Children's, adolescents’, and adults’ judgments and reasoning about different methods of...

Cognitive Development 23 (2008) 119–135

Available online at www.sciencedirect.com

Children’s, adolescents’, and adults’ judgments andreasoning about different methods of teaching values

Charles C. Helwig ∗, Rachel Ryerson, Angela PrencipeUniversity of Toronto, Canada

Abstract

This study investigated children’s, adolescents’, and young adults’ judgments and reasoning about teachingtwo values (racial equality and patriotism) using methods that varied in provision for children’s rationalautonomy, active involvement, and choice. Ninety-six participants (7–8-, 10–11-, and 13–14-year-olds,and college students) evaluated four methods of teaching values in schools (Inculcation, Direct Teaching,Behavioral, and Discussion) for agents of two ages (3rd and 8th grade students), and in two contexts (student-vs. teacher-implemented methods). Older participants were more likely than younger participants (7–8-year-olds) to distinguish value education methods that stimulated children’s rational thought processes and activeinvolvement, and to coordinate factors such as the age of agents and the context of implementation in theirjudgments and reasoning.© 2007 Elsevier Inc. All rights reserved.

Keywords: Moral development; Values education; Teaching; Epistemology

Educating and promoting values have long been seen as important societal goals by educators,policy theorists, and researchers in the areas of moral development and education (Bennett, 1992;Kohlberg, 1981; Nucci, 2001; Wynne, 1991). The literature on values education largely hasbeen dominated by three contrasting perspectives: the character education, values clarification,and cognitive-developmental (or constructivist) approaches. Each of these approaches has beeninstrumental in debates about national educational policy, especially in North America, but alsoin Europe and Asia, and has spawned particular programs of values education in use in a varietyof school settings (Halstead & Taylor, 2000; Nucci, 2001; Power, Higgens, & Kohlberg, 1989;Wynne, 1989, 1991).

∗ Corresponding author at: Department of Psychology, University of Toronto, Sidney Smith Hall, 100 St. George Street,Toronto, Ontario, Canada M5S 3G3. Tel.: +1 416 978 7609; fax: +1 416 978 4811.

E-mail address: [email protected] (C.C. Helwig).

0885-2014/$ – see front matter © 2007 Elsevier Inc. All rights reserved.doi:10.1016/j.cogdev.2007.06.003

mailto:[email protected]

dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.cogdev.2007.06.003

120 C.C. Helwig et al. / Cognitive Development 23 (2008) 119–135

The character education approach emphasizes matters of character, virtues, and the formationof a moral personality, including but not limited to moral virtues such as fairness and compassion.Proponents of more traditional versions of character education have defined morality in terms ofthe specific beliefs and values deemed to be important by society and transmitted to individuals byadults (Ryan, 1989). Programs of values education influenced by this approach have focused ondirect instruction, modeling of “good” behavior, and establishing desirable routines and habits inorder to inculcate an appreciation of core values (Bennett, 1992; Wynne, 1989). Within traditionalcharacter education approaches, children’s role is conceived of as passive, in that the values tobe acquired are not self-chosen but are decided by society. However, children are expected tointernalize values that will come to self-regulate their functioning and behavior. Although reasonsare sometimes employed in such values education efforts, rational processes and reflection are notusually emphasized, and may even be seen as detrimental in some circumstances (see Bennett,1992; Wynne, 1989).

In contrast, the values clarification approach stresses how individuals clarify their own val-ues, including but not limited to, moral values (Raths, Harmin, & Simon, 1978). Valuing isheld to be a process of self-actualization, in which children weigh different values and freelychoose among alternatives. Education methods favored by values clarification include exercisesdesigned to promote awareness of and reflection on incipient forms of valuation, such as individ-ual introspection and non-directive group discussions. Although adult authorities may facilitatethe exploration of different values, they should remain neutral regarding their ultimate selection.In this approach, the child’s own autonomous activity, in the form of self-direction, is given centerstage.

Constructivist approaches to values education (DeVries & Zan, 1994; Kohlberg, 1981;Moshman, 1986, 2000; Nucci, 2001) define morality in terms of principles of justice and fairnessand are concerned with the development of moral rationality. Although constructivist approachesdiffer in various ways, they all stress the inter-relations between moral judgment and moralbehavior and emphasize the role of reflection, perspective taking, and autonomous choice inmoral education. Some constructivist theorists (e.g., Moshman, 1986, 2000) have argued thatchildren have intellectual rights to freedom of thought or expression that must be respected andthat constrain how and when values education is legitimate or appropriate. For example, children’srights to intellectual freedom require that children be protected from indoctrination or other morecoercive or authoritarian methods of values inculcation in educational settings (Moshman, 1986).Constructivist approaches such as that of Kohlberg (Blatt & Kohlberg, 1975) and Moshman (2000)share the assumption that the best way to promote values education is by cultivating the child’sown capacity for moral reasoning and moral judgment, using methods such as guided discussion,reflection, and the promotion of critical thinking.

Correspondingly, constructivists (e.g., Nucci, 1997) have criticized traditional character edu-cation approaches for downplaying children’s autonomous rational activity and for the emphasisin these approaches on acquiring a specific and sometimes culturally relative content (a “bag ofvirtues”; Kohlberg, 1981). (This critique, it should be stressed, may not apply to more recentintegrative character education approaches, for example, those by Berkowitz, Sherbloom, Bier,& Battistich, 2006 and by Narvaez, 2006, that attempt to incorporate an important role for moralrationality and autonomy, while retaining an emphasis on moral virtue or character.) In turn, con-structivist educational theorists have critiqued values clarification approaches for their exclusivelysubjectivist orientation, for relativism, and for failing to distinguish between different types ofvalues, such as those that are merely personal in nature versus universal ethical values (such asjustice) that all people are expected to uphold (Boyd & Bogdan, 1984).

C.C. Helwig et al. / Cognitive Development 23 (2008) 119–135 121

Despite the prominence of these issues in debates about moral education and public policy,there has been very little research examining children’s own perspectives on values education.One exception is a study examining children’s and adults’ judgments about whether or not it isappropriate for a variety of values to be taught in school and family settings (Prencipe & Helwig,2002). The findings of this study revealed that children’s and adults’ reasoning about values ismultifaceted and takes into account issues such as the type of value (e.g., justice and fairness vs.patriotism or character traits) and the social context in which it is taught (e.g., school vs. family).However, although Prencipe and Helwig (2002) contrasted a number of different types of values,only one education method (direct instruction) was investigated in that study. The study thus didnot take into account judgments and reasoning about how values should be taught.

