Comparison of the effectiveness of the use of graded inquiries in biochemistry learning
AuthorsYunita Arian Sani Anwar , Eka Junaidi
Issue:Vol. 16 No. 4 (2021): September 2021
Keywords:Biochemistry, critical thinking, inquiry
How to Cite
AbstractThis study aims to compare the effectiveness of guided inquiry, open inquiry, and tiered inquiry in biochemistry learning. The effectiveness is seen from the product-process perspective, i.e., by looking at critical thinking scores and responses ofÃÂ lecturers' teaching activities. This study involved three groups treated with guided inquiry (level 1), open inquiry (level 2), and tiered inquiry (level 1 to level 2). The number of respondents was 72 students spread over the three groups. Before being given treatment, the three groups were tested for prior knowledge, and it was obtained that the three groups had the same initial ability. The research instrument used was critical thinking questions and a questionnaire of responses to the learning process. The results showed that the group with tiered inquiry treatment had the highest critical thinking score, while open inquiry had the lowest score. It is in line with the respondents' responses related to the learning process. Students feel easier and more comfortable in the tiered inquiry process than the guided and openÃÂ inquiries. The results of the Mann-Whitney U test analysis on the three treatments showed that the three groups had significantly different critical thinking scores. It can be concluded that tiered inquiry is more effective in Biochemistry learning than guided and open inquiries.
Saavedra, A.R., & Opfer, V.D. (2012). Teaching and learning 21st century skills: lessons from the learning sciences. London: RAND Corporation.
Gabel, D. (1999). Improving teaching and learning through chemistry education research: a look to the future. Journal of Chemical Education, 76(4), 548-553.
Greenbowe, T. J., & Hand, B. M. (2005). Introduction to science writing heuristic. In Peinta, N. J., Cooper, M., & Greenbowe, T. J. (Eds.), chemists guide to effective teaching. (p.140). Upper Saddle River, NJ: Prentice Hall.
Johnstone, A.H. (1997). Chemistry teachingÃ¢â¬âscience or alchemy? Journal of Chemical Education, 74(3), 262-268.
Ausubel, D.P. (1968). Educational psychology: a cognitive view. New York: Holt, Rinehart, and Winston.
Cacciatore, K.L., & Sevian, H. (2009). Incrementally approaching an inquiry lab curriculum: can changing a single laboratory experiment improve student performance in general chemistry? Journal of Chemical Education, 86(4), 498-505.
Fakayode, S.O. (2014). Guided-Inquiry Laboratory Experiments in the Analytical Chemistry Laboratory Curriculum. Analytical and Bioanalytical Chemistry, 406, 1267-1271.
Stout, R.P. (2016). CO2 investigations: an open inquiry experiment for general chemistry. Journal of Chemical Education, 93(4), 713-717.
Ketpichainarong, W., Panijpan, B., & Ruenwangsa, P. (2010). Enhanced learning of biotechnology students by an inquiry-based cellulase laboratory. International Journal Environmental & Science Education, 5(2), 169-187
Fay, M.E., Grove, N.P., Towns, M.H., & Lowery, S. (2007). A rubric to characterize inquiry in the undergraduate chemistry laboratory. Chemistry Education Research and Practice, 8(2), 212-219.
Sedwick, V., Leal, A., Turner, D., & Kanu, A.B. (2018). Guided inquiry learning experience in quantitative analysis. Journal of Chemical Education, 95(3), 451-455.
Winkelmann, K., Baloga, M., Marcinkowski, T., Giannoulis, C., Anquandah, G., & Cohen, P. (2015). Improving studentsÃ¢â¬â¢ inquiry skills and self-efficacy through research-inspired modules in the general chemistry laboratory. Journal of Chemical Education, 92(2), 247-255.
Conway, J.C. (2014). Effects of guided inquiry versus lecture instruction on final grade distribution in a one-semester organic and biochemistry course. Journal of Chemical Education, 91(4), 480-483.
Jidsejo, A., Oscarsson, M., Karlsson, K. G., & Stromdahl, H. (2009). Science for all or science for some: what Swedish students want to learn about in secondary science and technology and their opinions on science lessons. Nordina, 11(2), 213-229.
Varghese, J., Faith, M., & Jacob, M. (2012). Impact of e-resources on learning in biochemistry: first-year medical students perceptions. BMC Medical Education, 12(21), 1-9.
Broman, K., Ekborg, M., & Johnels, J. (2011). Chemistry in crisis? Perspectives on teaching and learning chemistry in Swedish upper secondary schools. Nordina, 7(1), 43-53.
Abrami, P.C., dÃ¢â¬â¢Appoilonia, S., & Rosenfield, S. (1997). The dimensionality of student ratings of instruction: what we know and what we do not. In R.P. Perry & J.C.Smart (Eds). Effective teaching in higher education: research and practice (pp.321-324). New York: Agathon Press.
