FINAL PROJECT

USING PROBLEM BASED LEARNING TO IMPROVE

STUDENTS’ CRITICAL THINKING SKILLS IN HISTORY IN

HONORS GRADE XII CLASS

In partial fulfillment of the requirements

for the Sarjana Pendidikan Strata Satu degree

By

NAME : IWAN SECIADY

STUDENT ID NO : 41420070017

ECONOMICS EDUCATION PROGRAM

FACULTY OF EDUCATION

UNIVERSITAS PELITA HARAPAN

KARAWACI

2011

March 2011/2011
 ABSTRACT

Iwan Seciady (41420070017)

USING PROBLEM BASED LEARNING TO IMPROVE STUDENTS’
CRITICAL THINKING SKILLS IN HISTORY LEARNING IN HONORS
GRADE XII CLASS

(xiii +78 pages; 4 figures; 9 tables; 5 appendices)

In Indonesia, anecdotal evidence suggests a lack of students’ critical

thinking skills when learning History in senior high school. Observation of the
students during history learning revealed that the students did not appear to have a
clear understanding of why they should study history in the first place. They also
did not give answers that exceed cognitive level of memorization and did not
reason and synthesize their knowledge on critical thinking level during history
lessons. The main objectives of this study were to develop and improve Grade XII
students’ critical thinking skills by using Problem-based Learning (PBL) in learning
History as well as to explore the constraint of using the PBL. The study was
conducted at a Christian school in Karawaci with a research subject of three
students. The research method applied was Classroom Action Research that
consisted of two research cycles.
After the researcher applied the PBL method in the lessons, compared to
the previous observation results before the action research took place, the students
have shown development of their critical thinking skills. Contributions to the
development of students’ thinking were students’ active involvement and teacher’s
use of higher-cognitive-level questions. However, the researcher faced several
constraints of using PBL to improve the students’ critical thinking skills. The
constraints experienced including, the students’ self-awareness and self-
consciousness, the failure of addressing the first stage in PBL, too much focus on
the PBL problem, the poor seating arrangement, the difficulty of determining how
much should the PBL taken hide key information in the learning, and the difficulty
of designing effective structured questioning. Nevertheless, the results of this study
showed that Problem-based Learning had a positive influence in improving the
students’ critical thinking skills in History.

Keywords: Critical Thinking Skills, Problem Based Learning, History, Action

Research
References: 48 (1990-2010)

v
 ABSTRAK
Iwan Seciady (41420070017)
MENGGUNAKAN PEMBELAJARAN BERBASIS MASALAH UNTUK
MENINGKATKAN KEMAMPUAN BERPIKIR KRITIS SISWA KELAS XII
HONORS DALAM PEMBELAJARAN SEJARAH

(xiii + 78 halaman; 4 gambar; 9 tabel; 5 lampiran)

Di Indonesia bukti-bukti tercatat menyiratkan kurangnya kemampuan

berpikir kritis siswa dalam mempelajari sejarah di SMA. Observasi murid selama
pembelajaran sejarah mengungkapkan bahwa murid tidak mempunyai pengertian
yang jelas akan mengapa mereka perlu belajar sejarah. Mereka juga tidak
memberikan jawaban-jawaban yang melebihi tingkatan kognitif menghafal and
tidak memakai nalar dan mensintesiskan pengetahuan mereka pada tingkatan
berpikir kritis selama pelajaran sejarah. Tujuan-tujuan utama dari studi ini adalah
untuk mengembangkan dan meningkatkan kemampuan berpikir kritis siswa kelas
XII dengan menggunakan Problem-based Learning (PBL) dalam pelajaran sejarah,
serta untuk mengenal batasan-batasan dalam menggunakan PBL tersebut. Penelitian
ini dilakukan di sebuah sekolah Kristen di Karawaci dengan tiga murid sebagai
subyek penelitian. Metode penelitian yang dipakai adalah Classroom Action
Research dengan dua siklus penelitian.
Setelah peneliti mengaplikasikan metode PBL dalam pelajaran-
pelajarannya, jika dibandingkan dengan hasil-hasil observasi sebelum penelitian
tindakan kelas ini dilakukan, para murid telah menunjukkan perkembangan dari
kemampuan berpikir kritis mereka. Kontribusi-kontribusi terhadap pengembangan
berpikir siswa adalah keterlibatan aktif siswa dan pengunaan pertanyaan-pertanyaan
bertingkatan kognitif yang tinggi oleh guru. Akan tetapi, peneliti menghadapi
beberapa kesulitan dalam menggunakan PBL untuk meningkatkan kemampuan
berpikir kritis siswa. Kesulitan-kesulitan yang dialami termasuk sensitivitas diri
murid, kegagalan dalam melakukan secara benar stage pertama PBL, terlalu fokus
pada masalah dalam PBL, pengaturan tempat duduk murid yang tidak baik,
kesulitan menentukan seberapa banyak informasi kunci yang disembuyikan dalam
PBL, serta merancang pertanyaan-pertanyaan terstruktur yang efektif.
Bagaimanapun juga, hasil dari penelitian ini menunjukkan bahwa Problem-based
Learning mempunyai pengaruh positif dalam meningkatkan kemampuan berpikir
kritis siswa.

Kata kunci: Kemampuan Berpikir Kritis, Pembelajaran Berbasis Masalah, Sejarah,

Penelitian Tindakan Kelas
Daftar Pustaka : 48 (1990-2010)

vi
 FOREWORD

Praise to Jesus, God that Saves for His blessing which has enabled this

Final Assignment to the completed. The researcher also would like to express his

gratitude to all these people for guidance, help, support, and prayer to the

completion of this Final Assignment:

1) Pamela Harvey (PhD.), Thesis Supervisor

2) Budi Wibawanto, the History lecturer

3) All lecturers and staff at Teachers College Education

4) UPH College’s Academic Principal Dr. Ferry Yang, PhD., Honey

Setiady, Corrina Anggasurya, and other teachers of UPH College.

5) Edson Sahulatta and Hengky J. Hailitik that had helped the researcher

with the making of this Final Assignment.

6) The researcher’s father (The Kim Yoen) and the researcher’s younger

sister (Meliana) for their moral support and love. The researcher also

dedicated this Final Assignment to his deceased mother (Gianawaty

Kartaatmadja) for her love and support in the past.

Finally, the researcher realized that this Final Assignment is far from

perfect, and yet, may this research can become a positive contribution to the field of

education, especially teachers and schools, and to everyone who reads it. “For of

Him and through Him, and to Him are all things; to whom be the glory forever”.

Karawaci, April 08, 2011

Iwan Seciady

vii
 TABLE OF CONTENT

ABSTRACT ………………………………………………………………….......v
FOREWORD .......................................................................................................vii
TABLE OF CONTENT……………………………………………................viii
LIST OF FIGURES…..……………………………………………...................xi
LIST OF TABLE….………………………………………………....................xii
CHAPTER I……………………………………………………………..………..1
1.1 Background of the Study………………………………………………………..1
1.2 Statement of the Problems…………………………………...………………….4
1.3 The Purpose of the Study/Research Objectives………….……………………...4
1.4 The Benefits of the Research…………………………………………………....4
1.5 Definition of Terms………………………..…………………………………....5
CHAPTER II……………………………………………………………………...6
2.1 History Curriculum……………………………………………………….....6
2.2 Student Development…………………………………………………….....9
2.2.1 A Christian Perspective on Students…………………………………….....9
2.2.2 Cognitive development………………………………………………….....9
2.2.3 Psychosocial and Emotional Development……………………………….11
2.3 Teaching Methods………………………………………………………...11
2.3.1 Traditional and Constructivist Approaches……………………………….11
2.3.2 Problem-based Learning………………………………………………….12
2.3.2.1.1 Characteristics of Problem-based Learning………………………….14
2.3.2.2 Strengths & Weaknesses of Problem-based Learning………………17
2.3.3 Questioning………………………………………………………………...17
2.4 Critical Thinking Skills……………………………………………………18
2.4.1 Use of Critical Thinking…………………………………………………...19
2.4.2 Critical Thinking Indicators………………………………………………..20
CHAPTER III…………………………………………………………………...23
3.1 Introduction……………………………………………………………………23
3.2 Overview of Research Method – Action Research……………………………23
viii
3.3 Research Setting, Place & Time……………………………………………….25
3.3.1 Research Setting…………………………………………………………...25
3.3.2 Research Subjects …….…………………………………………………...26
3.3.3 Overview of Time Frame…………………………………………………..26
3.4 Research Instruments…………………………………………………………..26
3.4.1 Questionnaire………………………………………………………………27
3.4.2 Test, Students’ Debate, and Students’ Research Paper
Project………….…………………………………………………………..27
3.4.3 Observer’s Checklist and Mentor’s
Feedback…………………………………………………………………...27
3.4.4 Reflective Journal………………………………………………………….28
3.4.5 Interview…………………………………………………………………...28
3.5 Triangulation and Validation of the Data……………………………………..29
3.6 Data Analysis…………………………………………………………………..29
3.7 Research Procedures…………………………………………………………...30
3.7.1 Cycle I…………………………………………………………………….30
3.7.1.1 Planning……………………………………………………………….30
3.7.1.2 Action…………………………………………………………………31
3.7.1.3 Observation……………………………………………………………31
3.7.1.4 Reflection……………………………………………………………..32
3.7.2 Cycle II…………………………………………………………………...32
3.7.2.1 Planning……………………………………………………………….32
3.7.2.2 Action…………………………………………………………………33
3.7.2.3 Observation……………………………………………………………33
3.7.2.4 Reflection……………………………………………………………..33
CHAPTER IV…………………………………………………………………...35
4.1 Introduction..…………………………………………………………………..35
4.2 Description Cycle I…………………………………………………………….36
4.2.1 Planning…………………………………………………………………….36
4.2.2 Action………………………………………………………………………37
4.2.3 Observation………………………………………………………………...41
4.2.4 Reflection and Recommendations for Cycle II…………………………….44

ix
4.3 Description Cycle II……………………………………………………………46
4.3.1 Planning…………………………………………………………………….46
4.3.2 Action………………………………………………………………………48
4.3.3 Observation………………………………………………………………...52
4.3.4 Reflection and Recommendations …………………………………………65
4.4 Discussion……………………………………………………………………...68
CHAPTER V……………………………………………………………………75
5.1 Conclusion……………………………………………………………………..75
5.2 Recommendations…………………………………………..…………………77
REFERENCE LIST
APPENDICES

x
 LIST OF FIGURES

Figure 2.1 Egan’s Three Layers of Understanding for School-age Education…….10

Figure 2.2 The problem-based learning cycle……………………………………..16
Figure 2.3 Levels of Cognitive Thinking………………………………………….18
Figure 3.1 Kemmis & McTaggart’s action research cycle………………………...25

xi
 LIST OF TABLES

Table 2.1 The Two Traditions of History Teaching………………………………...7

Table 2.2 Examples of Paul & Elder’s Critical Thinking Standards and its
Outcomes……….………………………………………………….….22
Table 3.1 Overview of the Research Cycles…………………………………….....26
Table 4.1 Summary of the Result of the Student Questionnaire – Attitudes and
Basic Thinking Skills………………………………………………….41
Table 4.2 Summary of Students’ Test Result.....…………………………………..42
Table 4.3 Summary of Critical Thinking Skills Identified from the Debate………54
Table 4.4 Students’ Research Paper Project Results………………………………56
Table 4.5 Summary of Critical Thinking Master Rubric…………………………..58
Table 4.6 Interview Question and Critical Thinking Standard Assessed………….61

xii
 APPENDICES

APPENDIX A Lesson Plans

APPENDIX B Mentor’s Feedback & Observer Expert Teacher’s Checklist
APPENDIX C Reflection Journal
APPENDIX D Questionnaire, Test, Debate, and Research Paper Project
Rubrics
APPENDIX E Interview Transcript

xiii
 CHAPTER I

INTRODUCTION

1.1 Background of the Study

While the aims and the benefits of history learning should be very

positive, anecdotal evidence suggests history becomes one of the most

misunderstood subjects that students learn in Indonesian schools. Most students

including the researcher found history meaningless and did not contribute much to

the development of thinking. Yilmaz pointed out that past researches on students

revealed that, “[they] have a very negative attitude toward history and find history

instruction boring, dull, useless, and meaningless” (Yilmaz, 2009, p.44). Students

do not understand the importance and the usefulness of learning history in school.

If they do not see the useful connection between learning history and their life,

they will not learn it (Mansfield, 2000, p. 6) and history will not develop their

thinking. The researcher believes if the students’ perception of history can be

changed, then history can become much more than just dates and dead people,

even more than that, the students can foster their critical thinking skills from

learning history.

History is a strain of the Social Studies discipline that deals primarily

with the events of the past regarding human actions. It is thought of as an

unfolding of events of humanistic value and that the events of the past that are

being learnt is all about man, or in other words, human society (Sjamsuddin,

2007, p. 7). Thus, every single step of history is a journey of human actions,

stories, and interactions. However, this type of approach to history takes God out

of the picture. Looking at history through the lens of a Christian worldview means

1
that God is considered in every aspects of the journey of the world through

countless intertwining events that shape our world today.

The Bible tells us that God acts in His sovereignty in the changes of

authorities and leaders of nations, He “changes times and seasons; He sets up

kings and deposes them. He gives wisdom to the wise and knowledge to the

discerning” Daniel 2: 21 (NIV). The Biblical view is that God decides the

outcome of wars and events that took place on His earth as the Bible tell us in

Proverbs 21: 31 (NIV) that, “The horse is made ready for the day of battle, but

victory rests with the Lord”. Even more than deciding wars and changes of

authorities and leaders, Daniel 4: 35 (NIV) tell us this truth of how God rules over

humanity on earth,

“All the peoples of the earth are regarded as nothing. He does as He pleases with the

powers of heaven and the peoples of the earth. No one can hold back His hand, or say

to Him, What have You done?”

It is important to be aware that history is about what God has done through His

creation, humans. History is sometimes called “His story” by Christians. “His

story” is God’s purposes worked out through the Lord Jesus Christ.

History then is seen as God’s action through the events that happened.

Therefore, humans, having been created in the image of God- are rational by

nature and can think abstractly, be reflective, and reason (Knight, 2006, p.181),

should see History in this light. Hence, all disciplines should be taught in a way

that foster the reasoning aspects of the students’ mind capabilities including

History, that is derived from a Greek word historeo that can be interpreted as: to

search, to inquire, and to examine (Sjamsuddin, 2007, p. 2).

2
 One of the aims of learning history is for students to explore and evaluate

the interpretation of historical information (Van Brummelen, 2002, p.222).

However, this particular aim requires and will also foster students’ critical

thinking skills. In other words, history teaching is useful

“to educate young people to be interrogative, critical, and independent in their

judgments; to investigate and gather evidence; and to reach their conclusions only on

the basis of this evidence which is carefully weighed up and evaluated” (Husbands,

Kitson, & Pendry, 2003, p. 131).

The researcher observed a problem in the students’ thinking about history

learning in his teaching internship. When the researcher interacted with them

during the lesson, the students did not appear to have a clear understanding of why

they should study history in the first place. In the questions and answers that took

place, they did not give answers that exceed cognitive level of memorization.

They did not probe the questions more, did not reason and synthesize their

knowledge into their understanding of daily lives, they did not think critically

during history lessons. The researcher was interested because the students

assessed are students at honors level in Grade XII with a high achievement level

and high capabilities. Looking after a solution to this problem, the researcher

stumbled upon what is called Problem Based Learning (PBL). Seeing the research

done on PBL and its instruction structure, it looked like PBL might contribute to

the solution of the problem the researcher faced; it may be useful for students to

foster their critical thinking skills. If students can be fostered in their reasoning,

logic, and critical thinking skills, then history can truly become “the never ending

pursuit of cause and explanation … [that] facts alone never explain or justify”

(Slater, 1995, cited in Husbands, Kitson, & Pendry, 2003, p.30), yet can be

3
critically assessed and seen. However, the beginning of the researcher’s field

experience shows that this has yet to develop in the students of this school.

1.2 Statement of the Problems

As outlined above, the problem found in this study is related to a lack of

critical thinking skills in History. The research questions were:

1) What influence does using Problem Based Learning have in improving

students’ critical thinking skills in history learning in Grade XII Honors

Level?

2) What are the constraints of using Problem Based Learning with a Grade

XII history class at honors level in improving their critical thinking skills?

1.3 The Purpose of the Study/Research Objectives

The purpose of the study is to:

1) Investigate whether PBL can improve Grade XII program honors level

students’ critical thinking skills in learning history.

2) Explore the constraints of using the PBL.

1.4 The Benefits of the Research

The research should have several benefits for the three main

stakeholders, students, teachers, and school:

1) For grade XII students, this study should benefit them in making

history more enjoyable. It should also allow them to capture the

essence of historical concepts more vividly, and also develop their

logic, reasoning, and critical thinking skills.

4
 2) The study should contribute to helping teachers improve Grade XII

students’ critical thinking skills by implementing Problem Based

Learning.

3) The study should benefit schools, especially Christian National Plus

schools, in choosing ways that help students develop their critical

thinking skills, especially in regards to learning history.

1.5 Definition of Terms

1) Honor is a program of advanced study for exceptional students

(thefreedictionary.com, 2010).

2) Problem-based learning is a strategy for encouraging critical thinking and

problem solving skills along with content knowledge through the use of

real world situations or problems (Samford University Teacher Education,

2010).

3) Critical thinking is skilled and active interpretation and evaluation of

observations and communications, information and argumentations (Fisher

& Scriven, 1997, as cited in Fisher, 2001, p.10).

4) History is the narrative interpretation and explanation of human agency

and intention (Lemon, 1995, as cited in Munslow, 2006, p.5).

5
 CHAPTER II

LITERATURE REVIEW

The previous chapter has discussed the background and the importance

of the study. In this second chapter, there are several concepts that will be

discussed. The concepts to be discussed include history curriculum, grade XII

students’ characteristics, problem-based learning, and critical thinking skills.

