A study on the evaluation of science projects of primary school students based on scientific criteria

In the present study, 454 science projects participating in the Science Projects Event for Primary School Students were evaluated. The distribution of the projects applying to competition between 2007 and 2011 by years is given in the Table 4.

Table 4. The number of projects in sciences

Science Field	The Number of Projects					Total
Science Field	2007	2008	2009	2010	2011	Total
Comer To Regional Science Board	118	50	85	113	88	454
Invited To Bursa Regional Exhibition	48	20	41	33	39	181
Invited To Turkey Selections	5	2	3	4	4	20
The Award-Winning By Being Placed In The First Fifty In Turkey Selections	1	1	3	1	3	9

According to the table 4, 181 of 454 projects coming to the Regional Science Board were invited to Bursa Regional Exhibition. Of these projects, 20 projects were found worthy of being exhibited in Ankara for competition across Turkey. Of these projects, 9 ranked among the top 50 and received awards. The criteria were not the same during the selection of these projects. In the first elimination, the projects were mostly evaluated based on the specific criteria of teachers in provinces. The projects were subjected to a second elimination at the provincial department of review and the regional science board consisting of the representatives of each province, who were experienced teachers. A short training was provided to this board in regard to evaluation criteria. Then, a 5-person board composed of specialized faculty members put the projects into a third elimination process in the region. This board performed evaluation based on the criteria set by TUBITAK BIDEB (2012). It was seen that selection criteria came to the forefront more in this third evaluation stage. It was determined that disregard for criteria during project evaluation caused some works that were not suitable for exhibition to appear at the regional exhibition.

Distribution of the current school types by provinces is given in the table 5 (based on official data). Based on the data in the table, it is understood that public schools are 97.29%, private schools are 2.43%, and science & arts centers are 0.28%, which is very low.

Table 5. The distribution of the projects coming to MNE and TUBITAK regional science boards by provinces and school types

The Number of Public Schools

The Number of Private Schools

The Number of Science and Arts Centers

All Schools Available

The Number of Schools Coming to RSB* and TUBITAK

Provinces

MNE

Coming to RSB* and TUBITAK

Available

Coming to RSB* and

TUBITAKf

Available

Coming to RSB* and

TUBITAK f

Total

Afyonkarahisar

479

(98.96%)

(84.21%)

(0.83%)

(0.21%)

(15.79%)

484

Balıkesir

555

(98.23%)

(90.7%)

(1.59%)

(9.30%)

(0.18%)

565

Bilecik

(96.25%)

(54.84%)

(2.50%)

(25.81%)

(1.25%)

(19.35%)

Bolu

(97.7%)

(100%)

(2.3%)

Bursa

584

(95.58%)

(58.19%)

(4.09%)

(31.97%)

(0.33%)

(9.84%)

611

122

Çanakkale

194

(98.48%)

(94.74%)

(1.52%)

(5.26%)

197

Düzce

201

(98.05%)

(100%)

(1.46%)

(0.49%)

205

Eskişehir

237

(96.73%)

(90.48%)

(2.86%)

(4.76%)

(0.41%)

(4.76%)

245

Kocaeli

340

(95.51%)

(68.75%)

(4.21%)

(31.25%)

(0.28%)

356

Kütahya

338

(97.69%)

(85.07%)

(2.31%)

(10.45%)

(4.48%)

346

Sakarya

375

(97.91%)

(100%)

(1.83%)

(0.26%)

383

Yalova

(93.44%)

(75%)

(4.92%)

(21.43%)

(1.64%)

(3.57%)

Total

3522

(97.29%)

340

(74.9%)

(2.43%)

(17.4%)

(0.28%)

(7.7%)

3620

454

*Regional Science Boards

The table 6 shows that of 454 science projects 340 (74.9%) belonged to public schools (PS), 79 (17.4%) belonged to private schools (PrS), and 35 (7.7%) belonged to science and arts centers (SAC). These ratios show that although the number of public schools was higher than other organizations, the participation was lower at these schools. On the other hand, it is seen that science and arts centers, which made up the segment of 7.7% with 35 projects, came up with projects of a higher percentage. This situation is parallel with the existence of students with special interests and skills at science and art centers. These data also show that the number of project applications is not proportional to the number of schools.

