1

Presenter: Chuong Chantha

Research Background - Cambodia has experienced civil wars for several decades. The most

serious one is in Pol Pot regime.

- Because human resource is vital for the development of the country; therefore, education sector was set up as one among the priority goals of Cambodian Government Rectangular Strategy .

- To improve the quality of human resource

- So, Teacher Training Center (TTCs) have been taken into account (MoEYS). Particularly, many NGOs and partnerships, such as JICA, VVOB, SCN, SVA, and so on are participating to develop TTCs which mainly emphasized on science education.

- Contextually, the goal of science education is to develop scientific skills or process skills (Baseline survey, 2009)

2

What is Science Process Skills (SPS)?

SPS are the methods of investigation used for solving problems (Campbell, 1979) SPS are the valuable aspect of science (Burns et al., 1985) SPS are the intellectual skills practiced in scientific situation (Ramig et al., 1995) SPS are the ways to solving problem (Lumbantobing, 2004) SPS are the scientific method, scientific thinking and critical thinking (MONICA, 2005) SPS are the things that scientists do when they study and investigate (Rezba et al., 2007). SPS provide students to learn by doing, experiencing and associating science subject with

daily life. SPS are skills which make the learning in Science and Technology lesson easy, develop students’ curiosity and make them active, introduce the laboratory atmosphere by driving the students to make research and facilitate to convey the learning from Science and Technology lesson to the real life (OZTURK et al., 2010)

3 Science Process Skills are the key to encourage students to inquire something

new in learning science to reach technological society

Research Background

Categories and SPS components

Science process skills were divided into three groups: basic, intermediate, and advanced levels (Charlesworth and Lind, 1995; Donmez and Azizoglu, 2010; Farsakoglu, Sahin, Karsli, Akpinar, & Ultay, 2008)

Abdullah, 2010; Lumbantobing, 2004; Paul, 1970; Rezba, Sprague, McDonnough, & Matkins, 2007; STEPSAM2, 2009; SAPA, 1975; pointed out that, there are two main groups of SPS: those are basic science process skills and integrated science process skills.

4

Research Background

Designing Investigations Analyzing Investigations Describing

Relationships

Constructing Graphs

Constructing Hypotheses

Acquiring and Processing Data

Defining Variables Operationally Constructing Table of

Data

Identifying Variables

Predicting Measuring Communication

Inferring Classifying

Observing

5

Experimenting

Source: Rezba et al. (2007), page: 5

The relationship among SPS components

Research Background

6

Science Process

Skills

The core or central of

teaching and learning science

(Akinyemi et al., 2010; Harlen, 2010; Rezba et al., 2007; Harlen, 1999;

Paul, 1970)

Help to change countries to be

ICT and technological

society (Ginns & Watters, 1995; Watters

& Ginns, 2000)

Reach the goals education (McGinn

and Roth, 1999)

Change Students’ mind of thinking (Harlen 1999; Cakir &

Sarikaya, 2010; Monhardt & Monhardt,

2006; Burn, Okey, & Wise, 1985 )

Research Background

Problem Statement

7

Fortunately, from 2009 up to 2012, STEPSAM2 project had provided training to TTCs which

focused on Lesson Study and Inquiry-Based Lesson in the concept of providing science process skills

But until 2009, science trainers and trainees still showed their constraint on “scientific skills or process skills” (STEPSAM2, 2009; MAEDA et al., 2006)

Science process skills were introduced into Cambodian

science education since 1999 in grade 4, 2000 in grade 5 and

2001 in grade 6 guidance books. So far, there is no any studies to evaluate the

level of science process skills of trainees, therefore

I want to conduct a research on the field

This study aims:

- To examine the extent of science process skills of elementary teacher trainees in PTTCs in Cambodia

- To identify the differences in science process skills across PTTCs, gender and educational levels.

★ PTTCs: Provincial Teacher Training Colleges

8

Objectives

Research Question

To achieve these objectives, this study was guided by the following questions:

1)- To what extent do elementary teacher trainees in PTTCs in

Cambodia possess science process skills?

