Unsur ‘niat moral’ dalam teater forum : satu kajian tindakan di kelas Pendidikan Moral

Thambu Nadarajan, Shanmugavelu Ganesan,

QR Code Link :
Type :	article
Subject :	LB Theory and practice of education
ISSN :	2289-3180
Main Author :	Thambu Nadarajan, Shanmugavelu Ganesan,
Title :	Unsur ‘niat moral’ dalam teater forum : satu kajian tindakan di kelas Pendidikan Moral

Place of Production :	Universiti Pendidikan Sultan Idris
Year of Publication :	2016

Abstract :

Unsur niat moral (moral intent) dan hubungannya dengan tindakan bermoral (moral action), sering menjadi bahan kajian dalam kalangan ahli psikologi moral. Seseorang individu yang ingin bertindak secara bermoral, perlu: (i) mengenal pasti isu moral yang wujud dalam sesuatu situasi atau konflik yang dihadapi, (ii) memiliki kebolehan untuk mengambil tindakan yang betul dan paling baik dalam menangani konflik yang dihadapi, dan akhirnya (iii) berkeinginan serta berkebolehan untuk bertindak secara bermoral atas keputusan yang diambil, dalam menangani konflik yang dihadapi. Unsur yang dikatakan mendasari aspek kesedaran moral, keputusan moral dan tindakan moral ialah unsur niat moral. Justeru, artikel ini membincangkan hasil kajian tentang potensi Teater Forum sebagai pedagogi pengajaran dalam mencungkil unsur niat moral (moral intent) dalam kalangan murid-murid sekolah. Seramai 18 orang murid perempuan dan lelaki (tiga kumpulan berfokus) dari kelas Pendidikan Moral tingkatan empat telah digunakan untuk tujuan pengumpulan data. Teknik persampelan bertujuan digunakan untuk memilih peserta kajian. Protokol pemerhatian di bilik darjah, protokol temu bual dan panduan penulisan jurnal digunakan sebagai instrumen untuk mengumpul data secara kualitatif. Dapatan kajian menunjukkan Teater Forum mampu mencungkil unsur niat moral dalam kalangan peserta kajian. Unsur niat moral menjadi faktor ‘pendesak’ kepada aspek kesedaran moral, kemampuan untuk mengambil keputusan moral dan keinginan untuk bertindak secara bermoral dalam kalangan peserta kajian.