Table 6. The distribution of the projects subject to application by school types and years

Years

Total

2007

2008

2009

2010

2011

School Types

Private Schools

(3.7%)

7 (1.5%)

(3.5%)

(4.2%)

(4.4%)

(17.4%)

Public Schools

100 (22%)

37 (8.1%)

62 (13.7%)

78 (17.2%)

63 (13.9%)

340 (74.9%)

Science and Arts Centers

(0.2%)

6 (1.3%)

(1.6%)

(3.5%)

(1.1%)

(7.7%)

Total

118

(26%)

50 (11%)

85 (18.7%)

113 (24.9%)

88 (19.4%)

454 (100%)

According to the table 6, the biggest number of applications was in 2007 in which 118 (26%) projects were submitted, and the fewest number of applications was in 2008 in which just 50 (11%) projects were submitted. This table also demonstrates that the biggest number of applications from PrSs was in 2011 (4.4%), from PSs was in 2007 (22%), and from SACs was in 2010 (3.5%). The numbers of project applications vary by years. Based on the numbers, it is understood that there is a disorder in applications. The 50 to 118 range is an indicator of this situation.

fig1

Figure 1. Project applications by school types and years

The Figure 1 shows that the number of applications from PSs and PrSs decreased in 2008, an increase occurred towards 2010, but another fall took place in applications from PSs in 2011. On the other hand, there was an increase in the number of project applications from SACs until 2011, but a considerable fall occurred in 2011.

fig2

Figure 2. The distribution of project applications between 2007 and 2011 by provinces

fig3

Figure 3. The distribution of project applications between 2007 and 2011 by school types

According to the figure 3, only PSs made applications from Sakarya and Düzce provinces; PSs and PrSs made applications from Kocaeli, Çanakkale, and Balıkesir; PSs and SACs made applications from Afyonkarahisar; and PSs, PrSs, and SACs made applications from Yalova, Kütahya, Eskişehir, Bursa, and Bilecik.

Table 7. The distribution of project applications between 2007 and 2011 by years, provinces, and school types

