The Effects of an Instructional Intervention on 7th Grade Students’ Science Process Skills and Science Achievement

Öz

The aim of this study is to investigate the effects of the instructional intervention on science process skills (SPSs) and science achievement of the 7th grade elementary students in Turkey. Non-equivalent control group quasi-experimental design was employed for research design. While an instructional intervention was performed in order to integrate the learning of science process for the experimental group, the control group received a regular teaching approach over the existing curriculum. The students were administered the Test of Scientific Process Assessment (TSPA) and achievement test as pre- and post-test. Although the difference between the experimental and control group related to the post-test scores of both the test of TSPA and the achievement test was not significant, it can be possible suggest that the experimental group improved their SPSs and achievements more than the control group via the instructional intervention. The results also indicated that there is a significant correlation between the students’ SPSs and achievements in science.

Anahtar Kelimeler

• Achievement , Elementary student, Science process skills

Kaynakça

1. American Association for the Advancement of Science (AAAS, 1990). Science for all Americans: Project 2061. New York: Oxford University Press. Retrieved 10/01/2010, from http://www.project2061.org/ publications/sfaa/online/chap14.html
2. Aktamış, H. (2007). Fen eğitiminde bilimsel süreç becerilerinin bilimsel yaratıcılığa etkisi [The effects of scientific process skills on scientific creativity: the example of primary school seventh grade physics]. Unpublished doctoral dissertation, Dokuz Eylül Universitesi, Eğitim Bilimleri Enstitüsü, Izmir, Turkey.
3. Aydoğdu, B. (2006). İlköğretim fen ve teknoloji dersinde bilimsel süreç becerilerini etkileyen değişkenlerin belirlenmesi [Identification of variables effecting science process skills in primary science and technology course]. Unpublished master’s thesis, Dokuz Eylül Üniversitesi, Eğitim Bilimleri Enstitüsü, İzmir, Turkey.
4. Başdağ, G. (2006). 2000 yılı fen bilgisi dersi ve 2004 yılı fen ve teknoloji dersi öğretim programlarının bilimsel süreç becerileri yönünden karşılastırılması [To compare the science and technology curriculum of the 2004 with the science curriculum of the 2000 in their effects on developing the students’ scientific process skills]. Unpublished master’s thesis, Gazi Universitesi, Eğitim Bilimleri Enstitüsü, Ankara, Turkey.
5. Baysen, E. (2006). Öğretmenlerin sınıfta sordukları sorular ile öğrencilerin bu sorulara verdikleri cevapların düzeyleri [The levels of teacher questıons and student answers], Kastamonu Eğitim Dergisi. 14(1), 21-28.
6. Berberoğlu, G., Arıkan, S., Demirtaşlı, N., İş Güzel, Ç., & Özgen Tuncer, Ç. (2009). İlköğretim 1.-5. sınıflar arasındaki öğretim programlarının kapsam ve öğrenme çıktıları açısından değerlendirilmesi. Cito Eğitim: Kuram ve Uygulama, 1, 10-48.
7. Boyacı, K. (2010). 2005 ilkögretim 6. 7. ve 8. sınıf fen ve teknoloji öğretim programı, programın uygulanmasında yaşanan sorunlar ve çözüm önerilerine ilişkin öğretmen görüşleri [The problems of 6th, 7th and 8th grade science and technology education program in 2005 and teachers’ opinions related to solution]. Unpublished master’s thesis, Cukurova Universitesi, Sosyal Bilimler Enstitüsü, Adana, Turkey.
8. Brotherton, P.N., & Preece, P.F.W. (1996). Teaching science process skills. International Journal of Science Education, 18, 65-74.

