Undergraduate students’ science process

skills: A systematic review

Henta Fugarasti, Murni Ramli and Muzzazinah

ARTICLES YOU MAY BE INTERESTED IN

Students’ science process skill and analytical thinking ability in chemistry learning
AIP Conference Proceedings 1868, 030001 (2017); https://doi.org/10.1063/1.4995100

Shaping scientific attitude of biology education students through research-based teaching

The effect of science learning integrated with local potential to improve science process skills
AIP Conference Proceedings 1868, 080008 (2017); https://doi.org/10.1063/1.4995192

AIP Conference Proceedings 2194, 020030 (2019); https://doi.org/10.1063/1.5139762 2194, 020030

© 2019 Author(s).
 Undergraduate Students’ Science Process Skills: A
Systematic Review

Henta Fugarastia), Murni Ramlib), Muzzazinahc)

Department of Biology Teacher Education, Postgraduate Program, Universitas Sebelas Maret, Jl. Ir. Sutami 36A
Kentingan Jebres Surakarta 57126, Indonesia

a)
Corresponding author: [email protected]
b)
[email protected]
c)
[email protected]

Abstract. The purpose of this systematic review is to analyze the researches trends on undergraduate students’ science process
skills (SPS) on biology with the consideration on the types of SPS, the assessment and its validation. The review followed a
PRISMA approach. The article selection had been done systematically by searching the research paper published in online
database within 2000 - 2019. By using the keywords “science process skills” and “biology”, it was found 52 articles in Google
scholar, 60 articles in Science direct, and 217 articles in Taylor & Francis Online. Those articles then were selected based on
some inclusive criteria, such as SPS, higher education, biology or science, and retained 19 papers matched. The selected papers
were reviewed by scoring each paper to come out with the quality and relevant papers. The result of the review shows that the
integrated SPS were mostly found as the type of SPS investigated in the undergraduate level, with the focus on formulate the
hypothesis, interpret the data, interpret the model, experiment, define operationally, identify and control variable. The trend of
SPS in Indonesia is similar with the SPS promoted by the AAAS but tends to be simplified, while in the other developed and
developing countries it varies according to the learning topics. The scope of the research covered some topics on biology and
science. The most instrument used to measure the SPS is Science Process Skill Test (SPST), a multiple choice, questionnaire, and
interview protocol. An expert judgement is the most common validation used in Indonesian research. The study about SPS for
undergraduate students should be further done on developing learning design, and modules with instructional design focusing on
detail training on each skill of SPS and covered various topics in biology

Keywords: Science process skills, biology, undergraduate students

INTRODUCTION
Science process skills (SPS) are defined as a set of skills that can be transferred, highly accepted in many fields
of science, and reflect the behavior of scientists [1]. Science process skills are described as the ability used by
scientists used during their work, and the competencies displayed in solving scientific problems [2]. Scientists work
by testing ideas with evidence through scientific methods and involving the efficient use of the SPSs
SPSs are important practical skills to develop scientific knowledge [3], and play an important role in the
students’ process to produce scientific knowledge and learn the nature of science by doing and experiencing it
directly [4]. The SPSs involve individuals to actively participate and take responsibility for learning various methods
of scientific research and applying scientific learning to improve learning methods in the long term [5]. Applying the
SPSs allows students to address and investigate important issues and problems around them [3].
The term of Science Process Skills were rooted in the concept of the Science-A Process Approach (SAPA)
initiated by the AAAS (American Association for Advancement of Science) in 1967. The SAPA was developed from
the concept coined by Gagne in 1965 concerning science as a process. Gagne said the concepts and principles of
science can only be obtained through a series of scientific processes, such as observing, classifying, describing,
communicating, drawing conclusions, making operational definitions, formulating hypotheses, controlling variables,
interpreting data, and experimenting [6]
The 2nd International Conference on Science, Mathematics, Environment, and Education
AIP Conf. Proc. 2194, 020030-1–020030-13; https://doi.org/10.1063/1.5139762
Published by AIP Publishing. 978-0-7354-1945-2/$30.00

