This week I've spent some time studying "Kohlberg's Stages of Moral Development". I've wondered if a project like "The Eleanor Rigby Project" has the ability to advance my students' ability to understand moral/ethical issues. The activites found in this project were designed to challenge my students on issues of stereotyping, ethical challenge and moral action. I've learned some interesting things about moral development and even had a chance to watch my students rethinking take place!

According the Kohlberg, most adults never get past level three (of six) of the moral development chart and that individuals can only progress through these stages one stage at a time. That is, they can not "jump" stages. They can only come to a comprehension of a moral rationale one stage above their own. Kohlberg encouraged those who deal with children to present them with moral dilemmas for discussion, dilemmas which would help them to see the reasonableness of a "higher stage" morality. He believed that most moral development occurs through social interaction. In order for children to reorganize their thinking they must be active in the process, not just passive listeners...just listening to adults moral judgments will not promote moral development. I find that interesting because it is so easy for us to tell children what they should think. It takes time to let them work it out themselves. I am integregued to learn that all our telling doesn't achieve the results we are after, that the students will pick up our morals. Hpwever if the students' moral thinking is reorganized by being active in the process, we need to create activities and discussiona that allow them to get up close and interact with the content.

During my study on moral development I read about the Piaget's equilibration model where the child takes one view, becomes confused by discrepant information, and then resolves the confusion by forming a more advanced and comprehensive position. The students give a view, the teacher asks questions which get them to see the inadequacies of their views, and they are then motivated to formulate better positions.

I think I saw the reorganization of moral thought taking place in one of my students this week. Chris had asked me to go through his Advocacy Campaign PowerPoint presentation with him. As we flipped through the slides we'd pause and discuss his content. On one of the slides he had written:
"When a homeless person begs for money you shouldn't give it to them because it too often gets converted into drugs or alcohol. Instead, buy them a sandwich or give them yours and but yourself one. It gives the homeless person what he or she actually needs."

He suddenly stopped flipping and looked at me with a perplexed look on his face and said: "That's an assumption isn't it, Mrs. Dyck? I don't know why I wrote that."

Chris had just recognized his own generalization, one resulting from well-ingrained mental models we all have about the homeless. At that moment the old mental model did not line up with all that we had learned and discussed over the past month. We talked about whether his statement was an assumption and why he would have said it. In the end he decided to create some additional slides addressing the myths surrounding homelessness. Now that I reflect on this I realize that I had just watched Piaget's equilibration model in action- this is when the child takes one view, becomes confused by incompatible information, and then resolves the confusion by forming more complex and understandable thinking. Conversely, the same day I watched another child breeze past an assumption made in his PowerPoint. On his slide defining homelssness he had written "Many homeless people are lazy." We talked about this statement being a generalization but unlike my discussion with Chris, this student didn't appear to have a breakthrough moment...perhaps because I was telling him about it (as opposed to him seeing it himself) I'm not sure he really understood.
Pretty interesting stuff!
In terms of whether The Eleanor Rigby project contributes to my students' advancement in moral development, the following statement is key:
"Children develop not because they are shaped through external reinforcements but because their curiosity is aroused. They become interested in information that does not quite fit into their existing cognitive structures and are thereby motivated to revise their thinking."

Resources:


Kohlberg's Stages of Moral Development
http://faculty.plts.edu/gpence/html/kohlberg.htm

"Only about 10% of all people reach the last two stages of moral development. In our experience, though, most gifted children do achieve these upper levels unless their environment has prevented their growth. People in these upper levels are the leaders, creators and inventors who make major contributions to society and who help reformulate knowledge and philosophy, often changing major traditions in the process. While traditions form a continuum from the most insignificant matter of social custom to the principles formed into law, they may also go beyond law, to sweeping principles of universal order. Those who have reached the highest levels of moral development may go beyond the law as well, sometimes sacrificing themselves and often changing the world's perception of the law, and finally the law itself. Gifted children may set themselves on such a course early in life."

http://www.austega.com/gifted/moralKohlberg.htm