LARRY NucCI

Synthesis of Researchon Moral Development

Even young children can distinguishbetween rules and moral principles. By

discussing moral dilemmas in acooperative classroom environment,

teachers can enhance students'understanding of human rights and justice.

,nikkn lern tam ly to co?*em to S w,~nvrtkf of Obe doin: arae uryawd; uP yaw & ,dke voce.

86 EDUCATIONAL LeADERSHIP

TW T e have known for some timethat the overwhelming major-ity of parents expect teachers

and other school authorities to con-tribute to children's moral develop-ment (Gallup 1976). There is, howev-er, considerable confusion anddiscord among people about what it isthey mean when they talk about mo-rality. In such a context teachers whowant to provide moral education havedifficulty even deciding what parentswant them to teach, let alone how bestto teach it.

One airs, of this review is to helpclarify what constitutes the moral do-main. Recent research suggests thatthe apparent public confusion is notabout what is moral but about what isproper." Both children and adults

generally agree about what is moral;this overall agreement can be seen bydifferentiating the sphere of actiongoverned by moral precepts from thatgoverned by consensus or social con-vention. I have attempted to pull to-gether research and theory on chil-dren's social development that helpsclarify the distinction between themoral and conventional domains. Inlight of that distinction, this reviewpreserts a synthesis of research find-ings on how to foster moraldevelopment

The Distinction BetweenMorality and ConventionChildren in any society should learn toconform to a number of social rulesand expectations if they are to becomeparticipants in the culture. In our soci-ety, children need to learn that certainclasses of adults (such as teachers anddoctors) are addressed by titles. Theyare also expected to learn that it isunacceptable to be naked in publiceven if it is 90 degrees and sunnyoutside, and so forth.

Actions of this son are examples ofsocial conventions. Conventions areshared, uniform behaviors deter-mined by the social system in whichthey are formed (Turiel 1983). Overtime, through accepted usage, thesestandards serve to maintain social or-ganization. While conventions are im-portant, they are arbitrary. This is be-

cause there is nothing inherently rightor wrong about the actions they de-fine. For example, dresses are wornonly by women in American society.The social norm governing this behav-ior is arbitrary in that another form ofdress (pants for women and dressesfor men) could have been designatedto differentiate between the sexes.

In contrast with convention, moralconsiderations stem from factors in-trinsic to actions: consequences suchas harm to others, violations of rights,effects on the general welfare. Moralissues are, thus, neither arbitrary nordetermined by cultural precepts or byconsensus. The individual's moral pre-scriptions (i.e., "It is wrong to stealfrom others") are determined by fac-tors inherent in social relationships, asopposed to a particular form of -cial,cultural, or religious structure (Turiel1983).

The following excerpt illustrates thedistinction children make betweenmoral and conventional issues. Theexcerpt is from an interview with a

three-year-old girl regarding her per-ceptions of spontaneously occurringtransgressions at her preschool (fromNucci et al. 1983).

Moral Issue: Did ou see u srtfnta4ppened? Yes. They were playing and

John hit him too hard Is that some-thing you are supposed to do or notsupposed to do? Not so hard to hur Ishe, a rule about that? Yes. Wbat isthe rule? You're not to hit hard What jrthere uwre no rule about biaing bardwould it be al nrbt to do ber;' No.Why not? Because he could get hurtand start to cry.

Conventional Issue: Did you seeuh't just happened? Yes. They werenoisy. Is that something you are sp-posed to do or not supposed to do? Notdo. Is there a rule about that? Y'es. Wehave to be quiet. What tahere uwe norule; would it be a/ rig&t to do then?Yes. Why,? Because there is no rule.

This kind of distinction betweenmorality and convention is at variancewith the accounts of moral develop-ment that have had the greatest impact

Cutin, sbarng, and cosming a pie of pie arefraut uypb morat rsa: WbaW isfair'wjho deFde

FEBRUARY 1987

Qumatn Wen does ite scool ride, 'Take ta using library boo" move from aconmenonal imse to a moral i&uew

on moral education (Piaget 1932,Kohlberg 1984). Within those earlierviews, it is only at the higher stages ofmoral development that morality (jus-tice) is differentiated from and dis-places convention as the basis for mor-al judgments. Over the past decade,

"There isconsiderableconfusion anddiscord amongpeople about what itis they mean whenthey talk aboutmorality."

however, 27 published accounts havereported research demonstrating thatmorality and convention are differenti-ated at very early ages and constitutedistinct conceptual and developmentalsystems. These studies are summa-rized in several recent reviews (Nucci1982, Turiel 1983, Turiel et al. inpress). In brief, these studies havefound the following.

