archive.php?volume=72&issue=12 - sipeg.unj.ac.idsipeg.unj.ac.id/repository/upload/jurnal/JURNAL_ARITA_MARINI_2.pdf · AGING FROM THE PERSPECTIVE OF ELDERLY PEOPLE IN TURKEY: A FOCUS

http://www.pontejournal.net/archive.php?volume=72&issue=12

ISSN 0032423X, ISSN On-line 0032-6356 La Nuova Italia Editrice

Volume 75, Issue 2 (Part 2), May 2017

International Multidisciplinary ISI Journal in All Fields of Sciences

ArchiveofJournalVolume73,Issue5,May.2017

ESTIMATIONOFWATERIMPURITIESCOAGULATIONEFFICIENCYATUSEOFCOARSE-GRAINEDCONTACTBEDVolume73,May2017doi:10.21506/j.ponte.2017.5.51

ViewAbstract|PDFVersion

EMPIRICALSTUDYONTHEAPPLICABILITYOFREALOPTIONFRAMEWORKINE-COMMERCEADOPTIONAMONGCANADIANCOMPANIESVolume73,May2017doi:10.21506/j.ponte.2017.5.52


GeneralisedRiccatiSequencesVolume73,May2017doi:10.21506/j.ponte.2017.5.50


DEVELOPINGMUSLIMSTUDIESASANEWBRANCHOFISLAMICSTUDIESINTHE21STCENTURYVolume73,May2017doi:10.21506/j.ponte.2017.5.35


SOCIALINEQUALITY:RECENTTRENDSVolume73,May2017doi:10.21506/j.ponte.2017.5.49


CONFIGURATIONOFTHESELF-MYTHOLOGYANDIDENTITYOFFEMALECHARACTERSINPAULAUSTERSINTHECOUNTRYOFLASTTHINGSANDTHENEWYORKTRILOGYVolume73,May2017doi:10.21506/j.ponte.2017.5.34


AGINGFROMTHEPERSPECTIVEOFELDERLYPEOPLEINTURKEY:AFOCUSGROUPSTUDYOFANURSINGHOMEVolume73,May2017doi:10.21506/j.ponte.2017.5.48


THEACTUALIMPACTOFPILONIDALSINUSSYMPTOMSONTHEDAILYACTIVITIESOFLIFEVolume73,May2017doi:10.21506/j.ponte.2017.5.37


THESTRATEGYOFCRIMINOLOGICALSAFETYINKAZAKHSTAN:THEORY,LEGISLATIONANDPRACTICEOFPROVIDINGVolume73,May2017doi:10.21506/j.ponte.2017.5.31


REVIEWONLEGALISSUESOFSOCIALLYVULNERABLEGROUPSOFPOPULATION(OLDPEOPLE,CHILDREN,ETC.)Volume73,May2017doi:10.21506/j.ponte.2017.5.46


DifferentialSequencesGeneratedbyFirst-orderRecursionOperatorsVolume73,May2017doi:10.21506/j.ponte.2017.5.47


TheImpactsofSustainabletourismontheRuralAreasofNorthernCyprus:AcaseofBaglikoyandBuyukkonukVolume73,May2017doi:10.21506/j.ponte.2017.5.45


PREVALENCEANDRELATIONSHIPBETWEENLEVELOFPHYSICALACTIVITYANDBODYPERCEPTIONCHILEANUNIVERSITYSTUDENTSINASCHOOLOFHEALTHVolume73,May2017doi:10.21506/j.ponte.2017.5.33


IDENTIFICATIONOFDEVELOPMENTMODELSOFSCIENTIFICORGANIZATIONSFORMANAGEMENTOBJECTIVESVolume73,May2017doi:10.21506/j.ponte.2017.5.44


CHARACTERBUILDINGTHROUGHTEACHINGLEARNINGPROCESS:LESSONININDONESIAVolume73,May2017doi:10.21506/j.ponte.2017.5.43


AnexplorationoftheutilisationofmathematicsskillsbyTechnologyEducationpre-serviceteachersduringelectronicsystemsdesignVolume73,May2017doi:10.21506/j.ponte.2017.5.42


