ANALYSIS OF KNOWLEDGE AND ATTITUDES TOWARD BIOTECHNOLOGY OF BIOLOGY DEPARTMENT STUDENTS STATE UNIVERSITY OF MEDAN.
ANALYSIS OF KNOWLEDGE AND ATTITUDES TOWARD
BIOTECHNOLOGYOF BIOLOGY DEPARTMENT’
STUDENTS STATEUNIVERSITYOFMEDAN
By:
Nurul Najmi
4113141060
Bilingual Biology Education
THESIS
Submitted to Fulfill the Requirement for the Degree of
Sarjana Pendidikan
BIOLOGY DEPARTMENT
FACULTY OF MATHEMATICS AND NATURAL SCIENCE
STATE UNIVERSITY OF MEDAN
MEDAN
2015
iv
ACKNOWLEDGEMENT
Alhamdulillah, the deepest thank and praise the writer prayed to Allah SWT
for blessing hence writer is able to finish this thesis with title “Analysis of Knowledge
and Attitudes toward Biotechnology of Biology Department’ Students State
University of Medan” to fulfill one of the requirement for the degree of Sarjana
Pendidikan in Biology Department, FMIPA Unimed.
The writer gratefully acknowledges the deepest gratitude to Mr. Dr. Hasruddin,
M.Pd as writer’ thesis supervisor who has generously spent precious time in giving the
guidance, encouragement, comments and suggestions until this thesis comes true. The
great appreciation is addressed to Mrs. Dra. Melva Silitonga, MS., Mrs. Endang
Sulistyarini Gultom, S.Si., M.Si., Apt., Mrs. Dra. Cicik Suryani, M.Si., and Mrs. Selvia
Dewi Pohan, S.Si., M.Si as the examiners for their criticism and valuable. The writer
would also like to thank to Mr. Drs. Zulkifli Simatupang, M.Pd as the head of Biology
Department, Mrs. Dra. Martina Restuati, M.Si as my academic supervisor, Mr. Prof. Dr.
rer.nat. Binari Manurung, 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 appreciation to beloved parents for their endless love,
unfailing support, greatest prayer for me, encouragement throughout the entire life, and
also my lovely sister and brother, Ardi Tirta Fitrian, Lailan Fajrin, and Abda Aulia for
their support and kindness. Lucky to have amazing friends for togetherness during my
study, especially Syahriannur Lubis, Rahmadyah Kusuma Putri, Farahnaz Apriliandini,
Atika Julia Handayani, Hairunnisa Novita, The Great Sonja, Kak Rani, Arta, Septe,
Aisyah, Doni, Jasmen, Ucok, Asri, Bubun, Amel, Danis, Jejen, Lina, Ratih, Bang Saut
Manik, Saras, Parols, Indrak, Viza, Lidya and all members of Biology Education Study
Program who made my time always great. May Allah gives reward to all those who
have contribute in the completion of this thesis. Hopefully, this thesis will be beneficial
contribute in education.
Medan, June 24th 2015
Nurul Najmi
iii
ANALYSIS OF KNOWLEDGE AND ATTITUDES TOWARDS
BIOTECHNOLOGY OF BIOLOGY DEPARTMENT’
STUDENTS IN STATE UNIVERSITY OF MEDAN
Nurul Najmi (NIM 4113141060)
ABSTRACT
This research aims to detect the knowledge and attitudes toward
Biotechnology. This research belongs to descriptive quantitative method. The number
of population in this research is 269 students who are in the 2nd and 6th semester of
biology department State University of Medan. The samples taken by purposive
sampling technique. Data collection technique used multiple choice diagnostic test and
questionairre. The result of this research after data analysis showed: (1) the percentage
of 2nd semester students knowledge is 98% less and 2% good compare to the percentage
of 6th semester students knowledge is 68% less, 27% good and 5% very good; (2) the
result of attitudes toward biotechnology between 2nd and 6th semester are quitely same,
they more agree if biotechnology just use in plant and microorganism which percentage
ranging (65%-90%) and also they said agree that biotechnology is interesting science to
study; (3) From the t-test, the data showed that there is significance differences of
biotechnology knowledge between 2nd and 6th semester students (tcount 6.87 > ttable 1.97)
but there is no significance differences of biotechnology attitudes between 2nd and 6th
semester students (tcount 0.026 < ttable 1.9706); (3) the curriculum of Biotechnology
Education is the most thing that must be fixed to increase the student knowledge; (4)
Students must be awared to the biotechnology risk before chose the suitable attitudes.
