Journal of Baltic Science Education, Vol. 17, No. 5, 2018

Vol.17, No.
5, 2018
ISSN 1648-3898 /Print/
ISSN 2538–7138 /Online/
The International Journal of the Scientia Socialis Ltd., & SMC “Scientia Educologica”
Journal of Baltic Science Education, Vol. 17, No. 5, 2018
Editorial Board
ISSN 1648–3898 /Print/
Editor-in-Chief ISSN 2538–7138 /Online/
Prof., Dr. Vincentas Lamanauskas Siauliai University, Lithuania
Deputy Editor-in-Chief
Prof., Dr. Andris Broks University of Latvia, Latvia
Deputy Editor-in-Chief
Prof., Dr. Miia Rannikmäe University of Tartu, Estonia
Executive Secretary
Dr. Laima Railienė SMC “Scientia Educologica”, Lithuania
Editors:
Prof., Dr. Boris Aberšek University of Maribor, Slovenia
Prof., Dr. Agnaldo Arroio University of Sao Paulo, Brazil
Prof., Dr. Martin Bilek Charles University, Czech Republic
Dr. Paolo Bussotti University of Udine, Italy
Prof., Dr. Hana Čtrnáctová Charles University, Czech Republic
Dr. Peter Demkanin Comenius University, Slovakia
Dr. André du Plessis Nelson Mandela University, South Africa
Prof., Dr. Peter Heering University of Flensburg, Germany
Prof., Dr. Jack Holbrook University of Tartu, Estonia
Prof., Dr. Ryszard M. Janiuk Maria Curie Sklodowska University, Poland
Dr. Milan Kubiatko University of Zilina, Slovakia
Dr. Todar Lakhvich Belarusian State Medical University, Republic of Belarus
Prof., Dr. Jari Lavonen University of Helsinki, Finland
Prof., Dr. Rita Makarskaitė-Petkevičienė Vilnius University, Lithuania
Prof., Dr. Aadu Ott Göteborg University, Sweden
Prof., Dr. Paul Pace Malta University, Malta
Prof., Dr. Valfrids Paškevičs Daugavpils University, Latvia
Prof., Dr. Jongwon Park Chonnam National University, Korea
Prof., Dr. Raffaele Pisano Lille 3 University, France
Prof., Dr. Pavol Prokop Trnava University, Slovakia
Prof., Dr. Konstantinos Ravanis University of Patras, Greece
Dr. Alona Rauckienė-Michaelsson Klaipėda University, Lithuania
Dr. Dušica Rodić University of Novi Sad, Serbia
Prof., Dr. Heimo Saarikko Helsinki University, Finland
Dr. Hae-Ae Seo Pusan National University, Korea
Dr. Uladzimir K. Slabin University of Oregon, USA
Prof., Dr. Borislav V. Toshev Sofia University, Bulgaria
Dr. Georgios Tsaparlis University of Ioannina, Greece
Dr. Muhammet Usak Science and Medical Education Research Center, Turkey
A scientific journal JBSE issued by the Scientia Socialis Ltd., in cooperation with SMC Scientia Educologica, Lithuania,
emphasizes theoretical, experimental and methodical studies in the field of science education. JBSE is an international
academic journal. In order to maintain the high standards appropriate to such a journal, all contributions received are
submitted for anonymous review by two experts, additionally to review by the Editor. The decision of the Editor on
the acceptance of articles is final and no correspondence can be entered into on reasons for rejection of a submitted
contribution.
Published since 2002 Address:

The journal is published bimonthly. Scientia Socialis, Ltd.
IF: 0.479 (2016) Donelaičio Street 29, LT-78115 Siauliai, Lithuania
H Index: 10 (2016) E-mail: mail.jbse@gmail.com
SJR: 0.326 (2017) Phone: +370 687 95668
ICDS: 10.7 (2017) Home page: http://www.scientiasocialis.lt/jbse/
ICV: 143.26 (2015)
ISSN 1648–3898 (Print) © Scientia Socialis Ltd., Lithuania, 2018
ISSN 2538–7138 (Online)

The articles appearing in this journal are indexed/abstracted in British Education Index
(http://www.leeds.ac.uk/bei/bei.htm), Copernicus Index (http://journals.indexcopernicus.com), The Asian
Education Index (http://www.asian-education-index.com/sciences_index.php), EBSCO: Academic Search Premier
746 (http://search.ebscohost.com), Social Scisearch (Thomson Reuters) (http://science.thomsonreuters.com/index.html),
Journal Citation Reports / Social Sciences Edition (Thomson Reuters)
(http://thomsonreuters.com/products_services/scientific/Journal_Citation_Reports),
and SCOPUS (http://www.scopus.com)
ISSN 1648–3898 /Print/ CONTENTS
CONTENTS
Editorial
BEST PRACTICES OF ASSESSMENT AS A WAY TO PROMOTE EFFECTIVE LEARNING

Dušica D. Rodić . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 748
Articles
UNDERGRADUATE STUDENTS’ SCIENCE PROCESS SKILLS IN TERMS OF SOME VARIABLES:

A PERSPECTIVE FROM INDONESIA
Irwanto, Eli Rohaeti, Anti Kolonial Prodjosantoso . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 751
EFFECTIVENESS OF POLYA PROBLEM-SOLVING AND TARGET-TASK COLLABORATIVE LEARNING

APPROACHES IN ELECTRICITY AMONGST HIGH SCHOOL PHYSICS STUDENTS
Ademola Olatide Olaniyan, Nadaraj Govender . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 765
HERMENEUTIC PERSPECTIVES OF PRE-SERVICE SCIENCE TEACHERS ABOUT SCIENCE

Bilge Can, Asiye Bahtiyar, Hasret Kökten . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 778
IMPROVING THE QUALITY OF STUDENT QUESTIONS IN PRIMARY SCIENCE CLASSROOMS

Sibel Kaya, Mustafa Temiz . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 800
DEVELOPMENT OF CCDSR TEACHING MODEL TO IMPROVE SCIENCE PROCESS SKILLS OF PRE-

SERVICE PHYSICS TEACHERS
Iqbal Limatahu, Wasis, Suyatno Sutoyo, Binar Kurnia Prahani . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 812
TAKE-HOME-EXPERIMENT: ENHANCING STUDENTS’ SCIENTIFIC ATTITUDE

Zulirfan, Zanaton H. Iksan, Kamisah Osman, Sayyidah Nusaibah Mohd Salehudin . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 828
GRADE 12 STUDENTS’ PERCEIVED SELF-EFFICACY TOWARDS WORKING LIFE SKILLS AND

CURRICULUM CONTENT PROMOTED THROUGH SCIENCE EDUCATION
Regina Soobard, Helen Semilarski, Jack Holbrook, Miia Rannikmäe . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 838
DIFFERENT USER GROUPS OF UNIVERSITY STUDENTS AND THEIR ICT COMPETENCE: EVIDENCE
FROM THREE COUNTRIES IN CENTRAL EUROPE
Ludvík Eger, Milan Klement, Łukasz Tomczyk, Mária Pisoňová, Gabriela Petrová . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 851
EFFECTS OF PROJECT-BASED ACTIVITIES IN DEVELOPING HIGH SCHOOL STUDENTS’ ENERGY

LITERACY
Kuen-Yi Lin, Shao-Chuan Lu . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 867
THE EFFECT OF FIFTH-GRADE STUDENTS’ SCIENCE ANXIETY ON METACOGNITIVE AWARENESS

Menşure Alkış Küçükaydın . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 878
PREDICTION OF STUDENTS’ SCIENCE ACHIEVEMENT: AN APPLICATION OF MULTIVARIATE

ADAPTIVE REGRESSION SPLINES AND REGRESSION TREES
Serpil Kilic Depren . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 887
Information
INFORMATION FOR CONTRIBUTORS . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 904
PROBLEMS OF PSYCHOLOGY IN THE 21ST CENTURY . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 905
NATURAL SCIENCE EDUCATION . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 906
EDUCATION POLICY, MANAGEMENT AND QUALITY . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 907
747
BEST PRACTICES OF ASSESSMENT AS A WAY TO PROMOTE EFFECTIVE LEARNING
Dušica D. Rodić
University of Novi Sad, Republic of Serbia
The conceptual understanding presents a key component of science expertise, and thus the most desirable
outcome of science education process. However, reports in the literature describe the opposite reality. There is an
evidence that students are prone to use algorithms, to memorize rules, definitions and procedural steps, that is, to
use efficient heuristics that allow them to skip logical reasoning for reaching an immediate goal (Dori & Hameiri,
2003; Hammer, 1994; Nyachwaya, Warfa, Roehrig, & Schneider, 2014). The questions arise:
(i) How the assessment tools themselves contribute to this phenomenon?
(ii) Can we encourage the development of logical reasoning among students by applying various assess-
ment tools?
The viva voce assessment is probably the oldest type of knowledge examination. Due to its superior character-
istics (development of communication skills, development of critical thinking, the possibility of diagnosing scientific
reasoning or misconceptions, profound analysis of student knowledge etc.), this form of examination remained
the traditional teaching practice for hundreds of years (Huxham, Campbell, & Westwood, 2012). Yet, contemporary
issues such as the continued expansion of the curricula at all levels of education, large lecture at tertiary level and
many other objective reasons, have made written exams more widespread in the teaching practice. Unfortunately,
this has made many students learning for tests, and many teachers teaching to the test, thus ultimately turning
teaching practice into students’ preparation to test well.
The simplest written exams, that were most frequently used, consisted of standard multiple-choice questions
(Aronson & Krause, 1982). This format is likely to be still in the wider use among teachers, despite some objective
shortcomings such as the high possibility of guessing the correct answers, assessment of knowledge at the level
of reproduction, lack of creative thinking etc. On the other hand, the academic community offers a wide range of
novel approaches in the field of students’ assessment, which are far less represented in teaching practice, but which
seems to require the greater engagement of students, thus leading to the optimization of the learning process.
As the author of this Editorial, reflection on this topic from the perspective of personal research experience,
seems appropriate. First, one should look at the multi-tier tests that were created from the real need to eliminate
the shortcomings of the common multiple-choice questions. From the pioneering work of Treagust (1986), and
later on in the fields of physics (Caleon & Subramaniam, 2010; Chu, Treagust, & Chandrasegaran, 2009), chemistry
(Coştu, Ayas, Niaz, Ünal, & Çalık, 2007, Milenković, Hrin, Segedinac, & Horvat, 2016; Yan & Subramaniam, 2018),
astronomy (Kanli, 2014), biology (Arslan, Cigdemoglu, & Moseley, 2012; Kılıç & Sağlam, 2009), researchers have
continuously reported on the benefits of applying two-tier, three-tier and four-tier tests. The basic advantage over
common multiple-choice tests is reflected in the fact that multi-tier tests do not only examine the phenomenon
but also probe the reasoning behind it, thus requiring greater involvement of students.
Further, in the context of the recently described forms of assessment, systemics should be mentioned as well.
This form of assessment was introduced by Fahmy and Lagowski (2002) to promote meaningful learning. These
authors presented systemic questions – closed, interacting conceptual systems, which require students to correlate
the existing concepts and discover new relations among them. Further development of these tasks by different
authors (Hrin, Fahmy, Segedinac, & Milenković, 2016; Hrin, Milenković, & Segedinac, 2018; Vachliotis, Salta, Vasiliou,
748
& Tzougraki, 2011), led to the creation of very effective tools that enable development of higher-order thinking skills.
Integral parts of the curriculum of every physical science subject are problem solving tasks. However, the
majority of problem-solving tasks encountered at primary, secondary and even tertiary level of education require
lower-order cognitive skills to reach a solution. It means that such tasks can be solved successfully, using appropriate
algorithms without proper conceptual understanding. To solve this problem, researchers (Overton & Potter, 2008;
Overton, Potter, & Leng, 2013) have developed open-ended questions based on real-life context, correct solution
of which is not unique, i.e. there is more than one acceptable answer. Such tasks require higher-order skills and
are highly desirable in teaching practice.
The above-mentioned examples are just a few of the current forms of assessment that arose as a result of
the science education research, while there are far more positive examples in the literature. Nonetheless, based
on the previous, it is clear that good assessment practices play a significant role in fostering effective learning and
therefore their application in teaching practice is extremely important. The prime question that arises here is how
familiar the teachers are with these modern forms of assessment? In different countries, the situation varies but
generally holds the opinion that teachers do not receive much formal training in assessment design within initial
teacher training. For this reason, it often happens that teachers rely heavily on the assessment tools provided by
textbook publishers or some other sources, which do not support students’ learning. This certainly points to the
need to modernize and adapt curricula of relevant courses within initial teacher education, regarding assessment
design and analysis, but besides that, it points to the need for additional programs of continuing professional
development that would encompass training in assessment.
Finally, some dilemmas remain to be considered:
(i) Do teachers really have a choice?
(ii) What will be the consequences for those who opt for good teaching practice instead of good scores
on the test?
(iii) What can be done on this matter?
Either way, although we can have different views on the issue, the ultimate goal should be the same for all
of us – students with knowledge beyond memorization and algorithms.
References
Aronson, J. N., & Krause, E. C. (1982). An alternative type of objective exam. Journal of Chemical Education, 59 (5), 381-381.
Arslan, H. O., Cigdemoglu, C., & Moseley, C. (2012). A three-tier diagnostic test to assess preservice teachers’ misconceptions
about global warming, greenhouse effect, ozone layer depletion, and acid rain. International Journal of Science Education,
34 (11), 1667-1686.
Caleon, I. S., & Subramaniam, R. (2010). Development and application of a three-tier diagnostic test to assess secondary students’
understanding of waves. International Journal of Science Education, 32 (7), 939-961.
Chu, H. E., Treagust, D. F., & Chandrasegaran, A. L. (2009). A stratified study of students’ understanding of basic optics concepts
in different contexts using two-tier multiple-choice items. Research in Science & Technological Education, 27 (3), 253-265.
Coştu, B., Ayas, A., Niaz, M., Ünal, S., & Çalık, M. (2007). Facilitating conceptual change in students’ understanding of boiling
concept. Journal of Science Education and Technology, 16 (6), 524-536.
Dori, Y. J., & Hameiri, M. (2003). Multidimensional analysis system for quantitative chemistry problems - symbol, macro, micro
and process aspects. Journal of Research in Science Teaching, 40 (3), 278-302.
Fahmy, A. F. M., & Lagowski, J. J. (2002). Systemic approach to teaching and learning chemistry: SATLC in Egypt. Chemical Educa-
tion International, 3 (1), AN-1.
Hammer, D. (1994). Epistemological beliefs in introductory physics. Cognition and Instruction, 12 (2), 151-183.
Hrin, T. N., Fahmy, A. F. M., Segedinac, M. D., & Milenković, D. D. (2016). Systemic synthesis questions [SSynQs] as tools to help
students to build their cognitive structures in a systemic manner. Research in Science Education, 46 (4), 525-546.
Hrin, T., Milenković, D., & Segedinac, M. (2018). Diagnosing the quality of high school students’ and pre-service chemistry teachers’
cognitive structures in organic chemistry by using student generated systemic synthesis questions. Chemistry Education
Research and Practice, 19 (1), 305-318.
Huxham, M., Campbell, F., & Westwood, J. (2012). Oral versus written assessments: A test of student performance and attitudes.
Assessment & Evaluation in Higher Education, 37 (1), 125-136.
Kanli, U. (2014). A study on identifying the misconceptions of pre-service and in-service teachers about basic astronomy concepts.
EURASIA Journal of Mathematics, Science and Technology Education, 10 (5), 471-479.
Kılıç, D., & Sağlam, H. (2009). Development of a two-tier diagnostic test to determine students’ understanding of concepts in
genetics. Eurasian Journal of Educational Research, 36, 227-244.
Milenković, D. D., Hrin, T. N., Segedinac, M. D., & Horvat S. (2016), Development of a three-tier test as a valid diagnostic tool for
identification of misconceptions related to carbohydrates. Journal of Chemical Education, 93 (9), 1514-1520.
749
Nyachwaya, J. M., Warfa, A. M., Roehrig, G. H., & Schneider, J. L. (2014). College chemistry students’ use of memorized algorithms
in chemical reactions. Chemistry Education Research and Practice, 15 (1), 81-93.
Overton, T., & Potter, N. (2008). Solving open-ended problems, and the influence of cognitive factors on student success. Chemistry
Education Research and Practice, 9 (1), 65-69.
Overton, T., Potter, N., & Leng, C. (2013). A study of approaches to solving open-ended problems in chemistry. Chemistry Educa-
tion Research and Practice, 14 (4), 468-475.
Treagust, D. (1986). Evaluating students’ misconceptions by means of diagnostic multiple-choice items. Research in Science
Education, 16 (1), 199-207.
Vachliotis, T., Salta, K., Vasiliou, P., & Tzougraki, C. (2011). Exploring novel tools for assessing high school students’ meaningful
understanding of organic reactions. Journal of Chemical Education, 88 (3), 337-345.
Yan, Y. K., & Subramaniam, R. (2018). Using a multi-tier diagnostic test to explore the nature of students’ alternative conceptions
on reaction kinetics. Chemistry Education Research and Practice, 19 (1), 213-226.
Received: August 25, 2018 Accepted: October 02, 2018
Dušica D. Rodić PhD, Assistant Professor, University of Novi Sad, Faculty of Sciences,
Trg Dositeja Obradovića 3, 21000 Novi Sad, Serbia.
E-mail: dusica.milenkovic@dh.uns.ac.rs
Website: https://personal.pmf.uns.ac.rs/dusica.milenkovic
750
UNDERGRADUATE STUDENTS’
SCIENCE PROCESS SKILLS IN
TERMS OF SOME VARIABLES: A ISSN 1648-3898 /Print/
PERSPECTIVE FROM INDONESIA ISSN 2538-7138 /Online/
Abstract. This research explored the level

Irwanto,
of students’ basic and integrated Science
Eli Rohaeti,
Process Skills (SPS) based on their academic
Anti Kolonial Prodjosantoso
majors, gender, and grade levels at the end
of a chemistry laboratory course. Conveni-
ence sampling was used to select 298 under-
graduate students at the Yogyakarta State
Introduction University, Indonesia. A survey method was
used, and the data were collected using the
In Indonesia, the teaching of chemistry is intended to make students Basic SPS (BSPS) and Integrated SPS (ISPS)
grow adequate competences in chemistry by teaching them the knowledge Observation Checklist. The results showed
and skills that are deemed necessary, as well as to develop positive attitudes that the students’ basic and integrated SPS
related to chemistry needed when faced with unfamiliar situations (MRTHE, were considered medium and low respec-
2015). In the teaching of chemistry, students should be engaged in hands- tively. Furthermore, there was a significant
on authentic experiences to discover scientific facts. The advancement of gap in the students’ performance based
technology has expanded the objectives of chemistry teaching not only to
on their majors, gender and grade levels.
develop the students’ understanding of the chemistry concepts, but also to
Surprisingly, it was found that the percep-
teach them how to use the knowledge to solve real-life problems (Su, 2016;
tion and social convention that males are
Wood, 2006; Živkovic, 2016). Thus, students are required to collect relevant
information to be analyzed and interpreted in order to find the intended solu- stronger than females in science appears
tions by means of implementing sound scientific processes. Modern teaching not to be the case among students. Moreo-
of chemistry also demands the students to be more actively engaged in the ver, there was a moderate positive and
teaching and learning process, instead of passively receiving the knowledge significant correlation between students’ ba-
from lecturers (Henry, 2017; Paulson, 1999). It is expected that students master sic and integrated SPS. Students with a high
various advanced chemistry skills and by doing so assist to provide positive basic SPS score had the tendency to obtain
contributions to the global society. a higher integrated SPS score. Therefore, it is
There are a number of skills applied in chemistry learning, one of concluded that prior to starting lab course
which is science process skills. It refers to the skill used in understanding activities, lecturers need to determine their
and investigating certain problems relevant to scientific phenomena (Bilgin,
students’ process skills in order to plan in
2006; Feyzioğlu, 2009). In addition, these skills also relate to the skills that
such a manner that they can assist to raise
demand students to think and act like scientists (Ergül, Simsekli, Çalis, Özdilek,
their students’ current basic and integrated
Göçmençelebi, & Sanli, 2011; Prayitno, Corebima, Susilo, Zubaidah, & Ramli,
2017). SPS also engage the students to actively participate and hold the SPS.
responsibility to learn various scientific research methods and to apply sci- Keywords: academic majors, grade levels,
entific learning that improves their learning method in the long term (Alkan, science process skills, undergraduate
2016; Delen & Kesercioğlu, 2012). The acquisition of science process skills is students.
the basic requirement of research that the students need in learning certain
concepts of chemistry. In addition, science process skills play an important
role for the students in completing certain tasks and solving various problems
Irwanto, Eli Rohaeti,
(Harahap, Manurung, Marbun, & Mihardi, 2016). Hence, problem solving is Anti Kolonial Prodjosantoso
best done by conducting experiments during which scientific information Yogyakarta State University, Indonesia
from different sources is taken into account (Aktamis & Ergin, 2008; Irwanto,
Saputro, Rohaeti, & Prodjosantoso, 2018).
751
UNDERGRADUATE STUDENTS’ SCIENCE PROCESS SKILLS IN TERMS OF SOME VARIABLES: A
PERSPECTIVE FROM INDONESIA
(P. 751-764) ISSN 2538–7138 /Online/
The SPS are the major skills that determine students’ comprehension upon certain concepts about science
(Abungu, Okere, & Wachanga, 2014), especially chemistry. Generally, these process skills are stratified into two
levels; basic and integrated process skills (Aka, Güven, & Aydoğdu, 2010; Arabacioglu & Unver, 2016; Lati, Supasorn,
& Promarak, 2012; Padilla, 1990). Basic process skills include observing, inferring, measuring and communicating.
Integrated process skills include identifying and controlling variables, investigating, formulating hypotheses, ex-
perimenting and interpreting data. The application of science process skills adjusts with students’ education level.
Basic process skills are an appropriate set of skills to introduce in science learning for students of primary school
level, while the integrated process skills are more suitable for higher education level (Aydoğdu, Erkol, & Erten, 2014;
Seetee, Coll, Boonprakob, & Dahsah, 2016). However, both basic and integrated process skills are inter-correlated.
In the context of 21st century learning, SPS cannot be separated from the teaching of science. These process
skills are regarded as a requirement that enables students to learn and understand science (Ergül et al., 2011; Yakar,
2014). As such, developed SPS has the potential to contribute in a manner that it could have a positive effect on the
success of science teaching. A number of previous studies have confirmed the existence of correlation between
science process skills and formal reasoning ability (Oloyede, 2012; Padilla & Okey, 1983; Shaibu & Mari, 2003), learn-
ing achievement (Aktamis & Ergin, 2008; Delen & Kesercioğlu, 2012; Feyzioğlu, 2009; Osman & Vebrianto, 2013),
scientific literacy (Kaya, Bahceci, & Altuk, 2012), creativity (Ozdemir & Dikici, 2017) and scientific attitude (Downing
& Filer, 1999; Zeidan & Jayosi, 2015). Through the implementation of science process skills, students are engaged
into authentic science teaching that stimulates their curiosity. In another word, efficient science teaching can be
done by implementing process skills in a simultaneous way (Aydin, 2013).
In another study, Jeon and Park (2014) analyzed the correlation between scientific communication skills and
science process skills, logical thinking skills and academic achievement involving 64 sixth grade elementary school
students as the samples. The result of the study indicated certain considerable correlations among the variables.
It was also highlighted that students’ performance and their logics influence their scientific communication skills,
which skills were known to have direct influences on students’ achievement. In Turkey, Özgelen (2012) investigated
students’ scientific process skills within a cognitive domain framework of 306 students from sixth and seventh
grades. It was found that enhancement of students’ scientific process skills improved students’ thinking, reasoning,
inquiry, evaluation, problem solving and creativity. Finally, Chabalengula, Mumba and Mbewe (2012) conducted
a series of test involving 91 elementary pre-service teachers in order to find out the correlation between students’
conceptual comprehension and their performance on their process skills. The result of the study showed a weak
positive insignificant correlation. The positive correlation indicates that conceptual comprehension is necessary
for the students to be able to do their process skills-related assignments. In other words, these process skills have
been known to support students’ learning achievement, both inside and outside school.
Previous studies also reported the possible influences of gender (Barahmeh, 2017; Eya, 2016; Gürses, Çetinkaya,
Doğar, & Şahin, 2015; Tek, Tuang, Yassin, Baharom, Yahya, & Said, 2012), grade levels (Beaumont-Walters & Soyibo,
2001; Erkol & Ugulu, 2014; Gürses et al., 2015; Tek & Ruthven, 2005) and academic majors (Gürses, Cuya, Güneş, &
Doğar, 2014; Lee, 1993) on students’ scientific process skills. In Malaysia, Ong, Ramiah, Ruthven, Salleh, Yusuff and
Mokhsein (2015) categorized students’ achievement based on grade level, involving 220 students of elementary
schools. The result of the study showed a significant gap between the scores of fourth and sixth graders in terms
of measuring, predicting and inferring skills. Moreover, Barahmeh, Hamad and Barahmeh (2017) also explored
the influence of a Fermi question on students’ performance in physics learning, involving 85 students in the ninth
grade. The result showed a statistically significant gap in students’ process skills scores based on their gender in
favor of females. Similarly, Zeidan and Jayosi (2015) also found a significant influence between science process
skills and students’ scientific attitudes based on gender in favor of females.
Jeon and Park (2014) posit science process skills as a key factor in students’ academic achievement. Students
with high performance are likely competent in applying logical and systematic thinking to complex situations.
In line with the statement, Ergül et al. (2011) expressed that students with high performance in science process
skills are able to think logically, phrase questions and know the way to answer them, and they are better at solving
various problems. Students’ science process skills can be improved by involving them in scientific activities, one of
which is the optimization of process-oriented laboratory activities. Bolat, Türk, Turna and Altinbaş (2014) believed
that laboratory activities offer authentic experience to the students which eventually help them to understand
various scientific concepts and enhance their performance level as well. In line with this statement, Myers and Dyer
(2006) stated that students who are taught using the investigative laboratory approach tend to have better content
knowledge and higher science process skills than those who are taught using the prescriptive laboratory approach.
752
ISSN 1648–3898 /Print/ UNDERGRADUATE STUDENTS’ SCIENCE PROCESS SKILLS IN TERMS OF SOME VARIABLES: A
ISSN 2538–7138 /Online/ (P. 751-764)
In the context of science process skills enhancement, laboratory activities and these process skills are inter-
related since, both of them are useful in helping the students to understand and apply concepts of chemistry
to solve various issues. Seung, Choi and Pestel (2016) emphasized the role of laboratory activities in improving
students’ understanding of scientific skills to use in expanding their comprehension on chemistry. Science process
skills are teachable and it can be facilitated to the students using laboratory activities that are intended to build
and strengthen their comprehension upon the concepts of chemistry through scientific research (Coil, Wenderoth,
Cunningham, & Dirks, 2010; Taber, 2016). This insight makes sense considering the fact that science process skills are
a set of skills used by individuals in comprehending certain scientific knowledge (Mutisya, Rotich, & Rotich, 2013).
Scientific knowledge can only be obtained through the implementation of scientific methods that are developed
using science process skills. Henceforth, it is understood that the laboratory holds the key to students’ performance
improvement (Alkan, 2016; Irwanto, Rohaeti, Widjajanti, & Suyanta, 2017b; Karamustafaoğlu, 2011; Seyhan, 2015).
The SPS deal with how individuals seek and process information through scientific investigation. In Turkey,
Aktamis and Ergin (2008) have investigated the effect of scientific process skills in improving students’ scientific
creativity, attitudes towards science and science achievements. The study indicated that scientific process skills suc-
cessfully improved students’ learning achievement and scientific creativity. Similarly, Abungu, Okere and Wachanga
(2014) also argue that science process skills have the ability to improve students’ performance and scientific skills
which influence their chemistry achievement. In addition, Oloyede (2012) also highlighted that students with high
process skills tend to be more capable in solving unfamiliar issues. The explanation above proposes that in order
to achieve excellent learning output and optimal performance, educators are required to systematically measure
and evaluate students’ science process skills (Cigrik & Ozkan, 2015). The measurement and evaluation of science
process skills are significant with reference to chemistry programs and in chemistry education programs, as society
and industry expect that science graduates have high competence in investigating and addressing actual problems
using the scientific method and at the same time anticipating the occurrence of ill-structured problems in the future.
Motivation and Objectives
Within the context of chemistry teaching in Indonesia, it is important to integrate SPS into the curriculum of
laboratory learning to reduce the frequency of lecturing activities. This approach has been considered effective
in developing students’ psychomotor competence through various laboratory activities. Hence, to teach certain
content and improve students’ performance, lecturers need to integrate the training of soft skills into the teaching
of hard skills. This approach is also known for its ability to improve students’ collaborative and problem solving
skills, since students are exposed to daily life issues. Based on aforementioned issues, the objectives of this research
were summarized as follows:
a) To apply the laboratory learning strategy which does not only promote students’ mastery on chemistry
concept, but also enhances various generic skills needed for problem solving.
b) To apply certain laboratory teaching methods which are able to assist with improving students’ academic
performance through the utilization of laboratory experiences.
c) To map students’ performance prior to science programs in order to plan for and promote process skills
as a bridge to connect the teaching and research in higher education. It is also expected that when
students are assisted to improve their process skills profiles, this could lead to the enhancement of the
quality of graduates, as well as enhancing education programs at tertiary level.
Research Focus
In this research, students’ science process skill levels were analyzed based on several factors including aca-
demic majors, genders and grade levels. The correlation between students’ basic and integrated process skills were
also explored. Regarding to the literature discussed previously, the following research questions were formulated:
a) What is the level of the basic process skills and integrated process skills of undergraduate chemistry
and chemistry education students in a chemistry laboratory course?
b) Is there a significant gap in undergraduate students’ process skill scores based on their academic majors,
gender and grade levels?
c) What is the relationship between students’ basic and integrated process skills?
753
(P. 751-764) ISSN 2538–7138 /Online/
Research Methodology
Research Background
This research was conducted by means of a survey followed by correlational research analysis. Creswell (2008)
explained that correlational research aims at understanding the correlation between two or more research vari-
ables. In this research, students’ basic and integrated process skills were the dependent variables, while students’
academic majors, gender, and grade levels were the independent variables. This survey was executed at the end
of the academic year when students had completed all of the experiments, since it was considered necessary to
investigate students’ SPS acquisition and evaluate the effectiveness of the laboratory method which had been im-
plemented in a semester. The result of this research can be used as a reference for lecturers in improving students’
SPS using other laboratory methods which are considered more effective.
Research Sample
In the main research, there were 298 undergraduate chemistry and chemistry education students (age between
18-20 years) at the Yogyakarta State University, Indonesia in the academic year of 2017/2018 who were selected
using the convenience sampling technique to participate as the samples (see Table 1). These students consisted of
first-year and second-year students enrolled for chemistry as a major or chemistry education. Convenience sampling
is one of non-probability sampling methods in which the population of the research is ready and feasible to be
accessed by researchers (Fraenkel, Wallen, & Hyun, 2012). In this survey, none of students refused to participate as
research sample. Therefore, all 298 cases explored in this study provide valid information.
Table 1. Distribution of samples.
Academic Majors N Percentage
Chemistry 152 51.0

Chemistry Education 146 49.0
Total 298 100
Gender
Male 92 30.9
Female 206 69.1
Total 298 100
Grade Levels
First-year 148 49.7
Second-year 150 50.3
Total 298 100
Instrument and Procedures
The first step of this research was developing valid and reliable instruments. The researchers preferred con-
structing new instruments to translating the available test in order to make sure that the tool was relevant with
the conditions of the laboratory learning, students’ characteristics and the curriculum of chemistry in university
level in Indonesia. A literature review on science process skills was done prior to designing the research instrument,
from which 9 sub-skills were determined as the indicators that reflect students’ basic and integrated process skills
(Aka et al., 2010; Arabacioglu & Unver, 2016; Karamustafaoğlu, 2011; Karsli & Şahin, 2009; Özgelen, 2012; Padilla,
1990). In the pilot research, the instruments were validated by 13 senior lecturers before being distributed to 176
randomly-selected students of a chemistry major in Yogyakarta. The instruments employed in this study were Basic
and Integrated Process Skills Observation Checklist.
754
ISSN 2538–7138 /Online/ (P. 751-764)
Basic Process Skills Observation Checklist (BPSOC)
A research instrument called BPSOC was developed by the researchers to measure the students’ basic process
skills. The BPSOC consisted of 8 items including the measurement of students’ observing, inferring, measuring and
communicating skills which each consisted of 2 items. A rating of 1 to 4 was assigned to each Likert scale statement
(4 = highly observed, 3 = observed, 2 = less observed and 1 = unobserved). The highest score indicated advanced
skill of the students while conducting their laboratory experiments. The minimum and maximum scores that
could be obtained by each student were 8 points and 32 points respectively. The coefficient of Cronbach’s alpha
reliability test was .74, higher than the minimum requirement of instrument reliability score at .70 (Nunnally &
Bernstein, 1994). This result showed that the BPSOC instrument was considered reliable in measuring the students’
performance related to basic science process skills. Students’ basic process skills were stratified into 3 levels; low
(<16 points), medium (16-24 points) and high (>24 points).
Integrated Process Skills Observation Checklist (IPSOC)
In order to measure the students’ integrated process skills, the researchers have developed an instrument
called IPSOC. The IPSOC consisted of 10 items to measure students’ performances in identifying and controlling
variables, investigating, formulating hypotheses, experimenting and interpreting data which each consisted of
2 items. In a similar way, a rating of 1 to 4 was assigned to each Likert scale statement for the IPSOC instrument
(4 = highly observed, 3 = observed, 2 = less observed and 1 = unobserved). The minimum score was 10, while the
maximum score was 40 points. The result of the reliability test showed the Cronbach’s alpha coefficient at .88, which
indicated that IPSOC was a reliable instrument to measure students’ performance. The students’ integrated process
skills were stratified into 3 levels; low (<20 points), medium (20-30 points) and high (>30 points). Furthermore, both
BPSOC and IPSOC were used to observe student activities during the chemistry laboratory course.
Permission to conduct this study was obtained prior to conducting the research from the Head of the De-
partment of Chemistry Education. In a chemistry laboratory course, students are given guidelines to chemical
experiments provided by the lecturer. They are then instructed to do the step-by-step procedure in the laboratory.
During the data collection, students were instructed to perform laboratory tasks in small groups based on the pre-
determined experiment procedure given. After that, they were asked to show their skills in conducting experiments,
discussion and solving certain problems. At the end of the experiment, students are required to write laboratory
work report. They also had been informed that the results of the observation were not evaluative, as the results
will be used for research purposes only. The process of data collection is illustrated in Figure 1.
Figure 1. The process of data collection.
755
(P. 751-764) ISSN 2538–7138 /Online/
Data Analysis

The data analysis was conducted using SPSS version 17 (SPSS Inc., Chicago, IL, USA). Descriptive statistics in-
cluding the mean, standard deviation, maximum and minimum scores, as well as the percentage of the data were
calculated to determine the sample demographics. The t-test was administered to identify any significant aver-
age scores obtained by the students based on their majors, gender and grade levels. To measure the significance
within the correlation between students’ basic and integrated process skills, the Pearson correlation and regression
analysis were employed. The level of significance in this research was set at .05.
Research Results
The Level of the Basic and Integrated Process Skills of Undergraduate Chemistry and
Chemistry Education Students in a Chemistry Laboratory Course
Students’ science process skills levels have been measured using two sets of validated research instruments,
namely BPSOC and IPSOC. The result of the data analysis (see Table 2) showed that students’ average basic process
skills scores were at a medium level (M=17.20, SD=2.881), whilst their average integrated process skills scores were
at a low level (M=17.44, SD=4.360).
Table 2. The level of students’ basic and integrated process skills.
Variables N Max Mean SD Percentage Level
Basic Process Skills 298 32 17.20 2.881 53.75 Medium

Integrated Process Skills 298 40 17.44 4.360 43.60 Low
As presented in Table 3, the students’ average score was 34.64 out of 72. This result shows that students’
process skills were considered to be at a low level. Their observing and communicating skills were the highest
and the lowest skills in basic process skills category, respectively. With reference to their integrated process skills,
interpreting data scored the highest, while identifying and controlling variable skills were the lowest ones. It was
also noted that the percentage of the students’ basic process skills was higher than their integrated process skills.
Table 3. Descriptive statistics of students’ science process skills.
Science Process Skills No. of Item Mean SD Percentage
Basic Process Skills

Observing 2 4.62 1.019 57.76
Inferring 2 4.13 1.065 51.59
Measuring 2 4.42 .989 55.24
Communicating 2 4.03 1.079 50.42
Integrated Process Skills
Identifying and Controlling Variables 2 3.16 1.116 39.47
Investigating 2 3.25 1.255 40.65
Formulating Hypotheses 2 3.42 .996 42.79
Experimenting 2 3.70 1.020 46.22
Interpreting Data 2 3.91 1.119 48.91
Total 18 34.64 6.277 48.12
756
ISSN 2538–7138 /Online/ (P. 751-764)
Significant Gap in Students’ Science Process Skills Based on Academic Majors
The measurement showed no significant gap in the average science process skills scores between students
from the chemistry major and those from the chemistry education major in term of basic process skills (p>.05). In
addition, in terms of integrated and overall process skills, a significant gap has been found in the average scores
of students from the chemistry major and from the chemistry education major in terms of integrated and overall
process skills (p<.05). Generally (see Table 4), the average score of students from the chemistry major (M=36.06,
SD=6.814) was higher than the ones from the chemistry education major (M=33.17, SD=5.297), even though the
gap between those two groups was only 2.89 points different.
Table 4. Gap in students’ science process skills scores based on academic majors.
Variables N Mean SD p
Chemistry 152 17.35 3.071

Basic Process Skills .369
Chemistry Education 146 17.05 2.671
Chemistry 152 18.71 4.640
Integrated Process Skills .001
Chemistry 152 36.06 6.814
Overall Process Skills .001
Significant Gap in Students’ Science Process Skills Based on Gender
A significant gap was found in average science process skills scores between male and female students in terms
of basic, integrated and overall process skills (p<.05). Overall (see Table 5), female students (M=36.08, SD=6.111)
obtained average score 4.65 points higher than male (M=31.43, SD=5.419).
Table 5. Gap in students’ science process skills scores based on gender.
Male 92 15.72 2.974

Female 206 17.86 2.583
Male 92 15.72 3.417
Female 206 18.21 4.519
Male 92 31.43 5.419
Female 206 36.08 6.111
Significant Gap in Students’ Science Process Skills Based on Grade Levels
With reference to‚ “Is there a significant gap in students’ science process skills based on their grade levels?“, a sig-
nificant gap has been found between the average process skills score obtained by first-year and the one achieved
by second-year in terms of basic, integrated and overall process skills (p<.05). Overall (see Table 6), the second-years
(M=36.32, SD=6.550) obtained average score 3.37 points higher than the first-year students (M=32.95, SD=5.508).
757
(P. 751-764) ISSN 2538–7138 /Online/
Table 6. Gap in students’ science process skills scores based on grade levels.
First-year 148 16.29 2.853

Second-year 150 18.10 2.623
First-year 148 16.66 3.595
Second-year 150 18.22 4.891
First-year 148 32.95 5.508
Second-year 150 36.32 6.550
The Relationship between Students’ Basic and Integrated Process Skills
Based on the result of the correlation test administered in this research, a positive and significant correlation
between the students’ basic and integrated process skills has been confirmed (r=.481, p<.05). According to the
categorization of correlation coefficient proposed by Cohen (1988), the coefficient found in this research indicated
a moderate positive association. It was found that students with higher basic process skills scores tend to have
better integrated process skills scores. Thus, it can be expressed that an improvement in students’ basic process
skills scores would likely to improve their integrated process skills scores. On the other hand, the analysis of linear
regression resulted to R2=.231, F(1, 296)=89.063, p=.001. The number indicates that the linear regression explains
as much as 23.10% of the variances in the data.
Table 7. Pearson’s correlation coefficient for science process skills.
Integrated Process Skills
Basic Process Skills Pearson Correlation .481**

Sig. (2-tailed) .001
N 298
Note: **Correlation is significant at the .01 level (2-tailed).
Discussion
The aims of this research were to ascertain the level of undergraduate students’ science process skills based
on their academic majors, gender and grade levels and to investigate the relationship between students’ basic and
integrated process skills. These students were enrolled for a chemistry laboratory course. The results of the two
instruments revealed that generally, students’ average basic process skills score was included in the medium level
(53.75%), while their average integrated process skills score was considered low (43.60%). The observation results
show that students’ low performance occurred due to the fact that they merely performed the experiment to finish
certain procedure. It was also found that lecturers did not teach the students strategies to assist in developing good
process skills (Anwar, Senam, & Laksono, 2018; Irwanto, Rohaeti, & Prodjosantoso, 2018). Consequently, students
failed to perform the hands-on activities well. In addition, lectures were unready to apply effective laboratory teach-
ing methods to enhance students’ performance and they did not yet relate the concepts of chemistry, laboratory
works with daily life, leading to students’ low process skills (Feyzioğlu, 2009). Those results indicate that students’
performance needs to be improved.
Several previous studies also obtained similar results (e.g., Aydoğdu, 2015; Irwanto et al., 2017; Lati et al., 2012;
Özgelen, 2012; Segumpan, 2001), showing that students had poor level of science process skills. In another study,
Tilakaratne and Ekanayake (2017) found that students’ basic process skills were in the medium level. Meanwhile,
Öztürk, Tezel and Acat (2010) also reported that students had low performance in inferring, controlling variables
and experimenting skills. It was suggested that their low achievement levels could be enhanced through the im-
plementation of discovery learning activities and the optimization of hands-on activities in laboratory (Foulds &
Rowe, 1996; Karamustafaoğlu, 2011). The result of this research is supported by Koksal and Berberoglu (2014) who
believed that science process skills are improvable through the implementation of the guided-inquiry approach.
758
ISSN 2538–7138 /Online/ (P. 751-764)
Furthermore, the researchers found that the percentage of students’ basic process skills score was higher than their
integrated process skills score, as stated by Akinbobola and Afolabi (2010).
It has been confirmed in this research that students’ identifying and controlling variables skill was the lowest
(39.47%), while their observing skill showed the highest score (56.76%). Seen from students’ written lab report,
most students experienced difficulties in determining, identifying and creating the operational definition of the
variables used in an experiment. Even more, the majority of the students (86.90%) admitted that they had found
difficulties in controlling or giving certain treatment to the variables in experiments they conducted. On the other
hand, half of the students (52.00%) employed their five senses in conducting various observations, even though
some students showed passive behaviors. Similarly, Aziz and Zain (2010) concluded that the observing skill was
considered easier than other skills. In addition, Karamustafaoğlu (2011) and Seetee et al. (2016) also reported iden-
tifying and controlling variables skill was the integrated process skills that obtained the lowest scores. The results
of this study concur with those of Karamustafaoğlu (2011) and Seetee et al. (2016) as it appears that the students
in our study regarded those skills the hardest ones to master too, as the results from other studies mentioned, also
showed that integrated process skills are more complex than the basic process skills. Özgelen (2012) argued that
integrated process skills require more advanced basic comprehension than the basic process skills. Basic process
skills are also seen as the prerequisite of the integrated process skills. Hereafter, integrated process skills can be
used to solve more complex issues. In line with this insight, Akinbobola and Afolabi (2010), Aydoğdu (2015) and
Segumpan (2001) also pointed that students’ integrated process skills scores were lower than their basic process
skills scores. The poor integrated process skills might be influenced by the fact that it demands more advanced
scientific mind, making it more difficult to master (Segumpan, 2001).
Regarding the result pertaining to academic majors, there was no significant gap found between the average
process skills scores of the students from the chemistry major and from the chemistry education major in term
of the basic process skills. However, a significant gap was found between the average scores of students from
the chemistry major and chemistry education major in term of integrated process skills. Students’ overall process
skills scores contained a significant gap when the average scores are compared based on the students’ majors.
Generally, students from the chemistry major obtained the highest and the lowest scores in observation skill and
identifying and controlling variable skill, respectively. Meanwhile, students from the chemistry education major
have the highest and the lowest scores on the measuring skill and identifying and controlling variables, respec-
tively. It can be thus seen that the identifying and controlling variable skill is considered as the toughest skill to
master. Students from chemistry major also tend to have high average scores in all of the sub-skills, except the
measuring skill. However, it cannot be stated that all pre-service chemistry teachers have poor skills. In Indonesia,
students majoring in chemistry are oriented in such ways to become future chemists, while students majoring
in chemistry education are prepared to become chemistry teachers in both secondary schools and high schools.
Consequently, students from the chemistry major tend to have higher interest and better skills in chemistry that
support their future career as chemists.
In line with Gürses et al. (2014), chemistry education students showed significantly higher average process
skills scores compared to mathematics and elementary education students. The Anova test also showed a signifi-
cant gap in students’ average scores between groups (p<.05). In a study conducted by Silay and Çelik (2013) on
the identification of science process skills levels of pre-service teachers of physics, science, chemistry and biology,
it was found that the students’ performance was at a medium level. They also found no significant gaps in the stu-
dents’ score according to their branches. In Turkey, Sezek, Zorlu and Zorlu (2015) also found a similar result. On the
contrary, Nuzulia, Adlim and Nurmaliah (2017) did not find any gap in the integrated process skills scores obtained
by students majoring biology, chemistry and physics education. However, we assume that academic majors are
one of the factors affecting the students’ science process skills.
When the data were analyzed based on gender, a significant gap was found in terms of basic, integrated and
overall process skills. Overall, female students obtained the highest score and the lowest one in the observing skill
and identifying and controlling variables skill, respectively, whereas, male students obtained the highest score and
the lowest score in the observing skill and investigating skill, respectively. This result indicates that female students
have a higher average score in all sub-skills. However, this finding does not conform the ones found by Beaumont-
Walters and Soyibo (2001) and Obialor, Osuafor and Nnadi (2017) which state that no significant difference existed
in students’ score seen from the gender aspect, despite the fact that male students tend to obtain higher scores that
female students. The different result found in this study might be influenced by the rapid development of women’s
emancipation (Jatiningsih, 2017). The result of this study also indicates that the stereotype and social convention
759
(P. 751-764) ISSN 2538–7138 /Online/
that “males are stronger than females” science wise are crumbling. In addition, female students showed adequate
capability in creating written lab report, orally communicating and interpreting the report at the end of experiment.
In the last decades, the influence of gender in students’ process skills have attracted some researchers to ex-
plore this issue. Aydinli et al. (2011) and Dönmez and Azizoğlu (2010) also found a similar result to this research. In
a separated study, Guevara (2015) employed an innovative approach in the teaching of general biology to enhance
these skills and to find out if gender affected students’ performance. In the research, it is found that female students
were likely to obtain higher process skills scores than males. In other studies, Seetee et al. (2016) and Zorlu, Zorlu
and Sezek (2013) also reported a parallel research result. This phenomena might occur, because female students
had stronger commitment in learning the chemistry through experiment activities compared to males, as reported
by Dhindsa and Chung (2003). Furthermore, Chan and Norlizah (2017) and Majere, Role and Makewa (2012) also
believe that females tend to have a more positive attitude, perception, and motivation than males.
In this research, a significant gap was found in the process skills scores obtained by first-year and second-year
students in terms of basic, integrated and overall process skills. The first-year students obtained the highest and
the lowest scores in the observing skill and investigating skill respectively, while the second-year ones obtained
the highest and the lowest one in the observing skill and identifying and controlling variables skill, respectively.
Similarly, Gürses et al. (2015) and Silay and Çelik (2013) also found a similar result during their research. Based on
the data analysis conducted in this research, second-year students had better science process skills mastery than
the first-year students. This phenomenon occurred, because the second-year students had previously attended
a number of laboratory courses that they had richer experience and better skills, even though all of them have
not yet shown satisfying performance. This finding is contradictory to Farsakoğlu, Şahin and Karsli (2012) whose
research result showed that there was no significant difference that existed in pre-service science teachers’ per-
formance based on the grade levels. Even more, they found that there was no direct relationship between grade
levels and science process skills.
In line with the current result, Yakar (2014) also claimed better improvements in the process skills scores of
third-year and fourth-year compared to the second-year pre-service teachers. Moreover, Aydinli et al. (2011) noticed
an obvious gap in students’ integrated process skills related to their grade levels (p<.05), in which students in the
higher grade levels obtained higher process skills scores. Furthermore, Kalemkuş, Bayraktar and Kalemkuş (2016)
also reported that eighth grade students achieved a greater percentage of success than the fifth graders. In this
research, second-year students obtained relatively higher scores which can be related to their well-developing
cognitive skills. Lee (1993) found that students’ cognitive development and science process skills have a positive
and significant correlation with their attitude towards science.
A positive and significant correlation has been confirmed between students’ basic and integrated science
process skills scores. This result shows that students with higher basic science process skills scores tend to have
better integrated science process skills mastery. A study conducted by Rabacal (2016) also confirmed a positive
correlation between students’ basic and their integrated science process skills (r=.58; p=.001) and it is suggested
that university students do more experiments to enhance their performance. It is also proposed by Farsakoğlu et
al. (2012) that better performance can be obtained through meaningful experiences from hands-on practices or
experiences. A similar view was shared by Roth and Roychoudhury (1993), stating that higher-order process skills
seem to improve as students experience more non-traditional laboratory activities that give them more independ-
ence in trying out their experiments in an authentic classroom.
The finding of this research implies that educational programs need to take serious heed regarding the design
of certain learning environments that promote student scientific experimentation tasks, as this has the potential to
eventually improve their soft skills. Lecturers should thus not merely transfer the concepts of chemistry through the
traditional lecturing method. As the implication, imbalance mastery of hard skills and soft skills trigger failures in
applying the knowledge into practice when confronted with new situations. Hence, it is crucial that lecturers develop
students’ soft skills during the lectures on hard skills as soft skills are considered important in supporting students
to develop their scientific concepts, which cannot be built only through academic knowledge. As emphasized by
Çoban (2013), Ergül et al. (2011) and Ogan-Bekiroğlu and Arslan (2014), a learning environment that focuses on
hands-on practices and experiments promotes students’ scientific process skills in an improved way compared to
traditional lecturing. Based on the findings, it is evident that lecturers should focus more on enhancing these skills.
Regarding the result of this research, it is suggested that lecturers provide intensive directions for the stu-
dents and help them to explore hands-on experiments in the laboratory to try to enhance their comprehension
of certain material. The implementation of experimental activities in the science laboratory provide students with
760
ISSN 2538–7138 /Online/ (P. 751-764)
problems to solve instead of merely requiring the students to memorize science concepts (Gezer, 2015). In line with
this statement, Myers and Dyer (2006) also emphasized that students’ comprehension upon the science concepts
influences their process skills. More advanced research on this field are still needed, especially the ones that aim
at evaluating the influence of experiment-based teaching on students’ basic, integrated and overall process skills
seen from students’ academic majors, gender and grade levels.
Conclusions and Recommendations

The results suggest that the average basic process skills score of undergraduate students is at a medium level,
while their average integrated process skills score is considered low. Overall, students had poor science process skills.
This research has also found a significant gap between students’ achievement seen from their majors, in which it is
found that students from chemistry major have slightly higher scores than those from chemistry education major.
In addition, a significant gap has been found in students’ performance scores based on their gender, where female
students have better scores than males. Equally important, it appears that the stereotype and social convention that
males are stronger than females cannot be generalized. According to their grade levels, first-year and second-year
students showed a significant gap, in which second-year students’ process skills scores are higher than the ones
obtained by first-year students. Finally, even at a moderate level, a positive and significant correlation has been
found between students’ basic and their integrated process skills scores.
It is suggested that lecturers determine their students’ process skills in order to plan in such a manner that they
can assist to raise their students’ current basic and integrated SPS by designing science lab activities or methods
to the desired level that they view as satisfactory. In other words, lecturers need to implement effective teaching
strategies that promote students’ science process skills in chemistry learning. These strategies include inquiry-based
laboratory projects, problem-solving, project-based learning, and other scientific related hands-on instruction.
Consequently, students need to be given more challenging tasks to solve various complex problems in the form
of research-based activities. With reference to further research, researchers are encouraged to expand this research
by adding more participants from different learning environment and scientific backgrounds.
References
Abungu, H. E., Okere, M. I., & Wachanga, S. W. (2014). The effect of science process skills teaching approach on secondary school
students’ achievement in chemistry in Nyando district, Kenya. Journal of Educational and Social Research, 4 (6), 359–372.
Aka, E. I., Güven, E., & Aydoğdu, M. (2010). Effect of problem solving method on science process skills and academic achievement.
Journal of Turkish Science Education, 7 (4), 13–25.
Akinbobola, A. O., & Afolabi, F. (2010). Analysis of science process skills in West African senior secondary school certificate physics.
Bulgarian Journal of Science and Education Policy, 4 (1), 32–47.
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), 1–21.
Alkan, F. (2016). Experiential learning: Its effects on achievement and scientific process skills. Journal of Turkish Science Educa-
tion, 13 (2), 15–26.
Anwar, Y. A., Senam, S., & Laksono, E. W. (2018). The use of orientation/ decision/ do/ discuss/ reflect (od3r) method to increase
critical thinking skill and practical skill in biochemistry learning. The International Union of Biochemistry and Molecular
Biology, 46 (2), 107–113.
Arabacioglu, S., & Unver, A. O. (2016). Supporting inquiry based with mobile learning to enhance students’ process skills in sci-
ence education. Journal of Baltic Science Education, 15 (2), 216–231.
Aydin, A. (2013). Representation of science process skills in the chemistry curricula for grades 10, 11 and 12 / Turkey. International
Journal of Education and Practice, 1 (5), 51–63.
Aydinli, E., Dökmea, I., Ünlüa, Z. K., Öztürka, N., Demira, R., & Benli, E. (2011). Turkish elementary school students’ performance
on integrated science process skills. Procedia Social and Behavioral Sciences, 15, 3469–3475.
Aydoğdu, B. (2015). The investigation of science process skills of science teachers in terms of some variables. Educational Research
and Reviews Full, 10 (5), 582–594.
Aydoğdu, B., Erkol, M., & Erten, N. (2014). The investigation of science process skills of elementary school teachers in terms of
some variables: Perspectives from Turkey. Asia-Pacific Forum on Science Learning and Teaching, 15 (1), 1–28.
Aziz, M. S., & Zain, A. N. (2010). The inclusion of science process skills in Yemeni secondary school physics textbooks. European
Journal of Physics Education, 1 (1), 44–50.
Barahmeh, H. M., Hamad, A. M., & Barahmeh, N. M. (2017). The effect of Fermi questions in the development of science processes
skills in physics among Jordanian ninth graders. Journal of Education and Practice, 8 (3), 186–194.
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.
761
(P. 751-764) ISSN 2538–7138 /Online/
Bilgin, I. (2006). The effects of hands-on activities incorporating a cooperative learning approach on eight grade students’ science
process skills and attitudes toward science. Journal of Baltic Science Education, 1 (9), 27–37.
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.
Chabalengula, V. M., Mumba, F., & Mbewe, S. (2012). How pre-service teachers’ understand and perform science. Eurasia Journal
of Mathematics, Science & Technology Education, 8 (3), 167–176.
Chan, Y. L., & Norlizah, C. H. (2017). Students’ motivation towards science learning and students’ science achievement. International
Journal of Academic Research in Progressive Education and Development, 6 (4), 174–189.
Cigrik, E., & Ozkan, M. (2015). The investigation of the effect of visiting science center on scientific process skills. Procedia - Social
and Behavioral Sciences, 197, 1312–1316.
Çoban, G. Ü. (2013). The effects of inquiry supported by argument maps on science process skills and epistemological views of
prospective science teachers. Journal of Baltic Science Education, 12 (3), 271–288.
Cohen, J. (1988). Statistical power analysis for the behavioral sciences (2nd edition). Hillsdale, NJ: Lawrence Earlbaum Associates.
Coil, D., Wenderoth, M. P., Cunningham, M., & Dirks, C. (2010). Teaching the process of science: Faculty perceptions and an effec-
tive methodology. CBE—Life Sciences Education, 9, 524–535.
Creswell, J. W. (2008). Educational research: Planning, conducting, and evaluating quantitative and qualitative research. Upper
Saddle River, NJ: Pearson Education.
Delen, İ., & Kesercioğlu, T. (2012). How middle school students’ science process skills affected by Turkey’s national curriculum
change? Journal of Turkish Science Education, 9 (4), 3–9.
Dhindsa, H. S., & Chung, G. (2003). Attitudes and achievement of Bruneian science students. International Journal of Science
Education, 25 (8), 907–922.
Dönmez, F., & Azizoğlu, N. (2010). Investigation of the students’ science process skill levels in vocational schools: A case of Balıkesir.
Necatibey Faculty of Education Electronic Journal of Science and Mathematics Education, 4 (2), 79–109.
Downing, J. E., & Filer, J. D. (1999). Science process skills and attitudes of preservice elementary teachers. Journal of Elementary
Science Education, 11 (2), 57–64.
Ergül, R., Simsekli, Y., Çalis, S., Özdilek, Z., Göçmençelebi, S., & Sanli, M. (2011). The effects of inquiry-based science teaching on
elementary school students’ science process skills and science attitudes. Bulgarian Journal of Science and Education Policy,
5 (1), 48–68.
Erkol, S., & Ugulu, I. (2014). Examining biology teachers candidates’ scientific process skill levels and comparing these levels in
terms of various variables. Procedia - Social and Behavioral Sciences, 116, 4742–4747.
Eya, N. M. (2016). Determinants of junior secondary school students’ level of acquisition of science process skills. Journal of
Qualitative Education, 12 (1), 167–174.
Farsakoğlu, Ö. F., Şahin, Ç., & Karsli, F. (2012). Comparing science process skills of prospective science teachers: A cross-sectional
study. Asia-Pacific Forum on Science Learning and Teaching, 13 (1), 1–21.
Feyzioğlu, B. (2009). An investigation of the relationship between science process skills with efficient laboratory use and science
achievement in chemistry education. Journal of Turkish Science Education, 6 (3), 114–132.
Foulds, W., & Rowe, J. (1996). The enhancement of science process skills in primary teacher education students. Australian Journal
of Teacher Education, 21 (1), Article 2.
Fraenkel, J. R., Wallen, N. E., & Hyun, H. H. (2012). How to design and evaluate research in education (8th edition). New York, NY:
McGraw-Hill.
Gezer, S. U. (2015). A case study on preservice science teachers’ laboratory usage self efficacy and scientific process skills. Proce-
dia - Social and Behavioral Sciences, 174, 1158–1165.
Guevara, C. A. (2015). Science process skills development through innovations in science teaching. Research Journal of Educa-
tional Sciences, 3 (2), 6–10.
Gürses, A., Çetinkaya, S., Doğar, Ç., & Şahin, E. (2015). Determination of levels of use of basic process skills of high school students.
Procedia - Social and Behavioral Sciences, 191, 644–650.
Gürses, A., Cuya, Ş., Güneş, K., & Doğar, Ç. (2014). Determination of the relation between undergraduate students’ awareness levels
regarding their scientific process skills and application potentials. American Journal of Educational Research, 2 (5), 250–256.
Harahap, M. B., Manurung, S. R., Marbun, M. A., & Mihardi, S. (2016). Effect model inquiry training on student’s science process
skill. Advances in Social Sciences Research Journal, 3 (11), 38–42.
Henry, R. M. (2017). Engaging participation and promoting active learning through student usage of the internet to create notes
for general chemistry in class. Journal of Chemical Education, 94 (6), 710–716.
Irwanto, Rohaeti, E., & Prodjosantoso, A. K. (2018). A survey analysis of pre-service chemistry teachers’ critical thinking skills. MIER
Journal of Educational Studies, Trends & Practices, 8 (1), 57–73.
Irwanto, Rohaeti, E., Widjajanti, E., & Suyanta. (2017a). Students’ science process skill and analytical thinking ability in chemistry
learning. In: International Conference on Research, Implementation, and Education of Mathematics and Science, Yogyakarta,
Indonesia (Vol. 1868, pp. 1–5). https://doi.org/10.1063/1.4995100.
Irwanto, Rohaeti, E., Widjajanti, E., & Suyanta. (2017b). The development of an integrated assessment instrument for measuring
analytical thinking and science process skills. In International Conference on Education, Mathematics and Science, Perak,
Malaysia (Vol. 1847, pp. 1–6). https://doi.org/10.1063/1.4983907.
Irwanto, Saputro, A. D., Rohaeti, E., & Prodjosantoso, A. K. (2018). Promoting critical thinking and problem solving skills of pre-
service elementary teachers through process-oriented guided-inquiry learning (POGIL). International Journal of Instruction,
11 (4), Accepted Manuscript.
762
ISSN 2538–7138 /Online/ (P. 751-764)
Jatiningsih, O. (2017). Existence of women’s emancipation at Universitas Negeri Surabaya (UNESA), Indonesia. Global Journal of
Arts, Humanities and Social Sciences, 5 (2), 14–26.
Jeon, S., & Park, J.-H. (2014). Analysis of relationships of scientific communication skills, science process skills, logical thinking.
Journal of the Korean Association for Science Education, 34 (7), 647–655.
Kalemkuş, J., Bayraktar, Ş., & Kalemkuş, F. (2016). Determining and comparing the science process skill levels of 5th and 8th grade
students. In: International Conference on Education in Mathematics, Science & Technology (Vol. 4, pp. 79–83). Bodrum, Turkey.
Karamustafaoğlu, S. (2011). Improving the science process skills ability of science student teachers using I diagrams. Eurasian
Journal of Physic and Chemistry Education, 3 (1), 26–38.
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), 1–13.
Kaya, V. H., Bahceci, D., & Altuk, Y. G. (2012). The relationship between primary school students’ scientific literacy levels and
scientific process skills. Procedia - Social and Behavioral Sciences, 47, 495–500.
Koksal, E. A., & Berberoglu, G. (2014). The effect of guided-inquiry instruction on 6th grade turkish students’ achievement, science
process skills, and attitudes toward science. International Journal of Science Education, 36 (1), 66–78.
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.
Lee, T.-Y. (1993). Comparisons of cognitive development, science process skills, and attitude toward science among Republic of
China preservice teachers with different science backgrounds. Science Education, 77 (6), 625–636.
Majere, I. S., Role, E., & Makewa, L. N. (2012). Gender disparities in self-concept, attitude and perception in physics and chemistry.
Atlas Journal of Science Education, 2 (1), 61–69.
MRTHE/Ministry of Research Technology and Higher Education of the Republic of Indonesia. (2015). Ministrial Regulation No.
44/2015 on the National Standards of Higher Education.
Mutisya, S. M., Rotich, S., & Rotich, P. K. (2013). Conceptual understanding of science process skills and gender stereotyping: A
critical component for inquiry teaching of science in Kenya’s primary schools. Asian Journal of Social Sciences & Humanities,
2 (3), 359–369.
Myers, B. E., & Dyer, J. E. (2006). Effects of investigative laboratory instruction on content knowledge and science process skill
achievement across learning styles. Journal of Agricultural Education, 47 (4), 52–63.
Nunnally, J. C., & Bernstein, I. H. (1994). Psychometric theory (3rd edition). New York: McGraw-Hill.
Nuzulia, Adlim, & Nurmaliah, C. (2017). Curriculum relevance and undergraduate students’ integrated science process skills in
chemistry, physics, biology and math majors. Jurnal Pendidikan Sains Indonesia, 5 (1), 120–126.
Obialor, C. O., Osuafor, A. M., & Nnadi, E. I. (2017). Effect of project work on secondary school students science process skill ac-
quisition in biology. Journal of Research in National Development, 15 (1), 371–378.
Ogan-Bekiroğlu, F., & Arslan, A. (2014). Examination of the effects of model-based inquiry on students’ outcomes: Scientific
process skills and conceptual knowledge. Procedia - Social and Behavioral Sciences, 141, 1187–1191.
Oloyede, O. I. (2012). The relationship between acquisition of science process skills, formal reasoning ability and chemistry
achievement. International Journal of African & American Studies, 8 (1), 1–4.
Ong, E. T., Ramiah, P., Ruthven, K., Salleh, S. M., Yusuff, N. A., & Mokhsein, S. E. (2015). Acquisition of basic science process skills
among Malaysian upper primary students. Research in Education, 94 (1), 88–101.
Osman, K., & Vebrianto, R. (2013). Fostering science process skills and improving achievement through the use of multiple media.
Journal of Baltic Science Education, 12 (2), 191–204.
Ozdemir, G., & Dikici, A. (2017). Relationships between scientific process skills and scientific creativity: Mediating role of nature
of science knowledge. Journal of Education in Science, Environment and Health, 3 (1), 52–68.
Özgelen, S. (2012). Students’ science process skills within a cognitive domain framework. Eurasia Journal of Mathematics, Science
& Technology Education, 8 (4), 283–292.
Öztürk, N., Tezel, Ö., & Acat, M. B. (2010). Science process skills levels of primary school seventh grade students in science and
technology lesson. Journal of Turkish Science Education, 7(3), 15–28.
Padilla, M. J. (1990). Science process skills. National association of research in science teaching publication: Research matters - to
the science teacher (9004). Retrieved from http://www.narst.org/publications/research/skill.cfm.
Padilla, M. J., & Okey, J. R. (1983). The relationship between science process skill and formal thinking abilities. Journal of Research
in Science Teaching, 20 (3), 239–246.
Paulson, D. R. (1999). Active learning and cooperative learning in the organic chemistry lecture class. Chemical Education Re-
search, 76 (8), 1136–1140.
Prayitno, B. A., Corebima, D., Susilo, H., Zubaidah, S., & Ramli, M. (2017). Closing the science process skills gap between students
with high and low level academic achievement. Journal of Baltic Science Education, 16 (2), 266–277.
Rabacal, J. S. (2016). Test of science process skills of biology students towards developing of learning exercises. Asia Pacific Journal
of Multidisciplinary Research, 4 (4), 9–16.
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.
Seetee, N., Coll, R. K., Boonprakob, M., & Dahsah, C. (2016). Exploring integrated science process skills in chemistry of high school
students. Veridian E-Journal, 9 (4), 247–259.
Segumpan, R. G. (2001). Bruneian education students’ science process skills: Implications to curriculum and management. Journal
of Science and Mathematics Education in S.E. Asia, 24 (2), 21–39.
763
(P. 751-764) ISSN 2538–7138 /Online/
Seung, E., Choi, A., & Pestel, B. (2016). University students’ understanding of chemistry processes and the quality of evidence in
their written arguments. Eurasia Journal of Mathematics, Science & Technology Education, 12 (4), 991–1008.
Sezek, F., Zorlu, Y., & Zorlu, F. (2015). Examination of the factors influencing the scientific process skills of the students in the
elementary education department. Erzincan Üniversitesi Eğitim Fakültesi Dergisi, 17 (1), 197–217.
Shaibu, A. A., & Mari, J. S. (2003). The effect of process-skill instruction on secondary school students’ formal reasoning ability in
Nigeria. Science Education International, 14 (4), 51–54.
Silay, Li., & Çelik, P. (2013). Evaluation of scientific process skills of teacher candidates. Procedia - Social and Behavioral Sciences,
106, 1122–1130.
Su, K.-D. (2016). Strengthening strategic applications of problem-solving skills for Taiwan students’ chemistry understanding.
Journal of Baltic Science Education, 15 (6), 662–679.
Taber, K. S. (2016). Research and practice learning generic skills through chemistry education. Chemistry Education Research and
Practice, 17 (2), 225–228.
Tek, O. E., & Ruthven, K. (2005). Acquisition of science process skills amongst form 3 students in Malaysian smart and mainstream
schools. Journal of Science and Mathematics Education in S.E. Asia, 28 (1), 103–124.
Tek, O. E., Tuang, W. Y., Yassin, S. M., Baharom, S., Yahya, A., & Said, Z. M. (2012). Malaysian-based science process skills inventory:
Development, validation and utilisation. Current Research in Malaysia, 1 (1), 125–149.
Tilakaratne, C. T., & Ekanayake, T. M. (2017). Achievement level of science process skills of junior secondary students: Based on
a sample of grade six and seven students from Sri Lanka. International Journal of Environmental & Science Education, 12
(9), 2089–2108.
Wood, C. (2006). The development of creative problem solving in chemistry. Chemistry Education Research and Practice, 7 (2), 96–113.
Yakar, Z. (2014). Effect of teacher education program on science process skills of pre-service science teachers. Educational Re-
search and Reviews, 9 (1), 17–23.
Zeidan, A. H., & Jayosi, M. R. (2015). Science process skills and attitudes toward science among Palestinian secondary school
students. World Journal of Education, 5 (1), 13–24.
Živkovic, S. (2016). A model of critical thinking as an important attribute for success in the 21st century. Procedia - Social and
Behavioral Sciences, 232, 102–108.
Zorlu, F., Zorlu, Y., & Sezek, F. (2013). Examining secondary school students’ scientific process skills in terms of some variables.
Procedia - Social and Behavioral Sciences, 106, 1181–1189.
Received: March 20, 2018 Accepted: September 02, 2018
Irwanto Ph.D. Candidate, Department of Chemistry Education, Graduate

