Examining of Secondary School Students’ Integrated Science Process Skills

Abstract

Integrated science process skills (ISPS) are a fundamental variable in scientific inquiry and scientific literacy. If students are proficient in this skill, they will be ready for living and working in the 21^st-century, which requires the application of scientific knowledge and scientific inquiry. For these reasons, the researchers undertook a study to investigate the ISPS of Thai lower secondary school students. From the use of stratified random sampling, 350 Bangkok, Thailand Grade 8 secondary school students were selected. The SPSS Version 23 statistics software was used for data analysis of the mean and standard deviation. A first-order confirmatory factor analysis (CFA) and a two-way analysis of variance (ANOVA) were also employed. Findings from the research determined that student ISPS consisted of five indicators, including 1) controlling variables 2) hypotheses formulation 3) defining variables operationally 4) experimentation, and 5) data interpretation. Findings also revealed that overall, student ISPS were at a level that needed improvement.

Keywords

• gender,21st-century,school size,confirmatory factor analysis,IPST,Thailand

References

1. Abungu, H. E. O., Okere, M. I. O., & Wachanga, S. W. (2014). Effect of science process skills teaching strategy on boys and girls’ achievement in chemistry in Nyando District, Kenya. Journal of Education and Practice, 5(15), 42-48. Retrieved from https://tinyurl.com/ybeespfx
2. Aktamis, H., & Ergin, Ö. (2008). The effect of scientific process skills education on students' scientific creativity, science attitudes, and academic achievements. Asia-Pacific Forum on Science Learning and Teaching, 9(1). Retrieved from https://www.eduhk.hk/apfslt/
3. AAAS. (1967). Science–A process approach. Washington, DC: American Association for the Advancement of Science.
4. AAAS. (1993). Benchmarks for science literacy. American Association for the Advancement of Science. New York, NY: Oxford University Press.
5. Anderson, R. D. (2002). Reforming science teaching: What research says about inquiry. Journal of Science Teacher Education, 13(1), 1-12. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1023/ A:1015171124982
6. Athuman, J. J. (2017). Comparing the effectiveness of an inquiry-based approach to that of conventional style of teaching in the development of students’ science process skills. International Journal of Environmental and Science Education, 12(8), 1797-1816. Retrieved from http://www.ijese.net/makale/1943
7. Baird, W. E., & Borich, G. D. (1987). Validity considerations for research on integrated-science process skills and formal reasoning ability. Science Education, 71(2), 259 – 269. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1002/sce.3730710212
8. Barrett, P. (2007). Structural equation modelling: Adjudging model fit. Personality and Individual Differences, 42(5), 815-824. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1016/j.paid.2006.09.018