2.1 History Curriculum

All things are created by God, through God, and for God (Romans 11:

36) in Christian worldview. These things include education. Van Til describes

that, “education is an implication into God's interpretation, which no narrow

intellectualism can be implied” (in Johnson, 2000, p.45). Education is created and

will return for God’s glory. Thus, to use one’s intellect wisely is to put education

back into its original premise- the pursuit of the knowledge of God. Social studies

education, more specifically, history education, should also be understood this

way. It should develop students’ ability to think critically.

The teaching of history has been divided into two approaches. The

mainstream approach is called the great tradition, while the other one, the

alternative tradition. The mainstream approach focuses the learning of historical

events, while the alternative approach focuses on what can be learned from

historical events (Husbands, et al., 2003, p. 12). In this study, the researcher used

a method of teaching that is more leaning towards the alternative tradition as a

constructivist approach of teaching.

6
 The two approaches have both advantages and disadvantages. The so-

called great tradition emphasizes the active role of the teacher and content

mastery. Yet, since History can also be seen as a narrative interpretation and

explanation of human agency and intention (Lemon, 1995, as cited in Munslow,

2006, p.5), its interpretation can be extensive and constantly changing depending

on new findings and perspectives (Chapin, 2007, p.155). Thus, History teaching

needs to foster knowledge and understanding of the past events, as well as what is

behind the events. The alternative tradition, however, is a constructivist approach

to teaching History that emphasizes historical understanding and historical

thinking skills. These Historical thinking skills include chronological thinking,

historical analysis and interpretation, and historical research capabilities (Chapin,

2007, p.159). The table showing the comparison between the two approaches is

given below:

The Great Tradition The Alternative Tradition

Learners Emphasizes the didactically active role of Emphasis constructivist models of learner
& the teacher. Assumes a high level of engagement with the past. Places a premium
Pedagogy teacher subject knowledge. Learner’s role on teacher’s ability to manage student learning
is largely passive. activities

Content Characterized by a concern with national Characterized by a variety of content

history. Focuses on the understanding of reflecting world history and the experiences of
the present through engagement with the a variety of groups. Stresses the importance of
past. learning about a variety of historical situations
and contexts.

Purposes Defined through the content of the subject. Defined through the contribution of the
of learning Focuses substantially on the cultural subject to wider general education. Focuses
History capital of historical content. substantially on preparation for working life
and the acquisition of skills.

Table 2.1 The two traditions of History teaching (Husbands, et al. p. 12).

7
 There are four main aims of learning history according to Van

Brummelen (2002, p. 222). These are:

“1) To recognize that God acts providentially in history, and continues

His redemptive work through His Holy Spirit until Christ returns

2) To explore open-mindedly, interpret fairly, and evaluate discerningly

how humans have unfolded aspects of life as they fashioned various

cultures and made consequential decisions

3) To understand how cultural values rooted in worldview beliefs have

shaped societies

4) To acquire skills such as the ability to locate, evaluate, and interpret

information; to detect bias; to understand cause and effect; and to

draw valid conclusions concerning human activity in the past” (Van

Brummelen, 2002, p. 222).

The curriculum used for teaching history in this study is an Indonesian

curriculum called Kurikulum Tingkat Satuan Pendidikan (KTSP). KTSP can be

defined as an operational curriculum that is developed and implemented by the

school (Muslich, 2007, p.10). Topics in History in Grade XII Science consists of

Indonesia in the time of the New Regime of Soeharto and in the time of

reformation, as well as exploring the relation of World Wars with the

development of science and technology and their effect on Indonesia’s science

and technology (Badrika, 2006).

8
2.2 Student Development

2.2.1 A Christian Perspective on Students

All human beings are created by God according to His image, Imago Dei

(Gen 1: 27). The students have inherent meaning in that they are each Imago Dei,

endowed by God a special place above all creation and only a little lower than

angels (Psalm 8). They are also unique in that each of them has different talents

and personalities that God has weaved. The talents are spread diversely to each of

them and yet all of them need to be cultivated and developed (Matt 25: 14-30).

Despite the Imago Dei in which we were created, humans by sin are

marred. Humans fell into the state of sinfulness and brokenness before God and

have a refracted relationship with God. All human relationships were “broken off”

from earlier perfect harmony (Habermas, 2001, p.23). Thus, all humans are sinful

and are unwilling to seek God and do good things (Psalm 14: 2-3, 53: 3; Jer 18:

12; Rom 3: 10, 12). Without God’s help and offer of salvation in Christ Jesus, we

have wicked hearts. Therefore, teachers ought to show and guide their students

into the knowledge of Christ Jesus to be healed and be reconciled to God (Van

Brummelen, 2009).

2.2.2 Cognitive development

The adolescence period is marked by several characteristics. Among

them, is a cognitive development phase that is described by Piaget as the formal

operational stage, the latest and final development phase of a human beings’

cognitive development. This formal operational stage is a continuation from the

previous cognitive development phases experienced by the adolescent,

sensorimotor intelligence (birth to two years), pre-operational thought (two to

9
seven years), and concrete operation stage (seven to 11 years) (Parkay, 2006, pp.

93-95). In each of the respective cognitive phases, a child experiences growth in

their cognitive ability. As Eggen & Kauchak state, high school students are quite

mature, have an ability to talk about personal and social issues, and although they

still need concrete examples to understand complexities, they already have the

capacity in an abstract thinking when learning something (2010, p.12).

Besides thinking abstractly, adolescents in their cognitive and

understanding growth is able to connect ideas and understand causality. They

begin to question their value of life and seek meaning in various beliefs and

theories. Nevertheless, this development does not completely replace their

previous thinking process; rather, it is placed on top of their previous cognitive

abilities and development (Egan, 1997, in Van Brummelen, 2002, pp. 116-120).

Egan developed a story-form model of learning and stated that

adolescents still have the mindset of mythic thinking that directly connects to

storytelling along with romantic thinking that thinks in imagination over idealism

of the world, and yet, the adolescent develops philosophic thinking over

metaphysical issues that transcend concrete things and move towards deeper,

meaningful things behind those concrete things. An outline of Egan’s three layers

of cognitive understandings is depicted below:

Philosophic Understanding (ages 14-19):

Causal connections, meaning & purpose of life learned in explanatory schemes
(theories, beliefs, and worldviews).
Romantic Understanding (ages 8-15):
Transcendent values best learner in narrative settings, imaginative, unexpected, Idealism.
Primary/Mythic Understanding (ages 5-9):
Abstract concepts, causality, contrasting values in story settings with dramatic opposites

Fig. 2.1 Egan's three layers of understanding for school-age education (1997, cited in Van
Brummelen, 2002, pp.116-120)

10
 2.2.3 Psychosocial and Emotional Development

During the adolescent years, individuals are still searching for their

strengths and their feelings of competence and it might be said that their self-

concept is relatively unstable (Savage, Savage, & Armstrong, 2006, p.41). This is

explained by Erikson in his theory of psychosocial development. In his theory,

Erikson explained that there are eight stages of psychosocial development in a

human’s life. Adolescence is in the phase of identity vs. role confusion. This

correlates with their identifying their strengths and weaknesses as well as defining

their character and identity, making them prone to breaking rules, under peer

pressure, and being rebellious. (Parkay, 2006).

An adolescent’s self-image relates to their thinking pattern which

includes idealism, criticalness, argumentativeness, indecisiveness, apparent

hypocrisy between what they say and do, self consciousness, and specialness and

invulnerability (Elkind, 1998, cited in Papalia, 2007, p. 419).

2.3 Teaching Methods

2.3.1 Traditional and Constructivist Approaches

Teaching methods vary. The traditional method of teaching is in a form

of a lecture. A lecture is where a prepared text is delivered, by reading or from

memory (Brown & Race, 2002, p.22). A lecture-type of teaching method can be

used to give the students the information they need, to cover syllabus, to provide a

cost-effective means of curriculum delivery, to efficiently map curriculum, and to

help students turn information into knowledge ( Brown & Race, 2002, pp.50-58).

Thus, lectures can benefit teaching, if the most urgent need is about efficiency and

covering a lot of materials and knowledge in the fastest time possible.

11
 Another approach to teaching is a constructivist approach which focuses

on how to construct knowledge inside a student’s mind. This approach is

developed from Piaget’s cognitive theory and Vygotsky’s social cognitive theory.

Vygotsky states that children will learn more cognitively in their Zone of

Proximal Development (ZPD). In other words, children need interactions with

other competent people or adults to construct their thinking for maximum

cognitive development (Maccarelli, 2006). This means teachers ought to help with

scaffolding the content materials and not just leaving the students all alone in their

teaching to improve the students’ learning and comprehension development.

There are many methods of teaching that use this constructivist approach, ranging

from inquiry learning, cooperative learning, project-based learning, problem-

based learning, and others (Westwood, 2008). In Christian perspective,

constructivist approach to learning must be carefully brought into action. Students

are not to construct their own learning completely all alone, leaving them to

whatever thinking that they have and fall into the trap of relativism and thinking

mode that all is relative. Instead, teachers ought to guide, scaffold, and pay

attention to the content materials and the students’ cognitive development in the

knowledge of God. Since, “the fear of the Lord is beginning of knowledge”

(Proverbs 1: 7), Christian teachers should instruct their students and teach them in

light of the truth of God.

2.3.2 Problem-based Learning

“Problem-based learning is an instructional method in which students

learn through facilitated problem solving” (Hmelo-Silver, 2004, p. 235), or in

12
other words, students learn through a problem guided by the teacher. In problem-

based learning, the students are actively learning by trying to decode and unravel

the prepared-problems. The power of problem-based learning is that, “[it] is about

harnessing the kinds of intelligences needed in confronting real world challenges:

novelty and complexity (Tan, 2000, as cited in Tan, 2003, p.2). Thus, problem-

based learning is unique in its approach of giving acknowledgement to students’

diverse intelligences as well as molding the students to be able to confront

complex problems in real life issues that usually need a critically comprehensive

view and holistic thinking. Samford University defines problem-based learning as

“a strategy for encouraging critical thinking and problem solving skills along with

content knowledge through the use of real world situations or problems” (Samford

University Teacher Education, 2010). In other words, problem-based learning can

be used to improve students’ critical thinking skills.

The development of critical and holistic thinking should be evident in all

intellectual areas in school. The students’ work should reflect truth and the ability

to develop ‘coherent, lucid, and convincing arguments’. Students should develop

curiosity in what they learn along with effective reasoning to what they learn.

“Critical thinking exercised within a framework of overarching values can help

develop biblical discernment and wisdom” (Van Brummelen, 2002, p.68).

The use of problem-based learning supports one of the purposes of

Christian education which is to develop reasoning and critical thinking ability that

are also valuable in constructing a wise mind, full of clarity in biblical

discernment over issues of life (Van Brummelen, 2002).

13
 2.3.2.2 Characteristics of Problem-based Learning

Fogarty (1998, pp.3-4) and Tan (2004) give characteristics of PBL-

between the two authors, there are 12 characteristics as follow:

1) A problem as starting point for learning

2) The problem is an unstructured real-world problem that connects

with the students’ world and should be as authentic as possible if the

problem is a simulated problem

3) The problem calls for a multiple perspective, as PBL encourages the

use of various subjects’ knowledge in the solution of the problem

4) Subject matter is organized around problems rather than the

disciplines

5) The problem challenges students’ current knowledge and open up

new areas of learning

6) Students assume a major responsibility for shaping and directing

their own instruction and learning

7) Use and evaluate a variety of knowledge sources

8) Most learning occurs within the context of small groups rather than

lecture as learning is collaborative, communicative, and cooperative

9) It requires students to demonstrate what they have learned through a

product or a performance

10) The use of questioning and cognitive coaching by the teacher to

develop inquiry and problem-solving skills

11) Learning closure is in form of synthesis and integration of learning

14
 12) Concludes with an evaluation and review of the learner’s experience

and the learning process.

The instructional method of using a problem challenges the students

thinking and requires them to generate and actualize the knowledge that relates to

the problem they are facing. The problem itself becomes a stepping stone to

practice dealing with complex problems. Thus, the students are responsible for

their own learning, as one of the major factors is the students’ effort that comes

from within themselves along with cooperation with other students (Tan, 2004).

The role of the teacher in PBL is as a facilitator of the students rather

than the ‘know-it-all’ source of knowledge. The teacher is only to facilitate and

help the students to think on their own about the problem by using questioning

and cognitive coaching. Christian teachers, however, should not only facilitate but

also guides and instructs their students to synthesize the knowledge in the learning

with the truth found in the Bible. The teacher should facilitate the synthesis of the

problem and its solution and to effect closure by evaluation and review of the

whole PBL process to reinforce the new understanding that the students got. This

means, in PBL, the teacher’s portion of work is less than the students’ work and

yet, it is also a vital one as the teacher is to direct the students and let them

develop their own capabilities (Silver, 2004, pp.245-246).

15
 PBL is a cycle of learning as outlined by the diagram below:

Fig. 2.2 The problem-based learning cycle (Silver, 2004, p.237)

The PBL cycle starts with a problem scenario that has to be identified by

the students. The identification starts with determining all the facts vital for the

problem to be unraveled. After the identification process, the students are required

to generate hypotheses and try to analyze the problem in a self-directed learning

by researching the strength and the weakness of the hypotheses, and then try

applying the new knowledge gained from it. The new knowledge then will be

evaluated by analyzing and comparing it with the hypotheses and the facts of the

problem. The self-directed learning process itself is a distinguishing feature of

PBL that can create stimulation for students to learn critically (Silver, 2004, p.

239).

16
 2.3.2.2 Strengths & Weaknesses of Problem-based Learning

PBL have several strengths such as:

1) PBL can be very useful as it can provide an opportunity to explore

‘potentially daunting’ theoretical and philosophical questions in

accessible way in many learning areas (Craig & Hale, 2008, p. 166).

2) PBL has a connection with cognitive advances as the use of the

problem will create curiosity that leads to inquiry that can engage the

students’ minds (Tan, 2004, p.11).

3) The students’ engagement will contribute to the immersion,

motivation, and the learning of given materials (Tan, 2004, p.11).

4) PBL contributes to improve students’ preparation for learning,

broader use of literature sources (texts, monographs, periodical

literature, etc.) rather than students depending mostly on textbooks

and lecture notes, and also more positive and closer teacher-students

relationship (Rankin 1999, pp.16-17).

Even though there are strengths from PBL as an instructional model to be

taught in a classroom, there are also weaknesses. The weaknesses of PBL are the

time required from teachers in preparing the lesson, the extra cost for school, and

increased hours of work for both of teachers and students (Rankin, 1999, p.17).

2.3.3 Questioning

Teaching and learning activities include a wide range of activities, among

them is questioning. Students question their teacher to gain more understanding in

their study. Teachers, on the other hand, may question their students to direct

17
learning as well as to probe the students’ thinking. Bloom’s taxonomy uses six

categories or levels of questioning, moving from low level thinking to higher

order thinking. These categories are knowledge, comprehension, application,

analysis, synthesis, and evaluation.

Teachers should not only use the ‘what’ and ‘when’ type of questions,

but also the ‘how’ and ‘why’ questions that refer to the analyzing, synthesizing,

and evaluating levels. Teachers ought to plan carefully their questions so that the

students can step into the next step of the cognitive standard and learn more along

the way. In other words, powerful and thinking-driven questions are essentially

important as it is vital to ponder universal issues, to do in-depth research rather

than the mere gathering of facts, as well as to learn the complexities of the world

of ideas that sometimes diverse and yet equally valid ways of interpreting the

same event or issue exist (Martin-Kniep, 2005, p. 4).

Fig. 2.3 Levels of Cognitive Thinking (Wineburg & Schneider, 2009, p.56)

2.4 Critical Thinking Skills

To think is to explore one’s mind purposely and consciously (De Bono,

1992). Thus, thinking must requires one’s attention to achieve a solution.

Thinking can be divided into convergent and divergent ways of thinking.

Convergent thinking brings facts and data inward and applies one’s logic and

18
knowledge, while divergent thinking develops original and unique ideas outward,

both for the solution of problems (Clayton, 2007, pp.129-130). Both ways of

thinking require the use of critical thinking (Clayton, 2007). Paul, Fisher, &

Nosich (1993, cited in Fisher, 2001, pp. 4-5) define critical thinking as a “mode of

thinking, about any subject, content or problem, in which the thinker improves the

quality of his or her thinking by skillfully taking charge of the structures inherent

in thinking and imposing intellectual standards upon them”). Thus, critical

thinking is about improving the students’ thinking by their own effort and

willingness. Critical thinking cannot be developed unless the student wants to

think in this way. Critical thinking involves the reasoning ability of a human

being’s mind, to interpret and draw conclusions from the information beforehand

(Holyoak & Morrison, 2005). “Critical thinking is a skilled and active

interpretation and evaluation of observations and communications, information

and argumentations” (Fisher & Scriven, 1997, cited in Fisher, 2001, p.10). Thus,

one of the many signs that students have developed critical thinking skills is that

they actively involved in interpreting and evaluating the knowledge.

2.4.2 Use of Critical Thinking

Humans should use their reasoning and critical thinking skills in living a

life of worship to God as God has created in them, the ability to think and reason.

Humans ought to practice and cultivate reasoning because critical thinking

exercised can develop biblical discernment. Cultivation of critical thinking needs

to be fostered in Christian education. By using analysis and critical thinking skills,

students should develop vital skills for everyday life. These skills include problem

19
identification; clarity in defining problems; overcoming complex problems with

many right answers or unclear criteria of end purposes; making important personal

decisions; gaining information; thinking in a group; and designing a long term

approach for long term problems (Sternberg, 1985, cited in Santrock, 2003,

p.141). Developing these skills encourage students to stretch their formal

operational cognitive mind.

