UBC Theses and Dissertations

UBC Theses Logo

UBC Theses and Dissertations

Effects of an intervention for facilitating social reasoning and prosocial behavior in pre-adolescents Krivel-Zacks, Gail 1995

Your browser doesn't seem to have a PDF viewer, please download the PDF to view this item.

Item Metadata

Download

Media
831-ubc_1995-0614.pdf [ 4.77MB ]
Metadata
JSON: 831-1.0098976.json
JSON-LD: 831-1.0098976-ld.json
RDF/XML (Pretty): 831-1.0098976-rdf.xml
RDF/JSON: 831-1.0098976-rdf.json
Turtle: 831-1.0098976-turtle.txt
N-Triples: 831-1.0098976-rdf-ntriples.txt
Original Record: 831-1.0098976-source.json
Full Text
831-1.0098976-fulltext.txt
Citation
831-1.0098976.ris

Full Text

E F F E C T S OF AN INTERVENTION FOR FACILITATING SOCIAL REASONING AND PROSOCIAL BEHAVIOR IN PRE-ADOLESCENTS by Gail Krivel-Zacks B.G.S., Simon Fraser University, 1990 P.D.P., Simon Fraser University, 1991 A THESIS SUBMITTED IN PARTIAL FULFILLMENT OF THE REQUIREMENT FOR THE D E G R E E OF MASTERS OF ARTS in THE FACULTY OF GRADUATE STUDIES (Department of Educational Psychology and Special Education) We accept this thesis as conforming to the required standard THE UNIVERSITY OF BRITISH COLUMBIA October 1995 © C o p y r i g h t Gail Krivel-Zacks, 1995 In presenting this thesis in partial fulfilment of the requirements for an advanced degree at the University of British Columbia, I agree that the Library shall make it freely available for reference and study. I further agree that permission for extensive copying of this thesis for scholarly purposes may be granted by the head of my department or by his or her representatives. It is understood that copying or publication of this thesis for financial gain shall not be allowed without my written permission. Department of S . The University of British Columbia Vancouver, Canada Date O C A R / l 9 7 < ^ Abstract The purpose of this study was two-fold. First, this study examined the effects of a moral dilemma discussion group intervention on moral reasoning, empathy, perspective-taking, and peer- and teacher-rated prosocial and antisocial behaviours among pre- and early adolescents. In addition, this study sought to investigate the relationship of moral reasoning to empathy, perspective-taking, teacher-rated social and problem behaviours, academics, and peer-rated prosocial and antisocial behaviours. A total of 43 Grade 6 and 7 students participated in the study. They were assessed for moral reasoning, empathy and perspective-taking, teacher-rated social skills and problem behaviours, academics, and peer-rated prosocial and antisocial skills at the pretest and after a 10 week moral discussion group intervention. In order to study the effects of a moral dilemma discussion group, students were randomly assigned to either a treatment group, a placebo group , or a control group. The treatment group met weekly for one hour to discuss both hypothetical and real-life dilemmas. The placebo group met at the same time also for an hour to develop a measure for assessing adults' knowledge of preadolescents. According to moral development theory, a dilemma discussion such as the one used here would be expected to raise moral reasoning and it was hypothesized that there would also be changes in the affect, behaviour, and academics. I l l Participation in moral dilemma discussions was found to have an effect on moral reasoning, social skills, internalizing problem behaviours, academics, and peer-ratings of prosocial and antisocial skills. The second intent of this study was to provide a more complete picture of the relationship of moral reasoning to the school experiences of pre-and early adolescents. The correlational analysis suggested that there are a number of significant relationships between moral reasoning and teacher-rated and peer-rated behaviour as well between moral reasoning and academics. These findings have direct implications on educational planning and curriculum. iv T A B L E O F C O N T E N T S Page A B S T R A C T ii TABLES OF CONTENTS iv LIST OF TABLES Nivi A C K N O W L E D G E M E N T S ix CHAPTER 1. INTRODUCTION 1 Background and Theoretical Framework 1 Piaget's Moral Stage Theory 3 Kohlberg's Moral Stage Theory 4 Gibbs' Moral Stage Theory 9 Facilitating Moral Growth 13 Affective and Behavioral Correlates of Moral Reasoning 15 Statement of the Problem 16 Rationale for Including Moral Reasoning Education in the Curriculum 19 2. REVIEW OF THE LITERATURE 21 Moral Reasoning and Delinquency 22 Moral Reasoning and Classroom Behavior 23 Prosocial Behavior and Classroom Academics 28 V Empathy and Perspective-taking 30 Characteristics of a Moral Discussion Group 34 The Effect of Moral Discussion Groups on Behavior 36 Hypotheses 42 3. METHODOLOGY 44 Description of the Sample 44 Subject Selection 45 Measures 45 Demographic Information 46 Measures of Verbal Ability 46 The Sociomoral Reflection Measure 47 Interpersonal Reactivity Index 48 The Social Skills Rating System 50 Peer Assessment of Social Behavior 51 Procedure 51 Administration of Measures 51 Group Assignment and Intervention Planning 52 Treatment Group 53 Placebo Group 55 Control Group 55 4. RESULTS 57 Effects of the Moral Reasoning Intervention .57 Overview of the Statistical analysis 57 vi Preliminary Analysis 58 Analysis of Treatment Effects 59 Moral Reasoning 60 Empathy and Perspective-taking 60 Teacher Rated Behaviors 61 Peer-Rated Behaviors 63 The Relation of Moral Reasoning to Empathy, Perspective-Taking and Classroom Behaviors 66 Correlations between Moral Reasoning to Empathy and Perspective-taking 67 Correlations between Moral Reasoning and Teacher Rated Behaviors 62 Correlations between Moral Reasoning and Peer Rated Behaviors 67 Social Adjustment, Gender, and Moral Reasoning 68 DISCUSSION 71 Moral Reasoning Intervention 71 The Link of Moral Reasoning to Affective, Behavioral, and Academic Variables 77 Strengths and Limitations 78 Directions for Further Research 79 Educational Implications 80 R E F E R E N C E S 82 LIST OF APPENDICES 89 A Teacher Consent Form 89 vii B Description of the Study for the Students 93 C Parental Permission Form 95 D Demographic Questionnaire 99 E Test of Verbal Ability 101 F The Sociomoral Reflection Measure 105 G The Interpersonal Reactivity Index 111 H The Social Skills Rating System 113 I Peer Assessment of Social Behavior 118 J Sample Lesson Plans for the Intervention Group 120 K Sample Lesson Plans for the Placebo Group 125 L Art Activity for the Control Group 129 M Unadjusted Pretest to Posttest Means for the Outcome Variables 130 viii LIST O F T A B L E S Page Table 1 Kohlberg's Stages of Moral Development 6 Table 2 A Comparison of Gibbs' and Kohlberg's Stage Theories 11 Table 3 Adjusted Means (Pretest to Posttest) with Pretest Scores as a Covariate 65 Table 4 Correlations of Moral Reasoning to Empathy, Perspective-Taking and Classroom Behaviors 70 Table 5 Unadjusted Pretest to Posttest Means for the Outcome Variables 130 ix ACKNOWLEDGMENTS I wish to express my sincere appreciation to Dr. Kimberly Schonert-Reichl, my research advisor, for her open door policy, and her steadfast support and encouragement from the beginning of this project to its completion. I am also grateful to Dr. Arleigh Reichl for his insight and thoughtful analysis that both strengthened and added dimension to this work. I wish to express my appreciation for the helpful comments of Dr. Larry Walker. I also wish to acknowledge and thank the teachers and students who participated in this study, without their tolerance and cooperation, this study would not have come to be. I also gratefully acknowledge the assistance of Helen Novak who volunteered to be one of the facilitators in this study. A word of appreciation goes to Corey Elaschuk and Stephanie Le whose assisted in the production of this thesis. I would also thank my family: my parents Rita and Harold Krivel, my sisters, Kathi, Karen and Louise, who encouraged me to complete my education. Finally, I would like to acknowledge my husband, Peter, who supported me and believed in me. This has given me the strength and energy to challenge myself. His love and trust have encouraged me to reach and attain goals that I had not dreamed were possible. 1 CHAPTER 1 Introduction Background and Theoretical Framework As you watch children on a playground or at school or read about their behaviors in a newspaper, the range of their prosocial and antisocial behaviors is unmistakable. On the playground, some children always appear to be engaged in quarrelsome and pugnacious behaviors while others are always the healers and helpers. In the classroom, some students cannot resist the temptation to cheat while others are the guardians of the rules. How do some children develop empathy, self-control, and a willingness to make personal sacrifices for the welfare of others? This question underlies much of the research in the area of moral development. Moral development, in this case, is defined as, "how humans cooperate and coordinate their activities in the service of furthering human welfare, and how they adjudicate conflicts among individual differences" (Rest, 1983, p. 3). Moreover, the development of moral reasoning is the process from which an individual advances from a self-focused and externally directed being to a self-directed but socially responsible person. Research on moral development has been derived primarily from three different theoretical frameworks: behavioral, affective, and cognitive (Rest, 1983). Research on the behavioral component emphasizes actual behaviors, and focuses on modification of these behaviors through reinforcement or social learning 2 (Bandura, 1973; Flavell, 1977; Skinner, 1953). Research on the affective component emphasizes moral behaviors as being driven by needs and desires (Erikson, 1965). Finally, research on the cognitive component focuses on developmental changes in the ability to reason about social dilemmas (e.g., Piaget, 1932/1965). The present investigation will operate from the latter perspective, focusing on the cognitive-developmental approach to moral reasoning. Specifically, the purpose of the present investigation was to: 1) examine the effects of a moral reasoning intervention (i.e., the Moral Dilemma Discussion Group) on moral reasoning, empathy, perspective-taking, and classroom behaviors; and 2) explore the relation between moral reasoning and empathy, perspective-taking, and teacher and peer-ratings of classroom behaviors. In order to provide a basic theoretical background on the cognitive-developmental perspective of moral reasoning, this chapter will begin with a presentation of the theories of three influential moral developmental researchers, Piaget, Kohlberg, and Gibbs. This will be followed by a discussion of one of the frequently used methods to promote moral growth - the Moral Discussion Group. Also discussed are the affective and behavioral correlates of moral reasoning. The statement of the problem, and a rationale for including moral reasoning in the curriculum will end this chapter. 3 Piaget's Moral Stage Theory The cognitive-developmental theory of moral development is based on the work of Jean Piaget (1932/1965), who posited that prior knowledge provides the foundation for the construction and organization of new knowledge. According to Piaget, the interaction of prior knowledge with new experiences creates cognitive structures that represent the world. As the child develops, these structures change as they become more complex and are reorganized. Although these developmental changes are not caused by aging, stage development is associated with certain ages (Piaget, 1974, 1980). Piagetian theory emphasizes the active role of the individual in constructing his or her own cognitive world. Moreover, according to Piaget, cognitive growth is based on a process of adaptation. Specifically, adaptation is composed of two processes; assimilation and accommodation. Assimilation takes place when an individual relates and modifies new experiences into his or her existing cognitive structures. However, when new experiences cannot be modified to fit into existing structures, the individual is forced into a state of disequilibrium. The innate need for equilibrium compels the individual to modify his or her cognitive structures to accommodate the new information. The resolution of the conflict between the individual and the environment results in the process of accommodation and a higher level of equilibrium. Cognitive conflict is, therefore, considered to have a central role in cognitive development (Chapman & McBride, 1992). 4 Piaget (1932) defined moral development as the internalization of rules and ethical issues (e.g., theft, lies, justice, equality, reciprocity), and identified two stages of moral development. Piaget defined the first stage as "heteronomous morality" and the second stage as "autonomous morality". Moral action in the first stage of moral reasoning is based on an inflexible belief in authority and rules and is evident in children four to seven years of age. In the second stage, moral actions are based on reciprocity, respect, and intention, and is reflective of children's reasoning at about nine to eleven years of age (Piaget, 1932/1965). Kohlbera's Moral Stage Theory Kohlberg extended, modified and refined Piaget's two stage theory into a more complex three level, six-stage theory. Kohlberg's stage model of moral reasoning (1958, 1976, 1986) is defined by three criteria: stage sequence (defined as the progression from one stage to another in a sequential order); stage structure (defined as stages being "structured wholes" which indicates that individuals use reasoning reflective of one stage the majority of the time); and stage hierarchy (each higher stage is a reorganization of the previous stage, each stage replaces the stage before it through the process of accommodation referred to earlier). This stage development is grounded in the theoretical assumption that certain levels of both cognitive and perspective-taking development are necessary but not sufficient conditions for moral growth (Walker, 1980). Exposure to perspective-taking opportunities, the consideration of fairness and morality, exposure to the next 5 higher stage of moral reasoning, and active participation in group decision making are also necessary (Kohlberg, 1976). Kohlberg's six stages of moral development are delineated in Table 1. 6 Table 1 Kohlberg's Stages of Moral Development Level 1 Preconventional Morality (Early to middle childhood) Stage 1 Obedience and Punishment Orientation The right action is determined by whether one will be punished for an act. Stage 2 Individualism and Purpose Orientation The right action is what satisfies one's needs, by conforming to get rewards. Level 2 The Conventional Level (Adolescence to Early Adulthood) Stage 3 Interpersonal Norms Orientation The right action is determined by what pleases others and is approved by them. Stage 4 Social System Morality Orientation The right action is what family, group or nation expect, unquestioning acceptance of social regulations. Level 3 The Post-Conventional Level (Adulthood) Stage 5 Community Rights vs. Individual Rights Orientation The right action is obeying legal standards agreed on by society to maintain social order and the rights of others. There is a flexibility, at this stage, which allows for the changing of rules which might be more advantageous to a majority of the group. Stage 6 The Universal-Ethical-Principle Orientation The right action is based on one's conscience in accordance with universal abstract principles of justice comparison, rights and equality. Adapted from Santrock (1993) 7 The method used by Kohlberg to measure moral reasoning competence is the Moral Judgment Interview (MJI; Colby & Kohlberg, 1987). In the administration of the MJI, an individual is presented with a series of hypothetical stories containing a moral dilemma. Each dilemma contains two choices (e.g., life vs. law). The individual is asked, after reading the dilemma, what the main character should do and why he or she should do it. The individual is then asked several standardized probe questions designed to elicit the reasons for the choice that the individual has made. The interviews are conducted individually with each subject, and the responses to the standardized questions are recorded and later transcribed and scored. The transcribed answers are scored by matching them with criterion judgments from the scoring manual (Colby & Kohlberg, 1987). All three forms of the MJI (A, B, and C) have been shown to have acceptable interrater, retest and alternate form reliability (Colby, Gibbs, Kohlberg, Speicher-Dubin, & Candee, 1979). Nevertheless, the MJI has been criticized as being difficult to score, time consuming to administer and score, not appropriate for young children due to the abstract nature of several of the probe questions, and vulnerable to experimenter bias (e.g., Carol, Eisenberg, & Knight, 1992; Damon, 1979; Gibbs, 1992; Rest, 1969; Stein, Trabasso, & Garfin, 1979). In spite of the criticism, Kohlberg's development of the MJI is recognized as a major contribution to the literature because he demonstrated that moral decisions are built on a framework of progressively more complex judgments that can be measured. 8 Moreover, Kohlberg is credited for moving moral reasoning research from philosophy into the social sciences. An example of a dilemma taken from Form A of the MJI manual (Colby & Kohlberg, 1987) is as follows: "Joe is a 14 year-old-boy who wanted to go to camp very much. His father promised him he could go if he saved up the money for it himself. So Joe worked hard on his paper route and saved up the $100.00 it cost to go to camp and a little more besides. But just before camp started, his father changed his mind. Some of his friends decided to go on a special fishing trip, and Joe's father was short of the money it would cost. So he told Joe to give him the money he had saved from his paper route. Joe didn't want to give up going to camp, so he thinks of refusing to give his father the money." (Colby & Kohlberg, 1987, p. 3). One of the standardized questions or probes that the interviewer would ask to elicit an individual's level of moral reasoning is: "Should Joe give his father the money? Why or why not" (Colby & Kohlberg, 1987, p. 3). The stage of moral reasoning is determined by the justifications provided by the interviewee for his or her decision concerning the main character in the dilemma. Following are examples taken from the MJI manual (Colby & Kohlberg, 1987) that reflect different stages of moral reasoning: Stage 1- "Joe should give his father the money because you have to do what your parents say." (p. 235). (This justification reflects 9 blind obedience to authority), Stage 2- "Joe should give his father the money because the father will do a favor for him." (p. 236). (This justification reflects conforming to get a reward), Stage 3- "Joe should give his father the money because it will show his father that he loves him." (p. 238). (This justification reflects the need to maintain affection and approval of others), Stage 4-"Joe should give his father the money because his father is the boss and there has to be a boss in a family or it will be confusing." (p. 241). (This justification reflects the unquestioning acceptance of social regulations to maintain social order), Stage 5-"Joe should not give his father the money because they both have equal rights in the family and Joe's rights have to be respected." (p. 243). (This justification reflects the need to protect the rights of all human beings). These examples illustrate how Kohlberg has created a hierarchical paradigm for moral reasoning development that is defined not by the action but by reasoning and judgment. It should be noted that the evaluation of moral reasoning is not based solely on whether or not Joe will give his dad the money, but rather on the reasons or justifications provided by the individual for his or her action choice. In other words, the underlying structure of the answers as opposed to the specific content is used to measure the level of moral reasoning. Gibbs' Moral Stage Theory Although there is agreement concerning the stage theory of moral development as developed by Kohlberg (for a review of the research, see Walker, 10 1988), there exists some criticism regarding his definition of moral maturity (e.g., Gilligan, 1982; Snarey, 1985). This criticism is based, in part, on Kohlberg's research findings that indicate that not one of the subjects in his longitudinal study reached Stage 6, and only 13% of the subjects reached Stage 5 (Kohlberg, 1984). John Gibbs, a colleague of Kohlberg's, suggests that the lack of higher stage acquisition by the majority of individuals studied is "a misrepresentation of moral judgment maturity" (Gibbs, 1992, p. 13). It is important to note that the major assumptions of Gibbs' theory of moral development are in agreement with those of Kohlberg's cognitive-developmental stage theory of moral development and adhere to the criteria for a stage model (i.e., stage sequence, stage structure, stage hierarchy). Gibbs argues for a new stage classification based on what he believes is a contradiction to the criteria of stage sequence in Kohlberg's higher stage levels. Kohlberg defines moral maturity as occurring at the post-conventional tevels (i.e., Stages 5 and 6). These are the stages at which actions are based on the moral principles of societal or group membership (Stage 5) or the universal principles of justice, rights and equality (Stage 6). The invariance of these stages is one of the tenets of stage theory and yet in Kohlberg's 1963 research it appeared that a group of college students had regressed to Stage 2 reasoning from the Stage 5 reasoning they had demonstrated in high school (Kohlberg, 1963). Kohlberg explained this apparent contradiction by reinterpreting the answers and creating a new scoring classification. Gibbs argues that the reasoning in the reinterpretation of the college 11 students answers is based on an intuitive implicit use of language and does not represent higher stage thinking. Gibbs (1992) argues that: "...it does not make theoretical sense to characterize the explicit use of ethical philosophy as a higher natural developmental stage, any more that it would make sense to characterize the use of a systematic philosophy of language as a higher natural stage in language or logical development. This approach would misrepresent moral judgment maturity as the exclusive province of the philosophically articulate." (p. 17) In order to explain the lack of Stage 5 and 6 moral reasoning and to remain consistent with invariant stage development, Gibbs recast Kohlberg's six stage theory into a four stage theory. The orientations of Gibbs' four stages parallel the first four stages of Kohlberg's stages as illustrated in Table 2. Table 2 A Comparison of Gibbs' and Kohlberg's Stages of Moral Reasoning Stage Gibbs' Stages Kohlberg's Stages Common Reasoning 1 Unilateral or Physicalistic Obedience and Punishment "Might is right" 2 Exchanging and Instrumental Individualism and Purpose "You scratch my back, I'll scratch yours." 