Reconstructing Teacher Agency in the AI Era: A Proposal for the Dynamic Pedagogical Autonomy Model (DPAM)

Öz

The present research endeavors to delineate a model for the positioning of teacher autonomy and curricular agency as generative artificial intelligence (GAI) is increasingly integrated into the educational ecosystem. Adopting a qualitative document analysis design, the study systematically scrutinized strategic policy frameworks from the OECD (2026), UNESCO (2025), and the European Union AI Act (2021). This analysis culminated in the development of the three-layered Dynamic Pedagogical Autonomy Model (DPAM), a framework designed to resolve the inherent ontological tension between technological velocity and the human essence of pedagogy. Findings indicate that the temporal efficiencies afforded by GAI in instructional planning and preparation act as a crucial time capital, thereby providing educators with the professional space required to exercise and develop their projective agency. Yet, as underscored by the model’s layers of Critical Pedagogical Filtering and Social-Emotional Interaction, neither the relational core of education nor legally mandated human oversight can be effectively substituted by GAI systems. Ultimately, the research frames GAI not as a threat of automation, but as a hybrid intelligence partner that bolsters the teacher’s epistemic authority and professional autonomy.

Anahtar Kelimeler

• Teacher agency
• generative AI
• DPAM
• curricular dynamism
• human oversight

Yapay Zekâ Çağında Öğretmen Failliğini Yeniden İnşa Etmek: Dinamik Pedagojik Özerklik Modeli (DPÖM) Önerisi

Öz

Bu araştırma, üretken yapay zekâ (ÜYZ) teknolojilerinin eğitim ekosistemine entegrasyonu sürecinde öğretmen özerkliğinin ve müfredat failliğinin konumlandırılmasına yönelik bir model önermeyi amaçlamaktadır. Nitel araştırma desenlerinden doküman analizi yönteminin kullanıldığı bu çalışmada; OECD (2026), UNESCO (2025) ve Avrupa Birliği Yapay Zekâ Yasası (2021) gibi stratejik belgeler sistematik bir analize tabi tutulmuştur. Araştırma sonucunda, teknolojinin mekanik hızı ile öğretimin insani özü arasındaki ontolojik gerilimi çözümleyen üç katmanlı Dinamik Pedagojik Özerklik Modeli (DPÖM) geliştirilmiştir. Bulgular, ÜYZ’nin ders planlama ve hazırlık süreçlerinde sağladığı zaman tasarrufunun, öğretmenler için projektif faillik geliştirebilecekleri kritik bir zaman sermayesi yarattığına işaret etmektedir. Bununla birlikte, modelin Kritik Pedagojik Filtreleme ve Sosyal-Duygusal Etkileşim katmanları; yasal bir zorunluluk olan insani gözetimin ve eğitimin ilişkisel özünün ÜYZ tarafından ikame edilemeyeceğini ortaya koymaktadır. Sonuç olarak çalışma, ÜYZ’yi bir otomasyon tehdidi değil, öğretmenin epistemik otoritesini ve profesyonel özerkliğini genişleten bir hibrit zekâ ortağı olarak konumlandırmaktadır.

Anahtar Kelimeler

• Öğretmen failliği
• üretken yapay zekâ
• DPÖM
• eğitim programı dinamizmi
• insani gözetim

