Microsoft Word - JCPE-2008-0-03.doc

Journal of Cross-Disciplinary Perspectives in Education

Vol. 1, No. 1 (May 2008) 13 - 19

Moral Reasoning: A Necessary Standard of Learning in Today’s Classroom

Katie Dolph and Angela Lycan

Martin Luther King, Jr. said, “Intelligence

plus character – that is the goal of real education,”

(Pasquier, 2007, p. 1). These words ring as true

today as they did when he spoke eloquently during

the Civil Rights Movement. Character education

has taken many different forms, and has varied

monikers- moral reasoning, moral education,

character development, and civic education- but the

substance behind the names has a common thread.

The need for children to become productive citizens

in American society is the heart of character

education. Moral reasoning is imperative for

schools to incorporate to truly reach this mission: an

educated citizenry.

While the school's primary mission is to

promote academic achievement, there is nonetheless

a real need for schools to promote character

development as well. Studies have shown that when

teachers and administrators model core values and

students learn skills to resolve conflict peacefully,

practice pro-social behaviors, and engage in service

to the community, schools have a lower incidence

of violence (Virginia CEP, 2000). Grants have been

offered through the Department of Education to

fund character education, and states have written a

provision for it into educational policy. For

example, the Commonwealth of Virginia has

included moral education as a requirement based on

the data reported by the Virginia media (Virginia

CEP, 2000). It is “intended to educate students

regarding those core civic values and virtues which

are efficacious to civilized society and are common

to the diverse social, cultural, and religious groups

of the Commonwealth” (VA Code, 1998, p. 1).

Moreover; “the purpose of the character education

program shall be to instill in students civic virtues

and personal character traits so as to improve the

learning environment, promote student

achievement, reduce disciplinary problems, and

develop civic-minded students of high character”

(VA Code, 1998, p. 1).

Moral education is a crucial component for

all schools to incorporate into their regular

schedules. Teaching moral education in schools is

about providing students the skills needed to wrestle

with moral dilemmas that they will encounter in

their daily lives. It is no longer teaching religious

morality, but rather it is the teaching of basic

character education. Moreover, this education can

be explicit even to the point of being required such

as in the case of Virginia (VA Code, 1998).

Students wrestle with moral dilemmas in their

social lives, but can also do so throughout their

social studies textbooks. Not teaching students how

to synthesized and analyze moral dilemmas would

be educational malpractice. It is imperative to

embed moral development in education throughout

childhood. This paper will serve to outline the need

for moral education in schools and offer ideas for

components of moral education that are research-

based. In order to lay sufficient groundwork for the

importance of moral education in schools, an

overview of the history of moral education in

schools will be presented, followed by a summary

of Kohlberg’s Theory of Moral Development.

Guidelines for moral education in schools will then

be delineated. Finally, suggestions for

implementation of a moral development program

will be offered. Implementing moral education

using Kohlberg’s model as a theoretical framework

will help produce an educated citizenry by directly

teaching moral reasoning through content-

integrated, dilemma-based discussion, modeling a

democratic environment through shared leadership

and facilitating growth through stages of moral

development.

Moral Education throughout American History

Throughout America’s history, its

educational system has been revamped while the

Journal of Cross-Disciplinary Perspectives in Education

Vol. 1, No. 1 (May 2008) 13 - 19

foundations of the structure have remained clear.

The foundational curriculum over time has included

moral education along with reading, writing, and

mathematics. Moral education in schools has

proven to be “effective in building a sense of

American spirit, values and community” (Balch,

Saller, & Szolomicki, 1993). Moral education is not

a new concept in the American public school

system, but rather is a constant thread seen

throughout history. Clear examples of moral

education can be seen in three time periods of

American history: Colonial, National, and

Progressive.

