THE EFFECTIVENESS OF SUBJECT SPECIFIC PEDAGOGY BASED
ON PROBLEM-BASED LEARNING TO EMPOWER STUDENT’S
ECOLOGICAL LITERACY
Idhun Prasetyo Riyadi1,
Baskoro Adi Prayitno2, Puguh Karyanto3
1Magister Science Education, Sebelas Maret University, Surakarta
2Department of Biology Education, Faculty of Teacher Training and
Education,
Sebelas Maret University, Surakarta
3Research Group of Human and Environmental Interface, Environmental
Studies of Sebelas Maret University, Surakarta
e-mail:idhunriyadi@gmail.com
Abstract:
This study aims to examine the effectiveness of Subject Specific
Pedagogy (SSP) based
Problem-Based Learning (PBL) to facilitate the students'
ecological literacy.
This research involved in a Biology Education Program of a
Faculty of Teaching
and Learning Science in a public university in Indonesia. The
research used a
posttest-only control design. The participants were undergraduate
students who had
learned or were learning Ecology, as many as 46 students in
theexperiment class
and 57 students in the control class. The posttest score of the
ecological literacy
for the experimental class was 80.77% while the control class
was 68.14%. Using an
independent t-test, it was indicated that the sig value = 0,00,
therefore it might be
said that there is difference of ecological literacy between
experiment class and
control class. Accordingly, it is concluded that the PBL-based
SSP affects the ecological
literacy of biology education students.
Keywords:
Subject Specific Pedagogy, Problem-Based Learning, effectiveness,
Ecological
Literacy
THE EFFECTIVENESS OF SUBJECT SPECIFIC PEDAGOGY BASED
ON PROBLEM-BASED LEARNING TO IMPROVE STUDENTS’
ECOLOGICAL LITERACY
Abstrak:
Penelitian ini bertujuan untuk menguji keefektivan Subject
Specific
Pedagogy
(SSP) berbasis Problem-Based Learning (PBL) untuk
memberdayakan
literasi ekologi
mahasiswa. Penelitian ini dilaksanakan pada Program Studi
Pendidikan Biologi di
Fakultas Keguruan dan Ilmu Pendidikan di sebuah
universitas negeri di
Indonesia. Desain penelitian yang digunakan adalah posttestonly
control
design. Sampel penelitian terdiri atas mahasiswa yang sudah atau
sedang mempelajari
Ekologi, yaitu sejumlah 46 di kelas eksperimen dan sejumlah
57 di kelas kontrol.
Pada kelas eksperimen, mahasiswa belajar menggunakan
pendekatan SSP
berbasis PBL, sedangkan di kelas kontrol siswa mengikuti
perkuliahan dengan
pendekatan ceramah (tradisional). Didapatkan skor posttest
literasi ekologi
untuk kelas eksperimen sebesar 80,77% sedangkan kelas kontrol
sebesar 68,14%.
Menggunakan independent t-test, diperoleh t(df)=value, sig=0,00,
sehingga dikatakan
terdapat perbedaan literasi ekologi antara kelas eksperimen dan
kelas kontrol. Oleh
sebab itu, pendekatan SSP berbasis PBL disimpulkan efektif
untuk memfasilitasi
literasi ekologi pada mahasiswa pendidikan biologi.
Kata
Kunci: Subject Specific Pedagogy, Problem-Based Learning, Keefektivan,
Literasi Ekologi
INTRODUCTION
The UI GreenMetric is a world
ranking to measure the
university's ability
to maintain a sustainable campus
environment and its surroundings
(Team,
2016).One of the UI GreenMetric
objectives was to see the
contributions of
the academic discourse on
sustainability of
education and campus greening
programs
including the application of
environmentbased
curriculum in each subject as
well as
creating an environmentally
friendly
campus. A total of 28
universities in
Indonesia have participated in UI
GreenMetric in maintaining a
sustainable
campus environment through the
Green
Campus program.
Green Campus is a place to
implement eco-friendly practices
by
combining the role of education
to promote
sustainability programs in campus
environment(NEEATeam).Campus
residents can examine
environmental issues
and provide solutions through the
Green
Campus activity(UNS,
2014).Sebelas
Maret University (UNS) is ranked
76th in
the world and ranked 5th
nationally with a
value of 5,960 (Rizki, 2016).
Sebelas Maret
University and 6 other
universities were
selected as pilot projects to
implement the
Green Campus program under the
guidance
of the Ministry of Environment
(UNS,
2014).The implementation of the
Green
Campus program can be supported
by using
an environment-based curriculum
given in
the course. According to Roy
(2008)the
environment-based curriculum can
be
applied to environmental issues
on campus
and its surroundings to reduce
waste and
energy consumption.
Environmental-based
education if managed well can be
beneficial
to improve eco-friendly behavior
(Cheang,
So, & Zhan, 2017; Li &
Lang, 2015).
Environmental-based education
builds on environmental
knowledge; about
the causes and consequences of
ecological
disasters, ecological security,
and concepts
of human positions in nature
(Kallas,
Solovjeva, & Minakova, 2015).
