Main Article Content

Abstract

The study focused into the relationship between laboratory importance perceptions and academic performance in biology among private and public school students. Study sample involving 165 students from 5 private and 6 public senior high school across South Sulawesi, Indonesia. All private school only possessed an integrated science lab, while all public school owned at least 3 science labs (biology, chemistry, and physics). Evaluation on laboratory importance and biology test results proceed to reveal the importance of having designed laboratory to enhance biology learning outcome in the middle of technological advancement, where learning resource vary across platforms. Surprisingly, private schools, despite having lower scores in laboratory importance perception, achieved superior results in biology tests compared to public schools. This suggests that while laboratory experiences are valuable, they may not be the sole determinants of academic success. Other factors like teaching methods, curriculum depth, and student motivation likely contribute significantly. These findings highlight the complexity of factors influencing student performance in biology and the need for a comprehensive approach to education. Understanding these dynamics can inform educational policies including funds allocation in a school and practices to optimize learning outcomes in biology subjects.

Keywords

Laboratory senior high school biology learning school management

Article Details

Author Biographies

Khairil Asnan Haedar, Khon Kaen University, Thailand

Department of Biological Science

Muhammad Ainurridho, Universitas Negeri Malang, Indonesia

Department of Education,

Suci Indah Cahyani, SMAIT Ibnu Sina, Nunukan, Indonesia

Biology Teacher

How to Cite
Haedar, K. A., Ainurridho, M., & Cahyani, S. I. (2024). Does Laboratory Matters in Today’s High School Learning Environment? . International Journal of Educational Administration, Management, and Leadership, 5(1), 1-12. https://doi.org/10.51629/ijeamal.v5i1.179

