Investigation of the Relationship Between Teachers’ Teacher Agency and Social Justice Perceptions at Schools

Öz

The purpose of this study is to examine the relationship between teachers’ agentic behaviors and their perceptions of social justice in schools. For this purpose, the “Teacher Agency Scale” developed by Liu et al. (2016) and adapted into Turkish by Bellibaş et al. (2019), and the “Social Justice in Schools Scale” developed by Karacan et al. (2015), were employed. The sample of the study consisted of 429 teachers working in Muğla province during the 2023–2024 academic year. The scales were administered to the participants via online platforms. Descriptive statistics were used to determine the levels of teachers’ perceptions of social justice and agentic behaviors, while percentages and frequencies were employed to analyze demographic information. Assuming that teachers’ perceptions of social justice and agentic behaviors were normally distributed, independent samples t-tests were applied to examine whether these differed by gender, and one-way ANOVA was used to analyze differences according to school level, number of students, years of service, and teaching field.

Anahtar Kelimeler

• agency
• teacher agency
• change
• social justice

Öğretmenlerin Öğretmen Failliği ile Okullarda Sosyal Adalet Algıları Arasındaki İlişkinin İncelenmesi

Öz

Çalışmanın amacı öğretmenlerin faillik davranışları ile okulda sosyal adalet algıları arasındaki ilişkiyi incelemektir. Bu çalışmada, öğretmenlerin okullarda öğretmen failliği ile sosyal algıları arasındaki ilişkinin incelenmesi amaçlanmıştır. Bu amaçla Liu, vd. (2016) tarafından geliştirilen ve Bellibaş vd. (2019) tarafından Türkçeye uyarlanan “Öğretmen Failliği Ölçeği” ve Karacan vd. (2015) tarafından geliştirilen “Okullarda Sosyal Adalet Ölçeği” kullanılmıştır. Araştırmanın örneklemi, 2023-2024 eğitim öğretim yılında Muğla ilinde görev yapmakta olan 429 öğretmenden oluşmaktadır. Ölçek formları katılımcılara çevrimiçi platformlar üzerinden uygulanmıştır. Verilerin analizi ise Öğretmenlerin sosyal adalet algılarının ve faillik davranışlarının düzeyini belirlemek için betimsel istatistiklere, kişisel bilgilerin analizinde ise yüzde ve frekansa başvurulmuştur. Öğretmenlerin okullarda sosyal adalet algılarının ve faillik davranışlarının normal dağılım gösterdikleri varsayımıyla cinsiyete göre farklılaşıp farklılaşmadığı bağımsız örneklem t testi kullanılarak, okul kademesi, okulun öğrenci sayısı, hizmet yılı ve branş değişkenlerine göre farklılaşıp farklılaşmadığı ise tek yönlü varyans analiz (ANOVA) kullanılarak belirlenmiştir.

Anahtar Kelimeler

• Faillik
• öğretmen failliği
• değişim
• sosyal adalet

Etik Beyan

çalışmanın etik izinleri alınmıştır.

Kaynakça

1. Ainscow, M. (2020). Inclusion and equity in education: Making sense of global challenges. Prospects, 49(3), 123–134. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11125-020-09506-w
2. Aksoy, M., & Öztürk, Z.Y. (2023). Sınıf öğretmenlerinin faillik düzeyleri ve örgütsel bağlılık düzeyleri ilişkisi. Korkut Ata Türkiyat Araştırmaları Dergisi, (12), 1318-1335.
3. Archer, M. S. (2000). Being human: The problem of agency. Cambridge University Press.
4. Aşçı, M., & Yıldırım, R. (2020). Öğretmen failliği ile öğretim programına bağlılık arasındaki ilişki: Yunus Emre ilçesi örneği. Uluslararası Toplum Araştırmaları Dergisi, 10(16), 6128-6149.
5. Ávalos González, J. & Gomide Júnior, A. (2025). Healthy school, healthy teachers: Mediating effect of optimism. Frontiers in Psychology, 16, 1506161. https://doi.org/10.3389/fpsyg.2025.1506161
6. Ball, S. J. (2003). The teacher’s soul and the terrors of performativity. Journal of Education Policy, 18(2), 215–228.
7. Bandura, A. (2000), Exercise of human agency through collective efficacy, Current Directions in Psychological Science, 9(3), 75-78.
8. Bandura, A. (2001). Social cognitive theory: An agentic perspective. Annual Review of Psychology, 52(1), 1-26.