IUCN
(2002)added solutions for
environmental
improvement through education
which had
been formulated in the design of
agenda 21.
One of the formulas contained in
agenda 21
states that education plays an
important role
in realizing sustainable
development(UNESCO-UNEP, 1996).
UI
GreenMatric recognizes the
important role
of higher education in addressing
environmental issues because as a
basic
step of raising awareness through
education
for sustainable development
(Team, 2016).
The concrete steps of Agenda 21
are
formulated in Education for
Sustainable
Development (EfSD).
Education for Sustainable
Development (EfSD) is a
type of teaching
approach based on the ideals and
principles
underlying sustainable
development and
concerning with all levels and
types of
education. Education for
sustainable
development allows one to develop
knowledge, values and skills in
taking
decisions on making a better
quality of life
in the future(Hooi, Hassan, &
Mat, 2012).
Ecological science is an
environment-based
education that can be used to
decide on
various actions to be taken
related to
environmental issues (Kiker,
Bridges,
Varghese, Seager, & Linkov,
2005).
Utilization of ecological science
for
the internalization of
environmental cares
can be done through a study of
related
literature on ecological. The
literature on
ecological literacy today
emphasizes the
role of scientific knowledge and
ecological
thought to enable better decision
making
(McBride B. , Brewer, Berkowitz,
&
Borrie, 2013).McGinn
(2014)defines
ecological literacy as one's own
knowledge
of the ecological system, the
urge to know
it, not only knowing about the
system but
also feeling responsible for the
ecological
situation and ultimately acting
on his/her
knowledge and
responsibilities.Orr
(1992)states that to know the
ecological
literacy, one must understand the
basic
knowledge of ecological and its
sustainability beside his/ her
eagerness to
solve an environmental problem.
In relation to differences of the
definition of Ecological
literacy, Al-
Dajeh(2012)found there are three
components behind the same
definition.
Components of Ecological literacy
according to Al-Dajeh include:
Knowledge,
Attitude, and Concern. Each
component has
several aspects that support the
goal to
determine the level of one's
Ecological
literacy. Knowledge component
using the
aspect expressed by Lewinsohn
(2015)aims
to facilitate the level of student
knowledge
related to the concept of
ecological. The
second dimension is attitude
using the scale
of the assessment of NEP (New
Ecological
Paradigm). Instruments for
attitude
components use NEP instruments
that have
been validated and have been
applied in
several countries(Ogunbonde,
2013).
While the third component is the
concern
which is a form of concern or
action of
every human being in preserving
the
environment(Eurobarometer, 2008).
Biology FKIP UNS students’
preliminary data of ecological
literacy
ability showed relatively low
results in one
component of ecological literacy.
The
results of ecological literacy
ability of FKIP
UNS Biology Education students of
2014
viewed from each dimension are as
follows;
a). ecological knowledge is
57.10%, b).
ecological concerns is 71.74%,
and c). NEP
is 62.83%. The average ability of
ecological
literacy of Biology Education
students is
still relatively low so it must
be followed up
to increase students’ awareness
in
maintaining the environment
around the
campus and to succeed the Green
Campus
program at Sebelas Maret
University.
The study of environmental
materials can motivate the
students to
enhance ecological literacy.
Ecological
literacy can be improved in
simple ways,
such as providing information
that is easy
to understand. The ecological
literacy of
students in formal education can
be
enhanced through the provision of
courses
relevant to ecological(McBride B.
B.,
Brewer, Berkowitz, & Borrie,
2013).
Ecological learning in lectures
can provide
knowledge for students as a
special
experience that forms attitudes
and
behavioral habits(Irham &
Wiyani, 2013).
Selection of appropriate
approaches,
strategies and learning models
can
determine the effectiveness of
learning
(School Education Department of
Education & Training, 2005).
Specific
learning designs according to
field of study
will maximize learning activities
that
produce better knowledge along
with the
formation of attitudes and
behavioral
habits.
Prayitno & Wangid
(2005)states
that Subject Specific Pedagogy
which is
developed specifically for
character and
knowledge is proven to be able to
improve
students’ character and
knowledge. Hartati,
et al. (2009)states that several
components
of SSP tool includes: RPS,
teaching
materials, learning media, and
evaluation.
Learning that refers to specific
learning
tools on ecological materials is
one
effective way and is expected to
improve
students' ecological literacy.
Subject Specific Pedagogy is
included in the development field
that has
an output product in the form of
semester
learning plan (RPS), teaching
materials,
learning media and evaluation
instruments.
Development of Subject Specific
Pedagogy
is packaged in a set of whole
lessons,
including the learning model
used.
According to Sujarwo (2011) each
learning
model has specific
characteristics.
According to Rustaman
(2005)learning
kontruktivisme emphasizes the
active role
of students to interact with
teachers and
other students to improve the
development
of concepts and skills of critical
thinking.
One model of constructivism
learning that
can facilitate students to
improve the ability
of ecological literacy is
Problem-Based
Learning (PBL).