020030-1
 AAAS have been classified the SPSs into 15 activities, such as: observing, measuring, classifying,
communicating, predicting, inferring, using numbers, using space/time relationship, questioning, controlling
variables, hypothesizing, defining operationally, formulating models, designing experiments, and interpreting
data. The SPSs can be divided and categorized as the basic SPSs and integrated SPSs [7]. According Padilla [1] the
basic SPSs are consisted by: observing, classifying, predicting, inferring, measuring, and communicating.
Meanwhile, the advance SPSs are consisted of: controlling variables, defining operationally, formulating
hypotheses, interpreting data, experimenting, and formulating models. Over the years, many researchers have
attempted to modify the SPSs formulation. Nevertheless, the formulation by AAAS still being the most
comprehensive in terms of skill coverage [8].
The SPSs are obtained through experience and skill development through practice [9]. The SPSs cannot be
separated in practice to understanding the concepts involved in learning and applying science [10]. The content
knowledge can also be obtained more efficiently and understood with a deeper understanding when obtained
through practice or investigation using SPSs [3].
The acquisition of SPSs have a profound impact on the success of students in science classes on higher education
[11]. Dirks & Cunningham [12] reported the new students who were taking part in lectures where they were
explicitly taught the science process skills outperformed students who were not taught with the science process skills
in the introductory biology course.
Science process skills need to be utilized by the teacher to teach the science facts and concepts effectively. This
is because science is not only knowledge but also a systematic way to understand the environment [13]. It’s
important to equip the teachers with the scientific process skill, especially for novice biology teacher candidates.
The SPSs are important for them so they can teach their students to master not only the concepts but also how to get
that knowledge [14]. Therefore, this literature review was conducted to identify and analyze types of scientific
process skills, and assessment methods for the SPSs adopted in higher education, especially in the biology and
science teacher education.
The research questions were: What components/skills of the SPSs were developed? How about the modified
from the original SPSs? How about the variation of SPS? And what techniques or instruments to assess them?

METHODS
The PRISMA (Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Reviews and Meta Analyses) approach was used this
systematic review by conducting the literature search using three online databases: Google scholar, Science direct,
and Taylor & Francis Online. The keyword of “science process skills” and “biology” was used to search the
articles. The articles were selected if published 2000–2019 period.
The searching in Google scholar was conducted with advance research setting with “in the title of the article”
option was selected. That mean both of those two keywords have to present in the title of the articles. Fifty-two
articles were come up as the search results. Those 52 articles were further sorted and selected by title relevance and
open accessibility, thus yielding 34 articles. Those articles then further sorted and selected if they discuss the
research of SPS in higher educations, especially biology and science. Five qualified articles were yielded. Further
article searching using “science process skills” and “education” as the keywords yielded six more qualified articles.
Thus 11 qualified articles were obtained. Those articles then reviewed by the reviewers.
Sixty articles were yielded from searching on Science direct with similar keywords and specified to review
articles research articles. The articles and the screened according to the suitability of the title with the researchers’
objectives, and yielding 19 qualified articles. Those articles further screened and if they discuss the SPSs in higher
education they were selected. Thus, 6 qualified articles were obtained.
Two hundred seventeen articles were yielded from searching on Taylor & Francis with similar keywords. The
articles and the screened according to the suitability of the title with the researchers’ objectives, and yielding 10
qualified articles. Those articles further screened and if they discuss the SPSs in higher education they were selected.
Thus, 2 qualified articles were obtained
In total, 19 articles were obtained from three online databases: Google scholar with 11 articles, Science direct 6
articles and Taylor & Francis with 2 articles. Those articles then analyzed and tabulated. The aspects to be analyzed
were: authors, publication years, location of the research, content/scoop of the topic, the components of SPSs,
research instruments, and instrument validity.

020030-2
 Initial results from the database search: Screening
Articles excluded based on exclusion criteria:
Google scholar (n=34)
Science direct (n=19) Google scholar (n=11)
Tailor & francis (n=10) Science direct (n=6)
Tailor & francis (n=2)

Criteria:
- Undergraduate students in science or biology.
Articles retained for the review process:

Google scholar
1. Rabacal (2016)
2. Rahayu, Pratiwi, & Indana (2018)
3. Danisa & Sudarisman (2016)
4. Bahtiar & Dukomalamo (2019) List of articles which were excluded based on exclusion
5. Muhfahroyin (2016) criteria:
6. Yuniarti & Supriatno (2018)
7. Surakusumah & Koesbandiah (2016) Google scholar
8. Susanti & Anwar (2019) 1. Lee, Hairston, Thames, Lawrence, & Herron (2002)
9. Handayani & Adisyahputra (2018) 2. Şen & Veklİ (2016)
10. Joy & Dinah (2017) 3. Tahir (2017)
11. Joy & Dinah (2013) 4. Susanti & Anwar (2018)
12. Osu & Ekpem (2010) 5. Utami, Riefani, Muchyar, & Mirhanudin ( 2017)
13. Osu & Ekpem (2017) 6. Hernawati, Amin, Irawati, Indriwati, & Omar (2018)
14. Sylvia, Anhar, & Sumarmin (2012) 7. Akani (2015)
15. Dhewi, & Rachmadiarti (2018) 8. Guevera (2015)
16. Dewi & Rahayu (2018) 9. Karamustafaoğlu (2011)
17. Siregar, Hasruddin & Restuati (2017) 10. Chabalengula et al., (2012)
18. Nnorom (2016) 11. Ozer & Ozkan (2012)
19. Ehikhamenor (2013)
20. Jamal (2017) Science Direct
21. Siregar & Edi (2017) 1. Kruea-In, Kruea-In, & Fakcharoenphol, (2015)
22. Arsih, Fitri, & Yogica (2017) 2. Erkol & Ugulu, (2014)
23. Sins lu’lu’handayani & Suciati (2016) 3. Gezer (2015)
4. Balfakih (2010)
Science Direct 5. Phang & Tahir (2012)
1. Kruea-In & Thongperm (2014) 6. Silay & Çelik (2013)
2. Turiman, Omar, Daud & Osman (2012)
3. Aydoğdu, Buldur & Kartal (2013) Taylor & Francis Online
4. Shahali & Halim (2010) 1. Vartak, Ronad & Ghanekar (2013)
5. Aktamış & Yenice (2010) 2. Lee, Bye, Kim & Kwon (2014)
6. Cakır & Sarıkaya (2010)
7. Jeenthong, Ruenwongsa & Sriwattanarothai (2014)
8. Vebrianto & Osman (2011)
9. Rahmani, Abbas, & Alahyarizadeh (2013)
10. Rahmani & Abbas (2014)
11. Bolat, Türk, Turna & Altinbaş (2014)
12. Ogan-Bekiroğlu & Arslan (2014)
13. Cigrik & Ozkan (2015)

