BİT Öz Yeterliğinin ve Derslerde Konu Odaklı BİT Kullanımının Matematik Başarısına Etkisi: PISA 2022 Türkiye Örneklemi

Elif Nur BOZER ÖZSARAÇ

  • Elif Nur BOZER ÖZSARAÇ: SELÇUK ÜNİVERSİTESİ
  • Yıl : 2026
  • Cilt : 4
  • Sayı : 1
  •  Sayfa : 10-25
Bu çalışma, öğrencilerin Bilgi ve İletişim Teknolojileri (BİT) öz yeterliklerinin (ICTEFFIC) ve ders sırasında konuyla ilgili bilgi ve iletişim teknolojileri kullanımlarının (ICTSUBJ) matematik başarısı üzerindeki etkisini incelemeyi amaçlamaktadır. Öz Belirleme Kuramı ve Dijital Katılım Kuramı çerçevesinde şekillendirilen bu nicel ikincil veri analizi, Uluslararası Öğrenci Değerlendirme Programı (PISA) 2022 Türkiye örnekleminden 15 yaşındaki 6.599 öğrenciye (3.286 erkek, 3.313 kız) dayanmaktadır. Veriler; sosyoekonomik düzey (ESCS) ve cinsiyet kontrol altına alınarak ve değişen varyans (heteroskedastisite) durumunu hesaba katmak amacıyla dirençli standart hatalar (robust standard errors) kullanılarak, Rubin'in kuralları doğrultusunda birleştirilmiş 10 olası değer (plausible values) üzerinden çoklu regresyon analizi ile incelenmiştir. Bulgular, ESCS ve cinsiyet sabit tutulduğunda dahi, hem BİT öz yeterliğinin hem de konuyla ilgili BİT kullanımının matematik başarısını anlamlı ve pozitif yönde yordadığını ortaya koymuştur. Regresyon modeli, matematik performansındaki varyansın %15,6'sını açıklamıştır. Karşılaştırmalı sonuçlar, pedagojik olarak konuyla ilgili BİT kullanımının (B = 12.109, β = 0.146) matematik başarısı üzerinde, dijital öz yeterliğe (B = 6.284, β = 0.080) kıyasla yaklaşık iki kat daha fazla yordayıcı güce sahip olduğunu göstermiştir. Ayrıca, sosyoekonomik düzeyin modeldeki en güçlü yordayıcı olduğu doğrulanmıştır. Cinsiyet açısından, erkek öğrenciler BİT değişkenlerinde istatistiksel olarak daha yüksek puanlar almış olsalar da pratik anlamlılığı gösteren etki büyüklüklerinin (Cohen's d) ihmal edilebilir düzeyde kaldığı görülmüştür. Sonuç olarak bu çalışma, dijital teknolojilerin akademik başarıya olumlu katkı sağlaması için öğrencilerin salt psikolojik yeterliklerinin (öz yeterlik) tek başına yeterli olmadığını göstermektedir. Akademik fayda sağlanabilmesi için, bu dijital inancın sınıf ortamında müfredata entegre edilmiş, öğretmen rehberliğinde ve pedagojik olarak amaca uygun bir kullanımla eyleme dönüşmesi elzemdir.
Atıf yapmak için : Bozer Özsaraç, E. N. (2026). The impact of ICT self-efficacy and subject-oriented ICT use during lessons on mathematics achievement: A PISA 2022 Türkiye sample. Edutech Research, 4(1), 10-25. https://doi.org/10.69991/EduRes.2026.7

Download Citation: Endnote/Zotero/Mendeley (RIS) RIS File

Download Citation: BibTeX BibTeX File

Çıkar İlişkisi : Yazarlar çıkar çatışması olmadığını beyan etmiştir.
Bu makale CC BY-NC 4.0 lisansı ile yayımlanmıştır.
Edutech Research
2026, Vol. 4 (1)
E-ISSN: 3023-6665
Geliş Tarihi : , Kabul Tarihi : , Yayın Tarihi :

