ANALYSIS OF KNOWLEDGE AND ATTITUDES TOWARD BIOTECHNOLOGY MODERN AND BIOTECHNOLOGY CONVENTIONAL IN BIOLOGY DEPARMENTS’ STUDENT STATE UNIVERSITY OF MEDAN.
ANALYSIS OF KNOWLEDGE AND ATTITUDES TOWARD
MODERN BIOTECHNOLOGY AND CONVENTIONAL
BIOTECHNOLOGYIN BIOLOGY DEPARTMENTS
STUDENT STATEUNIVERSITY OF MEDAN
By :
Nikita Sistalia Ginting
4123342013
Bilingual Biology Education Study Program
A THESIS
Submitted to Fulfill the Requirement for Degree of
Sarjana Pendidikan
FACULTY OF MATHEMATIC AND NATURAL SCIENCES
STATE UNIVERSITY OF MEDAN
MEDAN
2016
i
ii
BIOGRAPHY
Nikita Sistalia Ginting was born in Berastagi on 17th January, 1994, the
first daughter of H. Ezekiel Ginting and P.Krispina Br Surbakti. In 1999 the writer
started her first educational experience in TK Ave Maria Berastagi and graduated
in 2000. In 2000, the writer entered to SDN 1 040455 Berastagi and finished in
2006. In 2006, the writer continued her study in SMPN 1 Berastagi and finished in
2009. In 2009, the writer continued her study in SMAS Cahaya Medan and
graduated in 2012. In 2012 writer was registered in Biology Bilingual Education
Program, Biology Department, Faculty of Mathematics and Natural Science, State
University of Medan. During following study in the university, writer was become
laboratory assistant in General Biology 1. Now, the writer prepares to graduate in
her first degree.
iii
ANALYSIS OF KNOWLEDGE AND ATTITUDES
TOWARD BIOTECHNOLOGY MODERN AND BIOTECHNOLOGY
CONVENTIONAL IN BIOLOGY DEPARMENTS’
STUDENT STATE UNIVERSITY OF MEDAN
Nikita Sistalia Ginting (NIM 413342013)
ABSTRACT
This research aims to detect the knowledge and attitudes toward biotechnology
modern and biotechnology conventional. This research belongs to descriptivequantitative method. The number of population in this research is 275 students
who are in 6th semester of biology departments State University of Medan. These
samples are taken by random sampling technique. Data collection techniques used
multiple choice and questionnaire. The result of this research after data analyzed
showed: (1) the percentage of students knowledge is 1,23% excellent, 6,13% very
good, 17,18% good and 75,46% less. (2) the result of attitudes toward
biotechnology modern and biotechnology conventional are quietly same, they
more agree in biotechnology just use in plant and microorganism; (3) the
curriculum of biotechnology education is the most thing that must be fixed to
increase the students knowledge, (4) students must be aware to the biotechnology
modern and biotechnology conventional risk before chose the suitable attitudes.
Keyword; Students’ Knowledge, Students’ Attitudes, Biotechnology Modern,
Biotechnology Conventional
iv
ACKNOWLEDGEMENT
The deepest thank and praise the writer prayed to Jesus Christ for blessing
hence writer is able to finish this thesis with title “Analysis Of Knowledge and
Attitudes Toward Conventional Biotechnology and Modern Biotechnology from
Biology Department’ Students in State University of Medan” to fulfill one of the
requirement for the first degree in Biology Department, Faculty of Mathematics
and Natural Sciences, State University of Medan.
The writer gratefully acknowledges the deepest gratitude to Dr. Hasruddin,
M.Pd as the writer thesis supervisor and also as chairman of Biology Departments
who has generously spent precious time in giving the guidance, encouragement,
comments and suggestions until this thesis comes to its present form. The
enormous appreciation is addressed to Prof. Dr. rer. nat. Binari Manurung, M.Si,
Drs. Mhd. Yusuf Nst, M.Si, Dra. Meida Nugrahalia, M.Sc as the examiners for
their criticisms and valuable advices. The writer would also thanks to Dr. Melva
Silitonga, MS as writer academic supervisor. The writer would also thanks to Mrs.
Dr. Iis Siti Jahro, M.Si as the coordinator of Bilingual Program and all lecturers of
Biology Department who helping the writer during the research.
Special thanks and big appreciations are delightfully addressed to beloved
parents, Mr. H. Ezekiel Ginting and Mrs. P. Krispina br Surbakti, for the genes,
loves, caring, advices, funding, and the prays in all over the time, and also for my
siblings Farma Yona Valentinus Ginting and Brema Adinata Albinus Ginting for
the support and kindness and also for brother ketemu gede Alws for the support all
the time. Special appreciation addressed to writer teacher Drs. K Sinaga for the
guidance, support, critical and suggestion. Lucky to have amazing friendship and
family in Bilingual Biology 012 for togetherness during the study, and especially
for: Wita, Mian, Syifa, Jeje, Murni, Ruben, Saadah, Seruni, Rini, Friska Elvita,
Hanis, Ike, Vero, Septika, Santa, Kak Maya, Mery, Marta, Mei that made my day
full of laugh and happiness. Thanks to families in biology departments students
and special thanks for students in 6th semester that spent the time for doing the test
during research.
iv
May God reward all those who have contributed in the completion of this
thesis. Hopefully, this thesis will be beneficial to contribute ideas in education.