2.4.2 Critical Thinking Indicators

There are 25 standards of critical thinking that are divided in six sections,

according to Paul & Elder (2005). These critical thinking sections point to the

development and nourishment of critical thinking skills in a person. These six

sections of critical thinking are (pp. 21-53):

“1) Competencies focusing on the elements reasoning, and intellectual

standards as they relate to the elements: purposes, goals, and

objectives; questions, problems, and issues; information, data,

evidence, and experience; inferences and interpretations; assumptions

and presuppositions; concepts, theories, principles, definitions, law &

axioms; implications and consequences; points of view and frames of

reference

2) Competency focusing on universal intellectual standards that is

assessing thinking

3) Competencies focusing on intellectual traits, virtues or dispositions:

fair-mindedness, intellectual humility, intellectual courage, intellectual

20
 empathy, intellectual integrity, intellectual perseverance, confidence in

reason, and intellectual autonomy

4) Competencies dealing with the barriers to the development of rational

thought that are insight to egocentric and sociocentric thought

5) Competencies focusing on critical thinking skills essential to learning:

skills in the art of studying and learning, skills in the art of asking

essential questions, skills in the art of close reading, and skills in the

art of substantive writing

6) Competencies focusing on specific domain of thought that are ethical

reasoning abilities and skills in detecting media bias and propaganda in

national and world news” (Paul & Elder, 2005, pp. 21-53).

This study will only refer to seven critical thinking standards out of these

six sections of critical thinking as indicators of students’ critical thinking skills.

The standards used are purposes, goals, and objectives; question, problems, and

issues; information, data, evidence, and experience; inferences and interpretations;

implications and consequences (competencies focusing on the elements reasoning,

and intellectual standards); assessing thinking (competency focusing on universal

intellectual standards); and skills in the art of studying and learning (competencies

focusing on critical thinking skills essential to learning) (Paul & Elder, 2005).

Each of these critical thinking standards has outcomes that can be

assessed in the students’ behavior during learning the lessons. The outcomes of

the standards become indicators of critical thinking in the second cycle of this

21
study (see Appendix B-2 – B-4). The table below shows each of these critical

thinking standards and examples of its outcomes:

Table 2.2 Critical Thinking Standards and its Outcomes (modified from Paul & Elder,
2005, p. 22-42)
Codes Critical Thinking Standards Example of a Critical Thinking Outcome

A Purposes, Goals, and Objectives Student explain in their own words the purpose of reasoning through a

problem or issue

B Questions, Problems, and Issues Student check their thinking for relevance upon the issue

C Information, Data, Evidence, and Student express in their own words the most important information in a

Experience case

D Inferences and Interpretations Student reason to logical conclusions, after considering relevant and

significant information

E Implications and Consequences Student distinguish probable from improbable

F Assessing Thinking Student check their thinking for depth by making sure they are dealing

adequately with the complexities in the question at issue

G Skills in the Art of Studying and Learning Student approach content through thinking in every subject or

discipline

This chapter has explored the concepts and theories of several areas in

this study. The research methodology along with research instruments will be

explained in the next chapter.

22
 CHAPTER III

RESEARCH METHODOLOGY

3.1 Introduction

This chapter will describe the author’s research subjects, research

methodology, and time and place of research.

3.2 Overview of Research Method – Action Research

The research method used in this study is Classroom Action Research

(CAR). Classroom Action Research is a continuous method of research that takes

place while the teacher is teaching. Koshy defines action research as,

“Constructive enquiry, during which the researcher constructs his or her knowledge of

specific issues through planning, acting, evaluating, refining and learning from the

experience” (2005, p.9).

Because action research is a process of dealing with a research enquiry, action

research is a method of research that begins with a question from the researcher

that deals with a dilemma or a problem found while working on a project or a

study. By using action research as a method of research, the researcher may

develop a comprehensive understanding about his or her project or study. The

researcher may also learn both advantages and disadvantages more from his or her

work and may refine the method used, thus, encouraging the betterment of both

the researcher and the method, even to the extent of finding a new approach to the

study or a new insight of the knowledge of the study.

Johnson defines action research done in an educational field (or

alternatively called classroom action research) as the process of studying a real

23
school or classroom situation in order to understand and improve the quality of

actions or instruction (2003, p.1).

Being a teacher is also being a learner; therefore, this research method

continuously tries to improve the teacher’s quality of work. Moreover, as

Christian teachers, the aim is to work in the profession with the whole heart, as

working for the Lord, not only for others (Col 3: 23, NIV). Consequently,

Christian teachers ought to learn and improve themselves. By improving the

quality of the teaching and learning activities, teachers also seek to improve the

learning outcomes for students and the classroom environment.

The action research itself is not a single-step research method. It relies

heavily on steps of action that the researcher must apply in the study. There are a

number of common steps of action research (Johnson, 2003, pp. 3-4):

“1) Identify a problem or research topic

2) Set the problem or research topic in theoretical context

3) Make a plan for data collection

4) Begin to collect data and analyze data

5) If necessary, allow the question problem to change as you collect

data.

6) Analyze and organize data

7) Report the data

8) Make your conclusions and recommendation

9) Create a plan of action” (2003, pp. 3-4).

24
 The steps of action research require heavy involvement of the researcher,

including allowing the data and the problem to change, adapting to the most

urgent dilemma that needs to be addressed. Therefore, the model for this type of

research method is in cycles, easily changing and restructuring itself depending on

progress of the study. Kemmis & McTaggart’s model of action research, however

describes the action research steps in a circle of planning, action, observation, and

reflection that are moving towards another circle of action research (2000).

Fig. 3.1 Kemmis & McTaggart’s action research cycle (2000, as cited in Koshy, 2005,

p.4)

3.3 Research Setting, Place & Time

3.3.1 Research Setting

The research took place in a Christian school in Karawaci from 28th July

– 05th October 2010. The subjects of research were grade XII students majoring in

a science program at honors level. The research was done in the school, as a part

of the researcher’s teaching internship program. The school was newly built near

25
one of the most prestigious Christian universities in Karawaci as a college-school

to support the university. The school was a Christian school in curriculum and

practice. The parents of the students were upper-middle level in social status and

mostly were well educated.

3.3.2 Research Subjects

The research subjects analyzed was the grade XII students majoring in

the science program honors level. There were three students, student A, student B,

and student C. All the students were girls around the age of 17-18 years old.

3.3.3 Overview of Time Frame

The research took about nine weeks. This was due to the research being

adjusted to the needs of the learner as well as the progress of the history lessons

taught, besides other factors such as the date of the beginning school year, the

days of school holiday, and the researcher’s subject teaching schedule. The

overview of the research cycles is shown in a table below:

Table 3.1 Overview of the Research Cycles

Cycle Date

Cycle I (six weeks), six lessons 29 July – 07 September 2010

Cycle II (three weeks), three lessons 21 – 05 October 2010

3.4 Research Instruments

The instruments used in this action research were questionnaire; test,

students’ debate, and students’ research paper project; observer’s checklist and

mentor’s feedback; reflective journal; and interview.

26
 3.4.1 Questionnaire (see Appendix D-1)

The questionnaire used in this action research was developed for the

purpose of identifying of the students’ interest and characteristics in the class on

history lesson in the beginning of a school year. It used both rating-scaled

questions as well as open-ended questions. The questionnaire was developed

based on the Bloom’s cognitive level.

3.4.2 Test, Students’ Debate, and Students’ Research Paper Project (see

Appendix D-2 - D-4)

The test implemented was a formative test that is given in the end of

Cycle One to see whether or not the method employed (PBL) developed the

critical thinking skills of the students during the Cycle One. The test assessed the

development of the students’ critical thinking skills according to Bloom’s higher

order of thinking (application, analysis, synthesis, and evaluation). There were

four open-ended questions regarding history that indicated the thinking ability of

the students. The questions should be answered within 40 minutes. The researcher

also provided the opportunity for the students to write a research paper project of

2,000 words. The timeframe for the research paper project to be completed should

be approximately one month from the start of the study. Following the research

paper project was a students’ debate based on what they researched in the project.

3.4.3 Observer’s Checklist and Mentor’s Feedback (see Appendix B)

The checklist used in this action research was used in Cycle Two to

observe improvement of the students’ critical thinking skills after working with

the PBL method in Cycle One and Two. The checklist is filled by an observer- a

teacher teaching at the researched school that was watching the implementation of

27
PBL and observed the students’ improvement based on the rubric prepared by the

researcher. The rubric of the checklist was made from modified indicators of

critical thinking of Paul & Elder (2005). The indicators based on Paul & Elder

was used to assessed the students’ thinking more specifically, besides relying

from data gathered based on Bloom’s taxonomy of cognitive level. There was also

the researcher’s mentor teacher that gave feedback to the teaching done by the

researcher.

3.4.4 Reflective Journal (see Appendix C)

The reflective journal used in this action research was the researcher’s

reflective journal that reflected on the planning, action, and observation of the

lessons and the application of each of the research cycles. The happenings around

the actual lessons and the recommendations at the end of each research cycle were

written down.

3.4.5 Interview (see Appendix E)

The interview method used in this research was an interview of the

research subjects by the researcher. The interview questions referred to a

modification of the critical thinking indicators of expert researchers (in this case,

the indicators used belong to Paul & Elder, 2005). The interview was done by

videotaping the research subjects and was done in the research place. The length

of the interview was about 10 minutes for each research subject based on 12

questions. The questions were open-ended type and were used with individual

students. The interviews were transcribed by the researcher (see Appendix E).

28
3.5 Triangulation and Validation of the Data

The use of the research instruments in this study which is part of the

triangulation process has to be valid. Validity itself refers to “the truthfulness,

correctness, or accuracy of research data, [thus], the research instrument must

measure what we claim it to measure” (Burton & Bartlett, 2005, p.27). The

instruments used in this study are constructed of different elements that refer to

the critical thinking outcome rubrics created by Paul & Elder (2005). The

questions derived are also open-ended questions aimed at provoking high-order

thinking process in students’ minds.

Triangulation means including multiple sources of information or points of

view on the phenomenon or question you are investigating (Freeman, 1998, p.

96). This means, the instruments gathered and viewed information from diverse

perspectives. In this study, the sources used were based on the researcher’s point

of view, students’ perspective, and also other teachers’ observation.

3.6 Data Analysis

In this study the data gathered from post-test, students’ debate and research

paper project, and critical thinking outcomes checklist was compiled, summarized

into tables, analyzed, and discussed qualitatively. The data gathered was analyzed

using descriptive statistical analysis. Results from research instruments were put

into tables and descriptively analyzed. The analysis looked for links and themes

from the data gathered to measure if there is any improvement of the students’

critical thinking skill after being taught using PBL.

29
3.7 Research Procedures

There are several steps in action research namely, planning, action,

observation, and reflection that are done in cycles of research. In this study, the

researcher took two cycles of research to identify development of grade XII

students’ critical thinking skills through the use of PBL. The researcher believed

that two cycles of research are enough to study the research questions besides the

limitation of time that stepped in as a boundary of research.

3.7.1 Cycle I

3.7.1.1 Planning

In this first cycle, the researcher planned how to use the PBL in teaching

history to the research sample. The lessons used Problem-based Learning (PBL)

as the main methodology, focusing on the first until the third stage of PBL

(identification of problem, facts identification, and hypotheses generation). The

researcher planned the assessment of the students. The teaching also planned to be

focused on using the higher order questioning (analysis, synthesis, and evaluation

of Bloom’s taxonomy), discussion, and explanation.

The first lesson planned to be an introduction to the concepts of history

learning and the importance of history. The second lesson planned to be focused

on the issue of bending historical facts in G30S event and involved the use of the

first part of PBL (the identification of problem scenario) around G30S and

historical reconstruction. The problem used in the PBL was planned to be “who

was the mastermind of G30S and why do you think so?” The third and the fourth

lesson planned to be the application of the second part of PBL (the facts

identification) and consisted of external-internal factors of how G30S happened.

30
The fifth lesson planned to be a lesson that developed the students’ thinking on

the chronology of G30S and use the application of the third stage of PBL

(hypotheses generation) that highlighted different theories of the problem. The

sixth lesson planned to be a test on their understanding of G30S focused on

comprehension, analysis, and synthesis type of questions according to Bloom’s

taxonomy.

The resources being used come from various sources, including internet,

books, as well as from the help of an expert teacher. The instruments were also

developed in the planning stage and include student’s tests and assignments.

3.7.1.2 Action

In this first cycle, the researcher used teaching and learning activities that

provoked thinking using a problem as the center of the learning focusing on PBL

from the first until the third stages (identification of problem, facts identification,

and hypotheses generation). Several lessons were aimed at the development of the

concepts of historical reconstruction to give a foundation to the students for the

topic. Lessons also focused on discussion as well as thought-provoking questions

aimed to probe the students’ thinking to acquire the basic knowledge of the lesson

content.

3.7.1.3 Observation

In this first cycle, in the observation, the researcher observed the progress

of the lessons and the progress of the students, taking into account what happened

during the lessons and how the students performed during the lessons. The initial

skills of the students were also observed along with a preliminary questionnaire of

the students’ interest in history lessons.

31
 3.7.1.4 Reflection

The researcher reflected upon the action done and the progress of the study

based on the observation done. The researcher’s reflection based on the findings

of the actions and helped to point out what is lacking of the actions done and

aimed to fix the problem found in this first cycle of research in the next cycle of

research.

3.7.2 Cycle II

3.7.2.1 Planning

The researcher still planned to use PBL in teaching history to the research

sample and any problems found out during the first cycle will be tackled this time.

The lessons used Problem-based Learning (PBL) as the main methodology,

focusing on the fourth and final stages of PBL (identification of knowledge

deficiencies & application of the new knowledge).

The first lesson planned to be the application of both the fourth and fifth stage

of PBL (identification of knowledge deficiencies & application of the new

knowledge) in the form of students’ self-directed learning process that consisted

of the students’ research paper project based on the problem studied in PBL in

cycle I and a follow up debate of their research. The second lesson planned to be

the application of the final stage in PBL (abstraction and evaluation) focusing in

abstraction understanding in a form of students’ reflections on the previous

debate. The third lesson planned to be the application of the final stage resolution

in PBL (abstraction and evaluation) focusing in the evaluation part by reviewing

the series of the lessons. The researcher also planned to compile the research

result from the first and second cycle.

32
 3.7.2.2 Action

The researcher continued to conduct teaching and learning activities to the

students that provoke their thinking using a problem as the center of the learning

focusing on the fourth and final stages of PBL (identification of knowledge

deficiencies & application of the new knowledge). The students will research the

problem in a self-directed learning, make a research paper, and take part in an

intellectual debate. The teaching and learning also focused on giving the students

more perception about the problem learnt in the first cycle as well as the reasoning

behind learning history lessons and directed the students to reflect on their own

thinking.

3.7.2.3 Observation

In the second cycle, the researcher saw the progress of the lesson and the

progress of the research, taking into account what happened during the lessons

and how the students performed during the lessons; for example, the rundown of

the PBL, the pace of the students’ learning, the development of the students’

thinking, and others. The observation of the characteristics of the students’

thinking that are improving also was assessed based on the research instruments

of interview, students’ assessment (research paper project and the follow-up

debate), and mentor’s feedback and checklist. What needs to be addressed along

with the problems that occurred during this second cycle, are also assessed.

3.7.2.4 Reflection

The researcher reflected upon the action and the progress of the study

based on the observations made. The researcher’s reflections were based on the

33
findings of the actions and helped to point out whether the two cycles of action

research had been successful in improving the students’ critical thinking skills.

34
 CHAPTER IV

RESULTS, ANALYSIS, AND DISCUSSION

4.1 Introduction

This chapter provides the results of the two action research cycles that

span nine weeks. Due to the nature of PBL that needs a longer time frame to be

conducted as a teaching method, the PBL in this study was conducted through

nine lessons. The first cycle had six lessons that focused on the first three stages

of PBL and the second cycle had three lessons focused on the fourth and the final

stages of PBL as well as the assessment part that addressed the problems found in

the previous cycle before to develop the students’ thinking. The results were

analyzed and are discussed later in this chapter in relation to the literature. The

action research itself was constructed and designed to find the answer to the

following research questions:

1) What influence does using Problem Based Learning have in improving

students’ critical thinking skills in learning history in Grade XII Honors

Level?

2) What are the constraints of using Problem Based Learning with a Grade

XII history class at honors level in improving their critical thinking skills?

The sample was three students (all girls) in Grade XII in the honors

History class.

35
4.2 Description Cycle I

The first cycle of this study focused on introducing historical

reconstruction concepts and the topic of G30S event in Indonesian History

program for grade XII honors level as well as using PBL to teach the students.

Data was collected by using questionnaire, a test, and reflective journal.

4.2.1 Planning

The planning stage involved developing six lesson plans that covered six

periods of 45 minutes (see Appendix A). The lesson plans focused on the

introduction to historical deconstruction and also the G30S event in Indonesia, as

well as its mysterious mastermind. The objectives of the six lessons included

students relating history lesson to current Indonesia and applying the knowledge

to daily lives; for students to analyze that history can be influenced by a ruler’s

will and purpose, distorting the truth, and evaluating the case of G30S; to analyze

and evaluate the international background of G30S; to analyze, synthesize, and

evaluate theories and issues surrounding G30S; and chronologies and analyze the

timeline.

The lessons used Problem-based Learning (PBL) as the main

methodology, focusing on the first until the third stage of PBL (identification of

problem, facts identification, and hypotheses generation) with the problem being

the historical reconstruction of G30S. The teaching focused on using the higher

order questioning (analysis, synthesis, and evaluation of Bloom’s taxonomy),

discussion, and explanation by the teacher. Resources were gathered from various

books (Badrika, 2006; Drakeley, 2005; Soebandrio, 2006; Adam, 2004; Ricklefs,

2008; Mitra & Isak, 2007; Pambudi, 2006), websites, and an expert teacher’s

36
materials such as power points and video clips. The equipment used included

overhead projector, laptop, speaker, whiteboard, and marker. The series of lessons

were a new topic for the students and the researcher wanted to identify the

students’ critical thinking skills and historical thinking skills to be further

developed within Bloom’s taxonomy of cognitive level. At the beginning of the

topic, a questionnaire with three multiple choice questions and three open-ended

questions (see Appendix D-1) was developed to find out the attitudes and basic

thinking skills of students to history. The open-ended questions in the

questionnaire were designed using Bloom’s cognitive level (application, analysis,

synthesis, and evaluation type). The researcher also designed a post-test (see

Appendix D-2) to assess the learning achievement and students’ critical thinking

skills at the end of this first research cycle related to the topic G30S in Indonesia.