Moral Education during the Colonial period

During the Colonial time period the purpose

of education throughout the American colonies was

to teach children the Protestant religion and to

maintain social order. For example, in 1647, the

Puritans created a law that required their

communities to “establish and support schools”

(Balch et al., 1993). The motivation to establish a

strong education system was the Puritan belief that

schools should teach ethical and moral values

grounded in religious belief. The later part of the

century saw a shift in moral education as

evidenced by the theories of John Locke (Balch et

al., 1993) who believed that children were blank

slates to be written on; educators took this to mean

that society could be changed through the education

of children. Educators believed that teaching moral

education grounded in religion would create an

optimal society (Balch et al., 1993).

Moral Education in the National and Progressive

periods

Horace Mann, the Secretary of State for the

Board of Education, led the way with a religious

based moral education during the Nationalist

period. He believed that religion and morality were

inseparable. Inspired by Locke’s theories, Mann

believed that the perfect educational system would

create “the perfect political citizen, the perfect

moral person and the perfect worker” (Balch et al.,

1993, p.6). As Nationalism gained strength after the

Revolutionary War, the goals of education shifted

away from religious education towards an education

that created patriotic citizens. Moral education

shifted as well. Moral education was still thought to

be critical in the education of students but the new

morality encompassed more of a patriotic duty and

less of a religious morality.

During the early 19

century, Americans

believed that schools “could perfect the good person

and, at the same, be creating the good society”

(Balch, et al., 1993, p.6), with this shift in thinking

the Progressive time period began. Moral education

absent of religious tones is seen during the

Progressive time period. In an effort to separate

morality from religion during the Progressive time

period, moral education was renamed character

education. Character education focused on teaching

honor, patriotism and work ethic as a means for

developing a strong sense of morality. Schools

began to teach virtues such as courage, honesty and

fairness. These virtues were not considered part of

the standard curriculum but teachers were expected

to lead students “to understand the complexities and

subtleties of each particular virtue” (Ellenwood,

2007). Thus, character education became the hidden

curriculum in schools.

Shifts in Moral Education

Moral education is not a new concept in the

American public school system, but rather is a

constant thread seen throughout history. Throughout

the course of America’s history, moral education

has been a component of public schooling.

Examples of this phenomenon can clearly be seen in

the colonial, nationalist, and progressive time

periods. The gradual shift from a colonial religious

morality to a progressive patriotic morality

established the moral education foundation present

in the contemporary mission statements of public

schools nationwide: the mission of schools is to

produce an educated citizenry. Moral education

may have started with a religious basis as seen in

colonial times, but has shifted to more civics based

with the Nation’s shift towards producing educated

citizenry and leaders. Lawrence Kohlberg (1975)

theorized stages of moral development that can be

used as a theoretical framework for these goals

prescribed by public schools today.

Theoretical Framework: Kohlberg’s Theory of

Moral Development

Journal of Cross-Disciplinary Perspectives in Education

Vol. 1, No. 1 (May 2008) 13 - 19

Moral education has been at the heart of

American education throughout its history as a

country. Varying from explicit religiosity to mere

secular overtones, the idea has resonated that people

exhibit varying degrees of moral reasoning.

Kohlberg (1975) theorized that these varying

degrees occur in stages throughout life. According

to the theory, moral development occurs at three

different levels, with two stages incorporated in

each. The levels are the different moral perspectives

that individuals struggle with when faced with a

moral problem or dilemma. The levels represent the

thinking process during the moral dilemmas not the

justification for the moral decision (Kohlberg).

Moreover, moral development follows these stages,

but that they are not necessarily restricted by age.

Pre-Conventional Ethics

The first level is pre-conventional ethics,

which is characterized by a high degree of

egocentric thought. At this developmental stage, the

individual focuses on the potential consequences

that are a direct result of actions. The two stages are

punishment-obedience, and market exchange. In

punishment-obedience reasoning, people make a

moral decision dependent upon whether or not

being caught is likely as well as what the potential

is for punishment if caught (Kohlberg, 1975). The

market exchange stage is characterized by the

person understanding how the consequence will

affect him or her, but wanting the same

consequence for someone else too. The market

exchange stage has been referred to as the “eye for

an eye” stage (Eggen & Kauchak, 1997).

