KaydedilenlerDerginizi ekleyin

Dergiler / Erzincan Üniversitesi Eğitim Fakültesi Dergisi / 2026 / Cilt: 28 Sayı: 2026

Türk Eğitim Sisteminde Özel Eğitim Destek Hizmetlerinin Bürokratik Hesap Verebilirlik Açısından İncelenmesi: Nitel Bir Araştırma

An Examination of Special Education Support Services in the Turkish Education System in Terms of Bureaucratic Accountability: A Qualitative Research

Nilüfer Altun(ORDU ÜNİVERSİTESİ, EĞİTİM FAKÜLTESİ)0000-0001-8502-0286
Oğuzhan Hazır(ATATÜRK ÜNİVERSİTESİ)0000-0001-6010-9364
Sayfa
1–9
Yayın Tarihi
2026-03-29
🏛️Bu makalenin bibliyografik verileri ve tam metin bağlantısı DergiPark üzerinden sağlanmıştır.
DergiPark Kaydı ↗
✨

Yapay Zeka Hızlı Bakış & Çıkarımlar

AI Insight
⚡ TL;DR(1 Cümlede Hızlı Çıkarım)

Araştırma bulguları, mevcut bürokratik hesap verebilirlik mekanizmalarının, destek eğitim öğretmenlerini asıl rollerinden uzaklaştırarak onları "evrak işlerine odaklanan bürokratlara" dönüştürdüğünü göstermektedir.

📌 3 Maddede Bu Makale

🎯
Amaç & Hipotez:Bu çalışma, Türkiye’nin bir bölgesinde sunulan özel eğitim destek hizmetlerinin uygulama kalitesini bürokratik hesap verebilirlik çerçevesinde incelemektedir.
📊
Temel Bulgular & Veri:Yorumlayıcı paradigmaya dayalı nitel vaka çalışması olarak tasarlanan araştırmaya, ortaokullarda görev yapan 10 destek eğitim öğretmeni ve hafif zihinsel yetersizliği bulunan 8 ortaokul öğrencisi katılmıştır.
💡
Sonuç & Katkı:Araştırma bulguları, mevcut bürokratik hesap verebilirlik mekanizmalarının, destek eğitim öğretmenlerini asıl rollerinden uzaklaştırarak onları "evrak işlerine odaklanan bürokratlara" dönüştürdüğünü göstermektedir.
🔬Tür:Modelleme & Sayısal Simülasyon
📍Kapsam:Genişletilmiş Akademik Örneklem
⚙️Değişkenler:kaynak odası · bürokratik hesap verebilirlik · özel eğitim destek hizmetleri

Özet

Bu çalışma, Türkiye’nin bir bölgesinde sunulan özel eğitim destek hizmetlerinin uygulama kalitesini bürokratik hesap verebilirlik çerçevesinde incelemektedir. Araştırmanın temel odağını, kapsayıcı eğitim paradigması ışığında, mevcut mevzuatın pedagojik bir derinlik mi sağladığı yoksa yalnızca prosedürel bir uyumla mı sınırlı kaldığı sorusu oluşturmaktadır. Yorumlayıcı paradigmaya dayalı nitel vaka çalışması olarak tasarlanan araştırmaya, ortaokullarda görev yapan 10 destek eğitim öğretmeni ve hafif zihinsel yetersizliği bulunan 8 ortaokul öğrencisi katılmıştır. Yarı yapılandırılmış görüşmeler aracılığıyla toplanan veriler, tümevarımsal tematik analiz yöntemiyle çözümlenmiştir. Analizler sonucunda; pedagojik farklılık, sembolik başarının meşrulaştırılması ve metodolojik uyum olmak üzere üç temel tema saptanmıştır. Bu temalar altında; paydaşlar arası iş birliği ve etkileşim eksikliği, gerçek performansı maskeleyen kağıt üzerindeki başarılar ve yetersiz fiziksel/materyal koşullar altında geliştirilen zorunlu yöntemler ön plana çıkmaktadır. Araştırma bulguları, mevcut bürokratik hesap verebilirlik mekanizmalarının, destek eğitim öğretmenlerini asıl rollerinden uzaklaştırarak onları "evrak işlerine odaklanan bürokratlara" dönüştürdüğünü göstermektedir. Bu doğrultuda, karar vericilerin niteliksel hesap verebilirliği esas alan yeni denetim modelleri geliştirmesi ve destek eğitim odaların fiziksel/maddi altyapısını düzenli olarak desteklemesi önerilmektedir.

