Structuring Historical and Current Event Lessons Using Kohlberg's Stages of Moral Development Author(s): Kenneth Hoskisson and

Donald S. Biskin Source: Peabody Journal of Education, Vol. 53, No. 4, Issues and Trends in American Education (Jul., 1976), pp. 289-295 Published by: Taylor & Francis, Ltd. Stable URL: http://www.jstor.org/stable/1492281 . Accessed: 27/08/2011 18:43
Your use of the JSTOR archive indicates your acceptance of the Terms & Conditions of Use, available at . http://www.jstor.org/page/info/about/policies/terms.jsp JSTOR is a not-for-profit service that helps scholars, researchers, and students discover, use, and build upon a wide range of content in a trusted digital archive. We use information technology and tools to increase productivity and facilitate new forms of scholarship. For more information about JSTOR, please contact support@jstor.org.

Taylor & Francis, Ltd. is collaborating with JSTOR to digitize, preserve and extend access to Peabody Journal of Education.

http://www.jstor.org

Structuring
Event

Historical

and

Current

Stages

Lessons of Moral

Kohlberg's Using Development

KENNETH HOSKISSON DONALD S. BISKIN

A significantpartof a student'seducation,historically,has includedinstruction morality. in of however, we have abandoned formaltreatment moralityin the classroomlest Recently, any we offend some pupils or indoctrinate others. Moraldecisions occur every day in classrooms across the country. It is impossible for the schools to stay out of values. Children'svalues develop duringthe school years. Values are inevitablyinfluencedby the school structure,the adults who work in it, the relations of all involved, and the choice of subject matter and materials. Problems associated with moral educationdo not arise because of necessity to engage in moral educationsince this is alreadybeing done everyday. The problemsarise over formulafroma tion of goals andselectionof contentfor such education.Moraleducationis approached relativisticorientationwhich insuresthatthese problemswill remainand in most cases negate any efforts towards constructing systematic moral education experiences in the schools. Educatorsandothersworkingwith childrenshouldbecome increasinglyawarethatvalues are not relative and externalsources cannot legislate them. The child can decide meaningfully. Logically, therefore, we should help childrendevelop a means of making constructiveand beneficial moral decisions. Two basic assumptionsunderliethe use of historicaland currentevents in the development of moralthinking:(1) Student'sthinkingis influencedby the activitiesin which they engage, and (2) moral thinking differs insignificantly from other types of thinking. Social studies materialcan be used as the basis for developing moral thinking since historical and current events form the core of instructional materialsused in social studiesprograms.By an analysis of moraldilemmasconfrontinghistoricalcharacters by discussingdecisions madeby these and charactersto solve the dilemmas they have faced we can encouragechildrento think about alternate solutions to historical and current dilemmas and, subsequently, to think about alternatedecisions they can make when confrontedwith an issue requiringa moraljudgment.

KENNETH HOSKISSONassociate professor, VirginiaPolytechnic Institute and State University, Blacksburg; is S. DONALD BISKIN director of program standards and evaluation, Departmentof mental Health and Mental is Retardation, Richmond.