Kaynakça

1. Ahmad, S. F., Alam, M. M., Rahmat, M. K., Mubarik, M. S., & Hyder, S. I. (2022). Academic and administrative role of artificial intelligence in education. Sustainability, 14(3), 1101-1111. https://doi.org/10.3390/su14031101
2. Baidoo-Anu, D., & Ansah, L. O. (2023). Education in the era of generative artificial intelligence (AI): Understanding the potential benefits of ChatGPT in promoting teaching and learning. Journal of AI, 7(1), 52-62. https://doi.org/10.61969/jai.1337500
3. Basogain, X., Olabe, M. Á., & Olabe, J. C. (2017, November). Transition to a modern education system through e-learning. In Proceedings of the 2017 international conference on education and e-learning (pp. 41-46). https://doi.org/10.1145/3160908.3160924
4. Biesta, G., Priestley, M., & Robinson, S. (2015). The role of beliefs in teacher agency. Teachers and Teaching, 21(6), 624-640. https://doi.org/10.1080/13540602.2015.1044325
5. Bowen, G. A. (2009). Document analysis as a qualitative research method. Qualitative Research Journal, 9(2), 27-40. https://doi.org/10.3316/QRJ0902027
6. Braun, V., & Clarke, V. (2006). Using thematic analysis in psychology. Qualitative Research in Psychology, 3(2), 77-101. https://doi.org/10.1191/1478088706qp063oa
7. Chiu, T. K. (2025). AI literacy and competency: definitions, frameworks, development and future research directions. Interactive Learning Environments, 33(5), 3225-3229. https://doi.org/10.1080/10494820.2025.2514372
8. Creswell, J. W., & Poth, C. N. (2018). Qualitative inquiry and research design: Choosing among five approaches (4th ed.). Sage Publications.

