Assessment instrument for practicum skills in Trimyristin separation for undergraduate students

Naseer Ahmed; Senam Senam; Antuni Wiyarsi

doi:10.21831/jipi.v5i1.24515

Assessment instrument for practicum skills in Trimyristin separation for undergraduate students

Naseer Ahmed, University of Haripur, Pakistan
Senam Senam, Universitas Negeri Yogyakarta, Indonesia
Antuni Wiyarsi, Universitas Negeri Yogyakarta, Indonesia

10.21831/jipi.v5i1.24515

Abstract

Assessment of practicum plays an essential role in gaining knowledge and skill. Because practical work is an essential component of science courses, there were need to develop new instruments to examine practicum skill. To gain the purpose, Research and Development method used, Borg and Gall's model was adopted in this research. Observation sheets were used to obtain data. The qualitative data analysis technique was used to make coding. The data were described using descriptive statistics. It was used to determine the ability of students to practice in general, purposive sampling technique used for data collection. Products of practical’s skills assessment contain four aspects, fifteen indicators, and four criteria. The product was validated by two expert judges, shortcomings and grammatical mistakes were revised. In the separation of trimyristin, mostly student practicum skill was "good" while few students’ skills were "very good" and few other students earned “sufficient” none of them got “poor” and “very poor”. In each aspect of practicum skills “very good” in drawing, experimental and observations skills were “good” while reporting and interpretive skills were “sufficient”. For further dissemination, the reliability test can be done by using inter-rater reliability test to make the product more efficient and applicable.

Keywords

assessment; practicum skill; organic chemistry; trimyristin

Full Text:

FULLTEXT PDF

References

Abrahams, I., & Reiss, M. J. (2012). Practical work: Its effectiveness in primary and secondary schools in England. Journal of Research in Science Teaching, 49(8), 1035–1055. https://doi.org/10.1002/tea.21036

Akçay, H., Feyzioğlu, B., & Tüysüz, C. (2003). The effects of computer simulations on students’ success and attitudes in teaching chemistry. Educational Sciences: Theory & Practice, 3(1), 20–26.

Azwar, S. (2010). Pengantar psikologi inteligensi (16th ed.). Yogyakarta: Pustaka Pelajar.

Baxter, S., & Gray, C. (2001). The Application of Student-Centred Learning Approaches to Clinical Education. International Journal of Language & Communication Disorders, 36(s1), 396–400. https://doi.org/10.3109/13682820109177918

Borg, W. R., & Gall, M. D. (1983). Educational research: An introduction. New York: Longman.

Cooper, H., Robinson, J. C., & Patall, E. A. (2006). Does homework improve academic achievement? A synthesis of research, 1987–2003. Review of Educational Research, 76(1), 1–62. https://doi.org/10.3102/00346543076001001

Debarnot, U., Creveaux, T., Collet, C., Gemignani, A., Massarelli, R., Doyon, J., & Guillot, A. (2009). Sleep-related improvements in motor learning following mental practice. Brain and Cognition, 69(2), 398–405. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.bandc.2008.08.029

Gottfried, H. (2009). Teaching and learning guide for: Gender and employment: A global lens on feminist analyses and theorizing of labor markets. Sociology Compass, 3(5), 853–860. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1751-9020.2009.00234.x

Harden, R. M., & Cairncross, R. G. (2006). Assessment of practical skills: The objective structured practical examination (OSPE). Studies in Higher Education, 5(2), 187–196. https://doi.org/10.1080/03075078012331377216

Hofstein, A., & Lunetta, V. N. (2004). The laboratory in science education: Foundations for the twenty‐first century. Sci Ed, 88(1), 28–54. https://doi.org/10.1002/sce.10106

Kendall, K. D., & Schussler, E. E. (2013). Evolving impressions: undergraduate perceptions of graduate teaching assistants and faculty members over a semester. CBE-Life Sciences Education, 12(1), 92–105. https://doi.org/10.1187/cbe.12-07-0110

King, S. O. (2016). Investigating the most neglected student learning domain in higher education: A case study on the impact of technology on student behaviour and emotions in university mathematics learning. Problems of Education in the 21st Century, 72, 31–52.