The test consisted of four open-ended questions that focused on analysis,

synthesis, and evaluation (based on Bloom’s taxonomy), aimed at challenging

students’ critical thinking. The test was planned to be given during the final sixth

lesson of the cycle. A schedule for a research paper project of about 2,000 words

about a problem of “who was the mastermind of G30S and why do you think so?”

along with a debate based on the same students’ research paper (which was due

after holiday break, that is in the second cycle of this study) was also designed to

be given to the students in this first cycle.

4.2.2 Action

The first lesson was an introduction to the concepts of history learning

and the importance of history. In the beginning of this study, the researcher

observed that the students’ were hardly interested in the topic. Thus, in the main

37
part of the lesson, students were instructed to filling in a questionnaire about their

attitude to history lessons because what they think of History will affect their

development of critical thinking in the same subject. The closing part of the lesson

involved explaining to the students about the problem of historical reconstruction

and why it is needed, and getting their opinions. The second lesson focused on the

issue of bending historical facts in G30S event. The main part and the closing part

of the lesson involved the use of the first part of PBL (the identification of

problem scenario) around G30S and historical reconstruction. The problem was

“who was the mastermind of G30S and why do you think so?” The researcher

provided some background information by presenting recent facts of the killing of

“PKI-suspects” by watching “Mass Grave in Indonesia” video clips, a power point

presentation, and discussion with the students. The researcher also used higher

order questioning such as, “why?”, “why not?”, “how?”, “are you sure? how

about this?”, type of questions according to Bloom’s analysis, synthesis, and

evaluation level.

The third and the fourth lesson were the application of the second part of

PBL (the facts identification) and consisted of external-internal factors of how

G30S happened. The main part of the lessons was about the Cold War and

Indonesia’s internal political situation and how it influenced G30S. The lessons

used analysis and evaluation questioning (based on Bloom’s taxonomy) to probe

the students’ thinking. In the third lesson, the researcher asked the students about

the mastermind of G30S event. All students said that “It is said that the

mastermind was PKI”. Thus, the researcher gave them several theories of who the

real mastermind was, from PKI to chaos theory. This revelation was added by

38
giving them a question, “If PKI was the mastermind, why do they want to cause a

coup’, while at that time, their influence was immensely big?” The question poses

as a disequilibrium for the students’ thinking. The next thing was informing the

students that G30S event happened at the time of Cold War, the war of ideas of

Communism vs. Liberalism, one that involved even Indonesia. The students were

then being asked about, “Why was Indonesia feared even by the U.S.A

government? Was Indonesia a very powerful country back then? Why?” The

questions served as disequilibrium as well as a follow up to explain the full

external and internal background of G30S event.

In the fourth lesson, the students were asked, “Why did Indonesia refuse

USA aid under Soekarno’s regime, and yet now under Soeharto’s regime

Indonesia received aids?” The question posed as a catalyst for the students to

critically assess the theory of Soeharto as a mastermind of G30S. The students

were quite responsive in answering the question and began to look at the chance

of the involvement of Soeharto. This is especially true for student B and student

C. Student A was quite vocal, yet she still lacked analytical skills of assessing the

condition.

To make sure that the question strikes a chord in their mind, they were

given yet another question aimed at the same purpose, “Why do right now

liberalist companies sprung up?” The students’ responses were quite good in their

thinking ability, linking the cause to the earlier concepts of war of ideas as well as

the possibility of Soeharto shifting the alignment in his regime. The next step was

to bring the students to the understanding of the Cold War and its effects on the

alignment of Indonesia, as well as the issue of Gilchrist document that brought the

39
controversy to the cause of G30S and PKI. The students were then asked about the

possibility of Nasution’s involvement in G30S. The question was regarding the

person mentioned in Gilchrist document, “Was it Nasution mentioned? Or

Soeharto? Why?” The students answered the problem with a quite good reflection

based on the data on their hands. The students were brought to Nasution’s 1952

case, as well as to the issue of “Dewan Jendral”, the possibility that really Ahmad

Yani was planning a coup, and the issue of Soekarno’s sickness and the impact of

that issue. The fourth lesson focused on identifying vital facts regarding G30S that

the students should put into their research paper project and their debate in the

second cycle.

The fifth lesson developed the students’ thinking on the chronology of

G30S. It was also the third stage of PBL in hypotheses generation that highlighted

different theories that the students could research for their research paper project.

The students were asked about, “Does it sound strange that there were thousands

of soldiers under Soeharto’s command coming to Jakarta from various regions in

Java to only celebrate the 5th October (Indonesian Army Day)?”. The students

were quite expansive in explaining the strangeness and have pointed out the

strangeness.

The students were also asked, “Why Untung as a commander of

president’s personal bodyguard was carried out G30S event that was regarded as a

coup’”, “what about the strange support from AURI (Indonesian Fleet Army) to

Untung’s coup?”, “What about the different command from Soekarno and armed

forces’ Pangkostrad (high ranking general) at that time to the soldiers?”. The

students interactively discussed the questions out of curiosity and were quite good

40
in reasoning through the answers. Finally, the students were brought into different

theories and parts that they should focus on their research: Asvi Warman Adam’s

books, other books’ point of view, Kolektif Info C’oup website, Gilchrist

document, Dewan Jendral, Soekarno’s sickness, Soeharto-CIA, and what really

happened in Halim. The sixth lesson was a test on their understanding of G30S

focused on analysis and synthesis type of questions in question one and four, and

comprehension, analysis, and synthesis type of questions in question two and

three (based on Bloom’s cognitive level).

4.2.3 Observation

Questionnaire

The researcher gave a questionnaire to three grade XII students at honors

level based on cognitive level of Bloom’s taxonomy to identify their basic

thinking skills. The questionnaire used a Likert scale of 1-5 in the multiple choice

section, where 1= hate it, 2= don’t like it, 3= O.K, 4= like it, 5 = love it. The table

summarizes the results is shown below:

Table 4.1 Summary of the result of the student questionnaire – Attitudes and Basic
Thinking Skills
Students
Question A B C

Attitudes
Attitude to History lesson
Attitude to historical topics
Attitude to History teacher
Thinking Skills
In your opinion, is history
lesson important or not?
Why?
In your opinion, do you think
that history lesson has a
connection to your everyday
lives or not? Why?
Love history Like history O.K with history
Quite interested in historical Love historical topics Quite interested in
topics historical topics
Like her past history teacher O.K with her past history Love her past
teacher history teacher
Important to learn history to Important Important to know
know about the past our cause
History has a connection to daily Historical connection to To know the cause
lives for us to learn past errors daily lives is to learn from and can be a
the past learning for us

Do you feel that you will The impact of history is to make a There is an impact of Without history, we
impact/affected by history or better future history to us are not as we are
not? Why? right now

41
 The result of the questionnaire showed that all three students had a

positive attitude to History. However, they were lacking basic critical thinking

skills of why they should then learn about History from the answers they gave to

the open-ended questions. All of them answered the open-ended questions with

comprehension type answers with no analysis or applicative answers with tangible

examples.

Post-Test

At the end of the sixth lesson, the researcher gave the students a test to

assess their critical thinking skills. Each of the four questions required paragraphs-

length answers. The researcher determined the passing standard of the test to be

75%, based on the school’s policies regarding students at honors level passing

standard (higher than 70%). The summary of the post test results are displayed in

the table below:

Table 4.2 Summary of students’ test result

Test Questions Weight Students Test Results
A B C

1. What is the meaning of historical reconstruction and why 15% 66.67% 80% 86.67%
it is needed? Explain!
2. What is actually G30S event? Why does it becomes such 80% 80% 100%
a controversy, and is there a need of historical 25%
reconstruction of G30S? Why? Explain!
3. Why did Indonesia in the era of Soekarno could become 66.67% 66.67% 83.33%
a leader of the third world? What factors (social, 30%
economic, politic, culture, and law) contribute to the
importance of Indonesia at that time? Explain!
4. How could we see Indonesian History in our perspective 66.67% 80% 66.67%
as Christians, especially regarding G30S event? Explain 30%
your reason and your view!
Total Score 70% 76% 83%

From the summary of the result, it can be seen that the students’ marks

for critical thinking skills assessed by the test vary from 70% to 83%.

Student A & student C responded to the first question by only giving

comprehension type answers and not applicative or synthesis type answers that
42
relate the lesson to the reality in their daily lives, while student B used a synthesis

type of answer. Yet, the students did not achieve the evaluative answers that

explored the changing nature of History at all. The second question was responded

by student A with only comprehension type answers, statement of the facts and no

synthesis or other higher level answers, while student B added factual type of

answers with applicative and analysis answers. Student C on the other hand, had

responded to the question by factual answer, analysis of the event, and applicative

and synthesis answers, and even evaluation of the problem stated in the question

that relate to general values. Student A & student B responses to the third question

showed comprehension and weak analysis of the problem in the question, while

student C’s response showed weakly stated synthesis of the various data in

answering the question. In the fourth question, the students gave a well-reasoned

logical conclusion, and yet out of three students, only student B that gave a

synthesis and evaluative type of answer although it was weakly stated, that

connected history and Christian values. It appeared that student B’s love of

history contributed to the construction of her thinking.

The researcher thought that perhaps the cause of the weaker assessed

applicative, analysis, and synthesis level of thinking, is the failure of the first stage

application of PBL (the problem identification). There was a lack of students’

perception of problem around historical reconstruction and G30S. Thus, some of

the given answers didn’t show evidence of higher level of thinking in Bloom’s

taxonomy.

43
Researcher’s Observation

From the classroom interaction and discussion, student A was showing

active involvement. She was always the one that quite vocal among the other

students. However, her answers to the researcher’s question were almost always

quickly stated without thinking the other way around. She was also continuously

complaining about the ‘superiority’ of her friends in answering questions and her

‘inferiority’ that she was not critical enough in her responses. Student B, on the

other hand, was quite vocal and thinks through the question first before

answering. She was also very interested in history. Student C was quite different

from the other two students and stated that, “I don’t understand History and its

concepts very well”. However, she absorbed the lessons more, noted down the

questions and answers, and listening through the discussion and carefully

involving herself in answering and questioning the researcher.

4.2.4 Reflection and Recommendations for Cycle II

As the researcher reflected on the first cycle, the researcher noted several

things. At the beginning of this study, the students lacked analysis capability in

their answers about the mastermind of G30S. At that time they stated that, “It is

said that the mastermind was PKI” without asking or thinking through the

question first. Through the five lessons, the researcher used applicative, analysis,

synthesis, and evaluative type of questioning to question the students.

After the five lessons and the students had been tested, the researcher

noted that the students had grown in their analysis skills by beginning to develop a

link of the historical facts to historical concepts of causality such as “the

possibility of Cold War links to Indonesia’s alignment shift under Soeharto”, that

44
correspond to the applicative and analysis level of thinking in Bloom’s taxonomy.

It appeared that the intricate problem presented throughout the lessons and the

researcher’s questioning had begun to make them think more than just knowledge

and comprehension of the lesson. However, the students appeared to be lacking in

their thinking skills at the levels of synthesis and evaluation. Some of the

students’ answers in the post-test only weakly synthesized and evaluated the

problem given through the questions.

The researcher identified several strengths of the taken action including

giving the schedule of their research paper project motivated the students to do

research and to think about the related questions and issues during the lessons,

even for student C who did found it difficult to understand historical concepts

such as historical reconstruction. Using PBL and higher level questioning

(analysis and evaluation type of questioning) also contributed to an interactive

students’ discussion. However, one of the weaknesses of the action was that the

time was greatly spent on exploring one big topic. The researcher also failed to

address properly the problem identification stage on doing historical

reconstruction.

The researcher recommended that in the next cycle, the problem should

be properly identified by the means of students’ self directed learning (the fourth

and fifth stages of PBL) in the problem of “who was the mastermind of G30S and

why do you think so?” The students’ thinking also needs to be developed in the

areas of synthesis and evaluation of Bloom’s taxonomy by giving them structured

questions of higher level of thinking and by doing their research paper project and

students’ debate.

45
4.3 Description Cycle II

The second cycle of this study focused on the self-directed learning phase

of PBL regarding G30S and its aftermath in Indonesian History program for grade

XII honors level. Data about students’ thinking skills was collected by using

reflective journal, students’ debate and research paper project, a critical thinking

outcomes checklist, mentor’s feedback, and interview. Between the first research

cycle and this second cycle, there was a two weeks national-holiday, thus, this

cycle II was carried after the holiday.

4.3.1 Planning

The planning stage involved developing three lesson plans (see Appendix

A) that covered three periods of 45 minutes over two weeks. The lesson plans

focused on the self-directed learning of the students regarding G30S and the

aftermath of the events that resulted in the heated Indonesia’s political situation in

1965-1966 that led to Soeharto’s reign of power in 1966 and the establishment of

his New Order Regime that lasted 32 years up until 1998. The researcher also

planned on addressing previous problems found during the last cycle of research.

The objectives of the three lessons were that for students to be able to analyze

problems, synthesize data, and evaluate arguments and logical fallacies

arguments; for students to develop their reasoning and thinking through reflection

according to Paul & Elder’s critical thinking standards; for students to relate

G30s to the social-political crisis of 1965-1966 and evaluate it; and to analyze,

synthesize, evaluate, and relate Soeharto’s new order and why study it.

The lessons used Problem-based Learning (PBL) as the main

methodology, focusing on the fourth until the final stage of PBL (identification of

46
knowledge deficiencies, application of the new knowledge, abstraction and

evaluation) with the problem being the “who was the mastermind of G30S and

why do you think so?” The teaching also included higher level questioning

(analysis, synthesis, and evaluation), discussion, students’ reflection and

explanation by the teacher. Resources were gathered from various books (Badrika,

2006; Drakeley, 2005; Soebandrio, 2006; Adam, 2004; Ricklefs, 2008; Mitra &

Isak, 2007; Pambudi, 2006), websites, and an expert teacher’s materials such as

power points. The equipment used included overhead projector, laptop,

whiteboard, and marker.

The researcher planned to provide students with a framework to help

develop their thinking skills by planning a research paper project for the students.

The research paper project acted as their self-directed learning that particularly

focusing on “who was the mastermind of G30S and why do you think so?” by

looking at the evidence from different points of views (e.g. Soeharto, Soekarno,

CIA, PKI, and Indonesian Fleet Army). Each student would focus on one point of

view that was assigned to them (the students were not given freedom to choose in

order to reduce the number of information that they have to research and to focus

their research, this was done due to the advice from an expert teacher). Then they

had to analyze the theories whether it is true or false and how it is according to

different authors. They then have to synthesize the material researched into the

evidence as well as to evaluate the evidence. Then following the research paper

project is a students’ debate based on the character they researched in the paper

project. The research paper project and the debate are done as a part of fourth and

fifth stage in PBL cycle (identification of knowledge deficiencies, application of

47
the new knowledge). Both the research paper and the debate were evaluated

through rubrics (see Appendix D-3 & D-4).

In the first cycle the students’ basic thinking skills and the improvement

in their critical thinking skills had been identified using a cognitive level

according to Bloom’s taxonomy. Apparently, when being compared to indicators

of critical thinking according to Paul & Elder (2005), Bloom’s cognitive level

were less specific. Thus, in this second cycle, in order to identify more specific the

improvement of students’ critical thinking skills, the researcher designed a critical

thinking outcome rubric that was modified from Paul & Elder’s critical thinking

indicators (2005) (see Appendix B-2 – B-4) that assessed the students while the

teaching and learning activities was going. The rubric was filled by another

teacher observing at the back of the class, with the researcher’s mentor also

observing the researcher’s teaching. At the end of the two cycles of research, the

researcher also designed a series of interview questions for interviewing the

students to find out if that the PBL had an influence towards students’ critical

thinking skills. There were 12 questions developed, based on the seven critical

thinking outcome indicators of Paul & Elder (2005).

4.3.2 Action

The first lesson was the application of both the fourth and fifth stage of

PBL (identification of knowledge deficiencies & application of the new

knowledge) in the form of students’ self-directed learning process that consisted

of the students’ research paper project (based on the research of characters they

had been assigned to) and a follow up debate of their research. The main part of

the lesson was a debate entitled “who was the mastermind of G30S and why do

48
you think so?” and lasted for 40 minutes. The debate consisted of opening

statement for six minutes (each student was given two minutes); unfolding the

content for 15 minutes (each student was given five minutes); free debate session

for 10 minutes (student can question each other if they think they have a weak

analysis); a final statement preparation for three minutes; and final

statement/conclusion for six minutes (each student was given two minutes). The

closing part was a review of their debate performance. The researcher assessed the

students when they were debating against each other, each with a different focus

on who the real mastermind of G30S was. The researcher noted the debate was

not very lively, although the explanation of the theory itself was quite good. It

appeared that the conflicting theories made them confused.

The second lesson was the application of the final stage in PBL

(abstraction and evaluation) focusing in abstraction understanding in a form of

students’ reflections on the previous debate. The students reflected on their past

test, debate, and research paper project performances by answering several

reflective questions (e.g. how do you think about the debate that you just did the

last lesson? was it challenging? why? how about the research paper project, was it

challenging? what do you think? how about the learning method, did it improve

your thinking? was it challenging? what do you think?) and then discussed them

together with the teacher. The main part of the lesson involved giving the students

key points of the G30S problem by explanation of strengths and weaknesses

analysis of each theory in the G30S problem. The researcher was interactively

presenting the information of the problem of G30S aftermath, CIA involvement,

and aid from CIA to destroy communism. The researcher’s opinion based on the

49
researcher’s own research about the real mastermind of G30S with the supportive

facts was also given. This was meant to narrow down the missing information that

the students received, as well as making sure that they are not confused anymore.

