Koslowski (1996) declared that, whi

Koslowski (1996) declared that, while this approach is evaluated through evidences due to hypothetical scenarios, these skills will be used by interpreting the cause-result relationships and evaluations of different evidence (cited in Williams et al., 2004). SPS is similar to skills which we use for solving the daily problems we meet (Taşar, Temiz, & Tan 2002). Chemistry is an experimental discipline and so SPS should be gained by students in laboratories. During the laboratory work students are supposed to improve their science process and problem solving skills. Therefore, science process and problem solving skills should be measured during the laboratory phase, not just their understanding (Ayas, Çepni, & Akdeniz, 1994; Cartier, Rudolph, & Stewart, 2001; Lei, 2006). The best way to measure the SPS of students is laboratory reports, oral presentations and observation
(Lavinghousez, 1973). In order to determine the change of the students’ SPS, we should asses to
what extend the students understood the topic and their using of SPS in novel learning situation (Buck, Bretz, & Towns, 2008; Öztürk, Tezel, & Acat, 2010; Pyle, 2008; Souchek & Meier, 1997). Harlen and Jelly (1997) developed observation criterias for each skill in order to determine the improvement of students’ SPS. Educators can perform evaluations with a gradational scaling method by finding different questions and criteria for other process skills (Bozkurt & Olgun, 2005). This is not an easy way for educators and researchers to observe the changes in students’ scientific skills. In order to use this, or similar methods, teachers should collect the evidence about skill improvements and should make students always focus on lessons. Students need evaluation methods in
which they can show their scientific skills and join the processes (Bozkurt & Olgun). In order to use as pre-test and post-test, researchers need valid, reliable and discriminatory measurement tools (Buck et al., 2008; Lavinghousez, 1973).

When the literature is investigated; national measurements and international comparisons of SPS are
being performed by the International Education Success Evaluation Institution and the International Educational Improvement Evaluation Institution (IEA-1970, 1984) through International Mathematics
and Science Studies (TIMSS-1999, 2003, 2007, 2011). Evaluations are performed though
surveys and multiple-choice test (Burns, Okey, & Wise, 1985; Butzow & Sewell, 1972; Dillashaw &
Okey, 1980; Enger & Yager, 1998; Lavinghousez, 1973; Molitor & George, 1976; Smith, 1994; Tannenbaum, 1971; Tobin & Capie, 1982). In our country, test for SPS, which were developed
in other countries, were initially used. Then our researchers developed their own appropriate tests. The test, which were developed by Burns et al. (1985) in accordance with 8th grade and adopted by Geban, Aşkar, and Özkan (1992), includes skills about defining variables, formulating hypothesis, defining variables;

operationally, designing investigations, organizing data and interpreting it. This test consists from 36
questions, each of them having 4 choices, and it was designed for science process skills at 8thgrade. It was performed on many levels of learners, including pre service teachers (Aktamış, 2007; Aydoğdu, 2006; Gültekin, 2009; Kula, 2009; Sevinç, 2008; Tavukçu, 2008; Ünal-Çoban, 2009). Though the study issues and work fields differed from each other in literature there are many other examples in which the same test were used (Akar, 2005; Dana, 2001; Gedik, Ertepınar, & Geban, 2002; Kadayıfçı, 2001; Kanlı & Yağbasan, 2008; Sökmen & Bayram, 1999; Tezcan & Salmaz, 2005; Ünal, Bayram,
& Sökmen, 2002; Yılmaz, Erdem, & Morgil, 2002; Yürük, Şahin-Yanpar, & Bozkurt, 2000). The
usage of the test, which was prepared for 8thgrade, in accordance with both different levels. The way in which there is no appropriateness with the information which Zimmerman (2000; 2007) expressed,
is a discussion topic. In addition to the test of Geban et al. (1992), many other tests were developed
and applied in literature. However these tests include general process skills rather than specific science process skills (Anagün & Yaşar, 2009; Arslan, 1995; Azar, 2008; Birinci, 2008; Duran & Özdemir, 2010; Erdoğan, 2005; Karaöz, 2008; Korucuoğlu, 2008; Öztürk, 2008; Şenyüz, 2008). It was seen that the test, which was developed by Öztürk for evaluation of the effects of the 5E model on science process skills, about geography education, consists of both specific and general science process skills. Though the tests, documented in the literature, measure the basic science process skills they are implemented with sample groups which are supposed to be at an advanced level. This situation stimulates discussion. This is because there is some incompatibility between the purpose and implementations of the tests. The development of the tests, which are suitable for secondary education students and also measure both basic and integrated level SPS is very important.

