Hamizul binti Hamid is currently pursuing Phd program in e-learning inThe research paper published by IJSER journal is about Problem based Learning with Cooperative Learning on Performance in Solving Moral Dilemmas among Form Four Students That Different Gender, Birth Order, and Family Size 1
ISSN 2229-5518
Problem based Learning with Cooperative Learning on Performance in Solving Moral Dilemmas among Form Four Students That Different Gender, Birth Order, and Family Size
Hamizul binti Hamid & Merza Abbas
Abstract— The purpose of this study was to investigate the effects of the moderator variables namely gender, birth order, and family si ze. The independent variable was the method of instruction while the dependent variables were the studen t performance in solving moral dilemmas accord- ing to Kohlbergs’ Moral Development Stages. The instrument comprised pre- and post-tests that contain moral dilemmas adapted from Kohlbergs’ D e-
velopment Skills (1975). The sample comprised 60 Form Four students from two intact classes. Equivalence in achievement between the classes was established using the Penilaian Menengah Rendah (PMR) examination results. However, there were no significant differences bet ween Problem-Based Learning with cooperative learning and Problem-Based Learning with Individual learning in preferences for giving punishment, giving warnings, giving benefit of the doubt, and apathy by gender, birth order and family size. The findings showed that Problem-Based Learning with Individual learning is more effective in increasing positive moral values and is recommended for use in the classroom.
Index Terms— Learning behaviour, PBL, learning performance, cooperative learning
—————————— ——————————
ased on Moral Education Curriculum (Ministry of Educa- tion Malaysia, 2000), which was revised to emphasize moral values and patriotism to enlighten students about their roles and responsibilities to self, family, community, na-
tion and world (Vishalache, 2007). However, the revised curri- culum will be meaningless and can not achieve if the students are not interested to learn. The use of passive teaching me- thods such as lecture method with the memorization tech- niques are most tedious students (Syed Anwar, 2002).
Moral development is a process that is assumed to change in moral judgment to show that an alternative has been taken in a moral dilemma. This decision was based on a number of reasons for decisions taken on the earlier moral dilemma (Vi- shalache, 2007). According to Kohlberg (1973), moral devel- opment is directly linked to cognitive because it can stimulate students' active thinking on the issues and make decisions related to the moral. Cognitive moral development theory for the first time described by Dewey (Kohlberg, 1973; Bertens,
2003).
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-
————————————————
Hamizul binti Hamid is currently pursuing Phd program in e-learning in
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.
Through extensive researches, Kohlberg has confirmed the levels and stages of moral reasoning as a study carried out for 20 years with the boys from middle-class background and the workers in Chicago. These subjects between the ages of 10-16 years during the first interview, then they inter- viewed again after the lapse of three years. A long term study was conducted with the boys from the rural and ur- ban areas in Turkey, which is in the same age as above. Some cross-cultural studies such as in Canada, Britain, Yu- kata, Honduras and India. Based on his studies, Kohlberg (1975) claimed that the theory of moral development is uni- versal and cross-culturally. He says that every individual in every culture uses thirty basic moral categories, the concept of order and perinsip through the same stages of develop- ment, even if they have a variety of terminals in the devel- opment of moral thinking. The claim is based on empirical findings from research that has been exercised in students from different cultural backgrounds such as the United States, Taiwan, Turkey, Mexico and Yukata. The way Kohl- berg conducted his studies is to use a moral dilemmas, espe- cially hypothetical.
Rest (1983) found that the respondents were given a hypo- thetical moral dilemmas making moral decision at a higher level than their level of moral reasoningthat shows that stu-
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 Problem based Learning with Cooperative Learning on Performance in Solving Moral Dilemmas among Form Four Students That Different Gender, Birth Order, and Family Size 2
ISSN 2229-5518
dents have the cognitive skills to reach a moral decision before they commit immoral actions. Selman (1980) suggested effec- tive ways to improve the level of cognitive moral development of students is to follow the steps to detect the level of moral reasoning during an individual to give hypothetical moral dilemmas and discuss the issues raised according to their age and maturity.
