 |
Asia-Pacific Forum
on Science Learning and Teaching, Volume 9, Issue 1, Article 4
(June, 2008) |
Conclusion and Discussion
After the study was completed, the effects of the scientific process skills training on the students’ scientific creativity, achievement and attitude were investigated. The results obtained for each sub-problem are as follows:1. The students who had SPS training succeeded more than the students had traditional training. This result shows that giving scientific process skills training increased the academic achievements of the students. Similar results show that there was an increaseon the achievement levels of the students at the end of the SPS training done in science courses by Ardaç and Mugaloglu (2002), laboratory and computer-aided training done based on SPS training at chemistry courses by Geban (1990), and the training done based on the activity by Turpin (2000).
2. There was an increase in both groups attitudes; however, there was no significant difference between them. When the post-test results of the two groups were compared, there was no statistically significant difference between both groups, although the average of the group that had SPS training was slightly higher. Jaus (1975) found that SPS training did not affect the attitudes of the students towards science. Similar results were obtained at the other studies done related to attitudes such as the study of Çaliskan, Selçuk and Erol (2005) where the attitudes towards physics was investigated, the study of Altiparmak and Nakipoglu (2002) related to attitudes towards biology, and the study of Ünal and Ergin (2006) where the effects of the science education using the discovery teaching strategy on the students’ attitudes towards science were investigated. When the studies were investigated, the duration of the applications varied from four weeks to eight weeks. A possible reason for not changing the students’ attitudes could be due to the short application times.
Although the students who had SPS training developed a positive attitude towards the course during the training, the attitudes of the students in the group where the traditional training also developed positively, so it is difficult to say that the improvement in the attitudes of the SPS trained students resulted directly from the SPS training.
3. When SC scores were compared for both groups, the increaseon the scientific creativity of the students given SPS training constituted a significant difference compared to the students in the traditional group.
In the following studies, an increase of students’ creative thinking skills was found; for example, when SPS training was done by simple and creative activities in the study of Lee and Lee (2002); in the study of Sungur (1988), the students who had the creative problem solving education were more creative; when activities were directed by SPS training in the study done by Lin and the others (2003); and also Chiang and Tang (1999) found the same result when the V-map strategy was used to improve the scientific creativity of the students in their studies; and so do Laius and Rannikmae (2005) when scientific and technological literacy education was done. These results show that giving SPS training to the students or performing the activities directed to gain SPSs increased the SC of the students.
It can be said that SPS improves scientific creativity and academic achievement. Scientific creativity is an educable or a learned skill in some activities rather than an innate or an extraordinary understanding skill. In addition, SPS can be used for improving students’ scientific creativity.
