Article
The Use of Orientation/Decision/Do/
Discuss/Reflect (Od3r) Method to Increase
Critical Thinking Skill and Practical Skill
in Biochemistry Learningw s
From the †Study Program of Chemistry Education, Faculty of Teacher
Training and Education, Mataram University, Indonesia, ‡Department
of Chemistry Education, Faculty of Mathematics and Natural Science,
Yogyakarta State University, Indonesia
Abstract
We have developed an OD3R method that can be applied on
Biochemistry learning. This OD3R consists of 5 phases: ori-
entation, decision, do, discuss, and reflect to connect lessons
in the class with practice in the laboratory. Implementation
of OD3R method was done in 2 universities in Yogyakarta to
increase critical thinking skill and practical skill of the stu-
dents. The critical thinking skills were assessed using modi-
fied Hoyo rubric according to student’s ability in writing
laboratory work report. Practical skill was assessed using a
Keywords: Biochemistry learning; laboratory work; critical thinking
skill; practical skill
Introduction
Biochemistry is a dynamic branch of science with five main
foundations: cellular, chemistry, physics, genetics, and evo-
lution [1, 2]. The application of biochemistry includes agri-
culture, medical, pharmacology, and toxicology. Topics dis-
cussed in biochemistry are interesting, but need a high
order thinking skills [3].
Volume 00, Number 00, Month/Month 2017, Pages 00–00
Kemenristek DIKTI, due to the funding of Penelitian Disertasi Doktor-
2017 for this work and Kementerian Riset dan Teknologi Republik
Indonesia.
*To whom correspondence should be addressed. E-mail: rianan-
war04@ gmail.com
Received 4 August 2017; Revised 17 October 2017; Accepted 21
November 2017
w
s Additional Supporting Information may be found in the online
version of this article.
DOI 10.1002/bmb.21096
Published online 00 Month 2017 in Wiley Online Library
(wileyonlinelibrary.com)
Biochemistry and Molecular Biology Education
Yunita Arian
Sani Anwar †*
Senam Senam‡
Endang W. Laksono‡
rubric with 6 practical skill categories: procedural skill,
manipulative skill, observation skill, drawing skill, interpreta-
tion skill, and presentation skill. Implementation result
shows that OD3R method can increase critical thinking skill
and practical skill of the students. OD3R method is a learning
method that is centered on the students and can be recom-
mended to train thinking skill and practical skill of students
in University. V
C 2017 by The International Union of Biochem-
istry and Molecular Biology, 00:000–000, 2017.
In the curriculum of Indonesian universities, bioche-
mistry is a basic subject that needs to be taken by students of
chemistry education. The main discussion for 1 year of
learning includes structure and metabolism of protein,
nucleic acid, carbohydrate, and lipid [4].
The broad and complicated concept becomes a prob-
lem in biochemistry learning. Broman et al. [5] took notes
on opinions from high school students who considered bio-
chemistry as a difficult subject. In university level, bio-
chemistry is considered incomprehensible and irrelevant
with neither their career nor their life as students [6–9].
Difficulties are not only faced by students, but also by the
lecturer of the subject [10].
As a science subject, biochemistry involves laboratory
work in the learning process. Laboratory work is expected
to bridge theory with practice [11]. However, laboratory
work can increase students’ understanding, argumentation,
and confidence [12, 13].
In the university, laboratory work does not only train
students’ psychomotor skills, but also train thinking skills
and scientific attitudes [14, 15]. In biochemistry, we saw
several problems in the practice of laboratory work. For
1
 Biochemistry and
Molecular Biology Education

instance, the lack of integration between theories taught in
class and the use of cookbook laboratory that took a domi-
nant part in practice [16].
Several research reports the methods that could be used
to integrate theory and practice in the laboratory. Duzor [17]
used the method of decision/explanation/observation/infer-
ence (DEOI) to bridge theory and practice in laboratory. The
method of Science Writing Heuristic (SWH), model/observe/
reflect/explain (MORE), Process-Oriented Guided Inquiry
Learning (POGIL), and Argument-Driven Inquiry (ADI) are
among the methods used to relate theory with practice in the
laboratory [18–22]. However, many of these methods have
not been able to integrate practical skills assessment in their
implementation.