Keyword: Students’ knowledge, students’ attitudes, biotechnology
v
Table of Content
Research Approval
i
Biography
ii
Abstract
iii
Acknowledgment
iv
Table of Content
v
Table List
vii
Figure List
viii
Appendix List
ix
CHAPTER I INTRODUCTION
1
1.1 Problem Background
1
1.2 Problem Identification
3
1.3 Problem Scooping
4
1.4. Research Question
4
1.5 Research Objective
4
1.6 Research Significance
5
CHAPTER II THEORITICAL REVIEW
6
2.1 The Concept of Biotechnology
6
2.2 Concept of Knowledge
10
2.3 Knowledge Measurement
11
2.3.1 Cognitive Aspect Measurement
11
2.4 Concept of Attitude
12
2.5 Attitude Measurement
13
2.6 Hypotesis
14
CHAPTER III RESEARCH METHOD
15
3.1 Location and Time
15
3.2 Population and Sampling
15
3.3 Research Design
17
3.4 Research Procedure
17
3.5 Research Instrument
18
3.6 Test of Research Instrument
18
3.7 Data Analysis Technique
21
vi
CHAPTER IV RESULT OF RESEARCH AND DISCUSSION
28
4.1 Description of Data Research
28
4.2 Results
28
4.3 Discussion
34
CHAPTER V CONCLUSION AND SUGGESTION
38
5.1 Conclusions
38
5.2 Suggestions
38
REFERENCES
39
vii
Table List
Table 3.1 Population of biology department’s student
15
Table 3.2 Kisi-kisi multiple choice diagnostic test
18
Table 3.3 Index Classification of Validity Test
19
Table 3.4 Index Classification of Reliability Test
20
Table 3.5 Index Classification of Difficulty Level Test
21
Table 3.6 Index Classification of Different Power Test
21
Table 3.7 Sum of correct and incorrect student answers
22
Table 3.8 Score classification
23
Table 3.9 Frequency distribution of student answers
23
Table 3.10 Score of questionnaire answer
24
viii
Figure List
Figure 2.1. Plant Transformation
8
nd
th
and 6 semester students
29
Figure 4.2 A comparison of the attitudes toward biotechnology of 2nd semester students
31
Figure 4.1 The comparison in biotechnology knowledge of 2
th
Figure 4.3 A comparison of the attitudes toward biotechnology of 6 semester students
33
ix
Appendix List
Appendix 1 Biotechnology Knowledge Test
42
Appendix 2 Key Answer of Diagnostic Test
50
Appendix 3 Biotechnology Attitudes Questionairre
51
Appendix 4 Pre observation questions
53
Appendix 5 Testing of Research Instrument
54
Appendix 6 Validity Calculation
55
Appendix 7 Reliability Calculation
60
Appendix 8 Analysis of Question’ Variances
61
Appendix 9 Difficulty Level Calculation
62
Appendix 10 Discriminant Power Calculation
63
Appendix 11 Result of Biotechnology Knowledge Test
65
Appendix 12 Result of Biotechnology Attitudes Questionairre
70
Appendix 13 Normality Test
76
Appendix 14 Homogeneity Test
81
Appendix 15 Hypothesis Test
83
Appendix 16 Tabulation of Respondent Answers
85
Appendix 17 Research Documentation
91
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.
One of the most important scientific and technological developments of the 21st
century is, without doubt, biotechnology (Pardo et al., 2003). 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. In agriculture, its success can be found in the
hundreds of transgenic crops that have been Food and Drug Administration (FDA)
approved or are waiting for such approval (Biotechnology Industry Organization,
1996).The inclusion of 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.