2)- Is there any significant difference in science process skills across

PTTCs, gender as well as educational levels?

9

No Author(s) Samples Instruments No of SPS

1 Aydinli et al., 2011 Elementary school student ISPS test 6 ISPS

2 Vebrianto et al., 2011 96 students from Secondary School Science Process Skills Test and Science Achievement Test 5 BSPS

3 Duran et al., 2010 6th and 7th grades in primary school

Scientific process skills test” (10 items) and “scale of attitudes towards

science” (19 items)

11 SPS

4 ÖZTÜRK et al., 2010 Seventh grade students Science Process Skills Test 18 SPS

5 Füsun et al., 2010 970 1st grade high school students

from five kinds of vocational schools

Science Process Skills Test, Attitude Scale Toward Chemistry 12 SPS

6 Akinyemi et al., 2010 Certificate physics practical examinations in Nigeria Document Analysis 16 SPS

7 STEPSAM2, 2009

PTTC trainers, PTTC Trainees, RTTC trainers, RTTC trainees, Primary teachers, Secondary

teachers

Basic knowledge and skills on science (Test A), Application of

scientific knowledge (Test B),Science Process Skills(TestC)

3 among 17 SPS

8 Faruk et al., 2008 40 senior prospective science teachers in academic year 2007-08

Science process skills questionnaire and science process skills test. 14 SPS

10

Summary of literature review

Regions, Gender, and Education Levels

11

Regions: There was significant difference between region and region (Nevin et al.,

2010; Radford et al., 1992)

Gender: There was a significant difference between gender (Aydinli et al., 2011;

Cakir et al., 2010; DONMEZ et al., 2010).

However, there was no significant difference between female and male students’ science process skills levels (Duran et al., 2010; OZTURK et al., 2010, CHAGUNA and YANGO, 2008)

Educational Levels: Significant difference on grade levels or educational levels (Duran et al.,

2010; Aydinli et al., 2011; Radford et al., 1992, Dokme et al., 2009). In contrast, the achievement on the process skill subtests is quite

uniform at all grade levels (CHAN, 2002; PADILLA and OKEY, 1983)

12

TRAINEES

TEST I or BT 1- C1=Observing 2- C2=Classifying 3- C3=Inferring 4- C4=Measuring 5- C5= Predicting 6- C6=Communicating

TEST II or IT 7- C7=Identifying and Controlling Variables 8- C8=Stating Hypotheses 9- C9=Defining Operationally 10- C10=Graphing and Interpreting Data 11- C11=Experimenting

- Regions - Gender - Ed-levels

Research Framework

Sampling

13

Sample No PTTCs Total of Trainees Tests takers

12+2 9+2

1 Kompong Chhnaing 79 0 74

2 Prey Veng 154 0 94

3 Kondal 98 11 85

4 Phnom Penh 27 40 59

5 Kompong Speu 69 0 64

6 Takeo 98 0 81

Total 525 51 457

14

This study used tests and semi-structure interview to collect data. - There were two tests used. - Test I: For Basic Science Process Skills (BT) - 19 items for 6 components - Non-Curriculum specific. - Developed by researcher - Multiple Choice with 4 options of answer - Test II: For Integrated Science Process Skills (IT) - 28 items for 5 components - Adapted from Researcher: MONICA, 2005. - Some items were modified to due to Cambodian course book (from Primary to Secondary level) - Multiple Choice with 4 options of answer

15

Data Analysis Descriptive statistic, One-way ANOVA, and t-test were employed in this study

Basic Test Item: Measuring Skill

16

Integrated Test Item: Graphing and Interpreting Data

17

18

66%

48%

0%

10%

20%

30%

40%

50%

60%

70%

Basic Integrated

Level of the two categories

Results 1)- To what extent do elementary teacher trainees in PTTCs in Cambodia

possess science process skills?

