Assessing Laboratory Behavior in Genetic Practicals: A Study on Pre-Service Biology Teachers
Authors
-
Sinta Kharomah
Universitas Negeri Malang
-
Hendra Susanto
Universitas Negeri Malang
-
Siti Zubaidah
Universitas Negeri Malang
DOI:
https://doi.org/10.36312/e-saintika.v10i1.3736Keywords:
Laboratory Behavior, Genetic Practicals, Laboratory Practicum, Pre-service Biology TeachersAbstract
Laboratory behavior refers to attitudes and actions in the laboratory, including planning and design, manipulative skills, conducting experiments, observation and data recording, data interpretation, and responsibility, initiative, and work habits. Laboratory behavior plays an essential role in the development of experimental skills, especially in Genetics courses. This study aims to describe the laboratory behavior of biology education students (N=99) who have taken the Genetics course. The study uses a quantitative descriptive approach using self-assessment questionnaires, peer assessments, observation sheets, and practical report rubrics. The scores from the four assessment sources were averaged equally, with each source contributing the same weight to the final score. The results show that student laboratory behavior falls into the "Needs Improvement" category, with an average achievement percentage of 62.50%. The average achievement percentages for each indicator are as follows: planning and design, 62.57%; experiment implementation, 62.35%; observation and data recording, 59.22%; data interpretation, 59.31%; and responsibility, initiative, and work habits, 64.71%. These results indicate that students' laboratory behavior needs improvement and should be enhanced through effective practical learning, supported by learning models and media that are appropriate to the needs and real situations in the laboratory.
Downloads
References
Abbasi, N., Jebraeily, M., Gheibi, S., & Mohammadpoor, Y. (2024). Designing and evaluating a web-based training program for medical record documentation: Insights from a developing country experience. Informatics in Medicine Unlocked, 51(October), 101599. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.imu.2024.101599
Abraham, J. K., Perez, K. E., & Price, R. M. (2014). The dominance concept inventory: A tool for assessing undergraduate student alternative conceptions about dominance in mendelian and population genetics. CBE Life Sciences Education, 13(2), 349–358. https://doi.org/10.1187/cbe.13-08-0160
Aikens, M. L., & Kulacki, A. R. (2023). Identifying Group Work Experiences That Increase Students’ Self-Efficacy for Quantitative Biology Tasks. CBE Life Sciences Education, 22(2), 1–20. https://doi.org/10.1187/cbe.22-04-0076
An, M., Zhang, H., Savelka, J., Zhu, S., Bogart, C., & Sakr, M. (2021). Are Working Habits Different between Well-Performing and at-Risk Students in Online Project-Based Courses? Annual Conference on Innovation and Technology in Computer Science Education, ITiCSE, 324–330. https://doi.org/10.1145/3430665.3456320
Anwar, Y. A. S., Muti’ah, M., & Dewi, Y. K. (2024). An integrated laboratory work to improve students’ practical skills and attitudes toward biochemistry in the biochemistry course. Biochemistry and Molecular Biology Education, 52(1), 36–44. https://doi.org/10.1002/bmb.21787
Bazie, H., Lemma, B., Workneh, A., & Estifanos, A. (2024). The Effect of Virtual Laboratories on the Academic Achievement of Undergraduate Chemistry Students: Quasi-Experimental Study. JMIR Formative Research, 8. https://doi.org/10.2196/64476