EXAMINATIONOFTHESTUDIESONTECHNOLOGYADDICTIONPUBLISHEDBETWEEN2008-2016Volume73,May2017doi:10.21506/j.ponte.2017.5.41


HumanisticmanagementphilosophyingovernanceinthetaxiindustryinSouthAfricaVolume73,May2017doi:10.21506/j.ponte.2017.5.36


THELEVELOFPROFICIENCYOFMUSICTEACHERSATGUZELYURTPRIMARYSCHOOLSANDTHECONNECTIONWITHPRIORLEARNING,TEACHINGMETHODS,MATERIALSANDRESOURCESANDIN-SERVICETRAININGVolume73,May2017doi:10.21506/j.ponte.2017.5.40


METHODSOFMULTIPLECOMPARISONINPSYCHOLOGICALRESEARCHVolume73,May2017doi:10.21506/j.ponte.2017.5.39


Multi-criteriaDistributionSystemsReconfigurationUsingNon-dominatedSortingGeneticAlgorithmIIVolume73,May2017doi:10.21506/j.ponte.2017.5.38


CLINICOFTESTIMONY:LISTENINGTOTHELIFETRAJECTORYOFPOORBRAZILIANYOUTHINVOLVEDINCRIMEVolume73,May2017doi:10.21506/j.ponte.2017.5.32


EditorialBoard

Editor-in-Chief: Dr. Maria E. Boschi, Florence, Italy

Editorial Board:

• Giancarlo Landini, Florence, Italy • Maria Nuova, Firenze, Italy • Francesco M. Corradi, Florence, Italy • Dr. Roberto, J. Nardi, Rom, Italy • Prof. Alberto S. Vicario, Bologna, Italy • Prof. Giorgio Bellettini, Florence, Italy • Prof. Nicola S. Cesari, Bologna, Italy • Prof, Cavallari Paolo, Rom, Italy • Dr. Sandro F. Fontana, Biella, Italy • Prof. Mario R. Visconti, Napoli, Italy • Dr. Ospedale San Raffaele, Milan, Italy • Dr. Francesco Corradi, Florence, Italy

International Editorial Board:

• Ulrich Caruso, Berlin, Germany • Marco Pahor, Univ. Florida, Gainsville, USA • Werner O. Bauer, Kusnacht, Switzerland • Donald Bradley, Oxford, UK • Omar Muhammad Durrah, Oman • Sang-Bing Tsai, Guangdong, China • Mümtaz Koray Yilmaz, Ankara, Turkey • B. Huang, Wisconsin-Madison, USA • Bernard-Gallon DJ, Paris, France • Wolfgang Müller, Vienna, Austria • Davis P. Jackson, New York, USA • Tian Lee Chen, Hong Kong, China • Alvarez- A. Barrientos, Badajoz, Spain • Karl Wagner, Vienna, Austria • Roberto Ghidoni, Milan, Italy • Deepak Kashyap, Nainital, India • J. HENRY ADAMES, Toronto, Canada • VISHNU NARAYAN MISHRA, India • Anette Moury Frank, Edinburgh, Germany • ZEKİ T. AKTAŞ, Ankara, Turkey • Fred Adolf Ruffler, Vienna, Austria • Nagendra Rao, Bangalore, India • Susan F. Tighe, waterloo, Canada • Kerong Zhang, Fuyang, China • Mohd S. Bin Shuib, Sintok, Malaysia • Jimmy T. Masagca, Las Pinas City, Philippines

http://www.scimagojr.com/journalsearch.php?q=19400158817&tip=sid&clean=0

Ponte

Quartiles

The set of journals have been ranked according to their SJR and divided into four equal groups, four quartiles. Q1 (green) comprises the quarter of the journals with the highest values, Q2 (yellow) the second highest values, Q3 (orange) the third highest values and Q4 (red) the lowest values.

