Laboratory-Modified Argument Driven Inquiry (Lab-Madi) Module: Content Validity Process

I. L. L. Ping, K. Osman

Abstract

This paper aims to determine the validity of the LAB-MADI module using the Content Validity Index (CVI) and Percentage Calculation Method (PCM). The survey was conducted through the evaluation of six experts via purposive sampling. The instrument used for the evaluation was the content validity instrument. Based on the results of the analysis, the mean scores of CVI and PCM of the LAB-MADI module were 0.97 and 87.22%, respectively while the mean scores of CVI and PCM of eight practical activities based on the seven stages of the MADI model were 0.98 and 81.88% respectively. The results of the study indicate that the module has high validity in the six criteria assessed (suitability for target students, feasibility, time allocation and improving the dependent variables under study: argumentation skills, science process skills and concepts of diffusion and osmosis). Therefore, this module has great potential as a good module. This module is therefore recommended to be used and tested for its effectiveness. The module is also a form of alternative teaching method to guide biology teachers so that they can add value to students in terms of argumentation skills, science process skills and Biology concepts through practical work.

Keywords

argument-driven inquiry, content validity, practical work, argumentation, inquiry-based science instruction

Full Text:

PDF

References

Arip, M., & Shah, M. A. (2010). Kesan Kelompok Bimbingan ke Atas Konsep Kendiri, Daya Tahan dan Kelangsangan Remaja (Doctoral Dissertation, Universiti Pendidikan Sultan Idris).

Balta, N., & Sarac, H. (2016). The Effect of 7E Learning Cycle on Learning in Science Teaching: A Meta-Analysis Study. European Journal of Educational Research, 5(2), 61-72.

Berland, L. K., & Hammer, D. (2012). Framing for Scientific Argumentation. Journal of Research in Science Teaching, 49(1), 68-94.

Bybee, R. W. (2015). The BSCS 5E Instructional Model: Creating Teachable Moments. NSTA Press, National Science Teachers Association.

Chen, H. T., Wang, H. H., Lu, Y. Y., Lin, H. S., & Hong, Z. R. (2016). Using a Modified Argument-Driven Inquiry to Promote Elementary School Students’ Engagement in Learning Science and Argumentation. International Journal of Science Education, 38(2), 170-191.

Clark, D. B., Sampson, V., Chang, H. Y., Zhang, H., Tate, E. D., & Schwendimann, B. (2012). Research on Critique and Argumentation from the Technology Enhanced Learning in Science Center. In Perspectives on Scientific Argumentation (pp. 157-199). Springer, Dordrecht.

Dick, W., Carey, L., & Carey, J. O. (2015). The Systematic Design of Instruction (8th ed.). Boston, USA: Pearson.

El-Den, S., O’Reilly, C. L., Gardner, D. M., Murphy, A. L., & Chen, T. F. (2018). Content Validation of a Questionnaire Measuring Basic Perinatal Depression Knowledge. Women & health, 1(2018),1-16.

Foong, C. C., & Daniel, E. G. (2013). Students’ Argumentation Skills across Two Socio-Scientific Issues in a Confucian Classroom: Is Transfer Possible?. International Journal of Science Education, 35(14), 2331-2355.

Gaur, A. S., & Gaur, S. S. (2009). Statistical Methods for Practice and Research: A Guide to Data Analysis Using SPSS (2nd ed.). New Delhi, India: Sage Business Books.

Gay, L. R., Mills, G. E., & Airasian, P. W. (2012). Educational Research Competencies for Analysis and Applications (10th ed.). Boston, USA: Pearson.

Ghani, F. A., Latif, A. A., Aziz, A. A., & Khan, A. (2015). Validity and Reliability Analysis of the ‘SayangKU’(MyLove) in Intervention for Addressing Adolescents Involved in Free Sex. Journal of Religion and Health, 54(4), 1375-1386.

Grooms, J., Enderle, P., & Sampson, V. (2015).Coordinating Scientific Argumentation and the Next Generation Science Standards through Argument Driven Inquiry. Science Educator, 24(1), 45-50.