Beerepoot, I., Del Río Ortega, A., Resinas, M., & Reijers, H. A. (2024). Interruptibility during Scientific Research Collaborations: The Effect of Pressure, Proximity and Quiet Time. Proceedings of the ACM Conference on Computer Supported Cooperative Work, CSCW, 179–184. https://doi.org/10.1145/3678884.3681848
Burke, E. M., & Biberman, D. A. (2017). Student practicum as a bridge to governmental public health practice: A survey of schools and programs of public health. Public Health Reports, 132(1), 110–114. https://doi.org/10.1177/0033354916680610
Buroidah, H., Zubaidah, S., & Mahanal, S. (2023). Effects of Project-Based Learning with Project Guide E-book on Critical Thinking and Metacognitive Skills: A Case from Undergraduate Biology Students in Genetic 1 Course. Prisma Sains : Jurnal Pengkajian Ilmu Dan Pembelajaran Matematika Dan IPA IKIP Mataram, 11(2), 240. https://doi.org/10.33394/j-ps.v11i2.6727
Buroidah, H., Zubaidah, S., Mahanal, S., & Wicaksono, A. G. C. (2022). Computer-Based Interactive Project E-book: A Guide for Genetic 1 Course to Enhance Biology Students’ Cognitive Learning Results. Jurnal Pendidikan: Teori, Penelitian, Dan Pengembangan, March, 612–620. https://dx.doi.org/10.17977/jptpp.v7i12.21261
Buske, R., & Bartholomei-Santos, M. L. (2021). What is worse: to mislearn or to forget? Knowledge about Mendelian inheritance among high school senior students. Journal of Biological Education, 55(5), 461–471. https://doi.org/10.1080/00219266.2019.1707260
Cai, B., Mainhood, L. A., Groome, R., Laverty, C., & McLean, A. (2021). Student behavior in undergraduate physics laboratories: Designing experiments. Physical Review Physics Education Research, 17(2), 20109. https://doi.org/10.1103/PhysRevPhysEducRes.17.020109
Çakiroğlu, Ü., Güven, O., & Saylan, E. (2020). Flipping the experimentation process: influences on science process skills. Educational Technology Research and Development, 68(6), 3425–3448. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11423-020-09830-0
Casadevall, A., Steen, R. G., & Fang, F. C. (2014). Sources of error in the retracted scientific literature. The FASEB Journal, 28(9), 3847–3855. https://doi.org/10.1096/fj.14-256735
Chengere, A. M., Bono, B. D., Zinabu, S. A., & Jilo, K. W. (2025). Enhancing secondary school students’ science process skills through guided inquiry-based laboratory activities in biology. PLoS ONE, 20(4 April), 1–18. https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pone.0320692
Cox, L. A. (2024). Objective causal predictions from observational data. Critical Reviews in Toxicology, 54(10), 895–924. https://doi.org/10.1080/10408444.2024.2399856
Creswell, J. W. (2012). Educational Research: Planning, Conducting and Evaluating Quantitative and Qualitative Research. In Pearson (Fourth Edi). Pearson Education Australia.
Curtis, M. J., Alexander, S. P. H., Cortese‐Krott, M., Kendall, D. A., Martemyanov, K. A., Mauro, C., Panettieri, R. A., Papapetropoulos, A., Patel, H. H., Santo, E. E., Schulz, R., Stefanska, B., Stephens, G. J., Teixeira, M. M., Vergnolle, N., Wang, X., & Ferdinandy, P. (2025). Guidance on the planning and reporting of experimental design and analysis. British Journal of Pharmacology, 182(7), 1413–1415. https://doi.org/10.1111/bph.17441
Davis-Berg, E. C., & Rafacz, M. L. (2021). Incorporating Research into an Undergraduate Animal Behavior Course using Zoos andWebcams. Integrative and Comparative Biology, 61(5), 1762–1768. https://doi.org/10.1093/icb/icab137
Day, L. L., Murray, E., Treadwell, M. J., & Lubin, B. H. (2015). Teaching About Genetics and Sickle Cell Disease In Fifth Grade. Journal of the National Medical Association, 107(1), 4–10. https://doi.org/10.1016/S0027-9684(15)30003-1