(Corresponding author) School of Yogyakarta State University, Colombo Street No.1
Yogyakarta, Yogyakarta 55281, Indonesia.
E-mail: irwanto.2016@student.uny.ac.id
Eli Rohaeti M.Sc., Dr., Associate Professor, Department of Chemistry
Education, Faculty of Mathematics and Natural Sciences,
Yogyakarta State University, Colombo Street No.1 Yogyakarta,
Indonesia.
E-mail: eli_rohaeti@uny.ac.id
Website: http://www.uny.ac.id
Anti Kolonial Prodjosantoso M.Sc., Ph.D., Professor, Department of Chemistry Education,
Faculty of Mathematics and Natural Sciences, Yogyakarta State
University, Colombo Street No.1 Yogyakarta, Indonesia.
E-mail: prodjosantoso@uny.ac.id
Website: http://www.uny.ac.id
764
EFFECTIVENESS OF POLYA
PROBLEM-SOLVING AND
TARGET-TASK COLLABORATIVE ISSN 1648-3898 /Print/
LEARNING APPROACHES IN ISSN 2538-7138 /Online/
ELECTRICITY AMONGST HIGH

SCHOOL PHYSICS STUDENTS
Abstract. This research reports on the

Ademola Olatide Olaniyan, effectiveness of Polya Problem-Solving
Nadaraj Govender and Target-Task collaborative learning
approaches in electricity amongst high
school physics students. It also includes
a gender focus. It was an experimental
research with a pre-test post-test control
Introduction group design. The experimental groups
were exposed to Polya Problem-Solving
Problem-solving skills are of immense value to society and it has approach and Target-Task collaborative
produced noticeable results in teaching and learning physics especially in learning approach while the control group
students’ academic performance in high school physics. Physics is one of the were exposed to conventional teaching.
essential disciplines that plays a vital role in advancement of science and A total of 180 students were selected and
technology through exposing and improving students’ proficiency in solv- divided equally into three groups, 60 (male
ing complex problems (Docktor & Mestre, 2014; Elvira, 2016). While there are adolescent and female adolescent) each.
lots of earlier research, especially in America, indicating that problem solving The students were initially pre-tested, fol-
strategies taught has somewhat improved the solving of physics problems lowed by teaching and learning in electric-
(Heller & Reif, 1984; Hsu, Brewe, Foster, & Harper, 2004; Leonard, Dufresne, & ity using the treatments, and finally they
Mestre, 1996; Van Heuvelen, 2001), current studies globally however, show were post-tested using the Performance
that both male and female students are still performing poorly in physics and Test in Current Electricity (PTCE). Data were
in physics problem solving aspect (Bryant & Swinton, 2001; Gonzuk & Cha- analyzed quantitatively with descriptive
gok, 2001) and particularly so in Africa (Josiah, 2013; Olaniyan & Omosewo, statistics and ANCOVA, and the research
2015). Research undertaken in different topics in high school physics showed hypotheses were tested at .05 alpha level of
that methods of teaching and problem-solving skills are major factors to be significance. The research confirmed that
considered for better performance in the subject (Brewton, 2001; Çalışkan, both the treatments, Polya Problem-Solving
Selçuk, & Erol, 2012; Gonzuk & Chagok, 2001; Orji, 2000). In studies of Akin- and Target-Task collaborative learning
bobola and Afolabi (2010), Okoronka and Wada (2017) and Omaga, Iji and approaches enhanced the performance of
Adeniran (2014), guided discovery, problem-based learning approach and the students based on gender and scoring
analogy instruction strategy were used. It was observed that the experi- abilities compared with the conventional
mental groups performed better than the control group, but their findings teaching.
varied between the performance of male and female students. Okoronka Keywords: collaborative learning, con-
and Wada observed no difference in male and female performance, while ventional teaching, gender, performance,
Omaga, Iji and Adeniran observed variation in the performance of male and physics students’, Polya problem-solving,
female students in electricity. Engelhardt and Beichner (2004) researched target-task.
students’ understanding of direct circuits and noted that girls and women
did not perform as well on the test given as boys and men, either in high
school or at universities. They conducted interviews that showed that, at Ademola Olatide Olaniyan,
universities, women had more misconceptions about dc circuits than men, Nadaraj Govender
but this difference was not observed between boys and girls in high school. University of KwaZulu-Natal, South Africa
In addition, male students were much more confident in their answers than
female students, though reasons for this difference were not explored.
765
EFFECTIVENESS OF POLYA PROBLEM-SOLVING AND TARGET-TASK COLLABORATIVE
LEARNING APPROACHES IN ELECTRICITY AMONGST HIGH SCHOOL PHYSICS STUDENTS
(P. 765-777) ISSN 2538–7138 /Online/
The research by Danili and Reid (2004) confirmed that the mental capacity (m-space) with students’ ability to deal
with problem-solving is a significant factor to be considered in solving complex problems. They also stated that
there is a relationship between working memory capacity and science achievement at all levels. It was also noted
in Bodner and Herron (2002) that students with high and low memory capacity perform significantly different
in chemistry at high school level. In addition, other researchers found that using different problem-solving ap-
proaches in physics produce varied results (Leak et al., 2017; Mogari & Lupahla, 2013). Recently, in Africa, Olaniyan
and Omosewo (2015) observed that Target-Task problem solving approach emphasized that students’ collabora-
tion and group participation enhanced better performance of high, medium and low scoring level students, and
particularly of low scoring students.
For teaching and learning to be effective, the physics teacher has to be able to bring various teaching strate-
gies such as collaboration, practical work, use of ICTs, active engagement and explicit problem-solving skills into
the physics classroom to address effective learning of both male and female students of different scoring abilities
(Çalışkan et al., 2012; Leak et al., 2017; Lorenzo et al., 2006). Recently, research effort has been put in place to com-
bine various methods of teaching such as practical, concept mapping, etc. with collaborative efforts of students
in the classroom settings (Barkley, Cross, & Major, 2014; Duit & Treagust, 2003). Physics teachers can diversify their
problem-solving approaches by creating several pathways of making students learn by combining problem-solving
approaches with collaborative learning. Collaborative learning (CL) has been documented as an important strat-
egy with regards to improving the scoring ability of students in physics (Govender, 2015; Harskamp & Ding, 2006)
{Govender, 2015 #22; Harskamp, 2008 #40}. For example, Govender (2015) concluded that collaborative learning
enhanced the subject matter knowledge of difficult concepts in Electromagnetism among pre-service physics
teachers’ when concept maps and collaborative learning were integrated.
For research in selected physics topics like electricity, high performance in problem-solving is rare and the
reasons for this include the abstract and counterintuitive nature of many essential concepts (Mulhall, McKittrick,
& Gunstone, 2001; Stott, 2017), students’ sloppiness and lack of ambition (Dayioğlu & Türüt-Aşik, 2007; Stanton,
1990), limited understanding of the topics by the teachers (Duit, 2009), the lack of creativity in terms of improvisa-
tion (Omaga et al., 2017; Orji, 2000), poor background of the students at the developmental stages of schooling
(Olaniyan & Omosewo, 2015) and gender differences (Olaniyan & Omosewo, 2015; Orji, 2000). In particular, Orji
(2000) and Olaniyan and Omosewo (2015) have shown significant differences in performance of male and female
physics students and differences in their performances based on low, medium and high scoring abilities.
Researchers in several studies had examined students’ performance in physics and the reasons for their
poor performance in problem-solving. However, this research seeks to improve students’ performance in physics,
specifically in current electricity by the use of two activity-based approaches, namely, Polya-Problem-Solving and
Target-Task collaborative learning. It also seeks to bridge the gender gap and compares the effectiveness of Polya
Problem-Solving and Target-Task collaborative learning approaches on male and female students’ performance
and their scoring abilities in Electricity in high school physics.
The following research questions are addressed:
i. What is the effectiveness of Polya Problem-Solving approach on performance of male and female
students in electricity?
ii. What is the effectiveness of Target-Task collaborative learning approach on performance of male and
female students in electricity?
iii. What is the effectiveness of the treatments (Polya Problem-Solving and Target-Task collaborative learn-
ing approaches) on students’ performance in physics in electricity?
iv. What is the effectiveness of the treatments (Polya Problem-Solving and Target-Task collaborative learn-
ing approaches) on performance of low, medium and high scoring students in electricity?
v. Why do students perform in the way they do in the research questions i-iv above?
Theoretical Frameworks
Problem-solving requires a lot of teacher planning and preparation before effective learning can take place
in the class. Efforts have been put in place to ensure that what goes on in the classroom shifts from the traditional
chalk and talk teaching methods to activity-based methods. In this research, effort was directed in comparing the
effectiveness of two activity-based learning methods, namely, Polya Problem-Solving (PPS) and Target-Task col-
laborative learning (TTCL) approaches on students’ performance in physics. The earlier studies on collaborative
766
ISSN 1648–3898 /Print/ EFFECTIVENESS OF POLYA PROBLEM-SOLVING AND TARGET-TASK COLLABORATIVE
ISSN 2538–7138 /Online/ (P. 765-777)
learning and problem-solving in physics (Tao, 1999, 2001) encompassed Piaget’s and Vygotsky’s work as theoretical
underpinnings. Piaget (1985) stated that the benefit of collaboration lies in the cognitive conflicts created from
students’ divergent views. Piaget focused on the individual perspective of learning, treating peer collaboration
as merely providing a useful context or vehicle for students’ personal sense-making and knowledge construction
(Tao, 2001). Vygotsky (1978), however, stressed both the individual and social perspectives of learning. He regarded
learning as a social process in which meaning-making and understanding are first rehearsed between people
before they are developed within the individual in a process of internalization.
Polya Problem-Solving approach is in the context of Piaget’s theory, an individual constructivist’s theory
which allows students to work on their own as individuals after been exposed to the approach. This theory is
based on the dynamic view of a constructivist who believes that learning is the result of the interaction between
what learners are taught and their current ideas. Duit and Treagust (2003) noted that certain limitations on the
constructivists’ ideals in the early 1990s led to its merger with social constructivists’ ideas. The Target-Task col-
laborative learning approach is an ideal of the construction of learning as espoused by social constructivists.
Vygotsky’s theory is one of the foundations of social constructivism. It asserts two major themes regarding
social interaction that are integral to the process, namely, the more knowledgeable other, and the zone of
proximal development (Vygotsky, 1978). Vygotsky in his application of the theory opined that many schools
have traditionally held a ‘transmissionist’ or ‘instructionist’ approach in which an educator ‘transmits’ informa-
tion to their students. His theory promotes learning contexts in which students play an active role in learning.
Roles of the teacher and student are therefore shifted whereby the teacher or mentor should collaborate with
his or her students to facilitate construction of ‘meaning’ in students. Learning therefore becomes a reciprocal
experience for both, the student and the teacher. Problem-Solving has been a long-standing interest for teachers
and researchers in physics education. Efforts had been made to research on problem-solving skills in physics to
enhance students’ performance in the subject (Gustafsson, Jonsson, & Enghag, 2015; Harskamp, Ding, & Suhre,
2008; Maloney, 1994; Orji, 2000). The research findings showed that students find it difficult to relate the right
knowledge to the problem; some have difficulty analyzing a problem or carrying out the appropriate calcula-
tion. Based on a comprehensive review of research on problem-solving in physics, Maloney (1994) summarized
that successful students’ problem-solving strategies at least contain conscious qualitative analysis of a problem,
such as, making a sketch of the problem, restating the problem in one’s own words, and conscious quantitative
review of equations or theorems that fit the problem. The students perform better in solving physics problems
when the teaching-learning pedagogy has been directed towards the use of appropriate physics problem-solving
approaches. Hence, in social constructivism, understanding the roles of a mentor, mentee and approaches to
problem-solving in the teaching-learning pedagogy are vital. Problem-solving approaches have also been linked
directly with collaborative learning strategies.
Collaborative learning is mutual combination of ideas of learners in a classroom environment for solving
problems. It involves participants working together on the same task, rather than in parallel on separate portions
of the task (Dillenbourg, 1999; Govender, 2015). Collaborative interactions are characterized by shared goals, sym-
metry of structure, and a high degree of negotiation, interactivity, and interdependence. Interactions producing
elaborated explanations are particularly valuable for improving student learning. Collaboration takes place within
a joint problem space, which provides the structure needed to allow meaningful conversations about the prob-
lem. To construct a joint problem space, partners must have ways to introduce and accept knowledge, monitor
exchanges for evidence of divergent meanings, and repair any divergences identified (Roschelle & Teasley, 1995).
Collaborative learning activities allow students to provide explanations of their understanding, which can help
students elaborate and reorganize their knowledge (van Boxtel, van der Linden, Roelofs, & Erkens, 2002). Social
interaction stimulates elaboration of conceptual knowledge as group mates attempt to make themselves under-
stood. Research provides evidence that providing elaborated explanations improves student comprehension of
concepts. Once conceptual understandings are made visible through verbal exchange, students can negotiate
meaning to arrive at convergence, or shared understanding (Lai, 2011). According to Dillenbourg (1999), a true
mark of collaborative learning is the quality of interactions, especially the degree of interactivity and negotiability.
Interactivity refers to the extent to which interactions influence participants’ thinking. Negotiability refers to the
extent to which no single group member can impose his view unilaterally on all others, but rather all group mem-
bers must work towards a common understanding. Research has shown that when students are actively engaged
through group interactions, they take responsibility for their own learning and become highly motivated towards
mastery, rather than performance-based learning (Govender, 2015). It was also observed that better performance
767
(P. 765-777) ISSN 2538–7138 /Online/
among students, based on their learning abilities, was obtained when students with low learning abilities were
allowed to collaborate with others (Saner, McCaffrey, Stetcher, Klein, & Bell, 1994).
Students’ thinking and reasoning ability as a variable also varies in terms of gender. Gender is one of the vari-
ables that have been related to differences in academic performance of students. Gender is referred to as social
attributes and opportunities associated with being a male or a female (Sayid & Milad, 2001). It has to do with the
relationships between women and men, boys and girls (Lorenzo et al., 2006). These attributes and opportunities are
socially constructed and learned through the socialization process. Gender determines what is expected, allowed
and valued in a woman or a man in a given context (Gallagher & Kaufman, 2004). Gender is related to differences
in motivational functioning, in self-regulated learning and academic achievement. Sayid and Milad (2001) dem-
onstrated the existence of different attribution patterns in boys and girls, such that, while girls tend to give more
emphasis to effort when explaining their performance (Egbugara, 1989; Young & Fisler, 2000), boys appeal more
to ability and luck as causes of their academic achievement (Harskamp et al., 2008).
Methodology of Research
General Background
The research considered the effectiveness of Polya Problem-Solving (PPS) and Target-Task collaborative learning
(TTCL) approaches on electricity amongst upper secondary school physics students. It was a quasi-experimental
non-randomized, non-equivalent pre-test and post-test control group design carried over six weeks. The research
population was 621 senior secondary school physics students in a state in North Central geopolitical zone of Ni-
geria while the target population were senior secondary school physics students purposively selected from three
schools within the state. Each school selected was randomly assigned one of the teaching approaches, namely, PPS,
TTCL and conventional teaching. The research was conducted within the space of six weeks during the first term.
Sample
Three different intact classes of 60 physics students in each class were used, making a total of 180 students,
which is 29 percent of the total population. The three intact classes were purposively selected from the research
population based on three criteria, which include, physics teachers’ qualification and experience, availability of
physics laboratory and participation in external examinations. The three schools selected were those whose phys-
ics teachers have minimum a Bachelor’s degree in Physics Education with at least 5 years of teaching experience,
standard and functional physics laboratory and are currently presenting students for external examinations. The
three schools were later randomly assigned to the experimental and control groups. One experimental group was
exposed to Polya Problem-Solving (PPS), the other experimental group to Target-Task collaborative learning (TTCL).
The control group was exposed to conventional teaching. Permission was sought from appropriate authorities
of the three schools (the principals, heads of science department and the physics teachers). The students were
informed about the research that involved six weeks of classroom teaching and learning in the first semester in
2015. The teacher of each intact class taught their classes using the assigned approaches of either PPS, TTCL or
conventional teaching.
Instrument and Procedure
The research instrument used is the Performance Test on Current Electricity (PTCE). It consists of ten (10) test
items on topics selected from the aspect of current electricity selected for the research. The test items encompassed
Bloom’s Taxonomy criteria selected from previous standardized examination questions of West African Examina-
tion Council. The face and content validation of the test were done by two science education experts (a professor
and a senior lecturer) and two high school physics teachers. The test items were pilot tested using two schools
which were not part of the subjects. Reliability test was conducted on the test items and a reliability index of 0.84
was obtained using Kuder-Richardson Formula 21(KR21). Two samples of the PTCE test items are given as follows:
1. The diagram below illustrates the conversion of a galvanometer G of resistance 2 Ω to an ammeter. The
galvanometer gives a full-scale deflection for a current of 10 mA. Calculate the value of R.
768
ISSN 2538–7138 /Online/ (P. 765-777)

2. The maximum permissible current through a galvanometer G of internal resistance 10 Ω is 0.05 A. A
resistance R is used to convert G into a voltmeter with a maximum reading of 100 V. Find the value of
R and state how it is connected to G.
Table 1 presents the research procedure that was conducted during the space of six weeks.
Table 1. Procedure for data collection.
Week Activities
Training of teachers
Week One Grouping into scoring levels
Pre-test
Week Two- Five Teaching and learning using the approaches
Week Six Post-test, marking and recording of data
In the first week the physics teachers for the experimental groups were trained by the researcher on the use
of PPS and TTCL. Each teacher selected a teaching approach and were exposed to the content stage by stage for
a period of one hour and thirty minutes each. Having gone through the content, the teachers were allowed to ask
questions and the researcher gave the necessary clarifications. The teachers were encouraged to ensure that each
approach was used appropriately. They were well guided by the researcher and the researcher ensured that the
lessons were well monitored by checking on the classes at intervals during the lesson periods, for proper checks
on the use of the approaches and for quality control during the experiment. The students were pre-tested with
the PTCE test. During the first week the teacher collected the final physics examination scores from the previous
year from the school and used the examination scores and pre-test scores to group the students into three scor-
ing ability categories - high (75% and above in the final examination and 55% and above in pre-test), medium
(between 50% and 74% in the final examination and scored between 45% and 54% in pretest) and low (below
50% and 45% in terminal exam and pre-test scores respectively). The criteria were used to ensure uniformity in the
experimental groups. The grouping was done without the knowledge or awareness of the students. The researcher
with cooperation of the teacher of TTLC experimental group placed the students in smaller groups. Students of
different ability levels were placed together in small groups with special focus on low ability students, at least one
low scorer in a group. The small groups comprised of six students per group as target task is an activity-based ap-
proach in which students worked together in small groups. The activities of the TTLC included: i) A Pre-Task: the
teacher introduced the topic, explained the topic in detail and ensured the students understood what they are
to do at the task stage. ii) A Task: the students completed the task in pairs or groups, while the teacher monitored
and offered encouragement. iii) Planning: students prepared a written report on what they went through during
the task in their group. iv) A Report: the students made their reports available to the teacher for assessment. After
correction, the teacher presented the report back to the students. v) An Analysis: the teacher highlighted relevant
parts of the learning on the board and vi) Practice: the teacher selected areas of practice for the students while
students solved the problems as individuals.
In the Polya Problem-Solving approach, the experimental group were only grouped on record based on
learning ability. PPS is an activity-based approach which allowed students to learn as individuals as the teacher
exposed them to the four steps, namely, understanding the problem, devising a plan that will lead to the solution,
carrying out the plan and looking back and evaluating their answers.
Teaching and Learning was done for four weeks (week two-five) using the treatments, Polya Problem-Solving
approach for one intact class of experimental group, Target-Task collaborative learning approach for another intact
769
(P. 765-777) ISSN 2538–7138 /Online/
class of experimental group and conventional teaching method was used for control group. At the end of the sixth
week, the students were post-tested using the same PTCE test and marking and recording was done.
Data Analysis
Data were collected from each intact class (raw post-test scores) and analyzed using descriptive statistics
(mean, standard deviation) and analysis of covariance (ANCOVA) by comparing the means of each group. The
pre-test was used as covariates to post-test scores with gender and scoring levels as factors. The research null
hypotheses were tested, and various conclusions were drawn. The Tables 2-4 contain the mean scores of each
group exposed to the approaches.
Results of Research
The research hypotheses were tested on interval of 95% confidence level of p<. 05 alpha level of significance.
The research results are discussed as follows.
Result by Gender
The mean scores of students exposed to PPS and TTCL by gender is shown in Table 2.
Table 2. Mean scores of male and female exposed to the treatments.
No Standard Mean Scores Mean Scores

Approach Mean Gain Score
60 Deviation Male Female
M F M F Pre-Test Post-Test Pre-Test Post-Test Male Female
PPS 27 33 9.344 9.098 24.95 34.28 21.29 35.18 9.33 13.89

TTCL 29 31 13.263 9.674 15.71 33.86 12.71 25.55 18.15 12.84
The post-test score of female students exposed to Polya Problem-Solving approach (PPS) is 35.18, pre-test
score is 21.29 and mean gain score is 13.89 while the post-test score of male is 34.28, pre-test is 24.95 and the mean
gain score is 9.33. Comparing the mean gain scores of male and female in each approach, female students have
higher mean gain score in Polya Problem-Solving approach (PPS) while male students have higher mean gain score
in Target-Task collaborative learning approach (TTLC). PPS produced better and noticeable performance among
female while TTLC produced better performance among male students. The null hypothesis tested stated that
there is no significant difference in the effectiveness of Polya Problem-Solving approach on performance of male
and female students. The null hypothesis was rejected, there was a significant difference in effectiveness of PPS
on the performance of males and females. The conclusion is that PPS was more effective on female students than
on males. In the case of Target-Task collaborative learning approach, the research hypothesis tested stated that
there is no significant difference in the effectiveness of TTLC on performance of male and female students. The null
hypothesis was also rejected because male students perform better than females, hence there was a significant
difference. The conclusion is that TTCL was more effective on male students than female. Figure 1 showed clear
difference between mean scores of male adolescents and female adolescents.
770
ISSN 2538–7138 /Online/ (P. 765-777)
Figure 1. Chart comparing the mean gain scores of male and female students exposed to the treatment.
Figure 1 further describes the relationship between the mean gain scores of male and female students exposed
to both PPS and TTCL. The research hypotheses were rejected, hence there was a significant interaction effects of
the treatments on gender.
Result by Scoring Ability
The scores of students exposed to the PPS and TTCL based on their scoring ability is given in Table 3.
Table 3. Mean scores of high medium and low scorers exposed to the treatments.
Mean Mean Mean

Mean
Number Standard Scores Scores Scores
Gain
Approach 60 Deviation High Medium Low
Scores
Scorer Scorer Scorer
Pre- Post- Pre- Post- Pre- Post-

H M L H M L H M L
Test Test Test Test Test Test
PPS 16 23 21 5.567 2.745 4.607 31.06 44.94 25.57 34.09 16.67 23.86 13.88 8.52 7.19
TTCL 12 18 30 6.368 2.787 5.601 20.37 45.70 18.40 33.67 15.55 44.90 25.33 15.27 29.35
The results of post-test scores showed better performance of the three scoring ability groups irrespective
of the approach used in teaching in Table 3. The post-test scores increase across board in the three-ability level.
Comparing the performance of students exposed to each treatment, it is observed that Target-Task collaborative
learning approach enhanced better performance of students in all ability levels compared with Polya Problem-
Solving approach. The mean gain scores of high, medium and low scorers exposed to TTCL are 25.33, 15.27 and
29.35 respectively while mean gain scores of high, medium and low scorers exposed to PPS are 13.88, 8.52 and
7.19 respectively. Specifically, it is noteworthy that amongst the three levels in TTCL, low scoring ability students
have highest mean gain score of 29.35. Comparing this with the three levels in Polya Problem-Solving approach,
low scorers in PPS have the lowest mean gain score of 7.19. It is concluded that Target-Task collaborative learning
approach enhanced better performance among students with low scoring ability compared with Polya Problem-
Solving approach.
771
(P. 765-777) ISSN 2538–7138 /Online/
Figure 2. Chart comparing mean gain scores of high, medium and low scorers exposed to the treatments.
Figure 2 further describes the performance of students with the three ability levels exposed to the two ap-
proaches. The research hypothesis was rejected, hence there was a significant interaction effect between the
treatment of PPS and TTCL and students’ scoring ability.
Result by Treatment
The mean scores of students exposed to PPS, TTCL and conventional teaching.
Table 4. Mean scores of students by approaches.
Standard Deviation Standard Deviation Post-Test

Approach Number Pre-Test Mean Score Mean Gain Score
Pre-test Post-Test Mean Score
PPS 60 8.662 9.305 13.90 29.57 15.67

TTCL 60 5.911 12.191 12.56 33.40 20.84
Conventional 60 6.738 8.871 11.32 12.30 0.98
Table 4 reflects that on a general note, both treatments enhanced better performance among students in all
categories as compared with the conventional teaching approach. Pre-test scores of PPS, TTCL and conventional
teaching are 13.90, 12.56 and 11.32 respectively while post-tests scores of the same are 29.57, 33.40 and 12.30
respectively. Also, the mean gain scores of PPS, TTCL and conventional teaching are 15.67, 20.84 and 0.98 respec-
tively. However, it could also be deduced that out of the two treatment groups, students exposed to Target-Task
collaborative learning approach performed better than students exposed to Polya Problem-Solving approach as
reflected in the mean gain scores of the two treatments.

772
ISSN 2538–7138 /Online/ (P. 765-777)
Figure 3. Chart comparing pre-test, post-test and mean gain scores of students in the experimental and control
groups.
Figure 3 further illustrates the differences in the pre-test, post-test and mean gain scores of the experimental
and control groups.
Discussion
Polya Problem-Solving approach (PPS) was found to be relatively more effective among female students and
enhanced better performance compared with Target-Task collaborative learning (TTCL) approach where female
scores were lower than males. Female students had higher mean gain score using PPS, this may be because the
approach is student friendly and simple, clearly stated with steps in a step-by-step approach which made females
to be more acquainted with this procedural approach to problem-solving as it consists of four straight steps with
rote or task to be performed. Females may also likely be inclined to the ‘recipe’, in other words since Polya Problem-
Solving approach has ‘recipe’ for solving problem, and it seems they prefer it over Target-Task collaborative learning
approach. From the researcher’s interaction with the students it was observed that the female students have affinity
for more rote learning, less engagement in practical activities and have more interest in literature and language.
This result concurs with Gabelko (1997) and Egbugara (1989) which posited that female students performed better
than male students who were exposed to problem-solving approaches in their different research. In an interactive
session the researcher held with the students after the research, it was observed that some of the female students
don’t enjoy activities related to electricity such as connecting wires or having to put the apparatus together in the
practical class. This may be one of the reasons why females in this research performed less in Target-Task collabora-
tive learning approach because they tend to allow the male students to take a lead during the class sessions. It was
also observed that they were more docile and passive than active and possibly their learning is less constructive
than it is expected during group work when they allow male students to dominate. This finding agrees with 2012
West Africa Examination Council report of 2012 (Olaniyan & Omosewo, 2015) and report of Sencar and Eryilmaz
(2004) which stated that female students performed very poor in physics practical examination because they
were not highly active during the lessons. Another study by Hazari, Tai, and Sadler (2007) confirmed the deficient
performance by female students in their physics practical examination in their study on gender difference in in-
troductory physics performance and the influence of high school physics.
Another observation why female students performed better in Polya Problem-Solving approach compared
with Target-Task collaborative learning approach was also traced to the fact that female students prefer to learn at
their own pace rather than working in groups. Even those who are weak (low scorers among females) will rather
keep quiet while in a group, even when they know, than to show their concerns before other students in the group.
Male students do speak out and show their concerns more in the groups. It was also observed that female students
prefer to research alone and have a tendency for competing rather than cooperating. Polya Problem-Solving
approach is more of competitive learning compared to Target-Task collaborative learning, a type of cooperative
773
(P. 765-777) ISSN 2538–7138 /Online/
learning. The high-ability ones among the Target-Task collaborative learning groups tend to keep quiet rather than
take a lead in the group because they feel the group slows down their pace especially as the classes are made up of
mixed-ability groups. This may not be the case in a homogeneous group. This possibly resulted in female students
performing lower than males in Target-Task collaborative learning - being a cooperative group learning approach.
This inference is in agreement with Harskamp et al. (2008) and Webb (1984). Harskamp et al. (2008) research on
group composition and its effect on female and male problem-solving in science education found out that student
interaction during cooperation indicated that females in mixed-gender pairs were less overtly active in seeking
solutions than males, females in mixed-gender groups are not as involved concerning the solution of problems as
their male partners. The reverse is the case in Polya Problem-Solving approach where the students work as indi-
viduals and this allows opportunities for competition and students to work at their own pace. This finding is also
supported by Okebukola (1986) and Gavin (1996). Okebukola found that students who prefer competition do not
do as well in cooperative settings as those students who prefer cooperative learning environments. Gavin studied
talented college females majoring in mathematics and found that these students enjoyed competition, participat-
ing in individual activity and liked to be the best. Therefore, cooperative learning in heterogeneous groups may
not always be the best problem-solving strategy to use with females.
Target-Task collaborative learning approach was found to be relatively more effective among male students
and low scoring ability students. The male students were often more interested in collaboration, work better in
groups than female counterparts. They have affinity to explore innovative ideas and to face new challenges and
are more likely to take initiative when it comes to experimenting, exploring and analyzing. This tendency en-
hanced critical thinking among males and gave them a head start in Target-Task collaborative learning compared
with males who were exposed to Polya Problem-Solving approach, working alone as individuals. In an after class
one-on-one discussion which the teacher and the researcher had with the students, it was observed that most
of the male students commented that working in groups made them learn better using Target-Task collaborative
learning approach because they were able to brainstorm and think together and these tasks and group spaces
gave them opportunities to learn more and understand the concepts better. Such that when they were to solve
problems alone later during the examination, the concepts and the principles they acquired in their separate
groups helped them to score better as individuals. Target-Task collaborative learning approach also strengthened
the performance of male student who have low scoring ability and may have improved their self-confidence. Work-
ing in a group possibly made them bond well with those who are better than them thereby impacting on them
and may have improved their cognitive knowledge of the concepts and applicative approach to solving problems.
Female students in these groups, especially low scorers also benefited in this, but the male students benefited
more because of their ability to work better in groups. It was also observed that the male students have better
ability to take initiatives, explore and lead. This agrees with the research of Li (2002) and Webb and Mastergeorge
(2003) who confirmed that in a mixed-gender group class, male students often take the initiative than females. It
also agrees with research findings of Engelhardt and Beichner (2004) on students’ understanding of direct current
resistive electrical circuits which confirmed that male students are more confident in their approach and respond
to questions better than female students.
Another probable reason attributed to better performance of male students in Target-Task collaborative
learning approach is teachers’ influence on the male students. Teachers most of the times often assume that male
students are better learners in physics classes (Dayioğlu & Türüt-Aşik, 2007). Teaching and learning in physics
classroom has been skewed in favour of male students, pedagogy that works for one student may not work for
another and traditional physics pedagogy has historically catered for the male majority (Hazari et al., 2007). Over
the years, research had shown poor performance of females in physics compared with males (Okebukola, 1997;
Olorundare, 1989). Teachers can be gender bias and construct gender positively towards males, they give better
attention to male students, and they think male students are better problem solvers, work independently with little
assistance from the teacher, and male students know what to do (Gallagher & Kaufman, 2004). On the contrary
it is believed that female students demand for more attention from the teachers rather than learning from their
colleagues in the group. In a class where there are many students to attend to, there is a tendency for such female
student(s) to be left out by the teacher especially in such large classes that were used for this research. This posi-
tion agrees with Howe (1997) and Gallagher and Kaufman (2004) who confirmed that teachers often think that
female students have more difficulty in solving problems independently while male students are more assertive
and can solve problems independently.
774
ISSN 2538–7138 /Online/ (P. 765-777)
Problem-Solving and Collaborative learning approaches being activity-based on teaching-learning pedagogy

generally enhanced better performance of students who were exposed to them compared with students exposed
to conventional teaching. This conclusion agrees with Harbor-Peter (1989) who stated that Target-Task enhanced
better performance among students exposed to it than students taught with conventional method during geometric
concepts in mathematics. Omaga, Iji and Adeniran (2014) also support this finding whereby students taught with
Problem-based approach-an activity-based teaching performed better than students taught with conventional
teaching methods. Okoronka and Wada (2014) also found that physics students who were taught with activities
based performed better those who were taught with the lecture method. The findings are also in agreement with
Govender (2015) who established that pre-service teachers’ subject matter knowledge of electromagnetism was
enhanced and improved scores when integrating concept maps and collaborative learning activities.
Conclusions
The research focused on effectiveness of Polya Problem-Solving and Target-Task collaborative learning ap-
proaches on students’ performance in electricity in physics versus conventional teaching. The effectiveness of
the two experimental groups were compared at the end of treatments in relation to scoring abilities and gender
effects. In terms of scoring abilities, the two treatments enhanced performance of all the students in the three
ranges high, medium and low scoring abilities. However, Target-Task collaborative learning approach enhanced
performance among low scoring ability students compared with low scoring ability in the other treatment group.
In terms of gender effects, Polya Problem-Solving approach enhanced performance among female students than
male students, compared with females in Target-Task collaborative learning approach. In addition, Target-Task
collaborative learning enhanced performance among male students compared with males in the other treatment
group. Overall, Polya Problem-Solving and Target-Task collaborative learning approaches enhanced performance
of the students based on gender and scoring abilities compared with the conventional teaching in electricity
amongst high school physics students.
Implications
Based on the findings of the research, it is suggested that Target-Task collaborative learning approach can be
used more in teaching problem-solving in electricity in high school physics to improve the performance of students
who are low scorers. Also, teachers should endeavor to use Target-Task collaborative learning approach more than
Polya Problem-Solving approach during teaching and learning of high school physics content.
Acknowledgement
Sincere appreciation and acknowledgment goes to the University Research Office-UKZN for funding this
research.
References
Akinbobola, A. O., & Afolabi, F. (2010). Constructivist practices through guided discovery approach: The effect on students’ cognitive
achievement in Nigerian senior secondary school physics. Eurasian Journal of Physics and Chemistry Education, 2 (1), 16-25.
Barkley, E. F., Cross, K. P., & Major, C. H. (2014). Collaborative learning techniques: A handbook for college faculty. San Francisco:
Jossey-Bass.
Bodner, G. M., & Herron, J. D. (2002). Problem-solving in chemistry. In J. K. Gilbert, O. De Jong, R. Justi, D. F. Treagust & J. H. Van
Driel (Eds.), Chemical education: towards research-based practice, (pp. 235-266). Dordrecht: Springer.
Brewton, C. (2001). Gender equity in science, technology and mathematics education: a workshop for enhancing learning envi-
ronments. Women in science technology, and mathematics education in Nigeria. Proceedings of the 42nd Annual Conference
of Science Teachers Association of Nigeria, 37-39. Ibadan: Heinemann Educational Books PLC.
Bryant, N., & Swinton, O. (2001). African American women in science: an indispensable entity in America’s scientific enterprise.
Women in science, technology and mathematics education in Nigeria. Proceedings of the 42nd Annual Conference of Science
Teachers Association of Nigeria, 22-23. Ibadan: Heinemann Educational Books PLC.
Çalışkan, S., Selçuk, G. S., & Erol, M. (2012). Instruction of problem solving strategies: Effects on physics achievement and self-
efficacy beliefs. Journal of Baltic Science Education, 9 (1), 20-34.
775
(P. 765-777) ISSN 2538–7138 /Online/
Danili, E., & Reid, N. (2004). Some strategies to improve performance in school chemistry, based on two cognitive factors. Research
in Science & Technological Education, 22 (2), 203-226.
Dayioğlu, M., & Türüt-Aşik, S. (2007). Gender differences in academic performance in a large public university in Turkey. Higher
Education, 53 (2), 255-277.
Dillenbourg, P. (1999). What do you mean by collaborative learning? Oxford: Elsevier.
Docktor, J. L., & Mestre, J. P. (2014). Synthesis of discipline-based education research in physics. Physical Review Special Topics-
Physics Education Research, 10 (2), 020119.
Duit, R. (2009). Bibliography: Students’ and teachers’ conceptions and science education. Kiel, Germany: University of Kiel.
Duit, R., & Treagust, D. F. (2003). Conceptual change: A powerful framework for improving science teaching and learning. Inter-
national Journal of Science Education, 25 (6), 671-688.
Egbugara, O. (1989). An investigation of aspects of students’ problem-solving difficulties in ordinary level physics. Journal of the
Science Teachers Association of Nigeria, 26 (1), 57-67.
Elvira, Q. L. (2016). Secondary education as a stepping stone on the road towards expertise. Retrieved from http://repository.ubn.
ru.nl/bitstream/handle/2066/160930/160930.pdf.
Engelhardt, P., & Beichner, R. (2004). Students’ understanding of direct current resistive electrical circuits. American Journal of
Physics, 72 (1), 98.
Gabelko, N. H. (1997, March). Age and gender differences in global, academic, social, and athletic self-concepts in academically
talented students. Paper presented at the Annual Meeting of the American Educational Research Association, Chicago, IL.
Gallagher, A. M., & Kaufman, J. C. (2004). Gender differences in mathematics: An integrative psychological approach. Cambridge:
Cambridge University Press.
Gavin, M. K. (1996). The development of math talent: Influences on students at a women’s college. Journal of Secondary Gifted
Education, 7 (4), 476-485.
Gonzuk, J., & Chagok, M. (2001). Factors that discourage girls from taking physics-a case study of Plateau state. Women in sci-
ence, technology and mathematics education in Nigeria. Proceedings of the 42nd Annual Conference of Science Teachers
Association of Nigeria, 352-355 Ibadan: Heinemann Educational Books PLC.
Govender, N. (2015). Developing pre-service teachers’ subject matter knowledge of electromagnetism by integrating concept
maps and collaborative learning. African Journal of Research in Mathematics, Science and Technology Education, 19 (3), 306-318.
Gustafsson, P., Jonsson, G., & Enghag, M. (2015). The problem-solving process in physics as observed when engineering students
at university level work in groups. European Journal of Engineering Education, 40 (4), 380-399.
Harbor-Peter, V. F. (1989). The target task and formal methods of presenting some geometric concepts: Their effect on retention.
Journal of Research in Curriculum, 7 (1), 111-119.
Harskamp, E., & Ding, N. (2006). Structured collaboration versus individual learning in solving physics problems. International
Journal of Science Education, 28 (14), 1669-1688.
Harskamp, E., Ding, N., & Suhre, C. (2008). Group composition and its effect on female and male problem-solving in science
education. Educational Research, 50 (4), 307-318.
Hazari, Z., Tai, R. H., & Sadler, P. M. (2007). Gender differences in introductory university physics performance: The influence of
high school physics preparation and affective factors. Science Education, 91 (6), 847-876.
Heller, J. I., & Reif, F. (1984). Prescribing effective human problem-solving processes: Problem description in physics. Cognition
and Instruction, 1 (2), 177-216.
Hsu, L., Brewe, E., Foster, T. M., & Harper, K. A. (2004). Resource letter RPS-1: Research in problem solving. American Journal of
Physics, 72 (9), 1147-1156.
Josiah, M. M. (2013). The state of gender representation in physics in federal college of education, Pankshin-Nigeria. Academic
Journal of Interdisciplinary Studies, 2 (10), 93-97.
Lai, E. R. (2011). Collaboration: A literature review. Retrieved from http://www.pearsonassessment.com/research.
Leak, A. E., Rothwell, S. L., Olivera, J., Zwickl, B., Vosburg, J., & Martin, K. N. (2017). Examining problem solving in physics-intensive
Ph. D. research. Physical Review Physics Education Research, 13 (2), 020101-020113.
Leonard, W. J., Dufresne, R. J., & Mestre, J. P. (1996). Using qualitative problem-solving strategies to highlight the role of conceptual
knowledge in solving problems. American Journal of Physics, 64 (12), 1495-1503.
Li, Q. (2002). Gender and computer-mediated communication: An exploration of elementary students’ mathematics and science
learning. Journal of Computers in Mathematics and Science Teaching, 21 (4), 341-359.
Lorenzo, M., Crouch, C. H., & Mazur, E. (2006). Reducing the gender gap in the physics classroom. American Journal of Physics,
74 (2), 118-122.
Maloney, D. P. (1994). Research on problem solving: Physics. In Gabel, Dorothy L. (Ed.), Handbook of research on science teaching
and learning, 327-354. New York: Macmillan.
Mogari, D., & Lupahla, N. (2013). Mapping a group of northern Namibian grade 12 learners’ algebraic non-routine problem- solv-
ing skills. African Journal of Research in Mathematics, Science and Technology Education, 17 (2), 94-105.
Mulhall, P., McKittrick, B., & Gunstone, R. (2001). A perspective on the resolution of confusions in the teaching of electricity.
Research in Science Education, 31 (4), 575-587.
Okebukola, P. A. (1986). The influence of preferred learning styles on cooperative learning in science. Science Education, 70 (5),
509-517.
Okebukola, P. A. (1997). Some factors in students’ under-achievement in senior secondary school biology. Journal of Science
Education, 2 (2), 9-12.
776
ISSN 2538–7138 /Online/ (P. 765-777)
Okoronka, U. A., & Wada, B. Z. (2014). Effects of analogy instructional strategy, cognitive style and gender on senior secondary
school students’ achievement in some physics concepts in Mubi Metropolis, Nigeria. American Journal of Educational
Research, 2 (9), 788-792.
Olaniyan, A. O., & Omosewo, E. O. (2015). Effects of a target-task problem-solving model on senior secondary school students’
performance in physics. Science Education International, 25 (4), 522-538.
Olorundare, A. (1989). An investigation into the difference between men and women in science. Ilorin Journal of Education, 9,
103-120.
Omaga, J., Iji, C., & Adeniran, S. (2017). Effect of problem-based learning approach on secondary school students’ interest and
achievement in electricity in Bauchi State, Nigeria. ATBU Journal of Science, Technology and Education, 5 (1), 63-70.
Orji, A. (2000). Comparability of two problem-solving models in facilitating students’ learning outcomes in physics. Journal of
Science Teachers Association of Nigeria, 35 (1), 25-30.
Piaget, J. (1985). The equilibration of cognitive structures: The central problem of intellectual development. Chicago: University of
Chicago Press.
Roschelle, J., & Teasley, S. D. (1995). The construction of shared knowledge in collaborative problem solving. In C. O’Malley (Ed.),
Computer supported collaborative learning (pp. 69-97). Heidelberg, Berlin: Springer.
Saner, H., McCaffrey, D., Stetcher, B., Klein, S., & Bell, R. (1994). The effects of working in pairs in science performance assessments.
Educational Assessment, 2 (4), 325-338.
Sayid, D. G., & Milad, K. (2001). Gender differences in factors affecting academics performance of high school students. Procedia
Social and Behavioural Sciences, 15, 1040-1045.
Sencar, S., & Eryilmaz, A. (2004). Factors mediating the effect of gender on ninth-grade Turkish students’ misconceptions con-
cerning electric circuits. Journal of Research in Science Teaching, 41 (6), 603-616.
Stanton, M. (1990). Students’ alternative conceptions of the DC circuit–1. Spectrum, 28 (2), 28-33.
Stott, A. E. (2017). The effectiveness of a conceptually focused out-of-class intervention on promoting learning of electricity by
township learners. African Journal of Research in Mathematics, Science and Technology Education, 21 (3), 304-315.
Tao, P. K. (1999). Peer collaboration in solving qualitative physics problems: The role of collaborative talk. Research in Science
Education, 29 (3), 365-383.
Tao, P. K. (2001). Developing understanding through confronting varying views: The case of solving qualitative physics problems.
International Journal of Science Education, 23 (12), 1201-1218.
van Boxtel, C., van der Linden, J., Roelofs, E., & Erkens, G. (2002). Collaborative concept mapping: Provoking and supporting
meaningful discourse. Theory into Practice, 41 (1), 40-46.
Van Heuvelen, A. (2001). Millikan lecture 1999: The workplace, student minds, and physics learning systems. American Journal
of Physics, 69 (11), 1139-1146.
Vygotsky, L. S. (1978). Mind in society: The development of higher psychological processes: Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press.
Webb, N. M. (1984). Sex differences in interaction and achievement in cooperative small groups. Journal of Educational Psychol-
ogy, 76 (1), 33.
Webb, N. M., & Mastergeorge, A. M. (2003). The development of students’ helping behavior and learning in peer-directed small
groups. Cognition and Instruction, 21 (4), 361-428.
Young, J. W., & Fisler, J. L. (2000). Sex differences on the SAT: An analysis of demographic and educational variables. Research in
Higher Education, 41 (3), 401-416.
Received: March 27, 2018 Accepted: September 08, 2018
Ademola Olatide Olaniyan Post doctoral Researcher, School of Education, University

of KwaZulu-Natal, Durban, South Africa.
Nadaraj Govender PhD, Associate Professor in Science Education, Science
(Corresponding author) and Technology Education Cluster, Room Cu140, Tutorial
Building, University of KwaZulu-Natal, Edgewood Campus,
Durban, South Africa.
E-mail : govendern37@ukzn.ac.za
777
HERMENEUTIC PERSPECTIVES
OF PRE-SERVICE SCIENCE
TEACHERS ABOUT SCIENCE
ISSN 2538-7138 /Online/
Abstract. Science education emphasizes the Bilge Can,

development of individuals’ ability to make
Asiye Bahtiyar,
comments, reasoning, and critical reflection
while expressing their scientific thoughts.
Hasret Kökten
In this sense, future science teachers have
great responsibility to develop those skills of
the learners and their meaningful learning.
Many researches emphasize hermeneutical
thinking for disciplines such as mathematics
and science to create meaningful learn- Introduction
ing. The current research aimed to reveal
pre-service science teachers’ hermeneutical Definition and Historical Development of Hermeneutics
perspectives about science and to determine
their existing ideas. For this aim, scientific It is both important and necessary to systematically handle and interpret
problems presented to pre-service science anything about human and produce meaning for human life. In philosophy,
teachers via scenarios, and how they the approach and method called as hermeneutic or interpretation has
developed their approaches to solve these emerged for such purposes as producing meanings. All the thoughts that
problems, and whether they used herme- expressed themselves in any way are considered to be in the scope of her-
neutics in this process were examined. The meneutic. In the simplest way, with this method one can easily reveal “how”
hermeneutical perspectives of pre-service s/he looks at “that thing” (Palmer, 2003, p. 12).
teachers were selected as a single case -by In the most general sense, hermeneutics is the theory, in addition to
using qualitative research method- to have a be used as a method, of interpretation which deals with what it means to
deep understanding of their hermeneutical understand texts, speeches or nature and what they try to tell. In this case, it
perspectives. The research group consisted can be said that there is hermeneutics when one interprets a text, situation
of nine third-year-students. Semi-structured or phenomenon (Shaw, 2010). When the definitions included in hermeneutics
interviews prepared by the researchers were are examined in detail, it is handled as the art of reporting, informing, explain-
applied before and after the intervention ing, translating, explaining, understanding, analysing and interpreting. One
in the research conducted for 14 weeks in also comes across a definition as an event, a method or an art style which
Science Teaching Laboratory Applications-I includes the function of communicating a message, transmitting a message.
course. The data were analysed by a descrip- At the same time, hermeneutics also has the task of highlighting the sub-
tive analysis method. It has been evidenced jective one, reaching the essence and nature of the inner in the context of
that science-related hermeneutical perspec- conditions such as the identification and acceptance of the current situation
tives of the pre-service science teachers have according to the subject (Gadamer, 2003; Taşdelen, 2008).
developed as a result of the problem-based According to Henriksson and Friesen (2012), hermeneutics is defined as
scenario studies. the “art and science” of interpretation and making a meaning. The emergent
meaning which results from using hermeneutics in this context is not static,
Key words: hermeneutics, hermeneutical
but something that is constantly open to new perspectives and interpreta-
perspective, scenario-based learning, science
tions. At the same time, the hermeneutic phenomenon means taking the cur-
education, pre-service science teacher.
rent and first-hand experiences together with their meanings. Hermeneutic,
as a methodology, is open to elaborate on, reinterpret and take a different
Bilge Can, view of any situation to deal with. The meaning here is concerned with the
Asiye Bahtiyar, probable experiences and the case of openness. In short, the hermeneutic
Hasret Kökten
Pamukkale University, Turkey phenomenon is not only a separate method or program for repeatedly ques-
tioning life and its content, but also a tendency and attitude (Henriksson &
Friesen, 2012).
778
ISSN 1648–3898 /Print/ HERMENEUTIC PERSPECTIVES OF PRE-SERVICE SCIENCE TEACHERS ABOUT SCIENCE
(P. 778-799)
Hermeneutics and Education
With the way in which it is handled in terms of theology, theory and method as well as the historical and
philosophical perspectives it contains, hermeneutics has been used as a method in educational research and ap-
plications for years (Moules et al., 2011). Hermeneutic understanding defines pedagogical success as initiating the
student’s ability to interpret; it succeeds when a teacher makes a student interested in the subject and enables him
to challenge himself by producing persuasive alternative opinions about the research (Taşdelen, 2002).
It is important that the individual’s learning that takes place in the educational environment should not be
linked to the explanations provided by an external source but should take place by participating in the process
with the individual’s own will. In other words, when learning is thought to be a process that is more related to
understanding-interpretation determined by the individual’s own will, the importance and necessity of revealing
his/her hermeneutic thoughts come into prominence. Therefore, the problem of whether science education is an
acquisition of information (self-realization) or (should be) a problem of enhancing a problem-solving skill (forma-
tion training) can be addressed through hermeneutics (Yılmaz, 2007, p. 164-170).
Hermeneutics and Science
Hermeneutical understanding is an important goal in education. However, hermeneutics tries to show that the
process of understanding will never be completed while education usually aims to create a state of understanding
that is complete and based on certainty. This part should be reworked with respect to previous section. In this context,
science education is not an educational state with a final and definitive recognition. It is important to emphasize
that science education in terms of hermeneutics is a state of pedagogical self-update when the scientist realizes
that s/he is always on his/her way to achieving a single definition because if there are no different meanings, the
development in science and education is also limited (Smith, 1991, as cited in Pelech, 2013). Therefore, ignoring
the hermeneutical method for science education means using science textbooks only to serve technical purposes,
scientific articles not including the historical understanding of science and conducting science education without
understanding the life where science finds its roots. This is one of the obstacles to being able to produce different
meanings and to improve students’ creativity (Bevilacqua & Giannetto, 1995).
Researchers using hermeneutics as a method have been conducting important studies in the last thirty years
in order to find the answer to the question “What is Science?” as stated by Shaw (2010). That hermeneutical ap-
proach is also concerned with problems related to science, is seen as important for the development of science.
At the same time, it is very important to handle the knowledge about the nature of man and science, to explain
the history of science more adequately, and to put forward a reliable science theory in the history of science
through hermeneutics. That hermeneutics deals with many problems and the concepts of those problems reveals,
interprets and brings together the different applications of scientists in various fields of science. The situation that
arises from the use of hermeneutics in science is also compatible with the beliefs of the scientists about their own
disciplines that have put forth that scientific theories are more than just grounding a single point of view. In ad-
dition, the hermeneutical method tries to get over many deficiencies of the constructivism approach by detailing
why scientific information is not just the work of one person’s culture. This attitude, as theoreticians say, can also
be called as hermeneutic philosophy of science (Shaw, 2010).
The hermeneutics used in science and scientific events are closely related to the applications of scientists
and the comprehensive states of scientific discoveries. It has developed a point of view that will take a number
of meanings for humanity regardless of the discipline in science. The perspectives and meanings revealed in the
disciplines of science are important for every person who wants to receive education and study in the related field.
Every generation within educational institutions must progress gradually in order to question the truths and nature
of science. In this case, it is also important to think about the concepts and meanings in different ways which sci-
ence and scientific studies have put forth in educational environment. The fact that science needs individuals in
the context of interpretation and meaning production also increases the importance of questioning the nature of
science (Shaw, 2010). Nevertheless, there is no comprehensive research of hermeneutical perspective in science
education which requires the interpretation of science and scientific knowledge, and the production of different
meanings in this way.
779
(P. 778-799)
Problem of Research
In the Science Education Program of Turkey which was last updated in 2018, there is a statement as follows:
“Rapid change in science and technology, the changing needs of the individual and society, innovation and develop-
ment in learning teaching theories and approaches have also directly affected the expected role of the individual. This
change defines the qualifications of a person who can produce knowledge, use it functionally in life, solve problems,
think critically, behave entrepreneurially and decisively, has communication skills, can empathise, contribute to the
society and culture and so on” (MoNE, 2018).
Science teachers, therefore, have to teach their students not only what they need to know about our world,
but more importantly how to learn it in order to be able to raise students with qualities required by the age
(Pelech, 2013, p. 5). In addition to this point of view, Elliott emphasized that the hermeneutical method and its
understanding principle are important for teacher education programs and for the idea of continuity and progress
in vocational education which we have recently begun to perceive and explore (Elliott, 1993). For this reason, it is
thought that it is very important to reveal hermeneutical perspectives of pre-service science teachers regarding
how they perceive science.
It is important that pre-service science teachers have balanced hermeneutical perspective about the nature
of science and should reflect it in the classroom environment by recognizing their future students. In order to
understand the tradition of hermeneutics, it is necessary to act on epistemological bases (Saygın, 2009, p. 103).
According to Tsai (1999), science teachers and pre-service teachers must have a science epistemology of construc-
tive learning to actualise constructive science education which constitutes science teaching programs of many
countries. This can only be taught by teachers with sufficient competencies (Bollnow, 1995, p. 98-99) and high
hermeneutical comprehension levels to their students.
Educators who focus on teaching scientific knowledge in an educational setting can be asked the following
questions: How does science live in the world as an ongoing phenomenon and what traditions-methods are parts
of science education? In addition, hermeneutics asks the question to the educators about how they have adopted
science teaching: “Should understanding and interpreting in science be considered as a subjective action rather
than a participatory act in a tradition?” (Gadamer, 2003, p. 291). At this point, in the process of raising science
teachers, the use of scenarios that do not have a clear answer but rather includes a series of interpretations and
probable possibilities will enable them to discuss the evidence for various interpretations and focus on different
perspectives (Dalziel, 2012) and thus to reveal their perspectives. Therefore, when teachers with high hermeneutical
comprehension levels in the education system are trained in the learning environments where carefully planned
and problem-based scenarios are clearly designed with reflection activities, it is thought that not only their own
perspectives but also their learners’ perspectives about science and scientific knowledge can improve thank to
these teachers, and the desired high hermeneutical understanding ability can be gained.
Research Focus
In general, when looking at the history of science, no field of science develops in a single way. Hermeneutical
thinking can be considered as an alternative method for new productions in science education and science studies,
where it is thought that the diversity of methods can improve the ability of thinking within each science field. Under
favour of hermeneutics, it is very important for the natural sciences as well as the social sciences to understand the
information about the nature of human and the nature of science, to explain the history of science in more details
and to put forward a reliable science theory in the history of science. Hence, the hermeneutics used in science
and scientific events are closely related to the practical work of scientists and the comprehensive state of scientific
discoveries. In this context, scenario-based activities were applied to develop pre-service science teachers’ under-
standing, thinking, explanation and interpretation skills by including hermeneutic thought in science education
with this research. Thus, pre-service science teachers were asked to question and deepen their views on science.
Although there is a huge volume of research on hermeneutics that are generally theoretical research studies
(Bevilacqua & Giannetto, 1995; Fehér, Kiss, & Ropolyi, 1999; Pelech, 2013) and in which hermeneutics was used as a
scientific method (Güven & Soydaş, 2011; Nachiappan, Andi, Subbramaniam, & Veeran, 2012), there is no research
on the hermeneutic thinking of pre-service science teachers. From this point of view, when the research is exam-
ined in detail, it is thought that this research will be the first one to include hermeneutics which has philosophical
bases in science education. Hermeneutics, which has the ability to reveal and give meaning to those that have been
780
(P. 778-799)
dared to be spoken or hidden (Bollnow, 1995, p. 96-97), is thought to be very important in revealing the viewpoints
of pre-service science teachers about science who will be especially the leaders of the science education, and in
interpreting notions related to science.
General Background
This research aimed to reveal pre-service science teachers’ perspectives upon hermeneutics about science
and the development of hermeneutic thinking before and after the scenario implementations. The case study was
adopted from qualitative research methods in order to investigate a situation in depth (Creswell, 2007). In order
to understand and examine the hermeneutical perspectives and development of the pre-service science teachers
in detail, hermeneutical perspectives of pre-service science teachers were selected as a holistic single case (Yin,
2003). Semi-structured interview form was used to identify hermeneutic perspectives about science of pre-service
science teachers. The piloting was conducted upon the senior pre-service science teachers. Pre-service science
teachers’ development was investigated through questions about science, scientific knowledge, scientist, and
socio-scientific directed at pre-service science teachers in semi-structured interviews before and after scenario
implementations. During 14 weeks of application, all pre-service science teachers in the course were assured to
participate in the activities and answer the interview questions with the help of the researchers. In this way, the
soundness and credibility of the research were ensured.
Research Group
The research group of the research include nine pre-service teachers (5M, 4F) who were third year students
at Pamukkale University, Science Teaching Department in the fall semester of 2016-2017 academic years. The
participants selected by the purposeful sampling method, included three students who were at low, medium and
high achievement levels based on their CGPA in each of the three sections to provide maximum diversity. In the
purposeful sampling method, it is assumed that the selected participants have the necessary knowledge about
the target audience (Frankel & Wallen, 1996). The reason why the pre-service science teachers who were studying
in the third year were chosen for the research is that the researcher realized that the hermeneutical perspectives
of the pre-service science teachers were very limited in the Lab Practices I-II in Science Teaching conducted by the
researcher. In addition, in science teacher education, completion of courses related to science-teaching (Special
Teaching Methods, Nature of Science) aside from the basic science courses till the third grades (General Physics
I-II-III-IV, General Chemistry I-II-III-IV, General Mathematics I-II and General Biology I-II) is also seen to be important
in terms of the purpose of the research.
When the scales and interview forms in national and international studies were examined, it is seen that there
is no scale or interview form which reflects the perspectives of teachers and pre-service teachers about science,
scientific knowledge, scientist and scientific method, and is short, easy to apply and evaluate. For this reason, in
the semi-structured interview form prepared by the researchers, there were questions to determine ideas about
science, scientific knowledge, and characteristics of scientists, scientific method and scientific thinking in order to
reveal hermeneutical perspectives of pre-service science teachers. Additionally, the related literature was reviewed
and various scales related to the nature of science were examined (Abd-El-Khalick & Lederman, 2000; Lederman &
O’Malley, 1990; Abd-El-Khalick, Bell, & Lederman, 1998; Lederman & Khishfe, 2002; Lederman & Ko, 2004; Lederman
et al., 2014), and a draft form was created with the inclusion of some questions like “What do you think about the
formation of the universe?”, “How do scientists form models of atoms even if they do not see them?”, “Do you have
any habits that affect your scientific thinking process? If so, what are they?” and “Suppose that someone you love
is a kidney patient. Also, suppose that a kidney is produced with a cell taken from you and transplanted into him/
her via the stem cell method. What do you think about this kind of kidney production?”. The prepared draft form
was examined by the expert academicians in the field by considering the purpose and scope of the research and
the necessary arrangements were made in line with the suggestions received. In order to test the validity of the
781
(P. 778-799)
questions, a piloting study was conducted upon the senior pre-service science teachers. Following the implemen-
tations, the necessary modifications were made to finalise the interview form (see Appendix 1).
Within the scope of the research, Problem-based Learning Model was applied for 14 weeks with scenarios in
Science Instruction Laboratory Applications course. In this process, through the scenarios (Appendix 2) prepared by
the researchers about the achievements in the Ministry of National Education Science Curriculum, the pre-service
science teachers were expected to determine the problem, decide the hypothesis and variables, design the experi-
ments and make a comment by reaching a conclusion. The data obtained from semi-structured interviews aiming
at revealing the hermeneutical perspectives of pre-service science teachers for the purpose of the research were
collected in two stages, namely before and after the implementation.
Data Analysis
For the analyses of the data gathered, audio files of the individual interviews made with the pre-service teach-
ers participating in the research were transcribed on the computer and a data set related to the interview data
was reached. The pre-service teachers interviewed were coded as “S1, S2, S3, S4, S5, S6, S7, S8 and S9” to prevent
ethical problems. Within the scope of the research, the opinions of the pre-service teachers received through the
individual interview form were analysed by means of descriptive analysis. Descriptive analysis is the summation
and interpretation of the data obtained according to the previously determined themes. The data can be arranged
according to the themes set out by the research questions or can be presented by considering the questions or
dimensions used in the interview and observation procedures (Yıldırım & Şimşek, 2013). In the analysis of the
data, a total of 6 experts, one from Marmara and five from the Aegean region, were consulted for expert opinion.
In this research, the themes and codes were formed by the researchers taking Dilthey’s “Comprehension Lev-
els” into account (Figure 1) as a result of examining the chapter called “Expression and Understanding” included in
Bollnow’s (1995) book titled “Articles on Hermeneutics”.
Figure 1. Themes and codes.
According to Figure 1, in the theme of “Elementary Understanding”, there are “Simple Conceptual Understand-
ing”, “Technical Understanding” and “Understanding Through Experience and Expression” codes; in the theme of
“Higher Level Comprehension”, there are “Paraphrasing and Interpretation”, “Re-Establishment” and “Cognitive Higher
Comprehension” codes; finally, for the responses aside from these levels, there is the theme of “Misunderstanding”.
782
(P. 778-799)
A brief description of these themes and codes is as follows (Bollnow, 1995, p. 85-104):
1. Elementary Understanding: The thinking skills of the individual are very simple, and the desire to
know oneself is quite lacking. His/her consciousness of being an individual is at a low level and men-
tions very general ideas. It is generally the understanding at a simple level.
1.1. Simple Conceptual Understanding: The individual remains with external appearance, expresses
the concrete, and deals with daily and ordinary behaviours. S/he grounds very simple under-
standings. S/he makes definitions. S/he gives bookish information, but has difficulty in making
explanations. The answers given to the questions in the interview form such as “What is scientific
information?”, “What is scientific method?” can be expected to be at this level.
1.2. Technical Understanding: It includes a direct understanding of what is practical and concrete.
It allows direct understanding without any need for indirection. In technical understanding,
we directly understand that a board is cut with a saw. It is object-based. The individual gives
examples of the definitions s/he makes. The answers given to the questions in the interview
form such as “What is scientific information?”, “What is scientific method?” can be expected to
be at this level.
1.3. Understanding through experience and expression: There is an external situation or a stimulus
that mediates the understanding of the inner, and we try to understand the inner by acting
externally. The relationship between externalities (behaviours) and spiritual things we encounter
in life, as it applies to all understanding in the elemental form, is direct. The immediacy of the
link between life and expression corresponds directly to the understanding of an expression. It
is subject-based. The answers given to the questions in the interview form such as “What are the
characteristics of a scientist?”, “Do you have habits that affect your scientific thinking process?
If yes, what?” can be expected to be at this level.
2. Higher Level Comprehension: It is a form of comprehension that is systematized, aims to make the in-
dividual question in detail and be creative, making it possible to reach the conclusion by the individual
combining thoughts with a method, and trying to obtain the big picture via new contexts.
2.1. Paraphrasing and Interpretation: Paraphrasing is a systematic, intuitive and directional activity. It
requires a masterful understanding. The individual understands not only with simple sentences but
also with all the details. Interpretation is the ability to express this deep and intuitive understand-
ing with creativity. It has its own concepts, expressions, etc. The cultural environment creates the
possibility of interpretation necessary to understand the expression. Therefore, interpretation is
the objective understanding of a fixed expression in a cultural setting. The answers given to the
questions in the interview form such as “What do you think about the formation of the universe?”,
“A person who is curious about birds is examining hundreds of kinds of birds fed with different
kinds of food. S/he notices that the birds fed with similar food have similar beaks. For example, the
beaks of the birds eating hard-shelled food are short and sturdy while the beaks of birds eating
insects in shallow water are long and thin. The individual concludes that there is a link between
the beaks of the birds and the varieties of food they eat. Can you scientifically accept this person’s
examination?” can be expected to be at this level.
2.2. Re-establishment: It involves from piece to the whole and is an expression of high forms of under-
standing. It requires the individual to reassemble the knowledge and its questioning in a particular
way by bringing together the related parts. The answers given to the questions in the interview
form such as “How do scientists form models about atoms even if they do not see them?”, “Sup-
pose that someone you love is a kidney patient. Also, suppose that a kidney is produced with a
cell taken from you and transplanted into him/her via the stem cell method. What do you think
of this kind of kidney production?” can be expected to be at this level.
2.3. Cognitive Higher Comprehension: It requires conceptual creativity at a high level. At this level, the
individual builds a new intellectual domain. It requires understanding of the present situation and
transition to a scientific concept that is determined by the person himself. Therefore, it requires a
new world and a new perspective. The answers given to the question in the interview form “Sup-
pose that someone you love is a kidney patient. Also, suppose that a kidney is produced with a
cell taken from you and transplanted into him/her via the stem cell method. What do you think
of this kind of kidney production?” can be expected to be at this level.
783
(P. 778-799)
3. Misunderstanding: If the interview questions are misunderstood or wrong answers are given to the
questions, the “Misunderstanding” code is used.
Validity and Reliability
There are different strategies and classifications in ensuring the validity and reliability of the research. In this
research, the concepts credibility rather than internal validity, transferability instead of external validity, consistency
rather than internal reliability, confirmability instead of external reliability were preferred which were thought to
be in accordance with the nature of qualitative research for the concepts of validity and reliability by Lincoln and
Guba (Lincoln & Guba, 1985; as cited in Yıldırım & Şimşek, 2013). Thus, in this research:
•• To ensure the credibility (internal validity) of the research; the researchers clearly demonstrated how they
arrived at the results and presented their evidence in a way that other people can reach. The model of
the research, the participants, the data collection tools, the data collection process, the analysis and
interpretation of the data, and the way in which the findings are organised were described in a detailed,
clear and coherent way so that it can be examined by other researchers. The researcher followed the
process closely for fourteen weeks as s/he conducted it himself/herself. During the course of the im-
plementation, s/he spent a lot of time in the field and worked with the prospective science teachers in
the laboratory both during and after class, which ensures that the participants were sincere in the data
collection process while at the same time providing detailed and in-depth data. After the interviews
conducted with the pre-service teachers were recorded on the voice recorder, the researchers listened
to these voice recordings one by one, and the interviews were transferred to the computer in Word
format. The data obtained from the individual interviews were coded by the researcher and sent to
four experts on the field. The agreement level among the coders was found to be 81%. At the end of
the research, the interview documents were presented to the pre-service teachers who participated
in the interview, and they were asked to confirm whether what they intended to say were the same
or not. No changes were made to the expressions of the participants, and the words they used during
the interview were used exactly. Thus, member checking was also used to ensure the reliability of the
interview data (Creswell, 2007). At all stages of the research, there was an interaction with experienced
experts on qualitative studies. This was ensured by receiving opinions, suggestions and critiques from
more experienced experts as well as intensive peer-expert interactions.
•• To ensure the transferability (external validity) of the research; the results of the research were tried to
be made transferable with sufficient description of the data. Thus, an attempt was made to establish a
chain of evidence for the collected data. Due to the nature of qualitative research, direct citations were
given without commenting in the findings part to provide a detailed description.
•• To ensure the consistency (internal reliability) of the research; the coding of the data obtained from the
research was carried out separately by the researchers and the views from the experts related to the
coding were taken into consideration to benefit from different perspectives. While the themes related
to sub-problems were explained, many data sources were quoted. While presenting findings related to
the subject, quotations containing different, contradictory, negative and positive statements or descrip-
tions for any code of the theme were provided to give the theme in a broad context. The processes that
took place at all stages including the planning, implementation and analysis of the research, and the
products that emerged at the end of these processes were examined for consistency with each other
and expert assistance was also referred.
•• To ensure the confirmability (external reliability) of the research; the researchers exhibited objective
attitudes and behaviours in the preparation, development, implementation, and analysis of the data
collection tools in the research; they tried not to be biased towards the answers given by the pre-service
science teachers and to avoid any positive or negative guidance. The data collection tools used in the
research and the raw data collected through these tools were stored in such a way that they can be
examined by other researchers or can be used in other research studies. Rich representations were
made in presenting the findings obtained at the end of the analyses to the reader and in making the
patterns clear. Thus, different perspectives were tried to be presented to the readers. This research has
helped readers to reach the same or similar interpretations of the researchers’ comments.
784
(P. 778-799)
Results of Research
The results of the research were presented as sub-problems in the context of the questions in the semi-
structured interview form. The answers given by the pre-service science teachers in the preliminary interviews
and in the final interviews for the question “What is Science?” are given in Table 1.
Table 1. Pre-service science teachers’ responses to the meaning of science.
Preliminary Interview Final Interview

1. The meaning of science
Participant f Participant F
S1, S2, S3, S4, S5, S6,

Simple Conceptual Understanding 9 S3, S5, S6, S7, S8 5
S7, S8,S9
Elementary Com- Technical Understanding - - S1, S2, S9 3

prehension Understanding through experience and
- - S4 1
expression
Total - 9 - 9
Paraphrasing and Interpretation - - - -
Higher Level Re-establishment - - - -

Comprehension Cognitive Higher Comprehension - - - -
Total - - - -
Misunderstanding - - - -
TOTAL 9 9
When Table 1 is examined, it is seen that for the question “What is science?”, all of the pre-service teachers
respond at the level of “Simple Conceptual Understanding” under the theme of “Elementary Comprehension”. As to
the final interviews, five of the pre-service teachers (S3, S5, S6, S7, S8) went on giving answers at simple conceptual
level while three of them (S1, S2 and S9) went up one level and gave answers at the level of “Technical Understand-
ing”, and one of them (S4) gave answers at the level of “understanding through experience and expression” which
is the last level of elementary understanding.
Some quotations from the interview data of the prospective science teachers are presented below:
“S1: I think science is to clarify and understand the events in the world, to struggle ... to be able to explain the events in the
world…” (Preliminary)
“S1: It is an effort to understand the facts and phenomena in the nature. They are making observations and, doing ex-
periments. They reach a theory with assumptions. They can understand. For example, they say that when you throw the
apple, it falls down and it is Newton’s discovery of Gravity Force. It’s like weight. It’s like one can understand that there is a
gravitational force on Earth.” (Final interview)
“S2: Science is the systematic application of events in the nature or our purpose to realize it” (Preliminary)
“S2: Science is the systematic application of events in the nature or our purpose to achieve it. For example, astronomy is a
field of science. It examines events in space.” (Final interview)
“S4: For me, science is the study of the earth, the planet, our universe in a systematic framework, with some curiosity, from
the past to the present. (Preliminary)
“S4: At first science meant more like technology for me. But now it’s like a stack of information that keeps technology mov-
ing forward.” (Final interview).
When the above quotations are examined, it is seen that S1 and S2 made only the definition of science in
the preliminary interviews, but in the final interviews they went up the level of technical understanding from the
level of simple conceptual understanding, by giving examples about science in addition to its definition. Although
S4 adhered to the book definition of science in the preliminary interview, s/he stated what it meant for himself/
herself in the final interview considering the place of science in his/her daily life. In this case the student was able
785
(P. 778-799)
to present additional information on the use of the object in technical terms to go beyond the definitions s/he
made in light of the skills s/he gained via the courses. It is therefore seen that scientific process skills and inquiry
skills have improved significantly.
The answers given by pre-service science teachers in the preliminary interviews and in the final interviews
for the question “What is scientific knowledge?” are given in Table 2:
Table 2. Pre-service science teachers’ responses to the meaning of scientific knowledge.

