Üniversite Adaylarının Temel Bilim Programlarına Yönelik Tercihlerinde Öğretmen Etkisi

Öz

Bu araştırmanın amacı, öğrencilerin üniversite tercihleri sırasında temel bilimleri seçme eğilimlerini etkileyen unsurları ve öğretmenlerin bu süreçteki rolünü incelemektir. Temel bilimlerin ülkelerin bilimsel ilerlemesi, yenilik kapasitesi ve ekonomik rekabet gücü açısından stratejik öneminin dikkate alındığı çalışmada karma yöntem deseni kullanılmıştır. Nicel boyutta, üniversiteye hazırlık sürecinde olan lise son sınıf öğrencileri ve mezunlardan oluşan 400 katılımcıya temel bilimlere yönelik tutum ve öz-yeterlik ölçekleri uygulanmıştır. Nitel boyutta ise beş öğrenci ve dört öğretmenle yarı yapılandırılmış görüşmeler gerçekleştirilmiştir. Nicel veriler, t-testi ve tek yönlü ANOVA ile nitel veriler içerik analiziyle değerlendirilmiştir. Bulgular, öğrencilerin temel bilimlere ilişkin tutum ve öz-yeterliklerinde cinsiyet ve sınıf düzeyine göre anlamlı fark bulunmadığını; ancak lise türü, ebeveyn eğitimi ve aile gelir düzeyine göre anlamlı farklılıklar oluştuğunu göstermiştir. Öğrenciler temel bilimleri genel olarak olumlu algılamakla birlikte tercih aşamasında işsizlik kaygısı, görece düşük yerleştirme puanları, toplumsal statü algısı ve kariyer güvencesine ilişkin belirsizlikler nedeniyle bu alanlara yönelmekte isteksiz davranmaktadırlar. Görüşmelerde öğretmenlerin temel bilimlerin ülke kalkınması için değerini vurgulamalarına rağmen istihdam olanaklarına ilişkin endişeleri nedeniyle öğrencilerini ilgili programlara yönlendirmede temkinli davrandıkları tespit edilmiştir. Okul türüne bağlı farklılıklar, aile sosyoekonomik kaynakları ve öğretmen rehberliği etkileşiminin temel bilimlere yönelimi birlikte şekillendirdiği; bu kapsamda, kariyer rehberliği uygulamalarının, iletişim stratejilerinin ve politika tasarımlarının güncel veriye dayalı biçimde yeniden yapılandırılması önerilmektedir.

Anahtar Kelimeler

• Temel bilimler
• Üniversite tercihleri
• öğretmen rehberliği
• kariyer yönlendirme
• öğrenci tutumu

Teachers’ Influence on University Candidates’ Preferences for Basic Science Programs

Abstract

The aim of this study is to examine the factors influencing students’ tendencies to choose basic sciences during the university preference process and to investigate the role of teachers in this process. Considering the strategic importance of basic sciences for countries’ scientific advancement, innovation capacity, and economic competitiveness, it is used a mixed-methods design in the study. In the quantitative dimension, attitude and self-efficacy scales related to basic sciences are administered to 400 participants consisting of senior high school students and graduates preparing for university entrance. In the qualitative dimension, semi-structured interviews are conducted with five students and four teachers. Quantitative data are analyzed using t-tests and one-way ANOVA, while qualitative data are analyzed through content analysis. The findings indicate that there are no significant differences in students’ attitudes and self-efficacy toward basic sciences in terms of gender and grade level; however, significant differences are observed based on school type, parental education level, and family income. Although students generally hold positive perceptions of basic sciences, they tend to be reluctant to choose these fields due to concerns about unemployment, relatively lower admission scores, perceptions of social status, and uncertainties regarding career security. Interviews have revealed that, despite emphasizing the value of basic sciences for national development, teachers act cautiously in guiding students toward these programs due to concerns about employment opportunities. The interaction between school type, family socioeconomic resources, and teacher guidance jointly shapes students’ orientation toward basic sciences. Accordingly, it is recommended that career guidance practices, communication strategies, and policy designs be restructured based on up-to-date empirical data.