Di Trapani, G., & Clarke, F. (2012). Biotechniques laboratory: An enabling course in the biological sciences. Biochemistry and Molecular Biology Education, 40(1), 29–36. https://doi.org/10.1002/bmb.20573
Digarbayeva, A., Kaliyeva, A., Batayeva, D., Bakirova, K., & Koksal, E. A. (2024). Enhancing the Professional Skills of Future Biologists Through Laboratory Training. Journal of Advanced Academics, 35(4), 752–771. https://doi.org/10.1177/1932202X241253448
Donohue, K. E., Gooch, C., Katz, A., Wakelee, J., Slavotinek, A., & Korf, B. R. (2021). Pitfalls and challenges in genetic test interpretation: An exploration of genetic professionals experience with interpretation of results. Clinical Genetics, 99(5), 638–649. https://doi.org/10.1111/cge.13917
Duncan, M. C. (2023). A practical guide to expert learner skills in the research environment. Molecular Biology of the Cell, 34(5). https://doi.org/10.1091/mbc.E22-11-0517
Fernandes, F. A. N. (2024). Experimental design for chemometrics: best practices. In Chemometrics (pp. 39–59). Elsevier. https://doi.org/10.1016/B978-0-443-21493-6.00003-4
Fostier, M., Patel, S., Clarke, S., & Prokop, A. (2015). A novel electronic assessment strategy to support applied drosophila genetics training in university courses. G3: Genes, Genomes, Genetics, 5(5), 689–698. https://doi.org/10.1534/g3.115.017509
Goldshaft, B. (2024). Mentoring in practicum: supporting student teachers’ learning to notice with collaborative observational tools. Professional Development in Education, 00(00), 1–20. https://doi.org/10.1080/19415257.2024.2441837
Goodey, N. M., & Talgar, C. P. (2016). Guided inquiry in a biochemistry laboratory course improves experimental design ability. Chemistry Education Research and Practice, 17(4), 1127–1144. https://doi.org/10.1039/C6RP00142D
Gupta, R., Chadda, P., Bhatt, Y. K., Rawat, A., & Singh, G. (2024). Genetic Algorithm-Based Time-Table Creation System. 2024 International Conference on Electrical Electronics and Computing Technologies (ICEECT), 1–6. https://doi.org/10.1109/ICEECT61758.2024.10739290
Haw, L. H., Sharif, S. B., & Han, C. G. K. (2022). Predictors of Student Engagement in Science Learning: The Role of Science Laboratory Learning Environment and Science Learning Motivation. Asia Pacific Journal of Educators and Education, 37(2), 225–245. https://doi.org/10.21315/apjee2022.37.2.11
Hofstein, A., & Lunetta, V. N. (2004a). The Laboratory in Science Education: Foundations for the Twenty-First Century. Science Education, 88(1), 28–54. https://doi.org/10.1002/sce.10106
Hofstein, A., & Lunetta, V. N. (2004b). The laboratory in science education: Foundations for the twenty‐first century. Science Education, 88(1), 28–54. https://doi.org/10.1002/sce.10106
Holder, D. J., & Marino, M. J. (2017). Logical Experimental Design and Execution in the Biomedical Sciences. Current Protocols in Pharmacology, 76(1). https://doi.org/10.1002/cpph.20
Hubbard, K., Henri, D., Scott, G., Snelling, H., & Roediger, E. (2024). Developing undergraduate practical skills and independence with ‘at home practical kits.’ International Journal of Science Education. https://doi.org/10.1080/09500693.2024.2311087
Inayah, A. T., Anwer, L. A., Shareef, M. A., Nurhussen, A., Alkabbani, H. M., Alzahrani, A. A., Obad, A. S., Zafar, M., & Afsar, N. A. (2017). Objectivity in subjectivity: Do students’ self and peer assessments correlate with examiners’ subjective and objective assessment in clinical skills? A prospective study. BMJ Open, 7(5). https://doi.org/10.1136/bmjopen-2016-012289
Isaac, W., & Cruz, M. (2024). Use of the Collaborative Google Site to Improve Academic Performance at the Paul Ponce Rivadeneira Educational Unit. 5(10), 207–226.
