CHAPTER I

INTRODUCTION

 Background

Morality (from Latin: moralis, lit. 'manner, character, proper behavior')

is the differentiation of intentions, decisions and actions between those that are

distinguished as proper and those that are improper. Morality can be a body of

standards or principles derived from a code of conduct from a particular

philosophy, religion or culture, or it can derive from a standard that a person

believes should be universal. Morality may also be specifically synonymous

with "goodness" or "rightness".

Immorality is the active opposition to morality (i.e. opposition to that

which is good or right), while amorality is variously defined as an unawareness

of, indifference toward, or disbelief in any particular set of moral standards or

principle.

Classroom interaction is a practice that improves the development of the

two very important language skills which are speaking and listening among the

learners. The communicative process involves interaction between at least two

people who share signs. Therefore, interactions do not occur from one side, but

also from two or more object that through giving and receiving messages in

order to achieve communication.

 Problems

i. What ways are available in improving students’ morality in classroom

interaction?

ii. How can we develop a way to improve students’ morality in classroom

interaction?
 CHAPTER II

ORIGINALITY OF THE IDEA

This is our own idea to make this idea engineering. So, it is supposed to be an

original idea of our own.

We have been wringing our hands and trying these solutions for decades, in

some cases for two centuries, without fundamentally changing studentsʹ moral

prospects. The moral development of students does not depend primarily on explicit

character education efforts but on the maturity and ethical capacities of the adults with

whom they interact—especially parents, but also teachers, coaches, and other

community adults. Educators influence studentsʹ moral development not simply by

being good role models—important as that is—but also by what they bring to their

relationships with students day to day: their ability to appreciate studentsʹ perspectives

and to disentangle them from their own, their ability to admit and learn from moral

error, their moral energy and idealism, their generosity, and their ability to help students

develop moral thinking without shying away from their own moral authority. That level

of influence makes being an adult in a school a profound moral challenge. And it means

that we will never greatly improve students’ moral development in schools without

taking on the complex task of developing adultsʹ maturity and ethical capacities. We

need to rethink the nature of moral development itself.

Moral qualities are shaped. Adults do not simply transmit moral qualities and

beliefs to children. These qualities and beliefs emerge and continually evolve in the

wide array of relationships that every child has with both adults and peers starting

nearly at birth, and in childrenʹs felt knowledge of what is harmful, true, or right. In

these relationships,
children continually sort out, for example, what they owe others, what they should stand

for, what traditions are worth keeping, whether to follow rules, how to contribute to

their family, classroom, and community—in other words, how to be a decent human

being.
 CHAPTER III

THE IDEAS

The researchers have certain ideas that can be used in order helping students to

improve students’ morality in classroom interaction:

1. Teachers’ – Students Relationship

2. Complex interaction

3. Conversation analysis

4. Multimodal interaction

These ideas are elaborated in chapter iv, discussion.

 CHAPTER IV

DISCUSSION

1. Teachers – students’ relationship

Teacher‐student relationships shape studentsʹ moral development in another

sense—through their influence on studentsʹ emotional development. Most of the talk

about moral development in school assumes that we can teach students to behave

morally by instilling in them virtues and standards, a clear sense of right and wrong.

This assumption ignores the fact that emotions are often the horse, values and virtues

the rider trying to hang on. Harvard child psychologist Jerome Kagan (1995) observes

that violence prevention programs that explain to students the harmful consequences of

violence often donʹt help because ʺchildren know violence is wrong—what they canʹt

control is the shame and destructive impulses that fuel violenceʺ.

People do not usually lie, cheat, or abuse others because they donʹt value

honesty and respect; more likely, they suffer from feelings of inferiority, cynicism, or

egocentrism that blind them to othersʹ feelings. Research suggests that such emotions

as shame, anger, and cynicism in particular eat away at caring, a sense of responsibility,

and other important moral qualities (Gilligan, 1996; Rozin et al., 1999). When peopleʹs

moral beliefs conflict with their immoral actions, many will change their beliefs to

accommodate their actions, not vice versa. They will justify stealing, for example,

because ʺsociety is corruptʺ or because ʺall people are basically self‐interest”.

2. Complex interaction
What makes matters more complicated is that the influence of teachers and other

adults on studentsʹ emotional and moral lives goes both ways, in complex

reverberations and interactions that are often positive but sometimes clearly destructive.

For example, Randall, a 7th grader who gets under everyoneʹs skin, finds himself in a

common kind of escalating war with adults. His constant antagonism makes it hard for

teachers to see his perspective—one teacher calls him ʺa jerk,ʺ and the principal refers

to him in even harsher terms—which makes him step up his provocations, further

angering his teachers and the principal. Randall is spinning out of his school

community. When I ask him whom he trusts, he holds up a piece of paper that is totally

blank.

