Türkiye'de Matematik Performansının Yordayıcılarının Belirlenmesi: PISA 2022'nin Düşük ve Yüksek Performans Gösteren Öğrenciler İçin Etkileri

Öz

Bu çalışmanın amacı, PISA 2022 Türkiye örneklemindeki öğrenciler arasında düşük ve yüksek matematik performansını öngören değişkenleri belirlemek ve bu değişkenlerin her grup içinde nasıl işlediğini araştırmaktır. Korelasyonel bir yöntem kullanılarak yapılan çalışmada, öğrencilerin okul, sosyal ve duygusal beceriler, akademik ortam ve duygular ile aile ve sosyoekonomik statü algılarının regresyon analizine dayanarak, düşük ve yüksek matematik performans gösterenler arasında başarı seviyelerini öngören değişkenlerin farklılık gösterdiği bulunmuştur. Dersin disiplin ortamı, merak ve kendini güvende hissetme gibi faktörler yüksek performans gösteren öğrencilerin başarısını önemli ölçüde öngörürken, merak, empati, sabır ve sosyoekonomik statü gibi özellikler de düşük performans gösteren öğrencilerin başarısını önemli ölçüde öngörmüştür. Ayrıca, Chow Testi düşük ve yüksek başarı gruplarına yönelik regresyon analizlerinin önemli olduğunu ve grupların ayrı ayrı değerlendirilmesi gerektiğini gösterdi. Çalışma sonuçları, çok sayıda değişkenin öğrencilerin matematik performansını etkilediğini, düşük ve yüksek başarı gösterenler için yordayıcıların farklı olduğunu ve öğrencilerin başarı seviyelerini analiz ederken bunun dikkate alınması gerektiğini göstermektedir.

Anahtar Kelimeler

• PISA 2022
• Matematik Performansı
• Başarı Farkları

Determining the Predictors of Mathematics Performance in Türkiye: Implications for Low and High Performing Learners from PISA 2022

Öz

The purpose of this study is to identify the variables that predict low and high mathematics performance among learners in the PISA 2022 Türkiye sample and to investigate how these variables operate within each group. Using a correlational method, the study found that, based on regression analysis of learners' perceptions of school, social and emotional skills, academic environment, and emotions, as well as family and socioeconomic status, the variables predicting achievement levels differ between low and high math performers. While factors such as the disciplinary environment of the course, curiosity, and feeling secure significantly predicted the achievement of high-performing learners, traits like curiosity, empathy, patience, and socioeconomic status were also significant predictors of low-performing learners. Furthermore, the Chow Test indicated that the regression analyses for the low- and high-achievement groups were substantial, suggesting that the groups should be evaluated separately. The study results show that numerous variables influence learners' math performance, the predictors for low and high achievers differ, and this should be considered when analysing learners' achievement levels.

Anahtar Kelimeler

• PISA 2022
• Mathematics Performance
• Achievement Gaps.

Kaynakça

1. Anıl, D. (2009). Factors affecting science achievement of science students in Türkiye within the scope of the Programme for International Student Achievement (PISA). Eğitim ve Bilim, 34(152), 87-100. https://dergipark.org.tr/tr/download/article-file/65966
2. Ataman, O., & Orhan, A. (2024). Comparative analysis of top-performing countries in PISA and Türkiye’s teacher competences. Trakya Eğitim Dergisi, 14(1), 241-259. Https://doi.org/10.24315/tred.1344790
3. Berkowitz, R., Moore, H., Astor, R., & Benbenishty, R. (2017). A research synthesis of the associations between socioeconomic background, ınequality, school climate, and academic achievement. Review of Educational Research, 87(2), 425-469. https://doi.org/10.3102/0034654316669821.
4. Binning, K., & Browman, A. (2020). Theoretical, ethical, and policy considerations for conducting social–psychological ınterventions to close educational achievement gaps. Social Issues and Policy Review, 14(1), 182-216. https://doi.org/10.1111/sipr.12066.
5. Bradshaw, C. P., Cohen, J., Espelage, D. L., & Nation, M. (2021). Addressing school safety through comprehensive school climate approaches. School Psychology Review, 50(2), 221–236. https://doi.org/10.1080/2372966X.2021.1926321
6. Breda, T., Jouini, E., & Napp, C. (2018). Societal inequalities amplify gender gaps in math. Science, 359(6381), 1219 - 1220. https://doi.org/10.1126/science.aar2307
7. Bronfenbrenner, U. & Morris, P. A. (2006). The bioecological model of human development. In Damon, W. & Lerner, R. M. (Eds), Handbook of child psychology. JohnWiley&Sons
8. Ceylan, E., & Berberoğlu, G. (2007). Factors related with students’ science achievement: A modeling study. Education and Science, 32(144), 36-48. https://educationandscience.ted.org.tr/article/view/732