Category Year Quartile Literature and Literary Theory 2010 Q4 Literature and Literary Theory 2011 Q4 Literature and Literary Theory 2012 Q2 Literature and Literary Theory 2013 Q4 Literature and Literary Theory 2014 Q4 Literature and Literary Theory 2015 Q4 Sociology and Political Science 2010 Q4 Sociology and Political Science 2011 Q4 Sociology and Political Science 2012 Q4 Sociology and Political Science 2013 Q4 Sociology and Political Science 2014 Q4 Sociology and Political Science 2015 Q4 SJR

The SJR is a size-independent prestige indicator that ranks journals by their 'average prestige per article'. It is based on the idea that 'all citations are not created equal'. SJR is a measure of scientific influence of journals that accounts for both the number of citations received by a

journal and the importance or prestige of the journals where such citations come from It measures the scientific influence of the average article in a journal, it expresses how central to the global scientific discussion an average article of the journal is.

Year SJR 2010 0.100 2011 0.100 2012 0.110 2013 0.100 2014 0.100 2015 0.100 Citations per document

This indicator counts the number of citations received by documents from a journal and divides them by the total number of documents published in that journal. The chart shows the evolution of the average number of times documents published in a journal in the past two, three and four years have been cited in the current year. The two years line is equivalent to journal impact factor ™ (Thomson Reuters) metric.

Cites per document Year Value Cites / Doc. (4 years) 2010 0.007 Cites / Doc. (4 years) 2011 0.009 Cites / Doc. (4 years) 2012 0.002 Cites / Doc. (4 years) 2013 0.003 Cites / Doc. (4 years) 2014 0.000 Cites / Doc. (4 years) 2015 0.002 Cites / Doc. (3 years) 2010 0.007 Cites / Doc. (3 years) 2011 0.009 Cites / Doc. (3 years) 2012 0.002 Cites / Doc. (3 years) 2013 0.002 Cites / Doc. (3 years) 2014 0.000 Cites / Doc. (3 years) 2015 0.003 Cites / Doc. (2 years) 2010 0.007 Cites / Doc. (2 years) 2011 0.009 Cites / Doc. (2 years) 2012 0.000 Cites / Doc. (2 years) 2013 0.000 Cites / Doc. (2 years) 2014 0.000 Cites / Doc. (2 years) 2015 0.004 Total Cites

Self-Cites

Evolution of the total number of citations and journal's self-citations received by a journal's published documents during the three previous years. Journal Self-citation is defined as the number of citation from a journal citing article to articles published by the same journal.

Cites Year Value Self Cites 2010 1 Self Cites 2011 3 Self Cites 2012 1 Self Cites 2013 0 Self Cites 2014 0 Self Cites 2015 0 Total Cites 2010 1 Total Cites 2011 3 Total Cites 2012 1 Total Cites 2013 1 Total Cites 2014 0 Total Cites 2015 1 External Cites per Doc Cites per Doc

Evolution of the number of total citation per document and external citation per document (i.e. journal self-citations removed) received by a journal's published documents during the three previous years. External citations are calculated by subtracting the number of self-citations from the total number of citations received by the journal’s documents.

Cites Year Value External Cites per document 2010 0.000 External Cites per document 2011 0.000 External Cites per document 2012 0.000 External Cites per document 2013 0.002 External Cites per document 2014 0.000 External Cites per document 2015 0.003 Cites per document 2010 0.007 Cites per document 2011 0.009 Cites per document 2012 0.002 Cites per document 2013 0.002

Cites Year Value Cites per document 2014 0.000 Cites per document 2015 0.003 % International Collaboration

International Collaboration accounts for the articles that have been produced by researchers from several countries. The chart shows the ratio of a journal's documents signed by researchers from more than one country; that is including more than one country address.