Problem-Based Learning is part of
the experimental learning that
provides
meaningful learning experiences
for
students (Hmelo-Silver C. E.,
2004).Barrows & Tamblyn
(1980)states
that in PBL students learn by
solving
problems and reflecting on their
experiences. According to
Barrows(1993)one of the goals of
PBL
learning is to develop knowledge
flexibly
and to use skills in solving
problems
effectively. Problem-Based
Learning can
facilitate every concept and
method used as
needed in the process of
developing a
solution to a particular
problem(Lewinsohn, Attayde,
Fonseca,
Ganade, & Jorge, 2015).The
purpose of
Problem-Based Learning can
facilitate
students to improve their skills
and
knowledge in developing the
students'
ecological literacy skills.
METHOD
The students’ ecological literacy
data Intake uses ecological
literacy
questionnaire instrument consisting
of three
components, namely: knowledge,
concern,
and attitude. The instrument
rubric of the
knowledge component is based on
the
ecological concept according to
Lewinsohn(2015). He states that
ecological
concept has 10 aspects including
ecosystem
resilience, productivity,
nutrient cyling,
functional redundancy, trophic
cascade,
habitat fragmentation, community
assembly, dispersal, population
control,
ecophysiological adaptation, and
one
additional aspect of
anti-antropocentrism,
the development of it is in
corresponding to
knowledge and cognitive
dimensions
according to Taxsonomy Bloom
which has
been revised by Anderson(2014).
Instruments for attitude
components
use NEP (New Ecological Paradigm)
instruments that have been
validated and
have been applied in several
countries(Ogunbonde, 2013).The
NEP has
five aspects including the
fragility of
nature's balance, the reality of
limits to
growth, the possibility of an
eco-crisis, antianthropocentrism,
rejection of
exceptionalism(Ogunbonde, 2013;
Dunlap,
1978).Currently, NEP instruments
have
been enhanced and developed into
fifteen
statements with 5 points Likert
scale(Kopnina, 2011; Dunlap R.
E., 2000;
Hawcroft & Milfont, 2010).
Instrument of concern component
is
developed to measure the students’
readiness in eco-friendly
behaving.
Furthermore, it is arranged with
three
aspects including the basic
concept that
covers 22 questions, the
frequency with 15
questions, and the eagerness of
acts with 15
questions. Preparation of an
instrument of
concern for each aspect uses a
questionnaire containing question
and
statement with 5 point Likert
scale
assessment.
Student sample taking is done by
using propotionate stratified
random
sampling technique toward Biology
Education student at Sebelas
Maret
University. The research design
uses
posttest-only control design with
two
classes: control class and
experimental
class. The control class were 7th semester
students with 69 population but
only 57
students who participated in
filling the
questionnaires. Meanwhile, the
experimental class were 6th semester
students with 46 students.
The analysis of the results of
the
study used independent t-test to
find
differences in ecological
literacy between
the control class and the experimental
class.
The t test is also conducted to
find the
difference of average score of
each
component of ecological literacy
between
the control class and the
experimental class.
RESULT AND
DISCUSSION
Result
The application of ecological
literacy instrument is applied on
biology
students of 6th semester to know
the effect
of SSP product based on PBL
towards
students' ecological literacy
capability.The
result of posttest of ecological
literacy
instrument on biology students of
6th
semester can be seen in Table 1.
Below:
Table 1. Ecological experimental
class literacyresults
Literacy Ecological Score (%)
Knowledge
Concern
Attitude
71,01
87,39
83,93
The application of ecological
literacy instruments in the
control class of
7th semester students of biology
resulted
differently compared to
experimental class.
The highest average value of
ecological
literacy is on components of
concern which
is about 87.39% while the
knowledge
component has the lowest score of
71.01%.
The average posttest result of
the
application of ecological
literacy
instrument to 7th semester
students of
biology can be seen in Table 2.
Below:
Table 2. Ecological control class
literacy results
Literacy
Ecological
Score (%)
Knowledge
Concern
Attitude
61,61
75,89
66,92
Based on the data in Table 2, it
can
be seen that the ecological
literacy score of
control class has the highest
value in the
concern component of 75.89% while
the
lowest value in the knowledge
component
of 61.61%. The comparison of the
mean
score of each ecological literacy
component
in the experimental and control
class can be
presented in Figure 1. as follow:
Figure 1. Average Score of each
Ecological
literacy Component of
ExperimentalClass
and Control Class
The descriptive analysis result
of
posttest ecological literacy
score in
eksperimental and control class
groups are
presented in Table 3below:
Table 3. The Posttest Ecological
Literacy
Scores of the Eksperimental and
Control
Class
Class
Group
Sc
ore
Ra
ng
e
Min
imu
m
Sco
re
Max
imu
m
Scor
e
M
ea
n
Std.
Dev
iati
on
(S.
D)
Ekspe
rimen
tal
Po
stte
st
12
,9
0
66,1
5
79,0
5
71
,6
7
3,36
Contr
ol
Po
stte
st
19
,2
1
55,7
2
74,9
3
68
,1
4
4,11
Based on Tabel 3, it can be seen
the
average score posttest in
eksperimental
class and control class is
different, the
average score of posttest
eksperimental
class is higher than the control
class, where
the posttest score average of
eksperimental
class is 71,67 with S.D is 3,36
and the
posttest score average of control
class is
68,14 with S.D 4,11.