9. Chan, W., Hollingsworth, M., Espelage, D., & Mitchell, K. (2016). Preventing violence in context: The importance of culture for implementing systemic change. Psychology of Violence, 6(1), 22-26. https://doi.org/10.1037/VIO0000021.
10. Cohen, J., Mccabe, E., Michelli, N., & Pickeral, T. (2009). School climate: Research, policy, practice, and teacher education. Teachers College Record: The Voice of Scholarship in Education, 111(1), 180 - 213. https://doi.org/10.1177/016146810911100108.
11. Coleman, A. (2011). The significance of trust in school-based collaborative leadership. International Journal of Leadership in Education, 15(1), 79–106. https://doi.org/10.1080/13603124.2011.578755
12. Coles, A., & Helliwell, T. (2023). The role of mathematics teacher educators in preparing teachers of mathematics to respond to global challenges within their classrooms. London Review of Education, 21(1), 1-13. https://doi.org/10.14324/lre.21.1.02.
13. Comiskey, C., Dempsey, O., & Curtis, E. (2016). Importance and use of correlational research. Nurse researcher, 23(6), 20-25. https://doi.org/10.7748/nr.2016.e1382.
14. Crawford, M. (2020). Ecological systems theory: exploring the development of the theoretical framework as conceived by Bronfenbrenner. Journal of Public Health Issues and Practices, 4(2), 1-6. https://doi.org/10.33790/jphip1100170.
15. Cury, F., Elliot, A., Da Fonseca, D., & Moller, A. (2006). The social-cognitive model of achievement motivation and the 2 x 2 achievement goal framework. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 90(4), 666-679. https://doi.org/10.1037/0022-3514.90.4.666.
16. Çoban, E., & Kamış, Ö. (2019). Investigation of affective and socioeconomic variables predicting the achievement level of low and high achieving students. Journal of Educational Issues, 5(1), 209-225. https://doi.org/10.5296/jei.v5i1.14792
17. Dai, D., Moon, S., & Feldhusen, J. (1998). Achievement motivation and gifted learners: A social cognitive perspective. Educational Psychologist, 33(2), 45-63. https://doi.org/10.1080/00461520.1998.9653290.
18. De Bortoli, L., Underwood, C., Friedman, T., & Gebhardt, E. (2024). PISA 2022. Reporting Australia’s results. Volume II: Learner and school characteristics. Australian Council for Educational Research. https://doi.org/10.37517/978-1-74286-726-7
19. Demir, E. (2016). Characteristics of 15-year-old students predicting scientific literacy skills in Turkey. International Education Studies, 9(4), 99-107. https://doi.org/10.5539/ies.v9n4p99
20. Eccles, J., & Wigfield, A. (2020). From expectancy-value theory to situated expectancy-value theory: A developmental, social cognitive, and sociocultural perspective on motivation. Contemporary Educational Psychology, 61, 1-58. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.cedpsych.2020.101859.
21. Eccles, J., & Wigfield, A. (2024). The development, testing, and refinement of Eccles, Wigfield, and Colleagues’ situated expectancy-value model of achievement performance and choice. Educational Psychology Review, 36(51), 36-54. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10648-024-09888-9.
22. Else-Quest, N., Hyde, J., & Linn, M. (2010). Cross-national patterns of gender differences in mathematics: a meta-analysis.. Psychological Bulletin, 136(1), 103-127. https://doi.org/10.1037/a0018053.
23. English, L. (2015). STEM: Challenges and opportunities for mathematics education. In Muir, T, Wells, J, & Beswick, K (Eds.) Proceedings of the 39th Meeting of the International Group for the Psychology of Mathematics Education, PME 39 (Volume 1). IGPME.
