Artificial Intelligence Knowledge, Attitudes, Awareness, and Anxiety Among University Students at a Regional Turkish University: A Cross-Sectional Study

Bölgesel Bir Türk Üniversitesinde Öğrenim Gören Üniversite Öğrencilerinin Yapay Zekâya İlişkin Bilgi Düzeyleri, Tutumları, Farkındalıkları ve Kaygıları: Kesitsel Bir Çalışma

Mesut Süleymanoğulları, Adem Özdemir, Aslıhan Tekin

*Correspondence: Mesut Süleymanoğulları msuleymanogullari@agri.edu.tr  

 ¹Ağrı İbrahim Çeçen Üniversitesi, Spor Bilimleri Fakültesi, Beden Eğitimi ve Spor Öğretmenliği Bölümü msuleymanogullari@agri.edu.tr  ORCID ID: 0000-0001-5867-2844

²Ağrı İbrahim Çeçen Üniversitesi, İktisadi ve İdari Bilimler Fakültesi/İşletme Bölümü ORCID:0000-0003-3127-6846, aozdemir@agri.edu.tr

³Ağrı İbrahim Çeçen Üniversitesi, Spor Bilimleri Fakültesi, Beden Eğitimi ve Spor Öğretmenliği Bölümü , ORCID:0000-0002-1760-5378, astekin@agri.edu.tr

Doi: https://doi.org/10.5281/zenodo.21000509

https://www.ijoss.org/Archive/v3-i2/ijoss-Volume3-issue2-08.pdf

Download Full Text

Received / Gönderim: 01.05.2026 Accepted / Kabul: 16.06.2026 Published / Yayın: 23.06.2026

Abstract

The rapid integration of artificial intelligence (AI) into higher education necessitates a systematic examination of students’ psychological and attitudinal perceptions toward AI. This study aimed to investigate university students’ levels of AI-related knowledge, awareness, attitudes, and anxiety, and to determine whether these constructs differ according to gender, age, educational level, daily internet use duration, and AI tool usage status. The study employed a quantitative cross-sectional survey design. The sample consisted of 176 undergraduate and graduate students (111 females, 65 males; Mage = 28.74, SD = 9.24) enrolled at Ağrı İbrahim Çeçen University during the 2025-2026 academic year. Data were collected using the Artificial Intelligence Scale developed by Süleymanoğulları et al. (2024), a 25-item instrument comprising three sub-dimensions (Interaction, Pervasive Impact, and Anxiety) with high internal consistency (Cronbach’s α = .869). A priori power analysis (G*Power 3.1; Cohen’s f = 0.25, α = .05, 1−β = .80) indicated an adequate total sample size, though group-level adequacy varied. Independent-samples t-tests, one-way ANOVA, Tukey HSD post-hoc analyses, and Pearson correlation analyses were conducted. The findings revealed that female students reported significantly higher levels of AI anxiety than male students (p = .032, d = 0.34). Age was positively associated with both the Interaction and Pervasive Impact sub-dimensions. Graduate students demonstrated significantly higher Interaction scores than undergraduate students (p <.001, η²p = .13). Daily internet use duration was positively related to Pervasive Impact awareness. In contrast, AI tool usage status did not produce statistically significant differences across any sub-dimension. Overall, the findings suggest that structural factors, such as educational level, age, and gender-based socialization, play a more influential role in shaping AI perceptions than mere exposure to AI tools.

Keywords: Artificial intelligence attitudes; AI anxiety; AI literacy; university students; Technology Acceptance Model; quantitative survey.

