A Classroom Activity for Teaching Kohlberg’s Theory of Moral Development

Active Learning, Experiential Learning, and TBL

Classes that engage active learning (i.e., learning that requires all students to participate and complete some set of actions; Felder & Brent, 2009) facilitate student exam performance and reduce failure rates compared to classes that employ traditional teaching methods such as lecturing (Freeman et al., 2014; Goffe & Kauper, 2014; Smith, Vinson, Smith, Lewin, & Stetzer, 2014). One effective strategy for promoting active learning is with TBL-style techniques (Koles, Stolfi, Borges, Nelson, & Parmelee, 2010; Michaelsen, 2004; Michaelsen & Sweet, 2011). With TBL-style techniques, students work in small groups to generate solutions to applied problems. It is effective because it requires students to explain concepts to each other, thus encouraging them to connect with classmates (who they may later feel more comfortable reaching out to if they have a question about the course or are struggling with course material) and engage with course material (Sawyer & Obeid, 2017). TBL produces significant benefits to student learning and has been successfully implemented in introductory psychology (Travis, Hudson, Henricks-Lepp, Street, & Weidenbenner, 2016). The activity described herein was designed using a TBL-style approach in that students are required to work in small groups to generate solutions to applied examples, then share their team’s solutions with the class and provide justification for their answers (Michaelsen, 2004). It was not, however, tested in classrooms where TBL was fully implemented (i.e., where students are in semester-long, permanent groups).

In addition to utilizing a group discussion-based, active learning approach, this activity engenders experiential learning, which engages learners’ motivation, emotions, and critical thinking (Fisher, Silvestri-Hunter, Nolan, & Buckner, 2017) and treats learners as agents in the learning process (Kolb & Kolb, 2005). Actively constructing knowledge through experiential learning enhances memory of course content (Kolb, 1984) and has the added benefit of training students to be critical consumers of media (Hobbs & Jensen, 2013; Kuhn & Dean, 2004).

The emotionally provocative video that is a cornerstone of the activity provides learners direct contact with a rich primary source, allowing them to voyeuristically “experience” an event as they explore concepts relevant to moral development. The use of a multimedia example, like this one, fosters experiential learning for at least three reasons. First, it transports the student to an event that would otherwise be too rare, dangerous, or unethical to experience in the classroom (e.g., alleged police brutality). Watching a crowdsourced video grounds abstract concepts in a real-world example and facilitates experiential learning just like films can do in the classroom (Kuzma & Haney, 2001).

Second, the nature of the activity serves to create a multimodal (i.e., text-based and audio-visual) memory, which is encoded in multiple, linked ways. Multimodal encoding results in greater accessibility and assists with later recall (C. Berry, Schmied, & Schrock, 2008). It provides a scaffold on which students can further process the associated course content (J.W. Berry & Chew, 2008). Using pictures and animations in conjunction with audio narration can powerfully enhance student understanding (Mayer & Moreno, 2002).

Finally, the emotionally arousing nature of the video may also facilitate encoding of the material into memory (C. Berry et al., 2008). For example, embedding emotionally provocative images in textbook-like passages has been shown to physiologically arouse readers (elevate galvanic skin response and heart rate) and enhance learning and memory for the relevant content (C. Berry et al., 2008; Sawyer & Obeid, 2017).

In sum, using crowdsourced recordings of real-life events such as the video and comments in this activity can facilitate experiential learning that cultivates student engagement, fosters multimodal memory, and capitalizes on the memory-enhancing function of emotional arousal, all in the service of enhancing student learning outcomes.

The Current Research

In the current research, we supplement a lecture including Kohlberg’s original Heinz dilemma (Kohlberg, 1973, 1981) with a multimedia morally ambiguous scenario: a cell phone video of an alleged police brutality incident that occurred at the University of California, Los Angeles (UCLA) library (see procedure). Students worked in small groups and applied Kohlberg’s stage theory to classify user comments posted in response to the video. They then shared their classifications (and justifications for them) in a larger class discussion.

Study 1

The goal of Study 1 was to determine whether students found a group discussion-based in-class activity designed to demonstrate the application of moral development concepts engaging and useful. We hypothesized that students would find the activity interesting and valuable. We also predicted that students would score higher on a quiz testing knowledge of concepts relevant to the theory of moral development after completing the activity.