Taylor & Francis Online

FIGURE 1. Flow scheme of literature search using PRISMA method

020030-3
 RESULT AND DISCUSSION
Based on the literature search on Google Scholar, Science Direct, and Taylor & Francis Online a total of 19
articles related to science process skills published from 2000 to 2019 that met the criteria were obtained. The
research on the articles were conducted in various countries, such as Indonesia (4), Malaysia (1), Philippine (1),
Thailand (1), Nigeria (1), Arab (1), India (1), Korea (1), Turkey (6), and the US (2). The review of article profiles
was focused on the samples, material or topic, scope and sequences of SPSs, and assessment instruments (Table 1).
TABLE 1. Profiles of the Articles
Author, Year,
No Location
Sample Topics SPSs Instrument to Measure SPSs
1. Erkol & Ugulu, 121 biology teacher Biology. Integrated SPSs Scientific Method Abilities
(2014), Turkey. candidates (89 1).Identifying and controlling Test (SMAT), 36 multiple-
females, 32 males, variables, 2).Identification by choice developed by Burns,
18–25 years old). making, 3).Establishment of Okey, and Wise (1985) and
hypotheses, 4).Data analysis and were adopted by Bahar and
drawing graphics, Ates (2002).
5.Experimentation.
2. Balfakih, 130 primary school Science. Integrated SPSs: Integrated science process
(2010), Arab. science teachers and 1).Operational definition, skills (ISPS) with 15 items,
133 primary school 2).Constructing hypothesis, covering five skills. Logical
science student 3).Controlling variables, 4).Data validity by reviewers from the
teachers. collection, 5). Conducting university science teachers,
experiments. and supervisors, and teachers
from the ministry of
education.
3. Gezer (2015), 66 science student Biology. Integrated SPSs Scientific Process Skills Test
Turkey. teachers (57 females 1).Defining variables, 2).Making (SPST) was developed by
and 9 males). operational descriptions Okey, Wise and Burns (1982)
(pragmatically define), and Turkish adaptation was
3).Hypotheses formation and made by Geban, Aşkar and
defining, 4).Graphics and data Özkan (1992). & Laboratory
interpretation, 5).Research design. Self Efficacy Scale (LSES)
was developed by Ekici
(2009).
4. Silay & Çelik, 125 student teachers Biology, Integrated SPSs Scientific Process Skills Test
(2013). of science (32 Physics, 1).Formulating hypotheses, (SPST), developed by
Turkey. physics, 31 science, Chemist 2).Interpreting data, 3).Formulating researchers was used in the
30 chemistry, 32 ry, and models, 4).Experimenting, study. Validated by 407
biology). Science. 5).Operationally defining, teacher candidates studying at
6).Identifying and controlling Dokuz Eylul University,
variables. Faculty of Buca Education.
5. Kruea-In, 125 science teachers Science. Basic and Integrated SPSs Understanding of Science
Kruea-In, & and 55 science 1).Observing, 2).Inferring, Process Skill Test (USPST)
Fakcharoenphol student teachers (21 3).Classifying, 4).Measuring, was developed corresponding
, (2015), males, 34 females). 5).Using number, to a Thai context to measure
Thailand. 6).Communicating, 7).Predicting, undergraduate science
8).Using space and time education students’
relationship, 9).Identifying variable, understandings of science
10).Formulating hypotheses, process skills. Validated by
11).Defining variables operationally, three experienced science
12).Experimenting, 13).Interpreting educators.
data and drawing conclusion.
6. Phang & Tahir, 76 students of Science. Integrated SPSs A set of questionnaires with
(2012), science education, 1).Inferring, 2).Identifying variables, 30 multiple-choice items,
Malaysia. second year. 3).Hypothesizing, 4).Definition of adapted from Noor Hayati
operations, 5).List of apparatus, (2003).
6).Procedures, 7).Diagrams, 8).Table
of results, 9)Writing of observation,
10).Plotting of graphs, 11).Writing
the discussion, 12). Conclusion.

