Students need to reach many different types of information. Science process skills help students get this information (Burke, 1996). In order to achieve this result, students should learn the scientific research process (Gay, Mills & Airasian, 2009:5). The scientific research process can be taught using science process skills (American Association for the Advancement of Science, 1989; Feyzio?lu, Demirda?, Aky?ld?z & Altun, 2012). The scientific research process can be described as identifying a problem, gathering data, analyzing the data, and interpreting the gathered results (Fraenkel & Wallen, 2006:7). Therefore, scientific research develops students’ higher level thinking skills, such as asking questions, doing research, solving problems and communicating affectively (Cuevas, Lee, Hart, & Deaktor, 2005). Science process skills are among the most frequently used thinking skills (Gagne, 1965: 145; Aydo?du, Tatar, Y?ld?z-Feyzio?lu & Buldur, 2012). Science process skills are used by scientists during their work (Mutlu and Temiz, 2013).  Acquisition of these skills is one of the most important aims of science teaching (Bybee and Deboer, 1993). Therefore, not only scientists but everyone should acquire these skills (Harlen, 1999; Huppert et al., 2002). Rillero (1998) emphasizes that individuals who cannot use science process skills will have difficulty succeeding in daily life in a general sense, as the development at science process skills enables students to gain the skills necessary to solve everyday problems (Kazeni, 2005). These skills are not only used during education and training period but they are also used in daily life (Rillero, 1998). Harlen (1999) emphasizes that science process skills are highly important for science literacy. Similarly, Ewers (2001) reports that when science process skills are not acquired, it will be an obstacle before science literacy due to the fact that science literacy is not limited with reading and hearing, instead it requires efficient use of science process skills. As for the mentioned importance of these skills, Ferreira (2004) emphasizes the importance of science process skills in science teaching. For that reason, science teaching should be planned in a way to include teaching science process skills (Saat 2004; Yakar, 2014). Myers, Washburn and Dyer (2004) report that science process skills comprise the basis of science and thus have an important place to acquire these skills in science education.

 

Science process skills

Science process skills are the basis for scientific thinking and research (Mutlu and Temiz, 2013). Besides, science process skills are the thinking skills that we used to get information (Karamustafao?lu, 2011). As for the definition of science process skills, these skills are defined as tools that acquire information about the world and order this information (Osborne and Freyberg, 1985; Ostlund, 1992). Tobin and Capie (1982) define science process skills as identifying a problem, formulating a hypothesis about the problem, making valid predictions, identifying and defining of variables, designing an experiment to test the hypotheses, gathering and analyzing data and presenting rational findings that support the data. These skills are handled in the related literature in two categories: basic and integrated process skills (Yeany et al., 1984; Burns et al., 1985; Carey et al., 1989; Rubin and Norman, 1992; Germann, 1994; Wellington, 1994:27-28; National Research Council, 1996; Saat, 2004; Chabalengula et al., 2012). Basic process skills form the basis of integrated science process skills (Padilla, 1990; Rubin and Norman, 1992; Rambuda and Fraser, 2004). While some of the basic process skills are observing, classifying, communicating, measuring, using space/ time relationships, using figures, inferring and predicting, some of the integrated process skills are identifying the problem, identifying and controlling variables, formulating hypotheses, interpreting data, defining operationally, reading/constructing graphs and experimenting (Yeany et al., 1984; Germann et al., 1996; Padilla, 1990). Gene-rally, as students are in the concrete operational stage during preschool and primary school (1st through 4th grades). Basic process skills can be acquired from the preschool period onward while integrated process skills can begin to be acquired in secondary (5^th through 8th grades) school (Tobin and Capie, 1982; Ergin et al., 2005: 7). On the other hand, the formal operational stage starts in secondary school. In a study conducted by Padilla et al. (1983) it was found that there was a positive and high correlation (r=0,73) between students’ integrated science process skills and formal operational skills. In this context, when students go to secondary school they are expected to acquire integrated science process skills. The acquisition of science process skills becomes deeper in higher stages (Çepni and Çil, 2009: 52). The integrated process skills are the important skills for solving problems or doing science experiments (Mutlu and Temiz, 2013). Integrated science process skills require a more advanced knowledge base (Özgelen, 2012).