Then, the researcher questioned the students about, “Why did Indonesia’s armed

forces know and support the destroying of communism in Indonesia radically at

that time?” The question referred to the mass grave and killing of millions of

‘PKI-suspects’ given in the first research cycle. The students answered the

question with referring to Soeharto’s involvement behind it with much more

certainty than before in the first cycle and appeared to have developed their

thinking skills.

The third lesson was again the application of the final stage resolution in

PBL (abstraction and evaluation) focusing in the evaluation part by reviewing the

series of the lessons. It also involved improving the relevance of the problem in

the students’ thinking by linking the problem to current Indonesia by the means of

step by step scaffolding, questioning, and discussion. The main part of the lesson

involved improving the researcher’s questioning method by focusing the higher

level questions of analysis, synthesis, and evaluation on strange phenomenon of

the high economic crisis after G30S, how it will affect the people at that time, and

how and why the price went up.

The researcher tried to improve the relevance of the problem in the

lesson by first asking the students to review about what they learned and did for

the last eight lessons covering the topic. The researcher also questioned them

about, “Why should you study new order right now? Does it have anything to do

with G30S? How? Why?” The students at first struggled to answer the questions,

50
yet they finally stated that, “the effects of G30S event was that it became the

transitioning device from Soekarno’s old regime towards Soeharto’s new regime

and what caused a shift in economic trend in Indonesia, as well as the coming of

the Western culture and globalization entry point in Indonesia. Not to mention, it

was again the blurring of history.” Thus, by that statement, the students appeared

to have linked what they learned to current Indonesia.

The researcher also tried to improve his questioning method through

provoking the students’ thinking on the high economic crisis after G30S by

asking, “Is it normal that the price can rise so quickly like that? What do you think

caused it? How will it affect the people at that time? How and why the price gone

up?” After several theories launched by the students, explanation of the

hypothesis of why the price gone up and the effects of that high inflation, that is

the now know Tritura movement and armed forces reaction to that was given. The

students were also asked, “is it normal that Indonesia’s armed forces prevented

Soekarno as president of Indonesia at that time to gain back the power he lost after

G30S? Why do you think so? How about Soeharto? Why did he gained a backup?

How is it even possible?” The students answered it vaguely, thus, the researcher

moved to the explanation of A.H Nasution (Indonesia’ armed forces general)

struggle with Soekarno beginning in 1952.

The closing part of the lesson was a discussion regarding Soekarno’s

strategy to defend his powers and involved asking the students to summarize and

state what they have learned in this lesson.

51
 4.3.3 Observation

Researcher’s Observation

At the beginning of this research cycle II, the researcher observed that the

students looked motivated, learnt the material well, and had begun to develop

critical thinking skills in the area of application, analysis, and synthesis according

to Bloom’s cognitive level (e.g. able to relate the lesson to the reality in their daily

lives, analyze the purpose of G30S historical reconstruction, and synthesize what

happened in G30S from a Christian perspective). In the second lesson of this

second cycle however, student B apparently experienced a difficulty in relating

the historical problem’s relevance into Indonesia’s now. Student A was absent.

Student B also seemed to be fatigued and was unable to freely express her

opinions and logically concluded the lesson. The researcher thought that this was

due to the tiredness caused by the Mathematic lesson before this History lesson.

The researcher also thought that perhaps the cause of student’s B difficulty of

relating the lessons to current Indonesia was too much focus on the PBL problem

of “who was G30S mastermind and why do you think so?”

After the students’ indication of critical thinking skills development

according to Bloom’s taxonomy had been attained, the researcher compared the

data this time using indicators of critical thinking based on Paul & Elder’

indicators (2005) to measure more specific the students’ thinking development.

The students’ self reflection on the second lesson indicated that the application of

PBL was successful in improving students’ thinking, especially in regards to

standard B ( Relevance of Thinking) and standard F (Checking the Depth of

52
Thinking) of Paul & Elder’s indicators (2005). Student B indicated that the

learning was fun, challenging, and adding so much new knowledge to her.

However, she indicated that her thinking was not very developed by

stating that, “I was not very prepared for the debate. My arguments were not

strong enough. The debate felt flat. My analysis in the research paper project was

shallow. Thus, my analysis was a little ‘deviated’ from the issue”. Student C

reflection’s, on the other hand, indicated that her thinking skills were developing.

She stated that, “In my opinion, the history lesson challenged me and because of

the research paper project, I that was not interested in History before, became

interested towards History. I also understand more the connection of history to

nowadays”. However, both of the students noted that they were limited by the lack

of full information on the issue and the complexity of the sources. Student B

stated that, “I lack the reading of related information”, while student C stated that,

“My thinking was limited from the sources that I read. The sources were complex

enough, because every source has its own arguments that often clash each other’s

point of view”.

The researcher tried to improve this by step-by-step scaffolding of

relevance of the lesson to current Indonesia and structured higher level questions

of analysis, synthesis, and evaluation in the third lesson. At first, in this third

lesson of this second cycle, the students appeared could not relate the lesson to

Indonesia now. After scaffolding and structured questioning that was continuously

done, the students began to relate the material to the development of Indonesia as

it is today. The students, especially both student A & C, were finally able to see

the connection of the history and evaluate the impact today (analysis, synthesis,

53
and evaluation level of Bloom’s cognitive level). On the other hand, student B

was not really involved in the discussion and was only answering the researcher’s

question once in a while.

Results of Debate

The researcher gave the students the opportunity to debate on “who was

the mastermind of G30S and why do you think so?” based on their research paper

project. The researcher determined the passing standard of the test to be 75%,

based on the school’s policies regarding students at honors level passing standard

(higher than 70%). The assessed results of the debate and summary of critical

thinking skills identified from the debate are shown below:

Table 4.3 Summary of Critical Thinking Skills Identified from the Debate (see
Appendix D-3 for the rubric sample)
Debate Rubric Bloom’s Weight Students
Taxonomy A B C
Critical Thinking:
1. Demonstration of understanding of the
scope of the problem and the ramifications
of the issues involved.
2. Use of information from documents and Analysis & 35% 68.57% 77.14% 82.86%
personal knowledge that is used to develop Evaluation
a position.
3. Conclusion based on examination of the
evidence, alternatives, and evaluation of
consequences.
Communication of Ideas:
1. Strong, well defined position
2. Presentation of persuasive argument with
evidence Application 30% 80% 83.33% 83.33%
3. Issues dealing and demonstration of
understanding of relationships
4. Examination of the problem from diverse
point of views
Knowledge and Use of History:
1. Analysis of information and issues
2. Variety of facts, major-minor issues, and
concepts Synthesis 35% 82.86% 80% 88.57%
3. Use of previous historical knowledge that
provide understanding and relation to past
and future situations

Debate Result 77% 80% 85%

54
 The results showed that the students showed varied critical thinking

development aspects. In the second rubric that assessed their application of their

knowledge into active persuasive speaking and arguments in the debate, the

students showed satisfying results that passed the expected standard. Student B &

C was showing more ability in applying their passive historical knowledge into

defining their position in the debate and examine their opponents’ point of view.

Student A also showed improvement over her thinking, although not as much as

the other two students.

In the third rubric that assessed the synthesis of students’ historical

knowledge based on point of views and authors that they researched, the students

also showed improvement in comparison to the last test’s results in cycle I. In this

category, student A showed more development in synthesizing her knowledge

more than student B. However, Student C excelled both student A & B by

relatively modest difference in score as much as 8.57%.

Nevertheless, the students were getting lower scores in the assessment of

the first rubric that assessed their analysis and evaluation capability of the

materials that they researched in comparison with the other two rubrics. Student C

still excelled. Student B just barely passed the passing standard of 75% by 2.14%.

On the other hand, student A failed to achieve the passing standard and got a poor

result of 68.57%.

Based on the overall achievement of the debate, the students still showed

improvement over their critical thinking skills in the areas of application, analysis,

synthesis, and evaluation. Since a debate is a form of expressing one’s thinking, it

can also be said that the students experienced improvement over their outward

55
appearance of critical thinking. Student C was more developed in her critical

thinking skills and had more historical knowledge than the other two students.

Student A had the least developed critical thinking skills of 77%, just barely

passed the expected standard. However, the students’ scores modestly varied by

only 8%. This means that there was a difference in each of the students’ critical

thinking development outwardly.

Research Paper Project

The given assignment of a 2,000 words research paper that explored the

problem of “who was the mastermind of G30S?” showed similar results with the

debate results. Student A got the lowest score, while student C got the highest

score, but this time the variation in scores was relatively high, as much as 15%.

The researcher determined the passing standard of the test to be 75%, based on the

school’s policies regarding students at honors level passing standard (higher than

70%). The assessed outcomes of the research paper and the results are recorded

below:

Table 4.4 Students’ research paper project results (see Appendix D-4 for the rubric)
Criteria evaluated Bloom’s Students
Taxonomy A B C
Evaluation of sources – wide variety of sources, at Evaluation 85% 100% 100%
least three credible sources/authors.
Interpretation of material – selection and Analysis & 85% 93% 100%
interpretation of information. Quality of research. Synthesis
Understanding of topic Comprehension 85% 85% 95%
& Application
Documentation – referencing and citation. 85% 85% 85%
Presentation of research – use of information, 60% 70% 85%
integration, credit sources and use of quotations and
paraphrase.
Paper mechanics – grammar, spelling, organization, 68.89% 81.11% 91.11%
focus, and format.
Research Paper Project Result 77% 85.8% 92%

56
 The table shows that all the students performed well in the third rubric

that assessed their comprehension and application of their knowledge, passing the

standard of 75%. Student C showed a very well performance of 100%, improved

in comparison to the other evaluations before. Both student A & B also had

improvement over their comprehension of the material.

In analyzing and synthesizing the data of the problem given for their self-

directed learning, the students also showed improvement in comparison of the

other evaluations. Student C again showed 100%, while student B got 93%.

Student A also had little improvement over her past performances. The similar

results also showed from the assessed data evaluation. Both students B & C got

100% in evaluating the data. Student A also got a good result of 85%.

In overall results however, Student A still had the least overall thinking

skill development among the three, with student C outperforming the other two

students. Student A just barely passed the passing standard with 77%, while

student C was in a range of outstanding performance of 92%. The variation in the

students’ scores was also relatively high (15%). The researcher thought that

perhaps the reason student C outperformed the other students was that she learned

more and did more research into the problem than the other students. For example,

in student C’s research paper, there are evidences that she did quite a lot of

research, which include 12 references, not to mention her statement, “according to

my analysis with the references, there are so many plot holes in G30S that seems

to ‘disappear’ or intently ‘disbanded’” that indicates her researched knowledge.

57
Critical Thinking Outcomes Checklist (see Appendix B-2 – B-4)

The critical thinking outcomes based on Paul & Elder’s critical thinking

standards (2005) were used in this study to observe more specifically the

development of students’ critical thinking skills, besides relying on data gathered

based on Bloom’s taxonomy of cognitive levels of thinking. A checklist modified

from the outcomes was designed. The checklist was given to an observer who was

an experienced teacher to be filled during classroom teaching and learning,

assessing the students’ thinking. The checklist used a scale of 0-10, where 0=

virtually never, 1-2= rarely, 3-5= sometimes, but with limited understanding, 6-8=

often (but inconsistently and sometimes superficially), 9-10 = typically and

characteristically, and with depth of understanding. The results of the checklist are

recorded below:

Table 4.5 Summary of Critical Thinking Master Rubric (Taken and modified from Paul
& Elder, 2005, p. 22-42, www.criticalthinking.org, 20 September 2010)
Critical Thinking Outcomes Assessed Student Average
Indicator
(Overall, the student has evidenced understanding and
Score
internalization of the critical thinking competency (as
detailed in the performance indicator) with the A B C
following frequency and depth)
A (Purposes of Reasoning) 3/10 3/10 4/10 3
B (Relevance of Thinking) 5/10 5/10 5/10 5
C (Expressing the Most Important Information) 6/10 2/10 6/10 5
D (Logical Conclusion) 5/10 2/10 5/10 4
E (Distinguishing Probable/Improbable Implication 8/10 4/10 6/10 6
and Consequences)
F (Checking the Depth of Thinking) 9/10 5/10 6/10 7
G (Thinking in the Subject) 7/10 6/10 7/10 7
Overall Score 6 4 6

Individually, the students showed varied results of their assessed thinking

skills. Student A typically showed reflecting on her own thinking (standard F).

58
She seemed to have high self-awareness and self-consciousness. She often

expressed her opinion that she regard as the most important information, thinking

historically, and discerning the consequences of the problem in the lesson

(standards C, E, & G). Yet, she sometimes showed skills in relating the lesson to

daily lives, logically concluding the lesson, and stating the purpose of reasoning in

the given situation (standards A, B, & D). Thus, her active involvement in

classroom discussion and in answering teacher’s question was not related directly

to her development of thinking skills. Overall, Student A often showed skills in

critical thinking. Student C also often showed her thinking skills in overall areas

of Paul & Elder’s critical thinking standards (2005). She often showed her

thinking in the classroom discussion; discern the consequences of the given

problem; and reflecting her own historical thinking (C, E, F, & G). In the

discussion, she sometimes skills in relating the problem to her daily lives,

understanding the purpose of reasoning in the lesson, and logically conclude the

lesson (A, B, & D).

On the other hand, only sometimes student B showed skills in critical

thinking. She often showed historical thinking skills (standard G). She also

sometimes showed skills in understanding the purpose of reasoning through a

problem, relating the problem to her daily lives, discerning consequences, and

reflecting on her own thinking (standards A, B, E, & F). However, the table shows

that she rarely involved in the classroom discussion and uses her logic in reaction

to the teacher’s questions (standard C & D).

The table also shows that although the students showed modest results in

several areas of critical thinking standards according to Paul & Elder (E, F, & G),

59
the students were still weak in many of the critical thinking standards. The

students often showed skills in discerning consequences, reflecting on their own

thinking, and thinking historically in the learning. However, in reflecting the

purpose of reasoning in their learning, relating the problem to daily lives,

concluding logically, and expressing the most important information (standards A,

B, C, & D), the students only sometimes appeared to show their skills.

Mentor’s Observation and Feedback (see Appendix B-1)

The mentor’s feedback provided an insight of how the PBL taken by the

researcher contributed to the development of the students’ critical thinking skills.

In her observation, the mentor highlighted the use of the lesson review that helped

students to focus on the given material. Previewing the next lesson also turned out

to help the students to think on the follow up on the given materials.

The feedback from the mentor also helped the researcher to find out why

student B only sometimes showed skills in critical thinking, but not throughout

the third lesson in this second research cycle. The mentor observation revealed

that the researcher had poorly let the students chose their own seating. In the eight

lessons previously, this was not a problem. The students always sit in a row and

none left behind alone. This time, student B sat at the back of the class far from

her two friends and it appeared that the seating hindered student B in participating

throughout the lesson. Another weakness highlighted by the mentor, was the lack

of deep and one on one questioning between the researcher and the students.

Student Interview (see Appendix E)

The researcher also interviewed the students for approximately 10

minutes each. The questions were developed from the seven modified Paul &

60
Elder’s critical thinking standards. The table below explains what were being

assessed by the interview process:

Table 4.6 Interview question and critical thinking standard assessed

Critical Thinking Interview Questions
Standards
A (Purposes of Do you feel that your argumentation and logic that has been sharpen through the
Reasoning) given problem material are useful? What is the example?
Are the assignments and the test that were given in this history lesson, make you
think much deeper?
B (Relevance of In your opinion, through this history lesson, are you able to find various ways to
Thinking) solve the given problems? What is the example?
Do you understand more and want to know more about Indonesian history, as
the result of the history lesson that you received? Why?
C (Expressing the Most According to you, what information was the most important in the finishing
Important Information) process of your assignments? Why?
D (Logical Conclusion) Do you feel that you had a chance to utter your logic and opinion about the
given history lesson material?
According to your opinion, through receiving this history lesson, do you
experience an improvement in analyzing information and central ideas in history
lesson? What is the example? How is it?
E (Distinguishing In finishing the given assignments of the historical problems, do you select the
Probable/Improbable resource materials or not? How was the process?
Implication and
Consequences) In this history lesson, are you able to see the given problems from diverse point
of views and theories? How?
F (Checking the Depth of Are the problems presented in history lesson make you think systematically and
Thinking) have more focus on the lesson?
G (Thinking in the Do you found many opportunities to think about difficult questions which you
Subject) don’t know what the answer is, about Indonesian history in this history lesson?
How?
Are the given problems in this history lesson make you want to investigate even
further about the problems and the related topics?

The students answered the interview questions in detail and gave positive

signals that the application of PBL was successful in improving their history

learning and thinking skills. Examples below were derived from the interview’s

transcript:

(Standard A - Purposes of Reasoning): The researcher recorded the

Student B’s statement that indicated her understanding of purpose of reasoning in

the lessons. As the post-test was given to her, she has to think by herself and has

61
to have “a broad view, because… the test…was an analysis and opinion giving”.

Student C’ statement indicated that she had realized the purpose of reasoning. She

said that it is to,

“look upon the problem [as] analyzing a problem requires not only looking unto the

past, but there is a connection to the previous event for example and also the event after

that…I have to analyze what is right…from various sources that have many different

versions”.

(Standard B - Relevance of Thinking): Student A statement, “I can think

more critical, because every statement that I utter must have a hole, which can be

brought down by other people” showed that she had found ways to solve the given

problems. Regarding connection to Indonesian History, she stated,

“Yes, I want to know the true Indonesian history but I just want to learn it at a glimpse

for Indonesian history. Because it will be very dizzy. So, it is better for me just to learn,

but I don’t want to be very enthusiastic to find the true truth”.