Orientation/Develop/Do/Discuss/Reflect (OD3R) Method
was developed to integrate theory and laboratory work. In
Indonesia, mostly the laboratory work only repeats the
methods mentioned in the laboratory guidelines. The the-
ory taught in the class could not be integrated with the
practice of laboratory work yet [16]. According to Reid and
Shah [15], learning in laboratory can be effective if the pre
laboratory activity, laboratory work, and post task can be
integrated well. Theory integration and laboratory work
are expected to increase the critical thinking skill and prac-
tical skill in biochemistry class.
The steps of OD3R method consist of 5 phases as fol-
lows: orientation, develop, do, discuss, and reflect. OD3R
Method structure is shown in Table I. Students are given
opportunities to designed their experiment, do experiment,
and to connect their result and theory that they have done
in class. Thus, laboratory work results can be connected
with lecture.
Methods
Assessment Design
Assessment using OD3R method is divided into 2 steps,
namely assessment of critical thinking skill and practical
skill. Critical thinking skill is assessed through laboratory
work report using modified Hoyo rubric [23]. This rubric
evaluates writing competency based on abstract, source of
information, organization, Relevance, content, and presen-
tation characteristics. Characteristics in students’ writing
can be related with cognitive competency in Bloom taxon-
omy. Each trait is given scores with scale ranging from 1 to
4 with 1 shows lowest score and 4 as the highest.

The steps of OD3R method

TABLE I

Phase Steps Assessment

Orientation (O) a. Lecturer explains competency, lesson activity, and

evaluation technique
b. Lecturer explains initial discussion briefly
c. Group discussion of the given material
d. Presentation to discuss the main discussion
e. Instruction to discuss preparation to phase 2 of
learning
Develop (D) a. Lecturer gives the students a task to design a. Procedural skill
experimental plan using agreed limitations. b. Manipulative skill
b. Presentation of initial design.
c. Laboratory work design revision
Do (D) a. Students do laboratory work according to the final a. Observation skill
design resulted from the discussion. b. Drawing skill
b. Taking notes of the laboratory investigation in the c. Interpreting skill
form of a temporary report.
Discuss (D) a. Students write laboratory work report individually a. Presentation skill
b. Group presentation of investigation result b. Critical thinking skill
c. Lecturer gives feedback on students’ presentations (Hoyo Rubric)
and reports
d. Students revise reports
Reflect (R) a. Review of the material using article related to the
topic and surrounding environment
b. Class discussion

2 Method to Increase Critical Thinking Skill and Practical Skill in Biochemistry Learning
 Assessment of practical skill shows category developed
by Kumar [24]. There are 6 categories used: procedural skill,
manipulative skill, observation skill, drawing skill, interpret-
ing skill, and reporting skill. Each skill is developed into sev-
eral indicators and characteristic for the assessment. Each
trait is given scores ranging from the scale of 1 to 4 with 1
shows lowest score and 4 as the highest. Critical thinking
skill and practical skill rubrics can be found in the Supple-
mentary Information.
Validity and Reliability
The validity and reliability of the assessment rubric for labo-
ratory work report and practical skill was measured by
expert agreement. Three experts in chemistry and biochem-
istry education were involved in the instrument assessment.
Expert agreement referred to the calculation of Aiken index
with instrument criteria is valid if Aiken index is above 0.4
[25, 26]. The calculation of average Aiken index shows that
validity score of modified Hoyo rubric and practical skill
rubric are 0.722 and 0.806 respectively.
The reliability of modified Hoyo rubric and practical skill
rubric was calculated using Interclass Correlation Coeffi-
cients (ICC) because the raters were more than two people.
The instrument is declared reliable if ICC is above 0.4 [27].
The ICC score counted using SPSS 21 showed reliability score
of modified Hoyo rubric and practical skill rubric as 0.667
and 0.635. From the ICC score, the instrument is declared as
reliable.