24. Erümit, S., & Keleş, E. (2022). Examining computer science education of asia-pacific countries successful in the PISA. Journal of Educational Technology and Online Learning, 6(1), 82-104. https://doi.org/10.31681/jetol.1154913.
25. Federici, R. & Skaalvik, E. (2014). Learners’ perceptions of emotional and instrumental teacher support: relations with motivational and emotional responses. International Education Studies, 7(1), 21–36. https://doi.org/10.5539/ies.v7n1p21
26. French, A., Else-Quest, N., Asher, M., Thoman, D., Smith, J., Hyde, J., & Harackiewicz, J. (2023). An intersectional application of expectancy-value theory in an undergraduate chemistry course. Psychology of Women Quarterly, 47(3), 299-319. https://doi.org/10.1177/03616843231153390.
27. Golding, J. (2018). Mathematics education in the spotlight: Its purpose and some implications, London Review of Education, 16(3), 460–473. https://doi.org/10.18546/LRE.16.3.08
28. Gordon, M. (2024). Teaching mathematics with democracy in mind. Education and Culture, 39(1), 60 - 83. https://muse.jhu.edu/article/923158
29. Gürz, A., Denktaş, Z., Yusufoğlu, C., & Sakız, H. (2024). Does collaboration strengthen inclusivity? The impact of teachers' attitudes towards collaboration on their attitudes towards inclusive education. [Conference session]. 4th International Graduate Studies Congress, Uşak, Türkiye.
30. Güven, U., & Sezer, B. B. (2020). The effect of parental pressure on teachers on students' mathematics achievement. Kırşehir Eğitim Fakültesi Dergisi, 21(3), 1380-1399. https://dergipark.org.tr/tr/download/article-file/1489071
31. Harackiewicz, J., Canning, E., Tibbetts, Y., Priniski, S., & Hyde, J. (2016). Closing achievement gaps with a utility-value intervention: disentangling race and social class. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 111(5), 745-765. https://doi.org/10.1037/PSPP0000075.
32. Hertler, S. C., Figueredo, A. J., Peñaherrera-Aguirre, M., Fernandes, H. B. F., Woodley of Menie, M. A. (2018). Urie Bronfenbrenner: toward an evolutionary ecological systems theory. in: life history evolution. Palgrave Macmillan. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-319-90125-1_19
33. James-Brabham, E., Loveridge, T., Sella, F., Wakeling, P., Carroll, D., & Blakey, E. (2021). How do socioeconomic attainment gaps in early mathematical ability arise?. Child Development, 94(6), 1550-1565. https://doi.org/10.1111/cdev.13947.
34. Johnson, E. S. (2018). Ecological systems, complexity, and learner achievement: towards an alternative model of accountability in education. School Leadership Review, 3(3), 41-47. https://scholarworks.sfasu.edu/slr/vol3/iss3/4
35. Karakuş, H., Starkey, P., & Akman, B. (2023). Generalizability of the effectiveness of a preschool mathematics intervention for low-socioeconomic status Turkish children. Child Development, 95(3), 663-678. https://doi.org/10.1111/cdev.14028.
36. Karal, D. (2011). Korkmadan öğrenmek okul ve okul çevresi güvenliği. Ankara: Uluslararası Stratejik Araştırmalar Kurumu.
37. Kelley, T., & Knowles, J. (2016). A conceptual framework for integrated STEM education. International Journal of STEM Education, 3, 1-11. https://doi.org/10.1186/S40594-016-0046-Z.
38. Korkmaz, C., & Şahin, M. (2013). According to PISA 2009 relationship between countries' general and human development levels. Mustafa Kemal Üniversitesi Sosyal Bilimler Enstitüsü Dergisi, 10(22), 225-247.
