Wednesday, September 19, 2012

Developmental Psychology and Value Education-James Rest essay review

"Developmental Psychology and Value Education " by James Rest Essay Review

Published in the book Moral development,moral education, and Kohberg:basic issues in philosophy, spychology, religion, and education. (1980) ed. Brenda Munsey, attempts of identify Kohlberg's approach to moral education.

Rest (1974) discovered that Kohlberg's theory rests on three different aspects: "structural organization, developmental sequence, and interactionism." (p. 102).

He feels that structural organization should go beyond the simple teaching to the directives of the school, state or board, but should actually teach the child the ability to make choices and problem solve. He advocates teaching children concrete problem solving skills and the ability to think clearly.

He views the developmental sequence as one of the most desirable of educational goals. He feels that an educator should want to attempt to move a student to a higher level of moral development. He thought that even if an educator is not able to move a student to a higher level, they should prevent the student from back-sliding to a lower level.

Finally interactionism is described as how cognitive structures are developed. Quite often an analogy of how the human brain is like a computer is used. The main idea is that the brain is full of types of programs. Interactionists actually believe that the brain self-programs and as a result a person's experiences are organized in a way that gives them directions for moral actions. This type of learning is often called discovery learning.

Insights on Kohlberg's Moral Development, Moral Education Book

Kohlberg Light

      Kohlberg's lengthy text Moral development, moral education, and Kohlberg: Basic issues in philosophy,psychology,religion, and education (1980). ed. Brenda Munsey. Is not for the faint of heart. This book is a series of essays written about Koghlberg's theory in regards to different fields of study.
     While my full intention was to read this tome and report on the individual sections of it for this blog and
class assignment I soon found that I had bitten off a bit more than I could chew. This book is deep discussion of his theory and an argument of, or support of different parts of it.
     Initially I welcomed the challenge of really becoming adept at recognizing his theory in different fields. I felt it would a good overall application and that I would be able to recognize and see it in different areas. What actually happened was such a convolution of his theories in application that I have to confess I feel more confused now then when I started.
     While some sections were interesting :"Multidisciplinary Interest in Moral Development and Moral Education." (Brend Munsey), others such as; "Cognitive-Development Theory of Moral Development:Metaethical Issues," (Brenda Munsey) were far beyond my basic skill level so far.
     Kohlberg contributed as well and wrote an essay,"Stages of Moral Development as a Basis for Moral Education." In his essay he discusses his six stages of moral development and feels that justice is one of the most important moral principles for this development. He feels that children operate at different levels in regards to this principle. However; according to Kohlberg (1971), "{p}sychologically, both welfare concerns (role-taking,empathy, or sympathy) and justice concerns are present at the birth of morality and at every succeeding stage." He claims that all children at all stages of development look towards the implication of and concern for justice.
     He goes on to state that while there are many values and virtues (a mixed -bag so to speak), there are only a few that children praise or blame. He feels that this evaluation of morals and virtues in necessary to growth as moral individuals. He feels that just because and adult states that they believe in honesty, it doesn't necessarily make them an honest person. They may in fact be liar. It goes beyond just a belief in a virtue. They must also be practiced.

Some videos about Kohlberg's theory and Gilligan-Kohlberg debate

http://youtu.be/CYrfV-F3x_8

http://youtu.be/eorNqHi-uGE

Moral Development,Moral Education and Kohlberg

The best overall serious introduction to Kohlberg's work currently available. This book is quoted more than almost any other book on Kohlberg.A distinguished international group of scholars explore the strengths and probe the weaknesses of Lawrence Kohlberg's theoretical and empirical research into the dynamics of moral develomente and the texture of moral education. This collection of original chapters carefully examines Kohlbergianism from a variety of complementary perspectives: philosophical, psychological, religious, and educational.A review in the journal ETHICS calls this book "essential reacing for anyone interested in the current issues in moral education."