9. Bandura, A. (2006). Toward a psychology of human agency. Perspectives on Psychological Science, 1(2), 164–180. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1745-6916.2006.00011.x
10. Barton, C. A., & Tan, E. (2010). We be burnin! Agency, identity and science learning. Journal of the Learning Sciences, 19(2), 187-229.
11. Bates R. (2005, Kasım). Educational administration and social justice [Sözlü Bildiri]. Annual Conference of the Australian Association for Research in Education, Australia. https://www.researchgate.net/publication/249794857_Educational_administration_and_social_justice
12. Beard, K. S., Hoy, W. K., & Woolfolk Hoy, A. (2010). Academic optimism of individual teachers: Confirming a new construct. Teaching and Teacher Education, 26(5), 1136–1144. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.tate.2009.12.002
13. Bellibaş, M.Ş., Çalışkan, Ö., & Gümüş, S. (2019). Öğretmen Failliği Ölçeğinin (ÖFÖ) geçerlik ve güvenirlik çalışması. Trakya Eğitim Dergisi, 9(1), 1-11.
14. Biesta, G., Priestley, M., & Robinson, S. (2015). The role of beliefs in teacher agency. Teachers and Teaching, 21(6), 624–640
15. Biesta, G., & Tedder, M. (2007). Agency and learning in the life course: Towards an ecological perspective. Studies in the Education of Adults, 39(2), 132-149.
16. Bodman, S., Taylor, S., & Morris, H. (2012). Politics, policy and professional identity. English Teaching: Practice and Critique, 11(3), 14-25.
17. Brodie, K. (2021). Teacher agency in professional learning communities. Professional Development in Education, 47(4), 560-573. https://doi.org/10.1080/19415257.2019.1689523
18. Büyüköztürk, Ş. (2018). Sosyal bilimler için veri analizi el kitabı (11. baskı). Pegem Akademi. Campbell, E. (2004). Ethical bases of moral agency in teaching. Teachers and Teaching: Theory and Practice, 10, 409-428.
19. Campbell, E. (2012). Teacher agency in curriculum contexts. Curriculum Inquiry, 42(2), 183-190.
20. Carr, D. (2003). Moral educational implications of rival conceptions of education and the role of the teacher. Journal of the Moral Education, 32, 219-232.
21. Cho, H. (2007). Navigating the meaning of social justice, teaching for social justice and multicultural education. Intercultural Journal of Multicultural Education, 19(2), 1-17.
22. Davies, B. (2010). The struggle between the individualized subject of phenomenology and the multiplicities of the poststructuralist subject: the problem of agency. Reconceptualizing Educational Research Methodology, 1(1), 54-68.
23. Eğitim Reformu Girişimi (ERG). (2021). ARISE Eğitimde Eşitsizliğin Azaltılması Projesi: Türkiye ulusal raporu [Rapor]. Eğitim Reformu Girişimi. https://www.egitimreformugirisimi.org/egitim-gozlemevi/arastirma/egitimde-esitsizligin-azaltilmasi-projesi-arise/
24. Eğitim Reformu Girişimi (ERG). (2021). Eğitim İzleme Raporu 2021: Eğitim Yönetişimi ve Finansmanı [Rapor]. Eğitim Reformu Girişimi. https://egitimreformugirisimi.org/yayinlar/egitim-izleme-raporu-2021-egitim-yonetisimi-ve-finansmani/
25. Eteläpelto, A., Vähäsantanen, K., Hökkä, P., & Paloniemi, S. (2013). What is agency? Conceptualizing professional agency at work. Educational Research Review, 10, 45–65.
26. Emirbayer, M. & Mische, A. (1998). What is agency? American Journal of Sociology, 103(4), 962-1023. https://doi.org/10.1086/231294
27. Enslin, P. (2006) Democracy, social justice and education: Feminist strategies in a globalising world. Educational Philosophy and Theory, 38(1), 57-67.
28. Erdem, C. (2020). A new concept in teacher identity research: Teacher agency. Adıyaman University Journal of Educational Sciences, 10(1), 32-55.
29. Erdem, C., Toptaş, H. T., Kuzu, H. A., & Varol, B. (2025). The scale of teacher agency in professional development: The validity and reliability study. International Journal of Turkish Education Sciences, 13(1), 345-378.