020030-4
 TABLE 1. Profiles of the Articles (continued)

Author, Year,
No Location
Sample Topics SPSs Instrument to Measure SPSs
7. A. T. Lee, 187 freshmen of Biology, Basic SPSs Computer simulation
Hairston, Biology and non- Protist. 1).Learning and using the Lateblight
Thames, Biology. computer simulation, 2).Conducting
Lawrence, & 46 junior & senior library and online searches,
Herron (2002), students attended 3).Formulating hypotheses,
the USA. science 4).Testing the hypotheses, 5).Making
methodology course generalizations & conclusions,
for primary school 6).Preparing a poster presentation to
teachers. be used in the discussion of the
results of the experiment,
7)Critiquing and evaluating one
another’s posters.
8. Akani, (2015), 200 senior students Science. SPSs Science Process Skill Test
Nigeria. (86 Biology, 71 1).Observation, 2).Experimentation, (SPST) & Assessment Format
Chemistry, 13 3).Measurement, 4).Communication, for Science Process Skills
Physics and 30 5).Inference. (AFSPS), developed by the
integrated science). researcher. Validated by five
experts of measurement and
evaluation, biology,
chemistry, physics, and
integrated science.
9. Guevara, 115 non-science General Integrated SPSs Prior Science Knowledge
(2015), students attending Biology. 1).Data gathering, 2).Designing tests and Science Process
The Philippine. Introduction experiments, 3).Experimentation, Skills rubric. Focus Group
Biology 4).Problem solving, 5).Model Discussion.
making, 6).Drawing conclusions.
10 Karamustafaoğl 40 science and Science. Basic SPSs Science Process Skill Test
. u, (2011), technology student 1).Observations, 2).Classifications, (SPST), developed by Enger
Turkey. teachers. 3).Assessments and using number, ve Yager (1998). Validated
4).Space number relationships, by three experienced-science
5).Predictions teachers.
Integrated SPSs
1).Controlling the variables, 2).Data
interpretations, 3).Hypothesizes,
4).Experimentations, 5).To obtain
result.
11 Şen & Veklİ, 24 science student General Integrated SPS Scientific Process Skills Test
. (2016), teachers (15 Biology. 1).Determining and checking (SPST), adapted to Turkish
Turkey. females, 9 males). variables, 2).Defining by doing, by Özkan, Aşkar and Geban,
3).Hypothesizing, 4).Data analysis (1992).
and drawing graphs, 5).Making Laboratory Usage Self-
experiments. efficacy Perception Scale
(LUSPS) developed by Ekici,
(2009).
Interview
12 Chabalengula, 91 student teachers. Science Basic SPSs Science Process Conceptual
. Mumba, & 1).Observe, 2).Classify, 3). Measure, Understanding Test (SPCUT)
Mbewe, (2012) 4). Infer, 5).Predict, adapted from Emereole
USA. 6).Communicate. (2009) and Science Process
Performance Test (SPPT)
Integrated SPSs taken from Test of Integrated
1).Hypothesize, 2).Experiment, Process Skill II by Burns,
3).Identify variables, 4).Formulate Okey, and Wise (1985), the
models, 5).Interpret data, and, Test of Basic Process Skills
6).Graphing. from Padilla, Cronin, and
Twiest (1985), and
questionnaires.

