ANALYSIS OF KNOWLEDGE AND ATTITUDES TOWARD
BIOTECHNOLOGY OF BIOLOGY DEPARTMENT’
STUDENTS STATE UNIVERSITY OF MEDAN
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
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
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.
CHAPTER IVRESULT OF RESEARCH AND DISCUSSION 28
4.1 Description of Data Research 28
4.2 Results 28
4.3 Discussion 34
CHAPTER VCONCLUSION AND SUGGESTION 38
5.1 Conclusions 38
5.2 Suggestions 38
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
Figure List
Figure 2.1. Plant Transformation 8
Figure 4.1 The comparison in biotechnology knowledge of 2nd and 6th semester students 29
Figure 4.2 A comparison of the attitudes toward biotechnology of 2nd semester students 31
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
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
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 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 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.
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
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
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
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
re-evaluation 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
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.
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.
Steele, F., and Aubusson, P. (2004). The challenge in teaching biotechnology. Research in Science Education. 34(4):365-387.