19

Descriptive Statistic Components N Min Max Mean Std De

C1= Observing 457 0.00 1.00 .86 .21

C2= Classifying 457 0.00 1.00 .71 .24

C3= Inferring 457 0.00 1.00 .63 .26

C4= Measuring 457 0.00 1.00 .71 .29

C5= Predicting 457 0.00 1.00 .60 .28

C6= Communicating 457 0.00 1.00 .45 .30

C7= Identifying and Controlling Variables 457 0.00 1.00 .46 .20

C8= Stating Hypothesis 457 0.00 1.00 .44 .23

C9= Defining Operationally 457 0.00 1.00 .39 .23

C10= Graphing and Interpreting data 457 0.00 1.00 .57 .21

C11= Experimenting 457 0.00 1.00 .52 .27

Valid N 457

20

86%

71% 63%

71% 60%

45%

0%

10%

20%

30%

40%

50%

60%

70%

80%

90%

100%

Observing Classifying Inferring Measuring Predicting Communicating

Level of Basic Science Process Skill Components

21

46% 44% 39%

57% 52%

0%

10%

20%

30%

40%

50%

60%

Identifying andControlling Veriables

Stating Hypothesis DefiningOperationally

Graphing andinterpreting Data

Experimenting

Level of Integrated Science Process Skill Components

ANOVA

Sum of Squares df Mean Square F Sig.

Total-I Between Groups Within Groups Total

97.247 3073.873 3171.120

5 451 456

19.449 6.816

2.854 .015

Total-II Between Groups Within Groups Total

266.249 5752.172 6018.420

5 451 456

53.250 12.754

4.175 .001

22

According to table 1, there is significant difference across PTTCs in

this study in both test I and test II with p < .05

P < .05

Table 1: The result of analysis of variance of science process skills across PTTCs

2)- Is there any significant difference across PTTCs, Gender,

and Educational levels?

Result of comparison of mean score of basic and integrated skills by PTTCs

23

t-test

Gender N Mean Std. Error

Mean t Sig

Basic Male Female

156 301

.64

.65 .012 .008

- .377 .706

Integrated Male Female

156 301

.49

.47 .011 .007

1.828 .068

24

There is no significant difference between male and female trainees in

each PTTC in Cambodia in both, test I and test II, table 2. It supports to

the previous studies which conducted by OZTURK et al., 2010,

CHAGUNA and YANGO, 2008

Table 2: The result of t-test of science process skills by gender

Level of science process skills by Gender

25

It was found that, There is no significant difference across the

educational levels of trainees in each PTTC in Cambodia in both, test I

and test II, table 3. It is align with previous studies which conducted by

CHAN, 2002; PADILLA and OKEY, 1983

Table 3: The result of t-test of science process skills by educational levels

t-test

Ed-Level N Mean Std. Error

Mean t Sig

Basic 9+2 12+2

29 428

.62

.65 .028 .007

- .914 .361

Integrated 9+2 12+2

29 428

.47

.48 .027 .006

- .182 .855

Level of science process skills by Educational Levels

Discussion In this study, the result showed that the elementary teacher trainees were likely to get above 50% on observing, classifying, inferring, measuring and predicting skill but below average in case of communicating skill. This is because of during student time, they are seemingly not allowed to express or communicate much during class activity.

Elementary teacher trainees were likely to get below average score of integrated science process skills. Specifically, trainees tended to have the lowest score in defining operationally. Actually, competence in defining operationally is crucially important in the precise use of terms in communication about investigations and experiments (Paul, 1970). Logically, trainees were weak in communicating skill so they were also weak in defining operationally too.

The level of science process skills varied by PTTCs. This implied that the quality of PTTCs in this study might be different from one to another.

