Moral development and student

motivation in moral education:

A Singapore study Caroline Koh
Nanyang Technological University, Singapore

R
ecent world events such as the threat of terrorism and the global economic
crises have rekindled an interest in ethics and values education. This study,
conducted in Singapore, combines a Kohlbergian approach to the assessment
of moral judgement with a framework based on the self-determination theory to
assess the motivational regulations of adolescent students towards civics and moral
education (CME). The findings show that the Singaporean students’ development of
moral reasoning follows the trend prescribed for their age groups in Kohlberg’s
theory.With regard to their motivation in CME, students showed a moderate degree
of autonomous motivation, although the correlations between moral development
stage and motivation in CME were low.

Introduction

Moral education across contexts

The past decade has seen a revived interest in moral education (Melé, 2005; Park &
Peterson, 2006; Wringe, 2006), prompted by a perceived global malaise resulting,
firstly, from the surge in criminal and deviant behaviour in modern societies
(Arjoon, 2005; Turiel, 2002) and, secondly, from a series of highly publicised
violations of ethical conduct in diverse arenas. Shooting incidents in US institutions,
such as those at Columbine High School in 1999,Virginia Polytechnic Institute and
State University in 2007 and Northern Illinois University in 2008, led to an
accrued sense of urgency among authorities about the need to deal with the
problems they revealed. Although it took tragedies of this magnitude to galvanise
politicians and administrators into action, those who deal intimately with the young
perpetrators of crime are well aware of the long-standing problems within school
walls and beyond. For example, the vast literature on bullying in schools attests to
the pervasiveness and depth of the problem (Espelage & Swearer, 2003; Garandeau
& Cillessen, 2006; Olweus, 2003; Rigby, 2004; Smith, 2000). Another indication of
the urgent need to reconsider the issue of morality in schools is the growing
problem of academic dishonesty amongst students and across institutions. Many
authors have deplored the numerous incidences of plagiarism and cheating within
academic communities (Embleton & Helfer, 2007; Ferrari, 2005; Saunders, 1993;
Simon et al., 2004).

Australian Journal of Education, Vol. 56, No. 1, 2012, 83–101 83

Downloaded from aed.sagepub.com at Universitas Gadjah Mada on August 30, 2015
 The inculcation of moral values through education is, in itself, a controversial
subject. The way in which moral education is conducted varies from country to
country and from school to school. In democratic societies mindful of imposing
unwanted beliefs on others, teacher educators face the dilemma of whether moral
education should be inculcated implicitly within the hidden curriculum of the
school or formally and explicitly positioned in the taught curriculum (Narvaez &
Lapsley, 2008). With classrooms increasingly reflecting the pluralistic societies they
support, there is a constant debate as to what to teach if an inclusive approach is to
be adopted in the implementation of a moral education curriculum (Brimi, 2009).
Nevertheless, societies at large expect their citizens to behave morally and, despite
reservations about the teaching of morality, more schools in the USA have
incorporated character education in their programs (Narvaez & Lapsley, 2008). But
the literature shows that, in contexts such as the USA, there has been a general
reluctance on the part of both teachers and students to engage in morality
discussions or related programs. One contributing factor was that students often
failed to take moral education programs seriously, dismissing them as
oversimplifications and misrepresentations of real-life issues and character traits
(Brimi, 2009; Romanowsky, 2003). Teachers, on the other hand, were generally ill
prepared for the task (Narvaez & Lapsley, 2008) and were wary of imposing beliefs
on reluctant students. In India, a country steeped in tradition and culture, this
problem seems to have been averted through the adoption of an informal approach
in fostering values in the child. It is perceived, even within the school community,
that the family and the society play a greater role in promoting values than the
school. Teachers there thus tend to favour informal approaches to values education,
such as role-modelling, setting good examples and creating a positive and
harmonious environment (Sharma & Mohite, 2007).
In China, moral education comes under the purview of citizenship education,
collectively known as Deyu in Chinese, which denotes moral, political and
ideological education. Since the turn of the century, the Deyu curriculum has
undergone reform to cater to the needs of the people and the recent challenges
encountered with the advent of the open-door policy and the ensuing socio-
economic changes (Zhao & Tan, 2007). The focus is now on moral development
through learning and life experiences, rather than compliance to social and political
mandates through indoctrination (Qi & Tang, 2004). Elsewhere, in the African
continent, Nigeria (Iheoma, 1985) and Botswana (Matemba, 2010) are two
countries that have, over the years, successfully established moral education as a
secularised and independent subject with a curriculum specially designed on the
basis of universal principles rather than religious or personal beliefs. This was in line
with the current sociocultural context and needs of the African citizen. In Botswana,
for example, the grounds for success lie in having moral education taught as a core
subject separate from religious education, giving it the emphasis it deserves but
rarely obtains. Time and effort were invested in the careful crafting of the moral
education syllabus, the design of the course, the preparation of new teaching
resources and texts, and providing training to equip teachers with the competencies
to teach the subject. In Matemba’s words, ‘a secular approach to ME (moral

84 Australian Journal of Education

Downloaded from aed.sagepub.com at Universitas Gadjah Mada on August 30, 2015
education) has on the whole been lauded’ and ‘in a religiously and culturally
pluralistic society seems to be a fairer option’ (p. 340).
Recent developments in the implementation of moral education across
nations suggest that changes are taking place in people’s perceptions of moral
education and how it should be ‘taught’ in schools. In Singapore, where this study
was conducted, the Ministry of Education has established a comprehensive civics
and moral education (CME) program that aims to equip students with appropriate
competencies and value systems that will enable them to face 21st-century
challenges and conflicts. To provide the context of this study, the Singapore
education system and CME curriculum are described below.

The Singapore education system and CME curriculum

The Singapore education system

In Singapore, formal education starts with a six-year primary or elementary school
program, culminating in the pupils’ participation in the Primary School Leaving
Examination (PSLE). The performance of a student in the PSLE determines his or
her eligibility for placement in the courses offered at secondary (high school) level.
At post-secondary level, the top 25 to 30% of the secondary school graduates are
offered a two-year course in the junior colleges, which prepares them for university
education. A number of privately funded independent schools offer a six-year
program that combines secondary and junior college education. Students who
prefer practice-based, skills-training courses may also undertake post-secondary
studies in the polytechnics or the Institute of Technical Education.