020030-5
 TABLE 1. Profiles of the Articles (continued)
Author, Year,
No Location
Sample Topics SPSs Instrument to Measure SPSs
13 Hernawati, 105 biology teacher Biology, Basic and integrated SPSs: Test of basic and integrated
. Amin, Irawati, candidates, vertebra 1).Observing, 2).Questioning, SPSs with 5 variables
Indriwati, & freshmen. te. 3).Experimenting, 4).Associating, developed by Chabalengula
Omar, (2018), 5).Communicating. & Mumba (2010), Lancour
Indonesia. (2006), and Padilla (1990).
14 Susanti et al., 41 biology student Science Basic SPSs: Science Process Skill Test
. (2018), teachers, freshmen 1).Observing, 2).Comunicating, (SPST), with 40 items in the
Indonesia. 3).Classifying, 4).Predicting. form of multiple choices.
Integrated SPSs:
1).Identifying variables,
2).Formulating Hypotheses,
3).Interpreting data.
15 Tahir, (2017), 47 biology teacher Biology Integrated SPSs: - Test, consisted of 15
. Indonesia. candidates, fifth Plant 1).Identifying and controlling multiple choice Items
semester physiolo variables, 2).Defining operational - Interviews.
gy terms, 3).Testing hypotheses, - Questionnaires.
4).Designing an investigation,
5).Interpreting data.
16 Utami, Riefani, Biology freshman Biology Integrated SPSs: Test of SPS
. Muchyar, & students (40 1).Observing, 2).Classifying,
Mirhanudin, females, 7 males). 3).Predicting, 4).Communicating, 5).
(2017), Hypothesizing, 6).Informing,
Indonesia. 7).Measuring.
Integrated SPSs:
1).Identifying of Variable,
2).Organizing data in tables and
graphs, 3).Designing investigation,
4).Analyzing investigation,
5).Defining variables operationally.
17 Ozer & Ozkan, 37 teacher Biology Basic and integrated SPS: Science Process Skills
(2012), candidates, third 1).Observation, 2).Classification, Assessment Instrument, with
Turkey. semester. 3).Estimation, 4).Forming and 29 open-ended questions, 11
testing hypothesis, 5).Designing of which were multiple
experiments, 6).Measurement, choice questions of science
7).Numerical and spatial association, process skills, and the other
8).Recording data, 9).Interpreting one was Project Presentations
data and deducting, 10).Determining Assessment Instrument Chart
& altering variables. consisted of 21 items.
18 Vartak, Ronad, Pre-college students Biology, Integrated SPSs: Multiple-choice tests
& Ghanekar, (17–19 years old), Enzyme 1).Forming and testing hypothesis,
(2013) competing in . 2).Designing investigation
Mumbai, India. National Biology 3).Analyzing investigation.
Olympiad. 4) Interpreting data.
19 I. S. Lee, 29 male, 28 female, Biology, Integrated SPSs: Direct observations,
Byeon, Kim, & Age: 25 years old. Neurolo 1).Forming and testing hypothesis, comparison of similar
Kwon, (2014) gy. 2).Designing experiments, phenomena, positive
South Korea. 3).Recording data, comparison, positive-
negative comparison (Park et
al. 2005 ).
Table 1 showed the variety aspects of SPSs to be studied, and the majority were conducted to assess the teachers’
and teacher candidates’ understanding of SPSs. The researches have covered some topics on biology and science,
such as: protist, vertebrate, plant physiology, enzyme and neurology. Various instruments were used to assess the
science process skills, such as: Science Process Skills Test (SPST), Scientific Method Abilities Test (SMAT), and
Understanding of Science Process Skill Test (USPST). Other instruments were Assessment Format for Science
Process Skills (AFSPS), Science Process Conceptual Understanding Test (SPCUT), and Science Process
Performance Test (SPPT). Most of them were multiple choice tests, although some researchers included other
instruments, such as: questionnaire, interviews, or performance observation.

020030-6
 Types of Science Process Skills

The results of articles analysis indicated the majority of research on SPS in higher education were focused on
integrated SPSs [4,21,25,17,16,19]. Those integrated SPS aspects were: identifying and controlling variables,
formulating hypotheses, defining of operations, formulating models, experimenting, and interpreting data. Some
research measures both basic and integrated SPS [10,14,18,23].
TABLE 2. Comparing and Analyzing Aspects of SPSs
SPS AAAS by SPS by AAAS (1993) SPS by Wynne SPS on analyzed articles
(1963) (Enger, 1998) Harlen (1999)
- Observing - Observing - Observing - Absolutely similar with AAAS’s SPSs: ( 18 )
- Classifying - Using space/time - Explaining - Simplify the SPSs of AAAS (observing,
- Measuring relationship - Predicting communicating, classifying, predicting;
- Communicating - Classifying grouping and - Raising identifying variables, generating hypotheses,
- Inferring organizing questions interpreting data): ( 3,8,10,11,14,15,18,19 )
- Predicting - Using numbers, quantifying - Planning and - Add skills, such as questioning and
- Measuring communicating associating skills: ( 1,9,13 )
- Controlling - Communicating - Detailing SPSs (Inferring, Identifying
variables - Inferring variables, Hypothesizing, Definition of
- Defining - Predicting operations, List of apparatus, Procedures,
operationally Diagrams, Table of results, Writing of
- Formulating - Controlling and identifying observation, Plotting of graphs, Writing the
hypotheses variables discussion, Conclusion): ( 6,7 )
- Interpreting data - Interpreting data - Different sequence of Integrated SPSs
- Experimenting - Formulating hypothesis (formulating hypotheses-interpreting data-
- Formulating - Defining operationally formulating models-experimenting-
models - Experimenting operationally defining-identifying and
controlling variables): ( 2,4,12,16,17 )
The results also showed the different sequencing in the SPSs component adopted by various researchers. The
SPS components adopted by Indonesian researchers were similar to the formulation by AAAS, but tends to be
simplified (see Table 1, and Table 2). In Indonesia, the research on SPS on higher education tends to assess both
basic and integrated SPS. The formulation of SPS in Turkey and Thailand were similar to the AAAS, although in
Turkey the integrated SPS were more emphasized. In developed countries the formulations of SPS were varied and
adjusted to the learning topics [19,20].
The sequence of integrated SPS skills by AAAS is started from determining or controlling variables, arranging
operational definitions for each variable, and then proceeded to formulate the hypothesis. This sequence is very
reasonable because students need to understand the variables before making the hypothesis. It because the
hypothesis is the assumptions of the results taken based on the relationship between the independent and the
dependent variables. The next sequence is interpreting data followed by experimenting and formulating models.
This sequence changes in AAAS 1993 as cited by Enger (1998). In the 1993 revision, there was no concern for the
sequence of the process in integrated SPSs, because after controlling and identifying variables, subsequent skills are
interpreting data, formulating the hypothesis, defining operationally, and experimenting. In some analyzed articles,
researchers and writers did not question the sequencing of SPSs.

