Kohlberg TIPR
THE QUESTION: "At which of Kohlberg's levels of moral development are the students in your class functioning? Cite specific evidence and explain your reasoning for selecting these levels. What did the teacher do, or what might be done, to help the students advance to higher levels with regard to the examples you supplied above? Be sure to include a reference in your response."
Kohlberg's Theory of Moral Development is best summarized at this reference: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Onkd8tChC2A from the Khan Academy. Looking at the different levels of preconventional, conventional, and post conventional it's very easy to see that most adolescents function on the pre conventional and conventional levels, fluctuating according to the moral situation in which they are placed.
In Mrs. O's Beginning Theatre class, three of her best actors never care that they are consistently late to her class. In Mr. J's History course he called out three students in front of the class for cheating on their reading guides. In Mrs. M's English Study Skills she took a moment to desperately try and make her students understand that marijuana use does have consequences. She told them her biggest concern about them was their thinking that marijuana is harmless. All three of this teachers have moral situations in their classrooms and students that aren't necessarily operating at the conventional and post conventional reasoning that some of the teacher's expect.
With the first example, Mrs. O's students were most likely functioning at a preconventional level in their disregard for rules and doing what suited them at the time. Mrs. O's response was to take them into the hallway and lay out what would be their consequences if they continued their behavior. It may or may not change the behavior, but doesn't develop moral reasoning.
Mr. J's three students were instructed to each complete their reading guides individually. He found three girls on the back row each doing a different page of the guide, planning to collaborate on the answers. Against the instructions, he called them out in front of the class for trying to cheat. He explained that showing how tough he is on these issues in front of students has proven very effective for him. Students have given him a reputation which he is proud of. But I wonder if students aren't really learning moral development so much as just knowing they can't get away with it in his class. Once again I'm seeing a preconventional thinking, in doing what's best for themselves and in those that choose not to cheat in his class it's basing that choice on not being caught.
The last example, Mrs. M's marijuana crusade left me thinking the most. She had a point. She brought up scientific data and showed these students that she genuinely cared about their well being. But most of her students didn't seem to respond. However, they may form their moral reasoning for the time being in a conventional place, based on how their teacher views the issue. Eventually however they will hopefully develop their own moral reasoning on marijuana, evolving from a conventional place to an individual reasoning and conscience in the post conventional level. Mrs. M was the only teacher I saw trying to genuinely help students reason out an issue rather than just counter act the issue.
Kohlberg's Theory of Moral Development is best summarized at this reference: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Onkd8tChC2A from the Khan Academy. Looking at the different levels of preconventional, conventional, and post conventional it's very easy to see that most adolescents function on the pre conventional and conventional levels, fluctuating according to the moral situation in which they are placed.
In Mrs. O's Beginning Theatre class, three of her best actors never care that they are consistently late to her class. In Mr. J's History course he called out three students in front of the class for cheating on their reading guides. In Mrs. M's English Study Skills she took a moment to desperately try and make her students understand that marijuana use does have consequences. She told them her biggest concern about them was their thinking that marijuana is harmless. All three of this teachers have moral situations in their classrooms and students that aren't necessarily operating at the conventional and post conventional reasoning that some of the teacher's expect.
With the first example, Mrs. O's students were most likely functioning at a preconventional level in their disregard for rules and doing what suited them at the time. Mrs. O's response was to take them into the hallway and lay out what would be their consequences if they continued their behavior. It may or may not change the behavior, but doesn't develop moral reasoning.
Mr. J's three students were instructed to each complete their reading guides individually. He found three girls on the back row each doing a different page of the guide, planning to collaborate on the answers. Against the instructions, he called them out in front of the class for trying to cheat. He explained that showing how tough he is on these issues in front of students has proven very effective for him. Students have given him a reputation which he is proud of. But I wonder if students aren't really learning moral development so much as just knowing they can't get away with it in his class. Once again I'm seeing a preconventional thinking, in doing what's best for themselves and in those that choose not to cheat in his class it's basing that choice on not being caught.
The last example, Mrs. M's marijuana crusade left me thinking the most. She had a point. She brought up scientific data and showed these students that she genuinely cared about their well being. But most of her students didn't seem to respond. However, they may form their moral reasoning for the time being in a conventional place, based on how their teacher views the issue. Eventually however they will hopefully develop their own moral reasoning on marijuana, evolving from a conventional place to an individual reasoning and conscience in the post conventional level. Mrs. M was the only teacher I saw trying to genuinely help students reason out an issue rather than just counter act the issue.
Comments
Post a Comment