Onarıcı Adalet İdeolojisi Ölçeğinin Türk Kültürüne Uyarlanması ve Öğretmenlerin Onarıcı Adalet İnançlarının İncelenmesi

Öz

Bu araştırmada, Onarıcı Adalet İdeolojisi Ölçeğinin Türk kültürüne uyarlanması ve öğretmenlerin onarıcı adalet inançlarının çeşitli değişkenler açısından incelenmesi amaçlanmıştır. Onarıcı adalet, geleneksel ceza adalet sistemine alternatif olarak, suç ve disiplin ihlallerinde onarım ve toplumsal uyum odaklı bir yaklaşım sunmaktadır. Eğitim bağlamında, okul disiplin politikalarına daha kapsayıcı ve yapıcı bir model kazandırdığı için önem taşımaktadır. Çalışmada, ölçeğin yapı geçerliğini test etmek amacıyla Doğrulayıcı Faktör Analizi uygulanmış ve uyum indeksleri değerlendirilmiştir. Ölçek, “onarım”, “işbirliği” ve “iyileştirme” olmak üzere üç alt boyutlu bir yapıya sahiptir. Bulgular, ölçeğin genel olarak kabul edilebilir bir geçerlik ve güvenirlik düzeyine sahip olduğunu göstermiştir ancak iyileştirme alt boyutu, diğer alt boyutlara kıyasla daha düşük iç tutarlılık göstermiştir. Kültürel faktörler bu boyutun değerlendirilme biçimini etkileyebilir. Öğretmenlerin onarıcı adalet inançları, cinsiyet, kıdem ve çalışılan eğitim kademesi değişkenleri açısından anlamlı farklılık göstermemiştir. Bu bulgu, onarıcı adalet anlayışının demografik faktörlerden bağımsız olarak benimsendiğini göstermektedir. Çalışmanın bulguları, onarıcı adaletin Türkiye’de eğitim sistemine entegrasyonu konusunda daha fazla araştırmaya ihtiyaç olduğunu ortaya koymaktadır.

Anahtar Kelimeler

• Onarıcı adalet ideolojisi
• ölçek uyarlama
• doğrulayıcı faktör analizi
• öğretmen
• onarıcı adalet inançları

Adaptation of the Restorative Justice Ideology Scale to Turkish Culture and an Assessment of Teachers’ Restorative Justice Beliefs

Öz

This study aimed to adapt the Restorative Justice Ideology Scale (RJI Scale) for use in Turkish culture and examine teachers’ restorative justice beliefs about various variables. Restorative justice offers an approach focused on repair and social harmony in response to crime and disciplinary violations, providing an alternative to the traditional criminal justice system. In the context of education, it is essential because it provides a more inclusive and constructive model for school discipline policies. In the study, Confirmatory Factor Analysis (CFA) was employed to assess the construct validity of the scale, and the fit indices were evaluated. The scale has a structure with three sub-dimensions: “restoration,” “cooperation,” and “healing.” The findings showed that the scale generally has an acceptable level of validity and reliability; however, the healing sub-dimension exhibited lower internal consistency compared to the other sub-dimensions. Cultural factors may influence the evaluation of this dimension. Teachers’ restorative justice beliefs did not show significant differences in terms of gender, seniority and level of education. This finding indicates that the concept of restorative justice is adopted regardless of demographic factors. The study’s findings suggest that further research is necessary to integrate restorative justice into the education system in Turkey.

Anahtar Kelimeler

• Restorative justice ideology,
• scale adaptation
• comfirmatory factor analysis
• teacher
• restorative justice beliefs

Kaynakça

1. Alger, R. J. (2018). A comparison of restorative justice ideology between administrators, teachers, and parents (Doctoral dissertation). Walden University, Minnesota, USA.
2. Balcı, A. (2011). Sosyal bilimlerde araştırma: Yöntem, teknik ve ilkeler (9th ed.). Pegem A Yayıncılık.
3. Berkowitz, K. (2012). San Francisco Unified School District Restorative Practices Whole-School Implementation
4. Guide. SFUSD Student, Family, Community Support Department. https://cupdf.com/document/restorative-practices-whole-school-implementation-guide.html
5. Brown, T. A. (2006). Confirmatory Factor Analysis: For Applied Research. Guilford Press.
6. Browne, M. W., & R. Cudeck. (1993). Alternative ways of assessing model fit. In K. A. Bollen & J. S. Long (Eds.), Testing structural equation models (pp. 136–162). Sage Publications.
7. Byrne, B. M. (2001). Structural equation modeling with AMOS: Basic concepts, applications, and programming. Lawrence Erlbaum Associates, Inc.
8. Clifford, A. (2015). Teaching restorative practices with classroom circles. Center for Restorative Process.