Many studies stated that many students were unable to distinguish between
current and potential uses of biotechnology. Lock and Miles (1993) reported that one
2
third of the sample claimed that they did not know what genetic engineering and
biotechnology meant. About 47% of the students could not exemplify 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. Therefore, 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 12to 13-year-old students. Similarly, Cavanagh et al. (2005) reported that at least twothirds 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 State University of Medan, after interviewed 20 students still 5 person can
describe what biotechnology meant and they all still said that just 50-75% of the
biotechnology material can be mastered. However, 20 students agreed that
biotechnology is good for human life.
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, Kinderlerer and Beyleveld (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
3
with the use of any living organisms in biotechnology to the 125 (14%) students who
approve of all the stated uses of biotechnology, with a wide spread in between.
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,
the researcher think that it is necessary to conduct the research about “Analysis of
Knowledge And Attitudes towards Biotechnology of Biology Department Student State
University of Medan
1.2 Problem Identification
Based on the background description above, researcher identified the research
problem as follows:
1.
Biotechnology is regarded as a very important development for both scientific and
economic progress
2.
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
3.
Many studies stated that many students in a broad were unable to explain what
biotechnology meant
4.
Many studies stated that many students attitudes do not agree with the use of any
living organisms in biotechnology
5.
Teacher felt biotechnology was too difficult for students
6.
Teacher lack of opportunity for practical work about biotechnology in the
classroom
4
1.3 Problem Scooping
In order to obtain an appropriate discussion, the research has some limitations
as follows:
1.
Students knowledge and focuses on biotechnology only in 2nd and 6th Semester
biology department students State University of Medan Academic Year 2014/2015
2.
Students attitudes toward biotechnology subject matter only in 2nd and 6th Semester
biology department students State University of Medan Academic Year 2014/2015
3.
Data collecting tool of biotechnology knowledge just focuses on the cognitive
aspect
1.4. Research Question
There are some questions of this research as follows:
1.
How is the students’ knowledge toward biotechnology of 2nd and 6th semester
biology department’ students State University of Medan ?
2.
How is the attitudes’ toward biotechnology 2nd and 6th semester of biology
department’ students State University of Medan ?
3.
How is the comparison of biotechnology knowledge between 2nd and 6th semester
biology department’ students State University of Medan ?
4.
How is the comparison of biotechnology attitudes between 2nd and 6th semester
biology department’ students State University of Medan ?
1.5 Research Objective
This research is conducted to achieve some objectives as follows:
1.
To know the students knowledge about biotechnology in the 2nd and 6th semester of
biology department students State University of Medan
2.
To know the attitudes toward biotechnology in the 2nd and 6th semester of biology
department students State University of Medan
3.
To know the comparison of biotechnology knowledge between 2nd and 6th semester
biology department’ students State University of Medan
4.
To know the comparison of biotechnology attitudes between 2nd and 6th semester
biology department’ students State University of Medan
5
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; as additional reference for Biology teacher
about students’ understanding and attitudes toward biotechnology, as motivation to the
Biology teacher to improve the way to teach biotechnology and being reference to
conduct further research. Meanwhile, practically as reference for develop meaningful
learning process focused on biotechnology.
38
CHAPTER V
CONCLUSION AND SUGGESTION
5.1 Conclusions
There are some conclusions from this research, it can be seen as follows:
1. 2nd semester students of Unimed Biology Department seem to get poor knowledge
regarding biotechnology (98% less score and 2% good score)
2. 6th semester students of Unimed Biology Department seem more knowledgable
regarding biotechnology but still more than half students get less score (68% less
score, 27% good score, 5% very good score)
3. There was significance difference of knowledge about biotechnology between 2nd
and 6th semester students of Unimed Biology Department which can be seen
according to the t-test (tcount 6.87 > ttable 2,6)
4. Students’ most favorable attitudes were found toward genetically modified plants nor
negatives attitude toward genetically modified in animals and humans
5. There was no significance difference of attitudes toward biotechnology between 2nd
and 6th semester students of Unimed Biology Departmen which can be seen
according to the t-test (tcount 0,026 < ttable 1,9706)
5.2 Suggestions
. 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 discussions with scientists perhaps
through TV or magazines
2. Science and biology teachers’ preparedness for teaching biotechnology should not be
neglected, but further investigation in this topic is needed
3. The public needs to be aware of genetic modified food and other, further information
about attitudes toward biotechnology is needed
39
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.
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.