The CME curriculum

The CME curriculum focuses on nurturing both moral and character development,
and active citizenship. The curriculum covers five broad themes (Self, Family,
School, Society, Nation and the World) as the students progress from primary to
secondary school and finally to the two-year pre-university levels. In addition, the
syllabus focuses on nurturing a set of core values (for example, respect, responsibility,
integrity, care, resilience and harmony).
In the CME program (Curriculum Planning and Development Division,
2006), teachers are encouraged to use a variety of strategies to assist students’
internalisation of values and the development of competencies enabling effective
moral functioning. According to Rest (1983) and his co-workers (Narvaez & Rest,
1995), moral functioning consists of four components: moral judgement, moral
sensitivity, moral motivation and moral action. In the classroom, teachers may
choose to nurture these attributes through the processes of perspective taking,
storytelling, cultural transmission, moral dilemmas, responsible decision-making,
service learning and community involvement.
In perspective taking, teachers create opportunities for students to put
themselves in the shoes of others, to understand other people’s viewpoints and
feelings, and to predict how their behaviour may have an impact on others. This is
a strategy to promote altruism and empathy, and to develop both moral cognition

Moral development and student motivation in moral education 85

Downloaded from aed.sagepub.com at Universitas Gadjah Mada on August 30, 2015
and moral affect. Storytelling is particularly effective for the development of
personal beliefs through narratives and the identification and clarification of values.
Cultural transmission is especially valuable in a pluralistic society as it allows socially
desirable cultural values to be nurtured. Students are encouraged to share their
cultural practices and traditions, hence promoting an ethos of tolerance and respect.
Values transmission is thus not limited to a vertical transfer from one generation to
the next within a particular culture, but it can also occur across cultures, providing
the individual with the opportunity to experience a plurality of values.
In teaching students to make sound moral judgements, some teachers make
use of moral dilemmas to engage students in moral reasoning. Likewise, students are
taught responsible decision-making, whereby they learn to consider and assess all
relevant factors, alternatives and risks before deciding on a course of action, and to
take responsibility for their own choices and behaviour. Community involvement
and service learning programs are highly effective platforms for students to
demonstrate moral motivation and moral action. Community involvement
programs allow students to contribute on a voluntary basis to the welfare of others
and service learning presents opportunities for experiential learning through the
practice of moral values, moral judgement and moral sensitivity.
Although there is one common curriculum for CME established by the
Ministry of Education, the schools are given the flexibility to use their own
resources and strategies to implement the CME program. The participants in this
study would thus have gone through diverse experiences in CME through their
schooling years.

Study aims
Despite the comprehensive framework in place, there is little published research on
the impact of the CME curriculum on students’ moral functioning. The aim of this
study is to investigate the development of students’ moral reasoning and their
motivation with regard to the CME program. The uniqueness of this study lies in
the use of a universally known theoretical framework for moral reasoning in
conjunction with a current, empirically well-supported model to investigate moral
motivation. Kohlberg’s theory of moral development serves as the basis for the
assessment of students’ moral judgement, and the self-determination theory as the
framework for assessing students’ motivation in CME. Although researchers have
used the self-determination theory in a variety of contexts including academic
performance (Black & Deci, 2000; Deci & Ryan, 1991), health care (Williams &
Deci, 1998), sports and exercise (Ryan & Deci, 2007), psychotherapy (Ryan & Deci,
2008), politics (Losier, Perreault, Koestner & Vallerand, 2001), religion (Neyrinck,
Vansteenkiste, Lens, Hutsebaut & Duriez, 2006) and prosocial engagement (Ryan &
Connell, 1989), the application of the self-determination theory model in moral
and values education has yet to be explored. The current study aims to contribute
to existing research in the domain of moral development, moral education and
motivation.

86 Australian Journal of Education

Downloaded from aed.sagepub.com at Universitas Gadjah Mada on August 30, 2015
Models of moral development and motivation

Kohlberg’s theory of moral reasoning

Kohlberg’s (1958) theory of development of moral judgement was put forth to deal
with one of his central concerns: ‘How does man become moral?’ Kohlberg’s
framework consists of six stages of moral reasoning, grouped into three developmental
levels:
• pre-conventional (stages 1 and 2)
• conventional (stages 3 and 4)
• post-conventional (stages 5 and 6).
The pre-conventional level, observable in infancy and early childhood, describes
moral judgement based on physical consequences affecting self, such as avoidance
of punishment or pursuit of reward (Stage 1) or reciprocity of interests (Stage 2). At
the conventional level, attained during late childhood and extending through
adolescence and adulthood, the focus of moral reasoning turns to what benefits
others and is expected and approved by them (Stage 3), as well as adherence to
societal rules and laws (Stage 4). At the post-conventional level, moral reasoning
goes beyond the dictum of authority to one based on social contract orientation
(Stage 5). Here, a democratic stance is adopted for decision-making, with the
objective of achieving the greatest good for the majority or for society. The highest
stage (Stage 6) of moral development involves the deployment of universal
principles in decision-making, regardless of personal sacrifice. Kohlberg claimed
that the stages are hierarchical and irreversible, although not all individuals can
attain the highest stages.
Though highly acclaimed, Kohlberg’s ideas have been criticised by other
researchers on a number of issues, such as supporting a Western, scholarly, male-
oriented view of morality, while disregarding the understanding of morality in
terms of working class, rural and global contexts; ignoring the female perception of
morality based on a culture of care and community (Gilligan, 1982); an over-
reliance on hypothetical situations rather than real-life contexts; excessive emphasis
on the cognitive perspective at the expense of the affective and the practical aspects
(Turiel, 2008). Recently, a number of researchers have expressed concerns about the
relevance of his model in the context of 21st-century, postmodern cultures. For
example, Lapsley and Hill (2008) claimed that the model’s rejection of ethical
relativism, based on its Kantian ethical roots, has isolated ‘moral development
research from advances in other domains of psychological study’ (p. 315), of which
they gave examples such as research on personality and self, moral disposition and
moral affect. Furthermore, these authors argued that the model subscribes to
phenomenalism, whereby moral behaviour is deemed to arise from the conscious
intent and subjective perspectives of the individual, rather than any form of
spontaneous, impulsive and automatic cognitive processes.
That the Kohlbergian model is anti-relativistic yet phenomenalistic may seem
paradoxical, yet we need to bear in mind that these positions refer to two distinct
processes. Whereas Kohlberg’s underlying philosophical tradition was based on a

