Download TT281: Right and Wrong

RIGHT AND WRONG:
THE MORAL MAZE
By Lyn Corderoy
Summer 2012
Grange Primary School
Wickford
Essex
‘We are both right
and wrong. We have
to choose.’ Year 5
Copyright: Farmington Trust
1
Contents
Page
3.
Introduction and background to the research
5. Research questions
6. What are the social and educational psychologist’s theories with
regards to moral education?
12. What do the children at school understand by the terms right and
wrong and how have they acquired those opinions?
30. As an educational establishment, how much can the primary
school hope to influence those opinions?
32. Next steps!
36. References & Bibliography
2
1. Introduction and background to the research
Right and Wrong are words that evoke strong feelings in most people; what
is fascinating however, is the range, diversity and, most importantly for this
study, the evolution of those feelings. This piece of research has been
undertaken in response to the actions and events that emanated from a
particular year group in a primary school. The study looks at the school, it’s
moral and ethical education processes; the county syllabus used to guide that
learning and the academic theories of both child development and moral
education in order to try and give the research a baseline of reference. The
actual practical research and data collection took place in the school using
three art days and encompassing 260 children from years one to six. The
resulting soft and hard data was analysed in order for the researcher to derive
some meaning and answers to the questions posed. For the researching head
teacher the end results are to be used to help enhance and further improve
and develop the moral and ethical vision and learning that is taking place in
the school.
As a Christian head teacher in a state school the researcher has always relied
on her own moral and ethical background as a foundation for her own life and
as a baseline for the vision and ethos of the school in her care. However last
year the school was sorely tested by a ‘troublesome’ year group; a cohort of
children who, when staff looked back through their years at school, had
always been challenging. A cohort who had poor attendance figures, couldn’t
be trusted to behave on trips, were difficult to contain during break times and
who, no matter how exciting the learning environment, were still extremely
hard to motivate and inspire. The overarching feeling from the pupils was that
they seemed unable to understand what the school community regarded,
quite naturally, as the ‘norms’ of good behaviour! The big question that all the
staff asked as the year was evaluated was… Is this ‘just a blip’ or a whole
new trend? Were, perhaps, family, cultural and community influences so
strong, and not seeming, with that group particularly, to have an
understanding of the concepts of right and wrong and what that meant with
regards to behaviour. The question that came out in the discussion was could
school really impact levels of morality in the children in its care? The staff
3
worried that maybe they weren’t supporting the pupils and helping them to
develop the skills and tools or moral base or code to enable them to find a
way through the ‘moral maze’ of life.
The school in question promotes an atmosphere of respect and tolerance and
feels it has a clear moral foundation underpinning its vision and ethos. It
believes that it successfully teaches the locally agreed County RE syllabus in
its outstanding thematic curriculum. The school feels that there should
therefore be plenty of influences in both the explicit and the implicit
curriculum, to help the pupils to understand the terms ‘right and wrong’ and
what that means for them in terms of behaviour. However, this particular
group of pupils did not seem to have been so influenced! So the previously
held view that if all the children in the school are being educated in the
school’s moral and ethical learning programme, and the school’s vision and
ethos and aims are underpinning and surrounding everything that is done,
and all pupils have the same learning chances, then what might make the
difference and affect a particular cohort or groups of children?
Obviously the cohort that triggered the research are now scattered in the local
secondary schools but it was still felt that the research questions could help
strengthen future moral educationally development in the school.
The researcher aimed to find out what might, according to social theory and
educational psychology, be affecting the children’s moral development and
then through an art day help them express what they perceived ‘right and
wrong’ to be and, most importantly, how they had acquired those opinions.
The researcher has been in primary and special schools for 30 years and
firmly believes the power and importance of art within education so was
convinced that the art day could prove to be immensely useful as a conduit of
information collection. Over the years the researcher could quote numerous
occasions when children have opened up during art sessions and when
discussing their art pieces.
4
‘I never made a painting as a work of art, it’s all research’.
Pablo Picasso
‘Right can
be broken
by wrong.’
Year 6
What this researcher ultimately hopes to do is clarify the importance and need
of ‘education’ as an influence; particularly looking at how strong or powerful
that influence may be, should be or could be.
To this end three research questions were devised:
a) What are the social and educational psychologist’s theories with
regards to moral education?
b) What do the children at school understand by the terms right and
wrong and how have they acquired those opinions?
c) As an educational establishment, how much can the primary school
hope to influence those opinions?
5
a) What are the social and educational psychologists theories with
regards to moral education?
Many meanings and connotations of the words ‘right and wrong’ are found; in
fact everyone has a personal opinion on what they mean and how they should
be used. Most people have a view that is derived from a wide range of
sources including upbringing, cultural influences, education and experiences.
According to the dictionary right is ‘in accordance with what is good, proper, or
just: a moral, ethical, or legal principle considered as an underlying cause of
truth, justice, morality, or ethics’. On the other hand, wrong is defined as ‘not
in accordance with what is morally right or good’.
From a Christian standpoint the researcher has always had biblical reference
points and a ’Christian up-bringing’ to support her moral and ethical code. It
takes very little research to find references to ‘right and wrong’ underpinning
the major religions.
For Christians, comments from the New Testament support their moral views
as in James 4:1,
‘So whoever knows the right thing to do and fails to do it, for
him it is sin’;
or Romans 12:21,
‘Do not be overcome by evil, but overcome with good.’
For the Jews as seen in the Old Testament, there are a multitude of rules and
guidelines in relation to right and wrong and the consequences of such
actions, as in Isaiah 1:17,
‘Learn to do good; seek justice, correct oppression; bring justice to
the fatherless, plead the widow’s cause’.
For the Muslim believer the Koran makes reference as in 4.36,
‘Serve Allah, and join not any partners with Him; and do good - to
parents, kinsfolk, orphans, those in need, neighbours who are
near, neighbours who are strangers, the companion by your side,
the wayfarer (ye meet), and what your right hands possess: For
Allah loveth not the arrogant, the vainglorious.’
