Professional Ethical Principles for Special Education Teachers

Abstract

Ethics is a discipline that tries to establish ideals and norms by studying and questioning ethical behavior. It also aims to assist institutions and experts to make decisions by differentiating between right and wrong. Professional ethics is one of those disciplines incorporating a sum of principles deviced by professional organizations, approved as correct in time through discussions and seen as an indispensable condition for a profession today. The purpose of this study is to establish professional ethical principles that can be used in special education teachers' pre-service and in-service training, practices and assessment. The research was designed as a scale developing study with a descriptive research model. After the field research, researchers wrote the items for the draft scale and expert opinion was taken for content validity. The tool having 85% content validity was applied to a sample group of 148 special education professionals. Construct validity of the data gathered about importance and compliance dimensions was analyzed with normality, skewness and kurtosis values test, item total correlation and with factor analysis. The minimum score is 33 and the maximum is 132; KMO value was found 86 and the Bartlett test was significant (χ²=2464,435; p=0.00). Although the deviation is not very high the normality tests should be taken into account. After the factor analyses since it was found that the variance explained by the first dimension is low (20%) in this pre application study total scores couldn’t be taken and parametric statistical analysis couldn't be done. The answers to the items were evaluated with percentage and frequency values. Special education professionals see special education professional ethical principles as important and very important; principles seen as little important vary based on education level and professional experience. Among the teachers with B.A, M.A. and Ph.D. degrees of the 33 principles nobody marked any item as “not important”, however, among the compliance principles there are some that they think are not applied.

Key words: Special education, Special education expert, Special education teacher, Professional ethics, Ethical principles.

Keywords

• -

Özel Eğitim Öğretmenleri İçin Mesleki Etik İlkeleri

Öz

Etik, ahlaki davranışları irdeleyip sorgulayarak ideal ve normlar oluşturmaya çalışan; uzmanların yanlış veya doğruyu ayırt ederek karar almalarına yardımcı olmayı amaçlayan bilim dalıdır. ''Mesleki Etik'' bu disiplinlerden biri olup, günümüzde mesleğin olmazsa olmaz koşulu haline gelmiş ilkeler bütününü içerir. Bu çalışmanın amacı ülkemizde öğretmenlerin hizmet öncesi ve hizmet içi eğitimlerinde, uygulamalarında ve değerlendirilmelerinde yararlanılabilecek mesleki etik ilkeleri oluşturmaktır. Betimsel tarama modelinde bir çalışma olarak desenlenen araştırmada, 33 maddeden oluşan değerlendirme aracı araştırmacılar tarafından geliştirilmiştir. Uzman görüşüne sunularak kapsam geçerliği değeri %85 olarak hesaplanmış ve 148 özel eğitim öğretmeni ile uzmandan oluşan örneklem grubu üzerinde uygulanmıştır. ''Önemlilik ve Uyma'' derecelerine ait elde edilen verilerin normallik, basıklık, çarpıklık değerleri, madde toplam korelasyonları, faktör analizi ile yapı geçerliği incelenmiştir. Veri toplama aracından alınacak minimum puan 33, maksimum puan 132; Kaiser-Meyer, Olkin (KMO) değeri ,86 ve Bartlett testi anlamlıdır (χ²=2464,435; p=0.00). Aşırı sapma göstermese de normallik testi sonuçlarının dikkate alınması, faktör analizi sonucunda ilk boyutun tek başına açıkladığı varyansın (%20) düşük olmasından dolayı ön uygulama niteliğinde olan bu çalışmada, toplam puan alınarak parametrik istatistiksel analizler gerçekleştirilmemiş; yanıtlar yüzde ve frekans değerleri ile değerlendirilmiştir. Katılımcıların çoğu özel eğitim mesleki etik ilkelerini önemli ve çok önemli düzeyde görmekte iken; az önemli gördükleri ilkeler eğitim durumu ile mesleki kıdemlerine göre farklılaşmaktadır. Ayrıca lisans, yüksek lisans ve doktora düzeyinde mezunların etik ilkelerin önemliliğine ilişkin görüşleri benzerlik gösterirken, uyma derecesine yönelik görüşleri arasında hiç uyulmadığını düşündükleri ilkeler farklılaşmaktadır.

Anahtar Kelimeler: Özel eğitim, Özel eğitim uzmanı, Özel eğitim öğretmeni, Mesleki etik, Etik ilkeler

Anahtar Kelimeler

• -

Kaynakça

1. Anderson, G. (1990). Fundamentals of educational research. London: The Falmer Pres.
2. Aydın, İ. (2006). Eğitim ve öğretimde etik. (İkinci baskı). Ankara: Pegem A Yayıncılık.
3. Bebeau, M. J. (2002). The defining issues test and the four component model: Contributions to professional education. Journal of Moral Education, 31(3), p.271-325.
4. Bersoff, D. N. & Koeppl, P. M. (1993). The relation between ethical codes and moral principles. Ethics and Behavior, 3, 345–357.
5. Betan, E. J. (1996). Understanding the ethical behavior of clinical psychologists: Incorporatingaffect into the model of ethical decision-making. Unpublished doctoral dissertation. University of Kansas, Lawrence.
6. Cooper, C. C., & Gottlieb, M. C. (2000). Ethical issues with managed care: Challenges facing counseling psychology. Counseling Psychologist, 28(2), 179-236.
7. Cottone, R. R., & Claus, R. E. (2000). Ethical decision-making models: A review of the literature. Journal of Counseling and Development, 78(3), 275-283
8. Council for Exceptional Children. (2009). What every special educator must know: Ethics, standards and guidelines. (Sixth edition). Arlington, VA: Council for Exceptional Children.