9. Cohen, J. (1988). Statistical power analysis for the behavioral sciences (2nd ed.). Lawrence Erlbaum Associates.
10. Çokluk, Ö., Şekercioğlu, G., & Büyüköztürk, Ş. (2014). Sosyal bilimler için çok değişkenli istatistik: SPSS ve LISREL uygulamaları. Pegem Akademi.
11. Field, A. (2009). Discovering statistics using SPSS (3rd ed.). Sage Publications.
12. Fitzgerald-Yau, N., Fletcher, A., Hale, D., Bonell, C., & Viner, R. (2013, May, 9-11). Creating a restorative culture in schools. Paper presented at 11th Global Conference, Prague, Czech Republic.
13. Fornell, C. D. & Lacker, D. F. (1981). Evaluating structural equation models with unobservable variables and measurement error. Journal of Marketing Research, 18(1), 39–50. https://doi.org/10.1177/00222437810180010
14. Fraenkel, J. R., Wallen, N. E., & Hyun, H. H. (2012). How to design and evaluate research in education (7th ed.). McGraw-Hill.
15. Garnett, B. R., Kervick, C. T., Moore, M., Ballysingh, T. A., & Smith, L. C. (2020). School staff and youth perspectives of tier 1 restorative practices classroom circles. School Psychology Review, 51(1), 112–126. https://doi.org/10.1080/2372966X.2020.1795557
16. Gregory, A., Ward-Seidel, A. R., & Carter, K. V. (2020). Twelve indicators of restorative practices implementation: A framework for educational leaders. Journal of Educational and Psychological Consultation, 31(2), 147–179. https://doi.org/10.1080/10474412.2020.1824788
17. Hendry, R. (2010). Building and restoring respectful relationships in schools: A guide to using restorative practice. Routledge.
18. Hinton, P. R., Perry, R. H., Brownlow B. C., Mcmurray I., & Cozens, B. (2004). SPSS explained. Routledge.
19. Jin, F. (2023). Analysis of restorative justice in handling school bullying. Lecture Notes in Education Psychology and Public Media, 19, 190–195. https://doi.org/10.54254/2753-7048/19/20231431
20. Kayabaşı, Y., & Cemaloğlu, N. (2007). Öğretmenlerin sınıflarında kullandıkları disiplin modellerinin farklı değişkenler açısından incelenmesi. Ahi Evran Üniversitesi Kırşehir Eğitim Fakültesi Dergisi, 8(2), 149–170. https://dergipark.org.tr/en/download/article-file/1495088
21. Kervick, C. T., Garnett, B., Moore, M., Ballysingh, T. A., & Smith, L. C. (2020). Introducing restorative practices in a diverse elementary school to build community and reduce exclusionary discipline: Year one processes, facilitators, and next steps. The School Community Journal, 30(2), 155–184. http://www.schoolcommunitynetwork.org/SCJ.aspx
22. Kline, R. B. (2005). Principles and practice of structural equation modeling (2nd ed.). The Guilford Press. Lodi, E., Perrella, L., Lepri, G.L., Scarpa, M.L., & Patrizi, P. (2022). Use of restorative justice and restorative practices at school: A systematic literature review. International Journal of Environmental Research and Public Health, 19 (1), 1–33. https://doi.org/10.3390/ijerph19010096
23. Marsh, H. W., & Hocevar, D. (1985). Application of confirmatory factor analysis to the study of self-concept: First- and higher order factor models and their invariance across groups. Psychological Bulletin, 97(3), 562–582. https://doi.org/10.1037/0033-2909.97.3.562
24. Mas-Expósito, L., Krieger, V., Amador-Campos, J. A., Casañas, R., Albertí, M., & Lalucat-Jo, L. (2022). Implementation of whole school restorative approaches to promote positive youth development: Review of relevant literature and practice guidelines. Education Sciences, 12(3), 1–21. https://doi.org/10.3390/educsci12030187
25. Mendel, R. (2021). Back-to-school action guide: Reengaging students and closing the school-to-prison pipeline. The Sentencing Project: Research and Advocacy for Reform. https://assets.aecf.org/m/resourcedoc/sentencingproject-backtoschool-2021.pdf