* Moral transgressions are viewedas wrong, irrespective of the presenceof governing rules, while conventionalacts are viewed as wrong only if theyviolate an existing rule or standard.

* Individuals view conventional stan-dards as culturally relative and alterable,while moral prescriptions are viewed asuniversal and unchangeable.

*The forms of social interaction inthe context of moral events differ qual-itatively from interactions in the con-text of conventions. Specifically, chil-dren's and adults' responses to eventsin the moral domain focus on featuresintrinsic to the acts (such as harm orjustice), while responses in the con-text of conventions focus on aspects ofthe social order (rules, regulations,normative expectations).

* Individuals tend to treat moraltransgressions as more serious thanviolations of convention and tend toview prosocial moral acts as better andmore positive than adherence toconventions.

While the majority of these studieswere conducted in the United States,

essentially the same results have beenobtained in the Netherlands (Turiel inpreparation), Nigeria (Hollos et al. inpress), Taiwan (Song et al. 1985), andthe Virgin Islands (Nucci et al. 1983).

Finally, a series of studies involvingseveral hundred Catholic, fundamen-talist Christian, and Jewish childrenshowed that children make distinc-tions between matters of morality andreligious doctrine similar to the dis-tinctions secular children draw be-tween morality and convention (Nucci1985). Most agreed that moral trans-gressions such as stealing, hitting, orslander would still be wrong even ifthere were no religious rules againstthem, because they are harmful toothers. However, work on the Sab-bath, women preaching in church orsynagogue, and the use of contracep-tives, for instance, would be all right inthe children's view if there were noreligious rules or scriptural injunc-tions concerning them. This researchindicates that conceptions of morality(justice and beneficence) are indepen-dent of religion.

Development Within theMoral and ConventionalDomainsWhile a young child has an intuitivegrasp that actions such as hitting andstealing are prima facie wrong, thechild's moral concepts do not reflect afully developed moral system. For ex-ample, although young children viewit as wrong to keep all of the class-room toys to oneself and not share anyof them with the other' children (Da-mon 1977, Nucci 1981, Smetana 1981),preschoolers think it is quite all rightto keep all of the favored toys tooneself as long as one shares theremainder (Damon 1977, 1980). Thus,while the young child's morality isstructured by concepts of justice, itreflects a rather egocentric moralperspective.

With development, the child's moralperspective gives way to progressivelymore objective and inclusive notionsof equality and reciprocity. With re-spect to sharing, for example, the four-year-old's premise-whoever wantsthe most should get it-is replaced bythe idea that distributive decisionsshould be based on strict equality orreciprocity-everybody should get thesame. This strict reciprocity is re-

88 EDuCATIONAL LEADERSHIP

placed in turn by a recognition thatthere can be multiple valid claims tojustice by different individuals and thatpersons with special needs, the pooror the handicapped, deserve specialconsideration (Damon 1977, 1980; En-right et al. 1980).

The changes observed with respectto distributive justice reflect the moregeneral structural changes in thechild's moral understanding. Moraldevelopment entails the constructionof progressively more adequate con-ceptualizations of justice and benefi-cence (Berkowitz and Nucci 1986; Da-mon 1977, 1980; Turiel 1983).

Just as children's conceptions ofmorality undergo development, soalso do their concepts of social con-vention. Through observation andcommunication with others, childrenlearn their society's conventions. How-ever, the societal functions of conven-tions are usually quite complex, andeven when children have learned whatis "expected," they do not fully under-stand the reasons why such behaviorsare considered reasonable and right.Indeed, to understand the importanceof social conventions, children need tounderstand interpersonal relation-ships, social systems, and the role ofbehavioral norms in maintaining both.Such complex constructs take time todevelop.

Conceptions of social conventionprogress through seven developmen-tal levels reflecting underlying con-cepts of social organization (Turiel1983). Development follows an oscil-lating pattern between periods affirm-ing the importance of convention andphases negating it. This oscillation in-dicates the difficulty children have inaccounting for the function of arbi-trary social norms and illustrates theslow process of reflection and con-struction that precedes the adoles-cent's view of convention as importantto the maintenance of the socialsystem.