9. Cukurova, M. (2025). The interplay of learning, analytics and artificial intelligence in education: A vision for hybrid intelligence. British Journal of Educational Technology, 56(2), 469-488. https://doi.org/10.1111/bjet.13514 Dubin, R. (1978). Theory building (Revised ed.). Free Press.
10. European Commission. (2021). Proposal for a Regulation of the European Parliament and of the Council laying down harmonised rules on artificial intelligence (Artificial Intelligence Act). https://eur-lex.europa.eu/legal-content/EN/TXT/?uri=CELEX:52021PC0206
11. Giannakos, M. et al. (2025). The promise and challenges of generative AI in education. Behaviour & Information Technology, 44(11), 2518-2544. https://doi.org/10.1080/0144929X.2024.2394886
12. Gilson, L. L., & Goldberg, C. B. (2015). Editors’ comment: So, what is a theoretical contribution? Group & Organization Management, 40(2), 127–130. https://doi.org/10.1177/1059601115576425
13. Gunawan, A., & Wiputra, R. (2024, December). Exploring the impact of generative AI on personalized learning in higher education. In 2024 IEEE 12th Conference on Systems, Process & Control (ICSPC) (pp. 280-285). IEEE. https://doi.org/10.1109/ICSPC63060.2024.10862366
14. Jaakkola, E. (2020). Designing conceptual articles: four approaches. AMS Review, 10(1), 18-26. https://doi.org/10.1007/s13162-020-00161-0
15. Küçükuncular, A., & Ertugan, A. (2025). Teaching in the AI era: Sustainable digital education through ethical integration and teacher empowerment. Sustainability, 17(16), 7405. https://doi.org/10.3390/su17167405
16. Kyriacou, C. (2001). Teacher stress: Directions for future research. Educational Review, 53(1), 27-35. https://doi.org/10.1080/00131910120033628
17. Long, L. N. (2015, March). On the need for significant reform in university education, especially in aerospace engineering. In 2015 IEEE Aerospace Conference (pp. 1-7). IEEE. https://doi.org/10.1109/AERO.2015.7119066
18. Luckin, R., Holmes, W., Griffiths, M. & Forcier, L. B. (2016). Intelligence Unleashed: An argument for AI in Education. Pearson.
19. MacInnis, D. J. (2011). A framework for conceptual contributions in marketing. Journal of Marketing, 75(4), 136-154. https://doi.org/10.1509/jmkg.75.4.136
20. Meredith, J. (1993). Theory building through conceptual methods. International Journal of Operations & Production Management, 13(5), 3-11. https://doi.org/10.1108/01443579310028120
21. Noroozi, O., Soleimani, S., Farrokhnia, M., & Banihashem, S. K. (2024). Generative AI in Education: Pedagogical, Theoretical, and Methodological Perspectives. International Journal of Technology in Education, 7(3), 373-385. https://doi.org/10.46328/ijte.845
22. OECD. (2026). Digital education outlook 2026: Exploring effective uses of generative AI in education. OECD Publishing. https://doi.org/10.1787/062a7394-en
23. Özkan, U. B. (2023). Doküman inceleme yönteminde geçerlik ve güvenirlik: Eğitim bilimleri araştırmaları bağlamında kuramsal bir inceleme. Buca Eğitim Fakültesi Dergisi, (56), 823-848. https://doi.org/10.53444/deubefd.1258867
24. Patton, M. Q. (2015). Qualitative research & evaluation methods: Integrating theory and practice (4th ed.). Sage Publications.
25. Pinar, W. F. (2019). What is curriculum theory? 3rd Edition. Routledge. https://doi.org/10.4324/9781315625683 Priestley, M., Biesta, G., & Robinson, S. (2015). Teacher agency: An ecological approach. Bloomsbury Publishing.
26. Saito, T. (2026). Redefining Agency: A Capability-Driven Research Agenda for Generative AI in Education. Education Sciences, 16(1), 155. https://doi.org/10.3390/educsci16010155
27. Saldaña, J. (2009). The coding manual for qualitative researchers. Sage Publications.
28. Scott, J. (1990). A matter of record: Documentary sources in social research. Polity Press.
29. Selwyn, N. (2022). Education and Technology: Key Issues and Debates (3rd ed.). Bloomsbury Academic.
30. Selwyn, N., Hillman, T., Eynon, R., Ferreira, G., Knox, J., Macgilchrist, F., & Sancho-Gil, J. M. (2020). What’s next for Ed-tech? Critical hopes and concerns for the 2020s. Learning, Media and Technology, 45(1), 1–6. https://doi.org/10.1080/17439884.2020.1694945
31. Shulman, L. S. (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
32. Singhania, Y. (2025). The role of artificial intelligence in education. AIJFR-Advanced International Journal for Research, 6(6), 1-9. https://doi.org/10.63363/aijfr.2025.v06i06.1830
33. Timmermans, S., & Tavory, I. (2012). Theory construction in qualitative research: From grounded theory to abductive analysis. Sociological Theory, 30(3), 167-186. https://doi.org/10.1177/0735275112457914
34. Turvey, K., & Pachler, N. (2025). A topological exploration ofconvergence/divergence of human-mediated and algorithmically mediated pedagogy. British Journal of Educational Technology, 00, 1–20. https://doi.org/10.1111/bjet.70007
35. UNESCO & International Task Force on Teachers for Education 2030. (2025). Promoting and protecting teacher agency in the age of artificial intelligence [Position paper]. UNESCO.
36. Vangrieken, K., Meredith, C., Packer, T., & Kyndt, E. (2017). Teacher autonomy as a double-edged sword: A self-determination theory perspective. Teaching and Teacher Education, 63, 429-439. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.tate.2017.01.021
37. Vygotsky, L. S. (1978). Mind in society: The development of higher psychological processes. Harvard University Press.
38. Whetten, D. A. (1989). What constitutes a theoretical contribution? Academy of Management Review, 14(4), 490-495. https://doi.org/10.2307/258554
39. Yıldırım, A., & Şimşek, H. (2021). Sosyal bilimlerde nitel araştırma yöntemleri (12. baskı). Seçkin Yayıncılık.
40. Zafari, M., Bazargani, J. S., Sadeghi-Niaraki, A., & Choi, S. M. (2022). Artificial intelligence applications in K-12 education: A systematic literature review. IEEE Access, 10, 61905–61921. https://doi.org/10.1109/ACCESS.2022.3179356
41. Zhai, X. (2022). ChatGPT User Experience: Implications for Education. SSRN Electronic Journal. https://doi.org/10.2139/ssrn.4312418