Results

As predicted, students evaluated the activity significantly above the scale midpoint (4.0) in terms of interest/enjoyment (M = 4.57, SD = 1.38), t(92) = 4.01, p < .001, d = .42, and value/usefulness (M = 5.28, SD = 1.06), t(92) = 11.58, p < .001, d = 1.20. Moreover, students’ performance on the quiz significantly increased from pre- (M = 4.52, SD = 2.00) to postactivity (M = 6.06, SD = 1.76), t(84) = 7.91, p < .001, d = .86. Post-task quiz performance was not significantly correlated with subjective evaluations of the activity for either interest/enjoyment, r(86) = −.02, p = .87, or value/usefulness, r(86) = .05, p = .68. There were no main or interactive effects of gender or ethnicity (when comparing White to non-White participants) on the performance or subjective outcomes.

Study 2

The goal of Study 2 was to experimentally test whether adding the activity to a more traditional lecture about moral development would enhance students’ mastery of concepts relevant to Kohlberg’s theory of moral development. Thus, we switched from the within-subject design of Study 1 to a between-subjects design by eliminating the prelecture/activity quiz and adding a control group. We also chose to collect the data on a different campus, with a different instructor to ensure our findings were not unique to the instructor. Students either received only a lecture about Kohlberg’s theory of moral development or the same lecture plus the activity described in Study 1. Students then completed a quiz assessing concepts relevant to moral development and subjectively evaluated the activity. We hypothesized that students in the lecture plus activity condition would outperform students in the lecture-only condition on the quiz. We also expected to find that students would again find the activity fun and useful.

Results

As predicted, students who received the lecture and participated in the group activity performed significantly better on the quiz (M = 5.72, SD = 1.52) than students who received the lecture alone (M = 5.09, SD = 1.40); t(84) = 2.01, p = .048, d = .43.

In addition, students who took part in the activity evaluated it significantly above the scale midpoint (4.0) in terms of interest/enjoyment (M = 5.05, SD = 1.30), t(30) = 4.47, p < .001, d = .80, and value/usefulness (M = 5.41, SD = 1.16), t(30) = 6.77, p < .001, d = .97.

Quiz performance was not significantly correlated with subjective evaluations of the activity for either interest/enjoyment, r(30) = .06, p = .75, or value/usefulness, r(30) = .17, p = .37. ⁴

General Discussion

In two studies using two different designs (within and between subjects), across two campuses, and with two different instructors, we demonstrated that students who engaged in the activity described in this article tended to find it enjoyable and also reported the activity to be useful and valuable for learning about Kohlberg’s theory of moral development. This suggests that the activity does, indeed, promote student engagement with the course material. Not only did students view this activity positively in both studies, in Study 2, we experimentally demonstrated that it was objectively useful for improving the understanding of Kohlberg’s theory of moral development. Students who engaged in the activity were better able to apply moral development concepts in a performance evaluation compared to students who received a lecture alone. These results suggest that students benefited from assessing timely, real-world examples of different stages of moral reasoning.

Although the activity was designed using a TBL-style approach wherein students problem-solved together in small groups, the studies were not conducted in classrooms where TBL-style methods were fully implemented. Thus, instead of permanent long-term teams, the groups in this research were temporary groups of convenience, brought together just for the purpose of completing this activity. The ongoing relationships among team members is an important feature of TBL, but the effectiveness of this activity cannot simply be attributed to the power of the relationships among team members because these temporary groups were not likely to experience the full benefits of being part of a permanent, semester-long team with the same students.

It is noteworthy that student performance on the quiz was not significantly associated with ratings of the activity’s usefulness or enjoyableness in either study. Although the majority of students found the activity useful (88.2% in Study 1 and 87.1% in Study 2) and enjoyable (59.1% in Study 1 and 77.4% in Study 2), and most students’ understanding of Kohlberg’s theory improved as a result of completing the activity (71.8% improved from pre to postactivity performance in Study 1; 76.9% in the Study 2 activity condition vs. 63.8% in the Study 2 control condition passed the quiz with a grade of 60% or better), the activity seems to be beneficial for student learning regardless of their subjective feelings about it.

A strength of this activity is that it has the capacity to generate many useful lines of classroom discussion. Although the user comments were selected with the intention that they would relatively clearly map onto particular stages of moral development, and several of the small groups typically come up with the same moral reasoning classification for individual comments, there are often some groups that come up with different classifications. In these circumstances, it is possible to have a valuable discussion about the meaning and interpretation of each of Kohlberg’s stages. It also generates discussion that relates to several other topics covered in most psychology courses, especially introductory psychology. For example, instructors can discuss the subjectivity of making these types of assessments, the challenges of training people to code for research purposes, and implications for validity and reliability. In addition, students can be encouraged to reflect on how individual experiences and common psychological biases can alter a perceiver’s interpretation of a commenter’s meaning or intention.