30. Europan, NCLUD ED Consortium. (2009, Ekim). INCLUD ED: Strategies for inclusion and social cohesion in Europe from education [Presentation]. Entegrel Proje kapsamında “Successful educational actions for the early education of the Roma and Sinti — Contributions from European Research” oturumu, European Research Project Implementation Meeting, Varşova, Polonya. Retrieved from http://www.ub.edu/includ-ed/
31. Florian, L. (2009). Preparing teachers to work in schools for all. Teaching and Teacher Education, 25, 533-534.
32. Fraser, N. (2008). Scales of justice: Reimagining political space in a globalizing world. Polity Press.
33. Fraser, N. (2020). From redistribution to recognition?: Dilemmas of justice in a'postsocialist'age. S. Seidman ve J. C. Alexander (Haz). The new social theory reader içinde (s. 188-196). Routledge.
34. Freire, P. (1991). Ezilenlerin pedagojisi. (D. Hattatoğlu & E. Özbek, Çev.) Ayrıntı Yayınevi.
35. Fullan, M. (2003). Change forces with a vengeance. Routledge Falmer.
36. Gaudelli, W. (2001). Reflection on multicultural education: A teacher’s experience. Multicultural Education, 8(4), 35-37.
37. Gazetevatan (2021, 08 ve 09). MEB harekete geçti. https://www.gazetevatan.com/egitim/galeri-milli-egitim-bakanligi-meb-harekete-gecti-ve-resmen-duyuruldu-ilk-kez-ucretsiz-9-10-11-ve-12-siniflar-1412233
38. Gewirtz, S. (1998). Conceptualizing social justice in education: Mapping the territory. Journal of Education Policy, 13(4), 469–484. https://doi.org/10.1080/0268093980130405
39. Giddens, A. (2020). Toplumun inşası - Yapılaşma teorisinin ana hatları (Ü. Tatlıcan, Çev.). Sentez Yayınları.
40. Godfrey, L., & Olson, C. B. (2019). Agency as the achievement of reform ownership. English Teaching: Practice&Critique, 18(2), 249-262.
41. Hart, C. S. (2019). Education, inequality and social justice: A critical analysis applying the Sen- Bourdieau analytical framework. Policy Futures in Education, 17(5), 582-598.
42. Hodge, E., & Bonko, S.L. (2014). A common vision of instruction: An analysis of English language and professional development materials related to the Common Core State Standards. English Teaching: Practice and Critique, 13(1), 169-196.
43. Hoekstra, A., Korthagen, F., Brokelmans, M., Beijaard, D., & Imants, J. (2009). Experienced teachers’ informal workplace learning and perceptions of workplace conditions. Journal of Workplace Learning, 21(4), 276-298.
44. Imants, J., & Van der Wal, M. M. (2020). A model of teacher agency in professional development and school reform. Journal of Curriculum Studies, 52(1), 1-14. https://doi.org/10.1080/00220272.2019.1604809
45. Karacan, H., Bağlıbel, M., & Bindak, R. (2015). Okullarda sosyal adalet ölçeğinin geliştirilmesi. Mustafa Kemal Üniversitesi Sosyal Bilimler Enstitüsü Dergisi, 12(31), 54-68.
46. Karagöl, İ. (2025). Öğretmen failliği üzerine yapılan çalışmaların bibliyometrik analizi. Erzincan Üniversitesi Eğitim Fakültesi Dergisi, 27(1), 14-27.
47. Karasar, N. (2011). Bilimsel araştırma yöntemi. Nobel.
48. Liu, S., Hallinger, P., & Feng, D. (2016). Supporting the professional learning of teachers in China: Does principal leadership make a difference?. Teaching and Teacher Education, 59, 79-91. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.tate.2016.05.023
49. Luttenberg, J. Imants, J., & Van Veen, K. (2013). Looking for cohesion: The role of search for meaning in the interaction between teacher and reform. Research Papers in Education, 28(3), 289-308.
50. May, S., Cowles, S., & Lamy, M. (2013). PISA 2012 New Zealand summary report. New Zealand Ministry of Education. http://www.educationcounts.govt.nz/__data/assets/pdf_file/0008/144872/1015_PISASummary_2012.pdf
51. MEB (2015). Milli Eğitim Bakanlığı Öğretmen atama ve yer değiştirme yönetmeliği. https://oygm.meb.gov.tr/meb_iys_dosyalar/2017_11/08144242_mevzuat.pdf