Fostering Moral DevelopmentIf even very young children differenti-ate between actions in the moral andconventional domains and reason dif-ferently about the two, then moral orvalues education should clearly reflectthis distinction. Moral educationshould move students through pro-gressively more adequate forms of re-

Anwer When a sndent s rfusal lgo se some boou tips anomho, saidenw sa.e of .;Jsm. j

solving conflicting claims to justice orhuman rights. Teaching about conven-tion should move students toward anunderstanding of the role conventionsplay in establishing social organiza-tion, and the importance of conven-tion for organizing and coordinatinginteractions within social systems.

The first step toward such an ap-proach entails the teacher's analysisand identification of the moral or con-ventional nature of social issues em-ployed in values lessons. Such an anal-ysis would be necessary to ensure thatthe issues discussed are concordantwith the values domain they are in-tended to affect. A discussion of dresscodes, for example, would constitute apoor issue from which to generatemoral discussion since mode of dressis primarily a matter of convention.Likewise, consideration of whether itis right to steal to help a person inneed would be a poor issue withwhich to generate a lesson intended tofoster students' understandings of thefunction of social conventions.

Of course, not all issues of socialright and wrong fall neatly into onedomain or the other. In many casesone can find issues that overlap thetwo domains. Such issues afford richopportunities with which to involvestudents in reasoning, necessitatingthe coordination of knowledge frommore than one social dimension. (SeeTuriel et al. in press for a full discus-sion of domain overlap.)

Moral Development and theGeneral CurricuhlmMoral education should be integratedwithin the curriculum and not take theform of a "special" program or unit Aprogram that is simply inserted intothe.curriculum carries with it an inher-ent artificiality and discontinuity thatrenders such interventions incompati-ble with the more general aims ofteachers and students. The life of suchprograms is generally brief. Regardingone of his own early programs of thisgenre, Lawrence Kohlberg (1985)quipped,

While the intervention operation was asuccess, the patient died When we wentback a year later, we found not a singleteacher had continued to engage in moraldiscussion after the commitment to theresearch had ended (p. 80X

Moral Discussion: The "PlusOne" MythAs the Kohlberg quote implies, thecentral method used to generate mor-al development has been moral dis-cussion. The use of discussion ac-knowledges that social growth is notsimply a process of learning society'srules and values, but a gradual processin which students actively transformtheir understanding of morality andsocial convention through reflectionand construction. That is, students'growth is a function of meaning-mak-ing rather than mere compliance withexternally imposed values.

FsBRurY 1987 -89

Despite the widespread and long-standing use of discussion of moraldilemmas as an educational method, itis only in the past five years thatcareful research of the mechanism un-derlying the effectiveness of moral dis-cussion has been conducted(Berkowitz 1982, Berkowitz and Gibbs1983, Berkowitz et al. 1980, Gibbs etal 1983). On the basis of that researchwe can discard some long-held no-tions about moral discussion and fo-cus our efforts on more effective inter-actional patterns.

The central myth uncovered in theresearch is that advances in the moraljudgment of children are aided byteacher statements one stage abovethe modal reasoning level of the chil-dren (Blatt and Kohlberg 1975). Notonly are such statements difficult togenerate and therefore rare in class-room discussions, including thoseconducted by trained experts, but theyseem far less relevant to changes inmoral reasoning than statements bypeers. The research by Berkowitz andhis colleagues suggests that teachersserve less as instruments for directintervention than as agents for thefacilitation of peer discussion.

From the research we can identifythree characteristics of effective moraldiscussion.

II"The distinctionbetween moralityand convention is atvariance with theaccounts of moraldevelopment thathave had thegreatest impact oneducation (Piaget1932, Kohlberg1984)."

1. Conflict. According to Berkowitz(1982). stage change occurred mostreadily in students who disagreedabout the moral solution to a dilem-ma. Consensus on the outcome re-duced the likelihood that studentswould challenge or otherwise re-spond to one another's reasoning andthus reduced the impact of the discus-sion on students' existing notions ofmorality. The educational implicationof this finding is that the issues orproblems teachers select as the basisfor moral discussion should be oneslikely to generate disagreement.