2. The meaning of scientific knowledge
Participant f Participant F
S1, S2, S3, S4, S5, S6, S7,

Simple Conceptual Understanding 9 S3, S7, S8, S9 4
S8, S9
Elementary Compre- Technical Understanding - - S4, S5, S6 3

hension Understanding through experience and
- - - -
Expression
Total - 9 -
Paraphrasing and Interpretation - - S1, S2 2
Higher Level Compre- Re-establishment - - - -

hension Cognitive Higher Comprehension - - - -
Total - - - 2
TOTAL 9 9
When Table 2 is examined, it is seen that in the preliminary interviews all the pre-service teachers gave
answers at the level of “Simple Conceptual Understanding” under the theme of “Elementary Comprehension” for
the question “What is scientific information?” As for the final interviews, four of the pre-service teachers (S3, S7,
S8 and S9) continued to give answers at simple conceptual level while three of them (S4, S5 and S6) gave answers
at technical understanding level and the other two (S1 and S2) gave answers at “paraphrasing and interpreting”
passing to “Higher Level Comprehension” theme.
“S4: Scientific knowledge is the knowledge obtained by scientific methods (Preliminary interview)”
“S4: Scientific knowledge, as the name suggests, is the knowledge supported by scientific facts rather than random
estimates in accordance with rules and orders…There may be some unscientific traditions. Because of the casual beliefs,
this is not scientific knowledge, for example believing in the bad luck of passing under the stairs. (Final interview).
“S2: Scientific knowledge includes accurate knowledge, and the knowledge that can be changed later and we use in
our daily lives (preliminary interview)”
“S2: Scientific knowledge is the knowledge which is based on reason and logic, keeps its validity and it is the systematic
knowledge. Non-scientific knowledge covers random knowledge. For example, something that I have made up myself,
which is non-universal, i.e., person-specific, individual-specific differences, society-specific, and they do not fall into scientific
knowledge. But scientific knowledge is accepted by all nature and people. (Final interview).
In light of the above quotations, S4, who made a simple description of scientific knowledge in the preliminary
interview, revealed the difference of scientific knowledge by giving examples of less scientific information in the
final interview. In the same way, it is seen that S2 also made a more superficial description of the scientific infor-
mation in the preliminary interview, went up to higher level comprehension, mentioned about its characteristics
in more details and reached a generalisation by comparing it with non-scientific knowledge adding his/her own
sentences, expressive form and interpretation into the answer.
Pre-service science teacher’s answers to the questions “What is scientific method? What are the features that
distinguish it from other methods?” in the preliminary and the final interviews are given in Table 3 below:
786
(P. 778-799)
Table 3. The meaning of scientific method, and its features that distinguish it from other methods.

3. The meaning of scientific method, and its features that
distinguish it from other methods
Participant f Participant f
Simple Conceptual Understanding S1, S3, 2 S3, S9 2

Technical Understanding S2, S5, S6, S7, S8 5 S1, S2, S5, S7 4
Elementary Compre-
hension Understanding through experience and Expres-
- - - -
sion
Total 7 6
Paraphrasing and Interpretation - - S4, S6, S8 3
Higher Level Com- Re-establishment - - - -

prehension Cognitive Higher Comprehension - - - -
Total - - - 3
Misunderstanding S4, S9 2 - -
TOTAL 9 9
According to Table 3, while two of the pre-service teachers (S1 and S3) gave answers at the “simple conceptual”
level and the five (S2, S5, S6, S7 and S8) gave answers at “technical understanding” level, it seems that the other
two (S4 and S9) had “misunderstandings” about the question. In the final interviews, it is seen that one (S1) pre-
service teacher has gone from “simple conceptual” level to “technical comprehension” level, and two (S6 and S8)
pre-service teachers have gone from “technical understanding” level up to “paraphrasing and interpreting” level.
However, according to the final interview, it was revealed that one (S9) of the two (S4 and S9) pre-service teachers
who were found to have “misunderstandings” in the preliminary interviews answered at the “simple conceptual”
level and the other (S4) answered at the level of “paraphrasing and interpretation”.
“S1: Scientific method is the way we will follow while conducting a research. (Preliminary interview)”
“S1: Scientific method is the way followed to gather data. These ways may change; some may be experiments, some people
make an observation. These observations should be qualified observations…there is a problem, a situation, a question.
There are progress stages according to these scientific methods. I think it’s the existence of the problem that distinguishes
it from other methods. (Final interview) “
“S8: ..scientific method is a path followed for obtaining scientific knowledge .. A certain way is followed, and it is systematic.
The data are collected, and a problem statement can be made. With steps like these .. (Preliminary interview) “
“S8: The scientific method identifies what the problem is, builds the hypothesis, collects the data, and tests the assumptions
following a specific order. I think it is a scientific method to proceed in this direction… these are absolutely vital. For me, if
everyone else acts as they wish, it is not reliable and valid. There must be a specific method. (Final interview)”
“S4: …many things we do in our lives, especially during our education period, we take many things as a precondition, so we
accept them as a boundary and try to act upon them. It would be harder to make progress if they did not exist. So, I think
the scientific method is important, to be able to move forward. (Preliminary interview)”
“S4: They are the means which enable scientific information to be obtained. Some things need to be repeatable and in a
more provable way for scientific knowledge… If we want to obtain scientific information, of course scientific method is
also important. The method is an observation that we know, it is an experiment, it is useful in the emergence of scientific
knowledge. Ultimately, it prevents random knowledge. (Final interview) “
When the above quotations are examined, it is seen that the S1 defined the scientific method as a way which
is simply followed at the preliminary view, but at the final interview, s/he went up to the level of technical under-
standing by giving examples about these methods and some of their phases. It is seen that in the preliminary
negotiation, S8, who defined and divided scientific method into stages at the level of technical understanding,
additionally mentioned the importance of scientific method in the final interview. S4, who was seen to have
misunderstandings about the scientific method in the preliminary view, made paraphrasing and interpretation
787
(P. 778-799)
because s/he tried to make explanations with his/her own terms and words by touching upon both the features
and importance of scientific methods in the final interview.
The answers given by pre-service science teachers in the preliminary interviews and in the final interviews to
the question “What are the characteristics of a scientist?” are given in Table 4 below:
Table 4. Pre-service science teachers’ perspectives on characteristics of a scientist.

4. The characteristics of a scientist
Simple Conceptual Understanding S1, S5, S6, S7, S8, S9 6 S6, S7 2

S1, S2, S4, S5,
Technical Understanding S2, S3, S4 3 6
Elementary Compre- S8, S9
- - S3 1
sion
Total 9 9
Paraphrasing and Interpretation - - - -
Higher Level Compre- Re-establishment - - - -

Total - - - -
Misunderstanding - 2 - -
TOTAL 9 9
According to Table 4, six pre-service teachers (S1, S5, S6, S7, S8 and S9) gave answers at the simple conceptual
level in the preliminary interviews and three (S2, S3 and S4) gave answers at the level of technical comprehension.
In the final interviews, the pre-service teachers coded S1, S5, S8 and S9 went from the simple conceptual level up
to the level of technical understanding while the pre-service teacher coded as S3 went from the level of technical
understanding up to the level of understanding through experience and expression. Quotations retrieved from
the interview data are exemplified below:
“S1: A scientist is objective, open to criticism, ethical, mustn’t have prejudices, and must obey ethical rules. I think s/
he must be open to every kind of opinion. (Preliminary interview)”
“S1: The scientist, first of all, should not have prejudices. I mean, I think s/he should be able to look at events objec-
tively, be honest, open and sceptical. Because s/he mustn’t always accept the fact as it is. Because facts are changing.
Even the laws are changing. (Final interview)”
“S3: …I think the scientist, first of all and definitely must be objective, but it is not the case. So, in no way s/he should add his/
her own thoughts and feelings into the project or whatever s/he is involved in. Other than that, I think the level of morality
must be very high. Additionally, I think his/her level of morality must be very high. S/he should be efficient in terms of ethics.
Apart from that, scientists are usually already researchers, intelligent, etc. (Preliminary interview)”
“S3: The characteristics of a scientist must be in a certain academic level in the present age, but at the very beginning of
the old history there was no such thing, but now it is expected that current scholars should have certain academic levels…
I mean, for example, you say something that is worth something, because you are a scholar at university. But if a casual
citizen from the society says something, it may not be worth much. (Final interview)”

When the above quotations are examined, it is seen that the S1-coded pre-service teacher listed the features
that only the scientist should bear in the preliminary interview but explained the reason for the necessity of car-
rying these features in the final interview. It is seen that S3-coded pre-service teacher talked about the possible
features of a scientist in the preliminary interview, but in the final interview, s/he gave an example from real life
and concretized it by referring to a particular feature. What is important here is that how the pre-service teacher’s
learning life and his/her ability to understand the diversity of that life are affected is revealed rather than the cor-
rectness or inaccuracy of the thinking of the pre-service teacher.
788
(P. 778-799)
to the questionnaire shown in Table 5: “A person who is curious about birds is examining hundreds kinds of birds
fed with different kinds of food. S/he notices that the birds fed with similar foods have similar beaks. For example,
the beaks of birds eating hard-shelled food are short and durable while the beaks of birds eating insects in shal-
low water are long and thin. The individual concludes that there is a link between the beaks of the birds and the
varieties of food they eat. Can you scientifically accept this person’s examination?”
Table 5. Perspectives of pre-service science teachers on observation-based examination.

5. Whether observation-based examination can be accepted as
scientific or not
Simple Conceptual Understanding - - - -

Technical Understanding S3, S4, S6, S7 4 S2, S3, S5 3
Elementary Compre-
- - - -
sion
Total 4 3
Paraphrasing and Interpretation Ö8 1 S1, S4, S6, S7 4
Higher Level Compre- Re-establishment - - Ö8 1

Total - 1 - 5
Misunderstanding S1, S2, S5, S9 4 S9 1
TOTAL 9 9
When Table 5 is examined, it is seen that in the preliminary interviews, four of the pre-service teachers (S3,
S4, S6 and S7) gave the answers at the level of technical understanding and one of them (S8) gave the answer at
the level of paraphrasing and interpretation while the remaining four (S1, S2, S5 and S9) had misunderstandings
about the question. In the final interviews; the pre-service teachers coded as S4, S6 and S7 went up to the level of
paraphrasing and interpretation, S8-coded pre-service teacher went up to the level of re-establishment, S1, who
was one of the pre-service teachers at the level of misunderstanding, gave answers at the level of paraphrasing
and interpretation, while S2 and S5 gave answers at the level of technical understanding. Quotations retrieved
from the interview data are presented below:
“S8: I accept it scientifically. And s/he has already examined a lot of birds and seen the difference in all of them, and how
it happens. Because s/he has tried it on a lot of birds but haven’t done so only on a few kind of birds, S/he has noticed that
they are all the same. I mean, s/he has done a lot of experiments, let’s not call them experiments, s/he has made observa-
tions. S/he has observed them, and as a result of these observations, s/he has reached this conclusion. Can I say s/he is
doing an experiment, probably I cannot, because doesn’t it mean that s/he has reached a conclusion at the end of his/her
observations? In fact, s/he is observing a lot of birds; I mean s/he is doing a direct measurement. (Preliminary interview).”
“S8: I accept it scientifically. Why, because s/he is investigating a lot of things. S/he has identified a problem for himself
and investigated such things. And s/he is observing a lot of birds in this direction. And I think that all of them cannot be
a coincidence. So, it is an adaptation, that is, animals’ adaptation of life for them to survive. There must be a harmony. I
accept it because it is conducted in line with these principles. But I do not accept it as an experiment because, for example,
usually in the experiments we do, we set up a control group and progress going through certain steps. But here s/he has
explored a lot of things against any problem. (Final interview)”
“S2: I accept it. Because the organs that living things use more are identified and those organs develop more. For example,
the body muscles of a sports person develop more. This means, for example, that the structures they use must be sturdy
to break or eat hard-shelled food faster. This is completely scientific. But can I accept it as an experiment? There must be a
certain observer to do the experiment… S/he does not observe by herself/himself, but s/he must have a guide. S/he must be
controlled. S/he can make observations on his/her own, but I do not know whether it is an experiment or not. (Preliminary
interview).”
789
(P. 778-799)
“S2: Do I accept it scientifically, of course I do. However, I cannot state that it falls into scientific knowledge. Because these
are the person’s own observations…S/he makes observations, conducts research on it and reaches a conclusion… (Final
interview)”
When the above quotations are examined, it is seen that in the preliminary interview, the pre-service teacher
coded S8 made paraphrasing and interpretation by explaining why s/he accepted the given example as scientific
while in the final interview, s/he added a new dimension to the interpretation by referring to the issue of adapta-
tion related to the given example and went up to the level of re-establishment. It is revealed that in the preliminary
interview the pre-service teacher coded S2 had misunderstanding about the scientific side of the result of the
given example because of his/her statements but in the final interview s/he made an explanation at the level of
technical understanding about the scientific side of the observation process.
the question “What do you think about the formation of the universe?” are given in Table 6 below:
Table 6. Pre-service science teachers’ perspectives on the formation of the universe.

6. The perspectives on the formation of the universe
Simple Conceptual Understanding S2, S9 2 - -

Technical Understanding - - - -
Elementary Compre-
S3, S5, S6, S7 4 S2, S3, S7 3
sion
Total 6 3
Paraphrasing and Interpretation S1, S4, S8 3 S1, S5, S6, S8, S9 5
Higher Level Com- Re-establishment - - S4 1

Total - 3 - 6
TOTAL 9 9
According to Table 6, in the preliminary interviews, two pre-service teachers (S2 and S9) gave answers at the
level of simple conceptual understanding while four (S3, S5, S6 and S7) gave answers at the level of understanding
through experience and expression, and finally three (S1, S4 and S8) answered at the level of paraphrasing and
interpretation to the question “What do you think about the formation of the universe?” When the data obtained
from the final interviews are examined, it is seen that S2-coded pre-service teacher went up to the level of under-
standing through experience and expression, S5, S6 and S9-coded pre-service teachers went up to the level of
paraphrasing and interpreting and S4-coded pre-service teacher went up to the level of re-establishment. Quota-
tions retrieved from the interview data are given below:
“S2: …about the formation of the universe, it was previously a cloud of dust. After that, I think that it happened with a big
explosion. I know there was just a cloud of dust before it. (Preliminary interview)”
“S2: …about the formation of the universe, dear lecturer, I think the universe was formed with a big explosion in ancient
times. With BigBang. Whether it is about this World or the universe, I think that all of them take place in line with a gravi-
tational field. It is already impossible to imagine that the universe was formed without an order or a cycle. If we were to
think about it like this, our teacher has already told us that; s/he compared it to a wool pillow and stated that when it is
left, whether on any World or the Moon, it creates a loop by forming a hole in the middle of it and pulling smaller objects
around it. I think it was formed with such an order. There was something before it in any case. Nothing happens by itself…
If we put it in that way, since every painting has a master, the universe has already an owner or a creator (God). Because
nothing happens by itself. So is that existence, I think so. (Final interview)”
790
(P. 778-799)
“S6: I do not have much in-depth knowledge about BigBang. But I believe in BigBang. After all, yes, we have a religious faith,
and it may have happened due to it, yes. But it has to be projected into something and formed in some way. There is a saying
as to be reflected and to descend from the sky, I do not believe that it descended in that way. BigBang was formed, BigBang
happened, and I think that the universe was formed in that way, I think the world was formed. (Preliminary interview)”
“S6: … I think the formation of the universe is a very long process, a time. BigBang is actually a very large and comprehensive
issue. Honestly, I do not actually have too much information. But we had some research studies in the courses and there are
reasonable thoughts. There are logical theories. I mean I am in between believing and not believing… I do not believe that,
I think there is no such thing as absence. There must have been something before it. Nothing can be formed with the help
of absence. Instead, everything has a creator. This is a matter of faith, a matter of values, may vary from person to person.
I believe that it has a creator. For example, in the Qur’an, we are told that we are created from clay, and to exemplify it, by
the way the Qur’an is a book written years ago, they conducted a search on human DNA and it was found out that amino
acids are produced from clay in a certain place, DNA of a human. I think this is a proof of the precision of the Qur’an, I think
so. With regard to the formation of the universe, yes, I believe that yes previously there is a process absolutely, too and it has
got a creator. Nothing can happen by itself. For example, certain materials exist, they are concentrated by constantly coming
together, and various things have happened. That’s how the explosion happened. But there was absolutely something before
BigBang in that way, there were certain materials, maybe there was no certain formation, but it is thanks to those things
that BigBang happened. In any case, BigBang also has a cause, that is, it has got a process of formation. (Final interview)”
“S4: What I think about the formation of the universe. Frankly, I neither support nor believe in BigBang, that is I am undecided
about this issue. Because I think that the World did not occur randomly. In other words, the World did not occur abruptly. There
must have been certain events to cause it to happen. It came along through formation. The World did not occur abruptly, but
it did so at the end of certain things. How should I know, even the water needs heat to evaporate? There was also a need for
certain bases for the formation of the World, like gravity, soil, etc. I cannot say that it has got no foundation, but yes, there
is soil. However, there may be certain molecules and atoms so that the World occurred in this way. (Preliminary interview)”
“S4: About the formation of the universe? I think very deep things. Geographically it has a lot of influences. And it does so
scientifically. But, of course we have learned so much about it, we touch on it maybe because it is taught us in this way,
but after a certain geological event, the universe was formed as a result of an explosion. But, in fact I do not believe in that
BigBang much. It may be scientific, but it doesn’t make sense to me. Before that, it started to be formed slowly. Suddenly
all of them, like milk does not boil or spill over without being heated, there was absolutely this phenomenon before the
formation of this universe so that it occurred in this way later. My thought, in fact, I can actually arrive at such a perception
or conclusion by comparing it to each other. As I said previously, it may just be related to heating or overflowing of water.
It means a specified boiling or formation of soil for the universe to come up. Even the formation of soils is not less than
200 years. However, I think that there are no living things before. That is to say, according to the data we have gathered
at the end of our experiments, there must be soil, water, etc. for living things to occur. Thus, they are said to be a condition
or a precondition. I do not think that there were living things at the time when these were happening. (Final interview)”
When the above quotations are examined, it is seen that in the preliminary interview S2-coded pre-service
teacher only explained his/her thoughts about the formation of the universe without mentioning the causes,
whereas in the final interview s/he made an explanation by giving the knowledge s/he had learnt from a course an
example. S6-coded pre-service teacher responded at the level of understanding through experience and expression
by mentioning his/her religious beliefs included in the statements in the preliminary interview while s/he made
comparisons and added interpretations into his/her thoughts by giving examples about his/her religious beliefs.
In the preliminary interview, it is seen that S4-coded pre-service teacher defended his/her thoughts with reasons,
whereas in the final interview s/he did so by showing scientific bases, explaining his/her thoughts by linking the
parts with the whole, making connections and putting forward his/her unique interpretations.
the question “How do scientists form models of atoms even if they do not see them?” are given in Table 7 below:
791
(P. 778-799)
Table 7. Pre-service science teachers’ perspectives on the mechanism under the fact that scientists form
models of atoms even if they do not see them.

7. The mechanism under the fact that scientists form models of
atoms even if they do not see them
Simple Conceptual Understanding S6, S8 2 S7 1

Technical Understanding S3, S9 2 S3, S8, S9 3
Elementary Compre-
- - - -
sion
Total 4 4
Paraphrasing and Interpretation S1, S4, S5 3 S4, S5, S6 3

Total - 3 - 4
Misunderstanding S2, S7 2 - -
TOTAL 9 9
According to Table 7, in the preliminary interviews, it is seen that two pre-service teachers (S6 and S8) gave
answers at the level of simple conceptual understanding while two (S3 and S9) gave answers at the level of techni-
cal understanding, three (S1, S4 and S8) answered at the level of paraphrasing and interpretation and finally two
(S2 and S7) gave answers at the level of misunderstanding. As for final interviews, it was found out that S6-coded
pre-service teacher went up to the level of paraphrasing and interpretation, S8-coded pre-service teacher went
up to the level of technical understanding, S1 went up to the level of reestablishment, and S7 went up to the level
of simple conceptual understanding. Quotations obtained from the interview data are presented below:
“S6: I think their creativity and imagination are very effective in this regard. (Preliminary interview)”
“S6 :…imagination…Let me put it in this way, as I said before, they compile previously formed knowledge, building on
previous knowledge, drawing conclusions, making certain predictions, but I absolutely have no idea on what they grounded
these predictions, it seems surprising. Despite the fact that they were far away from technology, had no specific resources,
and no specific tools at the time, the deductions they made are great I think. So, I don’t have much idea from this point of
view. But I think their imagination is effective (Final interview)”
“S1: Now it has a granular structure, wood, say, s/he knows that the structure wood has a structure. S/he knows that s/he
will reach a small structure when s/he divides it. So, it means human being can reach the smallest unit s/he can see. But s/
he doubts that s/he can reach smaller units. I think he can progress in that route. There could be smaller units. (Preliminary
interview)”
“S1: Probably people’s sense of curiosity affects this. Even if we do not see it s/he thinks that something exists, granular
structures move, questions what causes it and force their imagination with this thought to see what can happen. They are
doing experiments. For instance, we do not fully see the universe, but we observe it. We find out that it expands. Even if we
cannot see our galaxy fully, we make models. That’s why I think it is a result of the curiosity of scientists. (Final interview)”

When the above quotations are examined, it is seen that in the preliminary interview S6-coded pre-service
teacher gave answers at the level of simple conceptual understanding without making any explanations, but s/he
made an interpretation about the question by putting forward his/her ideas in the final interview. As to S1-coded
pre-service teacher, in the final interview s/he is seen to have added a new dimension to his/her thoughts by giving
a different example on his/her interpretation in the preliminary interview.
the question “Do you have any habits that affect your scientific thinking process? If so, what are they?” are given
in Table 8 below:
792
(P. 778-799)
Table 8. Habits that affect pre-service science teachers’ scientific thinking processes.

8. Habits that affect pre-service science teachers’ scientific
thinking processes

Technical Understanding - - S8 -
Elementary Compre-
S5, S6, S7 3 S1, S3, S6, S7 4
sion
Total 3 4
Paraphrasing and Interpretation S4 1 S4 1

Total - 1 - 2
Misunderstanding S1, S2, S3, S8, S9 5 S2, S9 2
TOTAL 9 9
According to Table 8, in the preliminary interviews, it is seen that three pre-service teachers (S5, S6 and S7)
gave answers at the level of understanding through experience and expression while one (S4) gave answers at
the level of paraphrasing and interpretation, and five (S1, S2, S3, S8 and S9) answered at the level of misunder-
standing. As to the final interviews, it is seen that S8-coded pre-service teacher went up to the level of technical
understanding; S1 and S3 went up to the level of understanding through experience and expression, and S5
went up to the level of reestablishment. Quotations obtained from the interview data are presented below:
“S3: My habits that affect my scientific thinking process…Actually I do not think scientifically much. Actually, if I talk
about myself, I like to understand something with its logic. But of course, the things I’m doing now, my life, it certainly
does not permit it. Whether it’s my school life, my private life, etc. But I normally like to think reasonably more, I say.
(Preliminary interview)”
“S3: … that affect my scientific thinking process…For example, the theory of evolution, I cannot say it sounds absolutely
ridiculous, but there are many ways rejecting its probability according to my belief. So, it influences some of my scientific
thoughts. (Final interview)”
“S8: My habits that affect my scientific thinking process… I think there is none, probably. (Preliminary interview)”
“S8: Exactly scientific thinking… I think it influences people’s thoughts, beliefs, attitudes and behaviours. It depends on
the person, I think. Because everybody has different beliefs, in some people this can get ahead of science while in some
other people they pave the way for science and help it flourish. (Final interview)”
“S5: namely there were a lot in the past. It was so till I attended the courses here, but of course there are things that
these courses contributed. Previously I was an impulsive person, but it has started to change. Here I go into science and
approach it as a student of science and now I evaluate events a little differently because I am thinking about my aca-
demic career. I don’t go off half-cocked about events immediately. First of all, I must think about it...but if we consider
scientific thinking from a religious perspective only, of course, religion does not question much, and it is not in favour
of questioning. Obviously, I don’t question some religious dimensions too much. But I absolutely question other worldly
things. (Preliminary interview)”
“S5: My beliefs. For example, nobody can convince me about the theory of evolution. Because, according to my belief,
I did not descend from a monkey. I think this is the biggest example… according to my belief, this is just one example.
For example, of course there is a scientific explanation of what we call Sunnah in Islam. When we look at it from two
different perspectives. But the issue of evolution, for example, only affects me about that issue. Apart from my belief,
of course, the environment I live in and my family can also affect me. After all, the way people grow up is not the same.
That’s why everyone’s point of view about science is different. (Final interview)”
When the above quotations are analysed, in the preliminary interview S3-coded pre-service teacher talked
about his/her normal thinking style rather than his/her scientific thinking process, whereas in the final interview
793
(P. 778-799)
s/he explained how his/her beliefs affected his/her scientific thinking process by giving an example. In the
preliminary interview, S8-coded pre-service teacher did not have any idea about his/her habits that affected
his/her scientific thinking process, while in the final interview s/he put forward his/her interpretation that indi-
viduals’ beliefs and attitudes could affect their perspectives on science. In the preliminary interview S5-coded
pre-service teacher explained his/her opinions about scientific thinking based on both school experiences and
beliefs, whereas in the final interview s/he gave examples of himself by taking the issue more comprehensively,
and clearly indicated what an individual perspective is and what is unique to him/her by making interpretation
about the fact that individual differences can create differences in terms of perspectives about science.
to the question “Suppose that someone you love is a kidney patient. Also, suppose that a kidney is produced
with a cell taken from you and transplanted into him/her via the stem cell method. What do you think of this
kind of kidney production?” are given in Table 9 below:
Table 9. Pre-service science teachers’ perspectives on kidney production via the stem cell method.

9. Perspectives on kidney production via the stem cell method

Technical Understanding - - - -
Elementary Compre-
S1, S2, S5, S6, S8, S9 6 S1, S5, S7, S8, S9 5
sion
Total 6 5
Paraphrasing and Interpretation S3, S4, S6 3 S3, S6 2
Higher Level Compre- Re-establishment - - S2, S4 2

Total - 3 - 4
TOTAL 9 9
According to Table 9, in the preliminary interviews, it is seen that six pre-service teachers (S1, S2, S5, S7, S8
and S9) gave answers at the level of understanding through experience and expression while three (S3, S4 and
S6) gave answers at the level of paraphrasing and interpretation. As to the final interviews, it is seen that
S8-coded pre-service teacher went up to the level of technical understanding; S2 and S4 went up to the level
of reestablishment. Quotations obtained from the interview data are offered below:
“S2: I’m actually against kidney transplantation… Religious beliefs… for example when we look from a religious per-
spective, things like organ transplantation are not very nice and pleasant. Because it is something that is given to a
person, when we take it and give it to someone else… and it is an obstacle in its life and it is a problem. For example, if its
absorption does not take place later?... But if there is 100% fit when the kidney is taken from the root cell and transferred
to someone else, then I think it’s not a problem. (Preliminary interview)”
“S2: It will be very good. Because in the future organ donation or such things will disappear. Actually, the construction
of stem cells is biologically very nice. Like the matching of DNA structures or dissolving their similarity with each other. It
will be very good. For that reason, such scientific developments do not bother me. More precisely, that does not bother.
For example, donating an organ does not make sense to me, you should get people’s organs before they die so that they
can be given to other livings. This does not sound good, either. Maybe his/her family does not want it. When we think of
it in terms of religious terms, in that sense, it is actually like saving a life, saving all living things. But I do not handle it in
terms of faith. When I look at it scientifically, it would be very good to produce it out of its stem cells or the disappearance
of its organ donation (Final Interview)
“S4: Of course, it is something positive. It makes people happy. To be able to be useful rather than being useless. Especially
if there is such an opportunity without subtracting from me, this is a very good thing. If that person has a problem, and
794
(P. 778-799)
it is not arbitrary anyway… To be able to find something that can be a remedy for people’s troubles allows them to live
more comfortably and peacefully, which can happen to everyone. If we think generally. Organ donation is the same
way. Frankly, I think positively. After all, no matter how many beliefs I have investigated, there is no clear rule, there
are some negative rumours, but when we do some general research, it says that there should not be a donation of a
living organ. I do not think I can consider it much when I’m alive, either. But if I can be useful to somebody, after I die it
won’t work for me. Once I have turned into clay, it won’t mean much. Thus, I think it is useful. I am not clearly against
it. (Preliminary interview).
“S4: I have a positive judgment… The result of this already results in organ donation, as far as I remember. I already
support organ donation. If we turn a blind eye to the suffering of a living human, and do not evaluate the opportunity
even if we have it, then it is a crime against humanity I think. Therefore, such scientific developments do not bother me,
rather they satisfy me more. Recently there has been even a face transplant via stem cells and it obviously also attracted
my attention. Of course, the transfer of another person’s face is also a separate situation, but the creation of a face from
its own root cell sounds more original and beautiful, frankly speaking. It is more feasible. (Final Interview)”

When the above quotation is examined, it is seen that in the preliminary interview S2-coded pre-service
teacher was against organ donation as a result of his/her religious beliefs but as a solution, in the final interview
s/he was seen to support the stem cell method and approaches the subject more scientifically. The S4-coded
pre-service teacher appeared to develop detailed ideas about the topic specific to his/her life diversity and un-
derstanding ability by giving an example of the application of the stem cell method in the final interview while
explaining the reasons for his/her positive approach to scientific developments in the preliminary interview.
Discussion
It is very important for pre-service science teachers to understand and analyze that problem-solving and
awareness of the problems related to science through hermeneutic thinking is very crucial for the develop-
ment of science education (Eger, 1992). In general, studies in the field of hermeneutics have shown that even
in problem-based learning environments, pre-service teachers’ views on science and scientific knowledge do
not always tend to develop (Yılmaz, 2007, p. 167). However, as a result of this research, it has been revealed that
hermeneutical perspectives of pre-service science teachers showed changes in a positive direction and develop-
ment after problem-based scenarios applied in Science Teaching Laboratory Applications-I course. The results of
the research are discussed in terms of pre-service science teachers’ hermeneutical perspectives about science,
their comprehension levels with regard to hermeneutical thinking and the research of Irzik and Nola (2011)
where they systematically classified the categories that give the structural definition of the nature of science.
When the literature is examined, the emphasis on the understanding of the nature of science in the 1960s
is also known as an important component of scientific process skills and science literacy (Lederman, 1992).
When the findings are examined from the point of hermeneutical perspectives about science that emerged
in interviews with pre-service science teachers, it has been found out that their answers to the questions at
the level of elementary understanding such as “What is scientific knowledge? What is scientific method? What
are the characteristics of a scientist?” were at the level of simple conceptual understanding in the preliminary
interviews while they showed progress positively in the final interviews and went up to the levels of technical
understanding or understanding through experience and expression. However, their answers to the questions
which require individual interpretation and higher levels of comprehension such as “What do you think about
the formation of the universe?”, “How do scientists form models of atoms even if they do not see them?”, “Do you
have habits that affect your scientific thinking process? If so what are they?” were at the level of paraphrasing
and interpretation in the preliminary interviews, whereas some pre-service science teachers were observed to
go up to the level of reestablishment. Some pre-service science teachers who gave answers at misunderstanding
theme in the preliminary interviews were seen to correct their misunderstanding in the final interviews. There-
fore, according to the results of the research in general, it can be said that scenario-based education develops
hermeneutical thinking of pre-service science teachers and contributes to their understanding levels positively.
The formation of scientific knowledge, that is the high level of understanding in the classification of herme-
neutic thinking, take places at the third level according to the epistemological understanding of Carey and Smith
(1993). The focus here is to help students be away from the understanding that science is true and produces
accurate scientific knowledge, and to point out that research and scientific knowledge are changeable. It is seen
795
(P. 778-799)
that at every hermeneutical level, hermeneutical perspectives of pre-service teachers show changes with regard
to science, scientific knowledge, studies of scientists and the results they gather, and follow a hierarchical path.
When the developments of pre-service science teachers were examined in terms of the themes determined
according to the comprehension levels of Hermeneutical perspectives, the following results were obtained:
1) Elementary understanding: Simple conceptual understanding: it is seen that the students remained
only at the definition level in the preliminary interviews. As for final interviews, the learner was able to
better his/her interpretation skills and go up to the level of technical understanding and understand-
ing through experience and expression. Technical understanding: in the preliminary interviews, the
students who remained at the level of simple definition and had no viewpoints about details, were
seen to make comparisons in their interpretations in the final interviews. Understanding through
experience and expression: the learners were at the level of elementary understanding for the ques-
tions about the formation of the universe in the preliminary interviews, but they were seen to go up
to the level of understanding through experience and expression with regard to understanding and
interpretation in the final interviews.
2) Higher Level Comprehension: Paraphrasing and interpretation: while the students made only simple
conceptual explanations in the preliminary interview, they made their individual and original sen-
tences by mentioning about details in the final interviews. Reestablishment; while the expressions
of the students concentrated on the level of technical understanding in the preliminary interviews,
it appears that in the final interviews, the pre-service teachers responded to the questions with their
own specific statements by bringing together the parts expressing the higher form of understanding
(e.g., Question 5). Cognitive higher comprehension; when the research was examined in all dimen-
sions, it was seen that the students were brought to the stage of reestablishment but could not be
brought to the level of cognitive higher comprehension, which is the last level of comprehension.
3) Misunderstanding: As in the case of Table 5, it is also seen that some students could remain at the
level of misunderstanding with regard to their answers to a question about what can be accepted
scientifically.
The change in the coding of learners’ hermeneutical thinking category at elementary level and their
hermeneutical perspectives at cognitive high understanding (Bollnow, 1995: 95) can only be achieved with
significant transformations in their scientific process skills and conceptual understanding. When the findings
of the research were examined according to the study of Irzik and Nola (2011: 597-601), the following results
were obtained:
a) Methods: The hermeneutical perspectives of the pre-service teachers who are careful and take
the scientific methods or methodological rules into consideration are seen to be at a high level
while the ones who do not ignore are seen to be at a lower level. This shows how important the
scientific method is for the development of hermeneutical perspectives of pre-service teachers.
b) Activities: Observations and experiments carried out in the light of the scenarios given during
the courses are very clearly scientific activities. While some scenarios required the observer to
classify objects, some others enhanced handcraft skills, or required the observer to use scien-
tific tools; plan, establish and carry out the experiments. These scenarios include formulating
problems and finding solutions. Building a new hypothesis-model-theory is at the heart of these
scenarios. Solution of some of these scenarios requires the use of mathematical, technological
and engineering skills. In the scope of the research, through these scenarios, an environment
was provided for pre-service science teachers to use all these skills and thus it was tried to make
it possible for them to develop hermeneutical perspectives with the comments they made on
scientific activities.
c) Aims and Values: The most well-known aims of science are to make assumptions and explana-
tions. The hermeneutic understanding of the students harmoniously varies according to their
own values when the aims of the problems given in the scenarios are determined (Yılmaz, 2007:
167). If their hermeneutical perspectives are at elementary level, and the aim of the scenario
will be simple, common and broad in nature without any prior knowledge. Differences in their
problem identification are due to hermeneutical perspectives of pre-service teachers.
796
(P. 778-799)
d) Products: Pre-service teachers reach a conclusion and make an interpretation at the end of
the scripts using scientific methods. These products are theories, models, observation notes,
experimental data, and the like, which they prove or disprove. Pre-service teachers capture the
dynamic and open-ended status of science and scientific knowledge and they provide a more
comprehensive explanation by combining their observations with their data. By using scientific
methods in this way, they systematically reveal the cognitive direction of science and develop
their hermeneutical thinking.
Conclusions
In light of the gathered data the present research suggests that probing-based learning environments,
which are carefully planned and clearly designed with reflection activities, can support the development of the
desired high hermeneutical understanding ability among students. Hermeneutic, often used as a text analysis on
written texts or as an interpretation of historically accepted disciplines, has reached the conclusion that science
education can be used to develop skills such as understanding, explanation and interpretation. In this context,
hermeneutics should be considered as an important method not only in written texts, but also in science that
is not used in social sciences.
Therefore, hermeneutics should be seen and used to be important in order to reveal different perspec-
tives within the sciences and to enable the individual to think with different methods. For this reason, all pre-
service teachers who will shape the future should be provided with appropriate learning environments so that
they can raise individuals with hermeneutical thinking and interpreting skills. In these learning environments,
the use of various methods to gain different thinking skills for students is important for the diversity of scientific
thinking. This research aims to be the first example of this.
Appendix 1. The interview form
1. What is Science?
2. What is scientific knowledge?
3. What is scientific method? What are the features that distinguish it from other methods?
4. What are the characteristics of a scientist?
5. A person who is curious about birds is examining hundreds of kinds of birds fed with different kinds
of food. S/he notices that the birds fed with similar foods have similar beaks. For example, the beaks of
birds eating hard-shelled food are short and durable, while the beaks of birds eating insects in shallow
water are long and thin. The individual concludes that there is a link between the beaks of the birds
and the varieties of food they eat. Can you scientifically accept this person’s examination?
6. What do you think about the formation of the universe?
7. How do scientists form models of atoms even if they do not see them?
8. Do you have any habits that affect your scientific thinking process? If so what are they?
9. Suppose that someone you love is a kidney patient. Also, suppose that a kidney is produced with a
cell taken from you and transplanted into him/her via the stem cell method. What do you think of this
kind of kidney production?
Appendix 2. Sample Scenario
I CANNOT GET THE TASTE!
Müge catches a cold and has a stuffy nose since she leaves the window open at night. She cannot get the
taste of the cheese and egg she eats or the milk she drinks at breakfast in the morning. Although her mother cooks
her favourite meal for dinner, she does not want to eat it, either. Not understanding the situation, Müge becomes
curious: “Why can’t we get the taste of what we eat when we have a stuffy nose?” How do you think we can find an
answer to the question in which Müge is interested? (Can, Savran Gencer, Yıldırım, & Bahtiyar, 2016).
797
(P. 778-799)
References
Abd-El-Khalick, F., Bell, R., & Lederman, N. (1998). The nature of science and instructional practice: Making the unnatural natu-
ral. Science Education, 82 (4), 417-436.
Abd-El-Khalick, F., & Lederman, N. (2000). Improving science teachers’ conceptions of nature of science: a critical review of the
literature. International Journal of Science Education, 22 (7), 665-701. doi: 10.1080/09500690050044044.
Bevilacqua, F., & Giannetto, E. (1995). Hermeneutics and science education: The role of history of science. Science & Education, 4
(2), 115-126.
Bollnow, O. F. (1995). İfade ve anlama [Expression and understanding]. In D. Özlem (Ed.), Hermeneutik (Yorumbilgisi) Üzerine Yazılar
[Articles on Hermeneutic (Commentary)] (p. 85-121). Ankara: Ark Publication.
Can, B., Savran Gencer, A., Yıldırım, C., & Bahtiyar, A. (2016). Fen öğretiminde probleme dayalı öğrenme (5., 6., 7. ve 8. sınıf kazanımlarına
yönelik senaryo etkinlikleri) [Problem-based learning in science teaching (Scenario activities for 5th, 6th, 7th and 8th grades
learning outcomes)]. Ankara: Pegem Academy Publishing.
Carey, S., & Smith, C. (1993). On understanding the nature of scientific knowledge. Educational Psychologist, 28 (3), 235-251. doi:
10.1207/s15326985ep2803_4.
Creswell, J. W. (2007). Qualitative inquiry and research design: Choosing among five traditions (2nd Ed.). London: Sage.
Dalziel, J. (2012). Developing scenario learning and its implementation in LAMS. Proceedings of the 7th International LAMS Confe-
rence: Surveying the Learning Design Landscape (6-7 December, Sydney), 32-39. Retrieved from https://www.lamsfoun-
dation.org/lams2012sydney/docs/Dalziel.pdf.
Eger, M. (1992). Hermeneutics and science education: An introduction. Science & Education, 1, 337-348. Retrieved from https://
link.springer.com/content/pdf/10.1007%2FBF00430961.pdf.
Elliott, J. (1993). Reconstructing teacher education: Teacher development. London: Falmer Press.
Fehér, M., Kiss, O., & Ropolyı, L. (Eds.) (1999). Hermeneutics and science. Boston Studies in the Philosophy of Science (Book 206).
Dordrecht - Boston – London: Kluwer Acad. Publ.
Fraenkel, J. R., & Wallen, N. E. (1996). How to design and evaluate research in education. New York, NY: McGraw-Hill.
Gadamer, H. G. (2003). Hermeneutik üzerine yazılar [Essays on Hermeneutic], (D. Özlem, Trans), İstanbul: İnkilap.
Güven, B., & Soydaş, S. (2011). Farklılık kavramına ilişkin oluşturulan metaforların hermeneutik yaklaşımla incelenmesi [Investigation
of metaphor related to the concept of “difference” with hermeneutic approach]. Third International Congress of Educational
Research Congress Book, p. 581-604, Girne, Turkish Republic of Northern Cyprus.
Henriksson, C., & Friesen, N. (2012). Hermeneutic phenomenology. In N. Friesen, C. Henriksson & T Saevi (Eds.), Hermeneutic
phenomenology in education method and practice. Rotterdam/Boston /Taıpeı: Sense Publishers.
Irzik, G., & Nola, R. (2011). A family resemblance approach to the nature of science for science education, Science and Education,
20 (7-8), 591-607.
Lederman, N. G. (1992). Students’ and teachers’ conceptions of the nature of science: A review of the research. Journal of Research
in Science Teaching, 29 (4), 331-359.
Lederman, N. G., & O’Malley, M. (1990). Students’ perceptions of tentativeness in science: Development, use, and sources of
change. Science Education, 74, 225–239.
Lederman, J. S., Lederman, N. G., Bartos, S. A., Bartels, S. L., Meyer, A. A., & Schwartz, R. S. (2014). Meaningful assessment of learn-
ers’ understandings about scientific inquiry: The views about scientific inquiry (VASI) questionnaire. Journal of Research in
Science Teaching, 51 (1), 65-83.
Lederman, J. S., & Khishfe, R. (2002). Views of nature of science, Form D. Unpublished paper. Chicago: Illinois Institute of Technology.
Lederman, J. S., & Ko, E. K. (2004). Views of nature of science, Form E. Unpublished paper. Chicago: Illinois Institute of Technology.
Ministry of National Education (MoNE) (2018). Science Curriculum (Primary and Secondary School 3, 4, 5, 6, 7 and 8th grades). Ankara:
MoNE Board of Education and Training Board.
Moules, N. J., McCaffrey, G., Morck, A.C., & Jardine, D.W. (2011). On applied hermeneutics and the work of the world. Journal of App-
lied Hermeneutics, Article 1, p. 1-5. Retrieved from: https://jah.journalhosting.ucalgary.ca/jah/index.php/jah/article/view/5.
Nachiappan, S., Andi, H. K., Subbramaniam, S., & Veeran, V. (2012). Factors that motivates the teacher trainees of teacher train-
ing institutions to possess an excellent personality through hermeneutic analysis method. Journal of Educational and
Developmental Psychology, 2 (2), 97-104.
Palmer, R. E. (2003). Hermenöitik (Hermeneutic) (I. Görener, Trans), İstanbul: Anka Publication.
Pelech, S. (2013). Teaching science as a hermeneutic event. Journal of Applied Hermeneutics, March 8, Article 1, p. 1-8. Retrieved
from https://jah.journalhosting.ucalgary.ca/jah/index.php/jah/article/view/20.
Saygın, T. (2009). Sosyal bilimlerin doğası ve hermeneutik [The nature of social sciences and hermeneutics]. Proceedings of the 6th
National Congress of Sociology: Social Transformations and Sociological Approaches Congress Book, p. 101-111. Aydın:
Adnan Menderes University.
Shaw, R. (2010). The implications for science education of the hermeneutic philosophy of science. Proceedings of the Conference of
the New Zealand Association of Science Educators, 5 July. Nelson, New Zealand. Retrieved from https://www.researchgate.
net/profile/Robert_Shaw22/ publication/266454553.
Taşdelen V. (2002). Hermeneutik ve eğitim: İnsan bilimleri öğretmenleri için düşünceler. [Hermeneutics and education: Consid-
erations for human science teachers]. Ankara University Journal of Educational Sciences, 35 (1-2), 171-182.
Taşdelen, V. (2008). Hermeneutiğin evrimi “Kesitler” [Hermeneutic’s evolution “Sections”]. Ankara: Hece Publications.
798
(P. 778-799)
Tsai, C. C. (1999). The progression toward constructivist epistemological views of science: A case study of the STS instruction of
Taiwanese high school female students. International Journal of Science Education, 21 (11), 1201-1222.
Yıldırım, A., & Şimşek, H. (2013). Sosyal bilimlerde nitel araştırma yöntemleri [Qualitative research methods in social sciences] (9th
ed.). Ankara: Seçkin Publications.
Yılmaz, M. (2007). Eğitimin hermeneutik boyutu: Eğitim kavramının doğasına ilişkin kimi sorular [Hermeneutical aspect of edu-
cation: Some questions on the nature of the concept of education]. Kaygı: Uludag University Faculty of Arts and Sciences
Journal of Philosophy, 8, 162-172.
Yin, R. K. (2003). Case study research design and methods (3th Ed.). London: Sage Publications.
Received: April 24, 2018 Accepted: September 10, 2018
Bilge Can PhD, Associate Professor, Education Faculty, Department of

Mathematics and Science Education, Pamukkale University,
Denizli, Turkey.
E-mail: bilgecan@pau.edu.tr
Asiye Bahtiyar PhD Student, Research Assistant, Education Faculty, Department
of Mathematics and Science Education, Pamukkale University,
Denizli, Turkey.
E-mail: asiye.bahtiyar@gmail.com
Hasret Kökten PhD Student, Instructor, Education Faculty, Department of Basic
Education, Pamukkale University, Denizli, Turkey.
E-mail: hince@pau.edu.com.tr
799
IMPROVING THE QUALITY
OF STUDENT QUESTIONS
IN PRIMARY SCIENCE
CLASSROOMS
Abstract. Even though student question-

Sibel Kaya,
ing is the key aspect of inquiry learning,
Mustafa Temiz
students ask very few questions in Science
classrooms. This research aimed to increase
the number of high-level questions posed
by primary students during science lessons.
An experiment was designed in which the Introduction
experimental group was taught about the
taxonomy of questions that can be asked In order to achieve scientific literacy, not only students but also citizens
by students during a science lesson. The need to learn how to ask critical questions and seek answers about scientific
quality of selected student questions was phenomena. Student questioning has been emphasized by science education
discussed as a whole class throughout the reforms around the world. When students ask questions, they are actively
implementation. In addition, the ex- engaged and interested in the topic. They try to make sense of the world
perimental group completed the textbook
around them and try to construct knowledge through questioning. In sci-
ence classrooms, students often find themselves in situations in which they
activities at the end of each section in
need to conduct inquiries. Student questioning is the most crucial aspect of
groups, whereas, the control group finished
inquiry learning (Hofstein, Novon, Kipnis, & Mamlok-Naaman, 2005; Tan &
these activities individually. The experi-
Seah, 2011). Rather than teacher-directed materials, students’ curiosity drives
ment lasted for 4 weeks (12 lessons), during the lesson in inquiry learning. In this model, students are free to ask ques-
the ‘Microscopic Organisms and Environ- tions, collect data and analyse to answer questions (Jorgenson, Cleveland, &
ment’ unit in two 4th-grade classrooms. Vanosdall, 2004). Since students are actively involved in the processes, they
After completing each section of the unit, hold more ownership of their learning and are thus more motivated to learn
student questions were collected. The ques- (Pedrosa-de-Jesus & Watts, 2014).
tions were classified as either low-level or Students are naturally curious, and they bring their curiosity into
high-level questions. The findings showed classrooms (Ness, 2017). However, research demonstrates that a majority of
that in the experimental group, there were questions in the classroom are asked by teachers (Eshach, Dor-Ziderman, &
significantly more high-level questions
Yefroimsky, 2014; Kaya, Kablan, & Rice, 2014; Nystrand, Wu, Gamoran, Zeiser, &
Long, 2003; Reinsvold & Cochran, 2012). The teacher’s didactic teaching style
compared to the control group. The ques-
(Cazden, 2001; Jung, Kim, Kim, & So, 2016), and her/his fear of losing classroom
tions were longer and more comprehensive
control (Jofili, Geraldo, & Watts, 1999; Rop, 2002), limited educational time
in the experimental group. In both groups,
(Chin & Osborne, 2008) and competitive and unfriendly classroom atmo-
as students’ achievement increased, so did sphere (Jung, Kim, Kim, & So, 2016; Pedrosa-de-Jesus, Teixeira-Dias, & Watts,
the number of questions they asked. 2003) are the main reasons why student questions taper off in classrooms.
Keywords: student questions, high-level Researchers also point out that students are not trained to ask questions in
questions, question taxonomy, primary classrooms (Jung et al., 2016).
science. Question generation is a metacognitive process since it focuses students’
attention on content and promotes deeper thinking (Chin & Brown 2002;
King, 1994; Rosenshine, Meister, & Chapman, 1996). Student questions give
clues about their understanding (Black et al., 2002; Chin & Osborne, 2008;
Sibel Kaya, Mustafa Temiz
Kocaeli University, Turkey Graesser & Olde, 2003) and their misconceptions regarding a topic (Etkina &
Harper, 2002; Pedrosa-de-Jesus et al., 2003). They might also help teachers
determine the direction of the lesson (Chin & Brown, 2002; Etkina & Harper,
2002; Keys, 1998; Pedrosa-de-Jesus et al., 2003) and view the instructional
800
ISSN 1648–3898 /Print/ IMPROVING THE QUALITY OF STUDENT QUESTIONS IN PRIMARY SCIENCE CLASSROOMS
(P. 800-811)
material from a different perspective (Marbach-Ad & Sokolove, 2000). Researchers state that generating questions
in science improves students’ problem solving skills (Dori & Herscovitz, 1999), motivation (Chin & Osborne, 2008),
creativity and critical thinking skills (Cuccio-Schirripa & Steiner, 2000; Shodell, 1995) as well as trigger students’
curiosity about and interest in a topic (Keys, 1998). Question generation improves students’ performance in other
disciplines, such as mathematics (Di Teodoro, Donders, Kemp-Davidson, Robertson, & Schuyler, 2011) and literature
(Peterson & Taylor, 2012).
Student achievement is highly related to the quality of questions they ask (Harper, Etkina & Lin, 2003; Kaya,
2015). Higher-level questions are more influential in constructing knowledge compared to lower-level questions
(Graesser & Olde, 2003; Hakkarainen, 2003; Hofstein et al., 2005; Lee, Chan, & van Aalst, 2006; Zhang, Scardamalia,
Lamon, Messina, & Reeve, 2007). Higher-level questions activate critical reasoning, synthesis and evaluation skills,
thus providing a deeper level of understanding (Chin & Osborne 2008; Graesser & Person, 1994; Shodell, 1995).
However, students do not ask high-level questions spontaneously (Chin & Brown, 2002). The literature recommends
that teachers use various strategies to encourage and stimulate students to ask higher-order questions. First of all,
teachers need to establish a safe and welcoming environment for students to raise questions. Researchers state
that when teachers acknowledge and appreciate questions, students gradually develop their skills to ask deeper
and more inquisitive questions (Stokhof, De Vries, Martens, & Bastiaens, 2017). Another important strategy to pro-
mote student questions is to provide exploratory (hands-on) activities where students can observe, collect and
compare data (Aguiar, Mortimer, & Scott, 2009; Lin, Hong, & Cheng, 2009; van Zee, Iwasyk, Kurose, Simpson, & Wild,
2001; Zeegers, 2002). Teacher-led experiments, field trips or real-world data collection often arouse curiosity and
result in a greater number of student questions (Stokhof et al., 2017). Other strategies include modeling the syntax
and vocabulary of questions (Allmond & Makar, 2010; Zeegers, 2002), providing e-learning environments (Hung
et al., 2014; Tan & Seah, 2011), using visual tools, such as charts, post-its, boards, diagrams and posters (Stokhof
et al., 2017), offering appropriate resources, such as texts or internet sources (Ness, 2013; Tan & Seah, 2011), and
prompting strategies, such as ‘What would you most like to know about ...?’ or ‘Is there anything you would like to
find out about ...?’ (Harris et al., 2011).
The current research focused on two of the strategies that can improve the quality of student questions. One
of them is to train students in taxonomy of questions. Studies that focused on the taxonomy of questions with the
primary school students are limited in the literature. The primary years are critical in terms of developing the ability
to generate questions (Chouinard et al., 2007). However, they might have difficulty in phrasing questions due to
their developing vocabulary and literacy skills (Zeegers, 2002). Therefore, they need explicit training in how to ask
questions (Chin & Osborne, 2008; King, 1994; Marbach-Ad & Sokolove, 2000). Students need to be informed about
fact-based, lower-order questions and open-ended, higher-order questions (Chin & Osborne, 2008). Teachers can
support student questioning by discussing the quality of questions together with students (Stokhof et al., 2017).
The other strategy used in this research is using group learning contexts. According to sociocultural theory,
knowledge is constructed through social interactions (Chin & Brown, 2002; Vygotsky, 1978). Ideas are exchanged
during group discussions, and explanations are co-constructed socially (Mortimer & Scott, 2003). Collaborative
group learning contexts foster progressive inquiry (Stokhof et al., 2017). During small group interactions, “student
questions occur frequently and spontaneously as students work together” (van Zee et al., 2001, p.163). An idea
or question might trigger other questions, thus encouraging and motivating students to do further investigation
(Chin & Brown, 2002). In these contexts, students can comfortably think, analyse, and reflect (Pedrosa-de-Jesus &
Watts, 2014). Since students are more active cognitively, these contexts are more conducive to higher-order student
questioning (Chin & Osborne, 2008; Hofstein et al., 2004; Marbach-Ad & Sokolove, 2000). Teachers can monitor
group discussions and check the usage of higher-order questions during these processes.
Types of Questions
Content-related questions are classified differently in the literature. Some researchers classified them as ‘short
answer’ and ‘long answer’ (Graesser & Person, 1994), while others classified them as ‘closed ended’ and ‘open ended’
(Erdogan & Campbell, 2008; Reinsvold & Cochran, 2012). Nystrand and Gamoran (1991) used the terms ‘authentic’
and ‘inauthentic’; Nassaji and Wells (2000) used the terms ‘known information questions’ and ‘negotiatory questions’
to describe different levels of questions. The current research used the classification of Chin and Brown (2000). They
grouped questions as ‘low level’ and ‘high level’. Low-level questions require simple recall of information. These types
of questions are mostly routine and procedural. On the other hand, high-level questions require an application or
801
(P. 800-811)
extension of taught ideas. Students relate new and existing knowledge and integrate divergent information from
multiple sources (Chin & Brown, 2000). While low-level questions limit students’ thinking and learning (Lemke,
1990), high-level questions encourage different perspectives on a topic and co-construction of knowledge (Nassaji
& Wells, 2000). The current research classified student questions as low-level or high-level questions.
In an observational research, Kaya and colleagues (2014) found that only 7% of questions in Turkish primary
science classrooms were asked by students. Data was collected from 12 classrooms over four separate observations.
On average, students asked two questions per lesson and these questions tended to be low-level or task-related. It
is speculated that this is a common situation in most Turkish classrooms. Turkish education system is highly didactic
and whole-class instruction is a common occurrence in all levels of schooling. Although constructivist methods
are encouraged, many teachers still prefer teacher-centred methods. (Kizilçelik, 2015). This phenomenon led to
conducting the current research. The purpose of this research was to find out if it is likely to increase the number
of student questions asked in science classrooms, specifically high-level questions through certain strategies.
There was not any similar research conducted in a Turkish context. The findings of the current research might set
an example to further studies in Turkey and elsewhere. Furthermore, the research on student questioning mainly
focuses on secondary school or college level students. Therefore, this research aims to contribute to the field by
including primary level students. The main limitation of this research was the small sample size. Since this was a
pilot trial, sampling of increased numbers of different classrooms was sacrificed for the precision in planning and
implementation.
General Background
A quasi-experimental design was used in the current research. The dependent variables were the number
and the level of student questions; the independent variables were the strategies used in the classroom. The ex-
perimental group was taught about the taxonomy of questions and completed the unit activities in groups. The
control group was not taught about the taxonomy and they did not do group activities. The research problem was
whether question-posing capabilities, enhanced through teaching the taxonomy of questions and group activities.
The research was conducted during March of 2017for four weeks.
Sample of Research
The sample of research was 39 fourth grade students in two classrooms in Kocaeli district of Turkey. There were
17 females and 22 males with average age of nine. The school where the research was conducted was an urban
school with average standing in terms of the nationwide standardised test scores and socioeconomic background
of students. This school was preferred because the second author of this research was a teacher at this school,
who was also a master’s student. Since this was a pilot trial, convenience sampling method is used for practicality.
Convenience sampling method provides accessibility to researchers and easy data collection.
In order to match groups, all fourth-grade classrooms at the school were administered an achievement test
which was compiled from the released Trends in Mathematics and Science Study (TIMSS) questions. Two fourth-
grade classrooms with similar achievement scores as well as similar demographics were selected for the research.
In order to compare the achievement scores of two classrooms, non-parametric Mann-Whitney U test was con-
ducted. This test was selected since the numbers of students in each group were less than 30. The test results are
presented in Table 1.
Table 1. Mann-Whitney U test.
Group Mean SD Mann-Whitney U Z p
Classroom A 14.10 .946

174.5 -.438 .661
Classroom B 14.16 .947
802
(P. 800-811)
As seen in Table 1, there was no significant difference between the mean achievement scores of two classrooms
(p > .05). Classroom A was randomly assigned to experimental group and Classroom B was assigned to control
group. There were 20 students in the experimental group and 19 students in the control group. Prior to conducting
the research, permissions were granted by the district director of national education and the university’s ethical
committee.
Procedures and Instruments
The research lasted four weeks (12 lessons) during the unit of ‘Microscopic Organisms and Environment’.
Students learned about the functions of a microscope, historical development of microscope, characteristics and
functions of microscopic organisms, interaction between living things and their environment, and the preserva-
tion of the environment. The experimental group received training on the taxonomy of science questions from
their teacher, whereas the control group did not receive any training. In the experimental group, students also
completed the textbook activities at the end of each section in groups. The experimental group was taught by the
second author of this research and the control group was taught by their homeroom teacher. The lessons in the
control group were monitored by the second author of the research in order to assure the research requirements.
The first author of the research was present in the classroom during training as well as the first week of imple-
mentation. She took field notes and provided feedback in order to assure that the lesson protocol is followed. In
the training session, the differences between low-level and high-level questions were emphasised. Accordingly,
questions that
•• can be solved through rote memorization or a simple textbook and internet search,
•• tend to have short answers (usually a couple of words),
•• tend to have one way for solution,
•• do not require deep thinking and connection to prior knowledge and experience
•• are classified as low-level.
•• And questions that
•• cannot easily be solved through rote memorization or simple textbook and internet search,
•• tend to have long answers (usually several sentences)
•• can have different ways for solution,
•• require deep thinking and connection to prior knowledge and experience
•• are classified as high-level.
•• Students practiced writing questions of both types. They were specifically encouraged to write high-
level questions. For example, the teacher showed students these two questions:
1. What is a dam?
2. To what degree we can destroy natural and historical landmarks in order to build dams?
When students were asked about the difference between these two questions, many of them stated that the
first question has an easy answer but that the second one has a long and difficult answer. They further stated that
they could find the answer to the first question on the Internet or in textbooks. However, for the second question,
they needed to discuss and evaluate different opinions. Some students might think that dams are necessary in order
to provide energy, whereas others might believe that natural and historical landmarks should never be destroyed.
Several low-level and high-level questions were presented to students for them to establish the differences. Table
2 shows sample questions used in the training.
Table 2. Sample low-level and high-level questions.
Low-level Questions High-level Questions
1. How does a light bulb work? 1. Do you think the precautions for earthquakes in our country are ad-
equate? Why?
2. What is the unit of mass? 2. What kind of innovations could genetic engineering bring to humanity
in the future?
3. Can you show the parts of the eye on the model? 3. If you were to develop an illumination device that is environment-friendly,
how would it work and what would it look like?
4. Who discovered vaccination? 4. How could we reduce our dependency on fossil fuels?
803
(P. 800-811)
Students were encouraged to use ‘How’, ‘Why’ and ‘What would happen if’ phrases as much as possible when
writing questions. ‘How’ and ‘Why’ questions usually elicit higher order cognitive skills (Nystrand et al., 2003);
however, these questions were classified as ‘low level’ if they required a single answer that can be easily found
in the textbook. For example, ‘How do we see microorganisms?’ or ‘How do we know plants are living things?’
After the training, students were asked to work in groups and write low-level and high-level questions about
the previous science units. After the group work, questions from each group were collected, and each group
discussed as a whole class whether the questions were low-level or high-level.
For increased student interaction, in the experimental group, the unit activities were conducted in groups.
There were four students in each group and the achievement levels of students in groups were heterogeneous.
At the end of each section in the Science textbook, there was an activity to reinforce concepts and conduct
further investigation. Students completed a total of four activities. They prepared a report about how to pro-
tect ourselves from harmful microorganisms, they completed posters about microorganisms, they prepared an
album of living things and their environment by using newspapers and magazines and finally, they came up
with a project for the preservation of the environment. In the control group, students completed these activities
individually. Each activity lasted approximately 40 minutes. In both classrooms, the teachers monitored students’
progress from afar and provided feedback when needed.
In the experimental group, at the end of each unit objective, students were given time to write questions
on pieces of paper. They were allowed to discuss in their groups before writing their questions. Individual ques-
tions were collected in a box, and at the beginning of the following lesson, sample questions were selected and
discussed in class. Students decided whether each question was classified as a low-level or high-level question.
In the control group, individual student questions were also collected, and sample questions were discussed
in class. However, the questions were not classified as low-level or high-level. Student questions were regularly
recorded in a Microsoft Word document by the researchers.
Achievement Test
A science achievement test was developed by using released Trends in Mathematics and Science Study
(TIMSS), fourth grade questions. TIMSS questions were preferred because they were developed by a panel of
experts and they measure several cognitive process skills, such as classifying, comparing, interpreting, analysing,
synthesising and drawing conclusions (Martin et al., 2008). There were 24 questions in the achievement test,
12 of which were in multiple-choice format and 12 in open-ended format. Each question was worth 1 point;
therefore, the highest possible score was 24. There were eight questions from each of the following cognitive
domains: knowing, applying and reasoning. The test duration was 40 minutes.
The achievement test was field tested with 317 fourth grade students from five different primary schools
for another research conducted by the first author. KR20 reliability value was computed as .70. According to
Fraenkel and Wallen (2008), KR20 reliability coefficient of a test should be .70 and above to acquire reliable
scores. Therefore, the multiple choice test was considered reliable. For open-ended items, inter-rater reliability
was used. The items were scored by two researchers independently. For the consistency of scoring, Cohen’s
Kappa statistic was computed as .88. This value indicates a high inter-rater reliability.
Student Questions
The dependent variable of this research was student questions. After completing each section of the unit,
student questions were collected. Students wrote the questions on a piece of paper with their names on it dur-
ing the last 20 minutes of the lesson. Students were encouraged to write all the questions they had in mind,
and they were told that each question was important.
For classification of the student questions, one science education and one curriculum development profes-
sor from the university were consulted. Accordingly, short-answer, memorization questions that can be found
in many textbooks were classified as low-level. On the other hand, questions that require deep thinking and
research with long answers were classified as high-level. Student questions were coded as low-level or high-
level questions by three researchers independently. The Cohen’s Kappa coefficient, which determines coding
consistency, was computed as 0.82. This value was considered sufficient for reliability. Disputes were resolved
through discussion.
804
(P. 800-811)
Data Analysis
The science achievement test scores of experimental and control groups were compared through Mann-
Whitney U test in SPSS program. Frequencies and percentages for low-level, high-level and total student questions
were reported for each group. To test the differences between the experimental and control groups in terms of the
question count, a chi-square test was conducted. Furthermore, to determine if there was a correlation between
students’ achievement scores and the number of questions they asked, a correlation analysis was conducted.
Results of Research
A total of 160 student questions were collected during the Microscopic Organisms and Environment unit,
which lasted for 12 lessons. Fifty-seven per cent of the questions were asked by the experimental group and
43% were asked by the control group. Of these questions, 66% were low-level and 34% were high-level ques-
tions. Table 3 shows the question counts in the experimental and control groups. A total of 91 questions were
produced by students in experimental group and 69 questions were produced in control group. Forty-four per
cent of the questions in the experimental group were high-level questions; this ratio was 20% in the control
group (see Figure 1).
Figure 1. Questions in the experimental and control groups.
The number of questions per student in each group was found by dividing the total number of questions
by the number of students in each group. The experimental group produced between four and five questions
per student and the control group produced between three and four questions per student. In the experimental
group, there were two high-level questions per student, whereas this number was less than one in the control
group (see Table 3).
Table 3. Questions in the experimental and control groups.
High-Level
Group Low-Level Total Questions per Student
4.55
Experimental 51 (56%) 40 (44%) 91 (57%)
(2 high-level)
3.63
Control 55 (80%) 14 (20%) 69 (43%)
(.7 high-level)
Total 106 (66%) 54 (34%) 160 (100%)
805
(P. 800-811)
In order to examine the difference between the groups in terms of student questions, chi-square and Cramer’s
V tests were conducted. According to Table 4, the p value for the chi-square test is .002, which indicates a significant
difference between the groups. In other words, more high-level questions were produced in the experimental
group compared to the control group. Similarly, the ratio of low-level questions was higher in the control group
compared to the experimental group.
Table 4. Chi-square and Cramer’s V tests.
Value Asymp. Sig. (p)
Pearson Chi-Square 9.83 .002