Grooms, J., Sampson, V., & Golden, B. (2014). Comparing the Effectiveness of Verification and Inquiry Laboratories in Supporting Undergraduate Science Students in Constructing Arguments around Socioscientific Issues. International Journal of Science Education, 36(9), 1412–1433.

Gultepe, N., & Kilic, Z. (2015). Effect of Scientific Argumentation on the Development of Scientific Process Skills in the Context of Teaching Chemistry. International Journal of Environmental and Science Education, 10(1), 111–132.

Halim, L., Abdullah, S. I. S. S., & Meerah, T. S. M. (2014). Students’ Perceptions of Their Science Teachers’ Pedagogical Content Knowledge. Journal of Science Education and Technology, 23(2), 227-237.

Halim, L., Meerah, T. S. M., Zakaria, E., Abdullah, S. I. S. S., & Tambychik, T. (2012).An Exploratory Factor Analysis in Developing Pedagogical Content Knowledge Scale for Teaching Science. Research Journal of Applied Sciences, Engineering and Technology, 4(19), 3558-3564.

Iksan, Z. H., Osman, K., & Salehudin, S. N. M. (2018). Take-Home-Experiment: Enhancing Students’ Scientific Attitude. Journal of Baltic Science Education, 17(5), 828-837.

Henderson, J. B., McNeill, K. L., González‐Howard, M., Close, K., & Evans, M. (2018). Key Challenges and Future Directions for Educational Research on Scientific Argumentation. Journal of Research in Science Teaching, 55(1), 5-18.

Kadar, M., Ibrahim, S., Razaob, N. A., Chai, S. C., & Harun, D. (2018). Validity and Reliability of a Malay Version of the Lawton Instrumental Activities of Daily Living Scale among the Malay Speaking Elderly in Malaysia. Australian occupational therapy journal, 65(1), 63-68.

Leung, S. O. (2011). A Comparison of Psychometric Properties and Normality in 4-, 5-, 6-, and 11-Point Likert Scales. Journal of Social Service Research, 37(4), 412-421.

Llewellyn, D. (2007). Inquire Within: Implementing Inquiry-Based Science Standards In Grades 3-8 (2nd ed.). California: Corwin Press.

Llewellyn, D. (2013). Teaching High School Science through Inquiry and Argumentation (2nd ed.). California, USA: Corwin.

Llewellyn, D., & Rajesh, H. (2011). Fostering Argumentation Skills: Doing What Real Scientists Really Do. Science Scope, 35(1), 22–28.

Lodico, M. G., Spaulding, D. T., & Voegtle, K. H. (2010). Methods in Educational Research: From Theory to Practice (Vol. 28). John Wiley & Sons.

McNeill, K. L. (2009). Teachers’ Use of Curriculum to Support Students in Writing Scientific Arguments to Explain Phenomena. Science Education, 93(2), 233-268.

McNeill, K. L., & Knight, A. M. (2013). Teachers’ Pedagogical Content Knowledge of Scientific Argumentation: The Impact of Professional Development on K-12 Teachers. Science Education, 97(6), 936–972.

Mohd Noah, S., & Ahmad, J. (2005). Pembinaan Modul: Bagaimana Membina Modul Latihan Dan Modul Akademik. University Putra Malaysia.

Osborne, J. (2012). The Role of Argument: Learning How to Learn in School Science. In B. Fraser, K. Tobin, & C.J. McRobbie (Eds.).Second International Handbook of Science Education (pp. 933-949). Dordrecht: Springer.

Osborne, J. (2013). The 21st Century Challenge for Science Education: Assessing Scientific Reasoning. Thinking Skills and Creativity, 10(2013), 265-279.

Osborne, J. (2014). Teaching Scientific Practices: Meeting the Challenge of Change. Journal of Science Teacher Education, 25(2), 177-196.

Osborne, J., Donovan, B. M., Henderson, J. B., MacPherson, A. C., & Wild, A. (2017). Arguing from Evidence in Middle School Science. Thousand Oaks, California: Corwin.