Medan,
June 2016
Writer,
Nikita Sistalia Ginting
4123342013
v
Table of List
Approval sheet
Biography
Abstract
Preface
Content List
Table List
Figure List
Appendix List
Page
i
ii
iii
iv
v
vii
viii
ix
CHAPTER I: INTRODUCTION
1.1 Problem Background
1.2 Problem Identification
1.3 Problem Scooping
1.4 Research Question
1.5 Research Objectives
1.6 Research Significant
1
1
3
3
4
4
4
CHAPTER II: LITERATURE REVIEW
2.1 Concept of Knowledge
2.2 Knowledge Measurement
2.2.1 Cognitive Aspect Measurement
2.2.2 Affective Aspect Measurement
2.2.3 Psychomotoric Aspect Measurement
2.3 Concept of Attitudes
2.3.1 Attitudes Measuring
2.4 Concept of Biotechnology
2.4.1 Definition of Biotechnology
2.5 Biotechnology Conventional
2.5.1 Biotechnology Conventional Products
2.6 Biotechnology Modern
2.6.1 Mutation Breeding
2.6.2 Tissue Culture
2.6.3 Genetic Engineering
2.7 The Issues of Biotechnology
2.8 Ethical of Biotechnology
5
5
5
6
6
7
7
8
9
9
10
11
13
13
14
15
16
17
CHAPTER III: RESEARCH METHOD
3.1 Locations and Times
3.2 Population and Sampling
3.2.1 Population
3.2.1 Sample
3.3 Research Design
3.4 Research Procedure
3.5 Research Instrument
18
18
18
18
18
18
19
19
vi
3.5.1 Multiple Choice Diagnostic Test
3.5.2 Validity Test
3.5.3 Reliability Test
3.5.4 Difficulty Level Test
3.5.5 Different Power Test (Discrimination Index)
3.6 Data Analysis Technique
3.6.1 Knowledge Test Analysis Technique
3.6.2 Questionnaire Analysis Technique
19
20
21
22
23
34
34
25
CHAPTER IV: RESULT OF RESEARCH AND DISCUSSION
4.1 Description of Research Data
4.2 Description of Result
4.2.1 Result of Analysis Student Knowledge
4.2.2 Result of Analysis Students Attitudes
4.3 Discussion of Research Result
4.3.1 Students Knowledge toward Biotechnology
4.3.2 Students Attitudes toward Biotechnology
28
28
28
28
29
33
32
33
CHAPTER V: CONCLUSION AND SUGGESTION
5.1
Conclusion
5.2
Suggestion
35
35
REFERENCES
36
vii
Table List
Table 3.1 The Lattice of Multiple Choice
Table 3.2 Index Classification of Validity Test
Table 3.3 Index Classification of Reliability Test
Table 3.4 Index Classification of Difficulty Level Test
Table 3.5 Index Classification of Different Power Test
Table 3.6 Sum of Correct and Incorrect Students Answer
Table 3.7 Score Classification
Table 3.8 Score Questionnaire Classification
Page
20
21
22
23
23
24
25
26
viii
Figure List
Figure 2.1 Anther Culture of Rice
Figure 2.2 Plant Transformation
Figure 4.1 Result of Student Knowledge toward Biotechnology
Figure 4.2 Result of Students’ Attitudes toward Biotechnology
Page
14
16
29
31
ix
Appendix List
Appendix 1 Biotechnology Multiple Choice Test
Appendix 2 Key Answer of Biotechnology Test
Appendix 3 Questionnaire
Appendix 4 Pre-observation question
Appendix 6 Validity Calculation
Appendix 7 Reliability Calculation
Appendix 8 Difficulty Level Test
Appendix 9 Discriminant Power Calculation
Appendix 10 Data of Multiple Choice Test
Page
39
46
47
49
50
52
53
54
56
1
CHAPTER I
INTRODUCTION
1.1 Problem Background
People agree that learning is important, but they hold different views on
the causes, processes, and consequences of learning. Learning is an enduring
change in behaviour, or in the capacity to behave in a given fashion, which results
from practice or other forms of experience (Schunk, 2012). Actually there is no
one defenition of learning that is universally accepted by theorists, researchers,
and practitioners (Shuell, 1986). Best point of learning is changing from do not
know become know about some materials.
Biotechnology is an important topic in a modern science curriculum in that
it increasingly plays a role in the daily life. The teaching of biotechnology within
a science education presents teacher with many challenges. From the explanation
above, biotechnology plays important role lately in the science not only education
side but also ethical side. Biotechnology is regarded as a very important
development for both scientific and economic progress. Many pieces of
information concerning concepts in Biotechnology are present in the daily news as
well as in TV shows and movies, such as the use of DNA in criminal justice cases
or paternity identification; and human cloning in films and in the press (Jensen,
2008).
Students of today need to be aware of the risks and benefits of
biotechnology to make intelligent decisions regarding this science for themselves
and future generations. Dawson and Schibeci (2003) have thrown light on the
need of teaching students about the recent technological discoveries. They explain
further that students should be able to make personal and social choiches about
issues related to science and technology. The tools of biotechnology are
responsible for many of today’s rapid advancements in areas such as agriculture
and medicine.