Kohlberg's Stages of Moral Development (with models)

Lawrence KohlbergA prominent cognitive-developmental theorists and American psychologist and is known for his extensive research on moral reasoning.

‍Kohlberg's Stages of Moral Development

http://info.psu.edu.sa/psu/maths/Stages%20of%20Moral%20Development%20According%20to%20Kohlberg.pdf
Moral Development: involves acquiring standards about right and wrong, analyzing moral issues thoughtfully, and increasingly engaging in helpful behaviors that reflect concern for other peoples rights and needs.

Kohlberg's Model

New Model

Level III: Postconventional Morality- Rarely seen before college (Stage 6 is extremely rare even in adults)

-Stage 5 Social-Contract Legalistic Orientation: People recognize that rules represent agreements among many individuals about appropriate behavior. Rules are seen as potentiality useful tools that can and help maintain social order and protect individual rights rather than as absolute dictates that must be obeyed simply because they are "the law". People also recognize the flexibility of rules; rules that no longer serve society.
-Stage6 Universal Ethical Principle Orientation: This stage is hypothetical that few people ever reach. People that do reach this stage adhere to a few abstract universal principles that transcend specific norms and rules. They answer to a "strong inner conscience and willingly disobey law that violate their own ethical principles."

‍Key concepts

Moral Dilemma: a situation in which two or more people's rights or needs may be at odds and for which there is no clear-cut right or wrong solution.
Preconventional morality: the earliest and least mature form of moral reasoning in that as child has not yet adopted or internalized societies conventions regarding what is right or wrong.
Conventional morality: characterized by an acceptance of society s conventions regarding right and wrong.
Post conventional morality: view rules as useful but changeable mechanism created to maintain the general social order and protect human rights, rather than as absolute dictates that must be obeyed without questions.

‍Moral Reasoning and Behavior

Late Adolescents (14-18 years)
-What you might observe

Understanding that rules and conventions help society run more smoothly
Increasing concern about doing ones duty and abiding by the rules of society as a whole
Genuine empathy for people in distress
Belief that society has a obligation to help those in need

-Diversity

For some older adolescents high moral values are a central part of their overall identity
Show strong commitment to to helping those less fortunate than themselves
Adolescents who have less advanced moral reasoning are more likely to engage in antisocial acvtivies

-Implications

Explore moral issues in social studies, science and literature
Give teens a political voice in decision making about rules and school elsewhere

Applications:

Provide decent role models since children learn by example
Offer positive feedback when children act respectful or generous to others
Offer support by listening to their problems
Encourage independent thinking by telling children to pursue what they believe in

Kohlberg and Gilligan:duet or duel? -Jorgensen article

A great article pondering the issue of whether Kholberg and Gilligan were speaking world's apart in their theories or perhaps a little bit closer than previously thought. From the Journal of Moral Education, June 2006.
http://www.d.umn.edu/~dglisczi/4501web/4501Notes/Gilligan%20%26%20Kohlberg.pdf

Comparison of Kohlberg and Gilligan's models of moral development argument

KOHLBERG'S SIX LEVELS OF MORAL DEVELOPMENT

(ETHICS OF JUSTICE/RIGHTS)

A. PRE-CONVENTIONAL LEVEL

STAGE 1: Deferring to authority

STAGE 2: Learning to satisfy one’s own needs.

B. CONVENTIONAL LEVEL

STAGE 3: Conforming to stereotypical roles.

STAGE 4: Sense that individual roles contribute to social order.

C. POST-CONVENTIONAL LEVEL

STAGE 5: Morality thought of in terms of rights and standards endorsed by society as a whole.

STAGE 6: Morality thought of as self-chosen, universal principles of justice.

On Kohlberg's model, moral development is the development of an autonomous self, capable of being motivated by abstract principles understood as a kind of "mathematical" solution to conflicts of interests.
GILLIGAN'S SIX STAGES OF MORAL DEVELOPMENT (ETHICS OF CARE)

A. PRE-CONVENTIONAL LEVEL

STAGE 1: Caring for the self.