39. Li, J., Xue, E., Zhou, W., Guo, S. & Zheng, Y. (2025). Students’ subjective well-being, school bullying, and belonging during the COVID-19 pandemic: Comparison between PISA 2018 and PISA 2022. Humanities and Social Sciences Communications, 12(1). https://doi.org/10.1057/s41599-024-04340-3
40. Liu, X., Hansen, K.Y., Valcke, M., & Neve J. D. (2024). A decade of PISA: student perceived instructional quality and mathematics achievement across European countries. ZDM Mathematics Education 56, 859–891. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11858-024-01630-7
41. Lubis, S., Nisya, Z., & Lubis, Y. (2024). Learning environment and early childhood character development in Bronfenbrenner's ecological systems theory. International Journal of Educational Research. 1(4), 44-56. https://doi.org/10.62951/ijer.v1i4.93.
42. Miksza, P., & Elpus, K. (2018). Correlational design and analysis. Design and Analysis for Quantitative Research in Music Education, Oxford Academic, https://doi.org/10.1093/oso/9780199391905.003.0006
43. Mohammadpour, E., & Shekarchizadeh, A. (2013). Mathematics achievement in high and low achieving secondary schools. Educational Psychology, 35(6), 689–713. https://doi.org/10.1080/01443410.2013.864753
44. Morrison, G. M., Furlong, M. J., & Morrison, R. L. (1994). School violence to school safety reframing the issue for school psychologists. School Psychology Review, 23(2), 236–256. https://doi.org/10.1080/02796015.1994.12085709
45. Nation, M., Christens, B. D., Bess, K. D., Shinn, M., Perkins, D. D., & Speer, P. W. (2020). Addressing the problems of urban education: An ecological systems perspective. Journal of Urban Affairs, 42(5), 715–730. https://doi.org/10.1080/07352166.2019.1705847
46. Navarro, J., & Tudge, J. (2022). Technologizing Bronfenbrenner: neo-ecological theory. Current Psychology, 42, 1 - 17. https://doi.org/10.1007/s12144-022-02738-3.
47. OECD. (2023a). PISA 2022 Results (Volume II): Life at School and Support from Home. OECD Publishing. https://doi.org/10.1787/a97db61c-en
48. OECD. (2023b). How learning continued when schools were closed: PISA 2022 Results (Volume II). OECD Publishing. https://doi.org/10.1787/a97db61c-en
49. OECD. (2024), PISA 2022 Technical Report, PISA, OECD Publishing, https://doi.org/10.1787/01820d6d-en.
50. Ouyang, J., Chen, Y., Li, C., & Xu, G. (2025). Statistical analysis of large scale item response data under measurement non invariance: A statistically consistent method and its application to PISA 2022. https://doi.org/10.48550/arXiv.2505.16608
51. Prast, E. J., Weijer-Bergsma, E. V., Miočević, M., Kroesbergen, E., & Luit, J. E. V. (2018). Relations between mathematics achievement and motivation in learners of diverse achievement levels, Contemporary Educational Psychology, 55, 84-96, https://doi.org/10.1016/j.cedpsych.2018.08.002.
52. Repo, J., Reimer, D. & Kilpi-Jakonen, E. (2025). Stability in student well-being and educational disparities across the pandemic: a latent profile analysis of PISA 2018 and 2022 in Finland, Sweden, and Iceland. Large-scale Assess Educ 13(16). https://doi.org/10.1186/s40536-025-00251-0
53. Romero, L. S. (2015). Trust, behavior, and high school outcomes. Journal of Educational Administration, 53(2), 215-236. https://doi.org/10.1108/JEA-07-2013-0079
54. Rusdi, R. (2018). The challenge of mathematics teachers in the globalisation era. Proceeding IAIN Batusangkar, 1(2), 385-396.
55. Schunk, D. (1999). Social-self interaction and achievement behaviour. Educational Psychologist, 34(4), 219-227. https://doi.org/10.1207/S15326985EP3404_3