It is important to consider that the students in Study 2 who received the activity spent more time engaged with the topic of moral development than students who received only a lecture about moral development. It would be useful to test whether having students spend a comparable amount of time as required by the activity engaging in nonactive, nonexperiential learning (e.g., additional lecture) would produce similar benefits to student learning as the activity appears to. This could clarify the utility of actively deliberating on real-world examples of moral development as opposed to simply spending more time with material. Alternatively, showing multimedia examples of emotionally charged, morally ambiguous scenarios without having students reflect on and actively identify the examples of different stages could demonstrate whether active student engagement is driving the effectiveness of the activity.

It is also worth noting that the samples were drawn from two ethnically diverse campuses. Although we perceive this to be a strength of the research (because it suggests that the activity is not only useful for certain ethnic demographics), it could be argued that the diversity of the students’ life experience may make them more attuned to the moral issue raised in the video (racial profiling and police brutality). This could be responsible for their positive subjective evaluations of the activity. However, this could also make the students in our sample view the issue as less morally ambiguous, which could undermine the effectiveness of the activity because of strongly held moral positions (a point we discuss in more detail momentarily). Yet the activity effectively improved student learning for this diverse sample. It would be useful to replicate this work with additional samples and investigate whether the moral issue addressed in the video is personally relevant to the participants and whether that has any bearing on the activity’s effectiveness.

This simple to administer activity has been implemented with small groups in large and small in-person classes. ⁵ It would be interesting to explore how this might be adapted for other types of class settings, such as online courses, and to determine whether the group discussion component is necessary for the activity to be effective. For example, would having students work individually to classify user comments, then engage in a group (in-class or online) discussion produce the same benefit to learning as we have demonstrated in the current research? Exploring these questions would allow us to tease apart whether the active, experiential learning, the group discussion, or some combination of both are driving the effectiveness of the task.

With the proliferation of emotionally charged, morally ambiguous, multimedia material currently available online, and the ability for people to publicly comment on it, this activity represents a framework from which additional versions of the same activity could be developed. In fact, in testing the ability of this activity to facilitate student learning, we attempted to create another version of the activity using a video of Eric Garner’s death (a Black man put into a chokehold by police while they were arresting him on suspicion of selling single cigarettes). The Garner version of the activity was not as effective as the UCLA taser version. Although students found the Garner activity enjoyable and useful, and those who engaged in it showed a larger increase in performance on a moral development quiz than students who received a lecture alone, the difference in performance between the groups was not large enough to reach significance. We speculate that this version may have been less successful for at least two reasons. First, the story was familiar to students because of its recency, and because it took place in New York City, where our students live (in fact, the activity was tested on a campus on Staten Island, where Garner was killed). In addition, students may have had a great deal of exposure to this incident and may have previously formulated strong moral judgments of their own about the incident, which could have detracted from the effectiveness of this video activity. The ineffectiveness of the Garner version of the activity highlights an important point. It seems that consideration must be given to how an intended morally ambiguous scenario might dovetail with students’ preexisting moral judgments and thus may or may not be universally perceived as morally ambiguous. However, even if students’ strong moral opinions on a given issue prevent them from seeing the issue’s multiple sides before engaging in the activity, the postactivity discussion could be eye-opening for students’ ability to recognize that what seems indisputable to some may be perceived as ambiguous by others.

Nonetheless, the current research offers one example of how crowdsourced, publicly available multimedia resources can be utilized to effectively engage students’ attention and promote learning outcomes. Novel types of active, experiential activities could also be developed using this general model as a framework. For example, instructors could have students view a publicly posted video of an emotionally charged, morally ambiguous scenario, and work in small groups to find their own examples of user comments that reflect each stage of moral development. They could share their examples with the class and provide justification for why the comment is a good example of the particular stage they believe it to represent. We have generated a short list of potential video clips that present emotionally charged morally relevant situations on which users have commented and include those in Appendix Table A1. Although these have not been empirically tested for their ability to improve student’s conceptual understanding of Kohlberg’s theory, they could be used in the same way as the UCLA taser incident video, and at the very least generate useful classroom discussion about the theory and relevant concepts. These and other forms of active, experiential learning are likely to benefit students because they will facilitate engagement with course material and ultimately have a positive impact on student learning (Freeman et al., 2014).