Accordingly, the present study examines children’s reasoning about the process of values edu-cation, with an emphasis on children’s developing understanding of the role of active, rationalprocesses in judgments about different methods of teaching values. Advances in epistemologicalunderstanding during the elementary school years and beyond have been identified as havingpotential implications for teaching and learning that may bear upon this question (Strauss &Margalit, 2004; Strauss, Margalit, & Stein, 2002). Research from a variety of theoretical perspec-tives indicates that children develop increasing awareness of their own thought processes over theelementary school years (e.g., Amsterlaw, 2006; Carpendale & Chandler, 1996; Chandler, Hallett,& Sokol, 2002; Kuhn, Cheney, & Weinstock, 2000). Overall, children’s conceptions of their ownthought processes have been characterized as moving from that of a passive knower, or a “copymodel,” to one in which the role of active interpretation in knowledge construction is increasinglyrecognized (Chandler et al., 2002; Kuhn et al., 2000).

Changes of this sort in metacognitive understanding may lead to different judgments aboutvalues education at different ages. For instance, younger children may be more accepting ofvalues education methods entailing direct instruction and the passive communication of beliefs.In contrast, older children’s and adolescents’ greater appreciation of the role of constructiveprocesses may lead them to prefer methods that are seen as fostering active learning and thinking,such as group discussions. Correspondingly, methods that involve direct instruction, or the simpleinculcation of values without respect for the child’s own constructive thought processes, may bemore likely to arouse concerns with indoctrination or viewpoint coercion among older childrenand adolescents.

Although there is little work on children’s conceptions of values education, findings fromresearch examining children’s judgments about curricula in non-moral areas appear to sup-port these expectations. Nichols and Thorkildsen (1989) examined children’s judgments aboutdirect instruction and active behavioral exploration regarding matters of substance (e.g., logico-mathematical knowledge about quantities) versus arbitrary social conventions (e.g., arithmeticconventions for writing out math problems). Nichols and Thorkildsen (1989) found that elemen-tary school children tended to perceive direct instruction as more appropriate for learning arbitrarysocial conventions, whereas active exploration was preferred for matters of substance. In Nicholsand Thorkildsen’s (1989) study, however, active exploration constituted learning through directmanipulation of objects (i.e., doing); intellectual exchanges (e.g., discussions) were not exam-ined in that study, nor were children’s justifications obtained. However, another study (Nichols,Nelson, & Gleaves, 1995) contrasted students’ (grades 1–8) reasoning about the fairness of sim-ple memorization versus group discussions for the teaching of non-controversial issues (e.g., thenames of dinosaurs) and controversial issues (e.g., theories about how the dinosaurs died out).In this study, it was found that younger students did not clearly distinguish between these twomethods in their judgments or reasoning. Older students, however, judged memorization as less


fair for controversial issues, and they explicitly stated in their justifications that the school shouldfoster understanding (as opposed to simple memorization of facts). Given that values also maybe theoretically laden and potentially controversial, a similar developmental progression mightbe expected in the area of values education toward increasing priority given to group discussionover more passive learning methods.

The present study investigates children’s, adolescents’ and young adults’ reasoning aboutdifferent methods of values education, presented in a series of hypothetical examples. The typesof methods examined in this study were selected to correspond, in general terms, to methodsadvocated within a variety of theoretical approaches. These methods contrast more authority-centered or “heteronomous” (Piaget, 1932) methods, such as direct instruction by authoritiesor rote repetition, with more autonomous methods emphasizing the child’s own reasoning orconstructive processes (e.g., student discussions). The study also includes behavioral methodsrepresenting the instilling of good habits through individual action. To examine this dimensionfurther, each method was presented both in contexts in which an authority (e.g., the teacher) isdirectly involved and in contexts in which children themselves are charged with implementing themethod. This contrast allowed for the detection of further discriminations in children’s judgmentsand reasoning, such as attempts to coordinate or integrate children’s autonomous constructiveactivity with the need for adult guidance (e.g., as in teacher-led discussions).

Prior research in related areas, such as children’s rights and participation in decision-making(Helwig, 1997), has revealed that perceptions of children’s competence influence judgments aboutchildren’s decision-making autonomy. Thus, the study systematically varied the age of the childrenin each hypothetical example (children in a 3rd vs. 8th grade classroom) in order to examine howthis factor is accounted for in judgments about different methods of teaching values.

Finally, we explore this topic for two different values (racial equality and patriotism), in orderto ensure that our findings generalize beyond a single case and to explore some ways in which rea-soning about these two values might differ. Antiracism education is associated with the promotionof moral values of social justice, equality, and concern for others (Killen, Lee-Kim, McGlothlin, &Stangor, 2002). Programs of antiracism education often emphasize cognitive processes of reflec-tion and perspective taking and may include methods such as teacher-led discussions (Aboud &Fenwick, 1999). In contrast, patriotism can be considered to be primarily a social–conventionalvalue whose function is to increase group cohesion and identity. As such, it does not directlyimplicate intrinsic issues of justice or fairness. Indeed, this value may conflict with moral valuesof justice and equality to the extent that an unexamined patriotism can lead to excessive national-ism. In practice, the instilling of patriotic values is often accomplished through group behavioralroutines and rituals, such as the singing of the national anthem and, in the U.S., recitation of thePledge of Allegiance. Attempts to instill patriotism through direct instruction or rote methodsmay be especially likely to arouse concerns over indoctrination, to the extent that children may bemore open to recognizing morally legitimate dissent over this value (Moshman, 2000; Prencipe &Helwig, 2002). Thus, by including values that span moral (justice) and social conventional issues,the study permits examination of whether and in what ways children’s reasoning about methodsof values education varied across these particular values.