References

1. Applebaum, B. (1997). Good liberal intentions are not enough! Racism, intentions and moral responsibility. Journal of Moral Education, 26(4), 409-421. 2. Audi, R. (1993). Action, intention and reason. Ithaca: Cornell University Press. Babiak, P., & Hare, R.D. (2006). Snakes in suits: When psychopaths go to work. New York: Harper Collins. 3. Barnett, T. (2001). Dimensions of moral intensity and ethical decision making: An empirical study. Journal of Applied Social Psychology, 31, 1038–1057. 4. Boal, A. (2008). Theatre of the oppressed. London: Pluto Press. 5. Boeije, H. (2010). Analysis in qualitative research. Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage. 6. Bogdan, R.C., & Biklen, S.K. (2007). Qualitative research for education: An introduction to theories and methods. New York, NY: Pearson. 7. Braun, V., & Clarke, V. (2006). Using thematic analysis in psychology. Qualitative research psychology, 3, 77-101. 8. Chang, L.H. (2007, Jun). Moral reasoning of Malaysian adolescents. Kertas kerja yang dibentangkan di International Conference of Learning, Johannesburg, South Africa. 9. Chow, Y.L., & Jaizah Mahamud. (2011). Kajian tindakan: Konsep dan amalan dalam pendidikan. Puchong: Penerbitan Multimedia. 10. Cohen, P. R., & Levesque, H. J. (1990). Intention is choice with commitment. Artificial intelligence, 42(2), 213–261. 11. Corbin, J., & Strauss, A. (2008). Basics of qualitative research (3rd ed.). Thousand Oaks CA, Sage. 12. Fischer, J.M., & Ravizza, M. (Eds.) (1993). Perspectives on moral responsibility. Ithaca: Cornell University Press. 13. Frankfurt, H. (1971). Freedom of the will and the concept of a person. The Journal of Philosophy, 68, 5-20. 14. Hamid Reza Alavi. (2007). Al-Ghazali on moral education. Journal of Moral Education, 36(3), 309-319. 15. Hamlin, J.K. (2013). Failed attempts to help and harm: Intention versus outcome in preverbal infants’ social evaluations. Cognition, 128, 451-474. 16. Hanser, M. (2008). Reasons without rationalism. The Review of Metaphysics,61(4), 862-863. Retrieved 16 Disember, 2015 from http://search.proquest.com/docview/223464236 accountid=13155. 17. Heuer, U. (2004). Reasons for actions and desires. Philosophical Studies, 121(1), 43-63. Retrieved 7 January, 2016 from doi:http://dx.doi.org/10.1023/B:PHIL.0000040381.54358.08. 18. Hills, A. (2007). Intentions, foreseen consequences and the doctrine of double effect. Philosophical Studies, 133(2), 257-283. Retrive 16 Disember, 2015 from doi:http://dx.doi.org/10.1007/s11098-005-4603-4. 19. Kamm, F. M. (2004). Failures of just war theory: Terror, harm, and justice*. Ethics,114(4), 650-692. Retrieved 19 January, 2016 from http://search.proquest.com/docview/194401695 accountid=13155. 20. Kant, I. (1964). Groundwork on the metaphysics of morals (H. J. Paton, Terj.). New York, NY: Harper & Row. 21. Kementerian Pelajaran Malaysia. (2000). Sukatan Pelajaran Pendidikan Moral KBSM. Pusat Perkembangan Kurikulum. Kuala Lumpur: Dewan Bahasa dan Pustaka. 22. Kementerian Pelajaran Malaysia. (2004). Huraian Sukatan Pelajaran Pendidikan Moral KBSM Tingkatan Empat. Pusat Perkembangan Kurikulum. Kuala Lumpur: Dewan Bahasa dan Pustaka. 23. Kemmis, S., & McTaggart, R. (1988). The Action Research Planner. Geelong, Victoria, Australia: Deakin University Press. 24. Kenny, A. (1966). Intention and purpose. Journal of Philosophy, 63, 642-654. Lickona, T. (1996). Eleven principles of effective character education. Journal of Education, 25(1), 93-100. 25. Lippert-Rasmussen, K. (2010). Scanlon on the doctrine of double effect. Social Theory and Practice, 36(4), 541-564. Retrieved 6 Januari, 2016 from http://search.proquest.com/docview/792945046 accountid=13155. 26. Malle, B. F., & Knobe, J. (1997). The folk concept of intentionality. Journal of Experimental Social Psychology, 33(2), 101–121. 27. May, D., & Pauli, K. (2002).The role of moral intensity in ethical decision making. Business & Society, 41, 84–117. 28. MacIntyre, A. (1966). A short history of ethics. New York: MacMillan. 29. Pelan Pembangunan Pendidikan Malaysia 2013-2025. Diakses daripada www.moe.gov.my. 30. Rest, J. (1979). Development in judging moral issues. Minneapolis, MN: University of Minnesota Press. 31. Scanlon, T. (2008). Moral dimensions: Permissibility, meaning, blame. Cambridge, Mass: Harvard University Press. 32. Walen, A. (2006). The doctrine of illicit intentions. Philosophy and Public Affairs,34(1), 39-0_6. Retrieved 4 January, 2016 from http://search.proquest.com/docview/210966215?accountid=13155. 33. Whitehead, J., & McNiff, J. (2006). Action research living theory. London, UK:Sage. 34. Yuill, N. (1984). Young children’s coordination of motive and outcome in judgments of satisfaction and morality. The British Journal of Developmental Psychology, 2, 73–81. 35. Zelazo, P. D., Helwig, C. C., & Lau, A. (1996). Intention, act, and outcome in behavioral prediction and moral judgment. Child Development, 67, 2478–2492.

This material may be protected under Copyright Act which governs the making of photocopies or reproductions of copyrighted materials.
You may use the digitized material for private study, scholarship, or research.

Back to previous page