Özet

Yapay zekânın (YZ) yükseköğretime hızla entegre edilmesi, öğrencilerin YZ’ye yönelik psikolojik ve tutumsal algılarının sistematik biçimde incelenmesini gerekli kılmaktadır. Bu çalışma, üniversite öğrencilerinin yapay zekâya ilişkin bilgi, farkındalık, tutum ve kaygı düzeylerini incelemeyi ve bu yapıların cinsiyet, yaş, eğitim düzeyi, günlük internet kullanım süresi ve YZ araçlarını kullanma durumuna göre farklılaşıp farklılaşmadığını belirlemeyi amaçlamaktadır. Nicel kesitsel tarama modelinde yürütülen araştırmaya, 2025-2026 eğitim-öğretim yılında Ağrı İbrahim Çeçen Üniversitesi’nde öğrenim gören 176 lisans ve lisansüstü öğrenci (111 kadın, 65 erkek; Ortalama yaş = 28.74, SS = 9.24) katılmıştır. Veriler, Süleymanoğulları vd. (2024) tarafından geliştirilen, üç alt boyuttan (Etkileşim, Yaygın Etki, Kaygı) oluşan 25 maddelik Yapay Zekâ Ölçeği ile toplanmıştır (Cronbach’s α = .869). Güç analizi (G*Power 3.1; Cohen’s f = 0.25, α = .05, 1−β = .80), toplam örneklem büyüklüğünün yeterli olduğunu ancak grup düzeyindeki yeterliliğin değişkenlik gösterdiğini ortaya koymuştur. Verilerin analizinde bağımsız örneklemler t-testi, tek yönlü ANOVA, Tukey HSD ve Pearson korelasyon analizleri kullanılmıştır. Bulgular, kadın öğrencilerin yapay zekâ kaygısının erkeklerden anlamlı düzeyde yüksek olduğunu göstermiştir (p = .032, d = 0.34). Yaş değişkeni, etkileşim ve yaygın etki alt boyutlarıyla pozitif yönde ilişkili bulunmuştur. Lisansüstü öğrencilerin etkileşim puanları lisans öğrencilerinden anlamlı düzeyde yüksektir (p <.001, η²p = .13). Günlük internet kullanım süresi yaygın etki alt boyutuyla pozitif ilişki göstermiştir. Buna karşın, YZ araçlarını kullanma durumu hiçbir alt boyutta anlamlı farklılık oluşturmamıştır. Bulgular, YZ algılarında araç kullanımından ziyade eğitim düzeyi, yaş ve toplumsal cinsiyet temelli yapısal faktörlerin daha belirleyici olduğunu göstermektedir.

Anahtar Kelimeler: Yapay zekâ tutumları; yapay zekâ kaygısı; yapay zekâ okuryazarlığı; üniversite öğrencileri; Teknoloji Kabul Modeli; nicel tarama araştırması.

How to Cite This Article

APA 7

 Süleymanoğulları, M., Özdemir, A., & Tekin, A. (2025). Artificial intelligence knowledge, attitudes, awareness, and anxiety among university students at a regional Turkish university: A cross-sectional study. International Journal of Health, Exercise, and Sport Sciences (IJOSS), 3 (2), 518–532. https://www.ijoss.org/Archive/v3-i2/ijoss-Volume3-issue2-08.pdf

Vancouver

Süleymanoğulları M, Özdemir A, Tekin A. Artificial intelligence knowledge, attitudes, awareness, and anxiety among university students at a regional Turkish university: A cross-sectional study. Int J Health Exerc Sport Sci (IJOSS). 2025;3(2):518-532. Available from: https://www.ijoss.org/Archive/v3-i2/ijoss-Volume3-issue2-08.pdf