 

The role of teachers in the acquisition of science process skills

Harlen (1999) reports that the acquisition of science process skills at desired level is very important for students, and those students, who could not sufficiently acquire these skills, cannot comprehend the world and cannot establish necessary connections. For that reason, especially teachers should develop their students’ science process skills, content knowledge and question-ing skills which are major factors for an efficient science teaching in primary and secondary schools (K-12 grades) (Miles, 2010). This is because of the fact that having science process skills or content knowledge is highly important for the resolution of a problem. For that reason, it can be assumed that science process skills and content knowledge complete each other (Rillero, 1998). It is known that teachers should have the required know-ledge, understanding and materials to teach science process skills (Miles, 2010). However, some studies found that science process skills of teachers are generally not sufficient (Harty and Enochs, 1985; Pekmez, 2001, Aydo?du, 2006; Karsl? et al., 2009) and they rarely evaluate these skills by teaching (Oloruntegbe and Omoifo, 2000). Studies revealed that teachers having developed science process skills are more active to teach these skills in their classrooms (Downing and Gifford, 1996) and, thus, they are very effective on the skill development of students (Aydo?du, 2006). To conclude, it is known that teachers should have sufficient science process skills and teach these skills to students efficiently (Harlen, 1999; Miles, 2010). 

 

The aim and importance of the study

Regarding the results of the Trends in International Mathematics and Science Study ([TIMSS], 2011), some of Asian countries (Korea, Singapore, Japan, Hong-Kong, China) are successful.  As a rapidly developing region, Asia-Pacific countries have similar cultural and societal concepts, traditions, and experiences (Lai et al., 2008). As we know, most of the borders of Turkey are located in Asia. But, Turkey has a low success in TIMSS exams. Regarding the results of the TIMSS-1999, Turkey was 33rd among 38 countries in the general ranking, while regarding TIMSS-2007 results, in the general ranking it was 31st among 50 countries, and regarding TIMSS-2011 results for 4th grade, Turkey ranked 36th among 50 countries, and for 8th grades it was ranked 21st among 42 countries. An analysis of the TIMSS-1999 questions showed that some of the questions were intended to evaluate students’ knowledge about scientific research and the nature of science. Turkey was 33rd in this field. The headings under scientific research and the nature of science are the scientific method (formulating a hypothesis, making an observation, inference, generalization), designing experiments (experimental control, materials and processes), scientific measurings (validity, repetition, experimental mistakes, consistency, scale), using scientific equipment, carrying out routine experimental processes, data collection, organization, representation (units, tables, images and graphics), and describing data and interpretation (Ba?c?-K?l?ç, 2003). An analysis of the content of the TIMSS-2007 questions showed that there were questions evaluating reasoning skills. Questions evaluating reasoning skills consist of problem solving, conducting analysis and synthesis, formulating a hypothesis, making predictions, designing experiments, and the planning, deducing and generalizing, and evaluating stages of an experiment (National Center for Education Statistics-NCES, 2007; Bayraktar, 2010; NCES, 2011). TIMSS-2011 questions’ content was adapted from the content of TIMSS-2007. These results indicated that in Turkey, primary school students’ knowledge of science process skills was low (NCES, 1999; 2007; 2011). In some studies about primary school students’ knowledge of science process skills in Turkey it was observed that the students’ average scores were low (Temiz, 2001; Tan and Temiz, 2003; Aydo?du, 2006; Çakar, 2008; Haz?r and Türkmen, 2008). Studies conducted in Turkey show that students at high school had poor science process skills (Dönmez and Azizo?lu, 2010; ?en and Nakipo?lu, 2012). The same was also true at the university level (Akar, 2007; Ba?c?-K?l?ç et al., 2009; ?nan, 2010; Karsl? and Ayas, 2010; Özbek et al., 2012). Teachers have great responsibilities to develop science process skills of students. To this end, science process skill levels should be known and effective variables on these levels should be determined. By analyzing studies conducted in Turkey, it can be seen that there are very few studies on science process skill levels of science teachers. For that reason, this study aims to investigate science process skills of science teachers in terms of some variables.

Problem: How do basic process skills, integrated process skills, and overall science process skills of science teachers differ in terms of some variables?

 

Sub-Problems

1. Is there any significant difference between basic process skill and integrated process skill scores of science teachers?

2. Do basic process skills of science teachers significantly differ on their levels of interest towards learning these skills, levels of competency towards learning these skills, the frequency of use of these skills in classroom, in-service training on science process skills, gender, seniority, workplace?

3. Do integrated process skills of science teachers significantly differ on their levels of interest towards learning these skills, levels of competency towards learning these skills, the frequency of use of these skills in classroom, in-service training on science process skills, gender, seniority, workplace?

4. Do overall science process skills of science teachers significantly differ on their levels of interest towards learning these skills, levels of competency towards learning these skills, the frequency of use of these skills in classroom, in-service training on science process skills, gender, seniority, workplace?