Cramer’s V .25 .002
The Cramer’s V value, which shows the size of the association between the groups and the type of questions,
was found to be .25. Cramer’s V values are reported between 0 and 1, and they are interpreted as correlation coef-
ficients (McHugh, 2013). Between 0 and .3, the association is weak, and above .6 (or .7) the association is strong.
In the current research, it is considered that there is a small to medium association between the groups and the
types of questions produced in groups.
Table 5 displays some of the questions produced by the experimental and control groups. As can be seen
from the sentence structures, the control group students preferred shorter sentences. Though this was not one of
the dependent variables of the research, the questions in the experimental group tended to be longer and more
comprehensive.
Table 5. Sample questions produced by the experimental and control groups.
Experimental Group Control Group
1. Are there any negative effects of humans on the environment? 1. What causes pollution?
(low-level) (low-level)
2. Are there any positive effects of humans on the environment? 2. Which living things does pollution affect?
(low-level) (low-level)
3. How do technological developments affect the relationship between 3. What would happen if we do not protect the environment?
humans and the environment? (high-level) (high-level)
4. Why do people build bridges and thermal plants even though they 4. Why do humans pollute the environment?
have adverse effects on the environment? (high-level) (high-level)
The achievement scores used at the beginning of the research were matched with the numbers of low-level,
high-level and total questions asked by each student. Correlation analysis was conducted in order to test for a
relation between student achievement and the number of questions they ask. Since the sample size was small,
non-parametric Spearman correlation coefficients were reported.
Table 6. Correlations between achievement and question count.
Low-Level High-Level Total Questions
Achievement .308 .477** .485**

Low-Level .424** .703**
High-Level .932**
**p < .01

Based on the results in Table 6, there was not a significant correlation between students’ science achieve-
ment scores and the number of low-level questions they asked (rs = .308; p > .05). On the other hand there were
significant correlations between the science achievement and the number of high-level (rs = .477; p < .01) and
806
(P. 800-811)
total questions (rs = .485; p < .01) produced by students in classrooms. In other words, students with higher
science achievement scores, ask more high-level and total questions in science classrooms. The correlations
were moderate (between .3 and .7). This finding implies that student questions in science give clues about their
performance in this subject.
Discussion
This research aimed to increase the number of high-level questions posed by primary students during sci-
ence lessons. An experiment was designed in which the experimental group was taught about the taxonomy
of questions that can be asked by students during a science lesson. The quality of selected student questions
was discussed as a whole class throughout the implementation. In addition, the experimental group completed
the textbook activities in groups, whereas, the control group finished these activities individually. The findings
showed that in the experimental group, there were significantly more high-level student questions compared
to the control group. The questions were longer and more comprehensive in the experimental group.
In a similar study, Di Teodoro and colleagues (2011) taught Canadian primary school students about ‘surface’
and ‘deeper’ questions. They described deeper questions as questions that provide students the opportunity
to create, analyse or evaluate. Students completed question sorting activities and later, they discussed the
question criteria as a whole class. Using this strategy was highly supportive of students and the percentage of
‘deeper’ student questions rose from 16% to 70%. Di Teodoro and colleagues suggest starting the teaching of
questioning early in the school year and building up throughout the year.
King (1994) states that different types of questions allow constructing different knowledge structures. For
example, a question such as ‘How does … affect …?’ helps students connect and integrate several ideas and a
question such as ‘What would happen if …?’ induces creative thinking. In order to prompt students to link the
new material to their prior knowledge, a question such as ‘How does … tie in with … that we learned before?’
could be useful. King further notes that primary level children can be trained to generate these kinds of complex
questions and they can also be taught how to formulate explanations.
Another finding of the research was that there were significant correlations between student achievement
and the number of high-level questions they generated. This finding was consistent with previous studies that
were conducted at various levels of schooling (Cuccio-Schirripa & Steiner, 2000; Harper et al., 2003; Kaya, 2015).
Hofstein and colleagues (2005) state that the content of a question indicates the level of thinking of the
person who raised it. The challenge is that making student questions a common component of science lessons
and having all students to be able to ask high-level questions. Classroom implementations could focus on low-
achieving students. This and other previous research showed that high-achievers ask more high-level questions
compared to low-achievers. Strategies could be adapted to the needs of low-achieving students and different
scaffolding techniques can be utilised to promote high-level science questions (Kaya, 2015).
Since teachers are the key to reinforce student questioning, they need to be informed about how to ask
high-level questions and strategies that may trigger high-level student questions. Current science education
practices put the learner in the centre rather than the teacher. Teachers are expected to encourage students to
ask questions and let these questions direct instruction (Marbach-Ad & Sokolove, 2000). Marbach-Ad and Soko-
love (2000) point out that in order for students to appreciate the importance of questions in science classrooms,
teachers should respond to students’ questions as much as possible. Even though teachers may find it difficult to
provide an active learning environment for students, they can hold a ‘question session’ periodically to find answers
to student questions. This way, students can ask their questions in a non-threatening environment. Teacher can
model for students by asking her/his own questions in order to stimulate students’ deep-thinking skills. Asking
high-level questions requires deep thinking, which sometimes takes time. Therefore, pre-planning for high-level
questions is important for teachers in order to use instructional time more efficiently (Di Teodoro et al., 2011).
This research showed that interaction among students is another factor to improve the quality of student
questions. As researchers point out, small group work facilitates better learning compared to individual learning
(Johnson & Johnson, 2009). Specifically, high complexity level questions are generated when there are student-
student interactions (Dori & Herscovitz, 1999). Knowledge building is a collective effort and it is believed that
different ideas and questions are triggered during group discussions. In terms of the achievement grouping,
807
(P. 800-811)
Kaya (2015) did not find a difference between homogeneous and heterogeneous groups in terms of the level
and number of student questions produced within groups. Therefore, teachers can modify groups based on the
topic and students’ interest. Common interest grouping might yield better results compared to achievement
grouping. When students have similar excitement and motivation levels about a topic, they might encourage
each other to think deeper and ask high-quality questions.
Researchers suggest other simple techniques to promote student questions, such as ‘question brainstorming’
at the beginning of a topic where students produce as many questions as possible. Another technique can be
a ‘question box’ inside the classroom into which students put their questions to be answered by other students
(Watts, Gould, & Alsop, 1997). ‘Question journals’ or ‘question homeworks’ where students are rewarded for ask-
ing good questions could be other ways to use in order to develop question-writing behaviour in students. Tan
and Seah (2011) recommend online forums where student ideas are investigated, revised and rebuilt through
open-ended tasks introduced by teacher. These online discussions help participants deepen their understand-
ing of the topic.
Above all, teachers need to create a welcoming atmosphere for student questions since good questions
are generated in receptive classrooms. Unwelcoming classrooms negatively affect the questioning behaviour of
students with low self-esteem (Pedrosa-de-Jesus & Watts, 2014). Pedrosa-de-Jesus and colleagues (2003) state
that students’ questioning is related to their learning styles and personality. Some students cannot handle un-
certainty and ask questions to receive satisfying answers, whereas others prefer to live with uncertainty without
explicit questions and answers. However, asking good questions can be taught and improved in a receptive and
comfortable classroom atmosphere.
Even though the findings of the current research are encouraging, they need to be taken with caution due
to some limitations. The apparent limitation of this research was the small sample size. The experiment included
only two classrooms in a primary school. There is room for research in the area of student questions in science
classrooms that includes larger groups. Another limitation was the length of the treatment. The treatment in
this research lasted for four weeks. It is important to sustain these strategies and turning questioning into a
classroom tradition for improved student questions.
The third limitation has to do with data collection. This study used students’ written questions as a data
source for practical reasons. However, in doing so it might have sacrificed authenticity. Some students might
not be motivated to generate questions when specifically asked to do so. Future studies on student question-
ing can focus on oral questions generated by students in more authentic contexts. Audio or video recording
might provide rich data of classroom conversations. Various aspects of student questioning could be examined
through audio or video data, such as complexity of questions and explanations, teacher’s responses as well as
gender and achievement level issues.
Conclusions
This research showed that learning about and discussing the taxonomy of questions, as well as group
activities significantly increased the number of higher-order questions asked by students in primary science
classrooms. Students in the experimental group asked almost three times as many high-level questions as those
in the control group. There was hardly any similar research conducted in a Turkish context where education is
highly didactic and teacher-centred. This research shows that through small modifications, even in teacher-
centred classrooms, it is possible to stimulate students to ask questions. The findings suggest that teachers
need to pay special attention to teaching about and modelling for students how to formulate good questions.
The teaching needs to include taxonomy, language and grammar of questions. Furthermore, as part of the sci-
ence curriculum, teachers can explicitly teach low-level and high-level questions. Teachers are recommended
to include interactive group activities more frequently for high-level student questioning.
Science, by nature, triggers student questions easier compared to other subjects. It is worthwhile to in-
vestigate how to improve student questions in subjects such as Reading and Social Studies. Though anecdotal,
the teacher of the experimental group mentioned that, after the treatment, his students started asking more
high-level questions in other lessons as well. He also mentioned that when students have a problem inside
the classroom, they started asking questions such as “How can we solve this problem?” rather than “Who/What
caused this problem?”
808
(P. 800-811)
Finally, the current research focused on the number and quality of questions produced by students during
Science lessons and not the discussions that followed. Some researchers argue that, as well as the quality of
questions, their function within the context is also important. Some low-level questions may stimulate deeper
thinking as much as high-level questions. Therefore, it is worth to examine whether student questions lead to
educationally fruitful classroom discussions and which type of questions elicit more interested responses and
elaborated explanations. In the current research, students in the experimental group asked longer and more
comprehensive questions compared to the control group. It is likely that they can formulate more comprehen-
sive explanations when trained.
References
Aguiar, O. G., Mortimer, E. F., & Scott, P. (2009). Learning from and responding to students’ questions: The authoritative and dialogic
tension. Journal of Research in Science Teaching, 47 (2), 174-193.
Allmond, S., & Makar, K. (2010). Developing primary students’ ability to pose questions in statistical investigations. In: C. Read-
ing (Ed.), Towards an evidence based society. Proceedings of the Eighth International Conference on Teaching Statistics
(ICOTS8), Lubjana, Slovenia.
Bianchini, J. A. (1997). Where knowledge construction, equity, and context intersect: Student
learning of science in small groups. Journal of Research in Science Teaching, 34 (10), 1039-1065.
Cazden, C. (2001). Classroom discourse: The language of teaching and learning. Portsmouth, NH: Heinemann.
Chin, C. (2002). Student-generated questions: Encouraging inquisitive minds in learning science. Teaching and Learning, 23 (1),
59-67.
Chin, C., & Brown, D. E. (2002). Student-generated questions: A meaningful aspect of learning in science. International Journal
of Science Education, 24 (5), 521-549.
Chin, C., & Osborne, J. (2008). Students’ questions: a potential resource for teaching and learning science. Studies in Science
Education, 44 (1), 1-39.
Chouinard, M. M., Harris, P. L., & Maratsos, M. P. (2007). Children’s questions: A mechanism for cognitive development. Monographs
of the Society for Research in Child Development, 72 (1), 1-129.
Cuccio-Schirripa, S., & Steiner, H. E. (2000). Enhancement and analysis of science question level for middle school students.
Journal of Research in Science Teaching, 37 (2), 210-224.
Di Teodoro, S., Donders, S., Kemp-Davidson, J., Robertson, P., & Schuyler, L. (2011). Asking good questions: Promoting greater
understanding of mathematics through purposeful teacher and student questioning. The Canadian Journal of Action
Research, 12 (2), 18-29.
Dori, Y. J., & Herscovitz, O. (1999). Question-posing capability as an alternative evaluation method: Analysis of an environmental
case study. Journal of Research in Science Teaching, 36 (4), 411-430.
Erdogan, I., & Campbell, T. (2008). Teacher questioning and interaction patterns in classrooms facilitated with differing levels of
constructivist teaching practices. International Journal of Science Education, 30 (14), 1891-1914.
Eshach, H., Dor-Ziderman, Y., & Yefroimsky, Y. (2014). Question asking in the science classroom: Teacher attitudes and practices.
Journal of Science Education and Technology, 23 (1), 67-81.
Etkina, E., & Harper, K. A. (2002). Closing the feedback loop in large enrollment physics courses. Journal of College Science Teach-
ing, 31 (7), 476-480.
Fraenkel, J. R., & Wallen, N. E. (2008). Introduction to qualitative research. How to design and evaluate research in education (7th ed).
Boston, MA: McGraw-Hill International Edition.Graesser, A. C., & Olde, B. A. (2003). How does one know whether a person
understands a device? The quality of the questions the person asks when the device breaks down. Journal of Educational
Psychology, 95 (3), 524-536.
Graesser, A. C., & Person, N. K. (1994). Question asking during tutoring. American Educational Research Journal, 31 (1), 104-137.
Hakkarainen, K. (2003). Progressive inquiry in a computer-supported biology class. Journal of Research in Science Teaching, 40
(10), 1072-1088.
Harper, K. A., Etkina, E., & Lin, Y. (2003). Encouraging and analyzing student questions in a large physics course: Meaningful pat-
terns for instructors. Journal of Research in Science Teaching, 40 (8), 776-791.
Harris, C. J., Phillips, R. S., & Penuel, W. R. (2011). Examining teachers’ instructional moves aimed at developing students’ ideas
and questions in learner-centered science classrooms. Journal of Science Teacher Education, 23 (7), 769-788.
Hofstein, A., Navon, O., Kipnis, M., & Mamlok-Naaman, R. (2005). Developing students’ ability to ask more and better questions
resulting from inquiry-type chemistry laboratories. Journal of Research in Science Teaching, 42 (7), 791-806.
Hofstein, A., Shore, R., & Kipnis, M. (2004). Research report: Providing high school chemistry students with opportunities to
develop learning skills in an inquiry-type laboratory: A case study. International Journal of Science Education, 26 (1), 47-62.
Hung, P. H., Hwang, G. J., Lee, Y. H., Wu, T. H., Vogel, B., Milrad, M., & Johansson, E. (2014). A problem-based ubiquitous learning
approach to improving the questioning abilities of elementary school students. Journal of Educational Technology & Society,
17 (4), 316-334.
Jofili, Z., Geraldo, A., & Watts, M. (1999). A course for critical constructivism through action research: A case study from biology.
Research in Science & Technological Education, 17 (1), 5-17.
809
(P. 800-811)
Johnson, D. W., & Johnson, R. T. (2009). An educational psychology success story: Social interdependence theory and cooperative
learning. Educational Researcher, 38 (5), 365-379.
Jorgenson, O., Cleveland, J., & Vanosdall, R. (2004). Doing good science in middle school: A practical guide to inquiry-based instruc-
tion. Arlington, VA: National Science Teachers Association.
Jung, M., Kim, J. H., Kim, J., & So, H. J. (2016, January). Mark-on: Encouraging student questions in class. In Proceedings of HCI
Korea (pp. 79-86). Hanbit Media, Inc.
Kaya, S. (2015). The effect of the type of achievement grouping on students’ question generation in science. The Australian
Educational Researcher, 42 (4), 429-441.
Kaya, S., Kablan, Z., & Rice, D. (2014). Examining question type and the timing of IRE pattern in elementary science classrooms.
International Journal of Human Sciences, 11 (1), 621-641.
Keys, C. W. (1998). A study of grade six students generating questions and plans for open- ended science investigations. Research
in Science Education, 28 (3), 301-316.
King, A. (1994). Guiding knowledge construction in the classroom: Effects of teaching children how to question and how to
explain. American Educational Research Journal, 31 (2), 338-368.
Kizilçelik, S. (2015). An evaluation of the Turkish education system outside the conflict between old and new. Eurasian Journal
of Educational Research, 59, 149-163.
Lee, E. Y. C., Chan, C. K. K., & van Aalst, J. (2006). Student assessment of collaborative learning in a CSCL environment. International
Journal of Computer-Supported Collaborative Learning, 1 (1), 57-87.
Lemke, J. L. (1990). Talking science. Language, learning and values. Norwood, NJ: Ablex.
Lin, H., Hong, Z., & Cheng, Y. (2009). The interplay of the classroom learning environment and inquiry-based activities. International
Marbach-Ad, G., & Sokolove, P. G. (2000). Can undergraduate biology students learn to ask higher level questions? Journal of
Research in Science Teaching, 37 (8), 854-870.
McHugh, M. L. (2013). The Chi-square test of independence. Biochemiamedica, 23 (2), 143-149.
Mortimer, E., & Scott, P. (2003). Meaning making in secondary science classrooms. Buckinhgam: Open University Press.
Nassaji, H., & Wells, G. (2000). What’s the use of triadic dialogue? An investigation of teacher-student interaction. Applied Lin-
guistics, 21 (3), 376-406.
Ness, M. (2017). Using informational and narrative picture walks to promote student-generated questions. Early Childhood
Education Journal, 45 (5), 575-581.
Ness, M. (2013). Moving students’ questions out of the parking lot. The Reading Teacher, 67 (5), 369-373.
Nystrand, M., Wu, L. L., Gamoran, A., Zeiser, S., & Long, D. A. (2003). Questions in time: Investigating the structure and dynamics
of unfolding classroom discourse. Discourse Processes, 35 (2), 135-198.
Nystrand, M., & Gamoran, A. (1991). Instructional discourse, student engagement, and literature achievement. Research in the
Teaching of English, 25 (3), 261-290.
Orr, H. A. (1999). An evolutionary dead end? Science, 285, 343-344.
Pedrosa-de-Jesus, H., Teixeira-Dias, J. J. C., & Watts, M. (2003). Questions of chemistry. International Journal of Science Education,
25 (8), 1015-1034.
Pedrosa-de-Jesus, H. T., Albergaria Almeida, P., Joaquim Teixeira-Dias, J., & Watts, M. (2006). Students’ questions: building a bridge
between Kolb’s learning styles and approaches to learning. Education+ Training, 48 (2/3), 97-111.
Pedrosa-de-Jesus, H., & Watts, M. (2014). Managing affect in learners’ questions in undergraduate science. Studies in Higher
Education, 39 (1), 102-116.
Peterson, D., & Taylor, B. (2012). Using higher order questioning to accelerate students’ growth in reading. The Reading Teacher,
65 (5), 295-304.
Reinsvold, L. A., & Cochran, K. F. (2012). Power dynamics and questioning in elementary science classrooms. Journal of Science
Teacher Education, 23, 745-768.
Richmond, G., & Striley, J. (1996). Making meaning in classrooms: Social processes in small-group discourse and scientific knowl-
edge building. Journal of Research in Science Teaching, 33 (8), 839-858.
Rop, C. J. (2002). The meaning of student inquiry questions: a teacher’s beliefs and responses. International Journal of Science
Education, 24 (7), 717-736.
Rosenshine, B., Meister, C., & Chapman, S. (1996). Teaching students to generate questions: A review of the intervention studies.
Review of Educational Research, 66 (2), 181-221.
Shodell, M. (1995). The question-driven classroom: Student questions as course curriculum on biology. The American Biology
Teacher, 57 (5), 278-281.
Stokhof, H. J., De Vries, B., Martens, R. L., & Bastiaens, T. J. (2017). How to guide effective student questioning: A review of teacher
guidance in primary education. Review of Education, 5 (2), 123-165.
Tan, S. C. & Seah, L. H. (2011). Exploring relationship between students’ questioning behaviors and inquiry tasks in an online
forum through analysis of ideational function of questions. Computers & Education, 57 (2), 1675-1685.
van Zee, E. H., Iwasyk, M., Kurose, A., Simpson, D., & Wild, J. (2001). Student and teacher questioning during conversations about
science. Journal of Research in Science Teaching, 38 (2), 159-190.
Vygotsky, L. S. (1978). Mind in society: The development of higher psychological processes. Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press.
810
(P. 800-811)
Watts, M., Gould, G., & Alsop, S. (1997). Questions of understanding: Categorising pupils’ questions in science. School Science
Review, 79 (286), 57-63.
Zeegers, Y. (2002). Teacher praxis in the generation of students’ questions in primary science. Doctoral dissertation, Deakin Univer-
sity, Australia.
Zhang, J., Scardamalia, M., Lamon, M., Messina, R., & Reeve, R. (2007). Socio-cognitive dynamics of knowledge building in the
work of 9- and 10-year-olds. Educational Technology Research and Development, 55 (2), 117-14.
Sibel Kaya PhD, Associate Professor, Kocaeli University, Umuttepe

Campus, Faculty of Education, Department of Primary
Education, Izmit 41380 Kocaeli/Turkey.
E-mail: sibelkaya@gmail.com
Mustafa Temiz BS, Master’s Student, Kocaeli University, Umuttepe Campus,
Faculty of Education, Department of Primary Education, Izmit
41380 Kocaeli/Turkey.
E-mail: mstfantemiz@gmail.com
811
DEVELOPMENT OF CCDSR
TEACHING MODEL TO IMPROVE
SCIENCE PROCESS SKILLS
OF PRE-SERVICE PHYSICS
TEACHERS
Abstract. CCDSR teaching model is physics Iqbal Limatahu,

teaching with the scientific activities by Wasis, Suyatno Sutoyo,
design to improve science process skills and Binar Kurnia Prahani
its learning. This research was conducted
to develop and produce a qualified CCDSR Introduction
teaching model to improve the science
Physics cannot be separated from systematic scientific approach
process skills of pre-service physics teach- process. Physics is the result of experiments and observations to produce
ers. The analysis of CCDSR teaching models’ patterns of natural phenomena (Young & Friedman, 2012). Physics involves
quality was done by using mean validity also inventing a new hypothesis which suggests the cause of the observed
natural phenomena. One of the most important aspects of physics is the
score, Cronbach’s coefficient alpha, Paired
science process skills (In & Tongperm, 2014). Science process skills are used
t-test, N-gain, and ANOVA test. The results by scientists to build knowledge, find problems, and make conclusions
showed that the CCDSR teaching model (Aydin, 2013; Karsli & Ayas, 2014). Along with its development, the process
was proved to be qualified (valid, practi- contained in scientific approach is packed more systemic in the form of skills
that must be owned by pre-service physics teachers to conduct a scientific
cal, and effective) to improve the science
approach. This skill is called as science process skills (SPS). Science process
process skills of pre-service physics teach- skills are procedural, experimental, and systemic skills of science as the basis
ers. Based on response results was that the of science (Colvill & Pattie, 2002; Dogan & Kunt, 2016; Karsli & Şahin, 2009;
CCDSR teaching model can improve the Suyidno, Nur, Yuanita, Prahani, & Jatmiko, 2018; Zeidan & Jayosi, 2015), so it
is important for physics teachers to have a good understanding of science
learning skills of science process skills (de-
process skills. Thus, students study physics is not enough just to remember
signing and implementing science process and understand the physics concepts that scientists find, but they can be-
skills learning) owned by pre-service physics have like a scientist in discovering the concepts of physics. Students use the
teachers. The implication of this research is science process skills as basic skills to master physics (Prayitno, Corebima,
Susilo, Zubaidah, & Ramli, 2017; Zakar & Baykara, 2014). Science process
that the CCDSR teaching model can be an
skills can be developed in a scientific approach-based learning (Karsli &
innovative solution to improve science pro- Ayas, 2014; Zakar & Baykara, 2014).
cess skills of pre-service physics teachers. The results showed that when the early science process skills are low,
Keywords: CCDSR teaching model, it will hamper the learning process in the classroom (Arabacioglu & Unver,
2016; Dogan & Kunt, 2016; Suyidno, Nur, Yuanita, Prahani, & Jatmiko, 2018).
research and development, pre-service
Some researchers showed that the quality of education, science process
physics teachers, science process skills. skills of physics teachers and learners in Indonesia is still relatively low (Bakri
& Raharjo, 2015; Limatahu, 2017; Suyidno, Nur, Yuanita, Prahani, & Jatmiko,
2018). Reinforced by the results preliminary studies (Limatahu, 2016) show
that: (1) The quality of pre-service physics teachers’ science process skills in
Indonesia is generally considered to be low, (2) Teachers and lecturers have
Iqbal Limatahu
University of Khairun, Indonesia limited time to develop learning models and tools that emphasize science
Wasis, Suyatno Sutoyo process skills, and (3) Pre-service physics teachers still have trouble in using
State University of Surabaya, Indonesia science process skills in learning. The results of these preliminary studies
Binar Kurnia Prahani
State Islamic University of Sunan Ampel, indicated that there is a need for a learning model that can improve sciences
Indonesia process skills of pre-service physics teachers in Indonesia.
812
ISSN 1648–3898 /Print/ DEVELOPMENT OF CCDSR TEACHING MODEL TO IMPROVE SCIENCE PROCESS SKILLS OF
PRE-SERVICE PHYSICS TEACHERS
ISSN 2538–7138 /Online/ (P. 812-827)
The inquiry model of learning can overcome problems about the weakness of science process skills. The ad-
vantages of inquiry learning model are (1) Increase student learning motivation, (2) Give students the opportunity
to think carefully about ideas, problems, and questions, (3) Provide opportunities for students to participate fully
that will increase their curiosity both inside and outside the classroom, (4) Encourage students to have a spirit of
initiative, (5) Encourage patience, cooperation, unity, and decision making among students, (6) Improve students’
understanding of science process skills, conceptual understanding, and relationships, and (7) Provide educational
rights and knowledge that enable them to explore the social environment (Arabacioglu & Unver, 2016; Berg,
Bergendahl, & Lundberg, 2003; Crawford, 2000; Crockett, 2002; Dewi, Poedjiastoeti, & Prahani, 2017; Luft, 2001).
This inquiry model is able to develop the basic skills that are necessary in working and in everyday life in the 21st
century (Gerald, 2011; Opara & Oguzor, 2011). The previous research found that the inquiry model was able to
improve the science process skills of teacher candidates, high school students, and junior high school students
(Arabacioglu & Unver, 2016; Prahani, Winata, & Yuanita, 2015; Stone, 2014; Sudiarman, Winata, & Susantini, 2015).
Some of these studies showed that the inquiry model can improve the science process skills, but in its imple-
mentation, there are still some weaknesses that need to be improved. The results of the literature study indicated
the weakness of the inquiry model in improving the science process skills. (1) The results of Fellenz (2004) and
Kirschner, Sweller, & Clark (2006) showed that the inquiry model has a challenge that is when students are frustrated,
they will not find the idea. (2) The recommendation of Alkan (2016) is that learning requires a scientific process and
teacher candidates must be equipped with the skills of the science process to improve their quality. (3) The results
of Harlen (2014) suggested that the inquiry model can improve the science process skills and understanding of
learners’ concepts through scientific activities, but it still needs an action from teachers or lecturers that are capable
to develop other skills. The results of this research indicated that at the college level, the inquiry-learning model
has not yet touched the science process skill for teacher candidates. (4) Reinforced by the results of Arabacioglu
& Unver (2016), which found that there is no integration of skills training in the science process and the skills of
teacher candidates to plan the learning by using various learning resources in order to create active learning, and
the process of reflection in learning is still poorly implemented. That research is limited and stops at the activities of
teaching science process skill for students and teacher candidates only; it is not yet about how to learn designing
and implementing science process skills learning to improve science process skills for students.
The results of the above studies indicated that innovation is still needed from the inquiry model, which is
specifically developed to improve the science process skills for pre-service physics teachers. The innovation of
this research is to develop and produce CCDSR teaching model with the main objective to improve the science
process skill of pre-service physics teachers and have a companion effect that teacher candidates can improve
the way of teaching science process skills to the students. The CCDSR teaching model is a physics learning with
the scientific approach by design approach to improve science process skill and its learning of pre-service physics
teachers (Limatahu, 2017) is based on Modelling process flow by Bandura and is supported by learning theories,
they are cognitive-social constructivist theory, cognitive learning theory, behavioural learning theory, and learn-
ing theory behaviours and motivational learning theories (Arends, 2012; Moreno, 2010; Slavin, 2011). The CCDSR
teaching model consists of five phases; they are (1) Condition, (2) Construction, (3) Development, (4) Simulation,
and (5) Reflection. Each phase of the CCDSR teaching model by design improve the science process skill indicators
including: formulating problems, formulating hypothesis, identifying variables, defining operational variables, de-
signing experiments, collecting data, making an observation recapitulation, conducting analysis, and formulating
conclusions (Dogan & Kunt, 2016; Limatahu, 2017; Limatahu, Suyatno, Wasis, & Prahani, 2018).
Problem of Research
The problem of this research was to analyze the development of a qualified CCDSR teaching model. This
research was conducted to find an answer to the following questions: (1) What is the validity of CCDSR teaching
model to improve the science process skills of pre-service physics teachers? (2) What is the practicality of CCDSR
teaching model to improve science process skills of pre-service physics teachers? (3) What is the effectiveness
of CCDSR teaching model to improve the science process skills of pre-service physics teachers? According to
Limatahu (2017) a companion affects that pre-service physics teachers can improve the way of teaching science
process skills to the students. This research was conducted on basic physics course by using CCDSR teaching model
which emphasizes the improvement of science process skill and its learning through scientific approach activities
(Limatahu, Wasis, Suyatno, & Prahani, 2018).
813
DEVELOPMENT OF CCDSR TEACHING MODEL TO IMPROVE SCIENCE PROCESS SKILLS OF
(P. 812-827) ISSN 2538–7138 /Online/
Focus of Research
The focus of this research was to develop a qualified CCDSR teaching model. The quality of the CCDSR teach-
ing model was determined based on: Validity (content and construct, and reliability), practicality, and effectiveness
of the CCDSR teaching model to improve the science process skills of pre-service physics teachers. The validity of
the CCDSR teaching model was determined to be at least to satisfy the valid criteria (content and construct, and
reliability). The practicality of CCDSR teaching model is determined at least on the criteria of applicable enough
(score 1-2, from maximum score 4). The effectiveness of the CCDSR teaching model is determined by: (1) Significant
improvement (statistically) on the score between pre-test and post-test of science process skills, (2) The average
of n-gain was determined at least on the low improvement criteria, (3) The consistency of the average score of
n-gain students of pre-service physics teachers’ science process skills, and (4) The response of pre-service physics
teachers was determined to be at least positive enough.
General Background
This research was conducted at University of Khairun and STKIP Kie Raha (Ternate, Indonesia). The sample of
this research was pre-service physics teachers who take the basic physics course in academic year 2016/2017 and
2017/2018. This research is categorized as Research and Development (R & D). The main product was qualified
as CCDSR teaching model to improve the science process skills of pre-service physics teachers. The quality of the
CCDSR teaching model was determined based on validity, practicality, and effectiveness of the CCDSR teaching
model to improve the science process skills of pre-service physics teachers. The validity of the CCDSR teaching
model was determined based on the results of the assessment with the average score of validity and Cronbach’s
alpha. The practicality of the CCDSR teaching model was determined by referring to the results of the assessment
with the average score of practicality. The effectiveness of the CCDSR teaching model was analysed based on the
assessments determined before and after using the CCDSR teaching model. The results of pre-test, post-test, and
n-gain of pre-service physics teachers’ science process skills were further analysed by using inferential statistics. The
choice of statistical testing methods relies on fulfilling the assumptions of normality and homogeneity of variants
for pre-test, post-test, and n-gain of the pre-service physics teachers’ science process skills. N-gain was determined
by using the equation: n-gain = (maximum score - pre-test score) / (4 - pre-test score) (Hake, 1998) with criteria: (1)
if n-gain ≥ .70 (high), (2) if .30 <n-gain <.70 (moderate), and (3) if n-gain ≤ .30 (low).
Sample of Research
The selection of sample was based on the Slovin formula, i.e. Sample = [population / (1 + e2 x population)]
with error tolerance e = 5% (Sevilla, Ochave, Punsalam, Regala, Uriarte, 1984). A whole sample is 132 pre-service
physics teachers. The sample of limited trial research was 10 pre-service physics teachers at University of Khairun
(Ternate, Indonesia), odd semester of academic year 2016/2017 (2 months). The implementation stage research is
a process of improving the quality of CCDSR teaching models based on the results of the large-scale trial research.
Judging from the number of samples, the implementation stage research has more samples when compared to the
large-scale trial research. The sample of large-scale trial research was 12 pre-service physics teachers at University of
Khairun, even semester of academic year 2016/2017 (4 months) and the sample of implementation stage research
was 110 pre-service physics teachers at University of Khairun and STKIP Kie Raha (Ternate, Indonesia), odd academic
year 2017/2018 (4 months) of the population of 198 pre-service physics teachers taking basic physics courses.
This research is proposed to develop a valid, practical and effective CCDSR teaching model to improve the
science process skills of pre-service physics teachers. Noting the implementation steps of education design research
which was proposed by Gall, Gall, & Borg (2003), Sukmadinata (2013), and based on the considerations and needs
in this study as a solution of educational problems to design and develop learning process intervention and learn-
ing environment that have meet valid criteria, practical and effective, so the implementation stages of R & D in this
814
ISSN 2538–7138 /Online/ (P. 812-827)
research was adapted the development flow of Gall, Gall, & Borg (2003) and Sukmadinata (2013). The reason to
select this development path is based on the cyclical process in the development of a product although it is applied
to smaller samples and has been proven to be effectively used by educational researchers from various countries
around the world. Based on these reasons, the R & D was developed by researchers to develop the CCDSR teach-
ing model that was simplified into three stages. The three stages are: (1) Preliminary study and development, (2)
Limited trials and large-scale trial, and (3) Implementation of CCDSR teaching model. The process of such a model
development cycle is believed to produce a valid, practical, and effective CCDSR teaching model. The three stages
of the study are shown in Figure 1. The procedures of each stage of the study applied different methods that are in
a line with the intended objectives and outcomes. In more detail, the research stages can be described as follows.
1. Preliminary studies and model development of CCDSR teaching model
The undertaken activities in the preliminary study and development of the CCDSR teaching model were:
(1) analysing the teachers’ competence based on their expertise area and (2) analysing theories that
support the CCDSR teaching model and empirical support related to indicators of the science process
skills of pre-service physics teachers.
Figure 1. The research development stages of CCDSR teaching model (adapted from Gall, Gall, & Borg, 2003
and Sukmadinata, 2013).
815
(P. 812-827) ISSN 2538–7138 /Online/
The preliminary research was conducted to collect data related to: (1) the science process skills of the pre-
service physics teachers, (2) the learning and teaching model used in science process skill learning, (3) the sup-
portive factors of learning and the lecturers or students’ views about the learning. The result of this preliminary
study is the model design in the form of CCDSR teaching model draft. The results obtained in the literature study
and preliminary studies are used as materials to develop the learning device products as the operational form
of CCDSR teaching model. They are: (a) development of CCDSR learning mode, (b) realization of CCDSR teaching
model, (c) preparation of CCDSR teaching model (Lesson Plan, Student Worksheet, Student Learning Materials,
Science Process Skills Test Sheet, Teaching Model Implementation Sheet, and Student Response Sheet), and (d)
validation of CCDSR teaching model devices through Focus Group Discussions (FGD).
2. Limited trial of CCDSR teaching model

A limited trial was conducted to test the practicality of the CCDSR teaching model toward 1 class of
pre-service physics teachers in cycle of 10 pre-service physics teachers for three meetings. The prac-
ticality of the CCDSR teaching model includes the level of model execution by using teaching model
implementation sheet instruments. The undertaken activities on a limited trial may be described as
follows.
(a) The researchers prepared for the implementation of the trial by determining university place
that would be used for the trial, the CCDSR teaching model lecturers, and preparing the trial
implementation facility.
(b) The model lecturers were trained by using the CCDSR teaching model until they understood
the procedures and steps of the CCDSR teaching model.
(c) The lecturers conducted three lessons meetings by applying the CCDSR teaching model and
it is observed by two observers. Observations were made to determine the implementation
of the CCDSR teaching model syntax, social systems, reaction principle, student activities, and
barriers during the learning process.
(d) After the implementation trial of the CCDSR teaching model, responses were conducted
with lecturers to find out the syntax model, social system, reaction principle, CCDSR teaching
model obstacles.
(e) The researchers revised the CCDSR teaching model and the CCDSR teaching model devices
based on the responses with lecturers, pre-service physics teachers, and observers so that the
CCDSR teaching model is practicality used in large-scale testing and model testing.
3. Large large-scale trial of CCDSR teaching model

A large-scale trial of the CCDSR teaching model was conducted in 1 class (12 pre-service physics
teachers) for one semester at University of Khairun (Ternate, Indonesia). The practicality of the CCDSR
teaching model includes the level of the model implementation and the obstacles that can be known
through the observers’ observation by using the observation instrument. While the effectiveness of
the CCDSR teaching model includes the improvement of pre-service physics teachers’ science pro-
cess skills that were measured by using the science process skills test sheet, and pre-service physics
teachers’ response measured by using questionnaires that were filled by pre-service physics teachers.
The undertaken activities in the large-scale trial can be described as follows.
(a) The researcher prepared the trial implementation by determining the university place that
would be used for the trial, the CCDSR teaching model lecturer, and prepared the trial imple-
mentation facility.
(b) The CCDSR teaching model lecturer was re-trained by using the CCDSR teaching model to
understand the procedures and steps of the CCDSR teaching model.
(c) The CCDSR teaching model lecturer provided pre-test. The test was used in the pre-test and
was intended to measure the science process skills of pre-service physics teachers.
(d) The lecturer conducted one semester by applying the CCDSR teaching model and was observed
by two observers. Observations were made to determine the implementation of the CCDSR
teaching model syntax, social systems, reaction principle, student activities, and barriers dur-
ing the learning process.
816
ISSN 2538–7138 /Online/ (P. 812-827)
(e) The CCDSR teaching model lecturer performed a post-test, in which the test was the same as
the pre-test and was intended to measure the science process skills of the pre-service physics
teachers.
(f ) The CCDSR teaching model lecturer gave questionnaires to the students to be filled to know
the pre-service physics teachers’ response about the learning which uses the science process
skills of pre-service physics teachers.
(g) The researchers collected all the data obtained, processed the data, and compiled a large-scale
trial report. It is followed by a research seminar.
(h) Researchers perfected the CCDSR teaching model.
(i) Refers to step (a) - (g) based on the results of large-scale trials and research seminars to obtain a
valid, practical, and effective CCDSR teaching model to improve the science process skills of pre-
service physics teachers to be ready to be used in implementation of CCDSR teaching model.
4. Implementation of CCDSR teaching model

The improved CCDSR teaching model based on the results of a limited trial and a large-scale trial was
re-tested through the implementation of CCDSR teaching model. The CCDSR teaching model test
was conducted at 2 universities, at University of Khairun and STKIP Kie Raha (110 pre-service physics
teachers). This stage was proposed to test the practicality and effectiveness of the CCDSR teaching
model to improve the science process skills of pre-service physics teachers and was conducted dur-
ing one semester as well as to see the pre-service physics teachers’ responses to the CCDSR teaching
model that is used during the learning. The undertaken activities in the implementation phase of
the CCDSR teaching model are the same as large-scale trial of the CCDSR teaching model. The dif-
ferentiating stage was that the number of samples was enlarged and the generalization was done
at different universities.
The validity of the CCDSR teaching model was measured by using the valid and reliable Validation Sheet
of the CCDSR teaching model construct and content validity (Limatahu, 2017). The practicality of the CCDSR
teaching model was measured by using the Learning Model Implementation Sheet that has been declared valid
and reliable (Limatahu, 2017). The effectiveness of the CCDSR teaching model was measured by using the valid
and reliable Science Process Skills Test Sheet (SPSTS) (Limatahu, 2017), there were 9 problems based on science
process skill indicators, they were formulating of a problem, formulating of a hypothesis, identifying variables,
defining operational variables, designing experiments, collecting data, making a recapitulation of observations,
conducting analysis, and formulating conclusions.
The large large-scale trial and implementation of CCDSR teaching model in this research used one group
pre-test and post-test design, O1 X O2 (Fraenkel, Wallen, & Hyun, 2012). The learning began by giving pre-test
(O1). Each pre-service physics teacher was required to complete SPSTS. After the pre-test, the lecturer will apply
the CCDSR teaching model and learning device to each group (X). Implementation of CCDSR teaching model
has been done for one semester. The learning of CCDSR teaching model has five syntaxes: (1) Condition, (2)
Construction, (3) Development, (4) Simulation, and (5) The complete reflection is presented in Table 1 (Limatahu,
2017; Limatahu, Suyatno, Wasis, & Prahani, 2018).
Table 1. Syntax of CCDSR teaching model.
Lecturer Activity Pre-service Physics Teachers Activity
Phase 1: Conditioning the pre-service physics teachers (Condition)

1. Lecturer conveys the purpose of learning and the importance of 1. Pre-service physics teachers listen to the explanation of learning objectives
science process skills (SPS). and description of activities to be implemented.
2. The lecturer explains the learning process that will be done. 2. Pre-service physics teachers listen to the explanation of the learning
3. Lecturer guides pre-service physics teachers to form groups (4-6 process that will be implemented.
people) and distribute the worksheets. 3. Pre-service physics teachers form groups (4-6) people and then receive
the worksheets to carry out experiments in scientific approach activities.
817
(P. 812-827) ISSN 2538–7138 /Online/
Phase 2: Constructing the science process skills (Construction)

1. The lecturer presents the phenomenon and the pre-service physics 1. Pre-service physics teachers observe to get one problem to be solved
teachers observe it to get one problem to be solved together. together.
2. Lecturer guides pre-service physics teachers to identify alternative 2. Pre-service physics teachers identify alternative problem solving by
problem solving by using SPS. using SPS.
3. Lecturer guides pre-service physics teachers to conduct experimental 3. Pre-service physics teachers conduct experimental activities (scientific
activities (scientific approach) to train SPS as a process of internal- approach) to trace SPS as a process of internalizing their own SPS
izing their own SPS. (formulating of a problem, formulating hypothesis, identifying variables,
defining operational variables, designing experiments, collecting data,
making a recapitulation of observations, conducting analysis, and for-
mulating conclusions).
Phase 3: Developing Science Process Skills oriented tools (Development)
Lecturer guides pre-service physics teachers to develop SPS tools Pre-service physics teachers develop SPS tools (different topic with the
(different topic with the Phase II) to improve SPS and SPS learning Phase II) to improve understanding of SPS and SPS learning skills.
skills.
Phase 4: Simulation
Lecturer guides pre-service physics teachers to simulate SPS learn- Pre-service physics teachers simulate the SPS learning tools.
ing tools.
Phase 5: Reflection
1. The lecturer guided to evaluate the process and results of the SPS pro- 1. The pre-service physics teachers evaluate the process and results of the
cess of pre-service physics teachers in scientific approach activities. SPS process in scientific approach activities.
2. The lecturer guided pre-service physics teachers to evaluate the 2. The pre-service physics teachers evaluate the SPS learning skills.
SPS learning skills.
Teaching tools consist of: Lesson Plan, Student Worksheet, Student Learning Materials, Science Process Skills
Test Sheet, Teaching Model Implementation Sheet, and Student Response Sheet (valid and reliable through FGD
process) (Limatahu, 2017; Limatahu, Suyatno, Wasis, & Prahani, 2018). Each phase of the CCDSR teaching model by
design trains the science process skill indicators including: formulating problems, formulating hypothesis, iden-
tifying variables, defining operational variables, designing experiments, collecting data, making an observation
recapitulation, conducting analysis, and formulating conclusions (Dogan & Kunt, 2016; Limatahu, 2017; Limatahu,
Suyatno, Wasis, & Prahani, 2018). According to Limatahu (2017) and Limatahu, Suyatno, Wasis, & Prahani (2018),
there were 9 problems based on science process skill indicators. They were: formulating of a problem, formulat-
ing of a hypothesis, identifying variables, defining operational variables, designing experiments, collecting data,
making a recapitulation of observations, conducting analysis, and formulating conclusions. The implementation of
the CCDSR teaching model ends with post-test (O2) by using SPSTS and Student Response Sheet. Each pre-service
physics teacher is required to complete science process skills test in post-test. The pre-service physics teachers’
response toward learning that implemented the CCDSR teaching model was done by giving the Student Response
Sheet for pre-service physics teachers after the learning process.
Data Analysis
The validity of the CCDSR teaching model was judged by the validity of the content and the validity of the
construct. The validity of the product (model) is divided into two, namely the content validity and construct validity
(Nieveen, McKenney, & Akker, 2007; Plomp, 2013; Prahani, Nur, Yuanita, & Limatahu, 2016). FGD results were served
as a reference to revise the CCDSR teaching model. The validity of the CCDSR teaching model is determined based
on the results of the assessment with the average score of validity criteria, namely: 3.25 < Very valid ≤ 4.00; 2.50 <
Valid ≤ 3.25; 1.75 < Less valid ≤ 2.50; 1.00 ≤ Invalid ≤ 1.75 (Erika, Prahani, Supardi, & Tukiran, 2018; Limatahu, 2017;
Prahani, Nur, Yuanita, & Limatahu, 2016). Further analysis to determine the quality of CCDSR teaching model that has
been developed in terms of the reliability of CCDSR teaching model was done by using Cronbach’s coefficient alpha.
The practicality of the CCDSR teaching model was analysed by reviewing the implementation of the CCDSR
teaching model observed by 2 observers. Assessment options on practical instruments consisted of impractical
(score 0), less practical (score 1.00), enough practical (score 2.00), practical (score 3.00) and very practical (score
4.00). The practicality of the CCDSR teaching model was determined by referring to the results of the assessment
with the average score of practicality criteria, namely: 3.25 < Very practical ≤ 4.00; 2.50 < Practical ≤ 3.25; 1.75 <
818
ISSN 2538–7138 /Online/ (P. 812-827)
Less practical ≤ 2.50; 1.00 ≤ Impractical ≤ 1.75 (Erika, Prahani, Supardi, & Tukiran, 2018; Limatahu, 2017; Prahani,
Nur, Yuanita, & Limatahu, 2016).
The effectiveness of the CCDSR teaching model was analysed based on the assessments determined before
and after using the CCDSR teaching model. The results of pre-test, post-test, and n-gain of pre-service physics
teachers’ science process skills were further analysed by using inferential statistics with the help of SPSS software.
The choice of statistical testing methods relies on fulfilling the assumptions of normality and homogeneity of vari-
ants for pre-test, post-test, and n-gain of the pre-service physics teachers’ science process skills. Statistical test with
Paired t-test / Wilcoxon test (analysis of statistical improvement) and n-gain consistency analysis of all groups after
using the CCDSR teaching model was done by using ANOVA test / Kruskal-Walls test. N-gain was determined by
using the equation: N-gain = (post-test score - pre-test score) / (4 - pre-test score) (Hake, 1998) with criteria: (1) if
n-gain ≥ .70 (high), (2) if .30 <n-gain <.70 (moderate), and (3) if n-gain ≤ .30 (low). In order to see the responses of
pre-service physics teachers, pre-service physics teachers’ responses data was analyzed by using qualitative descrip-
tive (Prahani, Soegimin, & Yuanita, 2015; Riduwan, 2010). With the criteria of: (1) Response ≥ 75% (very positive); (2)
50% ≤ Response < 75% (positive); (3) 25% ≤ Response < 50% (less positive); and (4) Response < 25% (not positive).
Results of Research
Validity of CCDSR Teaching Model
The developed CCDSR teaching model has been validated by 3 experts in FGD. Experts in the FGD consisted
of 1 professor and 2 doctors. The CCDSR teaching model quality assessment results are presented in Table 2. Table
2 shows that the content validity of the CCDSR teaching model includes: (1) CCDSR teaching model Develop-
ment Needs, (2) Advanced Knowledge, (3) Support of CCDSR teaching model Theories, (4) CCDSR teaching model
Planning and Implementation, (5) Management of Learning Environment, and (6) The assessment has an average
validation score of 3.60, 4.00, 4.00, 4.00, 3.00, and 4.00 with very valid and valid criteria. As for the reliability, each
component of the content validity is also reliable.
Table 2. Results of the CCDSR teaching model quality assessment.
Validity and reliability of CCDSR model

Component
Score Validity α Reliability
Content Validity
1. Development Needs of CCDSR Teaching Model 3.60 Very Valid .97 Reliable
2. Recent Knowledge 4.00 Very Valid 1.00 Reliable
3. Support Theory of CCDSR Teaching Model 4.00 Very Valid 1.00 Reliable
4. Planning and Implementation 4.00 Very Valid 1.00 Reliable
5. Management of Learning Environment 3.00 Valid .97 Reliable
6. Assessment 4.00 Very Valid 1.00 Reliable
Construct Validity Reliable
1. Overview of the CCDSR Teaching Model 3.60 Very Valid .98 Reliable
2. Theoretical and Empirical Support 4.00 Very Valid 1.00 Reliable
3. Planning and Implementation 4.00 Very Valid 1.00 Reliable
4. Management of Learning Environment 4.00 Very Valid 1.00 Reliable
5. Implementation of Evaluation 3.00 Valid .98 Reliable
6. Closing 4.00 Very Valid 1.00 Reliable
Note = α (Cronbach’s alpha)
Table 2 shows that the construct validity of the CCDSR teaching model includes: (1) CCDSR teaching model
overview, (2) Theoretical and Empirical Support CCDSR teaching model, (3) CCDSR teaching model planning and
819
(P. 812-827) ISSN 2538–7138 /Online/
implementation, (4) Management of Learning Environment, (5) Implementation of Evaluation, and (6) The closing
has an average validation score of 3.60, 4.00, 4.00, 4.00, 3.00, and 4.00 with very valid and valid criteria. As for the
reliability of each component of construct validity is reliable.
Table 3. The result of learning and research instruments validity of CCDSR teaching model.
Content Validity Construct Validity

Components
Score Validity α Reliability Score Validity α Reliability
Lesson Plan 3.60 Very Valid .96 Reliable 3.90 Very Valid .96 Reliable
Student Worksheet 3.00 Valid .99 Reliable 3.20 Valid .99 Reliable
Student Learning Materials 3.00 Valid .77 Reliable 3.10 Valid .77 Reliable
Science Process Skills Test Sheet 3.00 Valid 1.00 Reliable 3.00 Valid 1.00 Reliable
Teaching Model Implementation Sheet 3.00 Valid 1.00 Reliable 3.00 Valid 1.00 Reliable
Student Response Sheet 3.00 Valid 1.00 Reliable 3.00 Valid 1.00 Reliable
Note = α (Cronbach’s alpha)
Table 3 shows that the content validity of the learning instruments and research instruments includes: (1)
Lesson Plan, (2) Student Worksheet, (3) Student Learning Materials, (4) Science Process Skills Test Sheet, (5) Teach-
ing Model Implementation Sheet, and (6) Student Response Sheet has an average validation score of 3.60, 3.00,
3.00, 3.00, 3.00, and 3.00 with very valid and valid criteria. As for the reliability of each component of the content
validity is reliable.
Table 3 shows that the construct validity of the learning instruments and research instruments includes: (1)
Lesson Plan, (2) Student Worksheet, (3) Student Learning Materials, (4) Science Process Skills Test Sheet, (5) Teaching
Model Implementation Sheet, and (6) Student Response Sheet has an average validation score of 3.90, 3.20, 3.10,
3.00, 3.00, and 3.00 with very valid and valid criteria. As for the reliability of each construct component is reliable.
Based on the above description of Table 3, it can be said that the learning instruments of CCDSR teaching model
have fulfilled the content and construct validity requirements to improve the science process skills of pre-service
physics teachers. The learning instruments of CCDSR teaching model can be implemented in the learning process.
Practicality of CCDSR Teaching Model
Table 4. Implementation of CCDSR teaching model.
Group-1 Group-2 Group-3 Group-4 Group-5

Phase
S C r S C r S C r S C r S C r
1 3.50 VP R 3.50 VP R 3.50 VP R 3.50 VP R 3.50 VP R

Note: S (Score); C (Criteria); VP (Very Practical); r (Reliability); R (Reliable); Phase 1 (Condition); Phase 2 (Construction); Phase 3 (Develop-
ment); Phase 4 (Simulation); Phase 5: Reflection
The practicality of CCDSR teaching model that has been developed is seen from the implementation of the
CCDSR teaching model. Table 4 explains that all learning steps used can be very well executed and are reliable
(fulfilling the practical aspect).
820
ISSN 2538–7138 /Online/ (P. 812-827)
Effectiveness of CCDSR Teaching Model
The effectiveness of the CCDSR teaching model is presented in Table 5, Table 6, Table 7, Table 8 and Table 9,
which will be explained as follows.
Table 5. The average scores of pre-test, post-test and n-gain of SPS at all groups.
Average scores pre-test, post-test and n-gain of science process skills

Group N
Pre-test Post-test N-gain
Group-1 12 .10 Low 2.20 High .50 Moderate

Group-2 30 1.00 Low 2.80 High .60 Moderate
Group-3 30 1.00 Low 2.70 High .50 Moderate
Table 5 describes the average pre-test scores, post-test and n-gain of the pre-service physics teachers’ science
process skills. In all groups the average pre-test score was .10 - 1.00 (low category). This is because pre-service phys-
ics teachers still have many difficulties and are unfamiliar to implement science process skills. The findings are in a
line with the results of preliminary studies that science process skills are still relatively low. In contrast to post-test
scores after the implementation of CCDSR teaching models, all groups of 2.20, 2.80, 2.70, 2.60 and 2.50 were all in
the high category. Table 5 shows that the n-gain of pre-service physics teachers’ science process skills in all groups
are .50, .60, .50, .50, .50 and in the moderate category. The results of this study prove that the implementation of
the CCDSR teaching model proved to be effective in improving the science process skills of pre-service physics
teachers. The science process skills indicators of all groups are in Table 6.
Table 6. The science process skills indicators at all groups.
Indicators of science process skills

Group
FP FH IV DOV DE CD MRO CA FC
G1 O1 .80 L .00 L .00 L .00 L .00 L .00 L .00 L .00 L .00 L

O2 2.80 H 3.50 H 2.50 M 2.50 M 2.80 H 2.50 M 2.50 M 2.50 M 2.50 M
<g> .60 M .90 H .60 M .60 M .70 M .60 M .60 M .60 M .60 M
G2 O1 .90 L 0.10 L .90 L .90 L 1.10 L 1.80 L 1.00 L .90 L .90 L
O2 2.90 H 2.30 H 2.10 M 2.80 H 3.80 H 2.90 H 2.90 H 2.80 H 2.80 H
<g> .60 M .70 M .40 M .60 M .90 H .50 M .60 M .60 M .60 M
G3 O1 .90 L .90 L .90 L .90 L 1.00 L 1.80 L 1.00 L .90 L .90 L
O2 2.70 M 2.80 H 2.70 M 2.80 H 2.80 H 2.90 H 2.80 H 2.70 M 2.70 M
<g> .60 M .60 M .60 M .60 M .60 M .50 M .60 M .60 M .60 M
G4 O1 .80 L .80 L .80 L .80 L 1.00 L 1.70 L 1.00 L .80 L .80 L
O2 2.60 M 2.60 M 2.60 M 2.60 M 2.60 M 2.80 M 2.60 M 2.60 M 2.60 M
<g> .60 M .60 M .50 M .60 M .60 M .50 M .60 M .60 M .60 M
G5 O1 .70 L .80 L .80 L .80 L 1.10 L 1.70 L 1.00 L .70 L .70 L
O2 2.40 M 2.50 M 2.40 M 2.50 M 2.60 M 2.80 H 2.60 M 2.40 M 2.40 M
<g> .50 M .50 M .50 M .50 M .50 M .50 M .50 M .50 M .50 M
Note: G1 (Group 1); G2 (Group 2); G3 (Group 3); G4 (Group 4); G5 (Group 5); FP (Formulate of Problem); FH (Formulate of Hypothesis);
IV (Identifying Variables); DOV (Defines Operational Variables); DE (Designing Experiments); CD (Collecting data); MRO (Make a reca-
pitulation of Observations); CA (Conduct Analysis); FC (Formulate Conclusions); L (Low); M (Moderate); H (High)
821
(P. 812-827) ISSN 2538–7138 /Online/
Table 6 shows that all the science process skill indicators in the pre-test are in the low category, whereas after
the implementation of learning with the CCDSR teaching model, the result informs that all the indicators of the
science process skills have increased. N-gain in general indicator of science process skills were in medium and high
category (score .40 - .90). The positive result is because the implementation of learning with CCDSR teaching model
was designed to improve the science process skills indicators through five phases of the CCDSR teaching model:
(1) Condition, (2) Construction, (3) Development, (4) Simulation, and (5) Reflection that is presented in Table 1.
The results of the normality and homogeneity test of variance showed that the pre-test, post-test, and n-gain
scores of pre-service physics teachers’ science process skills were homogeneous and normally distributed for the
whole group. Therefore, the impact of CCDSR teaching model implementation in improving the science process
skills of pre-service physics teachers for the whole group by using Paired t-test and consistency test was done by
using ANOVA test. Paired t-test and ANOVA test results are presented in Table 7 and Table 8.
Table 7. The results of paired t-test of science process skills at all groups.
Paired t-test, α = 5%
Group N Effect Size
Mean t df p
Group-1 12 -2.60 -10.00 11 .0001 .83 Moderate effect

Note: N (Sample)
Table 7 shows the average of science process skills for groups 1, 2, 3, 4, and 5 are -2.60, -1.80, -1.80, -1.70, -1.60
and the t score gives t value = -10.00, -30.02, -25.50, -14.91 and -16.06. Each score is considered significant, because
p < .05. Therefore, the mean and t result of the calculation is negative, so it showed there is an increase in science
process skills of pre-service physics teachers after the application of CCDSR teaching model for all groups. The result
of effect size for groups 1, 2, 3, 4, and 5 (.83, .84, .78, .65, and .63) were in moderate effect category.
Table 8. The results of ANOVA test of science process skills at all groups.
ANOVA test, α = 5% Sum of squares df Mean square F p
Between groups .19 4 .04 1.50 .20

Within groups 4.10 127 .03
Total 4.30 131
Table 8 shows that F arithmetic gives F = 1.50 < Ftable (4,127) with significance level p = .20 > .05. This clearly
indicates that there was no difference in the increase of science process skills of the pre-service physics teachers
after the application of learning with CCDSR teaching model at all groups.
Table 9. The responses of pre-service physics teachers at all groups.
Responses of pre-service physics teachers
Group I Group II Group III Group IV Group V
N R C N R C N R C N R C N R C
12 96.00% VP 30 95.00% VP 30 95.00% VP 25 93.00% VP 25 94.00% VP

