Problem-based learning to develop students’ character in biology classroom

The results of inferential statistic showed that there was no difference in the character of the students taught by using PBL strategy and those taught by using traditional strategy. It means that the teaching strategy does not affect the character of the students measured by using a questionnaire filled in by the students themselves. However, it cannot be concluded that PBL cannot train the students’ character during the syntax application because of different things shown by observation results of the character behavior of the students during the lab sessions. The finding of this study showed that the use of questionnaires was less accurate for measuring the character of the students compared to the use of the observation sheet.

No influence of teaching strategy on student character development as measured by a questionnaire in this study may be due to the use of unsuitable measuring instrument. In this research, the character of the students was measured by a character questionnaire filled out by the student. Drew et al. (2008) explained that in educational research, where, generally the data was obtained by instruments aimed at people (students), so that if something happens which interferes during the process of data collection, the data obtained would be vary from the actual conditions. This explanation is in line with the findings of previous studies such as the studies conducted by Bahri (2010), Muhiddin (2012), and Bahri and Corebima (2015) showing that the use of a questionnaire to measure parameters such as metacognitive awareness, metacognitive skills and motivation filled directly by the students is less precise. Bahri’s research (2010) even uncovered that the use of a questionnaire to measure metacognitive awareness causing data obtained tended to show that metacognitive awareness of students decreased after following the lecture.

The result of study showed that based on observation results during the lab sessions, it could be seen that in the PBL class, mean score of the students’ character tended to increase, although there was the decrease at second and third meeting, but the increase tended to be consistent. On the other hand, in the traditional learning class, mean score of the students’ character tended to be inconsistent; it sometimes decreased and then increased at the next meeting and then decreased. Based on the findings of this study, it can be assumed that PBL strategy tends to be able to train the students’ character compared to traditional strategy.

Character development of students in the PBL class relates to its’ syntax. Implementation of PBL syntax develops the students’ character during the learning process. The PBL syntax gives opportunities for students to learn independently. It can motivate students to be disciplined in learning and these activities also allow students to discover more facts about the certain topics of different issues. By this teaching strategy, students are trained to be self-regulated learner, to make their own investigations, and to engage in teamwork. Those activities will help the students to be responsible for their own learning (Blumberg & Michael, 1992; Savin-Baden & Major, 2004).

PBL syntax demands responsibilities of individuals as well as of groups. Arends (2008) suggested that each member of the group has responsibility to raise the problems, to find out the solutions and then to discuss it in groups. Similarly, Slavin (2010) said that in the cooperative learning, the responsibility as a key element in the PBL strategy was given to each learner. In addition, individual responsibility formed on the students themselves due to the PBL strategy will develop self-directed learning (self-regulated learning) so that the students can be responsible to manage and control their own learning. Furthermore, Slavin (2010) explained that this type of learning make learners aware of themselves on the responsibility assigned to them and the responsibilities for learning each other.

PBL syntax can also train students to develop their honesty character. In the learning process, students were trained to be honest in evaluating their learning process. Weissinger (2004) stated that related to the PBL syntax, students were the key players in learning, and they would be able to think by their own. In addition, Arends (2008) also showed that PBL syntax helped learners to analyze and to evaluate their own thought processes, skills in conducting investigations as well as their intellectual skills. Finally in the long run, related to the PBL syntax, students will recognize themselves if they have learned to think and to act in a real-world problem situations.

There are some collaborative learning principles, which guide PBL. Those principles can provide a platform for discovery and self-definition (Gabelnick et al. 1990; Qualley & Chiseri-Strater, 1994). Related to collaborative learning existing in PBL, there is an enrichment process of self-discovery to create an environment of mutual influence between the individual and society, between individual and ideas, and between individual and the self-learning process (Lee, 1998). This is in line with Savin-Baden (1998) saying that learning through PBL can challenge the students’ self-esteem, and their way of how to view the world and act in it. It encourages students to reconstruct their own knowledge, and formulate decisions about learning while helping to clarify the values, skills, interests and goals for other students. Thus, students can identify their own strengths and weaknesses as well as the means to overcome or correct any deficiencies (Savin-Baden & Major, 2004). They afford to have the self-awareness and thus become more skilled in the self-evaluation. These activities are proven to train the students’ honesty.

PBL provides cognitive effects on students’ learning processes including activation and elaboration of prior knowledge, and restructuring of knowledge to fit the problem posed. This activity can train students' creativity. In the learning process, the issue acts as scaffolding that can support the acquisition of relevant knowledge needed to solve the problem (Schmidt, 1993). Dweck (1989) suggested that the students found PBL becoming a powerful source of curiosity driving a person to learn more about a topic. Group discussion dedicated to explain the viewpoints and to face another perspective will stimulate curiosity in the subject matter. PBL dynamics stimulates further thought and therefore has the potential to help the students learn to think about the problem, "play" with ideas and discuss problems (Brake, 1992). Epistemic curiosity is associated with creativity. In most situations of collaborative learning, such as PBL, the students work with each other to seek understanding, solution, or meaning, as well as to create something new (Lee, 2003).

In PBL strategy, the social dimension of learning is an important aspect of the students’ learning experience. The implementation of PBL increases social relationship network among students (MacKinnon, 1999). Weisbord and Janoff (1995) stated that this strategy was a platform for students to practice openness towards new ideas and a different perspective and allowed for the ideas exchange. PBL is also an ideal platform to practice listening actively that implies openness to the totality of communication with others. In the discussion, members of the group listen to other points of view before they make judgments or decisions. Students learn to be more caring and sensitive to the opinions of others (Brookfield, 1993). Collaborative learning communities in PBL can create interaction between individuals with ideas, individuals and society, and between individuals with learning process (Lee, 1998).

