for-gender-equality-and-womens-rights

Wajcman, J. (2023, October 17). This house believes AI is an existential threat [Video]. The Cambridge Union. https://www.linkedin.com/.

Whittaker, M., Crawford, K., Dobbe, R., Fried, G., Kaziunas, E., Mathur, V., Myers West, S., Richardson, R., Schultz, J., & Schwartz, O. (2018). AI Now 2018 Report. AI Now Institute, New York University. Retrieved from: https://ainowinstitute.org/wp-content/uploads/2023/04/AI_Now_2018_Report.pdf

Williamson, B., Eynon, R., Knox, J., & Davies, H. C. (2023). Critical perspectives on AI in education: Political economy, discrimination, commercialization, governance and ethics. In B. du Boulay, A. Mitrovic, & K. Yacef (Eds.), Handbook of artificial intelligence in education (pp. 555–573). (Elgar Handbooks in Education). Edward Elgar Publishing. https://doi.org/10.4337/9781800375413.00037

Downloads

Publiceret

2026-10-14

Nummer

Årg. 13 Nr. 11 (2026)

Sektion

Articles

Licens

Authors who publish with this journal agree to the following terms:

Authors retain copyright and grant the journal right of first publication with the work simultaneously licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution License that allows others to share the work with an acknowledgement of the work's authorship and initial publication in this journal.

Authors are able to enter into separate, additional contractual arrangements for the non-exclusive distribution of the journal's published version of the work (e.g., post it to an institutional repository or publish it in a book), with an acknowledgement of its initial publication in this journal.

Authors are permitted and encouraged to post their work online (e.g., in institutional repositories or on their website) prior to and during the submission process, as it can lead to productive exchanges, as well as earlier and greater citation of published work (See The Effect of Open Access).