References / Kaynaklar

• Bostrom, N. (2014). Superintelligence: Paths, dangers, strategies. Oxford University Press.
• Brynjolfsson, E., & McAfee, A. (2014). The second machine age: Work, progress, and prosperity in a time of brilliant technologies. W. W. Norton & Company.
• Chatterjee, S., & Sinha, K. (2022). Understanding artificial intelligence literacy in higher education: A critical review. Educational Technology Research and Development, 70(4), 985–1002. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11423-022-10089-9
• Cheryan, S., Ziegler, S. A., Montoya, A. K., & Jiang, L. (2017). Why are some STEM fields more gender balanced than others? Psychological Bulletin, 143(1), 1–35. https://doi.org/10.1037/bul0000052
• Creswell, J. W., & Creswell, J. D. (2018). Research design: Qualitative, quantitative, and mixed methods approaches (5th ed.). SAGE Publications.
• Cumming, G. (2014). The new statistics: Why and how. Psychological Science, 25(1), 7–29. https://doi.org/10.1177/0956797613504966
• Çakır, Z., Ceyhan, M. A., Gönen, M., & Erbaş, Ü. (2023). Yapay Zeka Teknolojilerindeki Gelişmeler ile Eğitim ve Spor Bilimlerinde Paradigma Değişimi. Dede Korkut Spor Bilimleri Dergisi, 1(2), 56-71. https://izlik.org/JA59BU72GA
• Çakır, Z., & Çatıkkaş, F. (2025). Artificial intelligence approaches to psychological processes, group dynamics, and leadership in team sports. International Journal of Sport, Health, Exercise and Recreation Research (IJSHER), 1(1), 1-11. http://ijsher.com/Archive/volume1-issue1/ijsher-Volume1-issue1-01.pdf
• Davis, F. D. (1989). Perceived usefulness, perceived ease of use, and user acceptance of information technology. MIS Quarterly, 13(3), 319–340. https://doi.org/10.2307/249008
• Faul, F., Erdfelder, E., Lang, A.-G., & Buchner, A. (2007). G*Power 3: A flexible statistical power analysis program for the social, behavioral, and biomedical sciences. Behavior Research Methods, 39(2), 175–191. https://doi.org/10.3758/BF03193146
• Gunkel, D. J. (2020). An introduction to AI ethics. Routledge.
• Guo, Y., Li, Y., & Xu, Y. (2021). The dark side of AI awareness: How AI knowledge increases user anxiety. Computers in Human Behavior, 118, Article 106727. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.chb.2021.106727
• Howard, A., & Dai, L. (2022). Gender differences in AI perception: A study on technology acceptance. Computers in Human Behavior, 127, Article 107089. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.chb.2021.107089
• Hwang, G. J., Xie, H., Wah, B. W., & Gašević, D. (2020). Vision, challenges, roles and research issues of artificial intelligence in education. Computers and Education: Artificial Intelligence, 1, Article 100001. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.caeai.2020.100001
• Laupichler, M. C., Aster, A., Schirch, J., & Raupach, T. (2022). Artificial intelligence literacy in higher and adult education: A scoping literature review. Computers and Education: Artificial Intelligence, 3, 100101. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.caeai.2022.100101
• Luan, H., Geczy, P., Lai, H., Gobert, J., Yang, S. J. H., Ogata, H., Baltes, J., Guerra, R., Li, P., & Tsai, C.-C. (2020). Challenges and future directions of big data and artificial intelligence in education. Frontiers in Psychology, 11, Article 580820. https://doi.org/10.3389/fpsyg.2020.580820
• McNeish, D. (2018). Thanks coefficient alpha, we’ll take it from here. Psychological Methods, 23(3), 412–433. https://doi.org/10.1037/met0000144
• Mitzner, T. L., Savla, J., Boot, W. R., Sharit, J., Charness, N., Czaja, S. J., & Rogers, W. A. (2018). Technology adoption by older adults: Findings from the PRISM trial. Gerontechnology, 17(1), 1–10. https://doi.org/10.4017/gt.2018.17.1.003.00
• Razali, N. M., & Wah, Y. B. (2011). Power comparisons of Shapiro-Wilk, Kolmogorov-Smirnov, Lilliefors and Anderson-Darling tests. Journal of Statistical Modeling and Analytics, 2(1), 21–33.
• 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
• Savaş, S., Demir, K., Atilla, G., & Savaş, E. (2023). Spor bilimleri öğrencilerinde yapay zekâya yönelik tutumların incelenmesi [Examination of AI attitudes among sport sciences students]. Spor Bilimleri Araştırmaları Dergisi, 8(2), 305–318.
• Schepman, A., & Rodway, P. (2020). Initial validation of the general attitudes towards artificial intelligence scale. Computers in Human Behavior Reports, 1, Article 100014. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.chbr.2020.100014
• Shin, D. (2021). The effects of explainability and causability on perception, trust, and acceptance: Implications for explainable AI. International Journal of Human-Computer Studies, 154, Article 102685. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ijhcs.2021.102685
• Süleymanoğulları, M., Özdemir, A., & Tekin, A. (2024). Yapay zekâ ölçeği: Geçerlik ve güvenirlik çalışması [Artificial Intelligence Scale: Validity and reliability study]. Education Science and Sports, 6(1), 13–27.
• Tabachnick, B. G., & Fidell, L. S. (2013). Using multivariate statistics (6th ed.). Pearson.
• Tundrea, E. (2020). Artificial intelligence in higher education: Challenges and opportunities. In INTED2020 Proceedings (pp. 2041–2049). IATED. https://doi.org/10.21125/inted.2020.0644
• Uluca, M., Yel, K., Güzel, S., & Çakır, Z. (2024). Yapay Zeka ve Drone Teknolojileri ile Spor Etkinlikleri Gözlem ve Analizinde Güncel Yaklaşımlar. Dede Korkut Spor Bilimleri Dergisi, 2(2), 47-70. https://izlik.org/JA78TK82KF
• Venkatesh, V., Morris, M. G., Davis, G. B., & Davis, F. D. (2003). User acceptance of information technology: Toward a unified view. MIS Quarterly, 27(3), 425–478. https://doi.org/10.2307/30036540
• Wang, T., Lund, B. D., Marengo, A., Pagano, A., Mannuru, N. R., Teel, Z. A., & Pange, J. (2023). Exploring the potential impact of artificial intelligence (AI) on international students in higher education. Applied Sciences, 13(11), Article 6716. https://doi.org/10.3390/app13116716
• Wang, Y., & Wang, H. (2022). Gender differences in AI perception and adoption: Evidence from Chinese university students. Frontiers in Psychology, 13, Article 947458. https://doi.org/10.3389/fpsyg.2022.947458
• 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(1), 1–27. https://doi.org/10.1186/s41239-019-0171-0