Keywords

• Basic sciences
• University preference
• teacher guidance
• career guidance
• student attitudes

Kaynakça

1. Archer, L., DeWitt, J., & Dillon, J. (2014). ‘It didn’t really change my opinion’: Exploring what works, what doesn’t and why in a school science, technology, engineering and mathematics careers intervention. Research in Science & Technological Education, 32(1), 35-55. https://doi.org/10.1080/02635143.2013.865601
2. Archer, L., Freedman, E., Nag Chowdhuri, M., DeWitt, J., Liu, Q., & Garcia Gonzalez, F. (2025, February). “It’s always been a challenge, right?” An analysis of the affordances and limitations of STEM educators’ attempts to improve gender equity in Global South and North makerspaces. In Frontiers in Education, 10, https://doi.org/10.3389/feduc.2025.1507424
3. Archer, L., Moote, J., Francis, B., DeWit, J., & Yeomans, L. (2016). Stratifying science: a bourdieusian analysis of student views and experiences of school selective practices in relation to ‘triple science’ at KS4 in England. 32(3), 296-315. https://doi.org/10.1080/02671522.2016.1219382
4. Archer, L., Moote, J., Francis, B., DeWitt, J., & Yeomans, L. (2017). The “exceptional” physics girl: A sociological analysis of multimethod data from young women aged 10–16 to explore gendered patterns of post-16 participation. American Educational Research Journal, 54(1), 88–126. https://doi.org/10.3102%2F0002831216678379
5. Archer, L., Moote, J., Macleod, E., Francis, B., & DeWitt, J. (2020). ASPIRES 2: Young people's science and career aspirations, age 10–19. https://discovery.ucl.ac.uk/id/eprint/10092041/ Bøe, M. V., Henriksen, E. K., Lyons, T., & Schreiner, C. (2011). Participation in science and technology: young people’s achievement‐related choices in late‐modern societies. Studies in science education, 47(1), 37-72. https://doi.org/10.1080/03057267.2011.549621
6. Creswell, J. W., & Creswell, J. D. (2017). Research design: Qualitative, quantitative, and mixed methods approaches. Sage publications.
7. Creswell, J. W. & Plano-Clark, V. L. (2015). Karma yöntem araştırmalarının tasarımı ve yürütülmesi (Y. Dede & S. B. Demir). Anı.
8. Cleaves, A., (2011). The formation of science choices in secondary school. International Journal of Science Education, 27(4), 471-486. https://doi.org/10.1080/0950069042000323746

9. Çiftçi, A., Topçu, M. S., ve Erdoğan, İ. (2020). Gender gap and career choices in STEM education: Turkey sample. International Journal of Progressive Education, 16(3), 53-66. https://doi.org/10.29329/ijpe.2020.248.4
10. Dabney, K. P., Tai, R. H., & Scott, M. R. (2016). Informal science: Family education, experiences, and initial interest in science. International Journal of Science Education, 6(3), 263-282. https://doi.org/10.1080/21548455.2015.1058990
11. Dawson, E., Bista, R., Colborne, A., McCubbin, B. J., Godec, S., Patel, U., & Mau, A. (2024). Inclusion for STEM, the institution, or minoritized youth? Exploring how educators navigate the discourses that shape social justice in informal science learning practices. Science Education. https://doi.org/10.1002/sce.21856
12. DeWitt, J., Godec, S., Watson, E., Archer, L., & Moote, J. (2025). Who participates in informal science learning experiences? Analysis of data from six surveys of a cohort in England from age 10–22 years. International Journal of Science Education, Part B, 1-18. https://doi.org/10.1080/21548455.2025.2462798
13. DeWitt, J., & Archer, L. (2015). Who aspires to a science career? A comparison of survey responses from primary and secondary school students. International Journal of Science Education, 37(13), 2170–2192. https://doi.org/10.1080/09500693.2015.1071899
14. Ekici, Gülay. (2009). Biyoloji öz-yeterlik ölçeğinin Türkçe’ye uyarlanması. Kastamonu Eğitim Dergisi, 17(1), 111-124.
15. Ergün, A. (2019). Identification of the interest of Turkish middle school students in STEM careers: Gender and grade level differences. Journal of Baltic Science Education, 18(1), 2538–7138. https://doi.org/10.33225/jbse/19.18.90
16. Falco, L., & Summers, J. (2019). Improving career decision self-efficacy and STEM self-efficacy in high school girls: evaluation of an intervention. Journal of Career Development, 46(1), 62-76. https://doi.org/10.1177%2F0894845317721651
17. Ferry, T., Fouad, N., & Smith, P. (2000). The role of family context in a social cognitive model for career-related choice behavior: A math and science perspective. Journal of Vocational Behavior, 57, 348–364. https://doi.org/10.1006/jvbe.1999.1743
18. Francis, B., Henderson, M., Godec, S., Watson, E., Archer, L., & Moote, J. (2025). An exploration of the impact of science stratification in the English school curriculum: the relationship between ‘Double’and ‘Triple’Science pathways and pupils’ further study of science. Research Papers in Education, 40(1), 1-23. https://doi.org/10.1080/02671522.2023.2283417
19. Greenberg, D., Kim, W. J., Brien, S., Barton, A. C., Balzer, M., & Archer, L. (2025). Designing and leading justice‐centered informal STEM education: A framework for core equitable practices. Science Education, 109(1), 27-58. https://doi.org/10.1002/sce.21903
20. Kane, J., & Mertz, J. (2012). Debunking myths about gender and mathematics performance. Notices of the American Mathematical Society, 59(1), 10-21. http://dx.doi.org/10.1090/noti790
21. Kanny, M. A., Sax, L. J., & Riggers-Piehl, T. A. (2014). Investigating forty years of STEM research: How explanations for the gender gap have evolved over time. Journal of Women and Minorities in Science and Engineering, 20(2).
22. Lee, Y., Capraro, M., & Viruru, R. (2018). The factors motivating students’ STEM career aspirations: personal and societal contexts. International Journal of Innovation in Science and Mathematics Education, 26(5), 36–48.
23. Nalçacı, İ.Ö., Akarsu, B., ve Kariper, İ.A. (2011). Orta öğretim öğrencileri için fizik tutum ölçeği derlemesi ve öğrenci tutumlarının değerlendirilmesi. Journal of European Education, 1(1), 1-6.
24. National Science Board. (2019). The Skilled Technical Workforce: Crafting America’s Science and Engineering Enterprise (Report No. NSB-2019-23). NSB. https://nsf-govresources.nsf.gov/nsb/publications/2019/nsb201923.pdf
25. National Science Foundation (2017). Women, minorities, and persons with disabilities in science and engineering: Special report NSF 17-310. https://nsf.gov/nsb
26. Osborne, J. (2010). Arguing to learn in science: The role of collaborative, critical discourse. Science, 328(5977), 463-466. https://doi.org/10.1126/science.1183944
27. Pallant, J. (2020). SPSS survival manual: A step by step guide to data analysis using IBM SPSS (7th ed.). Routledge. https://doi.org/10.4324/9781003117452
28. Teddlie, C., & Tashakkori, A. (2009). Foundations of mixed methods research: Integrating quantitative and qualitative approaches in the social and behavioral sciences. Sage.
29. Tsarabi, A. B., & Yarden, A. (2010). Quantifying the gender gap in science interests. International Journal of Science and Mathematics Education, 9(3), 523–550. http://dx.doi.org/10.1007/s10763-010-9194-7.