3 Mutual or Prosocial Interpersonal Norms "Good boy or Nice Girl'' 4 Systemic or Standard Social System Morality "Society's need" 12 As Kohlberg before him, Gibbs created a measure of moral reasoning that reflects his theory of moral reasoning development. The instruments that had been used to measure moral reasoning prior to that of Gibbs' are the Moral Judgment Interview (Colby & Kohlberg, 1987) and the Defining Issues Test (DIT; Rest, 1979). The MJI (Colby & Kohlberg, 1978), as described earlier, uses inferential moral assessment of hypothetical dilemmas, is individually administrated, is inappropriate for very young children, and is time consuming and difficult to score. The DIT uses hypothetical dilemmas which the subject reads, and then rank orders preexisting justifications representing the various levels of moral reasoning. The DIT is a pencil and paper production measure that can be group administered but can only be used with subjects with a reading level of at least 12 years (Rest, 1979). Gibbs (1992) created a new measure of moral reasoning based on his theory of moral reasoning to address the shortcomings of the aforementioned measures of moral reasoning. The Social Moral Reflection Measure-Short Form (SRM-SF; Gibbs, 1992) consists of 11 short-answer items. Instead of presenting subjects with hypothetical moral dilemmas, each question on the SRM-SF uses lead-in's to personalize questions. Presenting questions in such a manner appears to render them more relevant to the real-life experiences of individuals and addresses a concern often noted in moral reasoning research regarding the need for moral reasoning measures to be more ecologically valid (Walker, 1990). Some examples of lead-in's are, "Think about when you helped your mother or father", or "Think about when you have made a promise to a friend" (SRM-SF; Gibbs, 1992). The 13 lead-in's are followed by questions that involve the evaluation of justifications for contract and truth, affiliation with friends and parents, life, property and law and legal justice. For example, the lead-in for item 1 from the SRM-SF states, "Think about when you've made a promise to a friend of yours" the evaluation question is "How important is it for people to keep promises, if they can, to friends?" The subjects are then asked to give a rating "very important", "important", or "not important". Space is then provided for the subjects to justify their answers. Some of the strengths of the SRM-SF are that it can be group administered, it can be used with children as young as 10 years old, and it is relatively easy to administer and to score. The reliability and validity of the SRM-SF has been established in previous research by Gibbs (1992) and Mason and Gibbs (1993). For example, the SRM-SF is significantly correlated to the MJI (r = .69) and discriminates among diverse samples. In the present investigation, students' moral reasoning was assessed with the SRM-SF (Gibbs, 1992) because of its high reliability and validity as well as because of its appropriateness for use with pre- and early adolescents. Facilitating Moral Growth Cognitive conflict has been identified as the primary mechanism responsible for moral growth (e.g., Blatt & Kohlberg, 1975; Walker, 1983; Walker & Taylor, 1991). This conflict can occur through chance interaction (for example being 14 confronted by a contradiction between the beliefs of one's family and the belief of one's friends) or through structured activities (such as a planned dilemma discussions in school), and is a response to the disequilbrium felt by an individual when he or she cannot accommodate new information into his or her existing cognitive structures. According to Kohlberg (1976), conditions that facilitate moral growth are role-taking opportunities; the consideration of fairness; active participation in group decision-making; peer interaction; and perspective-taking opportunities. One of the most frequently used methods to promote moral development is through the discussion of moral dilemmas. Moshe Blatt, a doctoral student of Kohlberg's, believed that moral development could be facilitated through students' discussion of hypothetical moral dilemmas in the classroom. In Blatt's original work (1969), students were presented with a hypothetical moral dilemma by a facilitator. Next, the students were encouraged to discuss how the dilemma should be resolved while the facilitator encouraged students' reasoning and interactions through the use of Socratic probing questions. The original objective of the problem-solving process was to reach consensus on how to resolve the dilemma. Findings from Blatt's research revealed that those students who participated in a MDG evidenced a one-third stage increase in moral reasoning whereas those students who did not participate evidenced no stage change. Kohlberg named this one-third stage change the "Blatt Effect". Increases in higher stage reasoning after participation in 15 moral discussion groups have been replicated in a number of studies (for reviews of this research see Lockwood, 1978; Rest, 1974). Kohlberg and Blatt (1975) theorized that a number of factors had to be in place to create the environment for the "Blatt Effect" to occur. These factors included: the need for variety of stages of moral development to be present among individuals in the group; the need for student interaction; and the need for a trained facilitator (Berkowitz, 1985; Berkowitz & Gibbs, 1985; Blatt & Kohlberg, 1975). According to Berkowitz (1985), the facilitators' role is to present dilemmas, stimulate social perspective-taking, develop students' questioning strategies and discourse, create and maintain a non-threatening atmosphere, check for comprehension, and bring closure to the discussion. Affective and Behavioral Correlates of Moral Reasoning The correlation between moral reasoning and social behavior has been consistently demonstrated in a number of studies. For example, low levels of moral reasoning have been associated with dishonesty and delinquency (Blasi, 1980). In the classroom, moral reasoning has been found to be associated with peer-reported prosocial behaviors (Schonert-Reichl, 1994a). Nevertheless, the relationship between moral reasoning and antisocial behaviors remains unclear. For example, whereas some studies have not found a relationship between antisocial behaviors and moral reasoning (e.g., Schonert-Reichl ,1994a), other studies have found a curvilinear relationship between moral reasoning and 16 classroom behavior (Richards, Bear, Stewart, & Norman, 1992). With regard to academics, some recent work by Wentzle (1993) has found a significant positive relationship between prosocial behaviors in the classroom and academics. However, there is a paucity of research examining the relationship between moral reasoning and academics among pre- and early adolescents. The consideration of empathy as a factor in moral reasoning has seldom been examined, particularly among pre- and early adolescents (Eisenberg, 1987). Nevertheless, the extant research does suggest a positive correlation between moral reasoning and empathy in adolescents (e.g., Eisenberg, 1986; Schonert-Reichl, 1994b). Empathy as a correlate of moral reasoning will be more completely explored in the review of the literature section that immediately follows this chapter. Statement of the Problem The purpose of this study was two-fold. First, this investigation sought to determine the effects of a moral reasoning discussion intervention on moral reasoning, empathy, perspective-taking, and teacher and peer-rated classroom behaviors. In addition, this study sought to investigate the relation of moral reasoning to the aforementioned variables. Although research findings generally support the notion that participation in regular classroom moral discussion leads to improvements in moral reasoning (e.g., Blatt & Kohlberg, 1975; for reviews see Higgins, 1995; Lockwood, 1978; Schlaefli, Rest, & Thoma, 1985) what has remained elusive is the effect of such 17 moral discussion interventions on relevant classroom behaviors. Although sparse, the data on the effects of moral discussion group interventions and behavior have been contradictory. For example, Arbuthnot and Gordon (1986) found significant improvements in moral reasoning after regular classroom moral discussions and such improvements were associated with decreases in behavioral referrals, absenteeism, court/police contacts and tardiness, and increases in students' C P A ' s . Arbuthnot and Gordon note that teachers' rating of students' conduct problems showed a positive improvement for students in the treatment group, and such improvements were marginally significant. In contrast, Niles (1986) found that while classroom moral discussions resulted in moral reasoning growth, these changes were not accompanied by significant improvements in teachers' ratings of students' behavioral problems. Although the research conducted by Arbuthnot and Gordon (1986) and Niles (1986) has, yielded important findings regarding the association between moral reasoning and important school behaviors, several problems remain that limit their generalizability. These problems include the lack of a placebo group in the Arbuthnot and Gordon (1986) investigation (see Higgins, 1980 for a discussion of the importance of a placebo group for testing of the validity of a moral discussion group intervention), the inclusion of only male adolescents in each of their samples and a primary focus on antisocial behavior in both studies. Moreover, with limited exceptions (e.g., Arbuthnot & Gordon, 1986), few researchers have included the procedural steps of promoting group cohesion or training students in discussion 18 skills, one of the necessary steps for group preparation according to Gibbs (1993). Furthermore, pre-adolescents are a group whose voice is often not heard in moral reasoning research. For example, of the 164 studies in the combined reviews of Blasi (1985), Lockwood (1978) and Schlaefli, Rest and Thoma (1985), less than 10% included pre-adolescents in their samples. The present study was designed to redress these concerns in order to shed light on the effects of a moral reasoning discussion intervention on classroom prosocial and antisocial behaviors among pre-adolescent boys and girls. Understanding the relationship of students' behaviors in the classroom to their academic success is undoubtedly an important goal of education. While some studies have examined the relationship of students' behaviors (prosocial and antisocial) in the classroom to academic achievement (e.g., Wentzle, 1993) and other studies have examined the relation of moral reasoning to classroom conduct (e.g., Bear & Richards, 1981; Richards et. al., 1992) few studies have attempted to investigate the association among the cognitive, affective, behavioral, and academic components of students' conduct. Therefore, the second purpose of this study was to examine the relation of moral reasoning to empathy, perspective-taking, teacher-rated negative classroom behaviors, teacher-rated social skills, peer-rated prosocial and antisocial behaviors and academics in order to assemble a clearer picture of students' school experiences than is available from previous studies. 19 Rationale for Including Moral Reasoning Education in the Curriculum Educator John Dewey in 1903 wrote that intellectual and moral development is the aim of education. This educational concept from the turn of the century continues into the 1990's. Indeed, the need for moral education programming in the school curriculum is as important today (and perhaps even more important) as it was at the turn of the century, and is reinforced by the similarity between the 1990 Ministry of Education objectives and the research definitions of moral development. Specifically, the development of the moral reasoning of students is one of the B.C. Ministry of Education's goals as illustrated in the following quote: "An educated citizen is one who embodies the characteristics of self-motivation, independent decision making, awareness of the rights of others, is a citizen of the world, and has developed a sense of social responsibility, tolerance and respect for the ideas and beliefs of others." (Program Development, British Columbia Ministry of Education, 1990). An educated citizen, as defined by the Ministry (1990), is one who has internalized ethically desired behaviors. Explicit in this definition are the prosocial behaviors of tolerance and respect and awareness of the rights of others. Furthermore, the Ministry's definition of the characteristics of an educated citizen complements the belief that moral development is the process in which an individual advances from an egocentric, but externally directed being, to a self-directed socially responsive and responsible person. 20 The objectives defined by the Ministry include: demonstrating empathy; acquiring cooperative and independent social skills; becoming responsible members of society; respecting and caring for the environment; setting appropriate goals; and enjoying living and learning (Program Development, Ministry of Education, 1990). Moral developmental researcher James Rest (1980), describes people who develop in moral judgment as "those who love to learn, who seek new challenges, who enjoy intellectually stimulating environment, who are reflective, who make plans and set goals, who take risks, who see themselves in the larger social contexts of history, institutions, and broad cultural trends, who take responsibility for themselves and their environs" (p. 57). This definition of moral judgment is strikingly similar to the Ministry objectives. Further support for the inclusion of moral educational programming into the school curriculum is offered by Katherine Wentzle (1993). Her research has concluded that antisocial behaviors, such as fighting and prosocial behaviors, such as sharing and cooperating, are significant predictors of classroom grades even when academically-oriented behaviors, teacher preference, IQ, family structure, sex, ethnicity, and days absent are taken into account. Thus, it appears that the need for examining the effects of interventions that increase prosocial behaviors and decrease antisocial behaviors will be of great benefit for those individuals concerned with promoting both the social as well as the academic development of all students. 21 CHAPTER 2 Review of the Literature This review is divided into four sections. The first section is a review of the research investigating the relationship between moral reasoning and behavior in delinquents and their non-delinquent contemporaries. While the focus of the present study was not on the relationship between delinquency and moral reasoning, a review of the research on delinquents is presented. Specifically, the use of an extreme group, in this case delinquents, provides a demonstration of the differences in development between delayed and expected growth. The intent of this section, therefore, is to review research findings that indicate that delinquent populations are not operating at developmental^ equivalent levels (with respect to moral reasoning) in comparison to their non-delinquent contemporaries, thereby suggesting support for the relationship of moral reasoning to behavior. The research that provides the primary foundation for the present study will be discussed next. This second section will review the relationship of moral reasoning to classroom behaviors. The third section is a review of the research of the relationship between moral reasoning, empathy, and perspective-taking. The fourth section is a review of the research that addresses the effects of moral discussion groups on the development of moral reasoning and behavior. This chapter concludes with a delineation of the hypotheses addressed in the present study. 22 Moral Reasoning and Delinquency Studies on delinquents provide an intuitive and obvious place to compare moral reasoning and moral behavior because delinquents' behaviors appear to be characterized by immature levels of moral reasoning (Blasi, 1980). Several research studies have found significant differences between the moral reasoning of delinquents and their non-delinquent contemporaries. For example, Kohlberg (1958) found that delinquents operated at a lower stage of reasoning than their non-delinquent peers. Blasi (1980), in a review of the research on the relationship of moral reasoning to moral behavior, confirmed this finding when he reported that most of the 30 studies he reviewed revealed that delinquents operated at a lower stage of moral reasoning than non-delinquents. It is valuable to remember that delinquent behavior encompasses a wide variety of behaviors, ranging from truancy to murder, and in most studies the subjects are categorized under one label, delinquent. Although the difficulty that ensues when one is defining delinquency has been frequently noted in the research, research investigating the relationship between problem severity and moral reasoning is scant (Trevethan & Walker, 1989). Some of the concerns regarding the research on delinquency and moral reasoning were addressed in a recent study conducted by Chandler and Moran (1990). These researchers sought to do this by "assembling a more inclusive portrait of the moral functioning of delinquent and non-delinquent youth" (Chandler & Moran, 1990, p. 227). Although a criminal or delinquent history can be considered to be related to a nonmoral lifestyle, it cannot by itself define a nonmoral lifestyle or a homogenous group because of the range of delinquent behaviors and the inconsistency of the judicial system. The intent of the Chandler and Moran study was to create a systematic means of assessing the degree of delinquency and to create a broader measure of moral functioning than had been previously employed in the research. To accomplish these goals, Chandler and Moran administered measures of moral reasoning, social convention, interpersonal awareness, socialization, empathy, autonomy, and psychopathy to sixty male delinquents and 20 non-delinquents. Their results supported and enhanced previous research in that they found that on every measure, delinquents scored significantly lower than non-delinquents. However, in their analyses examining only the subjects in the delinquent group, they were unable to find a significant relationship between the variables examined in their study and problem severity. Overall, Chandler and Moran's research demonstrated that delinquents are significantly different than non-delinquents with respect to moral reasoning development and that this is unrelated to the nature of the behaviors subsumed under the delinquent label. Moral Reasoning and Classroom Behavior The classroom as an environment in which to facilitate moral development has been advocated by scholars in the field of education since the turn of the 24 century (Dewey, 1904). Nevertheless, scant research exists that has examined the relationship between moral reasoning and students' behaviors in the classroom. The few extant published studies on this relationship will now be reviewed. In one of the first contemporary empirical studies to examine moral reasoning and classroom behavior, Bear and Richards (1981) investigated the relationship between conduct problem in the classroom and moral reasoning. They hypothesized that children who reasoned at lower stages of moral reasoning would display more conduct problems and have more variability in their conduct ratings than those children who reasoned at higher levels. Moral reasoning was assessed by the administration of Moral Judgment Interview (MJI; Kohlberg, Colby, Gibbs, & Speicher-Dubin, 1978), and classroom behavior was assessed using the Behavior Problem Checklist (BPC; Quay & Peterson, 1979). Their research findings supported the hypotheses in so much that students with lower levels of moral reasoning displayed more conduct problems. As well, students with lower levels of moral reasoning exhibited more variability in their conduct than did students with higher levels of moral reasoning, thereby suggesting a link between lower levels of moral development and problem behavior. Bear (1989) continued to investigate the relationship between moral reasoning and classroom behavior in a sample of 77 sixth graders. In this subsequent study, Bear utilized measures similar to those utilized in his aforementioned research. Specifically, the MJI (Colby et.al., 1982) was used to assess moral reasoning, and the Revised Behavior Problem Checklist (RBPC; 25 Quay & Peterson, 1987) was used to assess problem behaviors in the classroom. In addition, Bear utilized the Social Preference Task, a self-report measure that is based on Kohlberg's stages of moral reasoning used to measure sociornoral reasoning. The results of Bear's study indicated significant links between sociornoral reasoning and socialized and unsocialized aggressive classroom behavior. This relationship between moral reasoning and behavior, however, was significant only for boys. Richards, Bear, Stewart, and Norman (1992) have extended the research on the link between moral reasoning and classroom behavior by more precisely examining the type of stage reasoning that accompanies conduct problems in the classroom. To conduct their investigation, Richards et al. (1992) administered both the MJI (Colby & Kohlberg, 1987) and the Behavior Problem Checklist (BPC; Quay & Peterson, 1979) to 143 fourth and eighth graders. It should be noted that students were drawn from two different samples, and that the children in sample two were rated by their teachers on the Revised Behavior Problem Checklist (RBPC; Quay & Peterson, 1987). The findings of this study revealed that students' reasoning at either at Stage 1 or Stage 3 of moral reasoning exhibited less conduct problems in the classroom than those students reasoning at Stage 2 of moral reasoning. Thus, Richards et al.'s research demonstrates that the relationship between moral reasoning and classroom behavior is not a linear one. Indeed, such findings suggest the existence of a curvilinear relationship between moral stage reasoning and classroom behavior. 