All are evidence of a moral and ethical baseline for a religious understanding
of ‘right and wrong’. However, history shows us how interpretations of those
6
ideals vary enormously and the resulting behaviour likewise varies and often
seems to contradict those ideals!
So humans may have a variety of written moral guidelines but how they
interpret them and what other influences may affect their moral choices? The
concept of morality and the discussion seems to come down to the basic
question of; what kind of person we are and how should we behave? The
question has been asked through time, as seen from the religious writings and
works from philosophers such as Aristotle (translated 1962) who expounded
on his views about using good sense and doing what a ‘virtuous’ person
would do.
‘Virtue is a character state concerned with choice, lying in the
mean relative to us, being determined by reason and the way the
person of practical wisdom would determine it’ (Aristotle,
translated 1962,1107a1)
That it was not, and is still not, easy to follow written guidance, laws and
advice is evidenced throughout history, however, rules are still agreed by
most as the way forward. Rules are often imposed externally whether through
religions, political laws, socialization through community influence or the
power of a dominant class system. One major problem though seems to be
that all these sets of rules have different sources! So the question is - are
there a set of universal moral rules? Constant discourse through history
proves the importance of the question and four major ‘systems or processes’
of morality are an interesting backcloth to the discussion. The ‘Natural Law’
expounded by Thomas Aquinas (13th century), is based on the philosophy of
Aristotle, and is that all of nature was devised for a natural purpose and to
achieve that purpose is the ‘good’ and right thing to do; therefore anything that
goes against that natural purpose would be wrong. On the other hand for
‘Utilitarianism’ the right and wrong of any action can only be judged by the
outcomes. With ‘Deontology’ there is the constant battle between what a
person feels is their ‘duty’ and what they are ‘inclined’ to do. Then there is
‘Social Justice’ where individual freedom is aligned with a desire to have
justice for the poorest in society. All of these views however rely heavily on
7
the involvement of rational, deep thinking, willing altruistic humankind and
how does that relate to moral education?
Moral and ethical study, in some form or other, has been part of school life
since the beginning of time, however, for this study the period of the 20th &
21st Century is of most interest. The idea that morality could be ‘caught’ rather
than needed to be ‘taught’ and was just part of RE studies was prevalent in
the middle 1900’s. There were also ideas like the ‘Values Clarification’ (Rath
et al: 1966) from America that advocated it was wrong to impose values onto
children and it was far better to allow them think through choices and have
ownership of values to which they were far more likely to adhere.
In 1958,1963 and 1970 Lawrence Kohlberg, moving on from the Piaget views
on the development of morality, did research using the story of ‘Heinz’ that
involved a series of moral dilemmas around a wife with cancer, a drug
company not giving treatment and her husband stealing the cure. Kohlberg
used a variety of test subjects in order to verify his findings and from the
research responses he came up with three main levels of moral development
that were then sub-divided into six stages.
Kohlberg’s levels of morality are compared with Piaget’s views and can be
seen in the table below, devised by Gross & Rolls (2004:147).
Kohlbergs levels
of moral
development
Pre conventional
(stages 1 & 2)
Most nine year
olds and belowfew over nine
Piaget type of
morality
Understanding
rules
5-9/10 year olds:
Heteronomous
moral orientation
(subject to
another’s laws or
rules)
Rules represent
and external law
unilateral respect
Conventional
(stages 3&4)
Most adolescents
and adults
Post
conventional
(stages 5&6)
10-15% of adults,
not before mid30s
10 year old and Mutual respect
above:
Autonomous
moral orientation
(subject to one’s
own rules or laws)
Moral judgement
and punishment
Objective
/external
responsibility
Belief in:
expiatory
punishment
moral realism
collective
punishment
immanent justice
Internal
responsibility
Belief in:
Principle of
reciprocity
moral relativism
8
No longer
believes in:
Collective
punishment
immanent justice.
Although exhibiting many different views both Piaget and Kohlberg agree on
the fact that child development stages effect, and are related to, stages of
moral development. The use of these six moral stages in relation to the data
collected is of great interest to the researcher and the following summary from
a piece by Crain (1985) discussing and explaining the stages will be referred
to later in reference to the data from the ‘Right and Wrong’ art days.
Pre conventional morality
Stage one: Obedience and punishment orientation is when the child is not a
thinking member of society rather that morality is an external force and
something they must do or they will be punished.
Stage two: Individualism and exchange involves a belief in more than one
viewpoint and punishment is something to be avoided. Also there is the view
of fairness, it is wrong for someone to be ill and the drug company not to give
the cure so it’s right to take it and make it fair.
Conventional morality
Stage three: Good interpersonal relationships is far more complex and
related to expectation of family and the community and involve the ideas of
good behaviour, good motives and feelings such as concern for others,
empathy and love.
Stage four: Maintaining the social order and concern for society with an
emphasis on duty, respecting laws and authority, for this stage stealing is
wrong not just because you will be punished as in stage one but because the
laws are there for society as a whole.
Post-conventional morality
Stage five: Social contract and individual rights is when people start
questioning what makes a good society, they evaluate and consider rights
and values, thinking of society and democracy and how it works and what it
ought to value.
9
Stage six: Universal principles, this is based around impartiality and respect
for all. It stems from the idea of justice for all and could include acts such as
civil disobedience, for example Martin Luther King advocated justice
regardless of race, he also agreed that there must be laws and democratic
processes so would accept the penalties for his actions.