Teaching methods to enable the solution according to Khol- berg Stages of Moral dilemmas such as a) preferences for giv- ing punishment, b) giving warnings, c) giving benefit of the doubt, and d) apathy or explicitly associated with the teaching and learning. Kohlbergs' Stages of Moral Development based on a certain level. Level of maturity occurs only with cognitive conflict resolution such as solving a moral dilemma (Wong,
2000). According to Kohlberg (1984) the best way for a student up to a level higher moral thinking is to solve the moral di- lemma in social situations. Therefore the best method is PBL cooperative. In the context of the cooperative, the study also found that learning in the context of social or cooperative which contains scafolding experts or peers improve cognitive development. Cooperative method is also suitable for moral education because it offers a review of every corner of the ideas that emerged in the group. Cooperative learning re- quires students of various abilities to work in small groups to achieve a common goal (Slavin, 1990). Five basic elements of cooperative learning are interdependent with one another in a positive way, interact, face to face, individual accountability for their own learning, cooperative skills, and group processing. It encourages students to interact actively and po- sitively in the group and enable the sharing of ideas and ex- amining their own ideas in an environment that is not threat- ened, according to the philosophy of constructivism. Apart from the experiences of a person, position in the family (birth order) and family size also influence the level of moral devel- opment of student thinking. Studies conducted by (Heiland,
2004) found that there are status effects on cognitive develop- ment of children. The last child was found to be not taking care about the environment, while the child is beginning to be rather more to the review of environmental aspects. This con- dition can be associated with the development of moral think- ing of the students, early child (first child) are more likely to punish and warn. Theory of mind development is a descrip- tive, not prescriptive. Stimulus given in the instruction so that students can move from one point to another quickly by giv- ing the right question but not the right answer (Barrows,
1996).
This is a quasi-experimental study using 2 X 2 factorial design to test the effect of the method used. The first factor was the method of instruction namely Problem-Based Learning with cooperative learning and Problem-Based Learning with indi- vidual learning. The second factors were the moderator va- riables namely gender, birth order, and family size. The inde- pendent variable was the method of instruction while the de- pendent variables were the student performance in solving
moral dilemmas according to Kohlbergs’ Moral Development Stages. Moderator variable is the background of students by gender, birth order, and family size. The dependent variable is tendencies; a) preferences for giving punishment, b) giving warnings, c) giving benefit of the doubt, and d) apathy accord- ing to prescription Kohlberg theory. The instrument com- prised pre- and post-tests that contain moral dilemmas adapted from Kohlbergs’ Development Skills (1975). Pre and post test used to measure development of students' moral rea- soning level. T tests were used to measure the equivalence of scores according to pre test. While one-way ANCOVA test was used to determine 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, Penang.
Hypothesis testing provides test results to test the equivalence of T test according to the pre score. No significant differences in each dimension of the test stage of development of moral thinking Kholberg the Co-operative group and the individual are equivalent.
Table 1 reports report mean, standard deviation and re- sults of ANCOVA test for tendencies; a) preferences for giving punishment, b) giving warnings, c) giving benefit of the doubt, and d) apathy according to gender-based preferences. a) ANCOVA test conducted to give F (1.55) = 1.92 at p = .171. Since p> 0.05 then Ha1 (a) was rejected. This finding indicates that the cooperative method is similar to the method of the individual in influencing the formation of students by gender in the preferences for giving punishment. b) ANCOVA test conducted to give F (1.55) = 1.92 at P = .171. Since p> 0.05 then Ha1 (b) rejected. This finding indicates that the cooperative method is similar to the method of the individual in influen- cing the formation of students by gender in a significant giv- ing warnings. c) ANCOVA test conducted to give F (1.55) =
1.92 at p = .171. Since p> 0.05 then Ha1 (c) rejected. This find- ing indicates that the cooperative method is similar to the me- thod of the individual in influencing the formation of students by gender in the giving benefit of the doubt. d) ANCOVA test conducted to give F (1.55) = 1.92 at p = .171. Since p> 0.05 then Ha2 (d) was rejected. This finding indicates that the coopera- tive method is similar to the method of the individual in in- fluencing the formation of students by gender in apathetic tendency significantly.
Gender For K ohl ber gs ’ M or al De ve l opme nt St age s.
