Promoting Students' Moral Development Is Devilishly Tricky, Studies Suggest

Promoting Students' Moral Development Is Devilishly Tricky, Studies Suggest

By PETER SCHMIDT

Chronicle of Higher Ed.

Tuesday, April 14, 2009

The room grew unbearably hot as researchers gathered to discuss the moral development of students. The blame fell on an air-conditioning glitch, but, based on what the presenters said, it seemed equally possible that Old Scratch himself was on hand, listening intently while cracking a knowing smile.

Several studies presented here Monday at the American Educational Research Association's annual conference—and one scheduled to be discussed later this week—suggest that the souls of America's youth will not be saved on its college campuses anytime soon. Although many colleges have committed themselves to promoting the moral and ethical development of their students, they generally have not proven very good at the task, their efforts being undermined by their own cultures and by a failure to adopt effective approaches.

Among the studies presented here Monday was one finding that many entering college students may be at a stage at which efforts to hone their moral-reasoning skills are likely to fall flat.

The studies' authors were Matthew J. Mayhew, an assistant professor of higher education at New York University; Ernest T. Pascarella, a professor of higher education at the University of Iowa; and Tricia A. Seifert, a postdoctoral research scholar at Iowa. They based their analysis on data on 1,470 students at 19 colleges that had gathered such information as part of the Wabash National Study of Liberal Arts Education, a long-term study of student learning.

The researchers divided the students in their study—all of whom entered college as freshmen in the fall of 2006—into one of two camps based on distinct phases of moral development identified by psychologists. Students were deemed to be in a "transitional" phase of their moral development if, in dealing with moral questions, they were flexible and made decisions based on context. They were deemed to be in a "consolidated" phased of their moral development if they consistently used the same strategies and patterns of thinking when dealing with moral dilemmas.

Those students who were in a transitional phase reported gains in their moral reasoning as a result of being exposed to diversity-related courses and other efforts to promote their moral development. But those in a consolidated phase were much less receptive to the content of such courses, and did not make nearly the same gains.

The researchers' paper says colleges make a mistake in assuming all freshmen are in a transitional phase. It recommends that colleges approach their efforts to promote moral development—and the sequencing and content of courses dealing with topics like diversity—much more strategically, paying attention to the phases that students are in.

A Tardy Lesson

A second study discussed Monday suggests that college may be late in the game to promote moral development. The authors were Muriel Bebeau, director of the Center for the Study of Ethical Development at the University of Minnesota-Twin Cities; Yukiko Maeda, an assistant professor of educational psychology at Purdue University; and Stephen J. Thomas, a professor of educational psychology at the University of Alabama. They examined data collected from several dozen Minnesota students from 1972 through 1983, from the students' adolescence through young adulthood, and found that their moral trajectories varied greatly, but that the rate of their moral growth generally slowed over time.

In a third study discussed on Monday, George Lind, a professor of psychology at the University of Konstanz, in Germany, used as his subjects more than 3,000 students who had passed through his own classes in psychology or teacher education. He asked them to take a widely used test of moral judgment, which he developed himself, before and after various efforts by his university to promote their moral growth. He found that higher education, as a whole, had only a slight impact on their moral development. About the only approach that caused them to make substantial improvements in moral judgment was involving them in intensive discussions of moral dilemmas.

In a paper scheduled to be discussed on Thursday, Tricia L. Bertram Gallant, coordinator of the Academic Integrity Office at the University of California at San Diego, presents the results of case studies of two universities that adopted honor codes in the 1990s. One, a midsized private institution which she calls Elite University, adopted its code as part of a broader effort to shift its student body toward academic pursuits and shed its reputation as a school focused on parties and athletics. The other, which she calls Heartland University, adopted its honor code in response to a cheating scandal.

Based on student surveys and extensive interviews with students, faculty members, and administrators, Ms. Bertram Gallant found that the honor codes fit in well with what she calls the "horizontal dimension" of the universities, broadly involving undergraduate education, student life, campus governance, and the overall campus community. But the "vertical dimension" of the universities—the academic disciplines focused on research, graduate education, external support, and prestige—undermined the universities' efforts to promote academic integrity. Faculty members saw research, not teaching that would promote ethical development, as key to their advancement, and students saw grades, not the learning of ethical behavior, as key to theirs.

Neither institution substantially reduced cheating or seemed to bring about a substantial change in its culture as a result of its adoption of an honor code.

"The idyllic message of the honor code was thought to be ineffectual in the face of more powerful messages such as 'Success by any means acceptable' and 'Money and prestige are primary,'" her paper says.