Posttest results from the
experimental and control class
were then
analyzed using independent t-test
to test the
effectiveness of Subject Specific
Pedagogy
71.01
87.39 83.93
61.61
75.89
66.92
Knowledge Attitude Concern
Experimental Class Control Class
based on Problem-Based Learning
on
Conservation Ecological material
preceded
by preliminary statistical
parametric test
that was normality test and
homogeneity
test as in Table 4.
Table 4. Summary of Prerequisite
Test
Test Prerequisite Sig. Conclusion
a. Normality
test
Control Class
Experimental
Class
0,20
0,20
Ho received,
Normal
b. Homogeneity
test
0,42 Ho accepted,
Homogeneous
Based on Table 4 it can be seen
that
the value of homogeneity and
reliability is
eligible for t test. Homogeneity
value is
0,420 so Ho is accepted. The
reliability
value for the experimental class
and the
control class is 0,200 so Ho is
accepted and
the data is normally distributed.
The
average test result of the
ecological literacy
component between the control
class and
the experimental class is listed
in Table 5.
Table 5. Ecological literacy Test
Results
T test Sig. Conclusion Decision
Ecological
literacy
0,00 Sig <0,05 Ho
Denied
There is a
difference
Through the result of t-test of
ecological literacy using
independent t-test,
it is obtained significance value
of 0,00
(<0,05) so that Ho is rejected
and there are
differences in ecological
literacy between
experimental class and control
class. The t
test results for each average
ecological
literacy component can be seen in
Table 6.
Table 6. T-test Result of
Ecological literacy
Components
T test Sig. Conclusion Decision
Knowl
edge
Concer
n
Attitud
e
0,00
0,03
0,00
Sig <0,05
Sig <0,05
Sig <0,05
Ho
Rejected,
There is
a
differenc
e
Based on the result of t test in
Table
6, it can be seen for each
component of
ecological literacy that Ho is
rejected. In the
other word, there is a difference
in each
component of ecological literacy
between
the control class and the
experimental class.
Discussion
The result of t test shows that
Subject Specific Pedagogy based
on
Problem-Based Learning on
Conservation
Ecological subject is effective
in increasing
students' ecological literacy.
The results
obtained from the t test which is
to
determine whether there is a
ecological
literacy difference between the
control class
and the experimental class that
apply the
SSP based on PBL produce sig =
0,000
(<0,05), so Ho is rejected and
it can be
concluded that there is a
difference between
the ecological literacy in the
control class
and experimental class. The
t-test results
can conclude that the subject-
Specific
Pedagogy based on Problem-Based
Learning produces different
values of
ecological literacy toward
biology
education students.
The effectiveness of Subject
Specific Pedagogy based on
Problem-
Based Learning on Conservation
Ecological is also explained by
the
difference of ecological literacy
posttest
score of students' in control
class (7th
semester) and experimental class
(6th
semester). The average score of
posttest of
control class is 68,14% while the
average
score of posttest of experimental
class is
71,67%.
Based on the results of t-test on
the
ecological literacy ability of
biology
education students, it can be
assumed that
Subject Specific Pedagogy based
on
Problem-Based Learning is
effective in
increasing the students'
ecological literacy.
According to Hart (1978)the
insertion of
ecological concepts on learning
can be the
best predictor of improving
eco-friendly
attitudes and behavior.
Additionally,
Lewinsohn (2015) explores the
importance
of understanding one's ecology
concept
towards one’s ecological literacy
ability,
ecology concept is crucial to the
ability of
ecological literacy because it
can support a
person to facilitate
decision-making on
environmental issues and take
action to
choose the right solution. The
concept of
ecological must be in accordance
with the
curriculum applicable in
educational
institutions, the curriculum used
must
promote environment-based
learning
(Maknun, 2011). The development
of
curriculum by inserting
ecological concepts
about environmental issues is
needed to
prepare students to think about
active and
effective role in protecting the
environment
in the future (Ugulu, Aydin,
Yorek, &
Dogan, 2008).
The effectiveness of Subject
Specific Pedagogy based on
Problem-
Based Learning is better than the
conventional learning tool in
courses in
order to increase students'
ecological
literacy because PBL-based SSP
has
learning subject achievement,
graduated
learning achievement, the
material, as well
as clear and specific learning
method in
relation to the ecological
literacy
component that includes
knowledge,
concern, and attitude. One part
of the SSP
development which is in the form
of
Semester Learning Plan with the
addition of
ecological literacy component is
proven to
have the potential to increase
students'
ecological literacy according to
the
expected goal. Subject Specific
Pedagogy
based on Problem-Based Learning
has steps
of learning activities that are
related to
subject learning as well as
graduate
learning achievements, and
student
characteristics and models used,
so it can
support the development of
students'
ecological literacy.
