Scientific attitudes, comprising curiosity, open-mindedness, skepticism, objectivity, perseverance, and intellectual honesty, are central to the mission of Science High Schools (SHS) in Türkiye (Schibeci, 1983; Aiken, 1969). Yet beyond formal instruction, extracurricular scientific engagement through projects, competitions, and congresses constitutes a distinct pedagogical space where these dispositions may be cultivated differently than in traditional classrooms. This study adopts a didactic lens to investigate how project-based and event-based scientific experiences function as learning environments that mediate attitude formation, while simultaneously interrogating whether such opportunities are equitably accessible and institutionally supported, a question squarely rooted in educational quality assurance.

The research question guiding this inquiry is: What are science high school students' experiences with scientific projects and events in developing scientific attitudes? Rather than treating scientific attitudes as outcomes of classroom instruction alone, this question positions project and event participation as an independent didactic domain, one that involves self-directed inquiry, collaboration with peers and mentors, public dissemination of findings, and iterative problem-solving. These processes engage students in authentic scientific practices that formal curricula frequently cannot replicate (Bybee et al., 2006; Chinn & Malhotra, 2002).

The theoretical foundation draws on Schibeci's (1983) comprehensive framework, which distinguishes between attitudes toward science as a body of knowledge, attitudes toward scientific processes, and attitudes toward scientists as a social group. Complementing this, self-determination theory (Deci & Ryan, 2000) provides a motivational lens through which autonomy, competence, and relatedness, key psychological needs, can be evaluated within project contexts. Together, these frameworks enable systematic analysis of how voluntary, interest-driven scientific engagement nurtures attitudinal dimensions that compulsory instruction may not reach.

The study examines how the pedagogical architecture of TUBITAK-supported programs, school-organized congresses, physics journals, and science clubs differs from conventional teaching-learning sequences. Each of these contexts demands distinct cognitive and affective engagement: TUBITAK projects require hypothesis formation and data analysis; Olympiads demand sustained independent study; congresses necessitate academic writing and public presentation; and science clubs facilitate peer-driven discourse and expert interaction. Understanding how each context shapes scientific attitudes contributes directly to didactic theory regarding the design of learning environments beyond the classroom.

From a quality assurance standpoint, critical questions emerge about institutional commitment. Do all students have equal access to project mentorship? Are competitions structured to foster intrinsic motivation or merely reward performance? Students themselves reported frustrations with limited expert guidance, insufficient recognition of effort, and time pressures imposed by concurrent academic demands, signals that project-based learning, while valued, may not be systematically embedded in institutional quality frameworks (Harlen, 2010; Aktaş, 2016).

The European dimension of this study lies in its relevance to broader debates about project-based and experiential learning across European educational systems. Programmes analogous to TUBITAK exist across Europe, from Germany's Bundeswettbewerb Mathematik to France's Concours Général, yet comparative scholarship on how such programmes cultivate scientific dispositions remains sparse. Findings regarding the motivational, identity-forming, and attitudinal effects of structured scientific competitions and congresses offer transferable insights for policy-makers and educators designing extracurricular science programs within diverse national contexts (Zohar & Dori, 2003; Jewett & Kuhn, 2015).

An interpretative phenomenological approach was adopted to capture the subjective meaning-making processes through which SHS students experienced scientific projects and events. Interpretative Phenomenological Analysis (IPA) was selected as the analytic method because it prioritizes how individuals construct personal significance from lived experiences, particularly suited to understanding how voluntary scientific engagement reshapes students' relationship with scientific inquiry (Giorgi, 2009; Merriam, 2009). The research was carried out at a single Science High School in southern Türkiye during the 2024–2025 academic year. A purposeful maximum variation sampling strategy was employed to ensure representation across grade levels (9th–12th), gender, boarding status, family background, and types of project or event participation. In total, 59 students were interviewed. The sample intentionally included students who had participated in TUBITAK 4006 Science Fairs, TUBITAK 2204-A research competitions, subject Olympiads, UAV competitions, Teknofest, the school's Young Ideas Science Congress, the Physics Journal, and the Science Club, as well as students with no project involvement, enabling comparative perspectives within the dataset. Each participant was interviewed individually through a semi-structured protocol lasting between 45 and 60 minutes, conducted in Turkish. Interview questions were designed around: motivations for joining scientific projects or events; experiences during research, design, experimentation, and presentation phases; perceptions of collaboration and mentorship; challenges encountered; and reflections on how these experiences influenced attitudes toward science. All interviews were audio-recorded with informed consent. Transcripts were analysed following IPA's iterative idiographic procedure: each transcript was read multiple times, initial themes were identified through close annotation, latent themes were abstracted, and cross-case analysis was conducted to identify shared and divergent patterns. MAXQDA software supported the coding process. Superordinate themes and sub-themes were organised hierarchically to preserve the structural integrity of participants' accounts. To strengthen trustworthiness, member checking was conducted by sharing thematic summaries with participants via email. Peer debriefing involved an independent colleague reviewing a subset of coded transcripts. An external academic auditor from a curriculum and instruction department assessed the alignment between raw data and interpreted themes. Prolonged engagement with the school community over six months and detailed contextual description further supported credibility and transferability (Merriam & Tisdell, 2016; Giorgi, 2009). Ethical approval was secured from both the university ethics board and the Ministry of National Education.