52. Millî Eğitim Bakanlığı. (2023, Aralık). 2023-2024 eğitim öğretim istatistikleri açıklandı [Rapor]. T.C. Millî Eğitim Bakanlığı. https://www.meb.gov.tr/2023-2024-egitim-ogretim-istatistikleri-aciklandi/haber/34977/tr Novak, M. (2000, Aralık). Defining social justice. First Things. https://www.firstthings.com/article/2000/12/defining-social-justice
53. OECD (2023). Equity and inclusion in education: Finding strength through diversity. Organisation for Economic Co-operation and Development, Paris. https://www.oecd.org/content/dam/oecd/en/publications/reports/2023/01/equity-and-inclusion-in-education_e8cfc768/e9072e21-en.pdf
54. OECD (2024). Education at a Glance 2024: OECD Indicators, OECD Publishing. https://doi.org/10.1787/c00cad36-en
55. Oxfam. (2018). Reward work, not wealth [Politika raporu]. Oxfam. https://www.oxfam.org/en/research/reward-work-not-wealth
56. Pantić, N. (2015). A model for the study of teacher agency for social justice. Teachers and Teaching, 21(6), 759–778. https://doi.org/10.1080/13540602.2015.1044332Priestley, M., Edwards, R., Priestley, A. & Miller, K. (2012). Teacher agency in curriculum making: Agents of change and spaces for manoeuvre. Curriculum Inquiry, 42(2), 191-214. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1467- 873X.2012.00588.x
57. Rawls, J. (2020). Hakkaniyet olarak adalet (O. Baş, Çev.). Pinhan Yayıncılık.
58. Sachs, J. (2003). The activist teaching profession. Open University Press.
59. Sachs, J. (2016). Teacher professionalism: Why are we still talking about it? Teachers and Teaching: Theory and Practice, 22(4), 413-425.
60. Sannino, A. (2010). Teachers’ talk of experiencing: Conflict, resistance and agency. Teaching and Teacher Education, 26(4), 838–844. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.tate.2009.10.021
61. Sue, D. W. (2001). Multidimensional facets of cultural competence. The counseling psychologist, 29(6), 790-821.
62. Theoharis, G. (2007). Social justice educational leaders and resistance: Toward a theory of social justice leadership. Educational Administration Quarterly, 43(2), 221–258. https://doi.org/10.1177/0013161X06293717 files.eric.ed.gov+10eric.ed.gov+10scirp.org+10
63. Türk Eğitim Derneği – TEDMEM. (2023). Bir bakışta eğitim 2023: Türkiye üzerine değerlendirme ve öneriler. TEDMEM. https://tedmem.org/storage/writes/November2023/kCGG0xg8T0MwPf7kdfbK.pdf
64. Thomson, S., De Bortoli, L., & Buckley, S. (2013). PISA 2012: How Australia measures up. Australian Council for Educational Research (ACER). https://research.acer.edu.au/cgi/viewcontent.cgi?article=1015&context=ozpisa
65. Toom, A., Pyhältö, K., & Rust, F. O. C. (2015). Teachers’ professional agency in contradictory times. Teachers and Teaching, 21(6), 615–623. https://doi.org/10.1080/13540602.2015.1044334
66. Ulla, M. B. (2025). Teacher agency for social justice. M. B. Ulla (Haz.) Queer teachers’ agency in language education içinde (s. 39–55). Emerald Publishing. https://doi.org/10.1108/978-1-83662-930-620251003 Üzüm, B., Yazan, B., Mary, L., & Akayoğlu, S. (2022). Teacher agency for social justice in telecollaboration: Locating agentive positioning in virtual language interaction. The Language Learning Journal, 51(6). https://doi.org/10.1080/095771736.2022.2080857
67. Van den Bos, K. (2003). On the subjective quality of social justice: The role of affect as information in the psychology of justice judgments. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 85(3), 482–498. https://doi.org/10.1037/0022-3514.85.3.482
68. Vahasantanen, K., & Etelapelto, A. (2011). Vocational teachers’ pathways in the course of a curriculum reform. Journal of Curriculum Studies, 43(3), 291-312.
69. Weick, K. (2001). Making sense of organization. Blackwell.
70. Young, M. (1998). Rethinking teacher education for a global future: Lessons from the English. Journal of Education for Teaching, 24(1), 51-62.
71. Zeichner, K. M. (2009). Teacher education and the struggle for social justice. Routledge.