Transcript Teaching Methodology

Teaching Methodology
SBH Maieutic Standard
SBH ETHICAL STANDARD
from the Greek, Socratic Method
A Unique Teaching
Methodology for Moral Reasoning
and Theoretical Construct
Sharon Kay Stoll, Ph.D.
Jennifer M. Beller, Ph.D.
With Notes and Comments by:
Sue Durrant, Ph.D.
Michael Reall, Ph.D.
John Murphy, Ph.D.
Jim Wharton
Qingyi Zheng, Ph.D.
SBH – A Learning
Philosophy






Wholistic – p. 6
Consistent and Interactive –
p. 7
Student Behaviors – p. 8
Classroom Environment – p.
10
Unique Question and Answer
Approach – p. 11
Cognitive Structure – p. 11
SBH ETHICAL STANDARD
A Unique Teaching
Methodology for Moral Reasoning
and Theoretical Construct
Sharon Kay Stoll, Ph.D.
Jennifer M. Beller, Ph.D.
With Notes and Comments by:
Sue Durrant, Ph.D.
Michael Reall, Ph.D.
John Murphy, Ph.D.
Jim Wharton
Qingyi Zheng, Ph.D.
Wholistic



Learning is
embodied and
concerned with the
human experience.
Learning is
interactive and
social.
Learning is an
integrated cognitive
process.
SBH ETHICAL STANDARD
A Unique Teaching
Methodology for Moral Reasoning
and Theoretical Construct
Sharon Kay Stoll, Ph.D.
Jennifer M. Beller, Ph.D.
With Notes and Comments by:
Sue Durrant, Ph.D.
Michael Reall, Ph.D.
John Murphy, Ph.D.
Jim Wharton
Qingyi Zheng, Ph.D.
Methodology is Consistent
and Interactive
SBH ETHICAL STANDARD

Teaching Behaviors
– Personality and
Academic Credibility
– Sport Background
– Appearance
– Can serve as a role
model and mentor
– Wants to make a
difference
– Is a Risk Taker
A Unique Teaching
Methodology for Moral Reasoning
and Theoretical Construct
Sharon Kay Stoll, Ph.D.
Jennifer M. Beller, Ph.D.
With Notes and Comments by:
Sue Durrant, Ph.D.
Michael Reall, Ph.D.
John Murphy, Ph.D.
Jim Wharton
Qingyi Zheng, Ph.D.
Student Behaviors





Peer Pressure
Examination of authoritarian roles
Cognitive Conflict painful
Cognitive development is not directly
related to verbal activity –
REFLECTION IS THE KEY
Some moral questions will not
generate discussion.
Classroom Environment

Accepting Classroom
– Respect for student, fairness practiced.



Teacher listens
Teacher knows each student
Players can listen and learn from each
other
Unique Question and
Answer Approach

Teacher Listening/Communication
– Active versus passive listening
– Active listening




Asking clarifying questions
Restating questions
Encouraging Elaboration
Remembering dialogue
–
–
–
–
–
Keep a diary
Be class historian
Good role model about listening/valuing
Shows interest
Student learns patterns
Question strategies

The text is developed to take out the
guess work, however, the more we
know about the process the better.
– Questions

Difference between first and second order
questioning
– First order – pseudo moral questions
 What is cheating?
 John, what is the right thing to do?
 Josie, do you agree.
Questioning strategies
continued.

Second order questions – asking the “why”?
– Different variety of questions

Clarifying probe –
– John, you answered…but didn’t you say last week that you won’t agree
with this point of view, is this being consistent? Why or why not?

Issue Specific Probe
– What is the difference between cheating on your girl friend and cheating
in a game?

Inter-issue Probe
– Which is more important, not cheating on your girl friend or not cheating
in the game? Or is there a difference?

Role Switch Probe
– So would it make a difference, if you were the one being cheated on?

Universal Consequence –
– So if cheating is okay in this instance, does that mean that cheating is
okay in every instance?
Cognitive Structure
SBH ETHICAL STANDARD

Focuses on morality, ethics,
virtue, principles, and rules and
their application to individuals
within a group.
– Rigorous Curriculum and Content
A Unique Teaching
Methodology for Moral Reasoning
and Theoretical Construct
Sharon Kay Stoll, Ph.D.
Jennifer M. Beller, Ph.D.
With Notes and Comments by:
Sue Durrant, Ph.D.
Michael Reall, Ph.D.
John Murphy, Ph.D.
Jim Wharton
Qingyi Zheng, Ph.D.
Moral Reasoning Scores
University A
University B
School C HS
School D-HS
35
30
25
20
15
10
5
0
Pretest
Posttest
4 year Post
Excel File:
High School
Pre Post
Matched
Pairs 2006
Social Reasoning
37
36
35
School A
School B
School C-HS
School D-HS
34
33
32
31
30
Pre
Post