Biotechnology Industry Organization. (1996). BIO editors. and reporters. guide to
biotechnology.
2nd
ed.
[Online].
[11
p.]
Available
at
http://www.bio.org/whatis/mg3.html (accessed 3 July 1999; modified 18 May
2001; verified 6 Dec. 2001). BIO, Washington, DC.
Cavanagh, H., Hood, J., and Wilkinson, J. (2005). Riverina high school students’ views
of biotechnology. Elec. J. Biotech. 8(2):121–127.
Chen, S. Y., and Raffan, J. (1999). Biotechnology: Student’s knowledge and attitudes
in the UK and Taiwan, J. Biol. Educ. 34(1):17–23.
Churchman, CW. (1971). Inquiring Systems: Basic Concepts of Systems and
Organisation. New York: Basic Books.
Commonwealth Scientific and Industrial Research Organisation. (1981). Biotechnology
Research and Development, Sydney, Australia.
Dawson, V. M. (2007). An exploration of high school (12–17 year Old) students’
understandings of, and attitudes toward biotechnology processes. Res. Sci. Educ.
39(1):59–73.
Dawson, V. M., and Schibeci, R. A. (2003). West Australian school students'
understanding of biotechnology. International Journal of Science Education,
25(1):57 - 69.
Dawson, V. M., and Schibeci, R. A. (2003). Western Australian high school students’
attitudes toward biotechnology processes, J. Biol. Educ. 38(1):7–12.
Dawson, W., & Taylor, P. C. (2000). Teaching Bioethics in Science: Does it make a
difference? Australian Science Teacher’s Journal, 45(1):59-64.
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.
40
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. (2003). The Concept of Knowledge and How to Measure It. Journal of
Intellectual Capital, 4(1):100-113. doi: 10.1108/14691930310455414.
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.
Pardo, R., Midden, C., Miller, J. D. (2002). Attitudes toward biotechnology in the
European Union. J. Biotech. 98(1):9–24.
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.
Sanbonmatsu, D. M., and Fazio, R. H. (1990). The role of attitudes in memory-based
decision making. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 59(4):614-622.
Schibeci, R. A. (2000). Students, teacher and the impact of biotechnology in the
community. Australian Science Teacher’s Journal, 46(4):27-33.
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.
41
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.
BIOTECHNOLOGYOF BIOLOGY DEPARTMENT’
STUDENTS STATEUNIVERSITYOFMEDAN
By:
Nurul Najmi
4113141060
Bilingual Biology Education
THESIS
Submitted to Fulfill the Requirement for the Degree of
Sarjana Pendidikan
BIOLOGY DEPARTMENT
FACULTY OF MATHEMATICS AND NATURAL SCIENCE
STATE UNIVERSITY OF MEDAN
MEDAN
2015
iv
ACKNOWLEDGEMENT
Alhamdulillah, the deepest thank and praise the writer prayed to Allah SWT
for blessing hence writer is able to finish this thesis with title “Analysis of Knowledge
and Attitudes toward Biotechnology of Biology Department’ Students State
University of Medan” to fulfill one of the requirement for the degree of Sarjana
Pendidikan in Biology Department, FMIPA Unimed.
The writer gratefully acknowledges the deepest gratitude to Mr. Dr. Hasruddin,
M.Pd as writer’ thesis supervisor who has generously spent precious time in giving the
guidance, encouragement, comments and suggestions until this thesis comes true. The
great appreciation is addressed to Mrs. Dra. Melva Silitonga, MS., Mrs. Endang
Sulistyarini Gultom, S.Si., M.Si., Apt., Mrs. Dra. Cicik Suryani, M.Si., and Mrs. Selvia
Dewi Pohan, S.Si., M.Si as the examiners for their criticism and valuable. The writer
would also like to thank to Mr. Drs. Zulkifli Simatupang, M.Pd as the head of Biology
Department, Mrs. Dra. Martina Restuati, M.Si as my academic supervisor, Mr. Prof. Dr.