Conventional Ethics

The second level is conventional ethics. No

longer is the morality driven by the immediate

consequence for self, but the focus shifts to a

concern for others. During this level, the individual

is able to see the moral dilemma from another

person’s perspective. Conventional ethics also has

two stages, interpersonal harmony and law and

order. The interpersonal harmony stage is guided by

the need to live up to others expectations, a sense of

loyalty for others, and the importance of

maintaining the approval of others (Kohlberg,

1975). A person at this stage may be susceptible to

accepting widely held opinions as his or her own,

without consideration of how the majority opinion

came to be. This stage is typically encountered

during the adolescent years. The law and order

stage moves away from the desire to please a

certain person, and focuses on the need to follow

the rules and laws because they are rules and laws.

Here, the individual believes that the rules and laws

need to be followed, and does not question the

reasoning behind them (Kohlberg, 1975).

Post-Conventional Ethics

The final level in Kohlberg’s theory is post-

conventional ethics, only a small percentage of the

population ever achieves this level. During the post-

conventional ethics level, the individual is able to

make moral decisions based on principles. The two

stages are social contract and universal principles.

Social contract reasoning is believes that society as

a whole is rational and should socially agree on all

of the laws in order to operate. The laws are no

longer simply accepted at face value because they

are laws; but rather there is an understanding that

laws should be changed to fit the needs of the

society. During the universal principles stage, the

individual’s moral reasoning is beyond the strict

rules of society. Instead, it is founded on abstract

principles, beyond the social norms. At this stage

moral reasoning is guided by internal universal

standards that supersede laws. Kohlberg (1975)

believed very few people ever achieved this stage,

and did not emphasize it in his work.

Just Community

Kohlberg (1975) saw the founding of the

American democratic society in terms of these

“post-conventional principles of justices and the

rights of human beings, rather than upon the

authority central to conventional moral reasoning”

(p. 51), and asserted that his theories of moral

development should be used as a framework to

guide discussion about moral dilemmas in schools.

He suggested a school-based reform called “Just

Community”, in which a school engages in moral

discussions in a democratic community (Kohlberg,

1975). While the Just Community schools did not

survive after Kohlberg’s death, the tenets of his

Journal of Cross-Disciplinary Perspectives in Education

Vol. 1, No. 1 (May 2008) 13 - 19

theory form the backbone of the moral education

guidelines presented in the following section.

Moral Education in Schools Today

One of the goals of public education is to

create an educated citizenry that is productive in

society. Citizenship is at the heart of the American

way of life, therefore it is imperative to embed

moral development in education throughout

childhood. Without “shared common values, a

society cannot function and maintain the desired

degree of cohesiveness that makes a society

communal and strong” (Balch et al., 1993, p 4).

Educators cannot teach without instilling moral

education to their students but not even schools can

escape functioning without priorities and a set of

values (Ellenwood, 2007). Not taking advantage of

the opportunities to explore values, and character

development during the school day would only

harm the future citizenry. Therefore, it is imperative

to embed moral development in education

throughout childhood. Implementing moral

education using Kohlberg’s model as a theoretical

framework will help to produce an educated

citizenry by directly teaching moral reasoning

through content-integrated dilemma-based

discussion, modeling a democratic environment

through shared leadership, and facilitating growth

through the stages of moral development.

Content-Integrated, Dilemma-Based Moral

Discussions

Moral reasoning is a set of abstract concepts

that can be examined and evaluated by students

through dilemma-based discussions in school.