Learning activities included in
Subject Specific Pedagogy based
on
Problem Based Learning consists
of finding
and analyzing problems, finding
solutions
through independent discussion
activities
and groups, presenting the
results of
discussions, and linking
solutions to other
sciences and summarizing them.
Problembased
learning can increase the high
curiosity of the students that
leads them to
find solutions to the problems
encountered.
This statement is supported by
Lewinsohn
(2015)who states that
problem-based
learning (PBL) can facilitate
every concept
and method used as needed in the
process
of developing solutions to a
particular
problem. Probem-Based Learning is
one of
the intracuctive-centered
approaches that
empowers students to research,
integrate
theory and practice, and apply
knowledge
and skills to develop feasible
solutions to
problems faced(Savery, 2006).
Problem-based learning (PBL) is
part of an experiential learning
tradition
that requires students to solve
problems
using their existing experience
(Barrows &
Tamblyn, 1980). Problem-based learning
is
perfect for helping students to
become
active learners because of
learning the realworld
problems and getting students
responsible for their learning.
Those can
make students develop strategies
and skills
to build knowledge or concepts
(Collins,
Brown, & Newman, 1989).
The activity of Subject Specific
Pedagogy based on Problem-Based
Learning consists of identifying
the
characteristics of a problem
well. This stage
allows students to grow a
flexible and open
way of thinking in addressing a
problem.
Problems encountered let students
evaluate
the effectiveness of their
knowledge,
reasoning, and strategies to
create a solution
so that it can solve a problem
(Koschmann,
Myers, Feltovich, & Barrows,
1994).
Furthermore, problems that have
been
identified is to be sought their
solution
immediately. Finding solutions
from a
problem faced by students is done
independently or in
groups(Salomon,
1993). The search for solutions
to problem
solving is done in groups to
enable students
to distribute cognitive loads
among group
members and let the whole group
solve
problems. According to Brown
(1995),
group discussion in the PBL stage
can
improve high-level thinking and
encourage
the development of students’
knowledge.
The last stage of the learning
activities is a reflection
activity that aims to
help students understand the
relationship
between learning objectives and
problemsolving
activities. Reflection helps
students
to connect new knowledge gained
with
prior understanding, and
understand how
learning strategies and problem
solving to
reapply(Hmelo-Silver C. E.,
2004).
The t test is also conducted to
find
out that there is a significant
difference in
each ecological literacy
component
between the control class and the
experimental class. The average
score of
ecological knowledge of control
class is
61,61% while the mean score of
the
experimental class is 71,01%. The
average
score of ecological knowledge has
increased due to PBL based SSP
tools on
Conservation Ecological
materials. The
result of t test is used to know
whether there
is difference of ecological
knowledge score
between control class and
experiment class.
The t test shows that there is a
difference
between the control class and the
experimental class using the PBL
based
SSP with the value of sig = 0,00
(<0,05) so
that Ho is rejected and it can be
concluded
that there is a difference
between ecological
knowledge in Biology Education
Study
Program Faculty of Teacher
Training and
Education Science Sebelas Maret
University Surakarta with the
application of
Subject Specific Pedagogy based
on
Problem-Based Learning.
The score of ecological knowledge
is improved because problem-based
learning can stimulate students'
knowledge
to be more flexible and open to
identify
problems and to find solutions to
any
problems (Hmelo-Silver, 2004).
One of the
goals of problem-based learning
is to
require students to build a broad
and
flexible knowledge in learning a
fact.
According to Kolodner (1993)),
the
knowledge of students will be
increasing
and growing when applying the
knowledge
they have on various situations
and
problems. The score of ecological
knowledge is increasing because
Subject
Specific Pedagogy which is
developed
specifically for specific
purposes will yield
the results in accordance with
expectations,
in this study the SSP is
specifically focused
on improving the concept of
ecological or
components of student knowledge.
Prayitno & Wangid(2005) in
his research
stated that the SSP developed
specifically
to develop student knowledge is
able to
increase students' knowledge.
The results are in line with
expectation because the
development of
PBL based SSP on Conservation
Ecology
materials focuses on the
component of
ecological knowledge. Besides,
through the
preliminary analysis, it is known
that the
ecological knowledge of students
is at low
category. The development of
indicators in
the semester learning plan is
focused on
improving the ecological
knowledge
component by including indicators
of
knowledge that include ecosystem
resilience, productivity,
nutrient cycling,
functional redundancy, trophic
cascade,
habitat fragmentation, community
assembly, dispersal, population
control,
ecophysiological adaptaion and
anti
anthopocentrise. These results,
theoretically, can influence the
behavior
formed but according to Fisher
& Fisher
(1992)the knowledge, although
needed, is
not enough to form eco-friendly
behavior.
Knowledge can work best to
influence
behavior when combined with
mutual
motivation through emerging
behavioral
skills. This opinion is supported
by the
research of Ajzen et al.
(2011)and Fisher et
al. (1994)who claim that
knowledge does
not consistently affect behavior,
when the
effect is relatively small and
must be
mediated through one’s skills
they
possessed.