Findings organised around four subcategories, all directly drawn from the original study, reveal how scientific projects and events cultivate attitudes through mechanisms distinct from classroom instruction, with implications for educational improvements and quality assurance. TUBITAK-Supported Scientific Projects (4006 Science Fairs, 2204-A Competitions, Olympiads, UAV Competitions, Teknofest): Students engaged in hypothesis-driven experimentation, iterative design, and collaborative problem-solving. Four project types emerged: experimental research, design-based projects, social awareness initiatives, and interdisciplinary explorations. These fostered curiosity, objectivity, perseverance, and open-mindedness. Olympiad participation, spanning Physics, Biology, Chemistry, and Mathematics, cultivated self-directed research skills and logical reasoning beyond curriculum boundaries. UAV and Teknofest competitions highlighted iterative learning cycles, where repeated failure and redesign built resilience and critical thinking. Didactically, these represent pedagogical spaces requiring sustained autonomous inquiry. From a quality assurance lens, students reported inconsistent mentorship, limited institutional recognition, and time pressures threatening genuine engagement. Young Ideas Science Congress: Nearly 34% of students participated in this school-university congress, engaging in literature reviews, research paper writing, poster and oral presentations, and expert interaction. Practices cultivated included academic writing, curiosity-driven inquiry, scientific communication, and methodological rigour. Students reported transformative shifts in self-efficacy, recognising their capacity to produce original scientific work prior to university. Open-mindedness emerged strongly as congress exposure challenged preconceived assumptions. However, tight deadlines, insufficient expert feedback, and limited academic validation constituted significant quality concerns. Physics Journal: Twelve students contributed to the school's physics journal, developing scientific communication, source evaluation, and editorial collaboration. Perseverance and patience were repeatedly highlighted as necessary dispositions. Interdisciplinary curiosity emerged when journal engagement led students into research beyond physics. Science Club: Nine students participated in the club, which organised expert teleconferences, topical broadcasts, and collaborative discussions. Engagement with professionals fostered scientific identity and communication confidence. The club exemplified student-initiated scientific culture, where curiosity and inquiry became community-driven rather than individually imposed.

Aiken, L. R. (1969). Attitudes toward science: A short review of the literature. Science Education, 53(4), 358-371. Aktaş, M. (2016). Turkish science high school students' attitudes toward science. Journal of Science Education, 17(2), 45-62. Bybee, R. W., Taylor, J. A., Gardner, A., Van Scooter, P., Carlsen, J. B., Westbrook, A., ... & Kline, V. (2006). BSCS 5E instructional model: Origins, effectiveness, and applications. BSCS. Chinn, C. A., & Malhotra, B. A. (2002). Epistemologically productive patterns of scientific inquiry. In R. A. Duschl & R. E. Grandy (Eds.), Teaching science as investigations (pp. 262-296). Lawrence Erlbaum. Deci, E. L., & Ryan, R. M. (2000). The "what" and "why" of goal pursuits: Human needs and the self-determination of behavior. Psychological Inquiry, 11(4), 227-268. Giorgi, A. (2009). The descriptive analysis of consciousness with reference to phenomenology. Phenomenology and the Psychological Sciences, 6(1), 1-15. Harlen, W. (2010). Principles and practice of assessment. Open University Press. Jewett, J., & Kuhn, D. (2015). Adolescents' epistemological development. In B. Ross (Ed.), Advances in child development (Vol. 47, pp. 135-160). Elsevier. Merriam, S. B. (2009). Qualitative research: A guide to design and implementation (3rd ed.). Jossey-Bass. Merriam, S. B., & Tisdell, E. J. (2016). Qualitative research and the design of qualitative research studies (4th ed.). Jossey-Bass. Schibeci, R. A. (1983). Attitude toward science and science teaching in elementary schools. Journal of Research in Science Teaching, 20(5), 439-460. Zohar, A., & Dori, Y. J. (2003). Fostering higher order thinking with model-based inquiry. Science Education, 87(3), 497-519.