The Effect of Nuclear and Joint Family System on the Moral Development of Students at Elementary Level”, Was Conducted by Mr

THE EFFECT OF NUCLEAR AND JOINT FAMILY SYSTEM

ON THE MORAL DEVELOPMENT OF STUDENTS AT

ELEMENTARY LEVEL

MUHAMMAD MUMTAZ ALI

Registration No. 113-NUN-0418

Submitted in partial fulfillment of the requirements of the Degree of

Doctor of Philosophy

Education

FACULTY OF ARTS AND SOCIAL SCIENCES

NORTHERN UNIVERSITY, NOWSHERA

PAKISTAN, 2017

AUTHOR’S DECLARATION

I Muhammad Mumtaz Ali hereby state that my Ph. D. thesis titled, “The

Effect of Nuclear and Joint Family System on the Moral Development of

Students at Elementary Level”, is my own work and has not been submitted previously by me for taking any degree from this University (Northern University,

Nowshera) or anywhere else in the country/world.

At any time if my statement is found to be incorrect even after my graduation the university has the right to withdraw my Ph. D. degree.

Name of Student: ______

(Muhammad Mumtaz Ali)

Date: ______

PLAGIARISM UNDERTAKING

I solemnly declare that the research work presented in the thesis titled, “The

Effect of Nuclear and Joint Family System on the Moral Development of

Students at Elementary Level”; is solely my own research work with no significant contribution from any other person. Small contribution/help whenever taken has been duly acknowledged and that the complete thesis has been written by me.

I understand the zero tolerance policy of the Higher Education Commission and the Northern University, Nowshera towards plagiarism. Therefore, I as an Author of the above titled thesis declare that no portion of my thesis has been plagiarized and any material used as reference is properly referred/cited.

I understand that if I am found guilty of any formal plagiarism in the above titled thesis even after the award of the Ph. D. degree, the university reserves the right to withdraw/revoke my Ph. D. degree and that Higher Education Commission and the university have the right to place my name on the HEC/University Website on which names of those students are placed who submitted plagiarized thesis.

Student/Author Signature: ______

Name: ______

(Muhammad Mumtaz Ali)

iii

CERTIFICATE OF APPROVAL

This is to certify that the research work presented in this thesis, titled, “The Effect of Nuclear and Joint Family System on the Moral Development of Students at Elementary Level”, was conducted by Mr. Muhammad Mumtaz Ali under the supervision of Prof. Dr. R. A. Farooq. No part of this thesis has been submitted anywhere else for any other degree. This thesis is submitted to the Faculty of Arts and Social Sciences (Northern University, Nowshera) in partial fulfillment of the requirement for the degree of Doctor of Philosophy in the field of Education, Department of Education, Northern University, Nowshera.

Student Name: Muhammad Mumtaz Ali Signature:______

Examination Committee: a) External Examiner 1: Name Signature: (Designation & Office Address) Prof. Dr. Gulsun KURUBACAK Anadolu University College of Open Education Group Coordinator of R & D and International Relations, Office #313 Yunusemre Campus, Eskisehir 26470, TURKEY b) External Examiner 2: Name Signature: (Designation & Office Address) Assoc. Prof. Dr. Nilgun Tosun Department of Computer Education and Instructional Technology Faculty of Education, Trakya University, Kosova Campus Edirne - TURKIYE c) Internal Examiner : Name Signature: (Designation & Office Address) Prof. Dr. Mumtaz Akhtar Dean, Faculty of Education Institute of Education and Research University of the Punjab, Quaid-i-Azam Campus, Lahore (Pakistan)

Supervisor Name: Prof. Dr. R. A. Farooq Signature:______

Co-Supervisor Name: Prof. Dr. Rabia Tabassum Signature:

Name of Dean/HOD: Prof. Dr. R. A. Farooq Signature:

DEDICATION

This piece of work is dedicated to

My loving parents,

Wife,

Daughter Wajiha and Khadija and son Muhammad Ayan Ali

And also to

My best teacher Madam Rabia Tabassum

Who

Supported me

To make my dreams

Come true.

TABLE OF CONTENTS

Acknowledgements xii

Abstract xiv Chapter 1: INTRODUCTION 01

1.1 STATEMENT OF THE PROBLEM 05

1.2 OBJECTIVES OF THE STUDY 05

1.3 HYPOTHESES OF THE STUDY 05

1.4 SIGNIFICANCE OF THE STUDY 06

1.5 DELIMITATIONS OF THE STUDY 06

1.6 METHOD AND PROCEDURE 07

1.6.1 Population 07

1.6.2 Sample 07

1.6.3 Research Instrument 07

1.6.4 Data Collection 08

1.6.5 Analysis of Data 08

Chapter 2: REVIEW OF RELATED LITERATURE 09

2.1 THEORETICAL BACKGROUND OF THE STUDY 09

2.1.1 Concept of the Family 10

2.1.2 Historical Background of the Family 11

2.1.3 Characteristics of the Family 13

2.1.3.1 A system of nomenclature 13

2.1.3.2 Marriage 14

2.1.3.3 Common roof 14

2.1.4 Functions of the Family 15

2.1.4.1 Provision of economic support 15

2.1.4.2 Satisfaction of sexual needs and reproduction 15

2.1.4.3 Provision of security and protection 16

2.1.4.4 Socializing agency 16

2.1.4.5 Moral development 17

2.1.5 Types of Family 17

2.1.5.1 Families on the basis of residence 18

2.1.5.1.1 Matrilocal family 18

2.1.5.1.2 Patriocal family 18

2.1.5.1.3 Neolocal family 19

2.1.5.2 Families on the basis of lineage/ancestry 19

2.1.5.2.1 Patrilineal family 19

2.1.5.2.2 Matrilineal family 19

2.1.5.2.3 Bilateral family 19

2.1.5.3 Families on the basis of authority 20

2.1.5.3.1 Patriarchal family 20

2.1.5.3.2 Matriarchal family 20

2.1.5.4 Families on the basis of marriage 21

2.1.5.4.1 Monogamous family 21

2.1.5.4.2 Polygamous family 21

2.1.5.5 Families on the basis of size or structure 22

2.1.5.5.1 Nuclear family 22

2.1.5.5.2 Joint family 22

2.1.5.5.3 Extended family 23

2.1.6 Marriage and the Family 23

2.1.7 Functions of Marriage 24

vii

2.1.8 Advantages of Nuclear Family 24

2.1.9 Disadvantages of Nuclear Family 25

2.1.10 Advantages of Joint Family 26

2.1.11 Disadvantages of Joint Family 27

2.1.12 Disintegration of Joint Family in Pakistan 28

2.1.13 Moral Development 30

2.1.13.1 Morality 33

2.1.13.2 Moral values 35

2.1.14 Factors Affecting Moral Development 36

2.1.14.1 Family 36

2.1.14.2 Gender 37

2.1.14.3 Home environment 38

2.1.14.4 Religion 39

2.1.14.5 School 40

2.1.14.6 Socioeconomic status 41

2.1.14.7 Media and globalization 41

2.1.15 Theories of Moral Development 44

2.1.15.1 Piaget’s theory of moral judgment 44

2.1.15.2 Kohlberg’s theory of moral development 45

2.1.15.2.1 Kohlberg’s stages of moral development 46

2.2 THEORETICAL BASIS OF THE STUDY 52

2.3 RELATED STUDIES 52

2.3.1 Family and Moral Development 53

2.3.1.1 Polygamous and monogamous families and moral

development 54

viii

2.3.1.2 Single parent family, two parent family and

moral development 54

2.3.1.3 Nuclear and joint families and moral development 56

2.3.2 Religious Education and Moral Development 58

2.3.3 Parental Involvement and Moral Development 61

2.3.4 Gender and Moral Development 63

2.3.5 Rural and Urban Localities and Moral Development 65

2.3.6 The Role of Grandparents in Moral Development 66

2.3.7 Home Environment and Moral Development 67

2.3.8 School Environment and Moral Development 70

2.3.9 Family Size and Moral Development 71

2.4 CONCEPTUAL FRAMEWORK OF THE STUDY 73

Chapter 3: METHOD AND PROCEDURE 76

3.1 POPULATION 76

3.2 SAMPLE 77

3.3 RESEARCH INSTRUMENT 78

3.3.1 Pilot Testing 78

3.3.2 Validity of the Instrument 79

3.3.3 Reliability of the Instrument 79

3.4 DATA COLLECTION 80

3.5 ANALYSIS OF DATA 80

Chapter 4: ANALYSIS AND INTERPRETATION OF DATA 82

4.1 DISCUSSION 94

Chapter 5: SUMMARY, CONCLUSIONS AND RECOMMENDATIONS 96

5.1 SUMMARY 96

5.2 CONCLUSIONS 97

5.3 RECOMMENDATIONS 98

5.4 SUGGESTIONS FOR FURTHER RESEARCH 101

BIBLIOGRAPHY 102

APPENDICES

Appendix A: Moral Judgment Interview 120

Appendix B: List of Schools included in the Sample 124

LIST OF TABLE

1. Distribution of elementary students by gender 82

2. Distribution of elementary students by age 82

3. Distribution of elementary students by class 83

4. Distribution of elementary students by family type 83

5. Distribution of elementary students by residential area 84

6. Distribution of elementary students by family size 84

7. Distribution of elementary students by earner in the family 84

8. Significance of difference between stages of moral development

of elementary students belonging to nuclear and joint family systems 85

9. Showing significance of difference between mean scores of

elementary students belonging to nuclear and joint family systems 86

10. Showing difference between mean scores of male and female elementary

students belonging to joint and nuclear family systems 87

11. Showing significance of difference between mean scores of male and

female elementary students belonging to joint family system 88

12. Showing difference between mean scores of elementary students belonging

to joint and nuclear family systems with respect to their residential areas. 89

13. Showing significance of difference between mean scores of elementary

students of joint family system belonging to rural and urban localities 90

14. Showing difference between mean scores of elementary students

belonging to joint and nuclear family systems with respect to family size 91

15. Showing significance of difference between mean scores of elementary

students of joint family system with small and large sizes 92

LIST OF FIGURES

Figure No. Page No.

1 Tree diagram for the evolution of family 13

2 Tree diagram for functions of family 17

3 Tree diagram for the classification of family 18

4 Different factors affecting the moral development 43

5 Tree diagram for Kohlberg’s theory of moral development 51

6 Presenting the details of the related studies 73

7 Presenting theoretical framework of the study 75

8 Showing means of elementary students of nuclear and

joint family systems 86

9 Showing means of male and female elementary students belonging to

joint and nuclear family systems 88

10 Correspondence between moral development of elementary students

of nuclear and joint family systems with respect to residential areas 90

11 Correspondence between moral development stages with respect to

family size 92

xii

ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS

The researcher owes special thanks to many people whose assistance and encouragement made this dream come true. It is not possible to enlist all of them.

All of them are of great value for the researcher.

The researcher has been lucky to get the opportunity to complete this task under the supervision of Prof. Dr. R. A. Farooq, Dean Faculty of Arts and Social

Sciences, Northern University, Nowshera. The researcher is thankful to him from the core of his heart for his constant guidance and encouragement.

The researcher is highly indebted to Prof. Dr. Rabia Tabassum, Head of the

Department of Education, Northern University, Nowshera, for her professional guidance, love and sympathy. The researcher prays for her happy and long life.

The researcher is also thankful to Prof. Dr. Jamil Sawar for his cordial support which enabled the researcher to complete this task.

The researcher is obliged to Mr. Zafar Iqbal Controller of Examination,

Northern University, Nowshera, Mr. Muhammad Malik Deputy Registrar Northern

University, Nowshera, Mr. Maqsood (Research Assistant) and other staff members of the university, for their cooperation.

The researcher extends his gratitude to his friends Mr. Sher Muhammad, Mr.

Muhammad Usman, Mr. Abdul Zahir, Mr. Amir Rehman, Mr. Akhtar Rasool, Mr.

Jamshed Khan, Mr. Sulaiman, Mr. Farid Khan, Mr. Siyad Ali, Mr. Noor Rehman,

Mr. Bashir Ahmad, Mr. Abdullah Khan, Mr. Azizullah, Mr. Zia Ullah, Mr. Asad

Ali, Mr. Shahid Ali and Mr. Tahir Nawas for their worthy support.

Special thanks to my parents, brothers and sisters, wife and kids for their sacrifices made during the completion of this work. They supported me all along, rain and shine.

xiii

The researcher is indebted to all the principals, headmasters/headmistresses, head teachers and teachers of the sampled schools for their cooperation during the collection of data. Finally, humble thanks to all the participants of the study for giving precious time for filling the interview form.

Muhammad Mumtaz Ali

xiv

ABSTRACT

Human beings are social animals who want to live together to stabilize themselves. This results in the creation of family institution. Family is the first socializing agency for children and the most important institution which has a strong influence on the overall development of its members. There are various types of families, but, the most important and most prevalent of all are nuclear and joint families. Both nuclear and joint families have a strong influence on the overall development of students of all levels. But, elementary students are more prone to the family system variables. Therefore, the study investigated the effect of nuclear and joint family system on the moral development of elementary students. Nuclear family is a type of family in which there are husband, wife and their unmarried children, whereas, in joint family, there are husband, wife, their married and unmarried children and sometimes the in-laws. The objectives of the study were: (i) to investigate the effect of nuclear and joint family systems on the moral development of elementary students; (ii) to find out the effect of gender on the moral development of elementary students belonging to the nuclear and joint family systems; (iii) to explore the effect of rural and urban locations on the moral development of elementary students of nuclear and joint family systems; and (iv) to determine the effect of family size on the moral development of elementary students from nuclear and joint family systems.

All the 222,944 elementary students, both boys and girls of the five districts of Khyber Pakhtunkhwa i.e. Dir Lower, Malakand, Mardan, Haripur and Dera

Ismail Khan constituted the population of the study. A sample of 384 elementary students was randomly selected through cluster sampling. Kohlberg’s Moral

Judgment Interview Form A was used to collect data from the sample of the study.

The collected data were analyzed through percentage, t-test and analysis of variance

(ANOVA).

The findings of the study rejected the proposed hypotheses. The results revealed that there were significant correlations among major variables of the study.

Family system was found to have significant influence on the moral development of elementary students. The elementary students of joint families were morally better than their counterparts from nuclear families. The gender of elementary students had significant effect as far as the moral development of elementary students was concerned. The students of rural areas were morally more developed than those of urban areas. Similarly, students from large family size were morally better than those of small sized families. On the basis of conclusions, it was recommended that parents should give more attention and time to their families, especially, to the nuclear families in order to improve the moral standards of their children.

xvi

DEFINITION OF KEY TERMS

Nuclear Family: A type of family in which there are husband, wife and their unmarried children living together in the same household.

Joint Family: A family system in which there live husband, wife, their married and unmarried children and sometimes the in-laws.

Moral Development: Moral development is the process which helps children to develop proper attitudes and behaviors towards other people in a society based on cultural norms, rules and laws. It is the ability of a person to differentiate between what is good and what is bad.

Elementary Students: Elementary students in this study are the students of 6th, 7th and 8th classes studying in the government Middle, High and Higher Secondary

Schools both for boys and girls.

Home Environment: Home environment for this study means family living conditions, family relations, parental marital status and parental socioeconomic status.

Family Size: Family size in this study refers to the number of family members living together in the same household at the same time. For the present study, a family with five or less than five members was considered as small family, whereas, family with more than five members was considered as large family.

Parental Involvement: Parental involvement in this study is concerned with the overall contributions of parents which they make to benefit their children.

xvii

LIST OF ABBREVIATIONS

B.C.E Before Christian Era

B. Ed. Bachelor of Education

C.T Certificate in Teaching

D.I. Khan Dera Ismail Khan

I.E.Ps Individualized Education Programs

I.Q Intelligence Quotient

M. Ed. Master of Education

M. Phil Master of Philosophy

N.A.S.P National Association of School Psychologists

N.G.Os Non Governmental Organizations

Ph. D Doctor of Philosophy

V.C.E Virginia Cooperative Extension

Z.P.D Zone of Proximal Development

FATA Federally Administrated Tribal Areas

FANA Federally Administrated Northern Areas

SISM Standard Issue Scoring Manual

WAS Weighted Average Score

ANOVA Analysis of Variance

xviii

Chapter-1

INTRODUCTION

Family setup and environment play a significant part in enhancing or devastating the overall development of learners. Family is the most important agency of socialization that moulds the personality of a young individual in every society around the world. This is the basic universal institution of human society

(Khatal, 2011). It constitutes the first world of a child, satisfies most of his/her needs, and provides emotional experiences which enhance or retard his/her learning capabilities. According to Macionis and Gerber (2012) family is the first socializing agency that occupies a key role in making the children more socialized. It is the family which shapes the behavior of their individuals according to the norms and customs of a society.

The word family has been derived from Latin word “famulus” which means

“domestic slaves”. “It is a team of producers and slaves and other servants and members connected by marriage or descent” (Alam, 2008). According to McElroy

(2001) family is one of the fundamental units of the institution of a society. It means that it is the family which is responsible for holding people together in a society.

Macionis (2011) has defined family as a “social institution, found in all societies, uniting people in cooperative groups to care for one another”. All the members of the family live in the same home and everyone is required to perform his/her due role.

Virginia Cooperative Extension (VCE) (2009) suggested that family institution plays active role in moulding the personality of an individual. It provides an environment which is necessary to create confidence in the individual and for the overall development of an individual. Family institution has different types, but,

nuclear and joint family systems are most widely distributed, present in almost all societies of the world. Nuclear family is a type of family system in which there are husband, wife and their unmarried children living together as a single unit, whereas, joint social setup is a type of family setting in which there are husband, wife, their married and singled children, and sometimes, the in-laws, living together in the same household (Alam, 2008).

Each family setup affects the life pattern of its members. In nuclear family system, the two generations are closely and directly related to each other, whereas, in joint social setting there exists an indirect relationship among family members. In

Pakistan, children are exposed to both types of relationships as they mostly live in joint and nuclear setups during their learning periods of school age, and these relationships have far reaching consequences on their lives (Elliot & Gray, 2000).

Family type whether joint or nuclear has a strong impact on the overall development of its individual members and on their moral development. Moral development of children is one of the most crucial functions that are performed by the family for the welfare of its society. According to Santrock (2005) moral development is concerned with thoughts, behaviors and feelings about the standards of good and bad. It is concerned with moral action, moral character and moral behavior. Farooq (2016) pointed out in an article that character building is one of the most important things, which is necessary for the development of any nation of the world.

Literature revealed that moral development has become an important topic in the field of child psychology and education. The world is passing through a phase of technological revolution. Therefore, the importance of moral education is

increasing day by day. Furthermore, the prevailing law and order situation in many countries of the world in general, and in Pakistan, in particular, have caused many people within and without the society to declare a moral crisis in Pakistan. Increase in juvenile delinquency, crimes, human rights violations, intolerance, target killings and assassinations, suicides, extremism, sectarianism and religious activism have seriously struck the roots of Pakistani society. Therefore, the moral development has become an important debate for bringing peace and harmony back to the Pakistani society. Character building is one of the most important aims of education. That is why all the educational policies of Pakistan have emphasized religious education.

Teaching of Islamiyat as a compulsory subject upto graduate level and all the religious subjects in Madrasas are being taught, but, still our students are at the lower stage of their moral development (Khanam, 2008). The need of the day is to utilize all the available resources for raising the moral standards of individual members of Pakistani society in order to bring back peace, harmony and prosperity, not only to Pakistan, but, to the whole world as well. Apart from other institutions, family can play a very decisive role in this regard. Some researchers are of the view that students belonging to joint families are more developed morally than their counterparts from nuclear families, whereas, some researchers argue that the moral development of students from nuclear families is better than their counterparts from joint families.

Study conducted by Sharma et al. (2010) depicted that children belonging to the nuclear family system exhibited more altruistic behavior than their counterparts from joint family system. However, Bisht et al. (2015) in a study “Assessment of

Moral Values among Children of Joint and Nuclear Families” concluded that

children belonging to joint family system achieved higher grades in all dimensions of moral values i.e. truthfulness, resistance to stealing and cheating except honesty.

Therefore, the overall moral values of children belonging to joint family system were found higher than their counterparts from nuclear social setup. They further declared that children should be provided with such an environment which inculcates high moral values in them.

All the above mentioned research studies show the significance of family system variables for the moral development of students. Therefore, the researcher, found it interesting to investigate the effect of different aspects of family system variables on the character building and moral development of students. Some research studies relating to the influence of single parent family and two parent family, monogamous and polygamous family, socioeconomic status, school and classroom environment, religious commitments, parental education level and parental involvement, and study habits on students‟ academic outcomes have been conducted. But, the researcher found very few studies on the effect of family types, especially, nuclear and joint family systems which are the most prevalent family systems around the world, on the moral development of students.

Furthermore, the researcher has found no research study at Ph. D. level on the influence of nuclear and joint family systems on the moral development of elementary level students, not only in Pakistan, but, in the whole world as well. The elementary students are more prone to the family system variables as compared to the students of secondary, higher secondary and graduate level (Suleman et al.,

2012). Therefore, the researcher felt a strong need to conduct a research study on

the effect of nuclear and joint family systems on the moral development of elementary level students.

1.1 STATEMENT OF THE PROBLEM

Nuclear and joint family systems are the most prevalent family systems not only in Pakistan, but, also around the globe. Both, the nuclear and the joint families have a profound influence on the moral growth of all children. Moral development, being an area of major concern, needs appropriate investigation. Furthermore, elementary students are more prone to the family system variables, especially, to the nuclear and joint family systems. Therefore, the problem in this study was to explore the effect of nuclear and joint family systems on the moral development of students at elementary level.

1.2 OBJECTIVES OF THE STUDY

The objectives of the research were to:

1. Find out the effect of nuclear and joint family systems on the moral

development of elementary students.

2. Investigate the effect of gender on the moral development of

elementary students belonging to nuclear and joint family systems.

3. Explore the effect of rural and urban locations on the moral

development of elementary students of nuclear and joint family

systems.

4. Determine the effect of family size on the moral development of

elementary students of nuclear and joint family systems.

1.3 HYPOTHESES OF THE STUDY

Following were the basic hypotheses of the study.

1. There is no significant effect of nuclear and joint family systems on the

moral development of elementary students.

2. There is no significant effect of gender on the moral development of

elementary students of nuclear and joint family systems.

3. There is no significant effect of rural and urban locations on the moral

development of elementary students belonging to nuclear and joint

family systems.

4. There is no significant effect of family size on the moral development of

elementary students of nuclear and joint family systems.

1.4 SIGNIFICANCE OF THE STUDY

This study will help teachers, parents, school administrators,

counselors, curriculum planners and policy makers to coordinate effectively

and efficiently to address all the problems faced by the students at homes,

outside of homes, in classrooms and at schools. This will help students in

solving their problems on proper time and in improving their moral standard.

The study will help in developing such a tolerant society which will help in

bringing peace and harmony back to this deteriorated world. The study will

pave ways for further research on other family system variables which are

important to students‟ overall development. This will help students in

overcoming different social problems faced by them in the society and will

prepare them for their successful survival.

1.5 DELIMITATIONS OF THE STUDY

The study was delimited to only five districts of Khyber

Pakhtunkhwa i.e. Dir Lower, Malakand, Mardan, Haripur and Dera Ismail

Khan. The study was further delimited to only government middle, high and

higher secondary schools both for boys and girls.

