Transcript Kohlberg - Dallas Area Network for Teaching and Education

Colleen Anderson
Born in 1927 in Bronxville New York
His high school days were spent at Andover Academy in
Massachusetts
Before going onto college, he went oversees to help the Israeli
cause.
Received his BA(1948) and PH.D.(1958) from the University of
Chicago. It was during his career here that he first became
interested in Piaget’s work.
From 1959-1961 he was an assistant professor at Yale University.
In 1967 he was appointed to the faculty of Harvard University
where he served as a professor of education and social psychology.
In 1987 at the age of 59, he committed suicide by drowning.
Kohlberg opposed the view of social scientists, namely that morality is
“behavioral conformity to the more common rules of the individual’s
culture.” He argued that this “conception of individual morality
necessarily eliminates any special theoretical significance which could
be assigned to the question of how moral attitudes develop.” Instead
he considered morality to be the philosophic sense of JUSTICE. Also,
he summarizes his ideal of justice as “giving each man his due.”
(Kohlberg Modes of Moral Thinking 14)
In his original study, Kohlberg presented seventy-two boys ages 10, 13,
and 16 with several probing questions, moral dilemmas. He then
engaged them in interviews to determine and evaluate their
responses. From this study, Kohlberg constructed his stages of moral
Development.
Later, Kohlberg conducted a twelve week research study to determine
the effects of classroom moral discussion upon children’s level of
moral development. This study comprised of thirty children at a
Reform Jewish Sunday school ages 11 and 12. Eleven of these children
were randomly selected for testing; six were boys and five were girls.
To evaluate the affects, he compared his experimental group with
three control groups of the same ages and social status.
Pre-conventional Level
Stage 1: The Punishment and Obedience Orientation
The person views an action as moral or immoral
depending solely on the physical consequences that
will occur.
Stage 2: The Instrumental Relativist Orientation
Now, moral action seen in terms of reciprocity. The person thinks
an action an action is right only if it is fair. They will help another
person if they get something in return.
Conventional Level
Stage 3: The Interpersonal Concordance or “Good Boy/Nice
Girl” Orientation
People desire to be seen as good or nice; they want to please
others. They can see various aspects of a problem and want the
people involved to follow the “Golden Rule” or an ideal
reciprocity.
Stage 4: Society Maintaining Orientation
People view moral behavior as respecting authority and fixed
rules. Also morality is no longer confined to relationships between
individuals but with individuals and society.
Post Conventional Level
Stage 5: The Social Contract Orientation
Moral action is based on individual rights that have been
agreed upon by the society. Personal values are relative.
People place emphasis on following laws but also consider
changing the laws for the benefit of society.
Stage 6: The Universal Ethical Principle Orientation
Morality is now defined by self chosen ethical principles
appealing to logical comprehensiveness, universality, and
consistency. These principles are also abstract.
“Assuming that moral development passes through a natural
sequence of stages, the approach defines the aim of moral
education as the stimulation of the next step of development
rather than indoctrination into the fixed conventions of the
school, the church, or the nation”
(Kohlberg Moral Development 130-131)
“Contrary to what we usually think, it is quite easy to teach
conventionally virtuous behavior but very difficult to teach
true knowledge of the good.”
(Kohlberg Essays on Moral Development 47-48)
Kohlberg’s Approach:
Arouse a genuine moral conflict and present modes of thought that are
one stage above the child’s own to promote an advancement in moral
development.
Are 7th grade students (ages 12-13) likely to show evidence of
increased moral reasoning as a result of a discussion focused on a
moral dilemma during which there are multiple perspectives offered?
CRITICAL QUESTIONS:
Will students initially vary from one another in their stages of moral
development? What affect will this have on the discussion?
Will students who do not participate in the discussion also change
their answers?
Do the results of this discussion have implications for the teaching
or religious or ethics education?
Based on my reading of Lawrence Kohlberg, I hypothesize that the
students who participate in a discussion of the moral dilemma that I
present will advance from their current moral stage to the next
while those students who do not participate will remain in their
initial stage.
1. I went to the Holy Family of Nazareth School and had the 7th grade
teacher hand out the dilemma questionnaire to her students.
2. I collected the questionnaires and analyzed them according to my
rubric to decide how I should lead the discussion and see their initial
stages in moral development.
3. I introduced myself and a friend, Jonny Wilder, to the class and
randomly selected four boys and four girls to engage in a discussion
based on the dilemma.
4. Jonny and I had a discussion with all eight students. Then, a week
later we came back, and he had a discussion with the boys while I
had a separate discussion with the girls.
5. I had the teacher hand out the dilemma questionnaire to the entire
class again.
6. I evaluated the second set of questionnaires for changes in moral
reasoning.