26. Parimah, F., Davour, M. J., Kofi, C. C., & Winder, B. (2018). Restorative justice ideology among high school teachers in Ghana: Investigating the role of collectivism and personality. Contemporary Justice Review, 21(4), 420–431. https://doi.org/10.1080/10282580.2018.1532794
27. Parker, C., & Bickmore, K. (2020). Complexity in restorative justice education circles: Power and privilege in voicing perspectives about sexual health, identities, and relationships. Journal of Moral Education, 50(4), 471–493. https://doi.org/10.1080/03057240.2020.1832451
28. Peovska, N. (2023, September, 27–29). The role of restorative practices in reducing school violence. In: International scientific conference. Paper presented at International Scientific Conference, Struga. https://doi.org/10.20544/ICP.8.1.23.P26
29. Rogers, R., & Miller, H.V. (2018). Restorative justice. In M. Deflem (Ed.), The handbook of social control, (pp. 167–180). John Wiley & Sons Ltd. https://doi.org/10.1002/9781119372394.ch12
30. Roland, K., Rideout, G, Salinitri, G., & Frey, M. P (2012). Development and use of a restorative justice ideology instrument: assessing beliefs. Contemporary Justice Review, 15(4), 435–447. https://doi.org/10.1080/10282580.2012.734574
31. Sadık, F., & Aslan, S. (2015). İlkokul sınıf öğretmenlerinin disiplin problemleri ile ilgili görüşlerinin incelenmesi. Electronic Turkish Studies, 10(3), 115–138. http://dx.doi.org/10.7827/TurkishStudies.7585
32. San Francisco Unified School District. (2019). Whole school implementation guide: Restorative practices. SFUSD.
33. Sandwick, T., Hahn, J. W., & Hassoun Ayoub, L. (2019). Fostering community, sharing power: Lessons for building restorative justice school cultures. Education Policy Analysis Archives, 27(145), 1–35. https://doi.org/10.14507/epaa.27.4296
34. Schermelleh-Engel, K., Moosbrugger, H., & Müller, H. (2003). Evaluating the fit of structural equation models: Tests of significance and descriptive goodness-of-fit measures. Methods of psychological research online, 8(2), 23–74. https://doi.org/10.23668/psycharchives.12784
35. Selçuk, O. (2019). Cezalandırıcı okul disiplininin okul sosyal hizmeti ve onarıcı adalet açısından fenomenolojik yaklaşımla değerlendirilmesi (Unpublished doktoral dissertation). Hacettepe University, Ankara.
36. Song, S., Milner, T., Thompson, T. R. H., & Sliva, A. (2020). Restorative justice practices: Making schools safe through relationship. Social Pathology & Prevention, 6(2), 19–27. https://doi.org/10.25142/spp.2021.002
37. Talayhan, E., Arı, C., Ezgin, E., Akın, M. Z., & Afşin, Ö. (2022). Sınıf öğretmenlerinin sınıf yönetiminde karşılaştıkları disiplin sorunları ve bu sorunların çözümlerine ilişkin görüşleri. Sosyal, Beşerî ve İdari Bilimler Dergisi, 5(10), 1391–1402. https://doi.org/10.26677/TR1010.2022.1105
38. Tavşancıl, E. (2005). Tutumların ölçülmesi ve SPSS ile veri analizi. Nobel Yayıncılık.
39. Topal, T., & Uzoglu, M. (2020). Discipline problems faced by science teachers in classroom management and solutions for these problems. European Journal of Education Studies, 7(9), 11–25. https://doi.org/10.46827/ejes.v7i9.3219
40. Weber, C., & Vereenooghe, L. (2020). Reducing conflicts in school environments using restorative practices: A systematic review. International Journal of Educational Research Open, 1(56), 1–16. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ijedro.2020.100009
41. West, S. G., Finch, J. F., & Curran, P. J. (1995). Structural equation models with nonnormal variables: Problems and remedies. In R. H. Hoyle (Ed.), Structural equation modeling: Concepts, issues, and applications (pp. 56–75). Sage Publications.
42. Weston, R., & Gore Jr, P. A. (2006). A brief guide to structural equation modeling. The Counseling Psychologist, 34(5), 719–751. https://doi.org/10.1177/0011000006286345