Based on the limited prior research on this and related topics, it was predicted that childrenwould be increasingly likely, with age, to judge more favorably methods of values education thatinvolve an autonomous, rational component, such as discussion and reflection on reasons, overheteronomous methods such as direct instruction (with teacher-provided reasons) or rote learning.Based on patterns found in prior research exploring children’s judgments about their own rights andautonomy (Helwig, 1997), it was expected that, with age, children would increasingly coordinate


the age of the child agents and particular value education methods, with autonomous methodsand student implementation evaluated more favorably for older child agents. In addition, basedon theory (Moshman, 2000) and findings from prior research (Prencipe & Helwig, 2002), it wasexpected that older children and adolescents would be more likely than younger children to raiseconcerns over indoctrination or coercion of viewpoints for more heteronomous methods of valueseducation. These concerns may be especially salient when these methods are employed in theteaching of patriotism.

1. Method

1.1. Participants

The sample consisted of 96 Canadian children, adolescents, and adults, evenly divided intofour age groups, with equal numbers of males and females in each: 7–8-year-olds (M = 8-1, range7-2 to 8-9), 10–11-year-olds (M = 11-2, range 10-0 to 12-3), 13–14-year-olds (M = 14-0, range13-1 to 14-10), and college students (M = 22-3, range 18-3 to 58-3). Children and adolescentswere recruited through a large database (over 10,000 children) maintained at the University ofToronto that contained names of families residing in the Toronto metropolitan area who hadagreed to participate in research. Families in the database were originally recruited from hospitalsand day-care centers in the region or through mass mailings. Students in this study representeda wide variety of schools and districts in the Toronto metropolitan region. College students weredrawn from an introductory psychology course at a public university in the area and receivedextra credit for participation in psychological research. The ethnic background of the sample was74% European Canadian, 19% Asian Canadian, 6% African Canadian, and 1% other. Seventy-two percent of participants’ parents were employed in professional, sales, managerial, or othertechnical occupations; 16% were employed in service occupations, trades, or manufacturing;and 12% (mostly mothers) were homemakers. Sixty-one percent of participants’ parents hadcompleted university or also had some postgraduate education, 18% had some postsecondaryschooling, 17% had completed high school only, and 4% had completed grade school only.

1.2. Design and procedure

Participants evaluated four teaching methods (Discussion, Direct Teaching, Behavioral, andInculcation) for two values (racial equality and patriotism), presented in the form of hypothet-ical scenarios contained within a structured individual clinical interview lasting approximately40–45 min. The interview began with a short preamble in which a school is described where theprincipal and teachers have decided that they would like to teach students one of the two targetvalues, either racial equality (“treating people equally, no matter what their skin color”) or patrio-tism (“loving one’s country and being proud of it”). Then, four possible candidate methods werepresented for teaching the value.

In the Discussion method, the class holds a discussion about whether the value is good or bad.Students may contribute freely to the discussion, and no predetermined conclusion is given. Atthe end of the exercise, students are given an assigned task in which each student will write downthe reasons why they have reached whatever conclusion that they did regarding the value. In theDirect Teaching method, the class listens to a lecture in which an authority (e.g., the teacher)provides reasons why the value is good. Following the lecture, students are given a task in whichthey are to write down the three main reasons provided in the lecture regarding why the value is


good. In the Behavioral method, the class is assigned to perform a behavior that exemplifies thevalue (e.g., making a friend of a peer who belongs to a different race in order to show commitmentto racial tolerance; singing the national anthem every morning to cultivate patriotism). Studentsthen write about their experience. Finally, the Inculcation method involves an authority (e.g., theteacher) simply stating a conclusion that represents the value (e.g., it is good to be proud of one’scountry and to love it), without providing any reasons, and then having students write out thegiven conclusion ten times.

These methods were selected to represent a variety of techniques for instilling values that vary inthe degree and type of involvement of constructive, rational activity on the part of participants. TheInculcation method involves transmission of simple conclusions with no reasons or rationale, theDirect Teaching method involves transmission of reasons provided by an authority, the Behavioralmethod stresses action and practice of values, and the Discussion method emphasizes the sharingof perspectives among peers and rational construction and reflection (with no predeterminedconclusions).

Two additional dimensions were manipulated within the set of scenarios that characterizedeach method. In one manipulation, each method was presented in contexts in which the methodwas implemented either by students themselves or by the teacher. For example, in the student-implemented version of the Discussion method, students discuss the value on their own, without theteacher’s input to the discussion as in the teacher-implemented version. In the student-implementedversion of the Behavioral method, the children can select a behavior on their own that shows thatthey adhere to the value, instead of being assigned to carry out a particular behavior by theteacher. For the Direct Teaching and Inculcation methods, in student-implemented versions, astudent–teacher is designated to serve in the role of the teacher.

We were particularly interested in exploring, through these manipulations, whether participantswould view the teacher as playing an important or necessary role, even when methods high onstudent autonomy (e.g., Discussion) are endorsed. We were also interested in determining whetherthe introduction of student choice or autonomy in the behavioral method would lead to its greateracceptance. In short, we believed this manipulation might allow us to detect ways in which childrenmight be balancing student autonomy and adult guidance or direction in their judgments aboutvalues education, beyond the patterns obtained by the straightforward manipulation of methods.However, because of their emphasis on direct transmission, we did not expect the introductionof student implementation to have a positive effect on endorsements for the more heteronomousmethods, such as Inculcation or Direct Teaching. If anything, participants might be more inclinedto reject these methods in student-centered contexts because of a perceived lack of knowledge orauthority on the part of peers playing the role of teacher (Laupa, 1991).

A further manipulation concerned the age of the agents for whom the methods were evaluated.Each method was presented as applied within both a 3rd and 8th grade classroom. This manipula-tion was designed to explore potential age-related differences in whether participants discriminatebetween agents of different ages in deciding how much autonomy they should be given, as foundin research on children’s judgments of their own decision-making autonomy in other situations(Helwig, 1997).

All of the scenarios were closely matched in structure and wording. Order of presentation ofthe methods, student- or teacher-implemented contexts, and ages of story agents (3rd grade or 8thgrade class) were systematically counterbalanced within each value. Order of presentation of thetwo values was also counterbalanced.