Alongside the discussion on the stages of moral development, this researcher
has also looked into the work of Bandura from the 70’s through to the 90’s. He
developed a principle called ‘social learning theory’ (SLT)
‘Of the many cues that influence behaviour, at any point in time,
none is more common than the actions of others… SLT is often
called modeling or observational learning. The SLT emphasizes
the importance of observing behaviours, attitudes and emotional
reactions to others.’ (Bandura:1986. 32)
He firmly believed that children learn through imitating or observing the
behaviour of others and then internalizing what they have witnessed. For
Levine and Munsch (2011) this process of imitation is achieved in four parts;
that of actually watching and seeing an action from a person, then memorizing
what has been seen, next working how they can imitate the action themselves
before finally having the desire to actually want to do the action themselves.
This process would seem to supports much of what the researcher has
discovered when looking at the data findings and especially concerning who
by and how the children have been influenced. For Bandura (1977)
aggressive individuals are not born with those traits but learn them just as
they would any other social behaviour. This learning may happen through
reinforcement, any association with a person’s self-esteem and / or
observation of that behaviour. For Gross and Rolls (2004) how we develop
moral understanding is a many faceted process that involves conscience as a
guide to wrong doing, an understanding of morals so that judgments can be
made, learning behaviour appropriate to a culture and finally the development
of emotions such as concern for others.
Bandura clarifies his view on the complexity of the processes and the skills
and tools an individual needs in order to be successful.
10
‘In the social cognitive learning theory ...it is one and the same
person who does the strategic thinking about how to manage the
environment and later evaluates the adequacy of his or her
knowledge, thinking skills, capabilities, and action strategies...
(Bandura1997: 5)
He uses the term ‘self-efficacy’ when explaining his views that a person
needs power and abilities to produce an outcome or intended result and
that needs to be achieved by people working together.
‘Unless people believe they can produce desired effects for their
actions, they have little incentive to act.’ (Bandura 1997:3)
and this is not necessarily an individual act or process,
‘People do not live their lives in isolation; they work together to
produce the results they desire’ (Bandura 1997:7)
So he believes individuals devise a personal moral code that they then use as
a route map and ‘rule book’ to regulate themselves. We know how strong this
personal code can be when we look through history at figures that have
suffered and even died for their self-respect. He doesn’t, however, advocate
that humans are only puppets to ‘external forces’ but that they do have the
opportunity to control their lives. So is school providing the SLT skills and
tools necessary to support the pupils no matter what ‘life’ throws at them?
It would seem if we take the approach of Bandura it is vital that the school
develop the necessary cognitive tools and attributes so that children can
acquire the knowledge and problem solving skills they will need in order to
participate effectively in society. Once they are in society their knowledge and
thinking skills will be continually tested, evaluated and used to look at them
selves and decide if they are successful members of their community. So then
‘A fundamental goal of education is to equip students with selfregulatory capabilities that enable them to educate themselves.
Self-directedness not only contributes to success in formal
instruction but also promotes life long learning’. (Bandura
1997:174)
For the researcher the final word in this section on the theory of moral
development comes from Levine and Munsch (2011). After all the discussion
on how we can provide moral educate the main focus and aim must be…
11
‘We want children to develop an internal sense of morality - that
they will choose what is right because of their own thought and
feelings not because of the external consequences’.
(Levine & Munsch 2011:407)
b) What do the children at school understand by the terms right and
wrong and how have they acquired those opinions?
When deciding what form the research process was going to take it was
suggested that using the arts would be both interesting and exciting. As an
advocate of art as the inspiration to learning this filled the researcher with
delight! Obviously the procedures for accurate data collection needed to be
adhered to, and ethical and practical considerations had to be considered and
carefully planned. Being the head of a primary school that was used to
innovative and ‘different’ learning sessions, getting the staff and governors on
board was not a problem; in fact there has been a buzz of anticipation
throughout the project and keen interest in the results. The researcher knew
that the resulting data would be a mixture of qualitative and quantative and
obviously be limited as a piece of research by the nature of it only taking place
in one school. In consequence a case study approach seemed to be the most
appropriate. Because using the ‘Arts’ as a base for research is not prevalent it
seemed wise to look at some work done in that area. McNiff (2007) is highly in
favour of the arts as research tools and explained the interesting, though not
always easily analysed, nature of the results.
‘Artistic inquiry, whether it is within the context of research or an
individual person’s creative expression, typically starts with the
realization that you cannot define the final outcome when you are
planning to do the work. As contrasted to scientific methods, you
generally know little about the end of an artistic experiment when
you are at the beginning. In the creative process, the most
meaningful insights often come by surprise, unexpectedly, and
even against the will of the creator.’ (McNiff 2007:40)
He was not wrong! The whole process of data collection has been fascinating
and highly informative on lots of levels, not least a chance to communicate
properly with the children and allow them time to completely express their
12
opinions in a confidential and non threatening manner. The three days
themselves were hugely entertaining, extremely messy but interestingly
devoid of any anti-social or ‘wrong’ behaviour, even though there were groups
of 90 children doing ‘messy art’ in the hall on each occasion.
To provide continuity and accuracy of data each day was lead by the
researcher and wherever possible were completed in a very similar form. The
only real changes and adaptations were when explanations were needed for
the very youngest group and a drama session was done with the eldest
children.
The researcher explained the idea of the day to the children, asking them to
help her with this piece of research (most pupils when questioned thought that
research was; ‘finding our information from books and computer’). It was
explained that this was ‘finding out’ information from people and today it was
their personal opinions that were wanted, it would be a secret so could they
be honest and think of as much information as they could. The session started
with a talk partner time where they were asked to share up to 5 things that
they felt were ‘right’ – this was done to break the ice and start the thinking
process and on each occasion as little input by way of suggestions were given
by the researcher or the staff present. Each child was then given paper and
pen and asked put a tick or write the word ‘right’. They then had 5 to 10
minutes to mind-map (drawing or writing) out all their ideas (this time limit was
adjusted by the researcher once it became obvious that most of the children
had run out of ideas). The activity was done with their back to their talk
partner and in ‘secret’, in order to keep each child’s data as ‘clean’ as
possible. The children then flipped their paper and drew a picture of
13
themselves in the centre, the next task was to draw around them all the
‘influences’ that gave them their opinions/ideas/views on what was ‘right’,
again they were given approximately 5-10 minutes to complete the task. After
a ‘brain break’ to stretch and relax the children then completed the same
process but this time with reference to the term ‘wrong’. The whole process
included all the children as they had the option to draw and/or ask for words if
they wanted. The SEN children were supported if they wished for help or
looked unsure, but all ideas noted were strictly their own.