IJSER © 2012
The research paper published by IJSER journal is about Problem based Learning with Cooperative Learning on Performance in Solving Moral Dilemmas among Form Four Students That Different Gender, Birth Order, and Family Size 3
ISSN 2229-5518
ings female 40.20 3.91 F(1,55) = 2.187
3 38.14 4.06 .58
Giving
benefit of the doubt
Individual male 37.93 3.06 female 40.20 4.74
Cooperative male 41.53 3.02 female 41.20 4.23
Individual male 42.40 2.99
female 43.13 3.27
P = .145
F(1,55) = .002
P = .966
Giving
4 38.33 2.52
Individual 1 40.23 3.17
2 37.75 5.52
3 38.33 1.97
4 41.00 8.49
Cooperative 1 42.33 4.41
P = .71
Apathy Cooperative male 41.87 2.92 female 42.00 4.88
Individual male 39.20 3.27 female 40.73 5.16
F(1,55) = .504
P = .481
benefit of the doubt
2 41.84 3.64
3 40.71 3.99
4 39.33 .58
Individual 1 43.00 3.24
2 42.62 2.77
F(5,49) =
3.70
P =
.477
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 birth order with the fol- lowing tendencies: a) preferences for giving punishment, b) giving warnings, c) giving benefit of the doubt, and d) apathy. Table 3 reports the mean values, standard deviations and ANCOVA test results.
a) ANCOVA test conducted to give F(5,49) = 2.37 at p = .053. Since p> 0.05 then Ha2 (a) was rejected. This finding indicates
3 41.16 3.31
4 46.50 .70
Apathy Cooperative 1 43.50 4.08
2 40.61 4.62
3 43.28 3.09
4 41.00 1.00
Individual 1 41.15 4.63
2 37.75 3.91
3 40.17 3.37
4 39.00 7.07
F(5,49) =
2.44
P =
.047
that the cooperative method is similar to the method of the individual in influencing the formation of students by birth order in the preferences for giving punishment significantly.
b) ANCOVA test conducted to give F(5,49) = 0.58 at p = .71. Since p> 0.05 then Ha2 (b) was rejected. This finding indicates that the cooperative method is similar to the method of the individual in influencing the formation of students by birth order in the preferences for giving warnings significantly.
c) ANCOVA test conducted to give F(5,49) = 3.70 at p = .477. Since p> 0.05 then Ha2 (c) was rejected. This finding indicates that the cooperative method is similar to the method of the individual in influencing the formation of students by birth order in the preferences for giving benefit of the doubt signifi- cantly.
d) ANCOVA test conducted to give F(5,49) = 2.44 at p = .047. Since p < 0.05 then Ha2(d) was accepted. This finding indicates that the cooperative method is similar to the method of the individual in influencing the formation of students by birth order in the preferences for apathy significantly.
Ha3 : 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 according to family size with the fol- lowing tendencies: a) preferences for giving punishment, b) giving warnings, c) giving benefit of the doubt, and d) apathy.
Table 4 reports the mean values, standard deviations and
ANCOVA test results.
a) ANCOVA test conducted to give F(5,48) = 19.23 at p = 1.98.
Since p> 0.05 then Ha3 (a) was rejected. This finding indicates
that the cooperative method is similar to the method of the
individual in influencing the formation of students by family
size in the preferences for giving punishment significantly.
b) ANCOVA test conducted to give F(5,48) = 19.23 at p = 1.98.
Since p> 0.05 then Ha3 (b) was rejected. This finding indicates that the cooperative method is similar to the method of the individual in influencing the formation of students by family size in the preferences for giving warnings significantly.
c) ANCOVA test conducted to give F(5,48) = 1.73 at p = .217. Since p> 0.05 then Ha3 (c) was rejected. This finding indicates that the cooperative method is similar to the method of the individual in influencing the formation of students by family
Tendency Method
Birth
Order
Mean
Standard deviations
ANCOVA Test
size in the preferences for giving benefit of the doubt signifi- cantly.
d) ANCOVA test conducted to give F(5,48) = 9.29 at p = .780.
Preferences for giving punishmen
Cooperative 1 40.50 1.64
2 37.54 3.15
3 37.43 3.26
4 42.00 4.00
Individual 1 37.23 2.71
2 38.25 3.53
3 39.17 1.94
F(5,49) =
2.37
P = .053
Since p> 0.05 then Ha3 (d) was rejected. This finding indicates that the cooperative method is similar to the method of the individual in influencing the formation of students by family size in the preferences for apathy significantly.