Kaynakça

  1. Acun Celik, S., Ozkan Elgun, I., & Kalelioğlu, F. (2024). Assessment of student ICT competence according to mathematics, science, and reading literacy: Evidence from PISA 2018. Large-scale Assessments in Education, 12, 18. https://doi.org/10.1186/s40536-024-00218-7
  2. Areepattamannil, S., & Santos, I. M. (2019). Adolescent students’ perceived information and communication technology (ICT) competence and autonomy: Examining links to dispositions toward science in 42 countries. Computers in Human Behavior, 98, 50-58.
  3. Bandura, A. (1997). Self-efficacy: The exercise of control. W. H. Freeman.
  4. Biagi, F., & Loi, M. (2013). Measuring ICT use and learning outcomes: Evidence from recent econometric studies. European Journal of Education, 48(1), 28-42.
  5. Bulut, O., & Cutumisu, M. (2018). When technology does not add up: ICT use negatively predicts mathematics and science achievement for Finnish and Turkish students in PISA 2012. Journal of Educational Multimedia and Hypermedia, 27(1), 25–42. https://www.learntechlib.org/primary/p/178514/
  6. Caponera, E., Colonnello, V., Annunziata, F., Palmerio, L., & Russo, P. M. (2026). Digital literacy and ICT use: key predictors of mathematics achievement in schoolchildren. European Journal of Psychology of Education, 41(1), 14.
  7. Cohen, J. (1988). Statistical power analysis for the behavioral sciences (2nd ed.). Lawrence Erlbaum Associates.
  8. Courtney, M., Karakus, M., Ersozlu, Z., & Nurumov, K. (2022). The influence of ICT use and related attitudes on students’ math and science performance: Multilevel analyses of the last decade’s PISA surveys. Large-Scale Assessments in Education, 10(1), 8.
  9. Deci, E. L., & Ryan, R. M. (1985). Intrinsic motivation and self-determination in human behavior. Plenum.
  10. Erdogdu, F., & Erdogdu, E. (2015). The impact of access to ICT, student background and school/home environment on academic success of students in Turkey: An international comparative analysis. Computers & Education, 82, 26-49.
  11. Fayda‐Kinik, F. S., & Cetin, M. (2025). ICT and academic achievement in secondary education: A hierarchical linear modelling. Journal of Computer Assisted Learning, 41(1), e13070.
  12. Fraenkel, J. R., Wallen, N. E., & Hyun, H. H. (2012). How to design and evaluate research in education (8th ed.). McGraw-Hill.
  13. Glass, G. V. (1976). Primary, secondary, and meta-analysis of research. Educational Researcher, 5(10), 3-8.
  14. Goldhammer, F., Gniewosz, G., & Zylka, J. (2017). ICT engagement in learning environments. In S. Kuger, E. Klieme, N. Jude, & D. Kaplan (Eds.), Assessing contexts of learning (pp. 331-351). Springer International Publishing. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-319-45357-6_12
  15. Hatlevik, O. E., Scherer, R., & Christophersen, K. A. (2017). Moving beyond the study of gender differences: An analysis of measurement invariance and differential item functioning of an ICT literacy scale. Computers & Education, 113, 280-293.
  16. Hatlevik, O. E., Throndsen, I., Loi, M. & Gudmundsdottir, G. B. (2018). Students’ ICT self-efficacy and computer and information literacy: Determinants and relationships. Computers & Education, 118, 107-119.
  17. Hristov, M., Yada, T., Fagerlund, J., Näykki, P., & Häkkinen, P. (2025). Understanding the relationships among ICT use, self-efficacy, and achievement in PISA 2022: A multigroup analysis featuring gender and immigrant status. Computers & Education, 105539.
  18. Hu, X., Gong, Y., Lai, C., & Leung, F. K. (2018). The relationship between ICT and student literacy in mathematics, reading, and science across 44 countries: A multilevel analysis. Computers & Education, 125, 1-13.
  19. Johnston, M. P. (2014). Secondary data analysis: A method of which the time has come. Qualitative and quantitative methods in libraries, 3(3), 619-626.
  20. Karasar, N. (2020). Bilimsel araştırma yöntemi: Kavramlar, ilkeler, teknikler. Nobel Akademik Yayıncılık.
