He saw the need for the teacher’s level of moral verbalisations to match those of the children.
Willhelm (1977) found that teachers with lots of training as opposed to little generated more reasoning from participant responses thus inferring more than the teachers with less training when using the Moral Judgment interview causing inbalances between interviewers.
Kohlberg attributed his interest and subsequent work to the inspiration of Moshe Blatt and the Blatt effect J.S. Lemming (1981).
Blatt s work exposed children to the next stage level of their suggested current stage and after re-test at the next semester he found they had progressed to the next stage.
He used lengthy moral discussions to explore moral dilemmas and this is the approach Kohlberg adopted until 1978 when he shifted away from the discussion approach to the just community approach as a result of this previous Kohlberg statement becoming dated
Kohlberg now suggested that teachers should deal with moral dilemmas whereas before moral educators would wait until the student had reached stage 5.
In an experiment at a cluster school (where students have equal say to staff) E. Wassenman (1980) describes the new approaches as old wine in new bottles replacing hypothetical dilemmas with real life dilemmas with a focus on collective norms. Lemming (1974) found lower stage reasoning with problems that were dealt with as common problems instead of hypothetical dilemmas.
Gordon (1982) proposes that Kohlberg fails to appreciate the importance of the hidden curriculum, these are the characteristics of classroom life with which children have to come to terms with crowds, praise and power.
He proposed that Kohlberg s contribution could have been far greater if he had not underemphasized or ignored 4 aspects of the hidden curriculum. These are its unplanned and unintended dimension, its connection with the hidden cognitive curriculum, and its being constituted often of contradictionary message blocks which are open to counter hegemonic resistance.
It is these aspects according to Gordon (1982) that undermine Kohlberg s theory. Although he believes they can be incorporated into Kohlberg s framework. Giroux (1981) suggested that hidden curriculum messages may not be spotted by teachers, although often spotted by pupils, messages which imply dominant class hegemonic impositions. This is the governance and informal social relations of the school.
Conclusion
The universality of Kohlbergs stages is evident with the problem being the classification of the stages in regards to when they occur. The first stages being the most common I would suggest the latter being cultural based mainly as a result of western culture where higher quality of education would predict higher ability up to and beyond formal operations although this in no way excludes non western cultures. Thus it could be suggested that moral development is innate to a point where it is then shaped and concluded by the cultural context.
As far as the gender debate pioneered by Gilligan is concerned, there is little evidence to support this. If this were to be the case this without doubt would effect the main underpinning of Kohlbergs work which is undoubtedly not an issue.
Perhaps as we expand the characteristics of what we want moral judgment scores to do, we shall have to revise our notions about which features are important, and we may have to devise new ways of collecting information as well.
But at this time it is clear that Kohlberg and his associates have succeeded grandly in what they originally set out to do.
Overall, Kohlberg’s contribution to the study and practice of moral education is impressive. An understanding of the stages of moral reasoning is an important tool for teachers wishing to engage in meaningful moral dialogue with students.
Appendix 1
Kohlberg s Three Levels (Six Stages) of Moral Development
Moral Development
Level 1Pre-conventional Stage 1 (Punishment and Obedience orientation)What is right and wrong is determined by what is punishable and what is not if stealing is wrong, it is because authority figures say so and because they will punish it ( right makes right ). Moral action is essentially the avoidance of punishment. Stage 2 (Instrumental relativist orientation)What is right and wrong is determined by what brings rewards and what people want. Other people s needs and wants come into the picture, but only in a reciprocal sense ( you scratch my back, I ll scratch yours ).
Level 2:Conventional Stage 3 (Interpersonal concordance or good boy-nice girl orientation)Good behaviour is whatever pleases and helps others and doing what they approve of. Being moral is being a good person in your own eyes and those of others . What the majority things is right is right by definition. Stage 4 ( Law and order orientation)Being good means doing one s duty showing respect for authority and maintaining the social order (status quo) for its own sake. Concern for the common good goes beyond the Stage 3 concern for the welfare of one s family: society protects the rights of individuals, so society must be protected by the individual. Laws are unquestionably accepted and obeyed.