Provinces	2007 (N:118)			2008 (N:50)			2009 (N:85)			2010 (N:113)			2011 (N:88)			Total (%)			Total
Provinces	PS	PrS	SAC	PS	PrS	SAC	PS	PrS	SAC	PS	PrS	SAC	PS	PrS	SAC	PS	PrS	SAC	Total
Afyonkarahisar**	-	-	-	3 (6%)	-	1 (2%)	14 (16.5%)	-	4 (4.6%)	10 (8.8%)	-	-	5 (5.9%)	-	1 (1.1%)	32 (9.4%)	-	6 (17.1%)	38 (8.4%)
Balıkesir	6 (5%)	-	-	3 (6%)	-	-	8 (9.4%)	1 (1.2%)	-	10 (8.8%)	-	-	12 (13.6%)	3 (3.4%)	-	39 (11.5%)	4 (5.1%)	-	43 (9.5%)
Bilecik	23 (19.5%)	1 (0.8%)	-	4 (8%)	-	3 (6%)	5 (5.9%)	5 (5.8%)	1 (1.2%)	1 (0.9%)	6 (5.3%)	8 (7.1%)	1 (1.1%)	4 (4.6%)	-	34 (10%)	16 (20.3%)	12 (34.3%)	62 (13.7%)
Bolu*	4 (3.4%)	-	-	-	-	-	-	-	-	-	-	-	-	-	-	4 (1.2%)	-	-	4 (0.9%)
Bursa	16 (13.6%)	11 (9.2%)	1 (0.8%)	8 (16%)	4 (8%)	2 (4%)	9 (10.6%)	6 (7.1%)	2 (2.4%)	26 (23%)	6 (5.3%)	7 (6.2%)	12 (13.6%)	12 (13.6%)	-	71 (20.9%)	39 (49.3%)	12 (34.3%)	122 (26.8%)
Çanakkale	4 (3.4%)	-	-	2 (4%)	-	-	4 (4.6%)	-	-	2 (1.8%)	1 (0.9%)	-	6 (6.8%)	-	-	18 (5.3%)	1 (1.3%)	-	19 (4.2%)
Düzce*	24 (20.3%)	-	-	-	-	-	-	-	-	-	-	-	-	-	-	24 (7.1%)	-	-	24 (5.3%)
Eskişehir**	-	-	-	2 (4%)	-	-	7 (8.2%)	-	-	4 (3.5%)	-	-	6 (6.8%)	1 (1.1%)	1 (1.1%)	19 (5.6%)	1 (1.3%)	1 (2.9%)	21 (4.6%)
Kocaeli*	11 (9.3%)	5 (4.2%)	-	-	-	-	-	-	-	-	-	-	-	-	-	11 (3.2%)	5 (6.3%)	-	16 (3.5%)
Kütahya**	-	-	-	13 (26%)	-	-	9 (10.6%)	3 (3.5%)	-	20 (17.8%)	4 (3.5%)	1 (0.9%)	15 (17%)	-	2 (2.4%)	57 (16.8%)	7 (8.8%)	3 (8.5%)	67 (14.7%)
Sakarya*	10 (8.5%)	-	-	-	-	-	-	-	-	-	-	-	-	-	-	10 (2.8%)	-	-	10 (2.2%)
Yalova	2 (1.7%)	-	-	2 (4%)	3 (6%)	-	6 (7.1%)	1 (1.2%)	-	5 (4.4%)	2 (1.8%)	-	6 (6.8%)	-	1 (1.1%)	21 (6.2%)	6 (7.6%)	1 (2.9%)	28 (6.2%)
Total	100 (84.7%)	17 (14.4%)	1 (0.8%)	37 (74%)	7 (14%)	6 (12%)	62 (72.9%)	16 (18.8%)	7 (8.2%)	78 (69%)	19 (16.8%)	16 (14.2%)	63 (71.6%)	20 (22.7%)	5 (5.7%)	340 (100%)	79 (100%)	35 (100%)	454 (100%)
* It was removed from Bursa region in 2008. ** It attended to Bursa region after 2007. PS: Public Schools PrS: Private Schools SAC: Science and Arts Centers N: The total number of projects

Table 8. The distribution of project applications between 2007 and 2011 by years, provinces, and invitation to exhibition

Provinces

2007

2008

2009

2010

2011

Total

Afyonkarahisar

(5%)

(10%)

(19%)

10 (23.3%)

1 (33.3%)

(3%)

9 (11.3%)

(5.1%)

(8.2%)

(6.6%)

(9.5%)

(11.1%)

Balıkesir

(6.4%)

(4.2%)

(20%)

2 (10%)

(3.3%)

6 (14.3%)

(7%)

(3%)

9 (11.3%)

7 (17.9%)

(16.3%)

(25%)

(33.3%)

19 (10.5%)

(8.8%)

(11.8%)

(11.1%)

Bilecik

(10.6%)

19 (26.8%)

(5%)

(20%)

7 (16.7%)

4 (9.3%)

6 (18.2%)

9 (11.3%)

(2.6%)

(8.2%)

(11%)

42 (15.4%)

Bolu

(2.1%)

(4.2%)

(0.6%)

(1.1%)

Bursa

(31.9%)

(18.3%)

(40%)

(100%)

7 (35%)

7 (23.3%)

10 (23.8%)

7 (16.3%)

1 (50%)

1 (33.3%)

10 (30.3%)

29 (36.3%)

1 (25%)

11 (28.2%)

13 (26.5%)

(25%)

(33.3%)

53 (29.3%)

69 (25.3%)

(29.4%)

(33.3%)

Çanakkale

(6.4%)

(1.4%)

(6.7%)

4 (9.3%)

2 (6.1%)

1 (1.3%)

4 (10.3%)