Juergens, H., Niemeijer, M., Jennings-Antipov, L. D., Mans, R., Morel, J., van Maris, A. J. A., Pronk, J. T., & Gardner, T. S. (2018). Evaluation of a novel cloud-based software platform for structured experiment design and linked data analytics. Scientific Data, 5, 1–12. https://doi.org/10.1038/sdata.2018.195
Kanai, M., Akiyama, M., Takahashi, A., Matoba, N., Momozawa, Y., Ikeda, M., Iwata, N., Ikegawa, S., Hirata, M., Matsuda, K., Kubo, M., Okada, Y., & Kamatani, Y. (2018). Genetic analysis of quantitative traits in the Japanese population links cell types to complex human diseases. Nature Genetics, 50(3), 390–400. https://doi.org/10.1038/s41588-018-0047-6
Kerans, G., Liliasari, & Sanjaya, Y. (2025). Critical and creative thinking skills in biology? Practicum of science teacher students. 080030. https://doi.org/10.1063/5.0259742
Khan, R., Payne, M. W. C., & Chahine, S. (2017). Peer assessment in the objective structured clinical examination: A scoping review. Medical Teacher, 39(7), 745–756. https://doi.org/10.1080/0142159X.2017.1309375
Klemm, J., Flores, P., Sodian, B., & Neuhaus, B. J. (2020). Scientific Reasoning in Biology – the Impact of Domain-General and Domain-Specific Concepts on Children’s Observation Competency. Frontiers in Psychology, 11. https://doi.org/10.3389/fpsyg.2020.01050
Kloser, M., Borko, H., Wilsey, M., & Rafanelli, S. (2022). Leveraging portfolios in professional development for middle school science teachers’ assessment and data‐use practice. Science Education, 106(4), 924–955. https://doi.org/10.1002/sce.21712
Kohlhauf, L., Rutke, U., & Neuhaus, B. (2011). Influence of Previous Knowledge, Language Skills and Domain-specific Interest on Observation Competency. Journal of Science Education and Technology, 20(5), 667–678. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10956-011-9322-3
Koonchanok, R., Tawde, G. Y., Narayanasamy, G. R., Walimbe, S., & Reda, K. (2023). Visual Belief Elicitation Reduces the Incidence of False Discovery. Conference on Human Factors in Computing Systems - Proceedings. https://doi.org/10.1145/3544548.3580808
Kranz, J., Baur, A., & Möller, A. (2023). Learners’ challenges in understanding and performing experiments: a systematic review of the literature. Studies in Science Education, 59(2), 321–367. https://doi.org/10.1080/03057267.2022.2138151
Lal, S., Lucey, A. D., Lindsay, E. D., Treagust, D. F., Long, J. M., Mocerino, M., & Zadnik, M. G. (2020). Student perceptions of instruction sheets in face-to-face and remotely-operated engineering laboratory learning. European Journal of Engineering Education, 45(4), 491–515. https://doi.org/10.1080/03043797.2019.1654433
Li, T., T. L. Brown, G., & Hawe, E. (2023). The tension between impression management and learning: examining the impact of Chinese students’ academic integrity perceptions on self-assessment intentions. Assessment and Evaluation in Higher Education, 48(8), 1371–1384. https://doi.org/10.1080/02602938.2023.2222232
Little, T. J., & Colegrave, N. (2016). Caging and Uncaging Genetics. PLoS Biology, 14(7), 1–5. https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pbio.1002525
Love, H. R., Horn, E., & An, Z. (2019). Teaching Observational Data Collection to Early Childhood Preservice Educators. Teacher Education and Special Education, 42(4), 297–319. https://doi.org/10.1177/0888406419836147
Lunetta, V. N., Hofstein, A., Giddings, G., & Giddings, G. (1981). Science Skills Evaluating Laboratory. 48(1), 22–25.
