Artificial Intelligence Use in Special Education: Hidden Needs Reflected Through Questions

Abstract

This study examines the professional needs of special education teachers as reflected in AI-generated responses to a systematically developed set of questions, within the framework of Uses and Gratifications Theory (UGT). Rather than consulting teachers directly, the study analyzes the outputs of six AI-based conversational tools in order to reveal the cognitive, emotional, social, and professional gratifications underlying teacher-AI interactions in special education contexts. The study was conducted using an exploratory and interpretive qualitative research design. Data were collected through document analysis of AI-generated responses to 20 systematically selected questions and analyzed using an inductive analytical approach. The analysis was structured within the theoretical framework of UGT. The findings indicate that teachers' interaction with AI tools reflect not only information-seeking but also efforts to reduce uncertainty, seek ethical validation, achieve emotional relief, alleviate professional isolation, and share responsibility. In addition, the questions primarily focused on inclusive education, behavior management, Individualized Education Program (IEP) processes, and ethical decision-making. The results demonstrate that AI-based digital counseling tools function as sources of emotional and professional support for teachers, alongside their pedagogical role. The study offers implications for incorporating the ethical and pedagogical dimensions of AI into teacher education and in-service support systems.

Keywords

• Artificial intelligence
• speacial education
• digital counseling
• uses and gratifications theory
• teacher experience

Soruların Aynasından: Özel Eğitimde Yapay Zekâ Kullanımı ve Örtük İhtiyaçlar

Abstract

Bu çalışma, özel eğitim bağlamında sistematik biçimde geliştirilen sorulara yapay zekâ (yz) araçlarının ürettiği yanıtları, Kullanımlar ve Doyumlar Teorisi çerçevesinde incelemektedir. Öğretmenlerle doğrudan görüşme yapılmamış; bunun yerine altı yapay zekâ tabanlı sohbet aracının çıktıları analiz edilerek öğretmen-YZ etkileşimlerinin altında yatan bilişsel, duygusal, sosyal ve mesleki doyumlar ortaya konmaya çalışılmıştır. Araştırma, keşfedici ve yorumlayıcı nitel bir desen ile yürütülmüştür. Veriler, sistematik seçim süreciyle belirlenen 20 soruya verilen yapay zekâ yanıtlarının doküman incelemesiyle toplanmış ve tümevarımsal analiz tekniğiyle çözümlenmiştir. Bulgular, öğretmenlerin yapay zekâ araçlarıyla etkileşimlerinin yalnızca bilgi arayışını değil; belirsizliği azaltma, etik onay arayışı, duygusal rahatlama, mesleki yalnızlığı giderme ve sorumluluk paylaşımını da yansıttığını göstermektedir. Soruların kapsayıcı eğitim, davranış yönetimi, Bireyselleştirilmiş Eğitim Programı (BEP) süreçleri ve etik karar verme alanlarında yoğunlaştığı belirlenmiştir. Sonuçlar, yapay zekâ tabanlı dijital danışmanlık araçlarının öğretmenler için pedagojik işlevinin yanı sıra duygusal ve mesleki destek kaynağı olarak da işlev gördüğünü ortaya koymaktadır. Çalışma, yapay zekânın etik ve pedagojik boyutlarının öğretmen yetiştirme ve hizmet içi destek sistemlerine entegrasyonuna yönelik çıkarımlar sunmaktadır.

Keywords

• Yapay zekâ
• özel eğitim
• dijital danışmanlık
• kullanımlar ve doyumlar teorisi
• öğretmen deneyimi

References

1. Ainscow, M. (2020). Promoting inclusion and equity in education: lessons from international experiences. Nordic Journal of Studies in Educational Policy, 6(1), 7-16. https://doi.org/10.1080/20020317.2020.1729587
2. Aloe, A. M., Amo, L. C., & Shanahan, M. E. (2014). Classroom management self-efficacy and burnout: A multivariate meta-analysis. Educational Psychology Review, 26(1), 101-126. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10648-013-9244-0
3. Altunışık, R., Coşkun, R., Bayraktaroğlu, S., & Yıldırım, E. (2007). Sosyal bilimlerde araştırma yöntemleri: SPSS uygulamalı (5th ed.). Sakarya yayıncılık.
4. Andrade, C. (2018). Internal, external, and ecological validity in research design, conduct, and evaluation. Indian Journal of Psychological Medicine, 40(5), 498-499. https://doi.org/10.4103/IJPSYM.IJPSYM_334_18
5. Beijaard, D., Meijer, P. C., & Verloop, N. (2004). Reconsidering research on teachers’ professional identity. Teaching and Teacher Education, 20(2), 107-128. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.tate.2003.07.001
6. Billingsley, B., & Bettini, E. (2019). Special education teacher attrition and retention: A review of the literature. Review of Educational Research, 89(5), 697-744. https://doi.org/10.3102/0034654319862495
7. Bradshaw, C. P., Mitchell, M. M., & Leaf, P. J. (2010). Examining the effects of schoolwide positive behavioral interventions and supports on student outcomes: Results from a randomized controlled effectiveness trial in elementary schools. Journal of Positive Behavior Interventions, 12(3), 133-148. https://doi.org/10.1177/1098300709334798
8. Braun, V., & Clarke, V. (2006). Using thematic analysis in psychology. Qualitative Research in Psychology, 3(2), 77-101. https://doi.org/10.1191/1478088706qp063oa

