The Effect of Moral Judgement Learning Model for Generation Z Students
DOI:
https://doi.org/10.24203/ajas.v10i4.6904Keywords:
Moral Judgement, Learning Model, Generation ZAbstract
Education aims to create individuals who are broad-minded, skilled, and have good morals. For this reason, moral education is seen as necessary as the primary foundation in shaping a generation so that it can become a global society in the current era of the industrial revolution 4.0. In achieving the goals of moral education, various strategies are needed in the classroom so that the results achieved are by what is expected. This research is quasi-experimental research using a one-group pretest-posttest design. This study aimed to determine the effect of the moral judgment learning model on the learning outcomes of high school students (SMA) as Generation Z with unique characteristics. The research instrument used in a learning outcome test to collect data on the pretest and posttest. Furthermore, the data collected was analyzed quantitatively using SPSS version 22 software to obtain descriptive statistics, pair sample correlations, and sample T-tests. The results showed a significant positive difference in the use of the moral judgment model on the learning outcomes of high school students as Generation Z from the pretest and posttest sessions.
References
Seemiller C, Grace M. Generation Z Goes to College. San fransisco: Jossey-Bass; 2016.
Green DD, McCann J. The Coronavirus Effect: How to Engage Generation Z for Greater Student Outcomes. Management and Economics Research Journal. 2021;7(1):1–7.
Therrel JA, Dunneback SK. Millenial perspectives and priorities. Journal of the Scholarship of Teaching and Learning. 2015;15(5):49–63.
Miller AC, Mills B. ‘If they don’t care, i don’t care’: Millennial and generation Z students and the impact of faculty caring. Journal of the Scholarship of Teaching and Learning. 2019;19(4):78–89.
Helaluddin H, Wijaya H, Guntur M, Zulfah Z, Syawal S. Digital Immigrants Versus Digital Natives: A Systematic Literature Review of The “Ideal Teacher” in Disruptive Era. In: Borderless Education as a Challenge in the 50 Society: Proceedings of the 3rd International Conference on Educational Sciences (ICES 2019), November 7, 2019, Bandung, Indonesia. Yogyakarta, Indonesia: CRC Press/Taylor & Francis Group; 2020. p. 212–8.
Uygarer R, Uzunboylu H, Ozdamli F. A Piece of Qualitative Study about Digital Natives. Anthropologist. 2016;24(2):623–9.
Creighton T. Digital natives, digital immigrants, digital learners: An international empirical integrative review of the literature. Education Leadership Review. 2018;19(1):132–40.
Kanzal VR, Shubikshalakshmi G, Goswami L. Moral education: Current values in students and teachers effectiveness in inculcating moral values in students. The International Journal of Indian Psychology. 2016;4(1):174–87.
Arismunandar A. Transformasi manajemen pendidikan di era global. In: Seminar Nasional Penguatan Kepemimpinan dan Manajemen, Literasi Teknologi Informasi, dan Pendidikan Karakter di Era Global. Bengkulu: Universitas Bengkulu; 2017.
Gao D, Wang D. Rethinking “basic issues” in moral education. ECNU Review of Education. 2020;1–20.
Zhang T. Problems of moral education in China’s schools and solutions. Sociology Study. 2017;7(6):325–30.
Shumeiko T, Ismagulova G, Balzhanova A, Shalgimbekova A, Baikenova R. Moral education of students of pedagogical higher educational institution. Mediterranean Journal of Social Sciences. 2015;6(5):62–8.
Kumar C R S. Moral Judgment of B.Ed Student Teachers in Relation To Their Social Maturity. International Journal of Research-GRANTHAALAYAH. 2017;5(9):250–65.
Susilawati S. Pengaruh penggunaan metode pembelajaran moral dan tingkat religiusitas terhadap peningkatan pertimbangan moral. Edcomtech: Jurnal Kajian Teknologi Pendidikan. 2017;2(1):89–100.
Prihandoko Y, Wasitohadi W. Efektivitas pembelajaran berbasis kognitif moral melalui model value clarification technique (VCT) ditinjau dari hasil belajar PKn dengan mempertimbangkan moral judgement. Satya Widya. 2015;31(1):17–31.