Joe was a 14 year old boy who wanted to go to camp very much. His
father promised him he could go if he saved up the money for it
himself. So, Joe worked hard at his paper route and saved up the $40
it cost to go, and a little besides. But just before camp was going to
start, his father changed his mind about letting him go. His father’s
friends had decided to go on a special fishing trip and Joe’s father was
short the money it would cost him to go with them. So, he told Joe to
give him the money he saved from the paper route. Joe didn’t want
to give up going to camp so he thought of refusing to give his father
the money.
1) Would Joe be right to keep his money? Yes or No? Why
2) Does Joe’s Father have a right to take Joe’s money? Why or why
not?
3) Does giving up the money have anything to do with Joe being a
good son? Why or Why not?
4) What should Joe do? What should Joe’s father do?
???
Stage
Defined by Kohlberg
Statements I Expect to Receive
• Concern on a fixed set of unchanging rules
•We worry about what authorities will permit
and punish
•Punishment=wrong
(Kohlberg Essays on Moral Development 17)
•“It’s bad/wrong for Joe’s dad to ask for his
money/change his mind…”
•“Joe will get punished if he doesn’t give his
dad the money”/ “Joe won’t get punished
because…”
•Everything is now relative; punishments are
now a risk
•Individuals are seeking favors, reciprocity
•Fair exchange policy
(Kohlberg Essays on Moral Development 17)
•“It is right for Joe to keep the money”/”It is
right for his father to take the money”
•“It was unfair”/ “The fair way would have
been…”
Interpersonal
Concordance
Orientation
•Try to follow the ideal “Golden Rule”
•“Good Boy/Nice Girl” Orientation
•Good behavior is what pleases or helps others
•The children now see the multi-dimensional
aspect to a problem
•Character traits are described
(Kohlberg Essays on Moral Development 18,
148)
•“Joe will be a good boy if he gives up his
money because he will be helping his dad…”
Stage 4:
•Emphasis on obeying laws, respecting
authority, and performing one’s duties so
social order is maintained. Not only do we say
it’s wrong, but we explore the reasons why it
is so
(Kohlberg Essays on Moral Development 18,
150-151)
•“Taking Joe’s hard earned money is not right,
even though it is understandable why his dad
did it”
•“Joe must obey/respect the authority of his
father”
•“What would happen if we all did that”
Stage 1: Obedience and
Punishment
Orientation
Stage 2:
Instrumental Relativist
Orientation
Stage 3:
Society Maintaining
Orientation
Social Contract
Orientation
•Right action is defined in terms of general
individual rights that have been agreed on by
the whole society
•Clear awareness of relativism of personal
values
•Emphasis on legality but also of changing the
laws for social utility
(Kohlberg Essays on Moral Development 18-19)
Stage 6:
•Look at problems through all eyes- clear
concept of universal principles of justice
(Kohlberg Essays on Moral Development 19)
Stage 5:
Universal Ethical Principle
Orientation
•The father was “greedy, selfish”
•“Joe must obey his father because he is a
member of the family”
•no child would reach this stage at age 12-13
Nick Bautista: age 13
Antonio Gonzalez: age 13
Carley Williams: age 13
Melissa Hantelmann: age 12
Bobje van Tilburg
Madison Straup: age 12
Caitlyn Hale: age 13
Nnaemeka: age 12
Tim Cruz: age 12
Arielle Melliza: age 13
Matthew Medina: age 12
Sarah Carmical: age 12
Maria Lynn: age 12
Jon Jon Valdez: age 13
Aaron Barker: age 13
Marco Sanchez: age 12
GROUP
CONTROL
Child
Age Stage
Reasoning
Nick
Bautista
13
2
Q.2) Joe’s father does not have the right “because Joe
earned it. Does Joe take HIS money?
Antonio
Gonzales
13
3
Q.1) “Joe could give his father the money because his father
works hard every day”
Carley
Williams
13
3/4
Q.1) “It would be selfish if Joe kept the money”
Q.2) “I know that he is older than Joe, and is his father. He
needs to have the respect that Joe earned his own
money”
Melissa
Hantelmann
12
2/3
Q.1) “His dad has been supporting him his whole life. Doesn’t
his father get anything in return.”
Q.2) “It isn’t very fair to just let your own son earn your
money for you.”
Bobje van
Tilburg
12
2
Q.1) “it’s not fair for his dad to just take the money”
Madison
Straup
12
3
Q.3) “Giving up the money makes Joe a great son because he is
showing gratitude for everything the father has done.”
Caitlyn Hale
13
2
Q. 2) “Joe worked hard the father did not”
Nnaemeka
Ibeh
12
2
Q. 4) “Joe should be able to go to camp and his father should
get his own money.”
Child
Age Stage
Reasoning
Tim Cruz
12
2
Q.1) “Joe worked really hard to get his money and his father
pretty much wanted to steal Joe’s money”
Arielle
Melliza
13
3/4
Matthew
Medina
12
4
Q.2) “Joe’s father does have the right because he is the dad.