In the opinion of this researcher, Knowles (2008) encapsulates the ‘theme’ of
the day that all could be, and in fact were, valid participants in the process.
‘Art in research puts a premium on evocation, even when it has
sections or aspects of it that are descriptive in character...art is
present in research when its presence enable one to participate
vicariously in a situation.’ (Knowles 2008:6)
The second stage of the day was less prescribed and more open to the
interpretational skills and imagination of the children. Their challenge was to
produce either one or two art pieces on the theme of ‘right and wrong’.
Pupils could use any available art form and materials and the adults would
support if they need, but helping with the art rather than giving them the actual
ideas – only a very few had to be questioned to guide them toward their art
piece or pieces. Whist they worked adults wandered and discussed and made
notes on the artwork.
14
Susanne Langer (1957) argues that works of art represent the artist’s ability to
create a structure of forms that are in parallel to the forms of human
experience. So any art form can provide a means through which feelings can
be explained. In her opinion language is the most useful scientific device
humans have created, but that arts provide access to qualities of life and
experiences that language alone cannot hope to compete with. So the
purpose of the art days, it was hoped by the researcher were to be a doorway
to the children’s true moral understanding.
‘Life is in
two parts
you have
to try and
choose
the right
side.’
Year 5
If school was to gain a positive impact from the results of the research then
we needed to think like McNiff,
‘Change and insight in the personal realm are increasingly being
recognized as a key source of corresponding social change.
Therefore, the way in which we treat the humble images of our
art-based research may have a definite impact on how we engage
the world.’ (McNiff : 37)
The following table compares the children’s quotes and therefore ideas of
what constitutes ‘right and wrong’. Although some translating from the original
quotes was needed for the younger children, most is as written or drawn on
their mind maps. The researcher has sub-divided ‘right & wrong’ into three
sections in order to help analysis. The first section is related to the first part of
the research day that was children’s opinions on right, and who or what has
influenced them and helped them to have that opinion.
15
‘Bad has
good
around it.’
Year 2
RIGHT
a) Rule means it is right
b) Feels right to me
c) Right because it fits the social norm
Children’s ideas of right taken from quotes from the art days.
Y1&2
Rule means it is
right
Feels right to
me
letting friends play
with you
being good
hugging
playing with others
playing with my dogs
going to a friends
house when they
Y3&4
Y5&6
Pink pen
tickled pink
tick
well done
star
team points
learning
smiley face
stamps
stop look listen
don’t fight
be good
don’t disobey
laws
adding up
don’t swear
feeding living things
heath and safety
going to school
To have peace
to have doctors
school
food and water
1+1=2
to earn not to steal
have law and
discipline
the law to keep bad
people away
prisons or jail for
people who deserve
it
send violators of the
law to jail for their full
sentence
Law is right
otherwise the world
would be mad
time and clocks or
we would never
sleep
no weapons for
killing
follow the laws
tell the truth
when some one says
excellent to you
think you know
website
that I’m happy
everyday
doing the right thing
solving things
friendship
to be loved and love
love you and
everyone around you
what you believe in is
right for you
stop wars
going for gold
16
want you to
giving presents
making someone
happy
sun drying out a flood
being happy
reading a book to
someone
stories
doing the right thing
the sun shining
My friends think they
are wrong but I think
they are perfect in
every way
friendship
being helpful
letting me go to sleep
playing with
someone if they say
they want to play with
you
smiling
caring for each other
sport
doing someone’s hair
fair amount of work
same amount of
sweets as my sister
self defence
gym trail
best in school
learning having fun
kindness
happy
go to praise pod
going out with the
family
helping mum and
dad
looking after yourself
you get the right
privileges for your
age
thinking
rainbows
sleep in the middle of
the day
Everyone to have the
opportunity to do
what they wish
scoring a hat trick
having a go at
everything
helping others
choice to do what
you want
be one
have your own
opinion
being yourself
the Collaborative
Learning Centre
sports to have fun
helping each other
having lots of friends
not just one
being proud if you
get something right
having fun as well as
learning
to talk to each other
helping each other
don’t leave people
out
try your hardest
never give up
think before you
speak
be happy
learn from your
mistakes
praise others
eating chocolate
Oxfam
have a belief and
faith
work
to be scared
helping people from
other countries
doing things for
charities
sharing
looking after others
cheering someone
up
variety of subjects at
school
being patient
West Ham in the play
off final
trees for fresh air
playing football
smile at each other
being fit and not just
sitting on the sofa
having a fun time
laughing
concentration
playtime
RSPB
to protect people and
animals
have adventures
17
having celebrations
and parties
give to receive
art
confidence
have clothes
thumbs up
nature
able sleep
be your own person
Right because it
fits the social
norm
be nice to people
smile
reading
sharing
eating nicely
learning
helping
writing
playing nicely with
your sister
being good at school
saying nice things
doing as you are told
sharing my toys
getting a tick when
you do something
right
manners
kindness
listening to mummy
and your teacher
helping an old man
across the road
being healthy
saying hallo back
not getting into
trouble
saying you can be
friends
look at people when
they are talking to
you
tidy your mess
putting things where
they belong
going to work at the
right time
using your brain
being sensible
using the school
4GBs
doing your own work
helping old ladies
having loads of fruit
carrying someone’s
shopping
listening in assembly
listening to your
parents
don’t bully people
going to church
taking turns
sharing
listening
respecting your
elders
to walk away when
someone is mean
mum & dad
following the rules
winning
read a book
work together
a good teacher
learn and get a job
everyone listens in
this school
work /school
telling the truth
attempt to agree
manners
reader of the week
to have shelter
listening to parents