STAGE 2: Stage 1 concern judged to be selfish.

B. CONVENTIONAL LEVEL

STAGE 3: Goodness is caring for others, frequently equated with self-sacrifice.

STAGE 4: Illogic of the inequality between self and others becomes evident. Search for equilibrium.

C. POST-CONVENTIONAL LEVEL

STAGE 5: Focus on the dynamics of relationships, to eliminate the tension between self and others.

STAGE 6: Care is extended beyond personal relationships to a general recognition of the interdependence of self and other, accompanied by a universal condemnation of exploitation and hurt.

On Gilligan's model, moral development is the development of a self-in-relation. Morality is understood in terms of the preservation of valuable human relations. Progress from stage to stage is motivated by increasing understanding of human relationships.

CHARACTERISIC FEATURES OF THE JUSTICE PERSPECTIVE

PARADIGM: CONTRACTS

EMPHASIS ON:

1. REASON and LOGIC

2. EXPLICIT PRINCIPLES

3. IMPARTIALITY

4. FAIRNESS

5. AUTONOMY

6. RIGHTS/OBLIGATIONS

7. GOVERNS RELATIONS

AMONG EQUALS

8. COMPETITION (CONFLICTING

INTERESTS)

9. SELF-RELIANCE

CHARACTERISIC FEATURES OF THE CARE PERSPECTIVE

PARADIGM: CARING RELATIONSHIP (e.g. Parent-Child Relationship)

EMPHASIS ON:

1. EMOTIONS

2. RESPONSIVENESS TO

SITUATIONS

3. PARTIALITY

4. COMPASSION, SYMPATHY OR

EMPATHY

5. INTER-CONNECTEDNESS

6. RESPONSIBILITIES

7. GOVERNS RELATIONS AMONG

UNEQUALS

8. COOPERATION (COMMON INTERESTS)

9. TRUST

Gilligan's Empirical Results

Primary Focus

	Justice	Care	Both
Men	2/3	[1]	1/3
Women	1/3	1/3	1/3

From Gilligan (25).

Kolberg-Gilligan Debate

The complete debate can be viewed at the link below
https://docs.google.com/viewer?a=v&q=cache:wlwdTEQjOl8J:knowledge.wharton.upenn.edu/papers/278.pdf+&hl=en&gl=us&pid=bl&srcid=ADGEESiaC77KWG1wlDFNBBOIFT4vAUMLDZcJfNZug7tbQ7CT8HRXms0bnE94Cq0cFdXViaaUVQ6cDnZT3d-081JA9Z1VNO1-J69xfXcEacJ3FX3MsmXs5T8Z7YqlDoXoX2oMrsVomsXq&sig=AHIEtbR-AmolShxB1QUcwrGMMQCUomhL2w

Some books by Kohlberg

Graphics-Moral Development

The Theory of Human Development

Kohlberg's Theory of Moral Development

Stages of Moral Development

By Kendra Cherry,

Moral development is a major topic of interest in both psychology and education. One of the best known theories was developed by psychologist Lawrence Kohlberg who modified and expanded upon Jean Piaget's work to form a theory that explained the development of moral reasoning.

Piaget described a two-stage process of moral development, while Kohlberg's theory of moral development outlined six stages within three different levels. Kohlberg extended Piaget's theory, proposing that moral development is a continual process that occurs throughout the lifespan.

"The Heinz Dilemma"

Kohlberg based his theory upon research and interviews with groups of young children. A series of moral dilemmas were presented to these participants and they were also interviewed to determine the reasoning behind their judgments of each scenario.

The following is one example of the dilemmas Kohlberg presented"

Heinz Steals the Drug
"In Europe, a woman was near death from a special kind of cancer. There was one drug that the doctors 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 what the drug cost him to make. He paid $200 for the radium and charged $2,000 for a small dose of the drug.