Implementation of OD3R Method
OD3R Method was tried out on students of chemistry educa-
tion who took the Biochemistry class. The universities sam-
ple were Yogyakarta State University and Islam State Uni-
versity of Sunan Kalijaga Yogyakarta with total sample of
155 student. Quasi experiment was used for model trial, with
one group pretest-posttest design. This design compares out-
come variable from pre and post treatment. The treatment is
declared effective if the outcome variable increases.
There were 2 variables of research that was put on
test; critical thinking skill and practical skill. Research data
was analyzed by comparing the average of the two varia-
bles from pre and post treatment.
Results
The research result shows that OD3F method can increase
students’ critical thinking skill. Laboratory work report
average score increased significantly after the application
of method OD3R (p < 0.05). All components of biochemistry
laboratory work report such as abstract, source of informa-
tion, organization, relevance, contents, and presentation
increased after OD3R method application (Fig. 1).
Abstract component to the laboratory work report
shows the increase of scores before and after treatment.
Average score before treatment was 27.5 which increased
after the application of OD3R method to 66.25. In the
Anwar et al.
Effect of OD3R method for writing biochemistry
FIG 1 laboratory work.
abstract writing, all criteria to write abstract cannot be
found in student report. Hoyo [23] reported that abstract
writing is one of the problems faced by chemistry education
students. Along with this research, students tended to have
a perception that an abstract is the same with the conclu-
sion. Gupta [28] reported that from 10 students who were
the research subject, 7 students did not meet the criteria in
Hoyo rubric. The use of Science Writing Heuristic (SWH)
approach can increase the score of abstract scoring.
The average score of the source of information before
the treatment was 60.625 and it increased after the appli-
cation of OD3R method to 83.44. Before the treatment, stu-
dents tended to use at least 5 information sources, mostly
from blog posts. The first criterion related to the informa-
tion source has been met by students. However, the use of
primary source such as journals and books was not yet put
into effect. Besides, the consistency of bibliography writing
and detail still needed to improve. Often, the students did
not mention the source consulted in the bibliography. Infor-
mation source component in Hoyo rubric regards accuracy,
consistency, relevancy, and evidence from the critical
thinking indicators.
Organization component in Hoyo rubric is related to
the students’ skill to analyze investigation result. Imple-
menting OD3R method resulted in the increase of average
score of 63.75 to 79.06. Criteria shown before the treat-
ment was that the information shown were illogical and
inaccurate. Some students already met the three criteria
mentioned in the Hoyo rubric after the application of OD3R
method.
Relevance in the Hoyo rubric can be used to know the
critical thinking skill with the indicators of clarity, accu-
racy, relevancy, evidence, and depth. OD3R method imple-
mentation shows the increase of average score of relevance
components from 54.06 to 79.69. Relevance can be ass-
essed from students’ competence in discussing their inves-
tigation result. Before the treatment, the students spent
more time rewriting their investigation and working proce-
dure. Investigation result and the relation with theory as
well as information they obtain during the class session
3

cannot be conveyed clearly. In accordance with Hoyo [23],
the students of chemistry education could not yet integrate
the information obtained in class sessions, theory, and the-
ory application. Gupta [28] reported that 8 from 10 subjects
did not meet any criteria in the relevancy component.
The result of OD3R method application on content com-
ponents shows a significant increase on scores in which
before the treatment it scored 56.56 and increased to 76.56
after treatment. The students’ competency in meeting the
three criteria on the content components shows that critical
thinking indicator is the one mostly met compared to
others. Critical thinking indicators met content components
includes clarity, accuracy, consistency, relevancy, argu-
mentation, depth, broadness, and equality. Gupta [28] re-
ported that content components in Hoyo rubric is the com-
ponent with the lowest assessment in students’ laboratory
work report. Before the use of Science Writing Heuristic
(SHW), all of the subjects did not meet the assessment
criteria. The use of SWH approach in the third month
shows the increase of students’ who met the criteria as
much as 50%.
Presentation is the last component assessed in Hoyo
rubric. The application of OD3R method gave higher score
average (78.75) compared to before the treatment (56.25).
The most unmet criterion was the limited systematic writ-
ing comprehension.
Along with the critical thinking comprehension, OD3R
method application could increase the students’ practical
skill holistically. Before the application of the method, the
average of practical skill obtained by the students are 51.9.