Moral development and student motivation in moral education 87

Downloaded from aed.sagepub.com at Universitas Gadjah Mada on August 30, 2015
universal ethical morality as opposed to relativism, the phenomenalistic aspect of his
work referred mostly to his empirical approach to research, whereby data comprising
agent views and perceived choices were used as evidence in support of the
theoretical model.
In addition, it has been argued over decades that Kohlberg’s model does little
to bridge the gap between moral judgement and moral action, or what Reed and
Stoermer (2008, p. 421) referred to as the ‘judgement-action gap’, the oft-observed
disparity between what one considers to be the right course of action in a particular
situation and how one actually behaves in that situation. Blasi (1995, 1999)
attempted to solve this long-standing problem with his moral personhood model,
which suggests that those endowed with the whole moral psychological package
are likely to display greater maturity in moral judgement and moral personality. But
Blasi did not provide a framework for investigating his model, which, though
appealing, still lacks empirical support.
Other authors have also highlighted problems within the tenets of the neo-
Kohlbergian approach and have thus argued for the establishment of a new, post-
Kohlbergian paradigm. For example, Krebs and Denton (2005) proposed a
framework that is more aligned to engagement in moral behaviours, which are,
according to the authors, predominantly utilitarian and focused on goal achievement.
More recently, Reed and Stoermer (2008, p. 418) called for a single, comprehensive
‘integrated model of moral functioning’, one that would ‘integrate accounts from
multiple levels of analysis of organ system, organism and organised group
functioning’. Lapsley and Hill (2008, pp. 315–16), on their part, proposed a ‘dual-
processing’ model that ‘articulates both the deliberative and automatic processes that
underlie moral behaviour’. The call for a new paradigm of moral functioning set
forth a flurry of suggestions as to what the model should reflect. For example, Kim
and Sankey (2009, p. 283) proposed a dynamic systems approach, whereby each
child is viewed as ‘an emergent self-organising organism in which development is
highly variable, dynamic and often non-linear’, as opposed to the prescriptive stages
in Kohlberg’s model. Gibbs, Moshman, Berkowitz, Basinger and Grime (2009), on
the other hand, cautioned against downplaying Kohlberg’s ethical universalism in
favour of overt moral relativism. These authors argued that the new model should
build upon (rather than replace) Kohlberg’s ‘key concept of development as the
construction of a deeper or more adequate understanding not reducible to particular
socialisation practices or cultural contexts’ (Gibbs et al., 2009, p. 271).
The debates outlined above indicate that the road towards any proposed new
paradigm of moral functioning is likely to be long, arduous and embedded with
substantive conceptual disputes. Though participants in the discourse showed
enthusiasm in voicing their conceptions of the new model, their proposals, like
Blasi’s, did not explicitly delineate empirical frameworks with which to test them.
Reed (2009) commented that ‘we are years, perhaps decades, away from a completed
multi-level model, even in first draft’ (p. 299). Thus, despite the many claims that it
is flawed and dated in certain aspects, Kohlberg’s model was chosen for the current
study in view of the fact that it probably offers one of the most extensively and

88 Australian Journal of Education

Downloaded from aed.sagepub.com at Universitas Gadjah Mada on August 30, 2015
thoroughly researched (Gibbs, Basinger, Grime & Snarey, 2007; Snarey, 1985)
paradigms in the field.

Self-determination theory
Self-determination theory (Deci & Ryan, 1985, 1991, 2000) was chosen for the
study of motivation in CME, as it provides a comprehensive treatment of students’
motivation in a given field. This framework posits that three main levels of
motivation can be established:
• amotivation (when there is no motivation)
• extrinsic motivation (when behaviour is prompted by external agents)
• intrinsic motivation (when behaviour is initiated by internal factors, such as
personal interest and enjoyment).
Recently, the focus of motivational research has primarily been on the attainment
of intrinsic motivation, considered as the driving force for enhancing learning and
performance (Ryan & Deci, 2000). Whereas intrinsic motivation is essentially a
one-dimensional construct, self-determination theory views extrinsic motivation as
a continuum of increasingly self-determined behaviours (Ryan & Deci, 2000),
ranging from the most highly controlled external regulation through the ego-
oriented introjected regulation to the more autonomous identified regulation. In
external regulation, behaviour is essentially controlled by external means such as
punishment, rewards or higher authority. Introjected regulation involves behaviour
being prompted by the need for guilt avoidance or ego enhancement. Identified
regulation describes behaviour resulting from sufficient importance or value being
ascribed to a task or a course of action.

Research questions
This study attempts to build on the contributions of researchers in both moral
development and education, adding to the growing global literature in this field. It
explores the development of moral reasoning and motivation in CME amongst
Singaporean students. In addition, the findings of this study will provide moral
educators with insights on the issues to be considered when implementing new
teaching and learning approaches. The research questions are as follows:
• what are the stages of moral reasoning attained by Singaporean students aged 13
to 17 years?
• to what extent does the development of moral reasoning of the male participants
differ from that of their female counterparts?
• what are students’ motivational regulations in relation to the CME program
conducted in schools?
• are there correlations between the development of moral judgement and
motivation in moral education?

Moral development and student motivation in moral education 89

Downloaded from aed.sagepub.com at Universitas Gadjah Mada on August 30, 2015
Methods
The study was conducted in two phases: the first was to establish the development
of moral reasoning in students and the second was to investigate the motivation of
the students in CME.

Phase 1—the development of moral reasoning

This phase involved the assessment of students’ development of moral reasoning
across three age groups, followed by an investigation into any gender differences in
the outcomes.
Participants. Phase 1 of the study involved the participation of a total of 183
students from three different levels of schooling: Secondary 1 (Year 7), Secondary 3
(Year 9) and first-year junior college (Year 11). The total enrolment for Secondary
1, Secondary 3 and first-year junior college is about 120 000 for the entire country
(Ministry of Education, 2009). According to the Raosoft sample size calculator
(Raosoft, n.d.), a sample of this size should estimate percentages with a 7% margin
of error (the 95% confidence level, assuming a 50% response distribution). The
students were from a government-funded state secondary school and a government-
aided junior college.The Secondary 1 sample consisted of 60 students (29 males and
31 females) from a state secondary school. The mean age of the students was 13
years. The Secondary 3 sample comprised 67 students (35 males and 32 females) of
mean age 15 years. The junior college sample comprised 56 students (26 males and
30 females), of mean age 17 years.
Survey procedure. The survey items were adapted from Kohlberg’s moral
judgement interview (Kohlberg, 1958). The current study used the written form of
the interview, whereby the interview questions were compiled into a survey that
was given to the participants in their respective schools. The student participants
were instructed to respond to the questions in writing. This method was chosen in
lieu of oral interviews as it facilitated the collection of data from a larger number
of subjects and in a shorter time. The students were given assurance that their
responses would be treated with confidentiality and were informed that there was
no right or wrong answer to the questions. They were encouraged to respond
honestly and to seek clarifications from the survey administrators if necessary.
Survey analysis. This study made use of Form A of the moral judgement
interview, which presents three scenarios on the issues of life versus law (Heinz
dilemma), morality and conscience versus punishment (Judge’s dilemma), contract
versus authority (Joe’s dilemma). In each of these scenarios, the survey participant
encounters a moral dilemma, a conflict between two moral issues. The participant’s
responses to the moral judgement interview items thus reflect his or her moral
reasoning, which is then translated into an issue stage score.
The standard issue scoring procedure (Colby & Kohlberg, 1987, 1987b) was
used for the scoring and analysis of the participants’ responses. The survey responses
were first broken down into discrete judgements, which were then compared with
the criterion judgements depicted in the standard issue scoring manual. By
matching the survey judgements with the criterion judgements, stage scores were
then allocated first at the issue level and, secondly, at the global (overall) level. Thus,