Many studies stated that many students were unable to distinguish between
current and potential uses of biotechnology. Lock and Miles (1993) reported that
one third of the sample claimed that they did not know what genetic engineering
and biotechnology meant. About 47% of the students could not exemplify
2
biotechnology, nor could 52% of them exemplify genetic engineering. When their
attitudes were analyzed, it was found that there was a broad approval of
biotechnology and genetic engineering applied to plants and microbes but not to
animals. In another study, Chen and Raffan (1999) found that 31% could not
define genetic engineering and 33% were unable to give an example of genetic
engineering.
The national science framework also recognizes the need for science
students to be made aware of biotechnology as an important topic for the Science
Curriculum. Also, Dawson (2007) reported that students’ ability to provide a
generally accepted definition and examples of biotechnology, cloning, and
genetically modified foods was relatively poor amongst 12- to 13-year-old
students. Similarly, Cavanagh et al. (2005) reported that at least two-thirds of
students (from Riverina high school in the rural Australia) had a good knowledge
of medical biotechnology issues; however, a significant proportion of the students
did have concerns about the use and/or safety of biotechnology.
In general, students in the UK studies are more accepting of the genetic
modification of microorganisms and plants than genetic modification of food,
animals and humans. For example, Gunter et al. (1998) examined the attitudes
about biotechnology of 48 teenagers. Overall, they considered genetic engineering
of plants to be more acceptable than genetic engineering of food crops and
animals. Less support was found for the genetic modification of plants for food
and even less for the genetic modification of animals and humans. Their reasons
for opposing genetic engineering of animals was that it is 'unnatural', 'dangerous',
'shouldn't be done' and 'unethical'. Reasons to support genetic engineering were
related to progress and humanity.
Similar reasons were reported by Hill et al. (1999) who examined the
attitudes of 778 students aged 11 - 18 years about using genetically engineered
animals in medical research. Of the sample, 42% felt it should not be allowed
because it was cruel (47%) or unnatural (53%). The result of Dawson and
Schibeci (2003) show that the students' attitudes ranged from those of the 55
(6.0%) students who do not agree with the use of any living organisms in
3
biotechnology to the 125 (14%) students who approve of all the stated uses of
biotechnology, with a wide spread in between.
Based on observation in State University of Medan, after interviewed 30
students still 7 persons can describe what biotechnology meant and they are still
said just 75% of the biotechnology material can be mastered. However, 20
students agreed that biotechnology is good for human life.
Dawson and Taylor (2000) support biotechnology education which stated
that the students are to become well-informed decision makers then they need to
be aware of the practical applications of current developments in biotechnology,
and appreciate the social and bioethical implications of this relatively new and
controversial science. Schibeci (2000) recognizes that the teaching of
biotechnology is important both in terms of its science as well as providing a
vehicle to examine ethical issues associated with its use. Steele and Aubusson
(2004) interview a number of teachers to determine why they were not presenting
biotechnology classrooms. They felt biotechnology was too difficult for the
students, and this would disadvantage the students in the university entrance
examinations. Another problem according to the teachers is the lack of
opportunity for practical work in the classroom. By looking some explanation
above, that it is necessary to conduct the research about “Analysis Of Knowledge
And Attitudes towards Biotechnology Biology Department Students In State
University Of Medan”.
1.2 Problem Identification
Based on the description of background above, researcher identified the
research problem as follows:
1. The knowledge of biology students still low based on observation..
2. Many studies stated that many students in a broad unable to explain what
biotechnology meant.
4
1.3 Research Scope
In order to obtain an appropriate discussion, the limitations for this
research are just focuses on 6th semester about biotechnology conventional and
biotechnology modern.
1.4. Research Question
There are some questions of this research as follows:
1.
How is the 6th semester students’ knowledge about biotechnology in Biology
Department State University of Medan?
2.
How is the 6th semester students’ attitude about biotechnology in Biology
Department State University of Medan?
1.5 Research Objective
This research is conducted to achieve some objectives as follows:
1.
To get the data of students knowledge about biotechnology in the 6th semester
of biology department students State University of Medan.
2.
To get the attitudes data of biology departments in the 6th students semester in
State University of Medan.
1.6 Research Significance
Considering about the research result and discussion, this research
expected has significant beneficial both theoretical and practical.
In theoritical, this research hopely has some significant benefit, as follows;
additional reference for lecture about students’ understanding and attitudes toward
biotechnology, as motivation to the lecture to improve the way to teach
biotechnology and being reference to conduct further research. Meanwhile,
practically as references for develop meaningful learning process focused on
biotechnology.
34
CHAPTER V
CONCLUSION AND SUGGESTION
5.1 Conclusion
These are some conclusion from this research; it can be seen as follow:
1. Based on the result, student sample in grade 6th semester half of them still
get
poor
knowledge
regarding
biotechnology
conventional
and
biotechnology modern, while from 163 respondent as the sample just 2
student get excellent score, 10 students get very good score, 28 students
get god score and more than half 123 students get less score
2. Based on the result, genetically modified in plants and microorganism is
more acceptable than genetically modified in human.
5.2 Suggestion
There are some suggestions from this research it can be seen as follows;
1. Better understanding of what biotechnology really means can be improved
by reevaluation of science curriculum and public discussion with scientist
perhaps through television, journals or magazine.
2. Science and biology lectures preparedness for teaching biotechnology
should not be neglected, but further investigation in this topic is needed.