Year International Collaboration 2010 0.00 2011 0.00 2012 0.00 2013 0.00 2014 0.00 2015 0.00 Citable documents Non-citable documents

Not every article in a journal is considered primary research and therefore "citable", this chart shows the ratio of a journal's articles including substantial research (research articles, conference papers and reviews) in three year windows vs. those documents other than research articles, reviews and conference papers.

Documents Year Value Non-citable documents 2010 3 Non-citable documents 2011 5 Non-citable documents 2012 8 Non-citable documents 2013 13 Non-citable documents 2014 14 Non-citable documents 2015 19 Citable documents 2010 146 Citable documents 2011 317 Citable documents 2012 478 Citable documents 2013 450 Citable documents 2014 371 Citable documents 2015 348 Cited documents Uncited documents

Ratio of a journal's items, grouped in three years windows, that have been cited at least once vs. those not cited during the following year.

Documents Year Value Uncited documents 2010 148 Uncited documents 2011 319 Uncited documents 2012 485 Uncited documents 2013 462 Uncited documents 2014 385 Uncited documents 2015 366 Cited documents 2010 1 Cited documents 2011 3 Cited documents 2012 1 Cited documents 2013 1 Cited documents 2014 0 Cited documents 2015 1 Developed by:

PJ-0TK1P

31 May 2017

ACCEPTANCE LETTER

Dear Author(s),

We are pleased to inform you that your paper,Entitle: 'CHARACTER BUILDING THROUGH TEACHING LEARNING PROCESS:LESSON IN INDONESIA'Author(s): ARITA MARINI,-has been accepted for publication in PONTE Journal after the peer-review process. It willbe published in an upcoming issue (Vol. 73, Issue 5) and available on the PONTE Journalwebsite.Also the DOI link of your paper is: http://dx.doi.org/10.21506/j.ponte.2017.5.43Thank you for submitting your paper to this journal.

PONTE Multidisciplinary Journal | Email: [email protected] | Website: www.pontejournal.net

Vol. 73 | No. 5 | May 2017 International Journal of Sciences and Research

177

CHARACTER BUILDING THROUGH TEACHING LEARNING

PROCESS: LESSON IN INDONESIA

ARITA MARINI

(Department of Elementary School Teacher Eduation, Faculty of Education, The State

University of Jakarta, Indonesia/ [email protected])

ABSTRACT

This research was aimed to know about character building in teaching learning

proces observed in 63 elementary schools in Jakarta in Indonesia. This survey research was

conducted at 63 elementary schools in Jakarta. Data was collected through interviewing and

observing. Character building in teaching learning process observed was related to

preliminary, core, and closing activities. Preliminary activities of teaching learning process

integrated character building in class preparation, students’ presence, and apperception.

Character building in core activities in teaching learning process involved teaching method,

two-way communication, students activities, learning resources. Integration of character

building in closing activities of teaching learning process included concluding activities,

giving feed back, reflecting, and following up. The result of this research showed that mean

of character building through teaching learning process at 63 elementary schools in Jakarta

reached was 44.87 or 97.54 % of the achievement of theoretical maximum score.from

maximum score. It can be concluded that in teaching learning process, character building

integrated has already been effective for 65.1 % of 63 elementary schools observed in Jakarta.

On the other hand 9.6 % of 63 elementary schools observed in Jakarta has not been optimal in

character building integration in teaching learning process.

Keywords: Teaching Learning Process, Preliminary, Core, and Closing Activities and

Character Building.

1. INTRODUCTION

The outcome of education at elementary schools is graduates with academic

achievement and good character. This can be done through integrating character building in

teaching learning process at elementary schools. Character building can be integrated in all

subjects and the process of teaching and learning. Therefore, the teachers should prepare

character building starting from planning, acting, and evaluating. Character building

integrated in the proces of teaching and learning can be conducted in preliminary, core, and

closing activities. Integration of character building in core activities of the teaching and

learning process can be conducted in exploration, elaboration, and confirmation activities.

