Escolar Documentos
Profissional Documentos
Cultura Documentos
Arlyne C. Marasigan
pastor.cjm@pnu.edu.ph
marasigan.ac@pnu.edu.ph
Fidela Q. Aranes
Janir T. Datukan
Adolfo P. Roque
datukan.jt@pnu.edu.ph
roque.ap@pnu.edu.ph
Virgil Duad
Rebecca C. Nueva Espaa
Jose Paolo O. Bantang
nuevaespana.rc@pnu.edu.ph
Allen A. Espinosa
Ruel A. Avilla
espinosa.aa@pnu.edu.ph
avilla.ra@pnu.edu.ph
Nelson Garcia
Crisanta A. Ocampo
garcia.n@pnu.edu.ph
ocampo.ca@pnu.edu.ph
Philippine Normal University
ABSTRACT
Suggested Citation: Pastor, C. J. et al. (2015). Initial Validation of the Chemistry MicroLab Kit (Chem Lab Kit) in
Facilitating Learning of Selected Chemistry Concepts for K-12 Science. The Normal Lights, 9(2), 180 204.
Introduction
Microscale technique, also known as small scale technique,
is an environmentally viable option for conducting chemical
processes through laboratory experiments using small
quantities of starting materials without compromising the
quality and standard of chemical applications in education
and the industry. In this sense, students who used to work
with 10-50 g of reactants and 50-500 g of solvent may now
work with only about 10-150 mg of starting materials and
1-10 g of solvent (Buther et al., 1985).
There are several advantages to performing microscale
techniques compared to traditional laboratory experiments.
For one, they are cost effective because of the reduced cost
of chemicals. These techniques allow the introduction of a
variety of experiments and the chance to use more specialized
chemicals because fewer amounts are required for the
laboratory activities. They are also economical in terms of
space and equipment requirement because, as an example,
many microscale experiments can be done on a standard
181
182
183
184
185
2.
3.
186
Methodology
The study used the material development research design
focusing on designing an instructional material in the form
of an alternative laboratory kit to facilitate learning of the
students least mastered skills in the secondary level despite
limited resources.
Participants
Participants in this study involved students and
teachers of Physical Sciences group trained to pilot test
the product among students and teachers of selected public
schools in Chemistry.
Instrument and Data Gathering Procedure
A rubric was evaluated and used to assess the kit in
terms of face and content validity. The effectiveness of the
Chemistry lab in addressing the least learned concepts and
skills to high school students was evaluated by administering
rubrics to students, student teachers, teachers, and experts of
the field. The study was implemented in three phases. Phase
1 focused on developing the kit in accordance to identified
least mastered chemistry concepts in high school Chemistry,
documented in division offices of schools supervised by the
Department of Education. Phase 2 featured the production
187
188
3.
4.
5.
6.
7.
8.
9.
10.
11.
12.
13.
SD
Remarka
1.
4.00
0.000
SA
2.
4.00
0.000
SA
3.
4.00
0.000
SA
4.
3.00
0.632
5.
4.00
0.000
SA
6.
2.20
0.400
7.
2.20
0.400
8.
4.00
0.000
SA
9.
3.75
0.433
SA
3.80
0.400
SA
3.49
0.786
Mean
Based on Mean
189
Mean
SD
Remarka
1.
3.50
0.764
SA
2.
2.40
1.020
3.
2.20
0.980
4.
1.80
0.748
5.
3.20
0.980
6.
2.00
1.095
7.
1.50
0.500
8.
2.20
1.166
9.
2.20
1.166
1.50
0.764
Overall
2.31
1.146
Based on Mean
Mean
SD
Remarka
1.
2.00
0.000
2.
2.00
0.000
3.
2.00
0.000
190
4.
2.00
0.000
5.
4.00
0.000
SA
6.
1.00
0.000
SD
7.
1.00
0.000
SD
8.
3.00
0.000
9.
4.00
0.000
SA
4.00
0.000
SA
2.50
1.118
Based on Mean
SD
Remarka
1.
3.67
0.471
SA
2.
1.67
0.471
3.
3.33
0.471
4.
1.67
0.471
5.
2.67
0.471
6.
1.67
0.471
7.
1.67
0.471
8.
3.00
0.000
9.
3.00
0.000
3.00
0.000
2.53
0.846
Mean
Based on Mean
191
SD
Remarka
1.
3.40
0.490
2.
3.20
0.400
3.
3.60
0.490
SA
4.
3.00
0.894
5.
3.40
0.490
6.
2.60
1.019
7.
2.40
0.800
8.
3.00
0.000
9.
3.00
0.000
3.00
0.000
3.06
0.676
Mean
Based on Mean
192
Mean
SD
Remarka
1.
3.80
0.400
SA
2.
3.40
0.490
3.
3.60
0.490
SA
4.
3.20
1.166
5.
3.80
0.400
SA
6.
3.40
0.490
7.
3.00
0.000
8.
2.60
1.020
9.
1.80
0.748
2.00
0.632
Overall
3.06
0.947
Based on Mean
Mean
SD
Remarka
1.
3.75
0.433
SA
2.
3.00
1.000
3.
3.25
0.433
4.
3.00
0.000
5.
3.75
0.433
SA
6.
2.75
0.433
7.
2.25
0.829
8.