rer.nat. Binari Manurung, 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 appreciation to beloved parents for their endless love,
unfailing support, greatest prayer for me, encouragement throughout the entire life, and
also my lovely sister and brother, Ardi Tirta Fitrian, Lailan Fajrin, and Abda Aulia for
their support and kindness. Lucky to have amazing friends for togetherness during my
study, especially Syahriannur Lubis, Rahmadyah Kusuma Putri, Farahnaz Apriliandini,
Atika Julia Handayani, Hairunnisa Novita, The Great Sonja, Kak Rani, Arta, Septe,
Aisyah, Doni, Jasmen, Ucok, Asri, Bubun, Amel, Danis, Jejen, Lina, Ratih, Bang Saut
Manik, Saras, Parols, Indrak, Viza, Lidya and all members of Biology Education Study
Program who made my time always great. May Allah gives reward to all those who
have contribute in the completion of this thesis. Hopefully, this thesis will be beneficial
contribute in education.
Medan, June 24th 2015
Nurul Najmi
iii
ANALYSIS OF KNOWLEDGE AND ATTITUDES TOWARDS
BIOTECHNOLOGY OF BIOLOGY DEPARTMENT’
STUDENTS IN STATE UNIVERSITY OF MEDAN
Nurul Najmi (NIM 4113141060)
ABSTRACT
This research aims to detect the knowledge and attitudes toward
Biotechnology. This research belongs to descriptive quantitative method. The number
of population in this research is 269 students who are in the 2nd and 6th semester of
biology department State University of Medan. The samples taken by purposive
sampling technique. Data collection technique used multiple choice diagnostic test and
questionairre. The result of this research after data analysis showed: (1) the percentage
of 2nd semester students knowledge is 98% less and 2% good compare to the percentage
of 6th semester students knowledge is 68% less, 27% good and 5% very good; (2) the
result of attitudes toward biotechnology between 2nd and 6th semester are quitely same,
they more agree if biotechnology just use in plant and microorganism which percentage
ranging (65%-90%) and also they said agree that biotechnology is interesting science to
study; (3) From the t-test, the data showed that there is significance differences of
biotechnology knowledge between 2nd and 6th semester students (tcount 6.87 > ttable 1.97)
but there is no significance differences of biotechnology attitudes between 2nd and 6th
semester students (tcount 0.026 < ttable 1.9706); (3) the curriculum of Biotechnology
Education is the most thing that must be fixed to increase the student knowledge; (4)
Students must be awared to the biotechnology risk before chose the suitable attitudes.
Keyword: Students’ knowledge, students’ attitudes, biotechnology
v
Table of Content
Research Approval
i
Biography
ii
Abstract
iii
Acknowledgment
iv
Table of Content
v
Table List
vii
Figure List
viii
Appendix List
ix
CHAPTER I INTRODUCTION
1
1.1 Problem Background
1
1.2 Problem Identification
3
1.3 Problem Scooping
4
1.4. Research Question
4
1.5 Research Objective
4
1.6 Research Significance
5
CHAPTER II THEORITICAL REVIEW
6
2.1 The Concept of Biotechnology
6
2.2 Concept of Knowledge
10
2.3 Knowledge Measurement
11
2.3.1 Cognitive Aspect Measurement
11
2.4 Concept of Attitude
12
2.5 Attitude Measurement
13
2.6 Hypotesis
14
CHAPTER III RESEARCH METHOD
15
3.1 Location and Time
15
3.2 Population and Sampling
15
3.3 Research Design
17
3.4 Research Procedure
17
3.5 Research Instrument
18
3.6 Test of Research Instrument
18
3.7 Data Analysis Technique
21
vi
CHAPTER IV RESULT OF RESEARCH AND DISCUSSION
28
4.1 Description of Data Research
28
4.2 Results
28
4.3 Discussion
34
CHAPTER V CONCLUSION AND SUGGESTION
38
5.1 Conclusions
38
5.2 Suggestions
38
REFERENCES
39
vii
Table List
Table 3.1 Population of biology department’s student
15
Table 3.2 Kisi-kisi multiple choice diagnostic test
18
Table 3.3 Index Classification of Validity Test
19
Table 3.4 Index Classification of Reliability Test
20
Table 3.5 Index Classification of Difficulty Level Test
21
Table 3.6 Index Classification of Different Power Test
21
Table 3.7 Sum of correct and incorrect student answers
22
Table 3.8 Score classification
23
Table 3.9 Frequency distribution of student answers
23
Table 3.10 Score of questionnaire answer
24
viii
Figure List
Figure 2.1. Plant Transformation
8
nd
th
and 6 semester students
29
Figure 4.2 A comparison of the attitudes toward biotechnology of 2nd semester students
31
Figure 4.1 The comparison in biotechnology knowledge of 2
th
Figure 4.3 A comparison of the attitudes toward biotechnology of 6 semester students
33
ix
Appendix List
