The Level of Science Process Skills of Science Students in Turkey

Murat Demirba, Glah Tanriverdi

Krkkale University, Education Faculty (Turkey) muratde71@gmail.com, gulsahtanriverdi_@hotmail.com

Abstract
Recent advancements in science and technology have brought with inevitable changes in daily life. Individuals adaptation of these changes and their explanation of the environment they live in are, basically, missions of education. Actually, we can also say it is a science education culture. In addition to the advancements in science and technology as a result of science instruction, keeping up with the age is also a part of science culture (Sevin, 2008). In this study, it is aimed to determine the science process skills of 2010-2011 academic year Science Teaching Department freshmen students in Turkey who are taking the laboratory course, Physics-I. Test of Integrated Science Process Skills developed by Burns, Okey and Wise (1985) has been translated into Turkish by Geban, Akar & zkan, (1992) , and it consists of 36 multiple-choice questions with four choices per question. It has been administered to 556 freshmen students at total from Science Teaching Department in randomly chosen universities from seven regions of Turkey, and it includes the following sections: recognizing the variables in a problem (12), hypothesizing and describing (8), making operational explanations (6), designing required surveys for problem solving (3), drawing a graph and interpreting data (6). After validity and reliability analyses, it has been found that item discrimination (D) is 0.08 and more, and item difficulty (P) is between 0.1 and 0.93. Average difficulty of the test (Pavg) has been calculated to be 0.52. The data from the student answers have been analyzed using the SPSS software. The science process skills of the students from seven different universities have been identified separately, then, a generalization has been made on students at Science Teaching Department from the universities in Turkey. Key words: Science Education, Science Process Skills

1. Introduction
While scientists have been still struggling to name the 20 century, they are now in search of how to st call 21 century. Such concepts as "Information Age" and "Technology Age" are inadequate to describe the current world (Kaptan,1998). In today's information age, the main goal of the educational system should be to provide students with information acquisition skills instead of directly providing them with the information they need. This, though, requires high level intellectual process skills. In other words, comprehensive learning rather than learning based on memorization requires problem solving and science process skills for new situations. On top of the list of courses such skills are taught are Science courses. In these courses, it is aimed to let individuals make scientific analysis of the environment and the universe they live in (Kaptan ve Korkmaz, 2001). It is known well that Science should be taught to train productive individuals who inquire the events and analyze ideas. The number of the questioning and non-dogmatic individuals should be increased to let technology advance in the current age in which information is the key in becoming contemporary. So, science teaching should be paid importance and required methods in science education should be chosen attentively. In recent years, the most valid method in teaching science is assumed to be constructivism which focusing that a student-centered education rather than a teacher-centered one is much more successful. In constructivist approach, which is grounded on cognitive development theory by Piaget who suggests that an individual has an active not a passive role in acquiring information,
th

students construct their information with the help of their existing knowledge. Thus, it directs an individual to meaningful learning. As a result, the number of qualitative people in our country will be increased (Kseolu ve Kavak, 2001). The main goal of science teaching is help students understand the nature of science and how to use scientific inquiry ways. To increase the student achievements in science courses has always been targeted. With this aim, it is desired to let them gain some specific characteristics. What is desired is to educate individuals who have the required characteristics of the age to understand scientific information; who investigate, interrogate, experience, discover and solve; who adapt their problem solving methods into new conditions improving their skills; who have the ability to dream and to come up with creative ideas; and, who are able to use these in daily life and to develop integration activities with other sciences. The most effective way to make all these goals come true is to teach (Nuholu, 2004). Science process skills which are discussed in this study include monitoring, classification, measurement, making number and space relations, prediction, storing data, using data, modeling, interpreting data, inference, distinguishing variables, changing and controlling variables, hypothesizing, checking and experimenting (Taar, Temiz & Tan, 2002).

2. Aim of the Study

In this study, it is aimed to determine the science process skills of 2010-2011 academic year Science Teaching Department freshmen students in Turkey who are taking the laboratory course, Physics-I.

3. Methodology
In this study, the Test of Integrated Science Process Skills which was developed by Burns, Okey & Wise (1985), and was translated into Turkish by zkan, Askar & Geban (1992), has been administered as a test of 36 multiple-choice questions with four choices per each to freshmen students from Science Teaching Department in randomly chosen universities from seven regions of Turkey who took the laboratory course, Physics-I. Table 1. Content of the Test of Integrated Science Process Skills Designing Research Required for Problem Solving (Distinguishing Variables) (12 Questions) Making Operative Explanations (Operational Definition) (6 Questions) Measuring the Graphic Drawing and Data Interpretation Skills (6 Questions) Hypothesizing and Defining (9 Questions) Designing the Inquiry (3 Questions) 1, 3, 13, 14, 15, 18, 19, 20, 30, 31, 32, 36