The application of OD3R method showed that the average
of practical skill increased to 71.22. The rise on the practi-
cal skill score in the implementation of OD3R method is
shown in Fig. 2.
There were six practical skills measured. The first cat-
egory is procedural skill, including the students’ compre-
hension in elaborating practice objectives, determining de-
vices and ingredients from the practice, and conducting the
Effect of OD3R method for practical skills.
FIG 2
4 Method to Increase Critical Thinking Skill and Practical Skill in Biochemistry Learning
Biochemistry and
Molecular Biology Education
practice procedure. Average score of the procedural skill
obtained before the treatment was 62.25. The criteria for
procedural treatment seen from the students include the
facts that they were able to elaborate the general objective
of the practice; able to elaborate the needed devices and
ingredients, the able to use research instruments; unable to
calculate the needed ingredients which required them to do
repetition of the process; lacking the ability to utilize tem-
porary report that they had made, and the use of practice
guidelines in investigation. The application of OD3R method
could improve procedural skill score. Students were able to
elaborate specific practice objectives and make use the
practice design made during the laboratory activity.
The second practical skill category measured in this
research is the manipulative skill. In the first indicator,
several students already could write investigation steps
correctly. However, drilling in the systematic writing for
laboratory work design to familiarize the students with the
process. From the three indicators, observation shows that
the comprehension in writing analytic procedure was not
yet seen and almost every students should be became con-
fused in determining investigation data analysis. Manipula-
tive skill score shows the lowest average score out of all
categories in practical skill. Before the treatment, manipu-
lative skill scored 35.625, and after the application of OD3R
method, it increased to 52.79.
Observation skill score increased significantly to after
compared to before the treatment. The score before the
treatment shows 51.81 with the criteria that had not been
met related to accuracy and observation systematic done.
In the application of OD3R, observation skill increased sig-
nificantly to 78.56.
Before the implementation of OD3R method, drawing
skill (computer graphics) average score was 53.53. After
the application of OD3R model, the average score increased
significantly to 71. Students were able to make a good
observation table as well as giving clear names to columns
and row. However the presentation of tables and graphics
were not yet systematic. After the application of OD3R
method, students could improve the systematics of observa-
tion table and graphic presentation.
Interpretation skill score before the treatment (51.42)
increased significantly after the application of OD3R
method (66.75). Students could record the data resulted
from the observation but could not yet relate it with the
given theory. The students tended to draw conclusions by
repeating statements written in the theoretical review.
After the application of OD3R method, improvements were
shown in the students’ interpretation skill.
Reporting skill was scored based on the presentation
comprehension that was shown by the students in the class.
Before the treatment, students’ presentation skill was
shown as good. Average score of the reporting skill before
the treatment was 56.14, increased significantly after the
implementation of the OD3R method to 76.71. Several
things to improve included the lack of material mastery,
shown by many students who just read their notes in the
presentation; disproportional member contribution in the
team; and the lack of ability to motivate audience to dis-
cuss. The use of OD3R method could increase students’
comprehension in live presentation and proportional team
member contributions.
Discussion
Biochemistry lessons with laboratory work is a part of chem-
istry education curriculum in Indonesia. Until today, the use
of laboratory work undergoes several problems. The prob-
lems, among others, are the dominant use of cookbook labo-
ratory, laboratory work steps that are not related with class-
room lessons, and nonessential laboratory work feedback.
Those problems result in negative perspective from the stu-
dents [16]. Besides those problems, there are many skills
that did not get the time portion to train because the prob-
lems need to be solved first.
The OD3R method is developed to reduce the dominant
use of recipe or procedure stated significantly in the labo-
ratory cookbook. OD3R method phase could relate the les-
sons in the class and laboratory work as well as significant
feedback through the relation.
The use of OD3R method to two different universities
indicates the improvement of the students’ critical thinking
skill and practical skill. The five phases developed from the
OD3R method could increase the students’ thinking skill,
shown by the ability to make a good laboratory work report
and the increase in the students’ practical skill in terms of
the skill in making investigation.