3. The public needs to be aware of genetics modified food and other, further
information about attitudes toward biotechnology is needed.
4. For lecture, better if give the learning about the history of biotechnology
until biotechnology conventional is known by people then teach about
biotechnology conventional modern.
5. For student, in order more active and motivated to get the information
about biotechnology in out of the university or school.
6. For university/school, in order to provide and appropriate facilities for
supporting the learning process especially biotechnology.
35
REFERENCES
Ajzen, I. (2001). Nature and operation of attitudes, in: Annual Review of
Psychology, 2001, 52(1):27-58.
Albarracin, D., Johnson, B., and Zanna, M. (2005). Attitudes: Introduction and
Scope, The Handbook of Attitudes. Routledge: New York.
Alfonso, A. 2007. Rice Biotechnology. Presentation during PhilRice R&D. March
13-15, 2007.
Applehans, W, A Globe and G Laugero. (1999). Managing Knowledge: A
Practical Web-Based Approach. Reading, MA: Addison-Wesley.
Arikunto, S. (2011). Dasar-Dasar Evaluasi Pendidikan. Jakarta: Bumi Aksara.
Bassili, J. N., and J. P. Roy. (1998). On the Representation of Strong and Weak
Attitudes about Policy in Memory. Political Psychology. 21(4): 107-132.
Churchman, CW. (1971). Inquiring Systems: Basic Concepts of Systems and
Organisation. New York: Basic Books.
Cavanagh, H., Hood, J., & Wilkinson, J. (2005). Riverina high school students’
views of biotechnology. Electronic Journal of Biotechnology, 8 (2), 121127.
Chen, S. Y., & Raffan, J. (1999). Biotechnology student’s knowledge and
attitudes in the UK and Taiwan. Journal of Biological Education, 34 (1),
17-23.
Dawson, V. (2007). An exploration of high school (12-17 year old) students’
understandings and attitudes towards biotechnology processes. Research
in Science Education, 37, 59-73.
Dawson, V., & Schibeci, R. (2003). Western Australian school students’
understanding of biotechnology. International Journal of Science
Education, 25 (1), 57-69.
Dawson, V., & Schibeci, R. (2003). Western Australian high school students’
attitudes towards biotechnology processes. Journal of Biological
Education, 38 (1), 1-6.
Dawson, V. & Soames, C. (2006). The effect of biotechnology education on
Australian high school students’ understandings and attitudes about
biotechnology processes. Research in Science & Technological Education,
24 (2), 183-198.
36
Desamero, NV. 2007. Genetic enhancement of in vitro culture-derived tungro
resistant rice breeding lines. Paper presented during the 19th Federation of
Crop Science Societies of the Philippines, Development Academy of the
Philippines, Tagaytay City. June 13-15, 2007.
Gunter, B., Kinderlerer, J., and Beyleveld D. (1998). Teenagers and
biotechnology: A survey of understanding and opinion in Britain. Studies
in Science Education, 32(1):81 - 112.
Hill, R., Stannistreet, M., O’sullivan, H., and Boyes, E. (1999). Genetic
engineering of animals for medical research: Students’ views, School Sci.
Rev. 80(2):23–30.
Hunt, D.P. and Sams, M. (1989), ªHuman self assessment process theory: an
eight-factor model of human performance and learning; and everyman’s
causationº, in Ljunggren, G. and Dornic, D. (Eds), Psychophysics in
Action, Springer-Verlag, Heidelberg.
Jensen, E. (2008). The Dao of human cloning: Utopian/dystopian hype in the
British press and popular films. Public Understanding of Science,
17(2):123-143. doi:10.1177/0963662506065874.
Keuzenkamp, S. and Oudhof K. (2000). Emancipatiemonitor 2000, Sociaal en
Cultureel: lanbureau en Centraal Bureau voor de Statistiek, Den Haag
(only in Dutch).
Lee, C. K., Schubert, F., and Dion, G. (2006). On the Concept and Types of
Knowledge. Journal of Information and Knowledge Management,
5(2):151-163.
Lock, R., and Miles, C. (1993). Biotechnology and genetic engineering: Students’
knowledge and attitudes, J. Biol. Educ. 27(4):267–272.
Newell, C.A. 2000. Plant transformation techniques: Development and
Application. Mol.Biotechnol. 16(1): 53-65.
Olson, J.M., and M.P. Zanna (1993). Attitudes and Attitude Change. Annual
Review of Psychology, 44(2):117-154.
Peacock, Kathy Wilson. (2010). Biotechnology and Genetic Engineering. An
imprint of Infobase Publishing: New York.
Plotkin, H. (1994), Darwin Machines and the Nature of Knowledge, Harvard
University Press, Cambridge, MA.
Schibeci, R. A. (2000). Students, teacher and the impact of biotechnology in the
community. Australian Science Teacher’s Journal, 46(4):27-33.
37
Schunk, D. H. (2012). Learning Theories: an Educational Perspective 6th
Edition. Boston: Pearson Education, Inc.
Shuell, T. J. (1986). Cognitive Conceptions of Learning. Review of Educational
Research, 56(4):411-436.
Sonnino, A., Brandenberg, O., Dhlamini, Z., Sensi, A., and Ghosh, K., (2011).
Introduction to Molecular Biology and Genetic Engineering. Rome: Food
and Agricultural Organization of the United Nations.
Steele, F., and Aubusson, P. (2004). The challenge in teaching biotechnology.
