Las multitudes inarticuladas

After the amendments had been done according to the comments and suggestions of the experts, the scales were sent for the second round of Delphi validation. From the second review by the experts, the constructs were accepted by all experts for both the SDLRSbio and the SDLeRSbio. However, there were some comments on the items which were referred as not suitable for STPM Biology context. Thus amendments were made accordingly. This brought changes to the items 23, 25, and 26 to ensure that the items were related to laboratory skills included in STPM syllabus. For example, for item 25 “How well do you know the use and function of all reagents to conduct food tests?” is not in the STPM syllabus. Therefore, the panel suggested that it should be changed to “I can conduct food tests to identify the classes of food present in a specimen”.

The panel members also suggested a rearrangement of the constructs according to Bloom’s Taxonomy. This helped in identifying the level of knowledge and skills in the constructs. The panel suggested the allocation of the constructs into the knowledge domains based upon the items within the constructs. Some of the constructs, no doubt, could be fit into different knowledge domains as suggested in Table 4.2. For example “Data analysis and interpretation skills” was allocated at “metacognition knowledge” rather than “procedural knowledge”. This was because the panel agreed that for one to do

75

analysis and interpretation is beyond procedural level which involved the integration of knowledge and skills in metacognition level. Hence, the constructs were allocated into the knowledge domains as showed in Table 4.2. This comment of the panel members tallies with the theoretical framework of the current research. In which being readied for SDL one needed the specific skills and knowledge in setting, achieving, and evaluating the learning objectives. Table 4.2 shows the arrangement of the constructs according to Bloom’s Taxonomy and the sample of items belonging to each construct.

Table 4.2 Arrangement of Constructs and Items in Bloom’s Taxonomy

Knowledge domains Constructs Example of Item Factual knowledge - -

Conceptual knowledge Biology cognitive readiness I usually give comments on other’s ideas about Biological concepts

Procedural knowledge Biology learning skills readiness I can use information technology effectively in my Biology study.

Use of instrument I can use the light microscope to observe my specimen slides.

Laboratory techniques I can prepare slides for Biology specimens. Data collection / reading

instrument I can read the measurement accurately from the instruments.

Metacongitive knowledge Emotional readiness in Biology I find it easy to accept other’s idea in Biology

Experimental design skills I can design my own Biology experiment. Data analysis and interpretation

skills I can discuss and conclude according to the results of Biology experiments. Interacting skills readiness I keep an open mind for students’ ideas and

opinions in Biology.

Table 4.3 and Table 4.4 show the results of each Delphi rounds. Amendments were made to the items according to the experts’ comments and suggestions. After the second round of Delphi validation, the scales were administered in a pilot study to 30 students and 10 teachers.

76

Table 4.3 Summary of Delphi Rounds Results for SDLRSbio

Round Total

Constructs Constructs retained Total items Items retained Items amended Items eliminate

1 6 6 58 35 11 12

2 6 6 46 43 3 0

Table 4.4 Summary of Delphi Rounds Results for SDLeRSbio

Round Total

Constructs Constructs retained Total items Items retained Items amended Items eliminated

1 7 7 65 46 11 8

2 7 7 53 50 3 0

From the pilot study, the researcher found that it was not easy to have students and teachers willing to be involved in classroom observations and interviews, hence, an open ended question was added to the SDLRSbio and SDLeRSbio in order to obtain more qualitative responses from the students and teachers about the factors influencing the SDLR among students and the SDLeR among teachers. The developed scales are included in Appendix III and Appendix IV.

The process of the scales development through the Delphi technique is shown in Figure 4.2 below. These developed scales are different from the existing scales in the sense that it measured specifically readiness related to Biology skills and knowledge. A comparison of constructs between existing scales with the developed SDLRSbio and SDLeRSbio is shown in Table 4.5 (p 78).

The researcher had endeavoured in a careful process for the development of research instruments. The Delphi technique was used in developing the constructs of the instruments. The panellists of the Delphi technique was chosen from Biology related fields. The development of the instruments went through two Delphi rounds.

77

Figure 4.2 SDLRSbio and SDLeRSbio Development Flowchart

The early stage of reliability of the scales developed was carried out during the pilot study. In the pilot test the SDLRSbio yielded a Cronbach Alpha reading of 0.869 and SDLeRSbio yielded a Cronbach Alpha reading of 0.971. These results indicated the scales have high reliability in measuring SDLR and SDLeR respectively. The reliability results of the developed scales are recorded in the pilot study at phase 2. The reliability test was consolidated with the actual study later. The instruments developed for this research hence were validated and reliable in measuring the STPM Biology students’ SDLR and STPM Biology teachers’ SDLeR.

Reliability Count

Adding an open ended question to the questionnaire

Literature Review

To identify and list constructs related to SDL from past research

Refined SDLRSbio and SDLeRSbio

Pilot Study Delphi Rounds 1st _Round

Changed the items from questions to statements.

Restructure of constructs to include the biology elements 2nd _round

Relates the constructs to Bloom’s Taxonomy

78

Table 4.5 Comparing the Existing SDLR Scales with SDLRSbio and SDLeRSbio Skills

Domains Research Constructs Swapna Naskar

Williamson, 2007 Murray Fisher, 2001 Oddi, 1986 Guglielmino,1977 Current Research

Self-

management Learning Strategies Awareness Self-management Ability to self regulating Future orientation

Openness to learning opportunities

Biology learning skills readiness

Self-Motivation Learning Activities

Interpersonal skills Desire for learning Learner motivation/self

efficacy/autonomy Learning with others Self concept as an effective learner Initiative and dependence in leaning A love to learn Emotional Readiness in Biology

Self monitoring Evaluation Self control Reading avidity Informed acceptance

of responsibility for one’s own learning Creativity

Ability to use basic study and problem solving skills

Biology cognitive readiness

Specific

Biology Skills - - - - Laboratory skills

Experimental Design skills Data analysis and Interpretation Skills

Teaching skills - - - - Interacting skills

readiness Source: Kwan and Daniel (2013)