1.6 METHOD AND PROCEDURE

1.6.1 Population

All the 222,944 elementary students, both boys and girls of the five

districts of Khyber Pakhtunkhwa i.e. Dir Lower, Malakand, Mardan, Haripur

and Dera Ismail Khan comprised the population of the study. All the 1341

Government Middle, High and Higher Secondary Schools both for boys and

girls of these five districts of Khyber Pakhtunkhwa comprised the population

of the study.

1.6.2 Sample

A total of 384 elementary students both boys and girls belonging to

nuclear and joint family systems from five districts i.e. Dir Lower,

Malakand, Mardan, Haripur and Dera Ismail Khan, randomly selected

through cluster sampling were included in the sample of the study.

1.6.3 Research Instrument

In order to find out the moral stage of each respondent of the sample,

Kohlberg‟s Moral Judgment Interview Form A was used. The Moral

Judgment Interview Form A consisted of moral dilemmas with challenging

issues. It composed of two sections. The first section consisted of

demographic questions, whereas, the second portion composed of three

moral dilemmas with a number of questions at the end of each dilemma.

1.6.4 Data Collection

Kohlberg‟s Moral Judgment Interview Form A was used to collect data for this study. For the collection of data, the researcher personally visited the sample schools of five districts of Khyber Pakhtunkhwa and administered Kohlberg‟s Moral Judgment Interview Form A. However, due to cultural restrictions, data collection from girls‟ schools was very challenging. Hence, the help of a female research assistant was sought to collect data from girls‟ schools. The collection of data was a laborious task and it took almost four months to complete.

1.6.5 Analysis of Data

The data collected through Kohlberg‟s Moral Judgment Interview

Form A, were tabulated and interpreted. Statistical Package for Social

Sciences (SPSS 20) was used for the analysis of collected data. To find out the relationship between independent and dependent variables, the collected data were analyzed through percentage, t-test and analysis of variance

(ANOVA).

Chapter-2

REVIEW OF RELATED LITERATURE

Literature review is very important as it not only gives an idea of what has been done on the topic understudy, but, also that what needs to be done in the future.

The work which has already been done provides rationale for research hypothesis, whereas, what needs to be done provides basis for justification of the study. All this enables a researcher to avoid the mistakes done by others and get benefit from others‟ experiences (Gay, 2005). According to Perumal (2010) the review of related literature is the perusal of related studies which are carried out by the researcher at different stages. This chapter has three sections, which are theoretical background, related research studies and conceptual framework of the study.

2.1 THEORETICAL BACKGROUND OF THE STUDY

In this section, the major independent variables of the study i.e. nuclear family system, joint family system, gender factor, urban and rural localities and family size, and the dependent variable of the study i.e. moral development of elementary students, have been presented in detail.

Aristotle (384-322 B.C.E.) had claimed that “human beings by nature are social and political animals who cannot live in isolation from one another”. They need one another for their safe and successful survival (Paul et al., 2001). Even in the

Stone Age, human beings used to live in groups and colonies in order to protect their selves against common threat. It is human nature which compels them to form association and partnership with one another which resulted in the creation of family system in every society of the world. It is the first place where the socialization of children takes place (Fretz, 2010).

2.1.1 Concept of the Family

The term “family” has been derived from Latin word “famulus” which means

“domestic slaves”. Different sociologists have defined the term family in different ways. According to Malhas and Abdouni (1997) family is the crucial social structure which influences the personality of child through interaction with their parents. They share different activities with their family members. Their parents and siblings guide and look after them. This influences their personality and social settings, their attitudes and capabilities.

U. S. Bureau of Census (1999) has defined family as a “union of two or more persons by birth, marriage or adoption living together in the same household”. The number of families is equal to the number of households in the United States of

America. Similarly, according to the U. S. Population Reference Bureau (2000)

“Family can be a group of people held together by birth, marriage, adoption, by common residence or close emotional attachment. Families may include persons who claim decent from common ancestors in a lineage, a tribe or a clan”.

Hassan et al. (2002) opined that family is most important in building a community which is necessary for any nation. Society looks after the family and performs different functions for its welfare. Eitzen (2003) defines family as a construct of meaningful relationships. Family is a unit of human beings united in a non professional way, where care, respect, and sympathy are the dominant attributes which are responsible for maintaining these bonds of relationship within a family.

Nam (2004) declared that family is a “major social institution and locus of much of an individual‟s social activity. A social entity created by blood, marriage or

adoption”. Furthermore, it is “an element of broader kinship network that binds ancestors and descendents of an individual”.

Bhushan and Sachdeva (2006) defined family as a global and constant focal point of social relationships which has emotional basis, have strong influence on its members, showing them their responsibilities, telling them the importance of cooperation and follow social order. According to Rao (2007) family referred to “a group of slaves belonging to one man, then, by extension, to all persons ruled by one man or descended from one man to all persons living together in a man‟s household, such as servants, wives, children, parents, and other close relatives”. According to

Fretz (2010) family is the link of an individual with the society. It is a primary place, where, the infants acquire the personality traits. Gold (as cited in Giri, 2015) stated that family is a group of blood relatives which binds all members with sincerity, cultural values, emotional bonds and psychological well being. Family system generously contributes to the cognitive development, effective skills and psychomotor abilities of its members.

2.1.2 Historical Background of the Family

History of the family is as old as the history of mankind. Human beings cannot live alone, therefore, their first right is the right to form association or family.

According to Engels (as cited in Brewer, 2008), family has evolved from savagery and group marriages through barbarism and pairing marriages and then to civilization

(monogamy) through daily experiences. Kozlowska & Hanney (2002) explored that family is the fundamental unit of every society which has evolved along with changes in needs and demands of the members of the family and society. Nam (2004) documented

that the term modern family has undergone various transformations in its structure and functions from time to time.

Morgan (as cited in Khatoon, 2008) declared that the human family has evolved through the following five phases.

(a) The first phase is consanguine family. In this phase of family evolution, the brothers and sisters were allowed to marry one another. The blood relatives were allowed to have sexual relationships i.e. there were no restrictions on sexual intercourse among the family members. This was the most primitive form of family system, ever witnessed.

(b) The second phase of family evolution is punaluan family. In this phase of family evolution, the system of group marriages prevailed. A group of brothers were having one wife, and similarly, a group of sisters were allowed to have a single husband.

(c) The third phase is syndy asmian family. This is the first ever stage in the history of family life, where, the system of marriage between a man and a woman was witnessed. However, the couple of this time was allowed to have sexual intercourse with another family member and the children were considered as legitimate children of both parents.

(d) The fourth phase is patriarchal family. At this stage, father centered family came into existence, where, he was considered as a leader and symbol of the family.

His voice about any matter was considered as final and unchallengeable. All the family members were answerable to him.

(e) The fifth phase of family evolution is monogamian family. In this phase of family evolution, a person was allowed to marry only once and initiate a new family

life. It allows a male to have a single wife and a female to have a single husband. This is the most popular and accepted type of family system and is found in most parts of the world including Pakistani society (Alam, 2008).

Monogamian Family

Patriarchal Family

Syndy Asmian Family

Punaluan Family

Consanguine Family

Figure 1: Tree diagram for the evolution of family

2.1.3 Characteristics of the Family

Family is the mostly accepted social institution necessary for the successful survival of every society. It is a social institution which is necessary for fulfilling not only the needs of its individual members, but, that of the whole society as well (Alam,

2008). It is one of the most important social institutions in the history of mankind.

2.1.3.1 A system of nomenclature

According to Rao (2007) family gives an identity to its members who distinguish it from other families. Each member is then proud of his family which

creates a sense of closeness and loyalty among the family members. Family affiliation has strong bearings on the personality of an individual member. Fretz (2010) explained that family gives a newborn an identity, a name, a home and a group of people to which he/she has legitimate relationships.

2.1.3.2 Marriage

Marriage is one of the most trusted and reliable relationships, society has ever produced. It legitimizes social status and in turn put some important responsibilities.

It is the most primitive recognized institution which is necessary for the procreation of children and satisfaction of sexual needs (Alam, 2008).

Pauchauri (2010) noted that marriage in Islam covers many aspects such as family life, child rearing, cooperation and division of labor among family members. It legitimizes sexual intercourse between the husband and wife. It gives stability to the relationship between family members. Under unavoidable circumstances, the marriage can be dissolved as a last option.

2.1.3.3 Common roof

Family members live together in the same house, enjoying the same facilities, and facing common problems. It is the family which provides its members with common habitation. The task of child bearing and rearing is performed inside the family. All the family members live together in the same household and enjoy the happy moments and face the problems with strong determination. No member of the family is outside the sphere of influence of the family i.e. all his actions and dealings are affected by the family institution (Alam, 2008).

2.1.4 Functions of the Family

Ooms (cited in Patterson, 2002) declared that families perform various functions for the welfare of the society. Some of which are; “formation of family and its membership, provision of economic strength, nurturance and socialization and providing security to its members”. Similarly, Aynsley-Green (2004) described that the most important task of family is to protect the child and provide him care and love. Levine (cited in Shaffer, 2000) pointed out that there are three important functions which a family has to perform. These include: survival, self-sufficiency and self-actualization. These are the common functions performed by the family in almost all societies of the world. Hammond and Cheney (2010) are of the view that family is the basic institution which has to perform different functions such as “socialization of children, adult intimate relationships, economic support and cooperation and continuity of relationships for the whole life”.

2.1.4.1 Provision of economic support

Hammond and Cheney (2010) opined that economic support is one of the most important and common functions of today‟s families and different families support their family members in different ways. Bonvillain (2010) stated that family is the fundamental unit of economic cooperation and stability which is composed of one parent or alternate of the parents and children. It provides its members the economic and social support and is also responsible for child rearing. The children may be either biological or adopted.

2.1.4.2 Satisfaction of sexual needs and reproduction

Ritzer (2007) is of the view that family is the basic institution through which societies organize and regulate satisfaction of sexual needs, and this is the most

preferred way of reproducing new offsprings. In every society, the young generation is required to replace the old one. Without biological reproduction, no society of the world can survive. This function not only satisfies human desires for sex, but, the children reproduced this way are considered as legitimate children also.

2.1.4.3 Provision of security and protection

It is the responsibility of the family to provide security and protection to its members from birth to death. At the time of birth, the child is totally dependent on the family members for all his needs. The family fulfils all his basic needs, thus, enabling him to live a successful life later on (Alam, 2008).

2.1.4.4 Socializing agency

Family is the first socializing agency of a child. Family system, whether, it is joint or nuclear, is the most important factor of socialization (Bano & Farah, 2000).

Socialization is the factor which moulds the behavior of an individual. According to

Gruseck and Hastings (2007) stated that “Socialization is the process through which a child acquires his own personality”. This involves the learning of tactics which are required for successful survival and performance of his due role in the society.

Socialization enables children to learn values, norms, behavioral patterns and social skills which are necessary for them to become the useful citizens of the society. This function of socialization is also called the function of education performed by the family for the welfare of its members (Haralambos & Holborn, 2008). Macionis

(2011) declared that family is the first essential setting for child rearing. Parents guide their children to become good citizens of the society. Mutual leaning also takes place and the process of socialization continues throughout the life cycle.

2.1.4.5 Moral development

Ghani (2000) noted that one of the basic tasks of the family system is the transmission of moral and cultural values to the next generation which is either done through inheritance or socialization. The new born baby is stamped as Muslim,

Christian, Hindu, Jew and Buddhist without his consciousness only because of his family affiliation. It is the prime duty of the parents to instill religious beliefs in their children. These religious beliefs which are imparted during the early childhood have far reaching consequences on their moral development throughout their life span.

Economic Support

Sexual Satisfaction and Reproduction

Functions of the Family Security and Protection

Socialization

Moral Development

Figure 2: Tree diagram for the functions of family

2.1.5 Types of Family

Families have been differently classified into different types by different sociologists in the following way.

Matrilocal

Families on the basis Patrilocal of Residence

Neolocal

Patrilineal Families on the basis of Lineage/Ancestry Matrilineal

Bilineal

Patriarchal Families on the basis Family of Authority Matriarchal

Families on the basis Monogamous of Marriage Polygamous

Nuclear Families on the basis of Size/Structure Joint

Extended

Figure 3: Tree diagram for the classification of family

2.1.5.1 Families on the basis of residence

2.1.5.1.1 Matrilocal family

Macdougall (2010) opined that matrilocal family is a type of family in which the husband of newly married couple shifts to the house of wife‟s parents and live there, either permanently or for time being, laboring for her or with her in the service of her parents. It is rarely practiced in the Pakistani society and often not liked by the people.

2.1.5.1.2 Patrilocal family

This type of family system is totally in contrast to the matrilocal family system. In this type of family system, the couple starts living in husband‟s parents‟

home. This type of family system is most widely practiced in the Pakistani society

(Alam, 2008). This type of family system is liked by the majority of the Pakistani people.

2.1.5.1.3 Neolocal family

Alam (2008) stated that in the neolocal family, the residence is not permanent.

The couple spends some time in the house of wife‟s parents and some time with husband‟s parents and sometimes they start living independently. Therefore, the residence is not permanent and it changes from time to time. This type of family is more common in the advanced societies of the world.

2.1.5.2 Families on the basis of lineage/ancestry

2.1.5.2.1 Patrilineal family

In this type of family the descent may be traced through husband (male) lines.

This is the most dominant family system in the Pakistani society. The sons after marriage spend time with their parents till one or more are born to them. Furthermore, this type of family setup is very common in the rural localities of Pakistan (Alam,

2008).

2.1.5.2.2 Matrilineal family

In the matrilineal family, the line of descent may be traced back through daughter, mother and grandmother lines (Khatoon, 2008).

2.1.5.2.3 Bilateral family

Bilateral family is a type of family in which the descent may be traced through both male and female lines. This family is also known as bilateral family. Arab society is a prime example of bilateral family (Khatoon, 2008).

2.1.5.3 Families on the basis of authority

2.1.5.3.1 Patriarchal family

Hammond & Paul Cheney (2010) argued that in the matriarchal family, the whole authority rests in the hands of the father and the rights and inheritance pass from fathers to their sons. This type of family prevailed among ancient Greeks,

Romans and Aryans of India. The Patriarchal family setting is very popular in the

Pakistani society (Alam, 2008). Muhammad (2001) noted that U.A.E has a patriarchic society that emphasizes respect for the elders which is in decline in the Western society. In such social setting, the wisdom and authority of the elders are not challenged by the young family members. According to Fretz (2010) in patriarchal family, father is the unquestioned head of the family and wife and children are his subordinates. However, the father is not autocratic in making decisions about different matters of the family. The members of the family, naturally, accept his respective status without any say.

2.1.5.3.2 Matriarchal family

Matriarchal family is a female centered family system, where, she has more power and authority than male members. Her voice in the family matters is considered as final. The rights and inheritance pass from mothers to daughters and sons. In such families, the mother is considered as social, emotional and economic force of the family (Hammond & Cheney, 2010). Morgan (as cited in Brewer, 2008) is of the opinion that matriarchal family is the oldest type of family system prevailed in some societies of the world.

2.1.5.4 Families on the basis of marriage

2.1.5.4.1 Monogamous family

Monogamous family is a social setting which allows a person to marry only one partner. This type of family prevailed in North and South America as well as in

Europe (Macionis, 2011). According to Hammond and Cheney (2010) almost all the people in the United States married monogamously in the original colonies in 1600s.

However, Mormons preferred multiple spouses at the same time in the past. This is the most accepted form of family and has got tremendous global recognition. This type of family is also dominating the Pakistani society.

2.1.5.4.2 Polygamous family

Polygamous family is a type of family setting in which a person is allowed to marry two or more persons at a time (Macionis, 2011). This type of family has two forms which are polygyny and polyandry. Polygyny is a social setting in which a man is allowed to marry more than one woman. This is the most prevalent state of polygamy in the history of the world. Polygyny is still common and legal in many

African, Middle-Eastern and Indian Nations. It prevailed in China in the past and before World War II, it was very common there (Hammond & Cheney, 2010).

Haralambos & Holborn (2008) were of the view that polyandry allows a married woman to have sexual relationships with many people. This is found in

Masai communities situated in Kenya. In Banaro society, the husband is not allowed to have the intimate relation with his wife, until she gives birth to a child whose father is his friend.

According to Hammond & Cheney (2010) Polyandry allows more than one husband at a time. This type of family form has often permitted brothers to have a

common wife. This form prevailed in some Pacific Island Cultures and pre Taliban

Afghanis. Macionis (2011) defined Polyandry as a family pattern which allows a woman to have more than one husband. This was rarely practiced in Tibet.

2.1.5.5 Families on the basis of size or structure

2.1.5.5.1 Nuclear family

Winch (as cited in Khatoon, 2008) defined nuclear family as “a social unit consists of a married couple and their dependent children”. American family is a typical example of nuclear family system (Rao, 2007). Nuclear family system is dominant in the urban areas of Pakistan. Hammond and Cheney (2010) are of the opinion that nuclear family is a group of persons composed of “a father, a mother and their children”. This is the family which is mostly preferred in almost all societies of the world. Desai (as cited in Giri, 2015) explained that nuclear family has less number of family members. It is composed of parents and their children who are free from their responsibilities of other family members like grandparents, uncle, aunts and nieces. The family members believe in modernization. They lack emotional intelligence and community‟s social values.

2.1.5.5.2 Joint family

According Winch (cited in Khatoon, 2008) joint family is comprised of husband, wife, their children, blood relatives i.e. the in-laws living in the same household. Joint family system demands its members to live under one roof. If a member of this family, due to some unavoidable reasons such as employment or accommodation problems remains separately, still, they remain in close and regular contact with one another (Rao, 2007).

According to Alam (2008) joint family is a family which is composed of husband, wife, married and unmarried children, and other close relatives such as uncles, aunts, cousins and grandsons. In this type of family, a son after marriage continues to live under the same roof. All the family members have joint property.

Every member has its own share in it. The father is considered as the head of the family. This is the mostly preferred type of social setting in the rural areas of

Pakistan.

2.1.5.5.3 Extended family

“Extended family is comprised of one nuclear family and relatives like grandparents, uncles, aunts, cousins and the in-laws living together” (Blackwell, et al.

2005). Bahadur & Dhawan (2008) have defined extended family as a “family type in which the married sons and married brothers live separately, but, they have common property and income”.

2.1.6 Marriage and the Family

Reddy (1998) opined that in the process of evolution of marriage system in the global perspectives, different rules, regulations, restrictions, permissions traditions, customs and values have been developed in order to bring stability to this institution. Pimentel (2000) stated that marriage is the most important human relationships, the quality of which is redefined by the spouses which is necessary for their family life experiences. According to Coontz (2005) marriage is a social and legal union of a man and woman in spite of the fact that few cultures have allowed homosexuality. Marriage and family are the two socially recognized institutions, having biological basis and both are complementary to each other (Ubesekera, & Lou,

2008).

2.1.7 Functions of Marriage

Marriage is the most reliable relationship between a male and a female in most of the societies. In some societies, it is also established between two men or between two women. Marriage is the most important tool of regulating the sex of man and woman. Sexual satisfaction is the urgent need of human beings. This need is to be satisfied properly, in order to prevent unrest and confusion in the society. Hence, marriage is the only platform for such regulation and is often termed as license for sexual life (Rao, 2007). Similarly, marriage is the basic tool which gives stability to the relationships among different members of the family. Each member of the family recognizes each other‟s status and the relationships get stabilized with the passage of time. Marriage has no alternative as far as the stability of relationship between the spouses is concerned (Alam, 2008).

Marriage enables the newly married couple to start a new family life and give birth to legitimate children. The children are given birth and looked after by their parents. The marriage determines the descent of newly born child and the inheritance and succession follow the rule of the descent (Rao, 2007). Furthermore, marriage is the most reliable institution which provides social and economic security to the women. The woman by nature is comparatively weaker and cannot protect herself alone. Marriage is a platform which solves such problems (Alam, 2008).

2.1.8 Advantages of Nuclear Family

Nuclear family system is widely distributed family system which prevails in all societies of the world. Some of the major advantages of this system are outlined as under. Nuclear family setting advocates full pledge privacy of individual life. People can live their own lives and can do, whatever, they want to do. There are no such

boundaries set out by the elders for the young generation to follow (Bahadur &

Dhawan, 2008).

In nuclear family system, parents can give full attention to the socialization and education of their children which is not possible in joint social settings.

Therefore, in nuclear family, parents give more time and attention to their children as compared to those of joint family system (Alam, 2008). Study conducted by Khatoon

(2008) concluded that most of the respondents liked nuclear family system, because, in nuclear family the parents can give more attention to the education and training of children. Similarly, in nuclear families, there are fewer disturbances as compared to that of joint families. Furthermore, the communication among family members is more in nuclear families which positively affects the performance of students.

2.1.9 Disadvantages of Nuclear Family

In the nuclear families, when both the parents are working it becomes very difficult to establish a balance between office work and household activities.

Therefore, in the nuclear families, it is very difficult for the parents to properly look after their children, especially, the newly born and sick family members do not get the treatment they deserve (Bahadur & Dhawan, 2008). Similarly, in nuclear family system, the family members enjoy unnecessary freedom. The working parents have less time for their children. So, there is a chance for the young individuals of the family to join bad company and start smoking, and alcohol addiction (Bansal et al.

2014).

Popenoe (1993) argued that the American nuclear family is in decline. Due to the high divorce rate and marital instability, the nuclear family is losing much of its social function and structure. That is the reason why Bengston (2001) has suggested

that nuclear families are to be replaced by multigenerational families in the American society.

2.1.10 Advantages of Joint Family

In the past, joint family system was the dominant social setup of nearly all societies. In the joint family, as the children are exposed to more members of the family, therefore, their social adjustment is more than those of nuclear family system.

Kumar (2013) in his study “Adjustment of Secondary School Students of Working

Mothers Belonging to Joint and Nuclear Families” concluded that the social adjustment of boys from joint families is more than those of nuclear families. This is because in joint families, elder members along with grandparents play important role in the socialization of children which is not possible in the nuclear families.

Kauts and Kaur (2011) explored “Children behavior in relation to family environment and technological report at pre primary stage”, concluded that children from joint families have good behavior and have less behavioral problems than their counterparts from nuclear families. In the joint family setting, there is a proper division of labor among the family members. However, in case of emergency, the burden of work can be shared with other family members. Similarly, the experience of elders can also be shared (Bansal et al., 2014).

Cohen et al. (cited in Iqbal et al. (2013) declared that there is significant difference in the provision of social support for adults living in the family. The old aged members living in joint families get enough social support from their family members. The old aged members in turn enrich the younger members of the family.

Kapadia (as cited in Bahadur & Dhawan, 2008) stated that in joint family, the members of the family live under one roof, take meals at the same table and worship

together. They share common property, face the same problems, avail the same opportunities and cook and eat food together which is the symbol of homogeneity of the family. Joint family system advocates cooperation among family members, tolerance, self help and generosity, obedience to elders, loyalty and discipline. The motto of joint family system is “to work according to one‟s ability and get according to one‟s needs” (Haider, & Nighat, 2013).

Giri (2015) noted that individuals living in joint family system often sacrifice their personal interest for family interest. In joint family system, a large group of people live in the same household, eating the same food and participate in the general prayer of God. The children living in joint family system enjoy love and affection from every member of the family.

2.1.11 Disadvantages of Joint Family

According to Ghani (2000) in joint family system there is more bitterness and jealousy between family members. Therefore, they often face adjustment problems.

Similarly, children are often discouraged to take their own initiatives. Khatoon (2008) from her study concluded that joint family system offers more resistance to the initiatives of children because most of the members of the family have different views about a single matter. The children often fail to catch the attention of their parents, which negatively affect their academic outcomes. Some of the major disadvantages of joint family system are given below in the following manner.