9. Brunsting, N. C., Sreckovic, M. A., & Lane, K. L. (2014). Special education teacher burnout: A synthesis of research from 1979 to 2013. Education and Treatment of Children, 37(4), 681-711. https://doi.org/10.1353/etc.2014.0032
10. Cobb, S. (1976). Social support as a moderator of life stress. Psychosomatic Medicine, 38(5), 300-314.
11. Cook, L., & Friend, M. (2010). The state of the art of collaboration on behalf of students with disabilities. Journal of Educational and Psychological Consultation, 20(1), 1-8. https://doi.org/10.1080/10474410903535398
12. Creswell, J. W., & Creswell, J. D. (2017). Research design: Qualitative, quantitative, and mixed methods approaches (5th ed.). Sage publications.
13. Creswell, J. W., & Poth, C. N. (2016). Qualitative inquiry and research design: Choosing among five approaches (4th ed.). Sage publications.
14. Espin, C. A., Förster, N., & Mol, S. E. (2021). International perspectives on understanding and improving teachers’ data-based instruction and decision making: Introduction to the special series. Journal of Learning Disabilities, 54(4), 239-242. https://doi.org/10.1177/00222194211017531
15. Fish, W. W. (2008). The IEP meeting: Perceptions of parents of students who receive special education services. Preventing School Failure: Alternative Education for Children and Youth, 53(1), 8-14. https://doi.org/10.3200/PSFL.53.1.8-14
16. Florian, L., & Black-Hawkins, K. (2011). Exploring inclusive pedagogy. British Educational Research Journal, 37(5), 813-828. https://doi.org/10.1080/01411926.2010.501096
17. Friend, M., & Bursuck, W. D. (2019). Including students with special needs: A practical guide for classroom teachers (8th ed.). Pearson.
18. Friend, M., Cook, L., Hurley-Chamberlain, D., & Shamberger, C. (2010). Co-teaching: An illustration of the complexity of collaboration in special education. Journal of Educational and Psychological Consultation, 20(1), 9-27. https://doi.org/10.1080/10474410903535380
19. Fuchs, D., & Fuchs, L. S. (2006). Introduction to response to intervention: What, why, and how valid is it?. Reading Research Quarterly, 41(1), 93-99. https://doi.org/10.1598/RRQ.41.1.4
20. Gallup. (2025, June 25). Three in 10 teachers use AI weekly, saving six weeks a year (Walton Family Foundation–Gallup Teaching for Tomorrow Study, March 18-April 11, 2025). Gallup. Retrieved from https://news.gallup.com/poll/691967/three-teachers-weekly-saving-six-weeks-year.aspx?utm_source=chatgpt.com
21. Goldman, S. R., Taylor, J., Carreon, A., & Smith, S. J. (2024). Using AI to support special education teacher workload. Journal of Special Education Technology, 39(3), 434-447. https://doi.org/10.1177/01626434241257240
22. Hew, K. F., & Brush, T. (2007). Integrating technology into K-12 teaching and learning: Current knowledge gaps and recommendations for future research. Educational Technology Research and Development, 55(3), 223-252. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11423-006-9022-5
23. Holmes, W. (2020). Artificial intelligence in education. In Encyclopedia of education and information technologies (pp. 88-103). Cham: Springer International Publishing.
24. Holmes, W., & Tuomi, I. (2022). State of the art and practice in AI in education. European Journal of Education, 57(4), 542-570. https://doi.org/10.1111/ejed.12533
25. Hopman, J. A., Tick, N. T., van der Ende, J., Wubbels, T., Verhulst, F. C., Maras, A., ... & Van Lier, P. A. (2018). Special education teachers' relationships with students and self-efficacy moderate associations between classroom-level disruptive behaviors and emotional exhaustion. Teaching and Teacher Education, 75, 21-30. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.tate.2018.06.004
26. Horner, R. H., Carr, E. G., Halle, J., McGee, G., Odom, S., & Wolery, M. (2005). The use of single-subject research to identify evidence-based practice in special education. Exceptional Children, 71(2), 165-179. https://doi.org/10.1177/001440290507100203
27. Jennings, P. A., & Greenberg, M. T. (2009). The prosocial classroom: Teacher social and emotional competence in relation to student and classroom outcomes. Review of Educational Research, 79(1), 491-525. https://doi.org/10.3102/0034654308325693