Aspects of Science Process Skills

Erkol & Ugulu [4] showed the students’ science process skills, especially biology teacher candidates were
mediocre compared to other studies. The “variable controlling skills” have the lowest score compared to other skills.
Susanti et al., [14] also showed the skills to identify the variables and predicting were low. Meanwhile, Tahir [25]
showed the skills to identify the variables and testing the hypothesis was the lowest. Research by Lee et al., [20],
found the use of computer simulations provides fast experimental results, but students tend to ignore the importance
of determining the variables in experiments.
Variable identification is the process to find out all variables influencing the outcomes of an event or situation by
changing one variable and controlling another [1]. Based on the reviewed articles, the least mastered skill was the
variable controlling.
Some researchers such as Akani [8], showed different things, which were the communication and inference skills
were low. Guevara [21] stated the skill to draw the conclusions was lowest compared to others. Students’ science

020030-7
process skills were influenced by the level of the class. Erkol & Ugulu, [4] showed the mastery of scientific process
skills in biology teacher candidates have to be improved, and statistically, there were no significant differences in
science process skills between sexes and ages, except at the level of the class. Silay & Çelik, [17] showed the
percentages of SPS mastery were higher in senior year students than the juniors.

Instruments to Assess Science Process Skills

The articles showed various methods to assess the SPS, such as: Science Process Skills Test (SPST), Scientific
Method Abilities Test (SMAT), and An Understanding of Science Process Skill Test (USPST). Others were Science
Process Conceptual Understanding Test (SPCUT), Assessment Format for Science Process Skills (AFSPS), and
Science Process Performance Test (SPPT). The most used instrument to assess SPS was Science Process Skills Test
(SPST), which was a multiple choice test. Some researchers included other instruments, such as: questionnaire,
interviews, or performance observation. Majority of the researchers adopted the instrument of SPSs assessment
developed by Okey, Wise and Burns (1982) and Burns, Okey, & Wise (1985), and emphasized on the respondents’
conceptual understanding or practical knowledge about SPSs. Respondents’ knowledge about SPSs were assessed
using multiple-choice questions which adopting certain experimental cases.
ƒ Scientific Process Skills Test (SPST) developed by Okey, Wise dan Burns (1982) and modified by Geban,
Askar, & Özkan [32]. The instrument was used to assess integrated SPS II using 36 multiple choice questions
wih four answer options [16] .

FIGURE 2. Samples of Instrument to Assess Integrated SPS by Okey, Wise, and Burns (1982)

The SPST from Enger & Yager, (1998) was used by Karamustafaoğlu [10]. The instrument was a multiple
choice test to assess 14 aspects of SPS: Making Observations (2), Using Space/Time Relationships (3),
Classification (3), Using Numbers (3), measuring (3), communicating (3), Making Inferences (1), predicting
(3), Controlling Variables (3), Interpreting Data (2), Formulating the Hypothesis (3), Defining Operationally
(1), and experimenting (3). The SPST also used by Akani [8], which was a series of practical instructions to
guide the laboratory activities for students

020030-8
 FIGURE 3. Samples of Instrument to Assess SPS from Enger & Yager, (1998)

ƒ Scientific Method Abilities Test (SMAT) by Erkol & Ugulu [4]: developed using the multiple-choice test from Burns,
Okey, & Wise (1985). The instrument was used to assess conceptual understanding about integrated SPS using five types
of multiple-choice questions (See Figure 4)

020030-9
FIGURE 4. Instruments for Assessing Integrated SPS by Burns, Okey, & Wise (1985)

020030-10
 ƒ Science Process Conceptual Understanding Test (SPCUT) adapted from Emereole (2009). The SPCUT was
the test of the conceptual understanding of SPS modified from Emereole [31]. This instrument asks the
participants to define and explain the various aspects of basic and integrated SPS, such as: observe, classify,
measure, infer, predict, communicate, hypothesize, experiment, identify variables, formulate the models,
interpret data, and graphing. by using self-assessment. SPCUT assess participants’ own understanding based
on three choices (very familiar, uncertain, not familiar) [23]
ƒ Assessment Format for Science Process Skills (AFSPS) with 30 items to assess five selected aspects of
SPS. The AFSPS have columns with 1–4 scale, from very low (VL = 1), low (L = 2), high (H = 3), and very
high (VH = 4). The participants were observed during the learning process, and ranked according to their
performances [8].
ƒ Science Process Performance Test (SPPT). Consisted of 48 multiple choice items. The items were
constructed from valid and reliable questions taken from Test of Integrated Process Skill II by Burns, Okey, &
Wise (1985), and Test of Basic Process Skills by Padilla, Cronin, and Twiest (1985) [23].