A note of caution regarding the useof conflict comes from research withyoung children. Damon and Killen(1982) found that social conflict tend-ed to retard and not to promote stagechange in children under eight yearsof age. Development took place incontexts where children could resolveproblems through cooperation andconciliation. Their findings are con-cordant with other research suggest-ing that moral development in youngchildren occurs through co-construc-tion rather than argumentation or pas-sive withdrawal (Youniss 1980, 1981).

2. Stage disparity. The optimal dis-tance in developmental level amongstudents participating in moral discus-sion is on the order of one-half stage.This stage disparity is about what onefinds among students in a typical class-room and implies that normal hetero-geneity among students is sufficientfor effective moral discussion.

3. Transactie discussion. In theiranalyses of student discourse,

Berkowitz and his colleagues identi-fied several forms of student state-ments that are related to moral devel-opment. They labeled such statementstransacts. Transacts are characterizedby listeners' efforts to integrate thespeaker's statements into their ownframework before generating a re-sponse. Transacts are responses thatattempt to extend the logic of thespeaker's argument, refute the as-sumptions of the speaker's argument,or provide a point of commonality orresolution between the two conflictingpositions. Listener behavior that wasnot found to be associated with moraldevelopment includes forms of dis-course in which the listener restatesthe speaker's argument (in the style ofCarl Rogers) or engages in collectivemonologue in which the listener'sstatements seem not to have reflectedthose of the speaker.

Cooperative Goal StructuresDavid Johnson (1981) has suggestedthat successful moral discussion ismore likely to take place in classroomsemploying cooperative goal structuresin a democratic atmosphere than inthe traditional classroom environ-ment. There is a considerable body ofevidence to support Johnson's claimthat cooperative goal structures con-tribute to moral development. In acooperative goal structure,

students perceive that they can obtaintheir goal (e.g., learn a given body ofmaterial, complete a project, obtain acourse grade) if and only if the otherstudents with whom they are cooperativelylinked obtain theirs Uohnson 1981, p. 280).

^^~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~IEDCATIONAL LEADERSHIP

Highlights of Research on Moral Development

Educators can help children differentiate between the norms and conven-tions of their culture and the universal moral concerns for justice, fair-ness, and human welfare. Five educational practices enable teachers toengage in moral education that is neither indoctrinative nor relativistic.

* Moral education should focus on issues of justice and human welfare.* Effective moral education programs are integrated within the curricu-

lum, rather than treated separately as a special program or unit.* Moral discussion promotes moral development when the students

use "transactive" discussion patterns, are at somewhat different morallevels, and are free to disagree about the best solution to a moraldilemma.

* Cooperative goal structures promote both moral and academicgrowth.

* Firm, fair, and flexible classroom management practices and rulescontribute to students' moral growth. Teachers should respond to theharmful or unjust consequences of moral transgressions, rather than tobroken rules or unfulfilled social expectations.

"Most childrenagree that moraltransgressions suchas stealing, hitting,or slander wouldstill be wrong evenif there were noreligious rulesagainst them,because they areharmful or unjustto others."

In addition to being linked to positivesocial outcomes (such as increasedperspective-taking and moral stage,decrease in racial and ethnic stereo-typing), cooperative goal structureshave been associated with increases instudent motivation and academicachievement (Slavin 1980, Slavin et al.1985). Thus, the use of cooperativeeducation may serve the dual purposeof promoting moral development andlinking moral education to the broad-er curriculum.

Classroom ManagementEach aspect of moral education dis-cussed thus far is embedded withinthe more general social climate of theclassroom; the rules, structure, andsanctions that make up what PhilipJackson (1968) calls the "hidden cur-riculum." While specific classroommanagement practices may vary, theoverall features of classrooms thatcontribute to moral development areas follows:

* Firm. Classroom rules and expec-tations are known and upheld byschool authorities.

* Fair. Rules are limited to thosenecessary for learning and are evenly

applied; consequences are moderaterather than severe.

* Flexible. There is room for negoti-ation between students and teachersregarding the establishment, removal,and enforcement of school and class-room rules.