Kong, J.-M., Chia, L.-S., Goh, N.-K., Chia, T.-F., & Brouillard, R. (2003). Analysis and biological activities of anthocyanins. Phytochemistry, 64(5), 923–933. https://doi.org/10.1016/S0031-9422(03)00438-2

Koponen, I. T., & Huttunen, L. (2013). Concept development in learning physics: The case of electric current and voltage revisited. Science & Education, 22(9), 2227–2254. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11191-012-9508-y

Lasagabaster, D., & Sierra, J. M. (2011). Classroom observation: Desirable conditions established by teachers. European Journal of Teacher Education, 34(4), 449–463. https://doi.org/10.1080/02619768.2011.587113

Lock, R. (1989). Assessment of practical skills part 1. The relationships between component skills. Research in Science & Technological Education, 7(2), 221–233. https://doi.org/10.1080/0263514890070209

Materu, P. (2007). Higher education quality assurance in Sub-Saharan Africa. Washington D.C. https://doi.org/10.1596/978-0-8213-7272-2

McComas, W. F. (2008). Seeking historical examples to illustrate key aspects of the nature of science. Science & Education, 17(2-3), 249–263. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11191-007-9081-y

Nedungadi, P., & Raman, R. (2011). Computer Assessment of Practical Skills (CAPS) using Scaffolding Methodology as Enabler of Learning. In IAJC-ASEE International Conference (Vol. 277, pp. 978–979).

Nivalainen, V., Asikainen, M. A., Sormunen, K., & Hirvonen, P. E. (2010). Preservice and inservice teachers’ challenges in the planning of practical work in physics. Journal of Science Teacher Education, 21(4), 393–409. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10972-010-9186-z

Okebukola, P. A., Owolabi, O., & Okebukola, F. O. (2013). Mother tongue as default language of instruction in lower primary science classes: Tension between policy prescription and practice in Nigeria. Journal of Research in Science Teaching, 50(1), 62–81. https://doi.org/10.1002/tea.21070

Pain, D. J., Carter, I., Sainsbury, A. W., Shore, R. F., Eden, P., Taggart, M. A., … Raab, A. (2007). Lead contamination and associated disease in captive and reintroduced red kites Milvus milvus in England. Science of The Total Environment, 376(1-3), 116–127. https://doi.org/10.1016/J.SCITOTENV.2007.01.062

Ryan, W. J. (2001). Comparison of student performance and attitude in a lecture class to student performance and attitude in a telecourse and a web-based class. Nova Southeastern University.

Shlonsky, A., & Gibbs, L. (2004). Will the real evidence-based practice please stand up? Teaching the process of evidence-based practice to the helping professions. Brief Treatment and Crisis Intervention, 4(2), 137–153. https://doi.org/10.1093/brief-treatment/mhh011

Silagy, C., & Haines, A. (2001). Evidence-based practice in primary care. (Chris Silagy, Ed.) (2nd ed.). London: BMJ Books.

Sloop, J., Pennington, R., Tsoi, M. Y., Paredes, J., Pursell, D., Coppock, P., & Giles, G. (2012). Undergraduate organic chemistry I & II laboratory manual. Georgia Gwinnett College.

Tatli, Z., & Ayas, A. (2012). Virtual chemistry laboratory: Effect of constructivist learning environment. Turkish Online Journal of Distance Education, 13(1), 183–199. Retrieved from http://tojde.anadolu.edu.tr/makale_goster.php?id=740

Wilke, R. R. (2003). The effect of active learning on student characteristics in a human physiology course for nonmajors. Advances in Physiology Education, 27(4), 207–223. https://doi.org/10.1152/advan.00003.2002

Windeatt, S., Hardisty, D., & Eastment, D. (2000). The internet. London: Oxford University Press.

Wright, G. B. (2011). Student-centered learning in higher education. International Journal of Teaching and Learning in Higher Education, 23(3), 92–97. Retrieved from http://www.isetl.org/ijtlhe/abstract.cfm?mid=834

Zakaria, Z., Latip, J., & Tantayanon, S. (2012). Organic chemistry practices for undergraduates using a small lab kit. Procedia - Social and Behavioral Sciences, 59, 508–514. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.sbspro.2012.09.307

DOI: https://doi.org/10.21831/jipi.v5i1.24515