JOURNAL 11

Nellie Gotebeski

November 24, 2009

Moral Development

What kind of moral education approach did my K-12 school (s) use? Did my K-12 teachers use developmental discipline? How do my experiences of classrooms fit with the descriptions of ideal classrooms? Were they effective for me, for others?

Developmental Discipline: Ideal classrooms

For several years, schools have implemented Traditional Character Education. This approach focuses on the adult rather than the child. The student is considered a “blank-slate” or “sponge-like.” The teacher transmitted knowledge to the student to promote good behavior. The Traditional approach to teaching values direct instruction and orders, judicious use of rewards and punishment, and controlling techniques to manage the classroom. Education focused on the transmission of knowledge, passive acceptance, and behavioral control. If the child is obedient and passes the class, it is counted as a success.

Luckily, Piaget’s research shifted moral education from the rigid authoritative structure toward an autonomous approach.  Children are viewed as cooperative and good-natured beings as opposed to the savage-like image held by the Traditional proponents. Piaget stressed the importance of autonomy and understanding. Teachers realized that to acquire knowledge, children need to interact with the world to alter their schemas. 

During the 1980s and 1990s, developmentally oriented educators focusing on moral or prosocial development realized they needed to create new approaches to classroom management and discipline. The Child Development Project designed an approach to classroom management consist with developmentally theory and research. The four step model promotes relationships, environments, and situations for the child to morally grow. The first step explains the importance of a warm, supportive, and mutually trusting teacher-child relationship. The second step states the need for a caring and democratic community in which each child needs for competence, autonomy, and belonging are met. Third, children would need opportunities to discuss and refine their understanding of moral values and how they apply to everyday life in the classroom. Finally, teachers would need to use both proactive and reactive control techniques to help children act in according with prosocial values that enhance the above goals. 

My Experience:

In second grade, my teachers established warm and caring relationships with her students. The students developed a special bond with the teacher and with each other. From this secure relationship, students were able to develop mutual respect and a sense of belonging. This environment encouraged students to learn. In second grade, my teacher was following a developmental discipline model, because she encouraged our self-autonomy and prosocial values. Instead of punishing misbehaviors, she listened to her students and guided them to find solutions. She met with our parents monthly and made sure that we were all on the same page. I felt confident in her class and participated regularly. The friends I met in my second grade class have been friends with me forever. If it had been a different classroom, we may not have taken the time to get to know one another. She also encouraged our imagination and tried to guide our development of ethical skills. I truly believe her classroom management approach and developmental discipline model had a lasting impact on my life. 

In third grade, my teacher approached discipline differently. He felt a need to exert more power over his students. I specifically remember an incident in fourth grade that destroyed the trust and respect I had for my teacher. During mathematics, one boy was disrupting the class with his chuckling. The teacher decided to make an “example” of him, so he was forced to stand in front of the class with a clown nose. The student was teased the entire year and remained an outcast until he eventually moved schools. The clown nose was not the only punishment approach that aimed to humiliate the child. He would also color a circle of chalk on the board and force his students to stick their nose against the blackboard and keep the chalk on their nose the rest of the day. He would have children stand in the corner or immediately send them down to the principal’s office without hearing their explanation. Discussion about incidents was rarely carried out. Within my elementary school, there were two opposing approaches to development. One model took on the style of developmental discipline while the other remained true to Traditional Character Education. 

As I transitioned into middle school, teachers began to encourage moral behavior by awarding “Lincoln Links.” These tokens were awarded to students who exhibited good behavior. Once you collected twenty tokens you were allowed to choose a reward (Free pizza, take a teacher to lunch, etc.). The award system disrupted the class because it created a division. There were those students who were motivated to do good deeds because they wanted to a reward. These children were teased for being teacher’s pets. On the other hand, the children who never tried to earn tokens were shunned by the rest of the class and teachers considered them unmotivated and labeled them “bad kids.” The reward system clearly has numerous flaws. It encourages “good behavior” based on a reward as opposed to encouraging good actions solely because they are moral. This may have blinded students to believing that good behavior would always be rewarded with a prize. 

In high school, teachers implemented developmental discipline and traditional character education. Most teachers tried to establish trusting relationships with their students, but it was difficult because each teacher saw hundreds of students and for short periods of time. 

In conclusion, research supports the developmental discipline model and demonstrates that it leads to better academic success and motivates moral development. My K-12 schools had very few teachers who used developmental discipline, because most teachers were stuck in the Traditional Character Education theory. 

JOURNAL 10

 Nellie Gotebeski

November 17, 2009

Moral Development

How is the parenting I received related to my attitudes towards human nature?

In The Human Potential for Peace, Fry criticizes implicit and explicit assumptions. He warns us that unrealistic assumptions can lead to unrealistic conclusions. He focuses on implicit assumptions, because these assumptions are simply taken for granted.  Several implicit assumptions have led us to confidently assume that humans are innately aggressive and that war is ancient. However, after investigating these basic assumptions, we can find flawed reasoning leading to unrealistic conclusions. These unrealistic conclusions paint a negative image of humanity and consequently affect the way we view human nature. The aggressive and violent side of humanity is considered natural and unavoidable. This viewpoint is becoming ingrained into children at a very young age and nowadays it is difficult to find people arguing for the peacefulness in human nature. 

Fortunately, certain parenting styles can encourage us to challenge these flawed implicit assumptions and alter negative attitudes towards human nature. Parents are not uncontested in the campaign to win our understanding. Any children raised during the 1990’s could switch on their television and find violence and aggression. The media is obsessed with war and most outside sources seem to drive this idea of a violent humanity. Without even thinking twice or investigating false premises, we conclude that humans are naturally violent and war is inevitable.