(4.1%)

(5%)

(3.7%)

Düzce

(8.5%)

(28.2%)

(2.2%)

(7.3%)

Eskişehir

(5%)

1 (3.3%)

3 (7.1%)

4 (9.3%)

(3%)

3 (3.8%)

4 (10.3%)

(8.2%)

(50%)

(33.3%)

(5%)

(4.4%)

(11.8%)

(11.1%)

Kocaeli

10 (21.3%)

(8.5%)

(20%)

(5.5%)

(2.2%)

(5.9%)

Kütahya

5 (25%)

8 (26.7%)

4 (9.5%)

8 (18.6%)

8 (24.2%)

17 (21.3%)

3 (75%)

1 (100%)

7 (17.9%)

10 (20.4%)

24 (13.3%)

43 (15.8%)

(17.6%)

(11.1%)

Sakarya

(10.6%)

(7%)

(2.8%)

(1.8%)

Yalova

(2.1%)

(1.4%)

(20%)

3 (15%)

(6.7%)

(100%)

1 (100%)

4 (9.5%)

(7%)

1 (50%)

1 (33.3%)

4 (12.1%)

3 (3.8%)

(7.7%)

(8.2%)

(8.3%)

(4.8%)

4 (23.5%)

(22.2%)

Total

47 (100%)

(100%)

5 (100%)

(100%)

20 (100%)

30 (100%)

(100%)

1 (100%)

42 (100%)

43 (100%)

2 (100%)

3 (100%)

33 (100%)

80 (100%)

4 (100%)

1 (100%)

39 (100%)

49 (100%)

(100%)

181 (100%)

273 (100%)

17 (100%)

(100%)

A: Invited To The Exhibition

B: Not Invited To The Exhibition

C: Invited To Turkey Selections

D: Those Be Placed in Turkey Selections

The table 7 shows the distribution of project applications by years, provinces, and school types. According to this table, PSs rank first (74.9%) in the distribution of projects by school types. They are followed by PrS projects (17.4%), and SAC projects (7.7%). Based on the distribution by provinces, it has been observed that the biggest number of applications came from the following provinces: Bursa (26.8%), Kütahya (14.7%), Bilecik (13.7%), Balıkesir (9.5%), Afyonkarahisar (8.4%), Yalova (6.2%), Düzce (5.3%), Eskişehir (4.6%), Çanakkale (4.2%), Kocaeli (3.5%), Sakarya (2.2%), and Bolu (0.9%).

Table 9. Gender distribution by years

Years

Total

2007

2008

2009

2010

2011

Gender

Females

(13.71%)

(7.07%)

(6.65%)

(12.6%)

(11.77%)

374 (51.8%)

Males

(13.58%)

(4.43%)

(10.8%)

(10.94%)

(8.45%)

348 (48.2%)

Total

197

(27.29%)

83 (11.5%)

126 (17.45%)

170 (23.54%)

146 (20.22%)

722

(100%)

Based on the gender distribution of the students designing projects, it has been observed that 99 females/98 males designed projects in 2007; 51 females/32 males designed projects in 2008; 48 females/78 males designed projects in 2009; 91 females/79 males designed projects in 2010; and 85 females/61 males designed projects in 2011 (Table 9).

fig4

Figure 4. The subject area distribution of projects by years

Based on the subject area distribution of the project applications, it has been observed there were 241 (53.8%) projects about Physics, 125 (27.54%) projects about Biology, and 88 (19.38%) projects about Chemistry. These data show that there were more projects about Physics subjects in comparison to other subject areas (Figure 4).

fig5

Figure 5. The distribution of physics projects by sub-subject areas

It is understood that there were more projects about Technological Design (46.5%), Electricity (12%), and Energy (10%) in comparison to other sub-subject areas (Figure 5).

fig6

Figure 6. The distribution of biology projects by sub-subject areas

It is understood that there were more projects about Plant Development and Physiology (25.6%), Ecology (22.4%), Human Anatomy and Physiology (12%), Biochemistry (11.2%), Microbiology (9.6%), and Education Materials (9.6%) in comparison to other sub-subject areas (Figure 6).

fig7

Figure 7. The distribution of chemistry projects by sub-subject areas

It is understood that there were more projects about Organic Chemistry (23.6%), Chemical Reactions and Bonds (10.3%), Biochemistry (8%), and Acids and Bases (7.9%) in comparison to other sub-subject areas (Figure 7).