The average score of ecological
concern of control class is
75,89%, while
the average score of the
experimental class
is 87,39%. The average score of
ecological
concerns has increased and the t
test results
show the same thing, hence it can
be
concluded that the Subject
Specific
Pedagogy based on Problem-Based
Learning on Conservation
Ecological
material can effectively increase
the
students' ecological literacy.
The results
obtained from the t test is to
determine
whether there is a difference of
ecological
concern between the control class
and the
experimental class using PBL
based SSP
which is resulted sig = 0,03
(<0,05) so that
Ho is rejected, therefore it can
be concluded
that there is difference of
ecological
concern of the student Biology
Education
Studies Faculty of Teacher
Training and
Education Sebelas Maret
University
Surakarta with the application of
Subject
Specific Pedagogy based on
Problem-
Based Learning.
The score of ecological concern
is
increasing because the ecological
concepts
gained from problem-based
learning can
support students' awareness in
protecting
the environment. Awareness is one
form of
human behavior that arises when
having a
concept of good knowledge.
Knowledge
possesses can increase one's
awareness in
protecting the environment
(Ajzen, Joyce,
Sheikh, & Cote, 2011). This
is in line with
the wrong outcome of the learning
process
that aims to improve the behavior
of
learners. A person's awareness
will increase
when a problem presented to them
and urge
them to make decisions and take
action;
from environmental problems
occurred,
someone will raise awareness to
protect the
environment better. However,
according to
DeChano(2006), the level of ones’
concern
is not influenced by the
knowledge they
have. This behavior is strongly
influenced
by existing attitudes such as
research that
has been done by Hye-Eun(2007)who
states
that there is a strong
correlation between
attitudes and person’s behavior.
The score
of ecological concern shows high
results
which means that there is
readiness to
behave from students to be more
environmentally friendly(Ajzen,
Joyce,
Sheikh, & Cote, 2011).
The average score of ecological
attitude is increasing in control
class which
is 66,92% while the mean score of
ecological attitude of the
experimental class
is 83,93%. The average score of
ecological
attitude is increasing
considerably and the
result of t test shows that
Subject Specific
Pedagogy based on Problem-Based
Learning on Conservation
Ecological was
effective in increasing the
students'
ecological literacy. The results
obtained
from the t test is to determine
whether there
are differences in ecological
attitude
between the control class and
experimental
class that apply the PBL based
SSP which
results sig = 0,00 (<0,05) so
that Ho is
rejected and it can be concluded
that there
are differences in student
ecological
attitude Biology Education
Studies
Program Teacher Training Faculty
and
Education Sebelas Maret
University
Surakarta with the application of
Subject
Specific Pedagogy based on
Problem-
Based Learning.
Ecological attitude results have
increased because the concept of
ecological
owned by students through
learning using
PBL-based SSP gives a good
influence on
attitudes that are formed on
students.
According to Shamuganathan &
Karpundewan (2015), one solution
in
teaching ecological literacy is
by giving a
problem on environmental issues
because
by that, one will behave more
responsibly
in protecting the environment.
Their
attitudes then can be more
eco-friendly as
described by Fishbein and Ajzen(1980)in
the research that has been
conducted.
According to Vining &
Ebreo(1992), the
attitudes of environmental care
owned also
refers to the amount of awareness
of the
environment. Readiness to behave
is
influenced by attitudes possessed
to
perform a particular action and
apply
subjective norms. (Ajzen et al.,
2011).
Another thing that affects the
formation of
attitude according to Stutzman
& Green
(1982)is a factual knowledge that
becomes
a prerequisite for any desired
attitude.
According to Kollmus &
Agyeman
(2002), there are several
opinions that
knowledge can influence attitudes
and will
ultimately shape environmentally
responsible behaviors. It turns
out to be less
precise because there is a large
and
unexplained gap between attitudes
and
behavior. Shamuganathan &
Karpudewan(2015) stated that
there has
been an attempt to address this
gap in
Fishbein &
Ajzen(1974)research through
the theory of reasoned action and
theory of
planned behavior according to
Ajzen
(1985). According to Fishbein
&
Ajzen(1980)as a matter of fact
that there is
a correlation between attitudes
and
behaviors yet attitudes do not
have a direct
effect on behavior, but only
affect the
readiness to behave and in turn
determine
the behavior that is formed.
Based on the results of each
component of ecological literacy
above, it
can be concluded that the
development of
Subject Specific Pedagogy based
on
Problem-Based learning is proven
effective
to increase student's ecological
literacy.
Zverev (1995)considers that
integrated
ecological education using a
model can
develop person permanently to be
directed
to the formation of knowledge and
practical
scientific skills, valuable
orientation, as
well as moral and aesthetic
relationships
that give someone the ecological
responsibility to protect the
environment
sustainably.
CONCLUSION
The effectiveness of Subject
Specific Pedagogy based on
Problem-
Based Learning on Conservation
Ecological by using t test on the
average
score of ecological literacy
shows a good
significance value between the
control class
and the experimental class.
Result of t test
show sig value = 0,00 (<0,05)
so that there
is difference of average score of
ecological
literacy between control class
and
experiment class using SSP based
on PBL.