grateful
love
going to bed at the
right time
when you give
someone a gift
when you finish your
work
good telly
sleep
not leaving someone
out
being friends
having friends
don’t blame or lie
being able to swim
don’t leave someone
out
playing with each
other
treat people the
same no matter how
different they are
be nice to people
who are a bit
different
doing stuff you don’t
want to do
working together
to go to school
fairness
birthday
communication
assembly
math’s books
school
exercise
not arguing
good attitude
getting questions
right
homework
listening to others
ideas
be grateful
say sorry
be obedient
human rights
free country
independence
honesty
knowledge
food and drink
clean water
not to be wasteful
school being free
think before you
speak
listen
making yourself
useful
reading a book
brushing your teeth
getting sleep
getting a job
to watch TV
not be bullied
being grateful for
what you get
tick means right
18
read the bible
having rules in your
house
Olympics
life
be nice to people
even if you don’t like
them
include people
say you like peoples
work or it might hurt
their feelings
learning
corrections
be eco-friendly
respect others
respect the world
freedom
to have breakfast
education
using manners
being polite
recycling
to have people who
care for us and look
after us
teachers
Queen and other
royals to look after
the world
don’t litter
be sensible
seeing family
have help
to be kind
give help
stand up for yourself
watch what you say
don’t go back on your
word
think of others before
yourself
being healthy and
safe
holidays
having medicine and
hospitals
being kind to animals
helping Mum and
Dad
keep the world clean
Learning otherwise
we would be dumb
shelter for safety
It is a fascinating insight into the minds of the children! The range and diverse
nature of their ideas was far wider and deeper than had been anticipated. It
became clear immediately that the children had strong opinions and many of
19
them. The overall results broadly fitted with Kohlberg views of moral
development and maturity as seen in his six stages above, though the
researcher was excited not just by the breadth and depth of thought but the
young age that some of these opinions were exhibited and at a much younger
age than the Kohlberg stages advocated. Another issue that came to light was
in respect of the range of ideas on the term ‘right’ and how it was not always
used within the ‘moral’ context. Raising the question as to the children’s
understanding and clarity of thought on what constitutes moral lines and
boundaries.
When reduced to a number picture the results are fascinating, not clearly
defined and not closely matching the Kohlberg’s six stages. Obviously the
year 5 & 6 cohort have more views and opinions overall and would seem to
be moving comfortably into the 4th stage. They advocate maintaining the
social order and show a concern for society with an emphasis on duty and
fitting the social norms, however they do seem to be a little short on clearly
defined ideas related to respecting laws and authority, so they are not
necessarily clear what is right by law. The results from the Year 3&4 cohort
are interesting particularly when looking at the number of ‘me’ views, which
raise an interesting point about strength of character maybe something to
watch in the future! Also interesting is the complete nil score from the
20
youngest children on rules supporting ‘right’ behaviours – do they have any
positive rules regarding behaviour and boundaries or is it all ‘woolly’ & fuzzy?
The chart below is an analysis of the children’s mind maps and notes on
whom or what has influenced them with regards to the term ‘right’. Again the
range and diversity of views is fascinating, and the complete lack of influences
such as the church and religion is very noticeable. The researcher is
convinced that if this piece of research had been done 50-60 years ago then
the results would have be markedly different and the influence of church
would have been noticeably more. It is obvious that the family is a huge factor
in the opinion forming of the children and recognized as such by all the
children, which of course, though not surprising, is very important when
thinking of the capacity of the school in this process of influence. Looking at
the data the older pupils do seem to recognise the influence of school, though
whether they would lean towards family or school if there was a contest is
another question. It is also interesting that the older pupils have a much wider
range of recognizable influences, some of which we might not want them to
have i.e. the media or friends. We must keep in mind that the different levels
of influence mentioned by the children are going to be related to an actually
understanding of what an influence might be obviously there is a relationship
to the children’s own levels of maturity and social development.
.
21
The following section is related to the second part of the research day when
the question was asked of the children’s opinions on ‘wrong’, and who or what
has influenced them and helped them to have that opinion.
‘This creature
makes me think
of wrong things.’
Year 2
WRONG
a) Rule means it is wrong
b) Feels wrong to me
c) Wrong because it fits the social norm
Children’s ideas of wrong taken from quotes from the art days.
Rule means its
wrong
Y1&2
Y3&4
Y5&6
buses crashing
war
fighting
litter
burning stuff
Food rubbish in the
wrong bin
stealing a toy that
don’t belong to you
knocking trees over
shooting and killing
guns
bombs
breaking into a house
knives
not working
killing
drinking
gun
knife
rape
jail
don’t steal
weapons
poaching
killing
murder
people fighting
black mailing
drinking driving and
getting into trouble
from the police
animal abuse
stealing
abuse
racism
drugs
using phone when
driving
breaking the law
violence
police at your door
graffiti
playing with fire
setting a fire
hurting someone
22
Feels wrong to shouting in school
not sharing food
me
not fair
falling in gym
things in the wrong
place
rain feel wrong to me
putting ideas on
somebody else
doing what you are
told not to
saying I hate you
breaking things
being mean
telling tales
when someone talks
to you don’t walk
away
giving up if you get it
wrong
kisses
getting stuck in the
toilet
not shutting the toilet
door and I could see
them!
My sister pushing me
off the bike
no chocolate left
rain on a special day
feeling angry and sad
school on my
birthday
computer stopped
working
rain stopping me play
feeling sad
When something
goes wrong
early bed time
lost toys
went to cubs with no
tea
can’t play football
sister wont let me
have the TV remote
football ref!