These are tools in which open-ended scenarios are

presented and discussed by students with a faculty

member serving as a mediator, not as a teacher or

leader. Students can argue based on one position or

attempt to take on the perspectives of all

stakeholders in the scenario (Kohlberg, 1986). The

best method for teaching values involves not only

instructing the students on collective values, but

also challenging them to think analytically and

contextually, and to make informed decisions using

the social and historical context (Ellenwood, 2007).

Moral curriculum is best embedded in content areas

such as language arts or social studies especially for

dilemma-based discussions (Kohlberg, 1986).

Furthermore, high schools could also potentially

offer an ethics-based seminar in one of the core

content areas. Embedding the moral reasoning

curriculum into core content areas allows both

students and teachers to have integrated discussions

at various times throughout the school year, rather

than in isolation (Kohlberg, 1986). As Aristotle is

quoted as saying, “the best way to teach morality is

to make it a habit with children” (CharacterKidz,

2008).

Shared Leadership in a Democratic Community

Another important guideline in creating a

moral education program is shared leadership, also

referred to as a democratic community. One of the

underlying goals in moral education is to “develop a

community in which students, teachers, and

administrators collaborate on establishing …rules

and procedures that are viewed as fair and just

among them all” (Howard-Hamilton, 1995, p. 3).

The stress on allowing students to share the

decision-making roles in the school provides

concrete situations in which moral reasoning can be

applied; this is important to have in conjunction

with the dilemma-based discussions, in which

students’ practice moral reasoning via abstract

thought and discussion (Kohlberg, 1975). Allowing

for student ownership, either in individual

classrooms or in the school as a whole, is an

important facet of the moral education approach

that should be programmatically implemented in

schools whose goal is an educated citizenry.

Facilitated Growth through Kohlberg’s Stages

The incorporation of a moral education

curriculum can assist children in moving through

the moral reasoning stages in an expedient and

efficient manner. In the absence of discussion and

shared leadership, children will likely move through

the stages of moral development very gradually.

However, a school environment and curriculum

based in moral reasoning the helps to increase

student movement through the stages (Howard-

Hamilton, 1995). Kohlberg (1975) described the

need for explicit education in moral reasoning:

Moral development partly depends upon the

intellectual development which is the school’s

Journal of Cross-Disciplinary Perspectives in Education

Vol. 1, No. 1 (May 2008) 13 - 19

first concern, but usually lags behind it. If

logical reasoning is a necessary but not

sufficient condition for mature moral judgment

is a necessary but not sufficient condition for

mature moral action. One cannot follow moral

principles if one does not understand (or believe

in) moral principles. (p. 49)

Three conditions help to facilitate movement

through the stages including exposure to the

subsequent stage, dissatisfaction with the current

stage, and an atmosphere that is conducive to that

conflict. Incorporating moral education helps to

foster these conditions (Blatt & Kohlberg, 1975).

Dilemma-based discussions serve to provide

exposure to higher reasoning, while a community in

which leadership is shared provides an open

environment for the internal conflict to be resolved.

For example, Christian schools incorporating

explicit moral instruction had more children

exhibiting higher levels of reasoning on Kohlberg’s

stages than students without this instruction

(Norman, Richards & Bear, 1998). Just like students

are taught to reason mathematically, they need to be

taught to reason morally.

Moral Education in the 21

Century

Moral education has been a part of the

educational backdrop throughout this country’s

history. The 21

century cannot afford to make an

exception. Moral reasoning is an important

curricular component of the K-12 school

experience. By embedding this curriculum into

content areas such as language arts and social

studies, schools can facilitate moral reasoning

without creating an additional course or content

burden in schools that are already overwhelmed

with curricular imperatives in the standards-based

reform movement. The creation of a school

community in which leadership is shared and

democracy is modeled is also an important

component of a 21

century moral education. These

features are essential in the structure, however

guidelines alone do not create a seamless program;

implementation procedures must also be considered.