2. LITERATURE REVIEW

Adi, S. S. (2013) said that character building consisting of responsibility, fairness,

and caring could be integrated in EFL classroom activities. The strategy used in this class

was student centered teaching. Integration of the responsible value was done through

narrative writing activities related to responsibility cases. Fairness value was integrated

through explanation about their treating people and considering others’ feelings affected by

their actions.

Faiziyah, N. & Fachrurrazy (2012) found that there were character values integrated

in lesson plans studied. The lesson plan integrated the values of confidence, logical thinking,


178

creativity, innovativeness, open-mindedness, responsibility, politeness, activeness, politeness,

respect, discipline, and cooperativeness.The most frequent character value integrated in

teaching learning process was confidence.The less frequent character values integrated in the

process of teaching and learning were logical thinking, respect, politeness, and discipline.

According to Milson, A. J. & Mehlig, L. M (2002) & Hadi, R (2015), the teachers

could use various methods to integrate character values in teaching learning process.

However, the teachers were doubtful of integrating character values in teaching learning

process.They focused on the materials too much so that they didn’t remember to integrate

character values.This problem was also related to the teachers’ competences not good enough.

Therefore, the teachers should improve their competences about character building.

Dodds, D. M. (2016); Montonye, M; Butenhoff, S; Krinke, S. (2013); Patella, C

(2003); Branson, C. (2004); Berkowitz, M. W & Bier, M. C. (2004); and Thompson, W. G.

(2012) found that character building activities affect positively on positive behavior of the

students leading to recommendations to implement character building in elementary schools.

Negative behaviors of the students decreased whereas the student understanding of values

improved. Character building should be integrated with the curriculum, not taught separately.

The rules of classroom at school should be on the basis of good character principles. In

addition to this, the teachers should be a model of good character observed by the student.

Character should be taught for the students with hands-on activities contributing to the school

and the community leading to improve student behavior.

3. METHODOLOGY

This survey method was conducted at 63 elementary schools in Jakarta in Indonesia.

Observation related to integration of character building in teaching learning process was

conducted in class to find out the integration of character building in teaching learning

process at 63 elementary schools in Jakarta.

This research used quantitatively descriptive method with descriptive statistics,

frequency distribution, and frequency histogram. Indicators of character building integration

in teaching learning process for preliminary activities were related to teachers’ and students’

presence, apperception, and lesson plan. Indicators of character building integration of core

activities in teaching learning process were related to two-way communication, teachers’

competence, students’ activities, teaching style, teaching methods, and authentic evaluation.

Indicators of character building integration of closing activities in teaching learning process

were related to concluding activities, reflection, giving feed back.

4. RESULTS

This research was conducted at 63 elementary schools in Jakarta in Indonesia: SDN

Cakung Timur 06, SDN Cakung Timur 09, SDN Rorotan 07 Pagi, SDN Cakung Timur 03

Pagi, SDN Marunda 03 Pagi, SDN Kebon Kacang 03, SDN Duren Sawit 01, SDN Duren

Sawit 07, SDN Duren Sawit 03, SDN Cipinang Muara 12, SDN Cipedak 02, SDN Tanjung

Barat 01, SDN Cipete Utara 01, SDN Jagakarsa 05, SDN Jagakarsa 03, SDN Cilincing 09

Pagi, SDN Cipinang Muara 03 Pagi, SDN Cipinang Muara 06 Pagi, SDN Kebon Pala 04

Pagi, SDN Jatinegara 09 Pagi, SD Kartika XI, SDN Cipinang Besar Selatan 16, SD Baitul

Khair, SDN Kampung Melayu 01, SDN Rawa Bunga 12, SDN Kebon Pala 03 Pagi, SDN

Cilincing 07 Pagi, SDN Cipinang Besar Selatan 15 Pagi, SDN Cilincing 04 Pagi, SDN

Cilincing 02 Pagi, SDN Karet 06 Pagi, SDN Menteng Atas 01 Pagi, SDN Menteng Atas 11