Participants

The study population consisted of 170 science teachers from a village (N=25), a town (N=40), a district (N=27) and the city center (N=78) of a province located in central region of Turkey. Distribution of the participants regarding their gender, seniority and workplace is presented in Table 1. 

 

 

The design of the study

 

This quantitative study was carried out as a survey, which possesses three basic characteristics: (1) the collection of data (2) from a sample (3) by asking questions, in order to describe its aspects (Fraenkel and Wallen, 2006).

 

Instrumentation

“Science Process Skills Test for Teachers-SPSTFT” arranged by Aydo?du (2006) was used as the data collection instrument. "Science Process Skills Test for Teachers-SPSTFT" consisted of two chapters which comprised 7 scenarios and the 9-item multiple choice tests with 0.70 reliability. In these chapters, answers were explained with reasons. 9- item multiple choice test was developed by Enger and Yager (1998) and adapted into Turkish by Aydo?du (2006). The scenarios were developed by Aydo?du (2006) as a means of investigating other studies (Anonymous, 2006; Dana, 2001; Enger and Yager, 1998; Ergin et al, 2005). Skill areas measured with Science Process Skills Test for Teachers and maximum scores taken from these skills are presented in Table 2.

 

 

As can be seen in Table 2, SPSTFT consists of 9 justifiable multiple choice tests each of which was scored 2 points, and 7 scenarios each of which was scored 4 points. Maximum total score of this test was 46. As can be seen in Table 3, skills measured with SPSTFT were analyzed individually as basic and integrated process skills.

 

 

As it can be seen in Table 3, basic process skills of SPSTFT are “observing”, “classifying”, “measuring” and “inferring”; integrated process skills of SPSTFT are “formulating hypotheses”, “identifying and controlling variables”, “experimenting" and “interpreting data”.

 

Data analyses

SPSS 16.0 packet program has been used for the analysis of data gained after the applications Analysis of the data obtained from science process skills of teachers test was conducted in two stages. In the first stage, tests were evaluated by two researchers individually. The reason for such an analysis was to obtain quantity data via open-ended scenario questions in the test. In order to ensure reliability, tests were analyzed individually by two researchers during SPST evaluation. First of all, researchers analyzed 20 participants' tests individually. Regarding these analyses, coefficient of concordance between researchers was measured as 83. Afterwards, researchers gathered, compared and discussed the analyses. Finally, all data were analyzed by two researchers independently, and percentage of concordance between researchers was measured to be 91. This percentage is regarded as reliable (Miles & Huberman, 1994).

In the second stage, the normality of the distribution of SPSTFT scores in each group was tested through normality tests. As the normality assumption was not violated, parametric tests were decided to be used in the data analysis. In the analysis of the first sub-problems of the research, related samples t test was used while factorial ANOVAs were conducted to analyze other sub-problems of the study. To do factorial ANOVA, the homogeneity of variance assumption was checked through Levene’s test and satisfied. Besides, Scheffe tests were used to make multiple comparisons.

Scores that science teachers obtained from basic and integrated process skills of SPSTFT are presented in Table 4.

 

 

As it can be seen in Table 4, teachers' success percentages of basic process skills and integrated process skills were 58 and 44 % respectively. This result indicates that teachers’ basic process skills were better than their integrated process skills.

T-test was performed on dependant variables in order to detect whether the difference between basic and integrated process skills were significant or not and the results are presented in Table 5.

 

 

As it can be seen in Table 5, it was found that there was a significant difference between basic and integrated process skill scores of teachers (t: 11.177, p<0.01), and this difference was in favor of basic process skill scores. Table 6 presents mean scores of basic, integrated and overall  science   process  skills  of  teachers  in  terms  of independent variables.

 

 

Table 7 displays the results of the factorial ANOVA conducted to investigate the impact of independent variables (Teachers' competency levels towards teaching science process skills, teachers' competency levels towards teaching science process skills, teachers' usage frequency of science process skills in classroom, in-service training on science process skills, gender, seniority, workplaces ) on basic science process skills of teachers.

 

 

According to the findings presented in Table 7, only in- service training [F_(1,154)=6,28; p= .013; ?²=.039] and seniority [F_(2,154) = 3,28; p= .013; ?²=.079]  were  found  to have significant effects on basic science process skills of teachers. However, other independent variables (Teachers' interest levels towards science process skills, teachers' competency levels towards teaching science process skills, teachers' usage frequency of science process skills in classroom, gender, workplaces) were found to have no significant effects on basic science process skills of science teachers. Table 6 shows that teachers who have received in-service training on science process skills have significantly higher mean scores in terms of these skills. The effect size (?²=.039) was found to be medium according to Cohen (1988)’s standards.