The table 10 presents the findings obtained from the Evaluation Chart for Science Projects Event for Primary School Students. The results were interpreted by taking the average of two different expert evaluators.

Table 10. Evaluation chart for science projects event for primary school students

Criteria	2007-2011
Criteria	YES (%)	PARTLY (%)	NO (%)	TOTAL (%)
a) The Determination of Problem
1) Problem was determined.	101.5 (22.4)	248 (54.6)	104.5 (23)	100
2) Problem was clearly defined.	35 (7.7)	219.5 (48.3)	199.5 (44)	100
3) Sub-problems were determined.	1 (0.2)	8.5 (1.8)	444.5 (98)	100
b) Originality and Creativity
1) Subject is original.	23 (5.1)	167 (36.8)	264 (58.1)	100
2) A method different from the previous ones is used for dealing with the subject.	22 (4.8)	123.5 (27.2)	308.5 (68)	100
c) Scientific Method
1) Hypothesis was established.	4 (0.9)	21.5 (4.7)	428.5 (94.4)	100
2) A plan was developed for the method to be followed.	33.5 (7.4)	214 (47.1)	206.5 (45.5)	100
3) Method contained necessary variables for testing the hypothesis.	7.5 (1.7)	90 (19.8)	356.5 (78.5)	100
4) Experimental processes were carried out.	26.5 (5.9)	159.5 (35.1)	268 (59)	100
5) Sufficient data were collected.	8 (1.8)	93.5 (20.6)	352.5 (77.6)	100
6) Data analysis was properly performed.	13.5 (3)	93 (20.5)	347.5 (76.5)	100
d) Consistency and Contribution
1) There is a consistency between purpose and result.	42 (9.3)	332 (73.1)	80 (17.6)	100
2) There is a consistency between problem and sub-problems.	2.5 (0.6)	74.5 (16.4)	377 (83)	100
3) Provides a new approach to impart a new method or field.	2 (0.4)	49 (10.8)	403 (88.8)	100
e) Usefulness
1) It can be used for different scientific and technical fields.	5 (1.1)	86.5 (19.1)	362.5 (79.8)	100
2) An added value can be introduced to economy.	5.5 (1.2)	73 (16.1)	375.5 (82.7)	100
3) Benefits can be provided to society.	8 (1.6)	60.5 (13.5)	385.5 (84.9)	100
f) Implementability
1) It can be used to solve other problems related to the field results have been presented.	1.5 (0.3)	83 (18.3)	369.5 (81.4)	100
g) Literature Review
1) Necessary sources were reached.	79.5 (17.5)	172 (37.9)	202.5 (44.6)	100
2) Sources were used in the Project Report.	3 (0.7)	19.5 (4.3)	431.5 (95)	100
3) Sources were associated with the project subject.	0 (0)	6 (1.3)	448 (98.7)	100
h) Result
1) The project was finalized.	361 (79.5)	69.5 (15.3)	23.5 (5.2)	100
2) Data were correctly interpreted.	12 (2.6)	199 (43.8)	243 (53.6)	100

According to the table 10, the subject and problem were clearly determined in 22.4% of 454 projects and partly determined in 54.6%. 48.3% of students provided a partial clear definition of the problem intended to be solved through project. However, 44% of students failed to provide any clear definition. It was seen that sub-problems were not determined in 98% of the projects.