Osborne, J., Simon, S., Christodoulou, A., Howell‐Richardson, C., & Richardson, K. (2013).Learning to Argue: A Study of Four Schools and Their Attempt to Develop the Use of Argumentation as A Common Instructional Practice and its Impact on Students. Journal of Research in Science Teaching, 50(3), 315-347.

Osman, K., Ahmad, C. N. C., & Halim, L. (2011). Students’ Perception of the Physical and Psychosocial Science Laboratory Environment in Malaysia: Comparison across Subject and School Location. Procedia-Social and Behavioral Sciences, 15(2011), 1650-1655.

Osman, K., & Hamid, S. H. A. (2009). Standard Setting: Inserting Domain of the 21St Century Thinking Skills into the Existing Science Curriculum in Malaysia. Procedia-Social and Behavioral Sciences, 1(1), 2573-2577.

Osman, K., Soh, T. M. T., & Arsad, N. M. (2010). Development and Validation of the Malaysian 21St Century Skills Instrument (M-21Csi) for Science Students. Procedia - Social and Behavioral Sciences, 9(2010), 599–603.

Peen, T. Y., & Arshad, M. Y. (2017). Collaborative and Self-Directed Learning Processes: A Case Study in Malaysian Chemistry PBL lesson. IJER-Indonesian Journal of Educational Review, 4(1), 1-13.

Polit, D. F., & Beck, C. T. (2010). Essentials of Nursing Research: Appraising Evidence for Nursing Practice. Philadelphia, PA: Lippincott Williams & Wilkins.

Russell, J. D. (1974). Modular Instruction: A Guide to the Design, Selection, Utilization and Evaluation of Modular Materials. Minneapolis, Minnesota, USA: Burhess Publishing Company.

Sampson, V., & Blanchard, M. R. (2012). Science Teachers and Scientific Argumentation: Trends in Views and Practice. Journal of Research in Science Teaching, 49(9), 1122–1148.

Sampson, V., Enderle, P., Gleim, L., Grooms, J., Hester, M., Southerland, S., & Wilson, K. (2014). Argument-Driven Inquiry in Biology. Arlington, Virginia, USA: NSTA Press.

Sampson, V., & Gleim, L. (2009). Argument-Driven Inquiry to Promote the Understanding of Important Concepts & Practices in Biology. The American Biology Teacher, 71(8), 465–472.

Sampson, V., Grooms, J., & Walker, J. P. (2011). Argument-Driven Inquiry as a Way to Help Students Learn How to Participate in Scientific Argumentation and Craft Written Arguments: An Exploratory Study. Science Education, 95(2), 217–257.

Sampson, V., & Walker, J. P. (2012). Argument-Driven Inquiry as a Way to Help Undergraduate Students Write to Learn by Learning to Write in Chemistry. International Journal of Science Education, 34(10), 1443–1485.

Setambah, M. A. B., Tajudin, N. M. T., Adnan, M., & Saad, M. I. M. (2017). Adventure Based Learning Module: Content Validity and Realiability Process. International Journal of Academic Research in Business and Social Sciences, 7(2), 615–623.

Shrotryia, V. K., & Dhanda, U. (2019). Content Validity of Assessment Instrument for Employee Engagement. SAGE Open, 9(1), 1-7.

Toplis, R. (2012). Students’ Views about Secondary School Science Lessons: The Role of Practical Work. Research in Science Education, 42(3), 531–549.

Walker, J. P., Sampson, V., & Zimmerman, C. O. (2011). Argument-Driven Inquiry: An Introduction to a New Instructional Model for Use in Undergraduate Chemistry Labs. Journal of Chemical Education, 88(8), 1048–1056.

Wu, H. L., & Pedersen, S. (2011). Integrating Computer- and Teacher-Based Scaffolds in Science Inquiry. Computers & Education, 57(4), 2352-2363.

Yang, W. T., Lin, Y. R., She, H. C., & Huang, K. Y. (2015). The Effects of Prior-Knowledge and Online Learning Approaches on Students’ Inquiry and Argumentation Abilities. International Journal of Science Education, 37(10), 1564-1589.

Refbacks

  • There are currently no refbacks.