Research in Science Education. 34(4):365-387.
Sudjana, N. (2005). Metode Statistik Edisi Keenam. Tarsito: Bandung.
MODERN BIOTECHNOLOGY AND CONVENTIONAL
BIOTECHNOLOGYIN BIOLOGY DEPARTMENTS
STUDENT STATEUNIVERSITY OF MEDAN
By :
Nikita Sistalia Ginting
4123342013
Bilingual Biology Education Study Program
A THESIS
Submitted to Fulfill the Requirement for Degree of
Sarjana Pendidikan
FACULTY OF MATHEMATIC AND NATURAL SCIENCES
STATE UNIVERSITY OF MEDAN
MEDAN
2016
i
ii
BIOGRAPHY
Nikita Sistalia Ginting was born in Berastagi on 17th January, 1994, the
first daughter of H. Ezekiel Ginting and P.Krispina Br Surbakti. In 1999 the writer
started her first educational experience in TK Ave Maria Berastagi and graduated
in 2000. In 2000, the writer entered to SDN 1 040455 Berastagi and finished in
2006. In 2006, the writer continued her study in SMPN 1 Berastagi and finished in
2009. In 2009, the writer continued her study in SMAS Cahaya Medan and
graduated in 2012. In 2012 writer was registered in Biology Bilingual Education
Program, Biology Department, Faculty of Mathematics and Natural Science, State
University of Medan. During following study in the university, writer was become
laboratory assistant in General Biology 1. Now, the writer prepares to graduate in
her first degree.
iii
ANALYSIS OF KNOWLEDGE AND ATTITUDES
TOWARD BIOTECHNOLOGY MODERN AND BIOTECHNOLOGY
CONVENTIONAL IN BIOLOGY DEPARMENTS’
STUDENT STATE UNIVERSITY OF MEDAN
Nikita Sistalia Ginting (NIM 413342013)
ABSTRACT
This research aims to detect the knowledge and attitudes toward biotechnology
modern and biotechnology conventional. This research belongs to descriptivequantitative method. The number of population in this research is 275 students
who are in 6th semester of biology departments State University of Medan. These
samples are taken by random sampling technique. Data collection techniques used
multiple choice and questionnaire. The result of this research after data analyzed
showed: (1) the percentage of students knowledge is 1,23% excellent, 6,13% very
good, 17,18% good and 75,46% less. (2) the result of attitudes toward
biotechnology modern and biotechnology conventional are quietly same, they
more agree in biotechnology just use in plant and microorganism; (3) the
curriculum of biotechnology education is the most thing that must be fixed to
increase the students knowledge, (4) students must be aware to the biotechnology
modern and biotechnology conventional risk before chose the suitable attitudes.
Keyword; Students’ Knowledge, Students’ Attitudes, Biotechnology Modern,
Biotechnology Conventional
iv
ACKNOWLEDGEMENT
The deepest thank and praise the writer prayed to Jesus Christ for blessing
hence writer is able to finish this thesis with title “Analysis Of Knowledge and
Attitudes Toward Conventional Biotechnology and Modern Biotechnology from
Biology Department’ Students in State University of Medan” to fulfill one of the
requirement for the first degree in Biology Department, Faculty of Mathematics
and Natural Sciences, State University of Medan.
The writer gratefully acknowledges the deepest gratitude to Dr. Hasruddin,
M.Pd as the writer thesis supervisor and also as chairman of Biology Departments
who has generously spent precious time in giving the guidance, encouragement,
comments and suggestions until this thesis comes to its present form. The
enormous appreciation is addressed to Prof. Dr. rer. nat. Binari Manurung, M.Si,
Drs. Mhd. Yusuf Nst, M.Si, Dra. Meida Nugrahalia, M.Sc as the examiners for
their criticisms and valuable advices. The writer would also thanks to Dr. Melva
Silitonga, MS as writer academic supervisor. The writer would also thanks to Mrs.
Dr. Iis Siti Jahro, M.Si as the coordinator of Bilingual Program and all lecturers of
Biology Department who helping the writer during the research.
Special thanks and big appreciations are delightfully addressed to beloved
parents, Mr. H. Ezekiel Ginting and Mrs. P. Krispina br Surbakti, for the genes,
loves, caring, advices, funding, and the prays in all over the time, and also for my
siblings Farma Yona Valentinus Ginting and Brema Adinata Albinus Ginting for
the support and kindness and also for brother ketemu gede Alws for the support all
the time. Special appreciation addressed to writer teacher Drs. K Sinaga for the
guidance, support, critical and suggestion. Lucky to have amazing friendship and
family in Bilingual Biology 012 for togetherness during the study, and especially
for: Wita, Mian, Syifa, Jeje, Murni, Ruben, Saadah, Seruni, Rini, Friska Elvita,
Hanis, Ike, Vero, Septika, Santa, Kak Maya, Mery, Marta, Mei that made my day
full of laugh and happiness. Thanks to families in biology departments students
and special thanks for students in 6th semester that spent the time for doing the test
during research.
iv
May God reward all those who have contributed in the completion of this
thesis. Hopefully, this thesis will be beneficial to contribute ideas in education.