26 Bear and Rys (1994) further explored the relationship between moral reasoning stage and conduct problems by investigating the nature of the Stage 2 reasoning most associated with conduct problems. To examine this issue, Bear and Rys utilized Eisenberg's (Eisenberg, Lennon, & Roth, 1983) measure of prosocial moral reasoning because it allowed for a further exploration of the reasoning subsumed under Kohlberg's Stage 2. Specifically, Eisenberg (1986) has two categories representing Stage 2 reasoning: the Needs-oriented perspective (based on empathy) and the Hedonistic perspective (self-focused). Also examined in their study was the relation of sociometric status to moral reasoning. A total of 133 2nd and 3rd grade students were administered four moral dilemmas from Eisenberg's measure of prosocial moral reasoning. Positive and negative peer nominations were used to determine sociometric status. Finally, teachers completed the Teacher-Child Rating Scale (T-CRS; Spinell & Lotcyczewki, 1987) to assess classroom behavior. Findings revealed significant, positive relationships between moral reasoning and social competency and sociometric status and significant negative relationships between moral reasoning and conduct and social adjustment difficulties, but only among boys. Indeed, it should be noted no significant relationships were found between moral reasoning and the variables examined in the study among girls. These gender differences are explained by Bear and Rys as possibly being a result of girls exhibiting less direct form of aggression (tattling or taking things) than boys, or a consequence of socialization (e.g., rule forming behavior is habitual among girls). 27 Bear and Rys (1994) go on to suggest that their finding concerning the relation between moral reasoning and conduct problems is not simply a function of the orientation of Kohlberg's (1984) Stage 2 reasoning, but a result of hedonistic reasoning. More specifically, Bear and Rys state: On the basis of the present findings, we now agree with Eisenberg (1986) that the same Stage 2 qualitative structure does not underlie both hedonistic and needs-oriented reasoning. Thus, we now interpret our present and earlier findings as indicating that hedonistic reasoning-lacking in empathy, interpersonal sensitivity, and understanding of respect for rules and social approval-and not a Stage 2 structure per se, contributes to acting-out in the classroom, (p. 637) Schonert-Reichl (1994a) has also reported a link between moral development and behavior. For her study, Schonert-Reichl administered the MJI (Colby, & Kohlberg, 1987) and a peer nomination measure of prosocial (i.e., cooperates, trustworthy, leadership, kind, take's others views, fair, helpful) and antisocial behaviors (i.e., starts fights, easy to push around, shy, can't take teasing, disrupts, gossips) to 55 fifth, sixth, and seventh graders. Overall, Schonert-Reichl found a significant positive relationship between moral reasoning and prosocial behavior. However, her findings varied, depending on whether the nominations were provided by boys or girls. Specifically, whereas all seven of the prosocial behaviors were found to be related to moral reasoning when girls provided the 28 nominations, only two of the prosocial behaviors (i.e., leader, fair) were related to moral reasoning when boys provided the nominations. With respect to antisocial behaviors, nominations by boys evidenced one significant relationship to moral reasoning (i.e., easy to push around) and not one of the antisocial behaviors was related to moral reasoning when girls provided the nominations. Schonert-Reichl suggests that the gender difference evidenced in her study may be due, in part, to differences between the behaviors that boys and girls attend to in the classroom. For example, girls may be particularly attentive to those behaviors that maintain relationships (e.g., prosocial behaviors) among their classmates. In contrast, boys may be more attentive to those behaviors that reflect individual needs and competition and such behaviors may be represented through the verbal and physical altercations that take place among their classmates. Prosocial Behavior and Classroom Academics Although many educators would agree that the development of prosocial behaviors is an important goal of education, the questions remains as to whether or not there is a link between prosocial skills and academics. Wentzle (1993), investigated this link in a sample of 427 Grade 6 and 7 students. She not only investigated the relationship between prosocial behaviors and academic behavior, but she also examined whether or not teacher preference might mediate the relationship between social conduct and academic performance. Wentzle further 29 considered the possibility that social behavior is an independent predictor of academic performance. The measures used to measure academics were Grade Point Average (GPA), and the Stanford Test of Basic Skills (STBS). Peer nominations were used to measure students' prosocial and antisocial behaviors. Finally, teacher preference was measured by having the teachers respond to the question, "How would you like to have this student in your class this year?" (Wentzle, 1993). A 5-point scale, that ranged from 1 (not at all) to 5 (very much), was used to measure teacher ratings. The results of this study indicated that both prosocial and antisocial behaviors were independent predictors of students' GPAs. Further, prosocial behaviors were found to be an independent predictor of students' standardized achievement test scores after taking into account both IQ and teacher preference. Thus, according to Wentzle (1993), these findings provide evidence for the supposition that social conduct in the classroom is an independent predictor of academics. Interestingly, in her discussion, Wentzle reports that interventions designed to facilitate social development improve both social and academic performance, while interventions designed to promote academic achievement do not lead to improvements in social development. In summary, several studies have found a link between moral reasoning and classroom conduct. Moreover, classroom behavior was found to be a strong predictor of academic performance. From this research, one could easily argue that programs that develop moral reasoning have the potential to improve both 30 classroom behavior and academics, and therefore should become an integral component of the curriculum. Before reviewing research that has investigated the effects of moral reasoning interventions, a review of research on the relationship of moral reasoning to empathy and perspective-taking will be presented. Empathy and Perspective-Taking Empathy and perspective-taking have both been identified as correlates of moral reasoning (Eisenberg, 1978; Walker, 1980). The ability to take the perspective of others is a fundamental social need (Mead, 1934; Piaget, 1965). The value of perspective-taking was hypothesized by Kolhberg (1973), and researched by Selman (1976) and Walker (1980). Walker (1980), found evidence that perspective-taking is one of necessary components of moral development (cognitive development being the other). Walker, in 1980 investigated Kohlberg's proposal that "both cognitive and perspective-taking are necessary though not sufficient conditions for moral development" (Walker, 1980, p. 131). The subjects in his study includtJd 146 fourth, fifth, sixth, and seventh graders. Subjects completed six cognitive tasks (representing concrete, beginning formal, and formal operations), a perspective-taking interview (Selman & Bryne, 1973), and the MJI ( Kohlberg et. al., 1975). The subjects in his study were then assigned to either a control group or a treatment group. The treatment group participated in a role-play of a dilemma that exposed them to Stage 3 reasoning. The MJI was used as a post-test measure of moral 31 reasoning level and was administered two times (i.e., 8 days later and 6 weeks later). Walker concludes that, "It was specifically demonstrated that beginning formal substage of cognitive development and perspective-taking stage 3 were necessary for making the transitions in development to moral stage 3. The only children to evidence moral stage 3 after treatment were those who had attained both prerequisites" (p. 137). Thus, the results of this study provide support for the relationship between perspective-taking and moral reasoning. Mason and Gibbs (1993) found further support for the relationship between perspective-taking and moral reasoning. Their study was designed to investigate the relationship of adult and adolescent role-taking in academic settings to higher stage moral development, with a focus specifically on the movement from Stage 3 to Stage 4. A total of 153 college students completed a measure of moral reasoning (SRM-SF; Gibbs, 1992), and two perspective-taking measures [Opportunities for Role Taking Measure; (ORT; Schnell, 1987), and the Post-Childhood Opportunities for Role Taking Measure, (PC-ORT; Gibbs & Whiteford, 1989)]. The ORT is a questionnaire that measures role-taking opportunities in the childhood years and the PC-ORT is a measure of role taking opportunities in the adult world. Results of this study revealed that perspective-taking, as measured by the PC-ORT, was related to advanced moral reasoning. The results thus provide support for the hypothesis that social perspective-taking opportunities are related to moral maturity among college students. 32 Empathy is defined as the ability to vicariously appreciate the experiences and emotions of others (Mehrabian & Epstein, 1972). Although not extensive, there is support for a link between moral reasoning and empathy, both philosophically and empirically. For example, in a comprehensive review of relationship between moral reasoning and empathy, Hoffman (1991) states: "David Hume (1751/1957) suggested more than two centuries ago that empathy not only influences moral judgment but may also serve as the ultimate validating criterion for the correctness of a moral judgment" (p. 287). Some examples from the research now follow. Eisenberg and Mussen, in 1978, investigated the relationship of empathy to moral reasoning. Their sample consisted of 72 high school students, each of whom was administered an affective empathy measure (QMEE; Mehrabian & Epstein, 1972), a measure of prosocial moral reasoning, and an assessment of helping behavior. Helping behavior was assessed by asking subjects whether or not he or she would volunteer to help the experimenter for two or three weeks by serving as a subject without pay for a very boring task. The results of this study demonstrated that moral reasoning and empathy were significantly correlated. Kallipouska (1983) also investigated the relationship of empathy to moral reasoning in a younger age group. Her sample included 342 school children ranging in age from 9 to 12 years. Using the QMEE (Mehrabian & Epstein, 1972) to measure empathy and the Defining Issues Test (Rest, 1986) to measure moral reasoning, she was also able to show a significant relationship between moral 33 reasoning and empathy. Findings reported in other studies with younger subjects have revealed similar results (e.g., Enright & Sutterfield, 1980). Further support for the role of empathy in higher stage moral reasoning can be found in the conclusion of the Bear and Rys' (1994) research described earlier. Although their study did not specifically examine the role of empathy in moral reasoning, their findings point to the salient role that empathy may play in moral development. Specifically, Bear and Rys state, "whereas, empathy-based needs-oriented and interpersonal/internalized reasoning inhibit antisocial behavior and foster prosocial behavior, the egoistic and self-centered focused of hedonistic reasoning produces a general insensitivity to the impact of one's behaviors on others" (p. 637). In a recent study, Schonert-Reichl (1994b) examined the interrelations among moral reasoning, empathy, and age. The subjects in her study included 39 behaviorally disordered adolescents and 39 adolescents without behavioral disorders, all ranging in age from 14 to 19 years. In her study, Schonert-Reichl, administered the short form of the Defining Issues Test (DIT; Rest, 1986b) to measure moral reasoning, and the Questionnaire Measure of Emotional Empathy (QMEE; Mehrabian & Epstein, 1972) to measure empathy. Overall, Schonert-Reichl found that empathy was positively related to moral reasoning in adolescents irrespective of behavioral disorders. As well, the findings revealed a significant positive relationship between empathy and age. 34 Although meager, the research demonstrates a relationship between empathy (i.e., social insight or affective role taking) and moral reasoning among adolescents and adults. The relationship between moral reasoning and empathy among pre- and early adolescents, however, remains unclear, and it is this relationship that continues to need to be examined. Characteristics of a Moral Discussion Group The Moral Discussion Group as a method for promoting hierarchical Stage reasoning began as part of the doctoral thesis of Moshe Blatt, a student of Kohlberg's. Blatt's (1969) original work and a subsequent study in 1975 by Blatt and Kohlberg involved the presentation, by a facilitator, of hypothetical moral dilemmas to a group who then tried to reach a consensus on solving the dilemma. The Moral Discussion Group proved to be successful in achieving at least a one-third stage of moral development. This result was seen in subsequent studies both among delinquent populations (e.g., Arbuthnot & Gordon, 1984; Gibbs, Arnold, Ahlborn, & Chessman 1984), and high school students (e.g., Bear, Shever, & Fulton, 1983; Fenton, 1976, 1977). In their replication studies, Blatt and Kohlberg (1975) noted that in the classrooms that demonstrated increased moral reasoning two characteristics were present. Specifically, they found that a mixture of stages were present; and that the facilitator used probe questions. Moreover, in the classrooms that demonstrated higher levels of moral change, the discussions were directed by the students and 35 not by the facilitator. Other moral discussion interventions have supported such claims. For example, Berkowitz (1985) credits changes in moral reasoning to stage mixture, student interaction, class composition, and teacher facilitation which produce disequilibrium or cognitive conflict. These factors according to Berkowitz, produce cognitive conflict. It will be recalled that cognitive conflict is considered to be an impetus for change with respect to both cognitive development (Chapman & McBride, I992; Piaget, I967) and to moral development (e.g., Berkowitz, Gibbs, & Broughton, 1985; Walker, 1983; Walker & Taylor, 1991). In the MDG, the role of the teacher is that of facilitator, encouraging interaction and creating opportunities for dialogue that will create cognitive conflict through peer interaction. Kruger (1992) examined the relative importance of peer discourse and adult discourse in promoting moral growth in children. The subjects in her study were 48 Girl Scouts, ranging in age from 7 to 10 years. Using Damon's standard positive justice interview, Kruger tested Piaget's notion regarding the salience of children's interactions with their peers for promoting moral development. Her findings revealed that children paired with peers for the moral dilemma discussions demonstrated significantly higher levels of moral reasoning than those children paired with adults. This study also underscored the importance of participant interaction in that more sophisticated reasoning was demonstrated by children who actively participated in the discussion (Kruger, 1992). 36 The Effect of Moral Discussion Groups on Behavior The research mentioned previously demonstrates that participation in a moral discussion group does have a significant effect on moral reasoning scores. However, the question remains as to whether or not an increase in moral reasoning leads to improvement in school behaviors. At this point in time, this question is difficult to answer because the results of the extant research are unclear. Specific to the present investigation are two studies-one conducted by Arbuthnot and Gordon (1986) and the other conducted by Niles (1986)-that examined the effects of a moral reasoning intervention on classroom behaviors. Each of these studies will now be discussed in turn. According to Arbuthnot and Gordon (1986), the purpose of their study was "to assess the behavioral as well as cognitive effects of a sociornoral reasoning development program for high-risk behavioral-disordered adolescents" (p. 209). Their sample was composed of 48 aggressive and disruptive male adolescents, ranging in age from 13 to 17 years, who had been nominated by their classroom teacher. The measures used in this study were as follows: the MJI to measure moral reasoning; a school adjustment index to measure attitude traits; behavior referrals; frequency of police or court contacts; school absenteeism and tardiness; and school grades. Initially, the students participating in the study were rank ordered on the school adjustment index, then paired sequentially and randomly assigned by a coin toss into either a treatment group or a control group. The treatment group participated in a moral dilemma discussion group for 45 minutes 37 once a week for 16 to 20 weeks. The first two weeks were spent building rapport and respect. Moreover, the original design was modified to included two sessions that were spent on active listening and communication skills when it was noticed that the subjects' lack of these skills appeared to be affecting the discussions. The dilemmas discussed by the group included both hypothetical dilemmas and real-life dilemmas taken from the media. The post-tests were administered three times, two months prior to completion of the treatment, 1 month later and then at a follow-up on a sub-group 9 months later. The subgroup was composed of 22 of the original 48 students. The results of this study support the hypothesis that participation in a moral reasoning intervention results in higher moral reasoning and significant behavioral improvement. Specifically, there were significant differences between the treatment group and control group from pre-test to post-test on all of the measures utilized with one exception. That is, the difference between the treatment group and the control group with respect to teacher evaluations of students' behaviors was only marginally significant. Overall, Arbuthnot and Gordon's findings indicated that the MDG not only increased moral reasoning but also lead to improvement in five of six behavioral indices among high risk, behavioral disordered male adolescents. While the study conducted by Arbuthnot and Gordon (1986) has made a substantial contribution to the literature on moral reasoning interventions, some of the shortcomings of this study should be noted. Most noteworthy, is the lack of a 38 placebo group thereby allowing for the possibility of the Hawthorne effect (the special treatment of being included in an experiment may by itself increase positive behavior). The lack of a placebo group also allowed for the possible conclusion that something other than the moral discussion (e.g., modeling) allowed for the growth in moral reasoning and the changes in the behaviors examined. A moral reasoning intervention which did include a placebo group in its design was conducted by Niles (1986). The purpose of the Niles' (1986) study was to answer two research questions: 1) Is there a difference in moral stage reasoning between the subjects in a treatment group, a control group and a placebo group after participation in an MDG? and 2) Is there a difference in behavior between subjects in a treatment group, a control group, and a placebo group after participation in an MDG? The subjects in this study included 59 pre-delinquent and delinquent adolescent boys. In this study, all of the age-appropriate students enrolled in either an institutional or a day-school special education center were administered the MJI (Colby et al., 1979) to measure moral reasoning. The Self-Control Rating System (SCRS; Kendall & Wilcox, 1979) was completed by the teachers of all the participating students (the SCRS is a teacher rating scale designed to measure self-control and self-discipline in children). After pre-test measures were administered, the students were ranked by half stage moral reasoning scores and assigned to either a control (n=21), placebo (n=19), or treatment group (n=18). The treatment and placebo groups met twice a week for 16 weeks. The placebo group participated in a values clarification program. 