Within each condition, participants were asked to evaluate (as good or bad) each of the methodsusing a rating scale adapted from previous research (Prencipe & Helwig, 2002). Participants were


familiarized with the rating scale prior to commencement of their evaluations. The 7-point scaleconsisted of a series of differently sized rectangles with a neutral mid-point. Participants were toldthat the rectangle on the far left was “really bad,” the next rectangle was described as “mediumbad,” and the smallest was described as “a little bad.” Correspondingly, the rectangles to the rightof center were described as “a little good,” the next rectangle as “medium good,” and the one on thefar right as “really good.” Following each rating, participants were asked to provide justificationsfor their rating. At the completion of the portion of the interview that dealt with each of the values(racial equality and patriotism), participants were reminded of the methods and asked to select thebest method for use with both 3rd grade and 8th grade story agents. Interviews were tape-recordedand transcribed for analysis.

1.3. Coding of interviews

Fifty percent of interviews, evenly distributed across age groups and gender, were randomlyselected to devise a coding scheme for the coding of justifications (Table 1). This coding systemwas subsequently used to code the remainder of the interviews. The coding system includescategories reflecting active, cognitive construction, along with corresponding concerns aboutindoctrination or viewpoint coercion for methods perceived to inhibit children’s constructiveactivity. As well, the coding system includes categories reflecting a simple focus on learningoutcomes. Twenty-five percent of the interviews (24 participants), evenly distributed by age groupand gender, was coded by an independent coder for comparison with the original coding. Intercoderagreement, expressed as Cohen’s kappa, was 0.82.

2. Results

Results are presented separately for evaluations (ratings) and justifications. Findings for pref-erences (best choice) largely paralleled those obtained for ratings and thus will not be reported.Evaluations and justifications were analyzed using analyses of variance (ANOVAs), guided bycentral research questions, on major variables of interest. For all analyses, significant interactionswere examined with tests of simple effects and, where significant, follow-up pair-wise compar-isons using the Bonferroni correction for multiple comparisons, with the overall alpha set at 0.05.Because there were no a priori hypotheses regarding gender, and a preliminary analysis (availablefrom the corresponding author on request) revealed only a few significant effects of gender thatcomprised no clearly interpretable pattern, gender was excluded as a variable from subsequentanalyses.

2.1. Evaluations

2.1.1. Do evaluations of methods vary by age group and the particular value being taught?In order to examine this question, a 4 (method) × 2 (value) × 4 (age group) ANOVA was con-

ducted on mean ratings of systems, with value and method as repeated measures. Significant maineffects of method (F(3,90) = 49.05, p < 0.001, η2

p = 0.62) and age group (F(3,92) = 9.74, p < 0.001,

η2p = 0.24) were qualified by a significant Method × Age group interaction (F(9,276) = 3.63,

p < 0.001, η2p = 0.11). Post hoc analyses examining differences among methods within each age

group revealed that all three older age groups rated the Discussion method more positively thaneither Inculcation or Direct Teaching, but the youngest age group did not make these distinctions

126C

.C.H

elwig

etal./Cognitive

Developm

ent23(2008)

119–135

Table 1Justification categories

Category Description Examples

Active learning Reference to learning through an active process involving thinkingand reasoning about the issue, choice and involvement, andcomprehension of reasons.

“I like this way because everyone gets a chance to say what theythink.” “They’ll hear other people’s opinions and think about it.”“Students will then understand why they believe in it.”

Indoctrination Method restricts or curtails students’ development of their ownideas or thinking by only presenting one viewpoint, by the use ofcoercion, or by failing to intellectually stimulate students.

“Everyone likes different things about their country. The studentsshouldn’t have to like the same things as the teacher.” “This is likebrainwashing them.” “By writing out the idea ten times the studentswill not understand what it means.”

Simple learning (positive) Simple reference to learning outcomes in which the content orbehavior is learned with emphasis on doing, memorizing or habitforming, with no reference to an active agent or learner.

“By writing out the idea ten times the students will remember it.”“When you do things like this [making friends with someone of adifferent skin colour], you learn it.” “They will be nice to eachother.”

Simple learning (negative) Simple reference to learning outcomes in which the content orbehavior is not learned, with no reference to an active agent orlearner.

“When you do things like this over and over, you don’t learn it.”“They won’t listen.” “The students will not learn it by writing outthe idea ten times.”

Good/bad Simple endorsement or criticism of the method without referring tolearning.

“It is a good/bad way.”

Other All other responses including ambiguous responses that did not fitinto the other categories.

“I’m not sure.”


Fig. 1. Mean ratings of methods by age group and context. Note: Ratings are on a 7-point scale (1, really bad to 7, reallygood). Error bars indicate the standard error of the means.

(Fig. 1). The Behavioral and Direct Teaching methods were rated more positively than Inculca-tion by all age groups. In addition, the youngest age group rated the Behavioral method morepositively than Discussion, while the 10–11-year-olds rated the Behavioral method more posi-tively than Direct Teaching. Post hoc analyses examining differences between age groups withineach method revealed that the youngest age group rated the Inculcation, Direct Teaching, andBehavioral methods more positively than both 13–14-year-olds and college students. In addition,10–11-year-olds rated the Behavioral method more positively than the 13–14-year-olds. In gen-eral, these findings indicate that support for heteronomous methods (e.g., Inculcation and DirectTeaching) declined with age, as expected, and that the autonomous method (Discussion) wasincreasingly differentiated from, and rated more positively than, heteronomous methods amongolder groups, consistent with our general expectations.

It was also expected that the particular value (racial equality vs. patriotism) would play arole in evaluations of methods, with heteronomous methods evaluated more negatively for theteaching of patriotism. A significant Value × Method interaction (F(3,90) = 3.70, p < 0.05, η2

p =0.11) was found. Post hoc analyses of this interaction revealed that, consistent with expectations,the Inculcation method was evaluated more negatively for patriotism (M = 3.49) than for racialequality (M = 3.79). No other significant differences were found.

2.1.2. How do evaluations of methods vary by context (student- and teacher-implemented)and agent (younger/older) at different ages?

