International Journal of Basic Sciences and Applied Computing
Exploring Innovation| ISSN:2394-367X(Online)| Published by BEIESP| Impact Factor:2.98
Aims and Scope
Instructions for Authors
Call for Papers
Editorial Board
Ethics & Policies
Volume-2 Issue-2: Published on December 20, 2016
Volume-2 Issue-2: Published on December 20, 2016

 Download Abstract Book (It will be upload on January 20, 2017)

S. No

Volume-2 Issue-2, December 2016, ISSN: 2394-367X (Online)
Published By: Blue Eyes Intelligence Engineering & Sciences Publication Pvt. Ltd. 

Page No.



Syamsuddin, Bambang Setiaji, Wega Trisunaryanti, Dan Harno Dwi Pranowo

Paper Title:

Characterization Methil Ester Sulfonate (MES) from Coconut Oil

Abstract: Characterization methyl ester sulfonate of coconut oil has been done. In this research the characterization of methyl ester sulfonat (MES) that were observed include the influence of the ratio of moles of reactant against MES, viscosity influence reaction time against MES, viscosity ratio of moles of a reactant influence against the density of MES and the influence of the reaction time toward the density of MES. The measurement is carried out using equipment viscometer Brookfield and Density Meter DMA 4500M. The results showed that the condition of the production process of methyl ester surfactant sulfonat shows that the best conditions reached a ratio of moles of reactant 1:1.4; at long reaction 4.5 hours, viscosity  30.42  cP and density 0.9866 g/cm3.

 Characterization, sulfonate (MES), DMA 4500M, Brookfield, ratio, reactant 1:1.4;


1.      Ahmad S, Siwayanan P, Abd Murad Z, Abd Aziz H dan Seng Soi H. 2007.Beyond  Biodiesel : Methyl Esters as the Route for the Production ofSurfactants Feedstock. Inform (18) :216–220.
2.      Roberts DW, Giusti L, Forcella A. 2008. Chemistry of Methyl Ester  Sulfonates.Biorenewable Resources 5 : 2-19.

3.      Gupta S dan Wiese D. 1992. Soap, Fatty Acids, and Synthetic Detergents. Didalam : Kent JA (ed). Riegel's Handbook of Industrial Chemistry. 9thEdition. New York : Van Nostrand Reinhold.

4.      Moreno JB, Bengoechea C, Bravo J dan Berna JL. 2003. A contribution to  understanding secondary reactions in linear alkylbenzene sulfonation.Journal of Surfactants and Detergents, 6 (2) : 137 – 142.

5.      Nedjhioui M, Moulai-Mostefa N, Morsli A dan Bensmaili A. 2005. Combined effects of polymer/surfactant/oil/alkali on physical chemical properties.Desalination, 185 : 543 – 550.




Sana Alyaseri

Paper Title:

A Weighting Factor as A Tool To Adjust the Student's Grades: Web Development Project as A Case Study

Abstract:  Group project is one of the most common assessment methods used in New Zealand Private Tertiary Establishments (PTEs).  Group work is considered as a purposeful and valued learning approach as it enriches the experiential learning of group dynamic. However, for the possibility of student satisfaction and positive learning outcomes with group activities to be significantly improved certain points need to be achieved; effective group project processes are utilised, clear assessment instructions are developed and communicated, and valid and fair grading is employed for the project processes. On the other hand, if students cannot see the point of group projects or they are unsure of what is expected of them or think the assessment methods are invalid or the grading system is unfair; the educational benefits are reduced and tensions can emerge. In fact, the way in which students engage in a group project is mainly determined by the way in which they are to be assessed. For example, since not all group members have the same contribution, the students feel that giving the same mark to all members is unfair. As a result, some tertiary educators use a strategy called ‘peer and self-assessment’ as a method of determining how group marks are to be distributed among individuals [1]. This paper provides an approach to calculate the peer review points and adjust the individual grades. The proposed approach is called the weighting factor (Wf) that represents how much the contribution percentage is for each member of the group

Group project, Self and peer review, student assessment, Teamwork.