(a) (b)

FIGURE 5. (a) Types of the Instruments, (b) Object to be assessed by the Instruments
Figure 5 (a) showed from six types of instruments found, four articles were using the multiple-choice tests
(SPST, SMAT, USPST, and SPPT), one was using the scoring test (AFSPS), and one was using an essay (SPCUT).
Although they have different names, the instruments used by the researchers were coming from the same sources.
The multiple-choice tests from Burn for integrated SPS and Enger for general SPS (basic and integrated).
The most common used instrument was SPST [16,10,17][16]. Figure 5 (b) showed the most common
instruments were only assess the knowledge and understanding of SPS, only few which assess the performance to
implement the SPS.

CONCLUSIONS
Various studies about science process skills in higher education indicated most of those researches have focused
to assess the integrated SPSs. Formulation of SPSs used in Indonesia was similar to the formulation pioneered by
AAAS, although were simpler and less various. The formulations of SPSs in various countries were varied. Some
were modified from AAAS and adjusted to the learning topics.
One aspect which less mastered by most of the students were identifying variables. The most commonly used
research method used was the survey. The most commonly used instrument was the “Science Process Skill Test”
(SPST) with a multiple-choice type, to assess participants’ understanding about concepts and implementation of
SPSs, and to assess their beliefs and perceptions about their understanding and mastery of SPSs.
The future researches should be focused to assess the skill of identifying variables. Also, to compare various
assessment instruments for science process skills to find out which were the better, the general purposes or specific
purpose instruments.

ACKNOWLEDGMENTS
This review was part of a research sponsored by the Grant for Postgraduate Research of Universitas Sebelas
Maret Fiscal Year’s 2018–2019