Appendix 1 Biotechnology Knowledge Test
42
Appendix 2 Key Answer of Diagnostic Test
50
Appendix 3 Biotechnology Attitudes Questionairre
51
Appendix 4 Pre observation questions
53
Appendix 5 Testing of Research Instrument
54
Appendix 6 Validity Calculation
55
Appendix 7 Reliability Calculation
60
Appendix 8 Analysis of Question’ Variances
61
Appendix 9 Difficulty Level Calculation
62
Appendix 10 Discriminant Power Calculation
63
Appendix 11 Result of Biotechnology Knowledge Test
65
Appendix 12 Result of Biotechnology Attitudes Questionairre
70
Appendix 13 Normality Test
76
Appendix 14 Homogeneity Test
81
Appendix 15 Hypothesis Test
83
Appendix 16 Tabulation of Respondent Answers
85
Appendix 17 Research Documentation
91
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.
One of the most important scientific and technological developments of the 21st
century is, without doubt, biotechnology (Pardo et al., 2003). 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. In agriculture, its success can be found in the
hundreds of transgenic crops that have been Food and Drug Administration (FDA)
approved or are waiting for such approval (Biotechnology Industry Organization,
1996).The inclusion of 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.
Many studies stated that many students were unable to distinguish between
current and potential uses of biotechnology. Lock and Miles (1993) reported that one
2
third of the sample claimed that they did not know what genetic engineering and
biotechnology meant. About 47% of the students could not exemplify 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. Therefore, 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 12to 13-year-old students. Similarly, Cavanagh et al. (2005) reported that at least twothirds 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 State University of Medan, after interviewed 20 students still 5 person can
describe what biotechnology meant and they all still said that just 50-75% of the
biotechnology material can be mastered. However, 20 students agreed that
biotechnology is good for human life.
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, Kinderlerer and Beyleveld (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
3
with the use of any living organisms in biotechnology to the 125 (14%) students who
approve of all the stated uses of biotechnology, with a wide spread in between.
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,
the researcher think that it is necessary to conduct the research about “Analysis of
Knowledge And Attitudes towards Biotechnology of Biology Department Student State
University of Medan
1.2 Problem Identification
Based on the background description above, researcher identified the research
problem as follows:
1.
Biotechnology is regarded as a very important development for both scientific and
economic progress
2.
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
3.
Many studies stated that many students in a broad were unable to explain what
biotechnology meant
4.
Many studies stated that many students attitudes do not agree with the use of any
living organisms in biotechnology
5.
Teacher felt biotechnology was too difficult for students
6.
Teacher lack of opportunity for practical work about biotechnology in the
classroom
4
1.3 Problem Scooping
In order to obtain an appropriate discussion, the research has some limitations
as follows:
1.
Students knowledge and focuses on biotechnology only in 2nd and 6th Semester
biology department students State University of Medan Academic Year 2014/2015
2.
Students attitudes toward biotechnology subject matter only in 2nd and 6th Semester
biology department students State University of Medan Academic Year 2014/2015
3.
Data collecting tool of biotechnology knowledge just focuses on the cognitive
aspect
1.4. Research Question
There are some questions of this research as follows:
1.
How is the students’ knowledge toward biotechnology of 2nd and 6th semester
biology department’ students State University of Medan ?
2.
How is the attitudes’ toward biotechnology 2nd and 6th semester of biology
department’ students State University of Medan ?
3.
How is the comparison of biotechnology knowledge between 2nd and 6th semester
biology department’ students State University of Medan ?
4.
How is the comparison of biotechnology attitudes between 2nd and 6th semester
biology department’ students State University of Medan ?
1.5 Research Objective
This research is conducted to achieve some objectives as follows:
1.
