Hamizul binti Hamid is currently pursuing Phd program in e-learning inThe research paper published by IJSER journal is about Investigate the Effects of ProblemBased Learning with Cooperative Learning on Performance 1
ISSN 2229-5518
Investigate the Effects of Problem Based Learning with Cooperative Learning on Performance
Hamizul binti Hamid, Merza Abbas
Abstract— The purpose of this study was to investigate the effects of Problem-Based Learning with cooperative learning on performance. The study employed the 2X2 factorial design. The first factor was the method of instruction namely Problem -Based Learning with cooperative learning. The independent variable was the method of instruction while the dependent variables were the student performance in solving moral dilemmas according to Kohlbergs’ Moral Development Stages. The sample comprised 60 form four students from two intact classes. The findings showed
that Problem-Based Learning with Individual learning significantly decreased preferences for giving punishment and apathy.
Index Terms— PBL, learning performance, cooperative learning.
—————————— ——————————
ohlberg (1975) recognizes that a fundamental moral edu- cation in a stimulating active thinking when they make decisions on social issues. Kohlberg technique using sto-
ries containing moral dilemma is a situation where an indi- vidual or a group of people face a conflict situation there are several alternatives in making a moral decision. A moral di- lemma consists of an issue, one or several specific character in which a person is forced to deal with the issue and make a decision based on rational reasons. Kohlberg (1975) make the assumption that humans process all information in the moral dilemma through the cognitive structures that brought them to their level of moral development. This theory is known as the development as it considered the goals of moral education as a movement through moral stages (Kohlberg, 1973; Bertens,
2003). According to Kohlberg (1975), the levels of moral stages
are as follows:
Level 1. Preconventional Morality
Stage 1. Obedience and Punishment Orientation
A person is selfish and to comply with a more powerful be-
cause of fear of punishment or penalty.
Stage 2. Individualism and Exchange.
Person taking care of others but have self-interest that moti-
vated satisfy themselves and ignored the needs of others,
unless it benefits himself.
Level II. Conventional Morality
Stage 3. Good Interpersonal Relationships.
Person taking care of others and follow their norms at this
stage. They will try to meet the expectations of other people
that close to them to be a good as expected by others.
Stage 4. Maintaining the Social Order.
One is concerned about peace in a society. It has the responsi-
bility to preserve the rules of society.
Level III. Postconventional Morality
Stage 5. Social Contract and Individual.
At this stage, one has an obligation to the social contract law to
comply with the law in order to protect the welfare and pro-
tecting their rights. Values such as liberty and life should be
————————————————
Hamizul binti Hamid is currently pursuing Phd program in e-learning in
defended in any society regardless of majority opinion.
Stage 6: Universal Principles.
At this stage, a rational person believe in the integrity of the
universal moral principles such as justice, equality and respect
for the dignity of the public as an individual and they have a
personal commitment to it.
Theoretical framework of this study, the Social Development Theory of Vygotsky which emphasizes the interaction be- tween internal and external aspects of learning and the em- phasis on the social environment of learning where cognitive function is derived from social interaction of individuals in the concept of culture. Learning occurs when a person carries out tasks that have not been studied and it is in their zone of proximal development (ZPD). Vygotsky's theory of scaffold- ing describe concept that provides a lot of guidance in the ear- ly stages of learning and then reducing the assistance and give students the opportunity to take over the responsibility after they are able to do it yourself.