Note: N (Sample); R (Response); C (Category); VP (Very Positive)
822
ISSN 2538–7138 /Online/ (P. 812-827)
The increase of science process skills of pre-service physics teachers after the application of learning with
CCDSR learning have been supported by pre-service physics teachers’ response. The results of the pre-service
physics teachers’ responses are presented in Table 9. The analysis of pre-service physics teachers’ response toward
learning that implemented the CCDSR model was done by giving the Student Response Sheet for pre-service
physics teachers after the learning process. Table 9 shows that in general pre-service physics teachers responded
very positively to the CCDSR teaching model and learning instruments. Responses of pre-service physics teachers
showed that pre-service physics teachers felt that their science process skills were increasing. In addition, students
also feel that they have improved skills in planning and implementing science process skills. The results of this
response that the CCDSR teaching model can improve the skills of planning and implementing science process
skills are owned by pre-service physics teachers.
Discussion
The results in Table 2 explain that the CCDSR teaching model has been declared valid (valid in content and
constructs, and reliability) by experts. The novelty of the CCDSR teaching model was built to correct the weaknesses
based on existing researchers’ recommendations from the inquiry model (Alkan 2016; Arabacioglu & Unver, 2016;
Fellenz, 2004; Harlen, 2014; Kirschner, Sweller, & Clark, 2006). Compared to the inquiry model in improving the science
process skills and SPS learning planning for pre-service physics teachers, the novelty of the CCDSR teaching model
lies in phases 3, 4, and 5 that do not exist in the inquiry model. Phase 3: Developing SPS learning tools, students de-
velop learning tools to tap into SPS learning skills about SPS (focus on learning to practice SPS). Phase 4: Simulations,
students simulate SPS learning tools. Phase 5: Reflection, students evaluate the process and outcomes of the SPS and
its learning skills. The CCDSR teaching model is supported by cognitive learning theory, cognitive-social constructiv-
ist theory, behavioural learning theory, and motivational learning theory (Arends, 2012; Moreno, 2010; Slavin, 2011).
Experts say the CCDSR teaching model has been developed based on theoretical and empirical studies that can
improve the science process skills of pre-service physics teachers. So that the CCDSR teaching model has fulfilled the
validity aspect that became one of the qualified product requirements (Limatahu, 2017), CCDSR teaching model that
has been valid can be used to see the next aspect that is the practicality and effectiveness of the developed model
(Limatahu, Suyatno, Wasis, & Prahani, 2018; Madeali & Prahani, 2018; Plomp, 2013). The valid CCDSR teaching model
is then tested for the implementation of the CCDSR teaching model conducted in Physics Education of University of
Khairun and STKIP Kie Raha. Qualitative data from the pilot test of the implementation of the CCDSR teaching model
is used as a reference for the revision of the CCDSR teaching model.
The practicality of CCDSR teaching model that has been developed is seen from the implementation of the
CCDSR teaching model. Table 4 explains that all learning steps used can be very well executed and are reliable (ful-
filling the practical aspect). This suggests that the CCDSR teaching model meets the practical aspects of improving
the science process skills of pre-service physics teachers. The CCDSR teaching model consists of five phases; they
are (1) Condition, (2) Construction, (3) Development, (4) Simulation, and (5) Reflection. A good learning and teach-
ing model should have 5 (five) major components in the model, namely: (1) syntax, (2) social systems, (3) reaction
principles, (4) support systems, and (5) instructional impact and impact accompanist (Joyce, Weil, & Calhoun, 2009).
These five components have been met during the implementation of the CCDSR teaching model. It is supported by
the practically of CCDSR teaching model that has been developed and is seen from the implementation of the CCDSR
teaching model. Table 4 explains that all learning steps used can be very well executed and are reliable (fulfilling the
practical aspect of five major components in the model by Joyce, Weil, & Calhoun, 2009). Another positive result is
the evidence of empirical validity that the CCDSR teaching model has been well implemented and can be used in
trials to improve science process skills and its learning for pre-service physics teachers. The results are relevant to
Barthelemy, Dusen, & Henderson (2015), Shubert & Meredith (2015) that learning is basically an educator effort to
help learners learn to gain knowledge. This is in accordance with the implementation results of the CCDSR teaching
model as shown in Table 4 indicates that the learning activities in each model that have been planned in the lesson
plan can be implemented by the lecturer very practically. The learning process in the developed learning and teaching
model contains the components of the CCDSR teaching model. The findings of practicality of CCDSR teaching model
are supported by Vygotsky social constructivist theory; this theory has three major implications: (1) social learning,
(2) Zone of Proximal Development (ZPD), and (3) scaffolding (Arends, 2012; Moreno, 2010; Slavin, 2011). The CCDSR
teaching model has been practical; it can be used to see the next aspect that is the effectiveness of CCDSR teaching
model to improve the science process skill of pre-service physics teachers.
823
(P. 812-827) ISSN 2538–7138 /Online/
The effectiveness of the CCDSR teaching model is presented in Table 5, Table 6, Table 7, Table 8 and Table 9, which
will be discussed as follows. Table 5 describes the average pre-test scores, post-test and n-gain of the pre-service physics
teachers’ science process skills. In all groups the average pre-test score was .10 - 1.00 (low category). This is because
pre-service physics teachers still have many difficulties and are unfamiliar to implement science process skills. Some
researchers showed that the quality of education, science process skills of physics teachers and learners in Indonesia
is still relatively low (Bakri & Raharjo, 2015; Limatahu, 2017; Suprapto, Suliyanah, Prahani, Jauhariyah, & Admoko, 2018;
Suyidno, Nur, Yuanita, Prahani, & Jatmiko, 2018). Table 5 shows that the n-gain of pre-service physics teachers’ science
process skills in all groups are .50, .60, .60, .60, and .50 in the moderate category. The results of this study prove that
the implementation of the CCDSR teaching model proved to be effective in improving the science process skills of
pre-service physics teachers. This is because the CCDSR teaching model that has been developed meets the validity
(content and construct), the practicality, and the effectiveness to improve the science process skills of pre-service
physics teachers (Limatahu, 2017; Limatahu, Suyatno, Wasis, & Prahani, 2018). This is supported by the results (Erika
& Prahani, 2017; Jatmiko, Prahani, Munasir, Supardi, Wicaksono, Erlina, Pandiangan, Althaf, & Zainuddin, 2018; Plomp,
2013; Prahani, Limatahu, Soegimin, Yuanita, & Nur, 2016; Prahani, Suprapto, Suliyanah, Lestari, Jauhariyah, Admoko,
& Wahyuni, 2018; Purwaningsih, Suyatno, Wasis, & Prahani, 2018; Sunarti, Wasis, Madlazim, Suyidno, & Prahani 2018;
Susantini, Isnawati, & Lisdiana, 2016; Susantini, Lisdiana, Isnawati, Al Haq, & Trimulyono, 2017; Suyidno, Nur, Yuanita,
& Prahani, 2017) that the model meets the validity (content and construct), practicality, and effectiveness will be able
to improve and achieve the learning objectives. Table 6 shows that all the science process skill indicators in the pre-
test are in the low category, whereas after the implementation of learning with the CCDSR teaching model, the result
informs that all the indicators of the science process skills have increased. N-gain in general indicator of science process
skills were in medium and high category (score .40 - .90). The positive result is because the implementation of learning
with CCDSR teaching model was designed to improve the science process skill indicator including the formulation of
a problem, formulation of hypothesis, identifying variables, defining operational variables, designing experiments,
collecting data, making a recapitulation of observations, conducting analysis, and formulating conclusions through
five phases of the CCDSR teaching model: (1) Condition, (2) Construction, (3) Development, (4) Simulation, and (5)
Reflection that is presented in Table 1. This is reinforced by research findings (Arabacioglu & Unver, 2016; Limatahu,
2017; Sudiarman, Winata, & Susantini, 2015; Suyidno, Nur, Yuanita, Prahani, & Jatmiko, 2018) that science process skills
can be enhanced through inquiry process which is reflected by formulating of a problem, formulating hypothesis,
identifying variables, defining operational variables, designing experiments, collecting data, making a recapitulation
of observations, conducting analysis, and formulating conclusions. The results of this study are reinforced by the
perspective of John Dewey (1916), schools should be the laboratory for solving real-life problems (Arends, 2012).
Reinforced with a top-down process; students start with complex problems to solve and then solve or find (with the
lecturers’ help) the necessary basic skills (Slavin, 2012). This condition is to facilitate students in processing the con-
cepts to be learned in learning because the beginning of learning concepts will be more remembered by students.
Table 7 explains that there is a significant difference between pre-test and post-test (there is improvement) of the
pre-service physics teachers’ science process skills. Table 8 shows that there is no significant difference (consistency)
of the pre-service physics teachers’ science process skills improvement as the impact of applying CCDSR teaching
model to all groups. This is because the CCDSR teaching model has been developed by design to improve the science
process skills of the pre-service physics teachers that are more fully presented in Table 1 (Limatahu, 2017; Limatahu,
Suyatno, Wasis, & Prahani, 2018). The results are reinforced by theoretical and empiric study that the CCDSR teaching
model is a physics learning with the scientific approach by design approach to improve science process skills and its
learning is based on Modelling process flow by Bandura and is supported by learning theories, they are cognitive-
social constructivist theory, cognitive learning theory, behavioural learning theory, and learning theory behaviours
and motivational learning theories (Arends, 2012; Moreno, 2010; Slavin, 2011). Therefore, the CCDSR teaching model
is effective to improve the science process skills of pre-service physics teachers.
The increase of science process skills of pre-service physics teachers after the application of learning with CCDSR
learning has been supported by pre-service physics teachers’ response. Table 9 shows that in general pre-service
physics teachers responded positively to the CCDSR teaching model and learning instruments. Responses showed
that pre-service physics teachers felt that their science process skills were increasing. In addition, students also feel
that they have improved skills in planning and implementing science process skills. The results of this response that
the CCDSR teaching model can improve the skills of planning and implementing science process skills are owned by
pre-service physics teachers. The findings are supported by modelling theory (Bandura, 1977) including Attention
in Phase 1 (Condition); pre-service physics teachers must pay attention in the learning process. Retention in Phase 2
824
ISSN 2538–7138 /Online/ (P. 812-827)
(Construction), so that the pre-service physics teachers’ knowledge of procedural can be remembered, does repetition.
Production in Phase 3 (Development), pre-service physics teachers need new problems to be solved for internalization
process of their knowledge Motivation in Phase 4 (Simulation), pre-service physics teachers require further training
so that potential physics teachers are motivated. The results showed that the CCDSR teaching model was proved
to be qualified (valid, practical, and effective) to improve the science process skills of pre-service physics teachers.
Conclusions
CCDSR teaching model is physics teaching with the scientific activities by design to improve science process
skills and its learning is based on Modelling process flow by Bandura and is supported by learning theories, they
are cognitive-social constructivist theory, cognitive learning theory, behavioural learning theory, and learning
theory behaviours and motivational learning theories. The CCDSR teaching model consists of five phases; they
are (1) Condition, (2) Construction, (3) Development, (4) Simulation, and (5) Reflection. The results of this study
prove that CCDSR teaching model quality is reviewed from: (1) The validity of CCDSR teaching model that fulfils
the validity criteria (content and construct, and reliability); (2) The practicality of CCDSR teaching model belongs to
very practical category (score 3.60); 3) The effectiveness of the CCDSR teaching model: (a) There is an improvement
in pre-service physics teachers’ science process skills at α = 5%, (b) Average score of n-gain of pre-service physics
teachers’ science process skills was .6 (medium category), (c) there is no difference (there is consistent) significant
improvement in pre-service physics teachers’ science process skills in all groups, and (d) Pre-service physics teachers
responded positively (93.00% - 96.00% very positive). Another finding is the nurture effects of the CCDSR model
can improve the skills of planning and implementing the science process skills of pre-service physics teachers.
Implication of this research is that the CCDSR teaching model can be an innovative solution to improve science
process skills of pre-service physics teachers. Readers or school teachers can get actual science process skills test
instruments by contacting corresponding authors. Further research can explore the effectiveness of the CCDSR
teaching model to enhance pre-service physics teachers’ skills in teaching science process skills to students at the
elementary, junior and high school levels.
Acknowledgements
The author’s gratitude goes to the Ministry of Research, Technology and Higher Education for funding the
Research. Likewise, the author’s gratitude goes to the University of Khairun and the STKIP Kie Raha that have pro-
vided collaborative research opportunities.
References
Alkan, F. (2016). Experiential learning: Its effects on achievement and scientific process skills. Journal of Turkish Science Educa-
tion, 13 (2), 15-26.
Arabacioglu, S., & Unver, A. O. (2016). Supporting inquiry-based laboratory practices with mobile learning to enhance students’
process skills in science education. Journal of Baltic Science Education, 15 (2), 216-230.
Arends, R. I. (2012). Learning to teach. New York: Mc. Graw-Hill Companies.
Astutik, S., & Prahani, B.K. (2018). The practicality and effectiveness of collaborative creativity learning (CCL) model by using phet
simulation to increase students’ scientific creativity. International Journal of Instruction, 11 (4), 1-15.
Aydin, A. (2013). Representation of science process skills in the chemistry curricula for grades 10, 11 and 12 Turkey. International
Journal of Education and Practice, 1 (5), 51-63.
Bakri, F., & Raharjo, S.B. (2015). Analisis hasil uji kompetensi guru fisika [Result analysis of physics teacher competence test].
Jurnal Penelitian dan Pengembangan Pendidikan Fisika, 1 (1), 1-6.
Bandura, A. (1977). Self-efficacy: Toward unifying theory of behavioral change. Psychological Review, 84 (2), 191-215.
Barthelemy, S. R., Van Dusen, V. B., & Henderson, C. (2015). Physics education research: A research subfield of physics with gender
parity. Physical Review Special Topics - Physics Education Research, 11, 020107.
Berg, C. A. R., Bergendahl, V. C. B., & Lundberg, B. K. S. (2003). Benefiting from an open-ended experiment? A comparison of at-
titudes to, and outcomes of, an expository versus an open-inquiry version of the same experiment. International Journal
of Science Education, 25 (3), 112-121.
Borg, W. R., & Gall, M. D. (2003). Educational research: An introduction. New York: Longman.
Colvill, M., & Pattie, I. (2002). The building blocks for scientific literacy. Australian Primary & Junior Science Journal, 18 (3), 20-30.
Crawford, B. A. (2000). Embracing the essence of inquiry: New roles for science teachers. Journal of Research in Science Teaching,
37 (9), 916-937.
825
(P. 812-827) ISSN 2538–7138 /Online/
Crockett, M. D. (2002). Inquiry as professional development: Creating dilemmas through teachers’ work. Teaching and Teacher
Education, 18 (5), 609-624.
Dewi, N. I., Poedjiastoeti, S., & Prahani, B. K. (2017). ELSII learning model based local wisdom to improve students’ problem-solving
skills and scientific communication. International Journal of Education and Research, 5 (1), 107-118.
Dogan, I., & Kunt, H. (2016). Determination of prospective preschool teachers’ science process skills. Journal of European Educa-
tion, 6 (1), 32-42.
Erika, F., & Prahani, B. K. (2017). Innovative chemistry learning model to improve argumentation skills and self-efficacy. Journal
of Research & Method in Education, 7 (1), 62-68.
Erika, F., Prahani, B. K., Supardi, Z. A. I., & Tukiran (2018). Development of a graphic organizer-based argumentation learning (GOAL)
model for improving the ability to argue and self-efficacy of chemistry teacher candidates. World Trans on Engineering and
Technology Education, 16 (2), 179-185.
Fellenz, M. R. (2004). Using assessment to support higher level learning: the multiple-choice item development assignment.
Assessment and Education in Higher Education, 29 (6), 703-719.
Fraenkel, J., Wallen, N., & Hyun, H. (2012). How to design and evaluate research in education. New York: McGraw-Hill.
Gerald, F. L. (2011). The twin purposes of guided inquiry: Guiding student inquiry and evidence-based practice. Scan, 30 (1), 26-41.
Hake, R. R. (1998). Interactive-engagement versus traditional methods: A six-thousand-student survey of mechanics test data
for introductory physics courses. American Journal of Physics, 66 (1), 64-74.
Harlen, W. (2014). Helping children’s development of inquiry skills. Inquiry in Primary Science Education, 1, 5-19.
In, K. N., & Thongperm, O. (2014). Teaching of science process skills in Thai contexts: Status, supports and obstacles. Procedia-
Social and Behavioral Sciences, 141 (1), 1324-1329.
Jatmiko, B., Prahani, B. K., Munasir, Supardi, Z. A. I., Wicaksono, I., Erlina, N., Pandiangan, P., Althaf, R., & Zainuddin (2018). The
comparison of OR-IPA teaching model and problem-based learning model effectiveness to improve critical thinking skills
of pre-service physics teachers. Journal of Baltic Science Education, 17 (2), 1-22.
Joyce, B., Weil, M., & Calhoun, E. (2009). Models of teaching. New York: Pearson Education.
Karsli, F., & Ayas, A. (2014). Developing a laboratory activity by using 5e learning model on student learning of factors affecting
the reaction rate and improving scientific process skills. Procedia-Social and Behavioral Sciences, 143, 663-668.
Karsli, F., & Sahin, C. (2009). Developing worksheet based on science process skills: Factors affecting solubility. Asia-Pacific Forum
on Science Learning and Teaching, 10 (1), 1-16.
Kirschner, P. A., Sweller, J., & Clark, R. E. (2006). Why minimal guidance during instruction does not work: An analysis of the failure
of constructivist, discovery, problem-based, experiential, and inquiry-based teaching. Educational Psychologist, 41 (2), 75-86.
Limatahu I., Suyatno, Wasis, & Prahani, B.K. (2018). The effectiveness of CCDSR learning model to improve skills of creating les-
son plan and worksheet science process skills (SPS) for pre-service physics teacher. Journal Physics: Conference Series, 997
(1), 012032.
Limatahu, I. (2016). Pengembangan model perangkat pembelajaran fisika menerapkan mpbm untuk mendukung program PPL
II mahasiswa FKIP unkhair ternate [The development of physics learning model applying mpbm to support the program
PPL II student FKIP unkhair ternate]. Prosiding Seminar Nasional Pendidikan Sains Tahun 2016, Surabaya: 545-553.
Limatahu, I. (2017). Makalah seminar hasil: Pengembangan model pembelajaran CCDSR untuk meningkatkan keterampilan proses
sains calon guru fisika [Results seminar paper: Development of CCDSR teaching model to improve science process skills of
pre-service physics teachers]. Surabaya: Universitas Negeri Surabaya.
Luft, J. (2001). Changing inquiry practices and beliefs: The impact of an inquiry-based professional development programs on
beginning and experienced secondary science teachers. International journal of science education, 23 (5), 517-534.
Madeali, H., & Prahani, B.K. (2018). Development of multimedia learning-based inquiry on vibration and wave material. Journal
Physics: Conference Series, 997(1), 012029.
Moreno, R. (2010). Educational psychology. New Mexico. John Wiley & Sons.
Nieveen, N., McKenney, S., & van. Akker. (2007). Educational design research. New York: Routledge.
Opara, J.A., & Oguzor, N.S. (2011). Inquiry instructional method and the school science currículum. Current Research Journal of
Social Sciences, 3(3), 188-198.
Plomp, T. (2013). Preparing education for the information society: The need for new knowledge and skills. International Journal
of Social Media and Interactive Learning Environments, 1 (1), 3-18.
Prahani, B. K., Nur, M., Yuanita, L., & Limatahu, I. (2016). Validitas model pembelajaran group science learning: Pembelajaran
inovatif di Indonesia [Validity of learning model of group science learning: Innovative learning in indonesia]. Vidhya Karya,
31 (1), 72-80.
Prahani, B. K., Soegimin, W. W., & Yuanita, L. (2015). Pengembangan perangkat pembelajaran fisika model inkuiri terbimbing
untuk melatihkan keterampilan penyelesaian masalah berbasis multi representasi siswa SMA [The development of physics
learning model of inquiry model is guided to solve problem-solving skills based on multi representation of high school
students]. Jurnal Penelitian Pendidikan Sains, 4 (2), 503-517.
Prahani, B. K., Suprapto, N., Suliyanah, Lestari, N. A., Jauhariyah, M. N. R, Admoko, S., & Wahyuni, S. (2018). The effectiveness of
collaborative problem-based physics learning (CPBPL) model to improve student’s self-confidence on physics learning.
Journal Physics: Conference Series, 997 (1), 012008.
Prahani, B. K., Limatahu, I., Soegimin, W. W., Yuanita, L., & Nur, M. (2016). Effectiveness of physics learning material through
guided inquiry model to improve student’s problem-solving skills based on multiple representation. International Journal
of Education and Research, 4 (12), 231-244.
826
ISSN 2538–7138 /Online/ (P. 812-827)
Prayitno, B. A., Corebima, D., Susilo, H., Zubaidah, S., & Ramli, M. (2017). Closing the science process skills gap between students
with high and low-level academic achievement. Journal of Baltic Science Education, 16 (2), 266-277.
Purwaningsih, E., Suyatno, Wasis, & Prahani, B. K. (2018). The effectiveness of comcorels model to improve skills of creating physics
lesson plan (CPLP) for pre-service physics teacher. Journal Physics: Conference Series, 997 (1), 012022.
Riduwan. (2010). Skala pengukuran variabel-variabel penelitian [Measurement scale of research variables]. Bandung: Alfabeta.
Sevilla, C. G., Ochave, J. A., Punsalan, T. G., Regala, B. P., & Uriarte, G.G. (1984). An introduction to research methods. Quezon City:
Rex Printing Company.
Shubert, W. C., & Meredith, C. D. (2015). Stimulated recall responses for describing pragmatic epistemology. Physical Review
Physics Education Research, 11, 020138.
Slavin, R. E. (2011). Educational psychology, theory and practice. Boston: Pearson Education.
Stone, E. M. (2014). Guiding students to develop an understanding of scientiﬁc inquiry: A science skills approach to instruction
and assessment. CBE Life Science Education, 13, 90-101.
Sudiarman, Soegimin, W. W., & Susantini, E. (2015). Pengembangan perangkat pembelajaran fisika berbasis inkuiri terbimbing
untuk melatihkan keterampilan proses sains dan meningkatkan hasil belajar pada topik suhu dan perubahannya [Develop-
ment of physics-based inquiry-based learning tools to trace the skills of the science process and improve learning outcomes
on the topic of temperature and its changes]. Jurnal Penelitian Pendidikan Sains, 4 (2), 636-647.
Sukmadinata, N. S. (2013). Metode penelitian pendidikan [Education research methods]. Bandung: Remaja Rosdakarya.
Sunarti, T., Wasis, Madlazim, Suyidno, & Prahani, B. K. (2018). The effectiveness of CPI model to improve positive attitude toward
science (PATS) for pre-service physics teacher. Journal Physics: Conference Series, 997 (1), 012013.
Suprapto, N., Suliyanah, Prahani, B. K., Jauhariyah, M. N. R., & Admoko, S. (2018). Exploring physics concepts among novice teacher
through CMAP tools. Journal Physics: Conference Series, 997 (1), 012011
Susantini, E., Isnawati, & Lisdiana, L. (2016). Effectiveness of genetics student worksheet to improve creative thinking skills of
teacher candidate students. Journal of Science Education, 2 (17), 74-79.
Susantini, E., Lisdiana, L., Isnawati, Al Haq, A. T., & Trimulyono, G. (2017). Designing easy DNA extraction: Teaching creativity
through laboratory practice. Biochemistry and Molecular Biology Education, 45 (3), 216-225.
Suyidno, Nur, M., Yuanita, L., & Prahani, B.K. (2017). Validity of creative responsibility-based learning: An innovative physics
learning to prepare the generation of creative and responsibility. Journal of Research & Method in Education, 7 (1), 56-61.
Suyidno, Nur, M., Yuanita, L., Prahani, B. K., & Jatmiko, B. (2018). Effectiveness of creative responsibility- based teaching (CRBT)
model on basic physics learning to increase student’s scientific creativity and responsibility. Journal of Baltic Science Educa-
tion, 17 (1), 136-151.
Young, H. D., & Friedmen, R. A. (2012). Sears and Zemansky’s: University physics with modern physics. San Fransisco: Addison-Wesley.
Zakar, Z., & Baykara, H. (2014). Inquiry-based laboratory practices in a science teacher training program. Eurasia Journal of Math-
ematics, Science and Technology Education, 10 (2), 173-183.
Zeidan, A. F., & Jayosi, M. R. (2015). Science process skills and attitudes toward science among Palestinian. World Journal of
Education, 5 (1), 13-24.
Iqbal Limatahu Dr. Cand., Researcher, University of Khairun, Ternate, Jl. Pertamina,
Ternate 97719, Indonesia.
E-mail: iqbal.limatahu@unkhair.ac.id
Website: http://www.unkhair.ac.id
Wasis Doctor, Associate Professor, Postgraduate School, State University of
Surabaya, Jalan Ketintang, Surabaya 60231, Indonesia.
E-mail: wasis@unesa.ac.id
Website: http://pasca.unesa.ac.id
Suyatno Sutoyo Full Professor, Postgraduate School, State University of Surabaya,
Jalan Ketintang, Surabaya 60231, Indonesia.
E-mail: suyatno@unesa.ac.id
Website: http://pasca.unesa.ac.id
Binar Kurnia Prahani Doctor, Researcher, State Islamic University of Sunan Ampel, Jalan A.
(Corresponding author) Yani 117, Surabaya 60237, Indonesia.
E-mail: binarprahani@gmail.com
Website: http://www.uinsby.ac.id
827
TAKE-HOME-EXPERIMENT:
ENHANCING STUDENTS’
SCIENTIFIC ATTITUDE
Abstract. One classic problem in science Zulirfan,

education that is still happening today is Zanaton H. Iksan,
the lack of learners’ involvement in scientific
Kamisah Osman,
activity. This may lead to not instilling positive
scientific attitudes and the fostering of posi-
Sayyidah Nusaibah Mohd Salehudin
tive attitudes towards science is an important
aspect that could promote greater interest
towards science. The Take-Home-Experiment
strategy is an attempt to implement an
alternative strategy to ascertain whether its Introduction
implementation promotes a positive attitude
towards science among lower secondary The issue of scientific attitude is still much debated despite years of stud-
school students. A quasi-experimental design ies about it in the field of science education. This is due to its importance for
was used to determine the effect of the T-H-E the students who are learning science. Pitafi and Farooq (2012) pointed out
strategy on students’ scientific attitudes. A that scientific development is dependent on continuous scientific investiga-
total of 151 students in Form 2 from a lower tion. Therefore, students’ scientific attitude is important in determining their
secondary school at Pekanbaru Indonesia motivation and passion to do scientific research and in developing a profound
were divided into three groups: T-H-E group, interest to explore the natural phenomena in the universe.
Laboratory-Experimental group and Conven- There are two dimensions of attitude that need to be developed in learn-
tional group. The research used a questioning science. The first dimension is attitude towards science. This attitude refers
naire instrument on scientific attitude which to the students’ response after they learned science. According to Koballa and
consisted of 31 items with a Cronbach Glynn (2007), attitude towards science refers to a positive or negative emotion
alpha reliability index of 0.68. The result of towards science. Meanwhile the OECD (2017) stated that attitude towards
a one-way ANOVA shows that there was a science refers to interest in science and technology, environmental awareness
significant difference in scientific attitude of and valuing scientific approaches to inquiry. This means that students who
students among these 3 groups. The mean are scientific literate will have a positive attitude towards science, a concern
score (mean = 3.21) for scientific attitude of about the environment and will lead an environmentally sustainable way of
the T-H-E group was higher compared to both life appreciating the scientific approach to inquiry. Scientific literate students
the laboratory-experimental group (mean = (or learners) do not only focus on the inquiry process in investigating about
3.07) and the conventional group (mean = nature, but they also focus on reading and writing science related text, as
2.91). This research found that the use of the both reading and writing of science texts are important to articulate science
Take-Home-Experiment strategy in teaching in the form of text that produces science knowledge (Webb, 2009). Many
science has the potential to enhance lower researchers have argued for the importance of reading and writing science
secondary school students’ scientific attitude. related investigations in order to increase scientific literacy (Yore, Pimm, &
Keywords: scientific approach, teaching Tuan, 2007; Pearson, Moje, & Greenleaf, 2010; Webb, 2010).
science, scientific attitude, Take-Home- The second dimension is the scientific attitude. This attitude is directly
Experiment. related to someone’s disposition towards scientific research or activity. In
other words, it is the inclination to value empirical evidence as the basis of
belief on science (OECD, 2017). It also refers to the required attitude in one’s
Zulirfan effort to explore or understand natural phenomenon. According to Osman,
University of Riau, Indonesia
Zanaton H. Iksan, Kamisah Osman, Iksan, & Halim (2007), scientific attitude can support scientific learning and
Sayyidah Nusaibah Mohd Salehudin enhance the performance of scientific activity. Gokul and Malliga (2015)
National University of Malaysia, Malaysia mentioned that scientific attitude is the most important outcome in science
teaching and it is equally important as the scientific knowledge. Furthermore,
828
ISSN 1648–3898 /Print/ TAKE-HOME-EXPERIMENT: ENHANCING STUDENTS’ SCIENTIFIC ATTITUDE
(P. 828-837)
they posit that in the era of science and technology, children’s scientific knowledge is a necessity and as such it is
important to promote positive attitudes towards science in order that children are more positive and interested
towards science. Kaur (2013) also added that scientific attitude is the ‘scientific spirit’, which will produce an indi-
vidual that is rational, objective and that can think logically.
Scientific Attitude in Science Education
According to experts, there are a few constructs in scientific attitude from the previous studies. Scientific at-
titude consists of wanting to know more (curiosity), to be honest and exact in recording and verify data (respect
for evidence), to be open minded (willingness to change ideas), and to be able to ask critical question by means
of critical thinking (critical reflection) (Harlen, 1991; Pitafi & Farooq, 2012; Kaur, 2013; Osman, Halim, & Iksan, 2003;
Osman, Iksan, & Halim, 2007; Suryawati & Osman, 2018). Meanwhile Osman et al. (2007) and Pitafi and Farooq (2012)
added suspended judgement and objectivity as additional constructs related to scientific attitude. Kaur (2013) and
Pitafi and Farooq (2012) also included rationality as an important construct linked to scientific attitude. In addi-
tion, Pitafi and Farooq (2012) also added humility under the category of attitude that should belong to scientists.
It appears that the effective ways to promote scientific attitude among students seems to be methods or
activities that involve a hands-on approach, i.e. students that are actively involved in scientific activities. Thus in
teaching science, teachers must bring forward teaching methods based on the scientific inquiry approach, for
example the experimental method. Ergül, Şımşeklı, Çaliş, Özdılek, Göçmençelebı and Şanli (2011) found out that
students’ hands-on activity in teaching based on inquiry approach promoted scientific attitude and scientific pro-
cessing skill, thus contribute positively towards the academic performance, scientific literacy, and attitude towards
science. Trumper (2002) also mentioned that learning science cannot be done without practical activities or field
work. Meanwhile, Wahyuni, Indrawati, Sudarti, and Suana (2017) argued that science learning will be meaningful
if investigation and experiment activities actively engage students and the activities are directly related to the
learning resources.
It seems that many, if not the majority of science teachers, emphasize learning outcome about the knowledge
aspect only. For that, the lecture method has become the main choice of instruction, because it is considered as
an easy and fast way to spread scientific knowledge. Scientific attitude will be difficult to be built up with this ver-
balistic approach. Through this method, students are instructed to understand and memorize scientific concepts
(Mallya, Mensah, Contento, Koch, & Barton, 2012; Suyana, 2011) which do not necessarily result in conceptual
understanding. Furthermore, the lecture method is only considering the first two tiers of the revised Blooms’ Tax-
onomy, which caters for the lower order thinking skills (Anderson, Krathwohl, Airasian, Cruikshank, Mayer, Pintrich,
Raths, & Wittrock, 2001), whilst, the main aim of science teaching is to develop students’ higher order thinking
(Saido, Siraj, Nordin, & Al-Amedy, 2015).
Take-Home-Experiment (T-H-E)
There are many factors why science teachers refuse to apply the experimental method in their teaching. Previ-
ous studies showed that teachers faced some difficulties such as no science laboratory available and if the school
does have one, it is shared by many classes. In addition, many science laboratories lack apparatus and materials to do
experiment as well as it is time consuming (Sumintono, Ibrahim, & Fatin, 2010, Norlander-Case, Campbell, Reagan, &
Case, 1998, Hazrulrizawati, 2007, Yennita, Mugi Sukmawati, & Zulirfan, 2012). Therefore, in this study the researcher
designed an alternative strategy to overcome those difficulties. The Take-Home-Experiment (T-H-E) strategy is built
to engage students in scientific activities and familiarize them with experiments. This strategy is expected to assist
in overcoming the limitation of the absence of the science laboratory and also the time constraints. According to
Zulirfan, Subahan, and Zanaton, (2013), not all levels of scientific inquiry must be learnt in the classroom or science
laboratory setting, as some parts of the experiment or investigation can be performed by the students at home
especially those which are not complicated and dangerous to do.
Several independent studies have inspired us in establishing the Take-Home-Experiment strategy for teaching
science in lower secondary schools. Turner and Parisi, (2008) have reviewed Take-Home-Experiments for physics
teaching for the first-year students on campus and distance teaching. However, this strategy is for adult learners
and the size of the experiment kit used is relatively large. Zimmerman (2012) has also conducted a qualitative
study of students’ involvement in in-home observational inquiry activities. Meanwhile, Gendjova (2007) has con-
829
(P. 828-837)
ducted a study on the influence of a chemistry-home-experiment to enhance the interest of students in chemistry.
Similarly, many books mentioned about scientific activities at home, especially science in the kitchen. However,
studies have not yet shown explicitly how the integration of scientific activity in the classroom goes with scientific
activities at home.
To apply the T-H-E strategy, the teachers or schools must prepare a Take-Home-Experiment Kit. The T-H-E kit
is designed to be small and flexible, so it is easy to carry inside a school bag. Besides the kit, the students’ learning
module and teaching module need to be developed as a guide for the experiment carried out at home. The strat-
egy should be thoroughly planned to include the scientific inquiry; starting from collaborative pre-investigation
in class, experiment at home, and finally, the post-investigation discussion at school again. These three activities
form a cycle as shown in Figure 1.
Figure 1. Inquiry cycle of the Take-Home-Experiment activity.
Scientific attitude is the most important aspect as focus during the experiment, as without a positive scientific
attitude, a student tends to be only a memorizer of science concepts. In addition, a lack of a positive science attitude
might also lead to a tendency to try to solve the problems of science according to the textbook, regardless of the
behaviour of the natural surroundings that become the context of their science lessons. The researchers expect
the Take-Home-Experiment strategy will engage students in the scientific investigation activities. This will have
a positive impact on improving students’ scientific skills and attitudes. Therefore, the research aimed to identify
the effect of Take-Home-Experiment strategy towards scientific approach of lower secondary school students. As
comparisons, the researcher used a Laboratory-Experimental method and a conventional science teaching method
to examine the effectiveness of the T-H-E.
General Background
This research was conducted starting from developing the T-H-E modules of teaching and learning and the
T-H-E kit. Light and optics topic was chosen in order to identify the effects of Take-Home-Experiment strategy
towards enhancing scientific attitude. In these topics, the students were instructed to discover the features like
propagation of light, reflection of light, refraction of light, and benefits of light in optical tools. Most of the concepts
related to light and optics can be learned by the means of an experiment as an activity.
830
(P. 828-837)
Sample
In the research, non-equivalent control group research design was used to identify the effect of the indepen-
dent variable towards the dependent variable. As a preliminary study, a total of 151 students from lower second-
ary school in Pekanbaru, Riau in Indonesia were chosen as participants in this research. They were divided into
three groups: Take-Home-Experiment (T-H-E), Laboratory-Experimental (LEM), and Conventional Science Teaching
method (CST) group.
Non-equivalent pre-test and post-test control group design had been used to identify the effect of the inde-
pendent variables on the dependent variable. The design is shown in Figure 2.
Figure 2. Research design.
According to Figure 2, the T-H-E group is the experimental group, whereas LEM and CST groups are the control
group. Each intervention group was given the same pre-test and post-test.
In each group, students learn science in different ways. Students in the CST group learn science through the
lecture method followed by an experimental method at the last meeting to verify the concept of science that had
just been studied. In the conventional science teaching method, scientific experiments were done only in order to
prove the science concepts explained by the teachers in previous learning sessions in class. Students in the LEM
and T-H-E group learned science through inquiry approach. In the LEM group, the students do all three stages of
inquiry that are the pre-investigation, investigation and post-investigation in a science learning session at the school
laboratory collaboratively and under the instruction of teachers as the usual practice. When doing this scientific
activity, students were given suitable activity spread sheet according to the experiment topics. The tools and
materials for the experiments are those which are readily available in the science laboratory. During this method,
students construct their science concepts throughout the experiment. During the T-H-E method, students do not
only engage with the scientific activity in the classroom or laboratory, as some of the inquiry activities are held at
home. For the pre-investigation stage of the T-H-E method, the students carry out the activity collaboratively in
class under the teachers’ guidance. During the investigation stage, the students do the experiment at home. The
post investigation stage requires that students work in class collaboratively under the instruction and guidance
by the science teachers. In order to ensure that all the three stages run smoothly, the Take-Home-Experiment kit
and module of teaching and learning is required.
To collect the data, scientific attitude questionnaire for lower secondary school students was used. Although
there were other available scientific attitudes instruments (SAI) (Moore & Hill, 1997; Yasar & Anagun, 2009; Pitafi &
Farooq, 2012), this study used the specifically developed instrument by Zulirfan, Subahan, & Zanaton, (2015). The
researcher designed this scientific attitude instrument based on eight sub constructs of scientific attitude as it is
more suitable with the local context such as language and local settings. The eight sub constructs are curiosity,
respect for evidence, willingness to change ideas, critical reflection, suspended judgement, objectivity, rationality,
and humility. The instrument has been validated by three experts who are doctors in the field of science education
and it has gone through the reliability test. The reliability test showed that this instrument has a Cronbach alpha.68.
This value is considered acceptable (Chua, 2006; Nunally & Bernstein, 1994).
831
(P. 828-837)
Data Analysis

The participants in each group were asked to fill in the scientific attitude questionnaire before and after each
intervention were carried out. Effect of the intervention was identified based on the change in mean score of pre
and post scientific attitude. Descriptive analysis and one-way-ANOVA were used to identify the effect of such inter-
vention. In this research, the researchers did not consider gender and other demographic factors. We are focusing
on the effects of the Take-Home-Experiment towards students’ scientific attitude in general.
Results of Research
Result of descriptive analysis on scientific attitude data for each group is shown in Table 1.
Table 1. Result of descriptive analysis on scientific attitude data.
T-H-E LEM CST

Item
Pre Post Pre Post Pre Post
N 51 51 53 53 51 51
Mean 2.86 3.21 2.88 3.07 2.85 2.91
Standard deviation 0.29 0.25 0.24 0.26 0.22 0.21
Minimum 2.10 2.70 2.20 2.40 2.40 2.50
Maximum 3.60 3.80 3.40 3.50 3.30 3.50
Table 1 shows that the mean scores of students’ scientific attitude before the intervention is quite similar,
between 2.85 – 2.88. This value means the respondents had scientific attitude before intervention, although it is
not satisfactory yet. The respondents’ scientific attitude in each group had the same trends. After the intervention,
there was an increase in the mean score of scientific data for all groups. This explains that the intervention given
to each group gives positive effect towards students’ scientific attitude in general.
The scientific attitude data for post intervention showed the mean score of the T-H-E group is higher than LEM
group, while the mean score of the LEM group is higher than CST group. With the assumption that respondents’
scientific attitude for all groups is the same before the intervention, thus based on Table 1, it can be concluded that
Take-Home-Experiment gives a better effect than Laboratory-Experiment and Laboratory-Experiment method has
a better effect than conventional science teaching method.
Levene’s test for the score of scientific attitude before intervention has identified that the variances of the three
groups were equal, F (2,152) =1.305, p>.05. Due to that, a further ANOVA test was carried out to find out whether
there is a difference in mean score for students’ scientific attitude data before the intervention. The one-way ANOVA
result test for students’ scientific attitude for the three groups is shown in Table 2.
Table 2. ANOVA test result on scientific attitude before the intervention.
Mean Square
Sum of Squares df F p
Between groups 0.014 2 .007 0.112 .895

Score for pre-scientific
attitude
Total 9.577 154
The ANOVA test in Table 2 showed F (2,152) =0.112, p>.05 which suggested that there was no significant dif-
ference in students’ scientific attitude in the three groups before intervention. This result implied that all groups
had equal level of scientific attitude before the intervention. In order to know the effect of intervention given to
all groups, paired sample t-test was carried out. The significant change in score of scientific attitude was obtained
by comparing the pre and post score. The result of the t-test for pre and post test is explained in Table 3.
832
(P. 828-837)
Table 3. Findings on t-test of scientific attitude before and after intervention.
Mean difference
Pair t df p
Standard
Mean
Deviation
Pair 1 Pre T-H-E – Post T-H-E -.354 .358 -7.065 50 .0001
Pair 2 Pre LEM –Post LEM -.162 .286 -4.144 52 .0001
Based on Table 3, the t-test for the mean score of the pre and post scientific attitude for each group showed
that there was a significant difference in the mean score for scientific attitude between the pre and post of T-H-E
group, t (50) =-7.065, p<.001 and LEM group, t (52) = -4.144, p<.001. Meanwhile, for the conventional learning
group, the t-test showed that there was no significant difference between the pre and post of scientific attitude,
t (50) = -1.586, p>0.05. Looking at the mean score increment, the T-H-E group (ΔM=.354) had a higher increment
of scientific attitude mean score than the LEM group (ΔM=.162). Although it is not significant, students’ scientific
attitude in the CST group experienced a slight increase (ΔM=.053).
The one-way ANOVA test for the mean score of the post scientific attitude was used to determine the effect
of independent variable, in this study it was the Take-Home-Experiment. The dependent variable in this study was
scientific attitude. Before this, the Levene test had determined that the score variances of the three groups were
equal, F (2,152) =1.122, p>.05. The result of the ANOVA test for the post-score of the students’ scientific attitude is
presented in Table 4.
Table 4. Findings on t-test of scientific attitude before and after intervention.
Sum of Mean square

df
squares
Between groups 2.376 2 1.188 19.674 .0001

Post score scien-
tific attitude
Total 11.552 154
The ANOVA test for the score of post scientific attitude between groups was F (2,152) =19,674, p<.001. This
finding shows that there was a significant difference of the students’ scientific attitude between the three groups
after the intervention. Meanwhile, the post-hoc test that was carried out showed that there was a significant level
of difference for post scientific attitude mean score between the three groups as presented in Table 5.
Table 5. Scheffe post hoc test difference of mean score for scientific attitude between groups after interven-
tion.
(I)
(J) Mean difference Sig.
Dependent variable Group Standard error
Group (I-J) (2-tailed)
LEM 0.141 .048 .0110

T-H-E
CST 0.305 .049 .0001
T-H-E -0.141 .048 .0110
Post score scientific attitude LEM
CST 0.164 .048 .0020
T-H-E -0.305 .049 .0001
CST
LEM -0.164 .048 .0020
833
(P. 828-837)
The post hoc test in Table 5 shows that students’ scientific attitudes in the three groups after the intervention
were different from each other. The mean score of the students’ scientific attitude of the T-H-E group was higher
than the other two groups. Meanwhile, the mean score of students’ scientific attitude of LEM group was higher
than the CST group. The difference of the mean score for the three groups differed significantly. This indicates that
the interventions given to each group have had different effects on students’ scientific attitudes.
Discussion
The t-test analysis showed that there was a significant increase of students’ scientific attitude after the learning
session was carried out, whether it is learning with utilizing the Take-Home-Experiment strategy or the Laboratory
experiment method. Both learning methods provided an opportunity for students to develop their scientific attitude
through scientific activities at science laboratory or at their own homes. In both strategies, the students became ac-
customed to the scientific activities to broaden their scientific attitude. Meanwhile in conventional science teaching,
students did not receive ample time to familiarize with scientific activities, as they received more explanations from
the teachers than through activities of knowing the scientific concepts.
The findings from the ANOVA and Scheffe post hoc test suggested that science learning with the Take-Home-
Experiment has had a greater effect than the Laboratory experiment method in promoting positive science attitudes
among students. Through the T-H-E, scientific experiments can be carried out by the students repeatedly, in their own
time, at the place that is convenient for them that would make the students feel more comfortable to discover the
scientific knowledge and expand their curiosity. A study by Gendjova (2007) supported this finding that students do-
ing home experimental activities (in chemistry) showed strong interest in chemistry and their academic performance
was increased, thus lead to the positive attitude towards science. Gendjova (2007) also pointed out that students in
general do not face difficulties in doing the experiments but feel more confident in handling and managing their own
experimental activities. The trust given by the teachers to students in carrying out experiment at home gradually will
produce independent students. Therefore, in addition to enhancing scientific attitude, the T-H-E might also help to
increase academic performance and at the same time grow independent young scientists.
Scientific attitude of the T-H-E group was better than other groups and this can possibly be contributed by
the fact that the Take-Home-Experiment strategy tries to encourage greater participation from the students in their
scientific investigation, as the greater part of the experiment was done individually by the students at home. From
formulating the hypothesis to discussing the research findings, students’ scientific attitude such as open mindedness,
objectiveness, critical thinking, rationality and humility had successfully been developed. Hudson (2001) argued that it
is important to promote student involvement in scientific research and to develop their problem solving skills (Hassan
& Rahman, 2017; Syafii, & Yasin, 2013; Syukri, Soewarno, Halim & Mohtar 2018). The T-H-E strategy allowed students to
be fully involved in the experiment by doing it at home. While doing the experiment, they might face some problems
or difficulties. By overcoming these problems, the students slowly develop their problem solving skills.
Thomson and Bennett (2011) discovered that higher level of motivation, excitement and future orientation
towards science can be found in classrooms where students report steps of interaction, hands-on activities and ap-
plication in science are frequently done. These are all the elements that students indirectly experience when doing
experiment at home through the T-H-E method. The greater participation in the experimental activity through the
T-H-E method seems to enhance the students’ motivation to learn science through conducting an experiment, thus
developing students with greater scientific attitude.
The findings related to the Laboratory-Experimental method that was also used, also suggest that this method
had a more positive effect than the conventional science teaching method in establishing a positive scientific attitude
among students. Basically, students already have the innate feeling such as curiosity which is one of the scientific
attitudes that need to be fostered. Thus, it is not a surprise that the students enjoyed scientific experiments so much.
Through experiments in the laboratory, the students have had the chance to observe directly, use tools and materi-
als, collect data and come up with a conclusion. Tobin (1990) suggested that meaningful learning is possible in the
laboratory when the students are given the opportunity to manipulate the tools and materials in order that they can
develop their knowledge on phenomena and scientific concepts. By discovering these concepts on their own, they
feel like they are scientists. However, such attitude is not always at optimal level due to certain constrains such as lack
of apparatus and time to perform experiments in the laboratory. To optimize scientific attitude, there is thus a need
for direct involvement of the students in conducting experiments and this can be achieved through the implementa-
tion of the Take-Home-Experiment.
834
(P. 828-837)
There are similarities between both the laboratory-experimental method and the Take-Home-Experiment strat-
egy in building up students’ scientific attitude. Both of these approaches stimulated curiosity by introducing to them
the problem or phenomenon that need to be investigated. Their curiosity could lead them to try hard to learn new
things. Curiosity is a powerful feeling as it will expose the students to new experience (Harlen, 1991). Their curiosity
could spark intrigue that will lead them to ask questions (Harlen, 1991) and raise their desire to know about the thing
that they are curious, thus motivate them to investigate (Pitafi & Farooq, 2012).
Before doing the experiment, students were required to formulate a hypothesis based on the given problems.
Students were encouraged to try to come up with their own temporary answer towards the identified problem. In
doing this, they were advised that their hypothesis does not have to be completely true and thus it must be tested
through experiment. Such attitude is related to rationality and open mindedness; being open to the changes in the
way of thinking based on the available evidence (Pitafi & Farooq, 2012; Harlen, 1991). Then, by doing the next step
of preparing the tools and materials and conducting the experiment was the proof of their desire to find evidence
rationally and not based on opinion or myth. By doing the experiments step by step, students’ scientific attitudes such
as curiosity, rationality, open mindedness, honesty, critical thinking and objectiveness were developed.
After conducting the experiment, students need to record the data in an observation table. This activity fosters sci-
entific attitude related to honesty associated with data recording and verification. During the data collection, the students
were trained to report data according to the finding although it did not fit the hypothesis that they made previously.
Such attitude is related to the honesty in reporting data according to the observation (Harlen, 1991; Osman et al., 2007).
Based on the recorded data, students had to make inferences. Before making inference, students are trained
to consider all data until a decision has been made based on evidence. In doing so, the students were encouraged
to be confident in making the tentative conclusion. Osman et al. (2007), Pitafi and Farooq (2012) and other experts
referred to such attitude as suspended judgement. Besides suspended judgment, the students can be trained to act
objectively by conducting experiments (Pitafi & Farooq, 2012; Kaur, 2013; Osman et al., 2007). From formulating the
hypothesis to discussing the research findings, students’ scientific attitude such as open mindedness, objectiveness,
critical thinking, rationality and humility had successfully been developed.
On the other hand, the conventional science method did not show any increase towards a positive scientific
attitude. Compared to the other two strategies reported in this research project, the conventional science method
required that the experimental activity was conducted at the end of the learning session with the intention to prove
concepts that have been taught by the teacher(s) in earlier learning sessions. Ahmad, Osman and Halim (2010) argued
that practical activity that was done at the laboratory to verify theories and carried out at an assigned level in the lesson
plan did not give freedom to the students to generate and voice their own opinion. As a result, the students do not
think of the experiment as a need, but only as an additional part of the teaching. Hart, et al. (2000) supported this by
stating that although an experiment in the laboratory provides some benefits, there is not much mental involvement
throughout the process. Therefore, conventional science teaching that places experiments at the end aimed just to
prove the concept or theory, hence it does not foster curiousity in students, rather, it discourages students scientific
attitude development.
Conclusions
The finding showed that lower secondary school students’ scientific attitude can be enhanced through the imple-
mentation of the Take-Home-Experiment (T-H-E) strategy, as well as by utilising the laboratory experimental learning.
This can be attributed to the notion that both strategies involve students’ direct participation in the experimental
activity to discover science concepts. The students’ eagerness to discover and be familiar with scientific activities
provided them with an opportunity to enhance their scientific attitude. However, if both methods are compared,
the Take-Home-Experiment strategy appears to be more suitable to promote scientific attitude than the laboratory
experimental method. The Take-Home-Experiment method provided more freedom for students to carry out their
scientific activities. In addition, the students felt that the assigned experiment was an experiment that they could
conduct themselves and hence it appears that it promoted ownership.
This study showed that scientific attitude among students of lower secondary schools in Pekanbaru, Indonesia
can be strengthened through the implementation of the Take-Home-Experiment strategy. Thus, science teachers
should consider this strategy as an alternative for teaching science. The government should promote this scientific
enquiry learning method, as it not only seems to promote students’ involvement in scientific activities, but also results
in promoting a positive scientific attitude.
835
(P. 828-837)
In addition, the Take-Home-Experiment strategy allowed students to be involved in relatively inexpensive sci-
entific activities. Thus, it can be used to help students and teachers in schools that do not have science laboratory or
lack of science experimental equipment. Therefore, the Take-Home-Experiment strategy could help to reduce quality
disparities in science education, especially for marginalized and remote schools. This strategy provided an alternative
for the teacher and give ample opportunity for students from all walks of life to do experiments. This strategy is a small
effort to respond to the call by Du Plessis (2018’, p. 185) who firmly stated that not only “Our education should and
must promote social justice”, but at the same time considering alternative ways to promote science teaching, hence
becoming agents of change. As such, the T-H-E strategy appears to resonate with Du Plessis’ (2018) call and seems to
have had a positive impact on the participants’ science attitude.
References
Ahmad, C. N. C., Osman, K., & Halim, L. (2010). Hubungan ramalan persekitaran pembelajaran makmal sains dengan tahap
kepuasan pelajar [Predictive relationship between sience laboratory learning environment and level of students’ satisfac-
tion]. Jurnal Pendidikan Malaysia, 35 (2), 19-30.
Anderson, L. W., Krathwohl, D. R., Airasian, P. W., Cruikshank, K. A., Mayer, R. E., Pintrich, P. R., Raths, J., & Wittrock, M. C. (2001). A
taxonomy for learning, teaching, and assessing: A revision of Bloom’s Taxonomy of Educational Objectives (Complete edition).
New York: Longman.
Chua, Y. P. (2006). Kaedah and Statistik Penyelidikan, Asas Statistik Penyelidikan [Methods and statistics research, basic research
statistics]. Buku 2. Kuala Lumpur, Malaysia: McGraw-Hill Sdn. Bhd.
Du Plessis, A. (2018). Science Education in schools and at tertiary level: Status quo or embracing change? Journal of Baltic Science
Education, 17 (2), 183-186.
Ergül, R., Şımşeklı, Y., Çaliş, S., Özdılek, Z., Göçmençelebı, Ş., & Şanli, M. (2011). The effects of inquiry-based science teaching on
elementary school students ‘science process skills and science attitudes. Bulgarian Journal of Science & Education Policy
(BJSEP), 5 (1), 48-68.
Gendjova, A. (2007). Enhancing students’ interest in chemistry by home experiment. Journal of Baltic Science Education, 6 (3), 5-15.
Gokul, R. R., & Malliga, T. (2015). A study on scientific attitude among pre-service teachers. Research Journal of Recent Sciences,
4, 196-198.
Harlen, W. (1991). The teaching of science. London: David Fulton Publisher.
Hart, J. C, Mulhall, P., Berry, A., Loughran, J., & Gunstone, R. (2000). What is the purpose of this experiment? Or can students learn
something from doing experiments? Journal of Research in Science Teaching, 37 (7), 655–675.
Hassan, N. M., & Rahman, S. (2017). Problem solving skills, metacognitive awareness, and mathematics achievement: A mediation
model. New Educational Review, 49 (3), 201-212.
Hazrulrizawati A. H. (2007). Perbandingan tahap penguasaan kemahiran proses sains and cara penglibatan pelajar dalam kaedah
amali tradisional dengan kaedah makmal mikro computer [Comparison of the level of science process skills and the methods
of student’s engagement in traditional practical methods with computer micro-labs] (master’s thesis). Universiti Teknologi
Malaysia, Johor, Malaysia.
Hodson, D. (2001). What counts as good science education? In D. Hodson (Ed.), OISE papers in the STSE education, Volume 2:1–21.
Toronto: OISE.
Kaur, M. G. (2013). Scientific in relation to critical thinking among teachers. Educationia Confab, 2 (8), 24-29.
Koballa, J. T. R., & Glynn, S.M. (2007). Attitudinal and motivational constructs in science learning. In S. K. Abell & N. G. Lederman
(Eds.), Handbook of research on science education. London: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates.
Mallya, A., Mensah, F. M., Contento, I. R., Koch, P. A., & Barton, A. C. (2012). Extending science beyond the classroom door: Learning
from students’ experiences with the choice, control and change (C3) curriculum. Journal of Research in Science Teaching,
49 (2), 244–269.
Moore, R. W., & Hill, F. R. L., (1997). The scientific attitude inventory: A revision (SAI II). Journal of Research in Science Teaching, 34
(4), 327–336.
Norlander-Case, K. A., Campbell P., Reagan T. G., & Case C. W. (1998). The role of collaborative inquiry and reflective practice in
teacher preparation. The Professional Educator, 21, 1–16.
Nunally, J. C., & Bernstein, I. H. (1994). Psychometric theory (3rd Ed.). New York: McGraw Hill.
OECD (2017), PISA 2015 Assessment and analytical framework: Science, reading, mathematic, financial literacy and collaborative
problem solving. Paris: OECD Publishing. doi: 10.1787/9789264281820.
Osman, K., Halim, L., & Ikhsan, Z. H. (2003). The critical thinking attitudinal profile of some Malaysian secondary students: A reflec-
tion of scientific attitudes. Journal of Science and Mathematics Education in Southeast Asia, 26 (2), 143-166.
Osman, K., Iksan, Z. H., & Halim, L. (2007). Sikap terhadap sains and sikap saintifik di kalangan pelajar sains [Attitudes towards
science and scientific attitudes among students in science]. Jurnal Pendidikan, 32, 39-60.
Pearson, P. D., Moje, E. B., & Greenleaf, C. (2010). Literacy and science: Each in the service of the other. Science, 328, 459-463.
Pitafi. A. I., & Farooq. M. (2012). Measurement of scientific attitude of secondary school students in Pakistan. Academic Research
International, 2 (2), 379-392.
Saido, G. M., Siraj, S., Nordin, A. B., & Al-Amedy, O. S. (2015). Higher order thinking skills among secondary school students in
836
(P. 828-837)
science learning. The Malaysian Online Journal of Educational Science, 3 (3), 13 – 20. Retrieved from https://files.eric.ed.gov/
fulltext/EJ1085914.pdf.
Sumintono, B., Ibrahim, M. A., & Fatin, A. P. (2010). Pengajaran sains dengan praktikum laboratorium: Perspektif dari guru-guru
sains SMPN di Kota Cimahi [Teaching science through laboratory practice: The perspectives of junior high school science
teachers in Cimahi City]. Jurnal Pengajaran MIPA, 15 (2), 120-127.
Suryawati, E., & Osman, K. (2018). Contextual learning: Innovative approach towards the development of students’ scientific
attitude and natural science performance. Eurasia Journal of Mathematics, Science and Technology Education, 14 (1), 61-76.
Suyana, I. (2011). Kemampuan dalam mendeskripsikan hubungan antara konsep fisika pelajar SMP dalam pembelajaran berba-
sis free inquiry dalam upaya meningkatkan kemampuan generik sains [Ability to describe relationship between physics
concept of junior high school student in free inquiry based learning in order to improve science generic ability]. Jurnal
Pengajaran MIPA, 16 (1), 37-44.
Syafii, W., & Yasin, R. M. (2013). Problem solving skills and learning achievements through problem-based module in teaching
and learning biology in high school. Asian Social Science, 9 (12), 220-228.
Syukri, M., Halim, L., Mohtar, L. E., & Soewarno, S. (2018). The impact of engineering design process in teaching and learning to
enhance students’ science problem-solving skills. Jurnal Pendidikan IPA Indonesia, 7 (1), 66-75.
Thomson, G. H., & Bennett, J. (2011). Science teaching and learning activities and students’ engagement in science. International
Thurstone, L. L. (1959). The measurement of attitude: A psycho-social method and some experiments. Chicago: University of Chicago.
Tobin, K. (1990). Research on science laboratory activities: In pursuit of better questions and answers to improve learning. School
Science and Mathematics, 90, 403-418.
Trumper, R. (2002). What do we expect from students’ physics laboratory experiments? Journal of Science Education and Technol-
ogy, 11 (3), 221-227.
Turner, J., & Parisi, A. (2008). A take-home physics experiment kit for on-campus and off campus students. Journal of Teaching
Science, 54 (2), 20-23.
Wahyuni, S., Indrawati, I., Sudarti, S., & Suana, W. (2017). Developing science process skills and problem solving abilities based
on outdoor learning in junior high school. Jurnal Pendidikan IPA Indonesia, 6 (1), 165-169.
Walker, J., Halliday, D., & Resnick, R. (2008). Fundamentals of physics. Hoboken, NJ: Wiley.
Webb, P. (2010). Science education and literacy: Imperatives for the developed and developing world. Science, 328 (5977), 448 - 450.
Webb, P. (2009). Towards an integrated learning strategies approach to promoting scientific literacy in the South African context.
International Journal of Environmental & Science Education, 4 (3), 313-334.
Yasar, S., & Anagun, S. S. (2009). Reliability and validity studies of the science and technology course scientific attitude scale.
Journal of Turkish Science Education, 6 (2), 43-54.
Yennita, Mugi Sukmawati., & Zulirfan. (2012). Hambatan pelaksanaan praktikum yang dihadapi guru SMP Negeri di Kota Pekanbaru
[Barriers of practical implementation faced by the teachers of junior high schools in Pekanbaru]. Jurnal Pendidikan, 3 (1), 1-8.
Yore, L. D., Pimm, D., & Tuan, H. L. (Eds.). (2007). Language-An end and a means to mathematical literacy and scientific literacy
[Special issue]. International Journal of Science and Mathematics Education, 5 (4), 557–769.
Zimmerman, H, T. (2012). Participating in science at home: Recognition work and learning in Biology. Journal of Research in Sci-
ence Teaching, 49 (5), 597-630.
Zulirfan, Subahan. T. M. M., & Zanaton. H. I. (2013). Early study in developing take-home physics experiment: An alternative
strategy to improve science process skills and scientific attitudes. Prosiding Seminar Serantau UKM-Unri, (6), 1276-1286.
Zulirfan, Subahan, T. M. M., & Zanaton. H. I. (2015). The development of scientific attitudes instrument for junior high school
students. Prosiding Seminar Serantau UKM-UNRI, (7), 1058-1076.
Received: May 04, 2018 Accepted: September 19, 2018
Zulirfan Ph.D, Faculty of Teacher Training and Education, University of Riau,

Indonesia.
E-mail: zirfanaziz69@gmail.com
Zanaton H. Iksan Ph.D, Senior Lecturer, Faculty of Education, National University of
Malaysia, 43600 Bangi, Selangor, Malaysia.
E-mail: zanaton.iksan@ukm.edu.my
Kamisah Osman Professor, Faculty of Education, National University of Malaysia, 43600
Bangi, Selangor, Malaysia.
E-mail: kamisah@ukm.edu.my
Sayyidah Nusaibah Mohd M.Ed, Faculty of Education, National University of Malaysia, 43600 Bangi,
Salehudin Selangor, Malaysia.
E-mail: nusayba77@gmail.com
837
GRADE 12 STUDENTS’
PERCEIVED SELF-EFFICACY
TOWARDS WORKING LIFE
SKILLS AND CURRICULUM
CONTENT PROMOTED THROUGH
SCIENCE EDUCATION
Abstract. This research was based on the Regina Soobard,

concern that students didn’t see the need for
Helen Semilarski,
the acquisition of science skills and knowl-
edge perceived as important in relation
Jack Holbrook,
to different society issues and the world of Miia Rannikmäe
work. The aim was to determine gymnasium
students perceived self-efficacy towards
working life skills as well as science curricu-
lum, content-related topics. The sample was Introduction
composed of grade 12 (N=1375) 18-19-year-
old students. Data were obtained using a Today, citizens need to be able to resolve different society issues, which
4-point Likert scale questionnaire seeking to have a strong scientific content (e.g. persistent poverty, lack of energy sup-
determine students’ perceived self-efficacy ply, global climate change, and environmental degradation). Dealing with
towards working life skills and topics in the such issues requires the involvement of personnel able to handle complex
science curriculum linked to disciplinary core problem-solving situations, able to communicate effectively as well as
ideas. In general, students perceived their prepared to work in dynamic teams seeking solutions using increasingly
self-efficacy to be above average towards developing technology and new knowledge (Griffin, McGaw, & Care, 2012;
most needed working life skills. However, it Rotherham & Willingham, 2009). This suggest citizens need to possess a high
was much lower in areas related to problem- level of life skills.
solving skills and understanding the nature To achieve a high level of life skills, school science lessons are expected
of science. Results also indicated that the to enable students to develop attributes beyond subject-related content
self-efficacy associated with purely Physics knowledge and associated operational skills and to acquire wider transdisci-
curriculum-related topics stood out as being plinary competences valued in their everyday life (DeBoer, 2011). The gaining
much lower than for the other school science of such competences is aided by the promotion of students’ self-efficacy.
subject areas. Findings suggested there According to Bandura (1986), people who have high self-efficacy are more
was a need to re-thinking the way science likely to view difficult tasks as something to be mastered rather than some-
content was presented to students and to thing to be avoided. This self-efficacy also appears to be positively related to
consider whether and how this could be academic motivation, learning and achievement and often independent of
restructured around core ideas in science actual capabilities (Pajares, 1996). Students’ engagement with science educa-
in order to promote the development of tion is shaped by their thinking about themselves (what they think they are
problem-solving skills as an important good at, their attitudes towards science and towards science-related activi-
aspect in enhancing working life skills. ties) and whether they perceive school science activities as important and
Keywords: core ideas, working life skills, useful (OECD, 2016). Thus, raising students’ self-efficacy is deemed important.
self-efficacy, science curriculum topics, sci- One possibility to raise students’ self-efficacy is to focus on establishing
ence education. student-relevant contexts, specifically geared to carefully selected, disci-
plinary core ideas within science (Harlen et al., 2015; 2010). In this manner,
students can gain competences by learning in a supportive environment
Regina Soobard, Helen Semilarski, and can strive to attain the goal of becoming responsible citizens in today’s
Jack Holbrook, Miia Rannikmäe society (Broman, Bernholt, & Parchmann, 2015; Greeno & Engestorm, 2014;
University of Tartu, Estonia
NRC, 2007). This is valuable, because science-related knowledge is ever ex-
panding. Yet carefully selected disciplinary core ideas and practices can focus
838
ISSN 1648–3898 /Print/ GRADE 12 STUDENTS’ PERCEIVED SELF-EFFICACY TOWARDS WORKING LIFE SKILLS AND
ISSN 2538–7138 /Online/ (P. 838-850)
students learning to acquiring a strong sense of self efficacy in evaluating and selecting reliable sources of scientific
information and also allow continuing development beyond school as learners, users of scientific knowledge and
also as producers of such knowledge (NRC, 2012).
The curriculum plays an important role in putting forward competences to be gained and in identifying
content-related topics, enabling core ideas to be promoted in science classes. While the core ideas are related and
dependent on the curriculum topics, they go further in the sense that they are grade-level independent, encompass
societal links and can be expected to go beyond topics to encompass transdisciplinarity. In the case of the Estonian
competence-based curriculum, the approach advocated for promoting gains in science education is by means
of acquiring core ideas via an “education through science” focus (Holbrook & Rannikmäe, 2007). This is seeking
a relevant, educationally sound foundation on which to build cognitive capability, around transdisciplinary core
ideas (Duncan, Krajcik, & Ravit, 2016), initiated through visionary scientific and social contexts and connected to
subject topics, so as to promote students’ self-efficacy.
Nevertheless, research has shown that not all science subject curriculum topics are equally interesting for
students (Lavonen et al., 2008; Walper, Pollmeier, Lange, Kleickmann, & Möller, 2016). Furthermore, students in gen-
eral do not choose the science curriculum topics they learn, and hence it is the expectation that teachers present
subject topics in a way that all students can be expected to comprehend and value the perceived importance. Thus,
students’ perceptions related to selected science subject topics (which can be discussed within disciplinary core
ideas) need to be considered as an important area of research. Findings from such studies can lead to suggestions
as to which topics enhance students’ ‘education through science’ competence and can link to positive visions of
scientific core ideas within everyday life and in related careers.
Research Problem
Research has shown the importance of students having a meaningful scientific foundation at the end of
compulsory schooling and valuing their own competence levels in dealing with multiple scientific challenges
within the society, requiring both scientific and socio-scientific attributes (Soobard, 2015). A longitudinal research,
monitoring the change of the levels of scientific literacy during gymnasium studies indicates that Estonian grade
10-12 students’ higher-order cognitive skills (problem-solving including inquiry skills, decision-making, reasoning)
remain at the same level, or show very little increase (no statistical significance) over time (Rannikmäe, Soobard,
Reiska, & Holbrook, 2017; Soobard, 2015). The longitudinal research also shows better results are attained at the
grade 12, compared to the grade 10, level on memorization of science content and the use of interdisciplinary
knowledge in student familiar situations, contrasting with the lack of ability gains in higher order thinking skills.
These findings confirm warning messages on the general lack of higher order thinking, coming from PISA studies
in Estonia (OECD, 2016) that concern findings emanating from studies on 15 year-old students.
This research reflects on earlier findings and considers students’ self-efficacy towards science topics and skills
at the grade 12 level as they consider a choice of a future profession. No previous science education studies among
gymnasium level students within Estonia have been undertaken for researching students’ self-efficacy. Based on
outcomes, it is anticipated it becomes possible to give suggestions for improving the way science is taught so
that the formulation of visionary core ideas in science education further develop students’ self-efficacy and form
positive considerations for undertaking science-related professions needed in today’s society.
Research Focus
This research determines grade 12 students’ perceptions of science curriculum content-related topics and
perceived self-efficacy towards working life skills.
The following research questions were put forward:

RQ1: What is the perceived self-efficacy of grade 12 students towards identified working life skills associ-
ated with the Estonian curriculum?
RQ2: What is the perceived self-efficacy of grade 12 students towards selected Estonian science curriculum
content-related topics taken as a meaningful surrogate for disciplinary core ideas?