90 Australian Journal of Education

Downloaded from aed.sagepub.com at Universitas Gadjah Mada on August 30, 2015
the scorer’s first task was to determine the issue chosen by a survey participant for
a particular dilemma. For example, a participant’s response could belong to either
the life or the law issue in Heinz dilemma. Each of the respondent’s answers was
then matched with the corresponding criterion judgement and allocated the
relevant stage score in accordance to the guidelines of the standard issues scoring
manual. The stages were designated as ‘pure’ (stages 1, 2, 3, 4, 5), or transitional (e.g.
1.2, 2.3 and so on) if the survey participant demonstrated moral judgements
corresponding to more than one moral stage.When the scoring had been completed
for all the responses for the three dilemmas, the stage score for each issue was
calculated using the method prescribed in the standard issue scoring guide. In turn,
the data on the issue scores were further processed to give the overall, global stage
score for the survey participant. The participants’ global stage scores were then used
for further statistical analysis.
Phase 2—student motivation in CME
This phase involved the assessment of the participants’ stages of moral judgement
and their motivational regulations towards CME.
Participants. A total of 62 students (30 males and 32 females) from three
government-funded secondary schools were involved in this phase. The mean age
of these participants was 13 years. The student sample in this phase was different
from that used in Phase 1. Although a higher number of participants was originally
targeted, complete data were only obtained from the extant sample.
Assessing moral judgement. The assessment of moral judgement was conducted
using the same procedure and survey items used in Phase 1.
Assessing motivation in CME. A 17-item survey was conducted to explore
students’ perceived motivation towards CME. Five-point Likert-type items were
used, coded from 1 (strongly disagree) to 5 (strongly agree) for item scoring. The
survey items—corresponding to five subscales (amotivation, external regulation,
introjected regulation, identified regulation and intrinsic motivation)—were
adapted from established instruments that were used and validated by other
researchers.To measure amotivation (the lack of any inclination toward CME), three
survey items were adapted from the academic motivation scale (Vallerand et al.,
1992). In addition, 14 survey items from the academic self-regulation questionnaire
(Ryan & Connell, 1989) were adapted for the measurement of motivational
regulations.

Table 1 Examples of survey items for motivational regulations in CME

Motivational regulation Examples of survey items

Amotivation I find moral education lessons boring
External regulation I attend moral education lessons because my teacher will be angry
with me if I don’t
Introjected regulation I feel guilty if I don’t attend moral education lessons
Identified regulation I attend moral education lessons because I feel it is in my best
interests to acquire moral values
Intrinsic regulation I enjoy moral education lessons

Moral development and student motivation in moral education 91

Downloaded from aed.sagepub.com at Universitas Gadjah Mada on August 30, 2015
The items included a list of students’ views on moral education and possible reasons
for attending CME lessons in school. The extent to which a student agreed with
the statements thus reflected the different motivational regulations. Table 1 shows
examples of survey items for each of the motivational regulations.

Results
Phase 1
Figure 1 presents the proportion of students from each of the three age groups at
different stages of moral reasoning. The data show the number of students at the
different stages, measured in terms of global scores. In the chart, a pure stage is
denoted by a single digit, whereas a transitional stage is represented by a double or
triple digit figure. For example, a transition between Stages 1 and 2 is denoted as
1.2. The highest number of students (irrespective of age and course level) was at
Stage 3. For the Secondary 1 (SEC1) level, the highest numbers of students were at
Stage 1.3 (23.3%), Stage 2.3 (18.3%) and Stage 3 (25%). For the Secondary 3
(SEC3) level, the stages with the highest numbers were Stage 1.3 (11.9%), Stage 2.3
(23.9%) and Stage 3 (38.8%). Finally, for the junior college level (JC), the highest
numbers were recorded at Stage 3 (41.1%) and Stage 3.4 (41.1%). Only 5% of the
students reached levels higher than Stage 3.

70

60
SEC1 SEC3 JC
Number of students

50

40

30

20

10

0
1 1.2 1.2.3 1.3 1.3.4 1.4 2 2.3 2.3.4 2.4 3 3.4 4 4.5
Stages of development

Figure1 Distribution of students at the various stages of moral development

Analysis of variance (ANOVA) was conducted for the analysis of differences in
global stage scores between the three groups of students (Sec1, Sec3 and JC) and
between genders (males and females within each group). Statistically significant
differences were found, F (5, 177) = 6.827; p <0.01. Post hoc comparisons using
the Tukey HSD test showed no significant differences (p > 0.05) between males and
females within each group (for example, between Sec1 males and females), in
terms of their global stages. Likewise, there were no significant differences between
the stage scores of Sec1 students and those of their Sec3 counterparts.

92 Australian Journal of Education

Downloaded from aed.sagepub.com at Universitas Gadjah Mada on August 30, 2015
But statistically significant differences (p < 0.05) were found when comparing the
Sec1 with the JC students and the JC female students with each of the Sec1 and
Sec3 students.

Phase 2
Table 2 shows the means and standard deviations for the students’ moral judgement
stages, and perceived motivational regulations in CME.