9. Bartholomew, D. J., Steele, F., Moustaki, I., & Galbraith, J. I. (2008). Analysis of multivariate social science data (2nd ed.). Boca Raton, FL: CRC Press.
10. Beaumont-Walters, Y., & Soyibo, K. (2001). An analysis of high school students' performance on five integrated science process skills. Research in Science & Technological Education, 19(2), 133-145. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1080/02635140120087687
11. Bell, T., Urhahne, D., Schanze, S., & Ploetzner, R. (2010). Collaborative inquiry learning: models, tools, and challenges. International Journal of Science Education, 32(3), 349 – 377. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1080/09500690802582241
12. Bilgin, I. (2006). The effect of hands-on activities incorporating a cooperative learning approach on eight students science process skills and attitudes towards science. Journal of Baltic Science Education, 9(1), 27-36. Retrieved from https://tinyurl.com/ycx54orj
13. Bolat, M., Türk, C., Turna, Ö., & Altinbaş, A. (2014). Science and technology teacher candidates’ use of integrated process skills levels: A simple electrical circuit sample. Procedia-Social and Behavioral Sciences, 116, 2660-2663. DOI: https://doi.org/ 10.1016/j.sbspro.2014.01.631
14. Brotherton, P. N., & Preece, P. F. W. (1995). Science process skills: Their nature and interrelationships. Research in Science & Technological Education, 13(1), 5-11. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1080/0263514950130101
15. Chabalengula, V. M., Mumba, F., & Mbewe, S. (2012). How pre-service teachers’ understand and perform science process skills. EURASIA Journal of Mathematics, Science and Technology Education, 8(3), 167–176. DOI: https://doi.org/10.12973/eurasia.2012.832a
16. Dillashaw, F. G., & Okey, J. R. (1980). Test of the integrated science process skills for secondary science students. Science Education, 64(5), 601–608. DOI: https://doi.org/ 10.1002/sce.3730640506
17. Ekon, E. E., & Eni, E. I. (2015). Gender and acquisition of science process skills among junior secondary school students in Calabar Municipality: Implications for implementation of universal basic education objectives. Global Journal of Educational Research, 14(1), 93-99. DOI: https://doi.org/10.4314/gjedr.v14i1.3
18. G*Power 3.1 manual. (2017). Retrieved from https://tinyurl.com/jt8a83u
19. Gagne, P., & Hancock, G. R. (2006). Measurement model quality, sample size, and solution propriety in confirmatory factor models. Multivariate Behavioral Research, 41(1), 65-83. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1207/s15327906mbr4101_5
20. Germann, P. J. (1991). Developing science process skills through directed inquiry. The American Biology Teacher, 53(4), 243–247. DOI: https://doi.org/10.2307/4449277
21. Germann, P. J., Aram, R., & Burke, G. (1996). Identifying patterns and relationships among the responses of seventh-grade students to the science process skill of designing experiment. Journal of Research in Science Teaching, 33(1), 79-99. DOI: https://doi.org/ 10.1002/(sici)1098-2736(199601)33:1<79::aid-tea5>3.0.co;2-m
22. Gultepe, N. (2016). High school science teachers’ views on science process skills. International Journal of Environmental & Science Education, 11(5), 779-800. DOI: https://doi.org/ 10.12973/ijese.2016.348a
23. Hair, J. F., Jr., Black, W. C., Babin, B. J., & Anderson, R. E. (2014). Multivariate data analysis (7th ed.). Harlow, UK: Pearson.
24. Hambleton, R. K., & Rovinelli, R. J. (1986). Assessing the dimensionality of a set of test items. Applied Psychological Measurement, 10(3), 287-302. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1177/ 014662168601000307
25. Harlen, W. (1999). Purposes and procedures for assessing science process skills. Assessment in Education: Principles, Policy & Practice, 6(1), 129-144. DOI: https://doi.org/ 10.1080/09695949993044
26. Hooper, D., Coughlan, J., & Mullen, M. R. (2008). Structural equation modeling: Guidelines for determining model fit. Electronic Journal of Business Research Methods, 6(1), 53-60. Retrieved from http://tinyurl.com/zyd6od2
27. Jack, G. U. (2013). The influence of identified student and school variables on students’ science process skills acquisition. Journal of Education and Practice, 4(5), 16-22. Retrieved from https://tinyurl.com/ychtrvk3
28. Jack, G. U. (2018). Chemistry students’ science process skills acquisition: Influence of gender and class size. Global Research in Higher Education, 1(1), 80-97. DOI: https://doi.org/ 10.22158/grhe.v1n1p80
29. Karsli, F., & Şahin, Ç. (2009). Developing worksheet based on science process skills: Factors affecting solubility. Asia-Pacific Forum on Science Learning and Teaching, 10(1). Retrieved from https://www.eduhk.hk/apfslt/