PBL is an active learning method using ill-structured problems to stimulate learning (Barrows, 2000, Hmelo-Silver & Barrows,
2006). This method requires the involvement of students to think, discuss, argue and give opinions to solve realistic prob- lems of everyday life. In addition, it can promote and build confidence in students who focus on student learning which will facilitate the students to maintain and practice the know- ledge gained as a platform to solve the complex (Cognition and Technology Group at Vanderbilt [CTGV], 1997; Blumberg,
2000; Mergendoller , Maxwell & Bellisimo, 2005). Problem-
solving activities provide many opportunities for students to
apply knowledge from declarative and procedural knowledge
lectures and rote activities. According to (Boud & Felleti, 1997;
Universiti Sains Malaysia, E-mail: hamizunhamid@yahoo.com
IJSER © 2012
Merza Abbas is currently Associate Professor in Universiti Sains Malay-
The research paper published by IJSER journal is about Investigate the Effects of ProblemBased Learning with Cooperative Learning on Performance 2
ISSN 2229-5518
Goodnough & Woei Hung, 2008) PBL derived from the health sciences of various disciplines specific to an integrated pro- gram that involves students in developing problem or a prob- lem Formulation and thus solve the problem. Problem-solving activities provide many opportunities for students to apply knowledge from declarative and procedural knowledge lec- tures and rote activities. According to (Duch, 2000; Good- nough & Woei Hung, 2008) PBL is a teaching method that uses real-world problems as a context for learning critical thinking skills and problem solving skills to motivate, focus and begin to learn at high levels of Bloom taxonomy to analyze, synthes- ize and evaluate. While (Jones, 1996; Edwards & Hammer,
2007) extolled the virtues of PBL with the emphasis on mean- ing rather than fact. To replace the lecture with discussion fo-
in each dimension of the test stage of development of moral thinking Kholberg the Co-operative group and the individual are equivalent.
Ha1: Moral Dilemma solving method based on PBL with cooperative enhance significantly the development of moral thinking than Moral Dilemma solving method based on PBL with individual learning with the following tendencies: a) pre- ferences for giving punishment, b) giving warnings, c) giving benefit of the doubt, and d) apathy
Table 1: Summary of ANCOVA Test Cooperative X Individual
Standard
rum, guidance from teachers and joint research, students are active and meaningful learning experience. Syed Anwar (2002)
Tendency Method Mean
deviations ANCOVA
Test
study found that the scaffolding teachers should not struc-
Preferences for
Cooperative 38.43 3.37 F(1,57) = .008,
tured so that students engage in the process of restructuring
and acquisition of knowledge actively and empirical-minded
giving punish- ment
Individual 38.33 3.12
P = .928
students showed improved performance of inductive reason-
Giving warnings Cooperative 39.47 3.83 F(1,57) = .054,
ing than those who think the hypothetical-deductive. High
Individual 39.07 4.08
P = .817
dynamism constructivism does not guarantee the acquisition
Giving benefit
Cooperative 41.37 3.61 F(1,57) = 4.38,
of higher knowledge.
of the doubt
Individual 42.77 3.10
P = .041
This is a quasi-experimental study using 2 X 2 factorial design to test the effect of the method used. Pre and post test used to measure development of students' moral reasoning level. T tests were used to measure the equivalence of scores according to pre test. While one-way ANCOVA test was used to deter- mine the effect of independent variables on the dependent variable. Pre-test scores used as a covariate to neutralize the initial position of knowledge and students.
This study was conducted on 60 students of Moral Education form four secondary schools in the district of Georgetown, Pe- nang. A test of moral thinking development consists of 40 items were constructed based on Kohlbergs’ Moral Development Stages. Level adopted was Stage 1 which contain the items severely punished and to punish by warning and Stage 4, which contains references to laws and regulations. Stages were se- lected as Form 4 students should have reached at least Level 3 or 4.
Intervention sessions conducted using PBL modules built to meet the time of 80 minutes on two groups of subjects and group self-cooperative groups. For cooperative groups, subjects were divided into small groups of 4 to 5 persons per group to discuss and find information. While for the controll group sought information on their own self. Sessions conducted by teachers teaching subjects with more than five years experience teaching Moral Education. Post test given one week after inter- vention carried out.
Hypothesis testing provides test results to test the equivalence of T test according to the pre score. No significant differences
Apathy Cooperative 41.93 3.96 F(1,57) = 5.01,
Individual 39.97 4.32 P = .029
Table 1 above reports the mean values, standard deviations and ANCOVA test results for the following tendencies: a) pre- ferences for giving punishment, b) giving warnings, c) giving benefit of the doubt, and d) apathy. ANCOVA tests carried out as follows: a) reject the hypothesis Ha1 (a) which shows that the cooperative method is similar to the method of self in influencing the formation of the students in preferences for giving punishment. (b) ANCOVA tests carried out to give F (1.57) = .054 at p = .817. Since p> 0.05 then Ha1 (b) rejected. This finding indicates that the cooperative method is similar to the method of individual in influencing the formation of the students in a significant tendency giving warnings. (c) AN- COVA tests carried out to give F (1.57) = 4.39 at p = .041. Since p <0.05, then there are significant differences in the findings. However Ha1 (c) reverse the findings of which were rejected due to self-rule have influenced significantly the formation of student value in allowing the tendency giving benefit of the doubt. (d) ANCOVA tests carried out to give F (1.57) = 5.010 at p = .029. Since p <0.05, then Ha1 (d) is received. This finding indicates that the cooperative method influence significantly the formation of the students in apathetic tendency of increas- ing the negative orientation.