Table 2 Descriptive statistics for moral judgement stage and motivation

regulations in CME

n Mean Standard deviation

Age 62 13.27 0.68
Moral judgement stage 62 2.78 0.37
Amotivation 62 2.05 0.80
External regulation 62 2.75 0.96
Introjected regulation 62 2.95 0.80
Intrinsic motivation 62 3.45 0.77
Identified regulation 62 3.72 0.77

In Phase 2, the mean score for moral judgement stage of the 62 participants was
2.78, suggesting that the students were generally in transition between the pre-
conventional (Stage 2) and conventional (Stage 3) stages. The reliabilities of the
subscales for the survey on motivational regulations were within the acceptable
range (Cronbach’s alpha >0.7 for each subscale). In the survey on students’
motivational regulations towards CME, mean scores above 3 were deemed indicative
of high autonomous motivation, those between 2 and 3 were considered moderate
and those below or equal to 2 were considered to be low. The mean scores obtained
for the participants were in the moderate range for all motivational regulations,
except amotivation, for which the mean score was low.
From highest to lowest, the mean scores ranked as follows: identified regulation,
intrinsic motivation, introjected regulation, external regulation and amotivation.
The highest mean scores were obtained for identified regulation and intrinsic
motivation, suggesting that most students showed at least some degree of self-
determined motivation towards CME. The mean score for identified regulation was
higher than that for intrinsic motivation, indicating that the students’ motivation in
CME was due more to their understanding of its importance and value than to
their intrinsic interest in the subject. Table 3 shows the correlations between
motivational regulations and moral development stage. Using Cohen’s (1988)
guidelines for the interpretation of correlation coefficients, the correlations between
moral development stage and all forms of motivational regulations towards CME
were low (less than 0.3), showing that students’ motivation towards CME had little
relationship to their stage of development of moral reasoning. Moderate correlations
(between 0.3 and 0.5) were obtained between external regulation and amotivation,

Moral development and student motivation in moral education 93

Downloaded from aed.sagepub.com at Universitas Gadjah Mada on August 30, 2015
Table 3 Correlation matrix of variables

Moral
judgement
Amotivation stage External Introjected Identified Intrinsic
Amotivation – 0.003 0.397 †
–0.167 –0.429 †
–0.493†
Moral judgement – 0.035 0.121 0.283* 0.255*
External – 0.134 –0.131 –0.087
Introjected – 0.411 †
0.260*
Identified – 0.726†
Intrinsic –
*
p <0.05, † p <0.01, correlation coefficients for CME are presented above the diagonal

and between introjected and identified regulation. The correlation between

identified and intrinsic motivation was high (above 0.5), indicating that, where
students felt compelled to attend the CME program for fear of punishment or to
be rewarded, their motivation towards the program was low but where they
understood the importance or relevance of the program, they were likely to
experience interest and enjoyment in the subject.

Discussion

Development of moral reasoning

The findings in this study show that a sizeable proportion—68.3%—of the 13-year-
old Sec1 students were either at the pre-conventional level (Stages 1 and 2) of
moral reasoning, or in transition towards the conventional level (Stages 3 and 4).
The rest (31.7%) of these students were mainly at Stage 3, with a small handful of
them in transition towards Stage 4. The 15-year-old SEC3 students showed a lower
percentage (53.7%) at the pre-conventional level and a higher proportion (46.3%)
at the conventional level, whereas the majority (82.1%) of the 17-year-old junior
college students were at the conventional level. This trend in the development of
moral reasoning is in line with earlier studies (Colby, Kolhberg, Gibbs & Lieberman,
1983) that posit the pre-conventional stages to predominate in childhood and early
adolescence, and the conventional stages to prevail mainly in adolescence and
adulthood.
The ANOVA found no statistically significant differences between the global
stage scores of the male participants and those of their female counterparts within
the same age group, suggesting that the development of moral reasoning follows a
similar trend in males as in females. Nevertheless, the ANOVA results show that the
female junior college students, but not their male counterparts, were significantly
different from the younger Sec3 students in terms of attaining a more advanced
stage of moral development. For the older students, the gender differences were not
statistically significant. These findings suggest that, at least for adolescents in the
Singapore context, Kohlberg’s moral judgement interview did not put the female
participants at any particular disadvantage, not even with regard to the later

94 Australian Journal of Education

Downloaded from aed.sagepub.com at Universitas Gadjah Mada on August 30, 2015
(conventional) stages of moral judgement. This corroborates the substantial research
indicating that, contrary to claims made by early critics such as Gilligan (1982),
gender differences in moral reasoning are either minimal or non-existent. The issue
here is not about which gender is stronger in its reasoning, but whether there are
differences in the way males and females reason. Gilligan, amongst others, argued
that since females are more caring by nature, they would not prescribe to the
justice-oriented reasoning associated with the later stages of Kohlberg’s moral
judgement scale. But our findings seem to indicate that females, like their male
counterparts, do make judgements based on justice and hence are able to attain the
higher stages of moral reasoning.
According to Kohlberg (1958), each stage of moral reasoning is a structured
entity, consisting of a single ‘pure’ stage or a ‘transitional’ stage between two
consecutive pure stages. But, in this study, a sizeable number of participants had
composite scores, indicating transition among three stages instead of two. Moreover,
some participants had transitional stages showing discontinuity in the stage
sequence: for example, between stages 1 and 3.
There are several possible explanations for this seeming anomaly. First, it is
likely that given the relatively small sample size, atypical scores could arise due to
errors in administering the scoring procedure or lack of clarity in the survey
responses. Nonetheless, the high proportion of students with a discontinuity in the
stage sequence points to an alternative explanation.The observed sequence anomaly
in the stage score can be construed to be a real phenomenon, where unusual
heterogeneity in thinking results in a disjunction in stage sequence (Colby et al.,
1983; Kohlberg, 1973). Furthermore, the discontinuity between transition stages
and the observations that some students, specially the younger ones, showed
transitions among more than two stages supports the neo-Kohlbergian view (Rest
et al., 1999) that moral development occurs in a series of overlapping schemas with
alternating stages of transition and consolidation.The findings also support Kim and
Sankey’s (2009, p. 283) view of a child’s development as ‘highly variable, dynamic
and often non-linear’. In addition, they uphold Bronfenbrenner’s (1962) suggestion
that movement from one morality orientation to another is determined by
participation in different social structures and exposure to different moral contexts,
rather than solely following a developmental process. This is in line with the notion
of ‘segmented morality’ (Kučerová, 2009), which proposes that individuals tend to
consider professional and personal (family) dilemmas at different stages of moral
reasoning.These observations thus suggest more flexibility in the moral developmental
framework than previously assumed, although further investigations with larger
samples and over a greater diversity of contexts are needed.
It was posited that the impetus to progress through the developmental
sequence of morality stages lay in an underlying predilection toward higher stages
of reasoning (Rest, Turiel & Kohlberg, 1969). Parents and teachers are thus likely to
look for processes or strategies that promote students’ progress to these higher stages
but it is important to note that higher-stage reasoning implies a higher complexity
in thought process rather than the generation of a morally superior solution to the
issue or problem at hand. In fact, the higher stages cannot be considered as morally

