6th
International Science, Social Sciences, Engineering and Energy Conference
17-19 December, 2014, Prajaktra Design Hotel, Udon Thani, Thailand
I-SEEC 2014
http//iseec2014.udru.ac.th
Science Process Skills Understanding of Undergraduate
Science Education Students’
Pasu Pramokchona,e1, Chatchai Kruea-Ina,e2*, Wiraporn Maithonga,e3,
Nantarat Kruea-In b,e4
b
a
Faculty of Science and Technology, Chiang Mai Rajabhat University, Chiang Mai, 50300, Thailand
Faculty of Education and Development Science, Kasetsart University, Kamphaeng Saen Campus, Nakhon Pathom, 73140,
Thailand
e1
ajpasuj@hotmail.com,e2Chatchai_krua@cmru.ac.th,e3wiraporn.m@gmail.com,e4fedunrp@ku.ac.th
Abstract
The purpose of this study was to investigate science process skills by An Understanding of Science Process
Skill Test. The science process skills of science education students’ were assessed by the performance test on science
process skill. The performance test used for data collection was a four multiple choice (46 items) base on Thai
context and open questionnaire which had validity and reliability of 0.869 by using Kr-20 formula. Statistics used for
data analysis were frequency, percentage, mean and standard deviation. The results from this study revealed the
science process skills of science education students’ were fair and satisfactory level in inferring and observing skills,
respectively. The other science process skills stayed at good and excellent level. Moreover, this study also determined
the relationship among the subjects’ gender and GPA with science process skills. Therefore, the details of each
science process skills were discussed with previous related work.
Keywords: science process skills, gender, GPA
1. Introduction
In the 21st century, the globalization is mainly changed by rapid science and technological
advancement [1]. The enormous knowledge and many interdisciplinary is improving and increasing so
fast as a result of showing of new ideas around the world thus it is need to teach people how they can
reach a necessary and accurate knowledge instead of teaching all knowledge in educational system. In
consequence, the science process skills (SPS) are the one important thing in teaching method of reaching
a good knowledge which is essential for scientific inquiry as a part of cognitive and investigative skill [2-
2
5]. The SPS can be categorized into two levels that are basic and integrated. Basic science process skills
consist of observing, classifying, measuring, using numbers, using space and time relationship, inferring,
predicting, and communicating. Integrated science process skills consist of identifying variable,
formulating hypotheses, defining variables operationally, experimenting, and interpreting data and
drawing conclusions. The SPS will help people or children to grow as individuals capable which not only
accessing to knowledge but determining knowledge as well [5,6]. All level of education in many
countries has contained SPS learning in to an important component of science curriculum. In Thai
curriculum, SPS is mentioned as important learning out come in the Basic Education Core Curriculum
(BECC) since B.E. 2551. The SPS has embedded in science area of BECC which name is “Nature of
Science and Technology”[7]. The main leaning outcome of this item is application of the scientific
process, scientific reasoning investigation of access accurate knowledge, problem-solving, and
understanding the relation of science, technology, society, and events around daily life. This study aimed
to investigate the SPS of undergraduate science education students’ which are 4th year students of preservice science teachers from Chiang Mai Rajabhat University.
2. Methodology
An Understanding of Science Process Skill Test (USPST) was developed corresponding to a Thai
context to measure undergraduate science education students’ understandings of science process skills.
The USPST consisted of 46 multiple-choice items which each item had four choices. Multiple
opportunities were prepared to demonstrate competency for each SPS. The test was to be suitable for
group administration within 70 minutes. As such, reading level, item context, response format and
cogitative decision were important consideration. The test was validated by three experienced science
educators. The reliability for the USPST was provided using of the Kuder-Richardson formula (Kr-20).
The reliability coefficient was 0.869. The numbers of items for each component of science process skill
are listed in Table 1.
Table 1. Number of items for each component of science process skill
Science Process Skills
Item Number
Number of Items
observing
1,2
2
inferring
3,4
2
classifying
5,6
2
measuring
7,8
2
using numbers
9,10
2
communicating
11,12,25,30,40
5
13,14
2
predicting
using space and time relationship
15,16
2
18,22,35 ,41 ,44 ,45 ,46
7
formulating hypotheses
24 ,28 ,32 ,36 ,39 ,42
6
defining variables operationally
17 ,23 ,26 ,34 ,37 ,38
6
19, 29 ,31
3
20 ,21 ,27, 33, 43
5
identifying variable
experimenting
interpreting data and drawing
conclusions
3
The main study sample is comprised 51 volunteered of undergraduate science education students
which are 4th year students of pre-service science teachers’ from Chiang Mai Rajabhat University (20
males and 31 females). The students’ grade point average (GPA) was divided in three range including of
more that 3.50 (15 persons), between 3.00-3.50 (23 persons) and between 2.50-2.99 (13 persons),
respectively. The sample students randomly selected form 4th year students of pre-service science
teachers.
In this study, the methods of data collection consisted of finding volunteer and using test by timing of
70 minutes. The resulted data was discuss in term of percentage of undergraduate science education
student who answered correctly of science process skills, the relation of gender and GPA with the average
USPST score and standard deviation.
3. Result and Discussion
The results of the science process skills understanding test was shown in the percentage of
undergraduate science education student who answered correctly of science process skills. The value
percentage can be present as Table 2.