Student C on the other hand, stated that she is “more curious, just like what I said,

because there are many questions that are still unanswerable even up to now”.

(Standard C - Expressing the Most Important Information): To student A

the vital aspect in the lesson was that” History is important” and also that

Indonesian History “needs a very large reconstruction”. Student B stated that to

her the most important information was, “Documents from ambassadors...It is

revealed that there were many CIA agents in Indonesia at that time”. Student C’s

statement, on the other hand, revealed that she had realized the connection of

History lessons she learned to her daily lives. She said that,

“The most important information according to me is the history itself. With the

assignments , debate, and all, it made me understand that history is very needed in our

lives, because the connection is still there now, and it is not only memorizing things”.
62
 (Standard D - Logical Conclusion): Student A appeared to have

improved her skills in logical conclusion, as she stated that,

“… history lesson that I got here is different from what I received… here the lesson was

more of using logic and the available proofs… [The teacher] mostly wanted my opinion,

like… “What is G30S PKI according to your opinion?”, or,”How G30S happened?”, or,

something similar like that, the teacher [also] always counter the answer with a question

again, until I cannot answer”.

Student B also indicated similar results as she stated that, “[The teacher] always

asked questions, [like] ‘In your opinion, why is that so?’ Then, we, [the students]

answered the questions”. On the other hand, student C indicated that the

researcher was giving her the opportunity to express her opinion and to develop

her thinking. She stated that,

“although I was not interested in history in the beginning, I talked about it openly… yet

the teacher was not angry. [He even asked], ‘In your opinion, how is this? Why it can be

like this? What is your opinion?’ For [the research paper project], there must be

evidences [and] my analysis too…it was not only copying from the internet…I have to

research [and] read all those thick books”.

(Standard E - Distinguish Probable/Improbable Implication and

Consequences): Student A appeared to select implications from books as she

stated that, “[selection] of the resources that are opposing what I believe… is a

must. It was not possible to just copy-paste”. She was also able to examine diverse

point of views of “not only from historical problems, but also people’s condition

at that time and other things”. Student B preferred books for sources of research

and have begun to discern consequences by selection of her resources as she

stated that, “Books are more valid [and] more certain… there are [many] theories.

So…it adds my knowledge and view”. Student C, on the other hand, selected

63
books and resources because, “All of those [books] are different and have

different opinions. [The authors’] opinions were different and often conflicts each

other”.

(Standard F - Checking the Depth of Thinking): Student A stated that the

problems presented made her think systematically and more focus, because, “in

this history lesson that I got now, I must also understand the situation and dig

deeper”. While student B stated that her systematic thinking resulted from the,

“controversial issue [that] was discussed more”. Student C specifically stated that

she was more systematic due to “…order, especially historical order [that] cannot

be reversed”, and that she focused more on the lesson because she have to, “make

an analogy of myself if I got into that time [to] understand more of the time,

because the conditions are different from nowadays”.

(Standard G - Thinking in the Subject): Student A stated that she had to

think difficult questions in History lesson because, “[the answers] can bring [my]

side of argument down”, although she was not very interested in further

investigation of Indonesian History because she thought that, “[it is] very blurred,

messed up, [and] many manipulations”. While, student B stated that in the making

of her research paper project, she has to, “spent [the time] on looking in what

supports my opinion” that leads her to think historically and made her “motivated

with history books [and] want to read it until finish”. Student C, on the other was

thinking historically because, “Indonesian history is complicated, even until now

there are still many unanswerable questions”. She also stated that her interest was

limited more on, “[discussion] with my friends that also got the research paper

assignment”.

64
 Summarizing the interview results, it appeared that the application of

PBL does indeed have positive influence in improving the students’ critical

thinking skills. All the students stated that the lessons were different and focused

on logical improvements. The students also stated that the research paper project

in the self-directed learning phases of PBL taken contributed to their thinking

development. Moreover, what they researched improved their skills in selecting

probable consequences, skills in reflecting their own thinking, and their historical

thinking skills. However, the interview results also showed that only student C

considered connecting the past, now, and the future (in other words, the relevance

aspect). The other two students failed to address the connection between past,

present, and future to be a vital aspect in learning History and in living their daily

lives.

4.3.4 Reflection and Recommendations

The second cycle of this study addressed the problem found in the first

cycle- lack of problem identification regarding historical reconstruction and was

successful in solving the problem. It appeared that the application of the self-

directed learning phases of PBL and the use of higher-level-of-thinking structured

questions solved the failure on the problem identification stage and got the

students to identify all the possible theories around the G30S problem. The

research also showed that the students had an improvement over their ability to

analyze, synthesize, and evaluate the given problem.

The researcher identified several strengths of the action taken including

giving the students the opportunity of having a self-directed learning and also

individual reflection on what they have done (the test, the research, the debate,

65
and their thinking level). In the students’ self reflection, there was an indication

that the application of PBL in the learning process was successful in improving

the students’ critical thinking skills. However, the students’ reflection also noted

that one of the weaknesses of the action taken was the complexities of the

problem and the abundant amount of missing information, although this weakness

had successfully addressed in the second lesson by assigning the students the

character that they have to researched in order to evaluate and determine one of

many point of views regarding “who was really the mastermind of G30S”. The

researcher’s opinion based on the researcher’s own research about the real

mastermind of G30S with the supportive facts was also given to narrow down the

missing information that the students received and making sure that they are not

confused anymore.

The research was also modestly successful in addressing the problem

found in the second lesson of this research cycle- the lack of relevance in the

students thinking. Compared to the previous results and the students’ answers,

commentaries, attitudes, and questions at the beginning of this study before the

action research took place, the students showed development of their critical

thinking skills according to both Bloom’s taxonomy and Paul & Elder’s critical

thinking standards (2005). The students had developed adequate responses to

think critically and found the relevance of the learning to current Indonesia as they

know it. However, the interview results showed that only student C considered

connecting the past, now, and the future to be a vital aspect in learning History

and in living her daily lives. This is evident in her statement regarding the effects

of G30S that,

66
 “it became the transitioning device from Soekarno’s old regime towards Soeharto’s new

regime and what caused a shift in economic trend in Indonesia, as well as the coming of

the Western culture and globalization entry point in Indonesia. Not to mention, it was

again the blurring of history”.

However, the critical thinking rubric that was filled by the observer

teacher along with the feedback on the researcher’s lesson plan given by the

researcher’s mentor, showed disappointing results. The students were still weak in

many if not all critical thinking standards according to Paul & Elder (2005).

Student B’s overall critical thinking outcome score decreased in comparison to the

results observed by Bloom’s taxonomy. The feedback from the mentor helped the

researcher to find out why this happened. The mentor’s observation highlighted

several points. The researcher had poorly let the students chose their own seating

that was resulted in student B sat at the back of the class in the third lesson.

Another weakness of the action taken was the lack of deep and one on one

questioning method.

The interview results showed that the application of PBL was

successful in developing the students’ critical thinking skills and their ability in

having multiple perspectives over an issue. The PBL also motivated the students

to learn more because of its complexities. However, it seems that because PBL

focused on just one big topic and problem, it failed to engage students’ interest in

other themes in Indonesian History learning. The cause of this failure seems to be

too much focus on the theme of G30S, specifically determining the mastermind.

67
4.4 Discussion

Piaget’s theory of cognitive development states that adolescents are in

the formal operational stage that allows them to comprehend abstract ideas

without much help of concrete objects (Parkay, 2006). The students’ cognition in

this study appeared to concur with Piaget’s theory in that the students have

understood abstract concepts such as consequences, morality in connection to

historical atrocities, and its impact. They are also able to do higher order thinking

of Bloom’s cognitive level, although they still seemed to need concrete things to

‘jump’ further in their abstract thinking.

Erickson’s psychosocial theory placed adolescents in a stage of identity

vs. role confusion that made them trying to seek affirmation of their strengths to

feel competent that results in unstable and wavering self-concept (Savage, et al.,

2006). Student A’s statement throughout this study regarding the ‘superiority’ of

her friends and her own ‘inferiority’ seems to concur with that of Erickson’s

theory and with what Elkind stated, that the adolescents’ unstable identity produce

idealism and self consciousness (1998).

Bloom’s taxonomy was used in this study to measure the students’

critical thinking skills. However, Paul & Elder’s critical thinking standards (2005)

that are more specific were used towards the end of this study to measure more

specifically the development of students’ critical thinking skills. Based on

Bloom’s cognitive levels (Wineburg & Schneider, 2009), the students showed a

development of critical thinking skills in the area of analysis, synthesis, and

evaluation. However, in the observation using seven of Paul & Elder’s critical

thinking standards, it appeared that the students still need much improvement over

68
many if not all of the standards. The students often showed skills in discerning

consequences, reflecting on their own thinking, and thinking historically in the

learning (standards E, F, & G). However, in reflecting the purpose of reasoning in

their learning, relating the problem to daily lives, concluding logically, and

expressing the most important information (standards A, B, C, & D), the students

only sometimes appeared to show their skills.

Student A’s evaluation results that showed her attitude to not being an

assertive learner among the other two students seemed to concur with Paul,

Fisher, & Nosich’s statement that one has to ‘take charge’ on his or her own

willingness to develop critical thinking skills (Paul et al., 1993). Her statement

that, she “is not very critical”, indicating that she was hindering her own

development of critical thinking by not ‘taking charge’ and unwilling to compete

with her friends and develop her own critical thinking skills.

In cycle II, the researcher use a student debate method and students’

individual research as a way to do students’ self-directed learning phase in PBL.

The debate used is a modified academic parliamentary format (taken from Freely

& Steinberg, 2009, pp. 347-349). A debate is, “the process of inquiry and

advocacy, a way of arriving at a reasoned judgment or a proposition” (Freely &

Steinberg, 2009, p.6). It offers training in argumentation, provides for

investigation and intensive analysis of significant contemporary problems, and

develops proficiency in critical thinking, in purposeful inquiry, and problem-

solving skills (Freely & Steinberg, 2009, pp. 28-38). In this research the debate

provided some training, but more practice is needed to develop all the skills

involved.

69
 Fogarty (1998) & Tan (2004) described one of characteristics of PBL as

cooperation among students. This is because in PBL, the students are learning

through peer collaboration and constructive interaction with the teacher as

facilitator (Silver, 2004 & Tan, 2004). In this study, peer collaboration was not

emphasized as much as it could have been but students and the researcher did

collaborate quite a lot. The problem around the topic requires the students to do

multi-perspective research that will be described in the debate. The debate was

based on the students’ research paper project that was meant to be their self-

directed learning (referring to the application of the fourth and fifth stages of PBL

cycle) to improve their critical thinking as they focused on one point of view,

analyze the theories whether it is true or false, synthesize the material researched,

and evaluate the evidence. Thus, the researcher thought that an individual

approach was the best possible situation in this study to be taken.

The students’ individual research showed that the self-directed learning

phase in PBL was indeed a distinguishing feature in this study that contributed to

a development of critical thinking (Silver, 2004). The students’ reflection and

interview also indicated that in this self-directed learning phase, the students were

improving their thinking from what they read, researched, and debated. The self-

directed learning is also apparently what caused student C to excel in her learning

and thinking. Her research paper indicated that she did more research into the

problem than the other students. In the interview, student C also stated that the

research paper made her interested in history. Apparently, the self-directed

learning also contributed to the raise of students’ interest and motivation toward

the learning.

70
 However, the PBL also greatly emphasizing teacher’s role as the

students’ facilitator. The researcher was actively scaffolding and giving higher-

level-thinking structured questioning to the students. The students’ thinking was

probed this way and the students step by step were beginning to improve their

critical thinking skills. This concurs with what Vygotsky stated in his theory of

cognitive development, that students can achieve their maximum cognitive

development by interacting with other competent peers or adults that constructs

their thinking (Maccarelli, 2006).

Students B & C stated in their self-reflection that the self-directed

learning phase on the problem who was the mastermind of G30S caused

confusion in students’ thinking (student A was absent). Apparently, the PBL done

by the researcher hid the key information so much and gave too many theories

that the students experienced confusion and lost of focus.

The last stage of PBL is abstraction and evaluation of the learning

process. This stage contributed to the development of learning and thinking from

the previous stages in PBL (problem identification, facts identification,

hypotheses generation, identification of knowledge deficiencies, & application of

the new knowledge) (Silver, 2004, p.237). The researcher found that the use of

students’ reflection as a form of evaluation can contribute to the solving of

confusion in students’ thinking and to the development of students’ critical self-

assessment understanding. This is one of the outcomes of critical thinking in Paul

& Elder’s standards (2005). This result gives insights into students’ thinking about

what level their thinking are at and what and how they learned the lessons.

71
 Although the students showed modest results in several areas of critical

thinking standards according to Paul & Elder (E, F, & G), they were still weak in

many of the critical thinking standards. Student B also sometimes inconsistently

showed skills in critical thinking according to Paul & Elder’s standards. She was

rarely involved in the classroom discussion and used her logic in reaction to the

teacher’s questions (standard C & D). Apparently, this was because she sat at the

back of the class and was not included in much of the discussion and was not

deeply questioned by the researcher. Martin-Kniep states that a teacher’s deep

questioning is vital for students in doing in-depth research as well as to learn

seemingly paradoxical issues (2005).

Despite being weak in many of the critical thinking standards according

to Paul & Elder (2005), compared to the previous assessments results and the

students’ answers, commentaries, attitudes, and questions at the beginning of this

study before the action research took place, the students have shown development

of their critical thinking skills according to both Bloom’s taxonomy and Paul &

Elder’s critical thinking standards (2005). The students by the end of this study

appeared to have improved their critical thinking skills as observed by using

Bloom’s taxonomy and Paul & Elder critical thinking standards. They certainly

had developed the capabilities in understanding abstract concepts such as

consequences, morality, and higher order thinking of even philosophic questions.

This concurs with both Piaget’s cognitive theory of formal operational stage and

Egan’s layers of understanding that shows that the adolescents has developed

capabilities to philosophic thinking on top of ideal sense of the world (Egan,

1997, cited in Van Brummelen, 2002, pp.116-120).

72
 The results of the two cycles of this study showed that PBL had a

positive influence in improving students’ learning critical thinking skills, in

history grade XII. The PBL approach to History is more of an alternative

approach to teaching History. Husbands, et al. stated that the alternative approach

to History teaching emphasizes historical analysis and historical research

capabilities, which can develop critical thinking skills (2003, p.12). This is what

appeared to have developed in the students researched in this study.

However, the study also shows several constraints of using PBL with a

Grade XII history class at honors level. The first constraint was regarding the

students’ situation. As the students were in adolescence’s period, their unstable

identity produced self-awareness and self-consciousness that can hinder their

critical thinking development.

While the first constraint came from the students, the other constraints

apparently came from the researcher himself, due to a lack of experience in

teaching and in delivering the PBL. The researcher failed to properly address the

problem identification stage of PBL (the first stage) in the cycle I that resulted in

students’ low achievement of the assessed critical thinking improvement. The

researcher also put too much focus on the PBL problem that contributed to less

relevance of the lesson to the current Indonesia. The researcher also experienced

difficulty in determining how much should be the PBL taken hide key

information. It turned out that this factor affected the improvement room of the

students’ critical thinking skills and the success of the PBL taken. The researcher

also poorly let the students chose their own seating that hindered the students’

participation and eventually affected the development of their critical thinking

73
skills. Finally, the researcher also experienced the difficulty of designing effective

structured questioning to develop the students’ thinking.

74
 CHAPTER V

CONCLUSION AND RECOMMENDATIONS

This chapter discusses the conclusion and recommendation of this study.

The conclusion is constructed based on the findings of this study. The findings

that emerged from the qualitative data of the research are used to answer the

following research questions:

1) What influence does using Problem Based Learning have in

improving students’ critical thinking skills in history learning in

Grade XII Honors Level?

2) What are the constraints of using Problem Based Learning with a

Grade XII history class at honors level?

5.1 Conclusion

In the beginning of this study, the researcher observed a problem in the

students’ thinking about history learning in his internship. The students did not

appear to have a clear understanding of why they should study history in the first

place in the interaction between them and the researcher. In the questions and

answers that the researcher initiated, the students did not give answers that exceed

cognitive level of memorization. They did not reason and synthesize their

knowledge when they gave answers to the questions. However, after the

researcher applied the PBL method in the lessons, compared to the previous

assessments results and the students’ answers, commentaries, attitudes, and

75
questions at the beginning of this study before the action research took place, the

students have shown development of their critical thinking skills according to

both Bloom’s taxonomy and Paul & Elder’s critical thinking standards (2005).

The results of this study showed that the grade XII students at honors

level in this research did showed improvement over their critical thinking skills in

History learning because of the students’ active involvement in the lessons, the

teacher scaffolding higher-order-questions, a self-directed learning phase in PBL

that challenged their thinking, and the use of students’ reflection as a form of

evaluation that developed a self-assessment of their thinking level and enforces

their thinking and learning. These results were obtained through a questionnaire

that assessed the students’ attitude and understanding of history, the use of post-

test, students’ debate, students’ research project that evaluated the students’

learning progress through the use of PBL, a critical thinking outcomes checklist

that identify the students’ improvement of their critical thinking skills based on

Paul & Elder’s standards (2005), mentor’s observation, and student interview to

find out if they have really improved their critical thinking skills as a result of

problem-based learning.

The answer to the second research also emerged as the results of this

study. The researcher faced several constraints of using PBL with a Grade XII

history class at honors level in this study. These findings were found based on the

reflective journal and observations throughout the research cycles, the mentor’s

feedback, and the student interview. The constraints experienced including, the

students’ self-awareness and self-consciousness of thinking; the failure to properly

address the problem identification stage of PBL (the first stage); too much focus

76
on the PBL problem; the poor seating arrangement; the difficulty of determining

how much should the PBL taken hide key information, and the difficulty of

designing effective structured questioning.