9. Council for Exceptional Children. (2010). Council for exceptional children ethical principles for special education professional. http://www.cec.sped.org adresinden 28.06.2011 tarihinde alınmıştır.
10. Harrison, C., & Killion, J. (2007). Ten roles for teacher leaders. Teachers as Leaders, 65 (1), 74-77.
11. Hildebrand, D., Saklofske, D.H., Von, Baeyer, C.L., & Yackulc, R.A. (1995). Ethical decision-making in professional consultative practice: A school psychology perspective. Revue Des Scıences De L’Education De Mcgill, 30(3), 239-256.
12. Karasar, N. (2006). Bilimsel araştırma yöntemi. (16. Baskı). Ankara: Nobel Yayın Dağıtım.
13. Kidder, R.M (1995). How good people make tough choıces resolving the dilemmas of ethical living. Institute for Global Ethics 24.07.2015 tarihinde http://www.udel.edu/richard/cisc355/Readings/ excerpt_tc_first_chapter1.pdf adresinden alındı.
14. Kuçuradi, İ. (2000). Felsefi etik ve meslek etikleri. Ankara: Türkiye Felsefe Kurumu Yayınları.
15. Kultgen, J. (1988).Ethics and professionalism. Philadelphia: University of Pennsylvania Press.
16. Lewis, J. C. (1998). The effects of moral orientation variables on counselor effectiveness ratings (Doctoral dissertation, Mississippi State University, 1998). Dissertation AbstractsInternational, 59, 1079.
17. Linstrum, K. (2009). Ethical training, moral development, and ethical decision making in master's level counseling students, Journal of College and Character, 10(3).
18. Mabe, A. R., & Rollin, S. A. (1986). The role of ethical standards in counseling. Journal of
19. Counseling and Development, 64, 294-297.
20. MEB. (2008). Öğretmenlik mesleği özel alan yeterlikleri. Ankara: Milli Eğitim Basımevi
21. Miles, M.B. & Huberman, M.A. (1994). Qualitative data analysis: An expanded sourcebook (2 nd Ed.) California: SAGE Publications.
22. Narvaez, D., Getz, I., Rest, J. R., & Thoma, S. J. (1999). Individual moral judgment and cultural ideology. Developmental Psychology, 35(2), 478-488.
23. Neukrug, E., Lovell, C., & Parker, R. (1996). Employing ethical codes and decision making
24. models: A developmental process. Counseling and Values, 40, 98-106.
25. Newman, L. & Pollnitz. L. (2002). Professional, ethical and legal issues in Early Childhood (pp.76-123). Applying the ethical response model. https://tr.scribd.com/doc/165920672/Applying-the-Ethical-Response-Model adresinden 24.07.2015 tarihinde alınmıştır.
26. New Zealand Teachers Council (2004). New Zealand teachers counduct rules council 2004/143 1/0572016 tarihinde https://educationcouncil.org. adresinden alınmıştır.
27. New Zealand Teachers Council (2007). Code of ethics for registered teachers. Wellington: NZ Teachers Council.
28. Özdamar, K. (2004). Paket programlar ile istatistiksel veri analizi. Eskişehir: Kaan Yayıncılık.
29. Öztürk-Aynal, Ş., Kumandaş, H. ve Ersanlı, K. (2013). Okul öncesi öğretmenlere yönelik mesleki etik ilkeleri ölçeği geliştirme çalışması. Ahi Evran Üniversitesi Kırşehir Eğitim Fakültesi Dergisi (KEFAD), 14(1), 429-442.
30. Ponemon, L., & Glazer, A.(1990). Accounting education and ethical development: Theinfluence of liberal learning on students and alumni in accounting practice. Issues in AccountingEducation 5(2), 195-207.
31. Rest, J. R., Narvaez, D., Thoma, S. J., & Bebeau, M. J. (1999). DIT2: Devising and testing a
32. revised instrument of moral judgment. Journal of Educational Psychology, 91(4), 644-
33. -
34. Rice, C. & Stein, C. (2009). Measuring the ethical levels of special education teachers. The Open Ethics Journal, 3(13), 13-19.
35. Stenberg, K. (2010). Identity work as a tool for promoting the professional development of student teachers. Reflective Practice, 11(3), 331–346.
36. Stenberg, K., Karlsson, L., Pitkaniemi, H. & Maaranen, K. (2014). Beginning student teachers’ teacher identities based on their practical theories. European Journal of Teacher Education, 37(2), 204-219.
37. Strike, K. A. (1990). Teaching ethics to teachers: What the curriculum should be about. Teacher & Teacher Education. 6(1), 47-53.
38. Strong, M. (2006). Does new teacher support affect student achievement? Santa Cruz, CA: New Teacher Center, U.C. Santa Cruz. www.aspeninstitute.org adresinden 29.06.2015 tarihinde alınmıştır.
39. Teacher Training Agency. (1999). National special educational needs specialist standards. London: Tecaher Training Agency Publications (TTA). Portland House, Satg Place, London. SW. Publication number 91/12-99
40. Teacher Training Agency. (2009). National special educational needs specialist standards. London: Teacher Training Agency, (TTA). Portland House, Satg Place, London. SW. Publication number 91/12-09
41. Tilley, E. (2005). The ethics pyramid: Making ethics unavoidable int he public relations process. Journal of Mass Media Ethics, 20(4), 305-320.
42. Tsalikis, J., & Fritzsche, D.J. (1989). Business ethics: A literature review with a focus on marketing ethics. Journal of Business Ethics, 8(9), 695-743.
43. Yıldırım, A. ve Şimşek, H. (2008). Sosyal bilimlerde nitel araştırma yöntemleri. (7.Baskı). Ankara: Seçkin Yayıncılık.