Moral development and student motivation in moral education 95

Downloaded from aed.sagepub.com at Universitas Gadjah Mada on August 30, 2015
superior as they serve to provide the reasons for supporting either side of a moral
dilemma, but they are inherently non-prescriptive because they do not suggest what
the solution should be or which solution is better (Bandura, 1991; Kohlberg, 1971).
It is therefore presumptuous to demand that children should be driven to attain
stages of moral reasoning way beyond what their level of cognitive maturity allows.
What moral education programs could aim to achieve is to ensure that
children attain levels of moral development that are appropriate to their age, while
taking into consideration individual learner differences. The tenets of social
cognitive theory seem to offer an appropriate framework for a ‘complete theory of
moral agency’ that ‘must link moral reasoning to moral action’ (Bandura, 1999, p.
32). Bandura (1986, 1997, 1999) posited that social cognitive theory operates on the
premise of emergent interactive agency in a triadic reciprocal causation model,
whereby intra-personal, behavioural and environmental factors influence one
another bidirectionally. This multivariate causal framework advocates competency
development and behavioural regulation. In Bandura’s view of a social cognitive
theory of moral agency, ‘moral reasoning is translated into actions through self-
regulatory mechanisms rooted in moral standards and self-sanctions by which moral
agency is exercised’ (1999, p. 32). This process involves, firstly, the adoption of a
personal standard of morality that determines negative self-sanctions against its
violation and positive self-sanctions in its favour. Personal standards of morality thus
serve as cognitive models for reasoning and behaviour. In the design of moral
education programs, curriculum developers could consider the provision of
authentic experiences, social modelling and guidance. For example, in lieu of
hypothetical dilemmas, class discussions and reflective practice could be focused on
real-life, moral dilemmas (Vishalache, 2007) to assist in the establishment of moral
standards and the required competencies for self-regulation of moral behaviour.

Motivation towards CME

The investigation of students’ motivational regulations showed that the student
participants displayed a moderate degree of self-determined motivation in CME. In
general, the students’ motivation dwelt primarily in their awareness of the value of
the CME program and their recognition of its importance in their development
rather than in their innate interest in the subject. But the high correlation between
identified regulation and intrinsic motivation suggests that students’ interest in the
program increased when they ascribed value and importance to the program. These
findings have implications for the design and implementation of the CME
curriculum and the way in which the course is delivered in the classroom. Rather
than merely emphasising the importance of values and morals, curriculum specialists
and teachers should perhaps focus on how to make CME lessons more engaging
and relevant to students. In an attempt to identify what works in character
education, Berkowitz and Bier (2007) found that such programs run most effectively
when they are implemented broadly and with fidelity, and when they include
professional development, interactive pedagogical strategies, explicit focus on ethics
or character, social and emotional competencies training, behaviour management
strategies, elements of community service and service learning.

96 Australian Journal of Education

Downloaded from aed.sagepub.com at Universitas Gadjah Mada on August 30, 2015
 The tenets of self-determination theory may provide the avenue to achieve
this. Based on self-determination theory, motivation is enhanced and the individual
more self-determined when there is provision of the basic psychological needs for
relatedness, competence and autonomy support (Ryan & Deci, 2000). Individuals
perceive the need for relatedness to be satisfied when they feel valued and accepted
by those around them. Ryan, Stiller and Lynch (1994) found that students
experienced greater enjoyment with a task and attached greater value to it when
their contributions were given due appreciation by their peers, teachers and parents.
Thus to enhance motivation in CME, teachers and parents could improve
relatedness in the classroom and at home by allowing more opportunities for
bonding amongst fellow students and family members respectively. Similarly,
students perceived their need for competence to be satisfied when they had
adequate understanding of the subject content and mastery of the relevant skills.
Bandura, Barbaranelli, Caprara and Pastorelli (1996) observed that students’
perceived competence improved their self-efficacy and led to increased motivation
and interest. To nurture students’ competence in moral functioning, administrators,
educators and parents could start by modelling desirable values and behaviour, and
by ensuring that students are given the opportunity to put their competencies into
practice. Finally, students perceived their need for autonomy support to be satisfied
when they were provided with opportunities for choice and ownership of their
learning (Deci & Ryan, 1985, 1987; Ryan, 1995). Furthermore, when teachers
provided an autonomy-supportive learning environment and used intrinsic goals
(for example, personal development, relationships, community, physical well-being)
to scaffold learning, students’ academic performance and engagement in learning
improved (Vansteenkiste, Lens & Deci, 2006; Vansteenkiste, Simons, Lens, Sheldon
& Deci, 2004). Likewise, one can speculate that if teachers could provide students
with the opportunities to participate in the design and planning of moral education
programs, students would be better able to take ownership of their moral
development and functioning, and that this may enhance their motivation in the
subject.

Keywords
moral education moral development motivation
self-determination moral values adolescents

References
Arjoon, S. (2005). Corporate governance: An ethical perspective. Journal of Business Ethics, 61,
343–352.
Bandura, A. (1986). Social foundations of thought and action: A social cognitive theory.
Englewood Cliffs, NJ: Prentice Hall.
Bandura, A. (1991). Self-regulation of motivation through anticipatory and self-reactive
mechanisms. In R. A. Diensthier (Ed.), Perspectives on motivation: Nebraska symposium on
motivation (Vol. 38, pp. 69–164). Lincoln, NB: University of Nebraska Press.
Bandura, A. (1997). Self-efficacy: The exercise of control. New York, NY: Freeman.
Bandura, A. (1999). Social cognitive theory: An agentic perspective. Asian Journal of Social
Psychology, 2, 21–41.