In order to examine this question, a 4 (method) × 2 (context) × 2 (agent) × 4 (age group)ANOVA was conducted on mean ratings of systems, with method, context, and agent as repeatedmeasures (because a preliminary analysis revealed no main effects or interactions involving thevalue variable, this variable was excluded from the present analysis). Significant effects of method(F(3,90) = 49.05, p < 0.001, η2

p = 0.62), age group (F(3,92) = 9.74, p < 0.001, η2p = 0.24), con-

text (F(1,92) = 6.42, p < 0.05, η2p = 0.06), and significant two-way interactions of Agent × Age

group (F(3,92) = 3.68, p < 0.05, η2p = 0.11), Method × Age group (F(9,276) = 3.63, p < 0.001,


η2p = 0.11), Method × Context (F(3,90) = 29.96, p < 0.001, η2

p = 0.50), and Method × Agent

(F(3,90) = 14.73, p < 0.001, η2p = 0.33) were qualified by significant three-way interactions of

Context × Agent × Age group (F(3,92) = 10.68, p < 0.001, η2p = 0.26), Method × Context × Age

group (F(9,276) = 2.20, p < 0.05, η2p = 0.07, and Method × Context × Agent (F(3,90) = 9.44,

p < 0.001, η2p = 0.24).

As we were particularly interested in whether and how participants of different ages woulddistinguish in their evaluations between teacher- and student-implemented contexts and storyagents of different ages, the significant three-way interactions were decomposed by analyses ofthe simple effects of context and agent within each age group (and where appropriate within eachmethod). Regarding the Context × Agent × Age group interaction, exploration of the simpleeffects of context revealed several patterns indicating a greater differentiation and coordinationamong contexts and agents in evaluations with increasing age. The youngest age group ratedmethods overall in the teacher context more favorably than in the student context for both 3rdgraders (Ms = 5.86 for teacher vs. 5.49 for student contexts) and 8th graders (Ms = 5.51 forteacher vs. 5.18 for student contexts). The 13–14-year-olds rated methods in the teacher context(M = 4.51) more favorably than in the student context (M = 3.68) for 3rd grade agents only. Andfinally, the college students rated methods in the student context (M = 4.62) more favorably thanin the teacher context (M = 4.32) for 8th grade agents only. This pattern suggests a greater appre-ciation by older participants of the need for more student autonomy in implementation of valueseducation methods when the students are older (8th grade vs. 3rd grade). Analysis of the simpleeffects of agent revealed an analogous pattern, in which older participants (13–14-year-oldsand college students) rated methods conducted in the student context more positively for 8thgrade agents than 3rd grade agents (Ms = 4.54 vs. 3.68 for the 13–14-year-old comparison and4.62 vs. 4.25 for the college student comparison), whereas younger participants made no suchdiscrimination. However, the youngest participants did rate methods in the teacher context morepositively for 3rd grade (M = 5.86) than 8th grade (M = 5.51) agents. No other comparisons weresignificant.

Post hoc analysis of the Method × Context × Age group interaction was conducted by exam-ining the simple effects of context within each method for each age group. Results of this analysis(Fig. 1) indicated that all four age groups considered the Discussion method better if imple-mented in teacher than student contexts. The 13–14-year-olds and college students, however, ratedBehavioral methods more positively if implemented in the student context (where students havea choice over the activity) than in the teacher context. In addition, the 7–8-year-olds and 13–14-year-olds rated Direct Teaching more positively if implemented in teacher versus student contexts.(Exploration of the Method × Context × Agent interaction yielded findings that were essentiallysubsumed within or qualified by the age-related patterns already reported and are thus omitted).

2.2. Justifications

Fig. 2 presents the distribution (percentage usage) of justifications given for each method by agegroup. For analyses, proportional usage of justifications was subjected to an arcsin transformationto correct for non-normality (Winer, Brown, & Michels, 1991). Only justification categories com-prising 10% or more of total responses were analyzed. These were: active learning, indoctrination,and simple learning (both positive and negative; see Table 1 for descriptions and examples).

We were particularly interested in whether references to children’s active construction ofknowledge were associated with more autonomous methods (i.e., Discussion), and whether these


Fig. 2. Percentage usage of justifications by method and age group.

justifications would increase with age. We were also interested in exploring participants’ ability todiscriminate among different methods and values with respect to concerns over indoctrination orviewpoint coercion, hypothesized to be associated with heteronomous methods (e.g., Inculcationand Direct Teaching) and to arise more often in attempts to teach the value of patriotism than inracial equality. Accordingly, a 4 (method) × 2 (value) × 4 (age group) ANOVA was conducted onarcsin-transformed proportions of usage of each of the four categories. (We do not report analysesof the context and agent variables, as we had no specific hypotheses regarding how the justificationcategories would vary at the level of these variables, and because of space limitations.)

For the active learning category, main effects of age group (F(3,92) = 5.53, p < 0.01, η2p = 0.15)

and method (F(3,90) = 110.88, p < 0.001, η2p = 0.79 were qualified by a Method × Age group

interaction (F(9,276) = 2.51, p < 0.01, η2p = 0.08). Post hoc analyses examining age differences

within each method revealed significant differences for the Discussion method only; 10–11-year-olds and 13–14-year-olds were more likely to appeal to active learning than 7–8-year-olds. Posthoc analyses examining differences between methods within each age group revealed that all agegroups used active learning more for the Discussion and Behavioral methods than for Inculcation,and for the Discussion method more than in Direct Teaching. Older age groups made additionaldistinctions between methods in the use of active learning. All three older age groups used activelearning more for Direct Teaching than in Inculcation. The 10–11-year-olds and 13–14-year-oldsused active learning more for Discussion than for the Behavioral method, and the 10–11-year-olds and college students used active learning more for the Behavioral than the Direct Teachingmethods. In addition, there was a main effect of value (F(1,92) = 4.88, p < 0.05, η2

p = 0.05), withactive learning responses more frequent overall for patriotism (21%) than for racial equality(18%).


For the indoctrination category, main effects of age group (F(3,92) = 15.95, p < 0.001, η2p =

0.34) and method (F(3,90) = 19.18, p < 0.001, η2p = 0.39) were qualified by a Method × Age

group interaction (F(9,276) = 2.08, p < 0.05, η2p = 0.063). Post hoc analyses examining differ-

ences between age groups within each method revealed that all of the older age groups expressedconcerns with indoctrination more than the youngest age group for the Inculcation, Direct Teach-ing, and Behavioral methods. In addition, for the Discussion method, college students referredto indoctrination more than did 7–8-year-olds. Post hoc analyses examining differences betweenmethods within each age group revealed that the youngest age group, unlike the older age groups,did not distinguish between any of the methods in usage of the indoctrination category. All threeolder age groups, however, mentioned indoctrination more with respect to Inculcation and DirectTeaching than Discussion. In addition, all three older age groups referred to indoctrination morefor Inculcation and Direct Teaching than for the Behavioral method. Finally, the 13–14-year-oldsmentioned indoctrination more for the Behavioral method than for Discussion. A main effect ofvalue (F(1,92) = 21.97, p < 0.001, η2

p = 0.19) indicated that participants expressed greater con-cern with indoctrination for patriotism (33%) than for racial equality (25%), consistent with ourexpectations.