Considerations for Implementation

The guidelines presented for the moral

reasoning curriculum will help to drive public

education closer to its’ oft-stated mission of

producing an educated citizenry. However, there are

two additional considerations that should be taken

into account when implementing these curricular

modifications. It is important that the dilemma-

based discussions and the scenarios presented in

this discussion have been created through a

culturally respectful lens. Moreover, a new moral

education curriculum cannot be successfully

implemented without extensive and ongoing

professional development.

Culturally-Respectful Moral Education

Moral education has traditionally been

undertaken via a majority (male Caucasian)

viewpoint; studies show that not all cultures have

the same moral values, therefore the future

directions in moral reasoning education need to be

culture-fair. Baek (2002) found that “Kohlberg

missed or misconstrued some moral concepts

indigenous to some cultures… based on responses

which were not able to be scored within his system”

(p. 373) and while Kohlberg’s system is able to be

used in more than one culture, “this system alone

seems insufficient to explain children’s moral

reasoning. Interpretation of children’s moral

reasoning should be made by taking account of

cultural influences” (p. 289). For example, the

Korean concept of chung, referring to the positive

emotional bond formed over time, does not have an

equivalent on Kohlberg’s scale (Baek, 2002).

However, Korean youths use chung as an

explanation for their moral decisions. Leaders can

strive to ensure that dilemma-based discussions and

shared leadership are culturally representative

through comprehensive staff training.

Professional Development

Embedding a culture-fair moral reasoning

curriculum through content-integrated dilemma-

based discussion and shared leadership can be

facilitated only through extensive and ongoing

professional development (Guskey, 1986). The

theoretical framework of the moral education plan,

in this case Kohlberg’s Model, needs to be

presented to all faculty, from teachers to

administrators. Furthermore, professional

development on facilitating content-integrated

Journal of Cross-Disciplinary Perspectives in Education

Vol. 1, No. 1 (May 2008) 13 - 19

moral discussions and shared leadership needs to be

ongoing; solitary in-services will not suffice. One

necessary component of teacher development

crucial to moral education is teacher awareness

training. This training would highlight the ways in

which schools support what Kohlberg (1983;

Kohlberg & Hersh, 2001) called the hidden

curriculum (Kohlberg, 1975); functions and traits

are conveyed to students from teachers via an

unconscious, covert curriculum that is established

when teachers define and establish educational

procedures. It is difficult for students to reason on a

post-conventional level when the conventional level

emphasizing law and order, and the punishment

focused pre-conventional level, are being modeled

by school faculty (Kohlberg & Hersh, 2001).

Awareness training highlighting the hidden

curriculum, and of what teachers do on a daily basis

that supports the hidden curriculum, is important,

especially when an emphasis is placed on shared

leadership. Schools must model moral reasoning in

order for students to internalize it.

Moral education is a necessary component

of education for all children. Moral reasoning

education can be naturally embedded within much

of the language arts and social studies curriculum,

but it must be implemented in a way that respects

and understands the moral reasoning of minority

cultures. Successful implementation of moral

reasoning embedded in education must also include

a teacher training component. Kohlberg’s Theory of

Moral Reasoning provides a theoretical framework

through which the implementation can take place

that furthers the mission of public education.

Conclusion

Implementing moral education using

Kohlberg’s model as a theoretical framework will

help produce an educated citizenry by directly

teaching moral reasoning through content-

integrated, dilemma-based discussion, modeling a

democratic environment through shared leadership

and facilitating growth through stages of moral

development. Kohlberg believed children respond

differently to situations depending on their stage of

moral development and that the goal of moral

development is a universal sense of justice. These

foundational beliefs correspond to the mission of

education: to produce an educated citizenry. Being

able to look at a scenario and understand its moral

complexities is part of developing a citizen who is

able to critically think about and handle moral

situations. Class discussions about moral problems

not only stimulate growth but provide tools for the

students to use later in life when they encounter

similar problems, especially when culturally

responsive scenarios are used and the value of all

cultures is recognized. Schools are a safe

environment for children to develop these skills that

will be needed later on; ensuring that this

environment is a democratic community with

shared leadership will help further the moral

education curriculum. Training teachers is essential

to the success of an educational initiative, and moral

education is no exception.