30. Kasayanond, A., Umam, R., & Jermsittiparsert, K. (2019). Environmental sustainability and its growth in Malaysia by elaborating the green economy and environmental efficiency. International Journal of Energy Economics and Policy, 9(5), 465–473. DOI: https://doi.org/ 10.32479/ijeep.8310
31. Kenny, D. A., & McCoach, D. B. (2003). Effect of the number of variables on measures of fit in structural equationmodeling. Structural Equation Modeling: A Multidisciplinary Journal, 10(3), 333-351. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1207/s15328007sem1003_1
32. Keselman, A. (2003). Supporting inquiry learning by promoting normative understanding of multivariable causality. Journal of Research in Science Teaching, 40, 898–921. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1002/tea.10115
33. Kruea-In, N., & Thongperm, O. (2014). Teaching of science process skills in Thai contexts: Status, supports and obstacles. Procedia - Social and Behavioral Sciences, 141, 1324 – 1329. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1016/j.sbspro.2014.05.228
34. Lati, W., Supasorn, S., & Promarak, V. (2012). Enhancement of learning achievement and integrated science process skills using science inquiry learning activities of chemical reaction rates. Procedia-Social and Behavioral Sciences, 46, 4471-4475. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1016/j.sbspro.2012.06.279
35. Lee, V. E., & Loeb, S. (2000). School size in Chicago elementary schools: Effects on teachers' attitudes and students' achievement. American Educational Research Journal, 37(1), 3-31. DOI: https://doi.org/10.2307/1163470
36. Lestari, F., Saryantono, B., Syazali, M., Saregar, A., Madiyo, M., Jauhariyah, D., & Umam, R. (2019). Cooperative Learning Application with the Method of "Network Tree Concept Map": Based on Japanese Learning System Approach. Journal for the Education of Gifted Young Scientists, 7(1), 15 – 32. DOI: https://doi.org/10.17478/jegys.471466
37. Lind, K. K. (1999). Science in early childhood: Developing and acquiring fundamental concepts and skills. Retrieved fromhttps://tinyurl.com/y9y8jaee
38. Loehlin, J.C. (1992). Latentvariablemodels. Hillsdale, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum Publishers.
39. Mala, D. (2016, December 8). Pisa test rankings put Thai students near bottom of Asia. Bangkok Post. Retrieved from https://tinyurl.com/ya7wop9g
40. Mala, D. (2018, June 22). Thailand threatens to quit Pisa test. Bangkok Post. Retrieved from https://tinyurl.com/yd28779d
41. Martin, M. O., Mullis, I. V. S., Foy, P., & Hooper, M. (2016). As global study TIMSS turns 20, new results show East Asian students continue to outperform peers in mathematics. Retrieved from https://tinyurl.com/y7jc627m
42. Minstrell, J., & van Zee, E. H. (2000). Inquiring into Inquiry Learning and Teaching in Science. AAAS Project 2061.
43. Moeed, A. (2013). Science investigation that best supports student learning: Teachers' understanding of science investigation. International Journal of Environmental & Science Education, 8, 537-559. DOI: https://doi.org/10.12973/ijese.2013.218a
44. Mulaik, S. A. (2009). Linear causal modeling with structural equations. Boca Raton, Fl: Chapman & Hall/CRC.
45. Mullis, I. V. S., Martin, M. O., Goh, S., & Cotter, K. (2015). TIMSS 2015 Encyclopedia: Education Policy and Curriculum in Mathematics and Science. Retrieved fromhttps:// tinyurl.com/y9j46joq
46. NRC. (1996). National science education standards. Washington, DC: The National Academy Press. DOI: https://doi.org/10.17226/4962
47. NRC. (2000). Inquiry and the national science education standards: A guide for teaching and learning. Washington, DC: The National Academy Press. DOI: https://doi.org/10.17226/9596
48. NRC. (2005). America’s lab report: Investigations in high school science. Washington, DC: The National Academies Press.
49. NRC. (2007). Taking science to school: Learning and teaching science in grades K-8. Washington, DC: The National Academies Press.
50. Ning, W., & Kim, H. J. (2008). Residual pattern based test for interactions in two-way ANOVA. Biometrical Journal, 50(3), 431-445. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1002/ bimj.200710427
51. OECD. (2013a). PISA 2012 results: Excellence through equity: Giving every student the chance to succeed (Volume II), PISA, OECD Publishing. Retrieved from https://tinyurl.com/y8g4hxjb
52. OECD. (2013b). PISA in focus. Retrieved from https://tinyurl.com/yb9h4g4u
53. OECD. (2014). PISA 2012 results: What students know and can do - student performance in mathematics, reading and science (Volume I, revised edition, February 2014), PISA, OECD Publishing. Retrieved fromhttps://tinyurl.com/y9s8g2xc
54. OECD. (2016). PISA 2015 results (volume 1): Excellence and equity in education. Paris, France: OECD Publishing. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1787/9789264266490-en