The value of t test is also
different in each
ecological literacy component
between the
control class and the
experimental class.
The t test for each ecological
literacy
component has sig <0,05 so
that there is
difference in each component of
ecological
literacy between control class
and
experiment class.
ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS
Thanks to the Institute for
Research and
Service, UNS for giving a grant
to support
this research and
publication.Baskoro Adi
Prayitno and Puguh Karyanto at
Master of
Science Education, Sebelas Maret
University who acted as mentors
and comentors
in compiling this paper.
REFERENCES
Ajzen, I., & Fishbein, M.
(1980).
Understanding
Attitudes and
Predicting
Social Behavior.
Englewood Cliffs: Prentice-Hall.
Ajzen, I., Joyce, N., Sheikh, S.,
& Cote, N.
G. (2011). Knowledge and the
Prediction of Behavior: The Role
of
Information Accurary in the
Theory
of Planned Behavior. Basic and
Applied Social
Psychology,
101-
117.
Al-Dajeh, H. I. (2012). Assessing
Environmental Literacy of
Prevocational
Education Teachers in
Jordan. College Student
Journal,
492-507.
Anderson, L. W., & Krathwohl,
D. R.
(2014). Kerangka Landasan
untuk
Pembelajaran,
Pengajaran, dan
Asesmen: Revisi
Taksonomi
Pendidikan
Bloom. Yogyakarta:
Pustaka Belajar.
Barrows, H. S., & Tamblyn, R.
(1980).
Problem-Based
Learning: An
Approach to
Medical Education.
New York: Springer.
Barrows, H., & Kelson, A.
(1993).
Problem-based
learning in
secondary
education and the
Problem-based
Learning Institute
(Monograph). Southern
Illinois
University School of Medicine:
Springfield.
Brown, A. L. (1995). The
advancement of
learning. Educ. Res, 4-12.
Chu, H.-E. e. (2007). “Korean
Year 3
Children’s Environmental
Literacy:
A Prerequisite for a Korean
Environmental Education
Curriculum. International
Journal
of Science
Education,
731-746.
Collins, A., Brown, J. S., &
Newman, S. E.
(1989). Cognitive apprenticeship:
Teaching the crafts of reading,
writing, and mathematics. In
Resnick, L. B. Knowing,
Learning,
and Instruction:
Essays in Honor of
Robert Glaser, 453–494.
DeChano, L. (2006). A
multy-country
examination of the relationship
between environmental knowledge
and attitude. International
Research
in Geographical
and
Environmental
Education.
Dunlap, R. E. (1978). The new
environmental paradigm. Journal
of
Environmental
Education,
10-19.
Dunlap, R. E. (2000). Measuring
Endorsement of the New Ecological
Paradigm: A Revised NEP Scale.
Journal of
Social Issues,
425-442.
Eurobarometer. (2008). Attitudes
of
European
Citizens toward the
Environmental. Europa: Special
Eurobarometers 295.
Fishbein, M., & Ajzen, I.
(1974). Attitudes
toward objects as predicators of
single and multiple behavioral
criteria. Psychological Review,
59-
74.
Fisher, J. D., & Fisher, W. A.
(1992).
Changing AIDS-risk behavior.
Psychological
Bulletin,
455-474.
Fisher, J. D., Fisher, W. A.,
Williams, S. S.,
& Malloy, T. E. (1994).
Empirical
tests of an
information-motivationbehavioral
skills model of AIDSpreventive
behavior with gay men
and heterosexual university
students. Health Psychology,
283-
250.
Hart, E. (1978). Examination of
BSCS
Biology and Nonbiology Student’s
Ecology Comprehension,
Environmental Information Level,
and Environmental Attitude.
Journal of
Research in Science
Teaching, 75-78.
Hartati, T., & dkk. (2009). Productive
Pedagogy &
Subject Spesific
Pedagogy. Bandung: UPI
Bandung.
Hawcroft, L., & Milfont, T.
(2010). Use
(and abuse) of the new
environmental paradigm scale over
the last 30 years: A
meta-analysis.
Journal of Environmental
Psychology, 143-158.
Hmelo-Silver, C. E. (2004).
Problem-Based
Learning: What and How Do
Students Learn? Educational
Psychology
Review,
235-266.
Hooi, K. K., Hassan, F., &
Mat, M. C.
(2012). An Exploratory Study of
Readiness and Development of
Green University Framework in
Malaysia. Social and
Behavioral
Sciences, 525-536.
Irham, M., & Wiyani, N. A.
(2013).
Psikologi
Pendidikan. Yogyakarta:
Ar-ruzz Media.
IUCN. (2002). Education and
Sustainability
Responding to the
Global
Challenge. Cambridge
UK:
IUCN, Gland, Switzerland and
Cambridge, UK.
Kallas, E. V., Solovjeva, T. P.,
&
Minakova, L. Y. (2015).
Implementation of Ecological
Education in a Higher School.
Procedia- Sosial
and Behavioral
Sciences, 453-459.
Kiker, G., Bridges, T., Varghese,
A.,
Seager, P., & Linkov, I.