Joint family system is a real cause of nepotism and discrimination. It is believed that member of joint family in a public service is likely to favor his member irrespective of the merit and ability (Rao, 2007). According to Haider and Nighat

(2013) joint family system is thought to be a battlefield for quarrels. In such family,

there live women who came from different background and social settings. Therefore, it becomes really difficult for them to adjust themselves according to the new situation. Similarly, there is a clash of opinion among young family members and elders of the family which often leads to instability and quarrels.

In the joint family system, the young members are not included in the process of decision making. Therefore, it discourages their talent and they are unable to initiate something for the welfare of the family which is against the psychological principles (Haider & Nighat, 2013).

2.1.12 Disintegration of Joint Family in Pakistan

Study conducted by Sidh (2002) on the “Impact of the Family Structure upon

Children in Uttarakhand, Mussoorie, India” concluded, that joint family is breaking down into nuclear families in the rural areas. Data depicts that in the last 35 years, the number of total families has doubled, while, that of nuclear families has increased four times. Joint family system which remained the mostly preferred family system in the sub-continent is now changing to the nuclear family setup. Bongaarts (2002) declared that urbanization is the main cause of disintegration of joint family system into the nuclear family. In the past, people used to live in joint families, but, in the

20th century most of the families disintegrated into nuclear families.

Grief (2005) opined that Western values have brought a change in the family structure. The joint families are converting into the nuclear families. The traditional roles of family are changing. In the past, the role of man was to provide food and that of woman was of a homemaker. Due to the financial problems, women are making entries into the labor market. This is the most important reasons for the disintegration of joint family into nuclear family system.

Pakistan is a developing country of the world. Therefore, it has also been affected by the global social change which has caused the disintegration of joint family system into the nuclear families. A study conducted by Itrat et al. (2007) concluded that there is a major change in the family system of Pakistan and most of the people are shifting from joint family system into the nuclear family system. The major causes of this change are urbanization and industrialization. Size of the average households, family socioeconomic status, physical and psychological health of the family members and role of the media were some of the other causes which have caused disintegration of joint family system into the nuclear family system.

According to Alam (2008) the major causes of disintegration of joint family system into the nuclear family are common property, (lack of personal ownership), low economy, the attitudes of the in laws, family conflicts, lack of established educational institutions and upto some extent the lack of basic health facilities and privacy of life are the contributing factors which have resulted in the nuclearization of family system in Pakistan. Some of the pull factors of nuclearization are better education and health facilities, autonomy, employment opportunities and better standard of life.

Khatoon (2008) is of the view that society is divided into rural and urban areas. Before, Pakistan came into being, joint family system prevailed. But, these days, due to scientific and industrial advancement, the tendency is toward the nuclear family system. Although, nuclear family has significant positive effects on the development of individuals, but, on the same time it has been the root cause for the destruction of the society.

Adams (2010) states that many scholars are of the view that due to industrialization, urbanization and educational expansion joint families disintegrated into the nuclear families. Technological advancement has increased migration from rural to the urban areas. Emotional bonds among family members are becoming weak. Females are now more aware of their due status through social media. That is why joint family system in Pakistan is on the decline (Kakepoto, 2011).

Khan and Rizvi (2015) conducted a study “Urbanization and its effects on joint family system in India” concluded, that there is a strong influence of social change on the basic structure and functions of family. Technology was considered as the fundamental instrument of social change that has changed the whole way of life.

Family, religion, morality, marriage and state property all have been changed by the technology. They found that urbanization has stolen the basic functions of family.

The marriage has been no longer a sacred one, but, a social contract, divorce and separation has been on the rise, husband-wife relation has been shaken, the religion has lost its position, criminal activities have been increased and nuclear family was considered as a direct outcome of the social change.

2.1.13 Moral Development

“Moral development is the process which helps children to develop proper attitudes and behaviors towards other people in a society, based on cultural norms, rules and laws” (Encyclopedia of children‟s health). Calkins (2000) is of the view that moral development is one‟s ability of making moral decisions in the light of the guidelines set out by the religion. Santrock (2005) is of the view that moral development is concerned with thoughts, feelings and beliefs which enable a person to distinguish between right and wrong, between good and bad. In the words of

Farooq (2013) moral development is concerned with the rules and conventions about just interaction among people to live harmoniously. It is the moral reasoning that helps them to understand moral decisions and prepare them for moral actions.

According to Maududi cited in Khanam (2008) “Moral sense is inborn in man and through the ages it has served as the common man's standard of moral behavior, approving certain qualities and disapproving others. While, this instinctive faculty may vary from person to person, human conscience has given a more or less uniform verdict in favor of certain moral qualities as being good and declared certain others as bad”.

Maududi cited in Khanam (2008) further opined that “dignity, restraint, politeness, and amiability have throughout the ages been counted among virtues, whereas, snobbery, misbehavior and rudeness have never found recognition as good moral qualities”. He further declared that “only that society has been looked upon as worthy or honor and respect which possesses the virtues of organization, discipline, mutual affection and fellow feeling and has established a social order based on justice, freedom and equality of men. Inversely, disorganization, no-discipline, anarchy, disunity, injustice and social imbalance have always been considered as manifestations of disaster and disintegration in a society. Robbery, murder, burglary, betrayal, fraud and theft have always been predestined. Similarly, slandering, scandal, mongering and blackmailing have never been considered as useful social activities”.

Sommers (2000) opined that “we have been thrown back into a Moral Stone

Age; many young people are totally unaffected by thousands of years of moral experience and moral progress”. According to Koenig et al. (2004) moral development is important in child‟s life. It is important in the interaction of children

with one another. Some authors have used the word emotional development for moral development. Lerner (2004) proposed that positive youth development is concerned with psychological, behavioral and social characteristics that are reflected in “Five

Cs”. The “Five Cs” stands for “competence, confidence, connection, character, and compassion”. A child who successfully develops these five Cs is thought to be thriving. Furthermore, the thriving child later on, develops a sixth “C” which stands for “contribution” (to self, family, community and to the whole society as well).

National Scientific Council on Developing Child (2005) described that emotional growth involves the ability to recognize and understand one‟s own feelings, to accurately comprehend emotional states of other people, to control emotions, express their emotions constructively, to regulate one‟s own behavior, to have empathy for others and to develop and maintain relationships with others.

Lotfabadi (2008) was of the view that “individual's social and moral development is a result of complicated, dynamic, and mutual interactions of the following five factors; innate nature of the individual, social contexts, events and experiences, development of moral judgment, and manifestation and change of stimulations and sentiments of sympathy and helping other people”.

Rahiem et al. (2012) found that “there are certain activities that can positively strengthen a school‟s culture in kindergarten e.g. sharing stories of a community‟s good examples for children, so, that they learn to honor as well as embrace good moral behavior; conducting meaningful service learning activities for students, such as cleaning the neighborhood or decorating dust bins; building close relationships among schools, homes and students, encourage parents to get involved in different school‟s activities, and encourage students to get involved in the community;

remembering small things such as to say sorry when one makes a mistake, putting the toys back where they belong; and showing that you care, are eager to correct others in a proper way, and do not blame others. These little things will make a big difference, and will result in a giant step for moral development”.

2.1.13.1 Morality

The term “morality” has been derived from Latin word “moralitas” which means character or proper behavior. It is the learning process of distinguishing right from wrong. Hoffman (as cited in Kreps & Gonzalez, 2010) labeled morality as

"one's link to society". Morality helps children develop understanding others‟ perspectives.

Nucci (2001) is of the view that “Morality is concerned with the fundamental questions of right and wrong, justice, fairness and basic human rights. Moral issues are mediated by sociocultural factors, since cultural values and norms have a strong bearing on how individuals think and act. Nevertheless, attitudes towards such issues as lying, stealing, murder and the value of justice are generally considered to be shared across cultures”.

Walker (2004) explored that “morality is a fundamental and pervasive aspect of human functioning with both interpersonal and intra psychic components; more specifically, it refers to voluntary behaviors that have, at least potentially, some social and interpersonal implications and that are governed by internal psychological i.e., both cognitive and affective mechanisms”.

According to Pervaiz (2005) morality is a key aspect of association with other people. In the light of Webster's dictionary, “morality is a system of conduct regarding principles of good and bad in behavior. In a society, these ideals are

represented as a collection of norms enforced upon the individual through the fear of restrictions and punishment that can be either subtle or extreme, arising from different sources as culture, family and community”.

Haron et al. (2006) opined that both the morals and ethics are concerned with the principle of right and wrong. What is right or wrong depends upon values, while, what is ethical or unethical will be based on certain set of rules of the code of conduct, underlined by certain society or organization. According to Tannsjo (2007) there is no agreed upon definition of morality as it changes from one society to the other. However, in basic terminology, it refers to the beliefs regarding right and wrong. It is a code of conduct, enforced by certain authority such as religion, specific group, culture or society.

Khanam (2008) is of the view that “morality, etiquette, law and religion are considered different phenomena by social psychologists. Etiquettes are the part of morality, and, are not taken as severe as law. These may be personal matters, though these are liked and accepted. Laws are devised by certain social and legal authorities for the betterment of the stakeholders of that law, but, the obedience of these laws is considered to be moral. Religion is thought to be a different thing which is divine.

Religion must be obeyed by its followers and the followers are considered to be moral. Therefore, literally, morality encompasses all the other three concepts. A person who shows etiquettes, obeys the law and follows his religion is moral”.

Morality plays a significant role in regulating human attitude. It is concerned with

“what is good and bad”, and which have significant effects on the others. Regarding morality, there are no written rules, but, is concerned with universal code of conduct

which is based on natural law. This will enable people to prohibit, require, encourage, discourage and allow certain actions (Stanford Encyclopedia of Philosophy, 2010).

2.1.13.2 Moral values

According to Alam (2008) anything, which gets significance in life, becomes our values. These are not biological in nature, but, develop inside the society. These depend upon social structure and culture. Culture varies from society to society.

Therefore, similar is the case with values. Tenets of Islam are great values for the

Pakistani society, Confucius for Chinese and Industrialization for the American society. Culture is full of values which are transmitted from one generation to the other. In the words of Doris and Stephen (2006) “human ethics and values, customs and ideals are the way revealing the dimensions of genuine life and family explores these moral values and judgments, thus, giving its members a better understanding”.

According to Young and Annisette (2009) “ethics permeates all aspects of our lives and are always relevant”. It is therefore, necessary to reinforce moral education at every stage of life. According to Lim (2003) a famous Malaya proverb states that education and teaching of values should start from early childhood, i.e. “Melentur buluh biarlah waktu rebung” (If you wish to bend a bamboo, do it when it is still a shoot). Sharma (2007) explored three sources of values. These are constitution, religion and culture. According to him, there are five basic human values which are truth, good behavior, peace, love and non violence.

Huitt (2004) is of the opinion that “in terms of defining good character, educators state that this should include developing moral responsibility and sound ethical and moral behavior, capacity for discipline, a moral and ethical sense of values, goals, and processes of a free society, standards of personal character and

ideas”. Manivannam (2008) opined that values are socially acceptable virtues of men, which are inculcated in children in schools and in the society. School enables children to become good citizens of the society. School should provide such an environment which is according to the need of the society. The environment of school, academic input, school administration and competency of teachers are significant factors which influence the overall development of a child.

2.1.14 Factors Affecting Moral Development

In terms of what influences moral growth, Campbell & Bond (as cited in

Khanam, 2008) were of the view that the major factors which influence the moral development and behavior of young generation are “heredity, early childhood experience, modeling by important adults and older youth, peer influence, the general physical and social environment, the communication media, what is taught in the schools and other institutions and specific situations and roles that elicit corresponding behavior”. Coles (1997) explored that moral development or character building is the outcome of an interaction between nature and nurture. Following are some of the most important factors which influence the moral development and moral values of individuals.

2.1.14.1 Family

Berkowitz and Grych (1998) were of the view that family provides an opportunity to its individual members, whereby, children follow their adults and expert members of the family. Teaching with the help of example is considered to be the best way in helping children to translate moral reasoning into acceptable moral outcome. Children use their family experiences in addressing future moral scenarios.

Demo et al. (2000) opined that family helps children acquire moral skills, values, norms and the knowhow of the culture of their society. Parents and other members of the family should help them in their moral growth. Parents should encourage their good virtues such as truthfulness, kindness, obedience, honesty, cooperation and sympathy. O‟Hare (2001) declared that family moulds the personality and character of children. Moral values are learnt at homes and parents should give instructions on regular basis to their children about daily life. This will help children in getting and following the societal values.

According to Crowder and Teachman (2004) living arrangement not only influences the families socially and economically, but, also affect the personality, mental level, academic outcomes, marriage decisions, and childbearing of teens as well. The 10th National Economic and Social Development Plan, (2007-2011) proposed that the learning and morality may be combined by creating and strengthening the linkages between families, religious and educational institutions for cultivating of morality to the children of Thailand, who are the future of the nation.

2.1.14.2 Gender

Holden (as cited in Mvungu, 2014) believed that “all cultures make distinction between girls and boys and have beliefs and expectations about what they ought to behave”. Hence, gender of the child plays a significant role in his/her personality development. According to Pearson and Bruess (2001) boys and girls exhibit the same levels of moral development. Thakur and Kang (2002) found that girls were morally better than boys.

Reddy (2004) was of the view that girls exhibited high preference for religious, aesthetic and social values. Neuert (2007) reported that on many occasions,

husbands abuse their wives in the presence of their children. Manh (2003) found that boys in such families are most likely to adopt immoral behaviors about girls. Bisht and Sharma (2012) found that there is no significant difference in the moral values of girls and boys belonging to the nuclear and joint families. Similarly, according to Gill and Jaswal (2006) both boys and girls exhibited similar moral values.

2.1.14.3 Home environment

Ahuja and Goyal (2006) opined that home environment significantly affects the personality development of an individual. Parents play a decisive role in molding the personality and enhancing the moral development and academic performance of their children. More involved parents provide timely guidance, pleasant and encouraging home environment to their children. Gross (2005) identified that home environment plays a significant role in molding the behavior and personality of the adolescents. Environmentalists are of the view that the child is not genius, lazy and criminal etc., by birth, but, it is the environment which makes him to be so (Lahey,

2004).

Baron and Byrne (2005) were of the view that quality of relation between the mother and the child indicates that how he will respond to the other people around him. This gives him the courage to describe his self-esteem. Pankajam (2005) and

Babu and Mumoorthy (2010) explored that home is the most important place for the moral development of children. By observing the behavior of their family members, the children develop their own pattern of behavior, either good or bad. Therefore, the initial training for moral development is received by the children first at home.

Rashid et al. (2014) from their study “barriers to moral development of adolescents and parental responsibility; the case of Malay working parents”,

concluded that children spend much of their time in homes, therefore, these are the prime agents of moral development for their children and the parents must be aware of their roles. They further suggested that in addition to spending money in preventing society from instability, crimes and violence etc., parental education should be encouraged for raising the moral standards of their children.

2.1.14.4 Religion

According to Reza (2010) religion is all around movement in the light of faith in Allah and a sense of responsibility regarding the formation of thoughts and beliefs, human morality, establishing good relationships among members of the society and to discourage discrimination. Therefore, religion plays a significant role in developing the morality. Religion and religious institutions are of prime importance as far as the value development of the individual is concerned. Religion plays a key role in identifying oneself and the others. It acts as a unifying factor against negative values like hatred, mutual distrust and intolerance (NCERT, 1998).

According to Birsch (2002) “Divine Command Theory of Ethics” explored that the most important tool of values is religion. Whether, it is Islam, Buddhism,

Christianity and Judaism, all guides us in solving our social problems. Gawande

(2007) considered religion to be the original source of derived social values. In the words of Goodwin (2007) cultural traditions, religion and language have various meanings which affect the social life.

Askarova (2007) was of the view that the “ultimate purpose of religion is to educate the kind of individual who possesses moral convictions, who is decent and virtuous, and who is the carrier of high humanistic ideas”. Religion helps in boosting the moral development of the children, but, still it is not the only way to inculcate

morality. Verma (2007) was of the view that the religious practices, God and belief system of a person have significant effects on the value pattern of an individual.

2.1.14.5 School

There is a significant impact of educational institution on the moral development of students. Odera (2009) opined that the societal norms, societal values, rules and regulations are transmitted through close relationships. Shumaker and

Heckel (2007) opined that the students are willing to learn more from their teachers as compared to their parents. Authority of the teachers, undesired consequences of failing to learn, and more active learning mode of students at school are all the concluding factors which contribute to their overall development. According to

Munson (2000) teachers spend much time in schools. Teachers with more moral skills will be able to best serve their students and as a result the social and behavioral problems of students will be decreased.

Oladipo (2009) found that imparting moral education in children is not the sole responsibility of a single institution, but, all the social institutions of a society should work in collaboration in order to give a meaningful character education to the young generation. Rahiem et al. (2012) were of the view that the development of children takes place in groups, not in isolation. Their interactions with school, home, community and society are significant factors which greatly enhance students‟ moral development. Students spend the most important time of their lives in schools.

Therefore, it has a significant effect on their moral development. Students with positive school culture produce more positive attitude and the students with negative school culture produce negative attitude in them.

Weissbourd et al. (2013) declares that school environment plays a very significant role in the moral development of children. The role and tactics of the teachers, background of the class fellows, rules and regulations of the school, ethics and curriculum, all are important as far as moral development of students is concerned. Kohoulat et al. (2016) conducted a study on the “Perception of School

Moral Atmosphere and Elementary Students‟ Moral Development”, concluded that there is a significant correlation between the moral atmosphere of school and moral development of elementary students. Therefore, the moral atmosphere of school is a strong predictor in determining students‟ moral competence.

2.1.14.6 Socioeconomic status

Socioeconomic status is another important factor which affects the moral development of children. Padhan (2003) was of the view that socioeconomic status is the significant predictor of family moral values. Rao (2007) found that children from low socioeconomic background have more mature moral judgment than their counterparts with high socioeconomic status. Similarly, Damon (2006) declared that children of middle class families have higher moral values than children belonging to middle class families. Singh (2011) conducted a study on “the moral development of students from various socioeconomic status and school backgrounds”, found that students of low socioeconomic status showed better moral judgment than their counterparts from higher socioeconomic status.

2.1.14.7 Media and globalization

Rideout et al. (2010) pointed out that the children and adolescents have more affinity for media and this affinity is increasing day by day. Therefore, media has a profound effect on their overall development. Majority of the people are of the view

that media is contributing to the decay of morality. Children are exposed to both appropriate and inappropriate behaviors through media. Televised violence for example generously contributes to the aggressive behavior of the individual exposed to television (Mwakera, 2003). Baumeister et al. (2001) pointed out that negative events seem bigger and frequent than positive ones which are called as negativity bias, whereas, positive events seem softer and less noticeable, termed as positivity offset.

Robertson et al. (2013) found that children who are exposed to more violent programs on television were more likely to have criminal mind and aggressive nature than their counterparts with less exposure to violent programs on television. Violence on television conveys “a model of conflict resolution”. The heroes are violent and they are rewarded for their acts which become role models for young generation. In a national poll in United States of America, 70% of the American people were of the view that the popular culture as portrayed on television and movies are responsible for lowering the moral standards in America. Children can readily watch stories about violence, theft, sexual promiscuity, and many other of immorality. The use of internet has further worsened the situation (U. S. C B S News Polls, 2007).

The 10th National Economic and Social Development Plan (2007-2011) mentioned the changes which are necessary in Thailand perspectives. There is a crisis of values in Thailand, due to the massive inflow of foreign cultures through mass media without filtering. A decline in the ethics of social media such as television, print and electronic media has resulted in the decline of moral values which has led to more social problems like juvenile delinquency, divorce, drug abuse and crimes.

Globalization is another term which has a strong influence on the moral values of every individual. However, the youth are more prone to the effect of globalization.

Rathour and Kang (2014) mentioned that globalization, modernization and media communications, materialism and blind imitation to the western culture have brought a change in the traditional values of young generation. Zilullah (2014) documented that the negative consequences of globalization include degradation of morality, disintegration of families and social injustice, lack of intimate relationships and spread of sexual misbehavior. Through globalization, such values are portrayed to the people that are not related to religion of Islam i.e. free sex and alcohol addiction. The government in Nigeria should properly monitor the role of media and introduce such programs which promote the moral standards of Nigerian people and make them true

Muslims.

Family

Gender

Home Environment

Religion Moral Development

School

Family Socioeconomic Status

Media and Globalization

Figure 4: Showing different factors affecting the moral development

2.1.15 Theories of Moral Development

2.1.15.1 Piaget’s theory of moral judgment

Piaget (1965) investigated moral values of children and studied the causes and different aspects of their moral development. He studied children from early stages of their lives and investigated the cognitive factors which were involved in the process of their mental development. Biological aspect of moral development was also taken into consideration. He extensively observed and interviewed children from four to twelve years during their play with marbles. He pointed out from his studies that children learn from their interactions with the environment. Piaget (1965) elaborated two stages through which moral development takes place.

Stage 1: Heteronomous morality

Heteronomous morality is the first stage of Piaget‟s theory of moral development. According to Moreno (2010) at this stage, children believe that rules are unchangeable as these are set up by the adults. They obey rules to avoid the consequences of law breaking. Santrock (2005) opined that “heteronomous morality is the first stage of moral development in Piaget‟s theory, occurring at four to seven years of age. At this stage, justice and rules are considered as unchangeable properties of the world removed from the control of the people”.

Zanden (1997) is of the view that heteronomous morality is the result of unequal interaction between children and their elders. During early stages of their lives in authoritarian environment, they consider themselves inferior to their adults, develop unchangeable moral rules.

Stage 2: Autonomous morality

This is the second stage of Piaget‟s theory of moral judgment. Santrock

(2001) explored that at this stage the children become aware of the fact that rules and laws are created by people. Age, from seven to ten years is considered transition stage between the two stages. Young children are aware of the fact that violation of law is connected with punishment. After violating the law, the children automatically look around in worried fashion. Older children with autonomous morality think that the punishment takes place if the relevant person witnesses the violation and still the punishment is not inevitable. The role of parents in the moral development of children is less as they have more power than their children and hands down rule in an authoritarian way. Moreno (2010) opined that children at the stage of autonomous morality believe that the rules are flexible and can be changed accordingly through consensus.

2.1.15.2 Kohlberg’s theory of moral development

The current study is mainly based on Kohlberg‟s theory of moral development. Kohlberg‟s theory of moral development is basically the extension of

“Piaget‟s theory of moral judgment”. He was of the view that children are moral philosophers (Zanden, 1997). He collected data from the respondents through questioning about imaginary stories. One of these stories became classical ethical dilemma.

“In Europe a lady was near death from a special type of cancer and there was one drug that the doctor thought might save her. It was a form of radium that a druggist in the same town had recently discovered. The drug was expensive to make, but, the druggist was charging ten times higher what the drug cost him to make. He

paid $200 for the radium and charged $2000 for a small doze of the drug. The sick woman‟s husband Heinz only managed $1000, which half of what it cost. He told the druggist that his wife was dying and asked him to sell it cheaper or let him pay later”, but, the druggist replied “No, I discovered the drug and I am going to make money from it”. Hence, “Heinz got desperate and broke into the man‟s store to steal the drug for his wife” (Kohlberg, 1958).

Kohlberg used this story for explaining the nature of moral thoughts. After reading the story, the interviewees are asked a series of questions about moral dilemmas. According to Rathus (2007) the moral reasoning stages follow a sequence and every stage is accompanied by a specific age group. Internalization is the basic concept of Kohlberg‟s theory of moral development. Kohlberg identified three levels of moral development each of which is characterized by two stages (Santrock, 2005).