55. OECD. (2018). PISA 2015 results. Retrieved from https://tinyurl.com/ydcnuxl8
56. Özgelen, S. (2012). Students’ science process skills within a cognitive domain framework. Eurasia Journal of Mathematics, Science & Technology Education, 8(4), 283-292. DOI: https://doi.org/10.12973/eurasia.2012.846a
57. Özgelen, S. (2017). Primary school students’ views on science and scientists. In P. Katz P. (Ed.), Drawing for Science Education. Rotterdam, Netherlands: Sense Publishers. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/978-94-6300-875-4_17
58. Padilla, M. J. (1990). The science process skills. Research Matters-to the Science Teacher. Retrieved from https://tinyurl.com/kod7p6w
59. Roth, W.-M., & Roychoudhury, A. (1993).The development of science process skills in authentic contexts. Journal of Research in Science Teaching, 30(2), 127-152. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1002/tea.3660300203
60. Ryan, R.M., & Deci, E. L. (2009). Promoting self-determined school engagement: Motivation, learning and well-being. In K. Wentzel, A. Wigfield and D. Miele (Eds.). Handbook of Motivation at School, (pp. 171-195), New York, NY: Routledge.
61. Sagala, R., Umam, R., Thahir, A., Saregar , A., & Wardani, I. (2019). The Effectiveness of STEM-Based on Gender Differences: The Impact of physics concept understanding. European Journal of Educational Research, 8(3), DOI: https://doi.org/10.12973/eu-jer.8.3.753
62. Sermsirikarnjana, P., Kiddee, K., & Pupat, P. (2017). An integrated science process skills needs assessment analysis for Thai vocational students and teachers. Asia-Pacific Forum on Science Learning and Teaching, 18(2). Retrieved from https://www.eduhk.hk/apfslt/
63. Syazali, M., Putra, F. G., Rinaldi, A., Utami, K. F., Widayanti, R. U., & Jermsittiparsert, K. (2019). Partial correlation analysis using multiple linear regression: Impact on business environment of digital marketing interest in the era of industrial revolution 4.0. Management Science Letters, 1875 – 1886. DOI: https://doi.org/10.5267/j.msl.2019.6.005
64. Shahali, E. H. M., & Halim, L. (2010). Development and validation of a test of integrated science process skills. Procedia-Social and Behavioral Sciences, 9, 142-146. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1016/j.sbspro.2010.12.127
65. Tabachnick, B. G., & Fidell, L. S. (2013). Using multivariate statistics. New York, NY: Pearson Education.
66. Turiman, P., Omar, J., Daud, A. M., & Osman, K. (2012). Fostering the 21st century skills through scientific literacy and science process skills. Procedia-Social and Behavioral Sciences, 59, 110-116.
67. Turiman, P., Osman, K., Meriam, T. S., & Wook, T. (2017). Digital age literacy proficiency among science preparatory course students. 6th International Conference on Electrical Engineering and Informatics (ICEEI). Langkawi, Malaysia. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1109/iceei.2017.8312429
68. Turner, R. C., & Carlson, L. (2003). Indexes of item-objective congruence for multidimensional items. International Journal of Testing, 3(2), 163-171. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1207/S15327574IJT0302_5
69. UNESCO. (n/d). Introduction to inquiry: An online course for teachers to learn about the inquiry learning cycle. Retrieved from https://tinyurl.com/y8gsky99
70. Wigfield, A., & Eccles, J. S. (2000). Expectancy–Value Theory of Achievement Motivation. Contemporary Educational Psychology, 25(1), 68 – 81. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1006/ceps.1999.1015
71. Yap, K. C., & Yeany, R. H. (1988). Validation of hierarchical relationships among Piagetian cognitive modes and integrated science process skills for different cognitive reasoning levels. Journal of Research in Science Teaching, 25(4), 247-281. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1002/tea.3660250402
72. Yeany, R. H., Yap. K. C., & Padilla, M. J. (1986). Analyzing hierarchical relationships among modes of cognitive reasoning and integrated science process skills. Journal of Research in Science Teaching, 3(4), 277-291. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1002/tea.3660230403
73. Yuenyong, C., Jones, A., & Yutakom, N. (2007). A comparison of Thailand and New Zealand students’ ideas about energy related to technological and societal issues. International Journal of Science and Mathematics Education, 6(2), 293–311. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/s10763-006-9060-9
74. Zimmerman, D. W., & Burkheimer, G. J. (1968).Coefficient alpha, test reliability, and heterogeneity of score distributions. The Journal of Experimental Education, 37(2), 90-96. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1080/00220973.1968.11011118