Ghozali, I. (2013). Aplikasi analisis multivariate dengan program IBM SPSS 21 Update PLS Regresi. Semarang: Universitas Diponegoro.
JeanBurnham, J.A. (2013). Opportunistic use of students for solving laboratory problems: twelve heads are better than one. NDIR, 9(1), 42-48.
Jolley, D.F., S.R. Wilson, C. Kelso, G. O'Brien, C.E. Mason. (2016). Analytical thinking, analytical action: using prelab video demonstrations and e-quizzes to improve undergraduate preparedness for analytical chemistry practical classes. Journal of Chemical Education, 93(11), 1855-1862.
Walker, J.P, V. Sampson. (2013). Argument-driven inquiry: using the laboratory to improve undergraduatesÃ¢â¬â¢ science writing skills through meaningful science writing, peer-review, and revision. Journal of Chemical Education, 90, 1269-1274.
Miller, D.K., P.L. Lang. (2016). Using the universal design for learning approach in science laboratories to minimize student stress. Journal of Chemical Education, 93(11), 1823-1828.
Hensiek, S., B.K. DeKorver, C.J. Harwood, J. Fish, K. O Shea, M. Towns. (2016). Improving and assessing student hands-on laboratory skills through digital badging. Journal of Chemical Education, 93(11), 1847-1854.
Pickering, M. (1987) What goes on in studentsÃ¢â¬â¢ heads in laboratory? Journal of Chemical Education, 64, 521-523.
Gasper, B.J., S.M. Gardner. (2013). Engaging students in authentic microbiology research in an introductory biology laboratory course is correlated with gains in student understanding of the nature of authentic research and critical thinking. Microbiology and Biomolecular Education, 14(1), 25-34.
Cheung, D. (2011). Evaluating student attitudes toward chemistry lessons to enhance teaching in the secondary schools. EducaciÃÂ³n QuÃÂmica, 22(2), 1-8.
Chatterjee, S., V.M. Williamson, K. Mccann, M.L. Peck. (2009). Surveying studentsÃ¢â¬â¢ attitudes and perceptions toward guided-inquiry and open-inquiry laboratories. Journal Chemical of Education, 86(12), 1427.
Anwar, Y.A.S. (2020). The multilevel inquiry approach to achieving meaningful learning in biochemistry course. Biochemistry ang Molecular Biology Education, 48(1), 28-37.
M. Kakisako, K. Nishikawa, M. Nakano, K.S. Harada, T.Tomoyuki, T. Tatsuoka, N. Koga. (2016). Stepwise inquiry into hard water in a high school chemistry laboratory. Journal Chemical of Education, 93(11), 1923-1928.
Wildan, W., Hakim, A., Siahaan, J., Anwar, Y.A.S. (2019). The Stepwise of Inquiry Approach to Improve Communications Skills and Scientific Attitudes in Biochemistry Course. International of Journal Instruction, 12 (4), 407-422.
Wahdah, N. F., Jufri, A. W., & Zulkifli, L. (2016). Jurnal Belajar Sebagai Sarana Pengembangan Kemampuan Metakognisi Siswa. Jurnal Pijar Mipa, 11(1).
Galloway, K.R., & Bretz, S.L. (2015). Measuring meaningful learning in the undergraduate general chemistry and organic chemistry laboratories: a longitudinal study. Journal of Chemical Education, 92(12), 2019-2030.
Qomaliyah, E. N., Sukib, S., & Loka, I. N. (2017). Pengaruh model pembelajaran inkuiri terbimbing berbasis literasi sains terhadap hasil belajar materi pokok larutan penyangga. Jurnal Pijar Mipa, 11(2).
Niedenthal, P.M. (2007). Embodying emotion. Science, 316, 1002-1005.
Touroutoglou, A., Lindquist, K.A., Dickerson, B.C., & Barrett, L.F. (2015). Intrinsic connectivity in the human brain does not reveal networks for Ã¢â¬Ëbasic emotions. Social Cognitive and Affective Neuroscience Advance, 10(9), 1257-1265.
The following terms apply to authors who publish in this journal:
1. Authors retain copyright and grant the journal first publication rights, with the work simultaneously licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution License 4.0 International License (CC-BY License) that allows others to share the work with an acknowledgment of the work's authorship and first publication in this journal.
2. Authors may enter into separate, additional contractual arrangements for the non-exclusive distribution of the journal's published version of the work (e.g., posting it to an institutional repository or publishing it in a book), acknowledging its initial publication in this journal.
3. Before and during the submission process, authors are permitted and encouraged to post their work online (e.g., in institutional repositories or on their website), as this can lead to productive exchanges as well as earlier and greater citation of published work (See The Effect of Open Access).