2.1.15.2.1 Kohlberg’s stages of moral development

Level 1: Pre-moral or Pre-conventional morality (upto 9 years of age)

This is the first stage of Kohlberg‟s Theory of Moral development. Level-I is further divided into two stages which are: punishment-obedience orientation and instrumental relativist orientation (Santrock, 2005).

Stage 1: Punishment-obedience orientation

This is the lowest stage of Kohlberg‟s theory of moral development. The infant at this stage are unaware of moral values, however, very young children are moral to some degree. The individuals at this stage are unable to show the internalization of moral values. This stage is also known as reward and punishment stage. “Right and wrong depends upon the consequences (Santrock, 2006). Does the action lead to punishment or reward? This stage is based simply on one's own pain

and pleasure, and doesn't take others into account” (Narvaez, 2002; Murray, 2004). A child sees well what is good in the eyes of his super ordinate. Obedience is the only right way to be rewarded.

1. “What is right is to avoid breaking rules, to obey for obedience' sake, and to avoid doing physical damage to people and property”.

2. “The reason for doing right thing is avoiding punishment and the superior power of authorities” (Chilton, 2003).

Turiel (2006) opined that moral development occurs through a predictable path. When the children with less than eight years of age are presented with an ethical dilemma, they usually judge an action as bad when it results in punishment or deviates from the rules set out by the authority. Kohlberg (1981) opined that “This stage takes an egocentric point of view. A person at this stage doesn't consider the interests of others or recognizes that they differ from others, and doesn't relate two points of view. Actions are judged in terms of physical consequences rather than in terms of psychological interests of others”. Furthermore, “Authority‟s perspective is often confused with one‟s own opinion”.

Stage 2: Instrumental relativist orientation

This is the second stage of Kohlberg‟s theory of moral development. Crain

(cited in Khanam, 2008) declared that “This stage is also known as exchange stage.

At this stage, there is increased recognition that others have their own interests and should be taken into considerations. Rules are followed by the children in order to get something in turn. Children at this stage are concerned with what is fair, but, not with real justice”. Concrete exchange is considered right at this stage.

1. “What is right is following rules when it is to someone's immediate interest. Right is acting to meet one's own interests and needs and letting others, do the same. Right is also what is fair; that is, what is an equal exchange, a deal and an agreement.

2. The reason for doing right is to serve one's own needs or interests in a world where one must recognize that other people have their interests, too” (Kohlberg, 1981 cited in Chilton, 2003). Poggi (as cited in Khanam, 2008) opined that “Thus Stage 2's moral claims will vary according to quite accidental variations in tactical strength.

Finally, there is a problem of an infinite cycle of revenge, a feud in which neither side believes it has squared accounts with the other. This stage offers no means of ending of such feuds”.

Level 2: Conventional morality (10 years to adolescence)

This is the second level in Kohlberg‟s theory of moral development. The elementary students at their elementary school level attain this stage. The shared moral norms and rules form the morality (Colby & Kohlberg, 1987). The children at this stage follow the laws and rules due to the family and society‟s influence

(Santrock, 2006). Punishment and reward is not taken into consideration at this stage of moral reasoning. This level is further divided into the following two stages which are stage 3 and 4.

Stage 3: Mutual interpersonal expectations, relationships, and conformity or good boy nice girl orientation

According to Santrock (2005) this stage is characterized by trust, caring, and loyalty. Parents are considered as role model by their children and adolescents to be

“nice girl” or a “good boy”. At this stage interpersonal relationships are given more importance and morality is determined by the act of making others happy. Gilligan

(as cited in Kalsoom & Behlol, 2012) opined that, “this is the transition that has repeatedly been found to be problematic for women and she advances the hypothesis that the higher level stages (4-6 as opposed to 1-3) are handled „in a different voice‟ by women than by men, again implying the sharp break between the lower and upper stages”.

Stage 4: The law and order orientation/maintaining social order

This is the fourth stage of Kohlberg‟s theory of moral development. This stage is characterized by maintenance of social order and respect to the authority and rules

(Rathus, 2007). Crain (as cited in Khanam, 2008) declared that “This is called the law-and-order stage. Children now take the point of view that includes the social system as a whole. The rules of the society are the bases for right and wrong, and doing one's duty and showing respect for authority are important”. Chilton (2003) argued that every person at this stage considers himself/herself an honorable member of the society and community or organization. Now he/she is able to take the responsibility of a responsible citizen. Obedience to law and order is the slogan of this stage. Rule of law should prevail everywhere.

Level 3: Post-conventional morality

This is the highest level in Kohlberg‟s theory of moral development. This stage is characterized by the internalization of moral values. The individual at this stage is able to recognize various moral courses, explore different moral ways of facing issues and exhibit specific moral reactions under different circumstances.

Moral reasoning and judgment is based on individuals‟ own moral standards, irrespective of the conventional standards. The highest moral authority is conscience

(Rathus, 2007). The individuals may not obey the rules if these are inconsistent with

their moral standards (Woolfolk, 2004). This level is further divided into two stages which are social contract and universal ethical principles (Santrock, 2005). The detail description is given below.

Stage 5: Social contract orientation/utility and individual’s rights

According to Chilton (2003) “The right is upholding the basic rights, values, and legal contracts of a society, even when these are in conflict with the concrete rules and laws of the group”. “People want to keep society functioning. However, a smoothly functioning society is not necessarily, a good one. A totalitarian society might be, well-organized, but, it is hardly the moral ideal”. People begin to ask,

“What makes for a good society?” They start thinking about society in a very theoretical way, “stepping back from their own society and considering the rights and values that a society ought to uphold. They then, evaluate existing societies in terms of these prior considerations”. They are said to take a “prior-to-society” perspective

(Colby and Kohlberg, 1987).

According to Santrock (2005) validity of the actual laws depends upon its applicability for ensuring the fundamental rights of an individual under certain circumstances. Ruthas (2007) opined that people at this stage think that under certain circumstances, the laws can be violated. He further elaborated that to steal something is not legally allowed, but, in Heinz case, it was right thing to be done for saving the life.

Stage 6: Universal ethical principle orientation

Kohlberg (1981) is of the view that “in this stage, the person uses society‟s conventions and universal laws for the solidarity of human rights. People prefer here the human values rather than the laws and so-called obligations. The interest of more

persons is preferred to the single one and the laws can be sacrificed for saving human lives. In case of conflict between the conventions and the human rights, the rights are likely to be preferred”.

Kohlberg (1981) opined that “regarding what is right: Stage 6 is guided by the universal ethical principles. Particular laws or social agreements are usually valid because they rest on such principles. When laws violate these principles, one acts in accordance with the principle. Principles are universal principles of justice; the equality of human rights and respect for the dignity of human beings as individuals.

These are not merely the values that are recognized, but, are the principles which are used to generate particular decisions”.

Stage 6: Universal Ethical Principle Orientation

Stage 5: Social Contract Orientation

Level 3: Post Conventional Morality

PPPPPPPPPPPPPPPPPPPPPPPPPPP PPPPPPPPPPPPPPPPPPPPPPPPPPPStage 4: Law and Order Orientation PPPPPPPPPPPPPPPPPPPPPPPPPPP StagePPPP 3: GoodPPPPPP BoypppppppppppPPP-Nice Girl Orientation

100 Level 2: Conventional Morality 80

60 East Stage 2: Instrumental Relativist Orientation West 40 North 20 Stage 1: Punishment-Obedience Orientation 0 1st Qtr 2nd Qtr 3rd Qtr 4th Qtr Level: 1 Pre-conventional Morality Post Conventional Morality Figure 5: Tree diagram for Kohlberg’s theory of moral development

2.2 THEORETICAL BASIS OF THE STUDY

The current study is mainly based on Kohlberg‟s theory of moral development. Kohlberg‟s theory of moral development is the extension of Piaget‟s theory of moral judgment. Kohlberg‟s theory of moral development uses to collect data about a hypothetical dilemma by asking a series of questions at the end of each dilemma. By analyzing the collected data, the moral stages of individuals are determined. According to him children are moral philosophers (Zanden, 1997).

2.3 RELATED STUDIES

In the era of globalization and technological revolution, education is of prime importance as far as the development of human capital is concerned. It is closely related with the progress and prosperity of all the individuals (Battle & Lewis, 2002).

Quality of educational outcomes has been remained top priority for the educators of every society all over the world. Educators, trainers and research scholars have long been interested in investigating different factors which contribute to the better performance of the learners. These factors include: “student factors, family factors, school factors and peer factors” (Crosnoe et al. 2004).

Family is the first world of a child. It is the family which provides him all the basic facilities as well as it is the major source of education for him. It is the socializing agency of education for a child (Khatal, 2011). Family is the most important factor which influences the overall development of its individual members.

The effects of family system variables including joint and nuclear families etc. on the moral development of children have been categorized into the following major headings.

2.3.1 Family and Moral Development

Dufour et al. (2008) opined that each family has its own advantages and disadvantages i.e. no family is perfect in all respects. Family type, whether, it is monogamous, polygamous, single parent family, two parent family, nuclear or joint family has a strong impact on the moral development of its individual members.

Family structure has a direct effect on the moral development of students. However, the degree of influence changes with change in family processes and individual characteristics (Brannigan et al., 2002).

Zarrett and Lerner (2008) in their study “The ways to promote the positive development of children and youth”, argue that eating dinner together as a family is one of the most important factors associated with positive development of children and youth. Findings of the study depicted that eating dinner together was related to the higher level of positive youth development and to the lower rates of depression and behavioral problems.

Baek (2010) in a comparative study on the moral development of Korean and

British children for which data were collected through Kohlberg‟s moral dilemmas, found that both the Korean and British children depicted cultural differences in their moral orientations. However, some of the responses of Korean children did not match

Kohlberg‟s manual. Because, there are some traditional Korean concepts which influenced their moral reasoning, but, cannot be measured by Kohlberg‟s approach.

Therefore, Kohlberg‟s moral dilemmas can be used to determine moral stages of children in general and was not appropriate to understand moral reasoning of children. The study suggests that moral reasoning should be interpreted after taking cultural differences into considerations.

2.3.1.1 Polygamous and monogamous families and moral development

Al-Krenawi and Lightman (2000) explained that children belonging to polygamous family have low academic success, lower level of school adjustment and higher conflict rates as compared to children from monogamous family settings.

Study conducted by Al-Krenawi and Slonim-Nivo (2008) concluded that children from polygamous families suffer from more mental health and social problems with low academic performance than children from monogamous setup. Shepard (2013) from her study concluded that women in polygamous settings suffer from more stress, mental disorders, marital unsatisfaction, and low self esteem as compared to women in monogamous setups.

2.3.1.2 Single parent family, two parent family and moral development

Study conducted by Oyerinde (2001) revealed that children form single parent or step-parent families get less encouragement, attention, monitoring and supervision from parents than their counterparts with both biological parents. Angrist (2002) argue that the presence of father is necessary for the personality development of their children. However, the absence of father is likely to affect the morality of children as far as the gender difference is concerned. This is because some of the values are flourished in the presence of father, and the children may not be opening minded about gender role due to the absence of father. Therefore, this may lead to the disintegration of morality.

Elbedour et al. (2002) claimed that the family structure has a strong effect on the overall development of learners. The adopted children and children of broken family with one stepparent or biological parent showed poor adjustment such as conduct disorders, self concept or dropout of schools. Manh (2003) conducted a study

on “families with spoilt children in Hanoi city”, concluded that 26% of the families with spoilt children were from divorced conditions and 55% of the families without fathers were found unable to properly guide their children. Therefore, strengthening the functions of the family may have positive consequences on the behavior of children. Hoeksema (2003) found that children from single parent family have the feelings of insecurity. Therefore, they have more problems than children with two biological parents. They have poor school attendance record, juvenile delinquency and less class concentration.

Demuth and Brown (2004) opined that children from single father and single mother family are more delinquent than their counterparts with two biological parents. However, proper monitoring and appropriate supervision minimize the differences between the two families. Furthermore, study conducted by Horn and

Sylvester (2002) concluded that children living in father absent families are more likely to be engaged in criminal activities and vice versa.

Mandara and Murray (2006) from their study concluded that boys from father absent homes are more likely to use drugs as compared to their counterparts whose father is present at home. However, the absence of father is not a risk factor for the girls. According to Magnuson and Berger (2009) students belonging to single parent families have more adjustment problems than students living with two biological parents. Divorce in family is also associated with more behavioral problems. Eagan

(2011) opined that boys from single parent family may be hostile, hyperactive and aggressive. He may be hostile towards his mother as he grows older.

Hilton and Devall (2012) found that boys with absent fathers are more likely to use drug than girls. Chances of boys being drug users are high as compared to,

where, father is available. Babalis (2013) found that children from single parent families are two times more likely to have social, emotional and psychological problems than their counterparts from nuclear families. Kitheka (2016) explored that there is a significant correlation between single motherhood and moral development of children. Children from single parent families were more exposed to drug abuse, teenage pregnancy and drop out of schools.

2.3.1.3 Nuclear and joint families and moral development

Nuclear and joint family systems are the most common types of families found in almost all societies of the world. Both, nuclear and joint families have tremendous influence on the overall development of its individual members. Elliot &

Gray (2000) in a Report for New Zealand Immigration Service declared that family setups have strong influence on the overall activities of their members. In nuclear family, there is a direct relationship between two generations living together, whereas, in joint family, the relationship is secondary in nature. In Pakistan, children live in both joint and nuclear family setups. Therefore, they enjoy both types of relationships which greatly affect their lives.

Taqui et al. (2007) explored that living in nuclear family is a strong predictor of anxiety in the older generation of Pakistan. Bahadur and Dhawan (2008) conducted a study on “The social values of parents and children in the nuclear and joint families in Allahabad, India”. Results of the study indicated that there is no significant difference in the social values of children and parents living in joint families.

Children had similar values to that of their parents. In joint families, girls exhibited values similar to the values of mothers and boys to those of their fathers. However, in nuclear family, there was a significant difference in the values of parents and

children. Children in the nuclear family have more freedom with less parental control.

In case of both working parents, the children do not get the proper attention and time from their parents which negatively affect their social development.

Study conducted by Basu (2012) investigated the emotional, social and educational adjustment of secondary school students. The findings of the study revealed that the female secondary school students were better adjusted than male secondary school students. Similarly, the adjustment of secondary school students belonging to the joint families is better than their counterparts from nuclear families.

Iqbal et al. (2013) concluded that old age adults living in joint family system receive more social support than their counterparts from nuclear family system.

Kumar (2013) conducted a study on the “Adjustment of Secondary School Students of Working Mothers Belonging to Joint and Nuclear Families” concluded that there is no significant difference between adjustment of students of working mother from nuclear and joint families. Anyhow, boys of working mothers from nuclear family are better adjusted socially, as compared to their counterparts from joint families. Boys belonging to the joint family are socially more developed than those of nuclear families. Hence, the presence of grandparents in joint families plays a significant role in the socialization of children and preparing them for their due role in the society.

Khan et al. (2014) found that aggression in the behavior is associated with the family type. The children living in nuclear family system were comparatively more aggressive in behavior. Boys of joint families were better than girls of joint families.

This is because girls have less support from their family members in the joint families. Furthermore, children belonging to the single parent families have more aggressive behavior because of less parental support.

Singh et al. (2014) concluded from their study that the type of family plays a significant role in the emotional development of an individual. Children belonging to joint family system were socially and emotionally more mature than their counterparts from nuclear family system. Rehman and Singh (2015) concluded from their study that there is a significant influence of family type on the social and emotional adjustment of adolescents. Adolescents of joint family system have better emotional adjustment than students of nuclear family system.

2.3.2 Religious Education and Moral Development

Plato (Cited in O'Sullivan, 2004) stated that "Education in virtue is the only education which deserves the name". According to Hull (2005) most of the states in

Europe are providing religious education in their schools free of cost. In Greece,

Norway and Soviet Union, religious education has been introduced and previous

Communist Indoctrination has been discontinued. Germany and Netherland are replacing ethical programs with religious education. Similarly, England and Whales are imparting best model of religious education for the rest of the countries since

1944.

Keeping the view in mind, the article 31 of the Islamic Republic of Pakistan, which declares that “our educational policy must ensure preservation, practice and promotion of Islamic ideology and principles as enshrined in the teachings of the

Qur‟an and the Holy Prophet Muhammad (SAW)” (Government of Pakistan, 1998-

2010). Government of Pakistan (1998-2010) further elaborates the need of religious education as, “knowledge is empowerment and a purposeless empowerment (without having religious values) tends to be a form of tyranny”.

Perrin (2000) explored that there is positive correlation between religious education and practice of honesty. Similarly, study conducted by Strizenec (2000) concluded that there is a significant relationship between religious education and the ability to cope with the challenging situation with confidence. Furthermore, it was declared that education without moral values results in demoralization. Fegley et al.

(2002) from their study found that taking part in religious activities are positively correlated with self concept and religious values are associated with better family adjustment and successful future in the African American adults. A study conducted by Lind (2008) evidenced that the students of medical college exhibited clear decline in moral development after completing three years of medical education.

Gill and Jaswal (2007) concluded from their study that students who received moral values lessons were better on moral values than those of control group across all the ages. Oxenberg (2008) investigated the effect of character education lessons for raising moral standards. Three lessons on character education were taught for a period of one week. The focus of the lesson was on “listening to others, understanding of view and controlling anger”. The results of the study indicated that the use of character education lessons in classrooms during one week period can raise positive behavior and negate the negative one.

Khanam (2008) conducted a study on “The effect of Religious Education on the Moral Development of Children”, concluded that religious education has significant influence on the moral development of children. Students going to both school and Madrasa showed higher moral development. Increase in the content of religious subjects is directly related with the higher stages of moral development and vice versa. She recommended that more religious subjects should be included in the

curriculum. The gap between the schools and Madaris should be minimized by introducing more religious subjects to the schools and the school subjects in Madaris.

McCullough and Willoughby (2009) were of the opinion that religiousness has strong association with self regulation and self control in an individual. Ahmed

(2007) opined that “Religion plays a significant role in satisfying our physical as well as spiritual needs. Islam teaches us a code of behavior and gives us a meaning for our existence. Unfortunately, in today's Western society, the religious, moral and ethical values have been declining. The families are falling apart, divorce rate is increasing sharply, and substance abuse and excessive sexual indulgence are common in adolescents and young adults. These factors lead to the conflicts, resentment, and loss of self-respect, loneliness, depression, anxiety and a host of psychological symptoms.

He further declared that no aspect of life is beyond the boundaries of Islam. It guides us in all spheres of life”.

Jackson (2010) declared that there is a close relationship between religion and the moral values of individuals. The ratio of delinquency and crimes is higher in children with lower levels of religious commitments as compared to those with higher level. Abun and Cajindos (2012) in a study on “The Effect of Religion toward Moral

Values of College Students in Locos Sur, Philippines” concluded that religion and religious awareness are closely connected with morality and both of these influence the morality of students. Furthermore, students with more religious education have higher moralities. Therefore, religion in Philippines context plays significant role in the moral development. They recommended from their study that parents should promote religious awareness in their children by regularly praying together, attending worship, listening to the spiritual reflections and other religious activities.

2.3.3 Parental Involvement and Moral Development

Parental involvement strongly influences the moral development of their children. Agulanna (1999) suggested that family has a significant effect on the social, moral and spiritual development of students. The presence of father in home significantly affects the overall development of a child. Parental education plays a very decisive role in the personality development of children. This is because the educated parents are able to communicate easily about their learning activities. They can help their children in a better way (Fantuzzo & Tighe, 2000).

Ahmad (2002) from his study “Psychological effect upon the children of working mothers in different family structures in Pakistan” concluded that mother‟s employment status and nuclear family system are being favored in Pakistan.

Furthermore, mother‟s employment status has positive effect on the psychological wellbeing of children, irrespective of the family type. This is because, working mother often work hard and tries to compensate for their absence.

Gay and Airasian (2003) explored that when children grow in age they are exposed to the demanding situations, where, they are required to decide what behaviors are morally correct. Parents at this stage are needed to help children to differentiate between right and wrong. Manh (2003) opined that “out of twenty qualities of children, ten are strongly affected by fathers. These are self-confidence

(61%), law respect (59%), courage-bravery (56.9%) honor-respect (49.3%), patience

(48.8%), senior-respect (40.8%), modesty (32.2%), curiosity (27%), liberty and liberality (19.1%) and riskiness and aggressiveness (16.1%). However, the qualities which are strongly affected by mothers are filial piety (64.5%), honesty and

truthfulness (58.3%), hospitality (55.5%), calmness and neatness (54%), and dislike having a wide circle of acquaintances (15.2%)”.

Subhadra (2006) noted that adolescents emulate their parents. If the parents are honest, sincere, polite and responsible, their children are likely to behave in the same manner and vice versa. The children start their learning from home. Therefore, it is the first institution, where, good habits and values are imparted in them. Reese et al. (2007) investigated the effect of conversation within family members on the moral development and self esteem of children. The result of the study showed that parent- child interactions are necessary for the moral development and self esteem of the children.

Allen and Daly (2007) described that “father involvement includes the frequency of contact, amount of time spent together (doing things such as shared meals, shared leisure time, or time spent reading together), and the perceived accessibility and availability of father. This can also include the amount of time fathers spend performing routine physical child care such as bathing, preparing meals, and clothing in addition to, the amount of time father spend playing with their child, and how effective, mutual and reciprocal the play is”.

Lee (2007) found that children relationship with their parents and lack of parental monitoring are the basic factors that lead to the behavioral maladjustment.

Similarly, Cota-Robles and Gamble (2005) and Ousey and Wilcoxs (2007) opined that close mother-child relationship reduces risks for delinquent behavior for Mexican boys. However, a study about Latino youth‟s delinquency found that family relationship is negatively related to delinquency (Kerr, 2003). Hence, the presence of both parents, male and female is necessary for molding the behavior of their children.

Pleck (2010) stated that father involvement has three domains which are closely related with child‟s well being. These include; (a) positive engagement i.e. time fathers spent in appropriate interactions with children. This includes: reading and playing with children. This involves expression of love and affection; (b) Warmth which involves the degree of commitments to children and (c) control which is concerned with supervision of children.

Naggaddya (2011) opined that inappropriate parental supervision, parental conflict, parental aggression, low parental economy and anti social parental behavior significantly contribute to the moral decay of their children. Khan et al. (2014) found that educational level of mother has a direct effect on the behavior of adolescents and minimum of five years of education is necessary for producing healthy behavior in children. Moreover, parental education is also associated with behavioral development in children.

Rohner and Veneziano (2001) opined that parental warmth is strongly correlated with psychological and emotional development of their children. Howard et al. (2006) stated that children of parents with more positive parental involvements are likely to have less behavioral problems than their counterparts with less parental involvements.

2.3.4 Gender and Moral Development

Gender also has a strong influence on the moral development of students.

Kindlon and Thompson (2002) from their study concluded that females enjoy higher level of moral intelligence than males as the mothers give more time and attention to the moral development process of girls as compared to boys. Rogers and Smith

(2003) investigated the effect of age and gender on the moral reasoning among

accounting students at a state university in the Southern United States, concluded, that there is no significant difference in the moral reasoning of male and female students.

However, girls were better adjusted than boys.

Tierney et al. (2007) found that in 2004, “in America, three quarters of young people prosecuted in juvenile courts were boys”. Similarly, study conducted by

Venezia (2008) concluded that female accounting students have higher levels of ethical reasoning than male students. According to Exline (2005) respect, forgiveness and goodwill are most widely practiced values of the day today life of the students.