JULY 1976

289

PEABODYJOURNALOF EDUCATION

fromwhich to develop a nonrelativisKohlberg1 providesa validatedtheoreticalframework tic moral education program. He assumes the goals of education should stimulate human of developmentto the extent that an individualmay achieve an understanding the universal laws governinghis physical and social environment.Includedamong these universalsarethe ethical principles governing moral judgments. Comprehensionand employment of these end principlesconstitutethe natural productof moraldevelopmentand, consequently,provide a natural,nonrelativisticand nonsectarian base for formulatingthe goals of moraleducation. theory possesses two universalcomponents:moral issues and stages of moral Kohlberg's development. Moral issues representthe content of moral judgments. Generally a moral dilemma arises when a conflict occurs between one or more of these moral issues. The universalmoralissues definedby Kohlberg2 obligation,responsibility,blameandapprobaare tion, punishment,contractandpromise, the value of humanlife, property,prudence,welfare of others, and respect, justice and reciprocity. He does refer to otherissues, but the previous list includes the most frequentandbest defined issues. In additionto the issues, Kohlberghas empiricallyvalidatedthe universaloccurrenceand invariantsequence of the stages of moral a development.3Eachstage represents distinctandqualitativelydifferentstructure uponwhich moral judgments are made. Kohlberg's six stages are defined below. Stage 1: Orientationtowardpunishmentand unquestioningdeference to superiorpower. The physical consequencesof actionregardlessof theirhumanmeaningor value determineits goodness or badness. satisfies one's own needs and Stage 2: Right action consists of that which instrumentally occasionally the needs of others. Human relations are viewed in terms like those of the market-place.Elementsof fairness, of reciprocityand equal sharingare present,but they are in always interpreted a physical, pragmatic way. Reciprocitybecomes a matterof "you scratch back and I'll scratch yours" not of loyalty, gratitudeor justice. my Stage 3: Good-boy/good-girl orientation. Good behavior pleases or helps others and receives their approval. Conformityto stereotypicalimages of what constitutesmajorityor naturalbehavioroccurs. Intentionjudges behavior:"he means well" becomes important for the first time, and is overused, as by CharlieBrownin Peanuts. One seeks approvalfor being "nice". towardauthority,fixed rules and the maintenanceof the social order. Stage 4: Orientation Right behaviorconsists of doing one's duty, showing respect for authority,and maintaining the given social order for its own sake. One earns respect by performingdutifully. Stage 5: A social-contractorientation,generally with legalistic and utilitarianovertones. Right action tends to be defined in terms of generalrightsand in termsof standards critically examined and agreed upon by the whole society. There exists a clear awareness of the relativism of personal values and opinions and a correspondingemphasis upon procedural rules for teaching consensus. Aside from what is constitutionallyand democraticallyagreed
'Lawrence Kohlberg, "The Development of Modes of Moral Thinking in the Years Ten to Sixteen," Diss. University of Chicago, 1958; L. Kohlberg, "Stage and Sequence: The Cognitive-Developmental Approachto Socialization," in Handbookof Socialization: Theoryand Research, D. Goslin (ed.) (Chicago: Rand McNally and Company, 1968). 2Kohlberg, 1968. 3Kohlberg, 1968.

290

JULY 1976

STRUCTURING HISTORICALAND CURRENT EVENT LESSONS

upon, rightor wrongis a matterof personalvalues andopinion. The resultemphasizesthelegal point of view, but with an emphasisupon the possibility of changinglaw in termsof rational considerationsof social utility, ratherthan freezing it in terms of Stage 4, "law and order." Outsidethe legal realm, free agreementand contractare the binding elements of obligation. This is the "official" moralityof Americangovernment,andfinds its groundin the thoughtof the writers of the Constitution. Stage 6: Orientationtoward the decisions of conscience and toward self-chosen ethical principles appealing to logical comprehensiveness, universality, and consistency. These principlesare abstractand ethical (the Golden Rule, the categoricalimperative),they are not concrete moral rules like the Ten Commandments.Instead they are universalprinciplesof justice, of the reciprocityandequalityof humanrights, andof respectfor the dignityof human beings as individualpersons. Whenan individualattainsstage six reasoninghe employs the universalethicalprinciplesof justice, reciprocityand respect for the dignity of humanbeings as individualpersons as the bases for making moraljudgments. It is to this universal end that moral education can be directed. More generically, moraleducationaims to acceleratean individualfrom his current stage of moral developmentto the next higher stage. Successive stages of moral development occur as a result of an interactionbetween an individual and his environment.When the individualconfrontsmoral reasoning in conflict with his own, a state of disequilibriumresults and he is forced to modify his existing moral perspective. Results of past research on accelerationof moral reasoning4indicate that the success of a developmentalmoral educationprogramis contingenton meeting two criteria. The programmustprovidea situationin which the studentexperiencesconflict or difficultyin mustalso expose the level of thoughtto moralproblems. And the program applyinghis current studentto the next higher level of thought in a situationwhere he actively participatesin a social problem-solvingprocess andwherehe has opportunity assumethe role of anotherand to see his point of view. In thispaperwe presentsuggestionsfor a moraleducationalprogram centeredin discussions of moraldilemmasfound in historicaland currentevents. The developmentand implementation of the programaccords consistently with Kohlberg'sposition and meets criteriaestablished by previously successful acceleration attempts. In addition the programavoids two problems commonly associated with other Kohlbergian moral education programs. It capitalizes on materials currentlyin the public schools and eliminates the possibility that advancement represents a function of the acquisition of information as opposed to the advancementof moral reasoning.5 of This programinvolves threebasic steps:storyanalysis, construction reflectivediscussion of basedon story analysis, and implementation the discussion. We also suggest that questions pre- and post-measuresof the participantsmoral reasoning be ascertained.
4Moshe Blatt and LawrenceKohlberg, "The Effects of Classroom Discussion Upon Children'sLevel of Moral Development," Unpublishedmanuscript, HarvardUniversity, 1972; Martin Leibermanand Robert Silman, "A PrimaryGrade CurriculumBased on a Cognitive Developmental Theory of Moral Reasoning." Presentedat the annualmeeting of the AmericanEducationalResearch Association, 1974; Elliot Turiel, "An ExperimentalTest of the Sequentialityof Developmental States," Diss. Yale University, 1965. 5JamesRest, "Developmental Psychology and Moral Education,"Review of EducationalResearch, 44 (1974), 241-259.