Madsen, S. S., Habbestad, H., & Borch, I. H. (2023). Valuable unintended learning outcomes when practicum for student teachers in kindergartens is carried out online. Education and Information Technologies, 28(1), 1213. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10639-022-11182-6
Maričić, M., Cvjetićanin, S., Petojević, N., & Anđić, B. (2020). Contribution of laboratory-experimental method to the quality of students knowledge. Norma, 25(1), 53–64. https://doi.org/10.5937/norma2001053M
May, D., Terkowsky, C., Varney, V., & Boehringer, D. (2023). Between hands-on experiments and Cross Reality learning environments – contemporary educational approaches in instructional laboratories. European Journal of Engineering Education, 48(5), 783–801. https://doi.org/10.1080/03043797.2023.2248819
Mey, I. (2021). Apprenticeship in microbiology (pp. 285–298). https://doi.org/10.1075/pbns.319.13mey
Militello, K. T., Chang, M. M., Simon, R. D., & Lazatin, J. C. (2016). Blue genes: An integrative laboratory to differentiate genetic transformation from gene mutation for underclassmen. Biochemistry and Molecular Biology Education, 44(1), 55–62. https://doi.org/10.1002/bmb.20923
Miller, J. A., Witherow, D. S., & Carson, S. (2009). A laboratory-intensive course on RNA interference and model organisms. CBE Life Sciences Education, 8(4), 316–325. https://doi.org/10.1187/cbe.09-02-0012
Mistry, N., & Gorman, S. G. (2020). What laboratory skills do students think they possess at the start of University? Chemistry Education Research and Practice, 21(3), 823–838. https://doi.org/10.1039/C9RP00104B
Moore, A. M., Fairhurst, P., Bennett, J. M., Harrison, C., Correia, C. F., & Durk, J. (2024). Assessment and practical science: identifying generalizable characteristics of written assessments that reward and incentivise effective practices in practical science lessons. International Journal of Science Education, 46(7), 643–669. https://doi.org/10.1080/09500693.2023.2253366
Mumpuni, K. E., Priyayi, D. F., & Widoretno, S. (2022). How do Students Perform a Peer Assessment? International Journal of Instruction, 15(3), 751–766. https://doi.org/10.29333/iji.2022.15341a
Myrick, C. A., Underwood, Z. E., & Kinzli, K. D. (2013). Supporting Undergraduate Education with Realistic Laboratory Exercises and Research Experience. Fisheries, 38(4), 160–168. https://doi.org/10.1080/03632415.2013.767240
Nishida, E., Ishita, E., Watanabe, Y., & Tomiura, Y. (2020). Description of research data in laboratory notebooks: Challenges and opportunities. Proceedings of the Association for Information Science and Technology, 57(1). https://doi.org/10.1002/pra2.388
Nousek-McGregor, A., McCaughey, L., & Hamilton, L. (2025). Formatively assessing competency in practical skills in the biological sciences through direct observations and oral feedback. In Formative Assessment and Feedback in Post-Digital Learning Environments (pp. 149–157). Routledge. https://doi.org/10.4324/9781003360254-19
Nyansa, M. M. S., Burrows, N. L., Galerneau, A. J., Bekkala, A. P., & Hungwe, K. N. (2024). Beyond Intentions: Understanding the Gap between Safety Education and Student Behaviors. Journal of Chemical Education, 101(3), 798–806. https://doi.org/10.1021/acs.jchemed.3c00620
Okebukola, P. A. (1985). Science laboratory behavior strategies of students relative to performance in and attitude to laboratory work. Journal of Research in Science Teaching, 22(3), 221–232. https://doi.org/10.1002/tea.3660220304
Pazos, P., Ringleb, S. I., Kidd, J., & Jones, R. (2019). Scaffolding project-based learning in an engineering and education partnership using open-access technology. International Journal of Engineering Education, 35(5), 1306–1315.