39 Overall, the results of this study indicated that subjects who participated in an MDG demonstrated significant gains in moral reasoning when compared to subjects in either the placebo or control groups. However, no relationship was evidenced between moral reasoning and behavior. That is, while those students participating in the MDG did demonstrate significant gains in moral reasoning, such gains were not accompanied with improvements in behavior. The author concedes that the absence of significant behavioral improvements among MDG members may either be a result of behavioral measurement problems or a result of the lack of real-life dilemmas being included in the moral discussions. The differences in the results evidenced by Arbuthnot and Gordon (1986) and Niles (1986) could be related to differences in their selection of subjects, procedures with which the MDG was conducted, and the manner in which behavior was measured. The Niles study, for example, screened all appropriate students, but due to the population, his sample included only those students operating at Stage I or Stage 2 of moral reasoning. As noted by Niles in his conclusion, this resulted in none of the participants having the moral reasoning prerequisites necessary for movement from Stage 2 to Stage 3. He further noted that "although there was moral reasoning growth it did not include the prerequisites for behavioral outcomes which are related to Stage 3 and 4" (Niles, 1986, p. 49). In other words, relying solely on behaviors of self-control and self-discipline to measure behavioral change may have been inappropriate for this population. 40 Training students in communication skills prior to engaging them in moral discussions is another difference between the Arbuthnot and Gordon (1986) and Niles (1986) studies. Unlike the Niles study, Arbuthnot and Gordon included the procedural steps of building rapport and training students in discussion skills. The training of students is one of the necessary prerequisites of group preparation as outlined by both Berkowitz (1993) and Gibbs (1993). With regard to the behavioral dimensions utilized in Arbuthnot and Gordon's (1986) investigation, Magg (1989) indicates that these behavioral criteria were not operationally defined or reliably assessed. One suggestion made by Lockwood (1987) to identify behavioral changes with regard to moral reasoning interventions is to use observable behavioral and effective measures. Such behavioral measures were utilized in the present investigation. In summary, both theory and research suggest a link between moral reasoning and behavior. Unfortunately, much of the previous research has suffered from design and measurement problems. In response to this problem, the present study was designed to address many of these issues (e.g., including a broader mixture of measures that include peer and teacher evaluations of behavior, and a placebo group). The results of previous investigations have revealed some gender differences with respect to the relationship of moral reasoning and social adjustment. However, as noted by Bear and Rys (1994), there is a scarcity of studies that have investigated this relationship. The present study will add to the 41 body of literature by further investigating gender differences in the relationship of moral reasoning to some of the cognitive, affective, and academic components of students' behaviors. 42 Hypotheses The present study first examined the effects of a moral reasoning discussion intervention on empathy, perspective-taking, teacher-ratings of social skills, problem behaviors, and academics, and peer-ratings of prosocial and antisocial behaviors among pre-and early adolescent boys and girls. The boys and girls were randomly assigned to either a treatment, placebo, or no-treatment control group. It was hypothesized that: 1. Participants in a moral reasoning discussion would show greater improvements in moral reasoning scores than those participants who do not participate in a moral reasoning discussion. 2. Participants in a moral reasoning discussion would show greater improvements in affective, behavioral, and academic scores than those participants who do not participate in a moral reasoning discussion. Secondly, this study included an examination of the relation of moral reasoning to: academics, prosocial and antisocial classroom behaviors among pre-and early adolescent boys and girls. This was" included in order to further investigate the relationship between the cognitive, affective, behavioral, and academic components of students' behaviors. It was hypothesized that: 1. There is a positive relationship between moral reasoning and empathy, and between moral reasoning and perspective-taking. 43 2. There is a negative relationship between moral reasoning and teacher-rated negative behavior and a positive relationship between moral reasoning and teacher-rated social skills and academics. 3. There is a positive relationship between moral reasoning and peer-rated prosocial behaviors and a negative relationship between moral reasoning and peer-rated antisocial behaviors. 4. There are differences in the relationships between moral reasoning and empathy, perspective-taking, teacher-rated social skills, teacher-rated behavior, academics and peer-rated prosocial and antisocial behaviors for boys and girls. 44 CHAPTER 3 Methodology Description of the Sample A total of 47 students enrolled in one elementary school located in a lower-middle-class community near a large Western Canadian city participated in the study. The sample consisted of sixth graders and seventh graders (16 males, 31 females), drawn from three intact classes. One of the classes was composed of a combination of sixth and seventh graders, and the other two were composed solely of seventh graders. One of these seventh grade classes was a French Immersion class where the students received 60% of their instruction in French. The students ranged in age from 10 to 13 years of age with a mean age of 11.7 (S.D. = .68). The racial/ethnic background of the students was as follows: Caucasian (59.6%); Chinese (21.3%); and Serbian or Croatian (8.5%). This racial/ethnic breakdown reflected the cultural diversity of the school and the community. The majority of the students lived at home with both parents (72.3%), while the remainder lived at home with their mothers only (21.3%) or with their grandparents (4.3%) or other adults (2.1%). Subject Selection At the onset of this research, the researcher described the study to the teachers from the three classes to elicit their cooperation in the study and to 45 provide them with a teacher consent form describing the study (Appendix A). Next, a half-hour presentation explaining the study was delivered by the author to all seventy-two students in the three participating classes, in the library of the school during regular school hours. Those students who indicated an interest in participating in the study were given a written description of the study (Appendix B) and a parental permission slip (Appendix C). Students whose English was rated below the fifth grade comprehension, as indicated by school records, were excluded from study participation. All of the students who returned their permission slips were included in a draw for one of three movie passes (one movie pass per class). Ninety percent of the students returned the parental permission slip, and 65% (47 students) of the students' parents gave parental consent. The reason for the discrepancy between the rate of return and the rate of consent may be due, in part, to the fact that another UBC research study had been done the previous year in which these same students had participated. Indeed, several students noted that their parents were not interested in having them participate in another study. Measures Demographic Information (Appendix D) To obtain background information for each student, a questionnaire was designed to gather information concerning each student's age, gender, ethnicity, language spoken at home, and family composition (i.e., intact vs. non-intact). 46 Measure of Verbal Ability (Appendix E) A total of 39 questions taken from the Iowa Test of Basic Skills (ITBS; Iowa Testing Program, 1986) comprised the vocabulary measure used to assess verbal ability in the present investigation. The range of possible scores of this measure of verbal ability was 0 (no correct response) to 39 (all questions answered correctly). The Sociornoral Reflection Measure-Short Form (Appendix F) The Sociornoral Reflection Measure (SMR-SF; Gibbs, Basinger, & Fuller, 1992) is a measure of moral reasoning that may be group administered and is suitable for use with pre- and early adolescents. The SMR-SF poses eleven questions and asks students to rate them on levels of importance ("very important", "important", "not important"). Next, students are asked to produce one or more reasons to justify their initial judgment. The SMR-SF is suitable for use with younger age subjects and subjects with limited reading and attention spans and was designed to be comparable with the MJI. The SMR-SF, as reported in the manual (Gibbs et al., 1992), demonstrates acceptable reliability and validly. For example, as reported by Gibbs et al. (1992) the test-retest reliability correlation is .88, and the internal consistency as measured by Cronbach's alpha is .92. The correlation between the SRM-SF and the MJI is established at .69. In previous research (e.g., Gibbs et al., 1992) interrater reliability of the SRM-SF has been found to be high (e.g., .97). 47 The SMR-SF was scored for level of moral reasoning in accordance with Gibbs' (1992) SRM-SF reference manual. This was done blindly and by each response separately across subjects. Scores were assigned by consulting the appropriate chapter in the reference manual and rating the subject's response to one of the justifications provided in that chapter. Scores are assigned as either a stage score (e.g., 1, 2, 3, 4) or a transition score (e.g., 1/2, 2/3, 3/4). The transition scores were replaced with a numerical score midway between the transitions (e.g., 1/2 by 1.5) and the scores were added up to calculate an arithmetic mean. The arithmetic mean constitutes the Sociomoral Reflection Maturity Score (SRMS). Moral maturity judgment is then assessed in terms of the SRMS which extents from 1.00 (pure Stage 1) to 4.00 (pure Stage 4). A Global Stage Score can also be assigned to each subject. In the present investigation, only the SRMS was employed. To determine interrater reliability of the scoring in the present study, a random selection of 20 questionnaires (44%) was blindly and independently scored by a second rater. Interrater reliability for this study was .95, well above the minimal standard of .80 suggested by Gibbs (1992). Interpersonal Reactivity Index (Appendix G) The Interpersonal Reactivity Index (IRI; Davis, 1983) is a 28-itern self-report measure and is comprised of four subscales: perspective-taking; empathy; fantasy; and personal distress. For the purposes of the present investigation, two 4 8 subscales were used; perspective-taking and empathy. These subscales were chosen from the IRI because previous research has linked them to moral reasoning (Eisenberg & Mussen, 1989). The perspective-taking subscale is designed to tap the tendency to adopt the perspective of other people, (e.g., "I find it difficult to see things from the other kids' point of view"). The empathic concern subscale is designed to assess the tendency to experience feelings of warmth, compassion and concern for others, (e.g. "I feel sorry for other people when they are having problems"). The IRI uses a 5-point scale, ranging from "Does not describe me very well" to "Describes me very well". A previous investigation (Schonert-Reichl, 1994a) employed the IRI with a pre-and early adolescent sample and reported the Cronbach's alpha as .75 on the subscale for empathic concern and .77 on the subscale for perspective-taking. For the present investigation, the questions were modified slightly to render them more suitable for children. Cronbach's alpha in the present investigation was .68 for empathic concern and .72 for perspective-taking. The Social Skills Rating System (SSRS) (Appendix H) The SSRS (Gresham & Elliott, 1990) is measure of teachers' evaluations of student behaviors. The SSRS is a 57-item questionnaire with three subscales: social skills, problem behaviors, and academic competence. The social skill subscale is further composed of three subscales: cooperation; assertiveness; and self-control. An example from the subscale of cooperation is, "Uses time appropriately while waiting for help" (p. 2). An example from the subscale of 49 assertiveness is, "Appropriately questions rules that may be unfair" (p. 2). An example from the subscale of self-control is, "Responds appropriately to peer pressure" (p. 2). The problem behavior subscale is also composed of three subscales: externalizing behaviors, internalizing behaviors, and hyperactivity. An example from the subscale of externalizing behaviors is, "Fights with others" (p. 3). An example from the subscale of internalizing behavior is, "Has low self-esteem" (p. 3). An example from the subscale of hyperactivity is, "Fidgets or moves excessively" (p. 3). For each item in the social skill and problem behavior scales, teachers are asked to indicate "How often" using a 3-point scale with 0=never, 1 =sometimes and 2=very often. An overall score is assigned by totaling each of the three subscales for the category and adding them together for a global score (i.e., cooperation, assertiveness, and self-control scores would be totaled and added together for a social skills score). A score representing academic achievement was derived from two dimensions: academic performance and school motivation. Academic performance was assessed by asking teachers to rate each student in comparison to his or her classmates (e.g., "Compared with other children in my classroom, the overall academic performance of this child is:"). Teachers were then asked to use a 5-point scale to rate the students on a scale of 1 (indicating that the student was in the lowest 10% of the classroom) to 5 (indicating that the student was in the highest 10% of the classroom). Academic motivation was assessed by asking 50 teachers to rate each student in terms of his or her motivation to achieve in school (e.g., "This child's overall motivation to succeed academically is:"). Teachers again rated students on the same 5-point scale described above. Satisfactory reliability and validity for the SSRS have been reported (Elliott, Gresham, & Stuart, 1991). In a previous study, Elliott, Gresham, and Stuart (1991) reported good internal consistency for each of the subscales (Cronbach's alphas ranging from .86 to .94), as well as high stability estimates (Cronbach's alphas ranging from .75 to .85). In the present study the subscales of the SSRS were found to be internally consistent, as evidenced by Cronbach's alphas ranging from .82 to .96 (.90, externalizing behavior; .82, internalizing behavior; .87, hyperactivity; .94, self-control; .90, assertiveness; .95, cooperation; and .96, academics). Peer Assessment of Social Behavior (Appendix I) Peer nominations were used to obtain individual assessments of classmates' behaviors. Based on the procedure outlined by Wentzle (1993), a behavioral nomination instrument was used to measure students' perceptions of their classmates' prosocial and antisocial behaviors. The instrument consists of six behavioral descriptions, three antisocial behaviors and three prosocial behaviors (one per page accompanied by a list of classmates who were participating in the project). Because there were three participating classes, students were asked to assess the behaviors of only their classmates. Specifically, students were asked to 51 circle the names of classmates who fit the descriptions, "cooperates"shares", "helps when there are problems", "starts fights", "breaks rules" and "does things they are not supposed to". Students could circle as many or as few names as they wanted. From each behavioral description, students' scores were computed as the proportion of students in each class who circled that student's name among those who responded. The scores were then standardized across gender to correct for the unequal numbers of boys and girls and the "halo-effect" of same-sex nominations that can be characteristic of peer nominations (Eisenberg & Mussen, 1989). Composite prosocial and antisocial scores were computed averaging the "shares", "cooperates", and "helps" scores to form a prosocial score (Cronbach's alpha = .86) and the "starts fights", "breaks rules" and "does things they are not supposed to" scores to form an antisocial score (Cronbach's alpha =.89). Procedure Administration of Measures After the parental permission slips were returned and the students' own informed consent was obtained, the pre-tests were administered in each of the student's respective classrooms, over two 1 -hour class periods. All students' measures were administered by two research assistants not involved in the Moral Discussion Group intervention. The instructions for each questionnaire were read out loud to the students by the researcher or the assistant. The SSRS was given to the teachers to complete for each of their participating students. 52 The post-tests were administered at the end of a 10-week intervention. The procedure for the post-test remained the same as described above with one exception. Specifically, the IRI and the peer ratings were administered to two classes at the same time in the library. This was necessitated by a lack of available space in the school due to new school programs. The SSRS was again given to the teachers to complete on each of their participating students. One teacher did not return the post-tests. Group Assignment and Intervention Planning The participants were randomly assigned to either a treatment group, a placebo group or a control group. Two graduate students with undergraduate degrees in elementary education and extensive training in the cognitive-developmental approach to moral education acted as group facilitators. These facilitators were initially randomly assigned to either the treatment group or the placebo group. Each subsequent week, the facilitators switched groups to control for experimenter effects. All the lessons were planned by the researcher. The treatment and placebo group meetings took place once a week for 1 hour for 10 weeks and took place in separate classrooms in the school. It should be noted that the teachers were both unaware of the hypothesis of the study and of which of their students were involved in either the treatment, placebo, or control groups. Treatment Group Weeks 1 and 2: The treatment group participated in rapport and communication exercises. These exercises were chosen to develop group identity, cohesion, acceptance and respect as well as active listening and communication skills and were adapted from "A Handbook of Structured Experiences For Human Relations Training" (Pfleiffer & Jones, 1975). At this time, the students developed the rules for group discussions (e.g., no ridiculing other students). As well, at this time guidelines were introduced by the group leaders such as: not repeating what some else has said, and sitting in a circle. These rules and guidelines were recorded and reviewed at the beginning of each session. Weeks 3 and 4: In weeks three and four, the students discussed the hypothetical dilemmas "The Open Window" (Galbraith & Jones, 1976) and "Sharon's Dilemma". The students were instructed on how to identify a dilemma (e.g., that the dilemma have two clear choices and that it must end with a should question). The presentation of the dilemmas and the moral discussion procedure that occurred this week and for the remaining sessions was in accordance to the principles outlined by Berkowitz (1991). The lesson plan outline for these sessions was followed for the remaining sessions with only the dilemma changing. Some samples of the lesson plans used can be found in Appendix J. One subject moved to a new school during Week 4. Weeks 5 to 10: Weeks five through ten were spent discussing dilemmas from recent newspaper articles. All newspaper articles involved children in some way (e.g., the punishment for the sexual abuse and kidnapping of a child, or the rights of a child). Dilemmas such as these are relevant and personal to the students and therefore more engaging. As stated previously, the structure of the lesson remained the same, the sessions were based on one of two articles that were brought in by the group leader. Except for week six, each session was based on a new article. In week six, the group wanted to continue to discuss the dilemma from week five. Students were invited to bring in real-lite dilemmas but had not by the end of the ten weeks. Three more subjects were lost, one male subject moved to a new school and two female subjects become involved in an altercation on the playground which involved them having to be separated and they were no longer allowed to participate in the study. 