JULY 1976

291

PEABODYJOURNALOF EDUCATION

Story Analysis aboveandhis issues or moaes of Using Kohlberg'sstages of moraldevelopmentenumerated the judgment,6we have devised a systematicmethodof determining stages of moraldevelopment of historicalcharactersand the moraldilemmas they are called upon to solve has been devised. The analysis procedureincludes four steps: 1. The historicalor current event is readinitiallyin orderto determineif it containsa moral dilemma. 2. Students identify the moral dilemma in the event. 3. Students identify the moral issue or mode of judgment upon which the discussion questions rest. 4. The class determines the stage of the historical characterin relation to the moral judgment concerning the issue involved. In orderto elucidatethis process using the issue of the value of humanlife, a descriptionof an event which occurredduring the Civil War and the event analysis are presented. The following constitutesan expandeddefinitionof the issue of the value of humanlife for each stage of moral development. This issue we identified in the initial steps of the current analysis, and it provides essential informationfor completing the analysis. Value of Human Life. Stage 1: The Stage 1 individualdoes not clearlydistinguishthe value of humanlife fromthe value of physical objects or from the prestige of its possessor. The value of a person'slife is determinedby how many possessions an individualhas or his social or politicalposition. The life of a rich man with manypossessions is worthmore thana pauper;the life of a presidentis worth more than a laborer;the lives of many people with a large amountof possessions are worthmorethana single personwith fewer possessions. The decision to save a life restson its materialor social value, not on the basis of the intrinsicvalue of life. Therefore,the value of life is relative. Stage 2: At Stage 2 an individualjudges the value of life on the basis of whetherit resultsin satisfactionfor its possessoror for otherpersons. Thisjudgmentgenerallyassumestwo forms: the belief in saving a life over the rightsof property because anotherneeds this life for his own personalsatisfactionor belief thatthe possessorof the life has the rightto takehis life whenit is eithertoo painfulto live or when the life fails to bringany satisfaction.Again the valueof life is relative to whetherthe life brings satisfactionto its possessor or others. aboutlife madeat Stage 3 reston the belief thatlife is morevaluablethan Stage 3: Judgments propertyor the satisfactionit bringsits possessor or others. Humanlife is consideredvaluable because of the empathy and affection others have for that life. If an individualwere to die, otherswould lose an object of affectionandunderstanding. Consequently,the value of human life initiallyconnectsto the empathyandaffectionothersfeel for thatlife. Individualsat Stage 3 again look at the value of life as relative-based on the amountor extent of affection and empathyfor the individual. Stage 4: The value of humanlife is based on the social-religioussanctionsagainsttakinga life. It is wrong to kill or take one's own life because society has decided to protectlife or
6LawrenceKohlberg, "Scoring Manualfor Assessing Moral Development," Unpublishedmanuscript,Harvard University, 1973.