Even if its not the right thing to do, he is still the dad.”
Sarah
Carmical
12
4
Q.1) “If that dad makes a promise to his child, he needs to keep
that promise. He may be that parent, but the child, Joe,
showed respect to his father by not making him pay”
Jon Jon
Valdez
13
2
Q.2) “his dad didn’t do anything to get that money”
Maria
Lynn
12
4
Q.2) “He has the right to take his money because he is Joe’s dad,
but it wouldn’t be fair to take it.”
Aaron
Baker
13
2/3
Q.2) “Joe earned it, and not from his dad. He earned his money
by getting a job.”
Marco
Sanchez
12
4
Q.2) “Joe’s father has the right to take the money because if he
is Joe’s father, he could do whatever he wants.”
Q.3) “it is just not right for his dad to suddenly take his money
for a fishing trip because it is very selfish”
Q.4) “Joe should give the money but his father should give it back
and realize that he had promised Joe and that what he had
done was selfish”
Child
Initial
Stage
Final
Stage
Reasoning
Nick
Bautista
2
2
Q.1) “he earned it”
Q.4) “Joe should keep the money and
his dad should wait.”
Antonio
Gonzalez
3
4
Q.1) “No he is not right because he
should obey his father because his
father is the authority in the house.”
Carley
Williams
3/4
3/4
Q.1) “he would not be right because his father provides for him every
day”
Q.2) It depends “Joe did earn the money himself and his dad promised
he could go to camp”
Melissa
Hantelmann
3
4
Q.2) “Joe’s father does have the right because he is the authority in
his life, but that doesn’t mean taking your son’s money is right.”
Bobje van
Tilburg
2
2
Q.1) “Yes, because he earned it.”
Q.2) “No, because he didn’t earn it.”
Madison
Staup
3
4
Q.3) “it does make Joe a good son because he is showing gratitude
towards his dad. It is showing obedience and that he wants his
dad to have fun in life too. He is being a very mature obedient
son.”
Caitlyn Hale
2
4
Q.1) “Yes and no. Yes, it would be right for Joe to keep his money
because he worked for it. No, because it’s his father and he has
to obey his father.”
Nnaiemeka
Ibeh
2
2
Q.1) “Yes, because he worked hard for his money.”
Q.4) “Joe should be able to go to camp and his dad should wait”
Child
Initial
Stage
Final
Stage
Tim Cruz
2
2
Arielle
Melliza
3
3/4
Matthew
Medina
4
4
Q.4) “Joe should obey, and his father should be considerate.”
Sarah
Carmical
4
2
Q.4) “Joe should take his money and go to the camp and have fun.
His father should either stay home and do nothing or raise his
own money”
Jon Jon
Valdez
2
2
Q.1) “Yes, Joe is right to keep his money because he worked for it
and his dad didn’t.”
Maira Lynn
3
2
Q.1) “Yes, because it wouldn’t be fair to Joe. It is his money and
not his father’s.”
2/3
2/3
Q.3) “No, because his dad needs to learn to support himself”
Q.4) “Joe should keep his money, and his dad should either get a
job or use his credit card.”
4
2/3
Q.3) “Yes, because if he did turn in the money, he would be good.
If he didn’t he would be bad for saying no”
Q.4) “Joe should keep they money. His father should try to do
something to get the money to go.”
Aaron
Baker
Marco
Sanchez
Reasoning
Q.2) “No, because if he did, it wouldn’t be right because Joe
worked for his and his dad should work for his own.”
Q.2) “You are not supposed to disobey your parents, but what Joe’s
father did was wrong. Joe’s father broke his promise”
Q.3) “he would be doing a good deed. Joe’s father has no right to
take all of Joe’s hard earned cash.”
Hypothesis:
From the limited information this small study yields, I believe that my
hypothesis is true. Children who partake in discussions of moral
dilemmas do indeed advance in their moral development. However, like
in the case of Caitlyn Hale, development does not always proceed from
one stage to the next.
Critical Questions:
The students did vary from one another in their stages of moral
development, and this proved to help drive the discussion.
The students who did not participate in the discussion also changed
their answers; however, only one of them actually advanced. My study
cannot explain this result.
While this study cannot provide conclusive evidence, I believe that it
does have implications for the teaching of religious and ethics
education. Students who engage in a discussion of a dilemma are
more likely to be interested and engaged in the subject discussed.
Also, if they are actively participating, they are more likely to develop in
their moral reasoing.
However, if I were to do this research again, I would want a larger study
group for more reliable results. Also, I would want much more time so
that I could conduct follow up tests in order to see if the children truly
advanced in their own moral reasoning or if they were merely restating
the views they heard in the discussion. Furthermore, I wish I had used
another dilemma in addition to the Dad dilemma for the final test to also
help determine if their moral reasoning actually developed.