The inclusion of science process skills in multiple choice questions: Are we getting any better?

Ridvan Elmas 1 * , George M. Bodner 2, Bulent Aydogdu 1, Yakup Saban 1
More Detail
1 Department of Science Education, Afyon Kocatepe University, 03200, Afyon, TURKEY
2 Department of Chemistry, Purdue University, 560 Oval Drive, West Lafayette, IN 47907, USA
* Corresponding Author
EUR J SCI MATH ED, Volume 6, Issue 1, pp. 13-23.
OPEN ACCESS   1521 Views   879 Downloads
Download Full Text (PDF)


The goal of this study was to analyze the science and technology questions with respect to science process skills (SPS) included in the Transition from Primary to Secondary Education (TEOG) examination developed for use with 8th-grade students in Turkey. The 12 TEOG exams administered in the course of three academic years from 2014 through 2016 that included 238 science and technology questions were subjected to document analysis to determine whether the process is being made toward incorporating science process skills in this high-stakes exam. The number of science and technology questions that incorporated SPS increased from 49 in 2013-2014 to 53 in 2014-2015 and 76 in the most recent year, 2015-2016. These questions included interpretation and inference skills far more often (n = 59) than data processing/modeling/hypothesis skills (n = 2). The document analysis showed that basic science process skills were included in science and technology questions more or less as often as integrated science process skills.


Elmas, R., Bodner, G. M., Aydogdu, B., & Saban, Y. (2018). The inclusion of science process skills in multiple choice questions: Are we getting any better?. European Journal of Science and Mathematics Education, 6(1), 13-23.


  • Abruscato, J. (2000). Teaching children science: A discovery approach (5th Ed.). Boston: Allyn and Bacon.
  • Akinbobola, A. O., & Afolabi, F. (2010). Analysis of science process skills in West African senior secondary school certificate physics practical examinations in Nigeria. American-Eurasian Journal of Scientific Research, 5(4), 234-240.
  • Aktamış, H. ve Ergin, Ö. (2007). Investigating the relationship between science process skills and scientific creativity. Hacettepe University Journal of Education, 33, 11-23.
  • Aktamış, H. ve Şahin-Pekmez, E. (2011). A Study of developing scientific process skills inventory towards science and technology course. Buca Faculty of Education Journal, 30, 192-205.
  • Amrein, A. L., & Berliner, D. C. (2002). High-stakes testing & student learning. Education policy analysis archives,10, 18.berliner
  • Anagün, Ş. S. (2011). The impact of teaching-learning process variables to the students’ scientific literacy levels based on PISA 2006 results. Education ve Science, 36 (162), 84-102.
  • Au, W. (2007). High-stakes testing and curricular control: A qualitative meta-synthesis. Educational Researcher, 36(5), 258-267.
  • Aydoğdu, B., Tatar, N., Yıldız, E., & Buldur, S. (2012). Developing a science process skills scale for elementary students. Journal of Theoretical Educational Science, 5(3), 292-311.
  • Bağcı-Kılıç, G. B., Haymana, F. ve Bozyılmaz, B. (2008). Analysis of the Elementary Science and Technology Curriculum of Turkey with respect to different aspects of scientific literacy and scientific process. Education ve Science, 33(150), 52-63.
  • Baird, W. E., & Borich, G. D. (1987). Validity considerations for research on integrated science process skills and formal reasoning ability. Science Education, 71(2), 259-269.
  • Barksdale-Ladd, M. A., & Thomas, K. F. (2000). What’s at stake in high-stakes testing: Teachers and parents speak out. Journal of Teacher Education, 51(5), 384-397.
  • Baxter, L. M., & Kurtz, M. J. (2001). When a hypothesis is not an educated guess. Science and Children, 38(7), 18.
  • Bridgeman, B. (1992). A Comparison of Quantitative Questions in Open‐Ended and Multiple‐Choice Formats. Journal of Educational Measurement, 29(3), 253-271.
  • Capp, R. (2009). Process skills practice and standardized tests. Science and Children, 46(5), 28-30.