It was found that 58% of the projects did not have original subjects and 68% did not have a creative nature.
It was determined that no hypothesis was established in 94.4% of the projects 47.1% of the projects had a partial plan concerning the method to be followed for reaching a solution, 45.5% did not develop any plan concerning the method to be followed for reaching a solution and 78.5% had methods not containing the variables required for testing the project hypothesis. It was concluded that 35.1% of students performed the experimental processes as required by projects, but 59% did not perform such processes. 77.6% of students failed to collect sufficient data at the end of these processes. The proper analysis of the collected data was partly conducted by 20.5% of students. 76.5% of students failed to conduct a proper analysis of the collected data.

Based on the examination of consistency between purposes and solutions, it is seen that there was just a partial consistency between purpose and solution in 73.1% of the projects. 83% of the projects failed to ensure a consistency between problems and sub-problems. 88.8% of the projects did not introduce any new method to literature, and 10.8% partly achieved it.
Based on the examination of the usage of the projects in different scientific and technical fields and usefulness for the economy and society, it was observed that 79.8% of the projects did not have any feature to be used in different scientific and technical fields. 82.7% could not create any added value for the economy if they were implemented. 16.1% provide a partial added value for the economy if they are implemented, and 84.9% did not provide any benefit to society. It was seen that 81.4% of the projects put forward solutions that could be used for solving the problems about related fields.

Based on the examination of the projects in terms of literature review and report writing, it is seen that 17.5% of the projects reached necessary scientific sources, 37.9% partly reached such sources, and 95% did not use such sources in the project report. 98.7% of students failed to associate the sources that were argued to be used in their projects with related project subjects.

79.5% of the projects were finalized. In 53.6% of the projects, obtained data could not be interpreted by establishing a cause and effect relationship.

Kruskal-Wallis test was carried out for determining whether there was any year-dependent significant difference between the results introduced by 8 criteria included in the Evaluation Chart for Science Projects Event for Primary School Students (Table 11). This test is a non-parametric alternative of the inter-group one way analysis of variance. This analysis allows making a comparison of three or more groups that have continuous variables.

Since significance level is lower than 0.05 in all criteria, it can be said that there is a significant difference between criteria by years (Table 11).

Table 11. The results of analysis of the criteria included in the evaluation chart for science projects event for primary school students by years

Year

Criteria

The Mean Ranks

2007

118

270.77

(DP)

233.15

(LR)

232.85

(SM)

191.56

(R)

179.50

(I)

172.36

(CC)

165.51

(OC)

162.51

(U)

2008

228.06

(SM)

222.25

(I)

191.65

(U)

183.16

(CC)

182.31

(OC)

180.39

(R)

174.18

(LR)

168.22

(DP)

2009

308.90

(OC)

269.92

(CC)

267.81

(I)

265.53

(U)

248.35

(R)

225.5

(DP)

174.78

(SM)

164.50

(LR)

2010

113

249.77

(U)

245.27

(R)

243.92

(OC)

240.16

(CC)

233.73

(SM)

229.94

(I)

226.86

(LR)

188.25

(DP)

2011

311.90

(LR)

269.68

(U)

269.40

(CC)

262.93

(SM)

259.51

(R)

255.49

(DP)

252.78

(I)

236.59

(OC)

The Table 12 shows the results of the analysis performed in order to determine whether there was any significant difference between the 8 criteria included in the Evaluation Chart for Science Projects Event for Primary School Students by school types. It was found that the scores obtained from The Determination of Problem, Originality and Creativity, Scientific Method, Consistency and Contribution, Usefulness, Implementability, Literature Review, and Result varied by school types.

Table 12. The results of the analysis of the criteria included in the evaluation chart for science projects event for primary school students by school types

Criteria	df	The Value of Kruskal-Wallis	p
a) The determination of problem	2	2.309	0.315
b) Originality and creativity	2	3.608	0.165
c) Scientific method	2	2.720	0.257
d) Consistency and contribution	2	8.702	0.013*
e) Usefulness	2	14.092	0.001*
f) Implementability	2	7.118	0.028*
g) Literature review	2	13.556	0.001*
h) Result	2	7.118	0.028*
*p<0.05

The effectiveness of specific school types in particular criteria was determined based on mean ranks. Accordingly, it was seen that Private Schools were more successful in Literature Review and Usefulness. Public Schools were more successful in The Determination of Problem, Scientific Method and Implementability, and Science and Arts Centers were more successful in Implementability, Consistency and Contribution, and Usefulness. On the other hand, it was found that Private Schools were unsuccessful in Implementability, Public Schools were unsuccessful in Usefulness, and Science and Arts Centers were unsuccessful in Literature Review and The Determination of Problem (Table 12a).