Medan,
June 2016
Writer,
Nikita Sistalia Ginting
4123342013
v
Table of List
Approval sheet
Biography
Abstract
Preface
Content List
Table List
Figure List
Appendix List
Page
i
ii
iii
iv
v
vii
viii
ix
CHAPTER I: INTRODUCTION
1.1 Problem Background
1.2 Problem Identification
1.3 Problem Scooping
1.4 Research Question
1.5 Research Objectives
1.6 Research Significant
1
1
3
3
4
4
4
CHAPTER II: LITERATURE REVIEW
2.1 Concept of Knowledge
2.2 Knowledge Measurement
2.2.1 Cognitive Aspect Measurement
2.2.2 Affective Aspect Measurement
2.2.3 Psychomotoric Aspect Measurement
2.3 Concept of Attitudes
2.3.1 Attitudes Measuring
2.4 Concept of Biotechnology
2.4.1 Definition of Biotechnology
2.5 Biotechnology Conventional
2.5.1 Biotechnology Conventional Products
2.6 Biotechnology Modern
2.6.1 Mutation Breeding
2.6.2 Tissue Culture
2.6.3 Genetic Engineering
2.7 The Issues of Biotechnology
2.8 Ethical of Biotechnology
5
5
5
6
6
7
7
8
9
9
10
11
13
13
14
15
16
17
CHAPTER III: RESEARCH METHOD
3.1 Locations and Times
3.2 Population and Sampling
3.2.1 Population
3.2.1 Sample
3.3 Research Design
3.4 Research Procedure
3.5 Research Instrument
18
18
18
18
18
18
19
19
vi
3.5.1 Multiple Choice Diagnostic Test
3.5.2 Validity Test
3.5.3 Reliability Test
3.5.4 Difficulty Level Test
3.5.5 Different Power Test (Discrimination Index)
3.6 Data Analysis Technique
3.6.1 Knowledge Test Analysis Technique
3.6.2 Questionnaire Analysis Technique
19
20
21
22
23
34
34
25
CHAPTER IV: RESULT OF RESEARCH AND DISCUSSION
4.1 Description of Research Data
4.2 Description of Result
4.2.1 Result of Analysis Student Knowledge
4.2.2 Result of Analysis Students Attitudes
4.3 Discussion of Research Result
4.3.1 Students Knowledge toward Biotechnology
4.3.2 Students Attitudes toward Biotechnology
28
28
28
28
29
33
32
33
CHAPTER V: CONCLUSION AND SUGGESTION
5.1
Conclusion
5.2
Suggestion
35
35
REFERENCES
36
vii
Table List
Table 3.1 The Lattice of Multiple Choice
Table 3.2 Index Classification of Validity Test
Table 3.3 Index Classification of Reliability Test
Table 3.4 Index Classification of Difficulty Level Test
Table 3.5 Index Classification of Different Power Test
Table 3.6 Sum of Correct and Incorrect Students Answer
Table 3.7 Score Classification
Table 3.8 Score Questionnaire Classification
Page
20
21
22
23
23
24
25
26
viii
Figure List
Figure 2.1 Anther Culture of Rice
Figure 2.2 Plant Transformation
Figure 4.1 Result of Student Knowledge toward Biotechnology
Figure 4.2 Result of Students’ Attitudes toward Biotechnology
Page
14
16
29
31
ix
Appendix List
Appendix 1 Biotechnology Multiple Choice Test
Appendix 2 Key Answer of Biotechnology Test
Appendix 3 Questionnaire
Appendix 4 Pre-observation question
Appendix 6 Validity Calculation
Appendix 7 Reliability Calculation
Appendix 8 Difficulty Level Test
Appendix 9 Discriminant Power Calculation
Appendix 10 Data of Multiple Choice Test
Page
39
46
47
49
50
52
53
54
56
1
CHAPTER I
INTRODUCTION
1.1 Problem Background
People agree that learning is important, but they hold different views on
the causes, processes, and consequences of learning. Learning is an enduring
change in behaviour, or in the capacity to behave in a given fashion, which results
from practice or other forms of experience (Schunk, 2012). Actually there is no
one defenition of learning that is universally accepted by theorists, researchers,
and practitioners (Shuell, 1986). Best point of learning is changing from do not
know become know about some materials.
Biotechnology is an important topic in a modern science curriculum in that
it increasingly plays a role in the daily life. The teaching of biotechnology within
a science education presents teacher with many challenges. From the explanation
above, biotechnology plays important role lately in the science not only education
side but also ethical side. Biotechnology is regarded as a very important
development for both scientific and economic progress. Many pieces of
information concerning concepts in Biotechnology are present in the daily news as
well as in TV shows and movies, such as the use of DNA in criminal justice cases
or paternity identification; and human cloning in films and in the press (Jensen,
2008).
Students of today need to be aware of the risks and benefits of
biotechnology to make intelligent decisions regarding this science for themselves
and future generations. Dawson and Schibeci (2003) have thrown light on the
need of teaching students about the recent technological discoveries. They explain
further that students should be able to make personal and social choiches about
issues related to science and technology. The tools of biotechnology are
responsible for many of today’s rapid advancements in areas such as agriculture
and medicine.
Many studies stated that many students were unable to distinguish between
current and potential uses of biotechnology. Lock and Miles (1993) reported that
one third of the sample claimed that they did not know what genetic engineering
and biotechnology meant. About 47% of the students could not exemplify
2
biotechnology, nor could 52% of them exemplify genetic engineering. When their
attitudes were analyzed, it was found that there was a broad approval of
biotechnology and genetic engineering applied to plants and microbes but not to
animals. In another study, Chen and Raffan (1999) found that 31% could not
define genetic engineering and 33% were unable to give an example of genetic
engineering.