  • Checkovich, B. H., & Sterling, D. R. (2001). Oh say can you see. Science and Children, 38(4), 32.
  • Chiappetta, E. L. ve Koballa, T. R. (2010). Science instruction in the middle and secondary schools: Developing fundamental knowledge and skills for teaching. (7th Ed.) Columbus, OH: Pearson.
  • Çepni, S., Ayas, A., Johnson, D., & Turgut, M. F. (1997). Physics teaching (Fizik öğretimi). Ankara: YÖK/Dünya Bankası Milli Eğitimi Geliştirme Projesi, Hizmet Öncesi Öğretmen Eğitimi. Retrieved from
  • DeBoer, G. E. (2000). Scientific literacy: Another look at its historical and contemporary meanings and its relationship to science education reform. Journal of Research in Science Teaching, 37(6), 582-601.
  • Demir, M. (2007). Determining the factors affecting the qualifications of the classroom teacher candidates regarding scientific process skills (Sınıf öğretmeni adaylarının bilimsel süreç becerileriyleilgiliyeterliklerinietkileyen faktörlerin belirlenmesi). (Unpublished Ph.D. Thesis). Gazi University, Ankara, Turkey.
  • Eivers, E. (2010). PISA: Issues in implementation and interpretation. The Irish Journal of Education/Iris Eireannach an Oideachais, 94-118.
  • Elmas, R., & Eryilmaz, A. (2015). How to Write Good Quality Contextual Science Questions: Criteria and Myths. Journal of Theoretical Educational Science, 8(4), 564-580.
  • Elmas, R., & Geban, Ö. (2016). The Effect of Context Based Chemistry Instruction on 9th Grade Students' Understanding of Cleaning Agents Topic and Their Attitude Toward Environment. Education and Science, 41(185), 33-50.
  • Ferreira, L. B. M. (2004). The role of a science story, activities, and dialogue modeled on philosophy for children in teaching basic science process skills to fifth graders. (Unpublished Ph.D. Thesis). Montclair State University, New Jersey, USA.
  • Gillies, R. M., & Nichols, K. (2015). How to support primary teachers’ implementation of inquiry: Teachers’ reflections on teaching cooperative inquiry-based science. Research in Science Education, 45(2), 171-191.
  • Haladyna, T. M. (1999). Developing and validating multiple-choice test items. Mahwah, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates, Inc.
  • Haladyna, T. M., Downing, S. M., & Rodriguez, M. C. (2002). A review of multiple-choice item-writing guidelines for classroom assessment. Applied Measurement in Education, 15(3), 309-333.
  • Harlen, W. (1999). Purposes and procedures for assessing science process skills. Assessment in Education: principles, policy & practice, 6(1), 129-144.
  • Harlow, A., & Jones, A. (2004). Why students answer TIMSS science test items the way they do. Research in Science Education, 34(2), 221-238.
  • Hurd, P. (1958). Science literacy: Its meaning for American schools. Educational Leadership, 16(1), 13-16.
  • Hurd, P. D. (1998). Scientific inquiry: New minds for a changing world. Science Education, 82(3), 407-416.
  • Martin, D. J. (2012). Elementary Science Methods: Constructivist Approach (6. Edition). USA: Cengage Learning.
  • Miles, M. B., Huberman, A. M., & Saldana, J. (2013). Qualitative data analysis. California: Sage.
  • Mullis, I. V. S., Martin, M. O., Smith, T. A., Garden, R. A., Gregory, K. D., Gonzalez, E. J., Chrostowski, S. J. & O’Connor, M. K. (2003). TIMSS Assessment Frameworks and Specifications 2003. International Study Center, Lynch School of Education, Boston College. Retrieved from
  • OECD (1999). Measuring Student Knowledge and Skills: A New Framework for Assessment. Retrieved from
  • Ongowo, R. O., & Indoshi, F. C. (2013). Science process skills in the Kenya certificate of secondary education biology practical examinations. Creative Education, 4(11), 713-717.