By putting all of the pieces together,

content-integrated moral discussions, shared

leadership, cultural awareness and teacher training,

a moral education curriculum helps to further the

mission of education. An educated citizenry is the

goal of public education and if moral education is

not in the public schools then public education falls

short of its goal. In the words of Theodore

Roosevelt, "to educate a man in mind and not in

morals is to educate a menace to society" (National

Institute of Environmental Health Sciences, 2008,

p.1).

References

Baek, H. (2002). A comparative study of moral

development of Korean and British children.

Journal of Moral Education, 31(4), 373-391.

Balch, M.F., Saller, K., & Szolomicki, S. (1993).

Values education in American public

schools: Have we come full circle?

Viewpoints, 2-34. (ERIC Document

Reproduction Service No. ED370203)

Retrieved on March 2, 2008, from ERIC

database.

Journal of Cross-Disciplinary Perspectives in Education

Vol. 1, No. 1 (May 2008) 13 - 19

Blatt, M. & Kohlberg, L. (1975). Effects of

classroom discussions upon children’s level

of moral judgment. Journal of Moral

Development, 4(2), 129-161.

CharacterKidz. (2008). Encouraging good character

just got fun. Retrieved on April 20, 2008,

from

www.characterkidz.com/positivity/home.ph

Eggen, P. & Kauchak, D. (1997). Educational

psychology: Windows on classrooms (3

Ed.). Columbus, OH: Merrill.

Ellenwood, S. (2007). Revisiting character

education: From McGuffey to narratives.

The Journal of Education, 187(3), 21-43.

Guskey, T. (1986). Staff development and the

process of teacher change. Educational

Researcher 15(6), 5-12.

Howard-Hamilton, M. (1995). A just and

democratic community approach to moral

education: Developing voices of reason and

responsibility. Elementary School Guidance

& Counseling, 30(2), 118. (ERIC Document

Reproduction Service No. EJ515687)

Retrieved on March 2, 2008, from ERIC

database.

Kohlberg, L. (1975). Moral education for a society

in moral transition. Educational Leadership,

33(1), 46-54.

Kohlberg, L. (1983). The moral atmosphere of the

school. In H. Giroux & D. Purpel (Eds.),

The hidden curriculum and moral education

(pp. 61-81). Berkeley, CA: McCutchan.

Kohlberg, L. (1986). A current statement on some

theoretical issues. In S. Modigal & C.

Modigal (Eds.), Lawrence Kohlberg:

Consensus and controversy (pp. 485-546).

Philadelphia, PA: Falmer.

Kohlberg, L.& Hersh, R.H. (2001). Moral

development: A review of the theory.

Theory into Practice. 16(2), 53-59.

National Institute of Environmental Health

Sciences. (2008). NIEHS kids’ pages.

Retrieved on April 20, 2008, from

http://kids.niehs.gov/quotes/qteduc.htm

Norman, A., Richards, H., & Bear, G. (1998).

Moral reasoning and religious belief: Does

content influence structure? Journal of

Moral Education, 27(1). (ERIC Document

Reproduction Service No. EJ580650)

Retrieved on March 2, 2008, from ERIC

database.

Pasquier, M. (2007). Teaching and learning quotes.

Retrieved on April 20, 2008, from

http://www.c2i.ntu.edu.sg/AI+CI/Humor/tlq

uotes_I.html

VA Code (1998). § 22.1-208.01. Character

education required. Retrieved on March 13,

2008 from http://leg1.state.va.us/cgi-

bin/legp504.exe?000+cod+22.1-208.01

Virginia CEP (2000). Virginia Character Education

Project. Retrieved on March 13, 2008 from

http://www.doe.virginia.gov/VDOE/Instruct

ion/CEP/grant.html