Main Article Content


The Covid-19 pandemic that hit parts of the world impacts education. The acceleration and shift of learning to online mode are massively carried out. Changes in learning modes impact the character of students, so a comprehensive non-cognitive instrument is needed that can be used to measure the quality of student character. This study aims to identify the quality of students' character in online learning during the pandemic. Character qualities are identified by the manifestations of curiosity, initiative, resilience, adaptation, leadership, and ethics. Respondents (N=442) consisted of teachers (N=56) and students (N=386) who applied online learning in several schools from Medan, Deliserdang, Batubara, and Aceh. Collecting data using a questionnaire that explores information about students' character during online learning. The research findings reveal that there is a change in students' character that leads to a positive path in online learning, where the presence of the teacher is crucial in the manifestation of curiosity, initiative, resilience, and adaptation to construct student character. Meanwhile, the manifestations of leadership and ethics felt by students during online learning were very meaningful to the quality of their character. Identification from the point of view of teachers and students found that ethics plays an important role in shaping students' character. This study provides the latest insight regarding identifying student character which comprehensively discusses and reveals the urgency of student character qualities in online learning.


student character online learning the Covid-19 Pandemic

Article Details

Author Biography

Rosmala Dewi, Universitas Negeri Medan


ID Scopus 57204937979

Sinta ID : 75138

Kepakaran: Penelitian Tindakan Kelas, Bimbingan Konseling, Manajemen Pendidikan, Ilmu Pendidikan

Riwayat Pendidikan:

2008-2011: S3 Manajemen Pendidikan Universitas Negeri Medan

1987-1990: S2 Administrasi Pendidikan IKIP Jakarta

1979-1984: S1Bimbingan Konseling IKIP Medan.

How to Cite
Dalimunthe, M. B., Dewi, R., Lubis, W., Setyosari, P., Dalimunthe , R. Z., & Lubis , M. A. (2022). THE QUALITY OF STUDENTS CHARACTER ON LEARNING IN THE PANDEMIC: A SURVEY STUDY . Jurnal Pendidikan Dan Kebudayaan, 7(1), 54- 64.