55 Placebo Group Weeks 1 and 2: The placebo group followed the same lesson plan as the treatment group did in weeks 1 and 2. Weeks 3 to 10: The placebo group worked together cooperatively to create a questionnaire on the likes and dislikes of pre-adolescents. The lessons followed the same format as the treatment groups, a review of the rules and guidelines, a short discussion of the day's task, small group discussion followed by a large group discussion and closure which reviewed the tasks completed. This allowed the placebo group to match the control group in all areas except the discussion of moral dilemmas (e.g., peer discussion, small and large group discussion, and perspective-taking). This questionnaire was then administered to teachers in the school and also a group of student teachers. A sample lesson plan and the questionnaire that the students developed can be found in Appendix K. Control Group The design of the study called for the control group to remain in their classrooms with their classroom teachers and to work independently on a problem-solving art activity along with the remaining members of the class who would participate in the same art activity (see Appendix L for a description). In one of the classes the students did not become engaged in the art activity so their teacher used the time for them to work on individual personal response journals. One of the other teachers involved felt that this constituted an appropriate use of time and allowed some of her students to participate in the same activity. 57 CHAPTER 4 Results The description of the results of this study is divided into three sections. The first section presents the analyses of the effects of the moral reasoning intervention. The second section presents the results of the correlational analyses between moral reasoning and empathy, perspective-taking, teacher-rated behaviors of social skills (cooperation, self-control, and assertiveness); problem behaviors (externalizing behaviors, internalizing behaviors and hyperactivity) and academics, and peer-rated antisocial and prosocial behaviors. The third section includes an examination of the correlations of moral reasoning to the other variables examined in this study, separately for boys and girls. Of the 47 participants who originally participated in the study, 43 completed the study. The attrition was due to two students moving and two students being dismissed from the study after becoming involved in a verbal altercation on the playground. All of these subjects were lost from the treatment condition. Effects of the Moral Reasoning Intervention Overview of the Statistical Analyses For each measure, the means of the treatment, placebo, and control groups were compared using ANCOVA, with the pretest as a covariate. However, because the present study was designed to test specific hypotheses involving pairs of group 58 means, these hypotheses were tested with pre-planned comparisons. Specifically, two pre-planned comparisons were carried out for each measure to evaluate the effectiveness of the moral reasoning intervention: one tested for the difference between the treatment group and the control group; and the other tested for the difference between the treatment group and the placebo group. In accordance with conventional practice, these pre-planned comparisons were conducted without reference to the significance of the omnibus F test. The significance of the F test is more appropriate in the absence of a specific hypothesis (Keppel, 1991). The number of pre-planned comparisons was determined by the research hypotheses and was in keeping with the recommendations of Keppel (1991) who argues that "the number of comparisons should be restricted to the number of degrees of freedom associated with the treatment source of variance" (p. 167). Because the number of comparisons was limited in this manner, no special correction for Type I error was necessary (Keppel, 1991). Preliminary Analyses The primary goal of the present study was to examine the effects of a moral dilemma intervention on moral reasoning, empathy, perspective-taking, self-control, assertiveness, cooperation, externalized problem behaviors, internalized problem behaviors, academics, and peer-rated prosocial and antisocial behaviors. The effect of the intervention on each of the variables was measured in two ways: A N C O V A and pre-planned comparisons. 59 A series of one-way ANOVAs was used to explore pretest differences among the treatment, placebo and control groups on the dependent variables of moral reasoning, verbal ability, empathy, perspective-taking, teacher-rated behaviors, academics and peer-rated antisocial and prosocial behaviors. No significant differences were found on any of the measures. Further tests revealed a violation of the assumption of homogeneity of regression with respect to the dependent variables of teacher-ratings of self-control, cooperation, and externalizing behaviors. There are two issues that are of concern when the assumption of homogeneity of regression is violated: the effects of the violation on the significance levels and the interpretation of the results. With regard to the former, Glass and Hopkins (1984) have stated that "violation of parallel regression slopes appears to be inconsequential in one-factor fixed effect ANCOVA" (p. 504). Thus, ANCOVA is considered robust and the significance levels can be interpreted as accurate. With respect to the issue of the interpretation of the results when a violation of the homogeneity of regression occurs, the effects of the independent variable should be interpreted with caution. Indeed, as Keppel (1991) states,". . . what these differences mean is that an interaction is present between the subject characteristic chosen for the covariate and factor A." (p. 317). Analyses of Treatment Effects Moral Reasoning Adjusted group means are presented in Table 3 (unadjusted group means are presented in Appendix M). With regard to moral reasoning, the ANCOVA revealed a marginally significant group effect on the moral reasoning scores, F(2, 40) = 2.51, p. < .10. Pre-planned comparisons of moral judgment maturity based on the adjusted post-treatment means indicated a significant difference between the treatment group and the placebo group, t(40) = 2.80, p_ < .05, and a marginally significant difference between the treatment group and the control group, t(40) = 1.40, p_ < .10. These results provide some support for the hypothesis that participation in a MDG can facilitate development of moral reasoning. Empathy and Perspective-Taking The ANCOVA yielded no significant group effect on empathy or perspective-taking. Pre-planned comparisons revealed that the treatment group scored marginally significantly higher than the control group on empathy, t(40) = 1.58, p_ < .10. No significant differences were found between the treatment group and the placebo group. With regard to perspective-taking, significant differences were not found between either the treatment group and the control group or the treatment group and the placebo group. Thus, support for the hypothesis that the MDG would enhance empathy and perspective-taking was not found. 61 Teacher-Rated Behaviors In the present investigation, teachers' evaluations of students' behavior were measured using the Social Skills Rating System (Gresham & Elliott, 1990). This measure contains three subscales: social skills, problem behaviors, and academics. The subscale of social skills is further composed of three subscales: cooperation, assertiveness, and self-control. As well, the scale of problem behaviors is composed of three subscales: externalizing behaviors, internalizing behaviors, and hyperactivity. As noted earlier, post-test data on 15 of the students were missing because one of the three teachers failed to return the Social Skills Rating System for each of her students. With regard to the overall social skills measure, ANCOVA revealed a significant group effect, F(2, 24) = 6.22, p_ < .05. Significant group effects on the subscales of self-control, F(2, 24) = 7.76, p_ < .05, and assertiveness, F(2, 24) = 4.73, p_ < .05, were also demonstrated, as well as a marginally significant effect on cooperation, F(2, 24) = 2.23, p_ < .10. The pre-planned tests involving overall social skills scores indicated that the treatment group scored significantly higher than the placebo group, t(24) = 2.19, p_ < .025. No difference emerged between the treatment group and the control group on the overall social skills measure. Further analysis of the social skills subscales revealed that the treatment group scored significantly lower than the control group on the subscale of self-control, t(24) = -1.71, p_ < .05. The treatment group, however, did score significantly higher than the placebo group on self-control, t(24) 62 = 1.78, p_ < 05. On the social skills subscales of assertiveness and cooperation, the treatment group and the control group did not differ. With regard to the comparison between the treatment group and the placebo group on assertiveness, the treatment group scored higher than the placebo group t(24) = 2.35, p_ < .05. With regard to the subscale of cooperation, there was a marginally significant difference between the treatment group and the placebo group, t(24) = 1.39, p_ < .10. On the overall measure of problem behaviors, the ANCOVA revealed a significant group effect, F(2,24) = 5.13, p_ < .05. Further analyses revealed a group effect on the subscale of internalizing behaviors, F(2,24) = 3.79, p_ < .05. No group effects emerged on the subscales of externalizing behaviors or hyperactivity. The pre-planned test revealed no difference between the treatment group and the control group on overall problem behaviors. The treatment group did , however, score significantly lower on overall problem behaviors than did the placebo group, t(24) = 4.90, p_ < .001. With regard to internalizing behaviors, although no significant difference emerged between the treatment group and the control group, a significant difference was found between the treatment group and the placebo group, t(24) = -2.91, p_ < .01. Specifically, the treatment group scored significantly lower on internalizing behaviors than the placebo group. The control group scored marginally significantly lower than the treatment group on the subscale of externalizing behaviors, t(24) = 1.28, p_ < .10. However, no difference 63 emerged between the treatment group and the placebo group on externalizing behaviors. The overall ANCOVA did not reveal any significant group effect with respect to academics. Nevertheless, pre-planned comparisons revealed that students who participated in a moral dilemma intervention received higher academic ratings than those students in either the control group, t(23) = 3.31, p_ < .01, or the placebo group, t(23) = 1.49, p_ < .10. This supports the hypothesis that academic scores increase as a result of a moral dilemma intervention. Analysis of Peer-Rated Behaviors Peer-rated behaviors were divided into prosocial behaviors and antisocial behaviors. The ANCOVA revealed a significant group effect for prosocial behaviors, F(2,40) = 1.74, 2 < 05. With regard to antisocial behaviors, the ANCOVA did not reveal any significant group effects. Pre-planned comparisons revealed that the treatment group scored significantly higher than the placebo group on prosocial ratings, t (40) = 1.60, p_ < .05, and significantly lower than the placebo group on antisocial ratings, t (40) = -2.56, 2 < .01. In contrast, no significant differences emerged between the treatment group and the control group on either prosocial or antisocial skills. Overall, the results provide support for the hypothesis that participation in a Moral Dilemma Discussion Intervention facilitates the development of moral reasoning. Furthermore, results suggest that this type of intervention also fosters 64 the development of empathy, teacher-rated social skills, peer-rated social skills and academics and reduces problematic internalizing behaviors. However, it should be noted that these effects were seen more clearly in the comparisons of the treatment to the placebo group than in those comparisons between the treatment group and the control group. This issue will be addressed in the discussion section. Table 3 Adjusted Means on Outcome Variables With Pretest Scores as Covariates Variable Treatment Placebo Control n M n M n M Moral Reasoning SRMS 12 2.78at 15 2.65 b 16 2.71. Affective Components Empathy 12 26.90, 15 26.08 16 25.11. Perspective-taking 12 24.10 15 25.08 16 24.10 Teacher-Reported Behaviors Global Social Skills 7 48.27 a 10 40.70 b 11 51.16 Self-control 7 15.98a 10 13.91b 11 17.92 c Assertiveness 7 16.10a 10 12.23b 11 16.19 Cooperation 7 16.37. 10 14.45. 11 17.03 Global Problem 7 Behaviors 4.70a 10 9.06b 1 1 3.85 Externalizing 7 2.06. 10 2.56 11 1.33. Internalizing 7 •97a 10 4.06b 11 1.50 Hyperactivity 7 1.65 10 2.35 11 1.10 Academic 7 37.05a. 10 33.90. 11 30.32b Peer-Reported Behaviors Prosocial 12 .27 a 15 -.15 b 16 .26 Antisocial 12 -.20 a 15 .24b 16 -.30 Note. Means not sharing a common subscript significantly differ at p. < .05. Means with the subscript t differ from one another at p. < .10. 66 The Relation of Moral Reasoning to Empathy. Perspective-Taking, and Classroom Behaviors In order to assemble a clearer picture of the relationship of moral reasoning to classroom behaviors, this study examined the relation of moral reasoning to: empathy, perspective-taking, social skills, problem behaviors, academics, and prosocial and antisocial behaviors among pre-and early adolescents. It was hypothesized that there would be positive relationships among moral reasoning and the affective correlates of empathy and perspective-taking. With respect to teacher-rated behaviors, it was hypothesized that moral reasoning would be positively related to social skills and academics and negatively related to problem behaviors. Further, it was hypothesized that peer-rated prosocial behaviors would positively relate to moral reasoning, and the opposite would hold true for peer-ratings of antisocial behaviors. Pearson product-moment correlations were computed on the pretest scores of the 47 students who initially participated in the study to assess these hypotheses. Correlations Between Moral Reasoning. Empathy, and Perspective-Taking As shown in Table 4, whereas a significant correlation was found between moral reasoning and empathy, no significant relationship was found between moral reasoning and perspective-taking. 67 Correlations Between Moral Reasoning and Teacher-Rated Behaviors Further correlational analyses revealed that moral reasoning was significantly negatively related to all of the teacher-rated problem behaviors (i.e., internalizing behaviors, externalizing behaviors, hyperactivity). An examination of the correlations between moral reasoning and teachers' ratings of social skills revealed significant positive relationships between moral reasoning and each of these subscales (i.e., self-control; assertiveness, cooperation). Moral reasoning was also positively correlated to teacher-rated academic behavior. These findings confirm the hypothesis that moral reasoning has a negative relationship to teacher-rated problem behaviors and a positive relationship to teacher-rated social skills and academics. Correlations Between Moral Reasoning and Peer-Rated Behaviors As shown in Table 4, a significant positive relationship emerged between moral reasoning and peer-rated prosocial behaviors and a significant negative relationship emerged between moral reasoning and peer-rated antisocial behaviors. Thus, the results of this study confirm the hypothesis that moral reasoning is positively related to peer-rated prosocial behavior and negatively related to peer-rated antisocial behavior. While previous research has indicated that prosocial behavior is a "positive independent predictor of students' grades...." (Wentzle, 1993, p. 363), what is unclear is the role that moral reasoning may play in this relationship. As mentioned 68 earlier, one of the intents of the present study was to shed light on the relationship between moral reasoning and academics. To further examine the role that prosocial behaviors may play in mediating the relationship between moral reasoning and academics, a partial correlation was computed. The results of this analysis revealed that, when the effect of prosocial behaviors was partialed out, moral reasoning continued to remain significantly related to academics, r = .47, p_<.001. Results from the examination of the relation of moral reasoning to empathy, social skills, problem behaviors, academics, and prosocial and antisocial behaviors, provide a very clear picture of the strong relationship that moral reasoning has in all aspects of pre-and early adolescent school experiences. This raises implications for education that will be discussed in the following chapter. Social Adjustment. Gender, and Moral Reasoning As outlined earlier, previous research has suggested that the relationship between moral reasoning and classroom behavior is different for boys and girls. Specifically, Bear (1989) found that moral reasoning was significantly related to antisocial behaviors (i.e., fighting, uncooperativeness, disruption, stealing) in boys but not in girls. Moreover, Bear and Rys (1994) found moral reasoning to be significantly related to social competency and low acting among boys, but not among girls. 69 One purpose of this study was to further investigate whether such differences exist in the relationship between moral reasoning and behaviors between boys and girls when a wider and more varied range of behaviors are examined. To do this, correlations among the pretest scores on all of the measures were analyzed separately by gender. As can be seen in Table 4, significant correlations were found between moral reasoning and global social skills, self-control, assertiveness, cooperation, global problem behaviors, externalizing behaviors, internalizing behaviors, hyperactivity, academics, prosocial behaviors, and antisocial behaviors for both boys and girls. Thus, in contrast to the findings of Bear (1989) and Bear and Rys (1994), the results of the present investigation indicate the relations between moral reasoning and social adjustment are similar for both boys and girls. Table 4 Correlations of Moral Reasoning to Empathy. Perspective-Taking, and Classroom Behaviors Variable Affective Components Empathy Perspective-taking Teacher-Reported Behaviors Global Social Skills Self-control Assertiveness Cooperation Global Problem Behaviors Externalizing Internalizing Hyperactivity Academics Peer-Reported Behavior Prosocial Antisocial tp_ < .06, *fi < .05, **E < 01, ***D < .001 Total Girls Boys (n = 47) (n = 31) (n = 16) .30* .12 .40 .17 .08 .24 .62*** .51** .76*** .65*** .55*** .76*** .63*** .50** .75*** .52*** .41** .67** -.60*** -.54** -.65** -.50*** -.43** -.55* -.54*** -.56*** -.48t -.50*** -.44** -.43* .58*** .45** .70** .38*** .35* .50. -.27. -.23 -.33 71 CHAPTER 5 Discussion The contents of this chapter will begin with a discussion of the findings of the present study. The results of the intervention study will be discussed first, and the results of the investigation of the relationship of moral reasoning to empathy, perspective-taking, teacher-rated behaviors, and peer-rated behaviors will be discussed second. Next, the strengths and limitations of the study will be considered. Finally, this chapter will conclude with a discussion of some of the directions for further research and some educational implications. The Effects of the Moral Reasoning Intervention The results of the present study suggest that a Moral Discussion Group intervention does have a significant effect on moral reasoning, teacher-ratings of self-control, assertiveness, internalizing behavior and academics as well as peer-ratings of prosocial and antisocial behavior. However, one caveat is noted. Specifically, these findings mainly appear when the comparison is made between the students in the treatment group and the students in the placebo group rather than when the comparison is made between the treatment group and control group. Because these results were not as hypothesized, the question arises, what happened in the control group? 