In addition to the above characteris-tics of classroom and school climate,practices associated with moral devel-opment include the use of reasoningto respond to transgressions (Lickona1983, Rohrkemper 1984). Research in-dicates that students are sensitive towhether teacher responses are con-cordant with the domain (moral orconventional) of the breach. Studentsevaluate not only their judgments ofteacher responses but also the teach-ers as respondents. Students ratedhighest those teachers who respondedto moral transgressions with state-ments focusing on the effects of theacts ("Joe, that really hurt Mike"). Rat-ed lower were teachers who respond-ed with statements of school rules ornormative expectations ('That's notthe way for a Hawthorne student toact"). Rated lowest were teachers whoused simple commands ("Stop it!" or"Don't hit").

As one would expect, students ratedhighest those teachers who respondedto breaches of convention with rulestatements, or evaluations of acts asdeviant, and rated lower those teach-ers who responded to such transgres-sions in terms of their effects on others("When you sit like that, it really up-sets people"). As with moral transgres-sions, the use of simple commandswas rated the least adequate.

This research suggests that studentsattend to the informational content ofteacher responses to transgressions. Italso suggests that the domain of teach-er responses to transgression mayprove to be an important variable forfuture studies of the relations betweenclassroom management techniquesand social development in children.

The Universal Nature ofMoralityThe philosopher Alasdair Maclntyre(1982) has characterized the currenthistorical period as one of moral dis-sention. Yet in the midst of this moralBabel, the majority of parents expectschools to contribute to the moraldevelopment of children. The re-

search indicates that morality is cen-tered on a set of universal concernsfor justice, fairness, and human wel-fare that are available even to youngchildren. Those findings provide a ba-sis for moral education that is bothnonindoctrinative and nonrelaivisticThe universal and prescriptive rureof morality means that educators cando more than merely clarify studentvalues. At the same time, the developmental and constructivist basis of mor-al knowledge is commensurate withinteractive rather than directive educa-tional practices.O

Refrens

Berkowitz, M. 'The Role of Discussion inMoral Education." Paper presented athe International Symposium on MoralEducation, Fribourg, Switzerland, Sep-tember 1982.

Berkowitz, M., andJ. Gibbs. "Measuring theDevelopmental Features of Moral Dis-cussion." Merrill-Palmer Quarterly 24(1983): 399-410.

Berkowitz, M., J. Gibbs, and J. Broughton.'The Relation of Moral Judgment StageDisparity to Developmental Efefs ofPeer Dialogues." MerrVl-Parmer Quar-ter,l 26 (1980): 341-357.

Berkowitz, M., and L. Nucci. "What's MoralAbout Conventional Moral Reasoning?"Paper presented at the biennial meetingof the Society for Research on Adoles-cence, Madison, Wisconsin, March 1986.

Blatt, M, and L Kohlberg. LThe Effects ofClassroom Moral Discussion Upon Chil-dren's Level of Moral Judgment." Jour-nal of Moral Education 4 (1975): 129-161

Damon. W. The Social World of the Cid.San Francisco: Jossey-Bass, 1977.

Damon, W. "Patterns of Change in Chil-dren's Social Reasoning: A Two-YearLongitudinal Study." ild Dervelpment51 (1980): 1010-1017.

Damon, W., and M. Killen. "Peer Interac-tion and the Process of Change in Chil-dren's Moral Reasoning." Merrill-PabnerQuratly 28 (1982): 347-367.

Enright, R., L Franklin, and L Manheim."On Children's Distributive Justice Rea-soning: A Standardized and ObjectiveScale." Developmental PMdolbogn' 16(May 1980): 193-202

Gallup, G. EigWht Annual Gallup Poll ofPublic Attitudes Toward the PublicScbools. New York: George Gallup,1976.

Gibbs, J., S. Schnell, M. Berkowitz, and D.Goldstein. "Relations Between FormalOperations and Logical Conflict Resolu-

FEBRuJA 1987 91

tions" Paper presented at the biennialmeeting of the Society for Research inChild Development, Detroit, April 1983.

Hollos, M., P. E Leis, and E Turiel. "SocialReasoning in Ipo Children and Adoles-cents in Nigerian Communities." Jour-

alf CaCurl Psyhology 17(September 196). 352-374.

Jackson, P. W. LMfe in the Clasroom. NewYork: Hok, Rinehart and Wlnston, 1968.