1.      G. Kennedy, G., “Peer-assessment in Group Projects: Is It Worth It?”, Australian Computer Society, Inc. , Australia. Conferences in Research and Practice in Information Technology, 2006, Vol. 42. Alison Young and Denise Tolhurst, Eds. Reproduction for academic.
2.      W. Davies,  “Groupwork as a form of assessment: common problems and recommended solutions”. High Educ, 2009. 58:5 pp. 63–584, DOI 10.1007/s10734-009-9216-y Published online: 20 March 2009, Springer Science+Business Media B.V. 2009.

3.      R. Watkins. “Group work and assessment, The Handbook for economic lectures”, 2004, Kingston University.

4.      D. Hall, & S. Buzwell. “The problem of free-riding in group projects: Looking beyond social loafing as reason for non contribution”.  Active Learning in Higher Education Vol 14, no 1, 2012, pp. 37–49, journalsPermissions.nav, DOI: 10.1177/1469787412467123,

5.      J. Pearce, R. Mulder  & C. Baik, “Involving students in peer review Case studies and practical strategies for university teaching”, Centre for the Study of Higher Education The University of Melbourne, 2009,

6.      Centre for Academic Development. “Group work and group assessment”. 2013, Victoria university of wellington.

7.      D. Spiller, “Assessment Matters: Self-Assessment and Peer Assessment”, Teaching Development, Wāhanga Whakapakari Ako, The university of Waikato, February 2009.

8.      J. Alden, “Assessment of individual student performance in online team project”, Journal of Asynchronous Learning Networks, Volume 15, 2011, Issue 3.

9.      P. Willmot  & K. Pond, “Multi-disciplinary Peer-mark Moderation of Group Work”, International Journal of Higher Education, 2012, Vol. 1, No. 1; May 2012 , doi:10.5430/ijhe.v1n1p2.

10.   N. Elliott & A. Higgins, “Self and peer assessment – does it make a difference to student group work?”, Nurse Education in Practice Vol. 5, 2005, pp. 40–48,

11.   D. Hall and S. Buzwell, “The problem of free-riding in group projects: Looking beyond social loafing as reason for non-contribution”, Vol. 14, 2012, issue. 1, pp. 37-49, DOI:
12.   J. Fermelis, R. Tucker & S. Palmer, “Online self and peer assessment in large, multi-campus, multi-cohort contexts”. In Proceedings of ASCILITE - Australian Society for Computers in Learning in Tertiary Education Annual Conference 2007, pp. 271-281. Australasian Society for Computers in Learning in Tertiary Education.
13.   C. Cestone, R. Lvine,. & D. Lane, ” Peer Assessment and Evaluation in Team-Based Learning”,  NEW DIRECTIONS FOR TEACHING AND LEARNING, no. 116, Winter 2008, Wiley Periodicals, Inc. Published online in Wiley InterScience ( • DOI: 10.1002/tl.334.

14.   R. Raban, & A. Litchfield, ” Supporting peer assessment of individual contributions in group work”, 2007. Australasian Journal of Educational Technology 2007, volume 23, no 1, pp 34-47.

15.   B. Friedman, P. Cox and L. Maher, “An expectancy theory motivation approach to peer assessment”. Thesis, School of Business State University of New York at Oswego, 2008.

16.   H. Andrade and Y. Du, “Student responses to criteriareferenced self-assessment”, Assessment & Evaluation in Higher Education Vol. 32, No. 2, April 2007, pp. 159–18.

17.   K. Pond, D. Coates and O. A. Palermo, “Student experiences of peer review marking of team projects”. International journal of management education, Vol. 6, 2007, no.2, pp. 30-43.

18.   O. Onyia “Integrating teacher- and peer-assessments of group coursework assignments in business education: Some innovative methods”, the Research in Higher Education Journal, Vol. 21, August, 2013.