72 It appears that a number of events happened that confounded the control group, all of which relate to having the teachers monitor the control group. The teachers were all given, at their request, a non-academic activity for all of the remaining students in their classroom (both the participating students and the non-participating students) to independently work on while the students involved in either the treatment or placebo group were not in class. This activity was completed earlier than had been expected (i.e., much less than the 10-week intervention) and two of the teachers from the three participating classes used the remaining time to have the students write in their personal reflection journals. This was done because the teachers did not want students to work on academic tasks that would put them ahead of their classmates in either the treatment or placebo groups. The goal of personal reflection journals is to faciliate self-reflection, through the recording of thoughts and feelings. As a result of this, 11 of the subjects in the control group in fact participated in a "personality development program." Programs of this type have been shown to promote moral reasoning (Schlefli etal., 1985). Another problem which emerged with respect to the control group, was the possible effect of the teachers working with a smaller group of students on a non-academic task that was not being evaluated. As a result, it may have been that these teachers were able to develop more positive relationships with the control group students who remained with them. Thus, it is possible that the lack of significant differences between the treatment group and the control group on a 73 number of the teacher-rated behaviors examined in the present investigation could have been a result of this relational change. Nevertheless, the present study does provide support for the efficacy of moral dilemma discussions. These findings support previous findings reported by Arbuthnot and Gordon (1986) who indicated that moral reasoning can be facilitated through weekly guided moral dilemma discussions. Further, the results of the present study support Arbuthnot and Gordon's findings that link changes in moral reasoning with behavioral changes. The present study extends the Arbuthnot and Gordon (1986) study in five ways. First, while Arbuthnot and Gordon (1986) included only aggressive and disruptive male adolescents in their study, the present study included both males and females drawn from the regular school population. Thus, the findings of the present study are generalizable to a wider variety of students. Second, the design of the Arbuthnot and Gordon study did not include a placebo group and thus left the possibility that a "Hawthorne Effect" occurred for treatment subjects. The present study did include a placebo group. Third, Arbuthnot and Gordon included a teacher measure of students' behaviors of which the psychometric properties were questionable. The present study included not only behavior ratings by both teachers and peers, but it also included measures of both prosocial and antisocial behaviors with respectable reliability. Fourth, in contrast to Arbuthnot and Gordon, the present study also included affective correlates of moral reasoning, namely empathy and perspective-taking. Finally, in contrast to Arbuthnot and Gordon who 74 could not determine whether the development of moral reasoning was a result of the discussion of the moral dilemmas or the interpersonal communication skills training that occurred in the treatment group , the present study allowed for an examination of the hypothesis that training in interpersonal communication skills facilitates moral development (Santilli & Hudson, 1992). Specifically, the design of the present study created the opportunity for both the placebo group and the control group to participate in interpersonal and communication skill training and to participate in discussions—discussions that were matched on all the variables (defining the problem, being involved in the group, small group and large group activities) with the exception of the content. If interpersonal skills training or discussion by itself were enough to facilitate moral growth, then the placebo group in this study would have demonstrated changes in moral growth, and it did not. An unexpected result in the present study was that participation in moral dilemma discussions did not have a significant effect on perspective-taking. One reason for this finding may be due to the manner in which perspective-taking was assessed. While the present study assessed perspective-taking via a paper and pencil measure, previous research (e.g., Walker, 1980) linking moral reasoning to perspective-taking has utilized Selman's perspective-taking interview which involves the presentation of dilemmas to the subjects, who then respond to probing questions. The responses to these questions are later scored and a global score is assigned. These global perspective-taking scores represent a stage score that is parallel to a moral reasoning score (e.g., Stage 2 moral reasoning is parallel to 75 Stage 2 perspective-taking). This study did not measure changes in Global Stage scores and, therefore, it may be that the differences in the measures would account for the lack of treatment effect with respect to perspective-taking. The findings of the present study reveal no significant difference in empathy after the intervention between the treatment group and the placebo group. One possible explanation could be due to the nature of the placebo group activities. As the reader will recall, the placebo group took part in a cooperative learning activity-- the creation of a questionnaire to assess teachers' perceptions of pre-adolescents. A cooperative learning activity is one that requires students to work interdependently towards a positive goal. The students were given the task of working together to create questionnaire that would be administered to teacher education students. Johnson, Johnson, and Holubec (1986) have reported that cooperative learning activities, such as the one utilized with the placebo group in the present study, facilitate social development and interpersonal acceptance. Contradictory findings have been reported concerning the effect of the MDG on improving students' behaviors. For example, while some studies have found that participation in a MDG results in a number of important improvements in student behaviors (e.g., Arbuthnot & Gordon, 1986), other studies have not found such results (e.g., Niles, 1986). The findings of this study are in accord with the former. Specifically, significant improvements in global teacher-ratings of negative behaviors after the intervention emerged between the treatment group and the placebo group, with the treatment group scoring significantly lower on overall 76 problem behaviors. Both Magg (1989) and Niles (1986) have stated that previous MDG research has been limited due to problems with measurement (e.g., reliability, definition). It is possible that the Social Skills Rating System (Gresham & Elliott, 1990) was able to address these problems because of its high reliability and the diverse manner in which problem behaviors (i.e., internalizing behavior, externalizing behavior, hyperactivity) are delineated on this measure. Previous research has suggested that programs that promote social development also increase academic performance (Wentzle, 1993). The current findings are in accord with the findings of this previous research. Specifically, the students in the present study who participated in the moral dilemma discussions demonstrated significant increases in their academic performance when compared to the control group. 77 The Link of Moral Reasoning to Affective. Behavioral, and Academic Variables The intent of the correlational analyses conducted in this study was to demonstrate that there is more than a superfluous connection between moral reasoning, classroom conduct, and academics. The inclusion of additional measures to the ones used in previous research provides evidence for the robustness of the connection of moral reasoning to the affective, behavioral, and academic aspects of students' behaviors. For example, the results of the present study support the hypothesis that there is a link between moral reasoning and classroom behavior. Specifically, the results from the correlational analyses suggest that there are a number of a positive relationships between moral reasoning and teacher-rated social skills, academics, as well as peer-rated prosocial behaviors. Moral reasoning was also found to be significantly negatively related to teacher-rated problem behaviors and peer-rated antisocial behaviors. Thus, the findings of the present investigation underscore the strong relationship between moral reasoning and a number of important affective and behavioral components and are in accordance with findings of previous investigations (Bear, 1989; Richards et al., 1992; Wentzle, 1994). Taken together, the findings of the present investigation, along with the findings of the previous studies, provide further support for the inclusion of moral education programming in the school curriculum. No relationship was found between moral reasoning and perspective-taking. This finding is contrary to previous research findings that have indicated a 78 significant relationship between perspective-taking and moral reasoning (e.g., Kohlberg, 1969). As mentioned previously, this may have been the a result of the manner in which perspective-taking was assessed. The reader will remember that in the present study perspective-taking was measured using a self-report questionnaire, the Interpersonal Reactivity Index (IRI; Davis, 1983). The IRI requires individuals to respond to questions that measure the tendency to adopt the perspective of other people (e.g., "I find it difficult to see things from the other kids' point of view") using a 5-point scale. Previous research has linked the stages in moral reasoning to stages in perspective-taking (Walker, 1980). Examination of the data from the present study, revealed a prevalence of Stage 2 moral reasoners. The parallel stage for perspective-stage would be self-reflection (Selman, 1976). It is possible that the items on the perspective-taking subscale were not sensitive to this type of self-reflection. The correlational nature of these results does not allow for any conclusions as to the direction of effect. However, the significant relationship between moral reasoning to almost all of the cognitive, behavioral, affective and academic variables as measured by the students, peers and the teachers suggests important links that are deserving of continued investigation. Strengths and Limitations of this Study Several methodological strengths exist in this study. First, the inclusion of both pre-and early adolescent girls and boys drawn from a regular population 79 allowed for greater generalizability. As noted earlier, much of the previous research on the MDG has primarily focused on adolescent boys. Secondly, this study focused on both antisocial and prosocial behaviors and included both self-rated, peer-rated and teacher-rated behaviors. This also allows for extension of the generalizability of the effectiveness of a moral discussion group. As described earlier, the control group constitutes a major drawback of this study. Many of the problems could have been averted if this researcher had monitored the control group more carefully. Therefore, in the future, a third researcher should monitor the control group. With respect to the analyses of treatment effects, unfortunately, because of a violation of the assumption of homogeneity of regression, the results of the findings with respect to variables of teacher-ratings of self-control, cooperation, and externalizing behaviors have to be interpreted cautiously. Finally, because post-test teacher ratings of students' behaviors and academics were not returned by one of the three teachers participating in the study, the question remains as to whether or not findings of the present investigation would be generalizable due to the restricted sample size. Directions for Further Research The present findings indicate that there is a positive effect on behavior and academics when students in a classroom setting participate in a moral discussion group with a trained facilitator. Furthermore, the benefits of increased moral 8 0 reasoning on ail aspects of classroom behavior can be inferred by the intercorrelational significance of data. Further research investigating the effects on an MDG, done in the classroom by the teacher (after training) would be worthwhile. This idea was in fact raised by the students themselves. After the study was completed, the students were asked to complete a questionnaire about the study. Some of the students (50%) stated that although they enjoyed participating in the study, they would have liked to remain in their classroom with their friends. The importance of the role of peers in the moral development of pre-and early adolescents has been previously researched (Schonert-Reichl, 1994b), and it is possible that the effect of the MDG would have been increased if the intervention was done in intact classrooms. This question remains to be explored. Educational Implications The present study suggests that the importance of moral reasoning interventions cannot be overlooked in curriculum planning. Recent investigations have demonstrated the benefits of moral reasoning and prosocial skills in regular school populations (e.g., Bear & Rys, 1994; Wentzle, 1993). The present study suggests that moral reasoning is not only linked to relevant and important school behaviors but also to academics. As noted by Wentzle, programs that promote social reasoning often improve school behaviors whereas programs that promote academic behavior do not facilitate social reasoning. When one considers the efficacy of the MDG for facilitating both academics and positive school behaviors, it would appear that such an intervention would be an ideal educational program to implement. 82 References Arbuthnot, J . , & Gordon, D,. (1986). Behavioral and cognitive effects of a moral reasoning development intervention for high-risk behavioral-disordered adolescents. Journal of Consulting and Clinical Psychology. 2, 208-216. Bandura, A. (1977). Social learning theory. Englewood Cliffs. NJ: Prentice Hall. Bear, G. (1989). Sociornoral reasoning and antisocial behavior among normal sixth graders. Merill-Palmer Quarterly. 35, 181-196. Bear, G., & Richard's. H. (1981). Moral reasoning and conduct problems in the classroom. Journal of Educational Psychology. 73, 664-670. Bear, G., & Rys, G.S. (1994). Moral reasoning, classroom behavior and sociometric status among elementary school children. Developmental Psychology. 30, 633-638. Berkowitz, M. (1992, November). The role of discussion in moral education. Pre-conference Workshop presented at the annual meeting of the Association for Moral Education, Tallahassee, Florida. Berkowitz, M., & Gibbs, J. (1983). Measuring the developmental features of moral discussion. Merrill-Palmer Quarterly. 29. 399-410. Berkowitz, M., & Oser, F. (1985). Moral education: Theory and Application. Hillsdale, New Jersey: Lawrence Erlbaum. Blasi, A. (1980). Bridging moral congnition and moral action: A critical review of the literature. Psychological Bulletin. 1. 1-45. Blasi, A. (1983). Moral cognition into moral action: A Theoretical Perspective. Developmental Review. 3. 178-210. Blatt, M. (1969). The effects of classroom discussion upon children's level of moral development. Unpublished doctoral dissertation, University of Chicago, Chicago. Blatt, M., & Kohlberg, L. (1975). The effects of classroom moral discussion upon children's level of moral judgment. Journal of Moral Education. 4, 129-161. Bryant, B.K. (1982). An index of empathy for children and adolescents. Child Development. 53, 413-425. 83 Carlo, G., Eisenberg, N., & Knight, G. (1992). An objective measure of adolescents' prosocial moral reasoning. Journal of Research on Adolescence. 2, 331-349 Chandler, M., & Moran, T. (1990). Psychopathy and moral development: A comparative study of delinquent and nondelinquent youth. Development and Psychopathy. 2, 227-246. Chandler, M. (1973). Egocentrism and antisocial behavior: The assessment of social perspective-taking skills. Developmental Psychology. 9, 326-333. Chapman, M., & McBride, M. (1992). The education of reason: Cognitive conflict and its role in intellectual development. In C U . Shantz (Ed.), Conflict in child and adolescent development (pp. 36-68). Cambridge:University Press. Colby, A., & Kohlberg, L. (1984). Invariant sequence and internal consistency in moral judgment stages. In W. M. Kurtines, & J. L.Gerwitz, (Eds.), Morality. Moral Behavior. & Moral Development (pp. 41-52). New York, NY: John Wiley & Sons. Colby, A , Gibbs, J . , Kohlberg, L , & Lieberman, M. (1983). A longitudinal study of moral judgement. Monographs of the Society for Research in Child Development. 48, (Serial No.200). Colby, A., Gibbs, J . , Kohlberg, L , Speicher-Dubin, B., & Candee, D. (1979). Standard from scoring manual. Unpublished manuscript. Colby, A., Kohlberg, L , Speicher, B., Hewer, A., Candee, D., Gibbs, J . , & Power, C. (1987). The measurment of moral judgment (Vol. 2). Cambridge, England: Cambridge Press. Davis, M.H. (1983). Measuring individual differences in empathy: Evidence for a multidimensional approach. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology. 44, 113-126. Dewey, J . (1964). The need for the philosophy of science. John Dewev on education: Selected writings (pp. 1-15). New York: Random House. Eisenberg, N., (1986). Altruistic cognition, emotion, and behavior. Hillsdale, NJ: Erlbaum. Eisenberg, N. & Miller, P.A. (1987) The relation of empathy to prosocial and related behaviors. Psychological Bulletin. 101. 100-131. 84 Eisenberg, N., Shell, R., Pasternack, J . , Beller, R., Lennon, R., & Mathy, R., (1987). Prosocial development in middle childhood. Developmental Psychology. 23, 712-718. Enright, R., & Sutterfield, S. (1980) An ecological validation of social cognitive development. Child Development. 51. 156-161. Flavell, J.H. (1985). Cognitive development. Englewood, NJ: Prentice Hall. Galbraith, R., & Jones, T. (1976). Moral reasoning: A teaching handbook for adapting Kohlberg to the classroom. Minneapolis, MN: Greenhaven Press Inc. Gibbs, J . , Arnold, K., Ahlborn, K., & Chessman, F. (1984). Facilitation of sociornoral reasoning in delinquents. Journal of Consulting Psychology. 52, 37-45. Gibbs, J . , Basinger, K., & Fuller, D. (1992). Moral maturity: Measuring the development of sociornoral reflection. Hillsdale, NJ: Lawrence Erbllaum Associate Publishers. Gilligan, C. (1982). In a different voice: Pvschological theory and women's development. Cambridge, MA: Harvard Press. Gresham, F., & Elliot, S. (1990) Social Skills Rating System. Pines, MS: American Guidance Service. Gresham, F. & Elliott, S. (1990) Social skills rating system manual. Circle Pines, MA: American Guidance Service Inc. Hains, A., & Miller, D. (1980). Moral and cognitive development in delinquent and nondelinquent children and adolescents. Journal of Genetic Psychology. 137. 21-35. Harris, S., Mussen, P., & Rutherford, E. (1976). Some cognitive, behavioral, and personality correlates of maturity of moral Judgment. Journal of Genetic Psychology. 128. 123-135. Hersch, R., Paolitto, D., & Reimer, J . (1979). Promoting moral growth: From Piaget to Kohlberg. New York: Longman. Hetherington, E., & Parke, R. (1986). Child Psychology: A contemporary viewpoint. New York: McGraw-Hill. 85 Higgins, A. (1980). Research and measurement issues in moral education intervention. In R.L. Mosher (Ed.). Moral education: A first generation of research and development (pp. 92-107). New York: Praeger. Hoffman, M.L. (1991). Empathy, social cognition, and moral action. In W.M. Kurtines, & J.L. Gewirtz (Eds.), Handbook of moral behavior and development. Volume 1: Theory (pp. 275-301). Hillsdale, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum Associate Publishers. Iowa Testing Program. (1986). Iowa Tests of Educational Development. Iowa City, IA: The University of Iowa Johnson, D.W., Johnson, R.T., & Holubec, E.J. (1986) Circles of learning: Cooperation in the classroom (Revised). Edina, MN: Interaction Book Company. Kalliopuska, M. (1983). Relationship between moral judgment and empathy. Psychological Reports. 53, 575-578. Keppel, G. (1991). Design and analysis: A reasearcher's handbook (3rd ed.). Englwood Cliffs, NJ: Prentice Hall. Kohlberg L., & Candee, D. (1984). The relationship of moral judgment to moral action. In W.M. Kurtines, & J.L. Gerwirtz, (Eds.). Morality. Moral Behavior. & Moral Development (pp. 52-74). New York: Wiley & Sons. Kohlberg, L , Colby, A , Gibbs, J . , Speicher-Dubin, B.(1984). Standard manual for scoring moral judgment. Moral Education and Research Foundation, Cambridge, MA. Kruger, A. (1992). The effect of peer and adult-child transactive discussions on moral reasoning. Merill-Palmer Quarterly. 38, 191-211. Lockwood, A. (1978). The effects of values clarification and moral development curricula on school-age subjects: A critical review of recent research. Review of Educational Research. 48. 325-364. Magg, J. W. (1989). Moral discussion group interventions: Promising technique or wishful thinking. Behavioral Disorders. 14. 99-106. Mason, M., & Gibbs, J. (1993). Social perspective-taking and moral judgment among college students. Journal of Adolescent Research. 