Johnson, D. "Social Psychology." In Psy-chlogy and Education: The State of theUnion, edited by F. Farley and N. Gor-don. Berkeley: McCutchan, 1981.

Kohberg, L Essays on MoralDevelopment,Vol I The Psycbology of Moral Devel-opment. San Francisco: Harper and Row,1984.

Kohlberg, L. "Resolving Moral ConflictsWithin the Just Community." In Moral

Dilemmas: Pblsophibal and Psycholog-ical Issues in the Develpment of MoralReasoning, edited by C. Harding. Chica-go: Precedent Press, 1985.

Lickona, T. Raising Good Children. NewYork, Bantam Books, 1983

Maclntyre, A. After Vrtue. Notre Dame,Ind: University of Notre Dame Press,1982.

Nucci, L. "Conceptions of Personal IssuesA Domain Distinct from Moral or Soci-etal Concepts." Child Development 52(1981): 114-121.

Nucci, L. "Conceptual Development in theMoral and Conventional Domains: Im-plications for Values Education." Reviewof Educational Research 49 (1982): 93-122

Nucci, L "Children's Conceptions of Moral-ity, Societal Convention and ReligiousPrescription." fn Moral Dilemmas:Pbilosophbcal and Psychological Issuesin the Develpmen of Moral Reasoning,edited by C. Harding. Chicago: Prece-dent Press, 1985.

Nucci, L, E. Turiel, and G. Encamacion-Gawtrych. "Children's Social Interactionsand Social Concepts: Analyses of Moral-ity and Convention in the Virgin Is-lands." Journal of Cross-Cultural Psy-chology 14 (1983): 469-487.

Piaget, J The Moral judgment of the Child.Glencoe, Ill.: Free Press, 1932, 1948

Rohrkemper, M. "The Influence of TeacherSocialization Style on Students' SocialCognition and Reported InterpersonalClassroom Behavior." The ElementarySchoolJournal 85 (1984): 245-275.

Slavin, R "Cooperative Learning." Reviewof Educational Research 50, 2 (1980):315-342.

Slavin, R., S. Sharan, S Kagan, R. H.Larowitz, C. Webb, and R Schmuck.Learning to Cooperate, Cooperating toLearn. New York: Plenum, 1985

Smetana, J. "Preschool Children's Concep-I I

If ..You want

students to desire knowledgeYou want

You want

You want

students to understand the contentclearly and quickly

students to understand the immediateusefulness of that content

that understanding to lead to afurther and higher level questioning

tions of Moral and Social Rules." ChildDevelopment 52 (1981): 1333-1336.

Song, M.,J. G. Smetana, and S. Kim. "Kore-an Children's Conceptions of Moral andConventional Transgressions." Paperpresented at the biennial meeting of theSociety for Research in Child Develop-ment, Toronto, 1985.

Turiel, E. The Development of SocialKnowledge: Morality and Convention.Cambridge: Cambridge University Press,1983.

Turiel, E. Chilben' Conceptions of SocialConcepts in the Netherlands. Berkeley:University of California, in preparation.

Turiel, E., M. Killen, and C. Helwig. "Moral-ity: Its Structure, Functions and Vaga-ries." In The Emergence of Moral Con-cepts in Young Children. Chicago:University of Chicago Press, in press.

Youniss, J Parents and Peers in SodalDevelopment Chicago: University ofChicago Press, 1980.

Youniss, J. "Moral Development Through aTheory of Social Construction: An Analy-sis " Merrill-Palmer Quarterly 27 (1981):385-403.

Larry Nucci is Associate Professor of Edu-cation, College of Education, University ofIllinois at Chicago, Box 4348, Chicago, IL60680.

ThenGive them a reason

Define the concept

Let them try it themselves

Let the students create the questions

It can be done. It is being done.

Bernice McCarthy's

Call:

I ne 4MA 1 System:Teaching to Learning Styles with Right/Left Mode Techniques

A book that willchange the way you think about teaching.$25.95 n .nt

EXCEL, Inc., Dept.EL8602200 West Station St.Barrington, IL 60010

1-800-822-4MATIn Illinois and Canada

312-382-7272m I92 EoucA'nor.w. LEADEmNIP

l -x1

92 EDUCTIONAL LEADERSHIP

i'

Copyright © 1987 by the Association for Supervision and Curriculum Development. All rights reserved.