839
(P. 838-850) ISSN 2538–7138 /Online/
Theoretical Overview
Skills for Work and Life
A stated purpose of school science education is to promote scientific literacy (Estonian Government, 2011)
and, within this, to promote the development of multiple skills among students needed to engage in responsible
citizenry and enabling a future workforce. The skills associated with enhancing scientific literacy are linked to a
number of factors including:
•• the nature of the subject, associated with an understanding of the nature of science, subject and in-
terdisciplinary knowledge and cognition;
•• personal development especially associated with self-development, self-management and self-efficacy,
plus
•• acquisition of social skills, such as the ability to interact with others through collaboration, reflecting
on the ideas of others, reasoned decision-making and resolving socio-scientific issues.
(Choi, Lee, Shin, Kim, & Krajcik, 2011; Estonian Government, 2011; Holbrook & Rannikmäe, 2007; OECD, 2016).
In addition, in order to take responsibility for one’s own learning, attention is needed to develop metacogni-
tive and planning skills (Choi et al., 2011), thus enabling students to monitoring their own learning progress
and to become life-long learners (Estonian Goverment, 2011; World Economic Forum, 2016).
Self-efficacy
Student perceptions towards their attainment of skills can be indicated through indicators of self-efficacy,
which is defined as a personal measure of one’s own capabilities to perform a task and reach a desired goal
(Bandura, 1997). Bandura (1986) even stated that self-efficacy is a better predictor of future behavior than actual
capability, because one’s self-efficacy determines what people actually do with the knowledge and skills they pos-
sess, enabling greater exploits and the ability to succeed in life. Self-efficacy is also positively related to academic
motivation, learning and achievement and is independent of actual capabilities (Pajares, 1996). On the other hand,
negative self-efficacy (inactivity and non-performance) can lead to de-motivation and drop-out (Bandura, 1997).
Students who show increased science self-efficacy over time have a tendency to succeed academically in their
science learning (Alkan, 2016; Phan, 2011; Sadi & Uyar, 2013).
Self-efficacy is a useful measurement with which to predict behavioral outcomes when compared to other
constructs related to motivation, especially in psychology and education (Graham & Weiner, 1996). Research indicates
that students’ self-efficacy towards achieving goals in science lessons has an important impact on their choices of
science-related activities (Bandura, 1997; Zeldin & Pajares, 2000). Students who have high confidence in their abil-
ity and who feel able when undertaking certain activities tend to select these activities and put more effort into
be more successful. As Bandura and other researchers have shown (Bandura 1997, Pajares, 1996, Schrunk, 1991),
perceived self-efficacy can have an impact on everything from psychological state to motivation to behaviour.
The PISA study (OECD, 2016) has found that students with low perceived science self-efficacy perform lower in
science learning measures compared to students with high perceived self-efficacy, who tend to use their science
knowledge and skills in everyday contexts.
Students with high self-efficacy tend to have higher motivation and engage in more perspectives, compared
with low self-efficacy students who don’t feel the value in making an effort (Puzziferro, 2008). Higher perceived
self-efficacy contributes significantly to acquiring the necessary motivation in science education and achieving
the desired result. However, motivation itself can have several effects on how students learn and their attitudes
towards science subjects (Ormrod, 2006).
.
A Frame for Learning
Generally, within syllabuses, the frame for learning is a list of subject content topics, where the content tends
to be associated with educational concepts and skills (or competences). To aid the development of skills, students
need a motivational learning context, such as relevant experiences from real-life, to associate gains in science
content acquisition (DeBoer, 2011).
840
ISSN 2538–7138 /Online/ (P. 838-850)
One approach to promote real-life experiences is to initiate the learning within relevant, or familiar contexts,
promoting students’ intrinsic motivation (Ryan & Deci, 2002) and stimulating conceptual science learning through
associated disciplinary core ideas (Duncan, Krajcik, & Ravit, 2016; Harlen et al., 2015; NRC, 2012; Stevens, Sutherland
& Krajcik, 2009). Also, discipline core ideas have been suggested as being central to science learning, serving as
a focus to make sense of phenomena, while also serving as building blocks interrelating the learning within and
between disciplines, thus making connections to other ideas (NRC, 2012; Stevens, Sutherland, & Krajcik, 2009).
Core ideas are seen as meeting at least two of the following criteria (NGSS, 2013):
a) possessing wide importance across science or STEM (transdisciplinary) learning, or being a key con-
ceptual area within a single discipline;
b) a key platform for investigating more complex or overarching ideas and solving associated problems;
c) strongly associated with the interests and experiences of students and society issues, which have a
scientific content;
d) lending itself to a teachable and learnable progression over grades allowing increasing levels of so-
phistication or abstraction of learning.
Whereas curriculum subject content topics (Estonian Government, 2011) can be considered as leading to topics
simply taught as knowledge core ideas (NGSS, 2013 relate to two dimensions: an idea of why (conceptualisation of
knowledge) and an idea of how (process including skills). Based on this, core ideas are important when considering
the need to promote capability (to do something with the application of knowledge and also skills to undertake
new learning tasks, work, or promote a career) rather than only ability (to be able to do something routinely). Core
ideas serve as a common ground for the multiple knowledge components accumulated from learning in science
subjects and are valuable for creating a transdisciplinary understanding about phenomena in nature (AAAS, 2013;
Clark, 1997; Harlen et al., 2010; 2015).
Estonian Science Curriculum as Research Context
The science curriculum in Estonia, since 2011, is competence-based with the stated purpose to promote
scientific literacy (Estonian Government, 2011). There is thus a recognised need to develop transdisciplinary un-
derstanding about science. The Estonian curriculum indicates key competencies to be promoted throughout all
school subjects and which, as components of scientific literacy, are intended to be promoted in science classes.
Examples are: using knowledge gained from Biology, Geography, Chemistry and Physics purposefully; developing
scientific problem-solving and socio-scientific decision-making skills; developing students’ personal competen-
cies (including creativity, communication, planning, interpersonal and teamwork skills), attitudes towards science,
understanding technology, risks assessment, in choosing a career. Many of these are related to needed working
life skills in today’s society.
Nevertheless, the Estonian science curriculum topics are presented via a traditional syllabus, meaning that
the science content is divided between subjects like Biology, Chemistry, Physics and Geography (Earth science).
Elements of core ideas, as identified in NGSS (2013), are included under different science subjects as content-related
topics. Examples of such topics are: Solar system & planets, climate change, destroying rainforests, hereditary
genetic diseases, redox reactions, matter and energy exchanges in living organisms, energy conversions from one
form to another, Newton’s laws of motion and sound transmission.
General Background of Research
This research seeks to determine grade 12 students’ perceived self-efficacy for gaining competences associ-
ated with working life skills related to the Estonian curriculum content topics. In this research, working life skills
were chosen to be in line with the science domain within the Estonian competence-based curriculum (Estonian
Government, 2011).
841
(P. 838-850) ISSN 2538–7138 /Online/
Research Sample
Data were collected through an Estonian, large-scale scientific literacy study (LoteGym). LoteGym study was
about testing Estonian grade 10-12 students’ scientific literacy level and for this study, an original test for scien-
tific literacy was developed (Rannikmäe, Soobard, Reiska, & Holbrook, 2017; Soobard, 2015). This research used a
school-related representative sample, compiled from grade 12 (N=1375) 18-19 years old students from 44 Estonian
schools. All grade 12 students from all selected schools participated in this study. To obtain the sample schools,
all schools in Estonia were grouped based on three locations (the capital; towns with at least 2 gymnasiums and
rural areas). Schools within each area had an equal probability to be selected. After grouping schools based on
their locations, schools were then ordered, based on average national examination results. Every 4th school was
chosen and all students from these schools were involved in the research.
This research used a paper and pencil questionnaire to collect grade 12 students’ perceptions related to self-
efficacy towards skills and core ideas related, science content topics. For this purpose, an instrument consisting
of two parts was composed:
•• Part 1 measuring perceived self-efficacy towards skills (Nitems=34). Example items in these categories were:
•• I can solve science problems.
•• My communication skills are good.
•• I prefer to work in a group/team.
•• I can explain science related natural phenomena in everyday life.
•• I am motivated to solve challenging problems.
•• When I make decisions, I consider the positive and negative consequences towards the natural
environment.
•• Scientific models (like DNA) portray nature as it exists.
•• Creativity and imagination are important factors for establishing scientific knowledge.
•• I can apply knowledge from science lessons in new situations.
•• Part 2 measuring perceived self-efficacy towards core ideas related science content topics (Nitems=19).
Example topics were:
•• Hereditary of genetic diseases.
•• Matter and energy exchange in living organisms.
•• Redox reactions in everyday life.
•• Energy conversion from one form into another.
•• Newton’s laws of motion.
•• Solar system and planets.
•• Solar and lunar eclipse.
A 4-point Likert scale (1- I strongly disagree; 2- I disagree; 3- I agree and 4- I completely agree), chosen for
convenience, was used for all parts of the instrument. Mattel and Jacoby (1971) stated that the reliability and valid-
ity of an instrument was not affected by the number of scale points used for items. Odd-numbered Likert scales
provided an option for indecision or neutrality. In this research, it was decided not to include a neutral opinion,
because many researchers outlined that this significantly increased the number of people stating they had no
opinion when they actually did (Johns, 2005; Krosnick et al., 2002; Nowlis, Kahn, & Dhar, 2002).
Students were given 45 minutes to answer the questions, this questionnaire being administered during one
science lesson.
The instrument was validated by four science teachers and four scientists from the University of Tartu. These
experts assessed the content and construct validity of the instrument (Table 1). After their input and suggestions, the
final questionnaire version was produced for test of reliability. Reliability of the whole instrument was determined
using Cronbach alpha (α=.97), showing a strong internal (>.70) consistency (Hair, William, Berry, Rolph, Ronald, 2010).
842
ISSN 2538–7138 /Online/ (P. 838-850)
Table 1. Validation and reliability of created instrument for this research.
Instrument/method Validity/reliability Used validation/reliability method
Expert opinion method: four independent experts (from Estonia) in the field of
Content validity
Students perceived self- science education. And also international experts for statements categorisation.
efficacy towards working life
skills and content related topics Analysis of Estonian middle and secondary science curriculum and syllabus to
in science subjects determined Construct validity
ensure that items are valid in terms of expected learning outcomes
by using a 4-point Likert scale
questionnaire
Reliability Cronbach alpha=0.87
Data Analysis

The students’ perceived self-efficacy was determined quantitatively by students’ agreement or disagreement
responses towards working life skills and core ideas related to the science content topics. Data analysis was con-
ducted using SPSS version 24. Descriptive statistics (mean, standard deviation) were determined for all parameters
(statements sections). Data was checked for normal distribution (data fitting a bell-shaped curve).
Categorisation of statements in both datasets was undertaken, based on Principal Component Analysis (PCA)
using two stages. PCA was used to reduce the dimensionality of the data set, which consisted of a large number
of interrelated variables, but still saving as much relevant information as possible from the dataset (Jolliffe, 2002).
First, the categorisation was carried out, based on the components extracted from the 34 items on perceived
self-efficacy towards working life skills. However, two items were omitted (communication and teamwork skills)
because their component loading was low and they did not meaningfully fit into the six components. Secondly,
PCA was undertaken, based on the 19 items on perceived self-efficacy in science topics related to core ideas.
Results of Research
Perceived Self-efficacy towards Working Life Skills and Science Learning
Principal Component Analysis (PCA) gave six components (Table 2) – cognitive skills, planning skills, employ-
ability and citizenship, beliefs established through science learning, mindset for scientific research. A separate
component was formed from science learning attributes.
Students’ self-efficacy perceptions in Cognitive skills showed that self-efficacy was higher in evaluating infor-
mation critically and distinguishing scientific evidence from non-scientific. Self-efficacy was lowest in the case of
problem-solving.
Students self-efficacy perceptions in Planning skills showed that it was higher in the case when the initial
method for solving a problem didn’t work; students seemed ready to find alternative strategies, to evaluate their
efforts and the effectiveness of a selected strategy and to continue to work with problems despite the difficulties.
Again, self-efficacy was lowest in the case of problem-solving (motivated to solve challenging problems; designing
appropriate strategy before starting to solve problems).
Table 2. Perceived self-efficacy towards skills within science learning.
Self-efficacy
Working life skills within science lessons Component load
M SD
Cognitive skills
I can critically evaluate the quality of information .65 2.84 0.64
I can distinguish scientific from non-scientific evidence .62 2.84 0.69
I can apply new ideas in the problem-solving process .58 2.78 0.64
I can solve science problems .56 2.28 0.56
843
(P. 838-850) ISSN 2538–7138 /Online/
Self-efficacy
Working life skills within science lessons Component load
M SD
I can defend my standpoint when arguing, using scientific evidence .56 2.41 0.67
I can explain natural phenomena in everyday life .55 2.68 0.73
I understand relationships between science, technology and society .45 2.84 0.68
Planning skills
I evaluate the efforts and the effectiveness of selected strategies after reaching the desired
.66 2.80 0.72
goal
I continue trying to solve a problem despite difficulties .65 2.84 0.73
I evaluate the efforts and the effectiveness of a selected strategy even when I don´t reach
.63 2.84 0.72
the desired goal
Before I start to solve problems, I make sure whether the problem is within my level of
.61 2.73 0.71
understanding or whether I need extra help
I can design the most appropriate strategy to solve problems .60 2.51 0.70
I can find alternative strategies if an initial method doesn’t work .58 2.97 0.67
I am motivated to solve challenging problems .57 2.46 0.83
Employability and citizenship
My personal well-being is connected to what happens in nature at a global level .70 2.87 0.75
I feel responsibility for what happens in the environment .69 3.03 0.76
In decision-making, I consider the positive and negative consequences towards the environ-
.65 2.72 0.69
ment
I would like to have a career, where I can contribute to protecting the natural environment .59 2.20 0.80
In problem-solving, I am sensitive to ethical standards, which are valued by society .52 2.76 0.68
Beliefs established through science learning
In my opinion, scientific knowledge can change .58 3.29 0.68
I show respect for other human beings regardless of their cultural backgrounds and nation-
.55 3.55 0.66
alities
I try to understand the reasons for other peoples’ actions instead of judging them .55 3.19 0.74
In my opinion, the efficiency of scientific knowledge depends on how and for what purpose
.53 3.03 0.68
such knowledge is used
Mindset for scientific research
In my opinion, scientific models (like DNA) portray nature as it exists .71 2.60 0.76
In my opinion, carefully collected data will give perfect knowledge .67 2.73 0.75
In my opinion, there is only one certain scientific method for creating scientific knowledge .57 2.06 0.72
In my opinion, creativity and imagination are important factors for establishing scientific
.43 2.79 0.76
knowledge
Science learning attributes
In my opinion, science lessons develop skills needed to control thinking and action during
.73 2.58 0.80
the problem-solving process
In my opinion, science lessons develop useful skills for solving problems in everyday life .71 2.44 0.74
In my opinion, science lessons have developed values, which are important for success in
.67 2.55 0.75
everyday life
In my opinion, science lessons have helped me to understand the characteristic of scientific
.63 2.74 0.71
knowledge
I can apply knowledge from science lessons in new situations .59 2.58 0.63
844
ISSN 2538–7138 /Online/ (P. 838-850)
Students’ self-efficacy perceptions within the component - Employability and citizenship showed a higher feel-
ing of responsibility for what happens in the environment and a well-being related to global issues. Self-efficacy
was lower related to a possible career geared to nature protection.
Students self-efficacy perceptions in Beliefs established through science learning showed that in this component
students strongly agree with the given statements.
Students self-efficacy perceptions in Mindset for scientific research showed that students perceive a higher self-
efficacy in the role of creativity and imagination when establishing scientific knowledge, believing that carefully
collected data gives perfect knowledge. Also, students perceived higher self-efficacy in their belief that scientific
models portrayed nature as it exists. At the same time, self-efficacy was lower through statements indicating only
one scientific method existed in obtaining new knowledge.
Students’ self-efficacy perceptions in Science learning attributes showed that students agreed their self-efficacy
was higher when recognising that lessons develop understanding about characteristics of scientific knowledge,
planning skills and the ability to apply knowledge to new situations. At the same time, students perceived a lower
self-efficacy in cognitive skills gained from science lessons based on problem-solving.
Science Curriculum Content Related Topics
Principal Component Analysis (PCA) gave three components (Table 3) – Biology and Chemistry content related
topics, Physics content related topics and Geography content related topics.
Self-efficacy towards Biology and Chemistry content related topics showed that students perceived high self-
efficacy in topics associated with the development of the foetus, matter and energy exchange in living organisms
and in hereditary of genetic diseases. Their self-efficacy was lower related to cell functions in various human tissues
and in redox reactions in everyday life.
Table 3. Perceived self-efficacy towards Biology, Chemistry, Geography and Physics related curriculum content
topics.
Self-efficacy
Component
Content related topics from science subjects
loads
M SD
Biology and Chemistry content related topics

Hereditary of genetic diseases .72 2.68 0.72
Hereditary process (replication, transcription, translation) .71 2.65 0.70
Cell functions in various human tissues .63 2.53 0.72
Comparing the efficiency of aerobic and anaerobic respiration .61 2.61 0.77
Matter and energy exchange in living organisms .60 2.72 0.68
Redox reactions occurring in everyday life .59 2.22 0.73
Development of the foetus .52 2.95 0.67
Physics content related topics
Electricity generator - working principle .80 2.23 0.80
Energy conversions .71 2.50 0.72
Sound transmission .65 2.40 0.72
Perception of weight when being in a lift .65 2.45 0.82
Newton’s laws of motion .56 2.51 0.75
Nature of phenomena at the particulate level .52 2.31 0.64
Interactions between bodies .50 2.64 0.69
Geography content related topics
Our Solar system, planets and small celestial bodies .77 2.77 0.71
Climate change and consequences for Estonia .57 2.91 0.66
845
(P. 838-850) ISSN 2538–7138 /Online/
Self-efficacy
Component
Content related topics from science subjects
loads
M SD
Solar and lunar eclipse .55 2.75 0.78

Relief deformation and climate change (including lithosphere, biosphere, hydrosphere atmos-
.51 2.58 0.69
phere levels)
Destroying the rainforest and my own well-being .46 2.85 0.68
Students’ self-efficacy within Physics content related topics was higher in topics like the nature of interactions
between bodies and in Newton’s laws of motion. For other topics (e.g. sound transmission, natural phenomena at the
particulate and sub-particulate level, working principle of an electricity generator), perceived self-efficacy was low.
Students’ self-efficacy towards Geography topics was high in all topics. However, even if students had high
self efficacy, they didn’t always recognise that these topics (especially when focusing on global issues) were highly
important from the perspective of everyday life (e.g. Solar system, destroying the rainforest).
Discussion
Self-Efficacy towards Skills
In the literature student self- efficacy is shown to be a good approach to determine students’ weaknesses and
strengths (references). In fact, it can also give good indicators of student motivation (references). In this research,
students’ perceived self-efficacy is taken to be a major indicator of student skills and beliefs and seeks to identify
this through six components, labelled as - cognitive skills, planning skills, employability and citizenship, beliefs estab-
lished through science learning, mindset for scientific research and science learning attributes.
The component labelled Cognitive skills covers students’ perception of self-efficacy related to evaluating infor-
mation and evidence critically, solving problems (e.g. applying new ideas), explaining phenomena, and understanding
relationships between science, society and technology. Outcomes based on the responses to items within the cognitive
skills category show that students tend to indicate lower self-efficacy related to possessing skills to find solution
to problems and in making use of scientific evidence. As previous research has shown that problem-solving skills
are essential for dealing with scientific challenges and are needed in science-related careers (OECD, 2015; Salonen
et al., 2017), this outcome needs to be seen as a matter of concern. Even more, according to the World Econmic
Forum (2016), complex problem-solving is seen as a very much needed skill in future careers beyond 2020 and is
more important compared with single content related skills. Suggested reasons for the low self-efficacy can be that
students perceive they do not possess a clear conceptual understanding about the scientific approach to problem-
solving (above and beyond calculating mathematical solutions) and how to arrive at meaningful solutions. This
reasoning is in agreement with results obtained from Estonian students on a scientific literacy test (Rannikmäe
et al., 2017), indicating that students’ actual problem solving skills remains at a low level, even after three years of
schooling from grade 10 to 12.
The Planning skills component refers to students’ perceived competence to plan one’s own activity (e.g. in
problem-solving, achieving goals, need for help, strategies, motivation). Students demonstrate lower self-efficacy in
problem-solving (e.g. choosing the appropriate strategy for problem-solving, motivation to solve problems - as
indicated in the previous paragraph).
While students’ self-efficacy perception is higher when referring to continuing to engage in seeking ways to
undertake problem-solving irrespective of whether the plan is meaningful, they have lower perceptions that they
can be motivated to put forward suitable methods for seeking solutions. Today’s society is faced with multiple
scientific challenges having a social impact and perseverance in interacting with such kinds of problem-solving
skills needed by a future workforce, as a crucial component of working life skills, as well as good cognitive and
planning skills in problem-solving.
The items in Employability and citizenship refer to students’ perceptions regarding responsibility towards the
environment (e.g. nature and society) and their perceived competence to make justified and responsible decisions when
needed. Results show that, in general, students’ perceived self-efficacy is high. However, at the same time, their
perceptions about wishing employability in this area are not high and also they don’t recognise this as an impor-
846
ISSN 2538–7138 /Online/ (P. 838-850)
tant work-related field. The dichotomy indicated is taken as problematic, because a good scientific background
and understanding about society is needed to face the many challenges in today’s world. The results suggest that
more emphasis is needed in raising students’ science-related career awareness and making them more aware of
how science can contribute to solving scientific challenges.
Tytler and Osborne (2012) note that students who have more positive attitudes towards science, are more
likely to relate their future career with science-related careers, compared with other fields. This suggests there is a
need to more strongly relate core ideas in science teaching to show they can have:
•• a meaningful input in dealing with today’s scientific challenges;
•• indicating needed working life skills in this area, and also
•• possible professions within multiple related fields.
Although the initial intention is to aim for one component for the nature of science, student responses indicate
a two-component solution: Beliefs established through science learning and Mindset for scientific research.
The items in Beliefs established through science learning refer to students’ perceptions about changes in scientific
knowledge, personal opinions and the purposeful use of scientific knowledge. Students’ self-efficacy is low compared
with other items in this component in response to item asking the efficiency of scientific knowledge depends on
how and for what purpose such knowledge is used. This finding is with the idea that science topics are taught in
schools as knowledge (students do not recognise the usefulness of such knowledge in real-life situations) rather
than for conceptualisation (why and how this knowledge can be used). It seems that students are gaining abilities
rather than capabilities.
Self-efficacy is lowest in the component Mindset for scientific research, which refers to students’ perceptions
about scientific research, the role of models and creativity within this, and ways to obtain scientific knowledge. Students
seem to believe that they can understand the changeability of scientific knowledge, but their self-efficacy for un-
dertaking scientific research is lower and they seem to believe that scientific models portray nature as it actually
exists and, associated with this, that there is a way to get perfect knowledge.
Based on the items in Science learning attributes, this component refers to students’ perceptions about science
lessons for developing needed working life skills. Students’ self-efficacy, related to problem-solving skills, in response
to this component, is again low. However, students’ perceptions seem to point out they agree that developing
such skills is important. This seems to indicate students feel there is a gap between the skills needed and those
they gain from science lessons.
Based on this research, students feel they have a higher self-efficacy in some skill aspects compared with
others; it also seems they perceive that some skills are not associated with science education, but are general skills
acquired over all aspects of school education, for example, communication and teamwork skills. This indicates that
there is a need to re-think the way science content is presented to students (content knowledge, its conceptualisa-
tion and the application of this knowledge in multiple situations associated with the appropriate set of working
life skills) and to consider more thoroughly how to support students’ lifelong learning habits. At the end of grade
12, students don’t feel themselves competent in problem solving skills, based on their reported self-efficacy, even
though these skills are very much needed in today’s society. Emphasising the need for lifelong learning is important
for dealing with challenges in society and in future professions (World Econmic Forum, 2016) and seems to be a
further area of need within science teaching.
Self-Efficacy towards Content Related Topics from Science Subjects
Self-efficacy related to three foci within science topics is determined, based on components associated with
Biology and Chemistry, Physics and Geography content related topics. Results indicate that students’ perceptions of
their self-efficacy towards content related topics differ. Students’ self-efficacy is higher for topics with a Geography
and Biology/Chemistry focus, compared with topics from Physics. This can be related to studies on students’ interest
and motivation (Puzziferro, 2008; Ormrod, 2008), which indicate students are more interested in topics in Geography
and Biology compared with topics from Physics (Teppo et al., 2017). A possible explanation for students’ perceived
lower self-efficacy in Physics-related topics is that such topics are seen as more abstract and, as students are not able
to perceive the value of such learning, they find it difficult to relate new knowledge with everyday life situations.
Students’ actual achievement on a scientific literacy test (Rannikmäe et al., 2017) shows that at the grade
10 level, students give many wrong responses and indicate misconceptions while applying disciplinary related
knowledge to problem-solving, or reasoned, decision-making situations. In grade 12, there is a decrease in the
847
(P. 838-850) ISSN 2538–7138 /Online/
number of incorrect responses and misconceptions given by students. with more students giving partially correct
response, although the number of correct disciplinary responses did not change significantly (only a gain of a few
percentage points after three years of schooling). Even more, a similar tendency is also noted for cross-disciplinary
responses. Results from the current research related to self-efficacy towards science topics show that students do
not feel they are able to give meaningful responses in many science topics.
Many Estonian curriculum topics can be considered to be related with important core ideas in science. By
relating core ideas more strongly with working life skills and possible career pathways, students’ perceptions to-
wards such topics may change. This is seen as important, because today’s society is asked to handle many scientific
challenges having a social impact and thus a future workforce needs to be prepared to deal with such issues. For
this, they need strong working life skills, which can be promoted through science subjects and made applicable to
real-life situations. While results from this research show that student’s self-efficacy, related to some skill areas, is
high (e.g. critically evaluating the quality of information and applying new ideas in the problem-solving process),
at the same time, self-efficacy in other skills is rated much lower (e.g. actually solving scientific problems, using
scientific evidence).
To ensure that grade 12 students are being adequately prepared as the future workforce within science-related
careers, there is a need for a more coherent teaching approach, compared with that taking place at present. The
usefulness of disciplinary core ideas for achieving students’ greater awareness of science phenomena and the
development of transdisciplinary skills, is associated with learning related to core ideas through different grade
levels and in this way can provide students with opportunities to engage more deeply and meaningfully, based
on the interrelating of a wider coverage of science content.
Adopting a core idea basis, for introducing students to interrelated science content and scientific challenges
over different subject areas and at different grade levels, with the added dimension of science-related careers
linked to the acquisition of needed work and-life skills, can be suggested as a meaningful approach to raising
science-related career awareness and preparing students for the world of work. This leads to deeper conceptuali-
sation in science learning and promotes students’ capabilities (to do something original) rather than abilities (to
do something routinely).
A recommendation for further research is related with the idea of investigating how students perceive the
same core idea related topics in different science subjects (for example, aspects of energy is covered in all four
subject disciplines, but at different times and with different emphases). While results from the current research
show that Physics topics are perceived differently compared with other subjects, it is recommended for more deep
and meaningful learning, students need to interrelate science content from different subjects and conceptualise
how this all relates to the same core idea in science.
Conclusions
This research sought to determine gymnasium students perceived self-efficacy towards selected working
life skills and also core ideas related to science content topics within the Estonian curriculum.
Results indicated that, in general, students perceived working life skills as important and hence seen as im-
portant to relate to students’ learning experiences. Nevertheless, students’ perceived self-efficacy was shown to
be lower in relation to the important area of problem-solving skills. This was seen as a matter of concern, because
many scientific challenges required strong problem-solving skills, plus these were also needed in other careers
not perceived as science-related.
Where perceived self-efficacy towards some working life skills was shown to be lower, there was a need to
rethink the manner in which science content was presented to students, amplifying the link to everyday life, or
the scientific challenges in the real world. In this respect, there was also a need to encompass more about possible
science-related careers interrelating this with challenges and the working life skills required. Further research was
needed to determine whether such kinds of approaches would be effective.
Students’ perceived self-efficacy toward core ideas is approach through seeking comments related to science
content topics. The results showed that students felt a lower self-efficacy towards more abstract topics such as
those related to Physics, compared with more life-related topics within Geography, or Biology/Chemistry. Overall,
students’ self-efficacy towards science content topics were positive indicating that these tended to play a moti-
vational role with respect to student engagement in science lessons. That was seen as an important outcome,
especially when recognising that science education needed to support students gaining disciplinary core ideas,
848
ISSN 2538–7138 /Online/ (P. 838-850)
essential for the world in which they live, rather than seeing science education portray science as informational
or simply as a body of knowledge.
Limitations
This research focused only on grade 12 students and therefore it was not possible to describe how students
view themselves changing over time. Only a paper and pencil instrument was used for data collection and there
was no possibility to clarify students’ responses later (e.g. using interviews).
This research used a 4-point Likert scale, which gave a good overview of how students responses were di-
vided between positive and negative side. At the same time, there was no possibility for students to put forward
a neutral position.
References
Alkan, F. (2016). Development of chemistry laboratory self-efficacy beliefs scale. Journal of Baltic Science
Education, 15 (3), 350-359.
American Association for the Advancement of Science. (2013). Atlas of science, Volume 1 and 2. Mapping
K-12 Science learning. Washington, DC: Author. Retrieved from www.project2016.org/publications/atlas/default.htm.
Bandura, A. (1986). Social foundations of thought and action: A social cognitive theory. Englewood Cliffs, NJ: Prentice-Hall.
Bandura, A. (1997). Self-efficacy: The exercise of control. New York: Freeman.
Broman, K., Bernholt, S., & Parchmann, I. (2015). Analyzing task design and students’ responses to context-based problems
through different analytical frameworks. Research in Science & Technological Education, 33 (2), 143-161.
Choi, K., Lee, H., Shin, N., Kim, S-W., & Krajcik, J. (2011). Re-conceptualization of scientific literacy in South Korea for the 21st
century. Journal of Research in Science Teaching, 48 (6), 670-697.
Clark, E. (1997). Designing and implementing an integrated curriculum: A student-centered approach. Brandon, Vermont: Holistic
Education Press.
DeBoer, G. E. (2011). Special issue on globalization in science education. Journal of Research in Science Teaching, 48 (6), 567-591.
Deci, E. L., & Ryan, R. M. (2002). Self-determination research: Reflections and future directions. In E. L. Deci, & R. M. Ryan (Eds.),
Handbook of self-determination research (pp. 431-441). Rochester: University of Rochester Press.
Duncan, R., Krajcik, J., & Ravit, A. (2016). Disciplinary core ideas: Reshaping teaching and learning. Arlington, Virginia: National
Science Teachers Association Press.
Estonian Government (2011). Gümnaasiumi riiklik õppekava [National curriculum for gymnasium]. Regulation of the Government
of the Republic of Estonia, No. 2. Tallinn.
Graham, S., & Weiner, B. (1996). Theories and principles of motivation. In D. C. Berliner & R. C. Calfee (Eds.), Handbook of educational
psychology (pp. 63-84). New York, NY, US: Macmillan Library Reference Usa; London, England: Prentice Hall International.
Greeno, J. G., & Engestrom, Y. (2014). Learning in activity. In: R.K. Sawyer (Ed.). The Cambridge handbook of the learning sciences,
2nd Edition. New York: Cambridge.
Griffin, P., McGaw, B., & Care, E. (2012). Assessment and teaching of 21st century model of modern educational system in Republic
of Macedonia. Journal of Education in Science, Environment and Health, 2 (1), 1-12.
Harlen, W., Bell, D., Devés, R., Dyasi, H., Garza, G. F., Léna, P., Millar, R., Reiss, M., Rowell, P., & Yu, W. (2010). Principles and big ideas of
science education. Association for Science Education. Retrieved from http:// www.ase.org.uk/documents/principles-and-
big-ideas-of-science-education/.
Harlen, W., Bell, D., Devés, R., Dyasi, H., Garza, G. F., Léna, P., Millar, R., Reiss, M., Rowell, P. & Yu, W. (2015). Working with Big Ideas
of Science Education, Published by the Science Education Programme (SEP) of IAP. Retrieved from https://www.ase.org.
uk/resources/big-ideas/.
Hair, J. F., William, C. B., Barry, J. B., Rolph, E. A., & Ronald, L. T. (2010). Multivariate data analysis (7th edition). UpperSaddle River,
NJ: Pearson Education.
Holbrook, J., & Rannikmäe, M. (2007). The nature of science education for enhancing scientific literacy. International Journal of
Science Education, 29 (11), 1347–1362.
Johns, R. (2005). One size doesn’t fit all: Selecting response scales for attitude items. Journal of Elections, Public Opinion & Par-
ties, 15, 237-264.
Jolliffe, I., T. (2002). Principal component analysis. Springer Series in Statistics. Springer Science & Business Media.
Krosnick, J. A., Holbrook, A. L., Berent, M. K., Carson, R. T., Hanemann, W., Kopp, R. J., & … Conaway, M. (2002). The impact of ‘no
opinion’ response options on data quality: Non-attitude reduction or an invitation to satisfice? Public Opinion Quarterly,
66, 371-403. Retrieved from http://www.jstor.org/stable/3078768.
Lavonen, J., Gedrovics, J., Byman, R., Meisalo, V., Juuti, K., & Uitto, A. (2008). Students` motivational orientations and career choice in
science and technology: A comparative investigation in Finland and Latvia. Journal of Baltic Science Education, 7 (2), 86–102.
Mattell, M., S., & Jacoby, J. (1971) Is there an optimal number of Likert scale items? Study I: Reliability and
validity. Educational and Psychological Measurement, 31, 657-674.
National Research Council (2007) Taking science to school: Learning and teaching science in Grades K–8. Washington, DC: National
Academies Press.
849
(P. 838-850) ISSN 2538–7138 /Online/
National Research Council (2012). A Framework for K-12 science education: Practices, crosscutting concepts, and core ideas. Wash-
ington, DC: The National Academies Press. https://doi.org/10.17226/13165.
NGSS Lead States. (2013). Next Generation Science Standards: For States, By States. Washington, DC: The National Academies Press.
Nowlis, S. M., Kahn, B. E., & Dhar, R. (2002). Coping with ambivalence: The effect of removing a neutral option on consumer at-
titude and preference judgments. Journal of Consumer Research, 29, 319-334.
OECD (2016), “Students’ attitudes towards science and expectations of science‑related careers “. In: PISA 2015 Results (Volume I):
Excellence and Equity in Education. Paris: OECD Publishing.
Ormrod, J. E. (2006). Educational psychology: Developing learners (5th Ed.). Upper Saddle River, N.J.: Pearson/Merrill Prentice Hall.
Pajares, F. (1996). Self-efficacy beliefs in academic settings. Review of educational research. Greenwich, CT: Information Age Publishing.
Phan, P., P. (2011). Interrelations between self-efficacy and learning approaches: A developmental approach.
An International Journal of Experimental Educational Psychology, 31 (2), 225-246.
Puzziferro, M. (2008). Online technologies self-regulated learning as final grade and satisfaction in college level online course.
American Journal of distance education, 22, 72-86.
Rannikmäe, M., Soobard, R., Reiska, P., Rannikmäe, A. & Holbrook, J. (2017). Õpilaste loodusteadusliku kirjaoskuse tasemete
muutus gümnaasiumiõpingute jooksul [The change in student scientific literacy levels during gymnasium studies]. Eesti
Haridusteaduste Ajakiri, 5 (1), 59-98.
Rotherham, A. J., & Willingham, D. (2009). 21st Century Skills: The challenges skills. London; New York: Springer.
Sadi, O., & Uyar, M. (2013). The relationship between self-efficacy, self-regulated learning strategies and achievement: A path
model. Journal of Baltic Science Education, 12 (1), 21-33.
Schrunk, D., H. (1991). Self-efficacy and academic motivation. Educational Psychologist, 26, 207-231.
Soobard, R. (2015). A study of gymnasium students’ scientific literacy development based on determinants of cognitive learning
outcomes and self-perception. Dissertationes pedagogical scientarium Universitas Tartuensis. Tartu: Tartu University Press.
Stevens, S., Sutherland, L., & Krajcik, J.S., (2009). The big ideas of nanoscale science and engineering. Arlington, VA: National Science
Teachers Association Press.
Teppo, M., Semilarski, H., Soobard, R., & Rannikmäe, M. (2017). 9. klassi õpilaste huvi eri kontekstis esitatud loodusteaduslike
teemade õppimise vastu ja motivatsioon õppida loodusteadusi [Grade nine students’ learning motivation and interests
towards science topics presented in different contexts]. Eesti Haridusteaduste Ajakiri, 5 (1), 130−170.
Tytler, R., & Osborne, J. (2012). Student attitudes and aspirations towards science. In: B. Fraser, K. Tobin, & C. McRobbie, (Eds.),
Second international handbook of science education (pp. 597-625). Dordrecht, Netherlands: Springer.
Zeldin, A. L., & Pajares, F. (2000). Against the odds: Self-efficacy beliefs of women in mathematical, scientific, and technological
careers. American Educational Research Journal, 37 (1), 215–246.
Walper, L. M., Pollmeier, K., Lange, K., Kleickmann, T., & Möller, K. (2016). From general science teaching to discipline-specific
science teaching: Physics instruction and students’ subject-related interest levels during the transition from primary to
secondary school. In: N. Papadouris, A. Hadjigeorgiou, & C. Constantinou (Eds.), Insights from research in science teaching
and learning: Selected papers from the ESERA 2013 conference 2, (pp. 271–288). Switzerland: Springer.
World Economic Forum (2016). The future of jobs - employment, skills and workforce strategy for the fourth industrial revolution.
http://www3.weforum.org/docs/WEF_Future_of_Jobs.pdf.
Received: May 15, 2018 Accepted: September 22, 2018
Regina Soobard PhD, Research Fellow of Science Education, Vanemuise 46,

Tartu, Estonia.
E-mail: regina.soobard@ut.ee
Helen Semilarski PhD Student in Science Education, University of Tartu,
Vanemuise 46, Tartu, Estonia.
E-mail: helen.semilarski@ut.ee
Jack Holbrook PhD, Visiting Professor, University of Tartu, Vanemuise 46, Tartu,
Estonia.
E-mail: jack.holbrook@ut.ee
Miia Rannikmäe PhD, Professor of Science Education, Vanemuise 46, Tartu,
Estonia.
E-mail: miia.rannikmae@ut.ee
850
DIFFERENT USER GROUPS
OF UNIVERSITY STUDENTS
AND THEIR ICT COMPETENCE: ISSN 1648-3898 /Print/
EVIDENCE FROM THREE ISSN 2538-7138 /Online/
COUNTRIES IN CENTRAL
EUROPE
Abstract. The preferences in the use of ICT

Ludvík Eger, at school and at home are varied among
Milan Klement, young people due to development of ICT in
Łukasz Tomczyk, the 21st century environment. Educators
Mária Pisoňová, Gabriela Petrová need to pay attention to differences among
groups of ICT users and their influence on
teaching and the learning process. The
purpose of this research was to identify
Introduction the levels of ICT competence of university
students and to assess differences in their
Students around the world today are becoming increasingly familiar use of ICT with special focus on social
with computers and Internet. The progress of ICT has a major impact on their networks and mobile phones. The question-
school and home related activities and future life.
naire survey at four universities in three
The importance of the integration of ICT into university education has
countries was conducted to identify how
been emphasised by UNESCO since the end of the twentieth century, con-
university students use ICT for learning and
sidering ICT to be essential both to innovative curricular practices and the
general public’s access to higher education (UNESCO, 1998; Schneckenberg, out-of-school activities. The participants
2005). The permeation of technology in society has forced changes in employ- were 1348 university students. The obtained
ment, education (Siddiq, Gochyyev, & Wilson, 2017) and in leisure time. It has results only partially confirmed the general
been stated that the role of ICTs in education is becoming more important assumption that young people (Millennials)
in the 21st century. ICT-based education causes changes in the educational in contemporary society are character-
objectives in the conception of the teaching and learning process. ICT al- ized by skilled use of ICT in their everyday
lows higher education institutions to reach disadvantaged groups and new life. The application of cluster analysis
international educational markets (Toro & Joshi, 2012). found four different user groups according
The purpose of this research is to identify the levels of ICT competencies to their use of ICT in their life. Educators
of students from universities and to understand how students realy use ICT
should be aware of the user groups’ differ-
and to assess whether the new generation is really ready to participate in
ences among students and take them into
different domains in the knowledge society in the 21st century using ICTs.
account when planning, implementing
Problem of Research and evaluating the teaching and learning
process.
ICT competence has become an essential aspect of the teaching and Keywords: ICT competence, university
learning toolkit in the 21st century and the last two decades have also wit- students, ICT use, user groups.
nessed the dynamic inclusion of ICT in higher education systems in Visegrad
countries, that are EU members since 2004, have quite similar educational Ludvík Eger
system and ICT development index (Measuring the information society West Bohemia University, Czech Republic
Milan Klement
report, 2017). Palacký University Olomouc, Czech Republic
It is also clear that the current higher education environment at universi- Łukasz Tomczyk
ties demands ICT skills. Without basic (better without advanced) ICT skills, Pedagogical University of Cracow, Poland
Mária Pisoňová, Gabriela Petrová
students are not able to successfully study at current universities. Baleo and Constantine the Philosopher University in
Mayo (2010) argue that the integration of ICT into universities is essential Nitra, Slovakia
851
DIFFERENT USER GROUPS OF UNIVERSITY STUDENTS AND THEIR ICT COMPETENCE:
EVIDENCE FROM THREE COUNTRIES IN CENTRAL EUROPE
(P. 851-866) ISSN 2538–7138 /Online/
for the development of a university system in line with the requirements of the knowledge society. Based on
the evaluation of many sources, Toro and Joshi (2012, p. 22) summarize: “ICT provides student support services
such as course outlines, digitally recorded classroom material, discussion groups, laboratory manuals and lab as-
signments, lecture notes, live lectures for later viewing and re-viewing, links to course specific websites, online
tutorials, supplementary readings, and virtual office hours for teacher-student consultations.” Current students at
universities commonly use approaches to virtual libraries and scientific databases with textbooks, journals and
other resources. It is generally assumed that social networks and the use of smartphones play a very important
new role. This argument is in line with new students’ competences needed in solving problems, communicating
and collaborating through digital channels (Siddiq, Gochyyev, & Wilson, 2017).
Many national and international authorities describe the key points of the educational development of ICT-
literate students (Australian Council for Educational Research, 2016; European Commission, 2018; Kiss, 2017; Siddiq,
Gochyyev, & Wilson, 2017). Computer and information literacy is described (ICILS, Fraillon, et al, 2015, p. 17) as
students’ achievement with technology in different contexts, as the “ability to use computers to investigate, create
and communicate in order to participate effectively at home, at school, in the workplace, and in society.” ICT literacy
comprises the abilities to process digital information, communicate with others and solve given problems (Rothagi,
Scherer, & Hatlevik, 2016). Development of ICT literacy requires more than fundamental technical knowledge
and skills. Similarly, the International ICT Literacy Panel (2002, p. 2) states that ICT literacy enables individuals to
use ‘‘digital technology, communication tools, and/or networks to access, manage, integrate, evaluate and create
information in order to function in a knowledge society’’.
Competence in using and dealing with ICT is considered as a prerequisite for ICT literacy development (Ro-
hatgi, Scherer, & Hatlevik, 2016). This is in line with Guzmán-Simón, García-Jiménez, and López-Cobo (2017), who
define competence as the set of knowledge, skills and attitudes that are necessary for personal and professional
development in different contexts.
Research Focus
In order to identify what, and how, students use and learn with ICT, various concepts are used in the litera-
ture. For example: ICT skills, ICT or digital competence and ICT or digital literacy (some of them were mentioned
above). It is emphasized (similar to Hatlewik, Gudmundsdóttir, & Loi, 2015) the importance of ICT competence
when analysing and understanding what students are able to do with technology.
The importance of digital competence was recognised by the European Parliament and the European Council
in 2006. Digital competence was identified as one of the eight key competences for lifelong learning and involves
the confident and critical use of Information Society Technology (IST) for work, leisure, learning and communica-
tion (European Commission, 2014). Experts do not completely agree on the subject of digital competence and
some models are really very complex (Janssen et al, 2013). According to Hatlewik, Gudmundsdóttir, and Loi (2015)
digital competence contains the skills, knowledge and attitudes that make students able to use digital media for
participation, work and problem solving, independently or in collaboration with others in a critical, responsible
and creative manner. This means that digital competence is a broader concept that contains a student’s under-
standing and critical reflection in addition to skills. Competence includes skills, knowledge and attitudes (Hatlewik,
Gudmundsdóttir, & Loi, 2015, p. 346). This understanding emphasizes the student’s ability to not only be skilled but
also critical, responsible and creative in their use of ICT. Digital competence is developed in various domains (at
home, at school, among peers, in professional or leisure time settings) that interact with each other (cf. Guzmán-
Simón, García-Jiménez, & López-Cobo, 2017). The emerging concept of digital competence consists of a variety of
skills and competences, and its scope covers several areas: media and communication, technology and computing,
literacy, and information science (Ilomäki, Kantosalo, & Lakkala, 2011).
The above-mentioned sources were taken into account when preparing this research. Thus, basic items of
scale follow the indicators which use surveys such as ICILS (2013), the report by the European Commission (2014)
or the Eurostat Database (2017). However, for example, ICILS 2013 was not focused on phone or smartphone use
and smartphone use is recognized as an important part of students’ current ICT literacy.
Millennials at universities
Young people at universities in contemporary society are commonly labelled as Millennials characterized by
habitual use of ICT in their everyday life. Demographers and researchers define Millennials as born from 1981-1996,
some of them end the generation in the late 1990s or early 2000s (cf. Howe & Straus, 2000). Due to the context
852
ISSN 1648–3898 /Print/ DIFFERENT USER GROUPS OF UNIVERSITY STUDENTS AND THEIR ICT COMPETENCE:
ISSN 2538–7138 /Online/ (P. 851-866)
of development (social, economic, technological) in these three countries, students born in the early 2000s are
considered as Millenials.
It is supposed that Millennials frequently and intensely work with computers, mobile devices, and the Internet.
They are also assumed to have experience with a broad range of software tools and applications on mobile devices
(De Wit, Heerwegh, & Verhoven, 2014; Salomon & Kolikant, 2016). The rapid growth and common availability of
computers, mobile phones and other devices facilitate web browsing, allow them access to social media and sup-
port their everyday communication.
Previous researches (e.g., from the USA, the UK, and South Africa, Jones et al. 2010) noted that young students
(digital natives) may have very different levels of command of ICT. As statistical data show (Eurostat Database, 2017),
all Millennials, university students, own a computer and a mobile phone. They frequently stick to word processing
or browsing the Internet but they are not particularly skilled when it comes to less popular ICT skills, instruments,
or programs. Similarly, Bruneel, De Wit, Verhoeven, and Elen (2013) observed that students with more ICT experi-
ence did not show increased levels of expertise with all types of ICT.
In the light of the characteristics of ICT competence and ICT literacy and of the current importance of ICT in
higher education as described above, the following research questions relating to the ICT competence were posed:
Q1: What is the level of ICT competence of university students from selected universities in the Czech
Republic, Poland and Slovakia?
Q2: Are there any differences in ICT competence between first-year students (bachelor´s level) and stu-
dents before graduation at master´s level?
Q3: Why are some bachelor‘s and master´s students more proficient in ICT competence and use comput-
ers, the Internet and mobile phones more frequently than other students?
General Background
This was a quantitative research focused on university students and their ICT use for learning and out-of-
school activities. Cross-national research on ICT literacy assesses the ICT competence of university students in a
comparative manner. Attention was paid to the rapid increase in the use of social networks and mobile phones as
the first devices and tools for students´ communication. Research was conducted at four selected universities in
the fall semester of 2017/2018 academic year.
In the past two decades, ICT has progressively acquired a prominent role in teaching and learning in our
primary and secondary schools. The results of measuring first-year students‘ ICT skills are evidence of how gradu-
ates of secondary schools are ready to study at university and to use ICT when learning. The results of measuring
students‘ ICT skills before graduation at master´s level are evidence of how university graduates are ready to use
ICT in their future life and how they are competent in this area.
It is expected that a similar culture and similar ICT use at school as at home in the three mentioned countries
(all joined to the EU in 2004) and not very different ICT development index (Measuring the information society
report, 2017) have a similar positive influence on the ICT competence of university students.
H1: The selected characteristics of digital competence of university students from selected universities
in the Czech Republic, Poland and Slovakia are on the same level.
H2: Frequent use of ICT by students before graduation at master´s level is significantly higher than by
first-year students.
Specifically, it is expected a positive relation among the results in partial parts of the ICT competence framework
and the level on which students use ICT skills for everyday activities at school and out of school. As pointed out
earlier, this expectation is in line with existing research on the role of ICT self-efficacy for students’ ICT use (Rothagi,
Scherer, & Hatlevik, 2016) and assumes positive beliefs that students use their ICT skills in their everyday activities
in current society, not only at school but also during leisure time (Salomon & Kolikant, 2016). The purpose of this
research is also to examine what students do on their computers and mobile phones and to find out how their ICT
skills are associated with the ways in which they apply their ICT competence.
853
(P. 851-866) ISSN 2538–7138 /Online/
H3: New ICT activities of university students (connected with social networks and mobile phones) influ-
ence the ways in which they apply their ICT competence.
It is assumed, regarding the relation between ICT use for different purposes, a positive relation between use
of social networks (Eger, 2015; Miloševič et al., 2015; Thongmak, 2014) and mobile phones and the above basic ICT
skills that both create + ICT competence and students’ communication skills. Skilled students with higher results
in using ICT for selected purposes use ICT not only more frequently but are on a higher level of ICT competence.
ICILS (2013) focused on computers and excluded mobile phones. From this point of view, the research filled the
gap and brings new information on how university students use social networks and mobile phones. In addition,
research finds whether the use of social networks and mobile phones has a significant impact on the use of ICT
for learning purposes.
Sample
This was a cross-national research focused on ICT competence of university students. A sample of 583 full-time
first-year students (bachelor´s level) and 205 students before graduation at master´s level from two public univer-
sities in the Czech Republic (in Plzeň and in Olomouc) participated in this research (27.8 % male). Also, a sample
of 246 full-time first-year students (bachelor´s level) and 95 students before graduation at master´s level from a
public university in Poland (in Cracow) participated in this research (10.3 % male) and a sample of 132 full-time
first-year students (bachelor´s level) and 87 students before graduation at master´s level from a public university
in Slovakia (in Nitra) participated in this research (11.4 % male).
The participants ranged from 19 to 27 years old. They were studying at faculties of economics, and of educa-
tion. All students provided informed consent and the research was approved by the heads of the selected faculties.
The data were collected using a self-report questionnaire. The instrument for measuring students´ ICT compe-
tence and +ICT competence is composed of 37 items grouped in 6 different parts (sections) and two items focused
on gender and age. The composite indicators are based on selected activities related to computer and software
use, on Internet-related tasks except social networks use and on mobile phone use for selected activities. The
composite indicator and its parts were inspired by the Eurostat Database (2017) and by tools developed before to
measure ICT literacy (Ivanković, Špinarec, & Miljko, 2013; Kiss, 2017; Kiss & Castelú, 2015). The instrument design
meets recommendations by Gray (2009).
The measurement is focused on several parts:
Information skills, activities used for calculating information skills:
O1-1: I search for information about goods and services
O1-2: I obtain information from public authorities/ services websites
O1-3: I read and download information from online newspapers and journals
O1-4: I copy information and I create files and folders
X-1: I search for travel-related information
In this part of the ICT basic competence framework emphasis searching for, obtaining, downloading and
seeking information. The number of items and their focus are the same as in Digital skills of individuals, informa-
tion skills, Eurostat (2017).
Communication skills, activities used for calculating information skills:
O2-1: I send and receive emails
O2-2: I make video calls over the Internet
O2-3: I send messages to chat rooms (I chat)
O2-4: I upload self-created content to any website to be shared
O2-5: I participate in social networks
Basic ICT skills are sending emails, making calls via the Internet, participating in social networks and uploading
self-created content. Items represent the skills needed for communication in a digital environment. The number
of items and their focus are similar to Eurostat survey (2017).
Software skills (for content manipulation), activities used for calculating information skills:
854
ISSN 2538–7138 /Online/ (P. 851-866)
O3-1: I edit paragraphs, align text, edit font

O3-2: I copy files or move parts of documents
O3-3: I use simple formulas and I create tables
O3-5: I create presentation using software and integrate text, pictures, graphs and videos
O3-6: I use software to edit photos
This part contains items focused on creating and editing new content. Eurostat used two lists, each with 3
items. A list of 5 items was used.
Problem solving skills, activities used for calculating this variable are:
O5-1: I connect and install new IT devices
O5-2: I install or reinstall operating systems
O5-3: I modify and configure software parameters
O4-1: I use some security software (anti-virus, firewall, etc.)
O4-2: I periodically back up the data from my computer (at least once every 3 months)
Periodically backing up data or using security software are really basic activities. Basic activities with software
and operating systems are also included in this part. Eurostat used two lists, one with 3 items and the second with
4 items. A list of 5 items was used.
The above presented items in four parts of the ICT competence framework (see Figure 1) meet all the core
activities stated in the International ICT Literacy Panel (2002). As is mentioned above, competence includes not
only knowledge, skills, attention but also experience.
In the survey are used two additional important areas to assess the current ICT competence of university
students. Information about these areas and their items follows:
Advanced activities, activities used for calculating this variable are:
O1-5: I actively use bookmarks in my browser
O3-7: I edit web pages or blog
O3-4: I can create a pivot table in Excel
O3-9: I have created and edited video
O4-3: I use different passwords for different Internet services
O6-4: I create a hotspot for connecting mobile devices
O6-5: I back up my mobile phone to the cloud
O6-8: I create and upload video onto social networks
Activities that represent advanced skills are focused on searching for, editing, creating and saving activities
that correlate with the above basic skills from Eurostat survey (2017).
Social networks and mobile phone, activities used for calculating this variable are:
O6-1:I use the Internet on my mobile
O6-2: I send and receive emails on my mobile
O6-3: I send photos from my mobile
O6-7: I create and upload messages onto social networks
O9-9: I use some services to share files with other users
Current university students use their mobile devices not only for everyday communication but also for inte-
grating new mobile devices (smartphones) in their learning process. These devices provide them informal learning
contexts. They use social networks for the same purpose (e.g., Eger, 2015; Harris, 2015; Mazman & Usluel, 2010).
Thus, in our construct of +ICT competence, advanced activities and social networks and mobile phones play an
important role (Figure. 1).
In the below presented construct, additional items are not included which are used in cluster analysis. These
are the items:
O3-8: I write code in a programming language
O4-4: I respect the rules of safe use of ICT (I take breaks, I use the right lighting, I use the right table and chair)
O4-5: I have to respond to cyber attacks on my accounts
O4:6: I choose electronic devices (e.g., PC or notebook) with respect to ecological parameters
One important feature of the instrument is its focus on the “doing” approach (c.f. Lee, Chen, & Lin, 2015). A
common limitation in similar surveys is that they use self-reported data. Instruments usually measure “knowing”
rather than “doing”. The frequency type of measure refers to how often the individuals engaged (Junco, 2012) in a
certain activity or experienced a phenomenon.
855
(P. 851-866) ISSN 2538–7138 /Online/
Figure 1. Conceptual framework, ICT competence and +ICT competence.
Regarding the scale reliabilities, not all partial scales showed acceptable values above 0.70 (Nunnally & Ber-
nstein, 1994). The answers from the Czech student sample (n = 788 students from three different fields of study)
were used to calculate Cronbach‘s alpha. Sections that copied the Eurostat tool (Eurostat, 2017) received a lower
result, Information skills (0.6), Communication skills (0.6). Modified sections such as Software skills (0.8), Problem
solving skills (0.7) and the new section Social networks and mobile phone (0.8) showed acceptable values. It should
also be noted that the new, difficult and emerging section Advanced skills (0.6) indicates a level of consistency
below the expected level. Six independent experts from three countries validated the choice of partial items dur-
ing the pilot phase. They checked wording of the questions, contains, sequencing of the questions and design of
the questionnaire (cf. Gray, 2009).
Data Analysis
That data analysis was done as follows. First, a descriptive and correlational analysis was conducted to ex-
plore actual ICT competence of university students with focus on their use of social networks and mobile phones.
Second, the comparison of ICT use by first-year students and students before graduation at master´s level was
investigated using the Mann–Whitney U test. Third, confirmatory factor analysis was used to identify individual
groups of respondents from the research sample (961 first-year university students from three countries) that have
the same or similar measure of answers to the questionnaire items.
Results of Research

Descriptive Statistics and Relations among Variables of Conceptual Framework of ICT Competence
Before testing hypotheses, the descriptive statistics and reliabilities of the scales measuring the above pre-
sented construct (Figure 1) were examined. The results are shown in Tables 1-3.
Because existing research has indicated that the frequencies of ICT use for school and leisure-related tasks
are crucial determinants of students’ ICT competence, it was decided to use the suitable Likert scale to measure
features of the construct. The frequency type of measure (from 1 = never to 5 = always) refers to how often the
individuals engaged in a certain activity or experienced a phenomenon (Lee, Chen, & Lin, 2015, p. 87). Analysis of
the bivariate correlation between selected variables = section of conceptual framework of ICT competence was
computed (see Table 1-4)
856
ISSN 2538–7138 /Online/ (P. 851-866)
Table 1. Descriptive statistics, intercorrelations between the selected areas, first-year university students
from the Czech Republic.
Variables 1 2 3 4 5 6
1 Information skills -
2 Communication skills .321 -
3 Software skills .405 .322 -
4 Problem-solving skills .236 ,187 .438 -
5 Social networks and mobile .214 .564 .287 .207 -
6 Advanced skills .229 .331 .363 .611 .299 -
Mean 3.21 3.67 3.31 2.84 3.61 2.55
SD .60 .64 .77 .82 .83 .60
Note. p < .05.
The results indicate a moderate positive correlation between the areas social networks and mobile and com-
munication skills. The next positive moderate correlation is between the areas advanced skills and problem-solving
skills. The average scores of area 2 Communication skills and area 5 Social networks and mobile show that these
areas are strengths in first-year university students from the Czech Republic. The respondents expressed more
activity in the mentioned areas.
from Slovakia.
4 Problem-solving skills .387 .082 .329 -
6 Advanced skills .263 .391 .471 .518 .401 -
Mean 3.08 3.51 3.06 2.62 3.66 2.52
SD .51 .52 .80 .72 1.11 .57
Note. p < .05.
The results in Table 2 indicate a moderate positive correlation only between advanced skills and problem-
solving skills. The average score of area 2 Communication skills and area 5 Social networks and mobile shows
that these areas are strengths in first-year university students from Slovakia similar to the results from the Czech
Republic. The respondents expressed more activity in the mentioned areas.
from Poland.
857
(P. 851-866) ISSN 2538–7138 /Online/
4 Problem-solving skills .318 .286 .421 -

6 Advanced skills .364 .393 .455 .610 .524 -
Mean 3.25 3.42 3.12 2.63 3.46 2.12
SD .58 .66 .80 .91 .68 .68
Note. p < .05.
The results in Table 3 indicate a moderate positive correlation among advanced skills with two other areas:
problem-solving skills and social networks and mobile. The average scores of area 2 Communication skills and
area 5 Social networks and mobile show the same results for first-year university students from all three countries.
Table 4. Descriptive statistics, students before graduation at master´s level from Czech Republic and Slovakia
and Poland.
Czech students Slovak students Polish students

Items
Mean SD Mean SD Mean SD
Information skills 3.53 .57 3.21 .56 3.25 .48

Communication skills 3.47 .68 3.49 .38 3.72 .71
Software skills 3.72 .72 3.32 .69 3.34 .79
Problem-solving skills 2.94 .78 2.69 .57 2.77 .84
Social networks and mobile 3.47 .89 3.58 .72 3.57 .63
Advanced skills 2.34 .59 2.26 .50 3.33 .62
The results of students before graduation at master´s level from Poland indicated moderate positive correla-
tion between the areas social networks and mobile and communication skills and between the areas advanced
skills and software skills. No correlations were found in groups of students before graduation at master´s level
from the Czech Republic and Slovakia. Therefore, only the means and standard deviations are shown for areas
of construct for these groups. The average scores of area 2 Communication skills and area 5 Social networks and
mobile show that students before graduation at master´s level from all three countries expressed more activity in
the mentioned areas.
Regarding the first hypothesis, positive and significant correlations were found between the communication
skills and social networks for three groups of students. The findings show how social networks and mobile phone
use play an important role in the ICT competence framework of today‘s university students. On the contrary, the
mean of the area problem-solving skills is the lowest and the area advanced skills also shows a low activity rating
by groups of students.
To evaluate hypothesis no. 2, the Mann–Whitney U test was used, which is a non-parametric alternative to
the t-test. The Mann-Whitney U test is a nonparametric test that allows two groups or conditions or treatments to
be compared without making the assumption that values are normally distributed. Monitoring was held at the p
< .05 significance level in the whole analysing process. The test was conducted to check the statistical differences
between the results of the responses of first-year university students and students before graduation at master´s
level in selected areas of ICT competence. The results are shown in the following Table 5.
858
ISSN 2538–7138 /Online/ (P. 851-866)
Table 5. Comparison of ICT use by first-year students and students before graduation at master´s level.
Students Czech Slovak Polish
Areas Z-Score p Ho Z-Score p Ho Z-Score p Ho
1 Information skills -6.022 .001 R -1.593 .112 A .150 .881 A

2 Communication skills 0.430 .667 A -.740 .459 A -1.935 .052 A
3 Software skills -6.449 .001 R -2.977 .003 R -2.429 .003 R
4 Problem-solving skills -1.719 .084 A -.955 .342 A -1.794 .073 A
5 Social networks and
1.974 .048 R .783 .435 A -1.342 .180 A
mobile
6 Advanced skills -1.071 .284 A 3.994 .001 R -1.749 .001 A
Note. A = Ho is accepted, R = Ho is rejected.
The objective of this test was to verify hypothesis no. 2: There is no statistically significant difference in ICT
competence in selected areas between first-year students and students before graduation at master´s level. As the
results show, there is a statistical difference in the area software skills for groups of students from three countries.
Students before graduation at master´s level use ICT significantly more to edit documents, copy files, create
tables, create presentations, etc. It is obvious that this is related to the educational process at universities.
The findings showed partial differences in the areas information skills and social network and mobile for Czech
students. Very interesting was the finding in the area advanced skills, where a higher result was achieved by first-
year university students in Slovakia. Overall, the findings show that hypothesis no. 2 is only partially supported.
Classification of First-year University Students according to Their Use of ICT (Cluster Analysis)
Research assumption
The dispersion of the results of the students’ answers from three selected countries in ICT use can be explained
by 4 groups of factors which express their level of ICT competence. This means, their preference in how to apply
ICT in practice.
The aim in this part of the research was to identify individual groups of respondents from the research sample
(961 first-year university students) from three countries (Czech Republic, Poland, Slovakia) that have the same or
similar measure of answers to the questionnaire items. Consequently, their characteristics are described. For this
purpose, cluster analysis is used (Everitt, 2011). The aim of cluster analysis is to divide objects (in this case, students)
into clusters so that the objects assigned to one cluster are close (similar) to one another, and objects assigned to
different clusters are distant, i.e., dissimilar, to one another. The cluster analysis uses findings selected from areas
focused on communication, problem solving and software skills, and identifies what homogeneous groups exist
among first-year university students according to their ICT use.
Sample size is important in factor analysis. General guides include, Tabachnick´s rule of thumb (Tabachnick
& Fidell, 2007) that suggests having at least 300 cases are needed for factor analysis.
Bartlett‘s Test of Sphericity and Kaiser-Meyer-Olkin Test (KMO) examined preliminary agreement to determine
the suitability and relevance of the data.
Table 6. KMO test and Bartlett’s test.

KMO .834
Bartlett’s Test of Sphericity Approx. Chi Square 5598.8361
df 253
Sig .0001

Finding in Table 3 shows that the correlation between items is sufficient to run the factor analysis. Bartlett‘s
Test of Sphericity showed significant value of .0001, indicating p <0.05.
859
(P. 851-866) ISSN 2538–7138 /Online/
Figure 2. Cluster analysis, groups of students according to their use of ICTs, first-year students.
The cluster dendrogram presented in Figure 2 shows that students according to their ICT use have a strong
tendency to split into 4 separate clusters. This fact can be observed at distances connected around the value 14
(shown in the picture by the horizontal line).
To prove with certainty that there is no student subgroup that explicitly rejects all activities associated with the
use of ICTs, it is used the k-means clustering technique to identify subgroups of students. The aim was to identify
and describe the characteristics of individual groups of respondents.
0
Cluster 1
Cluster 2
-1
Cluster 3
O2-3 O3-1 O3-4 O3-7 O4-1 O4-4 O5-1
Cluster 4
Variables
Figure 3. Cluster analysis, group of students according to their ICT use.
860
ISSN 2538–7138 /Online/ (P. 851-866)
As can be seen in figure 3, the assumption was confirmed. The group of respondents, first-year university stu-
dents from three countries, is divided into four relatively separate groups according to their answers to individual
questionnaire items. Furthermore, figure 3 shows that none of the respondents‘ groups shows a significantly lower
rate of students‘ answers in selected questionnaire items which were aimed at the use of ICTs by students than
other groups.
For completeness of the analysis, individual groups were described and the number of respondents to the
group was determined. An overview of the number of respondents belonging to the 4 identified groups is given
in Table 7.
Table 7. Number of students in each group according to the similarity of the questionnaire item evaluation,
first-year students.
Respondents n = 961
Cluster 1 Cluster 2 Cluster 3 Cluster 4 Total
Count 229 281 176 275 961

Count in % 23.75 29.27 18.33 28.65 100
In order to confirm the research assumption, confirmatory factor analysis (CFA) is used to test whether the
data fit a hypothesized measurement model. The dispersion of the results of the students’ answers from three
selected countries in ICT use can be explained by 4 groups of factors which express the preference of the students
in the different ways of ICT use in practice. For the sake of completeness, the method of factor extraction is used in
research when it is necessary to reduce the high number of variables to a smaller number of latent variables. The
aim of the method is therefore to make each factor represent the maximum scatter. The cumulative value, calcu-
lated on the basis of minimizing the sum of the quadratic differences between the observed and the estimated
correlation matrix, should explain at least 50 % of the total scatter in order for the found result to be considered
statistically demonstrable (Marček, 2009, p. 196). The table shows the scatter percentage explained by individual
extracted factors.
Table 8. Eigenvalues and variance percentage explained by factors, first-year students.
Eigenvalues: Number of variables – 23

Extraction: Main components; Rotation: Varimax normal
Factor Total percentage Cumulative variance

Eigenvalue Cumulative eigenvalue
variance percentage
1 5.128 22.296 5.128 22.296

2 3.798 16.514 8.926 38.810
3 1.884 8.193 10.811 47.003
4 1.518 6.598 12.328 53.601
In total, these 4 factors (which identify subgroups of students) explain 53.60 % of the dispersion. According to
the eigenvalue criterion, components with eigenvalues greater than 1 were selected. It was again possible to extract
4 factors and calculate the factor charge values of the individual criteria, as shown in Table 8.
CFA is a way to specify which variables load onto which factors. The result of the confirmatory factor analysis
is the so-called rotated factor matrix, whose calculated items are called factor loadings. Factor loadings (ranging
from -1 through 0 to +1) indicate the degree of correlation (correlation coefficient) between the individual items
(statements) investigated and the relevant factors. The factor loading +1 would mean that the item is totally satu-
rated with (totally loads on) the given factor (so-called net factor loadig), whereas the value of 0 would mean that
the item is not affected by the factor whatsoever. Consequently, a negative value of the factor charge would mean
that the given item is saturated by (loads on) the factor in a negative way. Therefore, in order to be able to regard
the calculated factor load as statistically significant, its value should be at least +0.5 and/or higher. This condition
861
(P. 851-866) ISSN 2538–7138 /Online/
being met, the correlation between an item and the corresponding factor loading can be considered as reliable
(Larsen & Warne, 2010).
It is used a principal component analysis with Raw Varimax rotation and included items with higher load-
ings (at least 0.5) in the final scale.
The table shows how many percent of variance is explained by individual extracted factors.
Table 9. Eigenvalues and variance percentage explained by factors, first-year students.
Factor loadings
Rotation: Varimax Standardized, Extraction: Main Components,
Item (Labelled loads are > 0.500000)
Factor 1 Factor 2 Factor 3 Factor 4
O2-1 -0.07 0.44 0.65 0.27