  21. Kunina-Habenicht, O., & Goldhammer, F. (2020). ICT engagement: A new construct and its assessment in PISA 2015. Large-scale Assessments in Education, 8(6), 1–21. https://doi.org/10.1186/s40536-020-00084-z
  22. Li, S. C., & Zhu, J. (2023). Cognitive-motivational engagement in ICT mediates the effect of ICT use on academic achievements: Evidence from 52 countries. Computers & Education, 204, 104871.
  23. Odell, B., Cutumisu, M., & Gierl, M. (2020). A scoping review of the relationship between students' ICT and performance in mathematics and science in the PISA data. Social Psychology of Education, 23(6), 1449–1481. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11218-020-09591-x
  24. OECD. (2023). PISA 2022 results (Volume I): The state of learning and equity in education. OECD Publishing. https://doi.org/10.1787/53f23881-en
  25. OECD. (2024). PISA 2022 technical report. OECD Publishing. https://www.oecd.org/pisa/data/pisa2022technicalreport/
  26. Örnek, F., & Afari, E. (2026). Evaluating the effects of ICT engagement on science and mathematics achievement: Evidence from PISA 2022 using structural equation modeling. Studies in Educational Evaluation, 88, 101583.
  27. Papanastasiou, E. C., Zembylas, M., & Vrasidas, C. (2003). Can computer use hurt science achievement? The USA results from PISA. Journal of science education and technology, 12(3), 325-332.
  28. Petko, D., Cantieni, A., & Prasse, D. (2017). Perceived quality of educational technology matters: A secondary analysis of students' ICT use, ICT-related attitudes, and PISA 2012 test scores. Journal of Educational Computing Research, 54(8), 1070-1091.
  29. Rubin, D. (1987). Multiple Imputation for Nonresponse in Surveys, John Wiley and Sons.
  30. Ryan, R. M., & Deci, E. L. (2000). Intrinsic and extrinsic motivations: Classic definitions and new directions. Contemporary educational psychology, 25(1), 54-67.
  31. Ryan, R. M., & Deci, E. L. (2017). Self-determination theory: Basic psychological needs in motivation, development, and wellness. Guilford Press.
  32. Smith, E. (2008). Using secondary data in educational and social research. McGraw-Hill Education (UK).
  33. Sweller, J. (1988). Cognitive load during problem solving: Effects on learning. Cognitive science, 12(2), 257-285.
  34. Unal, E., Uzun, A. M., & Kilis, S. (2022). Does ICT involvement really matter? An investigation of Turkey's case in PISA 2018. Education and Information Technologies, 27, 11443–11465. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10639-022-11067-8
  35. Wang, Z., & Chu, Z. (2023). Examination of higher education teachers’ self-perception of digital competence, self-efficacy, and facilitating conditions: An empirical study in the context of China. Sustainability, 15(14), 10945.
  36. Wang, X. S., Perry, L. B., Malpique, A. & Ide, T. (2023). Factors predicting mathematics achievement in PISA: A systematic review. Large-scale Assessments in Education, 11(24). https://doi.org/10.1186/s40536-023-00174-8
  37. Wei, Y., & Zhang, Y. (2025). Exploration of factors affecting Australian students' mathematics grades: A multiple regression analysis based on PISA 2022 data. Frontiers in Psychology, 16, 1611350. https://doi.org/10.3389/fpsyg.2025.1611350
  38. Zhang, D., & Liu, L. (2016). How does ICT use influence students' achievements in math and science over time? Evidence from PISA 2000 to 2012. EURASIA Journal of Mathematics, Science and Technology Education, 12(9), 2431–2449. https://doi.org/10.12973/eurasia.2016.1297a
  39. Zhu, J., & Li, S. C. (2022). The non-linear relationships between ICT use and academic achievement of secondary students in Hong Kong. Computers & Education, 187, 104546.
  40. Zylka, J., Christoph, G., Kroehne, U., Hartig, J., & Goldhammer, F. (2015). Moving beyond cognitive elements of ICT literacy: First evidence on the structure of ICT engagement. Computers in Human Behavior, 53, 149–160. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.chb.2015.07.008