Rained at football
training
having a bad dream
banned toys
stuck indoors
guilty
scared
petrified
unfair
ill
upset
death
sadness
Nan dying just before
her 103 birthday
being mean
really bad
threatening
kidnapping
terrorism
making dogs fight
riots
carrying bombs
gangs
hacking
9/11
shop lifting
pirated movies
phone hacking
speeding
mugging
guns
child labour
men stealing little
children
selling drugs
calling the police
when you don’t need
to
not wanting to learn
getting a question
wrong
so called friends
bullies and
bigmouths
Dad forgetting things
cheating on loved
ones
leaving someone out
saying your work is
bad
the opposite to what
you believe in
Mum and Dad
breaking up
taking the Mickey
computers
being mean
daddy & mummy
being sad
being naughty
upsetting people
arguing with parents
breaking things
not having fun
attitude
answering back
some TV
blaming others
breaking promises
fur coats
zoo
being lost
junk food
bad computer games
being a loan shark
23
Wrong because running indoors
it fits the social getting sums wrong
kicking and punching
norm
I want a boy but it’s a
girl
arguing
swearing
sticking your tongue
out
snatching toys from
your brother
wasting paper
throwing paper
having a tantrum
not obeying the rules
boasting
calling people rude
names
being silly
wandering off
interrupting
throwing stones
teasing
calling out
picking and killing
flowers
not listening to the
teacher
bad day
not being the
favourite
feeling sorry
illness
being mean to my
mum and dad
being selfish
moaning
silly
mother shouting at
you
losing something
rain
unfair behaviour
vegetables
whispering
telling family you
hate them
death
laughing at someone
pranks
being badly treated
skin cancer
making fun of people
lashing out and
hitting
silly things
sadness
people may deserve
better than they have
using someone to
feel better about
yourself
taking it out on others
talking behind
someone’s back
not taking the blame /
not telling the truth
illness
parents hating each
other
hurting someone’s
feelings
not sharing
Dad hitting his thumb
with a hammer
hurting my arm
hit my brother
shouting
fall out with friends
broken bicycle
sink at swimming
ball through a
window
being unfriendly
fighting
bullying
calling names
swearing
rudeness
death
Mum & Dad fighting
failing
matches
fire
being naughty
not listening
rude
arguments
mistakes
nasty people
danger
rip up book
being rude
answering back to an
adult
swearing
interrupting people
jealousy
telling tales
making fun of people
who are over weight
envy
affecting others in a
bad way
litter
farting and burping
people who do not
have a home should
get one from the
government
being homeless
bullying
not listening
talking when your
teacher is talking
not doing as you are
told
smoking
war
war
interrupting people
24
slamming doors
not eating your
vegetables
blowing a cigarette
danger
bad films
cold when the sun is
out
being horrid
fighting friends
people being upset
fighting with friends
people ignoring you
wikapedia
cutting down trees
calling people names
backing out of a deal
lying
committing suicide
being sinful
selfishness
travelers
being disrespectful
fighting in the
playground
disease
poverty
government
weather forecast
pollution
house prices
10 years olds playing
a 18+ game
arguing
being cruel
The range and diverse nature of their ideas on ‘wrong’ was again far wider
and deeper than had been anticipated. It became clear immediately that the
children had strong opinions and many of them, and for some i.e. the
youngest group, far more for wrong than right. Again, as with the data from
the ‘right’ session, the overall results broadly fitted with Kohlberg’s views of
moral development and maturity. The researcher was not surprised, though
rather concerned, at the depth of knowledge of ‘wrong’ behaviours that the
children had, especially within the list from the older group. The issue with
respect to this range of ideas on the term ‘wrong’ is very telling when looking
at the influences the children have and where they are getting their
information. Again, as with the ‘right’ ideas, the researcher believes that if this
study had been undertaken 50 years ago the media influence, material
available to children, sorts of games played, in fact the ‘protection’ from all
such information would have been very different.
25
When seen pictorially the results again align overall with Kohlberg’s moral
development views, but with some interesting highlights. Understandably the
year 5 & 6 cohort have more knowledge and many more views in all three sub
sections than the younger children, but it is very interesting to look at the
numbers in the ‘feels wrong to me’ column, their personal opinions being very
strong. What was even more interesting was the number in this ‘feels wrong
to me’ section for the year 3 & 4 cohort, as noted in the ‘right’ section, this
would seem to be a very opinionated group who do not seem to understand,
relate or base their ideas on society rules or social influences, a cohort to
watch! The youngest group fit Kohlberg’s hierarchy perfectly with the influence
of society being paramount in their views, and the egocentric nature of their
maturity showing in their results.
The chart below is an analysis of the children’s mind map drawings and notes
on whom or what has influenced them with regards to the term ‘wrong’. We
must remember again that the different levels of influence mentioned by the
children are going to be related to an actually understanding of what an
influence might be, obviously there is a relationship to the children’s own
levels of maturity and social development.
Again the range of views is of paramount interest, and the complete lack of
influences such as the church and religion is very noticeable. It is obvious that
the family is again a big factor when forming the opinions of the children,
26
which, of course, is hugely important when looking at the capacity and
influence of the school. As with the data from the ‘right’ section the older
pupils do seem to recognise the influence of school, though again whether
they would turn towards family or school if there were issues or disputes is
debatable. It is also interesting that the older pupils have a wider range of
recognizable influences, the media or friendships numbers are particularly
strong; something that both parents and education may need to monitor more
closely and factor into any moral education plan more directly than possibly is
done at present.
The Year 3 & 4 cohort fitted into Kohlberg’s moral ‘pre-conventional’
development stage as seen by their number of ‘government and law’ and
‘dangers’ as influences, unlike the year 5 & 6 cohort who seemed to have
moved into Kohlberg’s ‘post conventional’ stage of development where it
would seem they are becoming more regulated by mutual respects, i.e.
friends, family and school.