  1. Affum-Osei, E., Antwi, C. O., Abdul-Nasiru, I., Asante, E. A., Aboagye, M. O., & Forkouh, S. K. (2019). Career adapt-abilities scale in Ghana: Psychometric properties and associations with individual-level ambidexterity and employees’ service performance. Current Psychology, 1–16.
  2. Azwar, S. (2019). Reliabilitas dan validitas (Edisi 4). Yogyakarta: Pustaka Pelajar.
  3. Bialik, M., Bogan, M., Fadel, C., & Horvathova, M. (2015). Character education for the 21st century: What should students learn. In Boston, Massachusetts: Center for Curriculum Redesign. Center for Curriculum Redesign.
  4. Birhan, W., Shiferaw, G., Amsalu, A., Tamiru, M., & Tiruye, H. (2021). Exploring the context of teaching character education to children in preprimary and primary schools. Social Sciences & Humanities Open, 4(1), 100171.
  5. Bruttel, L., & Fischbacher, U. (2013). Taking the initiative: What characterizes leaders? European Economic Review, 64, 147–168.
  6. Dalimunthe, M. B., Djatmika, E. T., Pratikto, H., Handayati, P., Dewi, R., & Mustakim, S. S. (2021). Academic resilience for preservice teachers among field of sciences: A measurement scale in education. International Journal of Evaluation and Research in Education (IJERE), 10(4), 1262 - 1271.
  7. Fahmy, R., Bachtiar, N., Rahim, R., & Malik, M. (2015). Measuring Student Perceptions to Personal Characters Building in Education: An Indonesian Case in Implementing New Curriculum in High School. Procedia - Social and Behavioral Sciences, 211, 851–858.
  8. Frese, M., & Fay, D. (2001). 4. Personal initiative: An active performance concept for work in the 21st century. Research in Organizational Behavior, 23, 133–187.
  9. Gideon, L. (2012). Handbook of survey methodology for the social sciences (Lior Gideon (ed.)). Springer.
  10. Groves, R. M., Fowler Jr, F. J., Couper, M. P., Lepkowski, J. M., Singer, E., & Tourangeau, R. (2011). Survey
  11. Methodology (2nd ed.). John Wiley & Sons.
  12. Gülcan, N. Y. (2015). Discussing the importance of teaching ethics in education. Procedia - Social and Behavioral Sciences, 174, 2622–2625.
  13. Hair Jr, J. F., Hult, G. T. M., Ringle, C., & Sarstedt, M. (2017). A primer on partial least squares structural equation modeling (PLS-SEM) (2nd ed.). Sage publications.
  14. Houghton, J. D., & Neck, C. P. (2002). The revised self-leadership questionnaire: Testing a hierarchical factor structure for self-leadership. Journal of Managerial Psychology, 17(8), 672-691
  15. Ji, P., DuBois, D. L., & Flay, B. R. (2021). Social-emotional and character development scale: Validation with urban middle school students. Children and Youth Services Review, 127, 106124.
  16. Kim, S., Choe, I., & Kaufman, J. C. (2019). The development and evaluation of the effect of creative problem-solving program on young children’s creativity and character. Thinking Skills and Creativity, 33, 100590.
  17. Lee, C.-K. J., & Huang, J. (2021). The relations between students’ sense of school belonging, perceptions of school kindness and character strength of kindness. Journal of School Psychology, 84, 95–108.
  18. Litman, J. (2005). Curiosity and the pleasures of learning: Wanting and liking new information. Cognition and Emotion, 19(6), 793–814.
  19. MacBeath, J. (2019). Leadership for Learning. In T. Townsend (Ed.), Instructional Leadership and Leadership for Learning in Schools: Understanding Theories of Leading (pp. 49–73). Springer International Publishing.
  20. Mann, K. V. (1998). Not another survey! Using questionnaires effectively in needs assessment. Journal of Continuing Education in the Health Professions, 18(3), 142–149.
  21. Mendez, I. (2015). The effect of the intergenerational transmission of noncognitive skills on student performance. Economics of Education Review, 46, 78–97.
  22. Menteri Pendidikan dan Kebudayaan. (2013). Peraturan Menteri Pendidikan dan Kebudayaan Nomor 54 tentang Standar Kompetensi Lulusan.
  23. Miller, K. J., Mesagno, C., McLaren, S., Grace, F., Yates, M., & Gomez, R. (2019). Exercise, mood, self-efficacy, and social support as predictors of depressive symptoms in older adults: Direct and interaction effects. Frontiers in Psychology, 10, 2145.
  24. Noordewier, M. K., & van Dijk, E. (2017). Curiosity and time: From not knowing to almost knowing. Cognition and Emotion, 31(3), 411–421.
  25. Retnawati, H. (2016). Validitas reliabilitas dan karakteristik butir. Yogyakarta : Parama Publishing.
  26. Seçer, I., & Ulas, S. (2020). The mediator role of academic resilience in the relationship of anxiety sensitivity, social and adaptive functioning, and school refusal with school attachment in high school students. Frontiers in Psychology, 11, 1-12.
  27. Sleezer, C. M., Russ-Eft, D. F., & Gupta, K. (2014). A practical guide to needs assessment (Third Edit). John Wiley & Sons.
  28. Tartavulea, C. V., Albu, C. N., Albu, N., Dieaconescu, R. I., & Petre, S. (2020). Online teaching practices and the effectiveness of the educational process in the wake of the COVID-19 Pandemic. Amfiteatru Economic, 22(55), 920–936.
  29. Taxman, F. S. (2016). Handbook on risk and need assessment: Theory and practice. Taylor & Francis.
  30. Toprak, E., Ozkanal, B., Aydin, S., & Kaya, S. (2010). Ethics in e-Learning. Turkish Online Journal of Educational Technology-TOJET, 9(2), 78–86.
  31. Turan, F., & Ulutas, I. (2016). Using storybooks as a character education tools. Journal of Education and Practice, 7(15), 169–176.
  32. Werners, S. E., Wise, R. M., Butler, J. R. A., Totin, E., & Vincent, K. (2021). Adaptation pathways: A review of approaches and a learning framework. Environmental Science \& Policy, 116, 266–275.
  33. World Economic Forum. (2016). New vision for education: Fostering social and emotional learning through technology.
  34. Zhang, X., Kuchinke, L., Woud, M. L., Velten, J., & Margraf, J. (2017). Survey method matters: Online/offline questionnaires and face-to-face or telephone interviews differ. Computers in Human Behavior, 71, 172–180.