References

  1. Ali, N., & Ullah, S. (2020). Review to Analyze and Compare Virtual Chemistry Laboratories for Their Use in Education. Journal of Chemical Education, 97(10), 3563–3574. https://doi.org/10.1021/acs.jchemed.0c00185
  2. Bishop, P. A., Downes, J. M., Netcoh, S., Farber, K., DeMink-Carthew, J., Brown, T., & Mark, R. (2020). Teacher Roles in Personalized Learning Environments. The Elementary School Journal, 121(2), 311–336. https://doi.org/10.1086/711079
  3. Broom, C. (2015). Empowering students: Pedagogy that benefits educators and learners. Citizenship, Social and Economics Education, 14(2), 79–86. https://doi.org/10.1177/2047173415597142
  4. Cheng, Y. C. (2022). School Effectiveness and School-Based Management. Routledge. https://doi.org/10.4324/9781003267980
  5. Doruk, O., & Sarikaya, R. (2023). An Examination of the Studies Between 2013-2022 on the Use of Virtual Laboratories in Science Education. Gazi Üniversitesi Gazi Eğitim Fakültesi Dergisi, 43(3), 1451–1485. https://doi.org/10.17152/gefad.1264589
  6. Elfaki, N. K., Abdulraheem, I., & Abdulrahim, R. (2019). Impact of E-learning vs Traditional Learning on Student’s Performance and Attitude. International Medical Journal, 24(3), 225–233.
  7. Faranto, A. S. D. (2020, February 18). Penyaluran Dana BOS 2020: Wujudkan Merdeka Belajar! . Ombudsman Republik Indonesia. https://ombudsman.go.id/artikel/r/artikel--penyaluran-dana-bos-2020-wujudkan-merdeka-belajar
  8. Grace, G. (1995). School Leadership: Beyond Education Management - An Essay in Policy Scholarship. UK The Falmer Press.
  9. Hastuti, R. K. (2019, August 19). Sasar 271 Ribu Sekolah, Dana BOS 2020 Tembus Rp 54,3 T. CNBC Indonesia. https://www.cnbcindonesia.com/news/20190819190242-4-93121/sasar-271-ribu-sekolah-dana-bos-2020-tembus-rp-543-t
  10. Heath, J. R., & McCann, L. (2021). Leadership lessons untold: A new history of Robert McNamara’s World Bank. Leadership, 17(5), 606–627. https://doi.org/10.1177/17427150211010600
  11. Kurba, M. I. H. (n.d). Menyoal Anggaran Pendidikan. Ministry of Finance Indonesia. Accessed through https://anggaran.kemenkeu.go.id/in/post/menyoal-anggaran-pendidikan.
  12. Kurba, M. I. H. (n.d.). Menyoal Anggaran Pendidikan. Indonesian Ministry of Finance.
  13. McMahon, G. (2009). Critical Thinking and ICT Integration in a Western Australian Secondary School. Educational Technology and Society, 12(4), 269–281.
  14. Milligan, M., Mankelwicz, J., & See, H. P. (2022). Narcissism as a global barrier to education for sustainable development. Perspectives in Education, 40(3). https://doi.org/10.18820/2519593X/pie.v40.i3.3
  15. Milosevic, I., Maric, S., & Lončar, D. (2020). Defeating the Toxic Boss: The Nature of Toxic Leadership and the Role of Followers. Journal of Leadership & Organizational Studies, 27(2), 117–137. https://doi.org/10.1177/1548051819833374
  16. Mohd Elmagzoub Babiker, A. A. (2015). For Effective Use of Multimedia in Education, Teachers Must Develop their Own Educational Multimedia Applications. In TOJET: The Turkish Online Journal of Educational Technology (Vol. 14, Issue 4).
  17. Mulya, C. (2019). Implementasi Pembiayaan Pendidikan Melalui Pengelolaan Dana BOS dalam Meningkatkan Mutu Pendidikan. Indonesian Journal of Education Management and Administration Review, 3.
  18. Okebukola, P. A., Suwadu, B., Oladejo, A., Nyandwi, R., Ademola, I., Okorie, H., & Awaah, F. (2020). Delivering High School Chemistry During COVID-19 Lockdown: Voices from Africa. Journal of Chemical Education, 97(9), 3285–3289. https://doi.org/10.1021/acs.jchemed.0c00725
  19. Pekkolay, S. (2021). Effective School Management. Journal of Advances in Education and Philosophy , 5(8), 231–235.
  20. Pontoh, J., Ilat, V., Manossoh, H., Magister Akuntansi, P., & Ekonomi dan Bisnis Universitas Sam Ratulangi, F. (n.d.). Analisis Pengelolaan Dana Bantuan Operasional Sekolah (BOS) pada Satuan Pendidikan Dasar di Kota Kotamobagu. E-Journal UNSRAT, 223–232.
  21. Poster, C. (2005). Restructuring: The Key to Effective School Management (S. Blandford & J. Welton, Eds.). Routledge.
  22. Riswanto, Suseno, N., Partono, Harjati, P., & Dedy, H. (2019). School Laboratory Management Information System. Journal of Physics: Conference Series, 1361(1), 012068. https://doi.org/10.1088/1742-6596/1361/1/012068
  23. Scherer, R., Siddiq, F., & Tondeur, J. (2019). The technology acceptance model (TAM): A meta-analytic structural equation modeling approach to explaining teachers’ adoption of digital technology in education. Computers & Education, 128, 13–35. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.compedu.2018.09.009
  24. Shahzadi, I. (2023). Role of Laboratories and Science Teaching Material in Science Teaching and Students Learning at Secondary Level in Public Schools. Journal of Development and Social Sciences, 4(II). https://doi.org/10.47205/jdss.2023(4-II)23
  25. Solari, M., Vizquerra, M. I., & Engel, A. (2023). Students’ interests for personalized learning: an analysis guide. European Journal of Psychology of Education, 38(3), 1073–1109. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10212-022-00656-3
  26. Sugita, M., & Takeuchi, O. (2010). What can teachers do to motivate their students? A classroom research on motivational strategy use in the Japanese EFL context. Innovation in Language Learning and Teaching, 4(1), 21–35. https://doi.org/10.1080/17501220802450470
  27. Tang, Q., Zhang, T., & Jiang, L. (2023). Influence of blended instruction on students’ learning effectiveness: the role of Flow. Education and Information Technologies, 28(2), 1891–1909. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10639-022-11224-z
  28. York-Barr, J., & Duke, K. (2004). What Do We Know About Teacher Leadership? Findings From Two Decades of Scholarship. Review of Educational Research, 74(3), 255–316. https://doi.org/10.3102/00346543074003255