3.25
0.433
193
9.
3.75
0.433
SA
3.50
0.500
SA
Overall
3.23
0.732
Based on Mean
Mean
SD
Remarka
1.
3.40
0.490
2.
3.00
0.894
3.
3.00
0.632
4.
1.80
0.748
5.
2.80
0.400
6.
2.00
1.095
7.
1.60
0.490
8.
3.40
0.490
9.
3.40
0.490
3.80
0.400
SA
Overall
2.82
0.973
Based on Mean
Mean
SD
Remarka
1.
4.00
0.000
SA
2.
3.00
0.000
3.
3.00
0.000
4.
5.
4.00
0.000
SA
6.
1.00
0.000
SD
7.
8.
4.00
0.000
SA
9.
4.00
0.000
SA
4.00
0.000
SA
Overall
3.38
0.992
Based on Mean
Mean
SD
Remarka
1.
4.00
0.000
SA
2.
4.00
0.000
SA
3.
4.00
0.000
SA
4.
3.00
0.000
5.
4.00
0.000
SA
6.
3.00
0.000
7.
3.00
0.000
195
8.
4.00
0.000
SA
9.
4.00
0.000
SA
4.00
0.000
SA
Overall
3.70
0.458
SA
Based on Mean
Mean
SD
Remarka
1.
3.40
0.490
2.
3.00
0.632
3.
3.20
0.748
4.
3.00
0.632
5.
3.40
0.490
6.
3.20
0.748
7.
2.40
0.800
8.
3.40
0.490
9.
3.80
0.400
SA
3.80
0.400
SA
Overall
3.26
0.716
Based on Mean
196
Mean
SD
Remarka
1.
4.00
0.000
SA
2.
3.00
0.000
SA
3.
4.00
0.000
SA
4.
3.00
0.000
SA
5.
4.00
0.000
SA
6.
7.
8.
4.00
0.000
SA
9.
4.00
0.000
SA
4.00
0.000
SA
Overall
3.75
0.433
SA
Based on Mean
Mean
SD
Remarka
1.
3.49
0.786
2.
Oh My Electrolytes!
2.31
1.146
3.
2.50
1.118
4.
2.53
0.846
5.
3.06
0.676
6.
Subatomi-Coin Particles
3.06
0.947
7.
Magic Transfer
3.23
0.732
8.
2.82
0.973
9.
Diminishing Mass
3.38
0.992
197
3.70
0.458
SA
3.26
0.716
3.75
0.433
SA
3.09
0.451
Composite
a
Based on Mean
198
SUMMARY
MEAN
SD
Format
3.76
0.436
76.0
MSA
Language
3.76
0.447
76.0
MSA
Reproducibility
3.52
0.714
76.0
MSA
Equipment
3.52
0.510
84.0
Overall
3.64
0.542
86.0
MEAN
SD
REMARK
4.00
0.000
SA
3.40
0.548
4.00
0.000
SA
3.40
0.548
4.00
0.000
SA
COMPOSITE
3.76
0.436
SA
199
Mean
SD
Remark
4.00
0.000
SA
4.00
0.000
SA
3.20
0.447
3.80
0.447
SA
3.80
0.447
SA
COMPOSITE
3.76
0.447
SA
Mean
SD
Remark
4.00
0.000
SA
3.60
0.894
SA
3.00
0.707
4.00
0.000
SA
3.00
0.707
COMPOSITE
3.52
0.714
SA
200
Mean
SD
Remark
3.00
0.000
3.00
0.000
3.80
0.447
SA
4.00
0.000
SA
3.80
0.447
SA
COMPOSITE
3.52
0.510
SA
201
202
References
Abdullah, M., Mohamed, N. & Ismail, Z.H. (2009). The
effect of microscale chemistry experimentation on
students attitude and motivation towards chemistry
practical work. Journal of Science and Mathematics
Education in Southeast Asia, 30(2), 44-72.
Breuer, S.W. (2004). Teaching practical organic chemistry
the microscale way. Chemical Education Journal,
7(2), 17-18.
Buther, S.S., Mayo, D.W., Pike, R.M., Foote, C.M., Hotham,
J.R. & Page, D.S. (1985). Microscale organic laboratory: I: An approach to improving air quality in instructional laboratories. Journal of Chemical Education, 62(2), 147.
Chloupeck-McGough, M (1989). Organic laboratory
experiments: Micro vs. conventional. Journal of
Chemical Education, 66(1), 92.
Ibanez, J.G. (2011). An Introduction to Microscale Chemistry
in Latin America. European Chemistry & Chemical Engineering Education Network NewsLetter, 12(10), 1-8.
Kolb, D.A. (1984). Experiential Learning: Experience as
the Source of Learning and Development. Englewood
Cliffs, New Jersey: Prentice-Hall, Inc.
Mafumiko, F.M.S. (2008). The Potential of Micro-scale
Chemistry Experimentation in Enhancing Teaching
and Learning of Secondary Chemistry: Experiences
from Tanzania Classrooms. Journal of International
Educational Cooperation, 3, 63-79.
Narmadha, U. & Chamundeswari, S. (2013). Attitude towards
Learning of Science and Academic Achievement in
Science among Students at the Secondary Level. Journal of Sociological Research,4(2), 114-124.
203
204