The sick woman's husband, Heinz, went to everyone he knew to borrow the money, but he could only get together about $ 1,000 which is 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 said: "No, I discovered the drug and I'm going to make money from it." So Heinz got desperate and broke into the man's store to steal the drug-for his wife. Should the husband have done that?" (Kohlberg, 1963).

Kohlberg was not interested so much in the answer to the question of whether Heinz was wrong or right, but in the reasoning for each participant's decision. The responses were then classified into various stages of reasoning in his theory of moral development.

Level 1. Preconventional Morality

· Stage 1 - Obedience and Punishment
The earliest stage of moral development is especially common in young children, but adults are also capable of expressing this type of reasoning. At this stage, children see rules as fixed and absolute. Obeying the rules is important because it is a means to avoid punishment.

· Stage 2 - Individualism and Exchange
At this stage of moral development, children account for individual points of view and judge actions based on how they serve individual needs. In the Heinz dilemma, children argued that the best course of action was the choice that best-served Heinz’s needs. Reciprocity is possible at this point in moral development, but only if it serves one's own interests.

Level 2. Conventional Morality

· Stage 3 - Interpersonal Relationships
Often referred to as the "good boy-good girl" orientation, this stage of moral development is focused on living up to social expectations and roles. There is an emphasis on conformity, being "nice," and consideration of how choices influence relationships.

· Stage 4 - Maintaining Social Order
At this stage of moral development, people begin to consider society as a whole when making judgments. The focus is on maintaining law and order by following the rules, doing one’s duty and respecting authority.

Level 3. Postconventional Morality

· Stage 5 - Social Contract and Individual Rights
At this stage, people begin to account for the differing values, opinions and beliefs of other people. Rules of law are important for maintaining a society, but members of the society should agree upon these standards.

· Stage 6 - Universal Principles
Kolhberg’s final level of moral reasoning is based upon universal ethical principles and abstract reasoning. At this stage, people follow these internalized principles of justice, even if they conflict with laws and rules.

Criticisms of Kohlberg's Theory of Moral Development:

· Does moral reasoning necessarily lead to moral behavior? Kohlberg's theory is concerned with moral thinking, but there is a big difference between knowing what we ought to do versus our actual actions.

· Is justice the only aspect of moral reasoning we should consider? Critics have pointed out that Kohlberg's theory of moral development overemphasizes the concept as justice when making moral choices. Factors such as compassion, caring and other interpersonal feelings may play an important part in moral reasoning.

· Does Kohlberg's theory overemphasize Western philosophy? Individualistic cultures emphasize personal rights while collectivist cultures stress the importance of society and community. Eastern cultures may have different moral outlooks that Kohlberg's theory does not account for.

Kohlberg's Theory of Moral Development (Stages of)

Kohlberg's Theory of Moral Development

Stages of Moral Development

By Kendra Cherry,

"The Heinz Dilemma"

The following is one example of the dilemmas Kohlberg presented"

Level 1. Preconventional Morality

Level 2. Conventional Morality

Level 3. Postconventional Morality

Criticisms of Kohlberg's Theory of Moral Development:

Lawrence Kohlberg and Moral Development and Education

Lawrence Kohlberg

Lawrence Kohlberg
Born	(1927-10-25)25 October 1927
Died	19 January 1987(1987-01-19) (aged 59)
Cause of death	Suicide

Lawrence Kohlberg (October 25, 1927 – January 19, 1987) was a Jewish American psychologist born in Bronxville, New York, he was the son of Alfred Kohlberg, a Jewish man, and of his second wife, Charlotte Albrecht, a Protestant woman. He served as a professor at the University of Chicago, as well as Harvard University. Having specialized in research on moral education and reasoning, he is best known for his theory of stages of moral development. Even though it was considered unusual in his era, he still decided to study the topic of moral judgement following Piaget's footsteps.^[1] In fact, it took Kohlberg five years before he was able to publish an article based on his views.^[2] A close follower of Jean Piaget's theory of cognitive development, Kohlberg's work reflected and extended his predecessor's ideas, at the same time creating a new field within psychology: "moral development". Scholars such as Elliot Turiel and James Rest have responded to Kohlberg's work with their own significant contributions. In an empirical study by Haggbloom et al. using six criteria, such as citations and recognition, Kohlberg was found to be the 30th most eminent psychologist of the 20th century.^[3]