The other two categories, simple learning (positive) and simple learning (negative), reflect afocus on the outcomes of learning, without reference to children’s active construction of knowledge(see Table 1). For simple learning (positive), a main effect of age group was found (F(3,92) = 16.02,p < 0.001, η2

p = 0.34). Post hoc comparisons indicated that the youngest age group used sim-ple learning (positive) more than all the older age groups. A main effect of method was alsofound (F(3,90) = 14.93, p < 0.001, η2

p = 0.33). Post hoc comparisons indicated that simple learn-ing (positive) was used more for Inculcation, Direct Teaching, and Behavioral methods than forthe Discussion method, and more for the Behavioral method than the Inculcation method. Inaddition, a main effect of value (F(1,92) = 9.26, p < 0.01, η2

p = 0.09) was due to greater use ofthis category for racial equality (27%) than for patriotism (22%).

For simple learning (negative), a main effect of method was found (F(3,90) = 5.43, p < 0.01,η2

p = 0.15). Post hoc comparisons indicated that simple learning (negative) was used more for theInculcation method than all other methods. In addition, a main effect of value (F(1,92) = 12.30,p < 0.001, η2

p = 0.12) was due to greater use of this category for racial equality (25%) thanpatriotism (19%).

3. Discussion

This study investigated the development of children’s, adolescents’, and adults’ reasoningabout a variety of methods of values education. Reasoning about values education was foundto be multifaceted, in that participants considered a number of factors in their judgments andreasoning, including the particular method used, the context in which it takes place (student- orteacher-implemented), the age of the students, and the particular value being taught. Judgmentsand reasoning about these factors became more clearly differentiated and coordinated with devel-opment, as increasing priority was given to the stimulation of children’s rational processes andtheir active involvement in their own values education.

Although little research exists on children’s reasoning about their own values education, wedrew on findings in epistemological development, and research on children’s reasoning about cur-ricula in other areas, to generate expectations about developmental patterns in this area (Chandleret al., 2002; Kuhn et al., 2000; Nichols et al., 1995). Based on a variety of research findings show-


ing that children develop increasing awareness of their own thought processes over the elementaryschool years (Chandler et al., 2002; Kuhn et al., 2000), we expected that, with age, children wouldincreasingly focus on the implications of different values education methods for stimulating orengaging rational thought processes. Accordingly, we expected that older children would show agreater preference for more autonomous methods that stress children’s active role in the construc-tion of values, such as peer discussions in which children hear, produce, and reflect on reasons(in the absence of predetermined conclusions provided to them by authorities). Correspondingly,we expected that heteronomous methods, in which children are largely passive partners in theprocess of values education, would be increasingly rejected by older participants.

Our results were largely consistent with these expectations. Although younger participantsgenerally gave high ratings to all methods (both autonomous and heteronomous), older partici-pants were more likely than younger participants to distinguish the Discussion method from theheteronomous methods (Inculcation and Direct Teaching) and to rate it more positively. In theirjustifications, older participants were more likely than younger participants (7–8-year-olds) tomake explicit appeals to active learning, especially when considering the Discussion method. Incontrast, younger participants gave more favorable ratings than older participants to heteronomousmethods (Inculcation and Direct Teaching), in which authorities transmit conclusions or reasonsto students. Older participants tended to negatively evaluate these methods, primarily due toexpressed concerns about possible indoctrination or viewpoint coercion by teachers or authorities.The responses of the younger participants are striking in that they rarely identify indoctrina-tion as a concern, nor identify any of the methods as more likely than others to produce theseresults.

Correspondingly, analyses of justifications indicated that the majority of justifications providedby the youngest age group involved references to simple learning outcomes (e.g., “if you write itout 10 times you will really learn it”). When young children did appeal to active learning, it wasmainly in reference to the autonomous method of Discussion. However, although young childrenwere more likely to associate active learning with the Discussion method than either Inculcationor Direct Teaching, they did not rate the Discussion method any more positively than either of theheteronomous methods. Indeed, the youngest age group tended to prefer and to rate most highlybehavioral methods that emphasize values education through concrete action and performance.Thus, whatever understanding the younger children possessed about active learning was not to anygreat extent determinative of their preferences or evaluations. These findings appear to be generallyconsistent with those of Nichols and Thorkildsen (1989), who found that elementary school agechildren tended to prefer active, behavioral exploration over didactic teaching methods for othertypes of curricula involving the learning of intellectual content (e.g., mathematical concepts).

Moreover, young children’s judgments about applications of the methods showed much lesssensitivity to factors such as context (student- vs. teacher- implemented) or the ages of studentagents than those of older participants. For example, the youngest age group, when they dis-tinguished contexts, tended to rate methods more favorably if implemented by teachers than bystudents. Older participants, by contrast, tended to coordinate both the agent and the social con-text with the particular method being evaluated. For example, older participants (13–14-year-oldsand adults) rated significantly more positively the student-implemented version of the Behavioralmethod, in which students themselves have a choice in selecting the value-related behavior tocarry out, than the teacher-implemented version, in which students are not given this choice.This finding illustrates older participants’ attempt to apply the Behavioral method in ways thatfoster and respect children’s active choice and engagement. Older participants (adolescents andadults) also tended to judge methods implemented by students themselves as more appropriate


for older than younger agents, indicating their efforts to coordinate the degree of autonomy givento students with factors such as age (and presumably, competence).