2, 7, 22, 23, 26, 33

5, 9, 11, 25, 28, 34

4, 6, 8, 12, 16, 17, 27, 29, 35 10, 21, 24

4. Findings and Comments

In the study, the Test of Integrated Science Process Skills with 36 questions has been used. According to item analysis of the Test of Integrated Science Process Skills, item discrimination (D) is 0.08 and more, and item difficulty (P) is between 0.1 and 0.93. Average difficulty of the test (Pavg) is 0.52, and internal consistency reliability coefficient (Kuder Richardson-20) between the grades of the

test is 0.82. Okey, Wise and Burns (1982) had found internal consistency reliability coefficient (Kuder Richardson-21) as 0.82. The Turkish translators of the test, Geban, Akar, and zkan (1992), had found that reliability coefficient was .81 [9]. After the pre-statistical evaluations on 220 students for reliability coefficient, Kanl and Temiz (2006) found that cronbach reliability coefficient was 0.79. Table 2. ANOVA results of students' "Distinguishing Variables" grades as per universities. Source of Variance BetweenGroups Within Groups Total Total of Squares 35.777 1927.596 1963.372 sd 6 549 555 Average of Squares 5.963 3.511 F 1.698 p .119 Meaning None

The result of the analysis shows that the levels students distinguish variables don't make meaningful variations in point of universities. F(6,549)=1.698, p>.01. Table 3. ANOVA results of students' "Making Operative Explanations" grades as per universities. Source of Variance BetweenGroups Within Groups Total Total of Squares 60.842 1161.885 1222.727 sd 6 549 555 Average of Squares 10.140 2.116 F 4.791 p .000 Meaning Ahi Evran-Kocaeli Ahi Evran-K.deniz

The result of the analysis shows that the levels students make operative explanations don't make meaningful variations in point of universities. F(6,549)=4.791, p<.01. Table 4. ANOVA results of students' "Graphic Drawing and Data Interpretation" grades as per universities. Source of Variance BetweenGroups Within Groups Total Total of Squares 36.872 657.119 693.991 sd 6 549 555 Average of Squares 6.145 1.97 F 5.134 p .000 Meaning Kocaeli-Karadeniz Kocaeli-Adyaman Atatrk-Adyaman

The result of the analysis shows that the levels students draw graphics and interpret data don't make meaningful variations in point of universities. F(6,549)=5.134, p<.01. Table 5. ANOVA results of students' "Hypothesizing and Defining" grades as per universities. Source of Variance BetweenGroups Within Groups Total Total of Squares 121.746 1398.459 1520.205 sd 6 549 555 Average of Squares 20.291 2.552 F 7.951 p .000 Meaning Akdeniz-Ahi Evran Ahi Evran-Kocaeli Ahi EvranAdyaman Ahi Evran-Ege

The result of the analysis shows that the levels students hypothesize and define don't make meaningful variations in point of universities. F(6,549)=7.951 p<.01. Table 6. ANOVA results of students' "Designing Inquiry" grades as per universities. Source of Variance BetweenGroups Within Groups Total Total of Squares 6.320 389.911 396.230 sd 6 549 555 Average of Squares 1.053 .710 F 1.483 p 182 Meaning None

The result of the analysis shows that the levels students design inquiry don't make meaningful variations in point of universities. F(6,549)=1.483 p>.01. Table 7. ANOVA results of students' total grades as per universities. Source of Variance BetweenGroups Within Groups Total Total of Squares 690.306 9883.356 10573.662 sd 6 549 555 Average of Squares 115.051 18.002 F 6.391 p .000 Meaning Ahi Evran-Kocaeli Ahi Evran-Ege

The result of the analysis shows that general levels of the students don't make meaningful variations in point of universities. F(6,549)=6.391 p<.01. Table 8. ANOVA results based on the Total scores of students to universities Name of Universities Akdeniz University Ahi Evran University Kocaeli University Karadeniz Technical University Atatrk University Adyaman University Ege University Total Number of Students 93 52 98 90 74 99 50 556 Average 20.1613 17.7692 21.9388 19.9111 20.0135 19.9394 21.4000 20.2626 Standard Deviation 4.23826 3.75534 3.59213 4.06864 4.08972 4.07035 6.29545 4.36482 Standard Error .43949 .52077 .36286 .42887 .47542 .40909 .89031 .18511

Results of the analysis show that the grade average of the seven different universities is 20.26, which means that students have given correct answers for more than 50% questions at the test.