Wiseza FC, Novriani N. Pengaruh pengetahuan agama dan pertimbangan moral terhadap agresivitas siswa MAN Kabupaten Bungo. Nur El-Islam. 2018;5(2):79–99.
Darmadi D. Kemampuan dasar mengajar. Bandung, Indonesia: Alfabeta; 2012.
Sarbaini S. Model pembelajaran berbasis kognitif moral: Dari teori ke aplikasi. Yogyakarta, Indonesia: Aswaja Pressindo; 2012.
Dettmer P. New blooms in established fields: Four domains of learning and doing. Roeper Review. 2015;28(2).
Barrouillet P. Theories of cognitive development: From piaget to today. Developmental Review. 2015;38(1):1–12.
Suparno P. Teori perkembangan kognitif Jean Peaget. Yogyakarta, Indonesia: Kanisius; 2001.
Ivan C-E. On Disgust and Moral Judgments: A Review. Journal of European Psychology Students. 2015;6(1):25–36.
Zuriah N. Pendidikan moral dan budi pekerti dalam perspektif perubahan: Manggagas platform pendidikan budi pekerti secara kontekstual dan futuristik. Jakarta, Indonesia: Bumi Aksara; 2011.
Turner A. Generation Z: Technology and Social Interest. The Journal of Individual Psychology. 2015;71(2):103–12.
Rosenberry-McKibbin C. NoGeneration Z Rising. ASHA Leader. 2017;22(12):36–8.
Khan IA, Bansal V. Effect of Using PC Tablets on Perceived Learning Outcomes of Generation Z Trainees. International Journal of Learning and Development. 2018;8(1):21–36.
Palfrey J, Gasser V. Born Digital: Understanding The Fisrt Generation of Digital natives. New York: Basic Books; 2013.
Helaluddin H, Tulak H, Rante SVN. Strategi Pembelajaran Bahasa bagi Generasi Z: Sebuah Tinjauan Sistematis. JPE (Jurnal Pendidikan Edutama). 2019;6(2):31–46.
Cilliers EJ. The Challenge of Teaching Generation Z. PEOPLE: International Journal of Social Sciences. 2017;3(1):188–98.
Purcell MA. Teaching PSC to Gen Z. Journal of Political Science Education. 2019;1–9.
Popescu D, Popa DM, Cotet BG. Getting ready for Generation Z students-considerations on 3D printing curriculum. Propósitos y Representaciones. 2019;7(2):240–68.
Hampton DC, Keys Y. Generation Z Students: Will They Change Our Nursing Classrooms? Journal of Nursing Education and Practice. 2016;7(4):111–5.
Bencsik A, Juhász T, Horváth-Csikós G. Y and Z Generations at Workplaces. Journal of Competitiveness. 2016;8(3):90–106.
Kohlberg L. Tahap-tahap perkembangan moral. Yogyakarta, Indonesia: Kanisius; 1995.
Santrock JW. Lifelong development. Ankara: Nobel; 2011.
Francis KB, Howard C, Howard IS, Gummerum M, Ganis G, Anderson G, et al. Virtual Morality: Transitioning from Moral Judgment to Moral Action? PLoS ONE. 2016;11(10):1–22.
Barrett HC, Bolyanatz A, Crittenden AN, Fessler DM, Fitzpatrick S, Gurven M. Small-scale Societies Exhibit Fundamental Variation in The Role of Intentions in Moral Judgement. In: Preceding of The National Academy of Sciences. 2016. p. 4688–93.
McNamara RA, Willard AK, Norenzayan A, Henrich J. Weighny out-game vs. intent across societies: How culture models of mind shape moral reasoning. Cognition. 2019;182:95–108.
Kohlberg L. Essays on moral development: The Phsychology of moral development. San fransisco: Harper & Row Publisher; 1984.
Andrejevic M, Feuerriegel D, Turner W, Laham S, Bode S. Moral judgements of fairness-related actions are flexibly updated to account for contextual information. Scientific Reports. 2020;10(1):1–17.
Kupfer TR, Inbar Y, Tybur JM. Reexamining the role of intent in moral judgements of purity violations. Journal of Experimental Social Psychology. 2020;91(July):1–8.
Greene JD, Haidt J. How (and Where) Does Moral Judgement Work? Trends Cognition Science. 2021;6:517–23.