Abstract

This study aims to examine the practical quality of special education support services in a region of Türkiye within the framework of bureaucratic accountability. The main issue discussed is whether, in light of the inclusive paradigm, the legislation creates pedagogical depth or procedural compliance in the field. This study adopted a qualitative case study design based on an interpretive paradigm. Ten Learning Support Teachers (LST) working in middle schools and eight middle school students with mild intellectual disabilities participated in the study, and semi-structured interviews were conducted with these participants. The data were analyzed thematically using an inductive approach, and three themes emerged: pedagogical divergence, legitimization of symbolic success, and methodological adaptation. Under these three themes, the following emerged: a lack of cooperation and interaction, the legitimization of symbolic achievements that overshadow actual performance, and methodological adaptations in the face of physical environments and material deficiencies. In conclusion, this study shows that bureaucratic accountability transforms LST into paperwork-focused bureaucrats rather than focusing on their teaching role. Therefore, it is recommended that authorities conduct studies on qualitative accountability and that resource rooms be regularly supported with physical and material resources.

🔖

Bu Makaleye Atıf Yap

Altun, N., Hazır, O. (2026). Türk Eğitim Sisteminde Özel Eğitim Destek Hizmetlerinin Bürokratik Hesap Verebilirlik Açısından İncelenmesi: Nitel Bir Araştırma. Erzincan Üniversitesi Eğitim Fakültesi Dergisi, Cilt: 28 Sayı: 2026, 1–9. https://doi.org/10.17556/erziefd.1864587

📄 Tam Metin PDF Okuyucu

📄

PDF görüntüleyici hazırlanıyor...

Kaynakça (49)