Table 12a. The mean ranks of the criteria included in the evaluation chart for science projects event for primary school students by school types

School Types

Criteria

The Mean Ranks

Private Schools

273.65

(LR)

262.04

(U)

254.91

(R)

253.30

(CC)

248.58

(SM)

244.97

(OC)

242.20

(DP)

234.24

(I)

Public Schools

340

226.64

(DP)

222.33

(SM)

222.10

(I)

221.22

(OC)

219.18

(LR)

218.36

(R)

217.95

(CC)

215.84

(U)

Science and Arts Centers

264.71

(I)

262.77

(U)

262.01

(CC)

254.40

(R)

249.10

(OC)

230.14

(SM)

204.20

(LR)

202.64

(DP)

It was tested whether there was any significant difference between the criteria included in the chart by Physics, Chemistry, and Biology subject areas. The related results are given in the Table 13. Accordingly, it was determined that there was a significant difference (p˂0.05) between The Determination of Problem (p=0.006), Originality and Creativity (p=0.008), Scientific Method (p=0.036), and Literature Review (p=0.001) in physics, chemistry, and biology projects.

Table 13. The results of the analysis of the criteria included in the evaluation chart for science projects event for primary school students by subject areas

Criteria	df	The Value of Kruskal-Wallis	p
a) The determination of problem	2	10.34	0.006*
b) Originality and creativity	2	9.74	0.008*
c) Scientific method	2	6.67	0.036*
d) Consistency and contribution	2	4.33	0.115
e) Usefulness	2	3.18	0.204
f) Implementability	2	1.91	0.386
g) Literature review	2	14.12	0.001*
h) Result	2	1.20	0.550
*p<0.05

Based on the mean orders, it is understood that a higher success was achieved in The Determination of Problem in physics projects, in Scientific Method and Literature Review in biology projects, and in Originality and Creativity in chemistry projects. On the other hand, there was a failure in Literature Review in physic projects, in Originality and Creativity in biology projects, and in The Determination of Problem in chemistry projects (Table 13a).

Table 13a. The mean ranks of the criteria included in the evaluation chart for science projects event for primary school students by subject areas

Subject Areas

Criteria

The Mean Ranks

Physic

241

245.8

(DP)

237.07

(OC)

231.08

(R)

230.53

(I)

228.24

(U)

225.4

(CC)

215.96

(SM)

207.8

(LR)

Biology

125

252.12

(SM)

241.6

(LR)

217.81

(I)

217.05

(R)

215.8

(CC)

214.99

(U)

209.51

(DP)

198.64

(OC)

Chemistry

261.41

(LR)

249.88

(CC)

243.24

(U)

242.27

(OC)

232.97

(I)

232.55

(R)

224.13

(SM)

202.93

(DP)

Based on the evaluation of the projects by status of being invited to exhibition, it is seen that there was a significant difference between those invited to the exhibition and those not invited to the exhibition in terms of all criteria (p˂0.05). In addition, it was determined that the projects invited to the exhibition were more successful in Originality and Creativity, Consistency and Contribution, Usefulness, and The Determination of Problem, but showed an intermediate success in other criteria. The projects not invited to exhibition were successful in Literature Review but were unsuccessful in other criteria.

Kruskal-Wallis test was carried out for determining whether there was any significant difference between the scores obtained through project evaluation chart by provinces. It was found that there was no significant difference between scores pertaining to the criteria apart from Scientific Method (p=0.165) by provinces (p˂0.05) (Table 14).

