TEACHERS’ ETHICAL CONCERNS AND PERCEPTIONS OF PROFESSIONAL RESPONSIBILITY IN THE AGE OF ARTIFICIAL INTELLIGENCE

Abstract

The aim of this study is to examine the ethical concerns and professional responsibility perceptions of teachers regarding the integration of artificial intelligence technologies into educational settings with a holistic approach. In today's world where digital transformation in education is accelerating, it is aimed to understand not only the technical competencies of teachers but also their experiences in the context of data privacy, algorithmic justice, and professional autonomy. The research was designed according to the qualitative research method and the phenomenology design was adopted.  The study group consists of 10 teachers working in different branches, determined using criterion sampling, one of the purposeful sampling methods. The data were collected through a semi-structured interview form developed by the researcher and analyzed using the content analysis technique. According to the research findings, teachers view artificial intelligence tools as a powerful assistant that saves time rather than a factor threatening the profession. However, despite this optimistic approach, it has been determined that the teachers' biggest concern is student data privacy and surveillance (digital panopticon). In addition, participants have a strong awareness that artificial intelligence algorithms may harbor historical and societal biases, and this situation may damage equal opportunity in education and lead to justice problems. The lack of transparency in the decision-making processes of current artificial intelligence systems (the black box problem) makes it difficult for teachers to trust the system and ensures accountability.

As a result of the study, it was observed that the teaching profession has evolved from being a transmitter of knowledge to a role of ethical gatekeeper and digital mentorship that designs the learning process and supervises artificial intelligence outputs. Teachers argue that the final decision and responsibility should remain under human supervision; however, they state that current in-service trainings are insufficient in covering ethical and pedagogical dimensions.