The analysis of the free art sessions that followed the data collection sections
of the day was beyond the skills of this researcher. However, from the
27
school’s point of view the art sessions were very interesting on many levels. It
was fascinating to see how the children approached a completely free art
session, those who excelled in the freedom of art choices and those who
struggled with imaginative ideas and did not have the skills to exhibit their
‘right and wrong’ views in this way.
‘Red & black make
me think of wrong
things that happen
in the world.’ Year 6 ‘Bits of wrong that
are all over good
and right things.’
Year 2
‘The zig-zags are
right and wrong and
they are fighting
each other.’ Year1
‘This is a beautiful
garden but it has
bits of dark that feel
wrong.’ Year 2
‘I think life is full of
right and wrong
together, but right is
green and all
around.’ Year 4
‘Right is light colours
and in order. Wrong
is black and like
lightening.’ Year 4
‘Right is like flowers
in the garden and it
grows good.’ Year 2
‘I think right and
wrong are two parts
of our life that we
have to find out
about.’ Year 5
‘Wrong is out of
order and a mess.
We have to try and
sort it out.’ Year 2 28
‘WRONG’ ARTWORK
from Year 1&2
‘RIGHT’ ARTWORK
from Year 1&2
The researcher was particularly interested to see the different types of artwork
and the interpretation of the ‘right and wrong’ theme and the ‘inhibitions’ with
the art that developed with some of the older children. The more imaginative
and vibrant art coming from the youngest cohort of children. The older
children (Years 5 & 6) used the art to set scenes and describe right and
wrong, they had faces and people in action situations; much of their art was
drawn and detailed. The middle age group used a lot of words and symbols,
poster types of artwork as well as a more varied use of art forms such as clay
and sculpture; though some got so into the material they lost their way with
the art idea! The youngest group (years 1& 2) went for pattern, colour and
design to show their right and wrong ideas, many mixed their right and wrong
together in their pictures and explained which colours and patterns stood for
right and wrong.
‘zig-zags and black means war the lines are opposite like in a war.’ (HW
year1)
29
From the point of view of this piece of research the process involved in the art
sessions was a bonus, the major data results coming from the first half of the
day. However, the experience of working in this way and the opportunity for
discussion on ‘right and wrong’ with the children was an added factor which
was almost immeasurable and that the researcher had not anticipated. All the
adults commented about this chance to ‘chat’ and question about these moral
issues without any awkwardness.
c) As an educational establishment, how much can the primary school
hope to influence those opinions?
The researcher found the work of Brown and Brown (1997) very useful as a
foundation to her thinking on the school’s religious education process and
how that impacts on its moral and ethical influences. They see cultural
development as involving a whole range of values, beliefs, attitudes and
customs which are taken on board and amalgamated by an individual to form
a person’s identity; and also the basis for cohesive community and social
groups. For the Browns’ there is the everyday community culture in terms of
theatre, music, dance, museums, etc., but also culture as an ‘anthropological’
term for the whole attitude, belief system and world view. How then can the
school be part of that process? They see religion not as a set of rules, like
rules in sport that may change year on year. For them morality is an attitude
30
of mind that occurs within a framework of beliefs and commitments. A
person’s duty, to God, country, family, in fact for them the social group is the
essential element in defining and sorting moral behaviour. So RE in schools
should teach that there is an open dialogue with morality, neither constraining
nor instead of the religious education. They also firmly advocate that other
subjects can and should support the education of morality. For them there is a
hugely important skill in this moral education process and that is how children
apply their knowledge and understanding of morality, wherever it is gained
and whatever it is, to ethical and moral issues in their own lives. That it must
affect behaviour or it is valueless.
This is a big question that has not been properly defined, in the view of this
researcher, throughout the whole period of her educational career both as a
pupil and as a teacher.
How can schools give their pupils opinions, skills and moral codes of conduct,
what moral framework is to be used? If it is a way of coping with life, a means
of responding to profound questions about the nature of life and the universe,
which religion or ideas and views does a school focus on, or does it
endeavour to do a ‘muddled mixture’ of all and actually give nothing clear or
helpful for the children as a result?
Even if the school experience is on the whole good, and children are
supported to make right decisions and helped to decide when actions are
inappropriate; even if their school education forms a clear basis of information
it will not constitute the total experience of pupils. We must remember, as
seen in the data analysis, that the family and media will also play an important
part in exploring a range of social and cultural issues. What is clear is that we
must give children the skills to be able to make connections between their
formal school learning and their life experiences and hopefully the right
decisions will be made.
The school uses the Essex Agreed Syllabus as the foundation to its specific
RE studies. The work is either done through the termly or half termly themes,
or as specific blocks or units of work if the subject matter is not suitable for the
theme. In the introduction to the syllabus it is clear that the syllabus expects
31
the school to…
‘develop pupils’ knowledge and understanding about the diversity of
national, regional, religious and ethnic identities in the United Kingdom and
the need for mutual respect and understanding; enabling pupils to think
about topical spiritual, moral, social and cultural issues including the
importance of resolving conflict fairly…’
However it has been interesting for the researcher to discover that actually
there are very few references, except in one Early Years unit, to specific
‘moral’ teaching and there is almost no guidance on how to teach it. The
references are vague and unhelpful and open to huge differences in
interpretation from adults of different background themselves. Although much
would seem to come under ‘common sense’ interpretations we are relying, it
would seem to the researcher, a great deal on innate knowledge’s of right and
wrong. There is an overarching similarity in moral views that may not always
be the case amongst the adults and the children, and very definitely not the
case between school and home. Assembly themes are chosen by the school
to highlight important ethical and moral issues and although this is felt to be
an important learning process, it is limited in its impact.
Next steps!