Table 14. The results of the analysis of the criteria included in the evaluation chart for science projects event for primary school students by provinces

Criteria	df	The Value of Kruskal-Wallis	p
a) The determination of problem	11	26.56	0.005*
b) Originality and creativity	11	38.93	0.000*
c) Scientific method	11	15.41	0.165
d) Consistency and contribution	11	40.87	0.000*
e) Usefulness	11	44.54	0.000*
f) Implementability	11	26.65	0.005*
g) Literature review	11	43.06	0.000*
h) Result	11	26.04	0.006*
*p˂0.05

Based on the data in the table, it can be said that the projects coming from 12 provinces showed success similar to one another in terms of The Determination of Problem, Originality and Creativity, Consistency and Contribution, Usefulness, Implementability, Literature Review, and Result.

In the table 14a, the average evaluations of expert researchers were calculated in regard to the projects of 12 provinces. It was understood that the projects from Bursa, Bilecik and Çanakkale were more successful in Literature Review the projects from Düzce, Sakarya, Kocaeli and Bolu were more successful in The Determination of Problem, the projects from Kütahya were more successful in Result, the projects from Eskişehir and Afyonkarahisar were more successful in Originality and Creativity, the projects from Yalova were more successful in Consistency and Contribution, and projects from Balıkesir were more successful in Usefulness. On the other hand, the projects from Bursa and Eskişehir were unsuccessful in The Determination of Problem, the projects from Düzce were unsuccessful in Consistency and Contribution, the projects from Bilecik and Çanakkale were unsuccessful in Result, the projects from Kütahya, Afyonkarahisar and Yalova were unsuccessful in Literature Review, and projects from Sakarya, Balıkesir, Kocaeli and Bolu were unsuccessful in Originality and Creativity.

Table 14a. The mean ranks of the criteria included in the evaluation chart for science projects event for primary school students by provinces

The Mean Ranks

Provinces

Criteria

Afyonkarahisar

256.66

(OC)

256.12

(R)

245.66

(CC)

244.54

(I)

240.7

(U)

195.47

(SM)

184.26

(DP)

164.88

(LR)

Balıkesir

283.49

(U)

278.19

(CC)

269.79

(R)

267.84

(LR)

258.38

(DP)

250.6

(SM)

250.21

(I)

247.88

(OC)

Bilecik

234.31

(LR)

217.09

(I)

212.53

(DP)

212.03

(OC)

207.75

(U)

204.88

(CC)

203.18

(SM)

184.89

(R)

Bolu

249.63

(DP)

210.5

(CC)

190.5

(LR)

179.5

(I)

161.75

(SM)

141

(U)

116.13

(R)

114

(OC)

Bursa

122

256.07

(LR)

236.81

(SM)

231.82

(U)

229.21

(R)

227.67

(CC)

223.22

(OC)

222.73

(I)

205.04

(DP)

Çanakkale

269.34

(LR)

227.03

(I)

226.95

(SM)

218.76

(DP)

212.16

(OC)

198.63

(CC)

196.63

(U)

167.82

(R)

Düzce

261.71

(DP)

210.50

(LR)

206.85

(R)

198.65

(SM)

179.50

(I)

156.71

(OC)

149.50

(U)

129.38

(CC)

Eskişehir

300.5

(OC)

271.12

(U)

267.21

(I)

262.5

(SM)

253.52

(LR)

249.38

(CC)

243.55

(R)

225.07

(DP)

Kocaeli

313.44

(DP)

253.16

(LR)

227.03

(SM)

198.63

(R)

179.5

(I)

179.25

(U)

166.25

(CC)

161.5

(OC)

Kütahya

239.51

(R)

238.13

(OC)

234.66

(I)

228.69

(CC)

225.87

(DP)

217.99

(U)

215.74

(SM)

163.28

(LR)

Sakarya

294.2

(DP)

279.1

(SM)

241.65

(CC)

230.7

(LR)

219.35

(R)

179.5

(I)

168

(U)

148

(OC)

Yalova

291.16

(CC)

287.55

(U)

282.75

(OC)

276.02

(DP)

267

(SM)

263.38

(R)

259.29

(I)

220.8

(LR)