All of the patterns mentioned above were found across both of the values (racial equality andpatriotism) examined in the present study. Our findings are also broadly consistent with thoseof other research investigating children’s views about science curricula that involve theoreticallyladen issues (e.g., Nichols et al., 1995). Taken together, the findings point to general, age-relatedtrends in the importance given to active construction and to corresponding teaching methods suchas student discussions in children’s reasoning about diverse curricula. However, it is possible thatdidactic methods such as direct instruction might be seen as sufficient or even desirable for teachingcertain aspects of values that may be perceived to have little intellectual content, such as simpleor concrete social norms or conventions (Berkowitz et al., 2006; Nichols & Thorkildsen, 1989).Moreover, the present study did find some differences in judgments and reasoning about racialequality and patriotism; participants evaluated heteronomous methods such as Inculcation morenegatively if used in teaching patriotism than racial equality, and they were more likely to raiseconcerns over indoctrination in the teaching of patriotism, as expected. Thus, children’s sensitivityto issues of indoctrination is influenced by the content of values and may be more responsive toattempts to teach values in cases where the possibility of legitimate dissent is perceived (Prencipe& Helwig, 2002). Future research is needed to corroborate the general patterns found in thisstudy with a wider array of values, and to explore different aspects of values that may vary in thetendency to implicate intellectual processes and active construction.

The findings of this study have implications for current debates on how values educationshould be conducted (Bennett, 1992; Nucci, 2001; Wynne, 1989). First, concordant with theviews of those who take a constructivist approach to moral education (e.g., DeVries & Zan,1994; Kohlberg & Mayer, 1972; Moshman, 1989, 2000; Nucci, 2001), our findings show thateven elementary school age children (at least those older than 7–8 years) share the belief thatvalues education should actively engage children’s rational abilities and capacity for choice.Thus, heteronomous methods that present children with ready-made conclusions or that rely onthe simple transmission of knowledge from adults to children may conflict with children’s ownbeliefs about how values education should be conducted, potentially limiting their effectiveness.These findings indicate that indoctrination in values education is not only a concern of educationaltheorists (Moshman, 2000; Sears & Hughes, 2006; Snook, 1972), but of children and adolescentsas well. They carry the important implication that children’s own viewpoints on this issue shouldbe taken into consideration when making policy decisions regarding values education in schoolsettings.

At the same time, however, participants in this study, like many educational theorists (Mayer,2004), did not appear to support a model of values education based on pure “discovery learning,”in which children construct knowledge on their own, without the input of adults. Although olderparticipants supported a much greater role for students in values education than did youngerchildren, they did not always prefer student-implemented methods, even for older agents. This isevidenced, for example, by older participants’ tendency to rate more positively applications of theDiscussion method where the teacher was present as a participant than versions conducted entirelyby the students themselves. As such, their perspective is consistent with variants of constructivisteducation that emphasize the dual and complementary role played by active construction andengagement and teacher guidance and facilitation (Becker & Varelas, 1995).

Further, other findings from the study appear to signify an appreciation of the role playedby factors often stressed within character education approaches, such as positive behavioralroutines and practices. This is evident in the relatively strong support found for the behav-


ioral method at all ages. Older participants gave highly positive evaluations of teaching valuesthrough behavioral routines, especially when students are given a choice over their implemen-tation. These judgments appear to be generally consistent with the recommendations of recent,integrative character education approaches that emphasize the development of positive patternsof behavior along with respect for children’s developing capacities for autonomous functioningand choice (Berkowitz et al., 2006; Narvaez, 2006). Taken together, the findings of this study maypoint to ways in which the insights of both constructivist and contemporary character educationapproaches may be of use in devising values education programs compatible with children’s ownperspectives.

There are several limitations to this study that suggest avenues for further research. First,although the present study included four methods in two different contexts, these methods do notencompass all values education methods in use or that have been proposed. Halstead and Taylor(2000) list several other methods of values education, such as the use of stories with morals, adultand peer role models, and personal narratives. Moreover, methods implemented outside formalschool settings, such as participation in extra-curricular activities or family practices, were notexplored.

Second, the present study examined conceptions of values education through early adulthood,as represented by college students. However, other adults, such as parents, older adults, and teach-ers, may all hold views of children and pedagogy that may differ from those of college studentsin ways that are not known (Miller, 1988). Moreover, in some circumstances, other goals, besidesstimulating active learning, may dominate judgments about pedagogy. In school settings, forexample, institutional demands such as standardized testing, avoidance of controversial topics, orkeeping social order, may sometimes lead educators to resist attempts to implement constructivistteaching methods (Berman, 1997). Research directly contrasting the perspectives of other adults(e.g., teachers) and those of students is needed.

A strength of the present study’s design is that participants were drawn from a large databaseand thus did not come from the same classroom or school, so the results cannot be attributedsolely to exposure to a particular pedagogical environment. Furthermore, we know from otherresearch with diverse populations that older children and adolescents often critically evaluateexisting curriculum practices when they are perceived as failing to meet students’ needs for activeinvolvement in learning, indicating that children do not simply endorse the types of curriculato which they have been exposed (e.g., Helwig, Arnold, Tan, & Boyd, 2003; Nichols et al.,1995). Nevertheless, the role of experience and exposure to different types of teaching meth-ods in the development of conceptions of values education needs to be better understood. Forexample, would greater experience with constructivist methods in classrooms that systemati-cally adopt such methods lead children to develop a more active view of values education atearlier ages than students in classrooms that provide little of these experiences? Investigationsthat directly compare the views of children from constructivist classrooms with those from moretraditional learning environments (e.g., DeVries & Zan, 1994) might help to determine the extentto which experience with particular curricula may qualify some of the present study’s age-relatedfindings.

Acknowledgements

This research was supported by a grant to the first author from the Social Sciences and Human-ities Research Council of Canada (#410050353). The authors would like to thank Heidy Moralesfor reliability coding, and the student participants who so generously gave of their time.


References

Aboud, F. E., & Fenwick, V. (1999). Exploring and evaluating school-based interventions to reduce prejudice. Journal ofSocial Issues, 55, 767–786.

Amsterlaw, J. (2006). Children’s beliefs about everyday reasoning. Child Development, 77, 443–464.Becker, J., & Varelas, M. (1995). Assisting construction: The role of the teacher in assisting the learner’s construction of

pre-existing cultural knowledge. In L. P. Steffe & J. Gale (Eds.), Constructivism in education (pp. 433–446). Hillsdale,NJ: Erlbaum.