9. Coil, D., Wenderoth, M. P., Cunningham, M., & Dirks, C. (2010). Teaching the process of science: Faculty perceptions and an effective methodology. CBE—Life Sciences Education, 9, 524–535.
10. Department for Education Science (DfES) (2004). Science: The National Curriculum for England. London: DfEE. Retrieved 10/01/2012, from www.qca.org.uk/nc/
11. Dirks, C. & Cunningham, M. (2006). Enhancing diversity in science: Is teaching science process skills the answer? CBE—Life Sciences Education, 5 (3), 218–226.
12. ERG (Eğitim Reformu Girişimi) (2011). Education monitoring report 2010: Execute summary 2010, Istanbul, Turkey. Retrieved 10/01/2012, from http://erg.sabanciuniv.edu/sites/erg.sabanciuniv. edu/files/EIR_2010_Exe_Sum.pdf
13. Fraenkel, J. R. & Wallen, N. E. (2006). How to design and evaluate research in education. (6th ed.) New York: McGraw-Hill.
14. Germann, P. J. & Aram, R. J. (1996). Student performances on the science processes of recording data, analyzing data, drawing conclusions, and providing evidence. Journal of Research in Science Teaching, 33(7), 773-798.
15. Güler, Z. (2010). İlköğretim öğrencilerinin SBS puanları ile ders başarıları, bilimsel süreç becerileri ve mantıksal düşünme yetenekleri arasındaki ilişki [The relationship among elementary students’ test scores of level determination exam, course achievements, science processing skills and logical thinking skills]. Unpublished master’s thesis, Abant İzzet Baysal Üniversitesi, Sosyal Bilimler Enstitüsü, Bolu, Turkey.
16. Güneş, B. (Ed.). (2008). İlkoğretim 7. sınıf fen ve teknoloji ders kitabı [7th grade science and technology textbook].MEB Devlet Kitapları, Ankara: İmpress.
17. Hackling, M.W. (2005). Working Scientifically: Implementing and Assessing Open Investigation Work is Science. A resources book for teachers of primary and secondary science. Department of Education and Training, Western Australia. Retrieved 10/01/2012, from http://www.angelfire.com/sc/staws /Working_Scientifically.pdf
18. Klahr, D. & Chen, Z. (2003). Overcoming the positive-capture strategy in young children: learning about indeterminacy. Child Development, September/October 2003, 74 (5), 1275-1296.
19. Kurtuluş, N. & Çavdar, O. (2011). Teachers’ and students’ views toward the activities of the primary science and technology curriculum. Necatibey Faculty of Education Electronic Journal of Science and Mathematics Education, 5 (1), 1-23.
20. McNeill, N.K., Lizotte, D.J., Krajcik, J., & Marx, R.W. (2004l). Supporting students’ construction of scientific explanations using scaffolded curriculum materials and assessments. Paper presented at the annual meeting of the American Educational Research Association, San Diego, CA. Retrieved 15/02/2011, from http://hi-ce.org/aera2004.html
21. Metz, K.E. (2004). Children’s understanding of scientific inquiry: Their conceptualization of uncertainty in investigations of their own design. Cognition and Instruction, 22(2), 219-290.
22. Millar, R (2010). Increasing participation in science beyond GCSE: The impact of twentyfirst century science. School Science Review, 91(337), 67–73.
23. Ministry of National Education [MoNE]. (2005). İlköğretim fen ve teknoloji dersi (6, 7 ve 8. Sınıflar) öğretim programı. [Elementary (6, 7, and 8th grade) Science and Technology Curriculum) Talim Terbiye Kurulu Başkanlığı, Ankara.
24. NRC (National Research Council) (1996). National science education standards. Washington, D.C: National Academy Press.
25. NRC (National Research Council). (2007). Taking science to school: Learning and teaching science in grades K-8. R.A. Duschl, H.A. Schweingruber, & A.W. Shouse, (Eds). Committee on Science Learning-Kindergarten through Eighth Grade, The National Academies Press. Retrieved 10/01/2010, from: http://www.nap.edu/catalog/11625.html
26. Preece, P.F.W., & Brotherton, P.N. (1997). Teaching science process skills: Long-term effects on science achievement. International Journal of Science Education, 19, 895-901.
27. Shayer, M., & Adey, P. S. (1993). Accelerating the development of formal thinking in middle and high school students. IV: Three years after a two-year intervention. Journal of Research in Science Teaching, 30, 351-366.
28. Smith. K. A. & Welliver. P. W. (1995). Science process assessments for elementary and middle school students. Smith and Welliver Educational Services. Retrieved 10/01/2010, from
29. http://www.scienceprocesstests.com
30. Spektor-Levy, O., Eylon, B.S., & Scherz, Z. (2008). Teaching scientific communication skills in science studies: Does it make a difference? Teaching and Teacher Education, 24, 462–477.
31. TIMSS (1999). TIMSS 1999 International science report: Findings from IEA’s repeat of the third international mathematics and science study at the eighth grade. Retrieved 10/01/2010, from http://timss. bc.edu/timss1999i/science_achievement_report.html
32. TIMSS (2003). TIMSS 2007 International science report: Findings from IEA’s trends in international mathematics and science study at the fourth and eighth grades. Retrieved 10/01/2010, from http://timss.bc.edu/TIMSS2003/PDF/TIMSS2003_InternationalScienceReport.pdf
33. TIMSS (2007). TIMSS 2007 International science report: Findings from IEA’s trends in international mathematics and science study at the fourth and eighth grades. Retrieved 10/01/2010, from
34. http://timss.bc.edu/TIMSS2007/PDF/TIMSS2007_InternationalScienceReport.pdf
35. URL-1: http://timssandpirls.bc.edu
36. Wilke, R. R. & Straits, W.J. (2005). Practical advices for teaching inquiry-based science process skills in the biological sciences. The American Biology Teacher, 67(9): 534-540.