Pagi, SDN Menteng Atas 17 Pagi, SDN Pasar Manggis 02 Petang, SDN Menteng Atas 21

Pagi, SDN Guntur 01 Pagi, SDN Duren Sawit 13 Pagi, SDN Tegalur 15 Pagi, SDN Lagoa 03


179

Petang, SDN Guntur 08 Pagi, SDN Karet 04 Pagi, SDN Menteng Atas 04 Pagi, SDN

Menteng Atas 06 Pagi, SDN Menteng Atas 18 Petang, SDN Cilandak Timur 07 Pagi, SDN

Cipinang Muara 20 Pagi, SDN Cipinang Besar Utara 11 Pagi, SDN Cipinang Besar Selatan

17 Pagi, SDN Penjaringan 10 Pagi, SDN Kedoya Utara 04, SDN Kedoya Utara 09, SDN

Kedoya Utara 03, SDN Kedoya Utara 01, SDN Kepa Duri 11, SDN Batu Ampar 09 Pagi,

SDN Batu Ampar 08 Pagi, SDN Lubang Buaya 01 Pagi, SDN Lubang Buaya 05 Pagi, SDN

Lubang Buaya 13 Pagi, SDN Cipedak 06, SDN Tanjung Barat 03, and SDN Cipedak 01.

Observations of character building integration in preliminary activities of teaching and

learning process was related to: (1) teachers’ presence on time; (2) students’ praying before

learning; (3) teachers’ inspection of the students’ neatness; (4) teachers’ inspection of the

students’ presence; (5) teachers’ dress manners; (6) teachers being a model in teaching and

learning process; (7) teachers and students in greetings before teaching and learning process;

(8) lesson plan containing character values; (9) class management supporting dialogues

happening in class.

Observations of character building integration in core activities of teaching and

learning process involved: (1) suitability between lesson plan dan action done; (2) teachers’

competences of teaching material by integrating character building; (3) students’ absorption

of materials taught; (4) teachers’ attention to the students; (5) teachers’ guidance by

integrating character building; (6) students’ assignment with character values; (7) two-way

communication between teachers and students’ (8) teachers maintaining condusive situation

with character values; (9) students activity and creativity; (10) teaching methods by

integrating character building; (11) interesting teaching style; (12) teachers giving opportunity

to ask for the students; (13) teachers giving rewards for the students appropriately; (14)

teachers giving punishment educatively; (15) teachers giving confirmation; (16) two-way

communication among students; (17) learning resources containing character values; (18)

learning media using for character building; (19) authentic assessment; (20) friendly learning

situation.

Observation of character building in closing activities of teaching and learning process

was related to: (1) teachers and students concluding lesson together; (2) students doing self-

assessment; (3) teachers giving feedback; (4) teachers doing reflection of teaching learning

process done; (5) displaying students’ products; (6) students praying.

This survey research used observation instrument consisting of 46 items with

dichotomy scales 0 and 1. Score 0 means that character values not existed. Score 1 means

appropriate or character building already integrated in teaching learning process. Minimum

theoretical score was 40 and maximum theoretical score was 46. Based on the observation of

character building integration in teaching learning process done at 63 elementary schools in

Jakarta, descriptive statistics can be seen in Table 1.

Table 1. Descriptive statistics of character values integration in teaching learning process at 63

elementary schools in Jakarta

Types of Descriptive Statistics Scores

Mean 44.87

Standard Error of Mean 0.17

Median 45

Mode 46

Standard Deviation 1.350

Sample Variance 1.822

Curtosis 3.728

Std. Error of Kurtosis 0.595

Skewness -1.671


180

Std. Error of Skewness 0.302

Range 6

Minimum 40

Maximum 46

Sum 2827

Count 63

Source : Data Survey (2017).