5.2 Recommendations

Based on the results of the study, the researcher recommended that these

things could be done for further study:

1) For teachers to do Problem-based Learning on a larger history class

with more students as a collaborative approach. Most authors advocate

that PBL be done in groups. However, in this study, as there were only

three students in the classroom, it did not seem applicable.

2) For teachers to do Problem-based Learning in mixed classes that

consist of boys and girls, as there are many differences between boys

and girls, including ones involving cognitive development (Gurian

2001).

3) For teachers and schools to apply Problem-based Learning in a

regular, non-honor classes.

4) It is recommended for teachers of Grade XII History students to use

problem-based learning as their teaching method.

5) It is recommended that schools hold a professional development to

help their teachers learn how to use problem-based learning in the

classroom.

6) It is recommended that teachers using problem-based learning

measure and determine how much key information that they will hide

in the construction of a problem.

77
 7) It is recommended that teachers using problem-based learning design

effectively structure questioning that focus on higher order of thinking

(‘why’, ‘how’, and ‘what if’ questions).

8) It is recommended that teachers using problem-based learning put

greater emphasis and planning on the self-directed learning phase

(identification of knowledge deficiencies & application of the new

knowledge) and the evaluation phase (abstraction and evaluation) of

PBL, as they are a vital part of PBL’s success.

There is a need of further studies to investigate the influence of Problem-

based Learning towards students’ social learning and skills, affective and

psychomotor outcomes, and motivation in learning History or other areas of

learning. Based on the implementation of problem-based learning in this action

research, the researcher thought that the use of problem-based learning may not

only benefit the students in their thinking in History, but it can also develop

students with high capabilities in discernment of moral issues in daily life, which

can lead them in growing Biblically to be more Christ-like at the end of the day.

78
 REFERENCE LIST

Adam, A.W. (2004). Pelurusan sejarah Indonesia. Yogyakarta: TriDe.

Badrika, I.W. (2006). Sejarah KTSP 2006: Untuk SMA kelas XII program ilmu
alam. Jakarta: Erlangga.
Brown, S. & Race, P. (2002). Lecturing: A practical guide. London: Kogan Page.
Burton, D & Bartlett, S. (2005). Practitioner research for teachers. London: Paul
Chapman Publishing
Chapin, J.R. (2007). A practical guide to middle and secondary social studies [2nd
ed.]. USA: Pearson Education, Inc.
Clayton, C. (2007). The re-discovery of common sense! A guide to: The lost art of
critical thinking. USA: iuniverse, Inc.
Craig, J & Hale, S. (2008). Implementing problem-based learning in politics.
European Political Science. Volume 7, 2008, 165-168. Retrieved September,
20, 2010 from,
http://ezproxy.library.uph.ac.id:2104/ehost/detail?vid=1&hid=104&sid=46149
a43-ff53-470f-bc12-
51d60130f878%40sessionmgr104&bdata=JnNpdGU9ZWhvc3QtbGl2ZQ%3d
%3d#db=a3h&AN=32466737
Drakeley, S. (2005). The history of Indonesia: The greenwood histories of the
modern nations. USA: Greenwood Press.
De Bono, E. (1992). Mengajar berpikir. Erlangga.
Eggen, P. & Kauchak, D. (2010). Educational psychology: Windows on
classrooms [8th ed.]. Upper Saddle River, New Jersey: Pearson Education
International
Fisher, A. (2001). Critical thinking: An introduction. University Press.
Cambridge.
Fogarty, R. (Ed.). (1998). Problem-based learning: A collection of articles.
Arlington Heights: Skylight Professional Development.
Freely, A.J & Steinberg, D.L. (2009). Argumentation and debate: Critical
thinking for reasoned decision making. USA: Wadsworth Cengage Learning.
Freeman, D. (1998). Doing teacher research: From inquiry to understanding.
Canada: Heinle & Heinle Publishers
Gurian, M. (2001). Boys & girls learn differently: A guide for teachers and
parents. San Francisco: Jossey-Bass
Habermas, R.T. (2001). Teaching for reconciliation: Foundations and practice of
Christian educational ministry [revised 10th anniversary ed.]. Oregon: Wipf
and Stock Publishers.
Holyoak, K.J & Morrison, R.G. (Eds.). (2005). Thinking and reasoning: A
reader’s guide, in The Cambridge Handbook of Thinking and Reasoning. USA:
Cambridge University Press.
Hmelo-Silver, C.E. (2004). Problem-based learning: What and how do students
learn. Educational Psychology Review. Volume 16, Number 3, September 2004,
235.
Husbands, C., Kitson, A., & Pendry, A. (2003). Understanding history teaching:
Teaching and learning about the past in secondary schools. Philadelpia, USA:
Open University Press.
Johnson, A.P. (2003). What every teacher should know about action research:
Allyn & Bacon start smart series. USA: Pearson Education, Inc.
Knight, G.R. (2006). Philosophy & education: An introduction in Christian
perspective [4th ed.]. USA: Andrews University Press.
Koshy, V. (2005). Action research for improving practice: A practical guide.
London: Paul Chapman Publishing.
Maccarelli, S. (2006). Vygotsky’s theory of cognitive development: The
sociocultural perspective. Received January, 12, 2011, from
http://www.associatedcontent.com/artice/29997/vygotskys_theory_of_cognitiv
e_development_pg2.html?cat=72
Mansfield, S. (2003). More than dates & dead people: Recovering a Christian
view of history. Nashville, Tennessee: Cumberland House Publishing, Inc.
Martin-Kniep, G.O. (2005). Becoming a better teacher: eight innovations that
work. Merril education/ASCD College textbook series. Pearson Education,
Upper Saddle River, New Jersey.
Mitra, H. & Isak, J (Eds.). (2007). Dokumen CIA: Melacak penggulingan
Soekarno dan konspirasi G30S 1965. Hasta Mitra.
Munslow, A. (2006). Deconstructing history [2nd ed.]. USA: Routledge.
Muslich, M. (2007). KTSP, dasar pemahaman dan pengembangan: Pedoman
bagi pengelola lembaga pendidikan/pengawas sekolah, kepsek, komite sekolah,
dewan sekolah, dan guru. Jakarta: PT Bumi Aksara.
Pambudhi, A. (2006). Supersemar palsu: Kesaksian tiga jendral. Yogyakarta:
Penerbit Media Pressindo.
Papalia, D.E, Olds, S.W, & Feldman, RD. (2007). Human development [10th ed.],
New York: McGraw-Hill
Parkay, F.W. (2006). Curriculum and instruction for becoming a teacher. United
States of America: Pearson Education, Inc.
Paul, R. & Elder, L. (2005). A guide for educators to critical thinking
compentency standards: Standards, principles, performance indicators, and
outcomes with a critical thinking master rubrics. Foundation of Critical
Thinking. Retrieved August 31, 2010, from http://www.criticalthinking.org
Rankin, J.A. (Ed.). (1999). Handbook on problem-based learning. New York:
Forbes Custom Publishing.
Ricklefs, M.C. (2008). Sejarah Indonesia modern 1200-2008. Jakarta: PT.
Serambi Ilmu Semesta.
Santrock, J.W. (2003). Adolescence: Perkembangan remaja [6th ed.]. Jakarta:
Erlangga.
Samford University Teacher Education. What is problem based learning?
Retrieved November 21, 2010, from
http://education.samford.edu/edu/teacheredpblwhatis.htm
Savage, T.M., Savage, M.K., & Armstrong, D.G. (2006). Teaching in the
secondary school [6th ed.]. New Jersey: Pearson Education.
Sjamsuddin, H. (2007). Metodologi sejarah. Yogyakarta: Ombak.
Soebandrio, Dr. H. (2006). Yang saya alami: Peristiwa G 30 S [sebelum, saat
meletus, dan sesudahnya]. PT Bumi Intitama Sejahtera.
Tan, O.S. (2003). Problem-based learning innovation: Using problems to power
learning in the 21st century. Singapore: Thomson Learning
Tan, O.S. (Ed.). (2004). Enhancing thinking through problem-based learning
approaches: International perspectives. Singapore: Thompson Learning.
Thefreedictionary.com. (2010). Retrieved November 10, 2010, from
http:/www.thefreedictionary.com
Van Brummelen, H. (2009). Walking with God in the classroom [3rd ed.]. USA:
Purposeful Design Publications.
Van Brummelen, H. (2002). Stepping stones to curriculum: A biblical path [2nd
ed.]. USA: Purposeful Design Publications.
Van Til, C. Education- a divinely ordained need, in Johnson, D.E. (1990). (Ed.).
Foundations of Christian Education: Addresses to Christian teachers. USA:
Presbyterian and Reformed Publishing Company.
Wineburg, S. & Schneider, J. (2009). Was Bloom’s taxonomy pointed in the
wrong direction?. Kappan, Volume 91, Number 4, December 2009-January
2010, 56-61. Retrieved December 7, 2010, from
http://ezproxy.library.uph.ac.id:2104/ehost/detail?vid=1&hid=104&sid=89872
93b-18a8-4109-ac87-
639042dd9932%40sessionmgr110&bdata=JnNpdGU9ZWhvc3QtbGl2ZQ%3d
%3d#db=a3h&AN=45673499
Westwood, P. (2008). What teachers need to know about teaching methods.
Australia: ACER Press
Yilmaz, K. (2009). A vision of history teaching and learning: Thoughts on history
education in secondary schools. The High School Journal, Volume 92, Number
2, December 2008-January 2009, 37-46. Retrieved November 7, 2010, from
http://ezproxy.library.uph.ac.id:2112/journals/high_school_journal/v092/92.2.y
ilmaz.html
 APPENDICES

APPENDIX A Lesson Plans

APPENDIX B Mentor’s Feedback & Observer Expert Teacher’s Checklist
APPENDIX C Reflection Journal
APPENDIX D Questionnaire, Test, Debate, and Research Paper Project
Rubrics
APPENDIX E Interview Transcript
APPENDIX A - Lesson Plans
A-1 – Cycle I – Lesson I

1
A-2 Cycle I – Lesson II

2
A-3- Cycle I – Lesson III

3
A-4- Cycle I – Lesson IV

4
A-5- Cycle I – Lesson V

5
A-6- Cycle I – Lesson VI

6
A-7- Cycle II – Lesson I

7
A-8- Cycle II – Lesson II

8
A-9- Cycle II – Lesson III

9
APPENDIX B - Mentor’s Feedback & Observer Expert Teacher’s
Checklist
B-1- Cycle II – Lesson Three

Mentor’s Feedback

1
B-2 – Cycle II – Lesson Three

Observer Expert Teacher’s Feedback

2
B-3 – Cycle II – Lesson Three

Observer Expert Teacher’s Feedback

3
B-4 – Cycle II – Lesson Three

Observer Expert Teacher’s Feedback

4
APPENDIX C- Reflection Journal
Cycle I – Lesson III
Monday, 16th August 2010
I was giving a questionnaire to XII IPA Honors class regarding their view of History
lesson. I gave them a questionnaire that one of the question is how big the impact of history
towards their life. Apparently, they lack of critical thinking of why we should then learn about
history. Their answers were not critical enough, and that is the topic of my research that I want to
focus on. I tried to use a method called PBL (Problem-based Learning) to increase their critical
level of why studying history. The research went quite well with the topic of lesson was about the
external-internal factors of how G30S went to happen. I presented a problem, which was about the
Cold War and how it became a background in G30S. I asked the students about the mastermind of
G 30 S event. They almost certainly said that “It is said that the mastermind was PKI”. Thus, I
gave them several theories of who the real mastermind was, from PKI to chaos theory. This
revelation was added by giving them a question, “If PKI was the mastermind, why they wanted to
do a coup’ while at that time, their influence was very immensely big?” The question poses as a
disequilibrium for the students’ mind. The next thing I did, was to inform that G30S event
happened at the time of Cold War, the war of ideas of Communism vs. Liberalism, one that
involved even Indonesia. I asked the students about “Why Indonesia was being feared even by the
U.S.A government? Was Indonesia a very powerful country back then? Why?” The questions
served as disequilibrium as well as a follow up to explain the full external and internal background
of G30S event. All in all, the learning went interactively well enough. The next time I met XII IPA
Honors will be the time to told them about the requirements of their big assignments as well as
disclose the issues surrounding G30S to them.

Cycle I Lesson IV

Monday, 23rd August 2010

This Monday marked the continuing progress of PBL that I applied to grade XII
Science Honors in history learning. This time, the lesson began with a review of internal-external
factors that became a background of G30S. The students were then asked, “Why did Indonesia
refuse USA aid under Soekarno’s regime, and yet now under Soeharto’s regime Indonesia
received aids?” The question posed as a catalyst for the students to critically assess the theory of
Soeharto as a mastermind of G30S. The students were quite responsive in answering the question
and have begun to look the chance of the involvement of Soeharto. This is especially true for
student B and student C (I use a code name regarding mentioning the students based on the
alphabetic order of their real names). Student A was quite vocal, yet she still lacks analytical skills
of assessing the condition. This has happened thrice with this time.
To make sure that the question strikes a chord in their mind, they were given yet another
question aimed at the same purpose, “Why do right now liberalist companies sprung up?” The
students’ responses were quite good in their thinking ability, linking the cause to the earlier
concepts of war of ideas as well as the possibility of Soeharto shifting the alignment in his regime.
The next step was to bring the students to the understanding of the Cold War and its effects on the
alignment of Indonesia, as well as the issue of Gilchrist document that brought the controversy to
the cause of G30S and PKI. The students were then asked about the possibility of Nasution’s
involvement in G30S. The question was also regarding the Gilchrist document, “Was it Nasution
mentioned? Or Soeharto? Why?” The students answered the problem with a quite good reflection
based on the data on their hands. The students were brought to Nasution’s 1952 case, and then they
should jolt it down the issue of “Dewan Jendral” that they should research about the possibility
that really Ahmad Yani was planning a coup. The lesson today was focusing on bringing the
problems and issues regarding G30S that the students should research and then place their finding
in their research paper and their debate as their assignments. The issue was also regarding the truth
of Soekarno’s sickness and the impact of that issue. The last section of the lesson was to give a
basic introduction on how to write a research paper, and the requirements needed to complete their
assignments, as the debate based on their research will be count as 40% of their final mark. So far
the students in XII Science Honors have shown quite good capability in their thinking and the way
the problem of G30S brought with PBL and questioning invoke their critical assessment of the
issue.

1
Cycle I Lesson V
Tuesday, 31st August 2010
I continued my PBL research for XII Science Honors in history learning. This time after
reviewing the previous lesson on the issues surrounding G30S that are important for the students’
research, I asked each student about their progress on reading books for their assignments. Student
A was enthusiastically reading the books for her debate that are focusing on saying PKI as the
mastermind of G30S, student B liked history ever since the beginning so she too was researching a
lot about CIA as the mastermind of G30S. Student C was the most diligent in writing and jolting
down the information that I gave regarding the problems ever since the beginning, yet she was
moderate in her readings to point Soeharto as the mastermind of G30S.
This time, again, the students were asked interactively and deeply about the strangeness
of the coming of thousands of soldiers under Soeharto’s command if only to celebrate the 5 th
October (ABRI’s anniversary) after being explained about G30S chronology. The students were
quite expansive in explaining the strangeness and have pointed out the strangeness. The students
were also promptly asked about why the G30S event that Untung as a commander of president’s
personal bodyguard was carried out by him, the strange support from AURI to Untung’s coup, and
the different command from Soekarno and armed forces’ Pangkostrad at that time to the soldiers.
The students were interactively discuss the questions out of curiosity and were quite good in
reasoning through the questions. Finally, the students were brought into different theories and parts
that they should focus on their research: Asvi Warman Adam’s books, Kolektif Info C’oup
website, Gilchrist document, Dewan Jendral, Soekarno’s sickness, Soeharto-CIA, and what
happened in Halim. The rest of the learning is to conclude that G30S historical reconstruction is
not easy due to political interest and closed access of important documents; as well as telling the
students to be prepared for their 1st quiz next week that will evaluate their critical thinking and
assessment regarding G30S.

Cycle I Lesson VI
Tuesday, 7th September 2010
The day is about the evaluation of XII Science Honors learning history all this time.
Based on the pre-analyses, the students were not thinking critical enough about history. That was
why the students were introduced to a PBL centered on G30S event. That is why the assessment
and the evaluation the students’ progress through quiz is an important step. In the teaching session,
the first thing I did to XII Science Honors was telling them the rule when the quiz begins. After the
quiz time was over, I reminded the students to finish their assignments of research paper and
debate, as well as turning it in the next meeting that will happened about two weeks from now.
After the teaching session finished, I took the time to correct the quiz and what I found out was
quite good. All of them was being critical enough, student A got the least score, 70, student B was
quite good with 76, and the student C got the highest score, 83. This was a relieved for me. This
quiz becomes my first cycle of research, due to students’ lack of critical thinking regarding the
concept of historical reconstruction. After I ponder upon it a while though, the students were not
having a good perception of why is there historical reconstruction itself. This is what I plan to
better in the next teaching session with them or in other words, this is what will be the 2 nd cycle of
my classroom action research

Cycle II Lesson I
Tuesday, 21st September 2010
Today I was very excited as it was my 2nd cycle of CAR on researching the
development of grade XII Science Honors’ critical thinking in history learning. Today, they
brought their research papers along with their ideas to battle in a debate. The format of debate was
as follow: -- Opening Statement (two minutes/student = six minutes in total), Contents (five
minutes/student =15 minutes), Free debate session (10 minutes), Final Statement Preparation
(three minutes), and Final Statement/Conclusion (two minutes/student = six minutes), so in total
the learning session lasted for about 40 minutes.