Hoffman (2007) studied gender differences in the moral standards, findings of the study revealed that females were more sympathetic towards others. Study conducted by Javed et al. (2014) on the “Effect of School System and Gender on

Moral Values and Forgiveness in Pakistani School Children” concluded that the type of school and gender only affected moral values and forgiveness. Girls from private schools exhibited higher morality and higher tendency to forgive than their counterparts from public schools. However, Lan et al. (2005) found that there is no significant difference in the moral reasoning of boys and girls. Muola et al. (2009) declared that the level of delinquency of boys was greater than that of girls in Kenya.

Upadhaya (2015) conducted a study on “Gender Difference in Moral

Judgment among Secondary Level Students” concluded that female students have higher moral judgment than male students. Aldarabah et al. (2015) from their study

“Evaluating the Moral Intelligence of the Late Childhood (9-12) Years in Jordan: Al-

Karak Governorate Case” concluded that there is no significant difference in the moral intelligence of boys and girls i.e. gender has no role to play as far as moral intelligence is concerned. Carol (as cited in Kitheka, 2016) argued that boys often

rely on formal rules to differentiate right from wrong, whereas, girls, rely on personal relationship when judging a situation. Girls are polite, whereas, boys are aggressive in their approach to life.

2.3.5 Rural and Urban Localities and Moral Development

Smith (2006) opined that the moral values of the individuals may be regulated by society, government and religion. The values driven by the government may be changed with change in government. Moral codes are primarily developed at home and may be affected by parents and other family members. Therefore, standards of morality may be changed from one generation to the other and across cultures and locations.

Kulsum (2012) from her study concluded that there is a significant difference in the mean score of students from rural and urban areas. Students from rural areas were found to have high moral values than their counterparts from urban areas. She further recommended that parents and other family members from urban locations should inculcate moral values in their children in order to raise their moral reasoning level.

Mhaske (2010) concluded that the value pattern of students varies due to locality. There is a significant difference in the value pattern of students belonging to the rural and urban areas. Furthermore, there is a significant difference in the value pattern of male and female students from rural and urban areas. Similarly, the value pattern of male students from urban and rural areas is different from one another.

Farooq (2013) concluded from his study that there is no significant difference in the moral reasoning of secondary school head teachers belonging to rural and urban areas of Punjab and Khyber Pakhtunkhwa Provinces. Similarly, there is no

significant difference in the moral reasoning of male and female secondary school head teachers. Omer et al. (2015) concluded that families from urban background were unable to provide basic religious knowledge to their children which negatively affected their moral development. Furthermore, the misuse of social media by the young generation was another factor related to their moral decay.

2.3.6 The Role of Grandparents in Moral Development

Literature review indicates that grandparents play decisive role in the overall development of their family members. However, the influence of both grandfathers and grandmothers is different. Jane and Robbins (2007) noted that many grandparents engage their grandchildren in the learning activities informally. The grandchildren are taught science and technology through daily shared experiences. Similarly, Binh

(2012) argued that grandparents play significant role in child rearing. They guide their family members, especially, grandchildren in their study schedule, eating, bathing, drinking, proper rest, language learning and speaking, and behaviors etc.

They lead them to become useful citizens of the society. Their role is more important when they live with their children in the same household.

Dudley (cited in Rehman and Singh, 2015) found that students who spend more time with their grandparents have better social and emotional adjustment and less behavioral problems than their counterparts without grandparents. Omer et al.

(2015) found that grandparents play a very decisive role in the moral development of children in Pakistani society, but, due to the nuclearization of family system, the role of grandparents has been minimized and parents deliberately want to keep their children away from them. All this has negatively affected the moral development of young generation. They recommended that family institution, especially, joint family

may be strengthened and proper check and balance should be maintained on the use of social media for better results.

According to Rehman and Singh (2015) grandparents play an important role in the social and emotional adjustment of children. In joint family system, grandparents play a very positive role in threatening family situations. Furthermore,

Proper guidance and counseling should be provided to the adolescents of nuclear family system.

2.3.7 Home Environment and Moral Development

According to All word Dictionary (2006) home environment is based on social, physical and biological sciences and humanity. Kaur (2014) explained that home environment consists of four components which are physical, intellectual, social and moral. All of these are necessary for the overall development of its individual members. Roberts et al. (2003) explored that the people belonging to the divorced homes are more likely to express values that view material possessions as a way of achieving happiness as compared to their counterparts from intact homes.

Dumas et al. (2005) identified that chaotic homes do not provide the desired opportunities to their individual members which retard children adjustment. The chaos has been associated with socioeconomic status of the family, domestic problems, child behavioral problems and delinquency. Knudsen et al. (2006) argue that the stability of home environment has a significant effect on the development of personality traits in children. Disruptions in the structure of the family in the earlier stages of child‟s life have negative effects on his personality development.

According to Ogbemudia and Aiasa (2013) environment is the immediate surrounding of the child. This is referred to as physical and psychological conditions

faced by the children that influence their behavior. It is the responsibility of the parents to provide them such a home environment which facilitates their learning.

Ryan and Deci (2000) opined that external factors such as threats, deadlines, harsh evaluations and imposition of goals diminish motivations and the children of cooperative parents are highly motivated intrinsically.

In the words of Mukerjee (2007) family is considered to be the base of socialization, where, parents are the first teachers and the children are the first learners. Values are transmitted from parents to their offsprings. The deteriorating home environment in broken homes is the significant factor which causes indiscipline in children. These factors are the hurdles in involving students in the constructive activities.

Parveen (2007) in her study “ the effect of home environment on personality and academic achievement of students of grade 12 in Rawalpindi division” concluded that the academic achievement and personality of students is not affected by family type, whereas, home environment, socioeconomic status, family relations and gender of students had strong influences on their personality.

Kapani (2008) is of the view that values are important factors affecting the personality of an individual. Values are developed directly from parents at homes and teachers at schools and from society through mass media. Therefore, different family patterns result in the differences in the social values and ideologies. Maseko (2009) pointed out that children from good social environment are likely to be more developed socially than their counterparts from complex social environment.

Therefore, it can be concluded that healthy social environment results in well adjusted individuals in every society. Furthermore, Binh (2012) stated that to deal with

behavior maladjustment, healthy social environment should be provided. Kulsum

(2012) in her study “The Influence of Home Environment on the Inculcation of Moral

Values among Secondary School Students” found that home environment is very necessary in developing the moral values of children. The close relation between parents and children determines the personality and character of a child. Finding of the study depicted that girls and boys from rural and urban areas with different home environments have different moral values.

Naik and Thakur (2014) conducted a study on “the effect of home environment on different dimensions of value education of higher secondary school students” concluded that there is a close relationship between home environment and moral education of higher secondary school students. Home environment is crucial as far as the moral development of its members is concerned. In homes, there is direct face to face contact between parents and children which moulds the personality and character of a child.

Uzoka and Njoko (2015) conducted a study on the “Environmental Factors

Influencing the Moral Behavior of Secondary School Students in Imo State, Nigeria”, concluded, that environmental elements such as home, involvements in schools and culture have significant effects on the moral development of children. Most of the students, especially, secondary school students are not given proper attention and time to improve their moral growth which has resulted in the unrest in the whole globe. They recommended that parents should give proper guidance to their children when they reach the age, in approved patterns of behavior. The teachers should dedicate themselves to carry out their responsibilities in the best possible way.

Furthermore, students should learn their culture, especially, its acceptable elements

which will enhance their moral growth. According to Menhas et al. (2014) family communication is important for proper functioning of the family. Family with good communication has good effects on the problem solving abilities of its members.

2.3.8 School Environment and Moral Development

Kohlberg (1972) was of the view that moral development can be taught in schools through teachers‟ behavior. Brugman et al. (2003) argued that the moral atmosphere of school influences the moral behavior, academic performance, life attitudes and motivation levels. According to them, there is a close relationship between school environment and moral development of students. Mwiti (2005) observed that the strikes and riots in schools, colleges and universities are due to the lack of morally competent teachers.

Ahmed et al. (2009) investigated “The role of public and private schools and

Madrasas in the moral development of students in Pakistan”. Findings of the study revealed that students studying in Madrasas exhibited higher level of honesty, respect for others and patriotism than students of public and private schools. However, students from Madrasas were more violent than those of public and private schools.

Similarly, students of private schools showed more tolerance than those from public schools. Study conducted by Lawrence (2012) concluded that the school environment helps in improving social ability, health status and moral values of students.

Therefore, efforts should be taken for strengthening school environment.

Weissbourd et al. (2013) summarized that the school environment is one of the most important institutions that plays an important role in the moral development of students. School environment provides more opportunities for discussion and interaction. Teachers can utilize their potentials to mobilize the moral energy and

wisdom of the learners in the best possible way. All these help in the creation of sound mind in the sound body.

According to Nyaga (2011) schools play decisive role in molding the moral behavior of students. School factors that affect the moral development of students are punctuality, commitment of the teacher, guidance and counseling programs for imparting moral values, good school administration for maintaining discipline, pleasant school environment, clear rules and regulations for developing obedient students and integrity of the teachers that determine the general moral development of the learners.

Kadivar et al. (2016) conducted a study on the “Perception of School Moral

Atmosphere and Elementary Students‟ Moral Development” concluded, that the moral atmosphere of school is a significant factor in predicting the moral development of students. The study recommended that the moral atmosphere of school should be enhanced in order to improve the moral development of the learners.

2.3.9 Family Size and Moral Development

The size of family has a direct effect on the moral development of its individual members. Farrington and Loeber (1999) stated that “a large family size is a strong predictor of juvenile delinquency in children. Furthermore, if a boy had four or more brothers and sisters at his tenth birthday, this doubled his risk of being convicted as juvenile”. According to Zohar and Marshal (2001) the size of family and number of family members play an important role in developing the moral intelligence of its members.

Mohammed (2010) explored that there is a positive correlation between the number of sons and the tendency of the mothers to use severe control and punishment

in dealing their sons. However, study conducted by Musharraf (2009) found that there is no correlation between moral intelligence and family size. According to Agbaje

(2011) in small families, children are provided with all the facilities. Therefore, the parents expect more from their children and if the children fail to fulfill these expectations there is a chance of confrontation between parents and their children. On the other hand, the large families due diminished resources are unable to provide the necessary resources to their children which results in defiant practices to the societal norms and attitudes. Therefore, the parents in large families directly contribute to the delinquency of their children by exposing them to the violent environments.

Khan et al. (2014) concluded from their study that the aggressive behavior of one third of the students was directly related to the family size and environment in the rural areas. The major risk factors found were age and family size 34.4%, family type

27.6%, family environment 23.7% and family partner violence in 30.2%. However, study conducted by Aldarabah et al. (2015) explored that there is no significant difference in the moral intelligence of small and large sized families.

Polygamous and monogamous families

Family types Single parent family and two parent family

Nuclear and joint families

Religious education

Parental involvement

Family System Gender Moral Development Variables

Rural and urban locations

Role of grandparents

Home environment

School environment

Family size

Figure 6: Presenting the details of the related studies

2.4 CONCEPTUAL FRAMEWORK OF THE STUDY

The basic independent variables of the study include: family system i.e. nuclear and joint family systems, gender of elementary students, home locations and family size of the elementary students, whereas, the dependent variable of the study includes the moral development of elementary students. Family system has profound effects on the moral development of elementary students. There are different types of family systems, but, the most prevalent types of family systems are nuclear and joint

families. It is evident from the above mentioned studies, that both nuclear and joint families have strong influences on the overall developments of children at different age levels. Similarly, gender and moral development of students are strongly correlated. In some studies, boys were better morally, whereas, some studies proved girls to be morally better than boys. However, in some of the studies, no difference was seen in the moral development of boys and girls.

Similarly, rural and urban localities and moral development are strongly correlated. In some studies, students of rural locations are superior morally, whereas, some studies have proven students of urban locality to be morally superior to their counterparts from rural areas. Furthermore, family size of students has strong correlation with the moral development of students. It is evident from the literature reviewed that students belonging to the family with small size have better moral development than students with large family size. Furthermore, religious education, grandparents‟ role, home environment and parental involvement have strong influences on the moral development of students.

The other independent variables of the study include demographic characteristics like monogamous family and polygamous family, single parent family and two parent family, home-school interaction, socioeconomic status, parental education level, parental involvement, family background, impact of religion and school environment of students are supposed to be related to the dependent variables i.e. moral development of elementary level students.

Nuclear Family

Joint Family

Moral Development Family System Gender of the of Elementary Variables Students Students Rural and Urban Locations Family Size

Figure 7: Presenting theoretical framework of the study

Chapter-3

METHOD AND PROCEDURE

The study was designed to investigate correlation among the major variables as family system i.e. nuclear and joint families, gender, home localities and family size and moral development of elementary level students. In addition to the major variables of the study, some other factors such as the effect of parental involvement, parental education level, family socioeconomic status, home-school relationships, family background, home and school environments, role of grandparents and religious education on moral development of elementary students were also investigated. For the collection of data, Kohlberg‟s Moral Judgment Interview Form

A was used to find out the moral stages of elementary students. The collected data were analyzed through frequency, percentage t-test and analysis of variance

(ANOVA). The study was descriptive in nature.

3.1 POPULATION

All the 222,944 elementary students studying in 1341 Government Middle,

High and Higher Secondary Schools both for boys and girls from five districts i.e.

Dir Lower, Malakand, Mardan, Haripur and D. I. Khan, working under the

Provincial Directorate of Education of Khyber Pakhtunkhwa, comprised the population of the study (EMIS, 2012-13).

District wise details of elementary students included in the target Population

District Schools Boys Students Girls students Total students

Dir (L) 277 35795 19911 55706

Malakand 140 15769 13025 28794

Mardan 362 44941 28415 73356

D. I. Khan 309 19156 11552 30708

Haripur 253 18585 15795 34380

G. Total 1341 134246 88698 222944

3.2 SAMPLE

A total of 384 elementary students from 300 Government Middle, High and

Higher Secondary Schools, both for boys and girls, randomly selected through

cluster sampling from the five districts, i.e. Dir Lower, Malakand, Mardan, Haripur

and Dera Ismail Khan were included in the sample of the study. A total of 78

elementary students from 60 schools of district Dir (L), 53 elementary students from

40 schools of district Malakand, 91 elementary students from 75 schools of district

Mardan, 88 elementary students from 70 schools of district D. I. Khan and 74

elementary students from 55 schools of district Haripur were included in the sample

of the study.

Gender, location and family wise composition of the sample Gender Location Family Sample Male Female Rural Urban Nuclear Joint

Elementary 226 158 334 50 198 186 Students (384)

District and school wise composition of sample

District Dir (L) Malakand Mardan D.I. K Haripur Total

Schools 60 40 75 70 55 300

Students 78 53 91 88 74 384

3.3 RESEARCH INSTRUMENT

In order to find out the moral stages of elementary students, Kohlberg‟s

Moral Judgment Interview Form A was used. Data were collected through written interviews. The interview form also consisted of the demographic questionnaire which consisted of information about gender i.e. male and female, age, class i.e. 6, 7 or 8, family type i.e. nuclear and joint, marital status i.e. married and unmarried, home locations such as rural and urban, and bread earner in the family of the subjects.

3.3.1 Pilot Testing

The researcher after constructing the interview form i.e. Kohlberg‟s Moral

Judgment Interview Form A, conducted a pilot study in order to check its accuracy and authenticity. For that purpose, initial draft of the interview form developed, were distributed among 39 elementary students, thirteen each to 6th, 7th and 8th classes. Respondents were personally approached by the researcher. Notes were taken by the researcher about the difficulty level of the questions, faced by the respondents.

Based on their observations and comments, the questions in the interview form were revised, refined and corrections made accordingly by the researcher

before printing the interview form for large scale study. The “why” and “why not” questions which are typical of Kohlberg‟s Moral Judgment Interview Form, were found difficult by the students to comprehend. Therefore, the “why” and “why not” questions were eliminated due to the age factor of elementary students. Item analysis was also done in the light of data obtained from pilot study.

3.3.2 Validity of the Instrument

Content validity was established by comparing the items of the interview form with the objectives of the study. The supervisory committee of the researchers and subject specialists of English checked the content and construct validity of the interview form i.e. Kohlberg‟s Moral Judgment Interview Form A.

3.3.3 Reliability of the Instrument

The researcher used form A for a group twice with an interval of three weeks. The reliability of different items of the interview form of this study was tested through Cronbach‟s Alpha Coefficient. The correlations between test and retest ranged from 0.931 to 0.953. Therefore, the reliability measure of the interview form was 0.942. Individual item reliability was also found for each item in order to determine if any of the items is affecting the overall reliability or not. The reliability of individual item was revolving around the reliability measure of 0.942 for the whole interview form. Therefore, no need was felt to omit even a single item. That is why all the items in the interview form were retained for the large scale study.

The following strategies were used for improving the reliability of the research instrument.

(1) The interview form was translated from English to Urdu by the researcher in

order to enable the respondents to comprehend each item with ease.

(2) The Urdu version of the interview form was checked by the subject

specialist of Urdu and that of English by the subject specialist of English.

3.4 DATA COLLECTION

Data were collected through Kohlberg‟s moral judgment interview form A and demographic questionnaire. For the collection of data, the researcher visited the sample schools of five districts i.e. Dir Lower, Malakand, Mardan, Haripur and

Dera Ismail Khan of Khyber Pakhtunkhwa and personally administered the interview forms to the elementary students included in the sample. However, due to cultural restrains, the collection of data from girls‟ elementary students by the researcher himself was impossible that is why the researcher sought the help of female research assistant. First, the research assistant was briefed about the interview form which enabled her to collect the data from the girls‟ elementary students with accuracy and authenticity. The subjects were given instructions before filling the interview form. For filling an interview form, on average ten to twenty minutes were required. The collection of data took almost four months to complete.

3.5 ANALYSIS OF DATA

Data collected through interview form A were tabulated and interpreted category-wise. The global stage scores and Weighted Average Scores (WAS) of the elementary students were determined on the basis of their responses to the moral dilemmas of Moral Judgment Interview Form A by using Standard Issue Scoring

Manual. The researcher scored one dilemma for all the subjects and the same process was repeated for the second and third dilemma. Statistical Package for

Social Sciences (SPSS 20) was used for the analysis of data. The collected data were analyzed through frequency, percentage, t-test and analysis of variance

(ANOVA). These were used to investigate the effect of independent variables on the dependent variable.

Following formulae were used for statistical analysis of the collected data.

Standard error of difference between two means

______

√SD1 + SD2 ______SED =

N1 + N2

Computation of t-value

M1 ― M2 t = ______

SED

Analysis of variance

ANOVA table Degree of Sum of Source of variation Mean Square F Sig. Freedom Squares Between groups

Within Groups

M.S Between groups F-value = ______M.S within groups

SS between groups M. S between groups = ______Degree of freedom between groups

SS within groups M. S within groups = ______Degree of freedom within groups

(Garrett & Woodworth, 2000 & Gay, 2005)

The level of significance for testing the null hypotheses was 0.05.

Chapter-4

ANALYSIS AND INTERPRETATION OF DATA

This chapter deals with the statistical analysis and interpretation of the research data. The significance of difference between the mean scores of the respondents belonging to the joint and nuclear family systems was found by using frequency, percentage, t-test and analysis of variance (ANOVA) and interpreted at a significance level of 0.05. The detailed description of the data analysis has been presented in this chapter in the following manner.

Table 1: Distribution of elementary students by gender Gender Frequency Percentage

Boys 226 58.9

Girls 158 41.1

Total 384 100

Table 1 shows that 226 (58.9%) of the elementary students were boys, whereas, 158 (41.1%) of the elementary students were girls. It is, therefore, concluded that the majority of the respondents (58.9%) was male.

Table 2: Distribution of elementary students by age Age Frequency Percentage

Less than 13 years 67 17.4

More than 13 years 317 82.6

Total 384 100

Table 2 shows that 67 (17.4 %) of the elementary students were having less than 13 years of age, whereas, 317 (82.6 %) were having more than 13 years of age.

It is, hence, concluded that majority of the respondents i.e. (82.6 %) were having more than 13 years of age.

Table 3: Distribution of elementary students by class

Class Frequency Percentage

6th 83 21.6

7th 60 15.6

8th 241 62.8

Total 384 100

It is evident from table 3 that 83 (21.6%) of the respondents were from 6th class, 60 (15.6%) were from 7th class and 241 (62.8%) were from 8th class. It is, therefore, concluded that majority of the elementary students (62.8%) were from 8th class.

Table 4: Distribution of elementary students by family type Family type Frequency Percentage

Joint 186 48.4

Nuclear 198 51.6

Total 384 100

Table 4 depicts that 186 (48.4%) of the respondents were from joint family and 198 (51.6%) were from nuclear family system. Hence, it is clear from the table that majority of the elementary students (51.6%) were from nuclear family system.

Table 5: Distribution of elementary students by residential area Residential area Frequency Percentage

Rural 334 87.0

Urban 50 13.0

Total 384 100

Table 5 reveals that 334 (87%) of the elementary students were from rural areas, whereas, 50 (13%) were taken from urban areas, It is, therefore, evident from the table that majority of the elementary students (87%) were taken from rural areas.

Table 6: Distribution of elementary students by family size Total family members Frequency Percentage

Five or less 195 50.8

More than five 189 49.2

Total 384 100

It is evident from table 6 that 195 (50.8%) of elementary students were having five or less than five family members, 189 (49.2%) were having more than five family members. Hence, it is concluded that most of the respondents i.e.

(50.8%) were having five or less than five family members.

Table 7: Distribution of elementary students by earner in the family Earner in the family Frequency Percentage

Father 299 77.9

Mother 27 7.0

Father, mother and others 58 15.1

Total 384 100

Table 7 shows that 299 (77.9%) of the respondents were having father as

earner in the family, 27 (7%) of the respondents were having mother as earner and 58

(15.1%) were having father, mother and others as earners in their families. Therefore,

it is concluded that majority of the elementary students were having father as the

earner in the family.

Nuclear and Joint Family Systems and Moral Development of the Elementary

Students

H0 1: “There is no significant effect of nuclear and joint family systems on the moral

development of elementary students”.

Table 8: Significance of difference between stages of moral development of elementary students belonging to nuclear and joint family systems

Family Stages of Moral Development df Sum of Mean Squares Square F

1 2 3 4 5 6

Joint 00 11 83 86 06 00 1 8.694 8.694 18.470

Nuclear 04 24 105 65 00 00 382 179.806 0.471

Total 04 35 188 151 06 00 383 188.500 9.165

*Significant F at 0.05 level = 2.60

Table 8 exhibits that the calculated F value was found greater than table value at

a 0.05 level. The null hypothesis is rejected and it is, therefore, concluded that there

was a significant effect of joint and nuclear family systems on the moral development

of elementary students.

Figure 8: Showing means of elementary students of nuclear and joint family systems

Table 9: Showing significance of difference between mean scores of elementary students belonging to nuclear and joint family systems

Groups N df Mean SD SED t-value Sig.

Joint Family 186 3.47 0.659 382 0.070 4.298 0.260

Nuclear Family 198 3.17 0.771

*Significant t-value at 0.05 level = 1.960

Table 9 exhibits that mean score of elementary students from joint family system was found greater than the mean score of the elementary students belonging to the nuclear family system. Therefore, the difference between the two means was found significant in the favor of joint family system at a 0.05 level. It is, therefore, concluded that elementary students belonging to joint family system were morally better than their counterparts from nuclear family system.

Gender and Moral Development of Elementary Students

H0 2: “There is no significant effect of gender on the moral development of elementary

students belonging to the nuclear and joint family systems”.