Ha2 : Moral Dilemma solving method based on PBL with co-
operative enhance significantly the development of moral
thinking than Moral Dilemma solving method based on PBL
with individual learning according to gender-based with the
following tendencies: a) preferences for giving punishment, b)
giving warnings, c) giving benefit of the doubt, and d) apathy.
These findings indicate that individual method significantly
IJSER © 2012
The research paper published by IJSER journal is about Investigate the Effects of ProblemBased Learning with Cooperative Learning on Performance 3
ISSN 2229-5518
better in increasing the likelihood of reducing the preference of giving benefit of the doubt and apathy. The results showed that the individual method is significantly better in enhance a positive value, namely the preference giving benefit of the doubt and in reducing the negative value of apathetic tenden- cies.
The findings of this study indicates that Problem-Based Learn- ing with individual learning over a lasting impact in the for- mation of moral values such as allowing a positive defense compared to Problem-Based Learning with cooperative learn- ing among form four students. The key findings from this re- search suggest that Problem-Based Learning with individual learning better than Problem-Based Learning with cooperative learning for the peers influence students' decision-making towards the negative. Findings in this study also showed mor- al values can be applied through the apprenticeship method such as a child with the mother or student with the teachers. This study involved only a four-hour intervention sessions held in class only. Therefore, the student should be involved in greater depth with a variety of moral dilemmas that are more real life. Such studies can measure students' ethical mor- al principles. Thus through greater exposure to the problem of moral dilemma that is more real life, will be mature students in decision making of ethical moral principle.
[1] Abdul Rahman Md. Aroff. (1984). Matlamat pendidikan moral: Suatu penilaian terhadap matlamat projek pendidikan moral di Malay- sia. Pendidik dan Pendidikan, 6, 52-59
[2] Barrows, H. S. (1996). Problem-based learning in medicine and beyond: A brief overview. New Directions for Teaching and Learning, 58, 3-11.
[3] Barcalow, Emmett. (2002). Moral Philosophy: Theories and Issues
New York: Thomson Wadsworth
[4] Bertens, K. (2003). Etika dan Moral. Kuala Lumpur: Penerbit
Universiti Malaysia.
[5] Bonevac, Daniel. (2002). Today's Moral Issues: Classic and Contem- porary Perspectives Fourth Edition. New York: Mc Graw Hill
[6] Chazan, Barry I., & Soltis, Jonas F. (1973). Moral education. New
York: Columbia University
[7] Cohen, L., Manion, L., & Morrison, K. (2005). Research Methods
In Education. New York: Prentice Hall
[8] Edwards, S., & Hammer, M. (2007) Problem Based Learning In Early Childhood And Primary Pre-Service Teacher Education: Identi- fying The Issues And Examining The Benefits. Australian Journal Of Teacher Education. Retrieved April 14, 2009, http://ajte.education.ecu.edu.au/issues/PDF/322/Edwards.pdf
[9] Fraenkel, J. R., & Wallen, N. E. (2009). How to Design and
Evaluate Research in Education. United States: McGraw-Hill.
[10] Goodnough, K. & Woei Hung. (2008). Engaging Teachers’ Peda- gogical Content Knowledge: Adopting a Nine-Step Problem-Based Learning ModelThe Interdisciplinary Journal of Problem-based Learning, vol.2, no. 2, Retrieved February 17, 2010,
http://docs.lib.purdue.edu/cgi/viewcontent.cgi?article=1082&context=
ijpb
IJSER © 2012
[11] Gilligan, C. & Murphy, J. (1979), Development from Adolescence to Adulthood: The Philosopher and the Dilemma of the Fact,Intellectual Development Beyond Childhood, 5, San Francisco, CA: Jossey Bass, pp. 85-99.
[12] Gilligan, C. (1982), In a Different Voice: Psychological Theory and Women's Development,Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press.