8, 109-123. Mehrabian, A., & Epstein, N. (1972). A measure of emotional empathy. Journal of Personality. 40, 525-543. 86 Piaget, J . (1965). The moral judgment of the child. New York: Free Press (original work published 1932). Piaget, J. (1980). Adaption and Intellegence. Chicago: University of Chicago Press (original work published 1974). Pfeiffer, J.W. & Jones. J.E. (Eds.). (1974). A Handbook of Structure Experiences for Human Relations Training (Vols. 1-4). La Jolla.CA: University Associates Publishers, Inc. Niles, W. (1986). Effects of a moral development discussion group on delinquent and predelinquent boys. Journal of Counselling Psychology. 33, 45-51. Parkhurst, J.T., & Asher, S.R. (1992). Peer rejection in middle school: Subgroup differences in behavior, loneliness, and interpersonal concerns. Developmental Psychology. 28, 231-241. Quay, H.C., & Peterson, D.R. (1979). Manual for the Behavior Problem Checklist. Coral Gables, RL: University of Miami. Rest, J . (1984). The major components of morality. In W.M. Kurtines, & J.L. Gewirtz, (Eds.), Morality, moral behavior. & moral development (pp. 24-40). New York: Wiley & Sons. Inc. Rest, J . (1986). Moral development: Advances in research and theory. New York: Praeger Publishers. Richards, H., Bear, G., Stewart, A., & Norman, D. (1992). Moral reasoning and classroom conduct: Evidence of a curvilinear relationship. Merill-Palmer Quarterly. 38, 176-190. Santilli, N., & Hudson, L. (1992). Enhancing moral growth: Is education the key? Adolescence. 27, 144-160. Santrock, J.W. (1993). Adolescence: An Introduction. Madison, Wisconsin: Brown and Benchmark Publishers. Schlaefli, A., Rest, J . , & Thoma, J . (1985). Does moral education improve moral judgment? A meta-analysis of intervention studies using the Defining Issues Test. Review of Educational Research. 55, 319-352. 87 Schonert, K.A. (1989). The relationship among empathy, social participation and moral reasoning in behaviorallv disordered adolescent males and their non-disordered peers. Unpublished doctoral dissertation, University of Iowa, IA. Schonert, K.A., & Cantor, G. (1991). Moral reasoning in behaviorally disordered adolescents from alternative and traditional high schools. Behavioral Disorders. 17. 23-35. Schonert-Reichl, K.A. (1994a). Peer relationships, social behavior, and the development of moral reasoning during pre-and early adolescents. Moral Education Forum. 19, 21-32. Schonert-Reichl, K.A. (1994b). The interrelations of moral reasoning, empathy, and age among adolescents with behavioral disorders. B.C. Journal of Special Education. 18(3), 248-262. Schonert-Reichl, K.A. & Beaudoin, K. (1994c). Social cognitive development and psvcholopatholgy during adolescence: Gender differences in the relationships among empathy, perspective-taking, and externalizing and internalizing patterns of symptom expression. Paper presented at the annual meeting of the Jean Piaget Society. Chicago, III. Schonert-Reichl, K.A. & Hymel, S. (1995). Promoting social development and acceptance in the elementary classroom. In Andrews, J (Ed.), The inclusive classroom: Challenging issues and contemporary practices. Scarborough, Ontario: Nelson Canada. Selman, R.L (1976). Social-cognitive understanding: A guide to educational and clincial practice. In T. Lickona, (Ed.), Moral development and behavior: Theory, research and social issues. New York: Holt, Rinehart & Wilson. Selman, R.L., & Bryne, D.F. (1974). A structural-developmental analysis of level of role taking in middle childhood. Child Development. 45. 803-806. Shure, M.B., & Spivack, G. (1980). Interpersonal problem-solving as a mediator of behavioral adjustment in preschool and kindergarten children. Journal of Applied Developmental Psychology. 1, 29-44. Snarey, J. (1985). The cross-cultural universality of social moral development: A critical review of Kohlbergian research. Psychological Bulletin. 97, 202-232. 88 Stein, N.L., Trabasso, T , & Garkin, D. (1979, September). Comprehending and remembering moral dilemmas. In S. Goldman, Understanding discourse: Interactions between knowledge and process. Symposium presented at the American Psychological Association, New York. Stuart, D., Gresham, F., & Elliott, S. (1991) Teacher ratings of social skills in popular and rejected males arid females. School Psychology Quarterly. 6, 16-26. Taylor, J.H. (1995). Moral climate and the development of moral reasoning: The effects of dyadic discussion between young offenders. Unpublished doctoral dissertation, University of British Columbia, Vancouver. Trevethan, S., & Walker, L. (1989). Hypothetical versus real-life moral reasoning among psychopathic and delinquent youth. Development and Psvchopathology. I, 91-103. Walker, L.J. (1980). Cognitive and perspective-taking prerequistes for moral development. Child Development. 51. 131-139. Walker, L.J. (1983). Sources of cognitive conflict for stage transition in moral development. Developmental Pshvchology. 19. 103-110. Walker, L.J., de Vries, B. & Trevethan, S. (1987). Moral stages and moral orientations in real-life and hypothetical dilemmmas. Child Development. 58, 842-858. Walker, L. J. (1988). The development of moral reasoning. Anals of Child Development. 5, 33-78. Walker, L. J . (1990, April). The nature and measurement of moral reasoning. In H. Schirp (Chair), Issues in the measurement of moral development and moral education. Paper presented at the meeting of the American Educational Research Association, Boston, MA. Walker, L.J., & Taylor, J . (1991). Stage transitions in moral reasoning: A longitudinal study in the developmental process. Developmental Psychology. 27, 330-337. Wentzel, K.R. (1993). Does being good make the grade? Social behavior and academic competence in middle school. Journal of Educational Psychology. 85, 357-364. 89 Appendix A Teacher Consent Form T H E U N I V E R S I T Y O F B R I T I S H c pageM 0 ? ^ 1 A Department of Educational Psychology and Special Education Faculty of Education 2125 Main Mall Vancouver, B.C. Canada V6T 1Z4 Tel: (604) 822-8229 Fax: (604) 822-3302 Dear Morley Teacher You and your students have been selected to be participants in a research project that we are conducting at your school entitled "Social Reasoning and Behavior in Preadolescents". This study is being organized by Mrs. Krivel-Zacks and her advisor from the University of British Columbia, Dr. Kim Schonert-Reichl. The purpose of this study is to investigate students' social reasoning about important social issues and to establish a relationship between their reasoning and their behaviours. There is very little research about Canadian students. More research is needed and you can help us understand students better by being a participant in this research study. It is hoped that the results of this study will help teacher and parents better understand the way that students think and improve education for all. Teachers who participate will receive a copy of the results of the study along with some suggestions and guidelines to promote social reasoning among intermediate grade students. Students who return their permission slips will have the opportunity of winning a $15.00 Gift certificate for a local movie theater. One students name will be randomly drawn in each class. The purpose of this form is to give you the information you need in order to decide whether or not to participate in this study. You may chose not to participate in this study now or at any point during the study and there will absolutely no penalty for withdrawing. If you choose not to participate, the choice will not in any way jeopardize your job. If you decide to participate in this study, you will be asked to complete a social skill rating form for each of your students who participate in the study at the beginning of the project and again at its completion (each rating form will take approximately 5 to 10 minutes to complete). All of your answers will be completely confidential. Your students will be asked to fill out several questionnaires. One set of questionnaires asks students questions about their perceptions of their own behaviours as well as their perceptions of their classmates' behavior, a second questionnaire asks them about important social problems, and a third questionnaire is a vocabulary test. Administration of these questionnaires to students will take approximately two 45-minute sessions. Students will be administered these measures once in October and again in December. Several students will be randomly selected to participate in an intervention. These students will be taken from their classrooms and participate in a social reasoning program for one 45 minute period, one day a week for ten weeks. Students will not be asked to put their name on any of the questionnaires and their names will not be kept with their answers so that no one but the researcher will know who answered the questions. We will provide a school-related assignment for those students who choose not to participate. There will be no penalty for those students who choose not to participate. I will be happy to answer any question you have before signing or later. You may call me at 822-2215 if you have any questions after the study has ended. If you wish to participate in this study, please acknowledge that you have read this form and had any questions answered by signing below. Thank you. Sincerely, Dr. Kimberly Schonert-Reichl Assistant Professor, Educational Psychology and Special Education Graduate Student. Morley Elementary School TEACHER CONSENT FORM Study Title: "Social Reasoning and Behavior in Preadolescents" Researcher Kimberly A. Schonert-Reichl, Ph.D. Assistant Professor Department of Educational Psychology and Special Education University of British Columbia 2125 Main Mall Vancouver, B.C. V6T 1Z4 Gail Krivel-Zacks, B.A., P.D.P. Graduate Student University of British Columbia Teacher Morley Elementary School I have read and understand the attached letter regarding the study entitled "Social Reasoning and Behavior in Preadolescents" I have also kept copies of the both the letter describing the study and this permission slip. Yes, I will participate. No, I will not participate. Signature Please Print Date 9-a. (FOR YOUR RECORDS) TEACHER CONSENT FORM Study Title: "Social Reasoning and Behavior in Preadolescents" Researcher KimberlyA. Schonert-Reichl, Ph.D. Assistant Professor Department of Educational Psychology and Special Education University of British Columbia 2125 Main Mall Vancouver, B.C. V6T 1Z4 Gail Krivel-Zacks, B.A., P.D.P. Graduate Student University of British Columbia Teacher Morley Elementary School I have read and understand the attached letter regarding the study entitled "Social Reasoning and Behavior in Preadolescents" I have also kept copies of the both the letter describing the study and this permission slip. Yes, I will participate. No, I will not participate. Signature Please Print Date Appendix B Description of the Study for the Students. T H E U N I V E R S I T Y OF B R I T I S H C O L U M B I A Department of Educational Psychology and Special Education Faculty of Education 2125 Main Mall Vancouver, B .C. Canada V6T 1Z4 Tel: (604) 822-8229 Fax: (604) 822-3302 Student Consent Form The purpose of this form is to give you the information you need in order to decide whether or not you want to participate in this research study which is entitled: "Social Reasoning and Behaviour in Preadolescents". You may choose not to participate in this study now or at any point during the study and there will be no penalty. If you choose not to participate, it will not affect your marks. Students who do not participate will be given something else to do in class. The purpose of this study is to investigate your thoughts about social behaviors and your opinions about important social issues. This study is being organized by Mrs. Krivel-Zacks and her advisor from the University of British Columbia, Dr. Kim Schonert-Reichl. It is hoped that the results of this study will help parents and teachers better understand students and therefore be able to improve education for all. In order to accomplish this purpose, you will be asked to fill out several questionnaires during class time. One questionnaire asks you about your behaviors and your classmates' behaviours. A second questionnaire asks you about your opinion about important social issues and a third questionnaire asks you about your vocabulary. Please answer all the questions if you can. Do your best to answer truthfully and honestly. You will not be asked to put your name on any of the questionnaires and your name will NOT be kept with your answers so no one will know who answered the questions. Remember no one at school or in your community (not even your parents) will ever see your answers, so please answer honestly and quickly. Your first answers are usually your best. We will be happy to answer any questions you have before or later. Please indicate that you have read this form by signing your name on the line below. You may keep a copy of this consent form for your records. Thank you for your help. Date Name (Please print) Signature Appendix C Parental Permission Form. (FOR YOUR RECORDS) PARENT CONSENT FORM Study Title: "Social Reasoning and Behavior in Preadolescents" Researchers: Kimberly A. Schonert-Reichl, Ph.D. Assistant Professor Department of Educational Psychology and Special Education University of B.C. 2125 Main Mall Vancouver, B.C. Gail Krivel-Zacks, B.A., P.D.P. Graduate Student University of British Columbia Teacher Money Elementary School I have read and understand the attached letter regarding the study entitled "Social Reasoning and Behavior in Preadolescents". I have kept copies of both the letter describing the study and this permission slip. Yes, my son/daughter has my permission to participate. No, my son/daughter does not have my permission to participate. Parent's Signature Son or Daughter's Name 9* PARENT CONSENT FORM Study Title: "Social Reasoning and Behavior in Preadolescents" Researchers: Kimberly A. Schonert-Reichl, Ph.D. Assistant Professor Department of Educational Psychology and Special Education University of B.C. 2125 Main Mall Vancouver, B.C. Gail Krivel-Zacks, B.A., P.D.P. Graduate Student University of British Columbia Teacher Morley Elementary School I have read and understand the attached letter regarding the study entitled "Social Reasoning and Behavior in Preadolescents". I have kept copies of both the letter describing the study and this permission slip. Yes, my son/daughter has my permission to participate. No, my son/daughter does not have my permission to participate. Parent's Signature Son or Daughter's Name Date Appendix D Demographic Questionnaire \0Q TELL US ABOUT YOURSELF We are interested in learning about your background. Please answer all of the questions below. REMEMBER, Y O U R ANSWERS WILL R E M A I N PRIVATE A N D W I L L BE SEEN ONLY BY T H E RESEARCHERS. 1. Are you male or female? ( CIRCLE ONE) Male 1 Female 2 2. How old are you ? years 3. What is your birthdate? Month Day Year 4. What GRADE are you in this year? (CIRCLE ONE) 6TH 7TH 5. Which adults do you live with MOST OF THE TIME? (CIRCLE ALL THE PEOPLE YOU LIVE WITH) a Both my mother and my father. 1 b. 2 c. My father only 3 d. My mother and a stepfather. 4 e. My father and a stepmother. 5 f. Grandparents 6 g- Other persons . 7 (Please indicate who, for example, if you live with your Uncle, please write "Uncle" on the blank 6. Please describe the job held by your FATHER (stepfather or male guardian) (DESCRIBE WHAT THEY DO AT WORK: for example, office clerk, salesperson, auto mechanic, nurse, lawyer, houseparent, lawyer, etc.) 7. Please describe the job held by your MOTHER (stepmother or female guardian) (DESCRIBE WHAT THEY DO AT WORK: for example, office clerk, saleperson, auto mechanic, nurse, lawyer, houseparent, lawyer, etc.) 8. What language do you speak most of the time at home? 9. How do you describe yourself? (CIRCLE ONE) a. White (Anglo, Caucasian, European descent, etc.) 1 b. Black (African, Haitian, Jamacian, etc.) 2 c. ' Hispanic (Spanish, Mexican, South American, etc.) 3 d. First Nation (Aboriginal, Native Indian) 4 e. Asian (Chinese, Japanese, Korean, etc.) 5 f. Filipino /. 6 g. East Indian 7 h. Other 8 (If you would describe your ethnic or cultural hertiage in some way that is not listed above, please indicate your heritage in on the line below) Appendix E Test of Verbal Ability SAMPLE EXERCISE O. Scrub the clothes 1) sell 2) sew 3) wash 4) dry A dusty trail 3 - Her favorite dress 1) path 1) o l d e s t 2) house 2) prettiest 3) field 3) most-liked 4) carpet 4) best-fitting Chill the fruit 1) cook 2) cut 3) mix 4) cool 4. A bad odor 1) smell 2) sign 3) fight 4) sickness It) 3 5. Trace the picture 1) paint 2) frame 3) take 4) copy 6. Overly worried 1) little 2) too much 3) somewhat 4) not at all 7. Took his daily walk 1) all-day 2) very slow 3) everyday 4) early morning 8. The ship's crew 1) workers 2) lifeboats 3) deck 4) passengers 9. At the midway point 1) faraway 2) halfway 3) beginning 4) turning 10. Harvest the oranges 1) peel 2) squeeze 3} pick 4) plant 11. 12. 13. 14. 15. A silly grin 1) laugh 2) speech 3) joke 4) smile Create a machine 1) demonstrate 2) build 3) repair 4) operate To happen twice 1) often 2) three times 3) two times 4) two at a time Gripe about the loss 1) complain 2) worry 3) feel sorry 4) talk His savings shrank 1) increased 2) were steady 3) got smaller 4) were stolen 16. On the surface 1) top 2) table 3) front 4) shelf 17. A troubled person 1) bitter 2) silly 3} worried A) dishonest GO Orv> 18. To switch games 1) arrange 2) win 3) learn 4) change 19. A major expense 1) task 2) cost 3) donation 4) loss 20. Finely carved 1) very slowly 2) simply 3) deeply 4) expertly 21. A business zone 1) letter 2) area 3) address 4) activity 22. Numb the pain 1) ease 2) cause 3) ignore 4) add to 23. A helpless feeling 1) carefree 2) powerless 3) sad 4) painless 24. Occur tomorrow 1) be over 2) start 3) be ready 4) take place 25. Sketch the old barn 1) describe 2) photograph 3) tear down 4) draw 26. The public building 1) for the aged 2) open to all 3) for a company 4) easy to find 27. Oppose the tax bill 1) be against 2) vote on 3) offer 4) put into law 28. To cover the event 1) stop 2) go after 3) report on 4) watch 29. Strict rules 1) exact 2) unfair 3) newly passed 4) needed 30. A flaw in the plan 1) step 2) fault 3) detail 4) condition Appendix F The Sociomoral Reflection Measure lot ~ Social Reflection Questionnaire Name: Date: Birthdate: 1 Sex (circle one): male female Instructions In this questionnaire, we want to find out about the things you think are important for people to do, and especially why you think these things (like keeping a promise) are important Please try to help us understand your blinking by WRITING AS MUCH AS YOU CAN TO EXPLAIN—EVEN TJ? YOU HAVE TO WRITE OUT YOUR EXPLANATIONS MORE THAN ONCE. Don't just write "same as before." If you can explain better or use different words to show what you mean, that helps us even more. Please answer all the questions, especially the "why" questions. If you need to, feel free to use the space in the margins to finish writing your answers. SRM-SF (code #: io7 Think about when you've made a promise to a friend of yours. How important is it for people to keep promises, if they can, to friends?'* Circle one: very important important not important WHY IS THAT VERY IMPORTANT/IMPORTANT/NOT IMPORTANT (WHICHEVER ONE YOU CIRCLED)? 2. What about keeping a promise to anyone? How important is it for people to keep promises, if they can, even to someone they hardly know? Circle one: very important important not important WHY IS THAT VERY IMPORTANT/IMPORTANT/NOT IMPORTANT (WHICHEVER ONE YOU CIRCLED)? 3. How about keeping a promise to a child? How important is it for parents to keep promises, if they can, to their children? Circle one: very important important not important WHY IS THAT VERY IMPORTANT/IMPORTANT/NOT IMPORTANT (WHICHEVER ONE YOU CIRCLED)? 4._ In general, how important is it for people to tell the truth? Circle one: very important important not important WHY IS THAT VERY IMPORTANT/IMPORTANT/NOT IMPORTANT (WHICHEVER ONE YOU CIRCLED)? 5. Think about when you've helped your mother or father. How important is it for children to help their parents? Circle one: very important important not important WHY IS THAT VERY IMPORTANT/IMPORTANT/NOT IMPORTANT (WHICHEVER ONE YOU CIRCLED)? 6. Let's say a friend of yours needs help and may even die, and you're the only person who can save him or her. How important is it for a person (without losing his or her own life) to save the life of a friend? Circle one: very important important not important WHY IS THAT VERY IMPORTANT/IMPORTANT/NOT IMPORTANT (WHICHEVER ONE YOU CIRCLED)? I 09 7 . What about saving the life of anyone? How important is it for a person (without losing his or her own life) to save the life of a * stranger? Circle one: very important important not important WHY IS THAT VERY IMPORTANT/IMPORTANT/NOT IMPORTANT (WHICHEVER ONE YOU CIRCLED)? 8. How important is it for a person to live even if that person doesn't want to? Circle one: very important important not important WHY IS THAT VERY IMPORTANT/IMPORTANT/NOT IMPORTANT (WHICHEVER ONE YOU CIRCLED)? 9. How important is it for people not to take things that belong to other people? Circle one: very important important not important WHY IS THAT VERY IMPORTANT/IMPORTANT/NOT rMPORTANT (WHICHEVER ONE YOU CIRCLED)? no 10. How important is it for people to obey the law? Circle one: very important important not important „ ^ WHY IS THAT VERY IMPORTANT/IMPORTANT/NOT IMPORTANT (WHICHEVER ONE YOU CIRCLED)? 