Table 1 shows that mean score of character building integration in teaching learning

process at 63 elementary schools in Jakarta is 44.87 or 97.54 % of the achievement of

theoretical maximum score. It means that character building has already been integrated in

teaching learning process effectively at 63 elementary school in Jakarta. Character building

has been integrated highly effectively particularly for teachers’ presence on time, teachers’

inspection of the students’ neatness, teachers’ inspection of the students’ presence, teachers

and students in greetings before teaching and learning process, suitability between lesson plan

dan action done, teachers’ competences of teaching material by integrating character building,

students’ absorption of materials taught with character values, two-way communication

between teachers and students, teachers maintaining condusive situation with character

values, students activity and creativity, teaching methods by integrating character building,

teachers giving rewards for the students appropriately, authentic assessment, teachers giving

feed back, and students praying after learning. Character building has been integrated least

effectively particularly for students doing self-assessment integrated with character building.

Frequency distribution of character building integration in teaching learning process at 63

elementary schools in Jakarta can be seen in Table 2.

Table 2. Frequency distribution of character values integration in teaching learning process at 63

elementary schools in Jakarta

No Scores Frequency

(fi)

Relative frequency

(%)

Cumulative

frequency (%)

1 40 2 3.2 3.2

2 42 1 1.6 4.8

3 43 3 4.8 9.5

4 44 16 25.4 34.9

5 45 14 22.2 57.1

6 46 27 42.9 100

Total 63 100


Table 2 shows that 65.1 % of the scores is higher than average scores and 9.6 % of

the scores is less than average scores. It means that 65.1 % of 63 elementary schools in

Jakarta has already been highly effective in integrating character building in teaching learning

process. 9.6 % of 63 elementary schools in Jakarta has not been effective to integrate

character building in teaching learning process. It can be seen from the movement of

observation scores leading to the right direction (positive) in Figure 1.


181


Fig.1 Frequency histogram of character building integration in teaching learning process at 63

elemenatary schools

5. CONCLUSION

Based on research findings, it can be concluded that 65.1 % of 63 elementary schools

observed in Jakarta has already effectively integrated character building in teaching learning

process. On the other hand, 9.6 % of 63 elementary schools observed in Jakarta has not

effectively integrated character building in teaching learning process.

6. ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS

This study is dedicated to the The State University of Jakarta, Indonesia that has been providing assistance funding for this research.

REFERENCES

Adi, S. S. 2013. Character Building in Language Learning: Immersion Principle in the Implementation of

Responsible, Fair, and Care Values in Developing EFL Classroom Activities. 5th

National English

Language Teachers and Lecturers (NELTAL) Conference. Indonesia: State University of Malang.

Berkowitz, M. W. & Bier, M. C. 2004. Research-Based Character Education. The Annals of the American

Academy of Political and Social Science, 591, 72-85.

Branson, C. 2004. Effects of Character Education on Student Behavior. Masters Theses. Paper 1252.

http://thekeep.eiu.edu/theses/1252

Dodds, D. M. 2016. The Effect of Character Education on Social-Emotional Behavior. Master of Arts in

Education Action Research Papers. Paper 137.

Faiziyah, N. & Fachrurrazy. 2012. The Implementation of Character Building in English Subject at Junior High

School 3 Malang. Indonesia: State University of Malang.

Hadi, R. 2015. The Integration of Character Values in the Teaching of Economics: A Case of Selected High

Schools in Banjarmasin. Indonesia: Universitas Lambung Mangkurat. doi: 10.5539/ies.v8n7p11.


182

Milson, A. J. & Mehlig, L. M. 2002. Elementary School Teachers’ Sense of Efficacy for Character Education.

The Journal of Educational Research, 96(1), 47-53.

Montonye, M; Butenhoff, S; Krinke, S. 2013. The Influence of Character Education on Positive Behavior in the

Classroom. Masters of Arts in Education Action Research Papers. Paper 6.

Patella, C. 2003. The Effect of Character Education on Sudent Behavior. Theses and Dissertations.1351.

http://rdw.rowan.edu/etd/1351

Thompson, W. G. 2012. The Effects of Character Education on Student Behavior. Electronic Theses and

Dissertations. Paper 706. Htttp://dc.etsu.edu/etd/706