5. Conclusion and Suggestions

Science process skills, as the subject of the study, has been studied under the titles of distinguishing variables in a problem, hypothesizing and defining, making operative explanations, designing research required for problem solving, graphic drawing and data interpretation. In Table 2, considering the grade average of the students from different universities on "distinguishing variables" subject of the test of science process skills, the results of the analysis suggest that there isnt a meaningful variation at the levels they acquire science process skills. In Table 3, interpreting the grade average of the students from different universities on "making operative explanations" subject of the test of science process skills, it has been observed that there is a meaningful variation at the levels they acquire science process skills between Ahi Evran University and Kocaeli University, and between Ahi Evran

University and Karadeniz Technical University. In Table 4, looking at the grade average of the students from different universities on "graphic drawing and data interpretation" subject of the test of science process skills, it has been observed that there is a meaningful variation at the levels they acquire science process skills between Kocaeli University and Karadeniz Technical University, between Kocaeli University and Adyaman University, and between Atatrk University and Adyaman University. In Table 5, evaluating the grade average of the students from different universities on "hypothesizing and defining" subject of the test of science process skills, it has been observed that there is a meaningful variation at the levels they acquire science process skills between Akdeniz University and Ahi Evran University, between Ahi Evran University and Kocaeli University, between Ahi Evran University and Adyaman University, and between Ahi Evran University and Ege University. In Table 6, looking at the grade average of the students from different universities on "designing the inquiry" subject of the test of science process skills, it has been found that there isnt a meaningful variation at the levels they acquire science process skills. In Table 7, evaluating the total grade average of the students from different universities on the test of science process skills, it has been seen that there is a meaningful variation at the levels they acquire science process skills between Ahi Evran University and Kocaeli University, and between Ahi Evran University and Ege University. Finally, Table 8 shows that the grade average of these seven different universities is 20.26, which means that students have given correct answers for more than 50% questions at the test of science process skills. In general, meaningful variations in students' achievements have been observed between the universities. The importance of science process skills in science education was studied from different aspects in Tan and Temiz's study (2003). In the study by Tatar, Korkmaz & ren (2007), the basic features of Vee and I diagrams were described; and their effectiveness in developing science process skills in experimental science laboratories was studied. However, the achievement levels of the students could be described as tolerable. Considering the similar studies in literature, it is seen that science process skills have a significant role in science education. Some suggestions as follow might be made to increase the level of science process skills in science teaching: 1. Course contents should be determined with the aim of improving science process skills of the students. 2. In accordance with the students' science process skills development, various teaching methods should be adopted. 3. Students should be directed to make research activities intended to develop the level of their science process skills.

References
[1] Geban, ., Akar, P. & zkan, . (1992). Effects of Computer Simulation and Problem Solving Approaches on High School. Journal of Educational Research. 86 (1), 5-10. [2] Kanl, U.,& Temiz, B. K., (2006). The Sufficiency of the Numerical Questions in the Oss Examination in the Year 2003 on the Measurement of the Students Scientific Process Skills. Journal of Education and Science. 31(140); 62- 67. [3] Kaptan, F.,& Korkmaz, H., (2001). Ministry of National Education, Effective Learning and Teaching in Primary School Manual. Module 7 (http://www.kartalram.gov.tr). [4] Kaptan, S., (1998). Scientific Research and Statistic Techniques. Tekk Publishing, Ankara. [5] Kseolu, F.,& Kavak, N., 2001. Constructivist Approach in Science Teaching. Gazi University Faculty of Gazi Education Journal. 21(1); 139-148. [6] Nuholu, H., (2004). The Effects of Physics Laboratory Studies, in which the Learning Cycle Model has been Adopted, on Students Success in Science Education. Gazi University, Institute of Educational Sciences. (Unpublished Masters Thesis). Ankara.

[7] Okey, J. R., Wise, K.C. & Burns, J. C., (1985). Development of an integrated process skill test: TIPS II. Journal of Research in Science Teaching. 22 (2),169-177. [8] Sevin, E., (2008). The Effects of the 5E Model on the Students' Conceptual Understanding, the Development of Their Scientific Process Skills and Their Attitude in the Organic Chemistry Laboratory Course. Gazi University, Institute of Educational Sciences. Masters Thesis. Ankara. [9] Tan, M., Temiz, B.K. (2003). Importance of Science Process Skills in Science Education. Pamukkale University Faculty of Education Journal, 1(13), 89-101. [10] Taar, M. F., Temiz, B. K. & Tan, M. (2002). The Classification of Student Achievements in Primary Education Science Curriculum according to Science Process Skills. V. National Congress of Science and Mathematics Educations METU, Ankara. [11] Tatar, N.,Korkmaz,& ren,,F. (2007). Effective Instruments in Developing Science Process Skills in Experimental Science Laboratories: Vee and I Diagrams. Primary Teaching Online, 6(1), 76-92, 2007. [Online]: http://ilkogretim-online.org.tr