  1. Ainscow, M. (2020). Promoting inclusion and equity in education: lessons from international experiences. Nordic Journal of Studies in Educational Policy, 6(1), 7–16. https://doi.org/10.1080/20020317.2020.1729587
  2. Aktan, O. (2025). Meta-synthesıs of research on resource educatıon rooms (2015–2025). In M. Cosgun-Ögeyık & H.R.O Zuniga (Eds.), 14th International New York Academic Research Congress on Social, Humaties, Administrative, and Educational Sciences Proceeding Book (pp. 1983-1998). https://doi.org/10.30546/19023.978-9952-610-04-08.2025.5097.
  3. Akay, E. (2023). Teachers’ opinions on the attending of the hearing-impaired students in the inclusion environment and the resource room services. Journal of Qualitative Research in Education, 33, 112-131. https://doi.org/10.14689/enad.33.882
  4. Altunkaynak, M. (2024). Opinions of students receiving education in resource room on ın-tegration practice and problems they encounter. Mevzu – Journal of Social Sciences, (O2-Interdisciplinary Studies in Special Education), 103-125. https://doi.org/10.56720/mevzu.1581362
  5. Arslan Armutcu, O. Kurt, M., & Genel, M. (2024). Teachers’ views on the IEP development process in special education and rehabilitation centers. Bolu Abant İzzet Baysal University Faculty of Education Journal, 23(4), 433-457. https://doi.org/10.17240/aibuefd.2024.-1314006
  6. Al Hazmi, A. N., & Ahmad, A. C. (2018). Universal Design for Learning to support access to the general education curriculum for students with ıntellectual disabilities. World Journal of Education, 8(2), 66-72.https://doi.org/10.5430/wje.v8n2p66
  7. Al-Humedhi, H. (1999). An analysis of bureaucratic accountability in the American public sector and its implications for the Saudi bureaucracy. J. King Saud University, 11(1), 1-18. https://cba.ksu.edu.sa/sites/cba.ksu.edu.sa/files/imce_images/v11m130r1955.pdf
  8. Al Mamari, K. H. (2022). Resource room support services for students with learning disabilities: the context of Oman. Journal of Education-Sohag University, 100(100). edusohag.journals.ekb.eg/article_257435_0eeaf452e796ad96679548e9191c0ab2.pdf.
  9. Atbasi, Z., & Hazir, O. (2025). Empathy beyond the classroom: transforming trainee teachers through direct interaction with adults with intellectual disabilities. International Journal of Developmental Disabilities, 71(8), 1268–1278. https://doi.org/10.1080/20473869.2025.2462922
  10. Bal Çelik, Y., & Çelik, Y. (2025). Investigation of Primary School Teachers Opinions on The Support Education Room. Van Yüzüncü Yıl University Faculty of Education Journal, 22(3), 771-796. https://dergipark.org.tr/en/pub/yyuefd/article/1615424
  11. Björn, P. M., Aro, M. T., Koponen, T. K., Fuchs, L. S., & Fuchs, D. H. (2016). The many faces of special education within RTI frameworks in the United States and Finland. Learning disability quarterly, 39(1), 58-66. https://doi.org/10.1177/0731948715594787
  12. Brantlinger, E., Jimenez, R., Klingner, J., Pugach, M., & Richardson, V. (2005). Qualitative studies in special education. Exceptional Children, 71(2), 195-207. https://doi.org/10.1177/001440290507100205
  13. Brinkmann, S.& Kvale, S. (2014). Interviews: Learning the craft of qualitative research interviewing. 3rd ed. Sage.
  14. Bouck, E. C. (2010). Reports of life skills training for students with intellectual disabilities in and out of school. Journal of Intellectual Disability Research, 54(12), 1093-1103. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1365-2788.2010.01339.x
  15. Bouck, E. C., & Maher, C. (2019). Special education for young learners with intellectual disabilities. In Special Education for Young Learners with Disabilities (Vol. 34, pp. 55-71). Emerald Publishing Limited.https://doi.org/10.1108/S0270-401320190000034004
  16. Bouck, E. C., & Park, J. (2016). Inclusion and students with an intellectual disability. In General and special education inclusion in an age of change: Impact on students with disabilities (pp. 49-64). Emerald Group Publishing Limited. https://doi.org/10.1108/S0270-401320160000031004
  17. Bozak, B., & Çay, E. (2023). Teachers’ opinions on the place and importance of support education rooms in inclusion practice. Mustafa Kemal University Faculty of Education Journal, 7(11), 1-18. https://doi.org/10.56677/mkuefder.1321255
  18. Cohen, L., Manion, L., & Morrison, K. (2011). Research methods in education. 7thed. Routledge.
  19. Denzin, N. K., & Lincoln, Y. S. (Eds.). (2018). The SAGE handbook of qualitative research (5th ed.). SAGE Publications.
  20. Florian, L. (2019). On the necessary co-existence of special and inclusive education. International journal of inclusive education, 23(7-8), 691-704. https://doi.org/10.1080/13603116.2019.1622801
  21. Florian, L., Young, K., & Rouse, M. (2010). Preparing teachers for inclusive and diverse educational environments: Studying curricular reform in an initial teacher education course. International Journal of inclusive education, 14(7), 709-722. https://doi.org/10.1080/13603111003778536
  22. Forlin, C. (2010). Developing and implementing quality inclusive education in Hong Kong: Implications for teacher education. Journal of Research in Special Educational Needs, 10, 177-184. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1471-3802.2010.01162.x
  23. Güven, D. (2021a). An overview of inclusion practices and supportive special education services. International Journal of Eurasia Social Sciences (IJOESS), 12(43), 143-161. http://dx.doi.org/10.35826/ijoess.2878
  24. Güven, D. (2021b). Role and responsibilities of support room teacher. Trakya Journal of Education, 11(1), 450-463. https://doi.org/10.24315/tred.770595