With a tough competitor arguing for the aggressiveness in human nature, parents enter a difficult challenge. They must remember that their parenting style is a strong indicator of their child’s attitude towards human nature. Therefore, the outcome of their victory is invaluable. 

I believe in the brighter side of humanity. I do not negate the prevalence of violent and aggressive behaviors sweeping our world, but I believe that we enter the world as peaceful beings and have the tools to remain that way. Everyone could agree that naturally we are born unable to defend ourselves. We depend on our parents to help us survive. The book The Science of Parenting describes three brains that we develop throughout our childhood; the reptilian brain, the mammalian brain, and the rational brain. It is our parents’ responsibility to make sure this development occurs in such a way to produce compassionate and rational adults. I was born into a warm and loving family. I formed a secure-attachment with my mother, who was always aware of my needs. Beyond this sensitivity, she tried to meet my needs to the best of her ability. She felt my pain and tried to communicate her understanding with a language I understood. She soothed my pain and let me know that she would always be there. 

With her warm and meaningful touches throughout the day, I grew to understand and appreciate compassion. By being exposed at a young age to compassion and peaceful human beings, I was raised appreciating this form of human nature. As I grew older, I became confident in my relationships with others. My mom’s constant support and attentiveness to my needs and our secure and loving attachment with one another influenced my attitudes towards human nature. I form peaceful relationships with many people and believe that we all have peacefulness inside of us. I understand that conflicts often arise between humans, and I am willing to admit that on occasion I react out of fear and anger. However, I believe that despite the existence of the reptilian brain (and the negative outcome associated with it), we are naturally created to develop our three brains in such a way to optimally balance them. The balance of the three brains will ensure peaceful behavior. Warm and loving parents that are attentive to their child’s needs will help develop their child’s brain in such a way to create a caring and compassionate adult. Not only this, but the child will develop a peaceful understanding of others and challenge the implicit assumptions that argue otherwise. 

JOURNAL 9

Nellie Gotebeski

November 10, 2009

Moral Development

How was I raised in relation to some of the ideas in the readings? How did it possibly influence my moral development? When do I operate primarily from each ethic (what situations trigger each in me (security ethic, engagement ethic, imagination ethic)?

My mother gave natural birth to her five children. I am the youngest child and I believe that my childhood has influenced my moral development. Most of my mother’s parenting skills matched those recommended in the book The Science of Parenting. I was breast-fed and co-slept with my mom until I was ready to sleep alone. Everyday I had warm meaningful touches by multiple caregivers and my basic needs were hardly ever thwarted. As a toddler, I was encouraged to play outside and my imagination was always put in motion by child-led play. I grew up in a small town and therefore, there were not many danger issues that restricted our freedom to explore the neighborhood. I had four older siblings and many cousins which exposed me to multi-age play groups. I was always engaging in rough and tumble play with my brothers and sisters and hugged and kissed by my parents.

One troubling experience in my childhood stands out and has had a tremendous impact on my life. For the majority of my childhood, I had no problem falling asleep, but when I was about twelve years old I could not sleep in my own bed. I had trouble sleeping over at my friend’s houses, because I knew I would be the last one to fall asleep. However, even at this age, my mom kept her door open and understood my pain. She discussed my problem on my level and she did not belittle it. I don’t know what caused me to have this “relapse” into bad sleeping habits; however, I am blessed to have a mother who handled the situation as well as she did. This experience has made my secure-attachment bond with my mother much stronger and it has helped me in other areas of my life. First, I cannot remember the last time I had a difficult time falling asleep and secondly, I believe I am more capable of handling stressful situations. I credit all of these accomplishments to co-sleeping and the secure attachment bond my mother and I formed during my toddler years and again as a teenager.  

I truly believe that this experience has influenced my moral development. My moral sensitivity can reach its full potential, because I am able to handle stressful situations. When some people face a frightening situation, their fear system is triggered and they can no longer concentrate on anything but their fear. These individuals usually take the path of “fight or flight” and do not examine the possibility for moral action. I believe that my childhood rearing has allowed me to avoid overreacting to stressors. This has given me an opportunity to rationally examine the situation and therefore, I am more inclined to notice situations that require moral action.

The security ethic is based primarily in instincts of survival and physical flourishing. It often triggers our fear system and our rage situation. These situations usually result in actions of self-preservation. It can also lead to physical flourishment by status enhancement and in-group loyalty. The security ethic is triggered in situations, which evoke fear or rage. This ethic commonly surfaces after national disasters (as we saw happened after 9/11). For me, this ethic is triggered during sporting events. During field hockey games, we often chant, “Let’s kill them,” and “Only the strong survive.” We justify our actions by saying, “We did it for the team” and assume we are better than our opponents. Even though this mob-like behavior has not led to destructive situations against other teams; in other situations the security ethic can cause devastating consequences. For example, after 9/11, the United States illogically and unmorally entered a war against a “supposed” enemy with weapons of mass destruction. The security ethic was activated and the course of action was war. 

The ethic of engagement involves the emotional systems that drive us towards intimacy. It has roots in our social and sexual instincts, empathy and parental care. This ethic is triggered in any social situation. I believe my warm supportive childhood has led me to flourish socially. The secure attachment with my mother allowed me to feel confident with my personal relationships later in life. The chapters we have read in the book The Science of Parenting have emphasized the role of mothers in their children’s upbringing. However, I am interested in the influences of the father figure. My childhood was dominated by my mother and I wonder what implications this has had. 

Finally, the ethic of imagination is the source of deliberation. This ethic has the potential to combine compassion with active problem solving. This ethic is triggered when we need to deliberate. If we have optimized our engagement ethic and our imagination ethic, it is quite likely that overreactions associated with our security ethic will be minimized. The ability to balance these three ethics is rooted in our early childhood experiences.