The results from the research were intriguing. Patterns emerged which shed
light on the attitudes of the pupils to right and wrong…and on what they value.
Far from being lacking in a sense of right and wrong pupils emerged as
deeply engaged in working out for themselves what right and wrong might be
– and in thinking how they would know. This study has shown the children’s
thinking and views through the mind mapping process and the works of art.
So the question is, where the school should and can go from here?
Bigger and Brown (1999) believe that the school environment may count as a
place of ‘social cohesion’, but is that enough?
‘Social cohesion has enabled the development of skills and culture yet
continuing cooperation cannot be taken for granted: altruism is weaker
than the instinct for personal survival. Given a choice between giving aid
32
and being killed, most prefer to stay alive.’ (10:1999)
So although the children may have the moral knowledge we know from the
experience with a previous year’s cohort that putting that ‘right’ knowledge
into ‘right’ action is another matter. For Mcghee (2001) there would not seem
to be a single or perfect way for attaining knowledge on the questions of life
but that there must be different ‘perspectives on knowledge’. (6:2001) Then
from Lee (2001) we come across views and questions related to the problems
of the rapidly changing society and life styles that have to be negotiated by
the children in their preparation for adult life.
‘...As we enter the 21st Century, the experience of adult life is a lot less
stable than it used to be. With regards to being ‘grown up’, we have
entered an age of uncertainty, an age when adult life is newly
unpredictable and in which stabilities we manage to produce cannot be
expected to last our whole lives.’ (7:2001)
Lee firmly believes that the changes to perceptions of adulthood and what
should or can be expected from adulthood now have and are having a huge
affect on adult life views,
‘Change and incompleteness have entered adulthood as principles of
living that replace stability and completeness…The implications of this
destabilization of adulthood are vitally important for understanding
contemporary relationships of authority and power between adults and
children.’ (8:2001)
Much has been written on how we can help our young people to guide their
own behaviour, in the end all of them will have to make their own choices
about right and wrong in many and varied situations both in and out of school,
and as they become teenagers and then adults. Lindon (2001) has views and
ideas on how to support children’s development, and moral education seemed
to the researcher to be both thought provoking but also sensible and
manageable. To have, where possible, a consistency from adults as personal
identity and social & cultural influences shape children’s views of what is right
behaviour. So any differences within communities of ethnicity, culture, faith,
etc., need to be celebrated and similarities fostered. Children will need to
continue to learn different sets of rules for different situations and it is up to
33
the adults to help to make it clear which rules are for, where and why. Maybe
for the school in question there would seem to be a need for clearer
messages on guidelines and rules and, where possible, a more cohesive
approach with the community on moral approaches. That the children have a
very good understanding on the principles behind the moral guidelines so that
they are adhering for the right reasons, not just so that they get a reward! The
school in question has always felt it advocated a ‘firm but fair’ attitude and that
any action as a consequence of wrong behaviour was not just for the
punishments sake but as a learning process. This is hard to guarantee for
every school staff adult, especially those who do not have good discipline
skills and this maybe a skill the school could develop for both its staff and
parents so that children have a more even response to behaviours. The
school does involve its youngsters in discussions, processes and decisions
during assemblies, circles times, class and school councils and lessons, but
again this may be an area that needs reinvigorating, re-training, resourcing
and supporting by senior members of staff or even outside agencies.
Supporting the children to learn alternative strategies on how to solve
problems rather than through unacceptable behaviours is a key learnt skill.
The idea of not always just telling an adult but trying to work out the right and
wrong actions and following them through acceptable processes, like not
crowding each other, not having a cross face, respecting each other and
listening to other views. Helping the children to think up the rules in
classrooms and playground has always been a part of this school but it needs
constant revision and re-visiting.
The whole process of research has been both fascinating and extremely
helpful for this head teacher. Having time to focus on a single theme instead
of the multitude that is the norm of headship has been a privilege. It is clear
that the school in question is not failing in its children’s moral education; rather
it would seem that for many it is giving them the knowledge and skills that are
required to survive in this changing and often seeming ‘immoral’ society.
However, the research has highlighted the importance of a common vision
and moral purpose and the need to include all of the school community in the
process of devising and revisiting any vision and purpose.
34
35
References & Bibliography
Aristotle (1962) Nichomachean Ethics, tr. M. Ostwald, Indianapolis: Liberal Arts
Press
Bandura, A. (1997) Self-Efficacy The exercise of control. New York: W.H. Freeman
and Company
Bigger,S. & Brown, E. (1999) Spiritual, Moral, Social and Cultural Education
Exploring Values in the Curriculum. Trowbridge: Fulton Pub.
Brown, A. & Brown, E. (1997) Religious Education in the Primary School. London:
National Society.
Crain,W.C.(1985). Theories of development. Prentice-Hall, pp118-136
Gross, R. & Rolls, G. (2004) Essential A2 Psychology. Oxford: Hodder Education
Halstead, J.M., Pike, M.A. (2006) Citizenship and Moral Education. London:
Routledge
Knowles, J. Gary & Cole, (2008) A. Handbook of the ARTs in Qualitative Research.
California: Sage pub.
Langer,S.K. (1957) Problems of Art: Ten philosophical lectures. New York: Scribner.
Lee, N. (2001) Childhood and Society Growing up in an age of uncertainty.
Buckingham: Open University Press
Levine, L. & Munsch, J. (2011) Child Development An Active Learning Approach.
London: Sage Pub Inc.
Lindon, J. (2001) Understanding Children & Young People Development from 5-18
years. London: Hodder
Mcghee, P. (2001) Thinking Psychologically. Hampshire: Palgrave.
McNiff, S. (10/2/2007) 3. Art-Based Research. Knowles (Handbook)=45358.qxd online
Raths, L.E., Harmin, M. and Simon, S.B. (1966) Values and Teaching: Working with
Values in the Classroom, Columbus, OH: Charles E. Merrill.
36