(2005).
Application of multicriteria
decision analysis in
environmental
decision making. Integrated
Environmental
Assessment and
Management, 95-108.
Kollmus, A., & Agyemen, J.
(2002). Mind
the gap: why do people act
environmentally and what are the
barriers to pro environmental
behavior? Environmental
Education
Research,
239-260.
Kolodner, J. (1993). Case-Based
Reasoning. San Mateo, CA:
Morgan Kaufmann.
Kopnina, H. (2011). Applying The
New
Ecological Paradigm Scale in the
Case of Environmental Education:
Qualitative Analysis of The
Ecological Worldview of Dutch
Children. Journal of Peace
Education and
Social Justice,
374-
388.
Koschmann, T. D., Myers, A. C.,
Feltovich,
P. J., & Barrows, H. S.
(1994).
Using technology to assist in
realizing effective learning and
instruction: A principled
approach
to the use of computers in
collaborative learning. J.
Learn. Sci,
225–262.
Lewinsohn, T. M., Attayde, J. L.,
Fonseca,
C. R., Ganade, G., & Jorge,
L. R.
(2015). Ecological literacy and
beyond: Problem-based learning
for
future professionals. AMBIO,
44:154-162.
Maknun, D. (2011, December).
Praktikum
Proyek Ekologi Berbasis Kondisi
Ekobiologis Lokal dalam
Meningkatkan Literasi Lingkungan
dan Tindakan Konservasi
Mahasiswa. Holistik, 1-39.
McBride, B. B., Brewer, C.,
Berkowitz, A.
R., & Borrie, W. T. (2013).
Environmental literacy,
ecological
literacy, ecoliteracy: What do we
mean and how did we get here?
Ecosphere.
McGinn, A. E. (2014). Quantifying
and
Understanding Ecological
Literacy:
A Study of First Year Students at
Liberial Arts Institutions. Dickinson
College Honor
Theses,
1-55.
NEEATeam. (t.thn.). Dipetik Mei
1, 2017,
dari www.epa.gov: http.epa.gov
Ogunbonde, C. (2013). The NEP
Scale:
measuring ecological
attitude/worldviews in an african
context. Enviro Dev Sustain,
15:
1477-1494.
Orr, D. (1992). Ecological
Literacy:
Education and
the Transition to a
Post-modern
World. Albany:
State
University of New York Press.
Prayitno, S. M., & Wangid, M.
N. (2005).
Subject Specific Pedagogy
Thematic Integrative Model For
The Development Of Students ’
Respect And Responsibility. Jurnal
Pendidikan
Karakter,
195-207.
Rizki. (2016, December 30). UI
Green
Matric. Dipetik July
26, 2017, dari
www.ui.ac.id: www.ui.ac.id
Roy, R., Potter, S., &
Yarrow, K. (2008).
Designing low carbon higher
education systems Environmental
impacts of campus and distance
learning systems. International
Journal of
Sustainability in Higher
Education, 116-130.
Rustaman, N. (2005). Strategi
Belajar
Mengajar
Biologi. Malang:
UM
PRESS.
Salomon, G. (1993). No
distribution
without
individual cognition: A
dynamic
interactional view. New
York: Cambridge University Press.
Savery, J. R. (2006). Overview of
Problembased
learning: Definitions and
Distinctions. Interdisciplinary
Journal of
Problem-Based
Learning, 1(1).
School Education Department of
Education
& Training. (2005). Professional
Learning in
Effective Schools: The
Seven Principles
of Highly Effective
Professional
Learning. Melbourn:
Leadership and Teacher
Development Branch Office of
School Education Department of
Education & Training.
Shamuganatha, S., &
Karpudewan, M.
(2015). Modeling Environmental
Literacy of Malaysian Pre-
University Students. International
Journal of
Environmental &
Science
Education,
757-771.
Stutzman, T. M., & Green, S.
B. (1982).
Factors affecting energy
consumption: two field tests of
the
Fishbein-Ajzen model. Journal
of
Social
Psychology,
183-201.
Team, U. G. (2016). Guidline
of UI
GreenMetric
World University
Ranking 2016. Depok:
Universitas
Indonesia.
Ugulu, I., Aydin, H., Yorek, N.,
& Dogan,
Y. (2008). The impact of endemism
concept on environmental
attitudes
of secondary school students.
Nature
Montenegrina,,
165-173.
UNESCO-UNEP. (1996, June).
Education
for sustainable development.
UNS, T. G. (2014). Rencana
Strategi
Pengambangan
Green Campus.
Surakarta: Universitas Sebelas
Maret.
Vining, J., & Ebreo, A.
(1992). Predicting
recycling behavior from global
and
specific environmental attitudes
and
changes in recycling
opportunities.
Journal of
Applied Social
Psychology, 1580-1607.
Zverev, I. (1995). Priorities
of ecological
education. I
Moscow scientificpractical
conference on
continuous
ecological
education. Moscow:
Moscow State University.
Referensi:
https://journal.uny.ac.id/index.php/cp/article/view/15809
Referensi dan Informasi Lebih Lanjut: