Üniversite Adaylarının Temel Bilim Programlarına Yönelik Tercihlerinde Öğretmen Etkisi

Yıl 2025, Sayı: 3, 235 - 260, 30.12.2025

Ayşegül Yazar , Mustafa Sözbilir

https://doi.org/10.71270/istanbulegitim.istj.1773168

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

Etik Beyan

Bu makale Prof. Dr. Mustafa Sözbilir danışmanlığında Mayıs 2021 tarihinde tamamladığımız “Öğrencilerin Üniversiteye Yerleşmede Temel Bilimleri Tercihlerini Etkileyen Faktörler ve Öğretmenlerin Rolü” başlıklı yüksek lisans tezi esas alınarak hazırlanmıştır (Yüksek Lisans Tezi, Atatürk Üniversitesi, Erzurum, Türkiye, 2021). Bu araştırmanın bütün aşamalarında (hazırlık, literatür taraması, veri toplama, veri analizi, sunum) bilimsel etik, ilke ve kurallara uygun davrandığımızı; bu çalışma kapsamında yararlanılan eserlerin tamamına kaynakçada yer verdiğimizi; kullanmadığımız hiçbir kaynağı kaynakçaya eklemediğimizi; verileri kullanırken veriler üzerinde bir değişiklik yapmadığımızı; araştırmanın intihal içermediğini; Yükseköğretim Kurumları Bilimsel Araştırma ve Yayın Etiği Yönergesi ile Yayın Etiği Komitesi (COPE) İlkelerinin tüm şartlarını ve koşullarını kabul ederek etik görev ve sorumluluklara riayet ettiğimizi; araştırmamızla ilgili burada yazılı ifadelerimize aykırı herhangi bir durumun saptanması durumunda ortaya çıkabilecek ahlaki ve hukuki bütün sonuçları kabul edeceğimizi beyan ederiz.

Destekleyen Kurum

Bu çalışma finansal olarak Atatürk Üniversitesi Bilimsel Araştırma Projeleri (BAP) Birimi (Proje No: SYL-2020-8529) tarafından desteklenmiştir.

Proje Numarası

SYL-2020-8529

Teşekkür

Yazarlar araştırma sürecine gönüllü olarak katılan öğrencilere ve öğretmenlere katkılarından dolayı teşekkür etmektedirler.

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

Öz

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.

Anahtar Kelimeler

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

Etik Beyan

This article is based on the master's thesis titled “Factors Affecting Students' Preferences of Basic Sciences in University Placements and Teachers' Role” that I completed on May 2021 under the supervision of Prof. Dr. Mustafa Sozbilir (Master's Thesis, Ataturk University, Erzurum, Türkiye, 2021). The article titled “The Influence of Teachers on University Candidates’ Preferences for Basic Science Programs” is original research; we hereby state that we have acted in accordance with scientific ethics, principles, and rules at all stages of this research (preparation, literature review, data collection, data analysis, and presentation); that all sources consulted in the course of this study have been duly included in the reference list; that no sources not consulted have been included; that no alterations have been made to the data during their use; that the research does not contain any form of plagiarism; and that we have complied with our ethical duties and responsibilities by fully accepting all the terms and conditions of the Scientific Research and Publication Ethics Directive of Higher Education Institutions and the Committee on Publication Ethics (COPE) Principles. We further state that we accept full moral and legal responsibility for any consequences that may arise should any situation contrary to the statements made herein be identified in relation to our research.

Destekleyen Kurum

This study has been financially supported by the Atatürk University Scientific Research Projects (BAP) Unit (Project No: SYL-2020-8529).

Proje Numarası

SYL-2020-8529

Teşekkür

The authors express their sincere gratitude to the students and teachers who voluntarily participated in the research process for their valuable contributions.

Kaynakça

• 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
• 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
• 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
• 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
• 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
• Creswell, J. W., & Creswell, J. D. (2017). Research design: Qualitative, quantitative, and mixed methods approaches. Sage publications.
• Creswell, J. W. & Plano-Clark, V. L. (2015). Karma yöntem araştırmalarının tasarımı ve yürütülmesi (Y. Dede & S. B. Demir). Anı.
• 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
• 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
• 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
• 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
• 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
• 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
• Ekici, Gülay. (2009). Biyoloji öz-yeterlik ölçeğinin Türkçe’ye uyarlanması. Kastamonu Eğitim Dergisi, 17(1), 111-124.
• 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
• 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
• 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
• 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
• 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
• 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
• 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).
• 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.
• 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.
• 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
• National Science Foundation (2017). Women, minorities, and persons with disabilities in science and engineering: Special report NSF 17-310. https://nsf.gov/nsb
• 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
• 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
• Teddlie, C., & Tashakkori, A. (2009). Foundations of mixed methods research: Integrating quantitative and qualitative approaches in the social and behavioral sciences. Sage.
• 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.