292

JULY 1976

STRUCTURING HISTORICALAND CURRENT EVENT LESSONS

because God has created life and decreed the sanctity of life. For the Stage 4 individual, however, life itself is not sacred but ratherthe social and religious rules about killing are sacred. Property consideredless important is thanlife, not becauseof the universalvalueof life but because murderrules are more importantthan theft rules. Again, the value of life is only relative to the value given it by the social-religious order. Stage 5: At Stage 5 an individualbegins to considerthe universalvalue of life, but he still values life in terms of its relation to the community welfare. The Stage 5 individualfeels commitmentto the social orderand if a person transgressessocial laws to save a life he still must answer to society's sanctions. Stage 6: For a Stage 6 individualhumanlife assumes precedenceover any othermoralor legal value (law, propertyrights, etc.). A humanlife possesses value regardlessof whether valued by a particular individual. Individualsin Stage 5 and Stage 6 differ in that the former recognizes the universalvalue of life butthatthe latterextendsthis recognitiontowardsthe life of any personwithinany situation.At Stage 6 a personfeels an obligationto respectall human life. The sacrednessof all human life becomes unconditionaland universal. The Event This event is excerpted from "A War Story" published in Scholastic Magazine and describes an incident that happenedduring the Civil War.
Sam Davis was a scout for the South. He was captured November2, 1863by soldiersof the North. He was takento on GeneralDodge who wantedto know the names of men who were tryingto lear secrets aboutthe North. If he didn't talk General Dodge told Sam Davis that he would hang. Sam said "Then I'll hang. I, too, am a soldier, sir. I do what I must, and you do what you must." General Dodge couldn't sleep since he wanted Sam Davis to talk and save himself from hanging. During this same time Sam Davis was writing a letter to his mother and father. He told them he was not afraidto die. The next morningGeneralDodge sent a man to see Sam andto tell him the Generaldidn'twantto see him die. All he had to do to save his own life was to talk. Sam replied, "If I had a thousandlives, I would give themall todaybeforeI would tell on my friends." The Generaldid what he said he would. Nineteen year-old Sam was hanged. His body was returnedto his home in Nashville, Tennessee. Two yearslater,the warended, andthe people of Tennesseewantedto buildsomethingso thatotheryoung men would know about Sam Davis. General Dodge rememberedSam Davis. He sent a lot of money.

Event Analysis In this event the moraldilemmainvolves conflict between GeneralDodge's need to obtain informationand the value of the life of Sam Davis. The primarymoral issue of the event involves the value or respect for humanlife. Both General Dodge and Sam Davis seem to consider the lives of others on the side of the North and the side of the South. GeneralDodge seems to exercise a Stage 4 judgment. He has respectfor life, but in warhe must follow the responsibilitydefined by his role as a general. Sam Davis also seems to makea Stage 4 judgment.In his role as a soldierhe is obligatednot to provideinformation the enemy. He may, however, have offered a Stage 3 judgmentsince to he says he would not tell on his friends. A good friend would not endangerthe life of other friends.
JULY 1976