As one type of collaborative learning, PBL strategy can develop a tolerance, acceptance of diversity, and social skills. Similarly, the results obtained from the discussion activity is very useful to improve students' thinking skills, to help students in order to construct their own understanding of the subject content, to enhance the involvement and engagement, and to assist students for learning on communication skills and thinking processes. Cooperative work that occurs within the group encourages students to develop thinking skills and social skills (Arends, 2008).

Students also get benefit from the interpersonal skills through dialogue and mutual learning in PBL (Barrows, 1988). Through knowledge sharing process and discussing ideas, emotional bonding can be developed (Dweck, 1989). Students also develop teamwork (Steck et al., 2012) because in PBL, students work together to find solutions to complex problems (Ferreira & Trudel, 2012). Students are more likely to express thoughts, feelings, reactions, opinions, information, ideas, and values as the trust has occurred (Rogers, 1994). Confidence in the openness of individuals to share with other people improves interpersonal relationships and the opportunity to learn and strengthen relationships. A more relational dynamics of mutual support will be realized by collaboration, students can develop their awareness to others.

At the Basic Biology course, the implementation of PBL in developing student character can be applied during the theory lectures as well as during practical sessions in the laboratory. Mardapi (2012) suggested that in order to build good character, students needed many opportunities to apply a sense of social responsibility, honesty, and fairness in everyday interactions and discussions. Through PBL, this opportunity can be given to students. In theory lecture sessions, certain characters can be applied through the implementation of PBL. This session could be a process of socialization and character training to students. While the lab sessions can be used by lecturers to observe how far the characters have been taught in the theory lecture session have been internalized and become a habit. Character development should lead the students to be aware and appreciate the importance of the cognitive and affective values, and eventually practice the real values. Practically, there are important spiritual values that should be instilled by students, namely the emergence of a strong desire to practice on these values.

In the traditional learning, discipline character, responsibility, honest, creative, and caring are not empowered optimally. Slavin (2011) stated that the traditional learning was reported as less effective in improving affective learning outcomes. Learning activities in traditional strategy tend to be more verbal (Serbessa, 2006), unilateral instruction (Khalid & Azeem, 2012) and is dominated by a lecture mixed with question and answer methods, so that students become passive. It does not provide the opportunity for students to be self-regulated learner (Kenner & Weinerman, 2011), to make their own investigations, and to engage in teamwork. This can lead students to be less disciplined in learning. In addition, as it makes the students not trained to be honest in evaluating and assessing their learning process. Students are less able to identify their own strengths and weaknesses as well as to seek in order to overcome these deficiencies.

In traditional strategy, individual accountability is often overlooked (Ahmad & Mahmood, 2010), so that tasks were often only undertaken by a member of the group, while the other members are relatively passive. This condition causes the students to be the less responsible persons. In traditional strategy, monitoring by observation and intervention is often done by the lecturer during group studies are ongoing. It does not give students the opportunity to exercise their creativity (Khalid & Azeem, 2012; Tsai, 2013).

In the traditional strategy, social skills are often not taught directly (Akhtar et al., 2012), such as leadership, communication skills, trusting others, and managing conflicts in order to foster the character of students. Traditional strategy emphasizes more on task completion, so often ignore the interpersonal relationships of students. Lecturers often let certain students dominate the group or rely on a group so there is no collaboration and positive interdependence between students in groups and then no proportional interaction. The effect of this condition is care character of students is not developed.

The result of study shows that there was the difference between the results of questionnaire and observation sheet. It means that the students’ character measurement by using questionnaire still have some limitations. Correspondingly, Azwar (2009) suggested that there were some limitations in the measurement of character by using an attitude scale. One of which is that the results should be interpreted with caution because the individual frequently response to attitude scale influenced and determined by other factors that do not fully reflect the actual attitude. Seidenberg et al. (1976) stated that one of the factors that could undermine the interpretation was that if due to some reason someone intentionally did not respond really but the responses were directed to the norms of society (social approval) as well as were accepted by the rules of social life (social desirability). This condition shows that related to the Indonesian population the use of a questionnaire is relatively not suitable to record accurate information.

Based on the fact that the use of questionnaires to measure the character of students is less accurate, it would require an alternative measurement tool that is able to accurately record the character of students. One form of measurement that may be used is by observation as used in this study. In terms of students’ character assessment, Arifin (2017) found that teachers mostly employed observation as the assessment tool. Just as the character, so far, students’ attitude is more accurately recorded by observation than by a questionnaire. Azwar (2009) stated that it was reasonable to interpret the attitude based on the forms of behavior expressed. In other words, to determine a person's attitude towards something, it can be noticed through his behavior, because behavior is one indicator of individual attitudes. However, it should be noted that certain behaviors are sometimes deliberately revealed to hide the real attitude. Thus, the observed behavior may be able to be the indicator of attitudes in certain situational context, but the interpretation of the attitude should be examined very carefully. Sullivan and Ebrahim (1995) stated that one of the advantages of using observation sheet because the instrument was able to distinguish clearly between the real behavior and a verbal one, that cannot be revealed by a questionnaire. Mambu (2015) developed a teachers’ rubric and students’ self-assessment rubric to measure the students’ characters development.

Apart from anything that has been stated above, Bahri and Corebima (2015) suggested that use of the observation sheets had other limitations in the measuring, such as the number of students in a class, which is too large, impeding the observation of the behavior of each student. Additionally, Lasagabaster and Sierra (2011) stated that the use of observation methods required more time.