Table 2. The percentage of undergraduate science education student who answered correctly of science
process skills
Science Process Skills
observing
inferring
classifying
measuring
using numbers
communicating
predicting
using space and time relationship
identifying variable
formulating hypotheses
defining variables operationally
experimenting
interpreting data and drawing
conclusions
Percentage ()
59
35
89
94
81
84
81
77
82
63
64
76
82
Rating of understand
satisfactory
fair
excellent
excellent
excellent
excellent
excellent
good
excellent
good
good
good
excellent
The measured understanding of science process skill by science process skills testing show that
students have an understanding in good and excellent level of five rating scale (poor, fair, satisfactory,
good, and excellent). The five rating scale were defined by a range of a percentage of undergraduate
science education students’ who answered correctly of science process skills as following Table 3. These
are 7 skills that students have an understanding in excellent level including classifying, measuring, using
numbers, communicating, predicting and interpreting. Students understanding in good level have 4 skills
4
which are using space and time relationship, formulating hypotheses, defining variables operationally,
and experimenting. The observing and inferring skills are satisfactory and fair, respectively. It should be
note that inferring skill is quite low percentage (35) of answered correctly. However, the understanding
of the SPS levels of the most students was in good and excellent level. These results may be due to they
are science education students’ who are continuously instructed and indoctrinated in scientific method
and nature of science.
Table 3. Rating level of understand
Percentage ()
0.00-19.99
20.00-39.99
40.00-59.99
60.00-79.99
 80.00
Rating level of understand
poor
fair
satisfactory
good
excellent
Table 4 shows the changing in students’ performance on the science process skills testing linked to
their gender and GPA. The average score of science process skills testing in table 4 indicates that the
means of males was slightly higher than females. There is not statically significant difference in the
subjects’ score linked to their gender. However, the findings that there was significant gender which
males have higher performance on the science process skills than females in previous report [8,9]. As
seen in table 4, the means are increasing with increasing students’ GPA. It indicates that the level of GPA
is related with the SPS. However, the study of relation between GPA and SPS is lack reports due to their
have several variable factors control. Therefore, the most of previous study reported only the relation of
learning achievement with the SPS for each subject of content. Many study reported the SPS can
improved leaning achievement using inquiry learning activities [6,10].
Table 4. Means and standard deviations (SD) by gender and GPA on science process skills testing
Variables
gender
Females
Males
GPA
2.50-2.99
3.00-3.50
3.50
Mean
SD
34.16
34.60
4.87
5.16
32.69
34.48
35.53
4.05
4.67
5.89
5
4. Conclusion
This study presents an instrument to measure the SPS achievement which was developed reference
to corresponding in a Thai context. The USPST provided for determine a SPS level of undergraduate
science education students’. Based on the obtained data, these students have highly understood of a
science process skill except observing and inferring skills. With respect to these results, it has guidelines
on the treatment to improve student’s understanding and performances on a science process skill by
design the hand-on activities for encourage particular a science process skill. Moreover, this study also
determined the relationship among the subjects’ of gender and GPA with the SPS. It was revealed that not
significant on difference gender. In other word, the science process skills are significantly depending on
GPA.
Acknowledgements
This study was financially supported by National Research Council of Thailand (NRCT) and
Chiang Mai Rajabhat University. Thanks also to Faculty of Science and Technology Chiang Mai
Rajabhat University for supporting facilities, and Department of Teacher Education, Faculty of Education
Faculty of Education and Development Science, Kamphaeng Saen Campus, Kasetsart University.
References
[1] Osman, K., Hamid, S. H. A., & Hassan, A. (2009). Standard setting: inserting domain of the 21 st
century thinking skills into the existing science curriculum in Malaysia. Procedia Social and Behavioral
Sciences, 1, 2573-2577.
[2] Germann, P. J. (1989). Directed inquiry approach to learning science process skills: Treatment effects
and aptitude treatment interactions. Journal of Research in Science Teaching, 26(3), 237-250.
[3] Aydinli, E., Dokme, I., Unlu, Z. K., Ozturk, N., Demir, R., & Benli, E. (2011). Turkish elementary
school students’ performance on integrated science process skills. Procedia Social and Behavioral
Sciences, 15, 3469-3475.
[4] Shahali, E.H.M., & Halim, L., (2010). Development and validation of a test of integrated science
process skills, Procedia Social and Behavioral Sciences, 9, 142-146.
[5] Kruea-In, N., & Buaraphan, K., (2014). Enhancing lower secondary school science teachers’ science
process skill and laboratory lesson preparation through a social constructivist-based professional
development workshop. The International Journal of Science, Mathematics, and Technology Learning,
20, 43-56.
[6] Lati, W., Supasorn, S., & Pramarak, V., Enhancement of learning achievement and intergrated science
process skills using science inquiry learning activities of chemical reaction rates. Procedia Social and
Behavioral Sciences, 46, 4471-4475.
[7] Ministry of Education (2008, n.d.). Basic Education Core Curriculum B.E. 2551 (A.D. 2008).
Retrieved from http://www.curriculum51.net/viewpage.php?t_id=95
[8] Greenfield, T. (1996). Gender, ethnicity, science achievement, and attitudes. Journal of Research in
Science Teaching, 33, 901-933.
[9] Walters, Y.B., & Syibo, K., (2001). An analysis of high school student’s performance on five
integrated science process skills. Research in Science and Technology, 19(2), 133-145.
[10] Jeenthong, T., Ruenwongsa, P., & Sriwattanarothai, N., (2014). Promoting integrated science process
skills through betta-live science laboratory. Procedia Social and Behavioral Sciences, 116, 3292-3296.