The first phase of OD3R method is orientation, which is
where the students obtain general understanding of the les-
son content. In our research, we used materials such as
amino acid, protein, and enzyme that could be explained
using discussion method to the students. This phase could
be considered as the prelab phase in which the students
were motivated and helped to relate the content with the
investigation that they are about to do. The last step of the
phase is when the lecturer assigns tasks to the students to
develop their investigation plan with qualitative and quanti-
tative analysis of protein in a sample, as a topic of subject.
The orientation step is important to get stimulus to the stu-
dents before doing investigation. In accordance to several
experts’ opinion that through orientation or prelab, investi-
gation becomes more meaningful, drilling many skills espe-
cially in initiating investigation plan so that the students
can memorize in long-term [29–31].
The second phase as the investigation design phase is
the phase that differentiate the study in the classroom of
Biochemistry. Laboratory cookbook emphasizes more on
the recipe and procedure that tend to repeat instructions
given by the lecturer [32, 33]. The planning phase and
investigation plan writing phase are removed from the
Anwar et al.
laboratory cookbook [34]. The steps on the second phase
that have to be done by the student groups are determining
the objective of the study, searching for the literature
method that could be used to achieve that objective, taking
decision on which method to use, and assembling proce-
dure done to achieve that objective. The skill to design an
investigation is one indication why OD3R model could
increase the critical thinking skill and students’ practical
skill. In accordance with inquiry and problem-based labo-
ratory that give chance to the students to design investiga-
tion so that it can increase the practical and critical think-
ing skill [35–38]. Through the chance to design the
investigation with integrated classroom sessions, practical
skill, transferable skill, and intellectual stimulus as the pur-
pose for university laboratory could be trained [39–41].
Investigation design resulted in the second phase could
be used for the laboratory work on phase 3. Phase “do” helps
the students to train some skills such as utilizing the instru-
ments in the laboratory, doing procedures planned, taking
notes of the investigation data accurately, analyze the
research data, present data systematically, and interpreta-
tion of investigation data. The result of the investigation is
evaluated holistically through the students’ comprehension
in assembling the investigation result report. Through labo-
ratory work, students could relate theory studied with the
investigation result that they found. According to Reid and
Shah [15] an effective laboratory work could help train many
skills. Furthermore, confidence and critical thinking skill
could increase [13, 42].
Investigation result was reported through presentation,
writing, and class presentation in the fourth phase. The lec-
turer gave feedback from the writing and discussion of the
students. Feedback is an important step to motivate students
so that they could interpret and produce good quality writ-
ing. Research result showed that critical thinking skill of the
students increased after the application of OD3R method
based on the modified Hoyo rubric. This development was
fueled by the feedback given by the lecturer and the discus-
sion which broadened the students’ mind to produce a better
report. In accordance with research by Contakes [43] and
Walker and Sampson [22] which reported that the investiga-
tion report could help building argument and students’ criti-
cal thinking. Through report writing, theory obtained in the
classroom could be related with the investigation in labora-
tory [17].
The last phase is the “reflect”, whose objective is to
strengthen and evaluate the content learned. Review could
be done with discussion and analysis of the relation bet-
ween the learned content with the content to learn next.
This phase could be beneficial for the lecturer to improve
the learning session of the next content. All of the phases
on OD3R method comprise a student centered learning and
can be used to train thinking skill as well as practice skill
of university students.
5

Conclusion
We concluded that OD3R method can increase students’
critical thinking based on Hoyo rubric. This is seen from
the students’ comprehension in assembling a better investi-
gation report after the application of OD3R method in
terms of abstract writing, information source presentation,
the use of clear format, data interpretation skill, and inves-
tigation result explanation skill, and the use of intelligible
language. Besides critical thinking skill, OD3R method
could increase practice skill such as the skill in designing
investigation, the skill in conducting investigation, collect-
ing investigation data, presenting investigation data, and
reporting investigation result through presentation.
References
[1] Horton, H.R., Moran, L.A., Scrimgeour, K.G., Perry, M.D., and Rawn, J.D.
(2006) Principles of Biochemistry. Pearson Prentice Hall, New Jersey.
[2] Nelson, D.L., and Cox, M.M. (2004) Lehninger: Principles of Biochemis-
try, 4th edition. W.H. Freeman, London.