11. How important is it forjudges to send people who break the law to jail? Circle one: very important important not important WHY IS THAT VERY IMPORTANT/IMPORTANT/NOT IMPORTANT (WHICHEVER ONE YOU CIRCLED)? Appendix G The Interpersonal Reactivity Index 1 1 9 , INTERPERSONAL REACTIVITY INDEX The following sentences ask about your thoughts and feelings in different situations. Remember, for each one circle the word that describes you best. 1 = DOES NOT DESCRIBE ME WELL 2= DESCRIBES ME A LITTLE 3= DESCRIBES ME SOMEWHAT 4= DESCRIBES ME PRETTY WELL 5= DESCRIBES ME VERY WELL Does not describe me well I. 1 feel sorry for people who don't have the things I have. 2.1 find it difficult to see things from the other kids* point of view. 3.1 feel very sorry for other people when they are having problems. 4.1 try to understand everybody's side befor I make a decision. 5. When I see someone being taken advantage of, I feel kind of protective towards him or her. 6.1 try to understand my friends better by imagining how things look from their side. 7. Other kid's bad luck does not upset me a great deal. 8. If I'm sure I'm right about something, I donl waste much time listening to other kid's arguments. 9. When I see someone being treated unfairly, I don't feel very much pity for him or her. 10.1 get emotional about things that I see around me. II. 1 believe that there are two sides to every question and I try to look at both of them. 12.1 would describe myself as a pretty soft-hearted person. 13. When I'm upset with someone, I usually try to "put myself in his or her shoes". 14. Before putting somebody down, I try to imagine how I would feel if I were in his or her place." Describes me a little 2 2 Sort of describes me Describes me pretty well 4 4 Describes me very well Appendix H The Social Skills Rating System Grades K - 6 Rating System Social Skills Questionnaire Frank M. Gresham and Stephen N. Elliott Directions This questionnaire is designed to measure how often a student exhibits certain social skills and how important those skills are for success in your classroom. Ratings of problem behaviors and academic competence are also requested. First, complete the information about the student and yourself. Student Information Student's name Date First School Middle Last Month Day Year Citv State Grade Birth date Sex: PI Female n M a ' e Month Day Year Ethnic group (optional) Asian Indian (Native American) • Black • White CD Hispanic n Other Is this student handicapped? • Yes • No If handicapped, this student is classified as: 1 1 Learning-disabled CH Mentally handicapped CD Behaviorrdisordered CH Other handicap (specify) Teacher Information Teacher's name Sex: CD Female Q Male First Middle Last What is your assignment? • Regular • Resource CD Self-contained CD Other (specify) . *•• © 1990, American Guidance Service, Inc.. Publishers" Building, Circle Pines, MN 55014-1796 All rights reserved. No pan of this Questionnaire may be photocopied or otherwise reproduced.This Questionnaire was printed in two colors. A 10 9 8 7 6 5 Form: T E How How 115 Kj'rt OFFICE U S E ONLY How Often? S o c i a l S k i l l s (cont. ) Never Often? Sometimes Very ! Often I.-. Important? Not Important Important Critical c A s 17. Appropriately tells you when he or she thinks you have treated him or her unfairly. 0 1 2 ; 0 1 2 18. Accepts peers' ideas for group activities. 0 2 : 0 1 2 19. Gives compliments to peers. 0 1 2 •'" 0 1 2 20. Follows your directions. 0 1 2 0 1 2 21. Puts work materials or school property away. 0 1 2 0 1 2 22. Cooperates with peers without prompting. 0 2 - 0 1 2 23. Volunteers to help peers with classroom tasks. 0 1 2 0 1 2 24. Joins ongoing activity or group without being told to do so. 0 1 2 0 1 2 25. Responds appropriately when pushed or hit by other children. 0 1 2 0 1 2 26. Ignores peer distractions when doing class work. 0 1 2 0 1 2 27. Keeps desk clean and neat without being reminded. 0 1 2 fc* 0 1 2 28. Attends to your instructions. 0 1 2 er 0 1 2 29. Easily makes transition from one classroom activity to another. 0 1 2 0 1 2 30. Gets along with people who are different. 0 1 2 m 0 1 .2 c A s S U M S O F HOW O F T E N COLUMNS Problem Behaviors How Often? Sometimes F O R OFF ICE U S E - , v O N L Y r_i_ •^ •How Of ten?" 0 Never Very Often E 1 H 31. Fights with others. 0 1 2 U O IIUl IHdf\t; 32. Has low self-esteem. 0 1 2 l l l ipu i id i l a u n y o 33. Threatens or bullies others. 0 2 tor items 3 i -<w ':-;*••' 34. Appears lonely. 0 1 2 iff* 35. Is easily distracted. 0 1 2 36. Interrupts conversations of others. 0 2 i l l * 37. Disturbs ongoing activities. 0 1 2 •':%? v«38- Shows anxiety about being with a group of children. 0 2 39. Is easily embarrassed. 0 1 2 40. Doesn't listen to what others say. 0 1 2 riy- - 41. Argues with others. 0 1 2 42, Talks back to adults when corrected. 0 1 2 43. Gets angry easily. 0 1 2 • 44. Has temper tantrums. 0 1 2 45. Likes to be alone. 0 1 2 46. Acts sad or depressed. 0 1 2 47. Acts impulsively. 0 1 2 Go on to 48. Fidgets or moves excessively. 0 1 2 Page 4. E 1 H S U M S O F HOW O F T E N COLUMNS l i t Academic Competence The next nine items require your judgments of this student's academic or learning behaviors as observed in your class-room. Compare the student with other children who are in the same classroom. Rate all items using a scale of 1 to 5. Circle the number that best represents your judgment. The number 11ndicates the lowest or least favorable performance, placing the student in the lowest 10% of the class. Number 5 indicates the highest or most favorable performance, placing the student in the highest 10% compared with other students in the classroom. FOR OFF ce USE ONLY Lowest 10% Next Lowest 20% Middle 40% Next Highest 20% Highest 10% 49. Compared with other children in my classroom, the overall academic performance of this child is: 1 2 3 4 5 50. In reading, how does this child compare with other students? 1 2 3 4 5 51. In mathematics, how does this child compare with other students? 1 2 3 4 5 52. In terms of grade-level expectations, this child's skills in reading are: 1 2 3 4 5 53. In terms of grade-level expectations, this child's skills in mathematics are: 1 2 3 4 5 54. This child's overall motivation to succeed academically is: 1 2 3 4 5 55. This child's parental encouragement to succeed academically is: 1 2 3 4 5 56. Compared with other children in my classroom this child's intellectual functioning is: 1 2 3 4 5 57. Compared with other children in my classroom this child's overall classroom behavior is: 1 2 3 4 5 AC SUM OF COLUMN Stop. Please check to be sure all items have been marked FOR OFFICE USE ONLY SUMMARY SOCIAL SKILLS > ^ PROBLEM B E H A V I O R S ^ t ^ ^ ^ A D E M i C ^ M P E T E N C E ^ I ^ HOW OFTEN? TOTAL BEHAVIOR > LEVEL (see Appenia A) Fewer --:Average'.sMore HOW OFTEN? - TOTAL BEHAVIOR /• LEVEL Total (C + A + S) 1 > -•» .'5 Total (E + l + H) v(sums from page 3) ..":•:.{;<'• (see Appendix AJ i * ? * * ^ * ? to-* r •—:—^ -i rf' ' * : " (see Appendix B) (see Appendix B) Standard Score Percentile Rank Standard . Score Percentile Rank SEM\± (see Appendix E) Confidence Level 68%Q 95%Q S£M| — (see Appendix E) Confidence Level 68% f~] 95% f~] Confidence Band (standard scores) to Confidence Band (standard scores) to V:^^WRAT1NG '. £ f C O M P E T E N C E / ^ > A'; :;.r..^?TOTAL;.^ (see Appendix B) Standard . .Score >!• Percentile Rank . (see Appendix E) "Confidence Level . — • 1 .'Confidence Level . »v/ : Confidence . Band (standard scores) to Norms used: Q Handicapped • Nonhandicapped Note: To obtain a detailed analysis of this student's Social Skills strengths and weaknesses, complete the Assessment-Intervention Record. 4 Next, read each item on pages 2 and 3 (items 1 -48 ) and think about this student's behavior during the past month or two. Decide how often the student does the behavior described. If the student never does this behavior, circle the 0. If the student sometimes does this behavior, circle the 1. If the student very often does this behavior, circle the 2. For items 1 - 30, you should also rate how important each of these behaviors is for success in your classroom. If the behavior is not important for success in your classroom, circle the 0. If the behavior is important for success in your classroom, circle the 1. If the behavior is critical for success in your classroom, circle the 2. Here are two examples: Never How Often? Sometimes Very Often How Important? Not Important Important Critical Shows empathy for peers. 0 1 ® 0 Q) 2 Asks questions of you when unsure of what to do in schoolwork. 0 CD 2 0 1 ( 2 ) 777/s student very often shows empathy for classmates. Also, this student sometimes asks questions when unsure of schoolwork. This teacher thinks that showing empathy is important for success in his or her classroom and that asking questions is critical for success. Please do not skip any items. In some cases you may not have observed the student perform a particular behavior. Make an estimate of the degree to which you think the student would probably perform that behavior. FOR OFFICE USE ONLY ' i : How Often?:-Social Skills Often? Very i Not Important? c - A s Never Sometimes Often < Important Important Critical •. 1. Controls temper in conflict situations with peers. 0 1 2 I' 0 1 2 2. Introduces herself or himself to new people without being told. 0 1 2 =. 0 1 2 3. Appropriately questions rules that may be unfair. 0 1 2 p 0 1 2 4. Compromises in conflict situations by changing own ideas to reach agreement. 0 1 2 0 ! 2 5. Responds appropriately to peer pressure. 0 1 2 0 • 1 2 - ' •' 6. Says nice things about himself or herself when appropriate. 0 1 2 * 0 \ 2 7. Invites others to join in activities. 0 1 2 0 1 2 8. Uses free time in an acceptable way. 0 1 2 0 1 2 9. Finishes class assignments within time limits. 0 1 2 !' 0 1 2 10. Makes friends easily. 0 1 2 0 1 '• 2 11. Responds appropriately to teasing by peers. 0 1 2 0 1 2 12. Controls temper in conflict situations with adults. 0 1 2 0 1 - 2 13. Receives criticism well. 0 1 2 0 .1 2 14. Initiates conversations with peers. 0 1 2 0 1 2 sa*.- 15. Uses time appropriately while waiting for help. 0 1 2 : 0 1 2 16. Produces correct schoolwork. 0 1 2 0 1 2 A s SUMS OF HOW OFTEN COLUMNS 2 Appendix I Peer Assessment of Social Behaviour 119 Peer Assessment of Social Behaviour 1. Circle the names of students who share. 2. Circle the names of students who cooperate. 3. Circle the names of students who help other kids when they have problems. 4. Circle the names of students who start fights. 5. Circle the names of students who break the rules. 6. Circle the names of students who do things they are not supposed to. Appendix J Sample Lesson Plans for the Intervention Group Moral Discussion Intervention Hypothetical Dilemma 1. Introduction Arrange chairs in a circle. Say: I would like to review some things before we begin because we have not worked together before doing these type of discussions. Ask : What are some things we have to keep in mind for discussions. Some courtesies. I don't like to call them rules. Sit in a circle so everyone can be heard Raise hands Do not speak when someone else is speaking Do not make fun or laugh everyone has a right to their opinion. Do not put anyone down- respect- agree to disagree 2. Dilemma Just a quick review of what a dilemma is, to make sure we are all talking about the same thing. Must have two clear choices- and include a should question. An important issue- not will I drink chocolate or white milk today Not sit on the fence. 3. Warm up questions. Have you ever been with somebody, somebody very close to you, and they do something wrong, something you were not involved at all but if they got caught you would get in major trouble because you would get blamed? 4. Distribute and read "Sharon's Dilemma". Check for comprehension. What happened in the story? What must Sharon decide? What was her dilemma? "Should Sharon tell" 5. Take a position and write it down on the cards. What should Sharon do and why? Be sure to write the reasons why. Show of hands If most of the class agrees that Sharon should tell use alternate dilemma's. Suppose Sharon knows that Jill is on parole. If Jill commits one more crime she will be sent to reform school for at least a year. In this case should Jill still tell. If most of the class agrees that Sharon should not tell use alternate dilemma. Suppose that Sharon knows that her parents will ground her for at least a because she did not tell. Suppose further that Sharon knows other people, including her parents and friends, will think she was in on the shoplifting. In this case should she tell? 6. Small Group Discussion. 5, 5, 4, Uneven split- groups with the same position- choose two best reasons Even split- mixed groups- discuss post position, find best reasons for each. Agree- discuss reasons and then see alternate dilemma's listed above. 7. Large Group Discussion (recap guidelines) Oral report from a group to get it going. 8. Probe Questions Does Sharon have any obligations to Jill? Why or why not? Does Sharon have any obligations to the store owner? The law? Herself? Why or why not? Which of the obligations (to Jill, the store owner, the law or herself) is most important? Why? What is the most important matter which Sharon should consider when deciding? Why? From Jill's point of view, what should Sharon do? Why? Remember Ask others to paraphrase Ask others to comment Role switch. Would the store owner want her to tell? Why? Why? Why? Could you explain that further? Is it ever right not to tell? 8. Ending Did anyone change their opinion or reasons? Remember there is no right answer. Respect others ideas! Moral Dilemma Discussion Newspaper Dilemma 1. Introduction Arrange chairs in a circle and welcome students back. Thank them for their continued participation in the study and review the ideas we worked out together on the best way to show courtesy and respect in a discussion group. Raise hands Do not speak when someone else is speaking Do not make fun or laugh everyone has a right to their opinion Do not put anyone down 2. Dilemma What is a dilemma? Important because these are from newspapers and the dilemma's might not be easily identified. Must have two clear choices and include a should questions 3. Euthanasia : "Robert Latimer Case" : "Jamie Butcher" Ask if anyone has heard of the case. If they have give a brief overview of the case. If not, then read the newspaper articles. Have students identify the dilemma. Should the father have killed his daughter? Should he have to go to jail for life? Extenders He is the sole supporter of his family and they will have to leave their farm if he does go to jail. What might his daughter want? Should severely multihandicapped babies be allowed to live by extraordinary measures? 4. Take a position and write it down on cards. What should have the father done? What should the courts have done? Be sure to write the reasons why. 5. Small group discussion. 6. Large group discussion. Ask one group to report. 7. Probe questions. 1. What if the child grew up to be an important person? 2. Doesn't everyone have a right to live? 3. Isn't life precious? 4. Wouldn't it be very hard to watch someone you care about in pain? 8. Ending Did anyone change their opinion or reasons? Appendix K Sample Lesson Plans for the Placebo Group Placebo Group 1. Introduction Sit in a circle and review guidelines. Ask: What do you need to keep in mind for a discussion. Some courtesies if everybody is to be heard. Sit in a circle. Why? Raise hands. Why? Take turns. Why? Don't make fun of anybody. Why? Don't put anybody down. Why? 2. Questionnaire Building As you remember, you are creating a questionnaire that Kim, Dr. Schonert Riechl will be using to test the knowledge of university students she is teaching, who are learning to be teachers. You are testing them on their knowledge of Grade 6 and 7 students. This is a very important task and it is going to be used on university students!!! A. Deciding on the questions. I have listed all the questions that you had talked about last time you met. Some groups used the same questions, but different answers. I have listed all the questions and all the answers. What we have to do today is decide on what questions we will use and why. How can we do this? Brainstorm with the students. Introduce the idea of categorizing the questions so that all areas of student teacher knowledge of Grade 6 and 7 students can be tested, not just food, clothing, or music. Read the questions and categorize them. Look for any missing areas. Remind the students, that there has to be a correct answer to the question or it can not included. Decide of the best 16 questions, using a discussion format. e.g. Ted, you think this question is important. Why? B. Deciding on the answers. When the questions have been decided on. Review all of the answers both the distracters and the correct answers. Decide the criteria for a correct answer, e.g. everyone in the group agrees, 99%, 95%, etc. What follows is a list of questions in no particular order with all the answers and distracters. 1. Where do most students do their homework? On the couch, watching T V At their desk At the kitchen table On the bed On the phone 2. How much homework should you give a student? 30 minutes 1 hour 2 hours 3 hours 3.5 hours 3. What do most students like to watch on TV Barney and Friends V.R. Troopers Simpsons X Files 90210 Melrose Place Baywatch Bonkers Mighty Morphine Power Rangers Silver Spoon 4. What do most students like to do on the weekend? Watch TV all day Be with friends Go to the movies Talk on the phone Homework 5. How would most students describe their teacher? Mean Smart Ugly Pretty 6. What do most students like in school? (Subject wise) Physical Education Art Math Algebra French Music Science 7. What do most students think of their teachers personality? Kind Unfair Strict Easy Going Hard marker Easy marker 8. What kind of music do most students like? Rock n'Roll Rap Pop Heavy Metal 9. What kind of movies do most students like? Jurassic Park Aladdin Speed Star Trek Generations J.F.K. Snow White 10. What kind of book do most students like? Babysitters Club R.L. Stine Dr. Suess Rahl Dahl Appendix L Art Activity for the Control Group ISO Problem The year is 2050 and grocery stores are going to be replace all their employees with robots. Some other jobs are now been done by robots, such as outside window washers. The window washer robot has suction cups for feet, a bucket for a head, and sponges for hands. v ^ Your job is: 1. To decide what jobs the robots will need to do, for example, will there will one robot for ordering the stock, stocking shelves and cleaning, another one for preparing the meat, fish and baking and a third one for checking out and packing the groceries. You will have to decide if the robots will be able to communicate, and how they will be serviced if they break down.. You should write your ideas down on paper and hand them in for feedback. It can be a rough copy but it must be readable. 2. To design the robots. This means decide what they will look like, what tools they will have, and how they will be powered. 3. To draw the robots, on graph paper. 4. To build the robots using recycled materials. Remember I. This is an mdrvidual project and you will be graded on your design being a "one and only". Appendix M Unadjusted Pretest to Posttest Means on the Outcome Variables 132 Table 5 Pretest to Posttest Means on the Outcome Variables Variable Treatment Placebo Control Pre Post Pre Post Pre Post Moral Reasoning SRMS 2.63 2.83 2.51 2.63 2.50 2.70 Affective Components Empathy 25.33 27.17 24.37 25.87 24.69 25.06 Perspective-taking 23.33 24.17 23.69 25.37 22.69 23.65 Teacher-Reported Behaviors Global Social Skills 45.58 55.00 36.31 37.60 36.23 47.54 Self-control 15.50 18.71 11.69 12.70 12.11 16.36 Assertiveness 14.83 18.57 11.75 11.30 11.05 14.64 Cooperation 15.25 17.71 12.87 13.60 13.06 16.54 Global Problem Behaviors 3.75 2.71 8.12 10.00 7.88 4.90 Externalizing 1.58 1.42 2.56 3.10 2.23 1.45 Internalizing .75 .42 2.31 4.20 2.59 1.90 Hyperactivity 1.42 .86 3.25 2.70 3.06 1.54 Academic 34.75 39.28 31.00 32.40 30.81 29.36 Peer-Reported Behaviors Prosocial 1.35 1.39 -.44 -.84 -.35 -.17 Antisocial -.05 -.18 .49 .76 -.65 -.84 

Cite

Citation Scheme:

        

Citations by CSL (citeproc-js)

Usage Statistics

Share

Embed

Customize your widget with the following options, then copy and paste the code below into the HTML of your page to embed this item in your website.
                        
                            <div id="ubcOpenCollectionsWidgetDisplay">
                            <script id="ubcOpenCollectionsWidget"
                            src="{[{embed.src}]}"
                            data-item="{[{embed.item}]}"
                            data-collection="{[{embed.collection}]}"
                            data-metadata="{[{embed.showMetadata}]}"
                            data-width="{[{embed.width}]}"
                            async >
                            </script>
                            </div>
                        
                    
IIIF logo Our image viewer uses the IIIF 2.0 standard. To load this item in other compatible viewers, use this url:
http://iiif.library.ubc.ca/presentation/dsp.831.1-0098976/manifest

Comment

Related Items