Results (Indonesian) 1:

Koslowski (1996) menyatakan bahwa, sementara pendekatan ini dievaluasi melalui bukti karena skenario hipotetis, keterampilan ini akan digunakan dengan menafsirkan hubungan sebab-akibat dan evaluasi dari bukti-bukti yang berbeda (dikutip di Williams et al., 2004). SPS merupakan mirip dengan keterampilan yang kita gunakan untuk memecahkan masalah sehari-hari kita bertemu (Taşar, Temiz, & Tan 2002). Kimia adalah disiplin eksperimental dan jadi SPS harus diperoleh oleh siswa di laboratorium. Selama pekerjaan laboratorium siswa diharapkan untuk meningkatkan proses ilmu pengetahuan dan keterampilan pemecahan masalah. Oleh karena itu, proses ilmu pengetahuan dan keterampilan pemecahan masalah harus diukur selama fase laboratorium, bukan hanya pemahaman mereka (Ayas, Çepni, & Akdeniz, 1994; Cartier, Rudolph, & Stewart, 2001; Lei, 2006). Cara terbaik untuk mengukur SPS siswa adalah laboratorium laporan, presentasi lisan dan pengamatan(Lavinghousez, 1973). Untuk menentukan perubahan siswa SPS, kita harus keledai untukapa memperpanjang siswa memahami topik dan mereka menggunakan SPS dalam situasi belajar novel (Buck, Bretz, & kota, 2008; Öztürk, Tezel & Acat, 2010; Pyle, 2008; Souchek & Meier, 1997). Harlen dan Jelly (1997) dikembangkan pengamatan kriteria untuk setiap keterampilan untuk menentukan peningkatan SPS siswa. Pendidik dapat melakukan evaluasi dengan metode skala gradational dengan menemukan pertanyaan yang berbeda dan kriteria untuk keterampilan proses lainnya (Bozkurt & Olgun, 2005). Hal ini tidak mudah bagi para pendidik dan peneliti untuk mengamati perubahan dalam kemampuan ilmiah siswa. Untuk menggunakan ini, atau serupa metode, guru harus mengumpulkan bukti tentang keterampilan perbaikan dan harus membuat siswa selalu fokus pada pelajaran. Siswa perlu metode evaluasi diyang mereka dapat menunjukkan keterampilan mereka ilmiah dan bergabung dengan proses (Bozkurt & Olgun). Untuk menggunakan sebagai pra- tes dan pasca tes, peneliti membutuhkan alat pengukuran berlaku, dapat diandalkan dan diskriminatif (Buck et al., 2008; Lavinghousez, 1973).Kapan literatur diselidiki; Nasional pengukuran dan perbandingan SPSyang dilakukan oleh lembaga evaluasi sukses pendidikan internasional dan International perbaikan evaluasi lembaga pendidikan (IEA-1970, 1984) melalui matematika internasionaldan ilmu sains (TIMSS-1999, 2003, 2007, 2011). Evaluasi dilakukan meskipunsurveys and multiple-choice test (Burns, Okey, & Wise, 1985; Butzow & Sewell, 1972; Dillashaw &Okey, 1980; Enger & Yager, 1998; Lavinghousez, 1973; Molitor & George, 1976; Smith, 1994; Tannenbaum, 1971; Tobin & Capie, 1982). In our country, test for SPS, which were developedin other countries, were initially used. Then our researchers developed their own appropriate tests. The test, which were developed by Burns et al. (1985) in accordance with 8th grade and adopted by Geban, Aşkar, and Özkan (1992), includes skills about defining variables, formulating hypothesis, defining variables;operationally, designing investigations, organizing data and interpreting it. This test consists from 36questions, each of them having 4 choices, and it was designed for science process skills at 8thgrade. It was performed on many levels of learners, including pre service teachers (Aktamış, 2007; Aydoğdu, 2006; Gültekin, 2009; Kula, 2009; Sevinç, 2008; Tavukçu, 2008; Ünal-Çoban, 2009). Though the study issues and work fields differed from each other in literature there are many other examples in which the same test were used (Akar, 2005; Dana, 2001; Gedik, Ertepınar, & Geban, 2002; Kadayıfçı, 2001; Kanlı & Yağbasan, 2008; Sökmen & Bayram, 1999; Tezcan & Salmaz, 2005; Ünal, Bayram,& Sökmen, 2002; Yılmaz, Erdem, & Morgil, 2002; Yürük, Şahin-Yanpar, & Bozkurt, 2000). Theusage of the test, which was prepared for 8thgrade, in accordance with both different levels. The way in which there is no appropriateness with the information which Zimmerman (2000; 2007) expressed,is a discussion topic. In addition to the test of Geban et al. (1992), many other tests were developedand applied in literature. However these tests include general process skills rather than specific science process skills (Anagün & Yaşar, 2009; Arslan, 1995; Azar, 2008; Birinci, 2008; Duran & Özdemir, 2010; Erdoğan, 2005; Karaöz, 2008; Korucuoğlu, 2008; Öztürk, 2008; Şenyüz, 2008). It was seen that the test, which was developed by Öztürk for evaluation of the effects of the 5E model on science process skills, about geography education, consists of both specific and general science process skills. Though the tests, documented in the literature, measure the basic science process skills they are implemented with sample groups which are supposed to be at an advanced level. This situation stimulates discussion. This is because there is some incompatibility between the purpose and implementations of the tests. The development of the tests, which are suitable for secondary education students and also measure both basic and integrated level SPS is very important.