Are There Levels of Students Morales? The Effects of Biological Problem Solving on Moral Development
Bibliographic record
Abstract
The implementation of the value of life and integrity has been done in the teaching and learning process of science by moral problems in life that relate to biological issues and to train the students’ capability in problem-solving. It stimulated the students’ moral development involving logic, feeling, and behaviors deemed as right and wrong in students. The purpose of this study is to describe the students’ tiers of moral development through valid and reliable biological problem-solving. This study is descriptive research with a qualitative approach. The theoretical formulation formed is a design of the level of moral development about biological problems. The collection of data is done through a task-based interview. The subject of this research is students in the 8th grade of Banjarmasin Middle School. The data is analyzed using a constant comparison method. The results of this study indicate a valid and reliable level of students’ moral development in solving biological problems. JPM2B1: An action is considered good from its principles and point of view to fulfill his/her obligations and needs without caring about other people’s needs. Students often claim that “solving a problem is easy, it’s because our teacher taught us to solve it”. JPM2B2: An action is considered good from its perspective and principle of the movement for the greater good and planning a solution. JPM2B3: An action is considered good with a view of helping each other in creating a better future. JPM2B4: An action is considered good with a view of caring for the needs of others, emphasizing rational considerations for humanitarian reasons and God’s blessing.
Fetched live from OpenAlex and de-inverted. Abstracts are not stored in this database: the inverted indexes are 8.6 GB of the frame’s 9.3 GB of text, and the host has 13 GB free.
How this classification was reachedexpand
Full frame machine prediction
Teacher imitationNot calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. The Gemma side is a direct model label for every work in the frame, read from the title-only record. The Codex side is a classifier learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and calibrated to design-weighted sample rates; fields without enough sample support carry no Codex call. Candidate is the union of the two sides; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels.
Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.008 | 0.040 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.004 | 0.007 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.007 | 0.004 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.005 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.006 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.005 | 0.000 |
Machine scores (provisional)
The two teacher heads of the student model, read on this work. A score orders the frame for review; it never asserts a category, and the validation status ships verbatim with every row.
Baseline scores from an immature model (maturity gate not passed, 7 training rounds). Scores rank; they never assert a category.
score_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from itClassification
machine, unvalidatedMachine predicted; a candidate call from one source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), not a consensus.
How this classification was reached, model by model and score by score, is at the end of the page under "How this classification was reached".