Bennett, W. J. (1992). The de-valuing of America: The fight for our culture and our children. New York: Simon & Schuster.Berkowitz, M. W., Sherbloom, S., Bier, M., & Battistch. (2006). Educating for positive youth development. In M. Killen

& J. G. Smetana (Eds.), Handbook of moral development (pp. 683–701). Mahwah, NJ: Erlbaum.Berman, S. (1997). Children’s social consciousness and the development of social responsibility. Albany: SUNY Press.Blatt, N., & Kohlberg, L. (1975). The effect of classroom moral discussion upon children’s level of moral judgment.

Journal of Moral Education, 4, 129–161.Boyd, D., & Bogdan, D. (1984). “Something” clarified, nothing of “value”: A rhetorical critique of values education.

Educational Theory, 34, 287–300.Carpendale, J., & Chandler, M. J. (1996). On the distinction between false belief understanding and subscribing to an

interpretive theory of mind. Child Development, 67, 1686–1706.Chandler, M. J., Hallett, D., & Sokol, B. W. (2002). Competing claims about competing knowledge claims. In B. K.

Hofer & P. R. Pintrich (Eds.), Personal epistemology: The psychology of beliefs about knowledge and knowing (pp.145–168). Mahwah, NJ: Erlbaum.

DeVries, R., & Zan, B. (1994). Moral classrooms, moral children: Creating a constructivist atmosphere in early education.New York: Teachers College Press.

Halstead, J. M., & Taylor, M. J. (2000). Learning and teaching about values: A review of recent research. CambridgeJournal of Education, 30, 169–202.

Helwig, C. C. (1997). The role of agent and social context in judgments of freedom of speech and religion. ChildDevelopment, 68, 484–495.

Helwig, C. C., Arnold, M. L., Tan, D., & Boyd, D. (2003). Chinese adolescents’ reasoning about democratic and authority-based decision making in peer, family, and school contexts. Child Development, 74, 783–800.

Killen, M., Lee-Kim, J., McGlothlin, H., & Stangor, C. (2002). How children and adolescents evaluate gender and racialexclusion. Monographs of the Society for Research in Child Development, 67.

Kohlberg, L. (1981). Essays on moral development: Vol. 1. The philosophy of moral development. San Francisco: Harper& Row.

Kohlberg, L., & Mayer, R. (1972). Development as the aim of education. Harvard Educational Review, 42, 449–496.

Kuhn, D., Cheney, R., & Weinstock, M. (2000). The development of epistemological understanding. Cognitive Develop-ment, 15, 309–328.

Laupa, L. (1991). Children’s reasoning about three authority attributes: Adult status, knowledge, and social position.Developmental Psychology, 27, 321–329.

Mayer, R. E. (2004). Should there be a three-strikes rule against pure discovery learning? American Psychologist, 59,14–19.

Miller, S. (1988). Parents’ beliefs about children’s cognitive development. Child Development, 59, 259–285.Moshman, D. (1986). Children’s intellectual rights: A First Amendment analysis. In W. Damon (Ed.), New directions for

child development: No. 33. Children’s intellectual rights (pp. 25–38). San Francisco: Jossey-Bass.Moshman, D. (1989). Children, education, and the First Amendment. Lincoln, NE: University of Nebraska Press.Moshman, D. (2000). Rationality, liberty, and educational policy: A theory of academic freedom. Unpublished manuscript.Narvaez, D. (2006). Integrative ethical education. In M. Killen & J. G. Smetana (Eds.), Handbook of moral development

(pp. 703–732). Mahwah, NJ: Erlbaum.Nichols, J. G., Nelson, R., & Gleaves, K. (1995). Learning “facts” versus learning that most questions have many answers:

Student evaluations of contrasting curricula. Journal of Educational Psychology, 87, 253–260.Nichols, J. G., & Thorkildsen, T. A. (1989). Intellectual conventions versus matters of substance: Elementary school

students as curriculum theorists. American Educational Research Journal, 26, 533–544.Nucci, L. P. (1997). Moral development and character education. In H. J. Walberg & G. D. Haertal (Eds.), Psychology

and educational practice (pp. 127–157). Berkeley, CA: McCutchan.Nucci, L. P. (2001). Education in the moral domain. Cambridge, UK: Cambridge University Press.Piaget, J. (1932). The moral judgment of the child. London: Routledge & Kegan Paul.


Power, C., Higgins, A., & Kohlberg, L. (1989). Lawrence Kohlberg’s approach to moral education. New York: ColumbiaUniversity Press.

Prencipe, A., & Helwig, C. C. (2002). The development of reasoning about the teaching of values in school and familycontexts. Child Development, 73, 841–856.

Raths, L., Harmin, M., & Simon, S. (1978). Values and teaching: Working with values in the classroom. Columbus, OH:Charles E. Merrill.

Ryan, K. (1989). In defence of character education. In L. P. Nucci (Ed.), Moral development and character education: Adialogue (pp. 3–18). Berkeley, CA: McCutchan.

Sears, A., & Hughes, A. (2006). Citizenship: Education or indoctrination? Citizenship and Teacher Education, 2, 3–17.Snook, I. A. (1972). Indoctrination and education. London: Routledge & Kegan Paul.Strauss, S., & Margalit, Z. (2004). Teaching: Ontogenesis, culture, and education. Cognitive Development, 19, 451–456.Strauss, S., Margalit, Z., & Stein, A. (2002). Teaching as a natural cognition and its relation to preschoolers’ developing

theory of mind. Cognitive Development, 17, 1473–1487.Winer, B. J., Brown, D. R., & Michels, K. M. (1991). Statistical principles in experimental design. New York: McGraw-Hill.Wynne, E. A. (1989). Transmitting traditional values in contemporary schools. In L. P. Nucci (Ed.), Moral development

and character education: A dialogue (pp. 19–36). Berkeley, CA: McCutchan.Wynne, E. A. (1991). Character and academics in the elementary school. In J. S. Benninga (Ed.), Moral, character, and

civic education in the elementary school (pp. 139–155). New York: Teachers College Press.

Children's, adolescents’, and adults’ judgments and reasoning about different methods of...

Documents

Transcript of Children's, adolescents’, and adults’ judgments and reasoning about different methods of...