Bu çalışmada matematik öğretmenlerinin öğretimsel kararlarındaki etik değerlendirmelerin belirlenmesi amaçlanmıştır. Araştırma çoklu durum çalışması olarak desenlenmiştir. Araştırmanın çalışma grubu üç ortaokul matematik öğretmenidir. Çalışmanın verileri katılımcılarla bir seri halinde ardışık olarak yapılan yarı yapılandırılmış görüşmelerle toplanmıştır. Öğretmen kararlarına ilişkin veri toplama sürecinde yapılan görüşmeler tanıma, plan, uygulama ve ölçme-değerlendirme olmak üzere dört başlık altında yürütülmüştür. Öğretmen kararları, “etik değerlendirme içeren kararlar” ve “etik değerlendirme dışında konuya yaklaşma" başlıkları altında betimsel analize tabi tutulmuştur. Öğretmenin hak, değer ve yükümlülüklerle ilgili sorular veya sorgulamalarına dayalı olarak aldığı kararlar etik değerlendirme içeren durumlar olarak sınıflandırılmıştır. Yapılan analizler sonucunda, matematik öğretim sürecinde planlama, uygulama ve ölçme-değerlendirme kapsamında birçok önemli kararın öğretmenler tarafından yapılan etik değerlendirmelere dayalı olarak alındığı belirlenmiştir. Ayrıca etik değerlendirmelerin öğretmen seçimlerinde köklü ve yaygın bir etki alanına sahip olduğu görülmüştür. Bu bulgulara dayalı olarak etik değerlendirmelerin uygulamaya ilişkin kararları şekillendirmedeki önemi üzerinde durulmuş ve öğretime ilişkin uygulamaları anlama ve anlamlandırma çabalarında göz ardı edilmemesi gereken bir bileşen olduğu ifade edilmiştir.
This study aims to determine mathematics teachers’ ethical evaluations in instructional decisions. The research was designed as multiple case study. The participants were three elementary mathematics teachers. The data were collected through a series of semi-structured interviews with teachers. Data collection process was structured under fourtopics: background of teacher, planning, implementation and assessment-evaluation. Teacher decisions were subjected to a descriptive analysis with two main classifications: evaluations with and without ethical considerations. Teacher decisions based on questions and queries regarding rights, values and obligations were classified as situations involving ethical evaluations. The findings suggest that teachers take many important decisions on the basis of evaluations with ethical considerations within the scope of planning, implementation and assessment-evaluation. Further to this, it was observed that ethical evaluations had a longstanding and widespread impact on teachers’ instructional choices. It is argued that evaluations with ethical considerations are so important to shape implementational decisions that cannot be ignored while attempting to understand teachers’ instructional practices.
Atweh, B., & Brady, K. (2009). Socially responseable mathematics education: implications of an ethical approach. Eurasia Journal of Mathematics, Science & Technology Education, 5(3), 267-276.
Barrett, D. E., Casey, J. E., Visser, R. D., & Headley, K. N. (2012). How do teachers make judgments about ethical and unethical behaviors? Toward the development of a code of conduct for teachers. Teaching and Teacher Education, 28(6), 890-898.
Barrett, D. E., Neal Headley, K., Stovall, B., & Witte, J. C. (2006). Teachers' perceptions of the frequency and seriousness of violations of ethical standards. The Journal of Psychology, 140(5), 421-433.
Bartell, T. G. (2013). Learning to teach mathematics for social justice: Negotiating social justice and mathematical goals. Journal for Research in Mathematics Education, 44(1), 129-163.
Beauchamp, T. L., & Childress, J. F. (2001). Principles of biomedical ethics. Oxford University Press, USA.
Benninga, J. S. (2013). Resolving ethicalissues at school. Issues in TeacherEducation, 22(1), 77- 88.
Beswick, K. (2012). Teachers' beliefs about school mathematics and mathematicians' mathematics and their relationship to practice. Educational Studies in Mathematics, 79(1), 127-147.
Bishop, A. J. (1994). Cultural conflicts in mathematics education: Developing a research agenda. For the Learning of Mathematics, 14(2), 15-18.
Bishop, A., Seah, W. T., & Chin, C. (2003). Values in mathematics teaching—The hidden persuaders? In Second international handbook of mathematics education (pp. 717-765). Springer, Dordrecht.
Boaler, J., &Greeno, J. G. (2000). Identity, agency, and knowing in mathematics worlds. Multiple Perspectives on Mathematics Teaching And Learning, 171-200.
Boylan, M. (2016). Ethical dimensions of mathematics education. Educational Studies in Mathematics, 92(3), 395-409.
Bucholz, J. L., Keller, C. L., & Brady, M. P. (2007). Teachers' Ethical Dilemmas: What Would You Do? Teaching Exceptional Children, 40(2), 60-64.
Chan, Y. C., & Wong, N. Y. (2014). Worldviews, religions, and beliefs about teaching and learning: perception of mathematics teachers with different religious backgrounds. Educational Studies in Mathematics, 87(3), 251-277.