2
 The evidence of critical thinking that the students have was seen by the quite good
learning, questioning, debating, and the assessing of the papers of the students itself. If I may add,
in this 2nd cycle, the problem in the cycle one – that was the lack of apperception of what so called
historical reconstruction was solved. Apparently, by giving the students the kind of self-study in
finishing their own research about G 30 S solved the problem of apperception. By giving the
students the opportunity of self-research, apparently, it got them to consider all the possible
theories and also get them to fully comprehend the apperception of G30S that had to be
researched. However, a new problem arise, the many theories that the students had to research
made them confuse of too many resources. That is what I assessed from the students when they
debating against each other, each with different focus on who real mastermind of G30S was. When
debating, the debate was not very lively, although the explanation of the theory itself was quite
good. This is what I should fix the next lesson, on how to make the students less confused of too
many theories out there. I am thinking to eliminate plot holes and the gap of information that is
actually one of the main characteristics of PBL. I will not eliminate the plot holes altogether, yet I
will make it more focused and reduce the number of the missing information next teaching
session.

Cycle II Lesson II
Tuesday, 28th September 2010
Today was the 2nd cycle of my CAR. The application of PBL seemed successful, yet
like I reflected last week, it is obvious that the problem was too much missing information that the
students didn’t receive from me. Thus, this time in this teaching session, the information has to be
narrowed down to reduce confusion. The learning went well, as I asked the students to reflect upon
what they did, what they wrote and debated last week. The students were only two, the student A
was sick, so she couldn’t be observed. The B & C students were being also being observed by a
Geography teacher that was noting down the students’ critical thinking based on the indicators and
the rubric.
In reflecting the debate and the learning all this time, students were asked to answer
these questions,” Was the learning helpful? Was the debate run smoothly? Was it challenging?
What did it lack?” All of these questions were answered and basically, the students were
interactively discussed it with me, while being observed by the Geography teacher at the back.
Student B was responding by saying that the learning all this time was adding so much knowledge
to her and it was fun. She also said that although for the debate she was not very prepared, thus her
arguments was not strong enough, yet the given assignment of research paper was challenging her
to explore her mind. One thing that she sad about was that she felt she didn’t read enough books
due to the many missing information that made her deviated from her points. Student C was
responding quite much the same. She said that the learning was challenging enough. She had to do
a research for the paper and the debate and she was becoming interested towards history. She also
said that due to the many missing information and the complexity of each of the source, she was
still limited in her mind and had to deeply analyze the sources.
The answers of students B & C were proving my reflection that they had a mild
confusion about the G30S problem that was presented using PBL method due to the wide missing
information. Thus, the next thing that I did was narrowing the information gap and gave them key
points of the problem. What I did was interactively presenting the information of the problem of
G30S aftermath, CIA involvement, and aid from CIA to destroy communism, and also gave them
my opinion based on my own research about the real mastermind of G30S with of course the
supportive facts. This is meant to narrow down the missing information that the students receive as
well as making sure that they are not confuse anymore. After that I also approach the lesson again
with the problem that became an inquiry of why Indonesia’s armed forces knew and support the
destroying of communism in Indonesia radically. The students were answering through the
questions now with much certainty.
After the learning session was over, I was pretty sure that the students were becoming
crystal clear and not in a deep confusion of the learning, proving that giving key points in PBL that
I did was effective. Yet, after I checked the critical thinking outcome rubric that was filled out by
the teacher that I asked help from, another problem rose up. The students were indeed good in
many aspects, yet they didn’t realize the relevance of the lesson and problem to the real life
nowadays and towards history in general. This is what I should improve and wanted to week,
3
which is to improve the relevance in students’ mind about the lesson. Besides that, I also intended
to better my questioning technique again and again to dig deeper and provoke the students’ mind
deeper.

Cycle II Lesson III

Tuesday, 5th October 2010
Continuing on my research today, this time, all the students of grade XII Science
Honors were present. Today I tried to improve the relevance of the problem in the lesson by first
asked the students to review about what they did learn last time and also why they should studied
new order right now in their learning session. The students at first struggled to find the answers to
the question, yet after trying and I provoke them to answer deeper, they finally found out that the
effects of G30S event was that it became the transitioning device from Soekarno’s old regime
towards Soeharto’s new regime and what caused a shift in economic trend in Indonesia, as well as
the coming of the Western culture and globalization entry point in Indonesia. Not to mention, it
was again the blurring of history. Thus, they realized that what they learned is pretty much has a
large relevance to current Indonesia as they know it.
I also tried to improve my questioning method through provoking the students’ mind
focusing on the high economic crisis after G30S by asking if it is normal or not, how will it affect
the people at that time, and how and why the price gone up. After several theories launched by the
students, I explain the hypothesis of why the price gone up and the effects of that high inflation,
that is the now know Tritura movement and armed forces reaction to that. The next thing was
asking the students of the strangeness of the armed forces reaction of preventing Soekarno’s
attempt to be in power. The students were answering it in a mild way, thus, I moved to the
explanation of A.H Nasution struggle with Soekarno beginning in 1952. The last section of the
session was spent in discussing the strategy of Soekarno to defend his powers and also students
were asked to summarize and state what they have learned today.
After the class was over, I checked the critical outcome rubric that was once again filled
by the Geography teacher that wanted to help me and also the feedback on the lesson plan by my
mentor- this time she had a chance to observe my teaching. The results were quite a shock to me.
The students’ critical thinking outcome was lowered in rating scale. The feedback from my mentor
helped me to found out why this happened. My mentor observation was highlighting several strong
points of my teaching. My teaching was strong in the review of previous lesson and an attempt to
improve the relevance and also the information of what the students would learn next week. The
weaknesses however, was that the bad seating arrangement which leaving one student at the back
of the class, and the questioning method that was not deep enough and not focusing enough on one
person first then move to the next one. This meant that I should improved questioning by deep one
by one questioning method and this is what I will do the next week on my research as the next
cycle of my CAR.

4
APPENDIX D – Questionnaire, Test, Debate, and Research Paper
Project Rubrics
D-1 – Cycle I – Lesson One

Attitude to History Questionnaire

Name: Class:
Instruction: For every statement below, please circle a number that you think
describe what you feel the most by using this description of numbers:
5 = Love it! ^-^ 4 = Like it! 3 = O.K….. 2 = I don’t like it….. 1 = I hate it!!!
1. History Lesson
1 2 3 4 5

2. Historical Topics
1 2 3 4 5

3. History Teacher
1 2 3 4 5

Instruction: For every question below, please answer it honestly according to what
you feel appropriate with you.
1. In your opinion, is history lesson important or not? Why?

2. In your opinion, do you think that history lesson has a connection to your
everyday lives or not? Why?

3. Do you feel that you will impact/affected by history or not? Why?

1
D-2 – Cycle I – Lesson Six

Post-Test

Name: Date:
Read the article below and answer the questions!
Historical Reconstruction 1965
9/11/2008
By Asvi Warman Adam

(Extract was given from http://www.dev.progind.net)

Questions:
1. What is the meaning of historical reconstruction and why it is
needed? Explain! (15 points)

2. What is actually G30S event? Why does it becomes such a

controversy, and is that a need of historical reconstruction of
G30S? Why? Explain! (25 points)

3. Why did Indonesia in the era of Soekarno could become a leader

of the third world? What factors (social, economic, politic, culture,
and law) contribute to the importance of Indonesia at that time?
Explain! (30 points)

4. How could we see Indonesian History in our perspective as

Christians, especially regarding G30S event? Explain your reason
and your view! (30 points)

2
D-3 – Cycle II – Lesson One
Sample of Students’ Debate Rubric
G 30 S Debate Rubric
Minimal Rudimentary Commendable Superior Achievement Exceptional
Achievement Achievement Achievement Achievement

Critical Thinking (1-8) (9-15) (16-23) (24-29) (30-35)

Demonstrates little Demonstrates only a Demonstrates a general Demonstrates clear Demonstrates a clear,
understanding and very general understanding of scope understanding of scope of accurate
35 only limited understanding of of problem and more problem and at least two understanding of the
comprehension of scope of problem than one of the issues central issues scope of the problem
scope of problem involved and the ramifications
or issues of the issues involved
Focuses on a single Uses the main points of
issue Employs the main information from the
Employs only the points of information documents and personal Employs all
most basic parts of from the documents and knowledge that is relevant information from the
information Employs only the at least the general idea and consistent in documents and
provided information provided from personal developing a position extensive personal
knowledge to develop a knowledge that is
position factually relevant,
Mixes fact and May include opinion Builds conclusion on accurate, and
opinion in as well as fact in examination of the major consistent in the
developing a developing a position Builds conclusion on evidence development of a
viewpoint examination of position
information and some
States conclusion consideration of Considers at least one
States conclusion after limited consequences alternative action and the Bases conclusion on
after hasty or examination of possible consequences a thorough
cursory look at evidence with little examination of the
only one or two concern for evidence, an
pieces of consequences exploration of
information. reasonable
alternatives and an
evaluation of
Does not consider consequences
consequences

Communication (1-4) (5-9) (10-15) (16-24) (25-30)

of Ideas

Position is vague Presents general and Takes a definite but Takes a clear position Takes a strong, well-
30 indefinite position general position defined position

Presentation is Presents an organized

brief and includes Only minimal Presents a somewhat argument with perhaps Presents a well-
unrelated general organization in organized argument only minor errors in the organized, persuasive
statements presentation supporting evidence argument with
accurate supporting
Uses general terms with evidence
Overall view of the Uses generalities to limited evidence that Deals with the major
problem is not support position may not be totally issues and shows some
clear emphasizes only one accurate understanding of Deals with all
issue, considers only relationships significant issues and
one aspect of demonstrates a depth
Statements tend to problem Deals with a limited of understanding of
wander or ramble number of issues Gives consideration to important
examination of more than relationships
one idea or aspect of the
Views problem within a problem
somewhat limited range Examines the
problem from several
positions

Knowledge and (1-8) (9-15) (16-23) (24-29) (31-35)

Use of History

Reiterates one or Provides only basic Relates only major facts Offers accurate analysis of Offers accurate
(35) two facts without facts with only some to the basic issues with the documents analysis of the
complete accuracy a fair degree of information and issue
degree of accuracy accuracy
Provides facts to relate to
Deals only briefly the major issues involved Provides a variety of
and vaguely with Refers to information Analyzes information to facts to explore major
concepts or the to explain at least one explain at least one and minor issues and
issues issue or concept in issue or concept with Uses previous general concepts involved
substantive support historical knowledge to
general terms examine issues involved
Barely indicates Extensively uses
any previous Uses general ideas from previous historical
historical Limited use of previous historical knowledge to provide
knowledge previous historical knowledge with fair an in-depth
knowledge without degree of accuracy understanding of the
complete accuracy problem and to relate
Relies heavily on it to past and possible
the information future situations
provided Major reliance on the
information provided

3
D-4 - Cycle II – Lesson One
Sample of Students’ Research Paper Project Rubric
Historical Investigation Paper Project

Dimensions Exemplary/ Promising/ Beginning Off-Task

Accomplished Developing
(85-100) (70-85) (60-70) (0-60)
Evaluating Wide variety of primary Variety of primary Limited variety Too little
Sources and secondary sources; and secondary of primary and information
- 3 references highly credible sources / sources; credible secondary sources;
authors. At least 3 highly sources / authors. credibility is Less than 3
credible and appropriate 3 appropriate inconsistent. 3 references.
references. references. references. Off-task
Interprets Selects and interprets Selects information Some information Information
material pertinent information related to thesis. may not clearly be is unrelated
- clear thesis clearly related to thesis. Good research. related to thesis. thesis.Off-task.
- interpretation Exceptional research. Minimum research.
Documentation All references are in Most references are Some references are in Work is
-Citations format; all in format; most proper format; off-task. <
-Bibliography citations are embedded citations are embedded some citations are 2 missing
on all slides. on most slides. embedded. citations.
Presentation Uses information from Uses information Some information Presents only
of Research a wide variety of sources; from limited sources related to topic, but verbatim
-sources vary integrates, interprets, and to create a factual it is brief, not focused; passages from
-analysis credits sources; uses report; uses and may rely on verbatim sources that
direct quotations and/or credits sources in passages from sources have not
paraphrasing to support a straightforward credited in an unclear been processed
ideas. way. way. and/or credited.
Off-task.
The Paper Mechanics
Organization, Focus, and Format
Does the paper contain a hook of the proper length? ___/10
Does the paper adequately introduce its topic? ___/10
Does the paper contain a strong thesis? ___/10
How well do the body paragraphs support the thesis? ___/5
Are the body paragraphs organized correctly? ___/10
Does the paper adhere to APA standards? ___/10
Does the paper contain a conclusion that summarizes and universalizes? ___/5
Grammar and Mechanics
Is the paper free from grammatical/word choice errors? ___/10
Spelling and Punctuation
Is the paper free from spelling/punctuation errors? ___/10
Parenthetical Citations
Does the paper contain the minimum amount? ___/5
Are the quotes incorporated correctly? ___/5
TOTAL:___/90
The Intangibles
Does the paper show sophistication in the interpretation of the evidence? ___/10
Does the writer understand his/her topic? ___/10
TOTAL:___/20

Grand Total:____/510

4
APPENDIX E - Interview Transcript
Sample of Interview Transcript with Student C
1. Do you feel that you had a chance to utter your logic and opinion about the given history
lesson material?
Student C: I was given a lot chance, because in every lesson, I was being asked, “In your opinion, how is
this? Why it can be like this? What is your opinion?” So we were given a freedom to express our opinion.
Researcher: Besides what you have mentioned, is there any other chance given to you by your teacher in this
lesson?
Student C: For asking in the lesson, overall…Well, the truth is that I was not interested in history in the
beginning and I wasn’t understanding history, I talked about it openly, yet the teacher was not angry, in fact
the teacher gave me further explanation, so we were given the freedom not only in the materials, the teacher
also gave further explanation.

2. According to your opinion, through receiving this history lesson, do you experience an
improvement in analyzing information and central ideas in history lesson? What is the example? How is it?
Student C: Uh… According to me it was very helpful, very… enabling me in the analysis of history… Just
like what I said, in the beginning, I wasn’t interested… The beginning was the assignment… I was given
research paper assignment, so whether I want or not, I have to analyze the history… But after analyzing the
history, the more I did it, the more I understood it and the more I interested… So, I think it was very
improved.
Researcher: Ok, the example is the paper right? How come it improves your information analysis?
Student C: Because the assignment was to analysis the G30S PKI, about Soeharto… From the beginning I
didn’t understand, I only knew there was a manipulation, but for the paper, there must be evidences, there
must be my analysis too. So it wasn’t only copying from the internet. I need to utter my opinion, so whether I
want or not, I have to research the books, internet, I have to read all those thick books.

3. Do you feel that your argumentation and logic that has been sharpened through the given problem
material are useful? What is the example?
Student C: Yes, it sharpens…it sharpens…
Researcher: How it sharpens your logic?
Student C: So, to look upon the problem, just like what I said, analyzing a problem requires not only looking
unto the past, but there is a connection to the previous event for example and also the event after that. I also
become more aware of…like books; there are many books and sources, so we have too… analyze…. what is
right for me from various sources that have many different versions.

4. Are the problems presented in history lesson make you think systematically and have more focus on
the lesson?
Student C: Yes, more systematically, because there is order, especially historical order cannot be reversed…
Researcher: Ok, was you more focused on the lesson and entered into the world of history?
Student C: Yes, because in analyzing and uttering my opinion, I have to make an analogy of myself if I got
into that time, so I can understand more of the time, because the conditions are different from nowadays.

5. Are the assignments and the test that were given in this history lesson, make you think much
deeper?
Student C: In my opinion the test and the assignments make me think deeper. Because like the test, usually
the questions are the characters, the events, but here, it was different. The questions were aimed more to our
logic, like the relations of this to Christianity, so it was not reading and memorizing, not only understanding
but we have to be able to analyze.

6. In finishing the given assignments of the historical problems, do you select the resource materials
or not? How was the process?

1
Student C: Selecting it, what it means?
Researcher: Did you, uh…”Oh, this book is good, that book is not good, and this one the information is not
accurate…”
Student C: Oh, yes, because I didn’t use only one source, from several books, and mostly from the internet.
All of that are different and have different opinions, so I had to analyze, selecting that according to me… this
one is overly made… So I had to select the resources.

7. According to you, what information was the most important in the finishing process of your
assignments? Why?
Student C: Information about the lesson?
Researcher: Yes, according to you what was the most important information?
Student C: The most important information… According to me, the history itself… With the assignments ,
debate, and all, made me understand that history is very needed in our lives, because the connection is still
there now, and… it is not only memorizing things.
Researcher: So, if that so, what was the key that help you analyze the G30S?
Student C: The key is… to me…
Researcher: The issues, perhaps?
Student C: The key, for me… is to make an analogy of ourselves to that time… So, we don’t only trust the
books… well, we have to also read many sources… So, we can know from every source, they were in what
positions…

8. Do you found many opportunities to think about difficult questions which you don’t know what the
answer is, about Indonesian history in this history lesson? How?
Student C: Yes… Because… Just like we know, Indonesian history is complicated, even until now… There
are still many unanswerable questions, so I’m curious…But, at least there are questions that had been
answered regarding history lesson.

9. In your opinion, through this history lesson, are you able to find various ways to solve the given
problems? What is the example?
Student C: The question was not given to the student C, due to forgetfulness.

10. In this history lesson, are you able to see the given problems from diverse point of views and
theories? How?
Student C: Yes… (nodding head).
Researcher: From these various point of views, the theories are also different?
Student C: Yes, their opinions were different and often conflicts each other.

11. Are the given problems in this history lesson make you want to investigate even further about the
problems and the related topics?
Student C: Well, personally, I’m interested, but not up to searching the first sources… I’m more to talk to my
friend that also got the research paper assignment… Like, when there is no lesson, we can discuss this, but
personally I’m not really searching the first sources.

12. Do you understand more and want to know more about Indonesian history, as the result of the
history lesson that you received? Why?
Student C: Yes, I am more curious, just like what I said, because there are many questions that are still
unanswerable even up to now.