Comparing science process skills of prospective science teachers: A cross-sectional study

Recent studies on curriculum development and assessment give specific emphasis on students’ scientific approach to events, their knowledge acquisition and their ability to find solutions to problems (MNE, 2006). Although scientific research in the area of science is widely adopted by many countries, internationally conducted TIMSS studies reveal that their findings are not implemented in most countries (Bağcı Kılıç, 2003). The aim of science education is for science to be taught through scientific inquiry that develops students’ science process skills (SPS). Although the need to teach the ways of reaching knowledge is known by many countries, the results of internationally conducted TIMSS study show that this isn’t realized in many countries (Bağcı Kılıç, 2003). According to 1999-2007 results of TIMSS study, Turkey is remained significantly below the average level (URL-1-2, 2009). Taking into consideration that TIMSS also measures SPS, Turkey’s remaining below the average level may be interpreted that students have very low level of SPS.

PISA is another international assessment study in which many countries regularly participate. The reason why Turkey takes part in PISA is to determine both our position at international level with respect to some references and the shortcomings of our education system toward identifying what precautions to take in order to increase the quality of education. PISA 2003 results have been used as a source in curriculum development studies and various research studies in the area of education (URL-3, 2009). In Turkey, Science and Technology curriculum was restructured in 2004 taking these factors into consideration. General aims of the restructured Science and Technology curriculum were explained and the targets of the program were introduced. When the targets of Science and Technology program are examined, it is possible to see that ‘educating all students to be scientifically literate regardless of their individual differences’ is among the most important aims of education. Scientific literacy is defined as developing individuals’ abilities of investigating, questioning, critical thinking, problem solving, decision making, being life-long learning individuals, and a set of ability, attitude and understanding regarding science to sustain individuals’ curiosity about their environment and the world (MNE, 2006). Science literacy is a key goal of science education (American Association for the Advancement of Science [AAAS, 1993]; National Research Council [NRC, 1996]). The Educating scientifically literate individuals, however, is possible not through passing knowledge onto individuals but through teaching them and enabling them to adopt to use the ways to gain scientific knowledge. In this respect, SPS is highly important in teaching ways of reaching knowledge. SPS are mainly classified as basic skills and integrated process skills, the former involving observing, measuring, classifying, using number relationships, predicting, drawing conclusion, communicating and the latter involving identifying and controlling variables, formulating and testing hypotheses, operational describing, experimenting, and commenting variables (Kanlı & Yağbasan, 2008). While SPS are widely used in science, they are also used in real life contexts. They are required for explaining how real life events have occurred. SPS involves creative and critical thinking alongside scientific thinking. It is known that having those who can think creatively and critically are an important factor in the development of a country. Therefore, it is possible to say that SPS can be viewed as a measure of creativity for making scientific discoveries and contributing to countries’ development. Aktamış and Ergin (2007), in their study that aimed to determine the relationship between SPS and scientific creativity, Aktamış and Ergin (2007) gave students various activities and administered after the intervention SPS measurement test and scientific creativity scale to twenty 7th grade students. Additionally, they analyzed students’ worksheets in terms of SPS and scientific creativity. As the result of their study, they found a meaningful relationship between SPS and scientific creativity. SPS and scientific creativity mutually support each other (Roberts 2003). Therefore, it is possible to say that SPS is also a measure of creativity, which plays a significant role in contributing to scientific discoveries toward the good of society. Therefore, the need of providing students with SPS comes to the fore toward the development of creative individuals. Teachers have some important responsibilities such as organizing the teaching environment and teaching activities, teaching the ways of reaching knowledge, developing students’ SPS and following students’ SPS level of development and enabling students to develop their SPS (Ash, 1993; Harlen, 1999; Bağcı Kılıç, 2003; Arslan & Tertemiz, 2004).

Many researchers have investigated studies related to SPS in science education (Lazarowitz & Huppert, 1993; Brotherton & Preece, 1995; Harlen, 1999; Beaumont-Walters & Soyibo, 2001; Huppert, Michal & Lazarowitz, 2002; Tan & Temiz, 2003; Harrell & Bailer, 2004; Saat, 2004; Harrell & Bailer, 2004; Wilke & Straits, 2005; Monhardt & Monhardt, 2006; Karahan, 2006; Bilgin, 2006; Kanlı, 2007; Koray, Köksal, Özdemir, & Presley, 2007; Temiz, 2007; Farsakoğlu et al., 2008; Karslı & Şahin, 2009; Hotaman 2008; Kılıç, Haymana & Bozyılmaz, 2008; Metin & Bilişçi 2009; Karslı, 2011). The foremost among these studies are those that examine the effect of using different teaching methods on students’ SPS and academic success (Campbell, 1979; Lee et al., 2002; Saat, 2004; Karahan, 2006; Tatar, 2006; Azar et al., 2006; Kanlı, 2007; Koray et al., 2007; Dori & Sasson, 2008). Most of these research studies showed that there were positive relationships between the students’ SPS and their achievements in science and also between the students’ positive attitudes toward science and their achievements in science (Colley, 2006; Bilgin, 2006; Wilke & Straits, 2006; Kesamang & Taiwo, 2002; Beaumont Walters & Soyibo, 2001; Bybee, 2000; Schibeci & Riley, 1986). Therefore, science teachers should be aware of the importance of improving the students’ SPS and positive attitudes toward science, because they are strong predictors of the students’ achievement in science.

Farsakoğlu et al (2008) found out that seniors PST did not know SPS and confused it with concepts like Bloom’s taxonomy’s (cognitive domain) and Piaget’s development stages. Karslı and Şahin (2009) prepared a worksheet based on SPS in order to develop PST’ SPS in laboratories and to promote their awareness of SPS. What attracts attention is the small number of studies carried out on the SPS of teachers and prospective teachers (Farsakoğlu et al., 2008; Karslı, Şahin & Ayas, 2009; Sinan & Uşak, 2011). However, there was no cross-sectional research study on prospective teachers to show how SPS develops over time. Cross-sectional research is generally carried out with the purpose of identifying misconceptions and comparing developmental differences at different ages (Çalık & Ayas, 2005; Saka et al., 2006; Şahin et al., 2008). Studies that use cross-sectional research method are effective in improving activities with respect to teaching concepts and in informing teachers how a concept develops in an individual. Carrying out a cross-sectional study on SPS is believed to be important in identifying whether or not there is a relationship between SPS and different grades. Comparing SPS at different grades is believed to enlighten researchers in their studies toward observing the development of SPS in prospective teachers, toward elimination of shortcomings that have been identified and toward increasing the quality in education.

The purpose of this study is to examine how prospective science teachers’ SPS develop according to different grades.