293

PEABODYJOURNALOF EDUCATION

Discussion Procedures Based Upon Issues or Modes of Judgment To insureactive participation the discussionby all pupilsstructured in discussionlessons are developed. Eachlesson includesa series of questionswrittenin accordancewith the Reflective Thinking Strategydescribedby Hoskisson.7 Reflective thinkingbegins with a problemandmoves towarda solution, by sifting, relating, and orderinga flow of ideas. To accomplishthis, a discussion leader must (1) ask questions that initiate, sustain, and try to conclude investigations into problems found in the reading selection; (2) ask questions that challenge unclear, factually incorrect, or contradictory statements;and (3) evaluate all responses according to his best judgment, selecting those statementshe wantsto questionimmediately,ignoringthose he finds uninteresting,trivial, or irrelevant, and tabling those he may want to pursue later by noting the informationand returningwith a questionlaterin the discussion. Thereis no clear end except an answerto the of question that satisfies the understanding the leader and participants. The following three types of questions function in reflective thinking discussions: 1. Questionsof fact, requiring to of participants offer quotationsor paraphrases the book. The facts are the wordsof the authoreven thoughtheremay be no correspondence with facts in the actual world; 2. Questionsof interpretation, to asking the participant explore whatthe authormeans by what he has said; 3. Questions of evaluation, requestingthe participantto determinein what respects he agrees or disagreeswith the author'smeaning, or to what extent the book appliesto his own life. The strategyfor directinga discussioninvolves two othertypes of questions:basic questions and follow-up questions. Questionsof fact, interpretation evaluationconstitutethe three and kinds of questions used to ask about the reading selection. Basic questions and follow-up questions we classify from the standpointof guiding the movement of the discussion. Basic questions always represent interpretive questions that can lead to an extended discussionof whatthe leaderconsidersthe mainideas in or aboutthe selection. Basic questions shouldalways containmultipleimplicationsfor the discussionleaderandgenerate,as a ruleof thumb,at least eight follow-up questions. A basic questionbegins a discussionandagainwhen the subjectunderdiscussion exhausts itself, and the leader wishes to question anotherof the main ideas of the selection. Follow-up questionshelp to analyze, to develop the implicationsof, and to resolve a basic question. The follow-up questions contain ideas subordinateto but related to the basic question. The soundnessof a basic questionandits possibilitiesfor discussionareindicatedby the follow-up questions. There is always a place for factual and evaluative follow-up questions, butthe best test of a good basic questiondependson the numberof interpretive follow-up questions that explore the meaning of the author'swords. The following questions develop discussion on the previously described event. Basic Question: Does Sam Davis respect life more than General Dodge? 1. Does General Dodge respect life? Why? 2. Does Sam Davis respect life? Why? 3. Is General Dodge justified in killing Sam Davis. Why?
7KennethHoskisson, "False Questions and Right Answers," Reading Teacher, 27 (1973), 159-162.

294

JULY 1976

STRUCTURING HISTORICALAND CURRENT EVENT LESSONS

4. Is Sam Davis justified in killing himself? Why? 5. If General Dodge respects life why did he hang Sam? 6. If Sam Davis respects life why did he let himself be hung? 7. Is General Dodge responsible for the lives of his soldiers? Why? 8. Is General Dodge responsiblefor the lives of the southernsoldiers? Why? 9. Is Sam Davis responsiblefor the lives of the southernsoldiers? Why? 10. Is Sam Davis responsible for the lives of the northernsoldiers? Why? 11. Are the lives of the southernsoldiersworthmorethanthe lives of the northern soldiers? Why? 12. Was General Dodge committing murderwhen he killed Sam Davis? Why? 13. Was Sam Davis committingmurderwhen he allowed himself to be hung? Why? 14. Is General Dodge responsiblefor preservingSam Davis' life? Why? 15. Did General Dodge believe he was committing murderwhen he hung Sam Davis? Why? 16. Did General Dodge want to kill Sam Davis? Why? 17. As a soldier does General Dodge have a responsibilityto preserve the lives of his soldiers at any cost? Why? 18. Is Sam Davis' life less valuable than many lives? Why? 19. Can a person have respect for life and still take a life? Why? 20. Is it justifiable to take one life in order to preserve many lives? Why? Conclusions Because moraleducationis woven so tightly into the fibers of the public school curricula, educatorscannot dismiss it as an illegitimateconcern. Ratherthey must systematicallyplan moral educationprogramsthat rely on both the naturalpropensitiesof their studentsand the materialpresentlyemployed in the schools. The materialpresentedhereinprovidesthe basis and from which school administrators teachers can begin to carry out their responsibilities relative to moral education. Recently we completed a carefullycontrolledexperimentconcernedwith determiningthe effectiveness of this programon children'smoralreasoningemployingthe moraldilemmasin literature.The results indicatedthat children participatingin discussions based on the procedurespreviouslydescribedachieveda significantlygreatergain in moraldevelopmentthana comparablegroup only reading the literature.Additionalresearchis currentlyunderwayto explore the effect of this programon the moralreasoningof individualsof varyingages. All researchefforts were designed to conformas close as possible to school situationsso thatdata would be meaningfuland applicableto various educationalsettings.

JULY 1976

295