Table 10: Showing difference between mean scores of male and female elementary students belonging to joint and nuclear family systems

Family Gender Stages of Moral Development df Sum of Mean F Squares Square

1 2 3 4 5 6

00 12 40 51 03 00 Male Joint 3 19.310 6.437 Female 00 03 31 43 03 00 11.320 Male 02 29 58 31 00 00 Nuclear 380 216.063 0.569 Female 02 18 22 36 00 00

Total 04 62 151 161 06 00 383 235.372 7.006

*Significant F at 0.05 level = 2.60

Table 10 exhibits that the calculated F-value was found greater than table value at a 0.05 level. The null hypothesis is rejected and it is, therefore, concluded that there was a significant effect of gender on the moral development of elementary students belonging to joint and nuclear family systems. Furthermore, mean square for elementary students of joint family system was found greater than mean square for elementary students from nuclear family system.

Figure 9: Showing means of male and female elementary students belonging to joint and nuclear family systems

Table 11: Showing significance of difference between mean scores of male and female elementary students belonging to joint family system

Groups N df Mean SD SED t-value Sig.

Joint Male 106 3.46 0.620 184 0.088 2.849 0.013

Joint Female 180 3.71 0.556

*Significant t-value at 0.05 level = 1.960

Table 11 depicts that the calculated t-value was found greater than table value.

Hence, it is concluded that there was a significant difference in the mean score of male and female elementary students from joint family system. Furthermore, mean score of female elementary students was found greater than the mean score of male elementary students. Therefore, the difference between the two means was found significant in the favor of female elementary students belonging to joint family system at a 0.05 level. It

is, therefore, concluded that the female elementary students belonging to joint family system were morally better than their male counterparts.

Rural and Urban Localities and Moral Development of Elementary Students

H0 3: “There is no significant effect of urban and rural localities on the moral

development of elementary students belonging to nuclear and joint family

systems”.

Table 12: Showing difference between mean scores of elementary students belonging to joint and nuclear family systems with respect to their residential areas (rural & urban).

Family Location Stages of Moral Development df Sum of Mean F Squares Square

1 2 3 4 5 6

00 11 55 90 05 00 Rural Joint 3 33.11 11.03 Urban 00 04 15 05 01 00 22.507

Rural 02 28 96 47 00 00 Nuclear 380 186.38 0.490 Urban 02 13 05 05 00 00

Total 04 56 171 147 06 00 383 219.49 11.52

*Significant F at 0.05 level = 2.60

It is evident from table 12 that the calculated F-value was found greater than table value at a 0.05 level. The null hypothesis is rejected. Therefore, it is concluded that there was a significant effect of rural and urban localities on the moral development of elementary students belonging to joint and nuclear family systems.

Furthermore, mean square for elementary students of joint family system was found

greater than mean square of elementary students from nuclear family system.

Figure 10: Correspondence between moral developments of elementary students

of nuclear and joint family systems with respect to residential areas

Table 13: Showing significance of difference between mean scores of elementary students of joint family system belonging to rural and urban localities

Groups N df Mean SD SED t-value Sig.

Joint Rural 161 3.55 0.670 184 0.146 2.972 0.242

Joint Urban 25 3.12 0.762

*Significant t-value at 0.05 level = 1.960

Table 13 exhibits that the calculated t-value was found greater than the table

value. Hence, it is concluded that there was a significant difference in the mean score of

elementary students from joint family system belonging to rural and urban areas.

Furthermore, mean score of elementary students from rural areas was found greater than the mean score of elementary students from urban areas. Therefore, the difference between the two means was found significant in the favor of elementary students belonging to the rural areas at a 0.05 level. It is, therefore, concluded that elementary students of joint family system from rural areas were morally better than their counterparts from urban areas.

Family Size and Moral Development of Elementary Students belonging to Nuclear

and Joint Family Systems

H0 4: “There is no significant effect of family size on the moral development of

elementary students belonging to nuclear and joint family systems”.

Table 14: Showing difference between mean scores of elementary students belonging to joint and nuclear family systems with respect to family size (family with five or less members and family with more than five members)

Family Family Stages of Moral Development df Sum of Mean F Size Squares Square

1 2 3 4 5 6

Small 00 13 48 34 02 00

Joint 3 10.789 3.596 Large 00 10 28 48 03 00 6.572 Small 01 20 51 26 00 00 Nuclear 380 207.951 0.547 Large 02 19 43 36 00 00

Total 03 62 170 144 05 00 383 218.740 4.143

*Significant F at 0.05 level = 2.60

Table 14 depicts that the calculated F-value was found greater than table value at a 0.05 level. The null hypothesis is rejected and it is, therefore, concluded that there was a significant effect of family size on the moral development of elementary students belonging to joint and nuclear family systems. Furthermore, mean square for elementary students of joint family system was found greater than mean square for elementary students from nuclear family system.

Figure 11: Correspondence between moral development stages with respect to family size

Table 15: Showing significance of difference between mean scores of elementary students of joint family system with small and large sizes

Groups N df Mean SD SED t-value Sig.

Joint Small Sized 97 3.26 0.711 184 0.106 2.223 0.319

Joint Large Sized 89 3.49 0.740

*Significant t-value at 0.05 level = 1.960

Table 15 exhibits that the calculated t-value was found greater than table value.

Hence, it is concluded that there was a significant difference in the mean score of elementary students from joint family system with large and small sizes. Furthermore, mean score of elementary students with large sized family was found greater than the mean score of elementary students with small sized family. Therefore, the difference between the two means was found significant in favor of elementary students of joint family system with large family size at a 0.05 level. It is, therefore, concluded that elementary students of joint family system with large family size were morally better than their counterparts with small family size.

DISCUSSION

The study was aimed at exploring the effect of nuclear and joint family systems on the moral development of students at elementary level. For this purpose, the researcher tested four null hypotheses. The findings of the study revealed that there was a significant effect of joint and nuclear family systems on the moral development of students at elementary level. Furthermore, the elementary students from the joint family system were found morally better than their counterparts from the nuclear family system. This finding of the study is in line with the results of the study conducted by Khan et al. (2014), Singh et al. (2014) and Rehman & Singh

(2015). Similarly, the results of the study depicted that the gender of the elementary students had a significant influence on the moral development of elementary students i.e. there is a significant difference in the moral development of male and female elementary students belonging to the joint and the nuclear family systems.

This result is consistent with the findings of the study conducted by Javed et al.

(2014). Furthermore, female elementary students of joint family system were found morally better than their male counterparts. This finding supports the findings of the study conducted by Kindlon and Thompson (2002) and Upadhaya (2015).

Furthermore, the findings of the study exhibited that the locations of homes of the elementary students i.e. rural and urban, had a significant effect on the moral development of the elementary students. The elementary students of rural areas were found morally better than their counterparts from the urban areas. This result supports the findings of the study conducted by Kulsum (2012) and Omer et al.

(2015). Similarly, a significant correlation was found in the family size and moral development of elementary students. Elementary students with five or more than

five family members were found morally better than those with less than five family members. This finding is in contrast to the results of the study conducted by

Farrington and Loeber (1999) which stated that large sized family is a significant predictor of juvenile delinquency.

Chapter-5

SUMMARY, CONCLUSIONS AND RECOMMENDATIONS

5.1 SUMMARY

The purpose of the study was to examine the effect of nuclear and joint family systems on the moral development of students at elementary level. The objectives of the study were: (i) to investigate the effect of nuclear and joint family systems on the moral development of elementary students, (ii) to find out the effect of gender differences on the moral development of elementary students belonging to nuclear and joint family systems, (iii) to explore the effect of rural and urban localities on the moral development of elementary students of nuclear and joint family systems and (iv) to determine the effect of family size on the moral development of elementary students of nuclear and joint family systems.

The study was delimited to the five districts of Khyber Pakhtunkhwa only.

These districts were Dir Lower, Malakand, Mardan, Haripur and Dera Ismail Khan.

The study was further delimited only to the Government Middle, High and Higher

Secondary schools both for boys and girls. All the elementary students belonging to these five districts were included in the population of the study. The sample of the study consisted of 384 elementary students.

Kohlberg‟s Moral Judgment Interview Form A was used to collect data from the sample of the study. The Moral Judgment Interview form A consisted of moral dilemmas with challenging issues. The moral judgment interview form consisted of two sections. The first section consisted of demographic questionnaire, whereas, the second section consisted of three moral stories with a number of questions at the end of each story.

For the collection of data, the researcher, personally visited the sample schools of five districts of Khyber Pakhtunkhwa and administered the interview form i.e. Kohlberg‟s Moral Judgment Interview Form A. However, due to cultural restrictions, data collection from girls‟ schools was very challenging. Hence, the help of a female research assistant was sought to collect data from these schools.

The collection of the data took almost four months to complete. The responses of the elementary level students were interpreted by using Standard Issue Scoring

Manual (SISM) to identify the stage of moral development and Weighted Average

Score (WAS). The collected data has been analyzed through percentage, t-test and analysis of variance (ANOVA) and interpreted at a significance level of 0.05 to find out the relationships among different variables and the effect of the independent variables on the dependent variable.

5.2 CONCLUSIONS

The analysis of data revealed significant relationship between family system variables and moral development of elementary students. Based on the analysis of the collected data, the following conclusions were made.

1. There was a significant effect of joint and nuclear family systems on the

moral development of elementary students. There was a significant

difference in the moral reasoning stages of elementary students belonging to

the nuclear and joint family systems. Furthermore, elementary students from

joint family system were morally better than their counterparts from nuclear

family system.

2. Gender had a significant effect on the moral development of elementary

students. There was a significant difference in the moral reasoning stages of

both male and female elementary students. Furthermore, female elementary

students from joint family system were found morally better than their male

counterparts.

3. Rural and urban localities had significant influences on the moral

development of elementary students. A significant difference was found in

the moral reasoning stages of elementary students of joint and nuclear family

systems living in the rural and urban areas. The elementary students of joint

family system belonging to the rural areas were found morally better than

those elementary students who belonged to the urban areas.

4. Family size had a strong effect on the moral development of elementary

students. There was a significant difference in the moral reasoning stages of

elementary students belonging to the nuclear and joint families with

different family sizes. The elementary students of joint family system with

more than five family members, i.e. large family were found morally better

than their counterparts with five or less than five family members, i.e. small

family.

5.3 RECOMMENDATIONS

In the light of the conclusions and findings of the study the following

recommendations were made:

1. The elementary students from joint family system were morally better

than their counterparts from nuclear family system. Therefore, parents

belonging to nuclear family system should give more attention and time

in order to enhance the moral development of their children and bring

them at par with the students of joint family system.

2. Gender had significant influences on the moral development of students.

Females were found morally better than their male counterparts;

therefore, the parents should properly address the moral issues of male

students to enhance their moral standards.

3. There was a significant difference in the moral development of

elementary students belonging to the rural and urban areas. Therefore,

the government should take concrete steps in order to minimize the gap

between rural and urban areas as far as the moral practices are

concerned. The misuse of technology in the urban areas should be

prevented, and participation in the religious activities should be

encouraged. Rule of law in its actual spirit should be maintained in order

to protect children from anti-state activities.

4. The elementary students from urban areas exhibited poor moral values as

compared to those from rural areas. Hence, the parents of students living

in the urban areas should take good care of their children in order to

improve their moral values. Parents should regularly monitor their day to

day activities on priority basis to ensure their proper moral grooming.

5. Students with large family size were morally better than students with

small family size. Therefore, parents having the small family size,

besides, concentrating on their academic performance should also

concentrate on their moral development. The parents are required to

prevent their children from the company of bad people. The assistance of

100

religious scholars for imparting religious education may be beneficial in

this regard.

6. The role of grandparents in the moral development of children is very

important. Telling moral stories to grandson may prove beneficial in this

regard. The grandparents should be made aware and facilitated to play

their due role for improving the moral standards of their young

generation.

7. The role of media should be properly regulated and monitored. Media

should introduce such programs that are necessary for enhancing the

moral development of students. This will help in preventing the moral

decay of the new generation.

8. Courses on family life, especially, on the joint and nuclear family should

be incorporated in the curriculum which will help the learners in solving

their domestic problems and spend a successful life. Programs on social

media like television, facebook and twitter regarding the importance of

family for the moral development of students should be launched. This

will bring awareness in the common masses about the importance of the

family life for the moral development of young generation.

9. The government should introduce such subjects that include topics on

character building and moral development which are necessary for the

moral development of students. Teachers are role models for the

students; therefore, measures should be taken to ensure the inclusion of

topics on character building and moral development in the teacher

training programs.

101

10. The students of joint family system were found morally better than their

counterparts from nuclear family system. Therefore, the more positive

image of joint family system should be highlighted. The role of

electronic and print media may prove fruitful in this regard.

5.4 SUGGESTIONS FOR FURTHER RESEARCH

1. This research study has identified that family system especially nuclear

and joint families have a profound effect on the moral development of

elementary level students. Therefore, similar study may be conducted

also on the primary and secondary level students.

2. The sample of this study included schools from public sector only.

Therefore, similar study, including sample from private sector schools

may also be conducted.

3. Data for this research study were collected from only one province of

Pakistan i.e. Khyber Pakhtunkhwa. Therefore, similar study may be

conducted for which data may be collected from other provinces of the

country, and from FATA and FANA as well for greater generalization of

the results of the study.

4. Study of similar nature may also be conducted on special children,

because, they are more dependent on their family members as compared

to normal children.

102

BIBLIOGRAPHY

Abun, F. D., & Cajindos, R. (2012). The Effect of Religion toward Moral Values of College Students in Locos Sur, Philippines, E-International Scientific Research Journal, 4(3), 181-196.

Adams, B. N. (2010). Themes and threads of family theories: A brief history. Journal of Comparative Family Studies, 41, 499–505.

Agbaje, A. A. (2011). The Family life Structure Balance: Key to Children‟s Discipline. The Nigerian Academic Forum Volume, 20(1), 1-7.

Agulanna, G. G. (1999). Family Structure and Prevalence of Behavioral Problems among Nigerian Adolescents. The Counselor, 17(1), 154-154.

Ahmad, R. (2002). Psychological effect upon the children of working mothers in different family structures in Pakistan. Unpublished Ph. D. Thesis University of Karachi (Pakistan).

Ahmed, A. (2007). Ethical virtue: In the Qur’anic perspective. Tanzeem-e-Islami. Retrieved June 17, 2007 from http://www.tanzeem.org/resources/articles /printarticle.asp?id=152. pp. 7-8.

Ahmed, N. R., Shaukat, S., & Abiodullah, M. (2009). Role of different educational systems in the development of moral and social traits in Pakistani students. Journal of Behavioral Sciences, 19(1-2), 59-74.

Ahuja, M., & Goyal, S. (2006). “Study of achievement and aspirations of adolescents in relation to parental involvement”. Indian Journal of Applied Psychology, 42, 19-26.

Alam, A. (2008). Factors and Consequences of nuclearization of Family at Hayatabad Phase-11, Peshawar. Sarhad Journal of Agriculture, 24(3), 55-59.

Alam, A. (2008). Principles of Sociology (2nd ed.). Peshawar: New Awan Printers.

Alam, A. (2008). Social Anthropology: Comparative Social Institutions. Peshawar: New Awan Printers.

Aldarabah, I. T., Almohtadi, R., Jwaifell, M., & Salah, R. O. (2015). Evaluating the Moral Intelligence of the Late Childhood (9-12) Years in Jordan: Al-Karak Governorate Case. The Journal of Educational and Developmental Psychology, 5(1), 108-118.

Al-Krenawi, A. & Lightman, E. S. (2000). Learning achievement, social adjustment, and family conflict among Bedouin-Arab children from polygamous and monogamous families. The Journal of Social Psychology, 140(3), 345-355.

103

Al-Krenawi, A., & Slonim-Nevo, V. (2008). Psychosocial and familial functioning of children from polygynous and monogamous families. The Journal of Social Psychology, 148, 745-764.

Allen, S., & Daly, K. (2007). The Effects of Father Involvement: An Updated Research Summary of the Evidence, Centre for Families, Work & Well-Being, Father Involvement Research Alliance. University of Guelph. p. 22.

Angrist, J. (2002). How do sex ratios affect marriage and labour market? Evidence from America‟s Second Generation. Quarterly Journal of Economics, 117(3), 997-1038.

Askarova, G. B. (2007). The religious and ethical education of students in a secular school. Russian Education and Society, 49, 42- 47.

Aynsley-Green, A. (2004). Is all well with children and childhood and the health- related services provided for them in contemporary society: Historical context and new opportunities. Current Pediatrics, 14(2), 145-153.

Babalis, T. (2013). Dimensions of social exclusion and poverty among single-parent families in Greece. In D. Daskalakis (Eds.), The Social Sciences and the Current Crisis. Athens: Papazisi (in Greek).

Babu, R., & Mumoorthy, R. (2010). A study on the family environment of higher secondary students. Journal of Educational Research and Extension, 41(1), 50-55.

Baek, H. J. (2010). A Comparative Study of Moral Development of Korean and British Children. DOI: 10.1080/0305724022000029626.

Bahadur. S., & Dhawan, N. (2008). Social Values of Parents and Children in Joint a and Nuclear Families. Journal of Indian Academy of Applied Psychology, 34(SI), 74-80.

Bano, M., & Farah, D. (2000). Contributory Factors in the Personality Development of Criminals in North West Frontier Province of Pakistan. Pakistan Journal of Psychological Research, 15(1-2), 15-22.

Bansal, S. B., Dixit, S., Pandey, D., & Saroshe, S. (2014). A study to compare various aspects of members of joint and nuclear family. Journal of Evolution of Medical and Dental Sciences, 3(3), 641-648.

Baron, R. B., & Byrne, D. (2005). Social Psychology (10th ed.). New Delhi: Prentice Hall of India.

Basu, S. (2012). Adjustment of Secondary School Students. Scholarly Research Journal for Interdisciplinary Studies, 1(3), 430-438.

104

Battle, J., & Lewis, M. (2002). The increasing significance of class: The relative effects of race and socioeconomic status on academic achievement. Journal of Poverty, 6(2), 21-35.

Baumeister, R. F., Bratslavsky, E., Finkenauer, C., & Vohs, K. D. (2001). Bad is stronger than good. Review of General Psychology, 5(4), 323-370.

Bengston, V. L. (2001). Beyond the Nuclear family: The Increasing Importance of Multigenerational Bond. Journal of marriage and the Family, 63(2001), 1- 16.

Berkowitz, M., & Grych, J. (1998). Fostering goodness: teaching parent's to facilitate children's moral development. Journal of Moral Education, 27(3), 371-391.

Bhushan, V., & Sachdeva, D. R. (2006). The Family. An Introduction to Sociology. (26th ed.). Allahabad: Kitabmahal Publishers.

Binh, N. T. (2012). The Role of Family in Educating-Socializing Children: The Case of Vietnam. Current Research Journal of Biological Sciences, 4(2), 173-181.

Birsch, D. (2002). Ethical insights; A brief introduction (2nd ed.). New York: McGraw Hill.

Bisht, P., & Sharma, S. (2012). Moral values among rural children: gender differentials. Advance Research Journal of Social Science, 3(1), 51-54.

Bisht, P., Sharma, S., & Pande, L. (2015). Assessment of moral values among children of joint and nuclear families: A comparative study. International Journal of Management and Social Science Research Review, 1(15), 289-291.

Blackwell, R. D., Miniard, P. W., & Engel, J. F. (2005). Consumer Behavior (10th ed.). Boston: South Western College Pub.

Bongaarts, J. (2002). The End of the Fertility Transition in the Developed World. Population and Development Review, 28(3), 419-444.

Bonvillain, N. (2010). Cultural Anthropology (2nd ed.). Boston: Pearson Education, Inc.

Brannigan, A., Gemmell, W., Pevalin, D. J., & Wade, T. J. (2002). Self-control and social control in childhood misconduct and aggression: The role of family structure, hyperactivity, and hostile parenting. Canadian Journal of Criminology, April, 119-142.

Brewer, P. (2008). Origin of the Family Private Property and the State. Introduction by Pat Brewer. Newtown, Australia: Resistance Books.

105

Brugman, D., Podolskij, A., Heymans, P., Boom, J., Karabanova, O., & Idobaeva, O. (2003). Perception of moral atmosphere in school and norm transgressive behavior in adolescents: An intervention study. Int J Behav Dev, 27(4), 289– 300. doi: 10.1080/01650250244000272.

Calkins, M. S. J. (2000). “Recovering religion‟s prophetic voice for business ethics”. Journal of Business Ethics, 23(4), 339-352.

Chilton, S. (2003). Defining political development: Normative justification. Retrieved August 18, 2008 http://www.d.umn.edu/~schilton/Articles/DPD3.html. p. 73, p. 77.

Colby, A., & Kohlberg, L. (1987). The Measurement of Moral Judgment. U. K.: Cambridge University Press. p. 22.

Coles, R. (1997). The moral intelligence of children: How to raise a moral child. New York: Random House.

Coontz, S. (2005). Marriage a History: From obedience to Intimacy or How Love conquered Marriage. New York: Viking Press.

Cota-Robles, S., & Gamble, W. (2005). Parent-adolescent processes and reduced risk for delinquency: The effect of gender for Mexican American adolescents. Youth and Society, 37, 375-392.

Crosnoe, R., Johnson, M. K., & Elder, G. H. (2004). School size and the interpersonal side of education: An examination of race/ethnicity and organizational context. Social Science Quarterly, 85(5), 1259-1274.

Crowder, K., & Teachman, J. (2004). Do residential conditions explain the relationship between living arrangements and adolescent behavior? Journal of Marriage and Family, 66(3), 721-738.

Damon, P. (2006). Stress and burnout in suburban teachers. Educational Research, 45(67), 56.

Demo, D., Small, S. A., & Savin, R. C. (2000). Family relations and self-esteem of adolescents and their parents. Journal of marriage and the family, 49, 705- 715.

Demuth, S., & Brown, S. L. (2004). Family structure, family process, and adolescent delinquency: The significance of parental absence versus parental gender. Journal of Research in Crime and Delinquency, 41(1), 58-81.

Dictionary, All Words. (2006). A Dictionary of Psychology, Oxford University Press, New York.

Doris, J., & Stephen, S. (2006). Moral Psychology: empirical approaches. Stanford Encyclopedia of Philosophy.

106

Dufour, S., Lavergne, C., Larrivee, M. C., & Trocme, N. (2008). Who are these parents involved in child neglect? A differential analysis by parent gender and family structure. Children and Youth Services Review, 30, 141-156.

Dumas, J. E., Nissley, J., Nordstrom, A., Smith, E. P., Prinz, R. J., & Levine, D. W. (2005). Home Chaos: Sociodemographic, Parental interactional and child correlates. Journal of Clinical Child and Adolescent Psychology, 34(1), 93- 104.

Eagan, O. (2011). Problems that accompany single parenthood reasons for so many family problems. Colombia Circle. Albany, New York.

Eitzen, D. (2003). Social Problems (9th ed.). Boston: Allyn and Bacon.

Elbedour, S., Onwuegbuzie, A. J. & Alatamin, M. (2002). Behavioral problems and scholastic adjustment among Bedouin-Arab children from polygamous and monogamous marital family structures: Some developmental considerations. Genetic, Social, and General Psychology Monographs, 129, 213-237.

Elliot, S., & Gray, A. (2000). Family Structures, A Report For The New Zealand Immigration Service. Retrieved from Department of labour New Zealand website: http://www.dol.govt.nz/researc/migration/pdfs/familyStructures.pdf.