Poczai, P., & Santiago-Blay, J. A. (2021). Principles and biological concepts of heredity before Mendel. Biology Direct, 16(1), 1–17. https://doi.org/10.1186/s13062-021-00308-4
Pols, C. F. J., Dekkers, P. J. J. M., & de Vries, M. J. (2021). What do they know? Investigating students’ ability to analyse experimental data in secondary physics education. International Journal of Science Education, 43(2), 274–297. https://doi.org/10.1080/09500693.2020.1865588
Powell, J., Chairs, S., D’Adamo, C. R., Wolf, J., & Feinman, M. (2024). Worksheet-Based Delivery System to Improve Participation and Engagement in Basic Science. Journal of Surgical Education, 81(11), 1558–1564. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jsurg.2024.07.026
Quintáns, B., Ordóñez-Ugalde, A., Cacheiro, P., Carracedo, A., & Sobrido, M. J. (2014). Medical genomics: The intricate path from genetic variant identification to clinical interpretation. Applied & Translational Genomics, 3(3), 60–67. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.atg.2014.06.001
Razavi, P., Li, B. T., Brown, D. N., Jung, B., Hubbell, E., Shen, R., Abida, W., Juluru, K., De Bruijn, I., Hou, C., Venn, O., Lim, R., Anand, A., Maddala, T., Gnerre, S., Vijaya Satya, R., Liu, Q., Shen, L., Eattock, N., … Reis-Filho, J. S. (2019). High-intensity sequencing reveals the sources of plasma circulating cell-free DNA variants. Nature Medicine, 25(12), 1928–1937. https://doi.org/10.1038/s41591-019-0652-7
Ribau, I. (2020). Practical work by laboratory stations: An innovation in experimental work. Universal Journal of Educational Research, 8(1), 17–26. https://doi.org/10.13189/ujer.2020.080103
Rodgers, W. J., Morris-Mathews, H., Romig, J. E., & Bettini, E. (2022). Observation Studies in Special Education: A Synthesis of Validity Evidence for Observation Systems. Review of Educational Research, 92(1), 3–45. https://doi.org/10.3102/00346543211042419
Rogers, J. R., & Fraser, B. J. (2023). Sex and frequency of practical work as determinants of middle-school science students’ learning environment perceptions and attitudes. Learning Environments Research, 26(2), 315–336. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10984-022-09426-w
Schang, A., Dew, M., Stump, E. M., Holmes, N. G., & Passante, G. (2023). New perspectives on student reasoning about measurement uncertainty: More or better data. Physical Review Physics Education Research, 19(2), 20105. https://doi.org/10.1103/PhysRevPhysEducRes.19.020105
Scherz, P. (2018). Risk, prudence and moral formation in the laboratory. Journal of Moral Education, 47(3), 304–315. https://doi.org/10.1080/03057240.2017.1406345
Seery, M. K., Agustian, H. Y., Doidge, E. D., Kucharski, M. M., O’Connor, H. M., & Price, A. (2017). Developing laboratory skills by incorporating peer-review and digital badges. Chemistry Education Research and Practice, 18(3), 403–419. https://doi.org/10.1039/C7RP00003K
Simão, M., Conceição, N., Imaginário, S., Amaro, J., & Cancela, M. L. (2022). Lab-It Is Taking Molecular Genetics to School. BioChem, 2(2), 160–170. https://doi.org/10.3390/biochem2020011
Smith, J. T., Harris, J. C., Lopez, O. J., Valverde, L., & Borchert, G. M. (2015). “On the job” learning: A bioinformatics course incorporating undergraduates in actual research projects and manuscript submissions. Biochemistry and Molecular Biology Education, 43(3), 154–161. https://doi.org/10.1002/bmb.20848
Stevenson, J. E., Israelsson, J., Petersson, G., & Bath, P. A. (2018). Factors influencing the quality of vital sign data in electronic health records: A qualitative study. Journal of Clinical Nursing, 27(5–6), 1276–1286. https://doi.org/10.1111/jocn.14174
Susanto, H., Ibrohim, Basuki, A., Fadzil, H. M., Syafruddin, A. B., & Gunawan, A. (2024). Development of an Advanced Biology Learning Website in the Fields of Biotechnology, Biochemistry, and Biomedicine with the STEAM Approach. International Journal of Interactive Mobile Technologies (IJIM), 18(07), 158–172. https://doi.org/10.3991/ijim.v18i07.48083
Ta, H., Hofer, A. R., Jin, Y. “Henry,” Peinkofer, S. T., & Sodero, A. (2025). Designing scenario-based experiments in retail SCM: methodological approaches and practical insights. International Journal of Physical Distribution & Logistics Management, 55(1), 94–117. https://doi.org/10.1108/IJPDLM-10-2024-0392