Creswell, J. W. (2013). Qualitative inquiry and research method: Choosing among five approaches. Los Angeles, CA.
Develaki, M. (2008). Social and ethical dimension of the natural sciences, complex problem softheage, interdisciplinarily, and the contribution of education. Science &Education, 17(8-9), 873-888.
Fenech, M., &Lotz, M. (2018). Systems advocacy in the professional practice of early childhood teachers: from the antithetical to the ethical. Early Years, 38(1), 19-34.
Fisher, Y. (2013). Exploration of values: Israel teachers’ professional ethics. Social Psychology of Education, 16(2), 297-315.
Gates, P. (2006). Going beyond belief systems: Exploring a model for the social influence on mathematics teacher beliefs. Educational Studies in Mathematics, 63(3), 347-369.
Gates, P., & Jorgensen, R. (2009). Fore grounding social justice in mathematics teacher education. Journal of Mathematics Teacher Education, 12(3), 161-170.
Glaser, B., G., & Strauss, A., L. (1967). The discovery of grounded theory: Strategies for qualitative research: New York: Aldine de Gruyter.
Gutstein, E. (2003). Teaching and learning mathematics for social justice in an urban, Latino school. Journal for Research in Mathematics education, 37-73.
Hannula, M. S. (2012). Exploring new dimensions of mathematics-related affect: embodied and social theories. Research in Mathematics Education, 14(2), 137-161.
Jameton A. (1984) Nursing Practice: The Ethical Issues. Prentice Hall, Englewood Cliffs, NJ.
Kormondy, E. J. (1990). Ethics & values in the biology classroom. The American Biology Teacher, 52(7), 403-407.
Kuçuradi, İ. (2015). Etik. Türkiye Felsefe Kurumu.
Kuntze, S. (2012). Pedagogical content beliefs: global, content domain-related and situation-specific components. Educational Studies in Mathematics, 79(2), 273-292.
Maxwell, B.,& Schwimmer, M. (2016). Seeking the elusive ethical base of teacher professionalism in Canadian codes of ethics. Teaching and Teacher Education, 59, 468-480.
Millî Eğitim Bakanlığı. (2015). Genelge. Eğitimciler için mesleki etik ilkeler. http://personel.meb.gov.tr/genelge_gorus_yonerge/ET%C4%B0K%20GENELGE.pdf
Murphy, M. S.,Pinnegar, E., &Pinnegar, S. (2011). Exploring ethicaltensions on the path to becoming a teacher. Teacher Education Quarterly, 38(4), 97-113.
Neyland, J. (2004). Toward a postmodern ethics of mathematics education. Mathematics Education with in the Postmodern, 55-73.
National Education Association. (2011). NEA home. Retrieved from http://www.nea.org/home/30442.htm
Noddings, N. (2012). The caring relation in teaching. Oxford Review of Education, 38(6), 771-781.
OECD, T. (2016). Supporting Teacher Professionalism. Insights from TALIS 2013. https://www.oecd.org/publications/supporting-teacher-professionalism-9789264248601-en.htm
Orchard, J., Heilbronn, R., & Winstanley, C. (2016). Philosophy for Teachers (P4T)– developing new teachers’ applied ethical decisionmaking. Ethics and Education, 11(1), 42-54.
Radford, L., &Roth, W. M. (2011). Intercorporeality and ethical commitment: An activity perspectiveon classroom interaction. Educational Studies in Mathematics, 77(2-3), 227-245.
Sam, L., & Ernest, P. (1997). Values in mathematics education: what is planned and what is espoused?. British Society for Research into Learning Mathematics, 37.
Santagata, R., & Yeh, C. (2016). The role of perception, interpretation, and decision making in the development of beginning teachers’ competence. ZDM, 48(1-2), 153-165.
Schoenfeld, A. H. (1999). Models of theteaching process. The Journal of Mathematical Behavior, 18(3), 243-261.
Schoenfeld, A. H. (2011). Toward professional development for teachers grounded in a theory of decision making. ZDM, 43(4), 457-469.
Shapira-Lishchinsky, O. (2011). Teachers’ critical incidents: Ethical dilemmas in teaching practice. Teaching and Teacher Education, 27(3), 648- 656.
Stockall, N.,&Dennis, L. R. (2015). Seven basic steps to solving ethical dilemmas in special education: A decision-making framework. Education and Treatment of Children, 38(3), 329-344.
Walshaw, M. . (2013). Post-structuralism and ethical practical action: Issues of identity and power Journal for Research in Mathematics Education, 44(1), 100-118.
Williams, J. R. (2005). Medical ethics manual. World Medical Association. https://www.wma.net/wpcontent/uploads/2016/11/Ethics_manual_3rd_Nov2015_en.pdf
Yang, X., Kaiser, G., König, J., &Blömeke, S. (2019). Professional Noticing of Mathematics Teachers: a Comparative Study Between Germany and China. International Journal of Science and Mathematics Education, 17(5), 943-963.
Yin, R. K. (2009). Case study research: Design and methods. Sage publications.