Table 8 displays significant differences between levels of the other independent variable namely, seniority as it has more than two levels. The effect size (?²=.079) of the seniority variable was also found as medium.

 

 

As can be seen in Table 8, there was a significant difference between basic process skill scores of teachers in terms of 1-5 years seniority and 16-20 years seniority and this difference was in favor of teachers with 1-5 years seniority. However, it was detected that there was no significant difference in integrated process skill scores and overall science process skill scores of teachers in terms of seniority.

Table 9 displays the results of the factorial ANOVA conducted to investigate the impact of independent variables on integrated science process skills of teachers. 

 

 

According to the  findings  presented  in  Table  9, only usage frequency of science process skills in classroom [F_(1,154)=6,24; p= .002; ?²=.075] were found to have significant effects on integratedscience process skills of teachers. However, other independent variables (Teachers' interest levels towards science process skills, teachers' competency levels towards teaching science process skills, in-service training on science process skills,  gender, seniority, workplaces) were found to have no significant effects on integrated science process skills of science teachers.

Table 10 displays significant differences between levels of the independent variable namely, teachers' usage frequency of science process skills in classroom as it has more than two levels. The effect size (?²=.075) of variable for the teachers' usage frequency of science process skills in classroom was also found as medium.

 

 

 

As can be seen in Table 10, there were significant differences between integrated process skill scores of science teachers regarding their usage frequency of science process skills in classroom.

It was found that significant differences in integrated process skill scores of science teachers were in favor of those using these skills very frequently in classroom between those using these skills very frequently in classroom and those using these skills sometimes in classroom. Besides, it was found that significant differences integrated process skill scores of science teachers were in favor of those using these skills very frequently in classroom between those using  these  skills very frequently in classroom and those using these skills never in classroom. In addition, it was found that significant differences in integrated process skill scores of science teachers were in favor of those using these skills sometimes in classroom between those using these skills sometimes in classroom and those using these skills never in classroom.

Table 11 displays the results of the factorial ANOVA conducted to investigate the impact of independent variables on overall science process skills of teachers. 

 

 

Table 6 shows that teachers who have received in-service training on science process skills have significantly higher mean scores in terms of these skills. The effect size (?²=.043) was found to be medium according to Cohen (1988)’s standards. Table 12 displays significant differences between levels of the other independent variable namely, teachers' usage frequency of science process skills in classroom as it has more than two levels. The effect size (?²=.069) of variable for the teachers' usage frequency of science process skills in classroom was also found as medium.

 

 

As can be seen in Table 12, it was found that significant differences in overall science process skill scores of science teachers were in favor of those using these skills very frequently in classroom between those using these skills very frequently in classroom and those using these skills sometimes in classroom. Besides, it was found that significant differences in overall science process skill scores of science teachers were in favor of those using these skills very frequently in classroom between those using these skills very frequently in classroom and those using these skills never in classroom. In addition, it was found that significant differences in overall science process skill scores of science teachers were in favor of those using these skills sometimes in classroom between those using these skills sometimes in classroom and those using these skills never in classroom.

These results show that science process skill levels have a great role to increase teachers' interest levels towards learning these skills. For that reason, teachers' interest levels towards learning science process skills should be increased.

It was found that there were no significant differences between basic process skill, integrated process skill and overall skill scores of science teachers regarding their competency levels towards teaching science process skills. But, this study showed that as competency levels of science teachers towards science process skills increased, their mean scores for science process skills increased as well. Some studies reported that teachers should primarily acquire sufficient level of science process skills in order to teach these skills efficiently to students (Mohammad, 1983; Burns, Okey, and Wise, 1985). In their study, I??k and Nakibo?lu (2011) reported that most of teachers do not know how to develop science process skills of students in classroom environment. The obtained results showed that when teachers primarily know science process skills well, they will feel more efficient to teach these skills.

