EDUC 500
FOUR MORAL DEVELOPMENT THEORIES
Describe Jean
Piaget’s Theory of
Moral
Development
Piaget believed that the cognitive abilities a child develops, will
determine that child’s ability to reason about social situations, (Slavin &
Schunk, 2017). When focusing on moral development, he based his
research on heteronomous morality and autonomous morality; as he
believed there were only two stages in moral development. There were
no clear age limits to either morality, but he noted that younger children
than 10 or 12, were more likely to have heteronomous morality where
they were unable to reasonably see intent behind certain behavior;
meaning if something bad happened, the person who did it is wrong, no
matter their intention behind it. They also believed that everyone believed
as them, and they did not follow rules well. Piaget saw that once a child
was above 10 or 12, they turned towards a more autonomous morality
where they are able to judge intent behind someone’s actions and then
base what they did as good or bad. They also understand that people view
the world differently. (Slavin & Schunk, 2017). Though he noted there
were no clear age limits to determine when someone goes into the next
stage, he believed that cognitive development and interactions with peers
on the same moral level, helped one to progress, (Slavin & Schunk,
2017).
Describe Lawrence
Kohlberg’s Theory
of Moral
Development
Kohlberg presented moral dilemmas to children and adults and studied
their responses to find a basis for his theory of moral reasoning. He
believed that people pass through six stages of moral reasoning, and
grouped them into three levels: pre-conventional, conventional, and post-
conventional, (Slavin & Schunk, 2017). Stages one and two are in the
pre-conventional level and are similar to Piaget’s heteronomous morality.
In which children followed rules to simply not get punished, but they still
continued to look after themselves. Stages three and four are in the
conventional level and most children start to be able to see other people
besides themselves. As they progress to stage four, “a desire for social
approval no longer determines moral judgements,” (Slavin & Schunk,
2017, p. 55). Stages five and six are in the post-conventional, which
Kohlberg believed was only achieved by 25% of people. Most people in
this stage create their own moral compass, as they can see that societies
base their moral codes off their own cultures. Like Piaget, he believed
that people could progress through stages by interacting with people
either at one or two stages ahead. A huge flaw in his research though, was
that he mostly researched boys, which many feel could have led his
results to be more biased, and most of his research was done on moral
reasoning instead of actual behavior, (Slavin & Schunk, 2017).
Page of 1 5
EDUC 500
Describe Elliot
Turiel’s Moral
Domain Theory
Elliot Turiel was an American psychologist who, “tried to resolve the
inconsistencies in Kohlberg’s theory,” (Read, 2011). In his moral domain
theory, he believed, unlike Piaget and Kohlberg, that a child progresses
through moral stages in a parallel way; they all occur at the same time.
He theorized that there was, “a child’s moral development, their
adherence to social conventions and their view of themselves and others,”
(Read, 2011). When researching the moral domain, he also found
inconsistencies in both Piaget and Kohlberg’s work with young children;
where he found that kids could tell right from wrong, without just having
to follow rules. He notes that when a child is dealing within the social
domain, they are doing things to others because they see it is the polite
thing to do. When they are dealing within the psychological domain, they
are trying to understand who they are as individuals, and their own
thoughts. The choices in this domain directly deal with one’s they get to
make for themselves, like who they are going to be friends with or hang
out with, (Read, 2011). His main point was that moral development
occurs in children when they understand how all three domains work
together as one.
Albert Bandura’s
Theory of Moral
Development
through Social
Learning
Bandura believed that Children learn from seeing. As they see adults live
out their lives, they model the behavior that is seen; “monkey see,
monkey do.” It is through that behavior that they begin to form their own
sense of moral self. “He noted that models who have the most influence
are warm, powerful, possess desirable objects and characteristics, and are
the same sex as the children,” (Read, 2011). Bandura believed in the
motivation to act, meaning that children were motivated by past
reinforcements, promised reinforcements, and vicarious reinforcements,
as means for imitating and learning a behavior, (Read, 2011). He also
argued that the opposite was true with motivation not to act by past
punishments, promised punishments, and vicarious punishments.
Whether a child was behaving well or behaving badly, there was a reason
behind it and a behavior that in some way was being intimated. He was
also a believer in, “video games make children more violent,” but there
have been conflicting findings in whether this is true. There were other
conflicts with his research where he, “did not take into account an
individual’s genetic and cognitive predispositions,” (Read, 2011).
Page of 2 5
EDUC 500
BIBLICAL INTEGRATION
Share at least 2
verses/passages
regarding social,
moral, and
emotional
development. Share
the verse in quotes
followed by the
citation.