  • Ostlund, K. L. (1992). Science process skills: assessing hands-on student performance. New York: Addison-Wesley.
  • Padilla, M. J. (1990). The science process skills. Research Matters-to the science Teacher, 9004. Retrieved from
  • Patton, M. (2014). Qualitative evaluation & research methods (4th Edition). USA: SAGE Pub.
  • 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.
  • Rutkowski, D., & Rutkowski, L. (2013). Measuring socioeconomic background in PISA: One size might not fit all. Research in Comparative and International Education, 8(3), 259-278.
  • Saban, Y., Aydoğdu, A. ve Elmas, R. (2014). The Comparison of 2005 and 2013 Science Curricula for Science Process Skills in 4th and 5th Grades (2005 ve 2013 Fen Bilgisi Dersi Öğretim Programlarımın 4 ve 5. Sınıf Düzeylerinin Bilimsel Süreç Becerileri Açısından Karşılaştırılması). Mehmet Akif Ersoy University Faculty of Education Journal, 32, 62-85.
  • Saban, Y., Aydoğdu, B. ve Nakiboğlu, C. (2016). Analysis of 3 and 4th grade science text books regarding their inclusion of SPS (3 ve 4. sınıf fen bilimleri ders kitaplarının bilimsel süreç becerileri açısından incelenmesi). 15. International Classroom Teacher Education Semposium.Muğla, Turkey.
  • Sullivan, F. R. (2008). Robotics and science literacy: Thinking skills, science process skills and systems understanding. Journal of Research in Science Teaching, 45(3), 373-394.
  • Şad, S. N. ve Şahiner, Y. K. (2016). Students’ Teachers’ and Parents’ Views about Transition from Basic Education to Secondary Education (BESE) System (Temel eğitimden ortaöğretime geçiş (TEOG) sistemine ilişkin öğrenci, öğretmen ve veli görüşleri). Elementary Education Online, 15(1), 53-76.
  • Şahin, S., Aydın, S. Ö. ve Yurdakul, B. (2016). Seventh Grade Science and Technology Course Evaluation Activities in the unit of Human and Environment According to the Science Process Skills (Fen ve teknolojidersi öğretim programı yedinci sınıf insan ve çevre ünitesindeki etkinliklerinbilimsel süreç becerileri açısından değerlendirilmesi). Necatibey Faculty of Education Electronic Journal of Science and Mathematics Education, 10 (1), 32-59.
  • Şen, A. Z. ve Nakiboğlu, C. (2014). Comparison of 9th-grade chemistry, physics and biology textbooks in terms of science process skills (9. sınıf kimya, fizik, biyolojiders kitaplarının bilimsel süreç becerileri açısından karşılaştırılması).Journal of Turkish Science Education,11(4), 63-80.
  • Temiz, B. K. ve Tan, M. (2003). The Primary Science Process Skills in Elementary School Science Teaching (İlköğretim fen öğretiminde temelbilimsel süreç becerileri). Education and Science, 28(127), 18-24.
  • TMoNE (Turkish Ministry of National Education) (2005). Elementary Science and Technology Curriculum. Ankara, Turkey.
  • TMoNE (Turkish Ministry of National Education) (2013). Elementary Science Curriculum. Ankara, Turkey.
  • TMoNE (Turkish Ministry of National Education) (2016). Measurement & Evaluation, General Management of Examination Services. Retrieved from
  • TMoNE (Turkish Ministry of National Education) (2017). Elementary Science Curriculum Draft. Ankara, Turkey. Retrieved from
  • Williams, W. M., Papierno, P. B., Makel, M. C. ve Ceci, S. J. (2004). Thinking like a scientist about real-world problems: The Cornell Institute for Research on Children Science Education Program. Journal of Applied Developmental Psychology, 25 (1), 107-126.
  • Wuttke, J. (2007) Uncertainties and Bias in PISA, in S.T. Hopmann, G. Brinek& M. Retzl (Eds) PISA According to PISA. Vienna: University of Vienna.