Level 3:Post-conventional Stage 5 (Social contract-legalistic orientation)Since laws are established by mutual agreement, they can be changed by the same democratic process. Although laws and rules should be respected, since they protect individual rights as well as those of society as a whole, individual rights can sometimes supersede these laws if they become too destructive or restrictive. The law should not be obeyed at all costs, e.g. life is more sacred than any legal principle. Stage 6 (Universal-ethical principles orientation)Moral action is determined by our inner conscience and may/may not be in agreement with public opinion or society s laws. What is right or wrong is based upon self-chosen, ethical principles which we arrived at through reflection they are not demanded by society as such. These principles are abstract and universal, such as justice, equality, the sacredness of human life and respect for human dignity; only if we act in accordance with them can we attain full moral responsibility.
Appendix 2
Summary of Hypothetical Dilemmas
Form A
1. Should Heinz steal an over price drug in order to save his dying wife?
2. Should Heinz be punished for stealing?
3. Should a boy refuse to give his father the map that Joe had earned himself in order to go to camp?
Form B
1. Should a doctor commit Euthanasia for a terminally ill patient who requests it?
Should a girl tattle on her sister who lied to her mother after the mother had broken a promise?
Bibliography
Blatt, M.M & Kohlberg. L (1975 The Effects of Classroom Moral Discussion Upon Children s Level of Moral Judgment Journal of Moral Education 4, 2 pp 129-61
Giroux, H.A. (1981) Heyenomonic, Resistance and the Paradox of Educational Reform Interchange 12, 2/3 pp 3-26
Gordon, D. (1982) The Concept of the Hidden Curriculum Journal of Philosophy of Education. 16,2 pp 187-98
Mosher, R.L. (1980) A Democratic High School : Coming of Age In Mosher R.L. (Ed) Moral Education : A First Generation of Research and Development New York Praegon
Wasserman, E.R (1980) An Alternative High School Based on Kohlberg s Just Community Approach to Education In Mosher R.L. (Ed) Moral Education: A First Generation of Research and Development New York, Praegen
Lemming, J.S. Contemporary Approaches to Moral Education: An Annotated bibliography and Guide to Research. New York Gearland Publishing pp 149-72
Rest, J.R. (1979) Development in Judging Moral Issues, Minneapolis, Minn, University of Minnesota Press.
Eisenberg-Berg N, (1979) Relationships of pro-social Moral Reasoning to Altruism, Political Liberalism and Intelligence Developmental Psychology 15, pp 87-9
Dunnon, W. (1977) The Social World of a Child San Fransise Jossey-Biss
Walker, L.J. (1983 in press) Sex Differences in the Development of Moral Reasoning: A Critical Review of the Literature Child Development
Kurtines, W. Gray E. (1974) The development of Moral Thought Review and Evaluation of Kohlberg s Approach; Psychological Bulletin 81 8 pp 453-70
Ruma, E. Mosha, D (1967) Relationship Between Moral Judgment and Quilt in Delinquent Boys; Journal of Abnormal Psychology 72, 2 pp 122-7
Murphy, J. Gilligan, C. (1980) Moral Development in Late Adolescence and Adulthood: A Critique and Reconstruction of Kohlberg s Therapy; Human Development 23, 2 pp 77-104
Holstein, C. (1976) Irreversible, Stepwise Sequence in the Development of Moral Judgment: A Longitudinal Study of Males and Females; Child Development 47, 1 pp 51-61
Lemming, J. (1974) An Empirical examination of Key Assumptions Underlying the Kohlberg Rationale for Moral Education; ERIC Document Reproduction Service Number ED 093-749
Willhel, F. (1977) The Effects of the Extent of Training on Teacher Discussion behaviours and Children s Moral Reasoning Development; Unpublished Doctoral Dissertation, Stage University of New York at Albany
Modgil, S. & Modgil, C. (1985) Kohlberg, L. Consensus and Controversy, International Masterminds Challenge, Falmer Press England
Pepperdine University http://moon.pepperdine.edu/asep/class/ethics/kohlberg/pro%26con_argumentsh+ml
Woods, C. (1986) Journal of Social Behaviour and Personality 1996; Vol 24(4) 375-384
Wilson, R. (1995) Moral Interventions in Education Setting. http://www.interchg.vbc.ca/rw/psy413-1.htm
Gross. R, (1996) Psychology The Science of Mind and Behaviour.Hodder and Stoughton.