28. Karakuş, N., Gedik, K., & Kazazoğlu, S. (2025). Ethical Decision-Making in Education: A Comparative Study of Teachers and Artificial Intelligence in Ethical Dilemmas. Behavioral Sciences, 15(4), 469. https://doi.org/10.3390/bs15040469
29. Kargın, T. (2007). Eğitsel değerlendirme ve bireyselleştirilmiş eğitim programı hazırlama süreci. Ankara Üniversitesi Eğitim Bilimleri Fakültesi Özel Eğitim Dergisi, 8(01), 1-15. https://doi.org/10.1501/Ozlegt_0000000103
30. Katz, E., Blumler, J. G., & Gurevitch, M. (1974). Utilization of mass communication by the individual. In J. G. Blumler & E. Katz (Eds.), The uses of mass communications: Current perspectives on gratifications research (pp. 19-32). Beverly Hills, CA: Sage
31. Kelchtermans, G. (2005). Teachers’ emotions in educational reforms: Self-understanding, vulnerable commitment and micropolitical literacy. Teaching and Teacher Education, 21(8), 995-1006. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.tate.2005.06.009
32. King‐Sears, M. E. (2008). Facts and fallacies: Differentiation and the general education curriculum for students with special educational needs. Support for Learning, 23(2), 55-62. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1467-9604.2008.00371.x
33. Lai, M., Schildkamp, K. (2013). Data-based Decision Making: An Overview. In: Schildkamp, K., Lai, M., Earl, L. (Eds). Data-based Decision Making in Education. Studies in Educational Leadership, (pp. 9-21). Springer, Dordrecht. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-94-007-4816-3_2
34. Li, J., Cheng, X., Zhao, X., Nie, J.-Y., & Wen, J.-R. (2023). HaluEval: A large-scale hallucination evaluation benchmark for large language models. Proceedings of the 2023 Conference on Empirical Methods in Natural Language Processing, 6449-6464. https://doi.org/10.48550/arXiv.2305.11747
35. Lidz, C. S., & Peña, E. D. (2009). Response to intervention and dynamic assessment: Do we just appear to be speaking the same language? Seminars in Speech and Language, 30(2), 121-134. https://doi.org/10.1055/s-0029-1215719
36. Luckin, R., Cukurova, M., Kent, C., & Du Boulay, B. (2022). Empowering educators to be AI-ready. Computers and Education: Artificial Intelligence, 3, 100076. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.caeai.2022.100076
37. Maslach, C., & Leiter, M. P. (2016). Understanding the burnout experience: recent research and its implications for psychiatry. World Psychiatry, 15(2), 103-111. https://doi.org/10.1002/wps.20311
38. Miles, M. B., & Huberman, A. M. (1994). Qualitative data analysis: An expanded sourcebook. Thousands Oaks, CA: Sage.
39. Mitchell, D., Morton, M., & Hornby, G. (2010). Review of the literature on individual education plans: Report to the New Zealand Ministry of Education. Wellington: Ministry of Education.
40. Moher, D., Liberati, A., Tetzlaff, J., & Altman, D. G. (2009). Preferred reporting items for systematic reviews and meta-analyses: the PRISMA statement. Annals of internal medicine, 151(4), 264-269. https://doi.org/10.7326/0003-4819-151-4-200908180-00135
41. Naatz, A. J., & Ruppar, A. (2026). Special education teachers’ use of generative artificial intelligence (AI): An exploratory survey of frequency and factors influencing adoption. Journal of Special Education Technology, 41(2), 227-239. https://doi.org/10.1177/01626434251379800
42. Patton, M. Q. (2014). Qualitative research & evaluation methods: Integrating theory and practice (4th ed.). Sage publications.
43. Rose, C. A., Espelage, D. L., Aragon, S. R., & Elliott, J. (2011). Bullying and victimization among students in special education and general education curricula. Exceptionality Education International, 21(3). https://doi.org/10.5206/eei.v21i3.7679
44. Rubin, A. M. (2009). Uses and gratifications. In R. L. Nabi & M. B. Oliver (Eds.), The SAGE handbook of media processes and effects (pp. 147–159). Sage Publishing.
45. Ruble, L. A., McGrew, J. H., Wong, W. H., & Missall, K. N. (2018). Special education teachers’ perceptions and intentions toward data collection. Journal of Early Intervention, 40(2), 177-191. https://doi.org/10.1177/1053815118771391
