Abstract

The purpose of this study is to contribute to contemporary debates about alternative ways of teaching Moral Education (ME) in Malaysia by including the voice of students. ME in the Malaysian setting is both complex and compulsory. This study explores alternatives to the current somewhat dated approach. It seeks to discover what young adolescents describe as moral dilemmas, how they approach them and what they find useful in resolving these moral problems. The research is founded on a modified version of Vygotsky's Zone of Proximal Development (ZPD), extended to suit the multicultural, multiethnic Malaysian setting, and here called the Zone of Collaborative Development (ZCD). This study uses qualitative research methodology consisting of a modified framework of participatory action research (PAR) as the methodological framework. Data was gathered for textual analysis through a modified form of participant observation, focus group transcripts, interviews, and student journals. The research trials a process of resolving reallife moral dilemmas in the ME classroom. It critically analyses the types of reallife moral dilemmas that a selected group of secondary students face. It also indicates the moral choices they make and the moral orientations they use. Participants in this study were 22 16-17 year old adolescents from three different types of secondary schools in a Form Four ME classroom in Malaysia. They were from different ethnic and cultural backgrounds, but within a nonMuslim community of students. ME in Malaysia (MEM) is designed to cater for this group while Muslim students study Islamic Studies. Findings show that students were concerned about moral issues and values not covered in the current ME curriculum. The moral dilemmas that they identified were relational and context dependent. Multiple factors contributed to the problems they described. These factors included national legislation, Malaysian culture, ethnicity, and religion as well as the effects of history, in particular the Japanese occupation. Students named autonomy, self and mutual respect, trust, freedom, and tolerance as main conflicting themes in their reallife moral dilemmas. They found their peers helpful in providing support, advice, and direction. Students also appear to find the process trialled in the research interesting, interactive/collaborative, meaningful, and reflective. The analysis also shows that the respondents' moral choices were influenced by parents, culture, religion, utilitarianism, collaboration, and friendship, within a strong carebased approach. However, moral pluralism was also evident in the findings in cases where participants made decisions based on care and justice interchangeably. The study suggests that including students' voices in MEM in this way might better engage students' interest, whilst at the same time contributing to intercultural tolerance and understanding.

Highlights

  • The purpose of my thesis is to explore new ways of teaching Moral Education (ME) in Malaysia

  • The cognitive development approach introduced by Kohlberg (1984), the value clarification introduced by Raths, Harmin and Simon (1966), and character education introduced by Lickona (1991) have been implemented in the Malaysian ME syllabus

  • 1.5.3 Review of Malaysian ME programmes. It is the practice in the Curriculum Development Center (CDC) in Malaysia to revise the syllabus after a period of time or when complaints are received from authorities like teachers and the public (CDC of Malaysia Report, 1988)

Read more

Summary

Introduction

When my research participants were dialoguing and undergoing the PAR cycles, they were providing each other with many moral choices based on their experiences, what they had learnt, and what they already knew. The participants experienced and viewed the different moral choices available from their own perspectives in order to resolve a certain real­life moral dilemma. The moral choices that they made reflected the moral orientation that they were involved in

What is morality?
Introduction to Moral Education in Malaysia
Background and rationale
ME is important globally
ME is particularly important in Malaysia
Review of Malaysian ME programmes
Dissatisfaction with the way ME is taught and assessed
Adolescence is a crucial time for forming moral identity
Research questions
A guide to reading the thesis
Education system
Historical events that led to ME in Malaysia
Rukun Negara
Civics Education
Historical background of ME in Malaysia
ME Committee
First ME syllabus
16. Public Spiritedness
Revised ME syllabus
Government and constitutional setting
Cultural Complexities
Ethnicity
Cultural norms
The spiritual path of ME in Malaysia
Diversity of understanding of God
Buddhism
Taoism
Hinduism
Christianity
Sikhism
Importance of diversity and listening to students’ voice
Challenging debates on pedagogical issues of ME in Malaysia
Cognitive Moral Development Approach
Values Clarification Approach
Character Education Approach
Alternative approach to teaching ME in Malaysia
An introduction to the use of moral dilemmas in teaching ME
Moral dilemma
Hypothetical moral dilemma
Bridging ME in the classroom with application of Vygotskian perspective on ME
Why Vygotsky?
Social constructivism versus social constructionism
Moral Education and Vygotsky
Zone of Proximal Development
Vygotsky and Participatory Action Research
Zone of Collaborative Development
Sharing and collaboration
Internalisation of values and skills based on local context and constraints
Recursiveness through prior stages when values conflict
Participatory Action Research
PAR and Moral Education
Characteristics of PAR relevant to the research
Ethics in the research
Importance of ethics in my research
Ethics of care
Procedural ethics versus ethics in practice
Problem of assuring group confidentiality and working agreement design
Methodology of PAR
Using moral dilemmas
Using modified form of participant observation
Field notes and journals
Audio and video recording
Using focus group methods
Usefulness of non verbal gestures
Sequence for PAR methods in MEM
Approval and recruitment of participants
Rapport building with my participants
Problem formulation
Procedures
How do your friends help when you are in a moral dilemma?
Reflective cycle
Other challenges encountered when conducting PAR in a ME classroom
Language
Transcription of tapes
Participants’ names and school
Analysis
How to analyse PAR data?
Crystallisation of analysis
Fluency
Analysing non verbal gestures
Setting
Demographic
Social
Ethnicity and faith overview
Participation
My reflection on the working agreement
Interest
Introduction and surprises
Factors affecting moral conflicts
Government intervention
The changing nature of Malaysia culture
Ethnicity and religion
Conflicting themes
Autonomy
Autonomy versus authority
Respect
Respecting the planet
Respect versus autonomy
Respect versus authority
Trust versus care
Trust versus mistrust
Freedom versus responsibility
Freedom versus academic persistence
Freedom versus parental expectations
Tolerance
Tolerance versus care
Tolerance versus autonomy
Tolerance versus tradition
Peer pleasure versus peer pressure
ZCD and peers in dilemma analysis concerning autonomy
ZCD and peers in dilemma analysis concerning respect
ZCD and peers in dilemma analysis concerning trust
ZCD and peers in dilemma analysis concerning freedom
Freedom and culture
Freedom and Japanese occupation
ZCD and peers in dilemma analysis concerning tolerance
Peers help to resolve academic challenge
I: What facts?
I: What are facts?
Peers provide moral support and motivation in times of crisis
Peers learn to decide for themselves
Suggestions
Reprimand
Moral choices of my participants
Moral choices based on utilitarianism
Moral choices based on collaboration
Moral pluralism
Other observations based on moral orientation
10.1 Introduction
10.2 Students’ voices in their own reflections
10.2.1 Interesting
10.2.3 Meaningful
10.2.4 Reflective
11.1 Introduction
11.2 My reflections
11.3 Revisiting the thesis questions
11.4.1.1 Characteristics of a transformative ME curriculum
11.4.2 ME classroom
11.4.2.2 Teacher
11.4.2.4 Building a safe environment
11.5.1 Content
11.5.2 Pedagogy
11.5.3 Empowerment
Findings
11.5.4 Participation
Full Text
Published version (Free)

Talk to us

Join us for a 30 min session where you can share your feedback and ask us any queries you have

Schedule a call