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 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 ) “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 7 th 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 7 th 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? ???

StageDefined by KohlbergStatements I Expect to Receive Stage 1: Obedience and Punishment Orientation 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…” Stage 2: Instrumental Relativist Orientation 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…” Stage 3: 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…” The father was “greedy, selfish” Stage 4: Society Maintaining Orientation 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, ) “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 5: 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) “Joe must obey his father because he is a member of the family” Stage 6: Universal Ethical Principle Orientation Look at problems through all eyes- clear concept of universal principles of justice (Kohlberg Essays on Moral Development 19) 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

ChildAgeStageReasoning Nick Bautista 132Q.2) Joe’s father does not have the right “because Joe earned it. Does Joe take HIS money? Antonio Gonzales 133Q.1) “Joe could give his father the money because his father works hard every day” Carley Williams 133/4Q.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 122/3Q.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 122Q.1) “it’s not fair for his dad to just take the money” Madison Straup 123Q.3) “Giving up the money makes Joe a great son because he is showing gratitude for everything the father has done.” Caitlyn Hale132Q. 2) “Joe worked hard the father did not” Nnaemeka Ibeh 122Q. 4) “Joe should be able to go to camp and his father should get his own money.”

ChildAgeStageReasoning Tim Cruz122Q.1) “Joe worked really hard to get his money and his father pretty much wanted to steal Joe’s money” Arielle Melliza 133/4Q.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” Matthew Medina 124Q.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 124Q.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 132Q.2) “his dad didn’t do anything to get that money” Maria Lynn 124Q.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 132/3Q.2) “Joe earned it, and not from his dad. He earned his money by getting a job.” Marco Sanchez 124Q.2) “Joe’s father has the right to take the money because if he is Joe’s father, he could do whatever he wants.”

ChildInitial Stage Final Stage Reasoning Nick Bautista 22Q.1) “he earned it” Q.4) “Joe should keep the money and his dad should wait.” Antonio Gonzalez 34Q.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 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 34Q.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 22Q.1) “Yes, because he earned it.” Q.2) “No, because he didn’t earn it.” Madison Staup 34Q.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 Hale24Q.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 22Q.1) “Yes, because he worked hard for his money.” Q.4) “Joe should be able to go to camp and his dad should wait”

ChildInitial Stage Final Stage Reasoning Tim Cruz22Q.2) “No, because if he did, it wouldn’t be right because Joe worked for his and his dad should work for his own.” Arielle Melliza 33/4Q.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.” Matthew Medina 44Q.4) “Joe should obey, and his father should be considerate.” Sarah Carmical 42Q.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 22Q.1) “Yes, Joe is right to keep his money because he worked for it and his dad didn’t.” Maira Lynn32Q.1) “Yes, because it wouldn’t be fair to Joe. It is his money and not his father’s.” Aaron Baker 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.” Marco Sanchez 42/3Q.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.”

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.