It was found that there were significant differences between integrated process skill and overall skill scores of science teachers regarding their usage frequency of science process skills in classroom. This study showed that as teachers' usage frequency of science process skills in classroom increased, their science process skill levels increased as well. In a study conducted by Aydo?du (2006), it was found that science teachers with high science process skills frequently used these skills in classroom, and science process skill levels of students in these classrooms were higher. Similarly, in a study conducted by Ailello-Nicosia and Sperandeo-Mineo Valenza (1984), the relationship between science teachers' perception of science process skills and their students' science success was analyzed. These researchers reported that there was a relationship between science teachers' perception of science process skills and their students' science success; however, understanding these skills is not sufficient for teachers, they should teach them to their students efficiently as well. It was reported that teachers who could not comprehend science process skills sufficiently could not develop a positive attitude towards these skills and thus they were less likely to teach these skills to their students (Miles, 2010). Some studies reported that teachers with integrated science process skills were more active in teaching these skills within classroom (Downing and Gifford, 1996; Aydo?du, 2006). For that reason, teachers should acquire science process skills at desired level and use these skills actively in classroom.

It was found that there were significant differences both basic process skills and SPST total scores of science teachers who received or did not receive in-service training on science process skills and these differences were in favor of those who received in-service training. Studies reported that teachers needed in-service training on science process skills (Burke, 1996; Yayla and Hançer, 2011). In a study conducted by I??k and Nakibo?lu (2011), it was reported that teachers got information about science process skills mostly in in-service training courses.  Studies show that science process skills of teachers receiving in-service training develop. It is emphasized that receiving in-service training is very important for teachers, especially those having low self-esteem about teaching science process skills (Chan, 2002). To conclude, it is assumed that to subject teachers to in-service training on science process skills can be efficient for the development of their science process skills.

It was found that female science teachers had higher basic process skill, integrated process skill and overall science process skill scores; however, these differences were not statistically significant in any of the groups. In a study conducted by Aydo?du et al. (2013), it was found that science process skill levels of classroom teachers differed by gender. This difference was in favor of female teachers. A similar study was conducted by Ercan (2007), and it was reported that science process skill levels of classroom teachers did not differ by gender.

It was found that there was a significant difference (F_(4-165)=3.46, p<0.05) between basic process skill scores of teachers in terms of 1-5 years seniority and 16-20 years seniority and this difference was in favor of teachers with 1-5 years seniority. However, it was detected that there was no significant difference between integrated process skill and overall science process skill scores of teachers in terms of seniority. In Ercan's (2007) study, it was detected that level of science process skill of primary teachers differed in favor of new teachers. However, Ofoegbu (1984) reported that primary school pupils taught by experienced teachers performed significantly higher than those taught by non-experienced teachers in science process skills acquisition (Okigbo and Okeke, 2011). Burke (1996) reported that self-esteem of teachers about teaching science process skills was different. Harlen et al. (1995) reported that new teacher had much more self-esteem about science teaching than senior teachers. In a study conducted in Morogoro province of Tanzania, it was found that self-sufficiency and science process skills of biology teachers were not sufficient (Jumanne, 2012). High level of science process skill of new teachers could result from the fact that they newly graduated from university with these skills.

However, as the science process skill levels of senior teachers decrease over time, it may be an indicator of the fact that senior teachers can not develop these skills. It can be said that low seniority pre-service teachers may gain the science process skills during “Science Teaching Course” theoretically and “Practice Teaching Course” practically. When they become teachers, those skills will be used by them. One of the reasons for low seniority teachers with high science process skills may be the new Science and Technology education program. It has been valid since 2004 as experimental activities which include especially science process skills were used in 2004 education program more intensively. The use of experimental activities including science process skills may contribute to the improvement of teachers’ science process skills. Low seniority teachers (having 0-5 year experience) have only used 2004 science and technology program while high seniority teachers (having more than 9 year experience) have used several different education programs (1968, 1992, 2000, and 2004 science and technology program). Especially, high seniority teachers resist the last program change which emphasizes the science process skills more. The reason for the decrease in these skills, as seniority increases, should be analyzed in a more detailed way in a further study.

It was found that there was no significant difference between total scores of basic process skill, integrated process skill and overall science process skill of teachers in terms of workplace. However, by analyzing mean scores, it was found that teachers working in district had highest science process skills score, and those working in city center had lowest score. In Ercan's (2007) study, it was reported that there were significant differences in sub groups of "formulating hypotheses" and "performing experiment" in favor of teachers working in villages, and there was no significant difference in other dimensions and in total. These results showed that teachers working in villages had high levels of science process skills. Probably, one of the reasons why teachers working in villages, town and district have high science process skills is that they have low seniority status, namely they are newly graduate teachers. The Republic of Turkey, Ministry of National Education assigns new teachers starting from villages. Ministry of National Education assigns teachers having high seniority to the city centers according to teachers’ will. As a result of this, low seniority teachers work in villages, town and district, and those teachers have high science process skills.

The author(s) have not declared any conflict of interests.