By Family SizeFor Kohl ber gs’ Moral Development Stages.
Giving warnings
4 40.00 4.24
Cooperative 1 41.33 2.50
2 39.61 4.51
F(5,49) =
Tendency Method
Family
Size
Standard deviations
IJSER © 2012
The research paper published by IJSER journal is about Problem based Learning with Cooperative Learning on Performance in Solving Moral Dilemmas among Form Four Students That Different Gender, Birth Order, and Family Size 4
ISSN 2229-5518
Preferences for giving punishmen
Giving warnings
Giving benefit of the doubt
Cooperative 3 40.60 1.52
4 37.60 2.97
5 39.00 4.06
6 36.90 2.92
7 41.00 3.82
Individual 3 37.40 3.36
4 37.71 3.55
5 38.40 2.32
6 38.00 3.08
7 41.66 4.16
Cooperative 3 41.80 2.49
4 41.00 3.81
5 36.80 5.40
6 39.60 3.69
7 37.75 2.36
Individual 3 41.00 1.58
4 36.71 3.77
5 38.30 4.05
6 42.00 3.08
7 39.00 6.92
Cooperative 3 43.60 4.50
4 41.20 2.38
5 40.40 3.78
6 41.70 4.29
7 39.50 1.29
Individual 3 40.80 3.63
4 42.71 1.88
5 43.80 3.61
6 41.20 2.04
7 45.33 2.08
F(5,48) =
1.98
P = 0.98
F(5,48) =
1.20
P = 0.32
F(5,48) =
1.73
P = .217
closer to the mother and take the mother as the model also make women more rapidly experience the process of devel- opment of moral thinking. But studies Silbermandan and Sna- rey (1993) have shown different results, which is gender does not significantly influence the development of moral reason- ing these students because of the way decisions are currently based on rational thinking and influenced by culture.
8 CONCLUSION
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 moral 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.
Apathy Cooperative 3 41.60 5.02
4 41.20 3.89
5 43.80 3.03
6 41.40 4.90
7 42.00 2.16
Individual 3 40.80 4.65
4 39.42 3.59
5 41.10 4.48
6 37.40 4.56
7 40.33 5.50
7 RESEARCH SUMMARY
F(5,48) =
9.29
P = .780
[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
These findings indicate that there was no significant effect of these methods to create value for students with the following tendencies: a) preferences for giving punishment, b) giving warnings, c) giving benefit of the doubt, and d) apathy based on gender, birth order and family size. There was no signifi- cant effect between Moral Dilemma Solution method based on a cooperative PBL and individual in the development of stu- dent values for preferences for giving punishment, giving warnings, giving benefit of the doubt, and apathy based on gender. This finding contradicts with the findings of Gilligan and Attanucci (1988), who reported that there were influences in the formation of values which comply with the female stu- dents than male students as female students more rapidly transformed between levels one to three ie self-interest, self- sacrifice, and post-conventional thinking. In addition, factors
IJSER © 2012
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=
http://www.ijser.org
The research paper published by IJSER journal is about Problem based Learning with Cooperative Learning on Performance in Solving Moral Dilemmas among Form Four Students That Different Gender, Birth Order, and Family Size 5
ISSN 2229-5518
ijpb
[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
[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
[31] Vaughn, L. (2008). Doing Ethics: Moral Reasoning and Contempo-
rary Issues: NewYork: Norton
[32] Vishalache, B. (2007). Kesan Menggunakan Dilema Kehidupan Sebenar Dalam Pengajaran-Pembelajaran Pendidikan Moral. Masalah Pendidikan 2007, Jilid 30 (1)
[33] Wan Mohd. Zahid bin Wan Mohd. Noordin (1988). Ke arah pe- laksanaan nilai-nilaimurni dalam KBSM: Falsafah Pendidikan Negara. Seminar nilai-nilai murni merentas kurikulum dalam KBSM UKM, 3 – 11 Disember 1988.
[34] Wong, A. S. (2000 , Sep). Kohlberg's Theory of Moral Development - Explained & Illustrated. Retrieved March 24, 2009, from Christian Parenting Articles : from http://www.vtaide.com/blessing/Kohlberg.htm
IJSER © 2012