Education

Ready to pursue his education, Kohlberg enrolled at the University of Chicago. His scores on the admissions tests were so high that he was excused from most of the required courses and earned his bachelor's degree in one year, 1948. He began study for his doctorate degree, which he earned at Chicago in 1958. Kohlberg's career started at Yale University, as an assistant professor of psychology, 1956-1961. In 1955, he married Lucille Stigberg, and the couple had two sons, David and Steven. Kohlberg spent a year at the Center for Advanced Study of Behavioral Science, 1961-1962, and then joined the staff of the University of Chicago as assistant, then associate professor of psychology and human development, 1962-1967. He spent the next ten years at Harvard University, as a professor of education and social psychology.

Stages of Moral Development

Main article: Kohlberg's stages of moral development

In his 1958 dissertation, Kohlberg wrote what are now known as Kohlberg's stages of moral development.^[4] These stages are planes of moral adequacy conceived to explain the development of moral reasoning. Created while studying psychology at the University of Chicago, the theory was inspired by the work of Jean Piaget and a fascination with children's reactions to moral dilemmas.^[5] Kohlberg proposed a form of “Socratic” moral education and reaffirmed Dewey’s idea that development should be the aim of education. He also outlined how educators can influence moral development without indoctrination and how public school can be engaged in moral education consistent with the Constitution.^[6]

His theory holds that moral reasoning,which is the basis for ethical behavior, has six identifiable developmental constructive stages - each more adequate at responding to moral dilemmas than the last.^[7] Lawrence Kohlberg suggested that the higher stages of moral development provide the person with greater capacities/abilities in terms of decision making and so these stages allow people to handle more complex dilemmas.^[8] In studying these, Kohlberg followed the development of moral judgment that is far beyond the ages originally studied earlier by Piaget,^[9] who also claimed that logic and morality develop through constructive stages.^[7] Expanding considerably upon this groundwork, it was determined that the process of moral development was principally concerned with justice and that its development continued throughout the life span,^[4] even spawning dialogue of philosophical implications of such research.^[10][11]

Kohlberg studied moral reasoning by presenting subjects with moral dilemmas. He would then categorize and classify the reasoning used in the responses, into one of six distinct stages, grouped into three levels: pre-conventional, conventional and post-conventional.^[12][13][14] Each level contains two stages. These stages heavily influenced others and have been utilized by others like James Rest in making the Defining Issues Test in 1979.^[15]

Some of Kohlberg's publications include Consensus and Controversy, The Meaning and Measurement of Moral Development, Lawrence Kohlberg's Approach to Moral Education and Child Psychology and Childhood Education: A Cognitive Developmental View.^[16]

Death

Kohlberg contracted a tropical parasite in 1971 while doing cross-cultural work in Belize. As a result, he struggled with depression and physical pain for the rest of his life. On January 19, 1987, he requested a day of leave from the Massachusetts hospital where he was being treated, and committed suicide by drowning. ^[17]

Wednesday, July 25, 2012

Women's rights and judgment

July 23, 2012-Women’s rights and women’s judgment

Gilligan takes a look in this chapter and the social issues that framed women’s right’s movement and ultimately women’s social issues. She ponders the affects that Seneca Falls, and social reforms such as; social purity movement and temperance and the 60’s with free love and ultimately birth control had on the development of women’s rights and judgments.