Moral development and student motivation in moral education 97

Downloaded from aed.sagepub.com at Universitas Gadjah Mada on August 30, 2015
Bandura, A., Barbaranelli, C., Caprara, G. V., & Pastorelli, C. (1996). Multifaceted impact of
self-efficacy beliefs on academic functioning. Child Development, 67(3), 1206–1222.
Berkowitz, M. W., & Bier, M.C. (2007). What works in character education? Journal of
Research in Character Education, 5(1), 29–48.
Black, A. E., & Deci, E. L. (2000). The effects of instructors’ autonomy support and students’
autonomous motivation on learning organic chemistry: A self-determination theory
perspective. Science Education, 84, 740–756.
Blasi, A. (1995). Moral understanding and the moral personality: The process of moral
integration. In W. M. Kurtines & J. L. Gewirtz (Eds.), Moral Development: An Introduction
(pp. 229–253). Boston, MA: Allyn and Bacon.
Blasi, A. (1999). Emotions and moral motivation. Journal for the Theory of Social Behaviour,
29(1), 1–19.
Brimi, H. (2009). Academic instructors or moral guides? Moral education in America and
the teacher’s dilemma. The Clearing House, 82(3), 125–130.
Bronfenbrenner, U. (1962). Soviet methods of character education: Some implications for
research. Religious Education, 57(4), 45–61.
Cohen, J. (1988). Statistical power analysis for the behavioural sciences (2nd ed.). Hillsdale, NJ:
Lawrence Erlbaum Associates.
Colby, A., & Kohlberg, L. (1987a). The measurement of moral judgment: Theoretical foundations
and research validation (Vol. 1.). Cambridge, UK: Cambridge University Press.
Colby, A., & Kohlberg, L. (1987b). The measurement of moral judgment: Standard issues scoring
manual (Vol. 2.). Cambridge, UK: Cambridge University Press.
Colby, A., Kohlberg, L., Gibbs, J., & Lieberman, M. (1983). A longitudinal study of moral
judgment. Monographs of the Society for Research in Child Development, No. 48,
1–124.
Curriculum Planning and Development Division, Ministry of Education (Singapore).
(2006). Civics and moral education syllabus (Primary). Retrieved from http://www.moe.
gov.sg/education/syllabuses/aesthetics-health-and-moral-education/files/civics-and-
moral-education-primary-english-2007.pdf
Deci, E. L., & Ryan, R. M. (1985). Intrinsic motivation and self-determination in human behaviour.
New York, NY: Plenum Press.
Deci, E. L., & Ryan, R. M. (1987). The support of autonomy and the control of behaviour.
Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 53, 1024–1037.
Deci, E. L., & Ryan, R. M. (1991). A motivational approach to self: Integration in personality.
In R. A. Dienstbier (Ed.), Nebraska symposium on motivation: Vol. 38. Perspectives on
motivation (pp. 237–288). Lincoln, NB: University of Nebraska Press.
Deci, E. L., & Ryan, R. M. (2000). The ‘what’ and ‘why’ of goal pursuits: Human needs and
the self-determination of behaviour. Psychological Inquiry, 11, 227–268.
Embleton, K., & Helfer, D. S. (2007). The plague of plagiarism and academic dishonesty.
Searcher, 15(6), 23 – 26.
Espelage, D. L., & Swearer, S. (2003). Research on school bullying and victimization: What
have we learned and where do we go from here? School Psychology Review, 32(3),
365–383.
Ferrari, J. R. (2005). Impostor tendencies and academic dishonesty: Do they cheat their way
to success? Social Behaviour and Personality: An International Journal, 33(1), 11–17.
Garandeau, C. F., & Cillessen, A. H. N. (2006). From indirect aggression to invisible
aggression: A conceptual view on bullying and peer group manipulation. Aggression
and Violent Behaviour, 11(6), 612–625.

98 Australian Journal of Education

Downloaded from aed.sagepub.com at Universitas Gadjah Mada on August 30, 2015
Gibbs, J. C., Basinger, K. S., Grime, R. L., & Snarey, J. R. (2007). Moral judgment
development across cultures: Revisiting Kohlberg’s universality claims. Developmental
Review, 27(4), 443–500.
Gibbs, J. C., Moshman, D., Berkowitz, M. W., Basinger, K. S., & Grime, R. L. (2009). Taking
development seriously: Critique of the 2008 JME special issue on moral functioning.
Journal of Moral Education, 38(3), 271–282.
Gilligan, C. (1982.) In a different voice. Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press.
Iheoma, E. (1985). Moral education in Nigeria: Problems and prospects. Journal of Moral
Education, 14(3), 183–193.
Kim, M., & Sankey, D. (2009). Towards a dynamic systems approach to moral development
and moral education: A response to the JME special issue, September 2008. Journal of
Moral Education, 38(3), 283–298.
Kohlberg, L. (1958). The development of modes of moral thinking and choice in the years 10–16.
Unpublished PhD thesis, University of Chicago.
Kohlberg, L. (1971). From is to ought: How to commit the naturalistic fallacy and get away
with it in the study of moral development. In T. Mischel (Ed.), Cognitive development
and epistemology (pp. 151–232). New York, NY: Academic Press.
Kohlberg, L. (1973). Continuities in childhood and adult moral development revisited. In P.
B. Baltes & K. W. Schaie (Eds.), Lifespan developmental psychology: Personality and
socialization (pp. 179–234). New York, NY: Academic Press.
Krebs, D. L., & Denton, K. (2005). Toward a more pragmatic approach to morality: A critical
evaluation of Kohlberg’s model. Psychological Review, 112(3), 629–649.
Kučerová, M. (2009). Segmented morality: An empirical study of personal and professional
moral reasoning. In D. White, & A. Nencini (Eds.), 1st Global Conference: Probing the
boundaries—Ethics in everyday life. Retrieved from http://www.inter-disciplinary.net/
probing-the-boundaries/persons/ethics-everyday-life/conference-programmes-
abstracts-and-papers/session-4-morality-and-context/
Lapsley, D. K., & Hill, P. L. (2008). On dual processing and heuristic approaches to moral
cognition. Journal of Moral Education, 37(3), 313–332.
Losier, G. F., Perreault, S., Koestner, R., & Vallerand, R. J. (2001). Examining individual
differences in the internalization of political values:Validation of the self-determination
scale of political motivation. Journal of Research in Personality, 35, 41–61.
Matemba, Y. H. (2010). Continuity and change in the development of moral education in
Botswana. Journal of Moral Education, 39(3), 329–343.
Melé, D. (2005). Ethical education in accounting: Integrating rules, values, and virtues.
Journal of Business Ethics, 57(1), 97–109.
Ministry of Education (Singapore). (2009). 2009 Education statistics digest. Singapore: Ministry
of Education, Planning Division.
Narvaez, D., & Lapsley, D. K. (2008). Teaching moral character: Two alternatives for teacher
education. Teacher Educator, 43, 156–172.
Narvaez, D., & Rest, J. (1995). The four components of acting morally. In W. Kurtines & J.
Gewirtz (Eds.), Moral behaviour and moral development: An introduction (pp. 385–400).
New York, NY: McGraw-Hill.
Neyrinck, B., Vansteenkiste, M., Lens, W., Hutsebaut, D., & Duriez. B. (2006). Cognitive,
affective and behavioural correlates of internalization of regulations for religious
activities. Motivation and Emotion, 30, 321–332.
Olweus, D. (2003). A profile of bullying at school. Educational Leadership, 60(6), 12. Retrieved
from ERIC, http://er ic.ed.gov/ERICWebPortal/search/detailmini.jsp?_