O2-2 0.20 0.02 0.51 0.09
O2-3 -0.02 0.09 0.77 -0.01
O2-4 0.28 0.03 0.57 0.05
O2-5 -0.07 0.09 0.70 -0.10
O3-1 0.01 0.80 0.06 0.06
O3-2 0.03 0.74 0.18 0.06
O3-3 0.23 0.75 -0.09 0.15
O3-4 0.36 0.43 -0.18 0.14
O3-5 0.28 0.60 0.12 0.04
O3-6 0.47 0.37 0.25 0.05
O3-7 0.66 0.16 0.14 -0.02
O3-8 0.66 0.06 -0.04 0.01
O3-9 0.62 0.16 0.17 -0.06
O4-1 -0.05 0.25 0.15 0.47
O4-2 0.22 0.10 0.15 0.60
O4-3 0.08 0.08 0.07 0.64
O4-4 0.07 0.04 -0.12 0.70
O4-5 0.37 -0.07 0.06 0.14
O4-6 0.12 0.01 -0.14 0.58
O5-1 0.63 0.29 0.05 0.17
O5-2 0.78 0.07 0.03 0.17
O5-3 0.78 0.02 -0.03 0.17
It can be seen from Table 9 above that the extracted factors are always influenced by questionnaire responses
for a certain group of students. Based on this finding, it is possible to state that the dispersion of the questionnaire
administered to the students can be explained by 4 factors representing 4 groups of first-year university students
from 3 selected countries. This corresponds to the established research assumption that could be accepted.
In the summary of partial results, it is possible to describe the characteristic behaviour of groups of students
with regard to their use of ICT. Table 10 below shows the overview. It is possible to differentiate and characterize
individual groups according to their preferences.
Table 10. Characteristic behaviour of groups of students, first-year students.
Group of students Characteristic ICT skills Overall group characteristic
4 – expert level I edit web pages or a blog Students are able to fulfil even the most de-
I write code in a programming language manding types of ICT-related tasks, includ-
I have created and edited video ing creating software applications, websites,
I connect and install new IT devices video presentations, and managing ICT
I install or reinstall operating systems resources for school or home-related tasks.
I modify and configure software parameters
862
ISSN 2538–7138 /Online/ (P. 851-866)
Group of students Characteristic ICT skills Overall group characteristic
2 – user level I edit paragraphs, align text, edit font Students are able to use ICT to perform
I copy files or move parts of documents basic and complex user tasks consisting
I use simple formulas and create tables mainly in creating and editing documents,
I create presentations using software and integrate text, pictures, graphs presentations, tables or simple graphics.
and videos
1 – basic level I send and receive emails Students are able to use ICT only at the
I make video calls over the Internet basic communication level without the effort
I send messages to chat rooms (I chat) to create or edit. Specifically, ICT is primar-
I upload self-created content to any website to be Sharp ily used to establish and maintain social
I create and upload messages onto social networks contacts.
I participate in social networks
3 – advanced level I periodically back up the data on my computer (at least once every 3 Students are highly oriented in the use of
months) ICT tools, but they are not able to perform
I use different passwords for different Internet services more demanding tasks related to software
I respect the rules of safe use of ICT (I take breaks, I use the right lighting, I applications or IT management. They pay
use the right table and chair) special attention to security.
I choose electronic devices (e.g., PC or notebook) with respect to ecological
parameters
The cluster analysis identified four different groups of university students according to their use of ICT in their
life. Group descriptions can be found in Table 9 and the conclusions are listed in the following section of the article.
Discussion
The research was aimed at examining how first-year university students and students before graduation at
master´s level actually use ICTs. The findings of the first group are also related to the results of the teaching and
learning process in ICT at secondary schools and to their out-of-school activities. The aim of the research was to
expand our knowledge about the ICT competence of university students from three countries. Previous studies
(e.g., ICILS 2013; report by European Commission, 2014 or survey by Eurostat Database, 2017) pay little attention
to higher education students and their use of social networks and new mobile devices in their life. In order to ad-
dress these aims, three hypotheses were developed on the specific relations and were tested with the application
of descriptive statistic, Mann–Whitney U test and cluster analysis.
The first hypothesis on the selected characteristics of the ICT competence of university students from selected
universities in the Czech Republic, Poland and Slovakia was first examined by the descriptive statistics. The results
show a moderate positive correlation only between advanced skills and problem-solving skills for three groups of
students. The findings also show that in the areas communication skills and social networks and mobile ICT com-
petence framework, all groups of first-year university students and students before graduation at master´s level
obtained the highest values (means of selected areas). Overall, lower values were obtained in the areas problem-
solving skills and advanced skills. The following cluster analysis (H3) showed that students can be divided into
several groups according to their use of ICT.
The second hypothesis assumes that “selected characteristics of ICT competence of university students from
selected universities in the Czech Republic, Poland and Slovakia are on the same level.” To evaluate hypothesis H2,
the Mann–Whitney U test was used to compare differences between two independent groups of students when
the dependent variables were ordinal and not normally distributed. The findings help us understand whether
students´ responses towards selected areas of our ICT conceptual framework differ based on their time spent at
university (first-year students x students before graduation at master´s level). The findings show that hypothesis
H2 is only partially supported. Students before graduation at master´s level use ICT significantly more to edit docu-
ments, copy files, create tables, create presentations, etc. It is obvious that this is related to the educational process
at universities. In other areas, the results were not significant for students from all countries.
The third hypothesis is focused on ways in which students apply their ICT competence in everyday life. The
obtained results only partially confirmed the general assumption that young people (Millennials) in contemporary
society are characterized by skilled use of ICT in their everyday life. On the contrary, the application of cluster analysis
863
(P. 851-866) ISSN 2538–7138 /Online/
helps us find four different user groups. The findings in Table 9 show how groups of users different and what, on
the contrary, are their common features. Analysis of the data indicates a considerable variation in what students
do and are able to perform with ICT. This result has a significant impact on education and should be reflected by
teachers at secondary and high schools, and at universities.
The first group of students uses ICT only at the basic communication level without the effort to create or edit
information. ICT is primarily used to establish and maintain social contacts.
The second group is called the “user level group”. Students are able to use ICT to perform basic and complex
user tasks consisting mainly in creating and editing documents, presentations, tables or simple graphics. This group
successfully meets both levels of skills (“basic” and “above basic”) by Eurostat, digital skills of individuals (2017).
The third group of students (“advanced level”) is highly oriented in the use of ICT tools, but they are not able
to perform more demanding tasks related to software applications or IT management. They pay special attention
to security. The difference between the first and the third group is already very significant and should be reflected
in the application of ICT in the teaching and learning process.
Students from the fourth group are able to fulfil the most demanding types of ICT-related tasks, including
creating software applications, websites, video presentations, and managing ICT resources for school and home-
related tasks. These students may, compared to the first group, serve as experts for ICT application in educational
process (the respondents in this survey were not students of IT study programs).
Evidently, educators should pay attention to differences among groups of ICT users and their influence on
the teaching and learning process. The findings are in line with the findings by Hatlewik, Gudmundsdóttir, and
Loi, (2015); Jones et al. (2010); Margaryan, Littlejohn, and Vojtb, (2011) or De Wit, Verhoeven, and Elen (2013). Not
all students with more ICT experience showed increased levels of expertise in all types of ICT skills and the results
indicate a variation in ICT competence. Future research could also focus on the habitual use of social networks and
mobile phones and their not only positive but also negative influence on the learning process (Gaudreau, Miranda,
& Gareau, 2014; Flanighan & Babchuk, 2015; Junco, 2012; Lamanauskas et al, 2018; Lau, 2017). On the other hand,
research confirms that innovative teaching methods supported by modern information and communication
technology have a positive effect on teaching and learning (Flogie, Lakota, & Aberšek, 2018). It is needed to look
for ways in which to improve ICT competence for the first group of students and show them that they will need
it for life in Society 4.0.
The present research has certain limitations. First, this research focused on the ICT competence of university
students and the research used a self-report questionnaire with the instrument focusing on the “doing” approach
(Lee, Chen, & Lin, 2015). The frequency type of measure refers to how often the individuals engaged (Junco, 2012)
in a certain activity. Second, the sample of students is from three countries but only from four universities and from
economics and education study programs. Therefore, to be able to generalize the results, the research should have
involved more participants and students of other study programs except IT study programs. Finally, the scope and
depth of the discussion in the research is compromised by being confined to the selected resources. For future
research it is important to consider other items of the ICT competence framework that can help us to improve our
understanding of students‘ behaviour when using ICT for learning purposes and leisure-time activities.
Conclusions
The results of this research have theoretical and practical implications. The research indicated that the fre-
quencies of ICT use for school and leisure-related tasks are crucial determinants of students’ ICT competence. The
level and structure of the ICT competence of university students have a decisive influence on ICT application in
students´ everyday activities. Significant differences between first-year students (bachelor´s level) and students
before graduation at master´s level were found only in the area software skills for all groups from three countries.
The findings of the research show that social networks and mobile phone use play an important role in the ICT
competence of today‘s university students. The obtained results confirmed that young people, university students,
are not a homogenous group of ICT users. The results of this research suggest that the effectiveness of ICT use at
university and at home depends on the actual practice that students make of it and on their ability to integrate ICT
into their learning process and their everyday lives. Educators should be aware of the above-mentioned four user
groups’ differences and take them into account when planning, implementing and evaluating the teaching and
learning process. The different levels of ICT competence of university students will influence their employment,
further education (lifelong learning) and their activities in leisure time.
864
ISSN 2538–7138 /Online/ (P. 851-866)
References
Australian Council for Educational Research (2016). A global measure for digital and ICT literacy skills. ED/GEMR/MRT/2016/P1/4.
Retrieved from: http://unesdoc.unesco.org/images/0024/002455/245577E.pdf.
Baelo, R., & Mayo, I. (2010). Use of information and communication techologies in Castilla & León Universities. Scientific Journal
of Media Literacy, 18, 159-166. https://doi.org/10.3916/C35-2010-03-09.
Bruneel, S., De Wit, K., Verhoeven, J. C., & Elen, J. (2013). Facebook: When education meets privacy. Interdisciplinary Journal of
E-learning and Learning Objects, 9, 125-148. https://doi.org/10.28945/1868.
De Wit, K., Heerwegh, K., & Verhoven, J. C. (2014). Can openness to ICT and scientific research predict the ICT skills and ICT use
of bachelor’s students? Computers & Education, 78, 397-413. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.compedu.2014.07.003.
Eger, L. (2015). Is Facebook a similar learning tool for university students as LMS? Procedia - Social and Behavioral Sciences, 203,
233-238. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.sbspro.2015.08.287.
European Commission (2014). Digital single market. Measuring digital skills across the EU: EU wide indicators of digital competence.
Retrieved from: https://ec.europa.eu/digital-single-market/en/news/measuring-digital-skills-across-eu-eu-wide-indicators-
digital-competence.
European Commission (2018). Digital education action plan. Retrieved from: https://ec.europa.eu/education/policy/strategic-
framework/education-technology_en.
Eurostat Database (2017). Available at: http://ec.europa.eu/eurostat/data/database.
Eurostat. Digital skills of individuals. Data description. Metadata update, 31. 5. 2017. Retrieved from: http://ec.europa.eu/eurostat/
cache/metadata/en/tepsr_sp410_esmsip.htm.
Everitt, B. (2011). Cluster analysis. Chichester, West Sussex, U.K: Wiley.
Flanigan, A. E., & Babchuk, W. A. (2015). Social media as academic quicksand: A phenomenological study of student experiences
in and out of the classroom. Learning and Individual Differences, 44, 40-45. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.lindif.2015.11.003.
Flogie, A., Lakota, B. A., & Aberšek, B. (2018). The psychological and cognitive influence of ICT on competences of STEM students.
Journal of Baltic Science Education, 1 (2), 267-276.
Fraillon, J., Ainlen, J., Schultz, W., Friedman, T., & Gebhardt, E. (2014). Preparing for Live in Digita Edge. Melbourne: Springer. Retrieved
from: http://www.iea.nl/fileadmin/user_upload/Publications/Electronic_versions/ICILS_2013_International_Report.pdf.
Gaudreau, P., Miranda, D., & Gareau, A. (2014). Canadian university students in wireless classrooms: What they do on their laptops
and does it really matter? Computers & Education, 70, 245-255. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.compedu.2013.08.019.
Gray, D. E. (2009). Doing research in the real world. Los Angeles: SAGE.
Guzmán-Simón, F., García-Jiménez, E., & López-Cobo, I. (2017). Undergraduate students’ perspectives on digital competence
and academic literacy in Spanish University. Computers in Humann Behavior. 74,196-204. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.
chb.2017.04.040.
Harris, P. (2015). Student mobile device survey 2015. National Report: College Students. Pearson. Retrieved from: https://www.
pearsoned.com/wp-content/uploads/2015-Pearson-Student-Mobile-Device-Survey-College.pdf.
Hatlewik, O. E., Gudmundsdóttir, G. B., & Loi, M. (2015). Digital diversity among upper secondary students: A multilevel analysis
of the relationship between cultural capital, self-efficacy, strategic use of information and digital competence. Computers
& Education, 81, 345-353. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.compedu.2014.10.019.
Howe, N., & Strauss, W. (2000). Millennials rising: The next generations. New York: Vintage Books.
ICILS 2013. Technical report. (2015). Editors: J.Fraillon, W.Schulz, T. Friedman, J. Ainley, E, Gebhardt Retrieved from: http://www.
iea.nl/fileadmin/user_upload/Publications/Electronic_versions/ICILS_2013_Technical_Report.pdf.
International Literacy Panel (2002). Educational testing service. Digital transformation: A framework for ICT literacy. Princenton.
Retrieved from: https://www.ets.org/Media/Research/pdf/ICTREPORT.pdf.
Ilomäki, L., Kantosalo, A., & Lakkala, M. (2011). What is digital competence? In Linked portal. Brussels: European Schoolnet. http://
linked.eun.org/web/guest/in-depth3.
Ivanković, A, Špinarec, S., & Miljko, D. (2013). ICT literacy among the students of the Faculty of Philosophy, University of Mostar.
Procedia - Social and Behavioral Sciences, 93, 684-688. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.sbspro.2013.09.261.
Janssen, J., Stoyanov, S., Ferrari, A., Punie, Y., Pannekeet, K., & Sloep, P. (2013). Experts’ views on digital competence: Commonali-
ties and differences. Computers & Education, 6, 473-481. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.compedu.2013.06.008.
Junco, R. (2012). The relationship between frequency of Facebook use, participation in Facebook activities, and student engage-
ment. Computers & Education, 58 (1), 162-171. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.compedu.2011.08.004.
Kiss, G. (2017). Measuring the ICT competencies in Slovakia and in Serbia in the higher education. SHS Web Conferences. 37,
01075, https://doi.org/10.1051/shsconf/20173701075.
Kiss, G. & Castelú, C. A. T. (2015). Comparison of the ICT literacy level of the Mexican and Hungarian students in the higher educa-
tion. Procedia - Social and Behavioral Sciences, 176, 824-833. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.sbspro.2015.01.546.
Lamanauskas, V., Gorghiu, G., Iordache, D. D., & Pribeanu, C. (2018). Perception of educational potential of online social networks
in Romania and Lithuania. In. M. Turčáni, Z. Balogh, M. Munk, J. Kapusta, L. Benko (Eds.), DIVAI 2018 – The 12thinternational
scientific conference on Distance Learning in Applied Informatics (May 2-4, 2018, Šturovo) (pp. 91-102). The Netherlands:
Wolters Kluwer.
Larsen, R., & Warne, R. T. (2010). Estimating confidence intervals for eigenvalues in exploratory factor analysis. Behavior Research
Methods, 42, 871–876. https://doi.org/10.3758/BRM.42.3.87.
Lau, W. W. F. (2017). Effects of social media usage and socil media multitasking on the academic performance of university stu-
dents. Computers in Human Behavior, 68, 286-291. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.chb.2016.11.043.
865
(P. 851-866) ISSN 2538–7138 /Online/
Lee, L., Chen, D-T., & Lin, T-B. (2015). Understanding new media literacy: The development of a measuring instrument. Computers
& Education, 85, 84-93. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.compedu.2015.02.006.
Marček, M. (2009). Viacnásobná štatistická analýza dát a modely časových radov v ekonómii. [Multiple statistical analysis and
analysis of economic time series] Opava: Slezská univerzita, Filozoficko-přírodovědecká fakulta.
Mazman, S. G., & Usluel, Y. K. (2010). Modeling educational usage of Facebook. Computers & Education, 55(2), 444-453. https://
doi.org/10.1016/j.compedu.2010.02.008.
Margaryan, A., Littlejohn, A., & Vojtb, G. (2011). Are digital natives a myth or reality? University students’ use of digital technolo-
gies. Computers & Education, 56 (2). 429-440. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.compedu.2010.09.004.
Measuring the information society report 2017, Volume 2. ICT country profiles. ITU, Geneva. Retrieved May 2018 from: https://
www.itu.int/en/ITU-D/Statistics/Documents/publications/misr2017/MISR2017_Volume2.pdf.
Miloševič, I., Živkovič, D., Arsič, S., & Manasijevič, D. (2015). Facebook as virtual classroom – Social networking in learning and
teaching among Serbian students. Telematics and Informatics, 32 (4), 576-585. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.tele.2015.02.003.
Rothagi, A., Scherer, R., & Hetlevik, O. E. (2016). The role of ICT selfefficacy for students’ ICT use and their achievement in a com-
puter and information literacy test. Computers & Education, 102, 103-116. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.compedu.2016.08.001.
Salomon, A., & Kolikant, Y, B-D. (2016). High-school students´perceptions of the effects of non-academic usage of ICT on their
academic achievements. Computers in Human Behavior, 64, 143-151. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.chb.2016.06.024.
Siddiq, F., Cochyyev, P., & Willson, M. (2017). Learning in digital networks – ICT literacy: A novel assessment os students’ 21st
century skills. Computers & Education, 109, 11-37. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.compedu.2017.01.014.
Tabachnick, B. G., & Fidel S. L. (2007). Using multivariate statistics. Boston: Pearson Education.
Thongmak, M. (2014). Factors determining learners’ acceptance of Facebook in higher education classroom. Knowledge Manage-
ment & ELearning, 6 (3), 316-331.
Toro, U., & Joshi, M. (2012). ICT in higher education: Review of literature from the period 2004-2011. International Journal of In-
novation, Management and Technology, 3 (1), 20-23. https://doi.org/10.7763/IJIMT.2012.V3.190
Received: June 03, 2018 Accepted: September 25, 2018
Ludvík Eger Doc., PaedDr., CSc., Associate Professor, University of West Bohemia,
Faculty of Economics, Univerzitní 8, 301 01, Plzeň, Czech Republic.
E-mail: leger@kmo.zcu.cz
Website: https://www.zcu.cz
Milan Klement Doc., PhDr., Ph.D., Associate Professor, Palacký University Olomouc,
Faculty of Education, Czech Republic.
E-mail: milan.klement@upol.cz
Website: https://www.pdf.upol.cz/
Lukasz Tomczyk PhDr., Ph.D. Assistant Professor, Researcher, Pedagogical University
of Cracow, Faculty of Education, ul. Podchorążych 2, 30-084 Kraków,
Poland.
E-mail: lukasz.tomczyk@up.krakow.pl
Website: http://www.up.krakow.pl/
Mária Pisoňová Doc., PaedDr., Ph.D., Associate Professor, Constantine the Philosopher
University in Nitra, Faculty of Education, Dražovská cesta 4, 949 74
Nitra, Slovakia.
E-mail: mpisonova@ukf.sk
Website: https://www.pf.ukf.sk/sk
Gabriela Petrová Prof., PhDr. CSc., Professor, Constantine the Philosopher University in
Nitra, Faculty of Education, Dražovská cesta 4, 949 74 Nitra, Slovakia.
E-mail: gpetrova@ukf.sk
Website: https://www.pf.ukf.sk/sk/
866
EFFECTS OF PROJECT-BASED
ACTIVITIES IN DEVELOPING
HIGH SCHOOL STUDENTS’ ISSN 1648-3898 /Print/
ENERGY LITERACY ISSN 2538-7138 /Online/
Kuen-Yi Lin,
Shao-Chuan Lu
Introduction Abstract. Energy literacy is a key factor

in ensuring the protection of the natural
Sustainable development is one of the most important issues in science environment. Numerous studies on energy
education, more and more positioned and research papers focused on literacy have demonstrated the develop-
ensuring the protection of the environment and satisfaction of human need ment of instructional methods to promote
has become an important research subject (Ušeckienė & Targamadzė, 2005). the willingness to save energy as a critical
In recent years, more and more studies have focused on the cultivation of research subject. Through a project-based
energy literacy in Taiwan, with hopes of protecting the natural environment activity, this research explored how hands-
by improving the energy literacy of society (Lee, Lee, Altschuld, & Pan, 2015; on activities improve the energy literacy
Yeh, Huang, & Yu, 2017). According to the findings of research on energy of students. A quasi-experimental design
literacy, people’s energy-related knowledge and attitudes are satisfactory; was adopted, namely a pre-test and post-
however, their engagement in energy conservation behavior is not as satis- test nonequivalent control group design.
factory. Therefore, Lee at al. (2015) and Lee, Chang, Lai, Guu and Lin (2017) In total, 77 senior high school students
suggest developing methods to effectively improve energy conservation participated in a 6-week teaching experi-
behavior as a valuable research topic in the field of sustainable development. ment. A single-factor analysis of covariance
Past research suggested that an energy-related attitude is a key factor (ANCOVA) and multiple regression analyses
influencing energy conservation behavior (Lee at al., 2015; Lee at al., 2017). were employed to analyze the collected
However, a research by Ntona, Arabatzis, and Kyriakopoulos (2015) on stu- data. The main findings were as follows: (1)
dents’ lack of willingness to engage in energy conservation behavior showed Project-based hands-on activities helped
that personal traits as well as social and environmental constraints likely play improve the energy literacy of senior high
a role. For example, in areas with frequent rain, it is considered inconvenient school students; however, the effect was not
to save energy by riding a bicycle to school. Therefore, students usually go statistically significant in both experimental
to school by car. In addition, although it was found that students have a and control groups. (2) The key factor influ-
reasonable level of understanding of energy-related knowledge and various encing the energy conservation behavior of
scientific concepts related to the impact of energy use on the environment, senior high school students was energy-re-
they seem less concerned about major energy-related issues. Some students lated attitudes following the project-based
implement simple energy conservation practices in daily life; however, for learning process.
energy-saving measures that require more effort such as collecting recyclable Keywords: Energy literacy, project-based
items and persuading others to take steps to conserve energy and reduce activity, senior high school students, solar-
their carbon footprint, the willingness to participate is greatly reduced (Chen, powered insect trap.
Chou, Yen, & Chao, 2015)
To effectively improve energy literacy and energy conservation behavior
this research initiated a project-based activity. Other scholars have also at- Kuen-Yi Lin
National Taiwan Normal University, Taiwan
tempted to use project-based activities to cultivate students’ energy literacy. Shao-Chuan Lu
Verbič, Keerthisinghe, and Chapman (2017) utilized project-based activities to New Taipei Municipal Yong Ho Junior High
guide students to explore the sustainable energy system. The results showed School, Taiwan
that the project-based approach could help students develop a positive
867
EFFECTS OF PROJECT-BASED ACTIVITIES IN DEVELOPING HIGH SCHOOL STUDENTS’
ENERGY LITERACY
(P. 867-877) ISSN 2538–7138 /Online/
attitude towards energy conservation and indirectly influence their energy conservation practice. Karpudewan,
Ponniah, and Zain (2016) introduced a project-based activity to cultivate students’ energy conservation practices.
An analysis of the collected qualitative data indicates that students’ energy conservation behavior improved fol-
lowing the activity. Although previous research explored the correlation between project-based activities and
energy literacy, a direct quantitative evidence has been obtained to empirically confirm that project-based activities
improve energy conservation knowledge and attitude but energy conservation behavior is not included.
To address this research gap in this research, the project-based activities were developed, which involved
designing and constructing a solar-powered insect trap. The justification for utilizing solar-powered insect traps
as the focus of the project-based activity is that by doing so, students engage in an in-depth exploration. Thus,
when they are involved in agricultural jobs in the future, they may have the awareness to reduce the application
of pesticides and adopt more environmentally friendly techniques to curb pests. In order to discuss the effect of
project-based activities on high school students’ energy literacy, this research has two primary purposes: (1) To
explore the effect of the project-based design and construction of solar-powered insect traps on senior high school
students’ energy literacy (energy-related knowledge, energy-related attitude, and energy conservation behavior);
and (2) to examine the key factors affecting senior high school students’ energy conservation behavior.
Energy Literacy and Key Factors Influencing Energy Conservation Behavior
Energy literacy and the contents thereof have been researched at length. DeWaters and Powers (2013)
reviewed and summarized numerous related studies, concluding that energy literacy is composed of cognitive,
affective, and behavioral dimensions. Based on this conclusion, individuals that are energy literate should have
the following characteristics. They should (1) have a basic understanding of energy consumption in their daily
lives; (2) understand the environment and social impact of energy production and consumption; (3) recognize
the impact of energy-related decisions and actions of individuals, groups, and corporations on global society; (4)
understand the necessary requirements for energy conservation, carbon footprint reduction, and the develop-
ment of alternative energy sources; and (5) be dedicated to adopting choices, decisions, and actions that reflect
such an understanding and attitude towards energy development and consumption, as well as corresponding
skills (DeWaters & Powers, 2013).
In addition to the dimensions and definition proposed by DeWaters and Powers (2013; 2011), energy literacy
includes the educational dimensions of civic responsibility and participation. In addition to the subtle influence
on students’ behaviors, energy literacy requires that students acquire scientific knowledge and the ability to make
informed judgments (Chen, Liu, & Chen, 2015). Therefore, DeWaters and Powers (2013) emphasized that energy
literacy includes an in-depth understanding of the relevant science and technology to ensure that accurate value-
based judgments can be made during energy conservation practices. Studies on energy literacy education de-
termined that students’ misconceptions negatively impact the learning of scientific knowledge and the tendency
to mislead energy literacy education, damaging energy-related behaviors. One such example is that students in
Taiwan generally believe that wind power should replace thermal power generation; however, they are not aware
of the topographical and social factors that hinder wind power. Therefore, the successful application of scientific
knowledge is an important subject in energy-related education (Yeh, Huang, & Yu, 2017).
Further exploration on the behavioral dimensions of energy literacy revealed that the cultivation of energy
literacy should focus on developing civic responsibilities and changes in living habits, and the ability to aptly ap-
ply scientific and technological knowledge to adopt appropriate energy conservation behaviors when faced with
energy issues (Chen, Huang, & Liu, 2013; DeWaters, & Powers, 2013; Lee, Lee, Altschuld, & Pan, 2015). Chen, Huang,
and Liu (2013) proposed a framework for energy education, emphasizing that civic responsibility for creating a
sustainable society is the major behavioral dimension impacting energy literacy. As for college students’ energy
behaviors in college accommodation, these energy behaviors may differ in their daily life that imply some other
factors, like motivation, civic responsibility or even country policy, which may affect their attitudes (Cotton, Shiel, &
Paço, 2016; Chiang, Mevlevioglu, Natarajan, Padget, & Walker, 2014). In order to explore the approaches in developing
college students’ energy literacy, Demeo, Feldman, and Peterson (2013) utilized the human ecology approach and
hands-on projects in enhancing college students energy literacy, and the results of students’ feedback are positive.
In addition to cultivating energy literacy, energy education should further consider and explore solutions to
the lack of energy conservation behaviors (Lee at al., 2015; Lee at al., 2017). DeWaters and Powers (2011) contend
that energy conservation behavior is influenced by energy-related attitudes rather than energy-related knowledge.
868
ISSN 1648–3898 /Print/ EFFECTS OF PROJECT-BASED ACTIVITIES IN DEVELOPING HIGH SCHOOL STUDENTS’
ENERGY LITERACY
ISSN 2538–7138 /Online/ (P. 867-877)
Specifically, even if students are well versed in energy-related knowledge, they may not necessarily engage in
energy conservation behaviors. However, if students have a constructive attitude towards energy conservation,
they are more likely to demonstrate such attitudes through their actions. The viewpoints of DeWaters and Powers
(2011) are well accepted by scholars (Lee at al., 2015; Lee at al., 2017). Hence, further studies have been conducted
to analyze the likely contexts and explanations for the situation. Ntona, Arabatzis, and Kyriakopoulos (2015) sug-
gested that students’ lack of willingness to implement energy conservation measures is related to their personal
traits and societal and environmental constraints. According to their research, 66.67% of explored students had
the habit of turning off the lights when they were the last to leave the rooms of their house; however, only 21.69%
of students turned off the lights when they were the last to leave the classroom. Chen et al. (2015) believed that
students apply only basic energy conservation measures and are less willing to actively participate in energy-saving
and environmental protection activities, even if they are aware of the destruction of not doing so on the global
environment. According to the results of these studies, it is important to encourage students to actively adopt a
wider range of energy conservation measures to protect the environment in addition to daily energy-saving prac-
tices. In the present research, the researchers aimed to resolve this problem through the project-based activities.
Effects of Project-Based Activities on Energy Literacy
Project-based activities have three design characteristics: the learning processes should be well designed,
learners should be actively involved in the learning, and the teaching process should be achieved through
knowledge sharing and team-based cooperation (Kokotsaki, Menzies, & Wiggin, 2015). Therefore, the content of
project-based learning activities requires careful design and adjustment to match the context to enable students
to actively participate in activities and engage in discussions (Can, Yıldız-Demirtaş, & Altun, 2017). Through peer
interaction, students can receive feedback and make cognitive, affective, and behavioral changes when neces-
sary (Han, Capraro, & Capraro, 2015). The purposes of project-based activities are to develop students’ sense of
responsibility for the learning content and provide them with the ability to learn through cooperation with others
(Bilgin, Karakuyu, & Ay, 2015). In the activities, students receive feedback through group discussion and recogni-
tion by playing their assigned roles, establishing a positive attitude towards the learning content. Well-designed
project-based activities have been shown to enhance students’ achievements and improve attitudes (Blumenfeld,
Soloway, Marx, Krajcik, Guzdial, & Palincsar, 2011). Project-based activities with other pedagogical methods, like
STEM, would change students’ attitudes toward the learning topics (Al-Balushi, & Al-Aamri, 2014). Therefore, com-
pared to teacher-centered teaching methods, project-based learning stimulates students’ learning motivation,
affects their attitudes and cultivates their comprehension of the content(Kokotsaki, Menzies, & Wiggins, 2016; Lee,
Lin, Guu, Chang, & Lai, 2013).
Many scholars have utilized project-based activities (e.g. design and making an energy-saving house) to cul-
tivate students’ energy literacy. DeWaters and Powers (2011) designed project-based activities based on energy
use, finding that students acquired extensive knowledge related to energy use in daily life and could reflect on
energy-related issues such as energy consumption and conservation. Verbič, Keerthisinghe, and Chapman (2017)
designed project-based activities to help students better understand sustainable energy sources. Their results
showed that students were very satisfied with the implementation of the project-based activity and presented a
positive energy-related attitude. Karpudewan, Ponniah, and Zain (2016) utilized project-based activities to demon-
strate solar furnaces and generative fuel. Their analysis of qualitative data revealed a positive change in students’
energy-related knowledge and attitudes, and in their energy conservation behavior. Lee et al. (2012) developed
project-based activities based on energy saving in homes. The findings suggested that such activities benefitted
students’ acquisition of energy-related knowledge, established a positive attitude towards energy conservation,
and developed energy conservation behaviors.
Although previous research explored the effects of project-based activities on improving energy literacy and
discovered a positive impact on energy-related knowledge and attitudes, concrete results on the impact on energy
conservation behavior remain insufficient. Karpudewan, Ponniah, and Zain (2016) adopted an observation method
and analyzed qualitative data, but did not use quantitative, empirical data to support their findings. Although Lee
et al. (2013) suggested that project-based activities are beneficial to improving energy conservation behavior, their
experiment only revealed that the performance of the experimental group in the posttest was better than that in
the pretest. Results of the one-way ANOVA indicated that the differences in performance between the experimental
and control groups were not statistically significant.
869
ENERGY LITERACY
(P. 867-877) ISSN 2538–7138 /Online/
To address this research gap, this research aimed to design project-based activities to effectively alter students’
energy conservation behaviors, cultivate their sense of civic responsibility, and change their living habits so that
they can apply corresponding scientific and technological knowledge, possess positive attitude toward energy
conservation and adopt beneficial behaviors related to energy issues.
Research Design
This research explored the effects of project-based activities on cultivating the energy literacy of senior high
school students using project-based activities in the design and construction of a solar-powered insect trap. The
pre-test and post-test nonequivalent control group from a quasi-experimental design was adopted (Table 1). The
theme of the project was to design and construct a solar-powered insect trap. Students received knowledge related
to the development of the solar-powered insect trap and conducted in-depth discussions and related research on
the design and construction thereof. In terms of the experiment method, the experimental group received a set of
project-based hands-on activities on the design and construction of a solar-powered insect trap, while the control
group was taught the same subject matter through traditional teaching methods, where written reports served
as the channel for discussion. The written reports were developed in group and the group leaders were in charge
of distributing tasks for each team members. They have to discuss the results of data collection and interviews,
and recoding what they have found during the process of discussion. The Energy Literacy Scale (ELS) developed
by Lee at el.(2017) was employed in the pretest to control differences in students’ prior knowledge, attitudes, and
behaviors. The same scale was employed in the posttest. However, to avoid the impact of the memory effect on
the results, the researchers purposely adjusted the order of the questions without changing the wording of the
items in the Energy Literacy Scale questionnaires.
Table 1. Research design of this research.
Group Pre-test Experimental reatment Post-test
Energy Literacy Scale A project-based hands-on activities focusing on the design and Energy Literacy Scale
Experimental group
(Lee et al.2015) construction of solar-powered insect traps. (Lee et al.2015)
A teacher-centered teaching activities focusing on introducing
Energy Literacy Scale knowledge related to solar-powered insect traps, with a focus on Energy Literacy Scale
Control group
(Lee et al.2015) submitting research reports without constructing actual solar- (Lee et al.2015)
powered insect traps.
Note: The Energy Literacy Scale questionnaires used in the posttest were altered to limit the effect of memory. The order of the ques-
tions was different, but the questions themselves were unchanged.
Sample
Two groups of third-year students from a senior high school in Taiwan were selected as the participants. The
researchers randomly selected one group (40 students) as the control group to receive the teacher-centered teaching
activities and the other group (37 students) as the experimental group to participate in the project-based activities.
The control group consisted of 21 male and 19 female students, while the experimental group consisted of 20 male
and 17 female students. The selected school specialized in farm management. Therefore, the designed project-
based activities should stimulate past knowledge and install a methodology to combine the research findings of
the course with future farming practices. In addition, this design allowed the researchers to control variables that
may have affected the outcome of the experiment, such as the “subject characteristics” threat, “data collector” bias,
“testing” threat, and “implementation” threat ) to ensure the validity and reliability of the results (Fraenkel, Wallen,
& Hyun, 2012). As for the ethical procedure, all the participants are informed about the purposes of this study, all
data will be safeguarded, and they can refuse to participate in the research or cut short their participation without
870
ENERGY LITERACY
ISSN 2538–7138 /Online/ (P. 867-877)
any reason. Besides, all participants in the control group with receiving the teacher-center teachering activities
will be invited to join an extra project-based activities after the teaching experiment for the puspose of allowing
them to experience hands-on activities.
Procedure
This research design was made of project-based activities. The project-based activities included 12 sessions
(600 minutes in total) over 6 weeks. The theme of the course was solar-powered insect traps (Figure 1). In Taiwan,
it is hard to see solar-powered insect traps, most farmers are using chemical pesticides for their conveniences and
lead to server environmental pollution. The solar-powered insect traps with water pan are much more efficient and
environmentally friendly than other devices. Since the target samples may engage in related work in the future,
the project provides them a practical way in improving their energy literacy. The solar-powered insect traps are
controlled by CdS photoresister and the bulb light powered by solar panels was designed to attract insects in the
night. The water pan below was used to kill insects (Figure 2). Students were expected to acquire related knowledge
and participate in in-depth discussions and research. The experimental group was given project-based activities,
wherein they were expected to design and construct solar-powered insect traps. The control group was taught
through teacher-centered teaching activities, and was expected to submit written reports. The teaching activities
conducted in both groups are described in Table 2. Furthermore, in order to explore the effects of project-based
activities in developing students’ energy literacy, this research conducted a pre-test and post-test in the first week
and twelfth week respectively. In addition, to avoid the memory effect on the outcome of the experiment, the
order of the items in the ELS was different in the two tests.
Table 2. Teaching activities.
Sessions Experimental Group Control Group
1 •• Course introduction
•• Pre-test of energy literacy
2 •• Introduction of solar energy
•• Understanding solar cells and storage devices
3 •• Introduction of pest control technology
•• Understanding how light-based insect traps work
4 •• Understanding the physical structure and theoretical principle of solar insect traps
•• Learning about the materials used in “drowning type” solar insect traps
5 •• Design of the solar insect trap (Session 5-6) •• Collection of past studies on solar insect traps
6 •• Analysis of past studies on solar insect traps
7 •• Construction of the solar insect trap (Session 7-10) •• Exploration of the current situation and problems in the practical
application of solar insect traps
8 •• Proposition of measures to improve the practical application
of solar insect traps
9 •• Conducting of interviews to examine the feasibility of the
proposed measures
10 •• Compilation of the results of the interviews
11 •• Presentation of the constructed solar insect trap •• Creation of reports of what was learned
•• Testing the constructed solar insect trap
12 •• Reflection on the course
•• Post-test of energy literacy
871
ENERGY LITERACY
(P. 867-877) ISSN 2538–7138 /Online/
Figure 1. Applying the constructed solar insect trap in the field.
Figure 2. Light activated switch for light-emitting diode designed by the students.
Instruments
The ELS developed by Lee et al.(2017) was introduced to measure the energy literacy of the participants.
The ELS consists of three sub-scales, measuring energy-related knowledge (knowledge), energy-related attitude
(attitude), and energy conservation behavior (behavior). The knowledge sub-scale consists of 38 items covering the
dimensions of basic scientific energy concepts, energy sources and resources, energy generation and usage, and
energy impact on the environment/society. The attitude sub-scale is composed of 19 items, covering dimensions
regarding concerns about the issues of global energy and positive attitudes and values. The behavior sub-scale
includes 27 items, covering dimensions related to actions for energy conservation and change advocacy. The
results of the pre-test, item analysis, and factor analysis indicated that the item discrimination is good in knowl-
edge subscale, and the reliability analysis is 0.88 in behavior subscale and 0.90 in affect subscale (Lee et al., 2017).
Therefore, the scale had good reliability and validity and could be used to effectively measure the energy literacy
of high school students.
Data Analysis

An ANCOVA was employed to compare the effects of teacher-centered and project-based activities on im-
proving the energy literacy of senior high school students. The students’ ELS results, which are developed by Lee
et al. (2017) were adopted as the covariate to exclude any prior differences in knowledge, attitude, and behavior.
In addition, a multiple regression analysis was conducted to further explore the factors influencing participants’
energy conservation behavior.
872
ENERGY LITERACY
ISSN 2538–7138 /Online/ (P. 867-877)
Results of Research
Effects of the Project-Based Activities on Energy Literacy
According to the results of the pre-test and post-test (Table 3), knowledge, attitude, and behavior in the
experimental group in the post-test were all slightly greater than those obtained in the pre-test. The attitude and
behavior dimensions of the control group in the posttest were also slightly greater than that in the pretest; however,
the results for knowledge in the posttest declined slightly from those obtained in the pretest. Since these results
did not exclude prior differences in energy literacy among participants, an ANCOVA was employed to explore the
effects of the project-based and teacher-centered activities on improving participants’ energy literacy.
Table 3. Summary of ELS results.
Experimental Group (N = 37) Control Group (N = 40)

Dimension
M SD 95% CI M SD 95% CI
Pre-test
1. Knowledge 65.08 9.15 [62.03, 68.13] 63.88 12.34 [59.93, 67.83]
2. Attitude 4.44 .46 [4.28, 4.59] 4.28 .55 [4.10, 4.46]
3. Behavior 3.88 .47 [3.72, 4.04] 3.74 .70 [3.51, 3.96]
Post-test
1. Knowledge 67.35 8.96 [64.37, 70.34] 62.89 13.96 [58.43, 67.36]
2. Attitude 4.48 .40 [4.35, 4.62] 4.40 .56 [4.23, 4.59]
3. Behavior 4.02 .58 [3.83, 4.22] 3.95 .77 [3.71, 4.20]
Before conducting the ANCOVA, the homogeneity hypothesis of the within-group regression coefficients was
tested. The results showed that the hypothesis was supported for knowledge (F [1, 73] = 1.13, p = .29), attitude
(F [1, 73] = .17, p = .68), and behavior (F [1, 73] = .63, p = .43), suggesting that an ANCOVA could be performed.
The results of the ANCOVA are exhibited in Table 4. The table shows that the between-group effects of
knowledge, attitude, and behavior were not statistically significant. These findings indicate that no substantial
differences exist in the improvement of knowledge, attitude, and behavior between participants that received
teacher-centered and project-based activities.
Table 4. Results of the ANCOVA of energy literacy.
Source of Variation SS Df MS F η2
1. Knowledge
Between-Group 288.83 1 288.83 2.54 .03
Within-Group (Error) 8403.22 74 113.56
Corrected Total 10870.82 76
2. Attitude
Between-Group .01 1 .01 .08 <.01
Within-Group (Error) 10.40 74 0.14
3. Behavior
Between-Group .02 1 .02 .07 <.01
Within-Group (Error) 20.67 74 .28
Remark: *p < .05
873
ENERGY LITERACY
(P. 867-877) ISSN 2538–7138 /Online/
Factors Influencing Energy Conservation Behavior
Since the results of the ANCOVA suggested that the project-based activities did not achieve their expected
outcome, further analysis was conducted to explore the factors influencing participants’ energy conservation be-
havior. The results of the behavior-sub-scale in the posttest were used as the dependent variable, and all-possible-
regression procedure was applied to enter all other variables as independent variables in the multiple regression
analysis. A standardized regression coefficient was used as the path coefficient.
Table 5. Summary of simultaneous regression analysis.
Std. Error of the Durbin-

Model R R Square Adjusted R Square
Estimate Watson
1 .76 .58 .55 .46 2.09
Table 6. Summary of regression ANOVA.
Model Sum of Squares Degree of Freedom Mean Square F
1 Regression 20.34 5 4.07 19.36*

Residual Error 14.92 71 .21
Total 35.26 76
Remark: * p < .001
Table 7. Summary of regression coefficients.
Unstandardized Standardized
Confidence Interval
Coefficients Coefficients
Model t
Lower Upper
B SE β
limit limit
1 (Constant) -.05 .57 -.09

Knowledge (Pre-test) -.01 .01 -.12 -1.31 .73 1.38
Attitude (Pre-test) -.24 .15 -.17 -1.58 .47 2.13
Behavior (Pre-test) .51 .12 .45 4.15* .51 1.96
Knowledge (Post-test) <.01 .01 .06 .73 .77 1.30
Attitude (Post-test) .76 .15 .55 5.02* .50 1.99
Note: 1. * p < .001; 2. The dependent variable is the participants’ performances in the behavior sub-scale in the post-test.
As shown in Tables 5 to 7, attitude in the posttest and behavior in the pretest effectively explained 58.0% of the
total variance in energy conservation behavior (F [5, 71] = 19.36, p < .001). However, further examination of Table 7
reveals that participants’ attitude following the project-based activities was the main factor improving their behavior.
Discussion
The results of the experiment revealed that compared to a teacher-centered activities, the application of
the project-based activities had no statistically significant effect on improving the energy literacy of senior high
school students after receiving education on solar-powered insect traps. One explanation of these findings could
be that both the control and experimental groups were given a theme-based course which is focused on the solar
insect traps. The main difference is that the experimental group was required to actually design and construct solar
insect traps, while the control group was not required to do so. Therefore, the impact of the hands-on activity on
improving energy literacy was limited. These findings echoed the results of Lee et al. (2013), which found that to
effectively change students’ energy conservation behavior, the focus should be on guiding students to reflect on
874
ENERGY LITERACY
ISSN 2538–7138 /Online/ (P. 867-877)
their civic responsibilities. However, it is still hard to present the effects of project-based activities if we just focused
on the civic respobisbilites. Therefore, we believe that there are other reasons to explain the results of this research.
Another explanation could be insufficient time. Since the experiment consisted of 12 sessions over a 6-week
period, participants in the experimental group were required to learn the relevant knowledge and related skills
required to construct a solar insect trap (such as welding circuits). Thus, it was unlikely that there was sufficient time
to improve energy conservation behavior. Verbič, Keerthisinghe, and Chapman (2017) also found that during the
first year of their research project, students complained about insufficient learning time, reported low satisfaction
with the project, and demonstrated limited achievements in their research. However, after increasing the learn-
ing hours in the second year, students’ satisfaction and learning effects considerably improved. The students who
were more familiar with the topic may improve more. Therefore, if sufficient learning hours could be included in
the design of future experiments, students’ energy conservation behavior may improve.
In addition to the ANCOVA, this research also employed a multiple regression analysis to explore the major
factors influencing students’ energy conservation behavior following the experiment. The results showed that
students’ attitude towards energy conservation following the experiment had the greatest explanatory power (β
= .55, p < .001), followed by their behavior prior to the experiment (β = .45, p < .001). The effects of pre-experiment
behavior on behavior following the experiment was as expected. Students who participated effectively in energy
conservation also did so following the course. However, noteworthy is that students’ attitude following the course
had the greatest explanatory power on their subsequent behavior. This correlation between energy-related at-
titude and energy conservation behavior is consistent with the findings of previous studies (Lee at al., 2015; Lee
at al., 2017). More important, the results confirmed that the attitude following the corresponding courses had the
greatest impact on improving students’ energy conservation behavior. Therefore, if teachers design project-based
activities that promote students’ positive attitudes towards energy consumption and conservation, their energy
conservation behavior is likely to improve.
According to previous discussion, we know that the energy-related attitude plays an important role in influ-
encing students’ energy conservation behavior according to the previous studies (Lee at al., 2015; Lee at al., 2017).
However, this research proposes the idea that if teachers hope to design the project-based activities in developing
students’ energy conservation behavior, they have to notice the following two principles: (1) to provide sufficient
time to students in project-based activities; (2) to focus on developing students energy-related attitude in project-
based activities.
Conclusions
How to effectively improve energy conservation behavior is a valuable research topic in the field of sustain-
able development. This research focused on exploring the effects of project-based hands-on activities in develop-
ing students’ energy literacy and two major conclusions are made in this research. First of all, the project-based
hands-on activities helped improve the energy literacy of senior high school students; however, the effect was not
statistically significant in both experimental and control groups. Secondly, the key factor influencing the energy
conservation behavior of senior high school students was energy-related attitudes following the project-based
learning process. According to these conclusions, the most important contribution of this study is that we provide
two important principles in designing project-based acitivities; that is, to provide sufficient time to students, on
the one hand, and to focus on developing students’ energy-related attitude, on the other hand.
Limitations
The major limitation of this research is the duration of the experiment. Since the duration of the experiment
must satisfy the requirements of the school curriculum, teachers’ agendas, and students, the solar insect trap
project had to be completed within a limited period. Besides, the students’ hands-on experiences in experimental
group and control group are not taken into consideration, which may lead to the limitation of controlling students’
practical skills. Furthermore, existing energy literacy scales tend to target general energy literacy. As such, they
cannot effectively reflect specific energy conservation behaviors. Specifically, the results of this research did not
effectively indicate whether participation in the project-based activities encouraged participants to utilize solar
insect traps rather than pesticides to avoid environmental pollution in their future farm management practices.
875
ENERGY LITERACY
(P. 867-877) ISSN 2538–7138 /Online/
Implications
Based on the findings and discussions of the research, the current researchers believe that project-based
activities remain a valuable practice to improve students’ energy literacy. It is recommended that future studies
consider the following suggestions. (1) It is recommended to provide sufficient learning time when designing
project-based activities to ensure that students have sufficient practice and reflection time, thereby removing the
negative impact of insufficient time on the outcome of the experiment. (2) It is recommended that the items in the
ELS be modified to fit the theme of the project, thereby enabling more effective measurement of the changes in
students’ behavior following the project. (3) Since energy-related attitudes were found to alter energy conserva-
tion behavior, it is recommended that further research be conducted to discover concrete methods to improve
students’ energy-related attitudes, thereby improving their energy conservation behaviors.
Acknowledgements
This research was supported by the Ministry of Science and Technology of Taiwan, under project number NSC
102-3113-S-239 -001 and MOST 105-2628-S-003 -001 -MY3.
References
Al-Balushi, S. M., & Al-Aamri, S. S. (2014). The effect of environmental science projects on students’ environmental knowledge
and science attitudes. International Research in Geographical and Environmental Education, 23 (3), 213-227.
Bilgin, I., Karakuyu, Y., & Ay, Y. (2015). The effects of project based learning on undergraduate students’ achievement and self-
efficacy beliefs towards science teaching. Eurasia Journal of Mathematics, Science Technology Education, 11 (3), 469-477.
Blumenfeld, P. C., Soloway, E., Marx, R. W., Krajcik, J. S., Guzdial, M., & Palincsar, A. (2011). Motivating project-based learning:
Sustaining the doing, supporting the learning. Educational psychologist, 26 (3-4), 369-398.
Can, B., Yıldız-Demirtaş, V., & Altun, E. (2017). The effect of project-based science education programme on scientific process
skills and conceptions of kindergarten students. Journal of Baltic Science Education, 16 (3), 395-413.
Chen, K. L., Huang, S. H., & Liu, S. Y. (2013). Devising a framework for energy education in Taiwan using the analytic hierarchy
process. Energy Policy, 55, 396-403.
Chen, K. L., Liu, S. Y., & Chen, P. H. (2015). Assessing multidimensional energy literacy of secondary students using contextual-
ized assessment. International Journal of Environmental and Science Education, 10 (2), 201-218.
Chen, S. J., Chou, Y. C., Yen, H. Y., & Chao, Y. L. (2015). Investigating and structural modeling energy literacy of high school
students in Taiwan. Energy Efficiency, 8 (4), 791-808.
Chiang, T., Mevlevioglu, G., Natarajan, S., Padget, J., & Walker, I. (2014). Inducing [sub]conscious energy behaviour through
visually displayed energy information: A case study in university accommodation. Energy and Buildings, 70, 507-515.
Cotton, D., Shiel, C., & Paço, A. (2016). Energy saving on campus: a comparison of students’ attitudes and reported behaviours
in the UK and Portugal. Journal of Cleaner Production, 129, 586-595.
Demeo, A. E., Feldman, D. P., & Peterson, M. L. (2013). A human ecological approach to energy literacy through hands-on
projects: An essential component of effectively addressing climate change. Journal of Sustainability Education, 4, 1-16.
DeWaters, J. E., & Powers, S. E. (2011). Energy literacy of secondary students in New York State (USA): A measure of knowledge,
affect, and behavior. Energy Policy, 39 (3), 1699-1710.
DeWaters, J., & Powers, S. (2013). Establishing measurement criteria for an energy literacy questionnaire. The Journal of Envi-
ronmental Education, 44 (1), 38-55.
Han, S., Capraro, R., & Capraro, M. M. (2015). How science, technology, engineering, and mathematics (STEM) project-based
learning (PBL) affects high, middle, and low achievers differently: The impact of student factors on achievement. Inter-
national Journal of Science and Mathematics Education, 13 (5), 1089-1113.
Karpudewan, M., Ponniah, J., & Zain, A. N. Md. (2016). Project-based learning: An approach to promote energy literacy among
secondary school students. The Asia-Pacific Education Researcher, 25 (2), 229-237.
Kokotsaki, D., Menzies, V., & Wiggins, A. (2016). Project-based learning: A review of the literature. Improving schools, 19 (3), 267-77.
Lee, L. S., Chang, L. T., Lai, C. C., Guu, Y. H., & Lin, K. Y. (2017). Energy literacy of vocational students in Taiwan. Environmental
Education Research, 23(6), 855-873. https://doi.org/10.1080/13504622. 2015.1068276.
Lee, L. S., Lee, Y. F., Altschuld, J. W., & Pan, Y. J. (2015). Energy literacy: Evaluating knowledge, affect, and behavior of students
in Taiwan. Energy Policy, 76, 98-106.
Ntona, E., Arabatzis, G., & Kyriakopoulos, G. L. (2015). Energy saving: Views and attitudes of students in secondary education.
Renewable and Sustainable Energy Reviews, 46, 1-15.
876
ENERGY LITERACY
ISSN 2538–7138 /Online/ (P. 867-877)
Ušeckienė, L., & Targamadzė, V. (2005). Challenges of sustainable development education to higher education in Lithuania.
Journal of Baltic Science Education, 4 (2), 68-79.
Verbič, G., Keerthisinghe, C., & Chapman, A. C. (2017). A Project-based cooperative approach to teaching sustainable energy
systems. IEEE Transactions on Education, 60 (3), 221-228.
Yeh, S. C., Huang, J. Y., & Yu, H. C. (2017). Analysis of energy literacy and misconceptions of junior high students in Taiwan.
Sustainability, 9 (3), [423]. https://doi:10.3390/su9030423.
Received: June 06, 2018 Accepted: September 30, 2018
Kuen-Yi Lin PhD, Professor, Department of Technology Application and Human

Resource Development, National Taiwan Normal University, Taipei
City 106, Taiwan.
E-mail: linkuenyi@ntnu.edu.tw
Shao-Chuan Lu Technology Teacher, New Taipei Municipal Yong Ho Junior High
School, New Taipei City 234, Taiwan.
E-mail: mrfpkimo@gmail.com
877
THE EFFECT OF FIFTH-
GRADE STUDENTS’ SCIENCE
ANXIETY ON METACOGNITIVE
AWARENESS
Abstract. Successful students who do not Menşure Alkış Küçükaydın

experience anxiety can participate in future
progress both at local and international
levels. It is necessary to identify students’
anxiety and to enhance research into the
effect of anxiety on the cognitive burden Introduction
of science, which is one of the top priorities
for future progress. Thus, the main aim of Students’ decision-making processes about their future and their con-
this research was to explore the effect of scious choice of profession are mostly in line with their interests and curios-
students’ science anxiety on metacogni-
ity. One of the reasons why students’ interest in science may be negatively
affected is due to science anxiety (Udo, Ramsey & Mallow, 2004). Mallow
tive awareness. The research, therefore,
(1978) defined the term science anxiety as a fear that has a weakening effect
adopts a relational survey model and uses
on science learning and cognition. This kind of anxiety can mostly be seen
a random selection sampling method. The
in science lessons, exams and performance-based test activities and some
sample consisted of 346 students with an studies have been conducted on how to overcome this anxiety (Mallow, 1986).
equal number of males and females. To Furthermore, science anxiety acts as a kind of filter for students’ taking science
explore the effect of fifth-grade students’ lessons. According to Udo et al (2004), female students have more science
science anxiety on metacognitive aware- anxiety, and this results in fewer female researchers in disciplines such as
ness, data were collected by means of a physics. Zuway (2010) defines science anxiety as one of the worst situations
prepared three-part sample form. The that affect students’ science learning. It is, however, known that this problem
first part of the form collected data about can be addressed through student guidance and can be transformed into a
gender, classroom size and school campus. better performance.
The second part contained an anxiety scale
According to the results of researches conducted on science anxiety,
it is generally seen that science anxiety exists in most countries (Czerniak
for science and technology lessons and the
& Chiarelott, 1984). While in some countries the reaction to this anxiety can
last part used a metacognitive aware-
be seen physically, in others it can be seen both physically and psychologi-
ness scale. The research results showed
cally. Physical reactions are sweaty palms, stomach disorders, headaches and
that gender is not an important factor for skin rashes. On the other hand, psychological reactions may be manifested
anxiety or metacognitive awareness, but through tension, such as nail biting, distractibility, hair pulling or the continu-
classroom size has an important effect ous swinging of feet (Mallow, 1981). These kinds of tensions are thought to
on science anxiety. Nonetheless, students’ create huge obstacles to learning (Avcı & Kırbaşlar, 2017). Researches show
science anxiety is a significant predictor of that the reasons for anxiety include students’ experiences in the past, the
their metacognitive awareness. effect of science teachers, the role of gender in the society, racial prejudice,
Keywords: metacognitive awareness, popular media and stereotypical beliefs about science (Mallow & Greenburg,
relational survey model, science anxiety. 1982). However, to some extent, anxiety can trigger students’ science learning,
but it is known that anxiety can have drawbacks for learning if the students’
anxiety level is high and they show the previously noted signs of tension
(Cüceloğlu, 1996). Hence, a high level of anxiety causes a lowering of students’
academic success (Okur & Bahar, 2010), negatively affects students’ participa-
Menşure Alkış Küçükaydın tion in the learning process and results in weak or inadequate performances
Necmettin Erbakan University, Turkey
(Jegede, 2007; Osborne, Simon, & Collins, 2003). According to experimental
research based on psychoanalytic theories, the correlation between anxiety
and other variables is negative and linear. In other words, if the anxiety level
878
ISSN 1648–3898 /Print/ THE EFFECT OF FIFTH-GRADE STUDENTS’ SCIENCE ANXIETY ON METACOGNITIVE
AWARENESS
ISSN 2538–7138 /Online/ (P. 878-886)
is not high, it works as a push factor. Nevertheless, the correlation between anxiety and other variables is not
always linear. Training or support provided to reduce anxiety can be effective in this situation (Zuway, 2010). In
the research of science anxiety, it is found that anxiety has an effect on science learning and teaching and, thus,
anxiety needs to be taken into consideration. Together with the evaluation of the effects of anxiety on academic
achievement and real performance, a research is thought to be useful in terms of understanding the effects of
anxiety on students’ cognitive burden.
The constructivist approach to teaching speaks of the process of integrating one’s prior knowledge into new
knowledge. For new learning, one has to work his or her own mental processes and control his or her behaviour
throughout the process. Students’ associating new knowledge with the knowledge they already have, following
their own learning process and owning the knowledge by using the new knowledge in different fields, will only
occur if they are aware of how they learn (Öztürk & Kurtuluş, 2017). In this respect, one of the theories that comple-
ment the constructivist learning theory is that of metacognition. Metacognition is defined as the awareness of
and control over the mental activities of a person’s perception, remembering and thinking (Hacker & Dunlosky,
2003). According to Flavell (1987), the operations within which individuals perceive, monitor, supervise and or-
ganize their own cognitive processes are called metacognition. With regard to the concept of metacognition in
Turkey, a number of expressions have been used - “meta cognition, meta cognitive, executive cognition, cogni-
tive knowledge, self-regulation, consciousness” (Doğan, 2013) - and no common expression has been agreed.
In this research, the term “metacognition” is preferred. In order to control the information, it is necessary to use
superior cognitive skills, abilities and various strategies (Harrison & Vallin, 2018). Metacognition consists of two
main components: metacognitive knowledge and metacognitive control (Brown, 1987). The individual’s cognitive
arrangements are realized through continuous learning and evaluation (Harrison & Vallin, 2018). Metacognitive
awareness is the level of cognition that an individual uses to control his or her cognitive processes (Brown, 1987).
According to Subaşı (2000), metacognitive awareness provides individuals with information about opportunities,
irrespective of whether these have been learned, about monitoring the learning process and about how to proceed
when the learning has not been realized. According to Young and Fry (2008), metacognitive knowledge has been
achieved when students develop cognitive skills and cognitive organization skills, and this makes them superior
in academic terms. Therefore, it is necessary to examine the importance and effects of the metacognitive knowl-
edge and skills of the students in terms of the other components. Researches of metacognition have been carried
out abroad since the 1970s and in Turkey since the beginning of the 2000s. These studies are generally related to
teaching candidates (Deniz, Küçük, Cansız, Akgün, & İşleyen, 2014; Kana, 2015) or secondary school students (Cabı,
Erdem, & Kırkan, 2016; Gürefe, 2015). It is also examined that the correlation between metacognitive awareness
and intelligence, problem-solving perception, the need to think, reading comprehension, academic self-efficacy,
motivational beliefs, the perception of self-efficacy, mental risk-taking, academic achievement and the motivation
for learning science (Atay, 2014; Çakır & Yaman, 2015; Karakelle, 2012; Öztürk & Kurtuluş, 2017; Yıldız, 2015; Yoğurtçu,
2015; Young & Fry, 2008). In order to measure metacognitive processes, researchers have used various types of
data collection tools. Self-report questionnaires (Dinsmore, Alexander, & Laughlin, 2008), loud speech protocols
(Karakelle & Saraç, 2007), observation (Kramarski & Mizrachi, 2004) and scales (Schraw & Dennison, 1994) are the
most commonly used measurement tools.
In order to develop and change world conditions, it is necessary to increase the quality of education and,
thus, to strengthen students’ metacognition skills (Siswati & Corebima, 2017). When students with enhanced meta-
cognition meet with different situations they can identify appropriate methods and reach a solution more easily
(Young & Fry, 2008). In addition, the research on metacognitive awareness has concluded that metacognition is an
important part of children’s education and of increasing their success and that the level of metacognitive aware-
ness can be increased through educational training (Öztürk & Kurtuluş, 2017). The following skills are included in
science teaching programmes in Turkey: scientific process skills, life skills (analytical thinking, decision-making,
creative thinking, entrepreneurship, communication and teamwork) and engineering and design (innovative
thinking) (Ministry of National Education [MNE], 2018). This shows that metacognitive awareness that is based on
cognitive skills may be effective in increasing students’ science achievement through a programme that supports
other skills. Supporting the development of their cognitive skills alongside other skills will motivate the students
and develop perceptions about their existing abilities. On this basis, it is necessary to examine the factors that
influence students’ metacognitive awareness. Students with no anxiety who are successful at a high level can play
a role in future development, both locally and internationally. In the field of science, which is a priority area for
future development, it is necessary to identify the students’ concerns, to support their improvement and to examine
879
THE EFFECT OF FIFTH-GRADE STUDENTS’ SCIENCE ANXIETY ON METACOGNITIVE
AWARENESS
(P. 878-886) ISSN 2538–7138 /Online/
the effect of anxiety on their cognitive loads. However, situations where anxiety and metacognitive awareness are
related need to be identified. Based on the above-mentioned literature, it is necessary to examine whether the
gender of the students, the size of the class in which they are studying and the school campus affect their anxiety
and metacognitive awareness. Therefore, the main aim of this research was to examine the effect of science anxiety
on students’ metacognitive awareness. Hence the research questions are as follows:
1. Is there a significant difference between gender and students’ anxiety levels and between gender and
metacognitive awareness?
2. Do gender and classroom size affect science anxiety?
3. Is anxiety a meaningful predictor of metacognitive awareness?
4. Is anxiety, together with classroom size and school campus, a significant predictor of students’ meta-
cognitive awareness?
General Background
This research was examined the effect of fifth-grade students’ science anxiety on metacognitive awareness. In
addition, the research was examined whether gender and school campus affect students’ anxiety and metacogni-
tive awareness. For this reason, in the research was used the relational survey model. Relational survey models
aim to determine the presence and/or degree of mutual exchange between two or more variables (Karasar, 2009).
This model also includes different variables that are thought to influence anxiety and metacognitive awareness.
The research was carried out during the second semester of the 2017/2018 academic year in a city in the Black
Sea region of Turkey.
Sample
The research was based on a randomly selected sample of fifth-grade students studying in villages, districts
and city centres. The reason for this choice is related to the education system in Turkey. In Turkey, the 4+4+4 edu-
cation system is implemented. After the first four years of study, students enter the middle school level and the
courses are divided into branches. Students are faced with a science teacher for the first time when they are in the
fifth grade and their opinions, thoughts or concerns about science are shaped through this course. Therefore, these
students were chosen to sample. Permission to conduct the research was requested through a two-stage process:
permission was first obtained in writing from the provincial national education directorate and, subsequently,
with the necessary permission from the class teachers, students were approached during a science lesson. Table 1
presents the status of the students in relation to the variables in the study. A total of 346 students participated in
the research with an equal number of female and male students (n = 346). A total of 120 students were studying
in classrooms with a class size of 25–30 and 90 students were studying in classrooms with a class size of 30 and
above. Only 32 of the students were studying in classrooms with a size of 15–20. A total of 133 students were from
the villages, 84 students were from the district centre and 129 students were from the province centre.
Table 1. Distribution of the sample according to the research variables.
Class Size
School
Gender Total
Campus 10-15 15-20 20-25 25-30 30
students students students students and above
Village Female 37 12 24 - - 73
Male 20 20 20 - - 60
Total 57 32 44 - - 133
District Female - - - 20 27 47
Center Male - - - 5 32 37
Total - - - 25 59 84
880
AWARENESS
ISSN 2538–7138 /Online/ (P. 878-886)
Class Size
School
Gender Total
Campus 10-15 15-20 20-25 25-30 30
students students students students and above
Provincial Female 1 - 1 35 16 53
Center Male 0 - 1 60 15 76
Total 1 - 2 95 31 129
Total Female 38 12 25 55 43 173
Male 20 20 21 65 47 173
Total 58 32 46 120 90 346
Instrument and Procedure
This research used a three-level form to collect data from the students. In the first part of the form, students
were asked about their gender, the class size in which they studied and information about the school campus. The
second part of the form used the Science and Technology Lesson Anxiety Scale, developed by Kağıtçı and Kurbanoğlu
(2013). This scale was consist of 18 items, all of which were positive. The Cronbach alpha coefficient of the scale was
0.89 and it was 0.90 in this research. The items of the scale were determined as “never”, “occasionally”, “frequently”,
“often” and “always” and were graded from one to five. The items supporting anxiety were rated as 1, 2, 3, 4 and
5, starting from the category “never”. Thus, at least 18 points and at most 90 points can be taken from the scale.
The metacognitive awareness scale was used in the third part of the form. The 5-point Likert-scale metacognitive
awareness scale, which Sperling, Howard, Miller and Murphy (2002) had developed for middle school students, was
translated into Turkish by Aydın (2007). The scale consists of two main dimensions: metacognitive knowledge and
metacognition regulation. The items of the scale were determined as “never”, “occasionally”, “frequently”, “often” and
“always’ and were graded from one to five. On the scale where there was no negative item, the lowest score was 18
and the highest score was 90. The Cronbach alpha coefficient was .80 and it was .90 in this research.
Data Analysis
The decision to apply parametric tests to the data obtained for science anxiety and metacognitive awareness
was based on normality tests and descriptive statistics. The Kolmogorov-Smirnov test is recommended for the
normality test if the sample size is over 50 (Büyüköztürk, 2011). In order to determine the normality of the analysis,
the Kolmogorov-Smirnov test score was p<.05. Since this value is meaningful, the values o f skewness and kurtosis
of the data were examined. The skewness and kurtosis values o f the data were found to be between +2.0 and –2.0
(Skewness value: -1.179, kurtosis value: +1.611). These values show a normal distribution according to George and
Mallery (2010). Therefore, the data were considered to be parametric and related tests were applied. The SPSS 20
programme was used to analyse the research data.
Results of Research
The independent samples t-test was used to determine whether the level of science anxiety and metacogni-
tive awareness of fifth-grade students showed a meaningful difference according to gender. The data obtained
are presented in Table 2.
Table 2. Examination of students’ anxiety levels and metacognitive awareness according to gender
N X S t p
Female 173 1.38 0.54

Anxiety 0.209 .835
Male 173 1.37 0.54
Meta Cognition Female 173 4.06 0.78 0.609 .543
Awareness
Male 173 4.01 0.80
881
AWARENESS
(P. 878-886) ISSN 2538–7138 /Online/
The test showed that gender had no significant difference on science anxiety and metacognitive awareness
(t344=0.209, p>.05). Similarly, it was found that gender had no significant difference on students’ metacognitive
levels (t344=0.609, p>.05).
The effect of class size and gender on students’ anxiety levels were tested with the two-way ANOVA for inde-
pendent samples test. The data obtained from the measurements are presented in Table 3.
Table 3. Examination of students’ science anxiety levels according to class size and gender
Source of Variance Sum of Squares SD Mean Square F p
Gender 0.077 1 0.077 0.279 .59

Class size 7.232 4 1.808 6.546 .001*
G*C 1.895 4 0.474 1.716 .14
Error 92.801 336 0.276
*p<.05
It was found that the science anxiety levels of the students differed significantly according to class size (F=6.546,
p<.05). The results of the post-hoc test, conducted to find out where the difference came from, are presented in
Table 4. The results show that the science anxiety levels of students in class sizes of 20–25 are higher than those
of students in other class sizes (p<.05).
Table 4. Anxiety levels Post-Hoc Tukey test results.
Class Size (i) Class Size (j) Mean Difference Std. Error p
10-15 15-20 .1060 .11573 .891

20-25 -.3250 .10376 .016*
25-30 -.0230 .08405 .999
30 and above .1457 .08849 .469
15-20 10-15 -.1060 .11573 .891
20-25 -.4310 .12098 .004*
25-30 -.1289 .10456 .732
30 and above .0397 .10817 .996
20-25 10-15 .3250 .10376 .016*
15-20 .4310 .12098 .004*
25-30 .3021 .09114 .009*
30 and above .4707 .09525 .001*
10-15 .0230 .08405 .999
15-20 .1289 .10456 .732
25-30
20-25 -.3021 .09114 .009*
30 and above .1687 .07328 .147
30 and above 10-15 -.1457 .08849 .469
15-20 -.0397 .10817 .996
20-25 -.4707 .09525 .001*
25-30 -.1687 .07328 .147
*p<.05
Given the study’s interest in examining the difference between students’ science anxiety and their metacog-
nitive awareness, simple linear regression analysis was used to test whether science anxiety levels in fifth-grade
students are a significant predictor of metacognitive awareness. The measurement results are presented in Table 5.
882
AWARENESS
ISSN 2538–7138 /Online/ (P. 878-886)
Table 5. Simple linear regression analysis result regarding prediction of metacognitive awareness.
Variable B Std. Error Beta t p
Constant 4.850 0.107 0.400 45.180 .001

Anxiety -.585 0.072 -8.101 .001*
*p<.05
The results showed that science anxiety has a high and meaningful relation to metacognitive awareness
(R=0.80, R2=0.64, p<.05). According to this finding, science anxiety explains 64% of the total variance in metacog-
nitive awareness. When the standardized beta coefficient and t values are examined, it can be said that science
anxiety is a significant predictor of metacognitive awareness.
Finally, this research also examined the correlation between science anxiety, class size, school campus and
metacognitive awareness. In order to do so, multiple linear regression analysis was used to test whether anxiety,
class size and school campus together predict metacognitive awareness in a meaningful way. The results obtained
from the measurements are presented in Table 6.
Table 6. Multiple linear regression analysis results regarding prediction of metacognitive awareness
Variable B Std.Error Beta t p
Constant 4.788 0.155 - 30.861 .001

Class Size 0.064 0.040 0.113 1.594 .11
School Campus -0.078 0.065 -0.085 -1.194 .23
Anxiety -0.588 0.073 -0.402 -8.080 .001*
R= 0.408, R2= 0.166

F(3,342)=22.757, p=.001
Taken together, the variables of science anxiety, class size and school campus reveal a low and meaningful
correlation with students’ metacognitive awareness (R=0.408, R2= 0.166, p<.05). Together, these three variables
explain approximately 17% of the total variance of metacognitive awareness. According to the standardized re-
gression coefficient (beta), the relative importance of the predictive variables on metacognitive awareness is as
follows: science anxiety, class size and school campus. When the t-test results of the significance of the regression
coefficients are examined, only the anxiety variable appears to be a significant predictor of metacognitive aware-
ness. Based on the results of the regression analysis, the regression equation (mathematical modelling) related to
the prediction of metacognitive awareness is presented below.
Metacognitive Awareness= 4.788+0.064 Class Size-0.078 School Campus-0.588 Science Anxiety
Discussion
The aim of this research was to examine the effect of fifth-grade students’ science anxiety on metacognitive
awareness. For this purpose, the research was carried out with a total of 346 students who study in different class
sizes and at different school campuses. The data obtained from the research show that there is no significant dif-
ference between science anxiety and gender. The related literature includes researches that support this finding
(Czerniak & Chiarelott, 1984; Kağıtçı, 2014). Bursal’s (2007) research, which examined the science teaching beliefs
and science anxiety of primary school teachers, found that female teacher candidates had lower science anxiety
than male teacher candidates. Akça’s (2017) research, which measured middle school students’ science anxiety,
found, as a sub-dimension of environmental factors, that male students had higher science anxiety than female
students. This suggests that the positive factors that lead to the lack of science anxiety in female students need to
be investigated. Thus, in order to increase the female workforce in the field of science, there is a need to foreground
policies, rather than incentives, for development and progress. In the literature on researches of metacognitive
awareness, it was found that at different levels of education, female students had a higher level of awareness than
883
AWARENESS
(P. 878-886) ISSN 2538–7138 /Online/
male students (Atay, 2014; Bağçeci, Döş, & Sarıca, 2011; Gürefe, 2015; Kana, 2015; Öztürk & Kurtuluş, 2017). According
to Öztürk and Kurtuluş (2017), the reason why female students have a higher level of cognitive awareness is that
they have the ability to think in detail and are good at focusing their attention. However, no significant difference
between the gender in terms of the level of metacognitive awareness was found in this research. Therefore, it may
be that students tend to think in accordance with the needs that are appropriate for their age. It can be said that
this finding is a result of the fact that the revised curriculum in Turkey (MNE, 2006; MNE, 2013; MNE, 2018) has
placed thinking skills at the forefront and has attached importance to scientific process skills.
This research also examined the effects of the school campus and class size on metacognitive awareness and
science anxiety. The results show that students who study in a class size of 20–25 have higher science anxiety than
students in the other groups. This finding is quite remarkable given that a class size of 20–25 students is considered
to be the ideal class size. There is no research in the related literature that examines the correlation class size and
science anxiety. Gömleksiz and Yüksel (2003) examined the science anxiety of fourth and fifth-grade students in
public schools and private schools and found that even though they were in a private school, some of the students’
science anxieties were higher than those in public schools. Given the ideal class sizes in private schools, it can be
said that there is no correlation between science anxiety and ideal class size. Therefore, this finding suggests the
need for further research. It is necessary to examine the reasons why anxiety emerges despite being in an ideal class
size environment and despite the fact that the school campus does not have an effect on anxiety. It is, therefore,
important to determine whether the anxiety is caused by internal or external factors (e.g., family, teacher attitude,
examination preferences).
The combined effect of class size and school campus on metacognitive awareness was also examined in this
research, as well as the effect of science anxiety alone. According to the results of the analysis, these three factors
have a low but significant effect on metacognitive awareness. However, science anxiety alone is a high-level predic-
tor of metacognitive awareness. When the results of researches on metacognitive awareness are considered, the
factors affecting cognition, such as pre-school education and having a computer at home (Gürefe, 2015), also appear
to be influential. Akça (2017) examined the mental risk-taking behaviours and science concerns of middle school
students and found that the mental risk-taking tendencies of students with a high level of anxiety also decrease.
Kağıtçı (2014) found a moderate, negative and meaningful difference between students’ science anxiety scores and
their attitude scores regarding science lessons. This was a moderate difference in which the science lesson attitude
scores increase when the students’ anxiety scores for the science lessons decrease, even if only a little. Thus, anxiety
is influential on cognitive factors and influences metacognitive awareness. When these findings are discussed in
the related literature, it appears that anxiety and metacognitive awareness have an interacting structure.
Conclusion and Implications