Obviously she felt that education for women was the key to their development. She felt that there was a puzzling aspect to why women didn’t support other women in the equal rights movement and finally in the women’s movement as a whole.

She felt that ultimately women struggled with the idea of selfishness and the moral debate of self- sacrifice that women felt they were obligated to do. Gilligan (1998) felt that when women recognized the “…rightness of her decision but also realizing its painful consequences, she can see no way to maintain her integrity while adhering to an ethic of care in relationships. Seeking to avoid conflict and compromise in choice by ‘just doing what is right for you’, she is in fact left with a feeling of compromise about herself.” (p. 135).Once again the main theme of relationship and care for it as primary is evident. Women struggle with the need to balance selflessness and responsibility. Quite often she feels the need to justify her decisions and actions. When this dilemma becomes too strong she is often left paralyzed and unable to make any decision. She actually fees torn between the need to be true to herself and the feeling that she will inadvertently hurt someone else.

Gilligan believes that when a woman can finally discover that there is not any one true right or wrong, but different variances of both, she will truly be able to become a better functioning individual. She feels that once women understand that by being true to themselves they become a better individual will they learn to view themselves as morally right and just.

Visions of maturity-Conclusion

July 24, 2012-Visions of maturity

Separation and attachment

In Gilligan’s last chapter she tries to digest the various theories of development that she looked at and then neatly wrap up her text.

She agrees that attachment and separation , “…anchor the cycle of human life, describing the biology of human reproduction and the psychology of human development.” (Gilligan, 1998, pg. 151). However; she admits that women are viewed differently because of their ways of modeling these processes.

She claims that it is a myth that male model of adult development is the right model. Instead, she says that it is just a different model. She looks once again at the works of Vaillant (1977) and Levison (1978) and remarks that because they studied males in their research, they built their theories on the male model being the correct model.

Erikson (1969) studied both Luther and Ghandi, two great male role models. He realized that, “…both men are compromised in their capacity for intimacy and live at great personal distance from others.” (Gilligan, 1998, p. 155). Because they were great men, this ideology of the sacrifice of relationships for greatness becomes the male model. In other words, to be truly great, one must stand alone.

When women (and there have been great women in society as well) make a choice between relationships (attachment) and greatness, they choose relationships every time. Very quickly they are viewed as compromised, weak or somehow less. Society views them as “… mired in relationships. “ (Gilligan, 1998, p. 156).

Finally, Gilligan informs the reader about her intent: to make clear not what is considered as missing in women’s development, but to make clear what is there. Gillgian (1998) believes that:

Thus women not only reach mid-life with psychological history different from men’s and face at that time a different social reality having different possibilities for love and for work, but they also make a different sense of experience, based on their knowledge of human relationships. Since the reality of connection is experienced by women rather than as freely contracted, they arrive at an understanding of life that reflects the limits of autonomy and control. As a result, women’s development delineates the path not only to a less violent life but also to a maturity realized through interdependence and taking care. (p.172)

As a result, she feels that the language that both sexes speak should be noted as a different one. The key word here is different, women’s voice is different based on her need to develop, keep and nurture relationships.

In conclusion, Gilligan (1998) states:

As we have listened for centuries to the voices of men and the theories of development that their experience informs, so we have come more recently to notice not only the silence of women but the difficulty in hearing what they say when they speak. Yet in the different voice of women lies the truth of an ethic of care, the tie between relationship and responsibility, and the origins of aggression in the failure of connection. The failure to see the different reality of women’s lives and to hear the differences in their voices stems in part from the assumption that there is a single mode of social experience and interpretation. By positing instead two different modes, we arrive at a more complex rendition of human experience which sees the truth of separation and attachment in the lives of women and men and recognizes how these truths are carried by different modes of language and thought. (p. 173-4).

For her, the communication between men and women is not as important as the way the sexes communicate and Gilligan makes it clear in her text that just because there is a difference in the ways of communication, women are not morally bereft or psychologically malformed just because they speak in a different voice.