Often a chain of complex interactions among home, school, and peers shapes

studentsʹ moral qualities and behavior. Consider Sally, a 10‐year‐old with Attention

Deficit Disorder. Sally has a highly anxious mother and a father prone to spikes of

anger. According to her psychologist, Sally is furious with them and isolates herself at

home. At school, she has become increasingly disruptive and rude: She wrote on the

chalkboard that her teacher is a bitch. Her teacher has little empathy for her, not only

because of these attacks but also because she feels harassed and criticized by Sallyʹs

mother. At war with both her parents and her teacher, Sally looks to her peers for

support. Other students, however, find her needy and rude. Sally becomes more

provocative with her teacher, and the spiral continues downward.

3. Conversation analysis
The insights of ethnomethodology provided the basis for conversation analysis,

which is both an established research area and research methodology (Heritage, 1996).

Conversation analysis (hereafter CA) was established in the 1960s and 1970s, based on

the work of sociologist Harvey Sacks and colleagues Emmanuel Schegloff and Gail

Jefferson (e.g. see Heritage, 2004; Ten Have, 2007). Although it has its roots in EM, it

has its own principles and procedures and focuses exclusively on actions that are

manifested through talk and non-verbal interaction (Sert & Seedhouse, 2011).

Conversation analysis is a micro-analytic examination of conversational

practices that produces fine-grained descriptions of how talk and embodiments in

interaction are carried out (e.g., Hutchby & Wooffitt, 2008; Psathas, 1995 Tainio,

1997). It aims to ‘describe, analyse, and understand talk as a basic and constitutive

feature of human social life’ (Sidnell, 2011, p. 1). Drawing on the premises of EM, CA

identifies and examines participants’ own methods of producing and interpreting social

interaction, enabling the analysis of data from an emic perspective. A very fundamental

idea within CA is that conduct in interaction is orderly at a fine level of detail, and this

orderliness is an outcome of participants’ orientation to norms in both its production

and interpretation (Sacks, 1984: Sidnell & Stivers, 2011).

EM and CA are not concerned with what people are thinking or what are their

intentions, but what they are doing (Heritage, 1996). Thus, participants’ intentions or

references to their mental representations are left out. Mutual understanding between

people in interactions, intersubjectivity, can be defined as a process occurring between

members that cannot be attributed to any one person in interaction (e.g. Rogoff 1998;

Rommetveit, 1985). With the use of CA,analytic access can be gained to the situated

achievement of intersubjectivity by focusing on the situated organization of talk and its

 specific organization (Edwards, 1997; Hutchby & Wooffitt 2008). For this study it

provides an approach to the interaction which is not removed from the children’s own

understanding of the relatedness of each utterance.

4. Multimodal interaction
In social interaction, actions are not usually organized within a single medium

such as talk but instead constructed through simultaneous use of multisemiotic

resources such as gestures, body postures, laughter, changes in pitch, and material and

mental artefacts such as books, tables, figures (e.g. Depperman, 2013: Ivarsson,

Linderoth & Säljö, 2009). Social interaction can always be seen as multimodal, and

words and displayed action should be understood as reciprocially intertwined (Hazel,

Mortensen & Rasmussen, 2013; Lindwall & Ekström, 2012).

All multimodal resources may mediate not only interaction, but instruction and

learning, shared understanding and development, support cognition, organize

knowledge and participation, and understanding is bound to these resources (e.g. Luff,

Heath & Hindmarsh, 2000, Nevile, 2015).

Analysing data from a multimodal perspective means treating the visual and

semiotic aspects of interaction as an important focus of the analysis (e.g. Streeck,

Goodwin & LeBaron, 2011). Multimodal analysis combined with CA has, for instance,

been used to show how talk and different multimodal resources have complementary

relationships (e.g. Goodwin, 2000; 2003; Haddington, Keisanen & Nevile, 2013;

Lindwall & Ekström, 2012; Streeck, 2003). There prevails some obscurity with the term

multimodal, because it is used by different research communities in somewhat different

ways than in CA (e.g. see Depperman, 2013; Kress & van Leuuwen, 2001). In addition,

the term ‘embodied interaction’ is also used to refer to the interconnectedness of

gestures and talk (Streeck, 2013).

 CHAPTER V

CONCLUSION AND SUGGESTION

Conclusion

From this engineering ide, we can conclude that:

a) Morality is the differentiation of intentions, decisions and actions

between those that are distinguished as proper and those that are

improper.

b) Classroom interaction is a practice that improves the development of the

two very important language skills which are speaking and listening

among the learners

c) Morality in classroom interaction is students’ intention behavior that

practice and can be use as improvement of speaking and listening among

the learners.

d) There are several ways in improving students’ morality: (i) Teachers’ –

Students Relationship; (ii) complex interaction; (iii) conversation

analysis; (iv) multimodal interaction

Suggestion

The suggestion is the teacher and school should make a coporation in

order to develop the moral for students during their learning activities. The

school should make a “strict” rules which make the students had no chance to

do their bad habits in school and teachers should be more “strict” to their

students