This research is considered to be important in that it shows that science anxiety in students affects metacogni-
tive awareness. Despite being in an ideal class size, students experience science anxiety. It, thus, appears that large
class sizes (30 and above), which are considered to be a disadvantage or classes that allow more individualized
teaching (10–15 people), have no effect on science anxiety. This indicates that the anxiety cannot be explained
solely in terms of the physical or financial resources of the schools. Furthermore, contrary to the results obtained
in the related literature, in this research, gender was not found to be an important factor in either science anxiety
or metacognitive awareness. In addition, it was found that when the anxiety state is combined with the factors
of class size and school campus, this affects metacognitive awareness. Researches conducted to date have noted
that science anxiety has physical, psychological or both physical and psychological manifestations. This research
shows that anxiety also affects cognitive factors. This is because the regression analysis conducted to test whether
anxiety is a significant predictor of metacognitive awareness showed it to be a predictor at a high and significant
level. However, it was also determined that it is a low but still significant predictor when class size and school
campus factors are included.
It is not only a necessity but also an obligation for pupils to have metacognitive awareness in accordance
with the needs of the times. For this, it is necessary to address science anxiety, which has become a priority area for
research, and to prepare activities to support cognition. Based on the fact that individuals whose science anxiety
has been removed will be open to inquiry change and innovation, it is necessary for them to be directed to analysis,
synthesis and evaluation activities that will activate their metacognitive awareness. Further, the science anxiety
clinical practices conducted abroad could also be conducted in Turkey. However, through teamwork created by
884
AWARENESS
ISSN 2538–7138 /Online/ (P. 878-886)
science educators, these applications should be designed not only to prevent or eliminate anxiety but also to sup-
port metacognition and should include practices that will impart knowledge to the students.
This research has found that science anxiety is an important predictor of metacognition, which, in turn, leads
to new research topics. So much so that empirical research is needed to determine whether the metacognitive
awareness of students with science anxiety has changed. It is also necessary to emphasize the fact that there is a
meaningful difference in terms of the size of the class and gender. Accordingly, it can be suggested investigating
the effect that components such as teachers, the exam system and the family have on metacognitive awareness,
as these may be external factors that influence students’ science anxiety.
References
Akça, B. (2017). Determination of the relationship between the science anxiety and science related intellectual risk-taking behaviors
of middle school students. Adnan Menderes University Department of Mathematics and Science Education, Aydın.
Atay, A. D. (2014). Investigation on secondary school students’ motivation levels and metacognitive awareness on learning science.
Unpublished Master Thesis. Adnan Menderes University, Aydın.
Avcı, F., & Kırbaşlar, F. G. (2017). Determination of factors affecting the science anxiety levels of secondary school students. Ne-
catibey Faculty of Education Electronic Journal of Science and Mathematics Education, 11 (1), 401-417.
Aydın, U. (2007). Structural equation modeling study: The metacognition knowledge model for geometry. Unpublished Master Thesis.
Middle East Technical University Department of Secondary Science and Mathematics Education, Ankara.
Bağçeci, B., Döş, B., & Sarıca, R. (2011). An analysis of metacognitive awareness levels and academic achievement of primary
school students. Mustafa Kemal University Journal of Social Sciences Institute, 8 (16), 551-566.
Bursal, M. (2007). Changes in Turkish pre-service elementary teachers’ personal science teaching efficacy beliefs and science
anxieties during a science methods course. Journal of Turkish Science Education, 5 (1), 99-112.
Büyüköztürk, Ş. (2011). Sosyal bilimler için veri analizi el kitabı [Handbook of data analysis for social sciences]. Ankara: Pegem
Akademi.
Brown, A. L. (1987). Metacognition, executive control, self-regulation, and other more mysterious mechanisms. In F. Weinert &
R. Kluwe (Eds.) Metacognition, motivation, and understanding (pp. 65–116). Mahwah: Erlbaum.
Cabı, E., Erdem, E., & Kırkan, B. (2016). Examination of the utilization of information and communication technologies and meta-
cognitive awareness levels of elementary level students in terms of various variables. Karaelmas Journal of Educational
Sciences, 4, 92-103.
Çakır, E., & Yaman, S. (2015). The relationship between students’ intellectual risk-taking skills with metacognitive awareness and
academic achievement. Gazi Journal of Education Sciences, 1 (2), 163-178.
Cüceloğlu, D. (1996). İnsan ve Davranışı [Human and behavior]. Remzi Kitabevi: İstanbul.
Czerniak, C., & Chiarelott, A. (1984). Science anxiety: An investigation of science achievement, sex and grade level factors. Paper
presented to the Annual Meeting of the American Educational Research Association, New Orleans.
Deniz, D., Küçük, B., Cansız, Ş., Akgün, L., & İşleyen, T. (2014). Examining metacognitive awareness of prospective secondary school
mathematics teachers in terms of some variables. Kastamonu Education Journal, 22 (1), 305-320.
Dinsmore, D. L., Alexander, P. A., & Loughlin, S. M. (2008). Focusing the conceptual lens on meta cognition, self-regulation, and
self-regulated learning. Educational Psychology Review, 20, 391–409.
Doğan, A. (2013). Meta cognition and metacognition based teaching. Middle Eastern & African Journal of Educational Research,
3, 6–20.
Flavell, J. H. (1987). Speculation about the nature and development of meta cognition. In Winert, F., Kluwe, R. (Ed.), Meta cogni-
tion, motivation, and understanding (pp. 21–29). Lawrence Erlbaum, Hillsdale.
George, D., & Mallery, M. (2010). SPSS for windows step by step: A simple guide and reference, 17.0update (10a ed.) Boston: Pearson
Gömleksiz, M. N., & Yüksel, Y. (2003). The anxiety of the fourth hand fifth grade students in elementary schools towards science
course (sample of Elazığ city). Doğu Anadolu Bölgesi Araştırmaları, 3, 71-81.
Gürefe, N. (2015). Investigation of metacognitive awareness of secondary school students in terms of some variables. The Journal
of International Education Science, 2 (5), 237-246.
Hacker, D. J., & Dunlosky, J. (2003). Not all metacognition is created equal. New Directions for Teaching and Learning, 95, 73-79.
Harrrison, G. M., & Vallin, L.M. (2018). Evaluating the metacognitive awareness inventory using empirical factor-structure evidence.
Meta Cognition Learning, 13, 15–38.
Jegede, S. A. (2007). Students’ anxiety towards the learning of chemistry in some Nigerian secondary schools. Educational Re-
search and Review, 2 (7), 193-197.
Kâğıtçı, B. (2014). Developing anxiety scale for science class and analyzing the anxiety and attitude scores for science class of secondary
school students according to several variables. Unpublished Master Thesis. Sakarya University, Sakarya.
Kağıtçı, B., & Kurbanoğlu, N. İ. (2013). Developing an anxiety scale for science and technology class: Reliability and validity study.
Journal of Turkish Science Education, 10 (3), 95-107.
Kana, F. (2015). Metacognitive awareness levels of Turkish language pre-service teachers. The Journal of Academic Social Science,
3 (17), 66-81.
Karakelle, S. (2012). Interrelations between metacognitive awareness, perceived problem solving, intelligence and need for
cognition. Education and Science, 37 (164), 237-250.
885
AWARENESS
(P. 878-886) ISSN 2538–7138 /Online/
Karakelle, S., & Saraç, S. (2007). Validity and factor structure of Turkish versions of the metacognitive awareness inventory for
children (JR. MAI) - A and B Forms. Türk Psikoloji Yazıları, 10 (20), 87-103.
Karasar, N. (2009). Bilimsel araştırma yöntemi [Scientific research method]. Ankara: Nobel Yayım Dağıtım.
Kramarski, B., & Mizrachi, N. (2004). Enhancing mathematical literacy with the use of metacognitive guidance in forum discus-
sion. In Proceedings of the 28th Conference of the International Group for the Psychology of Mathematics Education, July 14-18,
2004, 169-176. Retrieved from http://www.emis.de/proceedings/PME28/RR/RR306_Kramarski.pdf
Mallow, J. (1978). A science anxiety program. American Journal of Physics, 46, 862.
Mallow, J. (1981). Science anxiety: Fear of science and how to overcome it. New York: Van Nostrand Reinhold.
Mallow, J. (1986). Science anxiety: Fear of science and how to overcome it. Clearwater, FL: H & H Publishing Co.
Mallow, J. V., & Greenburg, S. L. (1982). Science anxiety: Causes and remedies. Journal of College Science Teaching, 11 (6), 356-358.
Ministry of National Education (MNE). (2006). Curriculum of science courses (Primary and secondary school 3, 4, 5, 6, 7 and 8th
grades). Ankara: State Books Publishing House, Turkey.
Okur, M., & Bahar, H. H., (2010). Learning styles of primary education prospective mathematics teachers; states of trait-anxiety
and academic success. Procedia Social and Behavioral Sciences, 2, 3632-3637.
Osborne, J., Simon, S., & Collins, S. (2003). Attitudes towards science: A review of the literature and its implications. International
Öztürk, B., Kurtuluş, A. (2017. The analysis of the effect of metacognitive awareness and mathematics self-efficacy perceptions on
mathematics achievement of middle school students. Dicle University Journal of Ziya Gökalp Faculty of Education, 31, 762-778.
Schraw, G., & Dennison, R. S. (1994). Assessing metacognitive awareness. Contemporary Educational Psychology, 19, 460–475.
Siswati, B. H., & Corebima, A. D. (2017). The effect of education level and gender on students’ meta cognitive skills in Malang,
Indonesia. Advances in Social Sciences Research Journal, 4 (4) 163-168.
Sperling, R. A., Howard, B. C., Miller, L. A., & Murphy, C. (2002). Measures of children’s knowledge and regulation of cognition.
Contemporary Educational Psychology, 27, 51-79.
Subaşı, G. (2000). Etkili öğrenme: Öğrenme stratejileri [Effective learning: Learning strategies]. Milli Eğitim Dergisi, 146, 1-4.
Udo, M. K., Ramsey, G. P., Reynolds-Alpert, S., & Mallow, J. V. (2004). Science anxiety and gender in students taking general educa-
tion science courses. Journal of Science Education Technology, 13, 435–446.
Yıldız, D. (2015). Metacognitive awareness and academic self-efficacy levels, motivational belief of secondary school 8th grade
students and their Turkish points on the system for transition to secondary education from basic education examination:
A structural equation model trial. Journal of History School, 8 (23), 41-61.
Yoğurtçu, K. (2015). The ambiguity tolerance of Turkish language preparation class and impact of metacognitive awareness level
on reading comprehension success. International Journal of Languages Education and Teaching, 3 (3), 296-318.
Young, A., & Fry, J. D. (2008). Meta cognitive awareness and academic achievement in college students. Journal of the Scholarship
of Teaching and Learning, 8, 2, 1-10.
Received: June 25, 2018 Accepted: October 01, 2018
Menşure Alkış Küçükaydın PhD, Assistant Professor, Necmettin Erbakan University, Eregli
Faculty of Education Konya, Turkey.
E-mail: mensurealkis@hotmail.com
886
PREDICTION OF STUDENTS’
SCIENCE ACHIEVEMENT: AN
APPLICATION OF MULTIVARIATE ISSN 1648-3898 /Print/
ADAPTIVE REGRESSION ISSN 2538-7138 /Online/
SPLINES AND REGRESSION

TREES
Serpil Kilic Depren Abstract. Turkey is ranked at the 54th out

of 72 countries in terms of science achieve-
ment in the Programme for International
Student Assessment (PISA) survey con-
Introduction ducted in 2015, which is a very big disap-
pointment for that country. The aim of this
There are many studies examining factors affecting academic (math- research was to determine factors affecting
ematics, science or reading) achievements using different statistical methods. Turkish students’ science achievements in
Programme for International Student Assessment (PISA), Trends in Interna- order to identify the improvement areas
tional Mathematics and Science Study (TIMSS) and Progress in International using PISA 2015 dataset. To achieve this
Reading Literacy Study (PIRLS) help countries to identify the areas that need aim, Multivariate Adaptive Regression
to be improved and to increase their ranking among other countries. Splines (MARS) and Classification and
In the literature, researchers generally used PISA, TIMSS and PIRLS stud- Regression Trees (CART) approaches were
ies’ dataset in order to determine the factors affecting students’ achievement used and these approaches were compared
(Carnoy, Khavenson, & Ivanova, 2015; Sebastian, Moon, & Cunningham, 2016; in terms of model accuracy statistics. Since
Rutkowski, Rutkowski, Wild, & Burroughs, 2017). Von Davier, Hao, Liu and Kyl- Singapore was the top performer country
lonen (2017) developed the collaborative problem-solving framework behind in terms of science achievement in PISA
ETS Collaborative Science Assessment Prototype (ECSAP), which was based 2015 survey, the analysis results of Turkey
on PISA 2015 survey and Assessment and Teaching of the 21st Century Skills and Singapore were compared to each
(ATC21S) frameworks. Sheldrake, Mujtaba, and Reiss (2017) analyzed PISA 2006 other to understand the differences. The
and PISA 2015 Science Tests scores for students in England. results showed that MARS outperforms the
In addition to classical approaches, some data mining algorithms have CART in terms of measuring the prediction
been used in the educational area to assess or compare the performance of students’ science achievement. Further-
of students in terms of science, mathematics or reading achievements. Ka- more, the most important factors affecting
bakchieva’s (2013) study collected data from university management using science achievements were environmental
methods such as J48, Naïve Bayes, BayesNet, k-NN and JRip algorithms. J48 and optimism, home possessions and science
JRip were found to be more reliable and demonstrated better performance learning time (minutes per week) for Turkey,
than the other methods. Shariri, Husain, and Rashid studied the predicting of while the index of economic, social and
students’ performance in academic institutions in Malaysia, which was pro- cultural status, environmental awareness
posed to improve achievement using the Decision Tree, Neural Network, Naïve and enjoyment of science for Singapore.
Bayes, k-NN and SVM algorithms (Shariri, Husain, & Rashid, 2015). The result on Keywords: higher education, machine
prediction accuracy has been of the highest value in the Neural Network by learning algorithms, PISA, science achieve-
(98%) followed by the Decision Tree, SVM, k-NN and Naïve Bayes, respectively. ment.
The study of Martinez Abad and Chaparro Caso López (2017) investigated
the factors of students, social and schools by using classification techniques.
As mentioned previously, the results showed that student-related variables
were the most efficient factors for academic success (Cortez & Silva, 2008). Serpil Kilic Depren
Yildiz Technical University, Turkey
Using data mining techniques, however, past evaluation had an influence
on student performance, and the factors of parents’ education and job, and
alcohol consumption were also other important variables regarding success.
887
(P. 887-903) ISSN 2538–7138 /Online/
Problem of Research
The government of Turkey has a goal to reach a high level of education in their 10th development plan pub-
lished in 2014. Thus, the government has been implemented many major improvements in the educational area
to increase the quality of the education since 2010. However, Turkey does not take part in the highest performing
countries in all PISA surveys. Turkey is ranked 54th out of 72 countries in terms of science achievement in 2015,
which is very disappointing for Turkey. In order to reach a higher level of Turkish educational performance, factors
that have a significant effect on the students’ achievement should be identified. Then, Turkey should focus on the
areas of development by setting a good reference point. In terms of science achievement, the most successful
country of PISA 2015 survey is Singapore, which is taken as a reference point for Turkey.
Researchers studied on determining factors affecting students’ achievement using many different techniques
in order to reach a high level of estimation accuracy. In the literature, there are many types of research about
modeling students’ achievement, especially on classification and prediction based techniques. However, it gener-
ally does not distinguish clearly which method has better performance in terms of estimation accuracy, because
there are minor differences between the results of techniques used. Despite the fact that researchers may provide
important contributions to educational studies using many statistical techniques, MARS and CART algorithms have
rarely been used in this field. Using PISA 2015 survey, MARS and CART methods are analyzed and compared their
performance in this research.
Research Focus
The research focused on determining factors that affect science achievement of Turkish students. It specifically
tried to find answers to following questions:
1. What are the significant factors that have a significant impact on students’ science achievement?
2. Which method has the best prediction performance based on the goodness of fit criteria?
When these questions are answered, following possible actions can be implemented for increasing students’
science achievement:
1. The most significant factors of science achievement are determined. Thus, educational policymakers
can focus on these factors and prioritize educational policies to increase science achievement.
2. The method with the best performance in terms of classification and prediction between two algorithms
used in the research is determined. Thus, this research can be a good reference for further researches
in order to choose the best model for achievement prediction in the educational areas.
General Background
PISA is an international survey which has been held by the Organization Economic for Co-Operation and
Development (OECD) since 2000. It is conducted every three years in order to measure how well students can
make a prediction using what they have learned and can interpret their knowledge about the subject that they
are unfamiliar. Thus, it can help countries to implement the necessary educational policies. In all PISA surveys, the
15-year-old students’ knowledge of mathematics, science and reading are questioned. Approximately 550,000
students from 72 countries participated in PISA 2015 survey. Students took two-hour computer-based tests. Test
items were multiple-choice or open-ended questions. Students also answered many questions about themselves,
their homes, their schools and learning experience. Fieldwork of the survey was made during 2015 and two-step
stratified sampling technique was used in the survey (MEB, 2016; OECD, 2018).
Sample
The top-performing country is Singapore in PISA 2015 survey in terms of science achievement. Thus, Turkey
and Singapore dataset were taken into consideration in order to determine the main differences between these
countries in terms of science achievement and other factors such as socio-economic cultural status and wealth etc.
6,115 students from Singapore and 5,895 students from Turkey participated in the PISA 2015 study. Since the missing
888
ISSN 1648–3898 /Print/ PREDICTION OF STUDENTS’ SCIENCE ACHIEVEMENT: AN APPLICATION OF MULTIVARIATE
ISSN 2538–7138 /Online/ (P. 887-903)
values of the variables used in this research, 4,735 Singaporean and 4,569 Turkish students were used in this analysis.
In PISA surveys, there are three basic question sets: student, school, and teacher questionnaire. In this research,
only student-related factors affecting students’ achievement were examined.
In the student questionnaire, there are both single (such as gender) and indexed (such as index of economic,
social and cultural status and home possessions) variables. The indexed variables are designed as the Item-Response
Theory (MEB, 2016).
The student-related factors used in the analysis are given in Table 1.
Table 1. Variables examined in the analysis.
Indexed Variable
Description Question no. in PISA Questionnaire
Name
GENDER GENDER ST04

CULTPOSS CULTURAL POSSESSIONS AT HOME ST011, ST012
HEDRES HOME EDUCATIONAL RESOURCES ST011
WEALTH FAMILY WEALTH ST011, ST012
ICTRES ICT RESOURCES ST011, ST012
HOMEPOS HOME POSSESSIONS ST011, ST012, ST013
ST005, ST006, ST007, ST008, ST011, ST012,
ESCS INDEX OF ECONOMIC, SOCIAL AND CULTURAL STATUS
ST013, ST014, ST015
BELONG SENSE OF BELONGING TO SCHOOL ST034
UNFAIRTCHR TEACHER FAIRNESS ST039
MMINS MATHEMATICS LEARNING TIME (MINUTES PER WEEK) ST059, ST061
SMINS SCIENCE LEARNING TIME (MINUTES PER WEEK) ST059, ST061
COOPERATE ENJOY COOPERATION ST082
CPSVALUE VALUE COOPERATION ST082
ENVAWARE ENVIRONMENTAL AWARENESS ST092
ENVOPT ENVIRONMENTAL OPTIMISM ST093
JOYSCIE ENJOYMENT OF SCIENCE ST094
INTBRSCI INTEREST IN BROAD SCIENCE TOPICS ST095
DISCLISCI DISCIPLINARY CLIMATE IN SCIENCE CLASSES ST097
INQUIRY-BASED SCIENCE TEACHING AND LEARNING
IBTEACH ST098
PRACTICES
TEACHSUP TEACHER SUPPORT IN A SCIENCE CLASSES ST100
TDTEACH TEACHER-DIRECTED SCIENCE INSTRUCTION ST103
PERFEED PERCEIVED FEEDBACK ST104
ADINST ADAPTION OF INSTRUCTION ST107
INSTSCIE INSTRUMENTAL MOTIVATION ST113
ANXTEST TEST ANXIETY ST118
MOTIVAT ACHIEVEMENT MOTIVATION ST119
EMOSUPS PARENTS EMOTIONAL SUPPORT ST123
SCIEEFF SCIENCE SELF-EFFICACY ST129
EPIST EPISTEMOLOGICAL BELIEFS ST131
SCIEACT SCIENCE ACTIVITIES ST146
AUTICT STUDENTS’ PERCEIVED AUTONOMY RELATED TO ICT USE IC015
COMPICT STUDENTS’ PERCEIVED ICT COMPETENCE IC014
ENTUSE ICT USE OUTSIDE OF SCHOOL LEISURE IC008
HOMESCH ICT USE OUTSIDE OF SCHOOL FOR SCHOOLWORK IC010
ICTHOME ICT AVAILABLE AT HOME INDEX IC001
ICTSCH ICT AVAILABLE AT SCHOOL INDEX IC009
INTICT STUDENTS’ ICT INTEREST IC013
SOIAICT STUDENTS’ ICT AS A TOPIC IN SOCIAL INTERACTION IC016
USESCH USE OF ICT AT SCHOOL IN GENERAL IC011
889
(P. 887-903) ISSN 2538–7138 /Online/
In Table 1, gender was defined as a categorical variable (0-female, and 1-male); the other variables were
defined as index variables.
CART is based on a recursive partitioning method, which is used for predicting categorical independent
variables (classification) and continuous dependent variable (regression). CART, which is a common decision tree
algorithm, was firstly introduced in 1984 (Breiman, Friedman, Olshen, & Stone, 1984). CART is sensitive to outliers
and missing data.
Using all the independent variables, CART is constructed by splitting subsets to compose of two child knots
repeatedly. The impurity or diversity measures such as Gini, least-squared deviation, towing and ordered twoing
are used for choosing the best predictor. According to the goal of the study, the desire is to obtain subgroups as
homogeneous as possible (Breiman, Friedman, Olshen, & Stone, 1984; Türe, Tokatlı, & Kurt, 2009).
MARS was first introduced by Jerome H. Friedman (1991) and can be defined as follows:

(1)
M, Km and βs are the number of basis functions, the number of knots and the parameters, respectively in
Equation 1. skm takes on the value of either 1 or -1. v(k,m) and tkm indicate the label of the independent variable
and the knot location, respectively.
The general MARS method is constructed in a two-step process. Firstly, all the possible basis functions produced
using independent variables are added and found knots to improve predicting in the forward stepwise process. This
continues until the basis functions reach a predetermined maximum number. In a backward stepwise process, the
best model is also reached by eliminating some basis functions from the most complex model to prevent overfitting.
Generalized Cross-Validation (GCV) is used to measure the quality goodness of fit that penalizes large numbers of
basis functions and seems to reduce the probability of overfitting. When the variable is excluded from the model,
the GCV value is re-calculated and compared to the previous GCV value in order to measure the variable importance.
These values are on a scale of 0-100. If the GCV value has the highest decrease, it will score 100, which is the most
important variable. MARS has been commonly used by researchers for the following advantages: (1) MARS is flex-
ible in specifying the nonlinear relationships between a dependent variable and independent variable(s) without
the model assumptions of the regression methods. (2) MARS gives us different functions for distinct intervals of
independent variables. MARS can not only analyze the effect of independent variables on the dependent variable,
but it can also analyze all degrees of the interactions of the independent variables with each other. Moreover, it can
show the effect of these interactions on the dependent variable. (3) MARS is a stepwise regression model which
can be more easily understood and interpreted than other classification techniques. (4) There is no restriction on
the variable type. It may be used categorically or continuously (Garcia Nieto et al., 2017; Lee & Chen, 2005).
Data Analysis

R Studio tool was used for data analysis. There are many packages for machine learning algorithms in R, but
the most commonly used packages named as Earth and Caret (Earth package for MARS and Caret package for
CART) were used in this research.
First of all, descriptive statistics were given. Secondly, in order to avoid overfitting/underfitting problem, k-fold
cross-validation with n-repeat process was run for each algorithm (Khun & Johnson, 2013). In this research, 10-fold
with 10-repeat process was used. This process had the following steps:
1. Data divided into 10 equal parts randomly.
2. 9 of 10 parts were used as training samples and the last part was used as a test sample.
3. The process from step 1 to 2 was repeated 10 times and each time the algorithm chose a different
portion as the testing data.
After 10-fold cross-validation with 10-repeat process, the most important factors that had a significant effect
890
ISSN 2538–7138 /Online/ (P. 887-903)
on science achievement were determined. Furthermore, these factors were ranked by their importance on science
achievement. Finally, the results of MARS and CART were compared in terms of model accuracy statistics, which are
R2, Mean Absolute Error (MAE), Mean Square Error (MSE) and Root Mean Square Error (RMSE) to find the best model.
Results of Research
The indexed variables described in Table 1 were used in CART and MARS algorithms. Thus, in general, the
higher values in the variables have a positive meaning for the related topic. The descriptive statistics of the students-
related variables for Turkey and Singapore are given in Table 2.
Table 2. The comparison of descriptive statistics between Turkey and Singapore.
Turkey Singapore
Variables SD Min Max SD Min Max
pv1scie 433 76 218 708 562 98 228 888

adinst 0.10 0.95 -1.97 2.05 0.41 0.89 -1.97 2.05
anxtest 0.33 1.03 -2.51 2.55 0.57 0.95 -2.51 2.55
belong -0.40 1.12 -3.13 2.60 -0.22 0.88 -3.13 2.61
cooperate 0.02 1.10 -3.33 2.29 0.33 1.01 -3.33 2.29
cpsvalue -0.03 0.92 -2.83 2.10 0.26 1.03 -2.83 2.10
cultposs -0.23 0.87 -1.71 2.46 -0.19 0.98 -1.63 2.56
disclisci -0.12 0.94 -2.42 1.88 0.19 0.89 -2.42 1.88
emosups -0.23 1.06 -3.08 1.10 -0.24 0.97 -3.08 1.10
envaware 0.57 1.43 -3.38 3.29 0.43 1.10 -3.38 3.29
envopt -0.60 1.42 -1.79 3.01 -0.07 1.14 -1.79 3.01
epist -0.18 1.15 -2.79 2.16 0.24 0.89 -2.79 2.16
escs -1.40 1.15 -4.65 2.20 0.02 0.90 -4.05 3.50
hedres -0.54 1.11 -4.37 1.18 0.17 1.01 -4.37 1.18
homepos -1.38 1.09 -6.71 3.05 -0.11 0.89 -5.43 5.12
ibteach 0.31 1.14 -3.34 3.18 0.00 0.84 -3.34 3.18
ictres -1.15 0.94 -3.27 3.50 0.20 0.93 -3.27 3.50
instscie 0.39 0.89 -1.93 1.74 0.53 0.80 -1.93 1.74
intbrsci -0.03 1.01 -2.58 2.73 0.31 0.88 -2.55 2.60
joyscie 0.13 1.14 -2.12 2.16 0.62 0.97 -2.12 2.16
mmins 228 76 0 640 309 142 0 1800
motivat 0.64 0.99 -3.09 1.85 0.43 0.94 -3.09 1.85
perfeed 0.33 0.96 -1.53 2.50 0.32 0.91 -1.53 2.50
scieact 0.68 1.13 -1.76 3.36 0.20 1.08 -1.76 3.36
scieeff 0.36 1.27 -3.76 3.28 0.12 1.09 -3.76 3.28
smins 209 105 0 800 333 167 0 1920
tdteach -0.06 0.96 -2.45 2.08 0.27 0.93 -2.45 2.08
teachsup 0.19 0.98 -2.72 1.45 0.30 0.87 -2.72 1.45
unfairtchr 10.2 3.9 4.0 24.0 9.9 3.7 5.0 24.0
wealth -1.45 0.98 -4.93 4.09 -0.18 0.83 -4.77 4.08
autict n/a n/a n/a n/a 0.20 0.96 -2.50 2.10
compict n/a n/a n/a n/a -0.01 0.89 -2.66 1.97
entuse n/a n/a n/a n/a -0.10 0.81 -3.71 4.85
homesch n/a n/a n/a n/a 0.02 0.89 -2.69 3.60
icthome n/a n/a n/a n/a 7.94 1.93 0.00 11.00
891
(P. 887-903) ISSN 2538–7138 /Online/
Turkey Singapore
Variables SD Min Max SD Min Max
ictsch n/a n/a n/a n/a 6.70 2.13 0.00 10.00

intict n/a n/a n/a n/a 0.28 0.92 -2.96 2.64
soiaict n/a n/a n/a n/a 0.15 0.91 -2.14 2.43
usesch n/a n/a n/a n/a 0.00 0.92 -1.67 3.63
CART algorithm’s tree diagram of the Turkey dataset is given in Figure 1.
Figure 1. CART diagram for Turkey dataset (based on min relative error).
892
ISSN 2538–7138 /Online/ (P. 887-903)
According to CART diagram, environmental optimism was the most important variable in science achieve-
ment. The variables from the most important to the least important for achievement were envopt, smins, homepos,
wealth, ictres, envaware, escs, epist, ibteach and anxtest, respectively.
Cut off points of the variables and interaction effects in CART model are shown in Figure 2.
Figure 2. The cutoff points of the variables in the CART model for Turkey dataset.
As a result of CART model for Turkey dataset, R2, MAE, MSE and RMSE statistics were 0.332, 49.773, 3860.814
and 62.135, respectively.
As seen in Figure 3, MARS algorithm with 2-way interactions was used for Turkey dataset and cut points of
variables which had a statistically significant effect on achievement.
893
(P. 887-903) ISSN 2538–7138 /Online/
Figure 3. The cutoff points of the variables in the MARS model for Turkey dataset.
37 basis functions were determined for MARS analysis and coefficients of significant variables and interaction
effects are given in Table 3.
Table 3. MARS output for Turkey dataset.
Basis Functions Coefficient Basis Functions Coefficient
(Intercept) 467.471 h(-0.7275-wealth) 8.066

gender -9.336 h(wealth- -0.7275) -23.794
h(adinst- -0.3816) 7.304 gender * h(unfairteacher-7) -1.420
h(-1.7251-anxtest) -21.941 gender * h(wealth-0.0849) 38.563
h(anxtest- -1.7251) -6.585 h(anxtest- -1.7251) * h(mmins-240) -0.050
h(0.2085-cooperate) -6.825 h(-1.0005-disclisci) * h(epist- -1.5276) -6.952
h(0.1184-envaware) -9.268 h(-1.3298-emosups) * h(epist- -1.5276) -9.265
h(envaware-0.1184) 2.907 h(emosups- -1.3298) * h(epist- -1.5276) -3.066
h(2.2486-envopt) 19.060 h(envaware-0.1184) * h(joyscie-0.5094) 5.032
h(epist- -1.5276) 16.462 h(-1.7476-envopt) * h(escs- -0.6417) -723.513
h(epist-1.5636) -24.364 h(envopt- -1.7476) * h(escs- -0.6417) -7.913
h(escs- -0.6417) 53.250 h(2.2486-envopt) * h(ibteach- -0.8489) -2.817
894
ISSN 2538–7138 /Online/ (P. 887-903)
Basis Functions Coefficient Basis Functions Coefficient
h(-0.2221-homepos) -14.896 h(2.2486-envopt) * h(-0.8489-ibteach) -2.387

h(-0.4459-ictres) -11.031 h(2.2486-envopt) * h(scieact- -0.0265) -3.170
h(-0.1713-perfeed) 17.944 h(2.2486-envopt) * h(-0.0265-scieact) -3.560
h(1.8814-scieeff) -11.037 h(-0.6417-escs) * h(90-smins) 0.182
h(scieeff-1.8814) -7.896 h(1.3364-scieact) * h(1.8814-scieeff) 2.730
h(400-smins) -0.177 h(scieact-1.3364) * h(1.8814-scieeff) 5.039
h(teachsup-0.9209) -15.016
Similar to CART algorithm, the variables from the most important to the least important on achievement in
MARS analysis were envopt, homepos, smins, epist, envaware, ibteach, anxtest, escs, joyscie, scieact, gender, un-
fairteacher, scieeff, mmins, perfeed, wealth, cooperate, emosups, adinst, teachsup, disclisci and ictres. As a result
of MARS analysis for Turkey dataset, R2, MAE, MSE and RMSE statistics were 0.417, 46.349, 3365.63 and 58.015,
respectively.
In this research, CART and MARS algorithms were used for Singapore dataset to compare the results of two
algorithms. CART Tree diagram of Singapore dataset is given in Figure 4.
Figure 4. CART diagram for Singapore dataset (based on min relative error).
895
(P. 887-903) ISSN 2538–7138 /Online/
Based on Figure 4, learning time (minutes per week) of science subject was the most important variable in sci-
ence achievement. Variables affecting on achievement (from the most important to the least important) were smins,
mmins, envaware, escs, scieeff, epist, homepos, disclisci, envopt, unfairteacher, tdteach and ictsch, respectively.
When cut points of the variables were examined, students whose smins was higher than 290 minutes, the
mmins was lower than 412 minutes, the scieeff score higher than 0.46 and the epist score higher than 0.55 had the
highest science score with 661. On the other hand, students whose smins was lower than 290 minutes, the enware
score was lower than -0.63 and the envopt score was higher than 0.71 had the lowest science score with 419.
As seen in Figure 5, there are cut off points of the variables in CART algorithm.
Figure 5. The cutoff points of the variables in the CART model for Singapore dataset.
As a result of CART model for Singapore dataset, R2, MAE, MSE and RMSE statistics were 0.390, 60.621, 5872.865
and 76.634, respectively.
MARS algorithm with 2-way interactions was used for Singapore dataset and cut off points of variables are
shown in Figure 6.
896
ISSN 2538–7138 /Online/ (P. 887-903)
Figure 6. The cutoff points of the variables in the MARS model for the Singapore dataset.
48 functions were determined for MARS analysis and coefficients of significant variables and interaction ef-
fects are given in Table 4.
897
(P. 887-903) ISSN 2538–7138 /Online/
Table 4. MARS output for Singapore dataset.
Basis Functions Coefficients Basis Functions Coefficients
(Intercept) 664.857 h(mmins-300) -0.069

gender -30.874 h(0.6178-perfeed) 11.132
h(anxtest- -1.9346) -6.490 h(perfeed-0.6178) -17.399
h(0.3821-cpsvalue) 11.953 h(0.4035-scieact) -5.511
h(cpsvalue-0.3821) 10.685 h(scieact-0.4035) -13.441
h(cultposs- -1.1752) -5.213 h(-0.999-soiaict) -16.011
h(0.8351-disclisci) -13.327 h(soiaict- -0.999) -7.363
h(0.3361-envaware) -18.450 h(1.4501-tdteach) -8.063
h(envopt- -0.3192) -12.635 h(unfairteacher-9) -3.509
h(0.84-epist) -15.757 gender * h(belong- -0.5178) -14.235
h(-1.6073-escs) 40.991 gender * h(mmins-540) 0.097
h(escs- -1.6073) 17.183 gender * h(540-mmins) 0.117
h(0.578-homepos) -22.209 gender * h(360-smins) -0.234
h(-0.388-homesch) -11.277 h(adinst- -0.3816) * h(cultposs- -1.1752) 3.637
h(homesch- -0.388) -20.172 h(adinst- -0.3816) * h(8-icthome) 3.875
h(0.1368-ibteach) -11.813 h(1.515-autict) * h(soiaict- -0.999) -6.368
h(ibteach-0.1368) -10.854 h(0.0226-compict) * h(homesch- -0.388) 16.333
h(8-icthome) -3.048 h(compict-0.0226) * h(homesch- -0.388) 9.222
h(icthome-8) -7.622 h(-1.039-cpsvalue) * h(joyscie- -1.0286) -11.710
h(6-ictsch) -4.637 h(cpsvalue- -1.039) * h(joyscie- -1.0286) -5.259
h(ictsch-6) -8.416 h(-1.1752-cultposs) * h(unfairteacher-12) 11.652
h(-0.3944-intict) -21.561 h(-1.1752-cultposs) * h(12-unfairteacher) 5.907
h(joyscie- -1.0286) 31.771 h(0.3708-instscie) * h(1.4501-tdteach) 6.997
h(300-mmins) -0.206 h(joyscie- -1.0286) * h(1.4886-scieeff) -6.261
In order to evaluate the performance of the machine learning algorithm in terms of prediction accuracy, the
results of the algorithms are summarized in Table 5.
Table 5. The goodness of fit statistics comparison.
Turkey Singapore
Goodness of Fit Criteria
CART MARS CART MARS
R2 0.332 0.417 0.390 0.552

MAE 47.776 46.349 60.621 52.115
MSE 3860.81 3365.63 5872.87 4310.93
RMSE 62.14 58.02 76.63 65.66
The analytic results demonstrated that the MARS algorithm had lower MAE, MSE and RMSE and higher R2
values than CART algorithm in Turkey and Singapore. The variable importance comparison of the two algorithms
is summarized in Table 6.
898
ISSN 2538–7138 /Online/ (P. 887-903)
Table 6. Variable Importance.

Turkey Singapore
Importance CART MARS CART MARS
1 envopt envopt smins escs
2 smins homepos mmins envaware
3 homepos smins envaware joyscie
4 wealth epist escs ictsch
5 ictres envaware scieeff autict
6 envaware ibteach epist soiaict
7 escs anxtest homepos unfairteacher
8 epist escs disclisci gender
9 ibteach joyscie envopt smins
10 anxtest scieact unfairteacher envopt
11 gender tdteach disclisci
12 unfairteacher ictsch cpsvalue
13 scieeff epist
14 mmins perfeed
15 perfeed homepos
16 wealth icthome
17 cooperate scieeff
18 emosups mmins
19 adinst homesch
20 teachsup belong
21 disclisci tdteach
22 ictres anxtest
23 intict
24 instscie
25 compict
26 ibteach
27 scieact
28 cultposs
29 adinst
1: the most important; 29: the less important
In Table 6, it was revealed that the top three most important variables in science achievement were not
differentiated in CART and MARS algorithms in the Turkey dataset. However, their ranking was different. Fur-
thermore, according to the results of CART and MARS algorithms, more variables were used in MARS algorithm
to explain science achievement.
Similar to the variable importance results of Turkey dataset, more variables were used with MARS algorithm
in the Singapore dataset. However, the top three most important variables in science achievement were dif-
ferentiated in CART and MARS algorithms in Singapore dataset and only the envaware was common.
As a result, MARS algorithm used more variables and produced much more sensitive results than CART
algorithm in this dataset. In addition to this, MARS produced higher R2 and lower MAE, MSE and RMSE values than
CART algorithm. Thus, it could be said that MARS algorithm outperformed CART algorithm in this research.
Discussion
During the past decades, students’ factors affecting academic achievement have become very common
and important for the educational system. Research institutions and government agencies are evaluating this
899
(P. 887-903) ISSN 2538–7138 /Online/
topic to develop actionable decisions on students’ achievement. In this research, when the variable importance
was examined, it was revealed that environmental optimism, home possessions and science learning time (min-
utes per week) were the most important factors that needed to be improved for Turkish students to increase
students’ science achievement. This result was parallel to the results obtained in the researches in the literature
(Hoy, Tarter, & Hoy, 2006; Littledyke, 2008; Yang, 2010; Singh, Granville, & Dika, 2010).
According to the average score of environmental optimism and basis function result of MARS, it is clear
that Turkish students do not have enough knowledge about its sub-criteria: air pollution, extinction of plants
and animals, clearing of forests for other land use, water shortages, nuclear waste, the increase of greenhouse
gases in the atmosphere and the use of genetically modified organisms. Moreover, their future expectation of
these criteria is not optimistic. Also, this variable should be higher than 2.2486 to increase science achievement
for Turkish students. The impact of environmental optimism on Singaporean students’ science achievement
was not as important as the impact on Turkish students’ science achievement. Although Turkey’s government
began steering up its environmental awareness in the early 1980s, a major policy was included in the country’s
10th development plan in 2014. These policies are increasing the development of Turkey’s renewable energy,
prevention and adaptation to climate change, conservation of biodiversity, soil erosion control, reforestation
and fighting desertification and reforestation (Smith, 2015). However, it is clearly concluded that the impor-
tance of these programs is not realized by the government. Also, Turkey is 37th rank out of 38 countries in the
environment category of OECD’s better life index. This result corresponds to the findings of the OECD’s report
(OECD, 2017). When Singapore environmental policy is examined, it is seen that its environmental awareness
started in the early 1970s. In the research of Hays (2008), it was emphasized that the Singapore government
has been aware of the requirements for environmental protection since the 1970s. For this reason, Minister’s
Offices were established and these offices carried out many programs about cleaning up rivers and streams,
moving animals to resettlement areas and controlling discharges from small industries to handle environmental
issues. Because of the early implementation of environmental action plans in Singapore, it can be inferred that
the average environmental optimization score of Singapore is higher than Turkey. Thus, we are expecting that
environmental awareness and optimism are going to increase in the near future after the action plans that are
taken by Turkish government.
In this research, another important factor that affects Turkish students’ science achievement was home
possessions. Home possessions variable consists of 20 different items: a desk to study at, a room of their own, a
quiet place to study, a computer they can use for school work, educational software, a link to the Internet, clas-
sic literature, books of poetry, books to help with your school work, a dictionary, books on art, music or design,
televisions, cars, rooms with a bath or shower, cell phones with internet access, computers, tablet computers,
e-book readers, musical instruments and the number of books. Average home possessions score was -1.38 for
Turkey and -0.11 for Singapore. Based on MARS results, this variable should be higher than -0.2221 for better
science achievement score. Similar to the researches in the literature, home possessions, which were highly
correlated to socio-economic status (Turmo, 2004; Marks, Cresswell, & Ainley, 2006), had a significant effect on
students’ science achievement in this research. Gallup conducted a survey from November 11th to December
25th in 2013 in order to understand media usage behavior in Turkey (Gallup, 2013). 2,020 people were attended
in the survey and 99% of them had a television, 72% of them had a working computer and 68% of them had
an internet connection and 78% of the population had a cell phone. The importance of home possessions on
science achievement for Singaporean students was relatively lower than Turkish students. On the other hand,
98% of people had a television, 83% of people had a working computer, 78% of them had an internet access and
97% of people had a cell phone (Department of Statistics Singapore, 2018). In addition to this, gross domestic
product per capita was 55,235$ in Singapore while 14,933$ in Turkey as of December 2017 (Trading Economics,
2018). It is obvious that socioeconomic cultural status of Singapore is better than Turkey. Thus, Turkish govern-
ment should create action plans to increase health and decency standard of living.
The results of this research corresponded to the findings of other studies in the literature (Chandler &
Swartzentruber, 2011; Sha, Schunn, & Bathgate, 2015). Science learning time had a significant effect on Turkish
students’ science achievements. Science learning time was 209 minutes on average for Turkey and 333 minutes
for Singapore in this research. According to the MARS results, an average of science learning time should be
over 400 minutes per week for being more effective. This means that the current curriculum should be updated
900
ISSN 2538–7138 /Online/ (P. 887-903)
immediately. Science learning time should be increased to (at least) 333 minutes per week and then it should
be increased to 400 minutes in order to reach a high level of science success.
After evaluating the important factors affecting on Turkish students’ science achievement, it could be found
that family wealth, adaption of instruction, environmental awareness, epistemological beliefs and internet and
computer technology (ICT) resources were important factors that had a significant impact on students’ science
achievement (Geske & Kangro, 2002; Özdem, Çavaş, Çavaş, Çakıroğlu, & Ertepınar, 2010; Záhorec, Hašková, Munk,
& Bílek, 2013; Henno & Reiska, 2013; Rannikmäe, 2016). In this research, these variables should be higher than
0.7275, 0.3816, 0.1184, 1.5276 and 0.4459, respectively in order to reach a high level of science achievement.
When the results of MARS for Singapore examined, it was revealed that index of economic, social and cultural
status, environmental awareness, enjoyment of science, ICT available at school index and students’ perceived
autonomy related to ICT use variables should be higher than 1.6073, 0.3361, 1.0286, 6.000 and 1.515, respectively
in order to reach high level of science achievement.
According to the research findings, MARS was outperformed CART in terms of predicting students’ science
achievement. The performance analysis indicated that MARS had the highest coefficient of determination with
the value of 42% in Turkey and 55% in Singapore.
Conclusions

In overview, science achievement is critical for developing science literacy which is explored by PISA surveys.
It is assessed the students’ science knowledge as well as what they can do and how they can apply scientific
knowledge in real life. According to the results of PISA 2015, it has been concluded that science achievement of
Turkish students is lower than the OECD average. Therefore, it is necessary to explore how to develop scientific
literacy.
It was determined that environmental optimism had a positive significant effect on students’ science
achievement. The government should be able to support people with high levels of knowledge about envi-
ronmental awareness to provide training or workshop. In addition, these people can be invited as a speaker
in high schools’ or companies’ training programs in order to increase environmental awareness. Providing in-
service training to teachers and educators or preparing a public service announcement could be another way
to promote environmental knowledge.
Home possessions were the second important factor that had a significantly positive effect on students’
achievement. When the sub-criteria of home possessions are considered, it can be said that it is really hard to
increase students’ home possessions score in a short time. However, parents should provide their children with
a desk to study at and a quiet place to study. Also, it is critical for developing students’ science achievement that
students have a computer with an internet access in both their home and school. Since providing a computer
and an internet access are a budgeting issue for parents, the government should support schools to set up at
least one computer laboratory with an internet access.
It was emphasized that science learning time was one of the other factors affecting students’ science
achievement. Science learning time per week was 209 minutes in Turkey, which was below PISA overall average.
In the light of this research, it is recommended that science learning time per week should be increased and the
curriculum should be enriched. For that reason, educational policymakers and the government should work on
how to make an effective educational plan.
Although this research should give a reference in this field for future research, there are some limitations
in this research. Firstly, in order to explain the students’ science achievement, it can be included in the analysis
not only student variables but also teacher-related and school-related variables which are obtained by PISA
survey. Secondly, Singapore is the most successful country of PISA 2015 in terms of science achievement, so
PISA data is analyzed to make a comparison between Turkey and Singapore in this research. Other countries
participating in PISA survey may also be analyzed to compare students’ achievement. Thirdly, there are so
many machine learning techniques for solving different problems. It is used MARS and CART algorithms in this
research. In order to measure prediction and classification performance, different machine learning techniques
can be tried in future research.
901
(P. 887-903) ISSN 2538–7138 /Online/
References
Breiman, L., Friedman, J. H., Olshen, R. A., & Stone C.J. (1984). Classification and regression trees. Monterey: Wadsworth and
Brooks/Cole.
Carnoy, M., Khavenson, T., & Ivanova, A. (2013). Using TIMSS and PISA results to inform educational policy: A study of Russia
and its neighbours. Compare: A Journal of Comparative and International Education, 45 (2), 248-271.
Chandler, K., & Swartzentruber, M. (2011). A correlational study of nature awareness and science achievement (M.A Thesis).
Retrieved from https://files.eric.ed.gov/fulltext/ED520105.pdf.
Cortez, P., & Silva, A. (2008). Using data mining to predict secondary school student performance. In A. Brito & J. Teixeria (Eds.),
Proceedings of 5th Annual Future Business Technology Conference (pp.5-12). Porto, Portugal: EUROSIS.
Department of Statistics Singapore (2018). Singapore in Figures 2018. Singapore: Department of Statistics.
Friedman, J. H. (1991). Multivariate adaptive regression splines (with discussion). The Annals of Statistics, 19 (1), 1-141.
Gallup, (2013). Contemporary Media Usage in Turkey. Retrieved from Broadcasting Board of Governors: https://www.bbg.
gov/wp-content/media/2014/07/Turkey-research-brief.pdf.
Garcia Nieto, P. J., Garcia-Gonzalo, E., Alvarez Anton, J. C., Gonzalez Suarez, V. M., Mayo Bayon, R., & Mateos Martin, F. (2017). A
comparison of several machine learning techniques for the centerline segregation prediction in continuous cast steel
slabs and evaluation of its performance. Journal of Computational and Applied Mathematics, 330 (1), 1-19.
Geske, A., & Kangro, A. (2002). Evaluation of Latvia’s science education in the IEA TIMSS and OECD PISA framework. Journal
of Baltic Science Education, 1 (2), 59-66.
Hay, J. (2018, August 1). Singapore - History, Nature and Religion. Retrieved from http://factsanddetails.com/southeast-
asia/Singapore/sub5_7a/entry-3795.html
Henno, I., & Reiska, P. (2013). Impact of the socio-cultural context on student science performance and attitudes: The case of
Estonia. Journal of Baltic Science Education, 12 (4), 465-481.
Hoy, W. K., Tarter, C. J., & Hoy, A. W. (2006). Academic optimism of schools: A force for student achievement. American Educa-
tional Research Journal, 43 (3), 425-446.
Kabakchieva, D. (2013). Predicting student performance by using data mining methods for classification. Cybernetics and
Information Technologies, 13 (1), 61-72.
Khun, M., & Johnson, K. (2013). Applied Predictive Modeling. New York, NY: Springer.
Lee, T.-S., & Chen, I.-F. (2005). A two-stage hybrid credit scoring model using artificial neural networks and multivariate adap-
tive regression splines. Expert Systems with Applications, 28, 743-752.
Littledyke, M. (2008). Science education for environmental awareness: approaches to integrating cognitive and affective
domains. Environmental Education Research, 14 (1), 1-17.
Marks, G. N., Cresswell, J., & Ainley, J. (2006). Explaining socioeconomic inequalities in student achievement: The role of home
and school factors. Educational Research and Evaluation, 12 (2), 105-128.
Martinez A., F., & Chaparro Caso López, A.A. (2017). Data mining techniques in detecting factors linked to academic achieve-
ment. School Effectiveness and School Improvement, 28 (1), 39-55.
Milli Eğitim Bakanlığı (MEB). (2016). PISA 2015 National Report. MEB: Ankara.
Organisation for Economic Co-operation and Development (OECD). (2017). How’s Life? 2017: Measuring Well-being. Paris:
OECD Publishing.
Organisation for Economic Co-operation and Development (OECD). (2018). PISA 2015 Results in Focus. Paris: OECD Publishing.
Trading Economics. (2018, August 1). GDP per Capita. Retrieved from https://tradingeconomics.com/country-list/gdp-
per-capita
Özdem, Y., Çavaş, P., Çavaş, B., Çakıroğlu, J., & Ertepınar, H. (2010). An investigation of elementary students’ scientific literacy
levels. Journal of Baltic Science Education, 9 (1), 6-19.
Rannikmäe, M. (2016). Some crucial areas in science education research corresponding to the needs of the contemporary
society. Journal of Baltic Science Education, 15 (1), 4-6.
Rutkowski, D., Rutkowski, L., Wild, J., & Burroughs, N. (2017). Poverty and educational achievement in the US: A less-biased
estimate using PISA 2012 data. Journal of Children and Poverty, 24 (1), 1-21.
R Studio. (2017, November 1). Products Page: R Studio. Retrieved from http://www.rstudio.org/
Sebastian, J., Moon, J., & Cunningham, M. (2012). The relationship of school-based parental involvement with student achieve-
ment: A comparison of principal and parent survey reports from PISA 2012. Educational Studies, 43 (2), 123-146.
Sha, L., Schunn, C., & Bathgate, M. (2015). Measuring choice to participate in optional science learning experiences during
early adolescence. Journal of Research in Science Teaching, 52, 686-709.
Shariri, A. M., Husain, W., & Rashid, N. A. (2015). A review on predicting student’s performance using data mining techniques.
Procedia Computer Science, 72, 414-422.
Sheldrake, R., Mujtaba, T., & Reiss, M. J. (2017). Science teaching and students’ attitudes and aspirations: The importance of
conveying the applications and relevance of science. International Journal of Educational Research, 85, 167-183.
Singh, K., Granville, M., & Dika, S. (2010). Mathematics and science achievement: Effects of motivation, interest and academic
engagement. The Journal of Educational Research, 95 (6), 323-332.
Smith, B. (2018, August 1). Turkey Environmental Issues, Policies and Clean Technology. Retrieved from https://www.azoclean-
tech.com/article.aspx?ArticleID=571
902
ISSN 2538–7138 /Online/ (P. 887-903)
Turmo, A. (2004). Scientific literacy and socio-economic background among 15 year-olds: A Nordic perspective. Scandinavian
Journal of Educational Research, 48 (3), 287-305.
Türe, M., Tokatlı, F., & Kurt, İ. (2009). Using Kaplan-Meier analysis together with decision tree methods (C&RT, CHAID, QUEST, C4.5
and ID3) in determining recurrence-free survival of breast cancer patients. Expert Systems with Applications, 36, 2017-2026.
Von Davier, A. A., Hao, J., Liu, L., & Kyllonen, P. (2017). Interdisciplinary research agenda in support of assessment of collabora-
tive problem solving: Lessons learned from developing a Collaborative Science Assessment Prototype. Computers in
Human Behavior, 76, 631-640.
Yang, Y. (2010). Dimensions of Socio-economic Status and their Relationship to Mathematics and Science Achievement at
Individual and Collective Levels. Scandinavian Journal of Educational Research, 47 (1), 21-41.
Záhorec, J., Hašková, A. M., & Bílek, M. (2013). Results of PISA and Evaluation of Computer Science Education. Journal of Baltic
Science Education, 12 (2), 234-248.
Received: June 25, 2018 Accepted: October 04, 2018
Serpil Kilic Depren PhD, Assistant Professor, Department of Statistics, Yildiz

Technical University, Istanbul, Turkey.
E-mail: serkilic@yildiz.edu.tr
903
INFORMATION
FOR CONTRIBUTORS
EDITORIAL AND REVIEW PROCEDURES
Journal of Baltic Science Education (JBSE) publishes original scientific research articles in the field of Natural Science Education and
related areas for all educational levels in the Baltic countries. It is possible to publish special (thematic) issues of JBSE. The papers should
be submitted and will be published in English. JBSE will promote to establish contacts between researchers and practical educators
both in the Baltic countries and countries around.
The authors of the manuscripts are responsible for the scientific content and novelty of the research materials. Articles, published
before in other international journals or papers’ collections will not be accepted for publication in JBSE.
As a publication that represents a variety of cross-disciplinary interests, both theoretical and practical, the JBSE invites manuscripts on
a wide range of topics, especially in the following areas:
• Didactics of natural sciences. • Philosophical, political, economical and social aspects
• Theory and practice in natural science teacher of natural science education.
education. • The supplementary natural science education.
• Integrated natural science education. • ICT in natural science education.
• Natural science and technological literacy. • The standardisation of natural science education etc.
• General and professional natural science education.
MANUSCRIPTS GUIDELINES
The structure of the research paper presented to the Journal of Baltic Science Education should be as follows: abstract - short report of the
investigation; introduction inc. aim and subject of the research; research methodologies and methods; results of the research incl. discussion;
conclusions; list of references in APA style.
The papers should be submitted in English. If English is a second language for the author, please consider having the manuscript
proof read and edited before submitting. The preliminary text of the article can be sent as a.doc file in the attachment by e-mail: mail.
jbse@gmail.com
The text must be elaborated in Word for Windows, using 12 point Times New Roman letters. An article should not exceed 7-10 A4 pages,
included figures, tables and bibliography. Publishing of longer articles should be negotiated separately. Texts margins: top and bottom 20mm,
left - 25mm, right - 20mm. The title: capital letters, 14pt, bold; space between the title and the author’s name is one line interval. Author’s name
and surname: small letters, 12pt, bold. Under the name, institution: 11 pt, italics; space between the title and the text: 1 line interval. Abstract
– about 100-150 words - precedes the text. The text: 12pt Single or Auto spacing, in one column. Key words: no more than five words. The
language must be clear and accurate. The authors have to present the results, propositions and conclusions in a form that can suit scientists
from different countries.
Titles of the tables and figures: 11 pt, small letters. Space between figures or tables and the text: 1 line interval. Introduction, titles of
chapters and subchapters: 12pt, bold, small letters. Numbers: Arabic, subchapters numbered by two figures (1.1, 1.2, etc.). Figures, tables and
captions should be inserted within the manuscript at their appropriate locations. Diagrams and graphs should be provided as finished black
and white line artwork or electronic images. When there are a number of illustrations, the author should endeavour to reduce the amount of
text to accommodate the illustrations in the limited space available for any article.
References in the text should be presented in brackets (Knox, 1988; Martin, 1995). If necessary, the page can be indicated: (Martin,
1995, p.48). The list of references should be presented after the text. The Words List of References: 11pt, bold, small letters. The references
should be listed in full at the end of the paper in the following standard form:
For books: Saxe, G.B. (1991). Cultural and Cognitive Development: Studies in Mathematical Understanding. Hillsdale, NJ: Erlbaum.
For articles: Bekerian, D.A. (1993). In Search of the Typical Eyewitness. American Psychologist, 48, 574-576.
For chapters within books: Bjork, R.A. (1989). Retrieval Inhibition as an Adaptive Mechanism in Human Memory. In: H.L. Roediger III & F.I.M.
Craik (Eds.), Varieties of Memory & Consciousness (pp. 309-330). Hillsdale, NJ: Erlbaum.
On a separate page, author - related data should be presented in English: name, surname, degree and academic title, institution, full
correspondence address in the clearest and most complete form /ordinary post and e-mail addresses /, position (to ensure anonymity in the
review process). The author (authors) should confirm in writing, that the manuscript has not been published in other journal or
handed over (transferred) to other journal for publication.
EDITORIAL AND REVIEW PROCEDURES

Manuscripts will be sent anonymously to reviewers with expertise in the appropriate area. All manuscripts will be rewieved by two
experts before JBSE’s accept them for publication. This process usually takes about two months. The journal co-editors will make minor
editorial changes; major changes will be made by the author(s) prior to publication if necessary. JBSE’s redaction will sent to author(s)
only one correcture which must be sent back within 2 weeks. JBSE will not review submissions previously published elsewhere through
print or electronic medium.
Manuscripts submitted to the JBSE cannot be returned to authors. Authors should be sure to keep a copy for themselves. Authors’
signatures should be at the end of the paper and its second checked proofs.
Manuscripts, editorial correspondence (and other correspondence for subscription and exchange), and any questions should be
sent to editor-in-chief or to regional redactors.
Journal`s requirements for the authors are available online: http://www.scientiasocialis.lt/jbse/files/JBSE_requirements_2017.pdf
904
JBSE
Problems of Psychology in the 21st
Century is an international, periodical,
peer reviewed scientific journal, issued by
the Scientia Socialis, UAB in cooperation
with SMC “Scientia Educologica”.
Editor-in-Chief
Prof. dr. Vincentas Lamanauskas, Scientific

Methodical Centre „Scientia Educologica“,
Republic of Lithuania
Problems of Psychology in the 21st Century

(ISSN 2029-8587) is abstracted and/or indexed
in:
Index Copernicus -
http://journals.indexcopernicus.com
EBSCO - http://search.ebscohost.com
Editorial Board
Dr., prof. Ferda Aysan, Dokuz Eylul University, Turkey

Dr., prof. Serhiy Boltivets, Grigory Kostyuk Psychological Institute of the Ukrainian National
Academy of Pedagogical Sciences, Ukraine
Dr., assoc. prof. Irena Gailiene, SMC "Scientia Educologica", Republic of Lithuania
Dr., prof. Irakli Imedadze, Dimitri Uznadze Georgian Psychological National Society, Georgia
Dr. Julia Lakhvich, Belarusian State University, Republic of Belarus
Dr., prof. Vladimir S. Karapetyan, Armenian State Pedagogical University named after Kh.
Abovyan, Armenia
Dr., prof. Vincentas Lamanauskas, Scientific Methodical Centre „Scientia Educologica“, Republic of
Lithuania (Editor-in-Chief)
Dr., prof. Maria Ledzińska, University of Warsaw, Poland
Dr., prof. Aleksandr Lobanov, Belarusian State Pedagogical University, Republic of Belarus
Dr., prof. Guna Svence, Riga Teacher Training and Educational Management Academy, Latvia
Website: http://www.jbse.webinfo.lt/PPC/Problems_of_Psychology.htm
905
JBSE
Dear colleagues,
GAMTAMOKSLINIS UGDYMAS / NATURAL SCIENCE EDUCATION – is a
periodical, peer reviewed, scientific-methodical journal, issued by the SMC „Scientia
Educologica“ in cooperation with Scientia Socialis. It is an international journal, wherein
the scientific and methodical articles published in Lithuanian, English and Russian
languages. This journal is intendent for the teachers of general education schools, the
lecturers of higher educational institutions and all, who are interested in the problems of
natural science education.
The GU/NSE journal welcomes the submission of manuscripts that meet the general
criteria of scientific and methodical (practical) papers.
GAMTAMOKSLINIS UGDYMAS / NATURAL SCIENCE EDUCATION

ISSN 1648-939X
http://gu.puslapiai.lt/GUwww/indeks.htm
http://gu.puslapiai.lt/GUwww/Indeksavimas.htm
http://oaji.net/journal-detail.html?number=514
Fast Publication This journal is abstracted / listed / indexed / cited in:
COPERNICUS INDEX , LIST OF SCIENCE EDUCATION
Peer Reviewed JOURNALS, DRJI, JOURNALS OF INTEREST TO CHEMICAL
Open Access EDUCATORS, SciEdu 4 U.com, SKYLIGHT, OAJI, WebQualis
(QUALIS/CAPES ), DAIJ, ERIH PLUS, MIAR.
Applied research/practical/methodical work. This type of submission is best suited for
practical/didactical work and reports, as well as position papers raising original and
provocative theoretical or practical discourses and questions (small-scale research, applied
research, didactical/methodical papers, case studies, best educational practices etc.). Each
submission is carefully reviewed by two independent reviewers and ranked based on:
quality of preparation, relevance to the educational community, didactical quality,
originality, and importance of the contribution.
Instruction for authors and other details are available on the journal`s website at:
http://gu.puslapiai.lt/GUwww/Bendra_informacija.htm
GU/NSE is an Open Access journal accessible for free on the Internet. Partial article
processing charges are: 5-8 EUR per one A4 page. Papers must be submitted on the
understanding that they have not been published elsewhere and are not currently under
consideration by another publisher. Optimal paper`s size: 5-8/12 pages.
For contacts, questions and papers submission: gu@gu.puslapiai.lt
Sincerely yours, Editorial Board
906
JBSE
Dear colleagues,
EDUCATION POLICY, MANAGEMENT AND QUALITY – is a periodical, peer

reviewed, scientific-methodical journal, issued by the SMC „Scientia Educologica“ in
cooperation with Scientia Socialis. It is an international journal, wherein the scientific and
methodical articles published in Lithuanian, English and Russian languages.
The EPMQ journal welcomes the submission of manuscripts that meet the general criteria
of scientific and methodical (practical) papers.
“Education Policy, Management and Quality” ISSN 2029-1922
http://gu.puslapiai.lt/SVIETIMAS_PVK_en.htm
http://gu.puslapiai.lt/SVIETIMAS_PVK_indeksavimas_eng.htm
http://oaji.net/journal-detail.html?number=513
This journal is indexed / abstracted / listed / cited / in:

Fast Publication
INDEX COPERNICUS, OAJI, MIAR, ERIH PLUS,
Peer Reviewed ESJI, Ulrich’s Periodicals Directory, QUALIS/CAPES,
Open Access DAIJ, Academic Resource Index.
This type of submission is best suited for practical/didactical work and reports, as well as
position papers raising original and provocative theoretical or practical discourses and
questions (small-scale research, applied research, didactical/methodical papers, case
studies, best educational practices etc.). Each submission is carefully reviewed by two
independent reviewers and ranked based on: quality of preparation, relevance to the
educational community, didactical quality, originality, and importance of the contribution.
Instruction for authors and other details are available on the journal`s website at:
http://gu.puslapiai.lt/Informacija-autoriams_Info-authors.pdf
EPMQ is an Open Access journal accessible for free on the Internet. Partial article
processing charges are: 5-8 EUR per one A4 page. Papers must be submitted on the
understanding that they have not been published elsewhere and are not currently under
consideration by another publisher. Optimal paper`s size: 5-8/12 pages.
For contacts, questions and papers submission: svietimas.politika@gmail.com
Sincerely yours,
Editorial Board
907
ISSN 1648-3898 /Print/, ISSN 2538-7138 /Online/
Compiled by: Vincentas Lamanauskas

Linguistic Editor: Ilona Ratkevičienė
Cover design by: Jurgina Jankauskienė
Layout design by : Linas Janonis

20 October 2018. Publishing in Quires 10,25. Edition 200
Publisher Scientia Socialis Ltd.,

Donelaicio Street 29, LT-78115 Siauliai, Lithuania
E-mail: scientia@scientiasocialis.lt
Phone: +370 687 95668
http://www.jbse.webinfo.lt/centras.htm
http://www.scientiasocialis.lt

Printing Šiauliai printing house
9A P. Lukšio Street
LT-76207 Šiauliai, Lithuania
Phone: +370 41 500 333.
Fax: +370 41 500 336
E-mail: info@dailu.lt

Journal of Baltic Science Education, Vol. 17, No. 5, 2018

Uploaded by

Document Information

Copyright

Available Formats

Share this document

Share or Embed Document

Sharing Options

Did you find this document useful?

Is this content inappropriate?

Copyright:

Available Formats

Journal of Baltic Science Education, Vol. 17, No. 5, 2018

Uploaded by

Copyright:

Available Formats

Vol.17, No.

Published since 2002 Address:

ISSN 1648–3898 (Print) © Scientia Socialis Ltd., Lithuania, 2018

ISSN 2538–7138 (Online)

ISSN 2538–7138 /Online/

BEST PRACTICES OF ASSESSMENT AS A WAY TO PROMOTE EFFECTIVE LEARNING

UNDERGRADUATE STUDENTS’ SCIENCE PROCESS SKILLS IN TERMS OF SOME VARIABLES:

EFFECTIVENESS OF POLYA PROBLEM-SOLVING AND TARGET-TASK COLLABORATIVE LEARNING

HERMENEUTIC PERSPECTIVES OF PRE-SERVICE SCIENCE TEACHERS ABOUT SCIENCE

IMPROVING THE QUALITY OF STUDENT QUESTIONS IN PRIMARY SCIENCE CLASSROOMS

DEVELOPMENT OF CCDSR TEACHING MODEL TO IMPROVE SCIENCE PROCESS SKILLS OF PRE-

TAKE-HOME-EXPERIMENT: ENHANCING STUDENTS’ SCIENTIFIC ATTITUDE

GRADE 12 STUDENTS’ PERCEIVED SELF-EFFICACY TOWARDS WORKING LIFE SKILLS AND

EFFECTS OF PROJECT-BASED ACTIVITIES IN DEVELOPING HIGH SCHOOL STUDENTS’ ENERGY

THE EFFECT OF FIFTH-GRADE STUDENTS’ SCIENCE ANXIETY ON METACOGNITIVE AWARENESS

PREDICTION OF STUDENTS’ SCIENCE ACHIEVEMENT: AN APPLICATION OF MULTIVARIATE

INFORMATION FOR CONTRIBUTORS . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 904

PROBLEMS OF PSYCHOLOGY IN THE 21ST CENTURY . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 905

NATURAL SCIENCE EDUCATION . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 906

EDUCATION POLICY, MANAGEMENT AND QUALITY . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 907

BEST PRACTICES OF ASSESSMENT AS A WAY TO PROMOTE EFFECTIVE LEARNING

Received: August 25, 2018 Accepted: October 02, 2018

PERSPECTIVE FROM INDONESIA ISSN 2538-7138 /Online/

Abstract. This research explored the level

Motivation and Objectives

Table 1. Distribution of samples.

Academic Majors N Percentage

Chemistry 152 51.0

Instrument and Procedures

Basic Process Skills Observation Checklist (BPSOC)

Integrated Process Skills Observation Checklist (IPSOC)

Figure 1. The process of data collection.

Table 2. The level of students’ basic and integrated process skills.

Variables N Max Mean SD Percentage Level

Basic Process Skills 298 32 17.20 2.881 53.75 Medium

Table 3. Descriptive statistics of students’ science process skills.

Science Process Skills No. of Item Mean SD Percentage

Basic Process Skills

Significant Gap in Students’ Science Process Skills Based on Academic Majors

Chemistry 152 17.35 3.071

Significant Gap in Students’ Science Process Skills Based on Gender

Table 5. Gap in students’ science process skills scores based on gender.

Male 92 15.72 2.974

Significant Gap in Students’ Science Process Skills Based on Grade Levels

First-year 148 16.29 2.853

The Relationship between Students’ Basic and Integrated Process Skills

Table 7. Pearson’s correlation coefficient for science process skills.

Integrated Process Skills

Basic Process Skills Pearson Correlation .481**

Conclusions and Recommendations

Received: March 20, 2018 Accepted: September 02, 2018

Irwanto Ph.D. Candidate, Department of Chemistry Education, Graduate

LEARNING APPROACHES IN ISSN 2538-7138 /Online/

ELECTRICITY AMONGST HIGH

Abstract. This research reports on the

Instrument and Procedure

Table 1. Procedure for data collection.

Table 2. Mean scores of male and female exposed to the treatments.

No Standard Mean Scores Mean Scores

M F M F Pre-Test Post-Test Pre-Test Post-Test Male Female

PPS 27 33 9.344 9.098 24.95 34.28 21.29 35.18 9.33 13.89

Result by Scoring Ability

Mean Mean Mean

Pre- Post- Pre- Post- Pre- Post-

Achievement .308 .477 .485