To know the students knowledge about biotechnology in the 2nd and 6th semester of
biology department students State University of Medan
2.
To know the attitudes toward biotechnology in the 2nd and 6th semester of biology
department students State University of Medan
3.
To know the comparison of biotechnology knowledge between 2nd and 6th semester
biology department’ students State University of Medan
4.
To know the comparison of biotechnology attitudes between 2nd and 6th semester
biology department’ students State University of Medan
5
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; as additional reference for Biology teacher
about students’ understanding and attitudes toward biotechnology, as motivation to the
Biology teacher to improve the way to teach biotechnology and being reference to
conduct further research. Meanwhile, practically as reference for develop meaningful
learning process focused on biotechnology.
38
CHAPTER V
CONCLUSION AND SUGGESTION
5.1 Conclusions
There are some conclusions from this research, it can be seen as follows:
1. 2nd semester students of Unimed Biology Department seem to get poor knowledge
regarding biotechnology (98% less score and 2% good score)
2. 6th semester students of Unimed Biology Department seem more knowledgable
regarding biotechnology but still more than half students get less score (68% less
score, 27% good score, 5% very good score)
3. There was significance difference of knowledge about biotechnology between 2nd
and 6th semester students of Unimed Biology Department which can be seen
according to the t-test (tcount 6.87 > ttable 2,6)
4. Students’ most favorable attitudes were found toward genetically modified plants nor
negatives attitude toward genetically modified in animals and humans
5. There was no significance difference of attitudes toward biotechnology between 2nd
and 6th semester students of Unimed Biology Departmen which can be seen
according to the t-test (tcount 0,026 < ttable 1,9706)
5.2 Suggestions
. 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 discussions with scientists perhaps
through TV or magazines
2. Science and biology teachers’ preparedness for teaching biotechnology should not be
neglected, but further investigation in this topic is needed
3. The public needs to be aware of genetic modified food and other, further information
about attitudes toward biotechnology is needed
39
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.
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.
Biotechnology Industry Organization. (1996). BIO editors. and reporters. guide to
biotechnology.
2nd
ed.
[Online].
[11
p.]
Available
at
http://www.bio.org/whatis/mg3.html (accessed 3 July 1999; modified 18 May
2001; verified 6 Dec. 2001). BIO, Washington, DC.
Cavanagh, H., Hood, J., and Wilkinson, J. (2005). Riverina high school students’ views
of biotechnology. Elec. J. Biotech. 8(2):121–127.
Chen, S. Y., and Raffan, J. (1999). Biotechnology: Student’s knowledge and attitudes
in the UK and Taiwan, J. Biol. Educ. 34(1):17–23.
Churchman, CW. (1971). Inquiring Systems: Basic Concepts of Systems and
Organisation. New York: Basic Books.
Commonwealth Scientific and Industrial Research Organisation. (1981). Biotechnology
Research and Development, Sydney, Australia.
Dawson, V. M. (2007). An exploration of high school (12–17 year Old) students’
understandings of, and attitudes toward biotechnology processes. Res. Sci. Educ.
39(1):59–73.
Dawson, V. M., and Schibeci, R. A. (2003). West Australian school students'
understanding of biotechnology. International Journal of Science Education,
25(1):57 - 69.
Dawson, V. M., and Schibeci, R. A. (2003). Western Australian high school students’
attitudes toward biotechnology processes, J. Biol. Educ. 38(1):7–12.
Dawson, W., & Taylor, P. C. (2000). Teaching Bioethics in Science: Does it make a
difference? Australian Science Teacher’s Journal, 45(1):59-64.
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.
40
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. (2003). The Concept of Knowledge and How to Measure It. Journal of
Intellectual Capital, 4(1):100-113. doi: 10.1108/14691930310455414.
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.
Pardo, R., Midden, C., Miller, J. D. (2002). Attitudes toward biotechnology in the
European Union. J. Biotech. 98(1):9–24.
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.
Sanbonmatsu, D. M., and Fazio, R. H. (1990). The role of attitudes in memory-based
decision making. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 59(4):614-622.
Schibeci, R. A. (2000). Students, teacher and the impact of biotechnology in the
community. Australian Science Teacher’s Journal, 46(4):27-33.
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.
41
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.