Ouriel Hassan 7/22/13 Educational Psychology Dr.

Schnall Reaction Paper #2 One of the great dilemmas that face a Judaic studies teacher is how to teach moral dilemmas and effect positive change in moral development. After all, almost every school has the goal of mench-making (to borrow a term from Dr Pelcovitz) in their mission statement, and helping our students develop into good people is certainly an ideal of most Judaic staff teachers. One of the early definers of moral development in children was of course Sigmund Freud. Freud believed that the child learns rules and morality by identifying with the same sex parent. However his definition was based on many negative descriptors. If a child does something they shouldnt they feel guilt and if they dont do something they should they feel shame. It would seem that shame and guilt are the major motivators for moral conduct in Freudian theory. Erik Erikson responded to Freud with a positive spin: when a child does something they should do they feel pride. Pride can motivate a child to lead a moral life. Like Erikson, Piaget also proposed a stage development theory of moral development in children. Younger children displayed what he termed heteronomous morality in which children place a great emphasis on the rigidity of rules. In this stage children believe rules are constraining and meant to be followed. Rules come from adults who know more stuff and therefore their instructions must be followed always. Older children develop what Piaget called autonomous morality in which they begin to rationalize rules and can see the purpose behind the rules. They understand that rules are formed because they serve a purpose and are agreed upon by all. If a rule no longer

serves its purpose, it is subject to change. Kohlberg took Piaget's theory and developed it further into 6 formalized stages. In the first two stages, known collectively as the pre-conventional level of morality, children judge actions by their consequences. In preschool we might find this manifested as a time out for biting another student, or getting a cookie for playing nicely with other classmates. From a Judaic studies standpoint, students who are in the pre-conventional stage of moral develop can appreciate the din vecheshbon element to bein adam lchavero halacha in the Torah. For example, when learning about borrowing, if a Jew borrows an object from his friend and breaks it, he must repay his friend for the value of the object. That is fair and just, and makes a lot of sense to our students. Every year I have the eye for an eye discussion with my 3 rd graders and this always sparks a flurry of discussion. Students can relate to this type of justice system because they abhor imbalance and appreciate reciprocity. In the 2nd two stages of Kohlbergs theory, known as the conventional level of morality, students judgments are motivated by conformity. In these stages the needs of the community supersede the needs of the individual. Towards the middle of the year I usually sit my students down on the carpet for a seminar on the idea of community. I feel at the beginning of the year they are not yet ready to absorb the importance of this concept. We explore the idea that our classroom is a community and that we should develop some rules to maintain this great life we enjoy with each other. The students always make suggestions about picking up trash in the classroom, even if its not yours, or showing respect when other students are speaking. By the end of the year the students are usually able to generalize and see our classroom as a microcosm of the community at

large. In the final two stages, known as the post-conventional level of morality, children can understand abstract values and perceive a code that guides our society, which goes beyond the rules or laws themselves. This is perhaps the most fascinating stage of development as it potentially defines how we will behave and regard morality as adults. As I mentioned, I have taught 3rd grade for three years now and I have not seen many examples of post-conventional level of morality thought process. This coming year, however, I will be teaching a 7th grade boys Navi class on Shmuel Bet. I believe that my students will be just beginning to develop some capacity for the 3 rd level of Kohlbergs theory of moral development. It is my hope that we will be able to engage in rich discussions, scrutinizing the actions of various characters from the Navi as well the consequences they suffered. We may be able to look into the motivations for certain social structures and look critically at some of the social contracts that informed their way of life. It will be interesting to discover which personalities they most identify with, and which they do not, and whether their perceptions can be altered. I believe moral development, and more specifically moral instruction, are of paramount importance in the Judaic studies classroom. We owe a huge debt of gratitude to theorists like Kohlberg, Erikson, and Piaget for helping to define and explain how children develop a moral code. The Torah is our moral code, and yet I believe that students can learn it without ever adopting a formal moral code of conduct. I have seen students study the stories of Avrahams tremendous hachnasat orchim contrasted with Sodom and their treachery towards guests, and still leave out their fellow students from their birthday celebrations.

I believe we need to be more explicit about morality, which can and should be extrapolated from text study. Kohlbergs theory shows what is possible in each stage. These capacities must be developed and deepened in our Chumash, Nach, Mishna, Talmud, and Halacha classes. The implementation need not be overly complicated! I believe that teachers can employ many subtle tactics to infuse their classroom with moral development instruction. If, for example, the subject is lashon hara, then the teacher can pause the class to discuss the devastating effects our speech has on our fellows. Perhaps the teacher can even touch on a few examples in the classroom so they can be dealt with as a class. Before transitioning to a group work activity, the teacher can emphasize the rules of conduct and respect for fellow classmates, which is always expected of every student. Each student deserves attention when speaking and respect informs everything done in class. There are some more overt tactics that a teacher can employ to formally discuss issues of morality in the real world. For example, after completing a unit on community and chesed, our 3rd graders went on a field trip to the different community shuls and meet with the Rabbis and communal leaders. They discussed the different ways the shul services the various need of the community. We then took the students to Tomchei Shabbat where they volunteered to pack and decorate boxes of food for the needy. I also show the students clips from the movie Pay it Forward and challenge the students to create their own compounding chesed scheme. The projects they develop are truly fascinating! I am very excited about my new charge this year because I have always believed that Navi is ripe with content perfectly suited for moral development discussions. Of

course there are many subjects that would be inappropriate for 3 rd graders, and Kohlberg can help inform a teacher how such judgments can be made. Our charge as teachers and mench-makers must motivate us to approach morality instruction on a level at which our students can best understand, and assimilate our values and ethics which define a Jewish way of life.