EMIS, (2012-13). Annual Statistical Report of Government Schools, Elementary & Secondary Education Department, Government of Khyber Pakhtunkhwa, Pakistan.

Exline, J. J. (2005). Psychologists Find Gender Difference in Forgiving. Retrieved from http://www.physorg.com/news123779556.html.

Fantuzzo, J., & Tighe, E. (2000). A family involvement questionnaire. Journal of Educational Psychology, 92(2), 367-376.

Farooq, R. A. (2016). Taleemi Nishter. Islamabad: Tahir Printing Press.

Farooq, U. (2013). The Relationship between Secondary School Head Teacher’s Moral Reasoning and their Performance based on Kohlberg’s theory of Moral Development. Unpublished Ph. D. Thesis, Northern University, Nowshera.

Farrington, D. P., & Loeber, R. (1999). Transatlantic replicaility of risk factors in the development of delinquency in P, Cohen, C. Slomkowski & N. L. Robbins (Eds.) Historical and geographical influence on psychopathology. Mahwah, NJ: Lawrence Earlbaum.

Fegley, S., Seaton, G., & Gaskins, S. (2002). The differential impact of spirituality and religion on adolescent psychosocial functioning and behavior. Paper Presented at the Biennial Meeting of the Society for Research in Child Development, Minneapolis, MN.

107

Fretz, J. W. (2010). The Waterloo Mennonites: A Community in Paradox. Canada: Wilfrid Laurier Univ. Press.

Garrett, H. E., & Woodworth, R. S. (2000). Statistics in Psychology and Education. Islamabad: Manza Printing Corporation.

Gawande, E. N. (2007). Value oriented education-vision for better living. New Delhi: Sarup and Sons.

Gay, L. R. & Airasian, P. (2003). Competencies for analysis and applications (7th ed.). Columbus, OH: Merrill Prentice Hall.

Gay, L. R. (2005). Educational Research (5th ed.). Rawalpindi: Neelab Printers Gawalmandi.

Ghani, S. (2000). Sociology of Family and Community. University Grant Commission. Islamabad.

Gill, R. & Jaswal, S. (2006). Assessment of gender and age differentials in the effectiveness of „Teaching values‟ programme for children between 5-7 Years of Age. Anthropologist, 8(3), 189-194.

Gill, R. & Jaswal, S. (2007). Impact of parent‟s education and occupation on children for learning values through “teaching values” program. Journal of Human Ecology, 21(3), 185-189.

Giri, D. (2015). A comparative study on the academic achievement of secondary level students of joint and nuclear families in relation to their values and adjustment. Available at https://www.researchgate.net/publication/270957439.

Goodwin, T. (2007). “Moral and value education”. Journal of Belief and Value, 4(6), 56.

Government of Pakistan (1998). National Education Policy (1998-2010). (Retrieved November 16, 2003 from http://www.pakistan.gov.pk. p.9, p.11.

Grief, A. (2005). Family Structure, Institutions and Growth. The Origin and Implications of Western Corporatism.

Gross, R. (2005). Psychology: The science of mind and behavior. London: Hodder and Arnold publishers, UK.

Gruseck, J. E., & Hastings, P. D. (2007). Handbook of socialization: Theory and research. New York: Guilford.

Haider, K., & Nighat, A. (2013). Evaluation of Joint family System as a Major Cause of Depression Among Married Woman in Sindh. Interdisciplinary Journal of Contemporary Research in Business, 4(10), 2013.

108

Hammond, R. J., & Cheney, P. (2010). Sociology of the family. Free open course ware, Free online texts and test banks. www.freebooks.uvu.edu.

Haralambos, M., & Holborn, M. (2008). Sociology: Themes and perspectives (7th ed.). London: Harper Collins Publishers Limited.

Haron, H., Ismail, I. Ibrahim, D. N. Saat, M., & Shiobara, I. (2006). Factors influencing Ethical Judgment of Auditors in Malaysia. A Report submitted to Malaysian Accountancy and Research Education Foundation (MAREF).

Hassan, M. H., Samee‟a S., Saeed, A. S. & Alrawee, M. K. (2002). Foundations of Education. Al-Ain, UAE: University Book House.

Hilton, J., & Devall, E. (2012). Comparison of Role Demands, Relationships and Child Functioning in Single Mother, Father and Intact Families. “Journal of Divorce and Re-marriage, 35, 29-56.

Hoeksema, S. N. (2003). Abnormal Psychology Boston: McGraw Hi. Jacobs, N. & Harvy, D. (2005). Do parents make a difference to children‟s academic achievements? Differences between parents of higher and lower achieving students. Educational studies, 31(4), 431-448.

Hoffman, M. L. (2007). Sex difference in moral internalization and values. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 32(4), 720-729.

Horn, W. F., & Sylvester, T. (2002). Father Facts (4th ed.). National Fatherhood Initiative. [on-line]. Available: http://www.fatherhood.org/fatherfacts.htm.

Howard, K. S., Lefever, J. E., Borkowski, J. G., & Whitman, T. L. (2006). Fathers‟ influence in the lives of children with adolescent mothers. Journal of Family Psychology, 20(3), 468-476.

Huitt, W. (2004). Moral and character development. Educational Psychology Interactive. Valdosta, GA: Valdosta State University. Retrieved 6 July 2008, from http://chiron.valdosta.edu/whuitt/col/morchr/morchr.html. p. 4.

Hull, J. M. (2005). Religious education and the globalised economy. University of Birmingham England. Retrieved January 6, 2006, from http:www.angelfire.com /pe/pennyt/indux.html.

Iqbal, F., Akhter, S., & Iqbal, H. (2013). Social Support Provided to Old Age Adults in Varying Family Structures. British Journal of Humanities and Social Sciences, 9(2), 1-8.

Itrat, A., Taqui, A. M., Qazi, F., & Qidwani, W. (2007). Family systems: perceptions of elderly patients and their attendants presenting at a university hospital in Karachi, Pakistan. Journal of Pak Medical Association, 57(2), 106-109.

109

Jackson, W. (2010). The Connection between Religion and Morality. http://www.christiancourier.com/articles/411-the-connection-between-religion- and-morality.

Jane, B., & Robbins, J. (2007). Intergenerational Learning: Grandparents teaching everyday concepts in science and technology. Asia Pacific Forum on Science Learning and Teaching, 8(1), Accessed at http://www.ied.edu.hk/apfslt/v8_issue1/jane/index.htm.

Javed, A., Kausar, R., & Khan, N. (2014). Effect of School System and Gender on Moral Values and Forgiveness in Pakistani School Children. Malaysian online Journal of Educational Science, 2(4), 13-24.

Kadivar, P., Kohoulat, N., Abdollahi, M. H., & Khoshbakht, F. (2016). Perception of School Moral Atmosphere and Elementary Students‟ Moral Development. Int. J. School Health, Published online (1-7), 2016.

Kakepoto, H. (2011). Sociological Impact of Social Change upon Institution of Family with Special Focus on Pakistan. International conference on Business and Social Science Research, 3-4, Dubhai, UAE.

Kalsoom, F., & Behlol, M. G. (2012). The Moral Reasoning of Adolescent Boys and Girls in the Light of Gilligan‟s Theory. Canadian Center of Science and Education, 5(3), 15-23.

Kapani, M. (2008). “Sri Satya Sai Baba’s concept of value education”, Value education based on all the religions of the world, Kapoor, P and Kapoor, T.B., New Delhi: Kalpaz Publications.

Kaur, M. (2014). Family Environment as a Determinant of Behavior Orientation among Adolescents of Bathinda District. The International Journal of Humanities & Social Studies, 2(6), 1-9.

Kauts, A., & Kaur. B. (2011). A Study of Children‟s behavior in Relation to Family Environment and Technology Exposure at pre Primary Stage. MEIR, Journal of Educational Studies, Trends and Practices, 1(2), 111-129.

Kerr, M. H., Beck, K., Shattuck, T. D., Kattar, C., & Uriburu, D. (2003). Family Involvement, problem and prosocial behavior outcomes of Latino youth, American Journal of Health Behavior, 27, 55-65.

Khan, M., Quadri S. M. A., & Aziz, S. (2014). Association of Family Structure and its Environment with Aggressive Behavior of Children (6-8years) in a Rural Community. J Child Adolesc Behav, 2(1), 1-4. doi:10.4172/jcalb.1000125.

Khan, N., & Rizvi, N. (2015). Urbanization and its Effect on Joint Family System in India. International Journal on Recent and Innovation Trends in Computing and Communication, 3(2), 154-156.

110

Khanam, A. (2008). Effect of religious education on the moral development of children. Unpublished Doctoral Thesis, IER, University of the Punjab, Lahore. pp. 23-24.

Khatal, M. N. (2011). A study of relation between family pattern and academic achievement of students. International Referred Research Journal, 2(23), 7-8.

Khatoon, A. (2008). The Impact of Nuclear and Joint Family System on the Academic Achievement of Secondary School Students in Karachi. Ph. D. Thesis, University of Karachi, Karachi. Retrieved from http:/prr.hec.gov.pk/thesis/2515.pdf.

Kindlon, D., & Thompson, M. (2002). Raising can protecting the Moral Life of Children. New York: Ballantine.

Kitheka, M. F. (2016). Single Motherhood Family Structure and its Effects on Moral Development of Primary School Children in Kalundu Zone, Kitui County. A Research Project Report submitted to the Department of Educational Psychology in Partial Fulfillment for the Requirements of the Award of Master of Education in Early Childhood Development and Education of the South Eastern Kenya University.

Knudsen, E. I., Heckman, J. J., Cameron, J. L., & Shonko, J. P. (2006). Economic, neurobiological, and behavioral perspectives on building America's future workforce. Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences of the United States of America, 103(27), 10155-10162.

Koenig, A. L., Cicchetti, D., & Rogosch, F. A. (2004). Moral development: The association between maltreatment and young children‟s prosocial behaviors and moral transgression. Social Development, 13(1), 97-106.

Kohlberg, L. (1958). The Development of Model of Thinking and Choices in Years 10 to 16. Unpublished Ph. D. Dissertation, University of Chicago. p. 51.

Kohlberg, L. (1972). A Cognitive Development Approach to Moral Education. Humanist, November-December.

Kohlberg, L. (1981). The philosophy of moral development: Moral stages and the idea of justice. San Francisco: Harper and Row. p. 409, p. 412,

Kohoulat, N., Kadivar, P., Sarami, G., & Khoshbakht, F. (2016). Perception of School Moral Atmosphere and Elementary Students‟ Moral Development. International Journal of School Health, DOI:10.17795/intjsh-35963.

Kozlowska, K., & Hanney, L. (2002). The network perspective: An integration of attachment and family systems theories. Family Process, 41(3), 285-312. Retrieved November 2004, from http://www.findarticles.com/p/articles/mim0AZV/is341/ai93444765.

111

Kreps, J. K., & Gonzalez, T. (2010). The Effects of Maltreatment on Children’s Moral Development. A senior project presented to the Faculty of the Psychology and Child Development Department, California Polytechnic State University, San Luis Obispo.

Kulsum, U. (2012). Influence of Home Environment on the Inculcation of Moral Values among Secondary School Students. PARIPEX, Indian Journal of Research, 1(11), 40-41.

Kumar, A. (2013). Adjustment of Secondary School Students of Working Mothers belonging to Joint and Nuclear Families. Indian Journal of Education Research Experimentation and Innovation, 3(1), 1-29.

Lahey, B. B. (2004). Psychology: An Introduction: New York: Mc Graw-Hill.

Lan, G., McMahon, S., Rieger, F., King, N., & Gowing, M. P. (2005). Differences by gender in the moral reasoning, personal values and value types of accounting majors: A study. Journal of the Academy of Business and Economics (JABE), 5(1), 120-130.

Lawrence, A. S. A. (2012). School Environment and Academic Achievement of Standard IX Students. Journal of Educational and Instructional Studies in the World, 2(3), 210-215.

Lee, S. J. (2007). The truth and myth of the model minority: The case of Hmong Americans. In S. Paik & H. J. Walberg (Eds.). Narrowing the achievement gap strategies for educating Latino, Black, and Asian students. New York, NY: Springer Science.

Lerner, R. M. (2004). Liberty: Thriving and civic engagement among American youth. Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage Publications.

Lim, K. H. (2003). Budi as the Malay Mind: A Philosophical Study of Malay Ways of Reasoning and Emotion in Peribahasa. Unpublished Ph. D. dissertation, Department of Austronesian Studies, University of Hamburg, Hamburg, Germany.

Lind, G. (2008). The Meaning and Measurement of Moral Judgment Competence: A dual aspect model. In Daniel Fasko, Jr. & Wayne Willis, eds.: Contemporary philosophical and Psychological perspectives on moral development and education, Creskill: Hampton Press.

Lotfabadi, H. (2008). Criticism on moral development theories of Piaget, Kohlberg, and Bandura and providing a new model for research in Iranian students' moral development. Quarterly Journal of Educational Innovations, 24, 31-46.

Macdougall, B. (2010). One of the Family: Metis Culture in Nineteenth-Century Northwestern Saskatchewan. Canada: UBC Press.

112

Macionis, J. J. (2011). Sociology (14th ed.). New Delhi: Pearson Publisher.

Macionis, J. J., & Gerber, L. M. (2012). Sociology (8th ed.). Toronto: Pearson Education, Canada.

Magnuson, K., & Berger, L. M. (2009). Family structure states and transitions: Associations with children‟s wellbeing during middle childhood. Journal of Marriage and Family, 71(3), 575-591.

Malhas, D., & Abdouni, K. (1997). Sons‟ attitudes towards patterns of parental socialization and their relationship to variables; sex, educational level, economic income in the secondary stage in first Grater Amman Directorate. Dirasat. An Educational Sciences Periodical. University of Jordan, 24(2), 354-363.

Mandara, J., & Murray, C. (2006). Father‟s absence and African American adolescent drug use. Journal of Divorce & Remarriage, 46, 1-12.

Manh, N. D. (2003). Role of families in educating spoiled children in Hanoi. Unpublished Doctoral Dissertation. Vietnam National University, Hanoi. p. 157.

Manivannam, M. (2008). “A study of the inculcation of value among children in Schools”. Journal of Educational Research and Extension, 45(1), 31.

Maseko, J. S. (2009). Socialization of children and youth. Role of the home and the school. Vir.unisa.ac.za/bitstream/handle/10500/2134/02.

McCullough, M. E., & Willoughby, B. L. B. (2009). Religion, self-regulation, and self-control: Associations, explanations, and implications. Psychological Bulletin, 1-25.

McElroy, W. (2001). Sexual Correctness: The Gender-Feminist Attack on Woman. Jefferson, North Carolina: McFarland & Company.

Menhas, R., Tabassum, H. F., Yaqoob, M., & Jabeen, N. (2014). Impact of Modernization on Pakistani Women. Innovare Journal of Social Sciences, 2(3), 1-6.

Mhaske, V. P. (2010). Higher Secondary School Personal Value Pattern: A Study. Bilingual Journal of Humanities and Social Sciences, 1(1), 1-3.

Mohammed, R. (2010). The Evolution of Moral Intelligence in Adolescence. Retrieved December 10, from http://w.w.w.wahdai.

Moreno, R. (2010). Educational Psychology. Moral Development. Hoboken NJ: John Wiley and sons Inc.

113

Muhammad, N. (2001). The relationship between parenting styles and adaptation. Unpublished paper for graduation project in the bachelor of education. Faculty of education, UAE University.

Mukerjee, S. K. (2007). “Philosophy and science of value education in the context of modern India”, Philosophy and science of value education in the context of modern India, Ramakrishna Mission Institute of Culture, Kolkata.

Munson, B. R. (2000). Character education: The missing ingredient of Preservice teacher education programs. Paper presented at the Annual Meeting of the American Association of Colleges for Teacher Education, 52nd, Chicago, Il.

Muola, J. M., Ngung‟u, M. N., & Ngesa, F. (2009). The relationship between family functions and juvenile delinquency: A Case of Nakuru Municipality, Kenya. An International Muilti-disciplinary Journal, 3(5), 67-84.

Murray, M. E. (2004). Moral development and moral education: An overview. Department of Psychology, University of Illinois at Chicago.

Musharraf, M. M. (2009). Moral reasoning and its relationship to social responsibility and some variables at the Islamic University of Gaza students. Unpublished master‟s thesis, Gaza University, Retrieved from http://liabrary.iugaza.edu.ps/thesis/87112.pd.

Mvungu, E. N. (2014). Societal factors and behavior maladjustment of the boy-child: a case of boys in selected rehabilitation institutions in Nairobi and Kiambu counties, Kenya. Unpublished Ph. D. thesis. Kenyatta University, Kenya. p. 33.

Mwakera, B. G. (2003). Child care arrangement mode in Maina village, Laikipia district Kenya. Unpublished master‟s thesis. Kenyatta University, Kenya.

Mwiti, G. K. (2005). Moving on Towards Maturity. A Manual for Youth Counseling, Nairobi: Evangel Publishing House.

Naggaddya, C. (2011). Family roles and the social behavior of children. The case of socialization and delinquency. Retrieved from naggadyacissy.ohlog.com.

Naik, P. K., & Thakur, P. (2014). “The effect of home environment on different dimensions of value education of higher secondary school students. Journal of International Academic Research for Multidisciplinary, 2(9), 1-9.

Nam, C. B. (2004). The Concept of the Family: Demographic and Genealogical Perspectives. The Official Journal of the North Carolina Sociological Association: A Referred Web-Based Publication, 2(2), 2004.

Narvaez, D. (2002). Moral judgment and theory. Paper presented in a seminar on Moral education: Trends and directions, University of Malaya, Kuala Lumpur.

114

National Scientific Council on the Developing Child (2005). Children’s emotional development is built in to the architecture of their brains (Working Paper II). Retrieved March 15, 2005 from http://www.developingchild.net/papers/workingpaperII.pdf.

NCERT. (1998). “Value education in schools”. National Council of Educational Research and Training, New Delhi, pp. 28-29.

Neuert, R. (2007). Kids model parents’ antisocial behavior. Psych central. Retrieved March, 2014, from http://psych central.com/news/2007/o2/o9/kids-model- parents-antisocial; behavior/612/html.

Nucci, L. P. (2001). Education in the moral domain. Cambridge, England: Cambridge University Press. p. 6.

Nyaga, A. M. (2011). Factors leading to drop out among female students in secondary schools in Runyenjes division of Embu East district, Kenya. Chuka University College: Embu.

Odera, P. (2009). “Changing role of teachers in contemporary educational institutions”, Indian Journal of Social Science Researches, 6(1), 29-38.

Ogbemudia, M. I., & Aiasa, M. V. (2013). Influence of home environment on the academic performance of primary five pupils‟ in English Language in Orhionmwon Local Government Area of Edo State. Merit Research Journal of Education and Review, 1(5), 120-125.

O‟Hare, B. (2001). “The rise and fall of single parent families”. Population Today (population reference Bureau) retrieved 9, November, 2015.

Oladipo, S. E. (2009). Moral Education of the Child: Whose Responsibility? J. Soc. Sci., 20(2), 149-156.

Omer, S., Hassan, M. S., & Jabeen, S. (2015). The Role of Family in Teaching Religious and Moral Values to their Children in Urban Areas: A Case Study of Lahore (Pakistan). Pakistan Vision, 16(9), 258-273.

O'Sullivan, S. (2004) Books to Live By: Using Children's Literature for Character Education, Journal article by; The Reading Teacher, 57(7), 640-645.

Ousey, G. C., & Wilcox, P. (2007). The interaction of antisocial propensity and life- course varying predictors of delinquent behavior: Differences by method of estimation and implications for theory. Criminology, 45(7), 331-354.

Oxenberg, L. T. (2008). The Effects of Character Education on the Behavior of 5th Grade Students. Haskell McBee Master of Science in Teaching.

115

Oyerinde, O. O. (2001). The Impacts of family structure, parental practices and family size on children‟s academic performance. Nigerian School Health Journal, 13(1&2), 2001.

Padhan, G. C. (2003). “Value among secondary school students in relation to moral judgment, socio economic status and sex”. Journal of Educational Research and Extension, 29(3), 120-128.

Pankajam, G. (2005). Know your child. New Delhi: Concept Publishing Company.

Parveen, A. (2007). Effect of Home Environment on Personality and Academic Achievements of Students of Grade 12 in Rawalpindi Division. Retrieved on July 2, 2013 from http://prr.hec.gov.pk/Thesis/638S.pdf.

Patterson, J. M. (2002). Understanding family resilience. Journal of clinical Psychology, 58(3), 233-246.

Pauchauri, S. K. (2010). Women and Human Rights. New Delhi: A. P. H. Publishing Corporation.

Paul, E. F., Miller, F. D., & Paul, J. (2001). Natural Law and Modern Moral Philosophy. New York: Cambridge University Press.

Pearson, F. C., & Bruess, B. J. (2001). The gender debate about identity and moral development continues: What about the men? Paper presented at the Annual Convention of the National Association of Student Personnel Administrators (83rd, Seattle, Washington, March 17-21, 2001). (ERIC Document Reproduction Service No. ED. 455177).

Perrin, R. D. (2000). Religiosity and honesty: Continuing the search for the consequential dimension. Review of Religious Research, 41, 534-544.

Perumal, R. (2010). “Review on job satisfaction, job involvement and learned helplessness–An Impact of post graduate teachers”. Journal of Educational Research and Extension, 44(3), 27-30.

Pervaiz, T. (2005). A Study into the Development of Moral Reasoning among Male and Female School Children, According to Piaget’s Model. Unpublished M. -Sc. Thesis, University of Arid Agriculture, Rawalpindi.

Piaget, J. (1965). The moral judgment of the child. New York: Free Press.

Pimentel, E. E. (2000). Just How Do I love thee? Marital Relations in Urban China. Journal of Marriage and the Family, 62(1), 32-47.

Pleck, J. H. (2010). Paternal involvement: Revised conceptualizations and theoretical linkages with child outcomes. In M. E. Lamb (Ed.). The role of the father in child development. Hoboken, NJ: Wiley & Sons.

116

Popenoe, D. (1993). American Family Decline, 1960-1990: A Review and Appraisal. Journal of Marriage and the Family, 55, 527-555.

Rahiem, M. D. H., Abdullah, N. S. M., & Rahim, H. (2012). School Culture and the Moral Development of Children. 56, 114-118. DOI: 10.7763/IPEDR. 2012. V56. 23. p. 117.

Rao, C. N. S. (2007). Sociology: Principles of Sociology with an Introduction to Social Thought (6th ed.). Manglore: S Chand & Co. Ltd. pp. 348-349.

Rashid, A. A., Mamat, A., & Ibrahim, B. (2014). Barriers to Moral Development of Adolescents and Parental Responsibility: The Case of Malay Working Parents. International Journal of Humanities Social Sciences and Education, 1(6), 40-48.

Rathour, S., & Kang, T. K. (2014). Transition in adolescents‟ value system: A review study. Indian Journal of Health and Wellbeing, 5(10), 1240-1243.

Rathus, S. A. (2007). Psychology Concept sand Connections (8th ed.). Thomson Learning Inc. USA.

Reddy, M. M. K. (1998). Marriage Population and Society. Demographic Perspective of a Social Institution. New Delhi: Kanishka Publisher.

Reddy, V. D. (2004). Attitude towards value oriented education in primary school children in Chittoor district. Journal of Educational Research and Extension, 41(2), 42-47.

Reese, E., Bird, A., & Tripp, G. (2007). Children‟s self-esteem and moral self: Links to parent-child conversations regarding emotion. Social Development, 16(3), 460–478.