[3] Jidsejo, A. Oscarsson, M. Karlsson, K. G., and Stromdahl, H. (2009) Sci-
ence for all or science for some: what swedish students want to learn
about in secondary science and technology and their opinions on sci-
ence lessons. Nordina 11, 213–229.
[4] Anwar, Y. A. S. Junaidi, E., and Al Idrus, S. W. (2013) Analisis Kesulitan
Belajar Biokimia Mahasiswa dalam Upaya Pengembangan Perangkat
Pembelajaran Berbasis Daur Belajar Johnston. PAEDAGORIA Jurnal
Kajian Penelitian dan Pengembangan Kependidikan 8, 71–74.
[5] Broman, K. Ekborg, M. and Johnels, (2011) Chemistry in crisis? Per-
spectives on teaching and learning chemistry in Swedish upper second-
ary schools. Int. J. Sci. Educ. 7, 43–53.
[6] Afshar, M., and Han, Z. (2014) Teaching and learning medical biochem-
istry: perspectives from a student and an educator. Med. Sci. Educ. 24,
339–341.
[7] Varghese, J. Faith, M., and Jacob, M. (2012) Impact of e-resources on
learning in biochemistry: first-year medical students perceptions. BMC
Med. Educ. 12, 1–9.
[8] Anderson, T. R., and Grayson, D. J. (1994) Improving students’ under-
standing of carbohydrate metabolism in first-year biochemistry at ter-
tiary level. Res. Sci. Educ. 24, 1–10.
[9] Fulton, T. B. Ronner, P., and Lindsley, J. E. (2012) Medical biochemistry
in the era of competencies: is it time for Krebs cycle to go? Med. Sci.
Educ. 22, 29–32.
[10] Wood, E. J. (1990) Biochemistry is a difficult subject for both student
and teacher. Biochem. Educ. 18, 170–172.
[11] Ottander, C., and Grelsson, G. (2006) Laboratory work the teacher per-
spective. J. Biol. 40, 113–118.
[12] Hofstein, A. Kipnis, M., and Kind, P. (2008) Learning in and from science
laboratories: enhancing students meta-cognition and argumentation
skills. Sci. Educ. Issues Dev. 1, 59–94.
[13] Pickering, M. (1987) What goes on in students’ heads in laboratory? J.
Chem. Educ. 64, 521–523.
[14] Mbajiorgu, N., and Reid, N. (2006) Factors Influencing Curriculum
Development in Chemistry. Royal Society of Chemistry, Hull.
[15] Reid, N., and Shah, I. (2007) The role laboratory work in university
chemistry. Chem. Educ. Res. Pract. 8, 172–185.
[16] Anwar, Y. A. S. Senam, S., and Laksono FX, E. W. Endang Widjajanti
LFX. (2017) Effective laboratory work in biochemistry subject: students’
and lecturers’ perspective in Indonesia. Int. J. High. Educ. 6, 100–109.
[17] Duzor, A. G. V. (2016) Using self-explanations in the laboratory to con-
nect theory and practice: the ecision/explanation/observation/inference
writing method. J. Chem. Educ. 93, 1725–1730.
6 Method to Increase Critical Thinking Skill and Practical Skill in Biochemistry Learning
Biochemistry and
Molecular Biology Education
[18] Schroeder, J. D., and Greenbowe, T. J. (2008) Implementing POGIL in
the lecture and the science writing heuristic in the laboratory: student
perceptions and performance in undergraduate organic chemistry.
Chem. Educ. Res. Pract. 9, 149–156.
[19] Burke, K. A. Greenbowe, T. J., and Hand, B. M. (2006) Implementing the
science writing heuristic in the chemistry laboratory. J. Chem. Educ. 83,
1032–1038.
[20] Rudd, J. A. Greenbowe, T. J., and Hand, B. M. (2007) Using the science
writing heuristic to improve students’ understanding of general equilib-
rium. J. Chem. Educ. 84, 2007–2011.
[21] Tien, L. T. Teichert, M. A., and Rickey, D. (2007) Effectiveness of MORE
laboratory module in prompting students to revise their molecules-level
ideas about solutions. J. Chem. Educ. 84, 175.