The national science framework also recognizes the need for science
students to be made aware of biotechnology as an important topic for the Science
Curriculum. Also, Dawson (2007) reported that students’ ability to provide a
generally accepted definition and examples of biotechnology, cloning, and
genetically modified foods was relatively poor amongst 12- to 13-year-old
students. Similarly, Cavanagh et al. (2005) reported that at least two-thirds of
students (from Riverina high school in the rural Australia) had a good knowledge
of medical biotechnology issues; however, a significant proportion of the students
did have concerns about the use and/or safety of biotechnology.
In general, students in the UK studies are more accepting of the genetic
modification of microorganisms and plants than genetic modification of food,
animals and humans. For example, Gunter et al. (1998) examined the attitudes
about biotechnology of 48 teenagers. Overall, they considered genetic engineering
of plants to be more acceptable than genetic engineering of food crops and
animals. Less support was found for the genetic modification of plants for food
and even less for the genetic modification of animals and humans. Their reasons
for opposing genetic engineering of animals was that it is 'unnatural', 'dangerous',
'shouldn't be done' and 'unethical'. Reasons to support genetic engineering were
related to progress and humanity.
Similar reasons were reported by Hill et al. (1999) who examined the
attitudes of 778 students aged 11 - 18 years about using genetically engineered
animals in medical research. Of the sample, 42% felt it should not be allowed
because it was cruel (47%) or unnatural (53%). The result of Dawson and
Schibeci (2003) show that the students' attitudes ranged from those of the 55
(6.0%) students who do not agree with the use of any living organisms in
3
biotechnology to the 125 (14%) students who approve of all the stated uses of
biotechnology, with a wide spread in between.
Based on observation in State University of Medan, after interviewed 30
students still 7 persons can describe what biotechnology meant and they are still
said just 75% of the biotechnology material can be mastered. However, 20
students agreed that biotechnology is good for human life.
Dawson and Taylor (2000) support biotechnology education which stated
that the students are to become well-informed decision makers then they need to
be aware of the practical applications of current developments in biotechnology,
and appreciate the social and bioethical implications of this relatively new and
controversial science. Schibeci (2000) recognizes that the teaching of
biotechnology is important both in terms of its science as well as providing a
vehicle to examine ethical issues associated with its use. Steele and Aubusson
(2004) interview a number of teachers to determine why they were not presenting
biotechnology classrooms. They felt biotechnology was too difficult for the
students, and this would disadvantage the students in the university entrance
examinations. Another problem according to the teachers is the lack of
opportunity for practical work in the classroom. By looking some explanation
above, that it is necessary to conduct the research about “Analysis Of Knowledge
And Attitudes towards Biotechnology Biology Department Students In State
University Of Medan”.
1.2 Problem Identification
Based on the description of background above, researcher identified the
research problem as follows:
1. The knowledge of biology students still low based on observation..
2. Many studies stated that many students in a broad unable to explain what
biotechnology meant.
4
1.3 Research Scope
In order to obtain an appropriate discussion, the limitations for this
research are just focuses on 6th semester about biotechnology conventional and
biotechnology modern.
1.4. Research Question
There are some questions of this research as follows:
1.
How is the 6th semester students’ knowledge about biotechnology in Biology
Department State University of Medan?
2.
How is the 6th semester students’ attitude about biotechnology in Biology
Department State University of Medan?
1.5 Research Objective
This research is conducted to achieve some objectives as follows:
1.
To get the data of students knowledge about biotechnology in the 6th semester
of biology department students State University of Medan.
2.
To get the attitudes data of biology departments in the 6th students semester in
State University of Medan.
1.6 Research Significance
Considering about the research result and discussion, this research
expected has significant beneficial both theoretical and practical.
In theoritical, this research hopely has some significant benefit, as follows;
additional reference for lecture about students’ understanding and attitudes toward
biotechnology, as motivation to the lecture to improve the way to teach
biotechnology and being reference to conduct further research. Meanwhile,
practically as references for develop meaningful learning process focused on
biotechnology.
34
CHAPTER V
CONCLUSION AND SUGGESTION
5.1 Conclusion
These are some conclusion from this research; it can be seen as follow:
1. Based on the result, student sample in grade 6th semester half of them still
get
poor
knowledge
regarding
biotechnology
conventional
and
biotechnology modern, while from 163 respondent as the sample just 2
student get excellent score, 10 students get very good score, 28 students
get god score and more than half 123 students get less score
2. Based on the result, genetically modified in plants and microorganism is
more acceptable than genetically modified in human.
5.2 Suggestion
There are some suggestions from this research it can be seen as follows;
1. Better understanding of what biotechnology really means can be improved
by reevaluation of science curriculum and public discussion with scientist
perhaps through television, journals or magazine.
2. Science and biology lectures preparedness for teaching biotechnology
should not be neglected, but further investigation in this topic is needed.
3. The public needs to be aware of genetics modified food and other, further
information about attitudes toward biotechnology is needed.
4. For lecture, better if give the learning about the history of biotechnology
until biotechnology conventional is known by people then teach about
biotechnology conventional modern.