Santrock JW. Kife-span development. New York: The McGraw-Hill; 2010.
Gabidullina F, Akhatova Z, Karimova I, Glukhova O, Zakirov R. Ethical Dissussions in the National Literature as A Form of Moral Education of The Students. Journal of Social Studies Education Research. 2018;9(2):295–305.
Malle BF. Moral Judgments. The Annual Reviews of psychology. 2020;12(12):1–26.
Abualait T, Bashir S. Moral judgment is important in COVID-19 pandemic. Journal of Infection in Developing Countries. 2021;15(5):615–7.
Iwasa N. Children’s everyday experience as a focus moral education. Journal of Moral Education. 2017;46(1):1–11.
Tsoi L, Dungan JA, Chakroff A, Young LL. Neural Substrates for Moral Judgements of Psychological Versus Psysical Harm. Social Cognitive and Affective Neuroscience. 2018;13(5):460–70.
Chakroff A, Russell PS, Piazza J, Young LL. From Impure to Harmful: Asymmetric Expectations about Immoral Agents. Journal of Experimental Social Psychology. 2017;69:201–9.
Sweetman J, Newman GA. Replicating Different Roles of Intent Across Moral Domains. Royal Society Open Science. 2020;7(5).
FeldmanHall O, Mobbs D, Evans D, Hiscox L, Navrady L, Dalgleish T. What We Say and What We Do: The Relationship between Real and Hypothetical Moral Choices. Cognition. 2012;123(3):434–41.
Kolsto SD. Science Education for Democratic Citizenship through The Use of The History of Science. Science and Education. 2008;17:977–97.
Keskin Samancı N. A study on the link between moral judgment competences and critical thinking skills. International Journal of Environmental and Science Education. 2015;10(2):135–43.
Demir B, Sonmez G. Generation Z students’ expectations from english language instruction. Journal of Language and Linguistic Studies. 2021;17(1):683–701.
Polakova P, Klimova B. Mobile technology and generation Z in the English language classroom –A preliminary study. Education Sciences. 2019;9(3):1–11.
Ariker C, Toksoy A. Generation Z and CSR: antecedents of purchasing intention of university students. KAUJEASF. 2017;8(16):483–502.
Otieno JO, Nyambegera SM. Millennials and generation Z employees are here : Is your organization ready ? Journal of Language, Technology & Entrepreneurship in Africa. 2019;10(2):68–85.
Anealka AH. Education 4.0 made simple: Ideas for teaching. International Journal of Education & Literacy Studies. 2017;6(3):92–8.
Hernandez-de-Menendez M, Escobar Díaz CA, Morales-Menendez R. Educational experiences with generation Z. International Journal on Interactive Design and Manufacturing. 2020;14(3):847–59.
Downloads
Published
Issue
Section
License
Copyright (c) 2022 Harmelia Tulak, Arismunandar, Sulaiman Samad
This work is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution-NonCommercial 4.0 International License.
- Papers must be submitted on the understanding that they have not been published elsewhere (except in the form of an abstract or as part of a published lecture, review, or thesis) and are not currently under consideration by another journal published by any other publisher.
- It is also the authors responsibility to ensure that the articles emanating from a particular source are submitted with the necessary approval.
- The authors warrant that the paper is original and that he/she is the author of the paper, except for material that is clearly identified as to its original source, with permission notices from the copyright owners where required.
- The authors ensure that all the references carefully and they are accurate in the text as well as in the list of references (and vice versa).
- Authors retain copyright and grant the journal right of first publication with the work simultaneously licensed under a Attribution-NonCommercial 4.0 International that allows others to share the work with an acknowledgement of the work's authorship and initial publication in this journal.
- Authors are able to enter into separate, additional contractual arrangements for the non-exclusive distribution of the journal's published version of the work (e.g., post it to an institutional repository or publish it in a book), with an acknowledgement of its initial publication in this journal.
- Authors are permitted and encouraged to post their work online (e.g., in institutional repositories or on their website) prior to and during the submission process, as it can lead to productive exchanges, as well as earlier and greater citation of published work (See The Effect of Open Access).
- The journal/publisher is not responsible for subsequent uses of the work. It is the author's responsibility to bring an infringement action if so desired by the author.
