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.