020030-11
 REFERENCES
1. M. J. Padilla, “The Science Process Skills,” Res. Matters - to Sci. Teach., vol. March, no. 9802, pp. 1–4,(1990).
2. L. Monhardt and R. Monhardt, “Creating a Context for the Learning of Science Process Skills Through PictureBooks,” vol.
34, no. 1, pp. 67–71, (2006).
3. R. O. Ongowo and F. C. Indoshi, “Science Process Skills in the Kenya Certificate of Secondary EducationBiology
Practical Examinations,” Procedia - Soc. Behav. Sci., vol. 4, no. 11, pp. 713–717, (2013).
4. S. Erkol and I. Ugulu, “Examining biology teachers candidates’ scientific process skill levels and comparingthese levels
in terms of various variables,” Procedia - Soc. Behav. Sci., vol. 116, pp. 4742–4747, (2014).
5. F. Alkan, “Experiential Learning : Its Effects on Achievement and Scientific Process Skills,” J. Turkish Sci.Educ., no.
June, 2016.
6. R. Millar and R. Driver, Studies in Science Education, vol. 1, no. 1. (2008).
7. AAAS, “Benchmarks for Science Literacy, A Project 2061 report,” Oxford Univ. Press., pp. 1–4, (1993).
8. O. Akani, “Levels of possession of science process skills by final year students of colleges of education insouth-
eastern states of nigeria,” J. Educ. Pract., vol. 6, no. 27, pp. 94–102, (2015).
9. Ö. Faruk and F. Ğ. Lu, “Comparing science process skills of prospective science teachers : A cross-sectionalstudy,” vol. 13,
no. 1, pp. 1–21,( 2012).
10. S. Karamustafaoğlu, “Improving the Science Process Skills Ability of Prospective Science Teachers Using IDiagrams,”
Eurasian J. Phys. Chem. Educ., vol. 3, no. 1, pp. 26–38, (2011).
11. D. M. Sun, Q. Yang, J. Z. Song, and Z. X. Chen, “Teaching the Process of Science: Faculty Perceptions and anEffective
Methodology,” Linchan Huaxue Yu Gongye/Chemistry Ind. For. Prod., vol. 26, no. 2, pp. 79–82,(2006).
12. C. Dirks and M. Cunningham, “Enhancing Diversity in Science : Is Teaching Science Process Skills theAnswer ?,”
CBE—Life Sci. Educ., vol. 5, pp. 218–226, (2009).
13. P. Turiman, J. Omar, A. M. Daud, and K. Osman, “Fostering the 21st Century Skills through ScientificLiteracy
and Science Process Skills,” Procedia - Soc. Behav. Sci., vol. 59, pp. 110–116, (2012).
14. R. Susanti, Y. Anwar, and E. Ermayanti, “Profile of science process skills of Preservice Biology Teacher inGeneral
Biology Course,” J. Phys. Conf. Ser., vol. 1006, no. 1, (2018).
15. N. M. Balfakih, “The assessment of the UAE’s in-service and pre-service Elementary science teachers in theintegrated
science process skills,” Procedia - Soc. Behav. Sci., vol. 2, no. 2, pp. 3711–3715, (2010).
16. S. U. Gezer, “A Case Study on Preservice Science Teachers’ Laboratory Usage Self Efficacy and ScientificProcess
Skills,” Procedia - Soc. Behav. Sci., vol. 174, pp. 1158–1165, (2015).
17. I. Silay and P. Çelik, “Evaluation of Scientific Process Skills of Teacher Candidates,” Procedia - Soc. Behav.Sci., vol.
106, pp. 1122–1130, (2013).
18. C. Kruea-In, N. Kruea-In, and W. Fakcharoenphol, “A Study of Thai In-Service and Pre-Service ScienceTeachers’
Understanding of Science Process Skills,” Procedia - Soc. Behav. Sci., vol. 197, no. February, pp.993–997, (2015).
19. F. A. Phang and N. A. Tahir, “Scientific Skills among Pre-Service Science Teachers at Universiti TeknologiMalaysia,”
Procedia - Soc. Behav. Sci., vol. 56, no. Ictlhe, pp. 307–313, (2012).
20. A. T. Lee, R. V Hairston, R. Thames, T. Lawrence, and S. S. Herron, “Using a Computer Simulation To TeachScience
Process Skills to College Biology and Elementary Education Majors,” Bioscene, vol. 28, no. 4, pp. 35–42, (2002).
21. C. A. Guevara, “Science process skills development through innovations in science teaching,” Res. J. Educ.Sci., vol. 3,
no. 2, pp. 6–10, (2015).
22. C. Şen and G. S. Veklİ, “The Impact of Inquiry Based Instruction on Science Process Skills and Self-efficacyPerceptions of
Pre-service Science Teachers at a University Level Biology Laboratory,” Univers. J. Educ. Res.,vol. 4, no. 3, pp. 603–612,
(2016).
23. V. M. Chabalengula, F. Mumba, and S. Mbewe, “How Pre-service Teachers ’ Understand and PerformScience,”
Eurasia J. Math. Sci. Technol. Educ., vol. 8223, (2012).
24. D. Hernawati, M. Amin, M. H. Irawati, S. E. Indriwati, and N. Omar, “The effectiveness of scientific approachusing
encyclopedia as learning materials in improving students’ science process skills in science,” J. Pendidik.IPA Indones., vol.
7, no. 3, pp. 266–272, (2018).
25. J. Tahir, “An Analysis of Science Process Skills of Pre Service Biology Teachers in Solving Plants PhysiologyProblems,”
Int. Conf. eduucation, no. September, (2017).
26. N. H. Utami, M. K. Riefani, M. Muchyar, and M. Mirhanudin, “The Measurement of Science Process Skills

020030-12
 for First Year Students at Biology Education Departement,” Atl. Press - Adv. Soc. Sci. Educ. Humanit. Res.,
vol. 100, pp. 382–384, (2017).
27. D. Z. Ozer and M. Ozkan, “The Effect of the Project Based Learning on the Science Process Skills of the
Prospective Teachers of Science,” J. Turkish Sci. Educ., vol. 9, no. 3, pp. 131–136, (2012).
28. R. Vartak, A. Ronad, and V. Ghanekar, “Enzyme assay: An investigative approach to enhance science process
skills,” J. Biol. Educ., vol. 47, no. 4, pp. 253–257, (2013).
29. I. S. Lee, J. H. Byeon, Y. S. Kim, and Y. J. Kwon, “Development of a model for measuring scientific
processing skills based on brain-imaging technology: Focused on the experimental design process,” J. Biol.
Educ., vol. 48, no. 4, pp. 188–195, (2014).
30. J. C. Burns, J. R. Okey, and K. C. Wise, “Development of an integrated process skill test: TIPS II,” J. Res. Sci.
Teach., vol. 22, no. 2, pp. 169–177, (1985).
31. H. U. Emereole, “Learners’ and teachers’ conceptual knowledge of science processes: The case of Botswana,”
Int. J. Sci. Math. Educ., vol. 7, no. 5, pp. 1033–1056, (2009).
32. Geban, P. Askar, and Özkan, “Effects of Computer Simulations and Problem-Solving Approaches on High
School Students,” J. Educ. Res., vol. 86, no. 1, pp. 5–10, (1992).
33. S. K. Enger and R. E. Yager, The Jawa Assessment Handbook. Science Education Center The University of
Iowa Iowa City, IA 52242-1478, (1998).

020030-13