Moral Reasoning Among Different Education Levels
|The proper APA Style reference for this manuscript is:|
PALMER, A. D. (2005). Moral Reasoning Among Different Education Levels. National Undergraduate Research Clearinghouse, 8. Available online at http://www.webclearinghouse.net/volume/. Retrieved May 27, 2019
AUSTIN D. PALMER
Missouri Western State University DEPARTMENT OF PSYCHOLOGY
Sponsored by: Brian Cronk (email@example.com)
|Moral reasoning is the individual or collective practical reasoning about what, morally, one ought to do. In using the DIT-2, which is based off Kohlbergís three stages and six levels of moral reasoning, researchers are able to understand where someone or a group of people are on that scale. The purpose of the study was to examine the relationship between education levels and moral reasoning, with a hypothesis that the higher oneís education level is the higher oneís moral reasoning will also be. The participants will be given the DIT-2, which is a defining issues test to score moral reasoning. The results found that senior level college students had higher moral reasoning then freshmen level college students. In conclusion, the hypothesis for the study was found to be correct that education was a predictor of moral reasoning. |
INTRODUCTION Moral Reasoning Among Different Education Levels Moral reasoning is the individual or collective practical reasoning about what, morally, one ought to do. Jean Piaget was the first theorist to describe the development of moral reasoning, Lawrence Kohlberg has had the most powerful impact. Kohlberg researched the practice of assessing moral reasoning by giving subjects a series of hypothetical delimmas, each of which dealt with a specific moral issue. As a result of his research findings, Kohlberg concluded that there were three main levels of moral reasoning, with two stages within each level. Kohlbergís ideas have been applied in many different settings and under many In a different study involving moral reasoning across the life span, researchers were studying whether moral reasoning developed into adulthood (Armon, 1997). They used predominately white, well-educated, middle class participants, (44), and interviewed them four times at four year intervals. The results found that moral reasoning correlated with age strongly in children, moderately with adults and moderately correlated with education in all age groups. Advances in moral reasoning were correlated with increase in education in adults. These findings imply that education does have an impact on whether or not moral reasoning is advanced. It stated it found correlations in all age groups in regards to education levels affecting moral reasoning. Do only education levels play a role in moral reasoning? The problem with moral reasoning is that you can reason anywhere you want on the six stages, but just because you are at the level six stage of reasoning, doesnít mean you will act in accordance with that reasoning. In a study of moral decision-making in real life, the researchers found that many different stages of moral reasoning were used in various situations presented to them by the researchers (Haviv, 2002). Only three subjects were consistent in use of moral reasoning throughout the testing. The rest chose various stages to deal with different dilemmas in moral reasoning. They could not find a correlation of education level due to the closeness of the levels of education among the participants. In all these studies education seemed to fluctuate in being important to not being important in moral reasoning. I believe oneís education level to be a significant depiction of oneís moral reasoning, but I am not positive if moral reasoning is a depiction of oneís moral behavior. However, for the present study will look at how education levels affect moral reasoning.
METHOD MethodParticipants Two groups of subjects were used in the study. The first group consisted of 27 freshmen level college students from Missouri Western State College. The second group consisted of 17 senior college students from Missouri Western State College, in St Joseph, Missouri. Materials The test being administered is the DIT-2 (Rest & Narvaez, 1998)Procedure The DIT-2 was given to each participant in each of the two groups. The dependent variable in the study is the DIT-2. The independent variable is the participantís education level. The test is a multiple-choice format and was completed in 35-45 minutes once administered. The tests were then picked up and sent to be scored at the University of Minnesota.
RESULTS Results An independent-samples t-test comparing the mean scores of freshmen college students and the senior college students found a significant difference between the means of the two groups (t (41) = -3.512, p < .001). The mean of the senior college students was significantly higher (m = 33.1300, sd = 13.62) than the mean of the freshmen college students (m = 19.7749, sd = 11.05).
DISCUSSION Discussion The hypothesis in the study was that the higher oneís education level the higher oneís moral reasoning will be. In conclusion, the study showed a significant difference in post-conventional moral reasoning between the two groups of participants; in such that, the senior level college students had a higher post-conventional moral reasoning then did the freshmen college students. The findings stay consistent with research in the area of moral reasoning and education levels. The majority of the research shows that as education rises so does the ability to reason at a higher moral level. From the study conducted here and other studies in the field of moral reasoning and education levels, you should be able to draw the same relationship derived from this study. The limitations of this study are that it didnít take into account whether or not gender and education levels have an effect on moral reasoning as well as needing more participants to have a stronger effect. The research in this area is still developing and with the new addition of the DIT-2, this will cause further research to be needed in verifying and to build a database.
REFERENCES ReferencesArmon, C. & Dawson, T.L. (1997). Developmental trajectories in Moral Reasoning Across the Life Span. Journal of Moral Education, 26, 433-454. Haviv, S., & Leman, P.J. (2002). Moral Decision-making in Real Life: factors affecting moral orientation and behaviour justification. Journal of Moral Education, 31, 121-140.Maclean, A.M., Walker, L.J., & Matsuba, M.K. (2004). Transcendence and the Moral Self: Identity Integration, Religion, and Moral Life. Journal for the Scientific Study of Religion, 43, 429-437.
Submitted 4/26/2005 1:23:29 PM
Last Edited 4/26/2005 1:34:24 PM
Converted to New Site 03/09/2009
|Rated by 0 users. ||Users who logon can rate manuscripts and write reviews.|
© 2019 National Undergraduate Research Clearinghouse. All rights reserved.
The National Undergraduate Research Clearinghouse is not responsible for the content posted on this site. If you discover material that violates
copyright law, please notify the administrator.
This site receives money through the Google AdSense program when users are directed to useful commercial sites. We do not encourage or condone clicking
on the displayed ads unless you have a legitimate interest in the advertisement.