5. For student, in order more active and motivated to get the information
about biotechnology in out of the university or school.
6. For university/school, in order to provide and appropriate facilities for
supporting the learning process especially biotechnology.
35
REFERENCES
Ajzen, I. (2001). Nature and operation of attitudes, in: Annual Review of
Psychology, 2001, 52(1):27-58.
Albarracin, D., Johnson, B., and Zanna, M. (2005). Attitudes: Introduction and
Scope, The Handbook of Attitudes. Routledge: New York.
Alfonso, A. 2007. Rice Biotechnology. Presentation during PhilRice R&D. March
13-15, 2007.
Applehans, W, A Globe and G Laugero. (1999). Managing Knowledge: A
Practical Web-Based Approach. Reading, MA: Addison-Wesley.
Arikunto, S. (2011). Dasar-Dasar Evaluasi Pendidikan. Jakarta: Bumi Aksara.
Bassili, J. N., and J. P. Roy. (1998). On the Representation of Strong and Weak
Attitudes about Policy in Memory. Political Psychology. 21(4): 107-132.
Churchman, CW. (1971). Inquiring Systems: Basic Concepts of Systems and
Organisation. New York: Basic Books.
Cavanagh, H., Hood, J., & Wilkinson, J. (2005). Riverina high school students’
views of biotechnology. Electronic Journal of Biotechnology, 8 (2), 121127.
Chen, S. Y., & Raffan, J. (1999). Biotechnology student’s knowledge and
attitudes in the UK and Taiwan. Journal of Biological Education, 34 (1),
17-23.
Dawson, V. (2007). An exploration of high school (12-17 year old) students’
understandings and attitudes towards biotechnology processes. Research
in Science Education, 37, 59-73.
Dawson, V., & Schibeci, R. (2003). Western Australian school students’
understanding of biotechnology. International Journal of Science
Education, 25 (1), 57-69.
Dawson, V., & Schibeci, R. (2003). Western Australian high school students’
attitudes towards biotechnology processes. Journal of Biological
Education, 38 (1), 1-6.
Dawson, V. & Soames, C. (2006). The effect of biotechnology education on
Australian high school students’ understandings and attitudes about
biotechnology processes. Research in Science & Technological Education,
24 (2), 183-198.
36
Desamero, NV. 2007. Genetic enhancement of in vitro culture-derived tungro
resistant rice breeding lines. Paper presented during the 19th Federation of
Crop Science Societies of the Philippines, Development Academy of the
Philippines, Tagaytay City. June 13-15, 2007.
Gunter, B., Kinderlerer, J., and Beyleveld D. (1998). Teenagers and
biotechnology: A survey of understanding and opinion in Britain. Studies
in Science Education, 32(1):81 - 112.
Hill, R., Stannistreet, M., O’sullivan, H., and Boyes, E. (1999). Genetic
engineering of animals for medical research: Students’ views, School Sci.
Rev. 80(2):23–30.
Hunt, D.P. and Sams, M. (1989), ªHuman self assessment process theory: an
eight-factor model of human performance and learning; and everyman’s
causationº, in Ljunggren, G. and Dornic, D. (Eds), Psychophysics in
Action, Springer-Verlag, Heidelberg.
Jensen, E. (2008). The Dao of human cloning: Utopian/dystopian hype in the
British press and popular films. Public Understanding of Science,
17(2):123-143. doi:10.1177/0963662506065874.
Keuzenkamp, S. and Oudhof K. (2000). Emancipatiemonitor 2000, Sociaal en
Cultureel: lanbureau en Centraal Bureau voor de Statistiek, Den Haag
(only in Dutch).
Lee, C. K., Schubert, F., and Dion, G. (2006). On the Concept and Types of
Knowledge. Journal of Information and Knowledge Management,
5(2):151-163.
Lock, R., and Miles, C. (1993). Biotechnology and genetic engineering: Students’
knowledge and attitudes, J. Biol. Educ. 27(4):267–272.
Newell, C.A. 2000. Plant transformation techniques: Development and
Application. Mol.Biotechnol. 16(1): 53-65.
Olson, J.M., and M.P. Zanna (1993). Attitudes and Attitude Change. Annual
Review of Psychology, 44(2):117-154.
Peacock, Kathy Wilson. (2010). Biotechnology and Genetic Engineering. An
imprint of Infobase Publishing: New York.
Plotkin, H. (1994), Darwin Machines and the Nature of Knowledge, Harvard
University Press, Cambridge, MA.
Schibeci, R. A. (2000). Students, teacher and the impact of biotechnology in the
community. Australian Science Teacher’s Journal, 46(4):27-33.
37
Schunk, D. H. (2012). Learning Theories: an Educational Perspective 6th
Edition. Boston: Pearson Education, Inc.
Shuell, T. J. (1986). Cognitive Conceptions of Learning. Review of Educational
Research, 56(4):411-436.
Sonnino, A., Brandenberg, O., Dhlamini, Z., Sensi, A., and Ghosh, K., (2011).
Introduction to Molecular Biology and Genetic Engineering. Rome: Food
and Agricultural Organization of the United Nations.
Steele, F., and Aubusson, P. (2004). The challenge in teaching biotechnology.
Research in Science Education. 34(4):365-387.
Sudjana, N. (2005). Metode Statistik Edisi Keenam. Tarsito: Bandung.