Reflection on Kohlberg’s Moral Development Model

In this reflection, I firstly try to conceptualize Kohlberg’s Moral Development Model around the discussion of what moral values are the nature and nurture issue in stages and the characteristics of the stages. For the second part of the reflection, in the light of two articles (Malinowski & Smith, 1985; Semerci, 2006), my main intend is to draw a picture about the implications of the model for educational purposes.

What are moral values? I think there is not an exact answer for this question. There are various answers to this question researchers have given so far. For example, according to Piaget, moral values live in a system of rules. Kohlberg also agrees with this definition, yet, mainly terms it on the issue of justice. While Kohlberg considers justice in the center of moral values, M. Siegel’s main focus is on the sense of fairness. On the other hand, for Maccoby, moral values are the ones on which the whole society negotiates as good or as bad. Lastly, a very distinct stance is represented by Gilligan who argues that gender differences may play a role in the perception of moral values. To derive a meaning of moral value from all these different perspectives, it may be beneficial to locate their stance on the continuum of universal to individualistic character. In this continuum, Kohlberg and Piaget are somewhere very near to the universal side of the continuum; while Maccoby is on the somewhere middle (cultural perspective), while Gilligan is on somewhere very near to the individualistic side of the continuum. As a result, I believe, the standing point on this continuum greatly affects one’s definition of moral values. In other words, for example, if you locate yourself somewhere near to the universal side, then, it is very possible that your definition of moral values will not tolerate the cultural and individual differences by stressing the values to which all people have to adjust themselves.

To understand the role of nature and nurture issue in the moral development, I think, raising the following two speculative questions can be very effective: “Do all children display the same level of moral development as they reach the same cognitive level?” and “Do all children who are raised in the same culture  show the same moral maturity? ” To make the second question sharper, two siblings who are raised within the same family structure can be taken into consideration. I think the answers for both questions are negative. Hence, this situation underlines the other parameters, different than cognitive development and the environment, such as the personal desire and role-taking opportunities Kohlberg describes in his model. I will try to mention more deeply about the role of role-taking experiences in the educational implications part of the reflection.

It is proposed that there are three main characteristics of the stages of Kohlberg’s moral development model: universal, integrated and invariant. It is universal because the stages are presented in all societies. The stages are integrated because the levels in different aspects of moral decisions will tend to cluster around the same level. To make this characteristic more concrete, the following example can be given: In a scenario, a person, let us assume, displays level 2 characteristics on the honesty issue. The integrated property says that this person is expected to show more or less level 2 characteristics on the issue of honor, or of other realms. Lastly, the stages are invariant because each stage serves a prerequisite for the next stage.

For the educational implication of the model, I try to narrow down perspective to the issue of cheating. However, towards the end of the reflection, I will give a general frame for the educational system around Kohlberg’s “just community approach.”

The main conclusion of the research conducted by Malinowski & Smith (1985) is that students who have a higher moral maturity are less inclined to cheating. This is an expected result considering the stages of moral development. However, Kohlberg’s argument that nonmoral factors affect moral decisions less as the stage of moral development becomes higher is not supported by this study. In the reading of this data, one educator may claim that the effect to lessen the negative nonmoral factors on cheating concern may not ensure that you are stimulating the moral development of students who relatively demonstrate a lower level of moral maturity with respect to the others in the classroom.     

In the second article, the opinions of medicine faculty students regarding cheating are studied by Semerci (2006). The main results are, among the Medicine Faculty students, 77% of them regard cheating as theft, 69% regard it as forgery, 40% think it as an evidence of lack of confidence and 71% consider cheating as unlawful or a sin. Although their general perception of cheating is negative, 72% of the students had cheated. To some extent, this can be seen as contradictive. However, I think the role of the educator lies in this contradiction. That is, in a form quite similar to Kohlberg’s dilemmas, the students may expected to question the effectiveness of doctors for a society who trained by cheating. This question may create an effect as conflict and it may provoke the transition to the next stage, as Piaget’s term “equilibration”.

Lastly, I want to mention about general implications for the education system. As it was cited previously, role-taking opportunities have an effect in moral maturity. Since it helps the children to develop the sense of identity and empathy, the students gains the ability to view their environment from the perspective of other people. I think this is greatly consistent with “the just community approach” proposed by Kohlberg who believes that the goal of education is not conveying a predetermined set of rules, rather, the goal is to create chances for students to grow through the six stages. Therefore, in such a system, students are indisputable part of the decision-making mechanisms of the education system.      

REFERENCES

Malinowski, C. I. & Smith, C. P. (1985). Moral reasoning and moral conduct: An investigation prompted by Kohlberg’s Theory. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 49 (4), 1016-1027.

Semerci, Ç. (2006). The opinions of medicine faculty students regarding cheating in relation to Kohlberg’s moral development concept. Social Behavior and Personality, 34 (1), 41-48.