26

Discussion Based on my interview with PTTC’s directors, science trainers, Japanese volunteers, and STEPSAM2 coordinator, the idea below explained why science process skills among trainees were different across the PTTCs: Trainers’ motivation, absence and ability “……. Our PTTC got a good result because the trainers have motivation to teacher, come all the time, and they always develop their ability…..” Mr. KOIZUMI Fumiasa, Ms. MOTOE; Japanese volunteers, Mr. Set Seng, STEPSAM2 coordinator Schools’ sources “……..improvisation is very important. Without them I/they don’t know how to teach science….” Mr. Lim Sokha, science trainer in Takeo PTTC, Mr. Set Seng Assistance by Japanese volunteers “……. He help me a lots. He made teaching materials, teach us how to use it and always give me some ideas….” Mr. Koa Kha, science trainer in Prey Veng PTTC, Mr. Lim Sokha Experimenting “…… He always teaches student using experiment all the time…..” Mr. Koa Kha, Mr. KOIZUMI Fumiasa, Management “……Management is very important……” Mr. Set Seng, Ms. Motoe Projects “…… Project (example: STEPSAM project, Hiroshima Project, VSA…) helps us very much to improve our ability” Mr. Set Seng, Mr. Lim Sokha, Mr. Horng Sam Oeun, Takeo PTTC vice director. 27

Conclusion

28

Elementary teacher trainees possess higher ability in basic science process skills than integrated science process skills. Among all the basic science process skills, elementary teacher trainees

have high ability in observing skill and low ability in communicating skill. Anyway, among all the integrated science process skills, elementary

teacher trainees have the lowest ability in operational definition.

The level of science process skills of trainees differs across PTTCs. Trainees from Takeo and Prey Veng PTTC possess the highest ability in both basis and integrated science process skills.

However, the level of science process skills of trainees were not significantly different across gender as well as educational levels

Implications

Integrated science process skills should be reconsidered in the curriculum and teaching process

PTTC’s inputs (such as trainer’s motivation, absence and ability, school’s sources, number of experimentations, management) need to be given more attention

Other project collaboration (Japanese volunteers, STEPSAM project, Hiroshima project) should be more focused

29

Should cover other PTTCs

Should find out the reason why elementary teacher trainees had low ability in some components

Quantitative research should be conducted to verify the second finding

30

Further Research

References: Akinyemi Olufunminiyi AKINBOBOLA and Folashade AFOLABI. (2010). Analysis of Science Process

Skills in West African Senior Secondary School Certificate Physics Practical Examinations in Nigeria. Bulgarian Journal of Science and Education Policy (BJSEP), 32-47.

CANDELA, A. (1996). Demonstrations and Problem-Solving Exercises in School Science: Their Transformation within the Mexican Elementary School Classroom. 497-513.

Emek Aydinli, I.Dokme, Z.K. Unlu, N. Ozturk, R. Demir and E.Benli. (2011). Turkish elementary school students' performance on integrated science process skills. ELSEVIER , 3469-3475.

Fethiye KARSLI, Cigdem SAHIN and Alipasa AYAS. (2009). Determining science teachers' ideas about the science process skills: a case study. ELSEVIER , 890-895.

Harlen, W. (2010). Assessment in School- Primary Science. ELSEVIER , 293-299. Ilbilge Dokme and Emek Aydinli. (2009). Turkish primary school students' performance on basic science

process skills. ELSEVIER , 544-548. STEPSAM2. (2009). Baseline Survey Report. Phnom Penh: JICA. STEPSAM2. (2011). Report. Phnom Penh: JICA Leigh Monhardt and Rebecca Monhardt. (2006). Creating a Context for the Learning of Science Process

Skills Through Picture Books. Childhood Education Journal , 67-71. Ministry of Education, Y. a. (2002). Education for All National Plan 2003-2015. Phnom Penh. Ministry of Education, 2001. Teacher Guideline book for grade 6. Phnom Penh: Ministry of Education

Youth and Sport Inn S. Ginns and James J Watters. (1995). An Analysis of Scientific Understandings of Pre-service

Elementary Teacher Education Students. JOURNAL OF RESEARCH IN SCIENCE TEACHING, VOL. 32, NO. 2, PP. 205-222, Australia.

KAZENI MUNGANDI MONDE MONICA. (2005). Development and Validation of a Test of Integrated Science Process Skills for the further Education and Training learner. University of Pretroria, SOUTH AFRICA 31