Taylor, E. C., & Beus, J. M. (2025). Why Showing Initiative is Not Enough in Teams: A Heat Map Analysis of Soccer Players’ Initiative and Team Coordination. Group & Organization Management. https://doi.org/10.1177/10596011251356100
Vedova, C. Della, Denyer, G., & Costabile, M. (2025). Combining face-to-face laboratory sessions and a computer simulation effectively teaches gene editing and DNA sequencing to undergraduate genetics students. Biochemistry and Molecular Biology Education, 53(3), 286–296. https://doi.org/10.1002/bmb.21895
Venant, R., Sharma, K., Dillenbourg, P., Vidal, P., & Broisin, J. (2017). A Study of Learners’ Behaviors in Hands-On Learning Situations and Their Correlation with Academic Performance (pp. 570–573). https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-319-61425-0_66
Vorholzer, A., Petermann, V., Weber, J., zu Belzen, A. U., & Tiemann, R. (2024). Explicit instruction on procedural and epistemic knowledge–is it happening? A video-based exploration of classroom practice. Research in Science and Technological Education, 42(3), 513–532. https://doi.org/10.1080/02635143.2022.2153245
Walker, L. S. (2014). Developing Your Experiment. In Laboratory Experiments in the Social Sciences (pp. 127–144). Elsevier. https://doi.org/10.1016/B978-0-12-404681-8.00006-6
Wang, X., Thorarinsdottir, A. E., Bachrach, M., & Blayney, M. B. (2019). Building a Sustainable Student-Led Model to Promote Research Safety in Academic Laboratories. ACS Central Science, 5(12), 1900–1903. https://doi.org/10.1021/acscentsci.9b00562
Whitley, K. V., Tueller, J. A., & Weber, K. S. (2020). Genomics education in the era of personal genomics: Academic, professional, and public considerations. International Journal of Molecular Sciences, 21(3). https://doi.org/10.3390/ijms21030768
Wilcox, C., Djahel, S., & Giagos, V. (2021). Identifying the Main Causes of Medical Data Incompleteness in the Smart Healthcare Era. 2021 International Symposium on Networks, Computers and Communications (ISNCC), 1–6. https://doi.org/10.1109/ISNCC52172.2021.9615774
Wu, J. (2013). Mutation-Based Learning to Improve Student Autonomy and Scientific Inquiry Skills in a Large Genetics Laboratory Course. CBE—Life Sciences Education, 12(3), 460–470. https://doi.org/10.1187/cbe.12-09-0168
Yu, D. G., Du, Y., Chen, J., Song, W., & Zhou, T. (2023). A Correlation Analysis between Undergraduate Students’ Safety Behaviors in the Laboratory and Their Learning Efficiencies. Behavioral Sciences, 13(2). https://doi.org/10.3390/bs13020127
Zhao, J., Hu, D., Yu, D., Dong, M., Li, Y., Fan, Y., Wang, Y., & Zhang, J. (2016). Teaching design and practice of human blood type traits in genetics comprehensive laboratory course. Yi Chuan = Hereditas / Zhongguo Yi Chuan Xue Hui Bian Ji, 38(5), 461–466. https://doi.org/10.16288/j.yczz.15-414
Downloads
Published
Issue
Section
License
Copyright (c) 2026 Sinta Kharomah, Hendra Susanto, Siti Zubaidah
This work is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution-ShareAlike 4.0 International License.
Authors who publish with Jurnal Penelitian dan Pengkajian Ilmu Pendidikan: e-Saintika agree to the following terms:
- For all articles published in Jurnal Penelitian dan Pengkajian Ilmu Pendidikan: e-Saintika, copyright is retained by the authors. Authors give permission to the publisher to announce the work with conditions. When the manuscript is accepted for publication, the authors agrees to implement a non-exclusive transfer of publishing rights to the journals.
- Authors retain copyright and grant the journal right of first publication with the work simultaneously licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution-ShareAlike 4.0 International License that allows others to share the work with an acknowledgment of the work's authorship and initial publication in this journal.
- Authors are able to enter into separate, additional contractual arrangements for the non-exclusive distribution of the journal's published version of the work (e.g., post it to an institutional repository or publish it in a book), with an acknowledgment of its initial publication in this journal.
- Authors are permitted and encouraged to post their work online (e.g., in institutional repositories or on their website) prior to and during the submission process, as it can lead to productive exchanges, as well as earlier and greater citation of published work (See The Effect of Open Access).
This work is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution-ShareAlike 4.0 International License.