Moral development and student motivation in moral education 99

Downloaded from aed.sagepub.com at Universitas Gadjah Mada on August 30, 2015
 nfpb=true&_&ERICExtSearch_SearchValue_0=EJ662681&ERICExtSearch_
SearchType_0=no&accno=EJ662681
Park, N., & Peterson, C. (2006). Moral competence and character strengths among
adolescents: The development and validation of the values in action inventory of
strengths for youth. Journal of Adolescence, 29(6), 891–909.
Qi, W. X., & Tang, H. W. (2004). The social and cultural background of contemporary moral
education in China. Journal of Moral Education, 33(4), 465–480.
Raosoft. (n.d.). Raosoft sample size calculator. Retrieved from http://www.raosoft.com/
samplesize.html
Reed, D. C. (2008). A model of moral stages. Journal of Moral Education, 37(3), 357–376.
Reed, D. C. (2009). A multi-level model of moral functioning revisited. Journal of Moral
Education, 38(3), 299–313.
Reed, D. C., & Stoermer, R. M. (2008). Towards an integrated model of moral functioning:
An overview of the Special Issue. Journal of Moral Education, 37(3), 417–428.
Rest, J. (1983). Morality. In P. Mussen (Series Ed.), J. Flavell & E. Markham (Vol. Eds.),
Manual of child psychology: Vol. 3. Cognitive development (pp. 556–629). New York, NY:
Wiley.
Rest, J. R., Turiel, E., & Kohlberg, L. (1969). Level of moral development as a determinant
of preference and comprehension of moral judgments made by others. Journal of
Personality, 37, 225–252.
Rest, J., Narvaez, D., Bebeau, M., & Thoma, S. (1999). Postconventional moral thinking: A neo-
Kohlbergian approach. Mahwah, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates.
Rigby, K. (2004). Addressing bullying in school: Theoretical perspectives and their
implications. School Psychology International, 25(3), 287–300.
Romanowski, M. (2003). Lessons for life. American School Board Journal, 190(11), 32–35.
Ryan, R. M. (1995). Psychological needs and the facilitation of integrative processes. Journal
of Personality, 63(3), 397–427.
Ryan, R. M., & Connell, J. P. (1989). Perceived locus of causality and internalization:
Examining reasons for acting in two domains. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology,
57, 749–761.
Ryan, R. M., & Deci, E. L. (2000). Self-determination theory and the facilitation of intrinsic
motivation, social development, and well-being. American Psychologist, 55, 68–78.
Ryan, R. M., & Deci, E. L. (2007). Active human nature: Self-determination theory and the
promotion and maintenance of sport, exercise, and health. In M. S. Hagger & N. L. D.
Chatzisarantis (Eds.), Intrinsic motivation and self-determination in exercise and sport, (pp.
1–19). Leeds, UK: Human Kinetics Europe Ltd.
Ryan, R. M., & Deci, E. L. (2008). A self-determination theory approach to psychotherapy:
The motivational basis for effective change. Canadian Psychology, 49, 186–193.
Ryan, R., Stiller, M., J., & Lynch, J. H. (1994). Representations of relationships to teachers,
parents, and friends as predictors of academic motivation and self-esteem. Journal of
Early Adolescence, 14, 226–249.
Saunders, E. J. (1993). Confronting academic dishonesty. Journal of Social Work Education,
29(2), 224–231.
Sharma, D., & Mohite, P. (2007). Teachers’ perceptions of values education for children. In
C. Tan & K. Chong (Eds.), Critical perspectives on values education in Asia (pp. 30–49).
Singapore: Prentice Hall, Pearson Education South Asia.
Simon, C. A., Carr, J. R., McCullough, S. M., Morgan, S. J., Oleson, T., & Ressel, M. (2004).
Gender, student perceptions, institutional commitments and academic dishonesty:

100 Australian Journal of Education

Downloaded from aed.sagepub.com at Universitas Gadjah Mada on August 30, 2015
 Who reports in academic dishonesty cases? Assessment & Evaluation in Higher Education,
29(1), 75–90.
Smith, P. K. (2000). Bullying in schools: Lessons from two decades of research. Aggressive
Behaviour, 26, 1–9.
Snarey, J. R. (1985). Cross-cultural universality of social-moral development: A critical
review of Kohlbergian research. Psychological Bulletin, 97, 202–232.
Turiel, E. (2002). The culture of morality: Social development, context, and conflict. Cambridge, UK:
Cambridge University Press.
Turiel, E. (2008). Foreword. Journal of Moral Education, 37(3), 279–288.
Vallerand, R. J., Pelletier, L. G., Blais, M., Briere, N. M., Senecal, C., & Vallieres, E. F. (1992).
The academic motivation scale: A measure of intrinsic, extrinsic, and amotivation in
education. Educational and Psychological Measurement, 52, 1003–1017.
Vansteenkiste, M., Lens, W., & Deci, E. L. (2006). Intrinsic versus extrinsic goal contents in
self-determination theory: Another look at the quality of academic motivation.
Educational Psychologist, 41(1), 19–31.
Vansteenkiste, M., Simons, J., Lens, W., Sheldon, K. M. & Deci, E. L. (2004). Motivating
learning, performance and persistence: T   he synergistic effects of intrinsic goal
contents and autonomy-supportive contexts. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology,
87(2), 246–260.
Vishalache, B. (2007). Using real-life moral dilemmas in moral education for secondary
schools. In C. Tan & K. Chong (Eds.), Critical perspectives on values education in Asia (pp.
124–137). Singapore: Prentice Hall, Pearson Education South Asia.
Williams, G. C., & Deci, E. L. (1998). The importance of supporting autonomy in medical
education. Annals of Internal Medicine, 129, 303–308.
Wringe, C. (2006). Moral education: Beyond the teaching of right and wrong. Dordrecht,
Netherlands: Springer.
Zhao, Z., & Tan, C. (2007). Citizenship education in mainland China at a crossroads. In C.
Tan & K. Chong (Eds.), Critical perspectives on values education in Asia (pp. 124–137).
Singapore: Prentice Hall, Pearson Education South Asia.

Author
Caroline Koh is an Assistant Professor in the Department of Psychological Studies,
National Institute of Education, Nanyang Technological University, Singapore.
Email: [email protected]

Moral development and student motivation in moral education 101

Downloaded from aed.sagepub.com at Universitas Gadjah Mada on August 30, 2015