56. Schunk, D., & Di Benedetto, M. (2020). Motivation and social cognitive theory. Contemporary Educational Psychology, 60. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.cedpsych.2019.101832.
57. Seo, E., Lee, Y., Steingut, R., Alfaro, E., & Lee, K. (2024). Testing the generalizability of the multiplicative effects of expectancy and value across different ages, genders, and races. Learning and Individual Differences, 116. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.lindif.2024.102578.
58. Sincer, S., Özek, B., & Selçuk, E. (2024). Türkiye’s educational journey: evaluating the skills of mathematics, science, reading, and foreign language in the light of international competition. Participatory Educational Research, 11(2), 135-157. https://doi.org/10.17275/per.24.23.11.2.
59. Spitzer, B., & Aronson, J. (2015). Minding and mending the gap: social psychological interventions to reduce educational disparities. The British Journal of Educational Psychology, 85(1), 1-18. https://doi.org/10.1111/bjep.12067.
60. Stanley, K., & Kuo, N. (2022). “It takes a village”: approaching the development of school-family-community partnerships through Bronfenbrenner’s socio-ecological perspectives. Journal of Human Sciences and Extension, 10(1), 1-13. https://doi.org/10.54718/cqbw6379.
61. Tabachnick B. G., & Fidell L. S. (2013). Using multivariate statistics, (6th ed.), MA: Pearson.
62. Thapa, A., Cohen, J., Guffey, S., & Higgins-D'Alessandro, A. (2013). A review of school climate research. Review of Educational Research, 83(3), 357-385. https://doi.org/10.3102/0034654313483907.
63. Watanabe, K. (n.d.) (2023). Fostering fundamental computational skills is a global challenge. Retrieved May 2, 2025, from https://www.openaccessgovernment.org/article/fostering-fundamental-computational-skills-a-global-challenge/167167/
64. Yetkiner, Z. (2010). Achievement and opportunity gaps in mathematics education in Türkiye compared to European Union countries. [Doctarial thesis], Texas A&M University
65. Yetkiner Özel, Z., Özel, S., & Thompson, B. (2013). SES-related mathematics achievement gap in Türkiye compared to european union countries. Education and Science, 38(170). https://educationandscience.ted.org.tr/article/view/1195
66. Yeung, S., King, R., Nalipay, M., & Cai, Y. (2022). Exploring the interplay between socioeconomic status and reading achievement: An expectancy-value perspective. The British Journal of Educational Psychology, 92(3), 1196-1214. https://doi.org/10.1111/bjep.12495.
67. Yılmaz, S. (2020). Türkiye’de mülteci öğrencilerin eğitimi üzerine bir meta-sentez çalışması: sorunlar ve çözümleri. Eğitimde Yeni Yaklaşımlar Dergisi, 3(1), 80-111.
68. Yüksel, M. (2024). Effects of school climate characteristics on students' literacy levels: PISA 2018 data review. Uluslararası Karamanoğlu Mehmetbey Eğitim Araştırmaları Dergisi, 6(2), 153-161. https://doi.org/10.47770/ukmead.1511848
69. Yüksel, M. (2025). The effect of teacher quality factors on students' learning goals. Batı Anadolu Eğitim Bilimleri Dergisi, 16(2), 2081-2101. https://doi.org/10.51460/baebd.1612413
70. Zacharopoulos, G., Sella, F., & Kadosh, C. (2021). The impact of a lack of mathematical education on brain development and future attainment. Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences of the United States of America, 118(24), 1-8. https://doi.org/10.1073/pnas.2013155118.
71. Zaatari, W., & Maalouf, I. (2022). How the Bronfenbrenner bio-ecological system theory explains the development of learners’ sense of belonging to school?. SAGE Open, 12(4), 1-18. https://doi.org/10.1177/21582440221134089.