[22] Walker, J. P., and Sampson, V. (2013) Argument-driven inquiry: using
the laboratory to improve undergraduates’ science writing skills
through meaningful science writing, peer-review, and revision. J.
Chem. Educ. 90, 1269–1274.
[23] Hoyo, M. T. (2003) Designing a Written asigment to promote the use of
critical thinking skills in an introductory chemistry course. J. Chem.
Educ. 80, 899–903.
[24] Kumar, A. (2010) Assessment of Practical Skill in Science. Central Board
of Secondary Education, New Delhi.
[25] Aiken, L. R. (1985) Three coefficients for analyzing the reliability and
validity of ratings. Educ. Psychol. Meas. 45, 131–142.
[26] Retnawati, H. (2016) Analisis Kuantitatif Instrumen Penelitian: Panduan
Peneliti, Mahasiswa, dan Psikometrian, Parama Publishing, Yogyakarta.
[27] Widhiarso, W. (2005) Mengestimasi Reliabilitas. Fakultas Psikologi
UGM, Yogyakarta.
[28] Gupta, T. (2012) Guided-inquiry based laboratory instruction: investiga-
tion of critical thinking skills, problem solving skills, and implementing
student roles in chemistry. PhD Disertation, Iowa State University.
[29] O’Brien, G., and Cameron, M. (2008) Prelaboratory activities to enhance
the laboratory learning Experience. Universe Science Proceedings
Visualisation.
[30] Shallcross, D. E. Harrison, T. G. Shaw, A. J. Shallcross, K. L. Croker, S.
J., and Norman, N. C. (2013) Lessons in effective practical chemistry at
tertiary level: case studies from a chemistry outreach program. High.
Educ. Stud. 3, 1–10.
[31] Almroth, B.C. (2015) The importance of laboratory exercises in biology
teaching: case study in an ecotoxicology course. www.pil.gu.se/publi-
cerat/texter.
[32] Domin, D. S. (1999) A review of laboratory instruction styles. J. Chem.
Educ. 76, 543–547.
[33] Ault, A. (2002) What’s wrong with cookbooks? J. Chem. Educ. 79, 1177.
[34] Copriady, J. (2015) Practical implementations of practical chemistry
among secondary school teachers. Asian J. Sci. Res. 8, 22–40.
[35] Hakim, A. Liliasari, Kadarohman, A., and Syah, Y. M. (2016) Making a
natural product chemistry course meaningful with a mini project labora-
tory. J. Chem. Educ. 93, 193–196.
[36] Fakayode, S. O. (2014) Guided-inquiry laboratory experiments in the
analytical chemistry laboratory curriculum. Anal. Bio anal. Chem. 406,
1267–1271.
[37] Cacciatore, K. L., and Sevian, H. (2009) Incrementally approaching an
inquiry lab curriculum: can changing a single laboratory experiment
improve student performance in general chemistry? J. Chem. Educ. 86,
498–505.
[38] Dresner, M. De Rivera, C. Fuccillo, K. K., and Chang, H. (2014) Improv-
ing higher-order thinking and knowledge retention in environmental sci-
ence teaching. Bioscience 64, 40–48.
[39] Carnduff, J., and Reid, N. (2003) Enhancing Undergraduate Chemistry
Laboratories, Pre-Laboratory and Post-Laboratory Exercise, Example and
Advice. Education Departement, Royal Society of Chemistry, London.
[40] Iimoto, D. S., and Frederick, K. A. (2011) Incorporating student-designed
research projects in the chemistry curriculum. J. Chem. Educ. 88, 1069–
1073.
[41] Tsaparlis, G., and Gorezi, M. (2007) Addition of a project-based compo-
nent to a conventional expository physical chemistry laboratory. J.
Chem. Educ. 84, 668–670.
[42] Gasper, B. J., and Gardner, S. M. (2013) Engaging students in authentic
microbiology research in an introductory biology laboratory course is
Anwar et al.
correlated with gains in student understanding of the nature of authen-
tic research and critical thinking. J. Microbiol. Biol. Educ. 14, 25–34.
[43] Contakes, S. M. (2016) Misconduct at the lab? A performance task case
study for teaching data analysis and critical thinking. J. Chem. Educ. 93,
314–317.
7