The verse that immediately came to me was, “Do to others whatever you
would like them to do to you. This is the essence of all that is taught in
the law and the prophets,” (Matthew 7:12, New Living Translation). The
second verse that came to me was, “Children, obey your parents because
you belong to the Lord, for this is the right thing to do…. Fathers. do not
provoke your children to anger by the way you treat them. Rather, bring
them up with the discipline and instruction that comes from the
Lord,” (Ephesians 6:1, 4, New Living Translation).
Why is it essential
to instill a sense of
right and wrong in
children from a
biblical
perspective?
Support your
answer.
With so much going on in the world, it can be so easy to be led astray.
Having the Bible as a basis, is a good foundation for any parent, or
person, to have. I believe it is evident in a person’s heart when they have
the love of God in them and follow what the Bible says about wrong and
right. There are many Christians that do not treat others with love, like
Jesus tell us to do, as it can be seen in Christian hate groups that hold up
signs at pride rally’s or abortion clinics saying, “you are going to hell.”
Do I personally believe that those people participating in the pride
parades or women getting abortions are doing the morally right thing? I
do not, but having the verse Matthew 7:12 instilled in my heart, helps me
to love people even when they are not doing right. Having my foundation
and roots for my moral compass in the Bible, will not only help me as I
walk through my life, but also as my husband and I prepare to bring our
first child into the world.
Page of 3 5
EDUC 500
Write 1 solid paragraph of at least 400 words comparing and contrasting the view of any 2 of
the theorists from the video of how children develop a sense of right and wrong. How do their
views compare with a biblical worldview? In your professional role, how can you help
children/students to develop a sense of right and wrong?
Learning about the different moral theories of Piaget, Kohlberg, Turiel, and Bandura has
been very enlightening for me; especially as my husband and I prepare to bring our first child
into the world. The two that fascinated me the most were Kohlberg and Bandura. I feel that are
more different than they are alike, but both have good qualities about them. One thing similar
about both theories is both believed social interaction was how children learned morally
developed. “[Kohlberg] theorized that the way children progress is by interacting with others
whose reasoning is one, or at most, two stages above their own,” (Slavin & Schunk, 2017, p.
56). Bandura’s theory is literally based off of children interacting with each other and adults
and intimating their behavior. A key difference to note in the two is Kohlberg had a theory in
stages, like Piaget, that progressed like a line. Whereas Bandura, did not have stages, as much
as he had a hypothesis of how children learned their behavior. Another difference are the basis
behind both of their research. Bandura was studying children behavior and Kohlberg was more
interested in the moral reasoning of a child.
I would have to say that I don’t believe either theorist really hit on a biblical worldview.
As stated above, Matthew 7:12 is a verse that I live by because it is seen as “the golden rule.”
Jesus practically sums up the entire 10 Commandments with that simple verse and is telling us
to treat others how we would want to be treated and not how others may be treating us;
something that I feel is all too lost in our society. Neither Kohlberg or Bandura take into
account a child’s background when doing their research, (Read, 2011). As a child who has the
10 Commandments or “the golden rule” memorized, would certainly act differently than a
child who did not. I do believe, “children will be children,” but as a soon to be a parent, I have
to believe that if I instill a sense of the Holy Spirit into my child’s heart at a young age, they
are going to be able to perceive better moral judgments by being able to feel conviction from
the Spirit and learn from it.
Though Bandura’s theory is simplistic, out of all four of the theorist, I side with him the
most. He did not have stages, nor did he put age limits to stages or his theory, like Kohlberg
and Piaget did. He simply said, children will imitate behavior based on what they see and how
they are rewarded or punished, (Read, 2011). I grew up in a household where my parents
fought and argued all the time, and they were both terrible with money. Because of that
behavior, I grew up being very aggressive towards people I loved, and to this day, am still
awful with money. I am happy the Lord brought along side a man that is helping me challenge
those behaviors, but I do believe that they were instilled into my mind from a young age from
me witnessing the behavior of my parents. With me siding with Bandura the most, it is going to
be important that once I get into the classroom, I help my students learn right from wrong,
from them watching how I act and treat others. I also feel it is going to be important for me to
help students learn when they have done something wrong, and how to act if the situation
arises again, rather than simply just punishing them.
Page of 4 5
EDUC 500
References
Ryan, K. O. (Producer). (2011). A Child's Mind: How Kids Learn Right & Wrong [Video file].
Learning Seed. Retrieved June 15, 2017, from Education in Video: Volume I.
Slavin, R.E., & Schunk, D.H. (2017). Learning theories: EDUC 500 (1st ed.). Boston, MA:
Pearson.
Page of 5 5