46. Ruble, L., McGrew, J. H., Dueber, D., & Salyers, M. P. (2025). BREATHE-EASE goals for reducing special education teacher burnout. Teacher Education and Special Education, 48(1), 5-25. https://doi.org/10.1177/08884064241288262
47. Saldaña, J. (2016). The coding manual for qualitative researchers (3rd ed.). Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage.
48. 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
49. Shulman, L. (1987). Knowledge and teaching: Foundations of the new reform. Harvard Educational Review, 57(1), 1-23. https://doi.org/10.17763/haer.57.1.j463w79r56455411
50. Skaalvik, E. M., & Skaalvik, S. (2017). Motivated for teaching? Associations with school goal structure, teacher self-efficacy, job satisfaction and emotional exhaustion. Teaching and Teacher Education, 67, 152-160. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.tate.2017.06.006
51. Skjuve, M., Brandtzæg, P. B., & Følstad, A. (2024). Why do people use ChatGPT? Exploring user motivations for generative conversational AI. First Monday, 29(1). https://doi.org/10.5210/fm.v29i1.13541
52. Söner, O., & Yılmaz, O. (2020). Özel eğitim sınıflarında görev yapan öğretmenlerin psikolojik iyi oluşları ve tükenmişlik düzeyleri. Trakya Eğitim Dergisi, 10(3), 668-682. https://doi.org/10.24315/tred.599742
53. StatCounter Global Stats (2026). AI Chatbot Market Share in Turkey May 2026. Retrieved from https://gs.statcounter.com/ai-chatbot-market-share/all/turkey/2025
54. Sugai, G., & Horner, R. H. (2002). Introduction to the special series on positive behavior support in schools. Journal of Emotional and Behavioral Disorders, 10(3), 130-135. https://doi.org/10.1177/10634266020100030101
55. Swearer, S. M., Wang, C., Maag, J. W., Siebecker, A. B., & Frerichs, L. J. (2012). Understanding the bullying dynamic among students in special and general education. Journal of School Psychology, 50(4), 503-520. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jsp.2012.04.001
56. Trust, T., Whalen, J. & Mouza, C. (2023). Editorial: ChatGPT: Challenges, Opportunities, and Implications for Teacher Education. Contemporary Issues in Technology and Teacher Education, 23(1), 1-23. https://www.learntechlib.org/primary/p/222408/.
57. Tümkaya, G. S. (2024). Özel Eğitim Öğretmenlerinin Mesleki Bağlılık ve Tükenmişlik Düzeyleri Arasındaki İlişkinin İncelenmesi. Çukurova Üniversitesi Sosyal Bilimler Enstitüsü Dergisi, 33(2), 482-500. https://doi.org/10.35379/cusosbil.1297671
58. Turkish Statistical Institute. (2025, 1 Ekim). Yapay Zekâ İstatistikleri (Sayı:57945). Retrived from https://data.tuik.gov.tr/Bulten/Index?p=Yapay-Zeka-Istatistikleri-2025-57945
59. Wach, K., Duong, C. D., Ejdys, J., Kazlauskaitė, R., Korzynski, P., Mazurek, G., ... & Ziemba, E. (2023). The dark side of generative artificial intelligence: A critical analysis of controversies and risks of ChatGPT. Entrepreneurial Business and Economics Review, 11(2), 7-30. https://doi.org/10.15678/EBER.2023.110201
60. Wang, Y., Fu, W., & Xu, S. (2025). Special education teachers’ emotional labor strategies and its relationship with job burnout in China: The moderating role of psychological capital. WORK: A Journal of Prevention, Assessment & Rehabilitation, 81(2), 2582-2592. https://doi.org/10.1177/10519815241311181
61. Wieczorek, M., Hosseini, M. & Gordijn, B. (2025). Unpacking the ethics of using AI in primary and secondary education: a systematic literature review. AI Ethics 5, 4693-4711. https://doi.org/10.1007/s43681-025-00770-0
62. Xie, C., Wang, Y., & Cheng, Y. (2024). Does artificial intelligence satisfy you? A meta-analysis of user gratification and user satisfaction with AI-powered chatbots. International Journal of Human–Computer Interaction, 40(3), 613-623. https://doi.org/10.1080/10447318.2022.2121458
63. Yavuz, M. (2019). Özel eğitim ve rehabilitasyon merkezlerinde çalışan öğretmenlerin mesleki tükenmişlik düzeyleri ve yaşam doyumlarının incelenmesi. OPUS International Journal of Society Researches, 13(19), 527-556. https://doi.org/10.26466/opus.601008
64. Yıldırım, A., & Şimşek, H. (2016). Sosyal bilimlerde nitel araştırma yöntemleri (10th ed.) Ankara: Seçkin Yayıncılık.
65. 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