[13] Gilligan, C., & Attanucci, J. (1988). Two moral orientations:
Gender differences and similarities Retrieved February 14, 2012, http://www.springerlink.com/content/m3022132671741n6/fullte xt.pdf
[14] Grassian, V. (1992). Moral Reasoning : Ethical Theory And Some
Contemporary Moral Problems. New York: Prentice Hall
[15] Heiland, F. (2004). Does the Birth Order Affect the Cognitive Devel- opment of a Child? Research by a grant from the National Inst i- tute of Child Health and Human Development (NICHD), Demographic and Behavioral Sciences Branch, Retrieved March
02, 2011, http://paa2005.princeton.edu/download.aspx?submissionId=512
36
[16] Jamil Hazri, Othman Hashim and Yaakub Rohizani. (2004).
Pengantar Kaedah Mengajar Mata Pelajaran Ilmu Kemanusiaan.
Shah Alam: Karisma Publications Sdn. Bhd.
[17] Johnston, K., Brown, Mikel. & Christopherson, S. (1990) Adoles- cents' Moral Dilemmas:The Context, Journal of Youth and Adoles- cence, vol 19, no. 6, Retrieved March 24, 2011, http://www.springerlink.com/content/m3022132671741n6/
[18] Kementerian Pendidikan Malaysia. (2000). Sukatan pelajaran se- kolah menengah: Pendidikan Moral. Kuala Lumpur: Pusat Perkem- bangan Kurikulum.
[19] Kohlberg,L. (1975). The just community approach to corrections: A theory. Journal of Moral Education, 4(3),243-260.
[20] Kohlberg,L.(1976). Moral stages and moralization: The cogn i- tive-developmentalapproach. Dalam T. Lickona (Ed.), Moral de- velopment and behavior (hlm, 31-53).New York: Holt.
[21] Kohlberg,L. (1984). Education, moral development and faith.
Journal of Moral Education,4(3),5-16.
[22] Mergendoller, J., Maxwell, N. & Bellisimo, Y. (2005) The Effec- tiveness of Problem-based Instruction: A Comparative Study of In- structional Methods and Student Characteristics, The Interdisci- plinary Journal of Problem-based Learning volume 1, no. 2, Retrieved March 04, 2009, http://www.bie.org/files/IJPBL%20PBE%20PaperFINAL- single%20spaced.pdf
[23] Mcdonald, K., & Stuart-Hamilton, I. (1996) Older And More Moral?—Age-Related Changes In Performance On Piagetian Moral Reasoning Tasks. Age And Ageing, vol 25, 402-404, Retrieved March 24, 2009, http://ageing.oxfordjournals.org/cgi/reprint/25/5/402.pdf
[24] Rest, J., Cooper, D., Coder, R., Masanz, J., & Anderson, D. (1983).
Judging the important issues in moral dilemmas - An objective measure ofdevelopment. Developmental Psychology, 10(4), 491-
501.
[25] Shomali, Mohammad Ali. (2001). Ethical Relativism: An Analysis Of The Foundations Of Morality.London: Islamic College for Ad- vanced Studies Press.
[26] Shumaker, D., & Heckel, R. (2007). Kids Of Character : A Guide To
Promoting Moral Development. USA: Praeger Publishers
The research paper published by IJSER journal is about Investigate the Effects of ProblemBased Learning with Cooperative Learning on Performance 4
ISSN 2229-5518
[27] Slavin, Robert E. (1990). Cooperative Learning : Theory, Research, And Practice. New York: Prentice Hall
[28] Silberman, M., & Snarey, J. (1993). Gender Differences in Moral Development During Early Adolescence: The Contribution of Sex- Re- lated Variations in Maturation. Current Psychology: Develop- mental ° Learning • Personality ° Social, 1993, Vol. 12(2),
[29] Syed Anwar Aly. (2002). Kesan kaedah pembelajaran berasaskan masalah dengan perancahan berstruktur terhadap prestasi pengetahuan, prestasi taakulan dan dinamisme pembelajaran konstruktivis dalam kimia matrikulasi. Unpublish Research.
[30] Timmons, M. (2003). Conduct and character : readings in moral the- ory. 4th ed. Belmont: Thomson Wadsworth
IJSER © 2012