Rehman, R., & Singh, H. (2015). Family type and adjustment level of adolescents. A study: Int. J. Dent. Med. Res., 1(6), 22-25.

Reza, I. (2010). Religion and its Role in Human Life. http://www.imamreza.net/imamreza.php?id=3346.

Rideout, V. J., Foehr, U. G., & Roberts, D. F. (2010). Generation M2: Media in the lives of 8-18-year-olds. Menlo Park, CA: Kaiser Family Foundation.

Ritzer, G., (eds.) (2007), The Blackwell Encyclopedia of Sociology. Malden: Blackwell Publishing, Inc.

Roberts, J. A., Manolis, C., & Tanner, J. (2003). Interpersonal influence and adolescent materialism and compulsive buying. Social Influence, 3, 114−131.

117

Robertson, L. A., McAnally, H. M., & Hancox, R. J. (2013). Childhood and Adolescent Television Viewing and Antisocial Behavior in Early Childhood. Official Journal of the American Academy of Pediatrics, 131(3), 439-446.

Rogers, V., & Smith, A., (2003). Ethics, Moral Development, and Accountants-in- Training. Teaching Business Ethics, 5(1), 1-20.

Rohner, R. P., & Veneziano, R. A. (2001). The importance of father love: History and contemporary evidence. Review of General Psychology, 5(4), 382-405.

Ryan, M. R., & Deci, L. E. (2000). Self-Determination Theory and the Facilitation of Intrinsic Motivation, Social Development and Well-Being. American Psychologist, 55(1), 68-78.

Santrock, J. W. (2001). Educational Psychology, Boston: Mc Graw Hill.

Santrock, J. W. (2005). Adolescence. Kohlberg’s Theory of Moral development. New York: Mc-Graw Hill Company. p. 273.

Santrock, J. W. (2006). Educational Psychology, Delhi: Pearson Education.

Shaffer, D. R. (2000). Social and personality development (4th ed.). Belmont, CA: Wadsworth.

Sharma, R. D., Sanadhya, R., & Sushil, C. S. (2010). A comparative study of altruism among the boys and girls of joint and nuclear families. J Ment Health Hum Beh, 15(2), 88-90.

Sharma, Y. K. (2007). Education for values, Environment and Human Right. Five Universal Values. New Delhi: Deep and Deep Publications Private Ltd. India.

Shepard, L. D. (2013). The Impact of Polygamy on Women's Mental Health: A Systematic Review. Epidemiology and Psychiatric Sciences, 22, 47– 62.

Shumaker, D. V., & Heckel, R. V. (2007). Kids of Character: A Guide to Promoting Moral Development, Praeger Publisher.

Sidh. (2002). Child and the Family: A Study of the Impact of Family Structures upon Children in Rural Uttarakhand, Mussoorie. Society for the Integrated Development of Himalayas.

Singh, R., Pant, K., & Valentina, L. (2014). Impact Analysis: Family Structure on Social and Emotional Maturity of Adolescents. Anthropologist, 17(2), 359-365.

Singh, Y. G. (2011). Academic Achievement and Study Habits of Higher Secondary Students. International Referred Research Journal, 3(27), 2.

Smith, M. H. (2006). Ethics and moral values. Retrieved from http://virtualreligion.net/vri/ethics.html.

118

Sommers, C. H. (2000). The war against boys: How misguided feminism is harming our young men. New York: Simon & Schuster. p. 101.

Stanford Encyclopedia of Philosophy. (2010). http://www.standforencyclopaedia.com.

Strizenec, M. (2000). Continuing the search for the consequential dimension. Review of Religious Research, 41, 71-74.

Subhadra, R. (2006). Children’s conception of parental disciplinary practice and its relation to the development of personality needs. Unpublished Ph. D. Thesis Psychology, Agra University.

Suleman, Q., Aslam, H. D., Shakir, M., & Akhter, S. (2012). Effects of Family Structure on the Academic Performance of Students at Elementary Level in District Karak, Khyber Pakhtunkhwa (Pakistan). Macrothink Institute, 03, 234- 248. doi:10.5296/jsr.v3i2.2358.

Tannsjo, A. (2007). Moral Relativism. Philosophical Studies. Academic Journal, 135(2), 123-143.

Taqui, M. A., Itrat, A., Qidwai, W., & Qadri, Z. (2007). Depression in the elderly: Does family system play a role? A cross-sectional study. B M C Psychiatry, 7(1), 57.

Thakur, S., & Kang, T. K. (2002). Moral values and judgment as a function of age and sex. Indian Psycho. Abstr., 18(2), 193-194.

The Committee‟s office of National Economic and Social Development, Prime minister‟s office (2007). 10th National Economic and Social Development Plan, (2007-2011).

Tierney, N. Stahl, A. L., Sladky, A., Puzzanhera, C., Livsey, S. M., & Finnega, T. A. (2007). Juvenile Court Statistics. 2003-2004. Pittsburg, PA: National Center for Juvenile Justice.

Turiel, E. (2006). The Development of Morality, in Handbook of Child Psychology, vol. 3: Social, Emotional, and Personality Development, edited by Nancy Eisenberg, William Damon, and Richard Lerner. New York: Wiley, 2006. pp. 789–857.

Ubesekera, D. M., & Lou, J. (2008). Marriage and the Family Life Satisfaction: A Literature Review. Sabaramuwa University Journal, 8(1), 1-17.

Upadhaya, P. (2015). Gender Difference in Moral Judgment among Secondary Level Students. International Journal of Research Granthaalayah, 3(11), 17-20.

U. S. Bureau of Census (1999). Washington DC: U.S Government Printing Press.

119

U. S. CBS. News Polls. (2007). “Poll: America‟s Cultural Divide” (www.cbsnews.com/stories/2004/11/22/opinion/polls/main657068.shtml[15,3 2007]).

U. S. Population Reference Bureau. (2000). Conveying concerns: Women report on families in transition. Washington, DC: Author. Retrieved March 2002, from http://www.prb.org/Template.cfm?Section=PRB&template=/ContentManagem ent/ContentDisplay.cfm&ContentID=1362#transit.

Uzoka, N. R., & Njoko, U. (2015). Environmental Factors Influencing the Moral Behavior of Secondary School Students in Imo State, Nigeria. Rural Environment Education. Jelgava, 15, 378-384.

Venezia, C. C. (2008). Are Female Accountants More Ethical Than Male Accountants: A Comparative Study between the U.S. and Taiwan. International Business & Economics Research Journal, 7(4), 1-10.

Verma, J. (2007). Social Values in Psychology in India Revisited: Development in the Discipline, New Delhi: Sage Publishers.

Virginia Cooperative Extension (2009). Families First-Keys to Successful Family Functioning: Family Roles - Home - Virginia Cooperative Extension. Retrieved on July 2, 2013, from http://pubs.ext.vt.edu/350/350-093/350- 093.html.

Walker, L. J. (2004). Progress and prospects in the psychology of moral development. Merrill-Palmer Quarterly, Wayne State University Press. p. 546.

Weissbourd, R., Bouffard, S. M., & Jones, S. M. (2013). School Climate and Moral and Social Development. National School Climate Center.

Woolfolk, A. (2004). Educational Psychology. Boston, MA: Allyn & Bacon.

Young, J. J., & Annisette, M. (2009). Cultivating Imagination: Ethics, Education and Literature. Critical Perspectives on Accounting, 20(1), 93-101.

Zanden, V. J. W. (1997). Human Development. Kohlberg’s Theory. The McGraw Hill Companies, US. pp. 275-277.

Zarrett, N., & Lerner, R. M. (2008). Ways to promote Positive Development in Children and Youth. Research to Results. Child Trends, Inc., Washington, DC.

Zilullah, W. Z. (2014). Implication of Globalization on Muslim Youth Morality: The Certainty of the role of Imam Zaman. Retrieved from, http://www.academia.edu/7437608/Impications-of-Globalization-on-Muslim- Youth- Morality-The-Certainty-of-the-Role-of-Imam-Zaman.

Zohar, D., & Marshal, I. (2001). Spiritual Intelligence. The ultimate intelligence. London: Bloomsbury.

120

Appendix-A

NORTHERN UNIVERSITY NOWSHERA

EFFECT OF JOINT AND NUCLEAR FAMILY SYSTEM ON THE MORAL DEVELOPMENT OF STUDENTS AT ELEMENTARY LEVEL

Purpose of the Research: The purpose of this research is to investigate the effect of joint and nuclear family system on the moral development of elementary students. Your volunteer efforts regarding this interview form are appreciated. I assure you that your status in this interview form would be kept anonymous and data provided by you would remain confidential.

Note: You are requested to mark ( ) each item.

Demographic Information:

1. Gender Male Female

2. Age Less than 13 years More than 13 years

3. Student of 6th Class 7th Class 8th Class

4. Living in Joint family Nuclear family

5. Belongs to Rural area Urban area

6. Family size (number of family members)

Five or less More than five

7. Bread earner in the family

Father Mother Father, Mother & others

121

Other Information:

Note: Read the following stories carefully and answer the questions given at the end of each story.

Dilemma-I

“A son took his old father to a hotel for dinner. Father being very old and weak, while eating, he dropped food on his shirt and trousers. Other diners watched him in disgust while his son was calm. After he finished eating, his son who was not at all embarrassed, quietly took him to the wash room, wiped the food particles, removed the stains, combed his hair and fitted his spectacles firmly. When they came out, the entire hotel was watching them in dead silence, not able to grasp how someone could embarrass themselves publicly like that. The son settled the bill and started walking out with his father”. At that time, an old man amongst the diners called out to the son and asked him, “Don‟t you think you have left something behind?”

The son replied, “No, sir. I haven‟t”. The old man retorted, “Yes, you have! You left a lesson for every son and hope for every father”. The hotel went silent.

S.No. Statement Agree Disagree 1 Should the son take his father to the hotel? 2 Should other diners watch the old man in disgust?

3 Should the son take his father to the wash room?

4 Do you think the old man amongst the diners did the right thing? 5 Was there a lesson for every son in the story?

6 Is there hope for every father in the story? 7 Should every son treat his father the way the son did in the story?

122

Dilemma-II

My mother had only one eye. I hated her. She was such an embarrassment. I wished that my mom would just disappear from this world. Then I studied really hard. I left my mother, came to the city and studied. Then, I got married and bought my own house. Now I‟m living happily. Once, someone came to see me. It was my mother still with her one eye. My little girl ran away, scared of my mom‟s eye. I asked her, “Who are you? I don‟t know you!”. She replied, “Oh, sorry. I may have gotten the wrong address,” and went away. Once while going to my school of childhood days, I saw my mother falling on the ground with a paper in her hand, a letter to me. The letter read like this, “My son, I think my life has been long enough now. I won‟t see you anymore, I miss you so much. For you I‟m sorry that I have only one eye, and I was an embarrassment for you. You see, when you were very little, you lost your eye in an accident. So, I gave you mine. I was so proud of my son who was seeing a whole new world for me with that eye. I was never upset at you for anything you did. I miss you so much. You mean the world to me”. After reading the letter, the son realized his mistake but his mother was no more there.

Statement Agree Disagree S. No. 1 Should the son hate his mother?

2 Was the mother with one eye an embarrassment? 3 Should the son leave his mother alone? 4 Should the mother go to her son‟s home?

5 Should the mother write the letter to her son?

6 Do you think the mother did the right thing to give an eye to her son? 7 Should every mother love her son the way the mother did in the story? 8 Should every son treat his mother the way the son did in the story? 9 Should every son be proud of his mother?

123

Dilemma-III

“An old man went to live with his son, daughter-in-law, and four-year old grandson. The old man‟s hands trembled, his eyesight was blurred, and his steps faltered”. “The family ate together at the same table. But the elderly grandfather‟s shaky hands and failing sight made eating difficult for him. Peas rolled off his spoon onto the floor. When he grasped the glass, milk spilled on the tablecloth. The son and daughter-in- law became irritated with the mess”. “We must do something about father,” said the son. “So, the husband and wife set a small table in the corner. There, Grandfather ate alone while the rest of the family enjoyed dinner. Since Grandfather had broken a dish or two, his food was served in a wooden bowl! When the family glanced in Grandfather‟s direction, sometime he had a tear in his eye as he sat alone”. “The four-year-old child watched it all in silence”. One evening, the father noticed his son playing with wood scraps on the floor. He asked the child, “What are you making?” The boy responded, “Oh, I am making a little bowl for you and Mama to eat your food in when I grow up.” “The words so struck the parents that they were speechless. Then tears started to stream down their cheeks. Though no word was spoken, both of them knew what must be done. That evening the husband took Grandfather‟s hand and gently led him back to the family table. For the remainder of his days he ate every meal with the family together happily”.

S. No. Statement Agree Disagree 1 Should the family eat together at the same table? 2 Should the son and daughter-in-law become irritated with the mess?

3 Should the son set a separate table for his father in the corner? 4 Should the grandfather be forced to eat alone? Should the four-year-old son make a bowl for his father and mother 5 as a lesson for them? Was there a lesson for the father in four-year-old son‟s 6 response? 7 Should the son take his father back to the family table? 8 Is there hope for every grandfather in the story? 9 Should we respect and help our elders when they are in need? 10 Is there a lesson for every son in the story?

124

Appendix-B

DISTRICT WISE LIST OF MIDDLE, HIGH AND HIGHER SECONDARY SCHOOLS INCLUDED IN THE SAMPLE

1. District Malakand

Govt. Middle Schools for Boys

S.No. Name of School S.No. Name of School

1 GMS Plandara 2 GMS Selai Pati

Govt. Middle Schools for Girls

3 GGMS Jaban 4 GGMS Sindhano

Govt. High School for Boys

5 GHS Badraga 6 GHS No.1 Batkhela

7 GHS No.2 Batkhela 8 GHS No.1 Dargai

9 GHS No.2 Dargai 10 GHS Dheri Kot

11 GHS Garhi Usmani Khel 12 GHS Haryankot

13 GHS Heroshah 14 GHS Kharkai

15 GHS Kharki Dherai 16 GHS Koper

17 GHS Maina 18 GHS Malakand

19 GHS Matkani 20 GHS Meherdi

21 GHS No.1 Thana 22 GHS Prangai

23 GHS Qaldara 24 GHS No.1 Sakhakot

25 GHS No.2 Sakhakot 26 GHS Wartair

Govt. High Schools for Girls

27 GGHS Aladand Dheri 28 GGHS Dargai

125

29 GGHS Haryankot 30 GGHS Kharkai

31 GGHS Kot 32 GGHS Maina

33 GGHS Meherdi 34 GGHS Palai

35 GGHS Prangai 36 GGHS Totai

37 GGHS Wartair

Govt. Higher Secondary School for Boys

38 GHSS Kot

Govt. Higher Secondary School for Girls

39 GGHSS Koper 40 GGHSS Sakhakot

2. District Dir (Lower)

Govt. Middle Schools for Boys

41 GMS Azigi Kalay 42 GMS Gudar

43 GMS Molayano Banda 44 GMS Nemaz Kot

45 GMS Shekowli 46 GMS Seer Toormang

47 GMS Tangi Payen 48 GMS Terona Khadagzai

Govt. Middle Schools for Girls

49 GGMS Amir Kabil Bittani 50 GGMS Auto

51 GGMS Garrah 52 GGMS Kandaro

53 GGMS Khazana 54 GGMS Kotkai

55 GGMS Malakand 56 GGMS Mian Kalay

57 GGMS Narai Tangi 58 GGMS Ramora

Govt. High School for Boys

59 GHS Badin 60 GHS Badwan

126

61 GHS Bagh 62 GHS Balambat

63 GHS Banda Talash 64 GHS Bandai

65 GHS Chinar 66 GHS Chinar Kot

67 GHS Damtal 68 GHS Gumbat Banda

69 GHS Kad 70 GHS Kambat

71 GHS Khazana 72 GHS Khungi

73 GHS Munda 74 GHS Ramora

75 GHS Sadabar 76 GHS Sahib Abad

77 GHS Samer Bagh 78 GHS Shamshi Khan

79 GHS Takori 80 GHS Timargara

81 GHS Wahtan

Govt. High School for Girls

82 GGHS Badwan 83 GGHS Koto

84 GGHS Khadagzai 85 GGHS Kumber

86 GGHS Rabat 87 GGHS Sado

88 GGHS Timargara

Govt. Higher Secondary Schools for Boys

89 GHSS Asbanr 90 GHSS Brangola

91 GHSS Chakdara 92 GHSS Haya Serai

93 GHSS Kotigram 94 GHSS Munda

95 GHSS Ouch 96 GHSS Talash

97 GHSS Ziarat Talash

Govt. Higher Secondary Schools for Girls

98 GGHSS Chakdara 99 GGHSS Ouch

127

100 GGHSS Samer Bagh

3. District Mardan

Govt. Middle Schools for Boys

101 GMS Bijli Ghar 102 GMS Mahal Zarin Abad

103 GMS Moti Banda 104 GMS Tariq Abad

Govt. Middle Schools for Girls

105 GGMS Alam Gunj 106 GGMS Anwar Beg

107 GGMS Babozai 108 GGMS Bhai Khan

109 GGMS Fatma 110 GGMS Feroz Pur

111 GGMS Gujrat 112 GGMS Machi

113 GGMS Rustam 114 GGMS Samarqand

115 GGMS Shabaz Garhi 116 GGMS Qasmi

Govt. High School for Boys

117 GHS Badar Banda 118 GHS Bakhshali

119 GHS Bicket Gunj No.1 120 GHS Bughdada

121 GHS Faram Koroona 122 GHS Ghalla Dher

123 GHS Gujar Garhi 124 GHS Gulibagh

125 GHS Hathian 126 GHS Jamal garhi

127 GHS Jeewar 128 GHS Kass Koroona

129 GHS Khadi killi 130 GHS Labour Colony

131 GHS Lundkhwar 132 GHS No.3 Mardan

133 GHS Mohabat Abad 134 GHS Mazdoor Abad

135 GHS Mohib Banda 136 GHS Naseer Kaly

137 GHS Parkho Dheri 138 GHS Pir Abad

128

139 GHS Shamshad Abad 140 GHS Sari Balol

141 GHS Sarho Shah 142 GHS Sawaldher

143 GHS Shah Baig 144 GHS Sharqi Hoti

145 GHS Sher Garh 146 GHS Sohbatabad

147 GHS Surkh Dheri 148 GHS Qasimi

149 GHS Tariq Abad 150 GHS Toordher

Govt. High School for Girls

151 GGHS Baghicha Dheri 152 GGHS Charguli

153 GGHS Garhi Dolatzai 154 GGHS Gujrat

155 GGHS Hathian 156 GGHS Hoti

157 GGHS Ikram pur 158 GGHS Jalala

159 GGHS Kot Jungara 160 GGHS Katlang

161 GGHS Madey Baba 162 GGHS No.1 Mardan

163 GGHS Palo Dherai 164 GGHS Takhtbhai

165 GGHS Takkar 166 GGHS Saro hah

167 GGHS Shankar Mahat

Govt. Higher Secondary Schools for Boys

168 GHSS Chamtar 169 GHSS Mayar

170 GHSS Pir Saddi 171 GHSS Qutab Ghar

172 GHSS Rashakai 173 GHSS Takhtbhai

174 GHSS Thakkar

Govt. Higher Secondary Schools for Girls

175 GGHSS Toru

129

4. District Haripur

Govt. Middle Schools for Boys

176 GMS Bahira 177 GMS KTS No.4

Govt. Middle Schools for Girls

178 GGMS Bail 179 GGMS Beer

180 GGMS Kakotri 181 GGMS Khair Bara

182 GGMS Kriline 183 GGMS Mian Dheri

Govt. High Schools for Boys

184 GHS Baghpur Dheri 185 GHS Bambukha

186 GHS Budhara 187 GHS Centre Jail

188 GHS Chaintary 189 GHS Chooi

190 GHS Dhindah 191 GHS Gudwalia

192 GHS No.2 Haripur 193 GHS Jab

194 GHS Jhamrah 195 GHS Kaliage

196 GHS Kalonjer 197 GHS Kangra Colony

198 GHS Kholian Bala 199 GHS Kotehara

200 GHS Laban Badni 201 GHS Ladha

202 GHS Nar Amazai 203 GHS Noorpur

204 GHS P.H. Khan 205 GHS Pind Hashim Khan

206 GHS Rehana 207 GHS Salam Khund

208 GHS Sarai Gadai 209 GHS Serikot

210 GHS S.N. khan 211 GHS Suraj gali

212 GHS Tofkian

Govt. High Schools for Girls

213 GGHS Baghpur Dheri 214 GGHS Chamba Pind

130

215 GGHS Dhinda 216 GGHS Dobandi

217 GGHS Gandian 218 GGHS Ghazi

219 GGHS Hattar Haripur 220 GGHS Jabri

221 GGHS Kag 222 GGHS Kangra

223 GGHS Khanpur 224 GGHS KTS No.1

Govt. Higher Secondary Schools for Boys

225 GHSS Bareela 226 GHSS Beer

227 GHSS Dingi 228 GHSS No.1 Haripur

229 GHSS Kot Najibullah 230 GHSS Sarai Saleh

5. District D. I. Khan

Govt. Middle Schools for Boys

231 GMS Gurwali 232 GMS Rashid

233 GMS Miran

Govt. Middle Schools for Girls

234 GGMS Baist khel 235 GGMS Gomal Bazar

236 GGMS K. Ahmad Khan 237 GGMS Kulachi

Govt. High Schools for Boys

238 GHS Chawaran 239 GHS Dhaki

240 GHS No.5 D. I. Khan 241 GHS Fateh

242 GHS Gara Mohabat 243 GHS Giloti

244 GHS Gomal Bazar 245 GHS Himat

246 GHS Kachi Mali Khel 247 GHS Kalakhan

248 GHS Katgar 249 GHS Kathgarh

250 GHS Kiri Kharoor 251 GHS Kiri Khisro

131

252 GHS Kiri Shahmozi 253 GHS Kotjai

254 GHS Maddi Khel 255 GHS Mahina

256 GHS Mahral 257 GHS Malana

258 GHS Mandra 259 GHS Marga F. R.

260 GHS Paroa 261 GHS Ranwal

262 GHS Rori D. I. Khan 263 GHS Saggu

264 GHS Sheral Jalan 265 GHS Takwara

266 GHS Tourwan 267 GHS Yarik

268 GHS Wanda Lali

Govt. High Schools for Girls

269 GGHS Abdul Khel 270 GGHS Barra Eassa

271 GGHS Bilot sharif 272 GGHS Choudwan

273 GGHS Darband Kalan 274 GGHS No.2 D. I Khan

275 GGHS Dhakki 276 GGHS Fateh

277 GGHS Hassa 278 GGHS Kaich

279 GGHS Kot Jai 280 GGHS No.2 Lachi

281 GGHS Lar 282 GGHS Malana

283 GGHS Mulazai 284 GGHS Musazai Sharif

285 GGHS Paharpur 286 GGHS Ramak

287 GGHS Panyalai 288 GGHS Qandi Upper Khan

289 GGHS Wanda Hisam 290 GGHS Wanda Mozam

Govt. Higher Secondary Schools for Boys

291 GHSS Abdul Khel 292 GHSS Daraband Kalan

293 GHSS No.2 D. I. Khan 294 GHSS No.4 D.I. Khan

132

295 GHSS Gul Imam 296 GHSS Mandra

297 GHSS Muryali 298 GHSS Ramak

299 GHSS Wanda Lali

Govt. Higher Secondary Schools for Girls

300 GGHSS No.2 D.I. Khan