  25. Güven, D. (2021c). Resource room service, Inonu University Journal of the Faculty of Education, 22(1), 533-555. https://doi.org/10.17679/inuefd.741208
  26. Hazir, O., & Harris, R. (2025). Inclusive education in primary education teacher training in Türkiye: An absent curriculum?. Journal of Research in Special Educational Needs.https://doi.org/10.1111/1471-3802.70002
  27. Liew, J. Y. A., & Loh, S. C. (2023). Resource room set up as means for development of inclusive education in an international school. Journal of Special Needs Education, 13, 26–46. https://journal.nase.org.my/index.php/jsne/article/view/88
  28. Murphy, M. (2009) Bureaucracy and its limits: accountability and rationality in higher education, British Journal of Sociology of Education, 30:6, 683-695. https://doi.org/10.1080/01425690903235169
  29. Allaham M. R., Siaw, Y.L., & Nor, A. M. (2022). Roles of resource room teachers in primary schools: a case study on special education in Palestine. Journal of Special Needs Education, 12, 31–51. https://journal.nase.org.my/index.php/jsne/article/view/77
  30. McLaughlin, M. J., & Thurlow, M. (2003). Educational accountability and students with disabilities: Issues and challenges. Educational Policy, 17(4), 431-451. https://doi.org/10.1177/0895904803254962
  31. Merriam, S. B., & Tisdell, E. J. (2016). Qualitative Research: A Guide to Design and Implementation (4th ed.). San Francisco, CA: Jossey-Bass.
  32. Ministry of National Education [MoNE]. (2017). Kaynastırma/bütünleştirme yoluyla eğitim uygulamaları genelgesi [Circular No. 2017/28].
  33. Ministry of National Education [MoNE]. (2018). Özel Eğitim Hizmetleri Yönetmeliği [Special Education Services Regulation]. Resmî Gazete [Official Gazette].https://www.mevzuat.gov.tr/MevzuatMetin/yonetmelik/7.5.24736.pdf
  34. O’Loughlin, M. G. (1990). What is bureaucratic accountability and how can we measure it?. Administration & Society, 22(3), 275-302. https://doi.org/10.1177/009539979002200301
  35. Pekince Kardaş, D. (2019). Putting bureaucratic accountability into a perspective in terms of academic achievement. Educational Assessment, Evaluation and Accountability, 31(3), 349-375. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11092-019-09304-9
  36. Sakız, H., Ergün, N., & Göksu, İ. (2024). Developing and validating the attitudes towards Inclusive Education Scale (AIES) around contemporary paradigms of inclusion. The Asia-Pacific Education Researcher, 33(5), 1053-1069. https://doi.org/10.1007/s40299-023-00772-8
  37. Sakız, H., & Sarıçalı, M. (2019). Paradigmatic challenges in school counselling: Correlates and reflections on practice. Journal of Psychologists and Counsellors in Schools, 29(1), 69-81. https://doi.org/10.1017/jgc.2018.23
  38. Sermier Dessemontet, R., & Bless, G. (2013). The impact of including children with intellectual disability in general education classrooms on the academic achievement of their low-, average-, and high-achieving peers. Journal of Intellectual & Developmental Disability, 38(1), 23–30. https://doi.org/10.3109/13668250.2012.757589
  39. Sharma, U., Loreman, T., & Forlin, C. (2012). Measuring teacher efficacy to implement inclusive practices. Journal of research in special educational needs, 12(1), 12-21. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1471-3802.2011.01200.x
  40. Şahin, A., & Gürler, B. (2018). Identifying the difficulties experienced by teachers working in support education rooms and ınclusive environments in the process of preparing ındividualized education programs. Adıyaman University Journal of Social Sciences Institute, (29), 594-625. https://doi.org/10.14520/adyusbd.437206
  41. Talas, S., Türkoğlu, G. & Secil-Karamuklu E. (2022). A systematic review of support education rooms in Türkiye. Cumhuriyet International Journal of Education, 11(3):575-586. https://doi.org/10.30703/cije.1126957
  42. Tosun, F. Ç., & Almış, S. (2023). Planning, cost and financing of resource rooms in primary schools. Baskent University Journal of Education, 10(1), 78-96. https://dergipark.org.tr/en/pub/bujoe/article/1564540
  43. Weerheijm, B., Galdames, M., & Giest, S. (2026). Bureaucratic accountability: enabler or barrier for algorithm use? Policy Design and Practice, 9(1), 16–52. https://doi.org/10.1080/25741292.2025.2578064
  44. World Medical Association. (2013). World Medical Association Declaration of Helsinki: Ethical principles for medical research involving human subjects. JAMA, 310(20), 2191–2194. https://doi.org/10.1001/jama.2013.281053
  45. Yazıcıoğlu, T. (2020). Teachers’ views on the functioning of support education rooms. Ankara University Faculty of Educational Sciences Special Education Journal, 21(2) 299-327. https://doi.org/10.21565/ozelegitimdergisi.584392
  46. Yıldırır, A., Demirden, K., Sarıgeçili, M., & Yıldırır, İ. (2024). Teachers’ views on support education rooms. Turkish Journal of Educational Research, 5(1), 1-16. https://www.sakajournals.org/ojs/index.php/tjer/article/view/97
  47. Yin, R.K. (2018). Case study research and applications: Design and methods (6th ed.). SAGE Publications.
  48. Arslan Armutcu, O. Kurt, M., & Genel, M. (2024). Teachers’ views on the IEP development process in special education and rehabilitation centers. Bolu Abant İzzet Baysal University Faculty of Education Journal, 23(4), 433-457. https://doi.org/10.17240/aibuefd.2024.-1314006
  49. Ministry of National Education [MoNE]. (2018). Özel Eğitim Hizmetleri Yönetmeliği [Special Education Services Regulation]. Resmî Gazete [Official Gazette].https://www.mevzuat.gov.tr/MevzuatMetin/yonetmelik/7.5.24736.pdf